So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.
in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.
You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.
In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!
Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .
Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen
Dick, I know your heart is in the right place, but there's a lot of hysteria and disinformation here.
So let me propose how it might work, if the current rules were not already in place:
When I'm flying around in my lightie, I'd like to know that other aircraft in my piece of the sky were on the same frequency as I am. That way, if the need to talk arose, we could do so. Ideally, if we're in an area of radar coverage, we'd be on a frequency where a controller could call out potential conflicts if he sees them. (Given the level of VHF and ADS-B coverage across the country these days, such areas are pretty broad. And, yes, I have been the happy recipient of a few of these calls.)
Should I have a problem, I'd like to be already on a frequency where the best response will come to my distress call. I won't already be on 121.5 as I only have one VHF, and changing channels will be well down the list of things to do.
If I happen to be near one of the parachuting sites you mention, I'd like to know their intentions.
I occasionally go into a private strip, unmarked on any chart. So, on the off-chance someone is transiting the area as I approach or depart, I'd like him to know about me. Again, we'd need to be on the same frequency. But in all likelihood, I'd be the only one around that strip at the time, so one inbound or taxying call would be all I'd need.
In all the above cases, there's really only one frequency that would serve the purpose, and that's the documented ATC frequency for the area. How do I know what that is? Easy: it's constantly displayed on my OzRunways screen, which most people seem to have these days. Failing that, it'll be on one of the relevant charts which I'm required to carry.
If I go into a busy enough airport, it'll have its own CTAF frequency or, if not , we'll all use 126.7.
Now, let's address the potential for conflict with one of the RPT jets on the same frequency. Should a controller need to send an urgent message to separate two jets carrying hundreds of innocent punters, this implies that several cockups have already occurred. First, either the controller or at least one of the crews has gotten an instruction wrong. Second, the TCAS required on both jets has failed to do its job. And, for the appalling midair to occur, the controller's last-ditch instruction has to come
at the same time as a lightie making a taxying or inbound call at an unmarked strip. (Or, for that matter, another jet making a routine report.) That's all incredibly remote.
From my other seat, in one of the aforementioned RPT jets, I can't help but notice the relative peace on the frequencies. That's even on a weekend, with the parachute aircraft and sightseeing lighties going flat out. (And the frequency used by these guys covers only a relatively small area; not the hundreds of miles of jet routes you've previously implied.) The China Southern guy doesn't need to know where Brooklyn Bridge is, because the traffic is not relevant to him. He's in at least Class C all the way, where he knows it's the controller's job to arrange separation for him.
I just don't hear the non-stop chatter of lighties broadcasting intentions at unmarked locations. That's either because they're choosing not to do so or, more likely, there just aren't that many of them.
I'll agree that the promulgation of the instructions on which frequency to be on, was not good. (I still managed to discover it, though.) But really, when bimbling along from A to B, or operating from a strip no-one else knows about, what is the only sensible frequency to use? I'd submit, it's the one everyone else in the area is on.
The alternative is, as seems to happen in areas of the USA, to be on some random frequency and listening to no-one in particular. That certainly fits better with the lofty goals of "free flight; go where you please and tell nobody." But my opinion is, if I have a working radio, and someone else is in my piece of the sky, I'd rather know about him and be able to communicate if really necessary.
So, to summarise, let's look at the ideal frequencies we could use in different areas down in the GA levels. Near an airport with a CTAF? Use that. Known airport with no discrete CTAF? 126.7. Neither of the above? Depicted ATC frequency.
Oh wait, that's what we're already doing.