Balloon. Extraordinary ignorance and resistance to change.
Yep! That's me to a T. I've never supported any change you've suggested.
The universe will know because the pilot will look on the map for the nearest VHF ATC outlet ( or get it from the " nearest " feature on the gps ) and then state " Melbourne Centre. Mike Apha Mike , request" . Melbourne Centre will tell the pilot to standby or go ahead with the request.
But how will the pilot know that they aren't about to block out an important call to ATC? How will the universe know, and prevent it?
And I can't see how It's relevant whether the calls are mandatory or good safe practice.
Nor me.
If I am about to taxi and enter the runway on even a dirt strip I keep a good lookout and also give the recommended calls.
Recommended "calls" plural? What are the "recommended" calls (plural) when taxiing at, entering the runway at, and departing from this unmarked, unregistered, unlicensed strip?
Again, you'd better get this right before you lob into the Federal Court.
And why is it that those calls represent an unacceptable "block out" risk, but making a request for flight following doesn't?
Why wouldn't you? Could be an aircraft about to land coming out of the sun. It's happened.
No aircraft has ever landed out of the sun on the unmarked airstrip at my property. It's unmarked. Nobody but me is welcome.
Nonetheless, as a matter of good practice I will make 1 (one) call on Area, after listening to make sure I'm not about to blab while others are already communicating: "ABC is rolling at X for Y at Q altitude." I'm yet to block out a single call on Area doing that.
I've over-transmitted, and have been over-transmitted, many, many times in controlled airspace, however, amazingly (actually not...) there are procedures and safeguards to deal with that fact of every day life.