Pontius.
I am looking at the reference guide for the NAS wind back.
It states;
" VFR flights- - in class E - should monitor the appropriate class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict- "
Anyone who has ever flown in E in Europe , Canada or the USA would laugh at that one.
It was written with staggering ignorance and resistance to change. Attempting to turn ICAO class E into some type of Marconi 1930s airspace.
Hempy The example I gave was where there was no workload at all on Sydney radar 124.55. During the week it happens quite often.. How would a controller be able to convince a court under those circumstances.
The problem is the frequency boundaries. No other country has such a system.. If you want flight following simply call on the nearest VHF outlet shown on the chart and you will soon be told the correct frequency if that wasn't it! That's why we took the frequency boundaries off the charts- to copy a proven safe system.
We now have an unproven suspect system where CASA can't even convince the RAPACs that their latest changes are rational and not based on anything other than an attempt to wind back to pre 1990 before my team introduced CTAFs for the first time in Australia.
Before then all of these strips would be on the area frequency and that's what they are desperately trying to head back to.