PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Why no full position reports in G and E ?
Old 10th Apr 2016, 00:31
  #56 (permalink)  
Dick Smith
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,602
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
When I monitored over 1200 calls on my flight to the Kimberly and back in the caravan I had no idea in nearly all cases if they were from aircraft that were a potential collision risk so I could answer and organise pre AMATS " radio arrange separation".

The only way the half woundback system with mandatory monitoring by VFR of " area frequencies " can work is if the IFR gave full position reports in E and G. That's what they did before we introduced the AMATS changes.

Just one descent call when leaving controlled airspace solves about 10% of the alleged problem.

As I said before- go ahead and harmonise with the best airspace systems in the world - where ATC frequency boundary monitoring requirements don't exist and VFR are prohibited from making non directed announcements on ATC frequencies - or return fully to the old system and put back on 700 FSOs.

It was all starting to work really well when Airservices, in an act of shear bastardry , without the safety regulators (CASA) approval and with zero pilot education , posted out 30,000 frequency boundary charts.

All done in a desperate attempt to resist change. As pointed out by Billy Hughes- very Australian.

All we need is some leadership. Have you noticed CASA has no stated view on where we are going with Airspace?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Apr 2016 at 00:56.
Dick Smith is offline