bush pelican
17th Nov 2003, 18:58
There are at least 3 species of pilots out there.
Those that just cruise along at low level minding their own business having fun and the occasional scary 'aviation' experience, and generally staying away from anywhere the airspace is coloured or has the letter 'C' or 'R' in it. They never use the radio or transponder so hey, any new changes don't effect them!
The second group are those that take their flying seriously but are always on the edge as they don't really do enough hours. They have a few ratings, can point some pretty mean stuff at the sky, fly NVFR and PIFR, and bust the occasional cloud. They make plenty of radio calls and generally try to do the right thing but as we all know currency is everything. These blokes see themselves as semi-professionals and go where no man has gone before. They push their limits. These are the guys to educate. They don't know what can hurt them (& others), and they don't have the time to read and understand all the issues and then consolidate them in practise.
The third lot are the blokes flying for food. I actually think that this group will need to be the most careful and aware, and will carry most of the responsibility for safety under NAS. Its this group that are effectively being busted out of the cocoon, chucked out of the nest, being told to ****** off and look after themselves!
Its not just a matter of radio frequencies and boundaries. AirNoServices Aust said it perfectly. We now only have control frequencies so SHUT-UP. Those of you who can't, we will make it as hard as possible for you to find the correct frequencies and boundaries.
To demonstrate, take a walk through the 'reference guide'. For those asking about the instructor pack I have one and its the same written material plus a video & a couple of CD roms for a PowerPoint presentation just mimicking the guide, nothing new.
The guide amplifies the NAS education and training supplement, ' DETAILS OF STAGES OF REFORM' which says,
> " No longer an area frequency for VFR" < " A major change is that there is no longer an area frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute"
The guide pg 8 says, " VFR pilots should listen on a freq appropriate to the airspace within which they are operating." Throughout the guide, ( pg 8, 17, 22, 27, 30, 39, etc.) it mentions flightwatch, AERIS, AWIB, ATIS, enroute ATC, App terminal freq., CTAF, MBZ, Multicom, 121.5, 123.45 . Now I ask you, for enroute VFR what would be the appropriate frequency? It obviously is the frequency for the area that you are in, and which all aircraft in that area will be on, i.e. the enroute ATC (or area) frequency. Now that we are all happy with that, what do we make of the following statement? pg 8. " The important point is that when enroute .......... A pilot should give more emphasis to monitoring CTAF/MBZ Multicolm where collision risk is many times higher. Constantly monitoring an ATC frequency, where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area." WHAT A RED HERRING! Everyone with a radio is on the MBZ or CTAF freq. when in that airspace. This is already a legal requirement. The ATC freq. takes a back seat or is turned down or on standby. This type of argument is used throughout the guide where an example of something which is incorrect or not happening, is used to justify a change, ( to correct something which is not happening der der der!!!) Its about as stupid as saying it may be more appropriate to monitor 121.5 enroute. (You may be able to check your ELT works after the collision!) On that point, who would want to be frantically hunting for an enroute hard to find ATC freq. if they had a Mayday situation enroute? See and be seen basically doesn't work enroute in any but the best (read good luck) situations, and situational awareness through every means possible including radio is essential.
The guide pg 8 goes on to say, " The other important change is that a pilot of a VFR flight should not make broadcasts on ATC frequencies. All calls should be directed to ATC or flightwatch" ( This is the same for IFR pilots, pg 42 ) So if my situational awareness tells me I am probably going to conflict with xyz am I to contact ATC and get them to co-ordinate safe separation procedures? Or as the guide says, ask control to ask xyz to change to 123.45 and have a natter with me? This will create a nightmare for ATC as shown by the demonstrated procedure of the VFR flight requesting traffic information inbound to Armidale on pg 21. Instead of pilot to pilot it will always be via ATC. VFR pilots will soon be on a first name basis with ATC! I can also see 3 radio monitoring frequencies coming up, enroute ATC, 123.45, and MBZs. Great system! The ridiculousness of this situation is obvious from the following statements throughout the guide. pg 17. " Be aware that there may be aircraft in your vicinity not listening or transmitting on the radio, because they have selected another frequency." pg 39. " Pilots of IFR flights should not expect a pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time...." The situation with the IFR pickup and VFR (IFR) on top makes this plan seem even more stupid. pg 42. " These procedures are undertaken in controlled airspace (Class E) and pilots must not use the ATC freq. to exchange additional pilot to pilot information." Hey, in these procedures there is no separation for the pickup bit and when on top or VFR (IFR) enroute, and you are cruising at VFR levels. Woopee! The 'real' VFR pilot may not (and is not required to be) even be on the same frequency! I'll have another glass of carrot juice please! AirNoServices Aust got it right.... those VFR dudes just want to yap on the radio and the only way to fix them is to remove the frequencies and silly boundaries cause they 'clutter' the charts! pg 44. "The previous system relied on a fixed boundary for freq. change that did not necessarily reflect actual coverage, which can vary with local conditions." pg 8. "This reduces clutter and is consistent with a much greater emphasis on monitoring a range of frequencies including those used by by arriving and departing traffic at airports." Hell, what can I say? This is absolute crap. Its suggesting that people are ignoring CTAF & MBZ frequencies which is not the case. These changes will not improve anything. It is in fact going to ensure VFR pilots are more confused and more likely to select an inappropriate enroute frequency. We have gone from a bit of uncertainty re area boundaries to total uncertainty on area boundaries AND frequencies. xyz on 121.2, "BN Center xyz invisible blob, Nanango 30, 7500 inbound to Kilcoy for nav aid work, any traffic? xyz BN Center, you're on the wrong frequency, monitor BN Center 129.0. On the matter of clutter, I always wanted to know where ATC was transmitting from; Kalamunda, Mt Macedon, Mt William, Mt Tassie, Turkey Hill ( I think I know where that is! ), Mt Glorious, etc. etc. Might try one of those interesting places for my next hols!
The NAS concept of VFR Airmanship as espoused on pg 30 & 31 is flawed and creates a second class airman, the VFR pilot.
pg. 24. VFR airmanship. " Avoiding high traffic areas and instrument approaches, Avoiding holding patterns." pg 30. " Avoid as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns." pg 21. " This possible conflict in the Armidale circuit raises a point all VFR pilots should consider in their flight planning when there is a chance RPT or IFR traffic will be operating in the same airspace." Pity about that- the VFR pilot may not be monitoring the same frequency. pg 39. "Pilots of IFR flights should not expect the pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time." In fact, he is positively encouraged by the new radio procedures not to be due to the removal of the correct frequency and boundaries and the shut up policy. I would like to ask the NAS team, do they really think, and should VFR pilots be obliged to look-up and find all the IFR procedures that could effect their flight, and avoid aerodromes and nav aids? No they should not, nor more to the point will they. I would strongly advise IFR pilots in VMC to stick them eyeballs to the windscreen and LOOK-OUT. Pilots are taught to navigate via airports and towns, and later with reference to the NDB & VOR. GPS is programmed similarly. It is a totally unreasonable request to ask VFR pilots to navigate otherwise and I do not consider this procedure as exhibiting bad airmanship by the VFR pilot. How about classifying IFR procedures in VMC conditions as bad airmanship? The overlay on the WAC pg 31. shows how ridiculous this concept is and the imposition it would be to VFR pilots all over the country. I note that holding patterns at MT McQuiod, Bindook and MONDO in Class E are supposed to have warnings for VFR pilots of these holding patterns.( pg 31) I have not been able to find these warnings on any of the new charts except the Sydney VTC for Mt McQuiod. They should at least be noted on the ERC LO for the area. The whole concept as I said is flawed and introduces a completely new and impractical element for VFR pilots. I believe it will be ignored because it is both unfair and impractical.
In the instructors pack there is a video of Mike Smith doing a flight in a PA31 through inland NSW. The flight goes beautifully and Mike even does some good landings! Nothing goes wrong, nobody talks much and we all live happily ever-after. However in the real world ignorance is not bliss. In real life how many aircraft could Mike be totally unaware of and vice versa because of no common VFR area frequency? I note that like some other misconceptions of operational realities and practises in the guide, Mr Smith says on landing at Albury, " When landing and taking off we recommend you have your lights on, this will give you a strong visual presence." Shucks, thanks Mike!
I think that one of the unforseen outcomes of the NAS could be the possibility of disenfranchising VFR pilots from the system. Will this be considered a systemic 'error of management' if a serious mid air collision occurs?
I hope that all elements of ATC are prepared, willing AND happy to handle the problems that will beset the VFR pilot under NAS and accommodate the increasing no of 'pop-ups' that will occur wanting traffic and clearances etc.
And all you RPT and IFR boys and girls. Please show patience and tolerance to all the bottom dwellers trying to fly in the system as best they can, remember they did,nt ask for it either.
GOODLUCK, and thank God for that BIG BLUE SKY!
Those that just cruise along at low level minding their own business having fun and the occasional scary 'aviation' experience, and generally staying away from anywhere the airspace is coloured or has the letter 'C' or 'R' in it. They never use the radio or transponder so hey, any new changes don't effect them!
The second group are those that take their flying seriously but are always on the edge as they don't really do enough hours. They have a few ratings, can point some pretty mean stuff at the sky, fly NVFR and PIFR, and bust the occasional cloud. They make plenty of radio calls and generally try to do the right thing but as we all know currency is everything. These blokes see themselves as semi-professionals and go where no man has gone before. They push their limits. These are the guys to educate. They don't know what can hurt them (& others), and they don't have the time to read and understand all the issues and then consolidate them in practise.
The third lot are the blokes flying for food. I actually think that this group will need to be the most careful and aware, and will carry most of the responsibility for safety under NAS. Its this group that are effectively being busted out of the cocoon, chucked out of the nest, being told to ****** off and look after themselves!
Its not just a matter of radio frequencies and boundaries. AirNoServices Aust said it perfectly. We now only have control frequencies so SHUT-UP. Those of you who can't, we will make it as hard as possible for you to find the correct frequencies and boundaries.
To demonstrate, take a walk through the 'reference guide'. For those asking about the instructor pack I have one and its the same written material plus a video & a couple of CD roms for a PowerPoint presentation just mimicking the guide, nothing new.
The guide amplifies the NAS education and training supplement, ' DETAILS OF STAGES OF REFORM' which says,
> " No longer an area frequency for VFR" < " A major change is that there is no longer an area frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute"
The guide pg 8 says, " VFR pilots should listen on a freq appropriate to the airspace within which they are operating." Throughout the guide, ( pg 8, 17, 22, 27, 30, 39, etc.) it mentions flightwatch, AERIS, AWIB, ATIS, enroute ATC, App terminal freq., CTAF, MBZ, Multicom, 121.5, 123.45 . Now I ask you, for enroute VFR what would be the appropriate frequency? It obviously is the frequency for the area that you are in, and which all aircraft in that area will be on, i.e. the enroute ATC (or area) frequency. Now that we are all happy with that, what do we make of the following statement? pg 8. " The important point is that when enroute .......... A pilot should give more emphasis to monitoring CTAF/MBZ Multicolm where collision risk is many times higher. Constantly monitoring an ATC frequency, where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area." WHAT A RED HERRING! Everyone with a radio is on the MBZ or CTAF freq. when in that airspace. This is already a legal requirement. The ATC freq. takes a back seat or is turned down or on standby. This type of argument is used throughout the guide where an example of something which is incorrect or not happening, is used to justify a change, ( to correct something which is not happening der der der!!!) Its about as stupid as saying it may be more appropriate to monitor 121.5 enroute. (You may be able to check your ELT works after the collision!) On that point, who would want to be frantically hunting for an enroute hard to find ATC freq. if they had a Mayday situation enroute? See and be seen basically doesn't work enroute in any but the best (read good luck) situations, and situational awareness through every means possible including radio is essential.
The guide pg 8 goes on to say, " The other important change is that a pilot of a VFR flight should not make broadcasts on ATC frequencies. All calls should be directed to ATC or flightwatch" ( This is the same for IFR pilots, pg 42 ) So if my situational awareness tells me I am probably going to conflict with xyz am I to contact ATC and get them to co-ordinate safe separation procedures? Or as the guide says, ask control to ask xyz to change to 123.45 and have a natter with me? This will create a nightmare for ATC as shown by the demonstrated procedure of the VFR flight requesting traffic information inbound to Armidale on pg 21. Instead of pilot to pilot it will always be via ATC. VFR pilots will soon be on a first name basis with ATC! I can also see 3 radio monitoring frequencies coming up, enroute ATC, 123.45, and MBZs. Great system! The ridiculousness of this situation is obvious from the following statements throughout the guide. pg 17. " Be aware that there may be aircraft in your vicinity not listening or transmitting on the radio, because they have selected another frequency." pg 39. " Pilots of IFR flights should not expect a pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time...." The situation with the IFR pickup and VFR (IFR) on top makes this plan seem even more stupid. pg 42. " These procedures are undertaken in controlled airspace (Class E) and pilots must not use the ATC freq. to exchange additional pilot to pilot information." Hey, in these procedures there is no separation for the pickup bit and when on top or VFR (IFR) enroute, and you are cruising at VFR levels. Woopee! The 'real' VFR pilot may not (and is not required to be) even be on the same frequency! I'll have another glass of carrot juice please! AirNoServices Aust got it right.... those VFR dudes just want to yap on the radio and the only way to fix them is to remove the frequencies and silly boundaries cause they 'clutter' the charts! pg 44. "The previous system relied on a fixed boundary for freq. change that did not necessarily reflect actual coverage, which can vary with local conditions." pg 8. "This reduces clutter and is consistent with a much greater emphasis on monitoring a range of frequencies including those used by by arriving and departing traffic at airports." Hell, what can I say? This is absolute crap. Its suggesting that people are ignoring CTAF & MBZ frequencies which is not the case. These changes will not improve anything. It is in fact going to ensure VFR pilots are more confused and more likely to select an inappropriate enroute frequency. We have gone from a bit of uncertainty re area boundaries to total uncertainty on area boundaries AND frequencies. xyz on 121.2, "BN Center xyz invisible blob, Nanango 30, 7500 inbound to Kilcoy for nav aid work, any traffic? xyz BN Center, you're on the wrong frequency, monitor BN Center 129.0. On the matter of clutter, I always wanted to know where ATC was transmitting from; Kalamunda, Mt Macedon, Mt William, Mt Tassie, Turkey Hill ( I think I know where that is! ), Mt Glorious, etc. etc. Might try one of those interesting places for my next hols!
The NAS concept of VFR Airmanship as espoused on pg 30 & 31 is flawed and creates a second class airman, the VFR pilot.
pg. 24. VFR airmanship. " Avoiding high traffic areas and instrument approaches, Avoiding holding patterns." pg 30. " Avoid as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns." pg 21. " This possible conflict in the Armidale circuit raises a point all VFR pilots should consider in their flight planning when there is a chance RPT or IFR traffic will be operating in the same airspace." Pity about that- the VFR pilot may not be monitoring the same frequency. pg 39. "Pilots of IFR flights should not expect the pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time." In fact, he is positively encouraged by the new radio procedures not to be due to the removal of the correct frequency and boundaries and the shut up policy. I would like to ask the NAS team, do they really think, and should VFR pilots be obliged to look-up and find all the IFR procedures that could effect their flight, and avoid aerodromes and nav aids? No they should not, nor more to the point will they. I would strongly advise IFR pilots in VMC to stick them eyeballs to the windscreen and LOOK-OUT. Pilots are taught to navigate via airports and towns, and later with reference to the NDB & VOR. GPS is programmed similarly. It is a totally unreasonable request to ask VFR pilots to navigate otherwise and I do not consider this procedure as exhibiting bad airmanship by the VFR pilot. How about classifying IFR procedures in VMC conditions as bad airmanship? The overlay on the WAC pg 31. shows how ridiculous this concept is and the imposition it would be to VFR pilots all over the country. I note that holding patterns at MT McQuiod, Bindook and MONDO in Class E are supposed to have warnings for VFR pilots of these holding patterns.( pg 31) I have not been able to find these warnings on any of the new charts except the Sydney VTC for Mt McQuiod. They should at least be noted on the ERC LO for the area. The whole concept as I said is flawed and introduces a completely new and impractical element for VFR pilots. I believe it will be ignored because it is both unfair and impractical.
In the instructors pack there is a video of Mike Smith doing a flight in a PA31 through inland NSW. The flight goes beautifully and Mike even does some good landings! Nothing goes wrong, nobody talks much and we all live happily ever-after. However in the real world ignorance is not bliss. In real life how many aircraft could Mike be totally unaware of and vice versa because of no common VFR area frequency? I note that like some other misconceptions of operational realities and practises in the guide, Mr Smith says on landing at Albury, " When landing and taking off we recommend you have your lights on, this will give you a strong visual presence." Shucks, thanks Mike!
I think that one of the unforseen outcomes of the NAS could be the possibility of disenfranchising VFR pilots from the system. Will this be considered a systemic 'error of management' if a serious mid air collision occurs?
I hope that all elements of ATC are prepared, willing AND happy to handle the problems that will beset the VFR pilot under NAS and accommodate the increasing no of 'pop-ups' that will occur wanting traffic and clearances etc.
And all you RPT and IFR boys and girls. Please show patience and tolerance to all the bottom dwellers trying to fly in the system as best they can, remember they did,nt ask for it either.
GOODLUCK, and thank God for that BIG BLUE SKY!