Flightwatch VHF gooooooone!!!!

[JackoSchitt]

Yes indeedee, AIPSUP H83/07 is out there with effect 251600z.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/sup/s7-h83.pdf

In essence, don't call Flightwatch VHF, Call ATC FIA VHF who will redirect you to Flightwatch HF (and you will not get a word in edgewise, even if you have a HF set) - But it is going to be effective and more efficient according to AIPSUP H62/07

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/sup/s7-h62.pdf

H83/07 published today 24th OCT 2007 (for implementation on 25th Oct 2007)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The purpose of this AIP SUP is to notify pilots and operators of Stage
2 changes with regards to the removal of the AusFIC VHF Flightwatch
frequencies as listed in AIP GEN--FIS--4.

1.2 TheATCVHFfrequencies and AusFICHFfrequencieswill remain as
the frequencies to use for in--flight on request FIS.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 AusFIC’s function has been reviewed and whereby previously the in--
flight on requestFlight InformationService (Flightwatch) has been available
via AusFIC’s VHF and HF frequencies as well as ATC VHF frequencies, the
function will now be provided on the AusFIC HF and ATC FIA frequencies.

2.2 With effect 25 October 2007 the table listed in Annex 1 details the
ATC frequencies to call for on--request FIS.

2.3 In summary, all frequencieswith the exception ofArgyle 118.4, Tindal
120.15, Darwin 122.3 and Thursday Island 124.95 have been incorporated
into the ATC FIA Frequencies.

2.4 Stage 3 -- Final consolidation will commence on the 22nd November
2007.

2.5 To assist in the transition of the VHF Flightwatch function from
AusFIC to ATC, AusFIC will remain accessible for ATC to refer specific aircraft/
callsigns where tactical management or workload dictates. This contingency
will remain in place until the 20th December 2007.

3. CHANGES TO ON REQUEST FIS

3.1 On requestFIS continues to be available viaHFandATCfrequencies
as per ERSA.

3.2 In--flight requests for Flight Information Service should normally be
directed to the FIA Frequency or HF as appropriate.

3.3 SARTIME cancellation as described in AIP -- ENR 1.1, paragraph
67.2.3 is to be amended to remove the reference to the Flightwatch FISVHF
outlet.

3.4 Pilots may cancel a SARTIME via;
a FLIGHTWATCH on HF as shown in ERSA and en route charts,
b Relay through another pilot
c Telephone to CENSAR on 1800 814 931 or
d ATC when telephone facilities are not available

4. PILOT RESPONSIBILITY

4.1 Pilots must continue to use the generic call--sign Flightwatch and
also prefix the call with the appropriate ATC call sign, e.g.
MELBOURNE CENTRE -- FLIGHTWATCH RJD -- REQUEST ACTUAL
WEATHER ADELAIDE.

4.2 Additionally pilots are reminded of the requirement to ensure an appropriate
preflight briefing is obtained prior to departure as per AIPGEN3.3.
Paragraph 2.3.2.

5. IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 These changes become effective on 0710251600UTC.


ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yuk:

[Creampuff]

My brain hurts when I try to work this stuff out.

On my brief reading, both SUPs will be current after 071025, but deal with overlapping issues.

Why doesn't 83 cancel and supersede 62?

[squawk6969]

What Flightwatch????

Only once have I been able to contact them in 4 years.......but gee she was sexy on a radio;).

SQ

[Mr. Hat]

Pay for a service and get less and less. ATC working max hours, Frequencies congested beyond belief, towers closed down airspace closed down, fees introduced. It just gets better and better.

Just send out some more SEE AND AVOID pamphlets.

The taxpayer dollar once again being used for nothing taxpayers would expect it to be used for.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

.....so, from point 3.4 - if I'm VFR and have a SARTIME to cancel then I should relay the call through another pilot - even if I have comms with ATC.

That's going to be fun - lets all cancel SAR via another pilot.... (preferably the guy sitting next to you)

UTR

[equal]

if I'm VFR and have a SARTIME to cancel then I should relay the call through another pilot - even if I have comms with ATC.

that`s what i noticed also

hey qantas 1, doing anything important ? cancel my sartime sucka .. :E

[Sunfish]

I simply don't understand this bureaucratic doublespeak.

Sounds to me that we are effectively on our own in VFR, why even bother to file a flight plan anymore? Just strap in and go. Why bother to even turn the radio on? I've got a 406 PLB, and I guess if it's busted then so am I, so I won't care if you don't find the wreck (sniff, splutter)

I've only ever used flightwatch twice, and both times I needed it badly. You guys really want me to come up on Melbourne Radar asking if YMEN or YMMB is open to VFR yet?

[SM4 Pirate]

The taxpayer dollar once again being used for nothing taxpayers would expect it to be used for.ha now that's funny; ASA makes a substantial profit each and every year. That profit (paid as a dividend, after company taxes are paid, goes back into general revenue) The tax payer is profiting from aviation, not subsidising it; especially now that CASA is becoming an entity that charges for every service too.

[JackoSchitt]

FTD,

Select the correct Flighwatch frequency for the area you are in and use the PTT.

If many many ESL student pilots are able to establish two way contact, they you should be able to.

[JackoSchitt]

SQ numbers,

Their must be something wrong with your mike technique if you cannot establish two way coms with Flightwatch and you are in VHF range.

See your CFI or CP for assistance.

[JackoSchitt]

It's all very simple really,


If you need any FIS information - Call ATC FIA frequencies


MATS describes FIS info as:

5.1.1.4 FIS shall include the provision of pertinent:

a.pre-flight information;

b.operational information such as:

1.meteorological conditions and the existence of non-routine MET products (eg amended TAF, amended ARFOR, SPECI, SIGMET, AIRMET);

2.changes to air routes;

3.changes in the serviceability of navigation facilities, eg RAIM;

4.changes in the serviceability of communication facilities;

5.changes in condition of aerodromes and associated facilities;

6.changes to ATS procedures;

7.changes to airspace status;

8.information on unmanned free balloons (including Operation Hibal activities);

c.traffic information to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E and G when licenced to do so;

d.ATS surveillance system derived information to aircraft operating in Classes
E and G when licenced to do so;

e.other information likely to affect safety.




If you need to nominate a SARTIME - Call on ATC FIA Frequencies or phone the briefing office or call on HF.



If you need to cancel a SARTIME - Call on phone to CENSAR or on HF to Flightwatch or Relay through another pilot (to ATC or HF) or call ATC direct on VHF.

[Mr. Hat]

SM4, dont about you but i'd rather the help from the various ATC and FW rather than the money going into the all important billion dollar surplus. You think joe passenger is benefiting when he goes into broome in a 73 and old mate at the front gets given 10 different types of traffic. See how that benefit works out when there is a mid-air.

I think if the avg tax payer knew the reality they'd happily ask for that asa revenue to go back into staffing levels for FW ect.

[squawk6969]

Jacko

Are you whacko or something? I dont come on here making statements like that if they are not true.

Several times I have tried, and in one case was directed by ATC to an alternate frequency.......No answer. Its funny that its not just me that has had this experience. ATC frequencies no prob. BNE CEN loud and clear, but not Flightwatch.

My mind pictures one poor operator in a room with 50 freq's going flat out at him/her......and none being able to be dealt with:uhoh:.

Its not the operators giving bad service....its the system.

Now I have been able to establish comms with them so its not like I am incapable:ugh:. Just after a while you will be resourcefull enough to get what you need from other sources, ATC.....other a/c....dare I say guesswork, based on say an ATIS within a moderate distance.
SQ:ok:

[morno]

Having visited the AusFIC centre in Brisbane, I feel sorry for the guys doing the VHF Flightwatch console, because IT IS only the one guy/girl doing the whole of Australia. Not good enough!

morno

[JackoSchitt]

FTD,

Yep, the dedicated Flightwatch freqs are few and far between in the west...but you know that I suspect.

IF you fly where there is no VHF coverage, of course you are not going to get the dedicated Flightwatch VHF operator...

...and rather than only putting forward half the story, how about you put that in your post in the first instance!!!!!

ESL = English as a second language
Student = Learner
Pilot = One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight

[JackoSchitt]

SQuaker,

I'm told Flightwatch VHF is one console with 29 VHF freqs spread mostly on the Eastern side of Australia (Perth, Port Hedland, Argyle, Darwin, Tindal and Alice are about it westward I think) - and ERSA FLIGHTWATCH VHF ORGANISATION shows that.

Flightwatch VHF does not cover all the eastern states either. They operate the left over Flight Service Freqs that ATC did not want to take over so yes, there are considerable gaps in the coverage (Meekatharra/Learmonth case in point)

and if you cannot get VHF contact, there is 5 HF consoles with 8 Domestic and 15 international frequencies for you to try and aircraft from Deigo Garcia to Auckland to Nauru are able to get comms ok 24/7.

I double checked today and the flightwatch operators tell me that they respond to all calls they hear but quite often a response of "Go Ahead" is met with silence.

In any case, ATC are equally responsible and perfectly able to deliver FIS on their FIA VHF frequencies (traffic statements are a part of FIS after all) and which number considerably more than Flightwatch.

You should never have to guess what you need to know.

[JackoSchitt]

FTD,

No need to apologise, we have to make allowances for the silly by law.

Last I remember, the relative distance a location was from the coast was not a factor in establishing VHF contact, but hey, you’re a pilot (One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight) – I bow to your superiority. :rolleyes:

No, FW on VHF is not kaput, it is now done completely by ATC who only operate VHF.

Hahahahahaha, you reckon it was “f*cking hopeless” before, you ai’nt seen ‘nutin yet!!!!

ROFL

[JackoSchitt]

YO, OS, honky dudette; I ain't yr Furkin "Bro".

FS is long gone, dead and buried - Politics saw to that waaaaay back when.

The dedicated Flightwatch VHF and HF people do a fantastic job with what they have to deal with.

My comment

you ai’nt seen ‘nutin yet!!!!

was in relation to the "effective and more efficient" service that will be provided by ATC on FIA VHFs.

[JackoSchitt]

OS,

Oh P-L-E-A-S-E stop, your pithy repartee is cutting to the core.

[tobzalp]

Jacko, why not apply for an ATC course and come show us how we should be doing it? :)

[Jabawocky]

Seems to me Jack is a little on the unstable side.....you sure you want him at ATC TOBZ?

I think we all know the problem, and its not because the operators are useless at all. They are quite the opposite. Its the system. Too much being asked from too little.:uhoh:

I have had similar experiences at times as to those described by Squawkie and Forkie, and within 300 miles of the coast, so not exactly outside the VHF footprint.

So stop shooting the messenger would ya Jack.

J

[JackoSchitt]

tobzalp,

Nah, not even I could compete with ATC egos.

[JackoSchitt]

JW,

The real problem is the half-arsed approach given to the facilites provided to Flighwatch. ATC taking over FS freqs to fill in gaps in their coverage (totally reasonable proposition) left holes in the remaining coverage.

Actually go and look at ERSA GEN - FIS, Section 9 Flightwatch VHF Organisation.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/GUID_ersa-fac-2-9_30-Aug-2007.pdf

None of the FW freqs have secondary equipment available in the case of a failure so that is another hole.

But with the complete provision of FIS by ATC on FIA freqs, all the "cannot contact FW" situations are gone.

I have had similar experiences at times as to those described by Squawkie and Forkie, and within 300 miles of the coast, so not exactly outside the VHF footprint.

I don't know how to put this but I will try again...your location reference the coast is irrelevant.

Flightwatch VHF coverage is not universal. It does not cover the entire country nor does it even give complete coverage down the entire east coast.

ATC have more freqs and transmitter sites than Flightwatch and therefore you will be able to have two-way vhf comms with ATC and not flightwatch...

...and even where ATC and FW freqs are co-located, the FW antenna is way lower on the mast in most if not all circumstances and therefore does not afford the same coverage.

Go look at ERSA, note the FW freqs and locations and give it a fair dinkim go.:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"I don't know how to put this but I will try again..."

FW on VHF as it has existed for the past X years has been completely useless to the average working pilot - at least in the part of Australia where I fly.

It is complete crap to suggest that it has been viable if you are near enough to a station. The whole f*cking point of the argument is that the coverage has not been enough to be of any use.

Smartarse f*cking remarks about tuning the correct frequency etc add nothing to the discussion.

Dr :8

[TLAW]

JackoSchitt,

I'm confused - what is your connection to all of this?

According to this thread, you're not a pilot, a Flightwatch operator or an ATC - what difference does it make to you about the current status of Flightwatch?

[JackoSchitt]

TLAW,

Sorry to answer your question with a question but...

...but does one need to have a direct connection to something to have an opinion or be able to enter a debate?

Does someone have to be affected by something before they can highlight a deficiency or make a comment?

If anything, I am expressing opinion of some people who wish to remain off the record but still want a message out there.

As for me personally, absolutley no difference what so ever.

[JackoSchitt]

OH NO, OS's repartee has sliced me yet again!

ah
h
h
h
h
h!

[makespeed250kt]

Jackschitt,

Can't agree with you more. There's nothing better than trying to sequence a busy gaggle whilst broadcasting AFOR's for some poor dude who may already have his hands full with some unexpected WX condition.

It's an absolute crock!!!:mad:

[JackoSchitt]

OS,

You might like to actually read the posts here to understand the flow of the debate. I was asked what difference the current state of Flightwatch make to me and I responded with the words you quoted.

How exactly is that relevant to your question/statement???:confused:

However, in response, I'm sorry to disappoint you but there are way better things to ponder in the universe than to waste time thinking about hating ATCs. scheech.

[JackoSchitt]

MS250Kts,

Ta.

You hit the nail on the head. As your busy doin' vectorin' victor an' stuff as the Wx clags in, like say a ring of TS around MEL, and everyone wants the Wx at MEL and for their alternates - something has to give.

How the hell it is going to be "effective and more efficient" than a standalone function that can be accessed in parallel to the traffic service rather than insteadof a traffic service is beyond me. I don't need to have vested interest to see that surely?

Go back to the creation of the Flightwatch function in the first place, It was to take away the distraction or providing in-flight information from ATCs on TAAATS. How exactly has THAT necessity changed?

Again, I don't give a rats what happens to flightwatch but at least come up with at functional arguement to justify the change....and "effective and more efficient" ain't it!!!

[TLAW]

...does one need to have a direct connection to something to have an opinion or be able to enter a debate?
To answer your question to my question, yes, if you want credibility. Especially when you attack the users of the system, who happen to have direct operational experience of using the system itself.
but hey, you’re a pilot (One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight) – I bow to your superiority. :rolleyes:
Nah, not even I could compete with ATC egos.
So far in this thread you have insulted both ATC and pilots. If you are looking for supporters to your argument, this might not be the best way to go.
Personally, I think the change to Flightwatch is a crock as well. I'm discouraged from interrupting a busy controller for a small piece of info that is trivial to him, but vital to me. That is not good for aviation safety.

[morno]

I was told by ATC yesterday to "attempt" to contact flightwatch while they were a little overrun with other things. I got straight through (probably because no one else was even trying!), but then when I contacted them again about an hour later, I was told that "this is no longer a flightwatch frequency, however we will be monitoring it for about the next 2 months during the transition".

morno

[JackoSchitt]

TLAW,
if you want credibility

No; you are looking for position power and I don't choose to give that to you or anyone else.

As for the other two quotes that you have chosen to take out of context; both were responses to other posts of people trying to play the same game...an' I'm not going to play that way.

Unfortunately, FTDK (the target of your quote #2) has deleted numberous posts to this thread for reasons known only to themselves so you cannot pick up the thread properly. Co-incidence? probably not.:suspect:

[JackoSchitt]

Morno,

I was told that "this is no longer a flightwatch frequency, however we will be monitoring it for about the next 2 months during the transition".

Good to see the system working as per the AIPSUP

"2.5 To assist in the transition of the VHF Flightwatch function from
AusFIC to ATC, AusFIC will remain accessible for ATC to refer specific aircraft/
callsigns where tactical management or workload dictates. This contingency
will remain in place until the 20th December 2007."

Shame ATC had to refer you in the first place. Logical question to flow is "what happens after 20th December 2007?

[morno]

The referring to Flightwatch was actually a 50/50 thing JackSh!t. I suggested I do it through flightwatch as I could clearly tell they were overrun, and they directed me to the correct frequency and agreed with my suggestion.

The stupid thing is, yes, what is going to happen after they do away with it completely. When I want to make my flight plan amendment and the HF flightwatch is overrun as well, do I just have to overload the ATCer even more? :ugh:

morno