Why no full position reports in G and E ?

[Dick Smith]

Is there still a mandatory requirement that even if under survailance by radar or ADSB that IFR aircraft must give full position reports in E and G airspace?

This was so VFR aircraft could reply and ensure radio arranged separation.

It is a unique Australian requirement. It is of course the reason for the CASA CTAF decision on non mapped airports.

Of more recent times I note that under survailance quite often full position reports are not given by IFR aircraft in E and G . For example you hear " Melbourne Centre Mike Alpha Mike on descent to 5000' "

Such a call is completely useless to VFR who are forced by law, only in Australia, to monitor all the time and reply if necessary.

If it is mandatory , why is it being widely ignored? Are pilots using commonsense?

Late edit. Have just been informed that pilots are no longer required to give full position reports in E and G if under surveillance. How then are VFR pilots , who are forced to monitor class E and G ATC frequencies able to reply as relevant traffic. Sounds like a complete stuff up caused by the half wind back from NAS. That is the ATC frequency boundaries were put back on charts in an attempt to go back to the 1950s when IFR and VFR flew at the same levels, not ICAO semi circular rule levels which I introduced with AMATS.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

For an IFR aircraft equipped with ADS-B and CPDLC, identified by ATC and flying in CTA, to have to give full position reports would be about the greatest example of half-arsed 1930s dirt-track thinking I can think of. If it's really necessary for VFR in Class E to work properly, maybe that says something about Class E.

What do they do in the States?

[Capn Bloggs]

Is there still a mandatory requirement that even if under survailance by radar or ADSB that IFR aircraft must give full position reports in E and G airspace?

I suggest you read your AIP and find out. You're championing the cause of airspace change but you don't even know the current procedures? That's pretty worrying, Dick.

A question for you: what are the comms requirements for IFR when descending into Class GorF? No contacting your Brain's Trust.

What frequency you should monitor has got nothing to do with charts. In fact, to help protect fare-paying passengers, VFR should be on the same freqs, which is done by monitoring the freqs on the charts.

For an IFR aircraft equipped with ADS-B and CPDLC, identified by ATC and flying in CTA, to have to give full position reports would be about the greatest example of half-arsed 1930s dirt-track thinking I can think of.
I sincerely hope that you do not think that those are the rules...

[Dick Smith]

In the USA and Canada they are not obsessed with VFR. Huge amounts of E and no radio or transponder requirement for VFR while en route below 10,000' .

If VFR are radio equipped it's recommended they monitor and announce if necessary on the CTAF if in the vicinity of an aerodrome otherwise leave your radio on 121.5 for emergency and intercept procedures.

Pretty simple really. No way in other countries that VFR would know the correct en route ATC frequency to be on .

Reason they don't have the Australian requirements - no measurable safety problem!

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. How about some assistance on the interpretation of the CASA requirements on this?

One lot of advice I got in writing was that full position reports must be given and then another letter stated they should not be made when identified. Which is current? What do you do?

I will post the Greg Russell letter which refers to this on Monday

[Capn Bloggs]

What do you do?
I do what the book says.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I sincerely hope that you do not think that those are the rules...

No, I don't. Until now, I didn't think anyone else did either.

[Capn Bloggs]

No, I don't.
Not very hard, indeed! :}

[uncle8]

ENR 1.1 - 19

11.2
Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft
in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using
the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes
E and G airspace

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

And also ENR 1.1, 45.1 - same wording. I don't know of any publicly-disseminated CASA reference that trumps this, so I'm interested to see what Dick produces.

[Dick Smith]

So if position reports are not made how can the wound back system work?

What's the use of VFR being forced to listen to hundreds of calls when flying in the J curve that don't give any relevant positional information?

Typical CASA gobbledegook . What does it mean? Should IFR aircraft give full position reports when identified in E and G airspace?

Looks as if they don't have to. Any lawyers around?

[Capn Bloggs]

IFR Pickup
Arrrgghhhh!!!!!! :8

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

VFR observed to be in proximity to other traffic (or an active restricted area) can be contacted by ATC and alerted to the situation if they are monitoring the frequency.
If equipped, the ADS-B of the aircraft reveals its identity, otherwise "VFR traffic observed 12 miles west of Cessnock, south-east bound at A055, be advised traffic crossing L to R in 3 mins, 500' above"

[Dick Smith]

Are now I understand. In Australia our ATCs have a responsibility for VFR aircraft in E and G when in survailance coverage . That's why the ATC frequency boundaries are shown!

That's great. Airservices can be sued by the family of a VFR pilot if involved in a mid air and the ATC did not call the pilot.

Nothing like it anywhere in the world but great for Aussie VFR pilots- lousy for Aussie ATCs and their employer, Airservices. Must have huge extra insurance costs .

Amazing Civil Air allows this. Not protecting the interest of its members. In other countries that's called class D airspace and it is adequately manned.

[Dick Smith]

And most importantly in the old system, before I introduced the AMATS changes , 700 FSOs were responsible for giving traffic to everyone, both IFR and VFR above 5000 where the risk was lowest.

Below 5000 FSOs had no responsibility for non reporting VFRs because they didn't have a radar screen therefore did not know they were there.

Saved the industry $1.4 billion since then and now I'm told that ATCs should give a radar service free of charge to anyone that appears on the ATC screen at no extra cost. No need to call for a workload permitting radar advisory service in Australia . Fantastic!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Have just been informed that pilots are no longer required to give full position reports in E and G if under surveillance.

Dick, leaving aside the usual issues of frequency boundaries and ripping into CASA (which to no great surprise is where we seem to have ended up yet again), I find it more than a little surprising and concerning that you, as an IFR pilot and the go-to guy for the media on all things to do with aviation and airspace, have apparently been flying around without proper knowledge of the procedures you're supposed to be following in Class E airspace. Whether you agree with those procedures is beside the point - it just isn't helping your credibility.

[Ia8825]

Dick, would you prefer that ATC just sit there and watch the VFR paints get closer and closer until they both disappear at once? Frankly I'm happy to give whatever service I can to VFR aircraft, and I'm not one of those controllers that work under the theory that VFR pay nothing so don't get any service. Ultimately, I want every aircraft to get home safely and will do anything in my power to make it happen.

[Dick Smith]

That's why I will post the letter to Greg Russell on Monday.

A quote from it

" your letter 4 April now completely reverses this advice and explains the AIP states that pilots do not have to give position reports when " identified"- What's going on? How can you change your position by 180 degrees and not explain the reason for this change"


So ittsnot, what is the correct procedure- give full position reports so monitoring VFR aircraft can reply if necessary, or don't give position reports?

It's over to you or Bloggs to advise what the correct procedure is. I think I know but I am human and make mistakes from time to time. That's why I always ask advice. That's what I am doing now and I notice both of you do not make a clear statement!

[le Pingouin]

What can CivilAir do about it? Take illegal industrial action? They might be able to sue but good luck in proving anything was "observed".

[Dick Smith]

First of all it's all recorded. When the frequency of 124.55 has been silent for five minutes there is a chance that a court would find that two VFRs with mode C may have been easily informed they were about to hit each other.

I wouldn't even suggest industrial action. Just a letter to CASA stating that the system is half wound back without any pilot education at all.

The letter could also mention that in no other country are ATC frequency boundaries shown on charts with the express purpose of having ATCs call VFR aircraft to help prevent a collision. With the non ICAO mandatory radio reqirement for all VFR in E and G they are trying to turn the air spaces into a form of D and hold ATCs responsible for any accidents.

It's un Australian ! !

[Ia8825]

Le ping, it may be a bit easier for them to prove something was observed, or should have been observed, if your one of the controllers who iql's all VFR in your airspace as per the way they teach at the academy.

[Lookleft]

I tell you what else is considered un-Australian: whinging, spitting the dummy, taking one's bat and ball and going home, not admitting one is wrong, dobbing, line shooting, hogging, thinking one is better than others. Anybody else want to add to the list?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

" your letter 4 April now completely reverses this advice and explains the AIP states that pilots do not have to give position reports when " identified"- What's going on? How can you change your position by 180 degrees and not explain the reason for this change"


So ittsnot, what is the correct procedure- give full position reports so monitoring VFR aircraft can reply if necessary, or don't give position reports?

It's over to you or Bloggs to advise what the correct procedure is. I think I know but I am human and make mistakes from time to time. That's why I always ask advice. That's what I am doing now and I notice both of you do not make a clear statement!

I thought I made a clear statement by quoting the relevant part of AIP, which says that position reports are not required when identified. So I don't give them, and nor does anyone else that I'm aware of. Can you point to any conflicting reference? You've mentioned 'CASA gobbledegook' and letters from Greg Russell, but AIP is all the rest of us have to go on, so that's what we use.

I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing we should have, but I'll reiterate what I wrote earlier. Any system that requires IFR aircraft, in CTA and identified via SSR or ADS-B, to make full position reports is preposterous.

[BleedingAir]

Nobody I'm aware of gives them either, and if you attempt to, ATC will give you the old "identified, not required".

[BlockNotAvailable]

Responsible for VFR aircraft in E? Since when was that a thing for ATC? You tell IFR aircraft of visible VFR aircraft when giving traffic, but there is not a direct responsibly for ATC at all for VFR in E. Seriously... Before you go and point fingers, get you facts right.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Gee Dick,

I don't know just when the quoted number of FSOs reached 700...was that 700 at any one time, as in, all at the same time?

Genuine query, just wondering about your 'source'...

And, re,
"Below 5000 FSOs had no responsibility for non reporting VFRs because they didn't have a radar screen therefore did not know they were there."

I'm not sure I follow your argument here.

You are correct in that we did not have access to RADAR (Verboten List), and so, we would not know who was where if they did not 'report' or make a 'broadcast' even.

At one time we would 'raise a pink strip' for any calls heard from any aircraft anywhere and keep it on the board for 10 minutes, just in case....
However I can't remember when that practice ceased.

The only strip we might have had for the 'non-reporting VFR' may have been a SARTIME strip, (Pink Strip) which contained the bare 'essentials' of Callsign, acft type, DEP point & Destination for where the SARTIME was nominated, and sometimes the route.

Of course, when the 'non-reporting VFR entered the AFIZ 30nm area, he was required to call, so became 'reporting'.

And as far as I can recall, there was no restriction on SARTIME acft flying above 5,000ft - as long as they flew 'quadrantal' - in that way, all traffic was in the same 'quarter' and generally were easy to spot if one was 'overtaking'.

We didn't have 'fast movers' at low levels in those days, well not many anyway...Some of our Military friends may have done some 'scenics' down low, but they were generally well into the 'B050' country.....where the 'quadrantal rule' did not apply. (If I remember correctly...)

Brain cells attempting to 'listen up and fly right'...)

Cheers:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

It's over to you or Bloggs to advise what the correct procedure is. I think I know but I am human and make mistakes from time to time. That's why I always ask advice. That's what I am doing now and I notice both of you do not make a clear statement!
Ha ha ha! Yoo Hoo Hoo! :D :D

No clear statement required, Dick; it's in AIP in black and white. That particular procedure has been in place for over 2 decades. You'd better watch out; Ean Higgins might get wind of this... :eek:

PS: How about showing us what Hoody sent you so we can make considered judgement on your reply?

[Lead Balloon]

Dick

You do realise that CASA can require you to sit another flight rules and procedures exam?

[Dick Smith]

Ok. So if IFR no longer give position reports how do VFR know they are traffic for the IFR and make an announcement - the prime reason the system was wound back and the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts ?

It's also the only reason CASA has fallen out with the RAPACs over calling at non map marked aerodromes. That is trying to get part of the old pre AMATs system going again.

[Dick Smith]

Wait till you read the letters backwards and forwards to AsA a number of years ago.

It will be fun as Bloggs desperately tries to go back to 1990.

[Capn Bloggs]

It will be fun as Bloggs desperately tries to go back to 1990.
I'm not the desperate one. I've said it before and I'll say it again: bring on ADS-B. And while you're at it, transponders for all aircraft in RPT CTAFs. This is 2016, not the 1950s. Let's use the technology to improve safety (ABS and seatbelts come to mind...). The you can bring in Class E (after you've installed ATC radio and ADS-B coverage to ground level).

[Dick Smith]

Look at post no 26. How is this wound back system supposed to work if IFR don't give full position reports ?

[Capn Bloggs]

Have a look at post #3. There's a clue there...

[wishiwasupthere]

With your apparent lack of knowledge of current rules maybe it's a good thing for everyone else you're getting out of aviation!

Just because you're an enthusiastic amateur and not a proffesional pilot doesn't give you an excuse not to know current rules and procedures, whether you agree with them or not. :=

[Capn Bloggs]

In Australia our ATCs have a responsibility for VFR aircraft in E and G when in survailance coverage . That's why the ATC frequency boundaries are shown!

That's great. Airservices can be sued by the family of a VFR pilot if involved in a mid air and the ATC did not call the pilot.

Nothing like it anywhere in the world but great for Aussie VFR pilots
Dick Dick Dick... Have a peruse of AIP GEN 3.3 2.16, in particular the first para. :=

Yes, as you say, having a SIS is great for our VFR pilots. Great also that the ATC frequencies are on the charts so VFR pilots know instantly what to call on for their SIS.

This is going to end badly... ;)

[Ia8825]

First of all it's all recorded. When the frequency of 124.55 has been silent for five minutes there is a chance that a court would find that two VFRs with mode C may have been easily informed they were about to hit each other.

I wouldn't even suggest industrial action. Just a letter to CASA stating that the system is half wound back without any pilot education at all.

The letter could also mention that in no other country are ATC frequency boundaries shown on charts with the express purpose of having ATCs call VFR aircraft to help prevent a collision. With the non ICAO mandatory radio reqirement for all VFR in E and G they are trying to turn the air spaces into a form of D and hold ATCs responsible for any accidents.

It's un Australian ! !
Dick, an air traffic controller can be very very busy even with no air to ground transmissions, especially when there is weather etc.

[Car RAMROD]

Dick, how do Vfr even know Vfr are around when they don't make reports?
Yikes!

Even if ifr make position reports, how many of the Vfr only flyers will have an ifr chart let alone know where those positions are?

Part of the reason, for example, prior to when IFR leave CTA passing F180 they broadcast on area.


Gawd you like mixing your un-linked arguments together. Where's the RAAF bashing in this one?

[Capn Bloggs]

Ramrod you goose you let the cat out of the bag! Or should that be the IFR amoungst the VFRs? :)

[Snakecharma]

Let's face it Dick, the introduction of AMATS and the subsequent removal of flight service removed an incredibly knowledgable group of professionals from the system. Located in remote locations the knew the geography, they knew the people, they knew the weather and how local variations that were invisible to people looking at computer models in a big room in the capital cities impacted the local area. In short they were an invaluable resource that no longer exists.
It was a c.o.c.k up deluxe (the don't insult anyone filter changed it to dog up if you can believe that!). Saving 1.4 billion over 20 odd years, but at what cost? How was the 1.4 billion quantified? We could have saved some of that by not rebranding CAA into AsA and casa!
I agree we sometimes manage to find a unique way to make the simple complex, but sometimes the Australian way, which may well be different to the rest of the world, is in fact the better way and we ARE worlds best practice - the rest of the world simply needed to catch up!

[Pontius]

So if IFR no longer give position reports how do VFR know they are traffic for the IFR and make an announcement - the prime reason the system was wound back and the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts ?

Who said VFR aircraft only have to make an announcement if they hear "they are traffic" for IFR flights?

[Hempy]

That's great. Airservices can be sued by the family of a VFR pilot if involved in a mid air and the ATC did not call the pilot.

Ah but Airservices have an out there. It's called 'workload permitting', 'see and be seen' etc. You know, 'affordable safety'.

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Re IFR making position reports for the benefit of VFR listening out, just wait for the shut-down of most of the ground-based navaids in a couple of months....the new names of position fixes where the NDBs and VORs were won't give the VFRs much idea at all about where anyone else is

[Dick Smith]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

46. DESCENT FROM CONTROLLED AIRSPACE

46.1 Before descending from controlled into Class G airspace and before separation with any aircraft operating near the base of controlled airspace can be compromised, the pilot in command of an IFR flight must report position, level, intentions and estimate for next position/destination to the ATS unit providing services in Class G airspace. If the report is made using HF radio, a broadcast must be made on the appropriate area VHF frequency.I find those reports quite useful if the report is an estimate for a destination to which I'm heading as well.

I only say something if there's a chance our respective ETAs will put us anywhere near each other.

I often hear Centre report me to IFRs as unidentified traffic. I will usually pipe up and nominate myself as the clueless VFR in that position at an indicated altitude (read cluelessly from a certified calibrated altimeter) by reference to a QNH (set by reference to nearby ATIS or AWIS, or TAFs or ARFOR in accordance with my usual clueless ways), and Centre will occasionally go through an identification process to confirm the extent of my cluelessness. Having done that, it seems all those involved are more confident that I'm actually at e.g. 9,500' heading southeast over Cowra and therefore unlikely to collide with the IFR heading west towards Cowra at 8,000'.

[Dick Smith]

Lead balloon. Try doing that anywhere else in the world and you would have licence action taken.

By the way the requirement to announce if VFR is in ENR 1.1. 18.3.2. It's a classic wind back ignorance driven Reg . No way in ICAO compliant countries can VFR announce in this way on ATC class E frequencies. Professional ATCs would never allow that. Only in Australia are ATCs treated this way.

[Lead Balloon]

But they're not all "ATC" frequencies...

In any event, get AIP changed so that the rule is STFU, and I'll STFU. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

No. I don't want the AIP changed re not having to give full position reports when under survailance.

I want us to go ahead with the coalition NAS policy that was so strongly supported by the current Chairman of Airservices.

Or if 1950s type chart frequency boundaries are to remain put on adequate staff to keep self announce traffic off ATC separation frequencies. It's just commonsense.

[Lead Balloon]

No. I don't want the AIP changed.Well ... gee ... actually you do.

The charts are part of AIP.

You'll hopefully learn all this again when you're required to re-sit your air law and flight rules and procedures exams. :ok:

[AmarokGTI]

Dick you've lost your mind. Again.

If I'm in Class G at FL170 approaching an IFR waypoint, identified by ADSB (which is installed because it makes sense, over and above the fact that it is mandated) why should I have to make a position report to alert the VFR aircraft 16,000ft below me what I'm doing? And even if I do, how are they to know where every waypoint is when they are minding their own business, doing a nice, relaxing scenic flight, by reference to ground/water? Are you suggesting every Tiger moth be G1000 equipped to allow the pilot to work out where the IFR waypoints are? That's a huge and unfair cost to the industry....

You can't expect to have credibility regarding serious aviation issues when you don't have an understanding of basic aviation procedures.

Good job blaming someone else again, by the way. You're a pro at that.

[Dick Smith]

Swift. I don't want you to make a full position report.

I have just pointed out the the half wound back NAS had the ATC frequency boundaries put back on the charts so that VFR aircraft could monitor and announce if they were relevant traffic for IFR.

I then pointed out if IFR aircraft do not give full position reports the half wound back system will not work as the VFR aircraft won't know the position of the IFR.

I say go back to the proven NAS without chart frequency boundaries. The frequency boundaries have completely stopped the airspace system from being harmonised internationally and led CASA into mandating that traffic at non marked airports give announcements on ATC frequencies. This is crazy.

[Dick Smith]

Lead. That "Descent from Controlled Airspace" position reporting requirement in post 43 does not ever seem to be complied with by professional pilots dropping into un controlled airspace on the way to Bankstown from WATLE

Would you know why this is not complied with?

[Jabawocky]

In E&G I do none…when identified, except at TOD.

When not identified I report at waypoints or as requested by ATC, plus TOD.

What is it you are on about Dick? If I am at an IFR level X,000' then my TOD report is what VFR's on the X,500 levels need to know.

Mind you that never helped me with a near mid air while climbing out of YSGE one day. VFR must not have been listening or aware I could have been a threat. And yeah see and avoid would not have worked. BST worked that day…just.

[Dick Smith]

Now I see it. IFR Pilots are required to give full position reports even if in full radar coverage in some circumstances ( such as top of descent) but not in others.

It's a stuff up. No wonder CASA have rejected every RAPAC on the proper procedures in G airspace.

[Capn Bloggs]

Now I see it. IFR Pilots are required to give full position reports even if in full radar coverage in some circumstances ( such as top of descent) but not in others.

No you don't. Jaba didn't say anything of the sort.

[Capn Bloggs]

I have just pointed out the the half wound back NAS had the ATC frequency boundaries put back on the charts so that VFR aircraft could monitor and announce if they were relevant traffic for IFR.

I then pointed out if IFR aircraft do not give full position reports the half wound back system will not work as the VFR aircraft won't know the position of the IFR.

When everybody's in the cruise, nobody's going to hit anyone (unless you don't see your VFR buddy coming 175° out, straight at you at the same hemi level ;)). The reason for monitoring the Area freq is because IFR will call on it prior to entry into G (dunno why they don't broadcast when leaving C at WATLE... it looks to me from way over here they should, but then again, there'd be a good SIS there, would there not?), and if IFR are cruising in G, they will call prior to changing level/descending. IFR departure from G? Yes, we again make a call on the Area prior to takeoff, and then again on departure. VFR can then pick up my calls and decide if they will conflict with me. If VFR are close to/"in the vicinity of" the airport, they'll hear me on the CTAF when I give my "recommended" calls.

So, what frequency will the IFR be transmitting on? The charted frequency. This conspiracy theory about frequencies on charts forcing VFR to make full position reports or pull out an IFR chart to see where GAFFA is, or whatever you're going round and round in circles about is just plain nonsense.

[Dick Smith]

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?

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. When IFR are cruising in G under survailance they just advise when they are planning to leave an altitude and request traffic. As they don't give a position report the VFR has no idea if the IFR is about to descend through the same airspace.

ICAO class G airspace is a see and avoid airspace when VMC exists and it works very satisfactorily in low traffic densities . If safety dictates that traffic needs to be given on VFR that's ICAO class D.

Put it in where required.

[Dick Smith]

So what part of what I have said is " complete nonsense" ?

And yes. Monitoring the CTAF if in the approach or departure area of an airport is stock standard Australian NAS policy.

Prior to the 1991 AMATS changes all VFR above 5000' in G gave mandatory full position reports as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels. Both IFR and VFR could not even communicate to a radar controller even when in radar airspace. That's why I made the changes.

[Tinstaafl]

I live & work in the US now, and find the airspace system here sooo much easier than Oz - with one exception: I *like* have frequency boundaries with freqs. printed within the area. Not to make position reports, but so that on the rare occasion I'm VFR and want flight following (or want an IFR pickup), I know what freq. covers the area. It is not efficient to try one freq. on spec., only to be told the correct one is really 123.45 in that area.

Mind you, when I flew & worked in the UK from '99-04, it was like stepping back to Oz airspace in the '80s (with some even more regressive procedures attached). In fact, that was how I mentally modelled the system to understand how it worked.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I'm a VFR guy....

Re 'into un controlled airspace on the way to Bankstown from WATLE'

Where's WATLE??

Does it have a postcode ?

I can't find it anywhere....

Isn't that just one of the problems..??

Cheers :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Tinstaafl. Congratulations. Simply the best post on prune so far this year. I am really glad people from the Ministers office read all of this.


Firstly you say , as a pilot with experience in the Australian system, that the US NAS is

" sooo much easier than Oz "

Then you say you would prefer that they change their system and place the ATC frequency boundaries on the charts.

Of course, as a pilot that's what I would prefer too, but it's not going to happen. I have discussed this with the FAA experts and they state the obvious- it's a liability issue.

If you show the frequency of the Controller responsible for the airspace and then you mandate VFR monitoring that frequency it clearly ends up with a duty of care situation for Controllers to protect you against collisions in all but high ATC workload situations.

That is the Controller has a responsibility to attempt to call you if you are near another VFR paint. It happens all the time in Australia , mainly in low traffic density airspace. I have even been called by ATC when flying east of Griffith to advise on another VFR aircraft.

The first mid air collision between VFR aircraft in survailance covered AsA airspace will result in a major liability case against the controllers involved and Airservices. In will most likely result in a huge payout by Airservices similar to the Bankstown mid air of the 13th March 1974.where the government and controllers were held partially responsible because the aircraft were on mandatory ATC frequencies.

And the whole problem was generated by the totally incompetent management at Airservices who started the NAS wind back by printing the frequency boundary charts and sending them out without CASA approval.

Yes these charts were sent out at the emotive request of many pilots like Bloggs . All the Airservices management had to advise Bloggs at the time was that he was looking for an ICAO class D traffic service and that Airservices would provide class D with the 700 extra controllers at a reasonable cost where required.

I am amazed that the ATC Union Civil Air allowed this to happen, they have really let down thir members on this one. All they had to tell the minister that no other country in the world had such a system.

Remember in the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR in E and G airspace . They are ICAO compliant with the clear message to pilots and leech lawyers that Class D , properly manned by ATC, is where you get a service to VFR. US controllers don't attempt to call VFR aircraft in E and G and advise they are near another VFR- they cant believe the Australian system when I explain it. Reckon I must be mistaken.

[Dick Smith]

Griffo Very astute. As you have pointed out the half wound back system is a stuff up.

VFR pilots who are supposed to be monitoring and answering IFR in many cases don't even know where the IFR position is located.

In the pre AMATS days pilots were given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained FSO.

That service no longer exists. The closest ICAO airspace that brings in VFR traffic is class D. Can have it en route but it will be very expensive and it will not address any measurable safety issue.

[Lookleft]

In the pre AMATS days pilots were given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained FSO.

Didn't you get rid of them? BTW Tinstaafl also mentioned that European airspace was like Australia's. So when you talk about the rest of the world what you really mean is just the USA?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In the pre AMATS days pilots were given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained FSO.

No Dick, only SOME pilots, not all. Depended on where you were and what you were doing. Seems a little like now, except that SOME pilots are given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained ATC, depending on where you are and what you are doing.

[Car RAMROD]

Dick, how much liability would there be if the boundaries were not on the charts, people therefore didn't know what the "most appropriate" frequency to monitor would be, and then two things prang mid air?

It's the exact same doomsday scenario you describe but this time just without the boundaries marked. I highly doubt the markings being there make our airspace less safe!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Prior to the 1991 AMATS changes all VFR above 5000' in G gave mandatory full position reports as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels.

Don't think there was 'G' prior to AMATS? Just Uncontrolled, which meant UNcontrolled, not sort of uncontrolled, or a bit uncontrolled, or am I uncontrolled.

Both IFR and VFR could not even communicate to a radar controller even when in radar airspace.

But in Controlled Airspace, they both spoke directly to an ATC, irrespective of radar availability, and OCTA, 99.9% of the time, they didn't need to speak to a controller, radar or otherwise.

That's why I made the changes.

And 25 years later, we are still dealing with them.

[Dick Smith]

Look left. Yes. Because that system was about to be charged mostly to GA who would be in more dire straights than today

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. One the reasons we made the changes was so that less chance of a MDX type fatal accident. This aircraft went for nearly 30 min in the wrong direction in full radar coverage but was never told.

Why?

Because of a union demarcation dispute about who should use radar. I fixed that despite huge resistance to change.

[peuce]

If my memory is correct, VFRs and IFRS flew at different levels, above 5000, in the old system. Not, as you say, at the same levels.

Also, being west or east of Griffith doesn't preclude the occurrence of conflicting traffic. If you think that, you certainly don't have a realistic handle on the real world of aviation.

[fujii]

Gee Dick, I don't know what this "survailance" is you keep talking about, ATC uses "surveillance."

[Fred Gassit]

All the IFR flights I hear descending into G make their position report by bearing and distance from the airfield they're inbound to so VFR traffic will know where they are.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce. No. That is the ICAO semi circular rule that my team introduced.

Before the AMATS changes in 1991 we used the Quadrantal Rule and IFR and VFR flew at exactly the same level. That's why they were all in the system and had to operate full position reporting when above 5000'.

In fact FS gave traffic and didn't even mention if it was IFR or VFR. It was irrelevant .

Interesting how most can't even remember the system that they fought so hard to keep. It will be the same a couple of years after we finally introduce NAS.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Whilst I don't really care about the pro's or con's of either rule, at least with the quadrantal rule any aircraft crossing tracks while both were heading east or west had at least some chance of 500ft separation. Now if they are the same flight rules, they are the same level, but I guess if that's what the rest of the world does, why should we be any different.

As for the traffic, only the IFR's were provided with traffic, so the flight rules of the other aircraft were irrelevant.

[Capn Bloggs]

Seriously Capt Bloggs, I'm sick of your constant toxic posts.
Easy fixed... block me. I am not going to keep quiet while so much rubbish is being said.

[Arm out the window]

Yes, keep going Bloggs - Dick's saturation bombing campaign with thread after provocatively-named thread full of disjointed factoids wears you down after a while, and I for one am glad there's a few to call him out when he gets too carried away.

He's on a mission to do something but I'm buggered if I can work out exactly what!

[Lookleft]

You know you're doing something right Bloggsy when they start playing the man and not the ball.:ok:

[QSK?]

Keep it up Bloggsy; I'm with you !

[Dick Smith]

On my post #18 on this thread I said I would post the letter to Mr Greg Russell in relation to position reports.

Here it is - dated 15th April 2008 – some 8 years ago. It shows quite clearly that Airservices put the boundaries back on the charts because they thought they were going back to the system where IFR aircraft gave full position reports when in flight service airspace. This was because flight service did not have radar.

It’s now clear the system is a major stuff up, and that’s obviously why I did not receive an answer to my letter of 15th April 2008.

As I’ve said repeatedly, you can’t go back to something that half and half - this is a classic example of resisting change.

Untitled ? DICK SMITH Phone: Fax: E-mail:61 2 9450... (http://dsaviation.tumblr.com/post/142674841508/dick-smith-phone-fax-e-mail61-2-9450)

[Lookleft]

Weren't VFR required to be equipped with a transponder to enable them to operate in E airspace and wasn't this requirement because VFR did not require a clearance to operate in E but IFR did?

[CaptainMidnight]

On my post #18 on this thread I said I would post the letter to Mr Greg Russell in relation to position reports. CASA own the AIP content via the head of power provided by their regs. and they determine, write and are responsible for radio and broadcast procedures. Also being the airspace regulator, they determine what class of airspace is required where and the procedures therein result from that (i.e. "the system").

So why would you write to the CEO of the ATSP/ANSP instead of the responsible source?

[Arm out the window]

IFR must give position reports in all classes of airspace except when identified - refer to the AIP, Dick (ENR 1.1 -19).

You have got the wrong end of the stick.

VFR aircraft in E and G don't need to hear every IFR aircraft or broadcast themselves in the cruise - if they're above 5000 they should cruising 500 ft separated from IFR, and if they're inbound or outbound to a CTAF where radio is required they will make, and expect to hear, the appropriate calls.

IFR not in cloud should look out. TCAS and reports of observed traffic will provide some alerting if that doesn't work.

Nobody is banned from making calls, but they shouldn't as a matter of course be making them when not required.

Call me crazy, but I've always been pretty OK with how much information and separation I'm getting in all classes of airspace, IFR and VFR, and you're not inspiring me with your display of lack of knowledge about the current situation, rules and how things actually work in practice, yet you're happy to run media campaigns pushing for change. Get your facts straight before you publish, eh?

[Lead Balloon]

CASA own the AIP content via the head of power provided by their regs. and they determine, write and are responsible for radio and broadcast procedures. Also being the airspace regulator, they determine what class of airspace is required where and the procedures therein result from that (i.e. "the system")Bull****.

The content of the AIP is sourced from the exercise of a range of powers exercised by various people from various agencies at various times. And who's responsible for what keeps changing.

The pea and thimble tricks played by those moving the airspace designation powers and broadcast requirements may confuse people like Dick, but those in the know are still watching. :=

[CaptainMidnight]

No, it's not.

We are talking about radio reports and broadcasts here, most of which have a HoP by CASA regs. and they are indeed responsible for the content, not DoTRS, Customs or Airservices.

And watch your language.

[Lead Balloon]

Some of the key peas may be hidden under the CASA thimble at the moment, but they've turned up under other thimbles before and will almost certainly turn up under different thimbles again. All in the interests of air safety, of course.

(I wasn't aware that you had such delicate sensibilities CM. My genuine apologies.)

[CaptainMidnight]

No delicate sensibilities. Just tiring of abuse and language creeping into this forum.

Apology accepted :)

I can assure you that other than ATC-type control/CTA phraseologies etc. it is CASA who file an RFC with Airservices's AIP document people to make changes to pilot reports, broadcasts etc.

In fact I think even to change ATC-related phraseology stuff, Airservices have to file an RFC with CASA for their endorsement.

CASA's authority over AIP is covered in CASR Part 175.

[Lead Balloon]

That may well be the position today. But as you, more than most, will know, the only constant in aviation regulation in Australia is change.

For example, airspace declaration powers could disappear out of CASA and reappear in Airservices or some other agency, at the stroke of a legalisation pen. In an election year with one of Australia's living treasures throwing his popularity weight around on matters airspace, just about anything is possible.

[Dick Smith]

Arm out the window – I do understand the present requirements.

What I am pointing out is how Airservices believed that IFR aircraft in class G and E airspace even when under radar surveillance gave position reports. That’s the whole reason Airservices undermined CASA and the NAS and sent out a chart with radio frequency boundaries to over 30,000 pilots without any education material at all.

Surely it is obvious from my letter to Greg Russell, that Airservices thought the actual system was operating with the old potential for ‘radio arranged separation’ when it clearly wasn’t.

Remember no other country in the world has Air Traffic Control sector frequency boundaries marked on charts.

Why should we be the odd man out? The answer is clear. In the past we had everyone operating full position reporting over 5000ft in class G uncontrolled airspace and this was monitored by flight service. Now that we’ve moved to the more modern international system, there are those who are desperately trying to cling to the past.

The problem is, the frequency boundaries are there for workload purposes, they don’t reflect the coverage of the VHF ground station. That is why the NAS documentation clearly said, monitor the nearest ATC outlet if required. This of course meant, communication could be directly obtained where possible.

Another one of the problems with our present half wound-back system, is that flying training organisations overseas are using it as an advantage in gaining students. For example, one of the largest areas of flight training in the world, I’m told, is Moncton in Canada. It’s a place of absolutely lousy weather conditions, however, the organisations have been telling potential students there, that if you learn in Australia, you are taught in a system like nothing else in the world – and a pilot will have to be retrained to operate in Europe, Canada or the USA.

Remember this is all about resistance to change – desperation to going back to the way that we were originally trained.

Thank heavens there are some new, young pilots coming along.

[buckshot1777]

The problem is, the frequency boundaries are there for workload purposes, they don’t reflect the coverage of the VHF ground station.I recall you being told a few times including recently this is not correct.

The advice was that FIA boundaries are placed with VHF coverage as the primary consideration, then straightened out and may be moved slightly to capture the circuit area of AD/ALA or align with an air route or WPT etc. with ATC workload as the secondary consideration.

Instead of making assumptions or relying on bad advice, why don't you ask the people who design airspace?

[wishiwasupthere]

Instead of making assumptions or relying on bad advice, why don't you ask the people who design airspace?

Because he may get an answer that doesn't suit his agenda, which he doesn't seem capable of comprehending.

[Lead Balloon]

Gosh it's going to be entertaining when Dick's given another airspace train set to play with so that Barnarby Joyce's chances of re-election in New England are increased.

I'm thinking something like "Airspace Reform Taskforce" with Dick as chairman and a bunch of important bureaucrats tasked with nodding and frowning and compiling an action list every time Dick says something.

Life expectancy: Election Day plus 3 months.

It will be fun watching the fur fly until then, though. :D

[Arm out the window]

Arm out the window – I do understand the present requirements.

Dick, back at the start of the whole thread you asked whether or not position reports were required, indicating you didn't know. In good faith a lot of people made considered and detailed replies. I note you've now gone back and edited the first post to say, "oh, I've just been informed about present requirements", and now you're talking about resistance to change and putting a different spin on it.

If you wanted to know about requirements, you just had to read the AIP.

Further though, you're insistent about making changes to suit your world view of what should and shouldn't be done, but I for one (as I said above) don't particularly have any heartache with how it works now. You will probably call me some names alluding to me being stuck in the past or whatever - feel free if it floats your boat.

[Dick Smith]

Arm. I have not " now gone back" and edited my first post. I did that within 11 minutes of putting the post on. The edit details clearly show this.

The reason for this thread is to get lots in writing on how others think the " half wound back " system works.

It's worked.

Let's make it clear what my aim is. That is I know I am primarily responsible for Australia moving away from our duplicated , unique , Flight Service - full position -never use existing radar- proven system - to the plan to move to the proven system of North America where radar use and IFR separation is maximised.

But this change was stopped and then half wound back.

I will not give up until we finalise the introduction of a proven safe airspace system.

There are three alternatives;

1. Move back to the proven pre AMATS duplicated system and employ the extra staff required.

2. Move forward and complete the proven North American NAS.

Or 3. Come up with an alternative airspace model that is proven to give the required levels of safety and move to that.

Unfortunately it's clear that there is no one in the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation who is game , or has the ability to, move to 3.

So I will concentrate on 2 !

[Jabawocky]

Dick,

If there were three alternatives;

1. Move back to the proven pre AMATS duplicated system and employ the extra staff required.

2. Introduce the North American NAS and employ the extra controllers and buy and install radar etc etc

Or 3. Accept that our airspace is proven due lack of systemic airspace related incidents and accidents ( certainly since 2004 and compared to other countries including the US) that arguably give the required levels of safety - provided of course like all airspace, ongoing assessment and refinements continue..

?

[Arm out the window]

The reason for this thread is to get lots in writing on how others think the " half wound back " system works.


Well, you could have just said rather than going via this roundabout provocative and time-wasting route.

Still, the current system works fine and given the ever-increasing rate of technological advance, we'll all have ADS-B and TCAS type gear soon enough which will take radar largely out of the picture I'd imagine and spread the opportunity for control or at least situation awareness enhancement much wider.

I'd like to think the old wooden no radio bug smasher will still have a place in the mix, and I'm sure it will.

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Resist resist resist change in every way. Keep the present system even if it's half Dick Smith. Just don't change anything.

And why would we want to look around the world and copy the best. No need to do that. We built the Nomad .

And Jaba - ignore those deaths at Benalla - it was clearly the pilots fault. Nothing to learn there.

[Hempy]

Dick, you really need to drop the old 'resist change' argument from your portfolio, it's not helping you because it's simply wrong.

A pilots (and an ATCs) life is nothing but change. Look at what's changed since say 1990. Every amendment, every SUP, every AIRAC, every NFC is a CHANGE. It goes on ad-infinitum. And yet the professionals still manage to toe the line and meet the KPI's.

Despite that, the fact is that Australians call a spade a spade. If your 'opinion of the definition' is bulls:mad:t, expect to get called on it. The person doing the calling may be putting their career at risk, but it still happens (God bless 'em).

You amuse me. You come on here bitching about the changes you foisted on the industry with no sense of guilt or shame. You are no better than the people you rant against tbh.

[fujii]

Right Hempy, and that's just the documentation. Then there is the new equipment, procedures, transfers and training. Added to that there are rating papers, OJTI, check shifts, accidents and incidents. Life was constant change, retirement's ok.

[Jabawocky]

And Jaba - ignore those deaths at Benalla - it was clearly the pilots fault. Nothing to learn there.
Yeah…..lets ban IFR in Class G then. :rolleyes:

What about this at Ballina. Put in a series of Class D steps with appropriate surveillance, all managed by a Radar Approach controller in Brisbane? Just thinking outside the box.

Just been looking, how about Mt Isa, Bundy? Hamilton Island. If Hammo gets a D Tower Mt Isa deserves something way before Ballina.

Or is YBNA more important to you for some reason? :confused:

[topdrop]

Remember no other country in the world has Air Traffic Control sector frequency boundaries marked on charts.Just a wild guess, but I reckon that statement is as wrong as no country provides Class C without radar.

[Hempy]

Jaba, YAYE?

[Jabawocky]

Hempy, what is YAYE in need of? Is the traffic there like the Isa and places like Emerald or Roma?

Since the gas construction boom has rolled off, Roma might be a bit more peaceful, but it resembled Atlanta GA <yes exaggerated> a few years back. Mind you there was a better chance of getting a ramp spot in Atlanta.

[Hempy]

Jaba, my point being that YAYE probably attracts the most eclectic mix of aircraft than any aerodrome in Australia. Jets, helicopters, lighties. All done in G with no tower, no C, D or E. Extremely busy at times, and not a single mid-air. Who would've thunk it?

[Dick Smith]

TopDrop. My apologies. I should have said no other country has C over D as it's clearly " upside down" airspace .

At least in Ireland they have the C around the runway where the risk is highest..

The frequency boundaries on our charts are clearly primarily for ATC workload purposes. They very often don't reflect the range of the VHF transmitter.- look at the huge area south of Charleville that clearly has no VHF coverage to the ground at normal VFR cruise levels.

[CaptainMidnight]

The frequency boundaries on our charts are clearly primarily for ATC workload purposes. They very often don't reflect the range of the VHF transmitter.- I guess you missed this post #90 from Buckshot:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/577327-why-no-full-position-reports-g-e-5.html#post9342379

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The FIA frequencies (as monitored by FS) and boundaries back in the day were also marked on the Visual charts, but I bet no one ever assumed they provided VHF contact to the ground everywhere with FS, or represented the range of the transmitter. That's why aircraft were fitted with HF. It's a big country, with not much in it.

[Lead Balloon]

PCA still has the 5,000' and 10,000' VHF range tints.

I think in the old days it was also on FISCOM?

[Dick Smith]

Captain. It's clearly not true.

Look at the Charleville frequency . The ground station two thirds the way up the marked sector and it's longer than it is wider.

Clearly primarily designed for some reason other than VHF range of the transmitter.

Never believe those who post anonymously. They have nothing to lose by making up tall stories.

[Dick Smith]

Fly from Oodnadatta to Birdsville and for four fifths of the journey you are on the Oodnadatta frequency. This is clearly not designed for radio coverage purposes.

[Arm out the window]

Never believe those who post anonymously. They have nothing to lose by making up tall stories.

That is one of the funniest things I've read from you, Dick. It appears you're happy to just say anything that comes into your head or springs from your own bias, and cherry pick the often well considered responses from others to suit your own agenda.

Too many sensationalist threads, too much dribble. I won't be responding to anything more from you, not that it's of particular consequence to be taking a stand like that I suppose, but your style is the opposite of what I respect when it comes to decent robust worthwhile argument that actually gets somewhere. Good luck with your Don Quixote-like quest.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Never believe those who post anonymously. They have nothing to lose by making up tall stories.

So why spend such an inordinate amount of time posting, and asking questions, on a forum where everybody else posts anonymously? :confused:

[Capn Bloggs]

Never believe those who post anonymously. They have nothing to lose by making up tall stories.
So why spend such an inordinate amount of time posting, and asking questions, on a forum where everybody else posts anonymously?
Reply of the year.:D

[Dick Smith]

Arm. Why don't you give me a ring sometime?

I am sure your aviation interests are genuine.

So why not discuss these important issues so we can end up with a good result?

This anonymous stuff about Airspace is very childish. It's not a national security issue so I don't understand why you wouldn't openly link your real name to your strongly held beliefs

It's not; prune to me is similar that " What Women Want " feature film. But in this case it's not mind reading- many posters, possibly most , are actually stating their own long held beliefs . Knowing these beliefs assists in finding the best solution in introducing change and implementing it.

[Plazbot]

STFU________________________________________________________ __

[CaptainMidnight]

Captain. It's clearly not true.

Look at the Charleville frequency . The ground station two thirds the way up the marked sector and it's longer than it is wider.
Fly from Oodnadatta to Birdsville and for four fifths of the journey you are on the Oodnadatta frequency.Examples in sparsely populated areas where it would be costly and impractical to add more VHF outlets.

As Traffic_Is_Er_Was has said, that's why HF or flying at a reasonable altitude is required in those regions for two way contact with ATS on VHF. Within more populated areas such as the "J" curve, the situation is different.

Believe what you like, but VHF coverage is always the first consideration.

[Dick Smith]

Clearly not so as the boundaries would be equidistant when each outlet was at the same height.

[Brakerider]

46. DESCENT FROM CONTROLLED AIRSPACE

46.1 Before descending from controlled into Class G airspace and before separation with any aircraft operating near the base of controlled airspace can be compromised, the pilot in command of an IFR flight must report position, level, intentions and estimate for next position/destination to the ATS unit providing services in Class G airspace. If the report is made using HF radio, a broadcast must be made on the appropriate area VHF frequency.

Is this suggesting all aircraft must make a Qantaslink style Top Of Descent broadcast to all stations? Is receiving traffic information and providing centre with an ETA not sufficient?

[CaptainMidnight]

the boundaries would be equidistant when each outlet was at the same height.

In some instances that is the case.

In others, while placing a boundary midway between the coverage of two VHF outlets may be a starting point (and may in fact be left as just that in some areas, particularly remote), the locations of ADs then are taken into account. It may then be the case to have a boundary capture an AD in a particular FIA so that aircraft on the main route(s) to that AD stay on the same FIA freq. rather than transfer to another for the last portion of the flight.

Traffic on particular air routes is also taken into account e.g. to capture a particular air route in one FIA and not have crossovers.

VHF coverage in the circuit area of ADs is taken into account where possible. Situations where comms are available in the circuit on a different (adjacent) FIA freq. but not on the one the AD lies in are avoided.

And if an ATC sector boundary is involved, it may be that an FIA boundary is aligned with that, to again avoid crossovers into another sector, or an ATC sector boundary may be moved to align with an FIA boundary, to take account of all the above.

Each situation is different with different factors, and boundaries placed accordingly.

The bottom line is that FIA boundaries are not placed solely due to ATC workload.

Here endeth the lesson ........ are you gonna pay for all this??

[AerocatS2A]

Is this suggesting all aircraft must make a Qantaslink style Top Of Descent broadcast to all stations? Is receiving traffic information and providing centre with an ETA not sufficient?

Suggesting? It is required.

Were you under the impression that Qantaslink were doing something wrong?

I believe the point is to broadcast so that those aircraft that aren't receiving a traffic service have a chance of figuring out where you are.

[AerocatS2A]

This anonymous stuff about Airspace is very childish. It's not a national security issue so I don't understand why you wouldn't openly link your real name to your strongly held beliefs.

Has it ever occurred to you that PPRuNe is more than just the Dick Smith forum and that people here post on a variety of subjects? There is nothing particularly unusual about someone wanting a certain amount of anonymity when taking about various subjects on the internet.

Furthermore you should be debating the post not the poster which means that the identities are irrelevant, what counts is the content. Do they have a valid point or not? If they do then who cares if it is Andrew Milligan of Gawler or Rebecca Johnson of Kununurra?

[Brakerider]

Suggesting? It is required.

Were you under the impression that Qantaslink were doing something wrong?

I believe the point is to broadcast so that those aircraft that aren't receiving a traffic service have a chance of figuring out where you are.

I can't find anything in the Phraseologies to suggest the 'Qantaslink Style' broadcast (which are one of few operators I've heard make the call) is mandatory.

[AerocatS2A]

What about the bit you just quoted? Not everything is in the phraseologies. Phraseologies are just that, a selection of phrases to be used in certain circumstances. They are not an exhaustive list of all broadcast/reporting requirements.

[Brakerider]

What about the bit you just quoted? Not everything is in the phraseologies. Phraseologies are just that, a selection of phrases to be used in certain circumstances. They are not an exhaustive list of all broadcast/reporting requirements.
What about when identified, prior to descent into Class G. ATS have your location, your ETA, your intentions (via waypoint or final or circuit area) and your level. If the broadcast is for aircraft not receiving a traffic service, why don't they just listen to the CTAF?

I don't disagree with your theory at all, in fact I agree with it. I am just curious why a lot of operators (Rex for example) don't make/mandate the call.

[Lead Balloon]

They do make the call.

Because it is mandatory.

[Brakerider]

They do make the call.

Because it is mandatory.
I'll have to listen out better then.

[Lead Balloon]

If you're bimbling along inbound or overflying an aerodrome in G, you'll generally hear the TOD call on Area and the same call on the CTAF shortly thereafter.

[AerocatS2A]

They do make the call.

Because it is mandatory.
They should make the call. I know of people in my own company who don't know the reference and who don't think they need to. I also know of a captain who thought it was no longer required because it had been removed from the phraseologies section.

I think the intent of the call is hinted at by the requirement to broadcast on Area VHF if you've done your call to Centre via HF. It is not intended just to communicate with ATC and/or Flightwatch it is also for broadcasting intentions to any traffic in the area. Most VFRs will pick up your CTAF call but if they are transiting only then they might not be monitoring CTAF. I also find it useful for IFR/IFR separation. The traffic information given by ATC is not always up to date and doesn't necessarily have the same detail as a descent broadcast.

[Dick Smith]

Many pilots do not give this " descent call" . The reason its still a requirement is because those who have minds that resist change want to go back to the system that existed before 1990.

As I have clearly shown, Airservices management believed there was still a requirement for IFR aircraft pilots to still give full position reports in E and G ,even when radar identified. This was so the frequency boundary on charts " windback " would work.

They were wrong - someone in CASA removed the full position requirement but failed to explain how the old system could still work.

It's experimenting with human lives.. Only reason no accidents is hardly any aircraft.

No other country I know of has such a requiement. I wonder why?

One day we will follow a proven safe system and it's procedures.

[le Pingouin]

Eh, no Dick, It was so people flying around without the benefit of a radar console would have some idea of where aircraft were. What difference does surveillance or non-surveillance make to a pilot having an idea of where other aircraft are?

Your paranoia and conspiracy theories really are becoming tiresome.

[Capn Bloggs]

The reason its still a requirement is because those who have minds that resist change want to go back to the system that existed before 1990.

Garbage! It's to warn VFR that a IFR aircraft is about to appear in the area on descent. Not that one needs to know why the call is required; it's in the book so do it! It really is a worry that you flew your Citation to Tamworth, with passengers, and you obviously don't even know the basics.

As for what AsA management said (when was that, 2008?), who cares?

No other country I know of has such a requiement. I wonder why?
They are obviously quite happy to allow high-cap jets with hundeds of pax just blast through airspace with no warning to anyone that they are coming. "It's experimenting with human lives.. Only reason no accidents is hardly any aircraft." indeed.

You know Dick, the more you go on about the frequencies on the charts, the more it becomes obvious that it is a good idea.

As for ATC relaying a message to a lighty through a third party high-flyer about a VCA, are you serious?

The number of times an aircraft has crashed when it wanted to get a message to ATC but couldn't would be??

Paranoia indeed, Le Ping. :{

[topdrop]

So let's see
Aus - leaving cruising level in E or approaching base of C to enter E or G, do a broadcast to alert VFR not in vicinity of CTAF and then a broadcast approaching the CTAF.
USA - broadcast approaching the CTAF. I assume they don't broadcast on 121.5 to alert VFR not in the vicinity of the CTAF.
Let me quess which provides more safety than sight and avoid.

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs and le Ping, if its to warn VFR that an IFR is about to appear in the windsceen why did CASA remove the requirement for IFR to give full position reports when in radar covered E and G airspace?

Surely you should be calling for CASA to put that requirement back in and enforce it. Why are you silent on this?

How do VFR monitoring the area frequency and climbing to FL175 know where the IFR aircraft is if the IFR aircraft had just received an instruction from ATC. " XYZ descend to 9000' " and it's answered " 9000' XYZ".

By the way blogs. I always give the required descent call. But as noted here, many professional pilots don't .

I also religiously ( or possibly semi- religiously ) monitor the ATC area frequencies when flying VFR en route. Not once in the last decade have I identified a call that was rellevent traffic for my flight. It may happen one day but hasn't yet. I do hear lots of IFR aircraft communicating to ATC but in most cases I don't know where they are - mostly because they don't give full position reports and when they do I have no idea where a particular IFR waypoint may be. Sometimes I have looked up the waypoint only to find its over 300 nm away in another state.

The system is a complete stuff up. If you want to resist change and not copy a simpler overseas proven system you really need to go back to our proven pre 1990 AMATS system where a DIRECTED traffic information service was given to all above 5000'. But it will cost a motza!

But why would you? The NAS works in northern Canada with hardly any surveillance and no ATC frequency boundaries marked on charts.

[Agrajag]

I also religiously ( or possibly semi- religiously ) monitor the ATC area frequencies when flying VFR en route. Not once in the last decade have I identified a call that was rellevent traffic for my flight. It may happen one day but hasn't yet.

That's odd Dick. Just a couple of days ago I heard ATC give such a call to an RPT crew about to take off from a regional airport. There was unidentified traffic to the east; possibly a conflict for his climb out.

The traffic was me in my bugsmasher, so I spoke up, was asked to ident, and had a chat with the Saab to arrange for us not to meet. It all took about 30 seconds, ATC thanked me for my effort and we went on our merry way. Had I been on any frequency other than FIA, I would never have known he was there, and he would have been left wondering just what I was doing next. Not the way to run an RPT operation, I feel.

If this has truly not happened to you in 10 years, we must yet again exist in parallel universes, because it's a semi-regular occurrence for me.

[Tinstaafl]

Hi Dick,

The reason I would like frequency boundaries isn't for monitoring, nor does it impose liability on ATC. After all there's no requirement to even be on the frequency if VFR unless you are requesting or receiving a service.

As it is now, finding the correct controller frequency to use to request a service can be hit or miss - and that's only because only ATC knows where their boundaries are. It's a little easier if you have approach charts because a nearby aerodrome with an approach will have an approach frequency published on the chart so that's a pretty good bet (but not 100%). Not the case if you don't have (and aren't required to have, anyway) approach charts. Also, some charts show the relevant frequencies, however when near the (unmarked) boundary you can call the wrong one. As it is now, you call on your best guess when the appropriate frequency isn't obvious, it's either correct and you proceed with a service request - or it's wrong and you get told to contact xxx.yy. All a boundary does is inform the pilot that xxx.yy is correct for 'here', and yyy.xx is correct 'over there' if you wish to contact ATS to request a service.

It's fallacious to say that having frequencies published on various documents doesn't impose a duty of care, and then argue that adding a boundary does. After all, implicit in publishing an approach frequency on an approach chart, or showing one on a map, or publishing a list of frequencies for different quadrants, is that that frequency is the correct one for that area. Knowing the correct frequency to call in a given area is not the same as imposing a duty of care on the other end because duty of care is already accounted for in the rules for the provision & acceptance of service in the different airspace classes.


But having said all that? I still prefer the US system to Oz, and both US & Oz to the UK's archaic practices (multiple, variable transition altitudes? WTF? Have to have an Aerodrome Controller to do an instrument approach? More WTF? Using QFE instead of QNH but terrain, obstacles & overlying airspace is QNH based? Double WTF?)

[Dick Smith]

Agra. If you had followed the NAS educational material you would have been monitoring the CTAF if in the approach and departure airspace of the airport. You would have heard the taxiing call and given a position report on the CTAF if necessary.

ATC would not have been involved and with less frequency loading may in future have been able to provide a class E separation service to the IFR aircraft when IMC exists .

And Agra. Don't try that in any other country in the world . You will end up with licence action.

Tin, And are you sure there is no requirement for a mandatory radio VFR aircraft above 5000' to monitor any particular frequency? Does everyone agree?

[Agrajag]

Agra. If you had followed the NAS educational material you would have been monitoring the CTAF if in the approach and departure airspace of the airport. You would have heard the taxiing call and given a position report on the CTAF if necessary.

ATC would not have been involved and with less frequency loading may in future have been able to provide a class E separation service to the IFR aircraft when IMC exists .

Since I was cruising at 8500', and some 30 miles from the airport, CTAF would have been completely inappropriate. There were other CTAFs around - which one should I have been monitoring? And, to head off the next obvious riposte, if I'd been on 126.7 or 121.5, I'd have heard nothing at all.

We were both in VMC, and the frequency was in no way "loaded." In fact he seemed quite happy to hear from me, and no A380s were endangered.

And Agra. Don't try that in any other country in the world . You will end up with licence action.

I wasn't in any other country in the world.

[Capn Bloggs]

Sorry Dick, for my tardy response, I've out flying. I am now in a position to comment on yet another rediculous post of yours.

Bloggs and le Ping, if its to warn VFR that an IFR is about to appear in the windscreen why did CASA remove the requirement for IFR to give full position reports when in radar covered E and G airspace?

Surely you should be calling for CASA to put that requirement back in and enforce it. Why are you silent on this?
You just don't get it, do you? Because aeroplanes generally don't run into each other in level flight (apart from those on almost opposite-direction tracks...sorry the hemispherical rule). There is no need to jibber jabber when identified. Besides, if the IFR is identified, so will the VFR because as you well know, transponders are mandated for all aircraft in E and all aircraft above 10k in G, as well as "it must be switched on" if you have one fitted. IFR will therefore be given traffic on the pesky, non-talking VFR.

How do VFR monitoring the area frequency and climbing to FL175 know where the IFR aircraft is if the IFR aircraft had just received an instruction from ATC. " XYZ descend to 9000' " and it's answered " 9000' XYZ".
Because the VFR, if he has nay brains at all, will broadcast his climb or descent manoeuvre. You see Dick, one of your major problems is that you think that IFR and VFR live in two different worlds. They don't. Metal is metal. A climbing VRR can quite happily hit a cruising IFR and the other way round. That's why IFR have mandatory broadcasts before descent. And why is it very good airmanship for a VFR to transmit a descent or climb broadcast.

By the way blogs. I always give the required descent call. But as noted here, many professional pilots don't .
Glad to hear it.

I also religiously ( or possibly semi- religiously ) monitor the ATC area frequencies when flying VFR en route. Not once in the last decade have I identified a call that was rellevent traffic for my flight. It may happen one day but hasn't yet.
Yep, it only has to happen once...

I do hear lots of IFR aircraft communicating to ATC but in most cases I don't know where they are - mostly because they don't give full position reports and when they do I have no idea where a particular IFR waypoint may be. Sometimes I have looked up the waypoint only to find its over 300 nm away in another state.
You don't need to know, as I explained above. What you (and I) need to know is when one of those * aircraft (*insert IFR or VFR) starts descent, to see if they will conflict with you.

The system is a complete stuff up. If you want to resist change and not copy a simpler overseas proven system you really need to go back to our proven pre 1990 AMATS system where a DIRECTED traffic information service was given to all above 5000'. But it will cost a motza!
Complete and utter nonsense. When you understand how the system works, you'll realise why your charted-frequency crusade is a WOFTAM.

[Lead Balloon]

Since I was cruising at 8500', and some 30 miles from the airport, CTAF would have been completely inappropriate. There were other CTAFs around - which one should I have been monitoring? And, to head off the next obvious riposte, if I'd been on 126.7 or 121.5, I'd have heard nothing at all.

We were both in VMC, and the frequency was in no way "loaded." In fact he seemed quite happy to hear from me, and no A380s were endangered.Your experience is very similar to mine, Ag.

Every now and then I'll hear a call from an IFR aircraft descending to aerodrome I may or may not be tracking to, but 'near'. Or Centre will report me as unidentified traffic to an IFR. Piping up and saying 'I'm here' or 'that's me', and the short process used to work out my level of cluelessness, usually doesn't take long or overtransmit anybody.

[Dick Smith]

So Bloggs also believes that VFR should broadcast their climb and descent manoeuvres

Has anyone heard a VFR pilot doing this in en route G or E airspace? I haven't .

Agra. I really hope you remain vigilant and keep a good lookout. And remember many IFR pilots descending into class G don't give a full position report. How will you have " radio arranged separation" with them.

[Agrajag]

Agra. I really hope you remain vigilant and keep a good lookout. And remember many IFR pilots descending into class G don't give a full position report. How will you have " radio arranged separation" with them.

Thank you for your concern. I do and I will.

If these IFR pilots are not making a mandatory call, that means they are at fault, not the system. And whatever calls they do make, that's still better than the complete silence I'd hear if I was on a different frequency.

Despite your inference, I've never claimed that radio was the only tool available for arranging separation. But IMHO it's lunacy to have it, and not take advantage of it.

[Dick Smith]

Yair. As I have said before. Those Americans, Canadians,Europeans and the British are so dopey.

They should have a system where VFR aircraft should monitor ATC frequencies in E and G airspace and where all aircraft give full position reports even if in radar coverage so VFR aircraft can speak up for " radio arranged separation" .

For its " lunacy" to have radio and not use it.

The ATC should then come on the air and thank the VFR for speaking up. Love to see that in France or the USA with their traffic densities.

And if we ever get more overseas students for training we can offer a special course at an extra cost that " converts " these students to the international system before they leave.

[Agrajag]

Yair. As I have said before. Those Americans, Canadians,Europeans and the British are so dopey.

They should have a system where VFR aircraft should monitor ATC frequencies in E and G airspace and where all aircraft give full position reports even if in radar coverage so VFR aircraft can speak up for " radio arranged separation" .

Here's an idea, Dick:

How about we let the overseas mob do what works in their airspace, geography and weather, and we do what works in ours? Since we are half a world away, I'm sure they won't mind.

For its " lunacy" to have radio and not use it.

You said it.

The ATC should then come on the air and thank the VFR for speaking up. Love to see that in France or the USA with their traffic densities.

Perhaps the ATC was encouraging me to do the same next time, instead of heeding the rantings of those who want to make their own rules. Perhaps, since that's his day job, he has a pretty good idea of what actually works in the real world.

And if we ever get more overseas students for training we can offer a special course at an extra cost that " converts " these students to the international system before they leave.

Which international system, with which local variations, would that be?

And, more importantly, whose interests are we trying to serve here? The overseas students'? Yours? I thought this discussion was about what practices worked for Australian pilots, in Australian airspace.

[Sunfish]

I'm totally confused about this entire argument...

Dick, when I was tracking North up the VFR lane (in G) from Moorabbin to Kilmore at 2000' (cloud and terrain limited) monitoring the Area frequency, ATC warned me that there were FIVE VFR aircraft coming SOuth in the same corridor and proceeded to help us arrange separation. without which we would definitely have had an airport. Are you saying that ATC should not have provided us such a service?

[Dick Smith]

Sunfish. It's clear- when Airservices undermined the governments NAS decision and without CASA approval printed special charts with all the frequency boundaries back on that this would be the result.

No wonder you are confused.

I would imagine the ATC involved would be a nervous wreck knowing the duty of care now existing and hearing how the ATC s lives were destroyed as they were partially blamed for the 13th March 1974 fatal mid air at Bankstown.

Personally I don't think they had any blame at all- but the law is clearly based on the fact that the ATC could have readily called one of the planes and given a warning. Just like our wound back system.


What I find interesting is that the similar "duty of care" service is not provided by Sydney radar on 124.55 when there is no communication for ten minutes at a time -so clearly could be given " workload permitting "

There is going to be a huge payout by Airservices when the inevitable mid air occurs.

Perhaps Le Ping could advise why the Melbourne service is not provided in Sydney.?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Does anyone reckon that 'Workload permitting' would satisfy 'Milaud'....In the event of...at the subsequent enquiry....?

"Why did you not call for assistance"? Might be the appropriate question back.(?)

(There must be a 'supervisor' somewhere.....)?

Just sayin'....

Cheers:eek:

[Jabawocky]

Dick,


Personally I don't think they had any blame at all- but the law is clearly based on the fact that the ATC could have readily called one of the planes and given a warning. Just like our wound back system.

Well as a result ATC's do everything they can to give such advice. You being a benefactor.

Have you ever been in a similar situation at YSBK where a metal to metal noise was averted by a highly talented and caring ATC by any chance? Just like the old wound back system?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Again with the incident cherry picking. Bankstown was 42 years ago. Where were ATC partially blamed? The accident report blames the pilots and crews for failure to see and avoid whilst OCTA. There is no mention of ATC not alerting them, or maybe alerting them. Was it the coronial inquest, or just trial by media?

[Dick Smith]

A huge damages case. Millions paid out by the Government. It was the reason that Civil Air mandated full IFR type separation for VFR in all controlled airspace. I would hold for up to 20 minutes at Hornsby in my helicopter to be separated by Sydney approach from another VFR helicopter. See the chapter on this in Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom.

[Jabawocky]

Dick,

Well as a result ATC's do everything they can to give such advice. You being a benefactor.

Have you ever been in a similar situation at YSBK where a metal to metal noise was averted by a highly talented and caring ATC by any chance? Just like the old wound back system?

[Dick Smith]

No. Not yet. But I am sure it will happen.

If ATCs are going to be held responsible for providing traffic to VFR. That's D airspace.

Not E or G with some half baked Australian modification. ICAO classifications are very disiplined to protect ATCs.

[no_one]

Dick,

I refer you to the FAA AIM section 3-2-5
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/AIM.pdf


4(e)Separation for VFR Aircraft. No separation
services are provided to VFR aircraft.


In the USA a VFR flight in Class D is required to maintain their own separation from other traffic. The tower is just there to sequence aircraft so that the flow is orderly and smooth.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. As I said in the previous post re class D "providing traffic for VFR". Nothing to do with separation.

In other countries un identified VFR are not called by ATC in G in a panic and intermittantly to give info on other VFR.

Only in Australia. And only now and then. Totally amateurish.

[Sunfish]

Yes. As I said in the previous post. " Re class D providing traffic for VFR". Nothing to do with separation.

In other countries un identified VFR are not called by ATC in a panic and intermittantly to give info on other VFR.

Only in Australia. And only now and then. Totally amateurish.

Well DIck, it may be amateurish, but if it's my life on the line and I don't have support from ATC at all, then expect me to bust CTA as I require to keep myself alive. You cannot have it both ways.

If I get nothing from ATC then there is no point in listening on area frequencies. After all you have TCAS and can stay out of my way if you do not wish to talk and arrange separation. To put that another way, it is only equitable that if ATC ignore my needs, then I can ignore theirs.

[Dick Smith]

Sunfish. You can call for " flight following"

ATC may then give you , workload permitting, a full traffic information service on all relevant traffic the ATC knows about - and - wait for it - advise you if you are about to enter controlled airspace.

Its a disciplined and regulated service based on the US NAS. This means it's proven and the ATC is protected against a Bankstown type action.

When you leave the ATCs area of responsibility or the workload from IFR gets to high for the ATC you will be terminated with the very clear un-ambiguous words " frequency change approved" . This is to make it clear that the ATC no longer has a responsibility to you .

Then again , knowing that you don't have to bother to call for such a service in Aus because Airservices have trained their controllers to randomly call VFR and give them an un requested traffic information service does I suppose save you showing any decision making ability at all.

And also gives the rest of us the chance to sue Airservices for millions in the case of a mid air because we thought that their controller would have called us when another VFR got close. Why do it in the lane south of Kilmore as Sunfish mentions if they don't do it at Hornsby or Gawler?

[Lead Balloon]

But the request for "flight following" might block out an important ATC instruction to an A380.

I'm sure you will agree that this is not safe.

[Dick Smith]

Leady You win. Let's stick with the half wound back stuff up system.

I am amazed Civil Air , the ATC Union doesn't do something about this.

Randomly calling VFRs near Kilmore is an extraordinary way to run an ATC system. And it's clear pilots like Sunfish believe it's how the system is supposed to work.

I would imagine he places some reliance on this system to avoid a mid air.

[Lead Balloon]

Phew! Does that mean you're now going home and we can all get some sleep?

I'll make a wild guess that the answer is no ...

When do you expect the announcement of your appointment as 'Airspace Supremo'?

[BlockNotAvailable]

And are you sure there is no requirement for a mandatory radio VFR aircraft above 5000' to monitor any particular frequency? Does everyone agree?

Aren't we supposed to follow the book? It says they are supposed to carry a radio, but in terms of frequency selection, I found this... There wasn't anything specifically about class G, but what else would you be listening to if you weren't on a CTAF?

ENR 1.1 3.5
Within VHF radio coverage, pilots must maintain continuous communications with ATC when operating in classes A, C and D airspace, as must pilots of IFR flights in Class E airspace. Further, when in Class E airspace, pilots of VFR flights should monitor the ATS frequency appropriate to their area of operation.

ENR 1.1 18.3.2
b. monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce if in
potential conflict;

ENR 1.4 4 Table also states that VFR must be in continuous two way comms in class E.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. It's clear CASA has turned E airspace within surveillance into a type of D airspace as far as ATC responsibility goes . This happened after the NAS half wind back.

I would be very concerned if I was an Australian ATC.

See it works both ways. If the VFR has a responsibility to announce if in conflict its clear ATC must have an equivalent responsibility to advise if two aircraft are close but have not announced.

By the way. It is not ICAO class E. ICAO class E has no radio requirement for VFR for obvious reasons.

[CaptainMidnight]

By the way. It is not ICAO class E. ICAO class E has no radio requirement for VFR for obvious reasons.So Australia, with it's requirements for VFR aircraft operating in Class E airspace:

to have a transponder (those aircraft types capable of powering one), and
monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce when appropriate (gliders and small sport aviation types excepted)
then we are doing something better and safer than the U.S. and what ICAO recommends.

Got it.

[Dick Smith]

Captain. I have got it.

However it simply doesn't work because aircraft no longer give position reports in most E airspace

However it does have a major advantage for our aviation community. Just as in the huge Bankstown payout ,apportioning blame to the ATCs , assisted the families of those who died in the mid air the same thing will happen again.

You would wonder what the CEO of Airservices thinks of this? No extra income from the VFR but huge potential liability to Airservices if an accident occurs .

And as I have said before the ATC Union Civil Air remains silent on the issue of ICAO recommendations being changed in this way .

Amazing situation.

[Sunfish]

Last time I was entering E at Avalon I still called the Tower and stated my intentions and received a courteous reply. In theory I guess I could just silently blundered through.

Perhaps a mid air with a silent RMIT student* coming the other way and tracking over the aerodrome reference point might have entertained the jetstar passengers waiting to board.

* Oriental RMIT students communication skills leave a lot to be desired in my opinion.

[Dick Smith]

Sunfish. It was an astute call by you. You converted class E into some type of class D where the ATC had a responsibility to give you a traffic information service and be partially responsible for a potential mid air collision .

And it cost you nothing. As I said , very astute.

[Capn Bloggs]

And it cost you nothing. As I said , very astute.
Codswallop Dick. Sunfish could have asked for a SIS. Rather odd, don't you think, that the controllers are taking on such a huge risk with this half-wound back system but AsA actually clarified and improved the service, now called a SIS? Crazy! Madness! Rediculous! Well, someone is...

[Hempy]

Rediculous!

I see what you did there! :}

Dick, you seem to be forgetting one thing about all this. It's called 'duty of care'. Your sudden concern for ATC is heartwarming, but your argument is fatally flawed in the fact that you believe that 'nothing' is inherently safer than 'something'.

And don't worry yourself about the legalities. The phrase 'no REPORTED IFR traffic' (as opposed to 'no traffic') is there for a reason, as is 'observed VFR traffic', 'unverified', 'intentions unknown' etc etc.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Just as in the huge Bankstown payout ,apportioning blame to the ATCs

Dick, can you provide any links to the above? I can find nothing online except for the accident reports.

[Dick Smith]

No I can't but it happened. That's why Civil Air required that VFR helicopters be separated as if IFR.

The cost and waste was staggering.

And Hempy. Not a sudden concern for ATCs. You seem to have forgotten that I was the only one who got on the TV news and supported the B K controllers when they were being unfairly blamed for the runway 29 approach mid air fatality.

[Hempy]

You seem to have forgotten that I was the only one who got on the TV news and supported the B K controllers when they were being unfairly blamed for the runway 29 approach mid air fatality.

Actually, I'm trying to recall the accident to which you are referring to. The Liberty and the 152 in 2008? If so, all we heard from you was;

Each plane must go to one of those points to call in. Now, when I've travelled around the world getting advice on air space it's been pointed out to me that no other country does that, because if you bring the planes to a point and it's outside controlled air space, they're very likely to collide there and of course that's what's happened.

I'll give you credit for one thing, you don't change your spots