CASA Class G Discussion Paper [Archive] - Page 2

Dick Smith

13th Dec 2017, 03:24

Rattly spats, you state:

“I like the guidance of having area frequencies on charts.”

I’m sure this is so, but it is the reason we are having such problems in working out how the CTAFs should work with the MULTICOM frequency. There is no such problem that I know of any other country in the world.

Our frequency boundaries on charts were put there when they were flight service frequency boundaries and there were no such things as CTAFs. The aerodromes within the frequency boundary area operated on that frequency.

Once you put frequency boundaries on the charts, you give everyone a message that the system is going to be similar to what we had pre-1991. That was when IFR and VFR aircraft flew at the same levels, using what was called the quadrantal rule, and above 5,000 feet you went ‘full position reporting’ and were given traffic on everybody.

With the NAS system, ATC frequencies are still shown on the charts at the location of the transmitter, and you can feel free to monitor that frequency if you wish to. In fact, all modern GPS units show the ‘nearest’ centre or flight service frequencies.

When NAS was introduced it was clearly stated there were no frequency boundaries and we were following the proven world system. Surely it must be obvious here that once the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts some three months later, the problems started to exist.

As I have said many times before, it is a half-way, wound-back system.

Did you notice that nowhere in the current CASA documentation sent out have they stated that they have taken into account what happens in other leading aviation countries?

This is all very experimental – trying to get the old pre-1991 system working with a more modern ICAO based classified airspace.

We only tried the “international system” for three months. That was before Airservices printed a chart with frequency boundaries, and wound-back the system half-way, with no education at all. No wonder the poor CASA people can’t work out what is going on.

If we took a vote, I wonder how many people here would be prepared to actually copy the proven North American (i.e. Canadian/US) system and see if it actually worked here? It is very much simpler, it operates somehow without any 20 nautical mile CTAFs with hard dimensions to 5,000 feet, and the resultant safety levels are extremely high considering there is something like 30 times the traffic density with sometimes abysmal weather conditions.

It is interesting that when CASA did the ‘vote’ it was between two types of unique Australian systems. What a pity they weren’t game to ask the question, “As a pilot, would you be prepared to have the system based on the simpler and proven North American airspace procedures as used in Canada and the USA?”

I just wonder now with young people coming along, whether there would be more who would be prepared to copy something which is proven, very simple and extremely safe.

triadic

13th Dec 2017, 04:33

The other part of this equation is the introduction of many new waypoint names - both enroute and within GNS approaches that mean NOTHING to the VFR pilot whatsoever - if indeed you can say them! Using these waypoint names during descent into a CTAF for an approach is a waste of effort in so far as the VFR pilot is concerned. Using the points of the compass and distance in nm is simple and easy for all to understand. (not radials, as half get it wrong by 180deg). Pity some IFR pilots don't appreciate that!:sad:

CaptainMidnight

13th Dec 2017, 05:01

Our frequency boundaries on charts were put there when they were flight service frequency boundariesI recall we've been down this track a number of times before.

The boundaries are Flight Information Area boundaries. FIAs are volumes declared by CASA by a Legislative Instrument.Flight Information Area (FIA): An airspace of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.

Who provides the service (an Air Traffic Controller) or used to provide (Flight Service Officer) isn't relevant, nor is the fact that both in the FS days and now ATC, a number of them were/are managed by an ATS sector.

What is relevant is that they are defined areas within which particular air traffic services are provided, and industry (the users and customers) wanted them to remain on aeronautical charts for the information of pilots.

FIAs remain relevant even if MULTICOM below 5000FT comes in, because the volumes and services apply both to flights operating at and above 5000FT, and those below wishing to use the services.

It would be brave of CASA - the airspace regulator and originator of the Legislative Instruments - to decide FIAs are no longer required and not be published.

Lead Balloon

13th Dec 2017, 05:05

Capn Bloggs

13th Dec 2017, 07:29

Triadic and Poteroo, your pilots would be well-advised to take heed of section 4.7 of CAAP 166:

Pilots flying IFR should give position reports in plain English so as to be easily understood by VFR pilots, who generally have no knowledge of IFR approach points or procedures. In general, positions should include altitude, distance and direction from the aerodrome.

Including details such as the outbound/inbound legs of an instrument approach, or area navigation fixes, will generally be of little assistance to VFR pilots in establishing situational awareness.

Dick Smith

13th Dec 2017, 10:58

Doesn’t Australia have two FIAs?

Lead Balloon

13th Dec 2017, 11:13

No.

It as 2 FIRs.

I think the current count of FIAs is 28.

Please try harder not to give Bloggs and CM and your other enemies ammunition to fire at you. :ugh:

cogwheel

13th Dec 2017, 14:16

It would be brave of CASA - the airspace regulator and originator of the Legislative Instruments - to decide FIAs are no longer required and not be published.[

Why is Australia the only country to publish FIA boundaries on charts? So much for international harmonisation.

Lead Balloon

13th Dec 2017, 19:25

I think some people are conflating the safety benefits of publishing FIA frequencies with the benefits of publishing FIA boundaries.

Dick wants/ed the former published on charts at the approximate position of the transmitter, but wants/ed the latter removed.

Dick Smith

14th Dec 2017, 00:06

Lead. I have always said I am constantly learning.

Someone once quoted on this site that my view on airspace was that of the last person I had spoken too!

Not quite. But I am easily convinced by a rational argument .

triadic

14th Dec 2017, 00:25

But they’re all talking on the same frequency, triadic. That’s the main thing.

That, Leady, is a very brave assumption..... Certainly that is the aim:confused:
You are unlikely to be aware of the VFR that will hold or just stay away until the RPT/IFR has landed and say nothing!

Triadic and Poteroo, your pilots would be well-advised to take heed of section 4.7 of CAAP 166:

Sadly the most frequent offenders of non-compliance with that section are IFR/RPT pilots. I agree with the said content, however the weak link seems to be in the training departments of various operators who interpret Class G operations in their own way, hence you finish up with differences within the same operator, not to mention across all of the operators. :ugh:

Lets just face it, the 20nm CTAFs will not work, it makes the system far too complicated. If we want the VFRs to be with us, it has to be simple.:D

Lead Balloon

14th Dec 2017, 02:57

My apologies, triadic. I was trying - evidently unsuccessfully due to my lame facetiousness - to make the point that not all talk on the radio is necessarily helpful. That’s why I previously posted:Radio, if used appropriately, will reduce the probabilities of aircraft with radios colliding with other aircraft with radios.As you and poteroo have pointed out, broadcasting in IFR Martian doesn’t mean much to someone listening in VFR Venusian.

I think you’ll find that Bloggsie knows perfectly well that the section he quoted from CAAP 166 is not for the education of your or poteroo’s student pilots.Lets just face it, the 20nm CTAFs will not work, it makes the system far too complicated. Correct. Unfortunately, that increases the probabilities of them being introduced. :{

Dick Smith

14th Dec 2017, 03:12

Is there even one person in our aviation industry that supports this CASA plan of 40 mile diameter and 5000’ CTAFs?

Please come on and say so if so!

Or is there not even one !

Lead Balloon

14th Dec 2017, 03:18

I read Bloggsie’s #247 as meaning he has some attraction to the idea. He’s not saying that 20nm radius is THE number, but he loves that YPPD AFIS...

Dick Smith

14th Dec 2017, 04:49

Yep. Flew to Port Headland. It took me back to the 1970s

Never heard so much radio talk in all my life! If more talk means more safety it sure must have been safe. Surely we should start winding back to AFIS procedures in places like Tennant Creek and Charlieville.

We could put back on the 700 FS Officers as they would be cheaper than the ATCs used at Headland.

jonkster

14th Dec 2017, 04:55

Is there even one person in our aviation industry that supports this CASA plan of 40 mile diameter and 5000’ CTAFs?

Please come on and say so if so!

40 miles is too small. Need it bigger. Make all of Australia a single CTAF.

No danger of people being on wrong frequency and missing a call. No need to use a chart to find it, no need to work out where the boundary is (well unless you are really lost)

http://www.triumphrat.net/images/smilies/pot.gif

Lead Balloon

14th Dec 2017, 05:04

Now ya’ talkin’. :ok:

Dick Smith

14th Dec 2017, 05:55

Far to small. The world ,! Hold on. We have that already. It’s 121.5 !

CaptainMidnight

14th Dec 2017, 07:37

I think the current count of FIAs is 28.There is over 150. Perhaps update your PC flight simulator software.Yep. Flew to Port Headland. It took me back to the 1970s

Never heard so much radio talk in all my life!A busy place hence the CAGRS, so not surprising.

Would KA or BRM have any less comms, particularly with their TWR & SMC combined on the same frequency a.k.a. PD?

Course if PD is that busy, perhaps it needs a TWR -

Lead Balloon

14th Dec 2017, 07:55

I think you meant to assert that there are “over 150” FIAs.

But your substantial point is valid and I made a mistake: I confused the re-aligned Area Forecast areas for the FIAs.

I look forward to Australia oozing even more safety with the re-introduction of AFIZ procedures at as many places as possible. :ok:

Capn Bloggs

14th Dec 2017, 08:35

Oh, the Bobsie twins are having fun today! :D

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

14th Dec 2017, 11:09

above 5,000 feet you went ‘full position reporting’ and were given traffic on everybody.
No, you weren't.

Dick Smith

14th Dec 2017, 11:23

Yes you were!

CaptainMidnight

14th Dec 2017, 19:31

Oh, the Bobsie twins are having fun today!Who you calling Bobsie :hmm:

Lead Balloon

14th Dec 2017, 20:47

I think Bloggsie is referring to Dick and me.

triadic

14th Dec 2017, 22:37

Anyone have the text of the item in today's Oz they can post here pls?

CaptainMidnight

14th Dec 2017, 22:50

I think Bloggsie is referring to Dick and me.Phew.

No offence ;)

Dick Smith

15th Dec 2017, 01:53

Wow! We have a supporter of the enormous 40nm diameter, 5000’ altitude CTAFs! In The Australian this morning, in an article written by Annabel Hepworth, it states:

“However Regional Aviation Association of Australia boss Mike Higgins said his organisation supported the 20 nautical mile radius.”

He goes on to say:

“However, it’s not unmanageable for a pilot to understand where they are within those 20 mile radii and therefore understand where the overlap is…there’s no reason why an average pilot shouldn’t be able to manage that.”

It seems really strange to me that Mike is so supportive, when every single RAPAC member I have spoken to is violently opposed.

Mike, under NAS that was approved by Federal Cabinet, the procedures in relation to monitoring the CTAF were the following three dot points:

When close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations.

When approaching or departing an aerodrome.

When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.

Mike, this is the highly proven international system. Note there are no dimensions or altitude given. Would the Regional Airlines Association have any objection with us harmonising with this system, and was it ever given to you as an option?

If you don’t agree with the international system, can you advise what procedures will be used where there are lots of conflicting runways within the 40 mile diameter but on different CTAF frequencies.

How will pilots be trained to be on the particular relevant frequency? Are you suggesting lots of extra maps showing dotted lines and frequency boundaries within CTAFs? I would just like to know.

CaptainMidnight

15th Dec 2017, 03:59

It would appear that the RAAA represents quite a range of operators ("Download Member Directory" at the link below), so presumably it's not simply his personal opinion.

https://raaa.com.au/members/directory/

Dick Smith

15th Dec 2017, 04:28

I agree. But he was quoted so he may be able to get an answer.

No doubt they have staggering influence as appear to be the only organisation that wants this prescriptive and unique requirement.

Also many of the regional airline people believe the less GA aircraft the more likely people will be forced to fly in an airline .

Capn Bloggs

15th Dec 2017, 20:04

Come on, Dick.

Instead of all of this:

•When close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations.
•When approaching or departing an aerodrome.
•When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.

just "be on freq by XXnm".

Are you deliberately trying to make things difficult?? Or are you having yet another ideological meltdown about this because this isn't the way the yanks do it?

Also many of the regional airline people believe the less GA aircraft the more likely people will be forced to fly in an airline .
Seriously??

I liked your rant and rave about YPPD, by the way. One of those stupid Flight Service Stations, you know, as they have in the States and Canada. All that's missing is the scantily-clad Follow-Me vannette... Griffo, I have a job for you!

Lead Balloon

15th Dec 2017, 20:53

You haven’t explained how this will work in the vicinity of places like YGTH and YNAR, both serviced by RPT aircraft, with different CTAFs, no AFIS and not more than 40nm apart.

Dick Smith

15th Dec 2017, 21:53

Under this new CASA proposal what frequency is a pilot to be on under 5000’ at Brooklyn Bridge?

Sydney radar ? Nope , the Somersby dirt strip CTAF!

Also when on the multicom enroute B050 how do you receive a radar flight following service?

Gad ! We are so incredibly incompetent we did not think of that!

We will have to start drawing up some new maps with even more complexity to get this to work.

Have you noticed that no individual CASA person puts his or her name to this proposal and that in the preparatory information sent out that the CASA names were blacked out. Like an ASIO document .

A Squared

15th Dec 2017, 22:14

[B]What was left out of the paper is the American requirement for radio equipped aircraft to monitor 121.5.

Odd, 30 plus years of flying in the United States and somehow I missed this requirement. :confused:

Note: For the literal minded, it's not a requirement. Good practice when able, whether in or out of the US, but absolutely not a requirement in the United States.

Dick Smith

15th Dec 2017, 22:33

It is a mandatory requirement. I will post the details on Monday

A Squared

15th Dec 2017, 22:43

It is a mandatory requirement. I will post the details on Monday

No you won't. It is not a requirement. You are mistaken.

A Squared

15th Dec 2017, 22:48

How much class G is there really in the USA ? (genuine question), because my quick searching indicates that it is mostly at very low levels (around 1200' AGL) with class E above.
ie. there is little need to mark frequency boundaries because it's either class E or whatever ATC tells you. everywhere war to restart)[/size]

Outside of Alaska and some parts of the West, not much. Most of the US has Class E airspace above 1200 AGL or lower. However, when flying VFR in Class E Airspace, you are not required to monitor or transmit on any frequency, ATC or otherwise. And that includes 121.5, there is no requirement to monitor 121.5.

You may, if you so *choose*, request VFR flight following from the appropriate ATC facility while flying VFR in Class E airspace, but that is completely a choice, as in something you may choose to do or not. There is no requirement to do so.

A Squared

15th Dec 2017, 23:27

Essentially, downgrading to VFR. What airlines in the USA allow RPT jet crews to downgrade to VFR just to get through the level of another aircraft that is so close that ATC won't/can't give a clearance to do so?

Well, my Airline, for one. And my previous airline. Re-reading the question, Mine isn't a "Jet" airline, and I'm not sure what RPT means, but both operators are/were airlines certificated under US Part 121.

A Squared

15th Dec 2017, 23:31

In the US airlines don’t operate in G.

Mine does.

A Squared

15th Dec 2017, 23:54

Apologies for the multiple consecutive posts. I read this thread from the beginning for the first time, and was commenting on things as I encountered them. Given that "the way things are done in the US" seems to be a pretty common theme in this discussion, I thought it would be useful to address some of the misconceptions which are being advanced about the US system. FWIW, There is no mandatory enroute VFR frequency in the US. I have spent a fair amount of time operating in Northern Canada, and I like their system 126.7 being the enroute frequency for everywhere (or at least in the Northern Domestic Airspace I've operated in) However, it works in Northern Canada, because the area is huge, and the air traffic very sparse. A similar "one frequency everywhere" system would be completely unworkable in most of the continental US because the frequency congestion would render it completely useless. Also FWIW, there is a completely different philosophy regarding ATC and VFR traffic. As far as ATC is concerned, VFR traffic is something they need to keep IFR traffic from hitting, and that's about it. I have no doubt that an Enroute Air Traffic Controller would be saddened to learn that 2 VFR aircraft collided in class E airspace within his sector, much as he'd be saddened to learn that someone he didn't know died in a traffic accident a block from his home. Apart from that, ATC has no obligation to keep VFR traffic from running into each other, nor are they given any means to accomplish that. The only proviso, would be if the VFR aircraft had contacted him, and requested VFR flight following, in which case ATC would give traffic advisories "on a workload permitting basis" meaning, there is no obligation to do so, and the request may be denied.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

16th Dec 2017, 00:20

Re "All that's missing is the scantily-clad Follow-Me vannette... Griffo, I have a job for you! "

Sorry, Bloggsie.....I just don't qualify.......

CHEEERRRSSS.....
:p

CaptainMidnight

16th Dec 2017, 02:52

Most of the US has Class E airspace above 1200 AGL or lower. However, when flying VFR in Class E Airspace, you are not required to monitor or transmit on any frequency, ATC or otherwise. And that includes 121.5, there is no requirement to monitor 121.5.

You may, if you so *choose*, request VFR flight following from the appropriate ATC facility while flying VFR in Class E airspace, but that is completely a choice, as in something you may choose to do or not. There is no requirement to do so. In that Class E airspace, how extensive is the FAA's surveillance coverage? Does it go down to 1200 AGL or lower?

Lead Balloon

16th Dec 2017, 08:12

<snip>. I have spent a fair amount of time operating in Northern Canada, and I like their system 126.7 being the enroute frequency for everywhere (or at least in the Northern Domestic Airspace I've operated in) However, it works in Northern Canada, because the area is huge, and the air traffic very sparse. A similar "one frequency everywhere" system would be completely unworkable in most of the continental US because the frequency congestion would render it completely useless. <snip>So it seems that in Northern Canada 126.7 is the enroute frequency everywhere for everyone, and it works because of the low density of traffic and long distances between aerodromes.

I think I tried to explain to Dick, elsewhere, that his understanding and experience of the “MULTICOM” concept and conflation of the US and Canadian systems was a little superficial.

A Squared

16th Dec 2017, 15:56

In that Class E airspace, how extensive is the FAA's surveillance coverage? Does it go down to 1200 AGL or lower?

The majority of the Continental US has very good radar coverage down to pretty low altitudes. There are areas of Alaska and some of the mountainous Western State where the coverage is not as good. But for most of the US, operating IFR outside of Radar coverage is something Earnest Gann used to do.

Dick Smith

16th Dec 2017, 20:42

Last time I checked at more than 50% of US non tower airports with IFR approaches the IAF was below radar coverage .

There are airports within 200 nm of Washington DC in mountain valleys that have IFR approaches below radar coverage.

But let’s keep saying “we can’t copy the US system because they have more radar coverage” for the next 50 years as this will stop any change at places last like Ballina or Mt Hotham.

Resist resist resist change. Keep the mind set in concrete!

A Squared. We don’t have class E below 8500’ at non towered airports and our airline aircraft use a do it yourself amateur calling in the blind system when on an instrument approach in IMC hoping other aircraft will answer with a correct position report. (Didn’t work with professional pilots at Mt Hotham ) There are no separation standards set. It’s just up to the pilot who’s prepared to take the greatest risks. Yes this includes separating 737s from 172s !

Dick Smith

16th Dec 2017, 22:10

Found this

i]First and foremost, I'd like to remind everyone that the FAA put out a
FDC NOTAM 12 years ago requiring all pilots flying anywhere in the USA
to monitor 121.5. This was promulgated as an FDC NOTAM rather than a
regulation, but unlike the advisory L/D-NOTAMs, which are merely
inform you of certain conditions, FDC NOTAMs have regulatory force.
The one involved is FDC 4/4386, which says in part, "ALL AIRCRAFT
OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL
MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF 243.0." I'd like to emphasize that when the FAA says
"shall", that term "is used in an imperative sense", meaning you have
no choice about doing it.

ASquared. Do I get an correction?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

17th Dec 2017, 00:20

From the FAA:

FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL
REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION
MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6,
PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL
AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY
AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO
BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY
THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO
CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF
FORCE.

(My bolding). Bit subjective. I guess if you've got other things to do with the radio you don't have to monitor it. Might get shot down though!

Biggles_in_Oz

17th Dec 2017, 02:43

Mr Smith.
How is the Mt Hotham CFIT, in IMC, relevant to this topic ?

A Squared

17th Dec 2017, 06:20

ASquared. Do I get an correction?

I'll concede the the point with the observation that "if capable" is subjective and determined by the pilot.

LeadSled

17th Dec 2017, 07:05

I'll concede the the point with the observation that "if capable" is subjective and determined by the pilot. A Squared,
You will find that Australia's favorite aviation word, "mandatory" is largely absent from the US aviation lexicon. As is "strict liability blah blah blah ----" although FAA has quite adequate enforcement powers and penalties.

Many years ago, then FAA Administrator Donald Engen (USN R-Admiral, Retired) paid a brief visit to Australia, about four days. In that time he picked up "the vibe".

On the way home, he said to us:" You know, in US, if a person is a pilot, we trust them, in Australia, if a person is a pilot, you mistrust them".

There is something very sick in Australian aviation, the current nonsense with CTAFs and frequencies is a good example, it just wouldn't have happened in US.

For starters, FAA would not. out of the blue, suddenly, without consultation , have "clarified" frequency usage, which is where this present nonsense started. If FAA had identified a possible risk (there is and was no new risk, just a brainfart somehwere in CASA) they would have started with a cost/benefit analysis, which is where any change would have died.

Here we have months (years??) of discussions, with almost every aviation group against (except RAAA, which is currying favor with CASA for other reasons, and need to demonstrate their multi-lingual expertise, and practice their arselikan) and instead of CASA dropping the whole thing, we get this nonsense process, with "out of nowhere" semi-giant CTAFs based on what analysis --- precisely none.

A further prime example of the CASA KULTCHA at work, and to hell with the interests of the aviation community.

Tootle pip!!

Dick Smith

17th Dec 2017, 07:10

Biggles. Not the CFIT. The King Air incident that involved the pilot that later lost his life at Essendon . ATSB can’t even finalise a report in 2 years because they are not game to say I am correct and we should at least try some lower level class E.

A Squared. Have a feeling you new nothing about this requirement ! Could that be so? By the sound of it “if capable” would cover nearly all En route flying!

Capn Bloggs

18th Dec 2017, 06:40

Yes this includes separating 737s from 172s !
That'd be the 172 under ATC control in a CTAF above 700ft, would it Dick? :rolleyes:

Mandatory ADS-B for all so Dick can implement positive ATC between ALL aircraft in E; BRING IT ON! :ok::ok::ok:

triadic

18th Dec 2017, 08:30

It has been said that we are looking to the return of MBZs or something similar?... doubt if that will work either? Pity there is nobody in CASA that remembers what happened 15 to 20 yrs ago..!

Lead Balloon

18th Dec 2017, 09:02

Isn’t YPPD already effectively a 20nm radius 8,500’ MBZ during the hours of operation of the AFIS?

Bloggsie wants that replicated at places like YMIA, YSDU, YSWG.

Hopefully history will repeat and I can reuse my old VECs and FISCOM charts.

The RAAA will be all for it until Airservices gives an estimate of the bill I reckon.

Plazbot

18th Dec 2017, 19:06

In all seriousness, full surveillance down to approaches country wide with E airspace is an extremely safe system.

How we get there with equipage and training is the discussion.

Dick Smith

18th Dec 2017, 19:28

Our existing radar/ADSB coverage in the J curve is not dissimilar to the coverage in many parts of the USA.

That’s made no difference to those who have stopped the lowering of class E .

Resist resist change. Let’s go back to the MBZ or AFIZ!

LeadSled

18th Dec 2017, 23:11

The RAAA will be all for it until Airservices gives an estimate of the bill I reckon. Folks,
That will be the clincher!! I am sure you all understand that 1200 returns are often suppressed, undoubtedly the same does/will apply the VFR traffic with ADS-B.
I find it very interesting that nobody wants to consider rational risk analysis, what is it about vanishingly small mid-air collision risk probability that results in completely irrational discussions about "mandating" ADS-B ??
Tootle pip!!

le Pingouin

19th Dec 2017, 02:19

LS, if you're referring to ATC radar, 1200 returns are not suppressed. We see every last one of them - on a fine afternoon they're in bountiful supply.

LeadSled

19th Dec 2017, 02:29

1200 returns are not suppressed
I stand corrected, it certainly was not always the case, maybe it is because there are now so few of them??
Tootle pip!!

le Pingouin

19th Dec 2017, 03:09

They haven't been suppressed in all the time I've been working in Melbourne, so never in the last 23 years. As I said, on a fine afternoon, particularly after a period of poor weather, there are plenty of VFR returns visible.

shrimpboat

19th Dec 2017, 05:55

In all seriousness, full surveillance down to approaches country wide with E airspace is an extremely safe system.

How we get there with equipage and training is the discussion.

Hear that Airservices are about to completely rollback the surveillance approach service they introduced in 2013/14 into Rockhampton and Mackay. Only operated after the tower shut using E airspace to 700'. In fact it has been turning on and off as a service recently - not sure why. How much did all that cost to set up and now they are turning it off! Seems like a large waste of money! May be its progress? But who is accountable for the money spent? How much was spent?

717tech

20th Dec 2017, 00:15

I’m finding it difficult to understand why some pilots are effectively asking to have the ATC freq boundaries removed from the charts, yet in the next sentence, demand a higher situational awareness. Am I missing something?

Dick Smith

20th Dec 2017, 05:54

BlockNotAvailable

20th Dec 2017, 06:51

No. By removing the frequency boundaries and recommending pilots monitor and announce when flying in the airspace used for approach and departure from an airport the best situational awareness will occur .

Primarily because it is a simple system without complex dimensions and created frequency boundaries.

And it complies with the commonsense test.

I must be stupid. What area frequency do they broadcast on if they don't know which one they are on?
I don't hear them very often, but Rex and QL often will broadcast inbound. But not many else do. Sometimes you hear VFR announcing their location and intentions, but most VFR pilots don't use the area frequencies to broadcast, and most IFRs don't use it to call inbound on descent. I know they're out there, I can see them!!

Also if we were to provide ATC services to A012AGL, every single regional services controller would also need an approach rating (as well as currently a radar and procedural control ratings). For what benefit? We pass traffic and give suggestions based of IFR and known VFR traffic right? Wouldn't we use the same information to separate? To what? "You're there the same time as a medevac Flydoc, suggest reduce by 25kts to make some space" "Due medevac traffic, reduce by 25kts indicated" I mean whats the point in spending the money, when our job is to do our best to make OCTA traffic not hit. (Here's the real headline, we do that in CTA do with a different method.) It's not like VFRs are likely to respond to us in E (or G) 99% of the time anyway. TBH as much as we suggest, the pilots have to make their own decisions, and sometime they don't listen and I don't blame them. If I say you'll pass behind but they go down 1000 ft I don't blame them at all. Pilot's in charge. Also if lower CTA was introduced, by God you will be delayed. The CTA mindset kicks in and the 'one for mum' extra bits will be added in.

Dick Smith

20th Dec 2017, 07:23

VFR don’t broadcast on any “area frequency “. There is no need as they are flying at an ICAO 500’ cruising level. They are on the CTAF when in a particular airports approach and departure airspace.

No extra delays if you allow ATCs to use the same separation “standards” that are used by pilots in IMC in existing class G.

Yes it requires new rules.

Are you suggesting the FAA NAS system in non radar airspace results in excessive delays?

Why do you reckon the Americans are so stupid?

fujii

20th Dec 2017, 08:49

If frequency boundaries are removed, which frequency should I select? A guess, stay on one I selected a hundred miles back? VFR does broadcast on area frequencies. If I have an emergency, navigation difficulty or a sick passenger, you can be sure I will be broadcasting and would like a boundary so I know I should be in range and get an answer.

le Pingouin

20th Dec 2017, 09:28

Dick, what separation "standards" are used by pilots in IMC in G? Controllers don't do that in the US, so why are you wanting us to?

BlockNotAvailable

20th Dec 2017, 10:56

Dick, what separation "standards" are used by pilots in IMC in G? Controllers don't do that in the US, so why are you wanting us to?
It's the "I'm not going to hit them" standard. Can you imagine if we tried using that in CTA:ugh:

Also can you inform me Dick, of what procedural separation standard they would use for two successive arrivals, or an arrival and departure that wouldn't delay an aircraft? Must be a good one! USA sure has come up leaps and bounds ahead of us on that front.

triadic

20th Dec 2017, 11:40

Area Frequency boundaries.....

Firstly Australia is I believe the only country that publishes same.

If you remove the boundaries, the ATC frequency for best use would be in 'biscuit' located on the chart somewhere near the outlet. If you call on the wrong one, you get transferred.

There are many locations where VHF coverage on the nominated frequency is not available, but is available on another nearby or adjacent sector. Only local knowledge will tell you that. In those circumstances the boundaries are not required.

Any change must be subject to the appropriate education and life will go on and nobody will notice the difference:ok:

le Pingouin

20th Dec 2017, 13:58

And if we don't remove the boundaries? The sky certainly doesn't fall in, most people will be happy, there will only be the same tired old wailing from the same handlful and no re-education required. Show us the cost benefit analysis for removing them........

Plazbot

20th Dec 2017, 18:02

"Firstly Australia is I believe the only country that publishes same."

It's not. While most of the dribble eminating from DICK is just noise,there is an unfortunate stream of similar claims from the other side.

Dick Smith

20th Dec 2017, 20:56

Yes. There is another country. It’s PNG

That’s a great one to harmonise with. That will bring us lots of international flight training students.

The only reason CASA is proposing rediculous prescriptive unique 40 mile diameter CTAFs is to solve the problem introduced by the frequency boundaries .

Plazbot. If you are going to defame me why don’t you post under your own name?

Fuji. If you were obsessed with monitoring an atc frequency you could monitor the closest ground outlet. All good gps units will show you that.

fujii

20th Dec 2017, 21:50

Fuji. If you were obsessed with monitoring an atc frequency you could monitor the closest ground outlet. All good gps units will show you that.

Dick, there is no need for the low key personal attack. I am not obsessed. How about:

Fujii, you could monitor the closest ground outlet. All good gps units will show you that.

Dick Smith

20th Dec 2017, 22:47

Nothing should be a secret in aviation safety and you would think CASA would encourage a culture of openness and accepting responsibility, especially in risk management.

Just look at this table from the CASA risk assessment brief for the Discussion Paper DP 1610AS – Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace. Yes, all of the names have been blacked out. Is there a good reason that they can’t be named?

http://rosiereunion.com/file/CASA%20Risk%20assessment%20-%20names%20blacked%20out_Page_02.jpg

Dick Smith

21st Dec 2017, 02:09

Block. Are you suggesting that our jet airline captains would blunder on into IMC in the terminal area when another aircraft was there and it was not safe to do so?

Wouldn’t they hold in the air or on the ground so that adequate safety was ensured?

Surely then the delays would be the same !

Or are you suggesting that the present ATC separation standards are more restrictive than they need to be to give adequate levels of safety?

le Pingouin

21st Dec 2017, 04:23

Existing sep standards are what they are. They're international standards so good luck in changing them!

BlockNotAvailable

21st Dec 2017, 04:33

Block. Are you suggesting that our jet airline captains would blunder on into IMC in the terminal area when another aircraft was there and it was not safe to do so?

No. I'm asking what standard will be used for two arrivals or an arrival and departure. All we do is separate to the base of CTA, then it's up to the pilots. I can tell you they get closer than our sep standards allow. That's up to them. What you are suggesting is just do what US ATCOs do. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY DO? Please?

I don't know how pilots self separate, and frankly I don't care. I tell them what I know about traffic, and they use their experience to stay apart.

Dick Smith

21st Dec 2017, 05:15

Now that I have shown it is mandatory to monitor 121.5 in the USA, I thought others may be interested in what the ICAO recommendations are in relation to 121.5. Here they are:

ICAO ANEX 10, Vol II

5.2.2.1.1.1. Aircraft on long over-water flights, or on flights over designated areas over which the carriage of an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) is required, shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz, except for those periods when aircraft are carrying out communications on other VHF channels or when airborne equipment limitations or cockpit duties do not permit simultaneous guarding of two channels.

5.2.2.1.1.2 Aircraft shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz in areas or over routes where the possibility of interception of aircraft or other hazardous situations exist, and a requirement has been established by the appropriate authority.

5.2.2.1.1.3 Recommendation – aircraft on flights other than those specified in 5.2.2.1.1.1 and 5.2.2.1.1.2 should guard the emergency frequency 121.5 MHz to the extent possible.

andrewr

21st Dec 2017, 22:24

All we do is separate to the base of CTA, then it's up to the pilots. I can tell you they get closer than our sep standards allow. That's up to them. What you are suggesting is just do what US ATCOs do. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY DO? Please?

If they are getting closer than ATC separation standards allow, hopefully they are operating and separating visually. Otherwise it is just separation based on the "If no-one saw it it didn't happen" big sky standard. There is no basis to believe that pilots can self separate in IMC with equivalent safety as provided by ATC. Self separation in IMC should have greater separation than allowed under ATC control.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-030/

Capn Bloggs

21st Dec 2017, 22:58

Otherwise it is just separation based on the "If no-one saw it it didn't happen" big sky standard.
Absolute nonsense. Get off your flight sim.

If you want ATC to the ground, find the few-hundred mill for the extra ATCs and consoles and while you're at it, put ADS-B in all aircraft. That'll make things nice and SAFE.

andrewr

21st Dec 2017, 23:17

Absolute nonsense. Get off your flight sim.

So how do pilots self separate in IMC better than ATC could do it?

Not much IFR traffic OCTA?
Not much real IMC OCTA?
No minimum separation standards?

werbil

21st Dec 2017, 23:43

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

22nd Dec 2017, 00:02

mandatory to monitor 121.5 in the USA
But only if you are capable. If you are not, then it's not. As reflected in the ICAO you you quoted.

re Post #280 Yes you were!
I'll repeat. No you weren't.

andrewr

22nd Dec 2017, 00:42

Pilots can use GNSS for separation, ATC can't. Comparative range and bearing from any waypoint.
Pilots can also use the theoretically impossible to collide self separation standard even though it doesn't comply with an ATC separation standard.

Do you ever consider why ATC can't use these separation standards? Odds are it is because they are not reliable enough.

"theoretically impossible to collide" might be a particularly unreliable standard for aircraft maneuvering in 3 dimensions. I suspect it does actually comply with ATC separation standards, if it can be reliably determined.

peuce

22nd Dec 2017, 01:10

Pilots have been self-separating in IMC in Australia since before Dick twiddled his first knob.

They do it by using a mix of Company procedures, maths and common sense.

If they were supposed to keep to ATC Sep Standards, they would need to complete an ATC course...or....you provide ATC to maintain the standards.

The success of their efforts can be seen by reviewing the number of collisions between IFR aircraft in uncontrolled airspace....it seems to work.

triadic

22nd Dec 2017, 06:04

The following is quoted from the RAAus December Newsletter......

CASA survey action required by 12 January 2018 - MULTICOM
Members are advised CASA have issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) MULTICOM frequency use after the recent consultation process in which the majority of respondents indicated the MULTICOM frequency was their preferred option below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). We are requesting all members complete the survey and provide a response to CASA on this important topic.

The NPRM is worded poorly, making two recommendations in one response. As one of these recommendations was not part of the original consultation process we advise members that RAAus fully supports only one part of this proposal.

CASA have proposed MULTICOM frequency 126.7 is monitored and used in uncontrolled airspace below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) where there is no discrete frequency or broadcast area. Above 5000’ AMSL the area frequency would be monitored. This proposal is completely acceptable to RAAus.

The other proposal is to increase the size of a CTAF from the current recommended 10 nm to 20 nm. This is unacceptable to RAAus and its members for a variety of reasons, including the quadrupling of area requiring the CTAF frequency to be used, significantly increasing the risk of radio frequency congestion, the unavoidable inclusion of private airstrips or fields which were previously outside the CTAF, which would require aircraft to now carry radio. Further the CAAP recommends inbound traffic make relevant situationally required radio calls relative to the speed and type of operation of the aircraft. Inbound Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft routinely make calls 30-40 nm outside the CTAF, which should be continued. Accordingly, RAAus strongly objects to the portion of the NPRM to increase the size of CTAFs.

RAAus members are strongly encouraged to complete this survey, however members need to consider the difficulty presented by the NPRM combining these two questions into one response. This requires the respondent to answer no to the MULTICOM part of the proposal to avoid the increase in CTAF component. RAAus therefore recommends the following course of action by all RAAus members.

1. Follow this link CASA MULTICOM NPRM
2. Answer the identification questions as you believe appropriate
3. For the next question you will be asked if you prefer the MULTICOM and CTAF increase. Your initial answer should be “Proposal is NOT acceptable” and in the additional information box below, you should add words to the effect “I only accept the MULTICOM Proposal below 5000 feet AMSL”
4. You will be prompted during the next question to provide your answer as to why the CTAF size increase is not acceptable. RAAus recommend you provide words to the effect “There has been no safety case or risk assessment regarding the proposal to expand a CTAF size to 20 nm. This was not part of the original MULTICOM consultation process. CAAP 166 provides guidance for pilots to make appropriate calls relevant to the aircraft type and speed of operation. Expanding CTAFs to 20 nm will enlarge the potential area requiring calls by a factor of 4, potentially leading to additional congestion in CTAFs.”
5. Complete the remainder of the questions as relevant to your aircraft type and submit

RAAus has raised our concerns about the combination of the two distinct and separate questions with CASA and will continue to inform members about further progress related to MULTICOM changes in the New Year.

Lead Balloon

22nd Dec 2017, 08:35

[T]he unavoidable inclusion of private airstrips or fields which were previously outside the CTAF, which would require aircraft to now carry radio.I’m confused. Is anyone saying that the proposal includes mandating the fitment and use of radio within any and all areas in which CTAF procedures apply, out to 20nms radius or otherwise?

I have to say I do wonder why anyone poked this bear in the first place. Everyone that’s been paying attention already knew that it’s a stupid animal that wallows in expensive self-serving complexity that is not justified on a risk/cost benefit basis.

kaz3g

22nd Dec 2017, 09:20

Exactly, LB. "Come in spinner" seems particularly appropriate here.

My overall comments on the draft RAPAC submission I have seen are that it is too long, suffers from repetition, and does not clearly articulate the issues in terms that a Minister might understand.

I also think RAPAC and many others whose contributions I have read have been blindsided by what appears to be two clear cut choices, rather than taking a wider view.

That said, I support absolutely the concerns expressed about the proposed doubling of the radius of CTAF's. I also give conditional support to a limited change in frequencies but continue to hold grave doubts about 126.7 as the ultimate in choices for the following reasons:

1. The unmarked airfield bogey

The stated prime issue has been the decision to nominate Area frequency for those aviating at unmarked airfields outside of existing CTAF boundaries. Surely, if there is so much traffic associated with unmarked airfields the first step to improve safety is to mark more of them so pilots know they are there? Why hasn't RAPAC mentioned this?

Step 2 is to nominate 126.7 as the frequency for all ALA's that don't have a discrete other frequency, including those that are marked. There is hardly a VFR pilot flying now that doesn't have OzRunways or similar so responding to the presence of all marked strips will be routine. Licensed aerodromes are already well covered except some need to move from 126.7 to a new assigned frequency to reduce the prospect of over-transmissions. There will be few strips remaining of any substance that are not identified on the charts.

2. The best frequency Outside CTAF boundaries

My view remains that Area is the most appropriate prime frequency for VFR outside the boundaries of CTAFs, both existing and new. The reduction in unmarked fields should leave our concerns with only the least active; those that continue to be unmarked.

Radar assisted conflict avoidance on Area is available to VFR and I have had the benefit of it on at least a couple of occasions. If someone is departing their unmarked ALA at some obscure location, how the heck will the passing pilot know if it is relevant to her? Does the departing pilot tie up the frequency (126.7 now being used by all and sundry) with a detailed description of their location....GPS coords, distance and bearing from, plan including height and track and the state of the nation? That's not helpful to the myriad of other people "listening" to the frequency. I suggest many will just switch off, either mentally or literally.

3. No radio VFR and single listening watch

The issue of no radio flights isn't resolved by this change but it may very well lead to mandated radio which would be difficult for a number of old aircraft (and pilots?). Perhaps that would suit CASA's aspirations?

A lot of us are flying with radios that do not have dual watch. I'm one of those at the present time and I know my strong preference is to fly with Area away from CTAF's. I will upgrade when I can but Area will continue to be my first choice.

4. Area boundaries marked

The stuff circulating about this is beyond belief. I happily change frequencies moving across boundaries whether Area or CTAF and so is just about everyone else. And I certainly don't want to see an increase in the amount of E at the expense of G which is getting heaps of lobbying support from the biggies even though I run a Tx mode C.

5. Increased CTAF volume and definition.

Ridiculous! Totally unworkable as even next door's donkey would tell them.

Leave the bloody thing alone...change just increases the hazards of non-compliance due confusion, anyway.

Personally, I prefer the 10 NM distance with an ETA circuit rather than a specified time to circuit. The Kingair arriving at 200 knots knows exactly where I am, anyway.

Kaz (stoking the fire)

Lead Balloon

22nd Dec 2017, 09:31

I respectfully agree with all the points you make, kaz. Could not have said it better myself. [Bowing emoticon]

kaz3g

22nd Dec 2017, 10:33

[T]he unavoidable inclusion of private airstrips or fields which were previously outside the CTAF, which would require aircraft to now carry radio.

Clearly this is an overstatement of the current situation in that radio is only mandated at Reg, CERT and a few other CTAFs ...which are mainly those with RPT.

Within 20 NM around Shepparton, we have a number of unmarked, low use airstrips which would become radio required because they fell within the volume of the CTAF and all would be using 118.8, not 126.7.

But what would happen at Wahring? Currently within 10 NM of Mangalore but also within 20 NM of Shepparton.

As I'm flying the 29 NM from Shepp to Mangalore, do I change frequency at 20 NM FROM Shepp or when 20 NM from Mangalore?

OMG...what a clusterfark!

I suppose they will fix it by mandating ADSB for VFR.

Dick Smith

22nd Dec 2017, 10:34

The bear was poked by CASA requiring pilots at unmarked aerodromes to give their circuit calls on an ATC frequency.

kaz3g

22nd Dec 2017, 10:40

The bear was poked by CASA requiring pilots at unmarked aerodromes to give their circuit calls on an ATC frequency.

Only if they have radio,,Dick. And most have had the sense to refrain unless submitting a,flight plan.

Do you honestly think that a mustering aircraft flying out of A station in the Upper Gascoyne would give a departure call?

Or that anyone would hear it?

Kaz

triadic

22nd Dec 2017, 11:26

Clearly this is an overstatement of the current situation in that radio is only mandated at Reg, CERT and a few other CTAFs ...which are mainly those with RPT.

Not if the hidden agenda is the return of MBZ's......??:ugh:

Do you honestly think that a mustering aircraft flying out of A station in the Upper Gascoyne would give a departure call?

There is good chance he would be below area frequency coverage and be on 126.7, if not on a company freq. and then in effect he is no radio..... See and avoid is the next option if you are in the weeds also!

triadic

22nd Dec 2017, 11:32

OMG...what a clusterfark!

Agreed!:ok:

It needs to be pointed out that a CTAF is a procedure and not a block of airspace. The 20nm CTAF is therefore a dream.... You would think the OAR would know this?:mad:

Dick Smith

22nd Dec 2017, 14:32

Triadic. Who is going to held responsible at CASA for this huge waste of money?

Or is no one identified because there names are blacked out?

fujii

22nd Dec 2017, 18:03

OzRunways has a 10 mile ring which when expanded to the near the screen edge is pretty good reference for my speed. If 20 miles were introduced, the map becomes more difficult to read.

kaz3g

22nd Dec 2017, 19:05

Agreed!:ok:

It needs to be pointed out that a CTAF is a procedure and not a block of airspace. The 20nm CTAF is therefore a dream.... You would think the OAR would know this?:mad:

Yes, it's currently a procedure for a variable volume with a fixed radius but no specified absolute height. The proposal would have it become a procedure for a fixed volume as both radius and height would be specified.

Note that the topography covered by the new procedure is 4x the area covered by the current requirement ie 400 sq miles!

Kaz

fujii

22nd Dec 2017, 19:52

I think you’ll find it’s nearer 1256 square miles.
20 squared X Pi.

Lead Balloon

22nd Dec 2017, 20:22

The bear was poked by CASA requiring pilots at unmarked aerodromes to give their circuit calls on an ATC frequency.But there are no mandatory calls at these places, Dick.

If I’m taxiing to take off from my strip in G and do a scan from horizon to horizon, what’s the risk in me taking off without broadcasting? I’m allowed to do it in a no-radio aircraft, and there could be no-radio aircraft in the area anyway. If it’s acceptably ‘safe’ for me and others to operate no-radio in the vicinity using our Mark I eyeballs alone, it must be acceptably ‘safe’ for me to decide that there is no substantial risk in deciding there is no point in broadcasting a taxi call.

And when I’m flying home, who the f*ck cares that I’m the only aircraft inbound to my own property?

The only realistic scenario that could cause inordinate amounts of noise on Area and unusual risk is the ‘fly in’ event at a strip that’s not marked on the charts. In that scenario Airervices and CASA should be able to arrange the publication of a NOTAM, in a timely fashion, that promulgates a discrete frequency for CTAF procedures as well as letting everyone else know what’s on and where. I’m sure there’ll be a perfectly nonsensical bureaucratic reason for this being too difficult.

Lead Balloon

22nd Dec 2017, 20:38

But what would happen at Wahring? Currently within 10 NM of Mangalore but also within 20 NM of Shepparton.

As I'm flying the 29 NM from Shepp to Mangalore, do I change frequency at 20 NM FROM Shepp or when 20 NM from Mangalore?I’ve asked the same question numerous times about Griffith and Narrandera, both of which have RPT services, have different CTAFs but are less than 40nms apart. I’m sure we could come up with many, many other examples. OMG...what a clusterfark!Indeed, or to put it the Spodman way:
May Jesus pee in a bucket, what are these useless wombats on???

triton140

22nd Dec 2017, 22:05

Leave the bloody thing alone...change just increases the hazards of non-compliance due confusion, anyway.

At last some common sense - I was beginning to think I was alone in my thoughts.

Like kaz, I'll continue to monitor Area, I've seen too many examples where they've been able to supply converging traffic to VFR.

kaz3g

22nd Dec 2017, 22:17

I think you’ll find it’s nearer 1256 square miles.
20 squared X Pi.

Yes...I forgot the little pi. Silly me :*

CaptainMidnight

22nd Dec 2017, 22:49

The only realistic scenario that could cause inordinate amounts of noise on Area and unusual risk is the ‘fly in’ event at a strip that’s not marked on the charts. In that scenario Airervices and CASA should be able to arrange the publication of a NOTAM, in a timely fashion, that promulgates a discrete frequency for CTAF procedures as well as letting everyone else know what’s on and where. I’m sure there’ll be a perfectly nonsensical bureaucratic reason for this being too difficult. No, it's not difficult and the method it is actually standard practice.

It does require organisers of such events to contact CASA and request a NOTAM and use of the discrete frequency.1. The unmarked airfield bogey

The stated prime issue has been the decision to nominate Area frequency for those aviating at unmarked airfields outside of existing CTAF boundaries. Surely, if there is so much traffic associated with unmarked airfields the first step to improve safety is to mark more of them so pilots know they are there?That is exactly the point made by Airservices at an industry meeting some 4 years ago on the subject i.e. it is already a longstanding practice that if the traffic levels at an airfield increase to the extent that the comms become a problem on an FIA frequency, the airfield will be marked on the charts so that 126.7 applies or even a discrete CTAF allocated.

However it is my understanding that the RAPAC reps in attendance rejected that as an ongoing solution, and instead were focused on the introduction of the low level MULTICOM.

Dick Smith

22nd Dec 2017, 23:18

Why wouldn’t we follow the simpler non prescriptive North American system as used in Canada and the USA with 30 times the traffic ?

I know. Never ever ask advice and never copy the success of others.

We built the Nomad - they built the twin otter and 747. What would they know

Happy Christmas everyone!

triadic

23rd Dec 2017, 02:38

Triadic. Who is going to held responsible at CASA for this huge waste of money?

Or is no one identified because there names are blacked out?

Those with their names blacked out are part of the Iron Ring, which is obviously alive and well with this 20 mile CTAF idea. They just don't care so long as they keep their overpaid job and the attached ego, so as to maintain the power and control that keeps them there. I don't know if the DAS is across this mob as yet, but he should be, and he should be considering using his boot to good effect.:mad:

kaz3g

23rd Dec 2017, 04:06

Those with their names blacked out are part of the Iron Ring, which is obviously alive and well with this 20 mile CTAF idea. They just don't care so long as they keep their overpaid job and the attached ego, so as to maintain the power and control that keeps them there. I don't know if the DAS is across this mob as yet, but he should be, and he should be considering using his boot to good effect.:mad:

I just submitted my personal response to CASA and it got me thinking again about the comfort or otherwise of RPTs descending below 5000' on approach if the 10 NM CTAF remains and MULTICOM is introduced - they will have to share transmission opportunities with pilots using 126.7 all over the place.

Enlarging to 20 NM negates that issue. So they fix it for the RPT and bugger the rest of us. Back to the future...MBZ's?

Kaz

aroa

23rd Dec 2017, 06:04

triadic... the current "DAS"/ceo is not across it ffs He's is again part of the Mob now and has been before.
I have some of his delightful BS paperwork and slimy answers to prove it.!!
He is not now part of any solution, he is part of the problems that we have now and was then in 2009.

All the names blacked out !...., all the usual gutless crew, no doubt.
You have to ask...why havent they got the balls to put their names to it ???

Sunfish

23rd Dec 2017, 19:47

This proposal seems to be primarily aimed at requiring mandatory carriage of at least one radio by any aircraft that goes within 20 nm of a CTAF. A stealthy plot for more control.

Lead Balloon

23rd Dec 2017, 20:12

Yes, it does look like the Bloggs Brigade has saddled up for yet another MBZ crusade. Should be the usual entertainment.

Dick Smith

23rd Dec 2017, 22:20

If the Regional Airline pilots believe that safety requires a traffic information service on VFR there should be no problem. It’s called ICAO class D. Airservices can provide this service wherever required.

werbil

24th Dec 2017, 00:17

Do you ever consider why ATC can't use these separation standards? Odds are it is because they are not reliable enough.

Yes. ATC can use ADSB for separation, so its not the "reliability" of the solution as all the ADSB equipped aircraft I have flown source their position from the primary GNSS. All IFR aircraft are required to have at least one TSO C129 GNSS, which complies with RNP2 (the enroute navigation standard), so accuracy/integrity performance is known. What is an issue is the different areas of containment between a ground based position and a GNSS position. Close to a reference waypoint, GNSS integrity will not flag significant errors in azimuth accuracy, so this has to be considered. Out in the GAFA away from ground based aids and surveillance coverage ATC separation is indirectly predicated by GNSS anyway.

"theoretically impossible to collide" might be a particularly unreliable standard for aircraft maneuvering in 3 dimensions. I suspect it does actually comply with ATC separation standards, if it can be reliably determined.

A lot of the time it does, but not always. If clear and diverging it is impossible to collide - 3nm and 5nm only gives people a warm fuzzy feeling.

Dick Smith

24th Dec 2017, 00:26

If I remember correctly in the USA they will clear IFR aircraft in E to depart in non radar airspace where the first aircraft turns 30 degrees left from runway heading and the next aircraft 30 degrees right . Not initially an ICAO IFR standard but they clearly can’t hit. That is the type of standard we have to copy if we are going to get the NAS to work efficiently without all the delays that are quoted by the ignorant on this site.

le Pingouin

24th Dec 2017, 03:46

That's the problem Dick, you want to introduce a "wonderful" system without mentioning any of the extra changes that need to go with it to make it work. You know nothing about most of the extras that are required. This is the first mention you've made of that "standard" and it's been how many years that you've been flogging this horse? And then you complain when the people who have to use the system say what you're giving us isn't workable.

You have the temerity to blame us, when it's you who doesn't understand your system. As you've been repeatedly told, give us the tools and resources. But you don't even know what tools are required.

fujii

24th Dec 2017, 04:05

How does the big sky, 30 degrees left and right deal with obstacle clearance, especially for a pilot unfamiliar with the airport and surrounds?

Dick Smith

24th Dec 2017, 04:28

Le Ping I have not blamed you or any ATC for the lack of leadership re new rules that would have to be introduced for low E to work correctly. I have consistently said that the FAA procedures would have to be introduced. I reckon in most cases you already have the tools.

Le Ping. On a number of occasions I have offered to brief the relevant people at CASA re changes that would have to be made. So far they won’t let me near the place! I little bit of insecurity there!

Fuji , They only allow this procedure where it is safe . Derr

le Pingouin

24th Dec 2017, 05:59

But you have accused us of being set in concrete.

Extra consoles, extra staff, extra training, extra ratings, extra separation standards - all these things need to be supplied. They need to be determined in detail before we even start down your road and they haven't been in any way or form. "I reckon" is not sufficient, not even close. So no, we don't already have the tools nor in the quantity required. We've been here before.

Simply bringing "procedures" without everything else is inadequate. "Procedures" need to be adapted to suit local conditions - I'm not saying we're unique, but unless you duplicate a system in it's entirety it needs to be tailored to fit the local conditions.

How can you brief people when you yourself don't know in detail what's required?

Dick Smith

24th Dec 2017, 07:23

How could I create a magazine and sell it for $41m when I clearly can’t write and have no training in publishing?

I ask advice , surround myself with the best people and enthuse them to perform.

And I am not as sure as you about the extra staff and consoles - quite often I fly in very low workload airspace compared to other countries!

Plazbot

24th Dec 2017, 09:55

Noise does not equal workload.

Am I to understand that you want to add procedural approach functions to multiple airports on the one sector as well as the old FIS functions as well as the old CTA functions? Wasn't your issue with C steps into procedural towers that the attention would be taken away from the airspace close to the airport by things happening 9000ft away? Are you seriously suggesting that one person doing multiple versions of this with things to distract 40000ft+ away is OK?

Like I said previously above, I have no doubt E down to 1200 or 700 is a great plan for safety. How to resource it is the problem. 1000 controllers vs 20000 controllers over near identical airspace volume probably shows problem number 1 I'm sure you will agree.

le Pingouin

24th Dec 2017, 09:58

Sigh. We've been here before as well.

Sure, some sectors, but not all. Until the question gets asked and researched we don't know. ATC doesn't work very well on "the make it up as we go along approach" - it results in huge amounts of money being needlessly spent. Been there, seen that.

The problem is you get in the ear of whatever politician before any of that has been answered and they set things in motion. Still without having answered those questions.

We don't have any spare console capacity in TAAATS so what happens when it's discovered half way through that we need more consoles? Where's your plan for that contingency? There is none. Not to mention the extra controllers to man the extra consoles.

Building something up from scratch that doesn't have to take a very particular form is an utterly different matter to trying to change a large, mature and very integrated system. Have you successfully managed such a transformation?

Dick Smith

24th Dec 2017, 11:00

Le ping. Love to talk to you some time.

I have always believed we should test just two locations with low level E. One with surveillance to a low level and one without. Considering every airport in the USA with an IFR approach has a minimum of class E you reckon we could do just two.

Find lower workload sectors and low traffic airports and use the existing en route controllers to provide the service.

See what the delays are and then make a decision. Re cost , safety advantages ect

And send a group of willing ATCs to the US and Canada to see how the existing non approach rated controllers provide such a fantastic service there. Modify our procedures where necessary.

I would put you in charge of the trial- or someone you recommended if you did not think you had the abilities- see you have shown here that you have an interest . Many could not care less!

mgahan

24th Dec 2017, 22:36

Firstly a very Merry Christmas to all from my mid Pacific location.

Now, to the real issue:
There are myriad examples in the the aviation environment and particularly in Australia, of situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation. To put it another way for those whose background may not have covered "appreciations" - work out the problem and the real requirement before rushing into a solution based specification. The Australian airspace mess is a classic example.

In his excellent work "Most Secret War' R.V. Jones cites (on page 78) an excellent example of an overly complex specification which entirely missed the point resulting in a delay in introduction of bullet proof aircraft fuel tanks well into WW II when the technology had been proven late in WWI.

ICAO states the issue very well in C/CAR WG/7 - WP/04 dated 27/03/09 dealing with a performance based approach to requirements definition which avoids the problems of “Technology Driven Approach” and “Solutions searching for a problem to solve” .

In my System Requirements and Operational Requirement roles and later in the days of the AERU I stressed the need to start with an agreed Concept of Operations (CONOPS) before rushing headlong into defining solutions.

Now.... how about we all enjoy a great Christmas Day, relax tomorrow for Boxing Day and then take a few deep breathing exercises before having a serious think about what is the actual problem we are trying to "fix" or if there really is a problem, other than some bent egos and perceived bureaucratic needs to "do something".

MJG
23 years in ATC, 3 years is ATS System Requirements, and then 23 years around the world working on ATM systems and airspace taught a few lessons.

CaptainMidnight

25th Dec 2017, 06:59

Alerted See and Avoid: a True Story - Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/alerted-see-and-avoid-a-true-story)

Dick Smith

25th Dec 2017, 10:07

Of course Hitch , if he thought there was a collision risk should have requested a flight following service as they do in the US and Canada and he would have received , workload permitting, a full traffic information service.

As it is now he received a uniquely Australian intermittent service that is sometimes provided but mostly is not. And never where it is really required, such as the Bankstown training area or at places like Hornsby where collision risk is high. And as he points out it will not be able to be provided at all with the new CASA 126.7 below 5000’ system.

He brings up an excellent point. By CASA designing a system that does not operate anywhere else in the world other serious safety problems are created. That’s why they black out names and have no one responsible. Mr Carmondy would normally have overall responsibility but he can claim he knows nothing about aviation!

That’s why I consistently state that we should copy the best proven systems from countries where the traffic density is up to 30 times higher. Just commonsense.

Plazbot

25th Dec 2017, 15:20

you know density and volume are two different things right?

KittyKatKaper

25th Dec 2017, 21:17

... That’s why I consistently state that we should copy the best proven systems from countries where the traffic density is up to 30 times higher. Just commonsense.
and people consistently tell you that without a x20+ increase in resources (human & equipment), the US system is not the most appropriate one for Oz.

BlockNotAvailable

25th Dec 2017, 21:38

I asked the question of US ATCOs regarding a departure and arrival.

In areas of non-surveillance they keep one on the ground until the inbound has landed or cancelled IFR before they give the departure a clearance on the ground (with void times). We have a lot less surveillance than they do.
Copy/paste doesn't work. Do people who are actually in the industry ( Like RPT and GA pilots who go regional) want E to the ground and get rid of G?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

25th Dec 2017, 22:13

Lucky the VFR author of the story was the only one flying at a non-VFR level.

Dick Smith

25th Dec 2017, 22:37

Kitty. Yes. They told me that after the MDX crash where the pilot in bad wx and good radar coverage was never ever allowed to communicate to the person with the the radar screen .

I won that one with lower staffing levels after years of resistance. Same happening now.

No. I have never suggested anything other than us taking the best ideas from
overseas and incorporating with our best ideas where possible.

It will work superbly but you would not know if you remain anonymous and won’t even give me a phone call to discuss. Some minds resist change!

Dick Smith

25th Dec 2017, 22:42

Block. The information you received is simplified. And if it is so bad how does an airport like Coffs Harbour , which is procedural when IMC exists ,work without extensive delays? I know. You have never thought of that!

And are you suggesting that in Aus airline pilots blunder around in IMC at the same class G airport rather than wait a few minutes on the ground?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

25th Dec 2017, 22:58

was never ever allowed to communicate to the person with the the radar screen .
And that is blatently incorrect.

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 00:20

So how would have the pilot of MDX flying OCTA been able to find out the frequency of the Sydney ATC who was responsible for the controlled airspace above?

Why was it never suggested by FS that the pilot could change to the frequency of the controlled airspace above and given that frequency ?

Why was all moves to use the radar properly resisted until I became chairman of CAA and introduced AMATS?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Dec 2017, 03:16

We've been over this a hundred times!
So how would have the pilot of MDX flying OCTA been able to find out the frequency of the Sydney ATC who was responsible for the controlled airspace above?
He could simply have asked for it. He didn't.
Why was it never suggested by FS that the pilot could change to the frequency of the controlled airspace above and given that frequency ?
Because it was a different airspace system back then. Generally that only happened once an emergency was declared. Radar was used to identify him, but by then it was too late. Had he not disappeared, the normal course of events would have been to get him to contact ATC and they would have dealt with him until he could resume his own navigation. It happened all the time, although you refuse to believe it. In this case, he was gone before that could happen. Reading the transcripts etc, it wouldn't have helped much anyway.
Why was all moves to use the radar properly resisted until I became chairman of CAA and introduced AMATS?
Because ATC owned the radar, and ATC ran the Department, so there was no way FS was going to get it. That was not the system you wanted, so you got rid of FS, and now ATC still run aviation and still own the radar, and you still don't have a system you want. So a win-win all round. Not.

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 03:33

I am more than halfway there! Watch this space. How about assisting ?

And by the way. In all of my training not at any time was it even suggested that when flying OCTA I could ask FS for the radar frequency and get extra assistance. That’s no doubt why the pilot of MDX did not do this. May have lived if he did it early enough. And a year later BASI made no recommendation that this could improve safety in the future

No. I had to come along with that idea after seeing how well it worked overseas

As I said. Minds still set in concrete

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Dec 2017, 03:47

Perhaps your training was poor? It was a different time after all. Didn't stop some others from doing it though. Just because you did or did not experience something did not make it the norm.

Lead Balloon

26th Dec 2017, 04:02

He could simply have asked for it. He didn't.I don’t think you spent much time at the cockpit end of the conversations in the system back then. Back then you were told what frequency to use.

He “could simply” have done lots of things, but he didn’t. He didn’t because “it was a different system back then”.

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 04:12

Lead. You are correct. It was a disaster of a system which many pilots did not want to change . Just like now on pprune

I am proud I was part of changing that system despite staggering resistance to change. Just like my opponents on this thread .

Many still harp on the fact that I removed the full position FS system but rarely mention that this was so all pilots in radar coverage could communicate directly to a radar controller.

So abuse me as much as you want to. I will keep pushing to finalise the reforms.

Not far away now I reckon. No giant CTAFs. No unique 1950 frequency boundaries on charts. Just a well proven system that is based on real risk metrics. Not perceived ones!

Look forward to assistance. Send me a message!

CaptainMidnight

26th Dec 2017, 04:23

What Traffic_Is_Er_Was said is correct.

If a pilot reported unsure of position or experiencing VMC or other difficulties OCTA within radar coverage, Flight Service would, as a matter of routine, coordinate with the relevant overlying ATC sector - often transferring the aircraft to the ATC frequency - and ATC then providing assistance with position identification, heading to fly etc. etc.

From the many earlier threads on MDX, the pilot didn't report experiencing navigation or other difficulties, so FS and ATC were unaware.

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/575199-new-mdx-five-dead-williamtown-never-found.html

Vag277

26th Dec 2017, 04:34

"Just a well proven system that is based on real risk metrics. Not perceived ones!"

Where are these published, how were they develop and what process was used to-arrive at the outcome?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Dec 2017, 05:01

It was a disaster of a system which many pilots did not want to change .
So what does that tell you?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Dec 2017, 05:14

Many still harp on the fact that I removed the full position FS system but rarely mention that this was so all pilots in radar coverage could communicate directly to a radar controller.
Yet you have constantly said it was because you wanted to save a billion dollars. Glad to see the industry is doing so well after that. Also it is seems that now you are campaigning vigorously to get people off ATC frequencies.

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 06:33

Captain. That’s the whole point about MDX. The pilot didn’t report he was flying for 20 minutes at right angles to the correct course because he did not know. That could be why he did not request a radar service . The FS operator did not tell the pilot because he did not know as well!

It was a ridiculous unsafe airspace design supported by those who resist change. And BASI didn’t even make a recommendation to use the radar more effectively.

That’s why we brought in the AMATS changes despite the resistance of the concrete minds.

Now need to do the next step to complete the NAS design!

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Dec 2017, 08:59

He “could simply” have done lots of things, but he didn’t.
What he did do was a lot of things that got him and his passengers killed. It happened once and didn't happen again. But we had to change the whole airspace system anyway.

cogwheel

26th Dec 2017, 09:43

If a pilot reported unsure of position or experiencing VMC or other difficulties OCTA within radar coverage, Flight Service would, as a matter of routine, coordinate with the relevant overlying ATC sector - often transferring the aircraft to the ATC frequency - and ATC then providing assistance with position identification, heading to fly etc. etc.

In the days of FS, if a pilot asked for any sort of radar assistance, he/she was subject to a 225, and the pilot in most cases would have licence suspended pending an interview and/or flight test with a CAA examiner.

Plazbot

26th Dec 2017, 14:39

Rubbish. Was myself sitting on what was a Sydney sector overlying FIS 5(4?). A chap was stuck on top. FIS had him call me with ident. We found a hole courtesy of the Warnavale PJE and away he went. NCD.

cogwheel

26th Dec 2017, 15:38

Well in my time in FS it was certainly the procedure. It was FS Super that raised the 225, not ATC. Mind you, that was in the 70’s when it was a very different world.

Plazbot

26th Dec 2017, 15:48

thank you for adding more blanket statements based on beliefs or observations based on non current aviation related affairs.

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 16:12

Non current Yes. Because we started changes in 1991 that were resisted in a similar way to what is happening now.

History repeats itself. One day we will complete the NAS and within 12 months it will be accepted.

There will be no giant prescriptive 40 mile 5000’ CTAFs and no complicated frequency boundaries on the charts. There will even be some E to 700’ at places like Ballina and it will work with greater safety and without extra costs or measurable delays. We will introduce zero extra cost Unicoms like North America.

Yes. Sounds impossible but you would need to go and fly in Canada or the USA to see how well it can work. Exciting times are coming. Australia will also move to becoming the world leader in flying training and recreational aviation. Big dollars from overseas! Lots more Aussies employed !

Lead Balloon

26th Dec 2017, 19:59

[Y]ou would need to go and fly in Canada ... to see how well it can work.From the Canadian equivalent of the Australian AIP, section called "RAC":

4.5 Aircraft Operations — Uncontrolled Aerodromes

4.5.1 General

An uncontrolled aerodrome is an aerodrome without a control tower, or one where the tower is not in operation. There is no substitute for alertness while in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome. It is essential that pilots be aware of, and look out for, other traffic, and exchange traffic information when approaching or departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome, particularly since some aircraft may not have communication capability. To achieve the greatest degree of safety, it is essential that all radio-equipped aircraft monitor a common designated frequency, such as the published MF or ATF, and follow the reporting procedures specified for use in an MF area, while operating on the manoeuvring area or flying within an MF area surrounding an uncontrolled aerodrome.

• MF area means an area in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome for which an MF has been designated. The area within which MF procedures apply at a particular aerodrome is defined in the Aerodrome/Facility Directory Section of the CFS, under the heading COMM.

Normally, the MF area is a circle with a 5-NM radius capped at 3 000 ft AAE.

At uncontrolled aerodromes without a published MF or ATF, the common frequency for the broadcast of aircraft position and the intentions of pilots flying in the vicinity of that aerodrome is 123.2 MHz.
…

9.13 IFR Procedures at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome in Uncontrolled Airspace

Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Once established on the MF, the pilot shall make the reports listed in RAC 9.12 (see RAC 4.5.4 for MF procedures, and RAC 4.5.5 for the use of 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exists).
…
The equivalent of the ‘low level’ area frequency in G in the system described above is 126.7.

The equivalent of the default CTAF in the system described above is 123.2.

Is that the system you are advocating, Dick?

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 20:46

To a degree. This is “free in G” as i have often mentioned. We have 126.7 because I picked it after my North Pole flights. Don’t tell anyone otherwise we will have to wind back to some old Aus frequency from the 60s!

Note. In Canada 126.7 is for all G. Not just below 5000’. It would not work if just below 5000’. And they do not have an Aus style DTI.

Of course they have a separate CTAF frequency . I have always said we copy the best and incorporate with whatever we already do better!

More importantly the Canadians do not have ATC frequency boundaries marked on charts and they have vast areas without low level radar. Sounds impossible I know.

The ARG decided it was better to follow the US system and not have prescriptive dimensions around a CTAF. Otherwise using the Australian mentality they would have to be huge and create more problems than they would solve . We now have experience of that!

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Dec 2017, 21:00

Australia will also move to becoming the world leader in flying training and recreational aviation.
How does establishing a couple of Unicoms do that?

incorporate with whatever we already do better
What is that? I have never read of a thing you have considered done better here than anywhere else.

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 21:18

If I remember correctly our equivalent to the Canadian IFR self announce frequency was going to be 127.7. I will look up some old paperwork.

Dick Smith

26th Dec 2017, 21:22

Traffic. The way we self separate IFR at low traffic non tower airports in G is better in my view. In the USA pilots are not trained to do this That’s why I have always stated that low level E should be introduced at certain airports depending on traffic density and types of operations

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Dec 2017, 23:49

So we have a better safer system because we provide a DTI to IFR in G. But to do that, the aircraft have to be on an ATC frequency. This makes our "area" also an ATC frequency. Canada don't do this, because G is blanket 126.7. ATC is provided in the other various category airpaces on other frequencies, I presume. Airspace category boundaries are shown from what I can gather, so Canada does have ATC boundaries marked on their charts. They just don't have area boundaries marked as there are none. If our various area frequencies are also used as ATC frequencies due to our better safer system, I think it is legitimate that their boundaries are depicted on the relevant charts, just like other ATC areas are.

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 00:14

The reason some are obsessed with atc frequency boundaries on charts is so we can go back to a form of “radio arranged separation” that existed between IFR and VFR in most un controlled en route airspace. That was when IFR and VFR used the quadrantial rule and flew at identical levels when on the same heading .

Under ICAO class G does not require radio for VFR. It is considered a see and avoid airspace.

If safety dictates that traffic information on VFR is required for IFR aircraft then that requires a minimum of class D.

Some try and turn G into D re VFR traffic. Unfortunately will not work.

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 00:19

Traffic. As in australia all of Canadian class G is overlaid with controlled airspace operated by ATC on allocated frequencies.

I Canada there is not a requirement for non controlled aircraft to monitor and announce on these frequencies.

This saves money because in low traffic density airspace they do not have to stratify the airspace so costs can be reduced.

Our system is not better or safer. Canada has low level E at certain non tower airports just like the USA.
We don’t as yet because it’s claimed we will need more controllers and consoles resulting in extra costs.
It appears our existing controllers are already at the max!

Lead Balloon

27th Dec 2017, 02:22

Australia doesn’t have ICAO Class G.

fujii

27th Dec 2017, 02:33

Dick.
Obsessed, to dominate or preoccupy the thoughts, feelings, or desires of (a person); beset, trouble, or haunt persistently or abnormally: This borders in a disorder. To be still pushing your view after nearly ten months and over 400 posts could be considered obsessive.

Twice you have linked obsession with frequency boundaries. I am not obsessed, I just find boundaries easier for me. Because we have differing opinions, doesn’t make one right and the other wrong. I am entitled to my opinion without being labelled obsessive.

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 03:31

On eyre

27th Dec 2017, 04:41

I am totally over this so called debate. Australia may not have the best system in whole or part and neither does any other country. What works for you should prevail.
Outside of controlled airspace ops above 5000' amsl (or 3000' agl in the high country) should listen on area frequency and use ATC services if and when required only.
A blanket 126.7 multicom beneath with broadcasts only as required and if appropriate in the vicinity of marked or unmarked airfields. Obviously CTAF's with other designated frequencies would provide the exception. And let's get rid of this stupid idea of 20 mn radius CTAFs. 15 mn max are adequate.
Nothing in the above would preclude earlier calls on CTAF frequencies if considered warranted. Neither would it preclude requests for assistance on ATC frequencies (marked on charts or not) at any time.
If pilots are particularly hung up about the above twin Comms might help as would IFR aircraft giving more appropriate top of descent calls on appropriate multicom frequencies to alert VFR aircraft below. All this can't be too freakin hard and use our existing resources.

Car RAMROD

27th Dec 2017, 04:42

Fujji. Don’t you see the only reason CASA is proposing ginormous CTAFs is in an attempt to get the system which requires VFR pilots to be monitoring ATC frequencies to work?

Remove the frequency boundaries on the charts and there is no need for the giant CTAFs. We could use the NAS procedure from page 27 of the NAS Reference Guide as follows.

-monitor and announce on the CTAF “ - when en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome “

Frequency boundaries or not, CASA could still mandate VFR be on the area freq (even via the freq method you propose by looking for the site).

CASA could also mandate giant CTAFs even if there were no frequency boundaries. The two are not necessarily correlated.

As an aside, how does one know what the "airspace normally used by arriving and departing traffic" is? It can be different depending on the aircraft. Are they all expected to know the approach procedures and DGA steps etc? Your "in the airspace" may not be the same as someone else's "in the airspace".

Capn Bloggs

27th Dec 2017, 06:14

Rediculous Nonsense! :ugh:

kaz3g

27th Dec 2017, 07:51

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 08:42

On eyre

27th Dec 2017, 09:26

No Kaz I don't think 15 nm muddies the water at all. It more closely relates to current CTAF boundaries than 20 nm and reduces the problem of overlapping ones.
I operate in an area with several airfields with different frequencies including a busy mixed use airfield with up to 20 RPT movements a day. RPT as a matter of course make inbound calls further out than the recommended distance often to accomodate a RNAV approach.
Radar coverage is not available in the circuit area but ATC is contactable on VHF on the
ground.
It all works safely.
The biggest problem is too much chatter in my opinion.
I believe it is impossible to have all airstrips marked on charts but a low level multicom used sensibly would at least give some alerting of traffic leading to see and avoid without ATC frequency cluttering.
In my opinion the NPRM should not have linked together the two issues of multicom and CTAF in the one yes or no question.

Agrajag

27th Dec 2017, 10:42

Why should a VFR pilot have to monitor what is the equivalent of the truck channel every time he or she goes flying? P No wonder GA is stuffed. Different if you are working and being paid not to relax!

Are you advocating a system where the amateur / VFR guy doesn’t have to communicate, but the professional does?

A few questions arise:

1. How do the amateur and the professional arrange to avoid each other? They’re in the same sky.

2. What jf the amateur is actually a professional, on his day off? Which rule does he follow?

3. What if the amateur wants to enjoy the same level of separation and safety as his professional mate?

FWIW I regularly find myself in category 2 above. I feel a responsibility to my passengers, or even just myself if solo, to minimise my chances of an unwanted encounter, and to fit in as smoothly as possible with other traffic. That means, among other things, communicating with others when appropriate.

It does not mean, just because I’m on a VFR pleasure flight, turning the radio down and trusting my eyesight to detect every potential threat. Nor does it mean happily accepting that someone else is doing so, just because he can’t be arsed participating in our mutual safety.

Every trainee pilot has been taught to use the radio, almost since day 1. It’s not difficult, onerous or time-consuming. And it’s complete insanity for aircraft in the same piece of sky to be using different frequencies, or none at all, when they have a choice.

On eyre

27th Dec 2017, 10:52

Agrajag you have nailed it. And supported my case thank you.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

27th Dec 2017, 11:25

Australia doesn’t have ICAO Class G.
And therein lies the rub. We have Australian G. But that's ok, because we can take some overseas things and add the things we do better, like providing a DTI to IFRs in G where we can. That has to be safer than not doing it, surely.The cost of that extra safety is that we need everyone to be on a known frequency, rather than some random one they've decided to listen to, because we know that alerted see and avoid works much better than just see and avoid. Sure, it makes it a bit noisier, but that's a small price to pay. In fact, it doesn't cost anything. How good is that!

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 12:01

Agra. No. I am not advocating any such thing.

The only place a non pressurised VFR aircraft flying en route in uncontrolled airspace can collide with a pressurised airline aircraft is in the airspace used for approach and departure to an airport.

That’s why under NAS VFR aircraft monitor and announce on the CTAF when flying in the airspace use for approach and departure to that aerodrome .

So why then would you add the “ cry wolf” problem by making a VFR pilot flying at 5500’ beyond the back of Bourke monitor the ATC frequency that is re transmitted to 30 sectors as far away as Cape York?

Airline pilots don’t even have to do that when en route at flight levels. Most of the high level sectors do not have re transmit from halfway across the country. From my experience in the Citation when outback the high level en route frequencies are pretty quite.

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 12:14

Lead Balloon

27th Dec 2017, 18:15

And therein lies the rub. We have Australian G. But that's ok, because we can take some overseas things and add the things we do better, like providing a DTI to IFRs in G where we can. That has to be safer than not doing it, surely.The cost of that extra safety is that we need everyone to be on a known frequency, rather than some random one they've decided to listen to, because we know that alerted see and avoid works much better than just see and avoid. Sure, it makes it a bit noisier, but that's a small price to pay. In fact, it doesn't cost anything. How good is that!Yet, amazingly, the provision of potentially safety-critical weather information is on a ‘workload permitting’ basis. But I digress...

I like the current system. I don’t give a tinker’s cuss whether the ‘default’ frequency for use in the vicinity of an uncontrolled airfield that isn’t marked on charts is the FIA or 126.7. (The real risk in the vicinity of those places will continue to be no radio aircraft.)

I just want complicators to STOP F*CKING WITH THINGS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF RISK. :ugh:

Plazbot

27th Dec 2017, 19:09

Round peg, square hole. Australia is huge with pretty poor radar coverage on average across the volume *see volume v density.

Most of the world outside Africa and Australia has good radar coverage. Controllers are all like, don't hit that obvious target, see ya, but when tech limitations present either the authority puts in more resources or downgrades the service. Pick one.

Agrajag

27th Dec 2017, 21:54

Agra. No. I am not advocating any such thing.

The only place a non pressurised VFR aircraft flying en route in uncontrolled airspace can collide with a pressurised airline aircraft is in the airspace used for approach and departure to an airport.

So, the only professional pilots out there are all flying pressurised airliners? Not in my experience. And even the airliners don't get very high on a short sector.

There are lots of pros out there in the lower levels. (Some of them are private pilots, holding themselves to a professional standard. I personally know plenty of them.)

That’s why under NAS VFR aircraft monitor and announce on the CTAF when flying in the airspace use for approach and departure to that aerodrome .

So why then would you add the “ cry wolf” problem by making a VFR pilot flying at 5500’ beyond the back of Bourke monitor the ATC frequency that is re transmitted to 30 sectors as far away as Cape York?If they're only monitoring, what harm does it cause to anyone else? And how else will they know about the other guy who is nearby, when he does have cause to speak up?

Airline pilots don’t even have to do that when en route at flight levels. Most of the high level sectors do not have re transmit from halfway across the country.Sorry, but absolutely incorrect. We always monitor appropriate ATC frequencies, even when using datalink as primary.

And the sectors are huge, precisely because they aren't that busy. On one route i fly, we are talking to the same controller for about 1500 miles. The frequency changes, yes, but it's the same voice at the other end. That means I am hearing calls via retransmit from all over the place, and it doesn't bother me a bit.

The geographical coverage is not relevant, as long as the frequency I'm on has enough periods of silence for me to get a word in when needed. As you say below, that's far from an actual problem.

From my experience in the Citation when outback the high level en route frequencies are pretty quite.So how does that sit with your past claims that a lightie at low level will overtransmit an A380 up high, causing carnage in the skies?

Agrajag

27th Dec 2017, 22:05

Agra. How does a VFR aircraft know the location of an en route IFR aircraft that is within radar or ADSB coverage ? I am not sure if you have noticed but most do not give full position reports.

If we're in the same piece of sky, then I'm also visible on radar/ADS-B, so the controller can see me too. And he won't just sit on his hands and let us collide. Without fail, in my experience, he will step in to make us aware of each other. Also without fail, they are thankful that I choose to respond, as opposed to asserting my right to sail on in silence.

Mind reading? Surely you are just resisting change!Yes, I am, when it's being promoted for reasons that have nothing to do with safety or efficiency, and everything to do with personal ideology.

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 23:24

Agra. Most VFR aircraft are not fitted with ADSB. How then does the controller know where the VFR aircraft is located?

And Agra. It’s sits perfectly with my claims. Just one call at the wrong time could over transmit an important ATC instruction. It’s when the holes in the cheese line up!

Dick Smith

27th Dec 2017, 23:30

CaptainMidnight

27th Dec 2017, 23:58

Most VFR aircraft are not fitted with ADSB. How then does the controller know where the VFR aircraft is located?Increasing numbers have ADS-B, in any case there are things called SSR transponders. Just one call at the wrong time could over transmit an important ATC instruction.If it's important, the essential elements are read back, or the controller repeats the instruction.Ok. You all win.Thank God, end of discussion, thread closed.

Agrajag

28th Dec 2017, 02:14

Ok. You all win. It’s just not possible for us the have the simpler system they have in Europe Canada and the USA where VFR pilots can fly en route and not have to monitor a truck channel of irrelevant calls and constantly changing frequency depending on unique lines on a map. And go ahead giant 40 mile CTAFs as this is the only way that system would work.

Dick, I find myself scratching my head.

You proudly proclaim that your undoubted success is due to surrounding yourself with people who know what they're talking about, and then following their advice. It's a great strategy.

Yet here, you've had input from folks from every corner of aviation, most of whom disagree with your position for clearly defined reasons. And you won't change your view one jot. In fact your only response has been to repeat the same tired old discredited stuff again and again, as though somehow it'll suddenly become valid. And when that temporarily runs out of steam, it's a petulant response such as the above quote.

So, are we all wrong? Or do you only pay lip service to that "taking advice" thing?

As others have said, if you have an argument that stands up, for the right reasons, I'm ready to hear it. But please don't just repeat the same mantra you started with, while completely ignoring any contrary views. You are not the only one here with an opinion, and certainly not the only one with plenty of experience in the real world.

FWIW I am quite comfortable with the system as it currently stands. It took my instructor about 15 minutes to explain it to me when I got back into GA flying, and a couple of flights to see how it worked in practice. It's not rocket science and it works, so why are we messing with it?

Dick Smith

28th Dec 2017, 06:40

Agra. You may be happy with the system as it is now but CASA clearly isn’t.

That’s why they started the two year saga costing a fortune in wasted time and money that has left us with 40 mile CTAFs that RAPAC members are opposed to.

The reason I am not accepting the advice from anonymous posters here is that there is a good chance some of you want to damage our country as much as you can. Why wouldn’t people want to support harmonisation so we can be flight training leaders in the world?

Already the Canadians tell potential students not to train here as Australia has a different airspace system where jet airline pilots at busy non tower airports have to perform a do it yourself traffic avoidance procedure when in cloud. Very amateurish!

Dick Smith

28th Dec 2017, 06:54

If I wanted to undermine and damage Australia I would get a person to post anonymously on public discussion sites information which would damage the country.

There is a chance this is happening now .

Agrajag

28th Dec 2017, 07:02

Agra. You may be happy with the system as it is now but CASA clearly isn’t.

That’s why they started the two year saga that has left us with 40 mile CTAFs that RAPAC members are opposed to.

I thought they started it because lots of people couldn't be bothered learning and complying with the rules, and therefore complained about them and wanted them changed.

The reason I am not accepting the advice from anonymous posters here is that there is a good chance some of you want to damage our country as much as you can. Why wouldn’t people want to support harmonisation so we can be flight training leaders in the world?Ah, that old one again: anyone who disagrees with you, without supplying full personal details, must automatically be intent on tearing apart the very fabric of our society. Had you considered that people disagree with you because you're... wrong?

Already the Canadians tell potential students that Australia has a different airspace system where jet airline pilots have to perform a do it yourself traffic avoidance procedure when in cloud. Very amateurish!Well, if they do put it in those terms, they're also wrong, aren't they? Because it's simply not true.

Cloudee

28th Dec 2017, 07:04

Don't despair too much Dick. A look at most online sites open to public comment shows those having a negative view of change are much more likely to post. It doesn't mean it's necessarily the majority view, although it can certainly seem so. I love your tenacity!

Dick Smith

28th Dec 2017, 07:26

Cloudee. Thanks. As you have probably noticed I use pprune a bit like Mel Gibson’s “ What Women Want”

That is you get to find out what some people really believe but for some reason would not be game to say so openly. Coupled with some posts that could possibly be directed to undermining our aviation industry. It is all really helpful to determining the best way to finalise the important changes!

Dick Smith

28th Dec 2017, 07:30

Agra. What the Canadians say has some truth.

A place like Ballina would be safer with Canadian/US style E to 700’ compared to what we have now where there isn’t even a CASA published separation standard when in IMC.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

28th Dec 2017, 08:59

Dick, I’m not too keen on 20 nm radius CTAFs, and I’m always interested in ideas for doing things in ways that are simpler and better (and not just change for the sake of it). If you can propose something that’s genuinely simpler and better, then I’m all ears. But for God’s sake, you need to quit with stuff like
The reason I am not accepting the advice from anonymous posters here is that there is a good chance some of you want to damage our country as much as you can
beacuse to be quite honest, it just makes you sound bat**** crazy.

Dick Smith

28th Dec 2017, 09:20

Or I have a sense of fun. Remember who towed the iceberg?

fujii

28th Dec 2017, 09:22

If Ballina would be safer, what are the statistics for reportable incidents there? Why don’t the airlines refuse to fly there?

Dick Smith

28th Dec 2017, 09:28

At a similar airspace at Bundaberg two professional pilots were performing an instrument approach at the same time in IMC. One had dialed up the wrong ctaf and the other thought the first aircraft had already landed. It’s the reason other countries have a minimum of class E in similar airspace .

Do you really think we should wait for a fatal before copying the best?

Vag277

28th Dec 2017, 20:25

For Ballina see here file:///C:/Users/Kim/Downloads/aeronautical_study_ballina2013%20(1).pdf and here https://www.casa.gov.au/files/supplementaryairspacereviewballinabyrongatewayjuly2015pdf

Dick Smith

29th Dec 2017, 03:18

Hold on. A different CTAF for Lismore won’t work because it will be 4 miles within the new giant Ballina 20 mile CTAF!

CASA people havnt even considered what a giant stuff up their latest recommendations are!

Capn Bloggs

29th Dec 2017, 05:11

This is all just so rediculous. Who would be on the Ballina CTAF on the other side of Lismore?

In any case, why would not having a distance rule be any better (or the current 10nm)? The same problem still exists: aircraft potentially on the wrong freq and therefore alerted See and Avoid cannot function, depending on when the ace-of-the-base 100hr pilot thinks it is best to swap freqs.

What a great system; the safety of the whole system relies on the skill and ability of the lowest common denominator, the low-hour private pilot. The same pilot will be VFR swanning around in Class E a couple of miles from Ballina while jets are being messed about, probably micro-managed almost to the ground because there is another IFR in the area, by an ATC! So we have the two IFR crews (worse if only single pilot) running two radios and two traffic situations. Madness.

If Ballina is a worry, PUT IN A TOWER.

At a similar airspace at Bundaberg two professional pilots were performing an instrument approach at the same time in IMC. One had dialed up the wrong ctaf and the other thought the first aircraft had already landed.
And a similar scenario could never happen between an RPT jet and a bugsmasher in a CTAF just because it's VMC? Anybody who thinks that either the jet crew or the bugsmasher driver have any realistic chance of visually avoiding each other if they don't know where the other is is just delusional and quite frankly a menace to the safety of our skies. The skies are just as dangerous when it is 8/8 CAVOK and Class E won't fix that (apart from mandating transponders).

Do you really think we should wait for a fatal before copying the best?
There was almost a Fatal at Mildura IMO because of the too-small "10nm" CTAF. Had we "copied the best" it would have been 15nm (MBZ) or 20nm (AFIZ); Australian "creations".

Dick Smith

29th Dec 2017, 05:44

Bloggs. It’s so sad. You are still completely utterly misinformed on how an international ICAO based airspace system works. The sad thing is that many of those at CASA involved in airspace are just as mis informed.

Tell the truth. Have you ever flown as pilot in command on an IFR flight in IMC at a non tower airport in Canada or the US? I bet not. If you have -advise us of the location.

I have a feeling your extremely limited international experience is similar to those in the “ iron ring” at CASA.

Dick Smith

29th Dec 2017, 08:55

Could someone post a link again to the Mildura incident Bloggs is referring to. Thanks

Cloudee

29th Dec 2017, 09:33

Could someone post a link again to the Mildura incident Bloggs is referring to. Thanks
Possibly this one? https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-106/

Dick Smith

29th Dec 2017, 20:17

Thanks. I have read that report and can’t see how such an incident could be prevented by having more prescriptive dimensions on a ctaf . The incident once again shows the importance of remaining visually vigilant at all times.

May have been assisted by a NAS US style Unicom which all equivalent aerodromes in the US with RPT have. The Unicom would most likely advised of over transmissions if they occurred.

Shows that even with professional pilots that incidents can take place .

Always keep a good lookout. Even in C airspace under control. Remember Coolangatta !

Capn Bloggs

30th Dec 2017, 03:42

Dick Smith

30th Dec 2017, 06:20

Dick Smith

30th Dec 2017, 06:28

Bloggs. Pretty similar to what happens at a place like Coffs Harbour at the moment. Tower controllers can’t see in cloud and VFR can’t fly in cloud. E works from the centre just as efficiently.

A Squared

30th Dec 2017, 06:52

Dick, I notice that you are conspicuously silent with your solution to my problem of two IFRs simultaneously being controlled by ATC and having to deal with two VFRs in the circuit on the CTAF. A call to your brain's trust in America, you know those types that do actually fly heavy metal (unlike yourself, isn't that right?) for a living into and out of these E+CTAFs, is allowed.

Not Dick, but I do fly large aircraft into airports in the US with no tower or approach control services. Here's how it works: If both IFR aircraft are arriving, one aircraft is held above a certain altitude until the other reports on the ground or cancels IFR If one is arriving and one departing, either the departing aircraft is held on the ground until the arriving aircraft reports landing or cancels IFR, or; the arriving aircraft is held at an altitude above the MEA, until the departing aircraft is clear of conflict. Occasionally, the departing aircraft is given a heading to maintain which will keep it clear of the arriving aircraft which allows the arriving aircraft to be cleared to lower altitudes, sooner. This last procedure is used at airports where radar coverage is good to low altitudes and allows ATC to acquire the departing aircraft on radar quickly. As far as the VFR aircraft in the circuit, it's see and avoid. Normally, they would be broadcasting on CTAF, and the IFR traffic would be monitoring (and broadcasting) on the CTAF. The VFR traffic would not normally be communicating with ATC. They are, after all, VFR.

No idea if this supports or detracts from Dick's crusade, but that's how that situation works in the US.

jonkster

30th Dec 2017, 07:19

Etrust. The CTAF system that operated with complete safety from the introduction of NAS on the 27 TH Nov 2003 for 3 months until Airservices undermined the whole proposal when they printed and published a “ wind back” map with the 1960s frequency boundaries on them.

This is how the proven system works.

When en route if in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodrome ctaf.

Too simple I know. No dimensions required.

Just trying to understand what the proposed system (as promoted by DS) is.

1. No real changes to published alphabet procedures as they currently exist.

2. Changes to Charts to remove the green frequency boundaries for class G

3. Lowering E into what is now G, where radar can cover it.

4. For VFR ops in G, frequency choice is up to pilots based on operational proximity (rather than fixed distance) to aerodromes (and any approach/departure areas associated with aerodromes) - ie if you believe you may be mixing with a particular aerodrome's traffic, you monitor the aerodrome frequency.

Is this correct?

Capn Bloggs

30th Dec 2017, 08:26

Pretty similar to what happens at a place like Coffs Harbour at the moment. Tower controllers can’t see in cloud and VFR can’t fly in cloud. E works from the centre just as efficiently.
I didn't say anything about cloud. :rolleyes:

Thanks A Squared. Similar to what happens here, but we do that ourselves, all on the same freq so we don't have two masters. Not hard. We could have ATC involved (Class E), but because Dick has never done a cost-benefit analysis, you know, for another few/many TAAATS sectors, ATC approach training, VHF comms to the ground, nobody knows how much it would cost. Oh and I forgot the mandated transponders for all the VFR players in E.

C'mon Dick. How about it? You're the famous business man, surely you've costed this whole thing out?

Dick Smith

30th Dec 2017, 09:25

topdrop

30th Dec 2017, 11:00

Under NAS we had a system where VFR were very close to IFR jets in E, but this was not regarded as an issue because there was no breakdown of separation, as no separation was required between VFR and IFR in E. Prior to NAS, the airspace had been class C and separation would have been applied - tell me which is safer?

Sorry to use the initial words in the next para, but I have seen a regular correspondent to this site use them.
"I was told" that due to the above non-incidents and the lack of a proper safety case, lawyers told Airservices that they would be liable for any mid-airs that occurred in the NAS airspace - hence the rollback of NAS - not just frequencies on a chart. RIP PF.

Capn Bloggs

30th Dec 2017, 11:27

Arr, yes, the TCAS RA non-incidents.

This chart business has nothing to do with the CTAF/Multicom issue, and Dick has said nothing to justify his claims that is linked. It is just a red herring in an attempt to continue the Class E/Unicom noise that gets trotted out regularly. The hamster-wheel is spinning again.

jonkster

30th Dec 2017, 22:41

Jonkster. Sort of. Remove all frequency boundary lines from charts. Not just green ones. No other country has such charts. It’s a hangover from the old full position flight service days.

Re extra E. Do a trial at a radar covered and non radar airport. Check delays and cost .

Copy the best and incorporate with what we already do better.

Not trying to be deliberately obtuse or negative - I want to understand the implications of your proposal before I make up my mind.

Be patient as I am a bit thick. I think I am missing something.

The big thing I am not getting is why the depiction of frequency areas is a problem.

Currently VFR in G, I select a frequency based on the area I am in (obtained ultimately by looking at a chart).

In areas of high congestion (say a lane of entry) I will broadcast but mostly otherwise mostly just monitor. On the odd occasion I may contact flightwatch (eg I have a sartime amendment or perhaps want some updated weather unexpectedly due diversion). I also know in the unlikely event of an emergency situation I am in contact with someone with resources on the ground and with other aircraft in the area. Mostly though just monitor.

This seems to work OK from my perspective so I am not seeing it as a problem that needs a solution. Why is the depiction of frequencies an issue? - what is the issue/problem that gets solved or improved if the frequencies are not marked on charts? If removed, are the appropriate frequencies for an area available elsewhere? If so how?

In practical terms:

1. What frequency should I monitor if there is none marked on the chart? Is it a common aircraft-aircraft unicom or is there still a FIS frequency available - how do I find it?

2. if unicom, suppose as a VFR flight in G, I want to contact someone on the ground to get details or change something - (eg I have lodged a sartime and I need to amend it or want to ask for weather after an unexpected route change), who do I call and how do I find their frequency?

2. If unicom if I encounter an urgency/emergency situation and I need to alert someone, I assume the procedure would be to make a call on 121.5 is that correct?

3. If I encounter un-forecast nasty weather and want to make a short airep - who do I call? If someone else encounters that situation how do I hear their report? I am assuming all aircraft in my area will be on a common unicom frequency - is that correct - in which case I would make a broadcast on the unicom?

4. If I enter E, how do I know what frequency to monitor if it is not marked? Or do I remain on unicom?

5. If I want flight following, who do I contact and how do I find the appropriate frequency?

Genuine questions - I want to know how your system works before making any judgement.

Dick Smith

30th Dec 2017, 23:44

Jonkster. The only reason CASA has spent over two years and a large amount of money on this major dispute with all RAPACs is that CASA attempted to get the reason for frequency boundaries on charts to work.

CASA stated that all non map marked airport operations should be on the area ATC map marked frequency.

Do you grasp that ?

This was so aircraft flying en route and monitoring the correct map marked area ATC frequency would be on the same frequency as aircraft operating at non map marked airports.

This was the system we had before my group made the 1991 AMATs changes. In those days there was no such thing as a CTAF and the airport traffic operated on the area frequency . That’s why the charts had to show the frequency boundaries.

The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft. There was no CAA regulation in relation to remaining visually vigilant. I had to introduce that by copying the FAA wording!

The system required an extra 700 staff to monitor all these non tower airports .

The CAA Board made the decision in in 1990 to more closely harmonise with the North American airspace system. This copied the CTAF concept and removed the requirement for VFR to monitor ATS frequencies.

You say there is not a problem that needs a solution. The RAPACs or CASA clearly do not agree. That’s why the major dispute occurred. It had nothing to do with me. I just watched from the sidelines.

The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs

The answers

1. While en route if in the airspace used for for the departure and approach of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodromes CTAF Otherwise monitor the nearest ATC ground outlet if you wish to listen to atc Or monitor 121.5 if you want to get an emergency call out with maximum chance of quick action and don’t want a truck type radio going in your ear all the time.

2. At any time you can push the nearest button on your GPS and request a service from the nearest ATC ground outlet. Or look at the location of the nearest outlet on your chart.

3. Same as above. You can give safety information to the nearest outlet. It has never been shown anywhere in the world that aireps to to other VFR aircraft are necessary for the safety of the system.

4 E is the same as G in relation to VFR radio requirements. See 1.

5. Call the closest ATC ground outlet. Either look at the outlet location on your map or use the nearest ATC outlet function on your GPS. That’s why it is there. The controller will provide you with a service worlkload permitting or advise a change to another frequency. It’s how The rest of the world works,

Most importantly. Keep a good lookout when in VMC. Even when under an ATC clearance keep a good lookout. Many mid airs take place close to the airport in controlled airspace. Be vigilant. You could die if you remain obsessed with the Australian 1960s culture of looking down at frequencies on a chart and writing down call signs of other traffic rather rather than looking out.

Look forward to your judgment. By the way. Have you ever rented a car in another country? Other than knowing what side of the road to drive on the rules have been standardised. What’s wrong with Australia doing that with Aviation. We will earn a fortune in export income if we make it simpler for other aviators to spend there money here!

Capn Bloggs

31st Dec 2017, 00:54

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

FS never monitored "all these non tower airports". NEVER. They only monitored AFIZs (and HF, Sartimes).

The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft.
Such a system is fundamentally sound! Who in their right mind would design a system where aircraft in the same piece of sky were on different frequencies? Unalerted See and Avoid ie "looking out the window" does not work with large speed mismatches.

The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs
What dispute? The original dispute was the freq to be used at unmarked fields. That has NOTHING to do with charted freq boundaries (it is a pity that someone in CASA added in the 20nm CTAF thingee. That should have been kept separate).

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 01:03

The only way CASA could nominate an area frequency at non map marked airports is that such a frequency existed because of the wind back.

So the dispute was caused by the frequency boundaries being put back on the charts.

Pretty simple.

Bloggs. If the smaller airports were not on the area FIS frequency what frequency were they on? Gotcha!

jonkster

31st Dec 2017, 03:09

Dick, seriously, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions and again I stress I am not trying to argue - I am trying to understand.

I think there is something here I am missing.

Ultimately any change should be evaluated on the questions of:
1. does it increase safety? (and by how much?)
2. how much does it cost? (and does the safety increase justify the cost?)
3. does it make things easier (by how much and at what impact to safety and cost)

The only reason CASA has spent over This was the system we had before my group made the 1991 AMATs changes. In those days there was no such thing as a CTAF and the airport traffic operated on the area frequency . That’s why the charts had to show the frequency boundaries.

The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft.

The system required an extra 700 staff to monitor all these non tower airports .

The CAA Board made the decision in in 1990 to more closely harmonise with the North American airspace system. This copied the CTAF concept and removed the requirement for VFR to monitor ATS frequencies.

I have no problems with existing ICAO alphabet airspace and removal of mandatory reporting for VFR etc.

I always understood the idea in the early 90s was to reduce excessive costs associated with the existing system that only provided marginal increases in safety and I get the concept that you can bankrupt yourself trying to remove all risks rather than very marginally increase risk for a huge reduction in cost (especially when the risk is actually quite low to start with).

You say there is not a problem that needs a solution. The RAPACs or CASA clearly do not agree. That’s why the major dispute occurred. It had nothing to do with me. I just watched from the sidelines.

The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs

The idea of a 40nm CTAF is something that seems a furphy as far as I can see.

1. I think it is totally unnecessary

2. despite that I also do not see how an expanded size is a necessary consequence of having frequency boundaries on charts :confused:

We have managed to operate with the frequency boundaries on charts and current sized CTAFs fine for years (in my opinion - willing to hear others who had problems though). Why is it now an issue?

Surely just say "when operating near CTAFs and the traffic threat is most likely from aircraft operating around that CTAF, use common sense and monitor that CTAF and give timely calls if you plan to enter that airspace"?

1. While en route if in the airspace used for for the departure and approach of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodromes CTAF.

that is not really any different from the current procedure most people use in practice and it makes sense. No problems from me.

Otherwise monitor the nearest ATC ground outlet if you wish to listen to atc

I assume the idea is you would look at your current location and look for the nearest box with a frequency in it? If so, this is the bit I am not getting - is it much different from looking at the bounded area I am in and finding the box in that?

My impression is it achieves the same result (ie I find the appropriate frequency) but perhaps more quickly with the area's boundary marked because I direct my scan to that area.

Look, not a deal breaker either way for me but I just don't see why that particular issue gets so much prominence and is seen as a problem.

Or monitor 121.5 if you want to get an emergency call out with maximum chance of quick action and don’t want a truck type radio going in your ear all the time.

I can see that up to a point but know from giving people simulated emergencies during their BFRs most will be operating at maximum brain power already just dealing with flying with little left over to deal with radio calls etc, so in a real situation I tend to think they will be highly likely to waste time dialing rather than flying, (or dial a wrong frequency or just blurt out on whatever frequency they have dialed in at the time) if it was a real scenario.

Again, my opinion, but a mayday on area, even if overtransmitted in a busy chatter environment tends to shut people up quick smart and is pretty likely to be heard by many and if ATC/FIS is the one over transmitting I am sure they will be immediately alerted by another aircraft who did hear the call if the urgency or distress call is not acknowledged.

I can see if you always had 121.5 dialled in on standby that would make sense though.

That said to me it seems to add a layer of complexity for many VFR PPLs but I can live with it - we would just train people to keep 121.5 dialed up and to use it in simulated emergencies.

Again not a deal breaker.

2. At any time you can push the nearest button on your GPS and request a service from the nearest ATC ground outlet. Or look at the location of the nearest outlet on your chart.

If using a chart, wouldn't having a boundary perhaps make finding the nearest outlet easier? Again not a deal breaker if the boundary wasn't there but still not getting why having it is seen as a big problem.

3. Same as above. You can give safety information to the nearest outlet. It has never been shown anywhere in the world that aireps to to other VFR aircraft are necessary for the safety of the system.

well... I have made operational decisions based on hearing one.

Agree though it is not common however IMO does add an extra swiss cheese hole filler.

4 E is the same as G in relation to VFR radio requirements. See 1.

I look on the chart. Under your system I find the nearest box to me, on the current system I restrict where I look to the marked boundary and find the box in that region. That part fine either way for me.

Your system works though if the various outlets are re-transmitted - what if they aren't? Would that not mean I could be monitoring an adjacent area's IFR traffic rather than what is in my vicinity or am I getting something wrong?

5. Call the closest ATC ground outlet. Either look at the outlet location on your map or use the nearest ATC outlet function on your GPS. That’s why it is there. The controller will provide you with a service worlkload permitting or advise a change to another frequency.

fair enough. That said if I call the wrong one I just waste time and bandwidth while we sort out the correct frequency but look, not a big deal.

It’s how The rest of the world works,

To me it still seems very similar to the existing system we have except we draw an area around the outlet and they don't :confused: What am I missing?

I could easily adapt to not having the boundaries but also cannot see how it would really confuse someone from overseas flying here either - surely they would look at the chart/display and say - "oh isn't that neat! the nearest outlet has a boundary around it!", and carry on. Again - am I missing something :confused:

Most importantly. Keep a good lookout when in VMC. Even when under an ATC clearance keep a good lookout. Many mid airs take place close to the airport in controlled airspace. Be vigilant.

no problem with that at all. Agree 100%

You could die if you remain obsessed with the Australian 1960s culture of looking down at frequencies on a chart and writing down call signs of other traffic rather rather than looking out.

TBH what I am seeing are pilots who spend their VFR time staring at the little purple line on their EFB. Same disease different symptom - relying on technology rather than pilotage. :(

Most un-necessary looking at charts (and EFB displays) tends to be done by people map crawling rather than looking for radio frequencies. Having a boundary would potentially make it quicker to find an outlet wouldn't it? (and so reduce time spent head down?)

Look forward to your judgment.

still digesting this as I think I am not getting the issues.

By the way. Have you ever rented a car in another country? Other than knowing what side of the road to drive on the rules have been standardised. What’s wrong with Australia doing that with Aviation. We will earn a fortune in export income if we make it simpler for other aviators to spend there money here!

I am all for enhancing our GA industry, particularly the training side.

I am struggling to see how much different we really are though (and if different, how much adjustment would pilots changing airspace in different countries need to make? - the changes in procedures you want seem relatively minor to me - we currently have some boundaries on the chart and have less class E).

I could see advantage if the changes save cost and have little negative safety impact (or positive effects).

In light of my original basis for assessing this:

1. How much would it improve safety (I am seeing little change either way TBH).

2. How much would it cost? (some cost - probably minor - would need to produce training material, briefings etc etc)

3. Does it make it easier? Would it make it more likely foreign students would find it beneficial if it matched their system? (to me adaption either way appears trivial - here you look for the box in the boundary - there you hunt for the nearest box to where you are, here you have more G and less E but basically similar procedures).

I am not seeing the problem. Certainly ditch the 20nm CTAF idea but that seems a side issue.

Again thank you for your detailed responses to my questions - sorry if I am missing something and happy to be corrected or have things better explained.

CaptainMidnight

31st Dec 2017, 04:47

jonkster

Your analysis and conclusions are pretty much spot on. I make a few points.

Monitoring 121.5 and broadcasting on it in the event of an emergency would be far less likely to achieve satisfactory action than if done on an FIA frequency. On 121.5 you would be likely to at best be heard by a high flyer, who may be an international with a poor command of the English language, or even if a local may also not have a clue what you are saying WRT your location and difficulties just when needed. In any case, they would have to note what you are saying then relay to ATC on a high level frequency and act as the go between.

However a broadcast made on an FIA would mean you are likely to be in direct contact with the ATC responsible for your area with a good knowledge of locations, and able to provide direct assistance including with other aircraft in the area. If you are below the ATCs VHF coverage, these other aircraft in the area will most likely to hear your call and will relay and are likely to have some familiarity with your location.

This has been the practice followed for at least the last 40 years or so of my experience. I've heard many Mayday calls directed to FS/ATC on FIAs, none heard at all on 121.5, only the odd ELB. Monitoring an FIA also brings all the other advantages as previously outlined in posts here.

Deleting FIA boundaries and relying instead on boxes placed in the vicinity of a communications outlet would also introduce the problems associated with not necessarily talking to the ATC responsible for the area you are in. Some outlets are not located in the area they serve, and instead may be on a mountain top outside the area with directional antennas pointing towards the area served.

As you have said, it is far easier to interpret a chart or moving map display with boundaries included.

All points made some 15 years ago and no doubt the reasoning behind the then industry associations requesting the boundaries to be reintroduced promptly to the charts.

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/104692-nas-chart-simplification-why-why-why.html

As far as I am aware, there is no industry proposal to delete FIA boundaries from charts. If there were, the proposal would need to be subject to a benefit analysis, HAZID and safety case and widespread industry support.

wishiwasupthere

31st Dec 2017, 04:51

24 pages regarding CTAF sizes and area frequencies published on charts??? No wonder aviation in this country is stuffed! Talk about sweating the small stuff.

Capn Bloggs

31st Dec 2017, 05:25

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

31st Dec 2017, 05:44

Perhaps the frequency boundaries were put back on charts because ATC provide a traffic service to IFR in G on Area, much like FS did back in the day, and so it behoves the IFR and the traffic to be on the same frequency. How do they know what or where that frequncy is? They look at the charts. Then there is no guessing what frequency the other might be on. It's area, or CTAF if in the vicinity.
And no Dick, FS didn't monitor those non-tower airports. Our only interest traffic wise was if an IFR was arriving or departing.there. Even then, the VFR traffic that was passed was only that known to us. If there were NOSAR or SARTIME aircraft in the vicinity, the broadcasts made by the arriving/departing aircraft were meant to alert those. And guess what, they were made on area, because that's all there was. If the traffic at an aerodrome outside an AFIZ was all VFR, we didn't get involved. Our only interest with VFRs at non-controlled aerodromes was for SAR alerting or FIS, not for traffic to each other. FIS as a service in an FIA was for anyone who asked for it, or by broadcast if necessary. Directed FIS and traffic went only to some. You seem to think that FS was only there for traffic. We weren't.
Canada still does it, to some degree.

Agrajag

31st Dec 2017, 07:25

So, there I was just today, trundling around the local training area.

On the FIA freq, I heard an IFR aircraft inbound to Bankstown from the west. Cloud was below MSA, so he was doing the RNAV into BK. He was still IMC; we were VMC, but any time soon he'd be dropping into our piece of sky. The sector controller gave us as unknown traffic to him. Pretty obvious who he was talking about, so I spoke up and assured ATC we'd stop manoeuvring and stay on heading till the other guy passed aft of us.

We never saw each other, but were unofficially separated by the helpful ATC and all went happily on their way.

I wonder how all that would have played out if I were on the proposed new system of 126.7 in G? Or, gods help us, on 121.5?

I'm not a fan of 20nm CTAFs out in the bush, and I hope that particular change doesn't get up. But to have aircraft on different frequencies in the same airspace is sheer insanity.

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 08:04

There is nothing that stops a person from posting under their real name on this site. Yes. There are times when anonymity is necessary to protect an individual who is whistle blowing

But discussing airspace! Come on.

I once explained to a FAA ATC and airspace expert how a few concrete minded dopes in Australia had converted ICAO E airspace into a nightmare that could not work.

I explained that in Australia it was a mandatory requirement for VFR to have radio in E and not only monitor the ATC frequency at all times but also to call an IFR aircraft directly on the ATC frequency if they thought they were “ traffic “ .

I explained that for this to work we had to show the ATC sector boundaries on the charts so the VFR pilots would be on the “ correct “ frequency. I explained that this was a hangover from the days when IFR and VFR flew at the same flight levels and used “ radio arranged separation” with the Air traffic service provider ( not a controller )just looking on and not actually providing a control service .

The FAA person was rolling on the floor.

He asked. “So in your system I could be responsible for giving an IFR separation service to a pilot that at the same time on the same frequency was self arranging separation from a VFR aircraft?

I said. Well yes. That’s how it is supposed to work but I have never actually heard of such a situation as our aviation sector is so stuffed there are hardly any aircraft!

So we have a situation where our E is supposed to operate in a way that would make an ATCs job impossible.

This has come about because a few really dumb people have not been prepared to ask advice and copy the best.

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 08:11

Jonkster. You write as if you really don’t know what is going on here. I doubt this.

I will say again. It has also been stated by others on this site.

The radio frequency boundaries on the charts do not primarily reflect the range of the ground located transmitter. They are there primarily for other purposes.

If you want the maximum chance of communicating to a ground station go for the one which is closest. That’s why all good GPS units have this function.

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 08:18

Agra. Please answer one question for me .

What is the reason CASA has spent a fortune on the class G study and come up with the 20 mile CTAF you don’t like.

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 08:23

Agra. Another question. Why wasn’t the controller providing a Control service to the IFR pilot that was in total radar and hopefully ADSB coverage?

Why was the pilot groping around in un controlled airspace when on approach over mountainous terrain going into what was once one of the busiest airports in the country ?

I will give you a hint. Concrete minds. Never update G to E unless DS brings it in.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

31st Dec 2017, 08:24

....in Australia had converted ICAO E airspace into a nightmare that could not work.
So we have a situation where our E is supposed to operate in a way that would make an ATCs job impossible.

But it does work doesn't it, so the job is not impossible?

jonkster

31st Dec 2017, 08:28

Wow. I can see why you people post anonymously. You must be complete failures in life.

Or just possibly you are members of the CASA “ iron ring” who are are not even confident enough in your reasoning skills that you have to insist your names are blacked out from safety documents.

There is nothing that stops a person from posting under their real name on this site.

woah... steady on - complete failures in life because they don't publish their names on a public forum debating contentious industry issues?

More than happy to give you my contact details by PM - I am also pretty sure many people could work out who I am from my posts anyway.

I can understand why people may choose a modicum of anonymity on an this forum - unlike people who have an independent source of income, many here (including me) are employees of aviation businesses and would not be 100% sure their employers would be that happy about them publicly debating contentious views, particularly when in online debates, animosity and misunderstandings can easily occur.

Not a good look when as an employee you alienate potential customers or have the company associated with my private views.

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 08:31

Traffic. If you didn’t monitor the VFR traffic at airports before I introduced CTAFs did you turn off your hearing?

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 08:35

Captain. I have done over a decade of testing on which frequency a pilot is more likely to get an instant answer on,

From my experience 121.5 winds hands down- especially at low level.

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 08:54

Special briefing and instruction for a US pilot about to go flying VFR in Australia.

Mate. There’s a slight difference here. You will have to take a close look at the chart so that whenever you are flying in class E airspace you change to the Class E ATC frequency. There are special coloured lines on the charts. Some brown. Some green. Watch out for altitudes- different everywhere.

If you hear an IFR aircraft and you think it may be close make sure you make a position announcement and then use “ radio arranged separation” with the IFR aircraft .
You may hear some complaints from ATC but ignore them .

It’s our improvement of ICAO class E. Sort of makes it a bit like D but without the cost! After all. We built the Nomad.

mustafagander

31st Dec 2017, 09:16

Dick, I'm disappointed in your insulting other posters. I thought you were enough of a man to accept that you just might not be right in everything you post. My mistake.
Let's stick to the issues.

mustafagander

31st Dec 2017, 09:21

I fail to see any problem with having frequency boundaries on the chart. I find it very helpful to help me ensure that I'm on the appropriate frequency.
If other pilots have a problem with the boundaries being displayed, they can ignore them and their problem is solved.
Making emergency calls on 121.5 is just not going to work at low level and you know it Dick. In over 40 years of RPT jet operations, mainly long haul international, I have only ever heard two emergency calls on 121.5 and they were oceanic where there was no VHF ground station anyway. I have heard quite a few on the control frequencies though.

Lead Balloon

31st Dec 2017, 09:22

I don’t recall ever hearing “complaints from ATC” on the airwaves, Dick. Very occasionally I get a courteous question from ATC that brings to my attention my own stuff up, and I’m thankful for it.

Dick Smith

31st Dec 2017, 10:00

Musta. Come on. CASA has just spent two years and a lot of our industries money in attempting to get the class G with the frequency boundaries on charts working correctly in their view.

First they wanted the system to work by getting all non map marked airports on the ATC frequency that covers that area.

All RAPACs disagreed. Now CASA has come up with another answer to the “ problem “. That is unique 40 mile CTAFs like nowhere else .

Not many like that proposal. So where do we go from here?

Great idea. Why not copy a proven safe system from another country?

Just a suggestion .

topdrop

31st Dec 2017, 10:26

You may hear some complaints from ATC but ignore them
In 30+ years I have never heard this occur. Do you just make stuff up as you go along, just to suit your argument?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

31st Dec 2017, 10:45

Traffic. If you didn’t monitor the VFR traffic at airports before I introduced CTAFs did you turn off your hearing?

I said I could hear them. I didn't say I monitored them. Why would I be monitoring them? I didn't care what they were doing.

Plazbot

31st Dec 2017, 21:01

HNY DICK........

CaptainMidnight

31st Dec 2017, 21:50

Captain. I have done over a decade of testing on which frequency a pilot is more likely to get an instant answer on,

From my experience 121.5 winds hands down- especially at low level. On 121.5 there is a big difference between:

doing a check call, at altitude in a modern well equipped aircraft v.s.
calling MAYDAY in a bug smasher suffering an emergency with hands full on the way down ...

Lead Balloon

31st Dec 2017, 23:08

Dick: If I want to maximise my chances of being heard and assisted quickly in an emergency in Australia, I’m going to:

(1) turn on my ELT and PLB

(2) broadcast my MAYDAY on the FIA frequency.

1 will result in noises being made on 121.5 and my GPS position being sent to a friendly rescue organisation via satellite.

2 will be heard by anyone within range on the FIA including, in many cases, Centre.

Aircraft who hear either or both will tell Centre anyway. Centre will contact a friendly rescue organisation by telephone.

Capn Bloggs

31st Dec 2017, 23:49

The FAA person was rolling on the floor.

He asked. “So in your system I could be responsible for giving an IFR separation service to a pilot that at the same time on the same frequency was self arranging separation from a VFR aircraft?
It is a pity that the Tobago pilot at Launy didn't self-arrange himself from the Virgin 737 and it's 100+ punters he almost creamed because he was in E and knew better, because that's what you do in E as VFR, just swan along thinking all I have to do is look out the window...

No wonder there was a rollback!

Oh, and the FAA probably mandate monitoring 121.5 because ATC monitor and can transmit on it.

I understand that Australian ATC cannot and do not monitor 121.5.

Dick Smith

1st Jan 2018, 00:38

Captain. Yes come up with any explanation that keeps the procedures you were taught from the 60s. Whatever you do don’t open up your mind to new ideas and ways .

Capn Bloggs

1st Jan 2018, 00:54

Captain. Yes come up with any explanation
Yes Dick, it must really annoy you when people keep shooting you down.

Instead of personal attacks (obviously you have something over the mods because if I ranted and raved like you are increasingly doing here I'd be banned) how about you explain how Terminal Class E, with it's unalerted See and Avoid for VFR, is better than C or D, or indeed even DTI as we get in an AFIZ.

Dick Smith

1st Jan 2018, 02:53

The E is safer than G for a number of reasons.

In cloud you cannot use see and avoid. Or even use alerted see and avoid.

With E the only aircraft operating in IMC are fully separated by a third party using a recognised safe separation standard.

Also all VFR in E must have the minimum of a mode C transponder allowing for the extra safety backup of TCAS.

With G it’s up to the lowest common denominator to choose a separation “ standard “. Could be set by a 300 hr very inexperienced pilot.

There is no dual frequency problem in E . If cloud is at the minimum the IFR remains on the centre ATC frequency as VFR are not allowed in the airspace without a special VFR clearance from the centre.

When VMC exists IFR in E can use similar procedures that we now use in G. There is no less alerted see and avoid.

It is a very versatile and safe airspace. Remember what VOR stated years ago on this site. I will try and find the post.

Bloggs. Do you want me to donate to you the cost of an air ticket to the USA so you can find out the truth about E ?

Dick Smith

1st Jan 2018, 03:08

Bloggs. Re Launceston. The VFR pilot monitored all of the calls from the airline.

He stated that he had the airline aircraft visual at all times and there was never any chance of a collision in his view. It was an alerted see and avoid system working correctly.

He did not call the airline aircraft as he stated that in his view there was no reason to.

No it was not a “ radio arranged separation “ system that you obviously have your mind set in concrete over. That was in the 60s I am afraid. Times have moved on.

Thanks for continually showing your ignorance on these issues. It shows others why CASA can’t come up to speed and copy the best. There are clearly some of your clones working there .

More importantly the VFR pilot continually stated that the ATSB had lied in the report in relation to the transcript of the communication. The pilot was never able to get the transcript of even his communication during the incident.

I challenge ATSB to allow the pilot to have a copy of his communication to the tower and then I ask them to correct the report.

Dick Smith

1st Jan 2018, 03:22

Topdrop No. You havnt heard any reports because no one takes any notice of the stupid idea.

However I can assure you the class E frequency boundaries were put back on the charts so VFR pilots could monitor and communicate to IFR pilots just as they did in pre 1990s G!

topdrop

1st Jan 2018, 03:39

put back on the charts so VFR pilots could monitor and communicate to IFR pilots
What a great idea - wonder why the hell it ever got removed.

kaz3g

1st Jan 2018, 03:41

If you want the maximum chance of communicating to a ground station go for the one which is closest. That’s why all good GPS units have this function.

There are probably quite a few of us interested in this issue who are not in the fortunate financial circumstance which you enjoy, and therefore do not have the array of electronic wizardry that you have.

Last time I looked, clock and compass was still an approved method of navigating VFR on paper charts.

I'm happy to use marked boundaries and FIA outside of 10 NM CTAFs.

Question for you Dick: how often do YOU fly VFR below 5000'?

Kaz

Dick Smith

1st Jan 2018, 04:13

Topdrop. You say it is a good idea.

Why then wouldn’t other countries take this “ good idea” and at a minimum recommend that VFR pilots in class E monitor and announce on ATC frequencies?

Could it be that it would turn ICAO class E into a bastardised form of ICAO class D?

And what is the ATC supposed to do when separating two IFR in E and a VFR pops up on frequency and commences to arrange separation with one or both of the IFR aircraft?

Do you still think it’s a good idea or haven’t you actually thought how it would work in practice?

Capn Bloggs

1st Jan 2018, 04:25

No, Dick.

In cloud you cannot use see and avoid. Or even use alerted see and avoid.
You have simply not latched onto the idea that we don't do "See and Avoid"! We do "know/find out about and separate until sighting". That statement alone indicates to me you do not understand or have any experience in what goes on in the real world.

You also obviously do not understand that it is immaterial whether there's cloud about or not. And for your info, 90% of my flying out bush in in gin-clear VMC. As far as I am concerned, my operation doesn't change one iota. I know that visual lookout, even alerted, is as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to closure rates of 300+ knots.

With G it’s up to the lowest common denominator to choose a separation “ standard “. Could be set by a 300 hr very inexperienced pilot.
This applies, in VMC, to E as well, as amply demonstrated at Launy. I could be at the mercy of some low-time "expert" who "in his view" (your words) thinks we aren't going to hit. That pilot completely misread the situation because he didn't know what the 737 was actually doing, nor did he pipe up so that the 737 crew (and tower controller!!) could assess the situation. Instead, they got so close they got a TCAS RA. Do you consider that this is a satisfactory situation?

No it was not a “ radio arranged separation “ system that you obviously have your mind set in concrete over. That was in the 60s I am afraid. Times have moved on.
Well it should have been. If I had found out that he was opposite direction within a few degrees of my track, climbing through my level, I would have screamed blue-murder.

You don't seem to understand that E doesn't magically make IFRs operate in a different vacuum to VFRs. We're all there, mixing it, but now you have this warm and fuzzy feeling that IFRs will be separated and VFRs will use Unalerted See and Avoid to miss all and sundry. Well it doesn't work like that, and the fact that you will not admit it indicates to me that you either have so little real-world experience that you can't see it, or that you are ideologically driven.

Thanks for continually showing your ignorance on these issues.
Pot calling the kettle black, methinks!

There is no dual frequency problem in E . If cloud is at the minimum the IFR remains on the centre ATC frequency as VFR are not allowed in the airspace without a special VFR clearance from the centre.

Straight from the handbook of theory. What about if the cloudbase at Ballina is 1500ft, allowing VFR underneath, worse, say doing circuits, while the jet crew is being controlled on the Centre freq? You are dealing with absolutes; we deal with reality.

More importantly the VFR pilot continually stated that the ATSB had lied in the report in relation to the transcript of the communication.
Arr, the conspiracy theories start again.