CASA Class G Discussion Paper

[Dick Smith]

Agra. Any chance of answering 474?

[jonkster]

Dick, still grappling with what you are trying to get across.

Am I correct in sensing the real issue for you is not so much how G airspace is flown or what frequency you use in G but that you want to increase the amount of E in Oz? (by lowering it into a lot of our current G).

In addition you want VFR in E to not be required to be on the ATC frequency?

Is that a fair summary?

If so am I correct in assuming your reasoning for this is that in the US most actual airspace is E and there, VFR ops in E are not required to be on the ATC frequency? (and that in the US that works safely hence it is not as risky as it would appear on first blush?).

Is that correct?

[Dick Smith]

Jonkster. No. It’s not a fair summary. My prime aim is to get an airspace system which is proven and with minimum differences to airspace used in leading aviation countries.

That will maximise export income for Australia.”

Our present airspace is a half wound back system. That’s the prime reason for the previously unheard of total disagreement between CASA and the RAPACs.

I am concerned that an airspace system that we are supposed to rely on is bastardising the intention of the ICAO classification system and is not the way to go.

For example ICAO class E and G airspace have no radio requirement for VFR. This is not accidental. If safety dictates VFR need to be in the system a minimum of ICAO class D is required,

As stated before the present system is a crock. To mandate radio for VFR against ICAO recommendations and then rely on VFR pilots monitoring hundreds of non directed calls , sometimes retransmitted over 100’s of miles ,just doesn’t work. It’s trying to hold on to the past without allocating the necessary resources for the system to work .

Yes. I would like to see some more E. I can’t believe we have our airline pilots performing a do it yourself amateur like separation service at places like Ballina in IMC while the ATC sits in front of the radar with no responsibility for keeping the aircraft apart.

It’s all been planned and approved by the government. But stopped by ignorance and resistance to change. Why don’t you give me a ring.

Recently I made an offer to Mr Carmondy that I give a presentation on the Aus approved NAS

He refused.

[Sunfish]

I don't understand the issues here.

As a VFR radio equipped aircraft, I fly towards Broken Hill. I listen on area and the CTAF.

I hear Rex broadcast on CTAF that he is six minutes out on a straight in approach to runway xx. I reply I am 4 minutes to the circuit for xx and will join upwind xx and extend out until I see him go past.

What is wrong with that?

[Dick Smith]

The CTAF bit sounds pretty normal and “ international “ to me. That is NAS and great!

An “ area frequency “ for VFR is unknown in international procedures. After all ICAO has no radio requirements for VFR in E or G.

Are you listening on the area frequency so you can answer IFR aircraft and organise “ radio arranged separation “ ? How often have you had to do this?

No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?

Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?

How many times on the flight - say from Bankstown- did you have to look down at the panel to change the area frequency? Was it six or seven times or more?

As you flew right on the frequency boundary west of Forbes what frequency did you monitor?

Would you be prepared to try the US or Canadian system where there was no such thing as an area frequency and therefore no requirement to listen ?

[Lead Balloon]

Isn’t 126.7 the ‘area frequency’ below 5,000’ in Canada?

[Dick Smith]

No. Thank heavens! No other country as ever heard of 5000’ as a demarcation line.

If you want to head off into IMC in G in the UK just do so. No radio calls even necessary. And lots of G .

If you want to do this in Canada Just monitor and announce on 126.7. No flight plan or costs necessary. I called it “ free in G “ in NAS.

126.7 is not the Multicom in Canada. We had planned to use 127.7 in Aus for free in G

In both Canada and the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR en route in G or E. And there is about 30 times the amount of traffic .

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Leadie, to all intents and purposed it is, if you are outside any other classification of airspace.
**Whispers** Just not allowed to call it "area" as that doesn't fit the narrative.

[Dick Smith]

For Bloggs. Re Launceston

TThe Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has recommended a review of parts of the National Airspace System (NAS) after describing a mid-air incident over Launceston at Christmas as "serious".

The ATSB report found a Virgin Boeing 737 and a Tobago light aircraft came so close during the incident over Tasmania that a threat to the safety of the aircraft may have existed.

The bureau was unable to say exactly how close the two planes came, but passengers on board the 737 saw the light aircraft on the left side of the commercial jet.

Federal Transport Minister John Anderson says he is not embarassed that the new rules are being reviewed.

"I'm concerned to make sure we get it right, embarrassed, no, that would be far too weak a response," he said.

Despite the ATSB finding, the pilot of the light plane involved in the incident, Peter Scollard, says there was never any danger of a collision.

"At no stage was there ever any risk of collision," he said.

"This day was a beautiful blue day and if I ever thought there was risk of collision, I could have easily changed my course, or I could have descended 1,000 feet, or 2,000 feet, without any major problems, and I could have done that instantly."

Scaremongering

Air traffic controllers have raised safety concerns about new airspace regulations since they were introduced by the Howard Government late last year.

Mr Anderson has dismissed union concerns as scaremongering but has admitted incidents could occur.

The ATSB's investigation found the pilot of the Boeing 737 was in descent at 8,300 feet when it had to do an immediate climb to avoid a light aircraft travelling in the opposite direction.

The 737 crew did not see the Tobago aircraft, even after alerts from the traffic and collision avoidance systems.

The Tobago pilot did see the 737 and thought he would have enough room.

The investigation recommends the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia review NAS rules for Class E airspace which relate to passenger planes, to help improve pilots awareness of the new airspace rules.

Virgin Blue has welcomed the findings of the investigation.

Public relations manager Amanda Bolger has commended the crew on board the 737.

"We believe that Australia has the safest skies in the world and we certainly commend our crew, who followed the procedures to the letter as per their many years of training," she said.

"There are always ways to make sure we can learn from our experience.

"Obviously our pilots will be working closely with Qantas, with CASA and other appropriate authorities to see what can be learnt from the report."

Mr Scollard used alerted see and avoid and the incident was beaten up anonymous people at the ATSB.

[Dick Smith]

I reckon it should be called area in Aus. Because that is what it is.

I will say again. An attempt to go back to a system that many old people on this thread did their training in.

Sort of DC3 compared to 777

[Lead Balloon]

So we make 126.7 the ‘area’ frequency in G (really ForG).

What should the default CTAF be?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I find it incongruous that with the all the advances in technology over the decades, the demand to seemingly go backwards and simply look out the window is seen as desirable.

[Lead Balloon]

Looking out the window is not ‘desirable’. It’s essential.

The flaws and failure modes of advanced technology will keep pilots and their Mark I eyeballs employed for a long time yet.

[De_flieger]

No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?

Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?There's plenty of areas where that isn't even remotely the case. I cant claim to speak for all of them, but in the areas I fly in I have one radio on area, and it is not an issue at all. It's not a barrage, I do monitor the calls. It's part of the task, and it's neither onerous or challenging.

What a lot of people have asked in these threads, myself included, is what specific changes you want, and I haven't seen any actual answers. You keep talking about half-rolled back systems and how things are done differently in the USA and the UK, and "My prime aim is to get an airspace system which is proven and with minimum differences to airspace used in leading aviation countries" but what are the specific changes? The actual differences from the current system, and what you want?

I get that one part of it (the only part I've seen explained clearly) is the removal of frequency boundaries from charts, and I dont understand why this in general is a desirable thing? Either the information is relevant, or it isnt. If it is, make it easy to use for pilots to determine unambiguously which frequency they should be on, and if it isnt, remove it altogether to reduce chart clutter. Maybe the equipment in your aircraft makes it easy to determine the nearest FIA transmitter, mine certainly doesnt, there are plenty of aircraft that dont have that equipment, and I cant pull out the protractor and dividers onto the EFB charts to measure which of three different frequencies I should be on. I get that there are locations where the current area frequency will not be received at low level, but another area frequency will, but these are nowhere near the majority of cases, and hardly seem to justify making the rest of the maps harder to use. It's not like this idea hasnt been tested - you may even remember a time a few years back when the charts were all issued without frequency boundaries, it wasn't much fun, people found them harder to use, and the frequency boundaries were very quickly put back on.

[KittyKatKaper]

... If you want to head off into IMC in G in the UK just do so. No radio calls even necessary. And lots of G . but their 'G' is really 'F' for IFR https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1434UKFlightInformationServicesIF.pdf so sure., we can copy 'the best overseas system' (your preference is obviously the FAA version), but FFS ... In both Canada and the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR en route in G or E. And there is about 30 times the amount of traffic . the US and GB have an effing lot more radar coverage down to lower levels and if VFR are doing whatever the eff they want to do in E or G then that means that ATC has to vector IFRs out of harms way and the *best* way that can work is if ATC can see (or knows about) the VFRs.

Give ASA x20 more controllers and more radars and more consoles and then I'll be more amenable to your crusade.

[Dick Smith]

I love it. Every reason why we must not change. Did you notice the UK lower level radar service is only available on weekdays! During the weekends they fly in IMC without radar.

Yes other countries have more radar coverage because they have more traffic to justify it.

Why can’t we copy the best of what they do for our radar covered J curve without extra costs and controllers.

No way. Stick to the 60s!

[fujii]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith
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.

Crap.

From AIP ENR 1.2-2 Cm 1.2.3

Special VFR is not permitted in E airspace.


Special VFR is a control zone procedure issued by a controller responsible for that zone and used to operate only in the zone. This usually means the Aerodrome controller, not Centre.

[topdrop]

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?As a controller, I can tell you that controllers working E don't leave their separation to the last minute, so a VFR in conflict providing info about himself would be most welcome. Certainly better than the NAS cases where the VFR said nothing and created a pile of workload and stress for the controllers and IFR pilots.

[A Squared]

Isn’t 126.7 the ‘area frequency’ below 5,000’ in Canada?

No. Thank heavens! No other country as ever heard of 5000’ as a demarcation line.

In both Canada and the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR en route in G or E. And there is about 30 times the amount of traffic .

Dick you're correct that there is no radio requirement for enroute VFR in Class E and G airspace in the US, nor even a designated enroute frequency. Also correct that there's no demarcation altitude in US or Canada. Technically, you are correct that there is no radio requirement for VFR enroute in Canada, also. It's a "recommendation" in the AIP, which technically lacks the force of law. However, in my experience flying in Canada's Northern Domestic Airspace, VFR traffic *does* as a rule, report position and intentions on 126.7. You will hear helicopters, floatplanes etc, making position reports on the enroute frequency. Are there other VFR aircraft not reporting? That's hard to say based on observation, certainly there may be, but my impression from having flown there is that the VFR traffic does for the most part comply with the system, just like the IFR traffic.

[Dick Smith]

Fuji. I was referring to the US system. Just another example of how concrete minds have done everything they can to prevent change and stop the best from overseas being copied.

They have also prevented FAA style IFR Flight Planned aircraft climbing VMC in E without a clearance by claiming that in Aus once you have given a taxiing call on an IFR plan you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without a clearance. Once again sheer bastardry to damage Australian aviation .

A Squared. Sounds pretty sensible to me as the calls are not on an ATC frequency. It’s all part of “ free in G” which has been stopped here!

[A Squared]

A Squared. Sounds pretty sensible to me as the calls are not on an ATC frequency. It’s all part of “ free in G” which has been stopped here!

I can't comment on whats going on in Oz, really. I just replied as I think you're missing some nuance about Canada. Like I said, technically your correct that it's not required by law. But I get the impression that you view it as an optional thing to participate on 126.7, whereas I don't think it's really considered all that "optional" in Canada.

Also, it might interest you to know that there is a push by the FAA in Alaska to get more VFR traffic on enroute advisory frequencies. This comes after a rash of mid-air collisions between VFR aircraft. There have been frequencies assigned for areas, mostly 122.8 or 122.9. I live in Alaska, so pretty much all of my personal VFR flying is done here. I can say that there has been a significant increase in VFR pilots reporting position and intentions on these frequencies. Of course these are not ATC frequencies, and participation is recommended, not regulatory. By it's worth noting that officially, the view is that the system wasn't working quite so well and changes were needed.

[Sunfish]

From Dick Smith:The CTAF bit sounds pretty normal and “ international “ to me. That is NAS and great!

An “ area frequency “ for VFR is unknown in international procedures. After all ICAO has no radio requirements for VFR in E or G.

Are you listening on the area frequency so you can answer IFR aircraft and organise “ radio arranged separation “ ? How often have you had to do this?

I do this "with one ear" to increase my situational awareness of what is going on around and above me. That may be surveying, aerobatics, power line survey, drone use or all sorts of airwork. It also regularly includes interrogatory calls to "VFR aircraft at X thousand at ABC?" or calls to IFR traffic "Unverified VFR traffic at ..... And occasionally collision avoidance advice for VFR aircraft.

To put that another way, once in a while ATC makes a call to someone about VFR traffic I realise "oh &*^& that's me!" I call ATC, confirm position and altitude, ATC arranges the separation, not me, unless asked, which has never happened.


No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?

My new audio panel lets me play them soothing music, or not, depending on what sort of passenger they are.

Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?

How many times on the flight - say from Bankstown- did you have to look down at the panel to change the area frequency? Was it six or seven times or more?

My new radios, I think do it for me, Dynon Skyview pushes frequencies to radios. Otherwise i just look at the box o the chart.

As you flew right on the frequency boundary west of Forbes what frequency did you monitor?

"Dunno" never been there.

Would you be prepared to try the US or Canadian system where there was no such thing as an area frequency and therefore no requirement to listen ?

Judging from what i see on the web, I wouldn't mind BUT the bug smasher guys in the US have TIS, cheap ADSB in and out, and have the freedom to do curved approaches and a whole lot of other things that appear to make collision unlikely

[Dick Smith]

Tell me a bit about curved approaches? Maybe something australia could look at.

[Dick Smith]

When I fly at Terrey Hills and in the light aircraft lane I constantly here the parachuting plane at Wollongong. It’s also quite often re transmitted on the Sydney terminal frequencies so a Cathay 747 in the way to Hong Kong can get this totally useless information

Great system

[kaz3g]

When I fly at Terrey Hills and in the light aircraft lane I constantly here the parachuting plane at Wollongong. It’s also quite often re transmitted on the Sydney terminal frequencies so a Cathay 747 in the way to Hong Kong can get this totally useless information

Great system

If we get the whole US system then you will hardly have to talk or listen to anyone VFR because E starts at 1200 or lower and goes up to 18,000. The only mandated calls in E or G are within 4 NM of a towered airport according to what I've read.

Kaz

[topdrop]

They have also prevented FAA style IFR Flight Planned aircraft climbing VMC in E without a clearance by claiming that in Aus once you have given a taxiing call on an IFR plan you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without a clearance. Once again sheer bastardry to damage Australian aviation .
Wrong - AIP ENR 1.1-18 para 2.8.1.1
A pilot of an IFR flight, operating in VMC, in classes D and E airspace, may request to climb/descend VFR

[Dick Smith]

TopDrop. I am correct. Note the words in the Aus regulation “ may request “. That’s totally different to the US NAS.

In the US an IFR pilot who has filed an IFR plan can climb in E in VMC without communicating to ATC. In practice a big difference.

It’s one of the reasons that I have not been able to get any low level E in at non tower airports. But it will happen

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Once again sheer bastardry to damage Australian aviation
But has it really done any damage? If so, to what extent? What is the actual dollar value of the damage that has been meaningfully and willfully imposed on the industry?

[A Squared]

Wrong - AIP ENR 1.1-18 para 2.8.1.1
A pilot of an IFR flight, operating in VMC, in classes D and E airspace, may request to climb/descend VFR

What Dick is referring to, is not enroute VFR climbs, but the ability to depart vfr and pick up an IFR clearance enroute.

In the US, if you're at a non-radar, non towered airport and ATC will not give you a clearance to depart IFR because of inbound traffic, You're still allowed to depart VFR, and pick up your IFR clearance when clear of the traffic. provided of course that it's VFR and you're able to maintain that. That's not something you *request* from ATC, that's something you tell ATC you're doing. Until you've been given an IFR clearance, ATC isn't controlling you and can't tell you not to do something. I gather from the discussion here that in Australia, once you've made a taxi call, you are not permitted to do this.

Just to clarify, once you are on an IFR clearance enroute, you may not climb VFR at your discretion, you must request a clearance to do so.

[Car RAMROD]

Just to clarify, once you are on an IFR clearance enroute, you may not climb VFR at your discretion, you must request a clearance to do so.

Well yes because doing something other than what you are cleared to do is violating that clearance.
Exactly the same if you are VFR in controlled airspace.

And just to clarify, we can have an IFR plan in the system. Launch from a place OCTA without talking to ATC, enter E. We can then "change rules". Just because you have an IFR plan in the system doesn't mean you are actually operating IFR at that time.

Even if you are cleared IFR, ATC are incredibly unlikely to deny a request for a VFR climb.

It really isn't all that difficult here.

[A Squared]

Exactly the same if you are VFR in controlled airspace.

And just to clarify, we can have an IFR plan in the system. Launch from a place OCTA without talking to ATC, enter E. We can then "change rules". Just because you have an IFR plan in the system doesn't mean you are actually operating IFR at that time.

I'm referring to operations from an airport which is within Class E airspace all the way to the surface. It's been said here that in Australia this would not be allowed. Is that not correct?

[Wot No Engines]

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 .


Sadly, both CASA and the RAPACs are missing the obvious, probably because they don't like it - the need to forget radio at all when VFR in G or E (except in the vicinity of a marked airfield).

If an airfield isn't marked (like the majority of the farm strips about the place), there is a high probability that you neither know what they are called, or know where they are. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that any broadcast from someone operating from such a field will have zero meaning to you, even if you see a farm strip AND see someone takeoff from it, any radio call will still be meaningless to you. Your best bet is to keep your eyes open and looking out. If it looks like their might be a conflict, assume they haven't seen you and alter course and/or altitude predictably so as to maintain separation. Trying to use radio to contact them will take more time than you probably have.

[Dick Smith]

Wat no. You are correct. So many people attempting to convert ICAO class E and G into a zero cost D where VFR traffic info is available. They cannot work out why it can’t be made to work!

[CaptainMidnight]

If an airfield isn't marked (like the majority of the farm strips about the place), there is a high probability that you neither know what they are called, or know where they are. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that any broadcast from someone operating from such a field will have zero meaning to you, even if you see a farm strip AND see someone takeoff from it, any radio call will still be meaningless to youSo common sense applies.

Anyone departing from a strip unlikely to be known would broadcast something like:

ALL STATIONS, ABC C172 taxying at a private strip 22 miles east of Ballarat, departing to the North below 5000.

It's not rocket science ...

[Dick Smith]

A Squared. Yes. That’s what I am referring to. We are completely different in Australia

It’s because CASA has maintained that if you file an IFR plan and then give The prescribed taxi call you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without first communicating with ATC to request a VFR climb or cancel IFR.

This is not required in other countries

[kaz3g]

Sadly, both CASA and the RAPACs are missing the obvious, probably because they don't like it - the need to forget radio at all when VFR in G or E (except in the vicinity of a marked airfield).

If an airfield isn't marked (like the majority of the farm strips about the place), there is a high probability that you neither know what they are called, or know where they are. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that any broadcast from someone operating from such a field will have zero meaning to you, even if you see a farm strip AND see someone takeoff from it, any radio call will still be meaningless to you. Your best bet is to keep your eyes open and looking out. If it looks like their might be a conflict, assume they haven't seen you and alter course and/or altitude predictably so as to maintain separation. Trying to use radio to contact them will take more time than you probably have.

So no-one will mind that I'm listening to Area still with the hope that some kind soul on Radar will tell me if I'm going to kill myself in a midair?

And I can still arrange separation at 10 NM with the nice guy flying the air ambulance who is approaching at twice my speed rather than leaving my call to 4 NM?

Kaz

[Dick Smith]

Kaz. If it was that simple why wouldn’t other countries mark the atc frequency boundaries on charts so that their controllers would have the duty of care to call non participating VFR aircraft and tell them they are close to other aircraft?

Now think about it? Any idea?

A hint. Most likely it would reduce safety as it would dilute responsibility- “no need to remain vigilant because I’ll get called by a friendly ATC.”

And it simply doesn’t work. For example the riskiest place for mid airs would be in the Bankstown training area. Yet in all my flying career I have never heard ATC make the obvious call. “ VFR aircraft near Waragamba Dam. - turn left. You are about to collide with another VFR aircraft “

So if you go flying in G airspace with the hope that an ATC will randomly call you to prevent a collision you are delusional and should see you doctor!

[kaz3g]

Kaz. If it was that simple why wouldn’t other countries mark the atc frequency boundaries on charts so that their controllers could call non participating VFR aircraft and tell them they are close to other aircraft?

Now think about it? Any idea?

A hint. Most likely it would reduce safety as it would dilute responsibility- no need to remain vigilant because I’ll get called by a friendly ATC.

Perhaps those other countries have substantially better radar coverage and communications for their IFR aircraft at all levels?

Kaz

[Dick Smith]

Kaz. The evidence shows this is not so. Our radar coverage under the J curve is similar to the radar coverage in the US an Canada in similar traffic density airspace .

And as we learned on another post the Low Level Radar service in the UK isn’t even available on weekends!

So don’t come on with that one despite the fact that people at CASA have used it for years to stop the intro of NAS.

[Capn Bloggs]

In the US, if you're at a non-radar, non towered airport and ATC will not give you a clearance to depart IFR because of inbound traffic, You're still allowed to depart VFR, and pick up your IFR clearance when clear of the traffic.
Thanks A Squared.

So Dick, here we have a jet (?) trying to depart a place but cannot get a clearance from ATC because of other IFR aircraft in the area. "Who cares about that! We'll just cancel IFR, keep the eyeballs out and launch anyway!"

That is no different (worse, actually) than our DTI in "G", the situation that you despise, telling us that the sky will fall in. Actually, in this case, ours is better because the other crew is also involved (or at least know about the VFR jet jockey who's about to blast through their level).

You're clutching at straws...

I think it is you who needs to move out of the 60s.

As for your earlier comment that you introduced transponders into E, you only did that because you had a complete and totally justified revolt on your hands had you not done so. You were quite happy to allow unannounced VFR to swan through the terminal areas of major capital city airports, with big jets weaving around them, just so Arthur (or was it John) and Martha could go flying "free".

The most crazy thing I have ever heard was a Qantas widebody getting traffic on a parachute aeroplane while the widebody was on descent. Madness. Fortunately, that E got killed pretty quick.

[kaz3g]

Kaz. The evidence shows this is not so. Our radar coverage under the J curve is similar to the radar coverage in the US an Canada in similar traffic density airspace .

And as we learned on another post the Low Level Radar service in the UK isn’t even available on weekends!

So don’t come on with that one despite the fact that people at CASA have used it for years to stop the intro of NAS.


That's strange...I thought you identified an urgent safety issue involving poor radar coverage.

No Cookies | The Mercury (http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/dick-smith-says-radar-systems-at-hobart-and-launceston-airports-a-safety-risk/news-story/32c8b914a0e9be011793e51c50d9e82c)

Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

Kaz

[triadic]

This is a popular and serious thread, and it seems some of the scribes do not understand all of the related issues. Dick is correct, however he is fighting a small vocal minority that fail to understand that the entrenched culture must change if there is to be any improvement in aviation in Australia, and this is not only applicable to airspace matters. How many of the scribes here participate in their local RAPAC and add their voice to the discussion? Does not seem to be many by some of the remarks to date?


Sadly, both CASA and the RAPACs are missing the obvious, probably because they don't like it - the need to forget radio at all when VFR in G or E (except in the vicinity of a marked airfield).


Yes, CASA (or certain folk within?) have totally missed the point, however the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries and if the airfield was or was not marked on a chart (which chart?).

The DP addressed these issues and the result of the feedback was significantly in favour of retaining the MULTICOM as a national low level frequency.

The issue now is that CASA tabled a proposal that came from left field introducing a 20nm CTAF which was NOT part of the DP nor placed on the table with industry at large or the RAPACs at any stage.

This all came about back in 2013 when without any consultation or it seems any knowledge of what they were doing some officers introduced a change under the pretext that it was a "clarification" with no obvious consideration of the unintended consequences. It took the RAPACs some three years just to get the then DAS to agree to a DP.

At this time it is understood that the RAPACs have made it know to the DAS that it was not appropriate to introduce the 20nm CTAF with this proposal, however the diehards within have refused to separate the two questions which makes their survey invalid by not offering a choice and locking the two questions together.

The latest position of the RAPACs is to seek the wind-back of the change that introduced this mess, and that is to remove the requirement to use the area frequency at airfields not marked on charts. It is believed that this could be undertaken quickly and simply by NOTAM and AIP amendment. The remainder could then be discussed further including the 20nm CTAFs which we know from experience will not work.

Those readers that have been in this industry for some time will know that the only thing that is consistent in aviation is change. How we manage that change is part of the issue as there are always those that have such a deep culture that they fight any change. This "culturelock" is of course is not unique to aviation.

Many of the changes introduced with NAS etc were based on the need to have some international harmonisation in our rules and procedures. Many of us know that the air in Australia is the same as other places in the world (except in the US where you can breath at 12000ft without O2), so why do we need to be different? Much of this goes to the top levels of Government and the bureaucracy where there is an element of 'power and control' that in Oz we must do things our own way. At the end of the day this costs the country and the industry money as we really do not have to reinvent the wheel.

:ugh::ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Triadic. Really good rational post.

Of course one of the problems is that the casa officers who introduced the change ( or clarification as they called it ) probably have very little knowledge of how the North American airspace system works in practice. I understand most of them are ex Australian military with quite fixed views on how our system should operate.

And it’s also obvious that some others on this thread have a similar lack of knowledge.

One of the first things we did before deciding on the AMATS changes was to send a group of ATCs , pilots and CAA regulators to the USA and Canada to actually fly in the system. From my memory all involved where impressed with various parts of the system.

That’s what CASA needs to do again. The CASA officers who are pushing for the giant unique 40 mile CTAFS need to go to both the US and Canada and see how the system works so well there without such huge CTAFs and prescriptive regulation. They need to discuss with their regulatory colleagues in these countries how they operate with a far simpler and more ICAO compliant system.

Then they need to have open minds and decide if Australia can harmonise a little closer to the procedures of these aviation powerhouses.

[Capn Bloggs]

More waffle, Dick. No comments, I notice, on the hypocrisy of allowing IFR pickup aka VMC dodgem cars while you are castigating us for using DTI to self-separate in "G"?

[CaptainMidnight]

triadic said:the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundariesMy bolding.

So there is no proposal from the RAPACs to also delete FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from the charts.

Correct?

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. This is painful. Class E terminal airspace if used correctly has all the advantages of our present G plus a mandatory transponder requirement and a separation service when IMC exists.

It is a safer airspace. But is a change in the way you were taught. That’s clearly your problem. Very sad. You must be getting near to retirement. When will that be?

[Dick Smith]

Captain Midnight . No proposal as yet. But more and more RAPAC members are starting to accept that the CASA change came about because CASA was attempting to get the airspace with frequency boundaries to work in an acceptable way.

That is change ICAO class E and G airspace into a type of low cost experimental ICAO D where traffic information is available on VFR aircraft.

One day with new younger RAPAC members we will easily be able to remove the unique boundaries and get closer to the simpler internationally compatible ICAO airspace.

That will assist our international flying training industry as at the present time a number of the US and Canadian schools advise potential students not to learn in Australia as the airspace is strangely different. They are smart marketeers.

[Car RAMROD]

Bloggs. This is painful. Class E terminal airspace if used correctly has all the advantages of our present G plus a mandatory transponder requirement and a separation service when IMC exists.

Dick can you by chance supply information about the separation standards that would be applied? I haven't found them yet.

[Dick Smith]

Sorry. I can’t as they are detailed and complex to me as I am not an ATC.

Suffice to say they work very efficiently even without radar coverage , with no measurable difference in delays compared to our system and the service is provided by the en route ATC who does not hold an approach rating. US and some Aussie controllers claim separating aircraft in E is less workload than giving traffic information in G. We will never know unless we do a trial!

It was planned to put in the original low level terminal E in June 1993 under AMATS - some 15 years ago- but has been stopped by those who have minds set in concrete. They claim. Won’t work. To many delays. To many extra consoles required. Not safe. Didn’t do it this way before.

See the pic

http://rosiereunion.com/file/NAS%20Stage%204%20radar%20Yellow%20booklet.jpg

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

No one has pure ICAO airspace. The US is different to Canada which is different to the UK which is different to ours which is different to the US etc etc. Every country has implemented variations of it (and can quite freely do so) so that it works for them. Why can't we? Sure we copied the US system, but it doesn't have to be the same. Even you Dick admit that, because you want to tack bits of ours onto it. This mantra that they don't do it that way overseas grows a bit thin when no one does it the same way. A lot of other countries have a lot more controlled airspace, but they need a lot more ATC and infrastructure to do it., Canada, probably the most similar size wise, needs twice our ATC plus 700 FS staff to run theirs. The US, 15000 ATC. I reckon ours runs pretty lean already. It doesn't seem to be raining aluminium because of it either.
Chinese cadets learning in Canada are going to go home and fly in whatever system China has. They will adapt. Same as when they learned here. It is not the airspace (or how much radio chatter you may or may not have to listen to) we have that is causing GA to struggle. Way too much energy and time is being spent on an issue that is superfluous to the big picture.

[Dick Smith]

Any success I have achieved has come from going around the world ,asking advice and copying the lowest cost way of doing something that gives the required result.

I have never suggested we have to be fully ICAO compliant.

But to make fundamental changes to ICAO recommendations which add to complexity seems pretty crazy to me. Especially if it’s just about resisting change.

[jonkster]

Quick question about how this would work.

I haven't flown in the US so am curious. Apologies if this is a dumb question.

The ICAO E definition says VFR is provided traffic where possible. I assume that means if you want traffic as a VFR, you can ask for it (and if ATC can assist will be given it?). Does the US E implementation have this ability?

Also for aircraft doing a VFR entry and then wanting an IFR "pickup", how do they get the frequency?

Obviously their system works - is it as mentioned earlier, do you simply call on the nearest outlet you find on the chart? (and because most of the airspace is E there you can safely assume the nearest outlet will be the one looking after E in that area?).

[triadic]

triadic said:
Quote:
the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries
My bolding.

So there is no proposal from the RAPACs to also delete FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from the charts.

The issue with the boundaries and the change in 2013 was that there was no direction as to what might be the recommended frequency for those airfields that might be close to the area frequency boundaries. My good airmanship in selecting a frequency, might be different to your good airmanship and as a result we would have frequency separation at that location!:E
In fact there are locations where area frequency boundaries join resulting in an option of three (3) frequencies to choose from:(

The position of the RAPACs was to solve (or try to) the problem that CASA created in saying that the area frequency should be used at unmarked airfields.

The previous use of the MULTICOM worked well and it was not until CASA made the change did the confusion begin. The boundaries on the charts was not a prime issue at the time, rather the priority was to try and obtain a common frequency for all to know and use at lower levels. The feedback at the time was that very few pilots used the Area Frequency and continued to use the MULTICOM, much to the frustration of those in CASA that still did not understand the issues and the obvious support of a process that had been in place for over a decade and had worked.

It is understood that the RAPACs position prior to Christmas is that there should be a return to the pre 2013 status where the MULTICOM was used at low levels in the vicinity of airfields not on a different frequency or in a BA. The issue of boundaries on or not on charts has been raised at some meetings but has not, I understand, progressed due to other matters.

The other issue that gets a mention is that we should have all these airfields marked on charts. Those of us that have been around for some time know that this is at best a dream due to chart production lead times (WACs can be four years - perhaps longer than the life of the airfield?) and the quality of information required.

Airservices as the data collection agency for airfields have recently issued an AIC H43/17 seeking data on airfields that are marked on charts for which they have no contact or sufficient info. Unless they get the data some of these well used airfields may vanish from charts!:confused:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a17-h43.pdf

If you know the person/s responsible for any of the named airfields, then perhaps it might be wise to pass the message on.

There a quite a few hospitals and helipads on the list (including YTRY) so we need to get the word out.

[CaptainMidnight]

Thanks triadic

If there was to be a proposal to remove the FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from charts there would be quite some backlash I think, as there was in 2003 as you'd be aware. In fact, U.S. and other OS pilots I've encountered over the years love our VFR charts for the fact that they have this information depicted, considering that it would be very useful particularly in the event of difficulties.

As regards the Airservices database currency re airfields issue. I note elsewhere flack was directed towards Airservices for the AIC. Airservices was not to blame for the matter - its due to a CASA requirement imposed on Part 175 providers, as LB details here:

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/603634-airservices-australia-climbs-down-red-tape-hurdle.html#post10004941

If they publish out of date information and someone in an emergency goes to that location and finds it no longer exists and ploughs in, who are they subsequently going to blame ...

[triadic]

Part of the problem Capt M is that CASA put rules in place that they cannot manage or enforce.
Part 139 is a mess because it only addresses Reg and Cert aerodromes and does not cater in any shape or form for ALA's, and hence we have the problems of not having GNS approaches at these airfields (like we once did) and the problems associated with some control over obstacles such as wind farms.
CASA need to do something about this, but then it seems they don't care much about the problems of GA.:mad:

I should add that we need to have 'recommended' procedures and not enforceable strict liability rules which only serve to scare flying folk away. If more procedures were recommended as in other parts of the globe, then it is likely that compliance would be somewhat better and we would not have to engage the legals who known nothing about aviation. Again, that is another fight with the said 'culturelock'

[A Squared]

The ICAO E definition says VFR is provided traffic where possible. I assume that means if you want traffic as a VFR, you can ask for it (and if ATC can assist will be given it?). Does the US E implementation have this ability?

Yes. If I were flying VFR in Class E airspace, (which I likely am, Class G airspace above 1200 AGL is pretty rare except in a few western states and Alaska) if I wanted traffic advisories, I'd contact ATC and request FLight Following. There are other common terms for it, officially it is "Radar Traffic Information Service" but I don't think I've every heard anyone call it that in real life. Here's an article that will tell you more about it. (http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/37_5/features/Hacking-VFR-Flight-Following_11340-1.html)

Also for aircraft doing a VFR entry and then wanting an IFR "pickup", how do they get the frequency?

Obviously their system works - is it as mentioned earlier, do you simply call on the nearest outlet you find on the chart? (and because most of the airspace is E there you can safely assume the nearest outlet will be the one looking after E in that area?).

Yep, just call the frequency for the sector controlling your area. The US low altitude enroute charts have the ATC sector frequencies depicted in "Postage stamp boxes" (so called because the box has crenelated edges) printed within the area of responsibility.

[Dick Smith]

Wow. Now that would be a good idea. Put the ATC frequencies on the charts in a small postage stamp size box. Too simple.

Wouldn’t work here. In the 60s we showed the FS frequency sector boundaries so we should never change that even if we don’t have FS anymore. Hopefully if we leave the boundaries on the charts we may be able to get full position VFR reporting and FS back again!

[Dick Smith]

Captain Midnight. Yair. I’ve heard that the US pilots love our cluttered charts with frequency boundaries for both E and G that US AOPA are campaigning to move to this system.

Then they won’t be forced to fly VFR en route listening to the stereo and looking out at the amazing scenery.

They’ll be like real professional pilots and have wall to wall machine gun like ATC in their ear all the time. A great move forward for the USA. Thanks Australia.

PS captain. I know you are pulling our legs. I have never found a US pilot who can fathom out why our system is so unnecessarily complex let alone want to copy it.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

something that gives the required result.
But who determines the result required? Who determines if a result is even required? Is there a majority push for a change? What if a majority wanted a result that wasn't required? Is it only a minority pushing towards a particular result? If this forum is a valid cross section of opinions, I'd say your opinion is in the minority,
Perhaps the result you want is at odds with the result others want. What makes yours any more or less valid than theirs?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

fly VFR en route listening to the stereo and looking out at the amazing scenery.
If that is the end game result of changing a countries airspace sytem, then I think everyone else has been dudded.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Of course not. I want Aussie VFR pilots to be real pilots. And to act at all times like real pilots

Lots of radio calls, lots of communication and lots of writing down call signs on the knee pad. No relaxing or enjoying even for a second. Real men is what I want .

And none of this one radio wimp stuff. At least two radios. Preferably three. One on the ctaf, one on area ATC with the volume well up and one on the guard frequency to inform Qantas or Virgin pilots if they are on the wrong frequency.

[Dick Smith]

I wonder if those of you posting on this site who want to keep our incredibly complex frequency boundaries on the chart actually fly in the system very often. Can I suggest you use your Ozrunways, Avplan, or even just a VFR chart, and put in a typical route I fly.

That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.

Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.

Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then through the busy training area where no one gives position reports. Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming over Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).

That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.

Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. And have never had to announce because of other nearby traffic reports .
Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – Mostly high flying airline aircraft being re transmitted. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.

On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal frequency to give a MAYDAY or if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.

I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.

Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports and a radio is not even required? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?

Or is it mostly resistance to change?

Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it! Hint. It could be to do with a frequency change!

[MikeHatter732]

I wonder if those of you posting on this site who want to keep our incredibly complex frequency boundaries on the chart actually fly in the system very often. Can I suggest you use your Ozrunways, Avplan, or even just a VFR chart, and put in a typical route I fly.

That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.

Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.

Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming into Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).

That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.

Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – I think it is high flying airline aircraft. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.

On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal position to give a MAYDAY and if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.

I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.

Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?

Just a suggestion.

Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it!
The HSY - THK track, from memory, would take you straight through the Y20 route into BK (the old WATLE arrival)...

So there you are not monitoring the area frequency (on 121.5 instead), while an IFR aircraft inbound to BK could be in the solid deck of cloud above you (as you could be just operating clear of cloud), with either of you knowing what the other is doing.... Monitor 24.55, and bazinga, you both now can communicate with each other and the IFR a/c coming inbound won't have to have a heart attack in the process of not knowing what the hell you are doing.. We all know Sydney isn't exactly accomodating either with allowing you to cross those Class C steps out that way which doesn't help either.

I'm sure you know how it feels (as I have heard you in SHW on that exact WATLE track into BK), being told "Numerous VFR paints, random manoeuvres", with these aircraft 500' below you and meanwhile you're surfing along a layer of cloud. When it gets real close, it's not uncommon for SY CTR to either raise the aircraft/do a broadcast on behalf of the IFR a/c, and 9 times out of the 10, the VFR aircraft will reply and let them know they either have the IFR plane sighted, or tell the controller/aircraft what they are doing.

Although I guess going by your logic you want the whole TA for BK to be class E down to 700'.. Guess that means we have to fit all the non transponder aircraft with transponders.... geez thats extra cost for the GA flight training industry (but thats OK, maybe the chinese can help us out with those costs)

When I did some flying GA over in the states, a handy feature on the garmin units is the nearest ARTCC page... I used to maintain a listening watch on that, just like I would here by using the boundaries on the map.

Might I also remind you that below 5000' it is NOT a requirement to follow hemispherical cruising levels (it is a SHOULD not a MUST in the AIP). Therefore, and as has happened to me numerous times, the area frequency controller frequently provides safety alerts for two aircraft coming into close proximity (and with the invention of ADS-B, typically already knows the callsign of one of them and tries to raise them on the appropriate boundary freq). Going by your proposal of just listening to 121.5, how is this increasing safety/situational awareness what-so-ever?

[Car RAMROD]

Try going YTRY-HSY-MYF-YGDO. Any better?

Personally I don't think your route is all that complicated, but I reckon I just made it a lot easier, with zero extra track miles. Would it be wrong of me to think that you purposely made a more "complicated" route structure?

[Dick Smith]

Mike. I plan that route so that the GPS approach people are about 1000’ above me where we would normally cross.

Are you suggesting as a VFR aircraft I should call ATC and tell them I am there?

[Dick Smith]

Car. With your route I bet the frequency changes are similar! Have you checked?

[MikeHatter732]

Mike. I plan that route so that the GPS approach people are about 1000’ above me where we would normally cross.

Are you suggesting as a VFR aircraft I should call ATC and tell them I am there?
No, I provided two of many scenarios why it is silly not to monitor the area frequency (as you seem to think flying around willy nilly with guard frequency is a good idea).

I never said you have to make progress calls as you go along to ATC about where you are. I said you should have the ability to actively listen to the frequency so if ATC are trying to call you about a possible traffic situation, you are able to respond and act accordingly, something you would not be able to do if listening to the stereo and guard frequency. If you don't think thats a good idea, well I pray I never have to fly around in the same chunk of airspace as you where a possible collision risk is quite likely (i.e. the BK/CN TA).

[Car RAMROD]

Car. With your route I bet the frequency changes are similar! Have you checked?


Similar, yes.
Amount of changes? Less
Checked, yes. Did you?

It also avoids flying through the circuit areas at Camden and Goulburn.
Further away in general from approaches to both of those fields too. Especially Camden. 1500ft at the oaks with someone coming down the RNAV into Camden who could be bombing it down to 2000ft (the segment MSA) as the Yanks (if you want to copy "the best) like their dive n drive approaches, yeah I don't think that's a great place to be.

Further to this, under your NAS you'd still be on those CTAFs as you are within the "approach or departure" area, unless you define that differently to me.

However, as some food for thought "massive 40nm CTAFs" or not, do you think it might be a good idea to listen out anyway? For just a minute let's say there's no 20nm radius, your 15 or 25miles away. You now have a serious engine/pax/other issue and divert to that field. If you've been listening out your already tuned so one less thing to do, you've heard the traffic or lack of so you've got good situational awareness of what's happening there. Maybe beneficial or would you disagree?

[Dick Smith]

Mike. So you believe ATC has a duty of care and a responsibility to call VFR aircraft in G and E and tell the pilot of nearby aircraft?

I suppose that means you rely on that to a certain extent. That’s why you want this unique system

Do you know if it actually works? If it does why don’t other countries instruct their atcs to call nearby VFR aircraft?

And I have always said there is nothing to stop a pilot from monitoring ATC. That’s why the nearest ATC button is on most gps units.

[Dick Smith]

Mike. You have turned ICAO class G and E into a form of D where Air Traffic Controllers have a responsibility to call VFR aircraft when they are not too busy.

As I pilot I think this is fantastic. I can see some big payouts coming after the next mid air.

Must admit that I am amazed our ATCs are let down in this way. Class D would guarantee proper job levels and clear responsibility.

[MikeHatter732]

Do you know if it actually works? If it does why don’t other countries instruct their atcs to call nearby VFR aircraft?
.
The reason I would put forward as to why it is much more uncommon in your beloved US and of A is because they have ADSB-in, including re-transmitting of Mode C/S targets from the radar site, and the aircraft are most likely to see each other on their Foreflight app/GPS with ADSB capability and take avoiding action before its a safety risk: here we don't have that luxury yet (just as they have NEXRAD aswell, we have to rely on our BOM radar app). It's called TIS-B but I am sure you know all about it.

You do also realise that VFR flight following over in the states is a big thing as well (used much more than it is here, and when I did a checkout with a flight school over there was told that it is recommended among most DPE's that flight following is used)

I never said ATC have a duty, or responsiblity to provide a traffic service to VFR a/c in Class G. But if it means that a more accurate traffic information service can be provided to the IFR passing through the Class G (by knowing what the intentions of the VFR bug smasher is), I don't see the problem.

I am still at a loss to how having a little box with the frequency at the site of the transmitter (rather than FIA boundaries) would change your frequency changing requirements on your flight? You are still going to have to change frequency along your route no matter what (just like if I was flying from Oshkosh down past Chicago, I will have to go between Chicago Center's numerous frequencies, than Chicago TRACON's numerous frequencies etc etc, the frequencies on the NRST page change just as frequent as they do on the flight you mentioned from Terry Hills to Gundaroo).

[Car RAMROD]

Here's another route for you to try Dick.

YTRY-HSY-NPBR-YGDO

Only adds 6 miles and just about totally misses the Camden training area (the most minor of shaves inside D552, and a slight shave in D451 which is UAV testing.

You could also add GUNN to the above before YGDO. This makes it a total of 10nm more than your trip. Avoids all those danger areas and further away from any other CTAFs.

Still all with less frequency changing than your route.


I have effectively zero knowledge of the Sydney basin. Yet I came up with those suggestions in a matter of minutes. And you've flown your route for over 20 years. Now what was that about resisting change?

[Dick Smith]

Come on. I said it’s a typical route I fly. And I put in known waypoints so others could see the frequency change nightmare. No wonder so many pilots are not flying anymore. Many have told me it’s too complex.

You all appear to be intentionally missing the point I am making.

During over 20 years of flying on this general route and back again while religiously monitoring the wound back frequency system I have never been able to make use of the fundamental reason for our non ICAO system. That is to answer another aircraft that was relevant traffic.


Talk about a cry wolf useless system

But keep your minds set in concrete

[MikeHatter732]

Come on. I said it’s a typical route I fly. And I put in known waypoints so others could see the frequency change nightmare. No wonder so many pilots are not flying anymore. Many have told me it’s too complex.


I am still at a loss to how having a little box with the frequency at the site of the transmitter (rather than FIA boundaries) would change your frequency changing requirements on your flight? You are still going to have to change frequency along your route no matter what (just like if I was flying from Oshkosh down past Chicago, I will have to go between Chicago Center's numerous frequencies, than Chicago TRACON's numerous frequencies etc etc, the frequencies on the NRST page change just as frequent as they do on the flight you mentioned from Terry Hills to Gundaroo).

I am still curious of your answer to this question, Dick.

In fact, I was so curious I planned a quick flight of similar length to your YTRY-YGDO, but in the land of the free using Skyvector/Foreflight (in numerous cities including Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco). All flights in similar length have similar frequency changing requirements to your one here in Australia (backed up by flying on the Garmin GNS430 simulator with an up to date Jeppesen package while monitoring the NRST ARTCC/FSS page).

.....and I'd like to see you explain how our charts are more cluttered than theirs - have you looked at their TAC's??!!. Almost got a migraine just looking at them).

[Dick Smith]

Mike. A blatant lie

The two systems are totally different.

There are no atc frequency boundary lines shown on US charts in the way we do it in australia.

Let alone different coloured lines for different E and G frequencies depending on altitude .

US pilots are not taught to monitor the ATC frequency when flying VFR en route and announce on an ATC frequency if they believe they are traffic for an IFR aircraft. They would likely have their licence revoked if they did that.

Yes. They can call on the frequency of a ground outlet and request Flight Following. That’s exactly as we planned with our nas before it was half wound back.

[Dick Smith]

I notice no one has found the deliberate error. It’s the frequency after 45 dme syd I’m told.

Appears the frequency listed is the class E one for above 8500’.

Easy error because casa reversed the FAA colours. Green for G and brown for E. Opposite in North America

[MikeHatter732]

. They would likely have their licence revoked if they did that.

:ugh::ugh: You surely can't be serious right now.

I notice no one has found the deliberate error. It’s the frequency after 45 dme syd I’m told.

Appears the frequency listed is the class E one for above 8500’.

Easy error because casa reversed the FAA colours. Green for G and brown for E. Opposite in North America
I struggle to see whats so hard. The LL for E is clearly colour coded Brown, and hence the relevant Class E frequency for above that LL is brown...

and Class E is not green in America....its magenta (what was that about you and their 'de-cluttered' charts again? :D:D)

https://i.imgur.com/zC4oW0t.jpg

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

You are flying a multi-million dollar twin engined helicopter, and you say changing radio frequencies is too complex?

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. No. Not for me or you. We are a lot more capable than the average.

However every time a pilot has to look down at the chart or iPad to get the correct frequency and then look inside the cockpit again to change frequency could possibly mean less looking outside. Just possible .

Don’t forget. Before my group made the AMATs changes it was a directed traffic service and the pilot was told when to change frequency and the frequency to change to. We could get that back again for about $70 million a year!

[Car RAMROD]

I notice no one has found the deliberate error. It’s the frequency after 45 dme syd I’m told.

Appears the frequency listed is the class E one for above 8500’.

Easy error because casa reversed the FAA colours. Green for G and brown for E. Opposite in North America


To be honest I didn't go looking at specific frequencies, I just looked at your route and the changeovers to see if it really was as difficult as you claim. Then I found other simpler routes with negligible distance additions that cut down on your despised frequency changes. A question for you, with your fancy GPS (that not all of us have), how often does the nearest ATC frequency change for you on said flight?

Also, just because you haven't had to announce as traffic to someone, or vice versa, does not mean that your experience is the same as everyone else's. Your experience may vary. Just like ADSB- plenty of us have had benefit from its installation.

If you are wanting to copy "the best" being USA, are you wanting to bring their RTF standards here too? God I hope not.

P.S I've not heard one pilot say they are giving up because the frequency changes are too hard. ASIC, medical, constant rule-set changes that make life actually difficult (part 61 etc) are the sorts of things that are driving people away. Put your efforts here into changing this (oh change, I said a dirty word!) and you'll probably have a lot more support from people; and a better GA industry.

[Dick Smith]

Car. I must admit I don’t hear other VFR pilots popping up and making self announcements when an IFR aircraft could be close ,on these flights.

Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage

What a complete joke of a system! It worked a bit in the old flight service days because everyone had to give full position reports as FS officers were not allowed to look at a radar screen.

It is pathetic what some of you are trying to justify. All about resistance to change!

[MikeHatter732]

However every time a pilot has to look down at the chart or iPad to get the correct frequency and then look inside the cockpit again to change frequency could possibly mean less looking outside. Just possible .

Possibly the most flawed argument ever..

What's next? We don't have a nav log because we don't want to look down? We can't look at our approach plate because we are looking inside once again?

I was taught as a student pilot to note the frequencies down in advance while flight planning onto my navlog. I would put the frequency either next to the turning point where I would change the frequency (or if it was half way along a certain leg, put it in between the two points on the paper plan).

Car. I must admit I don’t hear other VFR pilots popping up and making self announcements when an IFR aircraft could be close ,on these flights.

Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage

It is pathetic what some of you are trying to justify. All about resistance to change!
It's got nothing to do with the aircraft making a report! Not that position reports would help anyway, hows Bob in his 172 flying out of Bankstown going to know where the hell AKMIR or RAKSO is?

If the controller sees two aircraft which may come into close range of each other, they put out a safety alert to alert the two pilots - I still don't understand how you think this is a bad thing... and no if the two aircraft did hit, its not the controllers fault and they won't get sued as you alluded to before!

You obviously don't maintain a very good listening watch because its a daily occurrence on many of the regional low level sectors and on Sydney Center (Brooklyn Bridge is another prime spot when two aircraft meet at the same time... Yes, both pilots are still maintaining a lookout and abiding by the VFR 'see and avoid'... It's just the controller adding a helping hand, which once again, IS NOT A BAD THING (even though you won't stop going on about how it is....)

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this idea of 126.7 below 5000' and the CTAF distance boundaries... I do however agree with monitoring area frequencies though (no matter what your height is) and having the boundaries on the map, as I have seen it directly improve air safety in numerous scenarios. If that means looking down at a map for 2 seconds to figure out what frequency you need to be on, so be it!

I also am slowly warming to the idea of lower Class E limits around the place as well, but I will not sit here and listen to your constant rhetoric about resistance to change when there is no advantage at removing the boundaries off maps.

[Car RAMROD]

Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage


I think you need to get out there a bit more and operate away from the radar coverage. They aren't all under good radar coverage!


Once again, on the flight and route you proposed, how often does your GPS change the "nearest" ATC frequency?


MikeHatter, a flawed argument indeed.
Every time a pilot looks down and changes the tunes they are listening to (or GPS screen for nearest ATC unit) whilst in Dick's NAS is taking them away from looking outside!

[jonkster]

Jonkster. No. It’s not a fair summary. My prime aim is to get an airspace system which is proven and with minimum differences to airspace used in leading aviation countries.



Dick, is this a better summary?

A. the changes you want are:

1. Class G - FIS frequencies not marked as boundaries on charts but outlets shown (similar to AERIS currently?)

2. Class G - VFR - no radio required at any altitude (as opposed to current requirement above 5000')

3. Class G - VFR - if radio is carried, no required frequency to monitor (as opposed to current AIP that says "the area VHF") - (or monitor unicom? or 121.5?)

4. Class E - no frequency boundaries marked on charts but outlets marked

5. Class E - lowering to replace current G in those areas that radar can support it (ie most of the SE Oz 'J Curve')

6. Class E - VFR - need radio but same requirements as VFR in G (ie no mandated monitoring frequency for VFR)

7. Class E - IFR - similar to existing system except you can depart VFR on IFR plan and enter E without clearance and then pick up the IFR clearance.

Is this basically correct?

Also - are there any changes to aircraft transponder/equipment requirements?

B. The reasons you want these changes are:

1. It will be easier to use

2. It will make our procedures similar to other countries (particularly the US)

3. It will encourage more training in Oz of foreign students

Is that correct?

In all of the above, is there anything I have not mentioned that is important or is incorrect?


Why don’t you give me a ring.


not exactly sure how I do that...

[Lead Balloon]

Jonkster

As I understand it, Dick’s overarching point is that the aviation safety system, including the airspace system, should be designed and run on the basis of objective risk assessments and cost-effective risk mitigation. It’s hard to argue with that point, in principle.

Unfortunately, the aviation safety system in Australia is designed and run as much on the basis of politics, industrial relations (to the small extent that industrial relations isn’t politics), intuition (usually the gross over-estimation of the probabilities of things like mid-air collisions) and the leverage that provides to the bureaucracy (summarised as ‘the mystique of aviation’) as it is on objective risk and cost.

This ‘discussion’ is just déjà vu all over again, again, once again.

There is, in fact, a cultural difference between Australia and countries like the USA, especially in relation to how aviation and individual aviators fit into the ‘fabric’ of society. This thread on Beechtalk is a very real and instructive manifestation of the difference: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=147342. I’ll guarantee that there will be Australian aviators and ATCers who would read the content of that thread and conclude that private pilots choosing to fly VFR in the USA are selfish and the airspace and radio arrangements are ‘dangerous’. However, there are some very good reasons why the USA is the greatest aviation nation in the world. One of those reasons is that private aviation is part of the fabric of the culture and an individual pilot’s rights are considered paramount. In Australia, individuals are the playthings of regulators.

Many pilots in Australia don’t spend much time in uncontrolled airspace in proximity to lots of other aircraft. The thought of an unknown, uncontrolled aircraft ‘nearby’ is very scary.

The natural response to the perception of the consequences of an airborne collision is the over-estimation of its probabilities, with the outcome being calls for the imposition of more requirements and restrictions, such as enlarging the areas in which CTAF procedures must be used/MBZs/AFIZs/compulsory radio.

As Dick points out, an objective assessment of collision risk at places like Port Bloggsland or Mildura either justifies e.g. Class D airspace as a cost-effective mitigation of the risk, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then the internationally-agreed airspace classification would be either E, F or G, depending on the risk.

Evidently the airspace regulator does not consider the risk sufficient to justify e.g. Class D at places like Port Bloggsland or Mildura. Whether that outcome is the result of an objective assessment of risk and the cost benefit of Class D - who knows. This is where the political game of pass the stinking parcel gets played. And it always seems that it’s the private/recreational pilots - the ‘lowest common denominators’ - who eventually get the stinking parcel dumped in their laps.

Class D would cost money. Do the airlines want to pay for it? No way. Stinking parcel passed into the lap of the boys and girls at the front of the RPT aircraft that operate in and out of these places. Those boys and girls think - sh*t! - there are all these unknown aircraft out there that are collision risks when I’m inbound to and outbound from uncontrolled aerodromes. And they are the ‘lowest common denominator’. (I always consider that sleight to be as much a reflection on the person’s unconscious evaluation of their own skills and lack of experience as anything else. Some skygods seem to be unaware of how many heavy metal and fast-jet drivers fly light powered or unpowered aircraft in their leisure time.)

The solution? We want to know who’s there, and we want as big an area as possible in which everyone has to broadcast their location and intentions so we can make operational decisions in a timely way. And thus the 20nm CTAF area/MBZ/AFIZ ideas are hatched/reincarnated. (The irony is that there were always exceptions to that rule, and no-radio aircraft have operated in lots of these places. Out of sight/ears, out of mind and no risk!)

Let’s pass the stinking parcel into the laps of the ‘lowest common denominators’. Fit radio and use it or you are banned from this chunk of sky! The operators of Mildura thought they could do this by simply putting a sentence in ERSA. Bloggsie even runs his own air traffic control system at Port Bloggsland, from his seat 0A.

Forget the objective risk: We’ll run this or press for it to be run on the basis of our perceptions.

Nobody wants aircraft to have mid-air collisions. More power to the arms of the people who dedicate their lives on the ground to keeping aircraft separated in flight. But they have small screens with big blips, and a couple of nautical miles looks quite close. And pilots dedicate their lives to not killing their passengers, so the avoidance of mid-air collisions is kinda ‘core business’. But they naturally over-estimate the probabilities of those collisions.

The outcome is that all this time and energy and controversy and change and cost is dedicated to a risk that is orders of magnitude smaller than the risks that are killing people and could be mitigated at less cost. The proximity of another aircraft probably didn’t kill the people in the seaplane tragedy on the river at Cowan in Sydney. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Kingair tragedy at Essendon. It probably didn’t kill the Angel Flight patient in the tragedy at Mount Gambier. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Mallard tragedy on the Swan River. It probably didn’t kill the people on board the C210s near Albany and Darwin. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Metro tragedy at Lockhart River. It probably didn’t kill most of the people who’ve died in aviation accidents in Australia.

Someone will usually pipe up and say: All it will take is one collision with an RPT aircraft at a place like Mildura and there will be and immediate ‘upgrade’ in the airspace or restrictions on the aircraft that may operate near the aerodrome. And that prediction is probably accurate.

But that’s what’s wrong with perception-driven regulation. There is, in fact, no airspace classification that results in zero risk of collisions. None. If you design and build an airspace system on the basis of an objective risk assessment and cost-effective mitigation, you build a system with the understanding that there is a calculated level of risk that a collision will occur, but the cost of mitigating that risk is greater than the cost of the collision. If the counter-argument is that ‘you can’t put a price on a life’, it inexorably follows that all airspace should be Class A - if manned aviation is to occur at all. (And nobody should be allowed to drive on the roads.)

I agree with your implicit point that it’s difficult-if-not impossible to pin Dick down on the all-important devilish-detail of the system he is advocating. He’s his own worst enemy some times.

For my part, I just want a stable system that isn’t constantly fiddled with on the basis of perceived - invariably grossly overestimated - risk.

[KRIU Aviator]

I am still curious of your answer to this question, Dick.

In fact, I was so curious I planned a quick flight of similar length to your YTRY-YGDO, but in the land of the free using Skyvector/Foreflight (in numerous cities including Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco). All flights in similar length have similar frequency changing requirements to your one here in Australia (backed up by flying on the Garmin GNS430 simulator with an up to date Jeppesen package while monitoring the NRST ARTCC/FSS page).

.....and I'd like to see you explain how our charts are more cluttered than theirs - have you looked at their TAC's??!!. Almost got a migraine just looking at them).
I have a flight school near Sacramento in Northern California. At my school we train from private pilot certificate up to and including airline transport pilot certificate. We do multi engine training, instrument training and a few other thing such as tailwheel endorsements. In addition we operate our own maintenance business. I hold the following FAA certificates: Airline Transport Pilot (single and multi engine land) Flight Instructor airplane, single engine and multi engine, Instrument Instructor, Mechanic Certificate, Airframe and Powerplant as well as an Inspection Authorization. I hold similar Australian certificates and have flown extensively in both the USA and Australia.

Here in California there is very good radar coverage but it is not universal and there are times when flying even at quite high levels that ATC will tell a pilot who is getting an IFR service that radar contact has been lost. In other parts of the country radar coverage is less complete. There is a good uptake of ADS-B but still most aircraft are not equipped, particularly GA aircraft. I use Foreflight but I don't have, nor do I feel the need to have, ADS-B in.

On a typical VFR instructional flight we have the radio volume turned down so that we can concentrate on the lesson at hand. There is no frequency we are supposed to be monitoring unless we are in the traffic pattern at the airport. Although pilots typically make all the recommended radio calls, and there are only a handful of CTAF frequencies in use, frequency congestion is seldom a problem.

I have discussed the use of flight following with the Designated Pilot Examiner we most often use (on average we are doing 2 to 3 check rides per week) and he prefers candidates not to use it since it distracts from the test. Of-course, when accessing Class D or Class C airspace we do communicate with ATC. I personally use flight following when I'm flying in very congested airspace such as flying to the San Francisco area from here but I don't routinely use it in the Central Valley/Sacramento area.

I flew my Beech Duchess to Oshkosh last year, a round trip total of about 20 hours. As I, and most pilots flying VFR here do, I did not monitor any ATC frequency, including flight following for almost all of the trip. In fact, as you approach Oshkosh, the busiest airspace of the trip, the FAA specifically say that flight following is not available.

Flying IFR here is quite similar to what it is in Australia from a communications perspective. ATC sectors cover varying geographic areas or volumes of airspace depending on how busy they are. In quiet periods, ATC combine sectors but, unlike Australia, they don't use re-transmit so as a pilot you need to be mindful of potential over transmits.

In essence, not having frequency boundaries on the charts is a non-issue. If I need to call ATC I look for the nearest outlet and use that, but most of the time, like most pilots here, I don't want to monitor any ATC frequency unless I'm accessing an ATC service.

[Wot No Engines]

So common sense applies.

Anyone departing from a strip unlikely to be known would broadcast something like:

ALL STATIONS, ABC C172 taxying at a private strip 22 miles east of Ballarat, departing to the North below 5000.

It's not rocket science ...

No it's not, but at 22 miles (your example), it's just pointless. You're looking at a 45 degree (possibly more) are from Ballarat to the strip, then another 45 degree wedge out of there heading north for the possible intercept location. In 10 minutes you're looking at a block of sky about 7.5 miles by 7.5 miles that this C172 might be in. It could be worse, he might have been heading west, in which case that becomes a block almost 15 miles by 7.5 miles.

You're far more likely to see one of the 50 or so gliders in that general area who didn't make a call at all. Even if you do sight a C172, how do you know it was the one who made the call? The most dangerous situation VFR (in the circuit) is believing you have seen everyone based on radio calls received and then not bothering to look for anyone else.

[Capn Bloggs]

Lead Balloon, you have obviously never heard of the concepts of unalerted See and Avoid and Alerted See and Avoid. The ATSB/BASI has some stuff on them. Based on your apparent lack of understanding of the limitations of the concepts, I suggest you read and digest.

Looking forward to my Class F CTR at Mildura. Or would a Class E CTR be better to protect me from those LCDs?? :rolleyes:

[MikeHatter732]

There is no frequency we are supposed to be monitoring unless we are in the traffic pattern at the airport.

And I get called a blatant liar??

Here is an example of a frequency which is recommended to be listened to in a relatively busy training area (or practise area is what you call them over there).
https://i.imgur.com/bnnRDHp.png

[Wot No Engines]

I wonder if those of you posting on this site who want to keep our incredibly complex frequency boundaries on the chart actually fly in the system very often. Can I suggest you use your Ozrunways, Avplan, or even just a VFR chart, and put in a typical route I fly.

That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.

Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.

Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then through the busy training area where no one gives position reports. Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming over Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).

That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.

Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. And have never had to announce because of other nearby traffic reports .
Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – Mostly high flying airline aircraft being re transmitted. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.

On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal frequency to give a MAYDAY or if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.

I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.

Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports and a radio is not even required? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?

Or is it mostly resistance to change?

Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it! Hint. It could be to do with a frequency change!

I think it's more likely to be bureaucrat ass covering than anything else - if they devise a system, no matter how complex or unusable and require alerted see and avoid as the primary means of separation, in the event of a mid-air, they can state they did everything possible to prevent it, so can't be blamed. Sadly, way too many pilots have accepted the absolute rubbish we have been told about the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid and the need for so many frequencies due to congestion caused by the excessive number of requested calls.


You don't even need to really go anywhere to find an area with lots of appropriate frequencies to monitor.

A glider on a training flight out of Pipers Field (3 miles west of Bathurst) immediately should be monitoring the CTAF for Pipers Field (122.7), Bathurst (127.35) and Orange (119.0). Then also, 126.7 for the new huge CTAFs for the numerous farm strips in the area, 135.25 below 8,500', 118.5 above 8500' before even thinking about the other glider safety frequencies of 122.5 or 122.9 (122.7 is a glider safety frequency as well).

That's 8 frequencies to monitor whilst on a training flight, never going more than 5 miles from Pipers Field - I don't want to even consider the required changes as they are just about constant.

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight:

So common sense applies.

Anyone departing from a strip unlikely to be known would broadcast something like:

ALL STATIONS, ABC C172 taxying at a private strip 22 miles east of Ballarat, departing to the North below 5000.

It's not rocket science ...

Wot No Engines You are overthinking the situation.

It was just an example and not taking into account the specifics of the particular geographic area.

All I'm saying is if a broadcast in that format was given by someone taxying at a private strip not likely to be well known, any aircraft in the vicinity overhearing it would be able to assess if a conflict may exist or not.

Better than the taxying aircraft a) saying nothing or b) saying "Taxying at Dimwit Downs ...".

[Capn Bloggs]

What the Captain said.

Wot No Engines, from my perspective, you have completely missed the point of these broadcasts, as has Dick and others. If somebody makes a broadcast, you obviously start looking, if he is close. But far more important, because I will probably not be able to see him initially, is to use the info he gave to keep myself away from him, until we pass (whether using visual manoeuvring to avoid or not).

This could well be overkill if you are in your two bugsmashers (listening to your idevices, tapping on your ipads) and if I was well away from a proper airfield I wouldn't bother. 172 to 172 head-on not a big issue, unalerted see and Avoid. If they collide, a few posters here would say "so what; it was low risk but it happened, that's tough, move along"...

Cream a jet approaching the circuit because some selfish fool wanted either zero radio participation or a Class D tower in accordance with ICAO airspace, and there would be a justifiable uproar. Because some wally sitting in Brussels created alphabet airspace doesn't mean it's right or safe.

Some people just don't get it.

[fujii]

ICAO is headquartered in Montreal, not Brussels.

[Lead Balloon]

Lead Balloon, you have obviously never heard of the concepts of unalerted See and Avoid and Alerted See and Avoid. The ATSB/BASI has some stuff on them. Based on your apparent lack of understanding of the limitations of the concepts, I suggest you read and digest.

Looking forward to my Class F CTR at Mildura. Or would a Class E CTR be better to protect me from those LCDs?? :rolleyes:I have some passing familiarity with the substantial weaknesses of unalerted see and avoid compared with alerted see and avoid. That’s one of the reasons for it being very important never to assume that the only traffic around is:

(1) fitted with radio
(2) tuned to the correct frequency
(3) always broadcasting accurate positions and estimates.

(Yesterday I listened to a perfect inbound call to Griffith broadcast on 126.7. The pilot appreciated my response highlighting that 126.7 is not the Griffith CTAF. On almost every flight I hear Centre informing a pilot that s/he made a CTAF broadcast on the FIA frequency rather than the correct CTAF.)

Presumably you are never so imprudent so as to make any of the above assumptions? (Methinks Wot No Engines understands this point very well.)

But you are conflating the question as to how to increase the probabilities of being able to see so as to be able to avoid, on the one hand, with the question as to the objective probabilities of circumstances that objectively require avoidance action on the other. Rather than try to convince you of what the objective risks are, I’ll merely ask that you describe the airspace arrangements, avionic requirements and pilot requirements that will make you feel sufficiently ‘safe’.

It can’t be airspace in which aircraft are allowed to operate without radios. That knocks out quite a few classes of airspace. It can’t be airspace in which LCDs could be mistakenly broadcasting on the wrong frequency, or broadcasting mistaken position or estimate information, without you or a third party knowing. That knocks out quite a few more classes of airspace. It can’t be airspace in which aircraft are allowed to fly with U/S ADS-B / transponders. Gosh - options seem to have dried up...

What, precisely, are the airspace arrangements, avionic requirements and pilot requirements that will make you feel sufficiently ‘safe’?

[Dick Smith]

Jonkster, I’m going to do my best and answer your questions from post #585.

A. the changes you want are:
1. Class G - FIS frequencies not marked as boundaries on charts but outlets shown (similar to AERIS currently?)

Yes, you are right, I do not want the frequency boundaries to be marked on charts as this is clearly giving a message that you can use radio arranged separation when that is no longer possible, as Class G is primarily a see and avoid airspace, you have to remain absolutely vigilant.

If a small number of people make announcements, that means pilots will start looking in that direction and could collide with someone who isn’t announcing. Of course it would be simply impossible for everyone to announce – other than in a circuit area where we have good, sensible procedures (which I support).

2. Class G - VFR - no radio required at any altitude (as opposed to current requirement above 5000')

No way! There would be no way I would be game to take away at the present time the current mandatory radio above 5,000 feet or in many CTAFs. It is a fundamental religion of many people, including Mr Bloggs, that above 5,000 feet you must have radio in E and G airspace.

All it does is probably reduce safety, because it may give pilots false confidence that they can use radio instead of being vigilant when flying in this airspace. As we know, quite often a pilot can be on the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down.

3. Class G - VFR - if radio is carried, no required frequency to monitor (as opposed to current AIP that says "the area VHF") - (or monitor unicom? or 121.5?)

Not quite. I believe that if you are VFR enroute and flying in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure operations of an airport, you should monitor the CTAF of that airport. Surely that is just common sense.

I don’t put any dimensions on this. Surely any pilot can use common sense to work out where to do this.

At other places, I would recommend using 121.5, as very thorough testing for over 20 years in Australia and around the world has shown that is the frequency you are most likely to get an instant answer – from a high flying airline aircraft. I have even tested this over the Indian Ocean near Cocos Islands and got an immediate answer from a US Hercules.

4. Class E - no frequency boundaries marked on charts but outlets marked

Yes.

5. Class E - lowering to replace current G in those areas that radar can support it (ie most of the SE Oz 'J Curve')

Definitely not. I want to be able to leave airspace for enroute “free in G.” That is the Canadian system, where you can fly in most parts of the country, IFR (on a self-announce basis), without having to pay a toll to the service provider.

In most cases I would leave the Class E at 8,500 feet as it is now, but certainly bring some Class E down to 700 feet AGL at the busy airports which have airline traffic.

6. Class E - VFR - need radio but same requirements as VFR in G (ie no mandated monitoring frequency for VFR)

Yes.

7. Class E - IFR - similar to existing system except you can depart VFR on IFR plan and enter E without clearance and then pick up the IFR clearance.

Yes, I agree with this, however my terminology would be that you can depart VFR on an IFR plan, without having to inform ATC that you are doing this. I believe in the US and Canadian system, where even if you have filed an IFR flight plan, until you have actually received an airways clearance, you can keep climbing in VMC in Class E. In fact, that’s what is expected.

Regarding the transponder requirements, I introduced the transponder requirements for Class E at the level it is now. I believe if we are going to drop Class E to low levels in the terminal area, we should have some type of a procedure to allow a non-transponder equipped aircraft (or one with a faulty transponder) to transit that airspace or land at that airport. It could be simple – having the transponder mandate not below 1,500 feet AGL, or a simple procedure where the plane can call ATC to transit. I think this requires further thought.

Of course, the US system is simpler – you don’t require a transponder at all!

B. The reasons you want these changes are:

1. It will be easier to use

2. It will make our procedures similar to other countries (particularly the US)

3. It will encourage more training in Oz of foreign students

Is that correct?

Yes, I agree with your points B1, 2 and 3.

Jonkster, I’m sure there are lots of things we haven’t discussed here. How can you possibly sort this out on an anonymous forum like PPRuNe?

I have been involved in airspace reform since July 1988, and in that time we have gradually moved towards a more international system, with one or two reversals. I am still confident we will eventually get to a more compliant system that will encourage everyone to fly more and be very safe.

[Dick Smith]

Lead Balloon, you have made the following statement:

I agree with your implicit point that it’s difficult-if-not impossible to pin Dick down on the all-important devilish-detail of the system he is advocating. He’s his own worst enemy some times.

Lead Balloon, why don’t you pick up the phone and talk to me? The “all-important devilish-detail” simply can’t be explained on PPRuNe. It is quite childish the way this goes on with this site.

We are supposed to have an office of airspace management that should be coming up with some leadership on this issue. Can you believe it, they are not even game to talk to me.

I spoke to Mr Shane Carmody on the phone and offered to give a briefing to his airspace people on what the plans were over the years. He wrote back and basically said, “If we need you, we will ask you.”

It is quite obvious that most of the people at CASA have absolutely no idea in relation to airspace. They have never experienced overseas airspace. They have been put into positions where you need strong leadership and ability to be able to copy the best, however they don’t seem to have those abilities. What a pity.

Then again, maybe they just need some better leadership at the top.

[Lead Balloon]

The “all-important devilish-detail” simply can’t be explained on PPRuNe.That cannot be true.

If it were true, the system will not work.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

As Class G is primarily a see and avoid airspace, you have to remain absolutely vigilant.
Then you shouldn't be doing this then
fly VFR en route listening to the stereo and looking out at the amazing scenery.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Don’t forget. Before my group made the AMATs changes it was a directed traffic service and the pilot was told when to change frequency and the frequency to change to.
You forget the DTI was only to IFR (which still mostly happens now anyway), and frequency change instructions were only given to VFR who chose to operate full reporting. It wasn't the claustrophobic overservicing and molly-coddling that you continually imply it was.

[Dick Smith]

Not so.

If you flew VFR above 5000’ it was mandatory to go full reporting.

Derr. It had to be. We had the quadrantal rule and IFR and VFR flew at the same levels. In fact when you were given traffic you were not advised if it was VFR or IFR.

It cost a fortune for the taxpayer and industry.

About the only thing it did was to engrain in some people’s minds that VFR meant fly by radio otherwise they would die. The myth still exists today. Especially on pprune.

My group then introduced the ICAO semi circular cruising levels. VFR at a different level for the first time.

[Lead Balloon]

TIEW: It was the claustrophobic overservicing and molly-coddling that Dick implies it was. There was no ‘choice’ above 5,000’.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Only tbe IFRs got traffic, so it didn't matter what flight rules the traffic was, it was still traffic.
Most VFR flew below 5000. So the choice was there for the majority of VFR pilots. Most didn't even bother going FULLSAR.
The taxpayer didn't pay for it. The Avgas levy did.
The hemispherical rule is great, as long as you don't mind head on traffic at your level, something that could not happen with the quadrantal rule. Still they do it overseas so it must be safer.

[Lead Balloon]

Most VFR flew below 5000Bollocks.

Because of length minima: Complete Bollocks.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Listening to the broadasts on area, vs the number of strips on my board?

[Dick Smith]

“ only the IFRs got traffic “

That’s not true.

Most long distance enroute flying in Australia takes place above 5000’. Before the AMATs changes all aircraft above 5000’ were treated as “ in the system” and given a directed traffic information service.

Hugely expensive and a major waste of industry money. Since we changed to the ICAO 500’ VFR cruising level over 25 years ago over $1 billion has been saved by our industry and not one life lost attributed to the change.

That change was resisted at the time. Fortunately CAA has a hands on Chairman and it happened.

Now we just have to finalise the change to a modern proven system.

Are there any supporters out there? I hope so for Aussie aviation .

[Lead Balloon]

TIEW

When I learnt to fly in the mid-80s, all navexs included legs above 5,000’. I can’t recall any trip I’ve done since that was conducted entirely below 5,000’.

Most VFR flew below 5000How would you have known the ratio of VFR flights B050 versus VFR flights 5,000’ and above?

[Capn Bloggs]

over $1 billion has been saved by our industry and not one life lost attributed to the change.
That's what it will cost to run terminal E for the next 25 years and not a life will be saved.

[Capn Bloggs]

But you are conflating the question as to how to increase the probabilities of being able to see so as to be able to avoid, on the one hand, with the question as to the objective probabilities of circumstances that objectively require avoidance action on the other.
WTF? Do you work for the government or something??

What, precisely, are the airspace arrangements, avionic requirements and pilot requirements that will make you feel sufficiently ‘safe’?
If you haven't worked that out by now, there's no hope for you.

Could you confirm that you are happy with state 1: no radios/no participation, the next state being state 2: Class D airspace?

[Lead Balloon]

I’ll try to explain my first point this way, Cap’n.

If someone fires a howitzer, the objective probabilities of you being hit by the round in the air are the same, whether you know about the round or not. However, in the case of howitzer rounds that are objectively going to hit you, your chances of avoiding being hit are increased if you are alerted to the fact that you are going to be hit.

The probablilities of you being hit by a howitzer round in the air are, objectively, infinitesimally small. However, because of the consequences to you of being hit by a howitzer round, your perception of the probabilities of being hit is many orders of magnitude higher than the objective probabilities. This is natural. Accordingly, you want a system that will alert you to every howitzer that’s fired near you.

That system doesn’t exist.

The airspace equivalent doesn’t exist and will never exist. Birds, drones, technical failure and human error will ever be thus. There are no airspace arrangements that are free of collision risk.

I’m happy with most of the current airspace and frequency arrangements. I think some of them are unjustified by the objective risks. The dimensions of the airspace in which the YPPD AFIS procedures apply is one example.

I think the greater risk is posed by change fatigue and the general resort to whatever version of the procedures with which individuals happen to be comfortable.

[Capn Bloggs]

I’ll try to explain my first point this way, Cap’n.
Just a Yes or No will be fine.

The dimensions of the airspace in which the YPPD AFIS procedures is one example.
You (and Dick) never really got the message at Mildura, did you? :rolleyes:

[Dick Smith]

Bloggsie, if there is any measurable extra cost in running terminal Class E, I don’t think I would be a supporter of it. However, you would know there is airspace in Australia where the workload on air traffic controllers is not very high.

Are you suggesting that an enroute controller in this airspace wouldn’t be able to do a Class E terminal service? Especially when you consider that giving a traffic information service is not workload permitting. It has to be given at all times, which means the sector has to be manned at all time to give the traffic information service.

At least with Class E, if there is an overload, an air traffic controller could delay giving departure clearance just by saying, “Standby.”

Yes, this might mean a delay for an IFR aircraft, and I certainly wouldn’t support this if it was going to happen all the time – but if it happened occasionally and meant that we were not paying higher costs for air traffic control, but receiving a safer separation service, I think I would be a supporter.

Of course, all of these things need to be appraised and discussed. The very fact that we have not even tried any terminal Class E airspace at a non-tower airport shows the incredible resistance to change – or possibly because of the lack of people with the ability to show leadership at CASA.

Bloggsie, you seem to go to extremes at all times – i.e. because I suggest that VFR could fly enroute without monitoring an ATC frequency, that must mean I totally support unalerted see and avoid. I have made it absolutely clear that I support pilots of enroute aircraft flying in the airspace normally used for approach and departure at a non-tower airport monitoring the CTAF frequency. This was part of the NAS we were introducing before it was half wound-back.

Do you realise if I had not come along, you would probably still be flying in uncontrolled airspace with no surveillance service at all, and still being operated by flight service – who were banned from looking at a radar (or indeed ADS-B screen)?

When I became Chairman, there was a proposal to introduce a system called FISADS, which was an artificial display screen showing positions of aircraft in uncontrolled airspace, taken from dead reckoning from the flight plan. This was even to be installed where there was good radar coverage. It was total madness, which I stopped.

Bloggsie, believe it or not, there is a chance that you are a better pilot than I am – after all, you are a “professional” – but when it comes to looking around the world, asking advice and copying the best, I think I might have an edge over you.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick, if you had not come along... Smack smack, "Wake Up Bloggs! It's only a dream!!" :}

[MikeHatter732]

[The very fact that we have not even tried any terminal Class E airspace at a non-tower airport shows the incredible resistance to change – or possibly because of the lack of people with the ability to show leadership at CASA.

There is Class E down to 700' AGL when Rocky tower is closed (i.e. a non-towered airport).....


When I became Chairman, there was a proposal to introduce a system called FISADS, which was an artificial display screen showing positions of aircraft in uncontrolled airspace, taken from dead reckoning from the flight plan.
The current TAAATS system, for non-surveillance aircraft does a similar thing. The controller enters in the ETA of the waypoint on the electronic flight strip bay and the flight progress tag moves along at a rate which would make sense for that estimate. I think it is a great idea for increasing situational awareness in non-surveillance areas (and from what I have seen on my visits to the control centres, is quite accurate (comparing it to Flightradar24 for example, where a household ADS-B reciever is picking the plane up when Airservices receivers are not).

I believe there is also a similar system for estimating positions based on ADS-C uplinks from the aircraft, but one of the real controllers on here could probably confirm that.

[Dick Smith]

Mike. Yep. But Rocky is a tower airport.

How about a trial at a genuine non tower airport like Ballina?

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. Be nice. I actually sort of gave you a compliment.

But thanks for showing us what we are up against with change.

Looks as if there are people with similar beliefs to you at CASA.

[Lead Balloon]

Just a Yes or No will be fine.


You (and Dick) never really got the message at Mildura, did you? :rolleyes:Errrrrrm, OK. Yes or No.

The message out of the Mildura incident depends on whether one is objective or not.

So what airspace arrangements do you want at Mildura? I’ll guarantee that they won’t result in zero collision risk.

[Capn Bloggs]

Be nice.

Impossible to do much worthwhile on a site where dead loss losers get the same exposure as a competent and rational minded person.

You must be complete failures in life.

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

That’s clearly your problem. Very sad. You must be getting near to retirement. When will that be?
..........

[Dick Smith]

Did I say those things? If I did I apologise

I will try and be nice and tolerant from now on as long as I can!

[fujii]

Did I say those things? If I did I apologise

I will try and be nice and tolerant from now on as long as I can!


Yes Dick and more. In a workplace this would be bullying and harassment and subject to disciplinary action. Facts and sound argument are more likely to carry your cause. As I mentioned earlier play the ball, not the man.

[Car RAMROD]

Dick, I'm still interested to know, how often does your GPS with its Nearest ATC function change frequencies for ATC on the route you fly?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

all aircraft above 5000’ were treated as “ in the system” and given a directed traffic information service
No they weren't.

[Dick Smith]

Car. I do not understand the question.

At any time with a decent aviation GPS you can look at the “nearest”pages.

I think Garmin has nearest ARTC amongst others.

On a flight from tls to gdo I would imagine the nearest function would show four or five different frequencies depending on your location at the time.

It’s primarily of use if you want to call to get flight following or wx info.

As I have mentioned many times the frequency boundaries on charts are not primarily designed on low level VHF coverage but for ATC workload and other purposes.

[CaptainMidnight]

all aircraft above 5000’ were treated as “ in the system” and given a directed traffic information service No they weren't. Traffic_Is_Er_Was is correct.

It's always been clear that some here either have - or had at the time - a poor understanding of the earlier procedures.

The very fact that we have not even tried any terminal Class E airspace at a non-tower airport shows the incredible resistance to change – or possibly because of the lack of people with the ability to show leadership at CASA.Times have changed.

The earlier attempt to introduce NAS highlighted the fact that due process had not been followed by various parties, and instead it was said a "crash or crash through" approach had been adopted.

https://www.pprune.org/1499488-post1.html
https://www.pprune.org/2148230-post1.html

I suspect that these days a "trial" would not be entertained unless at the minimum evidence of a safety risk existed at a location that required addressing (in which case why would it be a "trial"??), followed by a CBA, industry consultation - particularly by the directly affected parties - with agreement, a thorough education campaign completed etc. etc.

[Car RAMROD]

Dick, I was under the impression that one of your motives for removing the boundaries was that you'd likely have less frequency changes, as that was a topic of your previous posts; and therefore less to monitor (I know your primary aim is to not monitor though).

Does the "nearest" frequency listed on the GPS guarantee coverage if you did need to call up ATC?

[Capn Bloggs]

The near-miss at Mildura was caused by a communication breakdown. It is plainly obvious that such a breakdown could easily happen at Ballina with E to 700ft. IFR operating on two frequencies simultaneously at a busy airport is a recipe for disaster.

It should either be controlled airspace for all or uncontrolled airspace for all, not some mish-mash of two different worlds.

Get your heads out of the sand!

[Dick Smith]

Captain Midnight.

So how did VFR fly around above 5000’ at the same quadrantral levels as the IFR aircraft and not be a collision hazard ?

And a hazard clearly exists at “ do it yourself terminal G”. You mind is set so you ignore the two aircraft in IMC on the same approach at Bundy and the Rex and Bank run aircraft in IMC at Orange.

Do you want to wait for the fatalities before you upgrade?

All the stuff you require is to prevent change. Or do you have a vested interest in all these invented safety studies?

And are you suggesting people like Angus Houston and the Secretary of DOT were part of “crash through studies”. You are wrong .

And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.

If VOR has a genuine interest in public safety they would clearly operate publicly.

What a con!

You are clearly angling for huge amounts of money to be paid for all these Australian unique studies. It won’t work!

[Dick Smith]

Car ramrod. My primary motive for removing the boundaries is that the system does not work. That’s why CASA has spent two years and a huge amount of money in attempting to fix it.

Why else do we have the ridiculous 40 mile CTAF proposal?

It’s a half wound back system they are experimenting with.

If we remove the boundaries and advise VFR to monitor the aerodrome frequency if en route and in the airspace normally used for approach and departure we end up with a very safe system that is simple and straightforward.

And no. The nearest frequency does not guarantee coverage however you are more likely to get coverage than using an area frequency that is primarily there for a different purpose. I have already explained that just one example is south of Charlieville where the area frequency does not get the ground station however the nearest frequency of St George does.

[Car RAMROD]

Because they were trying to fix one problem and introduced another. Thinking they were keeping some happy but in turn annoying others.

You can't keep everyone happy.

And what is the "airspace normally used for approach and departure"? What I might think is normal, and be on frequency, might be different to you. You go sailing through said airspace thinking your not in the way, but in this case you happen to be in my way? If I really wanted to I'm sure I could conjure up and cherry pick some specific instances to support this case. Similar to you picking your examples to support your viewpoint But I really cannot be bothered.
I understand what you are getting at, and there are pros, but there are also cons. Much like the 20nm radius CTAF.

Whether we keep the current system, or change to yours, do you think 100% of users are going to like the system? No.
And they won't dislike it just to spite you, they'll just dislike it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti change". Can our airspace and ATC system be better? Yes I'm sure it can, and I have my own thoughts on other unrelated conversation topics here.
Can the US system be improved? I'm sure it can.
But I'm not sure that your proposed changes are what the masses want. If it was, don't you think there'd be more support for it? Change isn't necessarily good. Remember part 61? Industry is still struggling with that!

[Dick Smith]

It’s not my system. It’s a system based on the best in the world.

That’s because it has evolved in very wealthy and also litigious society with high mountains and sometimes terrible weather. And

thirty times the number of aircraft.

As I have said before it’s the 747 of airspace. We have the Nomad.

And if our part 61 was similar to the US part 61 it would be fantastic.

And “ the masses” wanted to keep the pre AMATS system where radar could not be used in radar covered uncontrolled airspace. Now most are happy with that change.

Would you get the masses to design your next airline aircraft?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So how did VFR fly around above 5000’ at the same quadrantral levels as the IFR aircraft and not be a collision hazard ?
Because they obviously were a collision hazard, just as two IFRs still are and two VFRs still are under the hemispherical rule. It was mitigated by the VFRs practicing "see and avoid" (and the IFRs too if they were in VMC sharing the airspace with VFRs) which is what the system you desire so much depends on. If in IMC, well the IFRs shouldn't have had to worry about VFRs at their level should they? On top of that the IFRs got a directed traffic service about other known traffic. And people managed.This was in the supposed good old days of GA when the volume of traffic was higher. It didn't seem to cause too many problems.

[Car RAMROD]

Would you get the masses to design your next airline aircraft?

No I'd get the pros to incorporate what the masses want into the design.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It’s a system based on the best in the world.
You're looking at the wrong one then:

https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21703477-americas-antiquated-air-traffic-control-system-hindering-safety-sky-navigating

[topdrop]

And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.Dick,
Do you have any evidence for this? VOR clearly stated during the NAS debate that they had no vested interest. I don't think you rebutted them at that time, so why are you trying to do it now - perhaps they are no longer around to respond.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Good try. I think you may find they are not actually referring to the US NAS airspace allocations and procedures. Possibly the actual equipment.

But keep trying. There must be some reason we can be unique and not copy the success of others.

[Dick Smith]

Topdrop. If VOR , an anonymous poster on this site claimed they had no vested interest that just must be true.

If there was an organisation or individual who wanted to inflict the maximum damage on our aviation industry they would obviously be honest , open and tell us.

We already have individuals at CASA who are unintentionally damaging the GA industry by continually adding costly regulations. Why couldn’t we have a group who are doing this intentionally?

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. At my time if you wanted to fly VFR above 5000’ you had to give full position reports and next estimate to Flight Service. That was why we were the only country in the world that had a non ICAO mandatory radio requirement for VFR above 5000’

Are you telling me I could have flown around VFR at the same cruising levels as IFR airline aircraft?

And Bloggs wants to go back to those days?

[Capn Bloggs]

And Bloggs wants to go back to those days?
Poor Dick. In a muddle again.

"But keep trying".

Again, how do I manage the CTAF on one radio and ATC on the other? Maybe get the PF on ATC radio #1, then the PNF can run the CTAF on the other. That should work...

[CaptainMidnight]

All the stuff you require is to prevent change. Or do you have a vested interest in all these invented safety studies?

And are you suggesting people like Angus Houston and the Secretary of DOT were part of “crash through studies”. You are wrong .

And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.

If VOR has a genuine interest in public safety they would clearly operate publicly.

What a con!

You are clearly anglingg for huge amounts of money to be paid for all these Australian unique studies. It won’t workYou've drawn a long bow from my post #624.

I was merely quoting what had been said in earlier threads (para 5 in the second link), and the safety assessment and change management process outlined in my last sentence is what has been required by CASA OAR for quite some time and detailed in their various documents here:

https://www.casa.gov.au/airspace/standard-page/airspace-change-process

[Dick Smith]

Captain Midnight.

Surely you understand all that gobbledygook is to stop any change that someone may be held accountable for.

Have you noticed that the time consuming and therefore expensive Office of Airspace Regulation airspace studies nearly always recommend the status quo.

How would it be possible to do a study on Ballina and not even consider E to 700 agl?

Have you noticed they only employ people in that office who have zero or mis informed knowledge about the North American airspace ? It’s not accident.

[CaptainMidnight]

I suspect you'll find that "all that gobbledygook" originates from their Act, legislation and the Ministerial AAPS.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Traffic. At my time if you wanted to fly VFR above 5000’ you had to give full position reports and next estimate to Flight Service. That was why we were the only country in the world that had a non ICAO mandatory radio requirement for VFR above 5000’

Yes you did. Did ICAO have radio requirements back in the 80's? I'd reckon most countries had their own particular airspace and operating requirements 35 years ago.

Are you telling me I could have flown around VFR at the same cruising levels as IFR airline aircraft?

Yes, you did. Don't you remember? You seem to have a lot of trouble remembering exactly how the system you detest so much used to actually work. Weren't you paying attention? So how did you go? Did you run into any IFR airline aircraft? I seem to recall no one ran into anyone while cruising.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Post 622 you said VFR above 5000’ were not given a traffic info service .

Now you allude the opposite. Are you playing with words?

I clearly remember what happened above 5000’. You obviously don’t.

[CaptainMidnight]

Traffic. Post 622 you said VFR above 5000’ were not given a traffic info service.If memory serves me correctly, they were, then they weren't.

In the last half of 1978 a change came in that outside an AFIZ, VFR were no longer given traffic on other VFR.

Caused a bit of consternation in ATS at the time i.e. if FS had strips indicating two VFRs were going to be at the same place at the same level and about the same time, and they weren't supposed to give traffic ....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Traffic. Post 622 you said VFR above 5000’ were not given a traffic info service .

No I simply rebutted your earlier assertion that all aircraft above 5000' received a directed traffic info service. I did not mention VFR (even though that is how it worked ie they didn't get one.)

Now you allude the opposite. Are you playing with words?

No, I simply agreed with you that VFR above 5000' were required to be full reporting. I didn't say anything about a traffic service and neither did you.
I don't think it's me that's playing with words.

I clearly remember what happened above 5000’. You obviously don’t.

I'm not too sure about that.

[Dick Smith]

To others who don’t understand what is going on here. - before 1990 there was a total obsession with “ radio Arranged separation” between VFR aircraft and RPT in un controlled airspace.

Even alerted see and avoid was not enough for some pilots.

It just resulted in a staggering mis allocation of finite safety dollars.

This obsession is still stopping important airspace refoms to day

Lead balloon has attempted to explain

[LeadSled]

------your perception of the probabilities of being hit is many orders of magnitude higher than the objective probabilities. This is natural.

Lead Balloon,
Hence Bloggs' mates long time and continuing demands, quite formally, that not only objective risk (demonstrated risk) be addressed, but "perception of risk" must also be addressed by "the system".
Irrational, quite irrational.
Put another way, they demand that risk that has been shown to be non-existent, must be catered for, because they fundamentally will not accept ICAO risk based allocation of CNS/ATM resources.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Yair, non-existent risk at Mildura or Launy. Free in G, go for it.

because they fundamentally will not accept ICAO risk based allocation of CNS/ATM resources.
Keh?

[Capn Bloggs]

This obsession is still stopping important airspace refoms to day
Yair, who'da thought, a jet crew with hundred+ punters on board being obsessed with having radio contact with a VFR trying to approach/land at the same airport. Rediculous.

[Lead Balloon]

So why do those jet crews with a hundred+ punters on board still fly in airspace with aircraft with no radio, transponder or ADS?

[Capn Bloggs]

Enlighten us Leddie (balloon-type, that is). What airspace would that be?

[Lead Balloon]

For you Bloggsie: None.

You can rest assured that 21nms from YPPD there is no collision risk with anything at the levels at which you operate.

Your ignorance results in even greater bliss for the rest of us than it does for you. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Enlighten us Leddie (balloon-type, that is). What airspace would that be?

For you Bloggsie: None.

You can rest assured that 21nms from YPPD there is no collision risk with anything at the levels at which you operate.

Your ignorance results in even greater bliss for the rest of us than it does for you.

Love ya work, LB. A common trait throughout every one of your prune posts. Sledge, criticise, snide remarks that pick on the man. Not able to, or unwilling, to argue the technicals.

But keep it all coming. I find myself quivering with delight every time I open Prune to read what you have posted next.

PS: Hint hint: what level am I at at 20nm? Your 777 brain's trust should be able to help you out...unless he's from xxxx;)!

More dot-joining hints coming soon...

[Lead Balloon]

Relax Bloggsie

There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome in G (or in the YPPD AFIthing) on the wrong frequency.

There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome lawfully able to operate without a radio.

There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome suffering 180 degree confusion as to their location with reference to the aerodrome.

There is no one at 10,000’ with no radio, no transponder and no ADS (or a legal requirement to have them).

And for completeness’ sake: You’d never make a mistake about the frequency in use or your location, and your aircraft would never suffer an unserviceability in its avionics.

Fortunately for you and the 100 punters down the back, the probabilities arising from the risks of which you are so blissfully ignorant work in your and their favour.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

before 1990 there was a total obsession with “ radio Arranged separation” between VFR aircraft and RPT in un controlled airspace.
To be more correct, it was more "mutually arranged separation via the use of whatever means was most effective, including radio". It wasn't just between VFR and RPT either. It was any IFR to any other aircraft (VFR RPT got a directed traffic service too, the only VFR that did outside an AFIZ, so RPTs were the most "serviced" I guess). Any aircraft fitted with a radio could use it to talk to any other radio equipped aircraft, irrespective of their category or operation . I suppose the idea was that any communication between pilots that resulted in a mutual understanding of each others intentions was better than no communication and just relying on guesswork or luck to keep out of each others way. I don't think mind reading was part of the PPL/CPL/ATPL syllabus prior to 1990, but was obviously introduced after that.
Its amusing that your statement implies that after 1990, no one gave a rats about separation between VFRs and RPTs OCTA.

[Sunfish]

the problem for blogs seems to be that he thinks that his 100 pax seater is 100 times more important than a 2 seat vfr aircraft. accordingly his safety is 100 times more important than the vfr joe. this is the root of the problem.

to have a reasoned discussion requires abandoning this specious assumption by assuming bloggs aircraft is empty of pax and there is no moral right of bloggsie to prevail.

we can then have a reasoned discussion,

[Capn Bloggs]

Sunfish, I normally enjoy reading your well thought-out and reasoned posts, so on this occasion I assume you have had too many reds!

Anyways, if you did mean everything you wrote, if I was in my 172, I couldn't give two hoots about any of this stuff. I'd just get in and go for a fly. No CTAF, no transponder, no calls. I am a realist. I do know that there is a good chance I could avoid another lighty even if I only did pick him up at the last minute.

The reality is though that the more people you kill, the more unpopular you become. So yes, I am a bit more interested about keeping myself away from others, by finding out where they are before I get there. And the 100+ punters sitting behind me have as much right to be in the same piece of sky as you. Safely. So don't start this Arthur (sorry John) and Martha rubbish about "Free In G and the rest can jump in the lake", the epitome of this being an A380 dodging Dick in his bugsmasher in Class E because that's his right.

Oh, and another thing. Hitting me in my wonderjet will cause you just as much grief whether I have a full load of punters or I'm empty. I still can't see out of it very well, I'm not very manoeuverable, and I have a lot to do internally to get thing safely on the ground which reduces my lookout. So it is your interest to know where I am and where I am going, so that you can look after your butt, by talking.

[Dick Smith]

The pre 1990 airspace had a huge safety disadvantage

When OCTA under the J curve with pretty good radar coverage the pathetic system, which was supported by most pilots, did not facilitate any direct communication to the person with the radar screen. Yep.

It’s the same type of people resisting change today that delayed my AMATS changes.

So I have experience of minds set in concrete.BASI didn’t even make a recommendation to use the radar in future in similar circumstances.

The poor MDX mob may have all lived if they had been communicating to the person with the radar screen

It never once happened!

People get killed if you don’t ask advice and copy the best!

[A Squared]

Again, how do I manage the CTAF on one radio and ATC on the other? Maybe get the PF on ATC radio #1, then the PNF can run the CTAF on the other. That should work...


Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, but you put the ATC frequency in one radio and the CTAF frequency in the other. You use the transmit selector to select which one you're transmitting.

In the US, ATC will normally instruct you to "Switch to Advisory" once they have cleared you for the approach. That means they are done talking to you, and not expecting to hear from you until you are on the ground or on the missed approach. If there is no conflicting IFR traffic, this may be 30 nm or more from the airport. If there is other IFR traffic for the same airport your instructions to "Switch to Advisory" may be delayed as late as the final approach fix. Regardless, it's my practice to have the CTAF tuned, and have made a traffic call between 20-30 miles out.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

he thinks that his 100 pax seater is 100 times more important than a 2 seat vfr aircraft. accordingly his safety is 100 times more important than the vfr
That's pretty much the rationale behind every Air traffic System in the world.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

the pathetic system, which was supported by most pilots
I can't believe you just said that.
It’s the same type of people resisting change today
So by that, you mean "most pilots"?
Perhaps you should take account of the opinions of "most pilots" rather than just the opinion of one?
So I have experience of minds set in concrete
Where are the Irony brackets on here?

[Lead Balloon]

That's pretty much the rationale behind every Air traffic System in the world.Really TIEW?

You said this at post #21 in this thread: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/579525-how-does-casa-air-services-decide-whether-airport-has-control-tower-2.html

Gove was also for a time the only place both mainlines of the day operated B737's into as RPT without a TWR. They also operated into Ayers Rock but they were classed as CHTR, so fell outside the regs. It was the potential for two 73's to be mixing it up with the local GA that drove the building of the TWR. While the apron could fit two at a pinch, the schedules had them separated, but often they were arriving and departing traffic for each other. It used to make me chuckle that while they would happily be spat out of the overlying CTA on descent, and left to work things out under "Directed Traffic", coordinating a pre departure clearance with DRW ATC involved much more to-ing and fro-ing so that they would be adequately separated prior to reaching CTA on climb (which I think was either at FL200 or FL250 from distant memory).That’s the kind of irrational nonsense that used to prevail back then and infects the system to this day.

It was, indeed, chuckle-worthy nonsense that it was acceptably ‘safe’ for the aircraft to sort themselves out on approach OCTA, but ‘unsafe’ for them to do the same on departure.

It was, indeed, chuckle-worthy nonsense that it was acceptably ‘safe’ for 2 charter 73s to operate without a tower but ‘unsafe’ if one or both of them was RPT. Precisely the same objective risks to the 200+ precious passengers, but different air traffic system requirements. This nonsense infects the classification of operations mess to this day.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. I am stating the facts.

Most pilots who had been trained in the system where FS communicated to all traffic OCTA wanted to keep that system. Mostly for the reason some older pilots want to keep the frequency boundaries on the charts. It was the system they had been trained in.

Even with the huge publicity of the MDX crash at the time my research of the media does not show one mention that it would have been safer if the pilots were communicating to a person with a radar screen.

Many pilots at the time of the AMATS proposals told me I was wrong and it was better to keep the duplicated FS/ATC system. That it was not necessary to communicate to a radar operator when OCTA and in radar coverage.

When I mentioned the problem of CFIT I was as told competent pilots would not fly their aircraft into the ground.

I challenge you to show me even one newspaper cutting or article dated before 1991 where Aussie pilots are questioning the fact that in good radar coverage they are forced by regulation not to communicate with the person in front of a radar screen

So this resistance to change is not new to me!

[Lead Balloon]

Dick, I think one of the (many) reasons that lots of pilots wanted to keep the old system was that it provided a SARWATCH for everyone who had to submit details or chose to submit details. It did provide a sense of security, knowing that ‘someone’ was waiting to hear your report at the next estimate, plus or minus 2 minutes. (It also provided a false sense of security that ‘everyone’ in the area was on the same frequency and known. But a sense of security is a sense of security, false or otherwise.) However, I think technological advances - SATPHONES, 406GPS ELT and PLBs and mobile phone location technologies - have long since rendered the old SARWATCH system redundant.

[Dick Smith]

Lead. You are correct however there was nothing to stop the old Sar watch system being given by ATC Not FS.

Most pilots believed that if you missed a full position report that within 2 minutes they would start a search.

During our AMATS research we found out that due to lots of position reports being missed due to radio and other problems that it was more likely a search would not start until planned fuel was exhausted. The extra safety was a delusion!

[Dick Smith]

I am amazed even today the number of pilots who put in a Sar watch with AsA rather than a family friend or business associate.

I know who is most likely to be concerned if given the responsibility. And it’s not the Airservices computer system!

[fujii]

SARTIMEs are not held by Airservices, they are held by AusSAR.

[Capn Bloggs]

All this paranoia about SARwatches reads very much like the current paranoia about getting the frequency right for that Mayday call (Closest ATC? Charted ATC freq? 121.5?). Why the angst? Nobody's going to get to you for hours. And did you put in a flight plan so the searchers would at least have the lateral search part sorted out?

Oh, hang on, LB could use "mobile phone location technologies" to send a Whatsapp location. That'll help the searchers.

[topdrop]

Most pilots believed that if you missed a full position report that within 2 minutes they would start a search.Communication checks started 3 minutes after the estimated time at a position. A SAR phase is declared 15 mins after the estimate.
I am amazed even today the number of pilots who put in a Sar watch with AsA rather than a family friend or business associate.

I know who is most likely to be concerned if given the responsibility. And it’s not the Airservices computer system!Which of the two systems is more likely to forget or suddenly remember 1 or 2 hours later.

[Dick Smith]

Fujji. I am sure you are correct. What an incredible duplicated “ make jobs” system.

Do pilots communicate directly with Ausar to open and close Sar watch or is that normally through Airservices?

And is that the same ausSar that supported CASA in this class G issue and were opposed to all RAPACs?

[Capn Bloggs]

What an incredible duplicated “ make jobs” system.
There you go again, resisting change...

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

There is a presumption that a passenger who undertakes a charter flight is accepting of a greater degree of risk than one who simply buys an airline ticket. This is reflected in the difference between how charter vs RPT is reflected in the various rules & regs around the world. Whether the punter on board is actually aware, who knows, but that's how the systems work. A private VFR flight will always be at the bottom of the list. Basic economics dictate that.
In regards to my old comments, the to-ing and fro-ing prior to departure was mainly to prevent delays with their respective clearances, and to ensure adequate separation at the time they entered CTA. Of course they were adequately separated in CTA during that part of their descent. It wasn't considered more or less acceptably safe for either their OCTA descent or climb. It was considered acceptable on a dispensation against the prevailing rules basis, which was that RPT turbojets operated in Controlled Airspace.
A tower was built, but never opened, because ultimately it was deemed non-cost effective for between 2 and 4 RPT jets a day.

[fujii]

No Dick, it is not a make jobs system and is more efficient than twenty odd years ago.

AUSsar is part of the AMSA. AUSsar is responsible for all land, sea and air searches. These often cross over. E.g., an aircraft crashing into the sea. In the past, each FIR had its own Operations Control Center with a Searchmaster trainee SOC who was responsible for all searches within that FIR. At any one time, most towers and FS stations would have had at least one SARTIME aircraft strip on the board. In the event of a missed position report or SARTIME cancellation, the TWR/FSS would initiate action. If communications checks were not successful, a SAR phase would be declared and the SOC advised who would take over the SAR process. This was very cumbersome.

Now, instead of numerous TWRs/FSS having to monitor SARTIMEs and half a dozen individual search centres, it is all done by AUSsar.

As for leaving a note with a friend/relative or other, that has its problems. Try getting someone unfamiliar with aviation to explain the planned flight to AUSsar.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

During our AMATS research we found out that due to lots of position reports being missed due to radio and other problems that it was more likely a search would not start until planned fuel was exhausted.
And you were surprised by this? I am constantly astounded by how little you as a self-professed expert on why the system was so bad actually know about it.
You bag it and slag it, but have so little knowledge about it I actually doubt anything you say about the safe and proven system you profess to admire. Perhaps everything you say about that will turn out to be B/S too?

[Dick Smith]

Sounds like a far more costly system. It appears they have to continually chase Sar times that are not cancelled but keep the problem secret as it employs lots of people .

And unlike New Zealand there is no fine for failing to cancel and then incur cost.

[fujii]

No cost or fine here either. Think is the big searches and rescues there have been with no cost to those rescued. It’s how international agreements work.

[Lead Balloon]

All this paranoia about SARwatches reads very much like the current paranoia about getting the frequency right for that Mayday call (Closest ATC? Charted ATC freq? 121.5?). Why the angst? Nobody's going to get to you for hours. And did you put in a flight plan so the searchers would at least have the lateral search part sorted out?

Oh, hang on, LB could use "mobile phone location technologies" to send a Whatsapp location. That'll help the searchers.You sure have a weird concept of “paranoia”, Bloggsie. Suggesting that a SARWATCH provided a sense of security is not “paranoia” - at least not in the dictionaries I consult.

And the SAR authorities do now use mobile phone cell handshake data as a means to locate lost aircraft.

SARTIMEs are not held by Airservices, they are held by AusSAR.No they are not, fujii. SARTIMEs are held by CENSAR, which is part of Airservices. Those who spend their time in Airservices in the rarefied atmosphere of ATC would not be aware of this hangover from the FIS/ATC status divide.

If a SARTIME isn’t canceled, CENSAR (in Airservices) contacts AusSAR.

[Dick Smith]

And then AusSar has the cost of chasing if an error!

[fujii]

Thank LB, You’re right. I have been out too long. As for Dick’s comment, someone pays somewhere. Doesn’t it come out of taxes so everyone pays?
But again, the current system is more efficient than having individual units holding the SARWATCH. Nominate a SARTIME on the plan, CENSAR keeps the watch.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with airspace reform and frequency boundaries.

[Lead Balloon]

There is a presumption that a passenger who undertakes a charter flight is accepting of a greater degree of risk than one who simply buys an airline ticket. This is reflected in the difference between how charter vs RPT is reflected in the various rules & regs around the world. Whether the punter on board is actually aware, who knows, but that's how the systems work. A private VFR flight will always be at the bottom of the list. Basic economics dictate that.The “presumption” is a complete fiction and based on distinctions that have no safety basis. We do know that punters on board are blissfully ignorant of the differences. No punter has any understanding of the absolute and comparative levels of risk of e.g. RPT operations in a 737 compared with Charter operations in a 737.

Indeed, I recall a gentleman by the name of Richard Harold Smith trying to introduce a ‘star’ rating system for the various classifications of operation in Australia and the different sized aircraft and their certification basis. His concept was that the punters should be informed of the facts. Commercial operators at the time gathered tar and feathers for Dick, and he was forced to back down.

“Basic economics” dictate the differences? You are absolutely correct. Another phrase that captures the same concept is: “affordable safety”.

[Lead Balloon]

Thank LB, You’re right. I have been out too long. As for Dick’s comment, someone pays somewhere. Doesn’t it come out of taxes so everyone pays?
But again, the current system is more efficient than having individual units holding the SARWATCH. Nominate a SARTIME on the plan, CENSAR keeps the watch.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with airspace reform and frequency boundaries.I think there is a relationship with airspace reform, fujii.

Let’s see if you think this is “efficient”: I submit a flight plan to fly VH-ABC from Oogabadooga to Canberra, VFR. I nominate a SARTIME in that plan. I fly the plan and land safely in Canberra.

So overwhelmed am I at the joy of being in Canberra, I forget to call CENSAR and cancel my SARTIME. CENSAR sees my SARTIME lapse.

Does CENSAR (in Airservices) call Canberra Tower or Canberra Ground (in Airservices) to ask whether VH-ABC has landed safely in Canberra? Nooooo. That would be crazy.

CENSAR calls AusSAR. Does AusSAR call Canberra Tower or Canberra Ground to ask whether VH-ABC has landed safely in Canberra. Noooo. That would be crazy.

ATC doesn’t ‘do’ this stuff. They might be distracted for 30 seconds to have to say “yes”, “no” or “I don’t know, I just came on shift”.

Would it be possible to build a system that automatically cancels a SARTIME for a VFR aircraft that is issued a landing clearance at a destination in controlled airspace? Piece of piss. Has the system been built? Nooooo. That would be crazy.

To an objective outsider, this is complete nuts.

To someone who’s seen the ‘evolution’ of the system, it makes complete “sense”. “Sense” in the sense that the design of the system is, as I have observed earlier, as much about politics and industrial relations and bureacratic self-interest as it has to do with safety and efficiency. The relationship between CENSAR and ATC - or, more accurately, the complete operational disconnection between CENSAR and ATC - notwithstanding that they are part of the same organisation, is a hangover of the FIS/ATC status divide.

Airspace “reform” is similarly affected by factors other than safety and efficiency.

[fujii]

Having just phoned CENSAR, in your example CENSAR will first try phoning the pilot. If no contact CENSAR will phone the tower. If the TWR confirms the aircraft is on the ground, the SARTIME can’t be cancelled as it must be done by the pilot.

[Dick Smith]

Wow. So the aircraft is clearly parked on the ground. Fujii. Are you informing us that the people at AusSar have to then attempt to contact the pilot?

Who pays for this wasted time? I am sure you know in NZ the pilot pays!

[De_flieger]

You still haven't been able to explain what you actually want, Dick. You've just said that it's too complicated to explain here, which suggests to me that either what you want doesn't stand up to critical examination from people with different perspectives, or it's too convoluted to be practical. If this isn't the case, can you tell me what it is?

(Ideally without using the phrase 'half-wound back', which is up there with 'jobs and growth', and 'tough on crime' as a sound-bite repeated so often as to have lost all meaning.)

[Lead Balloon]

Having just phoned CENSAR, in your example CENSAR will first try phoning the pilot. If no contact CENSAR will phone the tower. If the TWR confirms the aircraft is on the ground, the SARTIME can’t be cancelled as it must be done by the pilot.You might still be mixing up your CENSAR and your AusSAR. Does CENSAR try ringing the pilot? I thought it was AusSAR that did that (but I could be wrong).

In any event, it seems strange that in the ‘old’ system it was OK that a SARWATCH was cancelled ‘automatically’ when you landed at a destination aerodrome that happened to be a controlled aerodrome, but it’s not OK now. :confused:

[triadic]

If I recall correctly, in the old 'FS' days if your destination was an aerodrome with a Tower, your SARTIME was held by the Tower.... AMMBZT in FS/ATC speak of those days before the Y codes came in! At some locations depending on local procedures it was in fact held by the briefing office. At remote locations the SARTIME was held by the FS unit responsible for that area. At some locations ATC did not believe it was part of their job and would strive to have FS hold the details. But yes, times have changed.

At the end of the day how the SARTIME is managed should be transparent to the pilot. He just needs to submit it, and cancel at the appropriate time, and for search action to be commenced if he does not.

[Dick Smith]

De fliegler. Have a good read of post 596. Can’t be much clearer! However any further info you require will be provided in a positive way. Just ask! I will try and not use the factual statement “ half wound back” more than three or four times.

Triadic. There is of course a chance that the system has been made more labour intensive as that makes more jobs and more penalty rate time!

[triadic]

Triadic. There is of course a chance that the system has been made more labour intensive as that makes more jobs and more penalty rate time!

Possible, but don't know??

Any flight plan or notification with a SARTIME should go via the AFTN to CENSAR who then monitor it. Any ATS unit accepting an amendment or cancellation should then advise CENSAR via whatever means they have in their procedures.
If it is not cancelled then the holder of the SARTIME, in this case CENSAR should contact the relevant ATS unit for further information. It used to be that at SARTIME plus 30 min a Uncertainty SAR phase would be declared which would up the anti and formalise the process. If no info was forthcoming, then the phase would usually be upgraded at fuel exhaustion time or on receipt of other info. A simple process - at least it was. As for now, who knows?

[CaptainMidnight]

Triadic. There is of course a chance that the system has been made more labour intensive as that makes more jobs and more penalty rate time! It appears they have to continually chase Sar times that are not cancelled but keep the problem secret as it employs lots of people .Yes, always look for a conspiracy theory ...Who pays for this wasted time? I am sure you know in NZ the pilot pays! Gee, so we are doing one thing better than someone else in the world. Perhaps we should charge, given there are around 9000 expired SARTIMEs annually.

I suspect Airservices would dearly like to divest itself of SARTIME responsibility but probably can't, and no-one in private industry would take it on without charging.

Something else that isn't rocket science; set an alarm on your phone to alert you to cancel the SARTIME. Sheesh ...

SARTIME | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/flight-briefing/pilot-and-airside-safety/sartime/)

[fujii]

De fliegler. Have a good read of post 596. Can’t be much clearer! However any further info you require will be provided in a positive way. Just ask! I will try and not use the factual statement “ half wound back” more than three or four times.

Triadic. There is of course a chance that the system has been made more labour intensive as that makes more jobs and more penalty rate time!

For crying out loud Dick, shift penalties were removed from ATS at least twenty years ago and staff placed on a composite wage. That saved paying a lot of admin staff to work through the paper summaries we had to submit every fortnight. There are still extra payments for public holidays and overtime as there in just about every other industry. These are processed by computer systems.

[Dick Smith]

Fujii

I am not talking about ATS

What about the other government agencies involved?

Do any have loadings?

[fujii]

Fujii

I am not talking about ATS

What about the other government agencies involved?

Do any have loadings?

No, I am retired. Did my 42 years.

[Dick Smith]

I have started another thread on this important money waster.

Imagine. Hidden away on the AsA site. And no mention of the monetary cost

[CaptainMidnight]

It's not hidden :confused:

Its there under Pilot Briefing > Pilot safety.

If it was to be hidden, it wouldn't be there at all nor would they be detailing what to do and how ......

[Dick Smith]

So why havnt they issued even one public statement about the obvious waste involved?

More importantly is the “ cry wolf “ situation I mentioned on the other thread.

Something disfunctional here I would reckon.

[Sam Rutherford]

In case it is helpful, the UK does it differently (better?!).

It is the pilot's obligation to have a 'responsible person' follow their flight (friend, parent, office colleague). If an aircraft doesn't arrive, they're to call the police who will set SAR in motion. In practice this means no need to close flight plans (!), and more importantly, no unnecessary searching at all. None.

The ONLY time there is any effort expended is when an aircraft really is overdue/missing.

I personally think this should be the standard.

I say this as someone who has been called out in the middle of the night to 'rescue' someone who simply forgot to call in their safe landing (not in the UK).

[CaptainMidnight]

So why havnt they issued even one public statement about the obvious waste involved?

More importantly is the “ cry wolf “ situation I mentioned on the other thread.

Something disfunctional here I would reckon.

Again with the conspiracy theories :=

The problem of overlooked SARTIMEs has been raised from time to time over the years by Airservices, CASA and AMSA via RAPAC, crash comic, forums etc. Think I recall seeing an AIC about it.

[Dick Smith]

Sam. I like it!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In Arnhem Land back in the day, the VFR charters were FULLSAR and multiple short hops. The pilot would call taxiing with his details for that particular hop, as he usually didn't know what that job would be until he got there. Come the revolution and VFR FULLSAR was abolished, the architects of the new system assumed responsibility for holding the SARTIME would devolve back to the charter companies, ie the "responsible person", thus saving money and those make work jobs. Instead, those cunning charter pilots just nominated a SARTIME for the end of that hop to the same FS unit that previously would have held the FULLSAR details. So nothing really changed except the colour of the Flight Progress Strip.

[Sunfish]

Bloggs:

Sunfish, I normally enjoy reading your well thought-out and reasoned posts, so on this occasion I assume you have had too many reds!

Anyways, if you did mean everything you wrote, if I was in my 172, I couldn't give two hoots about any of this stuff. I'd just get in and go for a fly. No CTAF, no transponder, no calls. I am a realist. I do know that there is a good chance I could avoid another lighty even if I only did pick him up at the last minute.

The reality is though that the more people you kill, the more unpopular you become. So yes, I am a bit more interested about keeping myself away from others, by finding out where they are before I get there. And the 100+ punters sitting behind me have as much right to be in the same piece of sky as you. Safely. So don't start this Arthur (sorry John) and Martha rubbish about "Free In G and the rest can jump in the lake", the epitome of this being an A380 dodging Dick in his bugsmasher in Class E because that's his right.

Oh, and another thing. Hitting me in my wonderjet will cause you just as much grief whether I have a full load of punters or I'm empty. I still can't see out of it very well, I'm not very manoeuverable, and I have a lot to do internally to get thing safely on the ground which reduces my lookout. So it is your interest to know where I am and where I am going, so that you can look after your butt, by talking.

I am in furious agreement about talking. What I am concerned about is that the various camps are not interested in understanding other peoples positions.

There are too many axes being ground.

I have no problems with talking to RPT when approaching a CTAF and arranging separation. I also usually alter my arrival to defer to the larger aircraft as well since his costs are higher than mine. I also believe that you cannot have too much situational awareness hence I monitor area frequency always. That has saved me from having to make transmissions many times when ATC answers a question for someone else that I was just about to ask. What I do not like is the idea of being prevented from communicating with anyone or being refused information that might be critical to my safety just because I am driving a VFR bug smasher.

[Capn Bloggs]

Good on you, Sunfish, a voice of reason. I look forward to bumping heads in the bush and giving way to you.

I see you've found your capslock... was I right? :) :p

[CaptainMidnight]

Well said also, Sunfish

One Q: can you elaborate on this i.e. who is attempting to prevent you from communicating or refusing information:What I do not like is the idea of being prevented from communicating with anyone or being refused information that might be critical to my safety just because I am driving a VFR bug smasher.

[Dick Smith]

I’m really glad that CaptainMidnight brought up Voices of Reason. It gives me the chance again to post one of the best views of Voices of Reason. It is about Class E airspace and was posted on 22 April 2004.

Class E airspace Is Safe (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/127459-class-e-airspace-safe.html#post1305340 http://)
Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.

Capn Bloggs warning! Do not read the above post!

[CaptainMidnight]

post one of the best views of Voices of ReasonWhat about all the others? :)

subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described,Ah, yes ...

[Dick Smith]

Ok. If you have skills in change management please send me your details.

[Sunfish]

midnight:Well said also, Sunfish

One Q: can you elaborate on this i.e. who is attempting to prevent you from communicating or refusing information:
Quote:
What I do not like is the idea of being prevented from communicating with anyone or being refused information that might be critical to my safety just because I am driving a VFR bug smasher.

i think the idea was that vfr does not monitor area, therefore vfr receives no information on possible vfr/vfr collisions and won't even know where to look for fir traffic. ATC doesn't have to provide vfr traffic advisories, but they do on occasion now, which has potentially saved my life once. if vfr isn't expected to monitor Area frequency that possibility won't exist unless we introduce special zones in G when we are expected to monitor area. - more complexity. leave what we now have alone.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Change managment??? Dick, if you stayed out of...."Change Managment"...everything would have evolved rather than...Changed!

After seeing the hardware..and seeing which way FS was starting to head prior to.....1991...it would have been interesting to see if demarcation could have ameliorated to an extent to allow a melding of minds to incorporate the technology and expertise in a combined system. After 1991, there were only survivors and ATC.....that is where "Change Managment" failed!

[CaptainMidnight]

i think the idea was that vfr does not monitor area, therefore vfr receives no information on possible vfr/vfr collisions and won't even know where to look for fir traffic. ATC doesn't have to provide vfr traffic advisories, but they do on occasion now, which has potentially saved my life once. if vfr isn't expected to monitor Area frequency that possibility won't exist unless we introduce special zones in G when we are expected to monitor area. - more complexity. leave what we now have alone. Agree :ok:

[peuce]

Change managment??? Dick, if you stayed out of...."Change Managment"...everything would have evolved rather than...Changed!

After seeing the hardware..and seeing which way FS was starting to head prior to.....1991...it would have been interesting to see if demarcation could have ameliorated to an extent to allow a melding of minds to incorporate the technology and expertise in a combined system. After 1991, there were only survivors and ATC.....that is where "Change Managment" failed!

It surely would have been interesting. I saw the new FS visual display system in operation and it would have cut the FS workload (and presumably staff requirement), at least, in half...and, at least, doubled its efficiency and relevance. Pretty cheap too as I remember. HOWEVER, as you say...it created a threat to other competing services. From my shaky memory, I think it was Mr Smith who decided to cancel it at the 11th hour...as, (1) he didn't want a possible demarcation dispute on his hands, AND...(2)it wasn't how they did it in the USA !

Therefore, every time I hear Mr Smith spruiking efficiency and money savings...I have a little chuckle to myself.

[CaptainMidnight]

AND...(2)it wasn't how they did it in the USA !Except at the time it seemed to be overlooked by some that in the USA they have Flight Service Stations :)

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/

[Dick Smith]

Peuce. Yes my board did cancel FISADs.

Simple reason. I wanted all pilots in radar coverage to be able to communicate directly with the person with the radar screen. Pretty simple really!

It now happens. The MDX outcome could have been quite different if the pilot had been communicating directly to the person with the radar screen.

Same resistance to change then as from some of you today!

[Dick Smith]

My plans were always to have a FS as per the USA

Airservices removed this system and if I remember correctly I took action in an attempt to stop this. I lost.

[Capn Bloggs]

Capn Bloggs warning! Do not read the above post!
Hampster Wheel, Dick.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The MDX outcome could have been quite different if the pilot had been communicating directly to the person with the radar screen.
Whilst I am reticent to once again flog this dead horse, how exactly 37 years ago was this going to change. The only way the pilot would have been talking to ATC as a routine part of his flight was if he was in CTA. That was the system. So an expansion of CTA with all the attendant restrictions and requirements that that entailed. You were/are trying to physically shrink CTA in that area. You actually blamed ATC for "sending them to their deaths".
If NAS had been in place, would he have been in E, just because there was radar? So he would have had to have been subject to on-request flight Following? Because VFR in E don't need a clearance, or even be speaking to ATC, how would they know what he was meant to be doing vs what he was actually doing? If "free in G" how would the ATC have known that a VFR paint randomly changing direction was not doing exactly as the pilot intended. After all, he is OCTA and can do what he wants. Are you suggesting that anywhere there is radar the ATC watch and query every paint, even if they have no responsiblity to monitor the track?
There have been plenty of aircraft disappear off radar screens even when subject to positive control. Radar is not a panacea for poor airmanship.

[fujii]

Having looked at the report, the aircraft was in turbulence and icing, losing height with failed instruments on a NGT VFR Flight which probably should never have become airborne in the first place. How would radar have helped other than to possibly narrow the search area?

Drifting further from the subject of this thread.

[Mr Approach]

Peuce - In regard to FISADS how do you think it was getting information to put on the FSO display? At the time there was no ADS-B, primary radar was being used by ATC with only about eight transponder icons available. My guess was that other FSOs were inputting information into a Commodore 64 that drew vague tracks on a map overlay. This gave the FSO a pictorial view of where the aircraft might be if all of the information was correct and he/she then applied a rudimentary separation standard to assist in avoiding collisions.

At the same time ICAO was introducing A - G airspace and this Australian version of what was to become G did not fit into it and would have been incredibly manpower intensive. Who was going to pay? Not the airlines they had already refused to pay for services they did not use.

I think FISADS was a great idea but there was already a better one in use. It was called radar and was to become TAAATS that also had the ability to create "flight plan tracks" like FISADS something it still does automatically. The efficiency problem was that TAAATS was wasted in the hands of FSOs whose separation skills were limited to giving traffic information. Better that the FSOs were upskilled to become ATCs so that they could become part of a system without demarcation lines and where the available equipment could be put to its best use.

That is the system we have now; thanks Dick!

[Dick Smith]

Traffic and Fujii

Distort it in every way you can to justify concrete minds

The pilot went for 20 minutes at right angles to the correct track before he ended up north of Singleton and started to get into problems.

If the AMATS resisted changes had been in place there was a very good chance that the person the pilot was communicating to and would have been sitting in front of a radar screen may have actually informed the pilot that he was heading in totally the wrong direction well before he got into the icing and extreme turbulence.

Yes. Just possibly he could have sat there twiddling his thumbs and not informed the pilot but I don’t think so.

So lie and distort in every way you can to justify the terrible negligence in not using the excellent radar coverage in that area or anywhere OCTA to actually prevent fatalities.

I am glad that we were able to make the shockingly delayed changes at the time of AMATS.

We will never know how many lives we have saved

You all should be ashamed of justifying the delay in using the radar properly!

[fujii]

Dick, a few posts back you apologised for your treatment of other posters. You now say I have a concrete mind, call me a liar and tell me I should be ashamed.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What was the correct track and how would ATC know it?

[Dick Smith]

The pilot had a full position flight plan in the system.

Fujii. Your claims are so serious they require an equally serious response.

I don’t know who you are trying to protect. Possibly just the status quo,

The pilot and passengers were seriously let down by the 1930s system.

The radar should have been used.

[Lead Balloon]

Deja vu, all over again, again, again, again and yet again.

If you want to change anything, Dick, you need to buy some politicians.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So you are saying he should have been in controlled airspace? That was the only other option in 1981.

[fujii]

My claims are only what are in the accident report and on the voice recording both of which I found with a Google search. I am nor protecting anyone. This thread has drifted far off the original subject and as in other threads, MDX has been thrown in as a distraction.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If the AMATS resisted changes had been in place there was a very good chance that the person the pilot was communicating to and would have been sitting in front of a radar screen
Even though that is an impossibility because AMATS didn't come in for another 10 years after the event, and was probably not even a twinkle in your eye yet, if the changes had been in place, the pilot would not have been full reporting (abolished under AMATS), may not have even had a flight plan in (only required for VFR in CTA above 10000' under AMATS), was solely responsible for remaining OCTA (under AMATS), so it is highly likely that, under AMATS, far from communicating with the man with radar, he would have been completely unknown to the system and have just vanished without anyone knowing where he was.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. I am saying that if someone with a lateral mind had brought in the AMATS changes earlier the accident may not have happened.

Minds were so set that BASI didn’t even recommend that the existing radar be used in future to help prevent that type of accident.

I had to introduce that idea in the 1990s.

Same resistance to copying the best and change today.

And the pilot would have been in communication under AMATS to request the safer track overhead Williamtown.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

But someone didn't and it did. So let it go. Fight this battle using logic and reason. You haven't been so far.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Ok I will

The only reason I bring this up is the it gives evidence of the resistance to change.

It was actually in the 1970s when I was learning to fly that I asked my instructor Lauri Mcivor why we were giving full position reports in good radar coverage at Marulen. He explained that the FS officers we were communicating to were not approved to use radar.

I queried why this was so and he told me I was the first student to ask the question- he did not really know the answer ! I decided then I would do something about it

And I did.

[triadic]

There was a deep divide between ATC and FS in the '60's and early '70's. The classification of ATC was third division in the PS and FS was forth division. As a result there were differences in employment conditions etc etc. That difference in fact was the line that FS could not cross and have access to radar - it was just not in the PS thinking back then. Safety was not a consideration it seemed.

There was even one senior DCA manager that had responsibility for FS and he liked to ensure that the new FSU's that were built around the country in the '60's had no view of the aerodrome, however he was not always successful. Derby had a good view from the 1st floor. Meeka faced away from the movement area as did Mildura. Hedland had a view till they built the tower in front. Most of the old buildings a very limited view without stepping out the door. In fact at Mildura, they had a speaker mounted in the lunch room which had a door that when opened had a good view of the aerodrome. One of the techs rigged up a mike on a long lead and on a good day the FSO could sit outside and do the job!! Dubbo was one of the better ones with that little tower and I recall Devonport was similar.
In Melb in the '70's, the only way a VFR could get to talk to ATC when OCTA was for FS to declare an uncertainty phase on the aircraft due lost or position doubtful etc and transfer to Approach etc for ident. That in fact was not uncommon. Some pilots even refused to transfer as they knew a 225 was around the corner!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Make time to visit the TWR at EN....they have a monitor that was FISAD. It gets a feed from radar! The guys and gals cannot use it for separation purposes but it help heaps in SA...that, and to let you know you havent switched from stby to transmit on the xpdr:\

Using the the principal of FISAD and the feed from TAAATS virtual track facility, remoting all the FSUs back to BN/ML keep the two airspace model, as in CTA and OCTA, plan activated by departure call, monitor area frequency without need to call FS unless you are running late on your plan or have need to divert. Quadrantal levels so absolutely no possibilty of opposing tracks at same level. DTI for both VFR & IFR enabled by FS monitoring virtual tracks. Pilots responsible for separation. When tracks show conflict FS asks for actual FPR when within five minutes of closure (TAAATS alarm)....radio use is lineup, departure, inbound, joining circuit (triggers cancelling SAR) and base...FPR as requested...ETA change and diverting from plan altitude or direction....how bloody hard would that have been!

Clearance only required to operate CTA and entry to TWRd ADs. No need for MBZ, CTAF, AFIZ or Class E. The NORAD argument remains...but how bloody hard is it to own a portable for those situations where the Kickatinalong crowd need to go to the local big smoke.

To the present day, add ADS-B, remote twr cab images, ADS-B receivers covering every aerodrome with a NPA or higher. FSO changing to enroute qualified ATC allowing positive separation within coverage....and we have a system that cooks!

It doesnt matter if the aircraft is RPT or PVT VFR. Maintain SA by monitoring area frequency. Poke holes, but kindly say why that would not have worked.

OT. As for MDX....that was a matter of trust and a certain amount of resistance to admit the need to ask for help that resulted in a terrible outcome. How do we engender trust that everyone is there to help with no incrimination by asking.

[Dick Smith]

How did the pilot of MDX know he should have asked for help when he clearly did not know he was heading for 20 minutes in the wrong direction.

Looks as if you will make up every reason other than say we should have had a system which allowed maximum use of the existing radar !

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

it gives evidence of the resistance to change
But the system has changed. It changed 28 years ago, starting with AMATS. The system now is nothing like the old FS/ATC OCTA/CTA divide.
It could be argued that the MDX scenario is much less likely to happen these days, as the only person a pilot can talk to nowadays is the guy with the radar. Whether the ATC is actively following that flight, well, that's another question for how much VFRs interact with NAS.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. And the resistance to change that was clear then is still happening today and shown on this thread.

Don’t you see the message in this? Most pilots now accept the present system where they can call a radar controller directly. I am glad I was able to bring in that change.

It’s exactly the same re frequency boundaries on charts and huge ginormous CTAFs!

[Capn Bloggs]

Most pilots now accept the present system
And precisely which pilots resisted allowing pilots to talk to a radar station? Don't drag us into your battles, Dick.

The frequency boundaries on charts issue is a complete and utter furphy. Pity you can't see that.