A bit of ATC history please

[Dick Smith]

Can someone advise when air traffic control was introduced in Australia and the flight information service officers lost the airspace for which they were providing traffic information previously?

I understand ATC was introduced in the USA after the mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon in the 40s. Was it similar here in Australia?

When I came along we had flight service officers, members of the PREI if I remember rightly. (Was that the Professional Radio & Electronics Institute?) ATCs were in Civil Air.

Were the professional radio officers there from the 1930s? I presume so. What were they called then? On what date did the first controlled airspace come in?

Any information that you could give would be greatly appreciated.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Airways Museum / Civil Aviation Historical Society (http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/)

As someone who was once Chairman of the Board of CAA, and who has continuously fiddled with the ATS system, I thought you might already know some of this.

Yes the union was the PREI - a strange way to spell "next to useless". I believe Civil Air refused entry.

[Dick Smith]

Did PREI refuse to allow ATCs in. ?Surely not.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Dick,

The name of the union of the time was P.R.E.I.A.
Professional Radio Employees' Institute of Australia.
At the time, we were affiliated with the metal trades industry union.

Quote - "Within the Department, P.R.E.I.A. has determination (No. 4/1941) coverage for all radio / electronics Technician and Technical Grades, Flight Service, Communication and Aeronautical Telecommunications Officer Staff."

In my 'introductory' letter, it states that 'This Institute has been registered and active since 1916.....(Yep - 1916).

Alas, I do know the history prior to my joining in Feb 1974 as a 'Trainee' and on a then salary of $4580, awarded from 18.4.74.

An interesting book, "Call Of The Kyeema" by ex FSO, Doug Whitfield,
ISBN 0 9751289 4 9 refers.
It has a wealth of material and is well worth the read for any / all interested aviation persons.

The origins.....As is "usual', it took a tragedy for the necessary changes to occur.....

A DC-2, VH-UYC, and named 'Kyeema' with 14 passengers was en route from Parafield to Essendon and at approx. 2pm on 25th October 1938, they had what is now called a 'CFIT' on Mt Dandenong, some 20nm EAST of Essendon.

The subsequent enquiry in 1938/39 resulted in the formation of the Dept of Civil Aviation (DCA), and subsequently the many 'other' titles under which we were employed, as well as the introduction of Navaids and the Radio Reporting system of the time, 'Aeradio' in conjunction with AWA (Amalgated Radio Aust.), later called 'Flight Service' and then 'modernisation' of the Air Traffic Services system to the present day.

From memory, 'other' titles were, and not necessarily in order, Dept of Transport, DoT (Air Transport Group) (Dept of 'confused arrows'...) Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Airservices Australia (AsA)....

However, for the interested reader, I recommend the above book as it is both interesting reading, and it contains a very good background story.

So, I guess you could say that, like the USA, it took a disaster to get a 'system' which suited the Australia of the time, 'up and running'.

That system was ATC and FS working as a team, with HF being the 'longer range' radio to provide coverage over our sparsely populated continent.

I cannot remember the date of the change from PREIA to the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union), perhaps others may be able to assist.
Cheers:ok:

[compressor stall]

After WW1 my great grandfather was a wireless operator for AWA and worked at Thursday Island and Broome off and on through the 20s and 30s.

Moving back to Essendon in the mid 30s he began to work at Essendon and his role grew into that of talking to aircraft, from what I was told he and another man were the first to fill this role as a dedicated profession. I understand that date to be mid to late 30s.

I cannot recall exact dates, the airways museum had the info when I last visited about ten years ago

[compressor stall]

http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Coastal%20Radio%20Stations.htm
....
The first passenger aircraft to be fitted with wireless communications was the Tasmanian Aerial Services DH84 Dragon VH-URD Miss Launceston, in 1934. By the end of 1937, about 24 Australian aircraft had been fitted with radio equipment. Prior to the creation of the Aeradio service in 1938-39, the Civil Aviation Board arranged for AWA to provide an interim ground-to-air communications service. This was achieved through a combination of Coastal Radio Stations and temporary stations at aerodromes. Frequencies of 333 kHz and 325 kHz were allocated for the service. The Coastal Radio Stations provided a ready-made network for communication with aircraft in flight.
....
The first permanent aeronautical communications facility provided by AWA was at Essendon Airport in 1935. It was sited near the reservoir on the eastern side of the field, and was connected via a PMG landline to the CRS transmitter station at Ballan. The operators were Mr A.S. (Gus) Hart and Mr Lou Fontaine. Other interim stations were set up at Canberra, Forrest and Groote Eylandt. In conjunction with some rural broadcast stations, the coastal service also collected and conveyed meteorological information for aircraft pilots planning their flights.

[Dick Smith]

Who set up Civil Air and why? Seems strange that there were different unions. Must be a good reason.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re 'I understand ATC was introduced in the USA after the mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon in the 40s. Was it similar here in Australia?'

June 30th 1956 at around 10.30am, Two RPT aircraft flying virtually VFR, collided over the Grand Canyon.
United Airlines DC-7 v TWA L-1049 'Super Constellation'.

I think I have read where one of the aircraft was simply 'on track' whilst the other did a small diversion to enable the pax to enjoy the scenery of the Grand Canyon....

"The Board determines that the probable cause of this mid-air collision was that the pilots did not see each other in time to avoid the collision. It is not possible to determine why the pilots did not see each other, but the evidence suggests that it resulted from any one or a combination of the following factors: Intervening clouds reducing time for visual separation, visual limitations due to cockpit visibility, and preoccupation with normal cockpit duties, preoccupation with matters unrelated to cockpit duties such as attempting to provide the passengers with a more scenic view of the Grand Canyon area, physiological limits to human vision reducing the time opportunity to see and avoid the other aircraft, or insufficiency of en route air traffic advisory information due to inadequacy of facilities and lack of personnel in air traffic control."

Found it ....thanx to Google....

[fujii]

This has the feeling of another ATC bashing in the making.

[Dick Smith]

No Fuji. You could not be further from the truth.

Do you know why FSOs were not simply trained to separate aircraft?

Very likely a reason for this.

[fujii]

When FS closed, a number of FSOs did train for ATC but most took a redundancy package.

[Capn Bloggs]

This has the feeling of another ATC bashing in the making.
I reckon it'll be Class E... :)

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I reckon that it'll be that if "Kyeema" had been provided with radar guidance in Class G, the tragedy would never have happened. :ugh:

Griffo, it was the Professional Radio & Electronics Institute of Australasia while I were in it.

Do you know why FSOs were not simply trained to separate aircraft?

Because FS came from Aeradio which came from old time wireless operators (hence the union).

ATC started from airline pilots (who historically had needed wireless operators on board) and never the two would meet.

Read the relevant sections in the link I posted earlier.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. I could not find a link between airline pilots and ATC.

Can you give me any further info ?

Also do you know why FS kept the low level non radar airspace and ATC the radar airspace. ?

In other countries FS just gave FS and ATC took over all the airspace

Why did we keep separate?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

By Roger Meyer:

Part 1

Until the mid 1930s, there was no formal wireless organisation or control of air traffic in Australia. Few aircraft apart from the ‘all-metal’ DC2 carried two-way radio equipment. The few which did could communicate with Coastal Radio Stations and with the fledgling Aeradio organisation. The first Aeradio stations at Darwin, Essendon and Launceston were temporary rigs, operated by the RAAF and AWA Ltd.


In 1937, the Civil Aviation Branch appointed Aerodrome Control Officers (ACOs) at Archerfield, Mascot, Parafield and Essendon. Their function was to regulate air traffic at aerodromes, provide a meteorology service, and give advice to pilots of aircraft engaged in cross-country flights. The personal qualities required of Aerodrome Control Officers were mature age, discipline, power of command and level-headedness. The salary range was £306 - £384 (about $17,000 in 2003 dollars), being slightly above that of a Rifle Range Superintendent. The first appointments were: Commander H.T. Bennet and Flt. Lt. A.A. Poole (Mascot); A.V. Lauchland (Archerfield); and Sq.Ldr. A.E. Hempel (Essendon).

Lacking radio communications, ACOs used visual signalling devices - the Aldis signalling lamp and Very cartridge pistol. At Essendon and Mascot they operated from rudimentary Control Towers on the roofs of the Aero Clubs. From these Towers hung red and cream cane balls, which were raised or lowered to indicate aerodrome conditions. A signalling square located in front of the Tower conveyed information on wind speed and direction and general aerodrome conditions. Using a combination of red and green flare cartridges, and white or red signalling lights they gave instructions to aircraft when to land or takeoff, and to taxi safely. These signals had an effective range of two miles, and were based on RAAF procedures of the time.

Following the crash of ANA’s DC2 aircraft Kyeema in October 1938 it was revealed that two major weaknesses existed in the ground control organisation. A radio beacon to provide pilots with a positive course along which to fly was soon introduced. This was the Lorenz 33 MHz Radio Range, the precursor of the VAR and today’s VOR.

The other major innovation was the appointment of Flight Checking Officers whose job it was to maintain a watch on the progress of flights on the main air routes. This was to guard against a pilot making a grave miscalculation of his position, as had happened with the Kyeema.

Flight Checking Officers (FCOs) were introduced in August 1940 and were at the same locations as Aerodrome Control Officers. They were selected from experienced airline pilots and provided what would become known as a uniquely Australian aviation service - Operational Control. Their duties were to check flight plans and ensure that adequate fuel was carried, to divert aircraft if conditions at the destination were unsafe, close airports if weather conditions deteriorated below minimum standards, and to keep pilots informed of changing flying conditions.

After an aircraft took off, the pilot was instructed by the Aerodrome Controller to ‘call Aeradio’ on a given frequency, on which he transmitted his position to Aeradio every half hour. Aeradio passed the position report on a slip of paper through a chute to the FCO who recorded the position, making sure that the it was reasonable for the pilot to be where he claimed to be. It was not unknown at times when Aeradio was busy for the FCO to receive a report that an aircraft was over Benalla just as the aircraft was taxying past the Essendon control tower! Such were the limitations in this form of position reporting.

During the war, the widespread installation of radio facilities made it possible to take positive control of flights en route. A ground organisation capable of exercising such control, including positive separation between aircraft, was established. The first Flight Control Manual was published in 1943, and in early 1944 the use of radio for Aerodrome Control purposes made it possible to exercise greater control over aircraft operating in the vicinity of aerodromes.

Aircraft were separated by the most rudimentary rules: northbound aircraft flew at odd thousands of feet and those southbound at even thousands. This was the NOSE rule. Also, aircraft flying at the same height along an air route had to be separated by ten minutes flying time. With aircraft of vastly different speeds on the same trunk air routes, a procedure was needed to maintain this longitudinal separation.

The solution was presented in 1944 by a Sydney FCO, Mr Norman Rodoni, who invented a form of computer, known as the ‘Rodoniscope’. It comprised a rotating circular glass disk 60 cm in diameter, under which was a chart showing aircraft reporting points. At the outer edge of the chart was a clock face. By marking the position reports and circulating the glass disk in real time, the controller could see at what time Aeradio was likely to receive a position report and would then mark the actual position when the radio report was received. Thus is was possible to accurately predict when a faster aircraft would overtake a slower machine.
Mr Rodoni’s simple invention saved the number of controllers needed, and was more accurate than other more cumbersome methods of control. Despite its officially agreed merits, it was not until 1950 that he was finally paid £200 by the Public Service Board and a further £250 pounds by the War Inventions Committee.

At the end of the War, Australia had to decide on a peacetime air traffic organisation, having cognizance of the fact that radio had developed enormously over the past five years, and that new higher-speed piston engined aircraft were being designed. Whatever decision was made had to be the right one. Aviation could not wait.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Part 2

In September 1946 the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation (PICAO) appointed a Special Radio Technical Committee to evaluate the wartime developments in navigation, communications and air traffic control which could be used by civil aviation in peacetime. ICAO later issued a series of Annexes which established uniform standards to be observed by member States. Interestingly, under Australian Regulations Air Traffic Controllers were not required to be Licensed until 1961.

Australia’s Air Navigation Regulations were re-drafted to embody, as far as possible, the PICAO recommendations. The new Regulations, issued in August 1947, gave legal authority to the establishment and functions of the Air Traffic Control service. A new Manual of Air Traffic Control was issued at the same time.

A steady growth in air traffic, particularly on the main air routes between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne led to congestion in the vicinity of these aerodromes where aircraft were on descent from their cruising height prior to landing. The already overloaded radio communications facilities did not allow a sufficiently rapid means of communication between ATC and the pilots of aircraft flying in these critical areas, especially in conditions of bad weather.

A separate service called Approach Control was introduced, and evaluated on a trial basis at Essendon, Mascot and Archerfield in July 1947. By 1950 it was introduced at other locations where traffic density warranted such units.

At the same time Australian and New Guinea airspace was divided into ten large areas of responsibility, called Flight Information Regions.

The next major innovation was the Flight Progress Board (FPB), which was based on an American model. The Flight Progress Board was introduced from 1950, and performed two separate control functions. First, it looked after aircraft travelling on controlled air routes. At a distance of more than 60 miles from the major airport aircraft were under the control of an Area Controller, who used Aeradio stations for communications with aircraft.

Second, within a 60 mile radius of a major airport, the Arrivals Controller was in direct radio communications with all aircraft so that control was positive and carried out with least possible delay, thus providing control of aircraft converging on a busy airport.

At least four people were needed to work the Board. On one side was an assistant who used an aircraft’s Flight Plan to prepare coloured flight progress strips with each flight’s details prior to its departure. On the opposite side, Air Traffic Controllers actually directed the traffic using the data prepared by the assistant, updated as the flight progressed. Finally, the Senior Area Controller supervised and coordinated all activities. Click here to see photos of Essendon Area Control Centre's FPBs in the late 1950s.

It was soon realised that there was a need for some positive means of coordination between a control tower and the associated air traffic control centre in the assignment of aircraft altitudes. Without this coordination, there was the ever present possibility that the same altitude for different aircraft could be assigned and although the control tower was responsible for the control of aircraft only in a restricted area, there existed the possibility of double assignment of altitudes.

In order to obviate this difficulty, altitude assignment boards were developed, one of which was designed for building into the tower console, and the other for the flight progress board in the ATC Centre. To assign an altitude, the controller in the tower plugged into his board a flight progress strip, and the fact that this altitude was then assigned was indicated by a lamp in the control tower and a corresponding indication was presented on the flight progress board. If an attempt was made at the flight progress board to assign the same altitude to another aircraft by plugging in a flight strip, alarms in both the tower and at the centre operated. Click here to read more about the altitude assignment board.

This method of separating air traffic within controlled airspace continued to be used until the mid-1960s when Area Approach Control Centres (AACCs) were established, which now leads us, inevitably, to the introduction of radar. This quantum leap changed what had been a static display of a dynamic situation with the flight progress board, to a completely dynamic radar display.

Possibly the most dramatic impact on ATC in Australia was the introduction of radar. Radar was invented in Britain in 1935, and its contribution to the Allied war effort is well documented. The Department of Civil Aviation, after the war, experimented with a number of ex-wartime radar installations at Essendon Airport. Some were, by today’s standards, positively primitive, such as the Australian Light Weight Air Warning (LW/AW) radar, housed under a canvas tent. Another was the 276 radar with its daylight plotter in the tower. An operator worked in a small, darkened building on the airport, tracking aircraft on his screen. The x and y coordinate voltages, representing the location of the aircraft, were connected to the tower by a control cable, and traced as a brown line on a sheet of chemical-impregnated blotting paper.

In 1959, short-range ‘raw display’ Cossor radars were provided at Sydney and Melbourne airports to facilitate control of arriving and departing aircraft within up to 50 miles of each respective airport. The displays were located in the tower cab at Melbourne/Essendon, and in a room under the tower in Sydney. Being raw displays, they were only viewable in semi-darkness.

In 1961, DCA produced a long-term plan outlining ‘Surveillance Radar Requirements’, recommending the provision of dual-purpose radars for approach and area control at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. Scan-converted bright radar display systems were incorporated in new AACCs at Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The AACCs were commissioned, respectively, in 1965, 1967 and 1969. In 1964 the upper limit of controlled airspace was increased to 40,000 feet in 1964 to accommodate the introduction of domestic jet services.

A further enhancement was Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) which required target aircraft to be fitted with a receiver/transmitter (transponder) which responded to a recognised signal radiated from the ground radar beacon. In early systems only a symbol, different depending on the code being squawked by the aircraft, was displayed superimposed on the aircraft’s Primary Radar return.

In later display systems, such as the fully synthetic, computerised ATCARDS system, an aircraft’s callsign, altitude and computed ground-speed were displayed against the aircraft target on the operator’s screen.

This is a very brief overview of the some of the many innovations which ATC and the supporting Airways Engineering organisation implemented in response to the vastly increased volume of air traffic, and the introduction of jet aircraft.

[fujii]

Dick, it wasn't a radar/non-radar division. ATC had huge non-radar areas. As for the low level FS areas, it had a lot to do with radio coverage. ATC needed to use reliable VHF radio to keep in constant communication. Any ATC instructions relayed through FS HF and VHF were time consuming. The technology just didn't exist for nationwide VHF coverage. As VHF coverage improved, FS was no longer required. As FS wound down, training courses stopped an the FS average age increased. Another reason why the majority of FSOs took redundancy.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Personally, I think the division of services harks back to our imperial class system. Aerodio were ex-enlisted men, while ATC were drawn from the officer ranks. ATC kept the airliners apart, and FS looked after the rest. Keeping aircraft apart was Officers work, and passing weather and grubby HF work wasn't. That division persisted, even though the underlying educational qualifications became irrelevant. There was definately a supposition, particularly amongst ATC, that FSOs were either failed, or unsuccessful ATC applicants. I didn't know anyone during the time I was an FSO who was either.

[Philthy]

Unfortunately there are a few myths and inaccuracies in the preceding answers.

However, the CAHS & Airways Museum website is indeed a good place to start for information about the history of Australia's airways system. :ok:

To understand why there were two branches of ATS with members in two different unions (or professional associations, depending on your point of view I suppose), one needs to understand how the airways system began and evolved. The result was simply a product of different pathways and operational responsibilities. For example, the first Aeradio Operators were not only communicators but also radio technicians. Whereas the first Air Traffic Controllers (as we would call them today) didn't use radio at all.

By the way, it's a common misconception that the Kyeema accident was the origin of ATC. The real origin was a spate of ground and mid-air collisions at and near the major capital-city aerodromes. Kyeema ushered in Flight Checking, later to become Ops Control (and now the responsibility of the aircraft operator).

Traffic_Is_Er_Was is broadly correct in saying that the early 'ATCs' were all senior pilots, some of whom just wanted a ground job and some of whom lost their flying medical. Norm Rodoni is a case in point, being the former Chief Pilot of Adastra Airways before he lost his medical and entered ATC. After the war there was an influx of ex-aircrew including the likes of Don Charlwood, a former bomber navigator. It wasn't until quite some time later that the first non-aircrew trainees were taken on (not sure exactly when, but possibly the early to mid-1960s).

The functions of both groups evolved over time until they had much in common, while still retaining distinctly different responsibilities, until moves began toward the integration of Flight Service and ATC in the early 1990s (completed in 2000). Many former FSOs re-trained as ATCs. I wouldn't argue to bring back the two separate branches of ATS, but one might question whether you really need the same highly skilled (and paid) traffic separator to also be doing 'traffic is...'. (This is not to denigrate the skills or dedication of the FSO, however.)

As for the Grand Canyon accident, there are many things that can be said about this accident from our lofty vantage point of 60 years on, not the least being the government penny-pinching that left the US airways system struggling to find ways to manage the burgeoning post-war civil air transport boom at a time when the Australian airways system, by contrast, separated all RPT aircraft. If you want to read a good, popular account of this accident, then I refer you to Mac Job's excellent Air Disaster Vol. 4.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The hierarchy of "The Department" were also almost all ex pilots or ATC. If it needed controlling, ATC did it, with or without radar. Money was pretty much no object back then, so CTA was just extended to provide whatever was needed. Remember the vast majority of airspace was uncontrolled, so turning little bits of it into controlled was no big deal and accomplished by the stroke of a pen.. If a jet went there, it got CTA and a tower. Why didn't FS use radar? Ask DCA or Civil Air.

[maat]

What an interesting and informative collection of posts, particularly T.I.E.W.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Also do you know why FS kept the low level non radar airspace and ATC the radar airspace.

There was not radar or non radar airspace. Excluding military there was only Controlled Airspace (CTA), and everything else was Uncontrolled Airspace (where you were literally OCTA - Outside CTA). ATC provided ATS in controlled airspace whether radar or not, FS was available in everything else under, beside, and above the CTA. Depending on where they were, aircraft could be at any level and be OCTA.
ATC had their airspace before they had radar. Radar was just a tool to help them do their job better. FS didn't need it for the level of service they provided, so didn't get access to it, and as has been pointed out, there was no coverage in the vast majority of the airspace they were responsible for.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi 'Traffic',
I've tried to scan my letter of intro to join the PREIA, but to no avail.....

However, the title as I read it direct is as stated......."
"Employees' "

Note the 'apostrophy'.......'Tis in the title.... That's how it was in 1974 anyway....

Cheers :ok:.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Mr 'Traffic' has done his research....Thankyou Mr T...

The 'original' CTA was in the form of 'air corridors' along busy airways, usually with a base of FL245 - TCTA - although there were a lot lower in the 'J curve' of course.

I served mostly in WA, so that's what I remember the most.
Most 'comms' were with FS on FS freqs at the time and positions were 'relayed' to ATC, via 'internal comms'.

e.g. There was a CTA 'corridor' between Port Hedland, Broome and Darwin, but if the two usually 'conflicting' FK.28's of the same company restricted their climb to FL200 ex Derby for 'Kunners' to 110nm Derby, then they were outside this corridor, and could climb as they pleased after 110nm Derbs....Some did, and some didn't...but we showed it to them on the charts of the time anyway....It did save 'restrictions' on the following aircraft, and presumably, some $'s...

Similarly, Ze 'Concorde' caused many an 'upset' between ATC and FS....when the upper level of CTA was the 'impossible' alt. of FL400......

On climbing thru FL400, he became 'OURS' - he was OCTA!!

The local MET asked me to req. part 3 of the next pos. over the Bight at FL 650, (Weather report - wind and temp - and he did 'with gusto'..!

A particular Perth and 'famous' operator had a request from ATC Perth approach to have Concorde' transferred 'early' to ATC freqs, on descent into Perth from the SW, and the response was "He's OCTA until 28DME on that track, so unless you have severe 'traffic' I'll give him to you at 30DME Perth" - troo story....
(Back Beam of the Rwy 24 LLZ of the time....)

And so the 'rivalry' continued....

ATC = Officers, usually ex RAAF in the 'early days'.
FS = 'Other Ranks' often ex RAN comm / radio ops / techs of the time.
(Sometimes referred to as 'smellies' as we manned the many 'Briefing Offices' (BO)

However Dick et al, you will all be very pleased to know that many an FSO crossed over to 'The Dark Side' when you got rid of FS, because...... ??

Cheers:ok:

[le Pingouin]

And more than a few of us are still around too thanks Griffo, still giving traffic :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Am I correct in remembering that before I wrecked everything with AMATS in 1991 that en route controlled airspace was above 12500' in the j curve and above FL245 in th GARA?

Es FSO. Yes. Remember it very well. I was Chairman of CAA at the time when we instigated the changes

[Philthy]

Am I correct in remembering that before I wrecked everything with AMATS in 1991 that en route controlled airspace was above 12500' in the j curve and above FL245 in th GARA?

No.

And just because the site won't let me post a one-word answer: no.

[Dick Smith]

So what were the altitudes?

I am sure you are correct because 500' altitudes were introduced with AMATS.

Could it have been 12000' and 240?

[triadic]

Back in the late 60's when I did the FS course, the public service had divisions and ATC were Division 3 and FS were in Division 4. I recall that was based on amoungst other things one's level of education. The course prior to mine were all Communication officers (Comm Officers). I knew many FSOs that went into ATC over the years.
I later left FS to take up a flying career. I thank my FS years for teaching me how to type and say 'No' to ATC!:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'Tis called the 'GAFA' Dick...... Great Aust F All.........Originally coined by an illustrious pilot out the back of NW WA so I heard at the time....Now applies to 'all over' our more remote areas.....Used to be an RNC reporting point named so on the Kal - Alice track - "GAFFA".

And most of us 'ex's have worked in it / lived in it, and, as a GA charter pilot flown in it / over it / lived in it.....a GREAT PLACE...(sometimes...)

Re "I am sure you are correct because 500' altitudes were introduced with AMATS.'

I fairly sure that the so called 'quadrantal' rule was in operation in the early 60's when I was doing my navs.
You know, 'Odds, odds +5, evens, evens + 5', depending on your planned track magnetic.

Memories....the 'good ole days'...formerly called 'these trying times'....

I seem to remember that the lower level of TCTA at the time was FL245, upper level to FL400, as described earlier.
(TCTA = Trans-continental CTA, was composed of several corridors across the continent, away from the 'J' curve, usually aligned along a route for Jet traffic, navaid to navaid, prior to the 'mod cons' of INS Nav etc etc).

Cheers:ok:

[uncle8]

Could it have been 12000' and 240?

Around the J curve, clear of the steps, CTA started at 10000'

[CaptainMidnight]

Around the J curve, clear of the steps, CTA started at 10000' In some places yes, in others, no -

[fujii]

There were some differences between ATCs and FSOs in the late 70s. I worked with a controller in Alice tower who, one day told how he had chosen the job. When looking around, a friend had taken him to visit the centre in Darwin.

He first visited FS where the FSOs wore long white socks, shorts, buttoned shirt and tie. He next visited ATC where the staff wore thongs, shorts and Tee shirts. He applied for ATC.

[QSK?]

Dick

Re your post #28. Generally CTA between the major capital cities had a lower limit of A100 outside of CTA steps. The lower limit of TCTAs was generally FL250, not FL245, and the upper limit was FL450 (Griffo, I think you need to do another General Rating exam. Your theory knowledge is fading).

[triadic]

QSK, yes I believe you are correct re the levels.

Phil, don't you have some old charts in the museum to settle this... maybe a scan of one?

[hiwaytohell]

I think it is widely accepted that the "Kyeema" accident in 1938 was the call to arms the Government could no longer ignore. However it followed two other high profile crashes, the ANA's Southern Cloud in 1931 and Airlines of Australia's Stinson in 1937.
The Government apparently already had plans for operational control centres at the capital city airports, but only Parafield, Archerfield and Mascot were completed before the war.

[uncle8]

and the upper limit was FL450I can remember Learjets operating between Essendon and Sydney in the late 70s would be OCTA, above the CTA, so I think the upper limit was less that FL450.

[LeadSled]

Used to be an RNC reporting point named so on the Kal - Alice track - "GAFFA

It was the intersection of Port Hedland- Ceduna track and the above.

Tootle pip!!

[sunnySA]

http://http://www.civilair.asn.au/index.php/about-us

Perhaps this has the information you are seeking but then again I think there is an agenda behind your question. If so, what is it?

[blackburn]

As Griffo has mentioned, the top of CTA back in the 70's was FL400. The Lear 24 BSJ frequently operated EN-SY at FL410 both Northbound and Southbound. The pilots always objected to being told to squawk standby and call FS on leaving FL400 on climb!! However we always kept ident on them regardless, for they were certainly part of the traffic mix outbound and inbound to ML/EN. Those were days when transponders had just been introduced and ident was kept on each aircraft by "shrimp boats".
Between AD-ML-CB-SY and ML-Tasmania, the CTA base was 10,000ft.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thankyou Mr 'B'.....I wuz beginning to wonder if I even had Breakfast....let alone wot it were......

:ok:

Mr 'Q'....:p

:ok:

[Mr Approach]

Dick the situation you describe in your first post was many years in the making and probably stemmed from the same malaise that we suffer from now - lack of long term planning. Civil Air and PREI have nothing to do with it, they are simply representatives of their members. Ex-FSO Griffith adequately describes the relations between FS and ATC throughout the 70's and 80's egged on by the various supervisors who did not know any better and radar was never going to be cost-effective in the hands of FSOs due to the capital cost and the training. If the traffic was dense then enough introduce ATC as per Bankstown and the other GA metro airports. The traffic information given OCTA was always a luxury which no-one could afford.

The history is another thing and I like to think that ATC grew out of Flight Service and I am glad that so many of our FSOs were able to cross train when the opportunity presented.

I know more about the US than Australia but the history there is that the airlines got together long before the Grand Canyon and established Federal Airways, this was 1927. When radio became available around 1930 airport control towers were introduced (Cleveland Municipal had the honour) and the airlines initiated flight following in the federal airways for their own aircraft. They then got together and coordinated between airlines by phone before opening the first Airway Traffic Control Center in Newark on December 1st, 1935. Others were also opened coordinating movements between airlines and the airport towers. On July 6th 1936 the US Government took over the operations of the Centers but not the Towers as they had become the property of the airports. Flight Service Stations grew up at the sites of the four-course radio ranges and began to do remote radio for the ATC centers. They gradually took on more functions including passing known traffic information, but I don't think it was as heavily regulated as it was/is in Australia. They were also heavily oriented towards the GA community, something I think they had in common with Australian FSUs.

Flight Service in the US has gone the same way as in Australia, radio relay was no longer needed (except for HF which continues to this day), flight information could be distributed by computer making it possible for the FSUs to be withdrawn into large scale FSS. With that withdrawal the traffic information service also disappeared however the US seems to have lots of keen people willing to run UNICOMs whereas we have only 22 (I think) who we forbid to provide traffic information. Similarly in the US FS never had access to radar it was simply not their job. The US (VFR exempt) federal airways developed into Class E airspace and surveillance has enabled the US controller to provide a great service to IFR and VFR who ask for it.

[The name is Porter]

So many thinking Dick has an agenda but yet still eager to tell everybody how good they were. ;)

[Bedder believeit]

I was a controller in Sydney from July 1969 to 1979 before moving to Canberra, Brisbane and then overseas to Dubai and Hong Kong. Mostly Approach and tower but I did my bit on sector control. Yes the top of CTA on the East coast was FL400, which was often busted by the few exec jets that were in Oz then. A few Learjets, and Associated Airlines had at least one Gulfstream II (VH-ASJ methinks, along with three Gulfstream 1's FLO, ASG and CRA) The latter three not FL400 busters. We only had Thompson CSF RSR with a range of 160NM at SY, ML and BN, and the gaps in the middle were procedurally controlled. In about 1972 RSR radars were commissioned at Canberra and "The Round Mountain" - near Coff's to give an interlinked "Mosaic" display for radar coverage on the East Coast above about FL200. And yes, two big leaps forward then were shrimp boats (little plastic doo-val-lackies that we wrote callsigns on -hahaha) and primative SSR. It was code 2000 for international types like the B707, DC8 and VC10, and code 2400 for domestic 727's and DC-9's. Only a symbol appeared on the radar screen. Something that fascinated me was to see traffic overflying Canberra at high level would be a parting of the two returns (primary and secondary) due I guess to the fact that the primary return was two dimensional and was showing the aircraft about 6 miles from the radar head (in a vertical sense) even when passing straight over the primary radar site, whereas the secondary return was a computer generated synthetic return.
"TJL expect holding at BINDOOK" Hahahaha LOL

[Dick Smith]

But only Australia had the system where a plane in un controlled airspace with radar coverage was prohibited from communicating directly with the radar controller .

I was responsible for those changes under AMATS in the early 90s.

When MDX was getting lost over the mountains and flying for 20 mins at right angles to the planned direction he was never once informed .

The pilot of MDX never at any stage was allowed to communicate with the two radar controllers that had the aircraft in solid radar coverage. The BASI report did not even mention this or make a recommendation that pilots in good radar coverage be allowed to actually communicate directly to the radar controller. When I fought for this many pilots did not agree. They had no problems with the mandatory FS - non radar -system for OCTA airspace.

Such is the resistance to change even when safety can clearly be improved!

[CaptainMidnight]

But only Australia had the system where a plane in un controlled airspace with radar coverage was prohibited from communicating directly with the radar controller .As I recall you have been told before, no-one was prohibited from communicating directly with a radar controller. It happened regularly.

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

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

My emphasis
a plane in un controlled airspace
radar controller
Note the two mutually exclusive bits there?

3 pages and finally the agenda appears. Its been 34 years Dick. FS is long dead and gone. Give it a rest.

Now anyone can talk to a controller whenever they want to. Aren't there several current threads here where you are pushing hard to get pilots off the ATC frequencies??

[Dick Smith]

My final agenda is clear. Either go back to our proven safe dual system or continue the reforms so we are closely copying another proven safe system. I am not a supporter of using the flying public as guinea pigs in an un proven system as CASA is attempting now,

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. No. I am happy for pilots to be on ATC frequencies .

Just not happy for pilots to be making non directed announcements on ATC frequencies that are also being used to separate traffic.

[Dick Smith]

Captain. Why didn't the controllers or FS involved in the six fatality MDX crash get the pilot to change to the radar frequency?

Why didn't BASI make a recommendation that in future pilots be encouraged to communicate directly with the radar controller?

Because of resistance to change and resistance to copying the best.

It would take nearly ten years and my involvement as Chairman of CAA to fix this obvious safety deficiency.

Nothing has changed. Resist resist resist copying the best proven systems!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re #48,

I would say that this cannot now be 'done', as it would entail 'mega-bucks' to set up again, with separate and additional, that is, many more than there currently exists, VHF freqs. set up 'all over', as it used to be.

The 'old' FS freqs having been utilised for ATC purposes, and rightly so, as they were an available 'tool'.

Let alone the recruiting / training / facility building / VHF satellite links, etc etc. to BN and or ML

And, possibly, just possibly, there is now insufficient GA activity / interest anyway, as GA is not in a 'healthy' state.....

What we HAD was financed by a levy of 2C per litre on avgas.

What it cost to 'demolish' was chickenfeed in contrast to resurrecting.....

"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"......

Oh Dear..!!

Back to 'Plan "B"'....

Wait.... What was "Plan B" ?

Hard to 'cheer' over this one.....:eek:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

RE#50,
Dick, What makes you so sure that the pilot Concerned would have been capable of changing the radio freq. with his very high workload / mental situation of the time?
And, also, how do you know that he would have had VHF comms with 'Willy' had he been able to change, him being on the other side of the mountain from 'Willy'?

I think that, at the time, the FS Freq, was the only applicable VHF freq. for this pilot as it was situated somewhere close, on top of one of those mountains, for the range.....cannot remember just where now, it was so long ago, but others may be able to assist.

[Dick Smith]

He is was line of sight to two VHF ATC outlets.

He was in good radar coverage from Willy so it stands to reason that direct VHF contact would work to a ground station placed near the radar antennae. And that's where the Willy ATC transmitted from.

Should have been no need to change frequency. He should have been on the radar frequency all of the time,

If I could make the changes in the early 90s why couldn't BASI recommend such a change in the accident report!

I know. Classic resistance to change. Just like now with some still wanting 1950s frequency boundarys on charts

[le Pingouin]

You do realise those lines don't preclude pilots calling on another frequency? While we have low level sectors providing a FIS, including traffic to IFR and a SIS to VFR who want it we will have fixed frequency boundaries to define areas of responsibility for those sectors.

IFR and VFR aircraft mix so it makes sense to have them on common frequencies. That's just plain CDF, not ideology. Having the boundaries indicated assists that.

You're the one wanting to have a half-arsed mixed system by introducing changes piecemeal as a way of getting the end changes you want in. Talk about untried systems.

[CaptainMidnight]

Why didn't the controllers or FS involved in the six fatality MDX crash get the pilot to change to the radar frequency?I haven't read the report for quite a while.

At any stage, did the pilot advise FS he was experiencing navigation difficulties and in particular, was unsure of position or track, or request assistance?

If not, how would FS and the sector controller have known?

[Dick Smith]

Der. That's the very point I am making.

In radar coverage the pilot should have been on the radar frequency. But this was not allowed in those days.

He didn't know he was going in the wrong direction and FS didn't know as There was no radar screen.

That's why I got involved and changed the system..

No Le Ping. Not a half arsed system. I have always wanted the proven efficient North American system. You and others are preventing that from coming in.

But one day it will!

[Dick Smith]

Le ping. You say it makes sense to have IFR and VFR on the same frequencies .

What's the use when IFR don't give position reports when under radar or ADSB?

I think you are mixed up with the old FS system where IFR had to give full position reports

[le Pingouin]

How does removing the boundaries improve safety? How does leaving them on detract from safety? What is your rationale other then "they do it in the US" with no actual analysis as to efficacy?

How is introducing a system in stages inherently safe? Your two end states might be safe but the stages in between are entirely untested with no evidence of safe operation. The stages are entirely half-arsed because they're by definition an untried mixture of procedures.

How am I preventing anything? I'm just a line controller with absolutely no clout - I don't have the ears of politicians to influence them or their testicles either like you do. I have no ability to prevent anything other than presenting my opinion.

[Dick Smith]

It improves safety by making it simple. That is. If in the approach or departure area of an aerodrome monitor/ announce on that frequency. Otherwise keep a good lookout and enjoy the scenery. I don't force you to monitor the truck channel when you go driving on the weekends!

The reversal by placing the frequency boundaries back on charts resulted in the present stuff up where CASA has a totally different view than the Rapacs.

And this clearly has not been resolved. That is clearly a safety issue.

[le Pingouin]

IFR are still required to broadcast prior to descending into G and make inbound calls. Not all IFR are within surveillance coverage. They still make taxi calls and report departure on area.

I'm not mixed up, I do this every day for a living.

[le Pingouin]

Let me type this slowly as you're clearly having trouble comprehending anything that doesn't exactly match your vision.

How can lines on a chart govern radio procedures? They can't. They're just lines on a chart indicating low level sector frequency boundaries. How they're utilised is an entirely separate issue.

[Dick Smith]

You are totally wrong.

The NAS educational document made it clear that the boundaries were removed so internationally proven safe procedures could be introduced.

Once the half windback took place and the boundaries were put back on it was clear that someone had a different vision.

However the person with the different vision did not exist.

It was simple a desperate move to attempt to go back to a system that lots were taught in.

But a half wound back system wont work. What other reason could there be for the total breakdown of agreement between CASA and the RAPACs ?

Why has CASA had to issue the Class G discussion paper ?

In an attempt to fix a major stuff up where the rules imply that some circuit calls should be given on ATC frequencies .

Yes. It works because virtually no one complies.

That's not a good way to regulate safety

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/facilities%20images/Bright%20display%20close%20up%201977.JPG
The bright display system presented raw radar returns overlaid by a video map showing airspace, routes and other important features. There was no labelling of returns, however SSR returns were displayed with a geometric symbol (e.g. rectangle, triangle) depending on the code being squawked. Target identification was done mostly by distance reports or observing a directed turn. Ident was maintained using 'shrimp boats' - pieces of perspex with the target's callsign written on them in chinagraph pencil, moistened and stuck on the screen by surface tension. The shrimp boats had to be manually moved along as the target moved. Two shrimp boats can be seen on the display in this photograph, as can a number of the 'slash' marks indicating a primary radar return.

Dick, did you look at any of the links provided? Did you read any of the posts?
Do you remember how primitive the ATC radar really was circa 1980? Are you really suggesting that wherever radar coverage existed the aircraft should have been under positive control, as that would have been the only option in those days? It was CTA or not, no "sort of". That's why we had CTA steps. Can you imagine how this system would have coped with multitudes of light aircraft going where ever they pleased? How many "shrimp boats" would be stuck on that screen, being physically kept track of and moved around by the operator? It was designed as a tool to manage aircraft on fixed routes in fixed airspace doing predictable things. You were cranky enough back then when ATC wouldn't let you go where you wanted in your chopper. Imagine if every where you wanted to go was controlled?
why couldn't BASI recommend such a change in the accident report!
Because it was 1981, not the 90's, BASI obviously didn't think it was a contributing factor, and probably realised it was impossible to implement a change like that at that time anyway, especially as a result of one accident that had a multitude of other causes. By the time you started changing things in the 90's, technology had moved on a lot.

[Dick Smith]

No. Not positive radar control. Just be in the same frequency as the person looking at the radar

Just a system like I introduced before taaats was finalised .

The aircraft was on a full position flight plan. If the pilot was communicating to a person with a radar screen there's a good chance the controller would have queried why the pilot was flying towards mountains almost right angles to the correct track. Surely not rocket science. Happened everywhere else in the 80s

[le Pingouin]

And whether there are lines on a chart make absolutely no difference to procedures. You only want it as that's how they do it in the US, so you can crow.

How does having lines on a map detract from safety? How does not having them improve safety?

[Capn Bloggs]

The reversal by placing the frequency boundaries back on charts resulted in the present stuff up where CASA has a totally different view than the Rapacs.
The current low-level MC has got nothing to do with the charted boundaries. For goodness sake, you don't even need a radio AT ALL in the airspace that is the subject of the DP (unless C,R airport).

You have no logical argument, Dick. Get over it.

[topdrop]

continue the reforms so we are closely copying another proven safe system.
That would be fine, if that is what we were getting with NAS - it wasn't - we were getting a half baked American version. I went to NAS Safety workshops and we were told that the system was the same as the US - ergo it was "proven" to be safe. But the system was not the same as the US (sector sizes, radar coverage etc) and therefore not proven to be safe. Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not make it safe.
As an aside, how much were all the Americans paid, including travel allowances, to tell us how safe their system was?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re #53......

Which two.....???

Freq AND location (s)...please....

Just for the' general info' as I was not in NSW Region at the time.....

:}

[Plazbot]

125.7 Mt Mcquiod (sp?).SY FIS 5?

I expect 130.1? Would have been the ATC freq there. Mt Mcquiod as well I think.

[fujii]

Dick, you started this thread asking for a bit of history about FS and ATC, PREIA and CAOOAA. It has now drifted to one of your favourites, MDX and death by pressonitis. The forecast was crap and not suitable for night VMC. The aircraft wasn't approved for icing conditions. The pilot could have landed at Ballina, Coffs Harbour or Taree but chose to press on and not say anything until it was too late. What do you hope to gain that hasn't been gone over before?

[Dick Smith]

What I hope to gain is simple.

To point out to lots of intelligent readers of this site how change was resisted in the past and that's happening now so we can't move Foward to a safer simpler system.

No one ever commented at the time of the MDX crash that the pilot never actually spoke to a radar operator who could have quickly informed him of his incorrect navigation .

It's only different today because I pushed for the change - ie today a pilot
can communicate directly with the radar operator. That safety improvement was resisted in every way but I was able to say " just do it"

And Fuji. Yes the pilot made a number of errors. That's one of the reasons we have radar - to help pick up errors. In that case the radar was not used effectively.

I bet you would not support reversing my reforms and going back to two tier ATC and FS system.

Those reforms were resisted by many pilots at the time and as pointed out BASI didn't even make a recommendation that the available radar coverage be used to help stop a repeat of this type of accident

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

and as pointed out BASI didn't even make a recommendation
But only as pointed out by you. They were the professional organization at the time entrusted with investigating and mitigating only air safety incidents and they did not think it was relevent.
No. Not positive radar control. Just be in the same frequency as the person looking at the radar
Which to work means the controller needs to know what the pilot intends to do so that he can "monitor" that that is occuring, which means that the controller needs some sort of details or notification of the flight, (MDX was full reporting, so covered there, but you didn't want full reporting) and pilots would have to notify of any diversions or change of intentions. Isn't that de-facto full reporting? Fine for this isolated flight in this instance, but how would this system have worked 24 hrs a day for the rest of the time, as that is how it would have been? I reckon just about impossible with the infrastructure of the day.
Dick, youve changed the system, there's no one else to talk to but ATC, and people still fly into hills. You can't legislate against stupidity, bad luck, mechanical failure, or just plain pilot error, and you will never have a system that protects 100% against them. Nowhere else in the world has one either, no matter how much you insist on it.

[Dick Smith]

I have never claimed the overseas system has a safety figure of 100%.

I forced in the change so that all pilots could communicate directly to a radar controller for obvious reasons .

That was resisted by many. Some older airline pilots still believe they don't need radar and ATC to help prevent accidents.

The frequency boundaries were put back on the charts without any pilot education on how this half wound back system would work.

Fortunately there are lots of new pilots entering the system. Some of whom have flown overseas. They understand the need to follow the proven safe system as used overseas.

There are those who follow this site who now understand that frequency boundaries on charts are a throwback to the old FS days that no longer exist .

All modern GPS units show nearest ARTc outlet for those who want to get maximum coverage by ATC. The boundaries are a throwback to the 50s where HF was required in most places at low levels.

I am delighted with these discussions. The latest RAPAC paper even queries the need for frequency boundaries on charts. We are clearly getting somewhere

[Biggles_in_Oz]

How many times do people need to tell you that "... the proven safe system as used overseas" requires a mind-boggling amount of $$$ and time to completely change our ATC system.
For a start, the USA have in the region of 14000 front-line ATC staff, ASA has around 1000.
The USA has near total radar surveillance to low levels, Oz mostly has radar in the J curve.



where's that image of a broken-record

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The boundaries are a throwback to the 50s where HF was required in most places at low levels
No, the boundaries were there because the system was that if you were not in Controlled Airspace, and thus on another frequency talking to an ATC, you were required to be listening out for and communcating with other nearby aircraft on the local area frequency, and so you needed to be able to work out what it was. You only needed the HF if you needed to talk to ATS.
Now that Area freqency is also an ATC frequency, and the rules still require calls on lhe local area frequency, I guess they reasoned people still had to know what and where it was. It is once you start throwing in ill-defined or poorly understood options that confusion occurs.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. That's because it has been half wound back

When the FS system was in place it was before my group introduced CTAFs based on the US system. Before AMATS local aerodromes were on the FS area or AFIZ frequency so the system worked.

That's why a few at CASA are trying to get circuit traffic on the area frequency. It's what we used to do . Can't you see that!

[Dick Smith]

Biggies. 50% of US instrument approaches have the IAF below radar coverage .

There are lots of hills and valleys in the USA and radar is line of site.

[CaptainMidnight]

There are those who follow this site who now understand that frequency boundaries on charts are a throwback to the old FS days that no longer exist .

I doubt it, and hope not.

The boundaries are those of Flight Information Areas (FIA).

AIP:Flight Information Area (FIA): An airspace of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.

Flight Information: Information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flight, including information on air traffic, meteorological conditions, aerodrome conditions and airways facilities.

So for all this including SIS, Hazard Alerts, amended weather alerts, all stations broadcasts etc. etc., why make it difficult for pilots by removing boundaries from the charts - particularly those not equipped with fancy GPS units that happen to have the coordinates of all ATC facilities across the country??

This was the reasoning behind the RAPACs requesting Airservices return the boundaries to the charts many (14?) years ago.

[mgahan]

Dick,

Based on this coverage chart you might want to check that "fact".

MJG

[On eyre]

Onya Captain ��

[Dick Smith]

Captain. That would mean if you are cruising at 7500' 80 nm SE of Charlieville and monitoring the "correct " frequency you would not receive a flight information / hazard alert service but if you broke the rules and monitored the nearest ATC outlet at St George you would.

That's why NAS put the biscuits on the charts and gave monitoring the closest outlet as one suggestion.

No not rocket science or a gps that showed " nearest ". Just being able to read a map and gauge the nearest .

And do you really believe a pilot monitoring hundreds of re transmitted calls over one third of Australia -98% which are not relevant -will be able to pick out what is relevant ? No test has ever been done on this but I reckon I know the answer.

[CaptainMidnight]

And do you really believe a pilot monitoring hundreds of re transmitted calls over one third of Australia -98% which are not relevant -will be able to pick out what is relevant ?Hearing hundreds of irrelevant calls over one third of the country per flight stage doesn't happen now with FIAs. The current system is fine, and we have no difficulty picking out what is relevant and what isn't.

Your once quoted example of hearing hundreds of what you considered to be irrelevant calls when flying from one side of the country to the other is an extreme example and not typical. In any case, did you have difficulty determining what calls were relevant to you?

Now, the problem will likely be an issue with MULTICOM 126.7. High performance aircraft will need to monitor & broadcast on MULTICOM at quite some distance and altitude from their destination due to their speed. What is VHF coverage @ A100 30NM out?

[triadic]

Now, the problem will likely be an issue with MULTICOM 126.7. High performance aircraft will need to monitor & broadcast on MULTICOM at quite some distance and altitude from their destination due to their speed. What is VHF coverage @ A100 30NM out?

No different to now approaching a CTAF with a dedicated frequency I suggest:ugh:

[CaptainMidnight]

No different to now approaching a CTAF with a dedicated frequency I suggest :ugh:I suggest it would be different. MULTICOM 126.7 will have far more traffic on it than a local CTAF, and inbound to an aerodrome it will present an additional frequency to listen to & broadcast on from the current situation.

That would mean if you are cruising at 7500' 80 nm SE of Charlieville and monitoring the "correct " frequency you would not receive a flight information / hazard alert service but if you broke the rules and monitored the nearest ATC outlet at St George you would. There are examples of limited ATC VHF coverage, however they tend to be in areas not carrying a lot of traffic, or aerodromes, or bad WX to present a problem.

And in the example you cite - and also relevant to no lines and instead "biscuit" scenario - the nearest VHF outlet may not be for the ATC sector responsible for the airspace in which you are flying, in which case you may not monitor FIS broadcasts etc. relevant to you.

[Car RAMROD]

And do you really believe a pilot monitoring hundreds of re transmitted calls over one third of Australia -98% which are not relevant -will be able to pick out what is relevant ? No test has ever been done on this but I reckon I know the answer.


Yes Dick, I believe pilots will be able to pick out what is relevant.
Think about it logically, we do a pretty good job of responding to our call sign in a busy area where there's non-stop radio work (think capital city), or pricking our ears up when we hear something that might be near to us (we hear a location).

Or do you have a little difficulty with doing that? If you do, I can understand where you are coming from.

[Dick Smith]

A professional pilot flying with an IFR plan is being paid to monitor the radio all the time.

A person flying in outback Australia for sight seeing purposes is quite different .

Captain. You ask whether I had difficulty in working out what calls were relevant

Yes. For sure. Many cases I had no idea what airports the pilots were going into when I was en route in WA. I spent a lot of time looking down on my map .

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

A person flying in outback Australia for sight seeing purposes is quite different .
So you design an entire airways system around them?

[Plazbot]

Fcku me. I hope this Smith guy goes the way of FIS. A headache that added no value. Yawn.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Not necessary to design just around one group. If you follow ICAO classifications you can have a versatile system that allows both.

If it works in the U.K., Europe, Canada and the US. Why not give it a go here?

Plazbot. Come on now. I bet you would not want to go back to the dual ATC/FS system that existed before I made the changes. OCTA pilots could not even benefit from the existing radar.

Why then support a half wound back system.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, look up TCADS and see what a radar service would have looked like in FS. Separation is still a NO but traffic a big YES. With ADS-B, even more so. You just jumped too quick without studying what was already happening. If you waited just a bit more and studied what TAAATS could do you would have discovered that a hell of a lot more service could have been provided for little extra money.


Hint.......did FS need to be locally based to do the same job?

[CaptainMidnight]

Yes. For sure. Many cases I had no idea what airports the pilots were going into when I was en route in WA. I spent a lot of time looking down on my map. As would I be.

However I would put that down to my being completely unfamiliar with the area, not a shortcoming in the airspace, sector design or air traffic management.

Personally, flying in an unfamiliar area and hearing such calls I would find reassuring, knowing that if I have a problem someone, either ATC or another aircraft in contact with them, will hear me.

Those familiar with the area they fly in I suspect have little trouble assimilating what they hear.

[Car RAMROD]

You don't have to be a professional to be prudent and prepared.


Frequently looking at your map and knowing where you are and what is around you is also a good thing!

[QSK?]

Hey Mods, what started out as a very interesting historical thread has now been hijacked by Dick Smith to push his own wheelbarrow on MDX.

Maybe it's time to close it down or insist the thread gets back on topic?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It was always going to end up that way. It was just a matter of when.