NAS Area frequencies and boundaries
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is in it for lighties, no more stuffing with stupid airspace over places like the Whitsundays. No more 'remain OCTA' outside Canberra just cos there is a DASH-8 in the sky somewhere when all you wnat to do is go to Cootamundra. No more disturbing the ATCOs golf game in Coffs or Tamworth to get a clearance, no more getting charged for services we just don't need.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, I'm getting inundated!!! 
The NZ Govt gave interest free loans for mandatory transponders. AsA and RPT will save heaps with ADSB, better direct routing, less diversions etc, so it is really in their interests to have it in all GA aircraft.
Costs for maintaining creaky old French RADARs are high, costs for installing new ones for more coverage are higher. They will actually all save money with ADSB. (I installed some Thomson CSF stuff once ... eeeewwwwww!!!!)
So I doubt they will risk it by trying to push the cost on a sector which frankly doesn't need it and has nothing to gain by carrying it.
When I want and need a service I am happy to pay. But I ain't paying for a service I neither want nor need just cos someone else comes along and demands it. i.e Coffs, Canberra, Tamworth, Albury, Hamilton etc. I also think that when Airlines discover sleepy little towns, like Cairns, then infrastructure is fair enough, but it is there for them, not me and I don't want to fund it as well as cop the inconvenience of an unfair priority system.
Like you said, gimme the US model, first come first served
So, two choices, dig in the bottom of the garden and find a viable alternative to this Government and thus get rid of the user pays mentality or come up with a user pays system that really is user pays and doesn't try to foist service on people that don't want or need it.
AK
The NZ Govt gave interest free loans for mandatory transponders. AsA and RPT will save heaps with ADSB, better direct routing, less diversions etc, so it is really in their interests to have it in all GA aircraft.
Costs for maintaining creaky old French RADARs are high, costs for installing new ones for more coverage are higher. They will actually all save money with ADSB. (I installed some Thomson CSF stuff once ... eeeewwwwww!!!!)
So I doubt they will risk it by trying to push the cost on a sector which frankly doesn't need it and has nothing to gain by carrying it.
"WE WANT TO FLY ANYWHERE AND WE'RE NOT PAYING A CENT".
Like you said, gimme the US model, first come first served
So, two choices, dig in the bottom of the garden and find a viable alternative to this Government and thus get rid of the user pays mentality or come up with a user pays system that really is user pays and doesn't try to foist service on people that don't want or need it.
AK
I support the new rules and wonder if anyone could workout the correct freq at present on some tracks where one could be changeing freq's 'frequently' especially over oblique area boundaries....that to say that to be sure of the exact boundaries one would have to have an auto gps locked system. Very impractical, and in any case where would be the benefit ? Haveing made a VFR flight recently from Vic to NSW I can safely (?) say that it's virtually impossible to know exactly when to change freq's under the present system. 35 yr CFI CP multi RPT etc
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wren 460 : Welcome to PPrune. Good to see lots of 'new' people popping up on this thread - all apparently in support of NAS!
AK:
RPT dont want NAS. But they (thru their customers) will be paying for it. Because you demand it.
Notice any glaring inconsitistencies in your selfish stance yet?
AK:
When I want and need a service I am happy to pay. But I ain't paying for a service I neither want nor need just cos someone else comes along and demands it
Notice any glaring inconsitistencies in your selfish stance yet?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ferris mate.
Would you mind pointing me at these "ads" they are news to me?
I have been perplexed by AOPAs role throughout. It cracks me up that you buy newspaper ads to decry 'CivilAir scaremongering',
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None
Because NAS will be somewhat cheaper for them and gives VFR the level of service it needs - IN MOST CASES NONE.
Your argument came unstuck the moment you intimated that RPT should somehow be subsidised by VFR.
AK
Because NAS will be somewhat cheaper for them and gives VFR the level of service it needs - IN MOST CASES NONE.
Your argument came unstuck the moment you intimated that RPT should somehow be subsidised by VFR.
AK
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek, RPT's subsidise the service for the VFR's who don't want to pay anything to maintain the service.
You say that in most cases you don't need a service but when something goes wrong on your "no service required flight", the service that the RPT's have been paying to maintain, will be the one you will turn to, to save your butt.
Only problem is now with the frequencies removed from the charts the VFR that is in trouble will have a hell of a time knowing what freq. to call on to get that assistance.
You say that in most cases you don't need a service but when something goes wrong on your "no service required flight", the service that the RPT's have been paying to maintain, will be the one you will turn to, to save your butt.
Only problem is now with the frequencies removed from the charts the VFR that is in trouble will have a hell of a time knowing what freq. to call on to get that assistance.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
What was Sept 30?
Pity AOPA don't put as much effort into advancing their members true interests, as they do into pushing NAS. I, and am sure others, are very interested as to why you don't persue a better charging system rather than a different airspace system?
Pity AOPA don't put as much effort into advancing their members true interests, as they do into pushing NAS. I, and am sure others, are very interested as to why you don't persue a better charging system rather than a different airspace system?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Brisbane or Melbourne is likely to "save my butt". How many times has this fanciful event actually happened, I wonder? (Here we go. "There was once this private pilot lost....") 121.5 is more likely to find an in range overflying airliner who will quickly connect you with ATC if necessary. Given the amount of "concern" expressed here, one can only wonder how the US manages to get along without all of this. Wait, I remember, they have these thousands of radar operators with primary paints on Piper Cubs giving them all headings to steer.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Bill, back when I was working in oz I did speak to a young man lost in a valley in Tassie one day, who did not enjoy the benefit of the 'random overflying RPT safety net'. I am certain that ATC/Flight Service saved that young guy's butt. But heck, it's only one, right? I can recall AT LEAST 2 other (different) occasions, one where a gent in light twin with half a doz on board took off from King Isl and flew the wrong way (toward Sth Africa- they would have fruitlessly searched Bass Str and never known what happened). A switched on lass spotted his error for one paint on radar and gave him the heads-up. Another involved a learjet and a chieftain that thought they had passed but were still nose to nose. These are just off the top of my head and with little experience. I am sure stories abound. But you don't want to hear that, right? And before you roll eyes and poo-poo these real stories ala .
think about it- these types of events are not recorded (with the exception of the lost in cloud scenario- they are written up as IFE), and would probably have resulted in deaths. Why is that lost on the NAS crowd? How many times these things happen- who knows? They are not recorded, because they had satisfactory outcomes. That is the problem with safety- it's good results aren't seen.
BTW-
The US manages to 'get along' with full radar, full comms, and full service. How much of that will we have available in oz?
edit; Yes, Bill, they do have thousands of radar operators (sixteen thousand, actually ). Though they aren't 'giving piper cubs headings', they can- you can request flight following. They do give 747s headings to avoid piper cubs, and that is an important difference you seem to not understand. GA is included in the US system, even if it not obvious to the piper cub
I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Brisbane or Melbourne is likely to "save my butt". How many times has this fanciful event actually happened, I wonder? (Here we go. "There was once this private pilot lost....")
BTW-
The US manages to 'get along' with full radar, full comms, and full service. How much of that will we have available in oz?
edit; Yes, Bill, they do have thousands of radar operators (sixteen thousand, actually ). Though they aren't 'giving piper cubs headings', they can- you can request flight following. They do give 747s headings to avoid piper cubs, and that is an important difference you seem to not understand. GA is included in the US system, even if it not obvious to the piper cub
Last edited by ferris; 31st Oct 2003 at 13:14.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so I got my new charts today and I can see the little frequency "clouds" on the ERC charts, but can somebody tell me how the heck I'm supposed to know when I should change from one frequency to the next? I'm a VFR pilot, so does this mean that I have to carry around a set of the old ERCs, as well as a set of the new ones - or is there another docuement that I can refer to that is going to give me some boundary guidance?
Anybody?
Anybody?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've said before, the only GA traffic advisories I have been given in the US were in the nature of "multiple VFR targets your area."
I"m pleased that someone lost in a valley in Tassie was still in VHF contact and you were able to save him, but are you sure that the fact that you spoke to him and the fact that he survived are directly related?
I'm not the enemy of ATC and though the other examples sound like IFR, I know they do a good job. As they do in the States. Without anywhere near the amount of radar coverage we hear on this site, with a minimum of mandatory quack. And a maximum of looking out the window.
I"m pleased that someone lost in a valley in Tassie was still in VHF contact and you were able to save him, but are you sure that the fact that you spoke to him and the fact that he survived are directly related?
I'm not the enemy of ATC and though the other examples sound like IFR, I know they do a good job. As they do in the States. Without anywhere near the amount of radar coverage we hear on this site, with a minimum of mandatory quack. And a maximum of looking out the window.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Bill:
I think you got me mixed up with someone else, cobber.
I'm not a controller and I certainly havn't spoken to anyone lost in Tassie. My enquiry relates to the simple fact that I like to listen out on the area frequency just so that I don't hit any other pieces of flying tin while I'm enjoying the bird's eye view of the scenery.
The new charts don't make it easier for me to determine what frequency I should be listening on, let alone talking to anyone!
Your thoughts?
I think you got me mixed up with someone else, cobber.
I'm not a controller and I certainly havn't spoken to anyone lost in Tassie. My enquiry relates to the simple fact that I like to listen out on the area frequency just so that I don't hit any other pieces of flying tin while I'm enjoying the bird's eye view of the scenery.
The new charts don't make it easier for me to determine what frequency I should be listening on, let alone talking to anyone!
Your thoughts?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies QSK, I was responding to the post before yours. Read LeadSleds original post. The idea is that while looking out the window looking at the scenery also look out for bits of metal flying about. Not just the one or two that you used to talk to, but the others that were also always there as well. Bit like driving your car on the road without the obstructions to vision that occur at ground level.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vote 1 - Chimbu Chuckles for NASIG President.
snarek, Brianh and Bill Pike.
Your posts continue indicate a lack of knowledge of the current, iminent and proposed systems. AOPA's fanciful notions of increased freedoms are typical navel gazing and insular thinking.
Brianh
So you have proved you can do that now under the current system. From Nov. 27 and into the forseeable future, it will be no different.
snarek
You wont be able to do anything different between CB and CTM (your post of 30/10). CB steps will still be C and clearance will still be required. They will get upset if you try to go through without asking. I hope the appropriate frequency is apparent.
I think you have the wrong idea about charging. If you are VFR, you pay no enroute or terminal charges. You should only be charged (by Airservices) $7.45/tonne to land at a towered airport. Minimum charges may apply at bigger airports. At ML airport, Airservices take $3.45/tonne with a minimum charge of $21. The remaining $149.94 goes to the efficient private airport owner.
Maybe we need to look at the RAAF a bit more closely. For example East Sale still retains its 20nm radius CTR and 50nm radius R areas. 20nm CTR for circuits!!! ML CTR is 8-12nm, contains two airports, and on a typical day has 800 combined movements, not including through non planned pop up VFR fixed wing, choppers and ILS training. The system can, and does handle VFR's, all you have to do is ask.
The transponder issue is intriguing. Experience has shown that a pilot will not be aware his transponder is not on or malfunctioning until someone (ATC) gives him a reminder. If the radar sensor is SSR only, and radio silence is being adopted by the pilot, the aircraft will be invisible to ATC and TCAS. This will apply at all our D towers with E steps. Some of these towers are getting limited radar information. But without primary backup, transponder problems render this information unreliable.
IMHO this is a serious safety problem, and must have had trouble getting up in a safety case, if it was ever done.
New CTAFs. Surely nothing is simpler than what we have. For VFR, four mandatory calls, two for arriving, two for departing. The unwritten additions are - shut up, look out, listen and transmit briefly when required. If they want to add a 45 degree downwind entry procedure, it's just another line of text in the book. If you're non-radio - refer unwritten additions, deleting parts 1, 3 & 4.
We talk of "US style CTAFs" but does anybody really know what they are?
QSK?
Each aerodrome in ERSA has an "ATS FACILITIES COMMUNICATION" entry. This lists the ATS FIA frequency for that location. Unless you're out in the bindoo, and as long as you have half an idea of your position, this will give you the closest ATS FIA frequency. Still inconvenient, however.
Long posts are boring
CG
snarek, Brianh and Bill Pike.
Your posts continue indicate a lack of knowledge of the current, iminent and proposed systems. AOPA's fanciful notions of increased freedoms are typical navel gazing and insular thinking.
Brianh
Effectively ran radio silent except at GAAP/CTAF/MBZ just to simulate a NAS trip. Used AERIS/AWIS for QNH and weather. Luvverly trip - no problems, no near misses.
snarek
You wont be able to do anything different between CB and CTM (your post of 30/10). CB steps will still be C and clearance will still be required. They will get upset if you try to go through without asking. I hope the appropriate frequency is apparent.
I think you have the wrong idea about charging. If you are VFR, you pay no enroute or terminal charges. You should only be charged (by Airservices) $7.45/tonne to land at a towered airport. Minimum charges may apply at bigger airports. At ML airport, Airservices take $3.45/tonne with a minimum charge of $21. The remaining $149.94 goes to the efficient private airport owner.
Maybe we need to look at the RAAF a bit more closely. For example East Sale still retains its 20nm radius CTR and 50nm radius R areas. 20nm CTR for circuits!!! ML CTR is 8-12nm, contains two airports, and on a typical day has 800 combined movements, not including through non planned pop up VFR fixed wing, choppers and ILS training. The system can, and does handle VFR's, all you have to do is ask.
The transponder issue is intriguing. Experience has shown that a pilot will not be aware his transponder is not on or malfunctioning until someone (ATC) gives him a reminder. If the radar sensor is SSR only, and radio silence is being adopted by the pilot, the aircraft will be invisible to ATC and TCAS. This will apply at all our D towers with E steps. Some of these towers are getting limited radar information. But without primary backup, transponder problems render this information unreliable.
IMHO this is a serious safety problem, and must have had trouble getting up in a safety case, if it was ever done.
New CTAFs. Surely nothing is simpler than what we have. For VFR, four mandatory calls, two for arriving, two for departing. The unwritten additions are - shut up, look out, listen and transmit briefly when required. If they want to add a 45 degree downwind entry procedure, it's just another line of text in the book. If you're non-radio - refer unwritten additions, deleting parts 1, 3 & 4.
We talk of "US style CTAFs" but does anybody really know what they are?
QSK?
Each aerodrome in ERSA has an "ATS FACILITIES COMMUNICATION" entry. This lists the ATS FIA frequency for that location. Unless you're out in the bindoo, and as long as you have half an idea of your position, this will give you the closest ATS FIA frequency. Still inconvenient, however.
Long posts are boring
CG
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AK: I intimated no such theory (you lost me there?)
It is going to cost more not less - 200 extra controllers to wont be recruited, trained and paid for free. What has the cost been so far - who is paying for that ? Youve already said you wont! You want ADSB to somehow solve this mess down the track too - who pays for that ? Once again - not you.
Where are these savings for that small non-AOPA element of Civil Aviation in Australia again?
It is going to cost more not less - 200 extra controllers to wont be recruited, trained and paid for free. What has the cost been so far - who is paying for that ? Youve already said you wont! You want ADSB to somehow solve this mess down the track too - who pays for that ? Once again - not you.
Where are these savings for that small non-AOPA element of Civil Aviation in Australia again?