NAS Area frequencies and boundaries
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi black sparrow
This is an issue: the problem is that traditional transponders are both heavy and require a lot of battery power, which is obviously a problem for these a/c.
In the UK, they reckon that a small, light-weight solid-state and "relatively" cheap mode-S transponder design has been tested by Qinetiq (I think) to show that mode S in all VFR (required by 2008) is possible.
As yet however, there is no manufacturer making this AFAIK, and who knows what "cheap" will mean! I guess if its mandated there will be a volume market and so price should become reasonable? Maybe, maybe not...
Until such a device is either available cheaply enough for all to install, or itis mandated, we will have to maintain a lookout for gliders etc. as we do now. I find them hard to spot!
Andy
What about gliders and ultralights?
In the UK, they reckon that a small, light-weight solid-state and "relatively" cheap mode-S transponder design has been tested by Qinetiq (I think) to show that mode S in all VFR (required by 2008) is possible.
As yet however, there is no manufacturer making this AFAIK, and who knows what "cheap" will mean! I guess if its mandated there will be a volume market and so price should become reasonable? Maybe, maybe not...
Until such a device is either available cheaply enough for all to install, or itis mandated, we will have to maintain a lookout for gliders etc. as we do now. I find them hard to spot!
Andy
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Sparrow
Yes, it would solve a problem for RPT, but create one for GA.
The average cost of buying a 'cheap' Txp is $2500. Installation is about $3000 because of stupid CASA requirements like 'drawings' and 'electrical load calculations' and 'CAR 35 approvals'.
Then add about $200 a year to maintain it and probably $1000 every 4 to repair it or its associated antenna.
So, who pays, RPT??? The Govt???
I personally doubt that compulsort transponders in E will get up, it isn't US NAS, so why the change. Either that or E will be limited to 8500 and it will be G below that unless 'on top' of a C.
FIS boundaries.
I hope no one thinks from my previous post that I support FIS boundaries on charts. I don't, i think they are dangerous. Going Tvl to Cns I change freqs just south of Dunk. That exposes me to traffic that has made calls on the Nth freq and is operating assuming i heard.
What I'd like to see is frequencies whereby I can monitor ops when I need to, ie parachute ops, gliding ops, high density IFR etc.
AK
This would certainly solve the problem RPT and large charter faces when operating around the smaller aircraft.
The average cost of buying a 'cheap' Txp is $2500. Installation is about $3000 because of stupid CASA requirements like 'drawings' and 'electrical load calculations' and 'CAR 35 approvals'.
Then add about $200 a year to maintain it and probably $1000 every 4 to repair it or its associated antenna.
So, who pays, RPT??? The Govt???
I personally doubt that compulsort transponders in E will get up, it isn't US NAS, so why the change. Either that or E will be limited to 8500 and it will be G below that unless 'on top' of a C.
FIS boundaries.
I hope no one thinks from my previous post that I support FIS boundaries on charts. I don't, i think they are dangerous. Going Tvl to Cns I change freqs just south of Dunk. That exposes me to traffic that has made calls on the Nth freq and is operating assuming i heard.
What I'd like to see is frequencies whereby I can monitor ops when I need to, ie parachute ops, gliding ops, high density IFR etc.
AK
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussy Andy, eta23 etc.
You keep talking about the US system. Australia is not getting the us system! You need to read all the NAS threads, then a lot of stuff won't be repeated ad nauseum.
Australia developed a unique way of doing things, because the airspace use is unique. The UK has some huge differences to ICAO, which you acknowledge, to suit what it sees as the best solution for it's airspace. The US system is certainly not ICAO, and the way it is operated is not even the way it is written in the books (in reality there is a lot more service provided {and expected}). The US relies heavily on it's radar coverage, and the reason you can jump in your glider and fly over airbases etc without even receiving a service is because the other- fast- users are receiving a service. There is probably no point in providing traffic to a slow aircraft versus a jet. The jet will be the one doing the avoiding. But the slow aircraft still has to be included (whether he knows it or not) for that to work. Full radar coverage (even in the J-curve) aint going to happen in oz. So to say "the US system is great, let's do it here" is either misguided or setting out to mislead. I'm sure those on the NASIG know which
The poms don't subscribe to the 'only one party in the conflict receives a service, and if you are VFR you can call up and get any help you want' attitude that the yanks are happy with, but in oz we are going to try the 'one party in the conflict may/may not receive a service, and if you are VFR you are on your own' system.
AK.
Is AOPA going to support mandatory transponders? How about we stop putting the cart before the horse, and find out what the end state will be, what equipment will be required, what equipment would make it work etc etc before sabotaging the airspace? Still no response about confusing the charging system with the airspace system, from either yourself or AOPA.
You keep talking about the US system. Australia is not getting the us system! You need to read all the NAS threads, then a lot of stuff won't be repeated ad nauseum.
Australia developed a unique way of doing things, because the airspace use is unique. The UK has some huge differences to ICAO, which you acknowledge, to suit what it sees as the best solution for it's airspace. The US system is certainly not ICAO, and the way it is operated is not even the way it is written in the books (in reality there is a lot more service provided {and expected}). The US relies heavily on it's radar coverage, and the reason you can jump in your glider and fly over airbases etc without even receiving a service is because the other- fast- users are receiving a service. There is probably no point in providing traffic to a slow aircraft versus a jet. The jet will be the one doing the avoiding. But the slow aircraft still has to be included (whether he knows it or not) for that to work. Full radar coverage (even in the J-curve) aint going to happen in oz. So to say "the US system is great, let's do it here" is either misguided or setting out to mislead. I'm sure those on the NASIG know which
The poms don't subscribe to the 'only one party in the conflict receives a service, and if you are VFR you can call up and get any help you want' attitude that the yanks are happy with, but in oz we are going to try the 'one party in the conflict may/may not receive a service, and if you are VFR you are on your own' system.
AK.
Is AOPA going to support mandatory transponders? How about we stop putting the cart before the horse, and find out what the end state will be, what equipment will be required, what equipment would make it work etc etc before sabotaging the airspace? Still no response about confusing the charging system with the airspace system, from either yourself or AOPA.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
That depends on who pays. If the cost of either ADSB or mandatory transponders in E is to be passed to the owner, then I personally will be looking for no E below 8500 or no compulsory transponders/ADSB.
Remind me of the confusion between charging and airspace.
AK
That depends on who pays. If the cost of either ADSB or mandatory transponders in E is to be passed to the owner, then I personally will be looking for no E below 8500 or no compulsory transponders/ADSB.
Remind me of the confusion between charging and airspace.
AK
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that the changes are a shock to the way Australian aviation operates. Frequently one hears IFR separation standards used to self separate, ie "you maintain 3,500 I'll maintain 4,500 until we pass," and in most Class D and C airspace controllers still separate traffic as if it was B. Perhaps this is "safer", (perhaps we would be safer if one was still required to have a man with a red flag walk ahead of any motor vehicle, as once was the case) but overseas experience indicates that it is overkill. Traffic levels overseas simply preclude that level of chatter. My experience with the much referred to "radar service" in the States has more been in the order of "multiple VFR targets your area" rather than the personal separation service that one would imagine exists judging from some of the posts here. Many Australians appear to believe that to manouevre to avoid traffic is some sort of emergency rather than a normal every day occurence.
There always was a great deal more traffic out there than the two VMC pilots unable to pass in safety without half a dozen transmissions each, jamming the airwaves for hundreds of miles around..
There always was a great deal more traffic out there than the two VMC pilots unable to pass in safety without half a dozen transmissions each, jamming the airwaves for hundreds of miles around..
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The day the glider contest I was referring to went to Laughlin was the day the radar was unavailable because of scheduled maintenance. This was briefed before takeoff. So much for the fast movers relying on the radar service. They use it when available and operate without it when it isn't.
Ok our use of the airspace is "unique". Lets see - we fly aircraft in it and it has about the same pressure, density etc as anyone else's air. This is unique?
If we aren't getting the US system then what pray tell are we getting?
As I understand it we are getting the US system at a level appropriate for our traffic densities. About like around Resume Speed, Idaho.
As for lack of radar coverage - whenever I fly the bugsmasher in the J curve the transponder seems to be getting interrogated most of the time. When it isn't it's awful lonely out there back of beyond.
The only reason you think pilot to pilot communication on an area frequency works is because we don't have much traffic. Get enough traffic and it rapidly stops working. It is meant to be radio alerted see and avoid not radio arranged separation after all.
While we are at it if you guys flying 3rd level airlines and IFR twins want radio useage how about getting some good radio systems? The worst ones I hear are on this class of aircraft.
Ok our use of the airspace is "unique". Lets see - we fly aircraft in it and it has about the same pressure, density etc as anyone else's air. This is unique?
If we aren't getting the US system then what pray tell are we getting?
As I understand it we are getting the US system at a level appropriate for our traffic densities. About like around Resume Speed, Idaho.
As for lack of radar coverage - whenever I fly the bugsmasher in the J curve the transponder seems to be getting interrogated most of the time. When it isn't it's awful lonely out there back of beyond.
The only reason you think pilot to pilot communication on an area frequency works is because we don't have much traffic. Get enough traffic and it rapidly stops working. It is meant to be radio alerted see and avoid not radio arranged separation after all.
While we are at it if you guys flying 3rd level airlines and IFR twins want radio useage how about getting some good radio systems? The worst ones I hear are on this class of aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the experts....
For those who think we're getting the US system,
read this.....
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185864-1.html
So much for reduced comms between ATC and VFR pilots.
121.5 will end up as a chatter frequency, totally against it's true reason for being there.
We will be stuck with the Nov 27 airspace structure for many years. Airservices don't have, and in my opinion, will ever have the ability to administer the full blown end state of NAS.
Please show me my increased freedoms for VFR's with the Nov 27 changes, except the ability to over fly D towers above 4500 feet. The rules are that VFR avoid IFR routes, so that precludes actually overflying the aerodrome. To avoid IFR routes, we need ERC's, to know where those routes are. We've all got those,
haven't we?
CG
read this.....
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185864-1.html
So much for reduced comms between ATC and VFR pilots.
121.5 will end up as a chatter frequency, totally against it's true reason for being there.
We will be stuck with the Nov 27 airspace structure for many years. Airservices don't have, and in my opinion, will ever have the ability to administer the full blown end state of NAS.
Please show me my increased freedoms for VFR's with the Nov 27 changes, except the ability to over fly D towers above 4500 feet. The rules are that VFR avoid IFR routes, so that precludes actually overflying the aerodrome. To avoid IFR routes, we need ERC's, to know where those routes are. We've all got those,
haven't we?
CG
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article CG
CG, I see you have come around to supporting NAS 
Quoting the ATC in your article ...
"I know what some of you are thinking: "Why would I want to listen to ATC yak at airplanes while I'm trying to enjoy the scenery?" Good question. There are a lot of people who feel that way. I mean -- a lot of them. I see them every fall. They're out there flying willy-nilly through the sky squawking 1200 and having a grand ol' time (I suppose).
There's nothing wrong with that, of course. It's perfectly legal. It's even relatively safe. It's got to be at least as safe as riding a motorcycle down the Blue Ridge Parkway, anyway. Some of you probably expect me to have some kind of recommendation about which is better, but I don't. Truth be told, we couldn't work all of the VFRs that are out there. So if you don't want the hassle of talking to ATC, don't."
But the article is good stuff and is what NASIG should be doing re education.
AK
Quoting the ATC in your article ...
"I know what some of you are thinking: "Why would I want to listen to ATC yak at airplanes while I'm trying to enjoy the scenery?" Good question. There are a lot of people who feel that way. I mean -- a lot of them. I see them every fall. They're out there flying willy-nilly through the sky squawking 1200 and having a grand ol' time (I suppose).
There's nothing wrong with that, of course. It's perfectly legal. It's even relatively safe. It's got to be at least as safe as riding a motorcycle down the Blue Ridge Parkway, anyway. Some of you probably expect me to have some kind of recommendation about which is better, but I don't. Truth be told, we couldn't work all of the VFRs that are out there. So if you don't want the hassle of talking to ATC, don't."
But the article is good stuff and is what NASIG should be doing re education.
AK
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'M COMFY WITH IT ALL
Got the charts today - found the area freqs OK on the ERC - VTC no problems - VNC less info but that's why I carry the ERC.
We took a GA8 Vic to Archer recently to support the ferry back of a Tiger Moth. 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.
When I go back to my statistical training, and probability theory, and look at the daily volume of traffic outside the Terminal Areas, there is more chance in open space of winning Tattslotto than an air collision.
If high speed RPT is entering CTAF perhaps a call at 10 miles on the CTAF is appropriate - leave the other COM on the area freq.
I operate at a CTAF on the very border of ML RAS with people coming at it on different frequencies. We have ultralight users, powered hang-glider, ultralight and GA training and movements, fly-in restaurant, non-radio aircraft, and parachutists. When I was learning, the then CFI was a barsteward for operating no radio and scaring me witless - I continue therefore to support the see and be seen concept ahead of guys using radio for a crutch. Interesting actually how the radio calls seem to be modified when jockeying for circuit positions by some - eg those who call downwind when 5 miles out!
I have a couple of queries in with the NAS people. Other than those trivialities, I am happy to give the NAS a genuine go and feedback any concerns.
Brian H
We took a GA8 Vic to Archer recently to support the ferry back of a Tiger Moth. 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.
When I go back to my statistical training, and probability theory, and look at the daily volume of traffic outside the Terminal Areas, there is more chance in open space of winning Tattslotto than an air collision.
If high speed RPT is entering CTAF perhaps a call at 10 miles on the CTAF is appropriate - leave the other COM on the area freq.
I operate at a CTAF on the very border of ML RAS with people coming at it on different frequencies. We have ultralight users, powered hang-glider, ultralight and GA training and movements, fly-in restaurant, non-radio aircraft, and parachutists. When I was learning, the then CFI was a barsteward for operating no radio and scaring me witless - I continue therefore to support the see and be seen concept ahead of guys using radio for a crutch. Interesting actually how the radio calls seem to be modified when jockeying for circuit positions by some - eg those who call downwind when 5 miles out!
I have a couple of queries in with the NAS people. Other than those trivialities, I am happy to give the NAS a genuine go and feedback any concerns.
Brian H
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and look at the daily volume of traffic outside the Terminal Areas, there is more chance in open space of winning Tattslotto than an air collision.
Thanks goodnes for that because someone wins the lotto every week......twice........
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Never paid that much ?... is yours gold plated?
There are no winners in a mid-air collision. If having a transponder in any airspace places me on someone's TCAS, I am all for it and will gladly have a transponder installed and operating. I have one in my a/c and gladly keep it serviceable and switched on for all operations and I am not based in radar coverage.
AOPA have previously agreed to transponders in E and I don't see they can back away from that position just because it is not a requirement in the USA. In this day and age, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. As a member I would lobby strongly to keep that policy in place.
You should be aware that ICAO already have a standard which provides for transponders in all classes of airspace for all those aircraft with the power to drive one. Both CASA and the NAS IG have turned a blind eye to that so far. If we are going down the international harmonization then how can we not heed that?
I still believe that the issue with NAS is education and not the package. No commitment to enough over a long term seen to date…. but still watching….
no known traffic...
The average cost of buying a 'cheap' Txp is $2500. Installation is about $3000 because of stupid CASA requirements like 'drawings' and 'electrical load calculations' and 'CAR 35 approvals'.
I personally doubt that compulsort transponders in E will get up, it isn't US NAS, so why the change. Either that or E will be limited to 8500 and it will be G below that unless 'on top' of a C.
There are no winners in a mid-air collision. If having a transponder in any airspace places me on someone's TCAS, I am all for it and will gladly have a transponder installed and operating. I have one in my a/c and gladly keep it serviceable and switched on for all operations and I am not based in radar coverage.
AOPA have previously agreed to transponders in E and I don't see they can back away from that position just because it is not a requirement in the USA. In this day and age, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. As a member I would lobby strongly to keep that policy in place.
You should be aware that ICAO already have a standard which provides for transponders in all classes of airspace for all those aircraft with the power to drive one. Both CASA and the NAS IG have turned a blind eye to that so far. If we are going down the international harmonization then how can we not heed that?
I still believe that the issue with NAS is education and not the package. No commitment to enough over a long term seen to date…. but still watching….
no known traffic...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
please..
Hate to crash the big NAS love-in here... (especially all you 'new names' with 1 & 2 posts - do you think we are idiots?)
I do want to say this though, on behalf of the 200+ controllers who will be recruited and trained over the next few years to implement the final NAS stage endgame.... thank you!
The extra cost to industry for these controllers (positions which of course had been consolidated out over the last few years) will have to be funded, but dont worry - the RPT's will be paying for it while Dick is batting for the towel hats - so it is only the travelling public that will be effectively paying for it.
Maybe all you crap claims about protecting ATC jobs were correct - we just didnt realise you lot would be doing our bidding. At least we wont be hearing your voices anymore - after all you will be too busy seeing and avoiding and won't know the frequency anymore. If this is progress... good luck to all of us.
I do want to say this though, on behalf of the 200+ controllers who will be recruited and trained over the next few years to implement the final NAS stage endgame.... thank you!
The extra cost to industry for these controllers (positions which of course had been consolidated out over the last few years) will have to be funded, but dont worry - the RPT's will be paying for it while Dick is batting for the towel hats - so it is only the travelling public that will be effectively paying for it.
Maybe all you crap claims about protecting ATC jobs were correct - we just didnt realise you lot would be doing our bidding. At least we wont be hearing your voices anymore - after all you will be too busy seeing and avoiding and won't know the frequency anymore. If this is progress... good luck to all of us.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The day the glider contest I was referring to went to Laughlin was the day the radar was unavailable because of scheduled maintenance. This was briefed before takeoff. So much for the fast movers relying on the radar service
AK.
I have been perplexed by AOPAs role throughout. It cracks me up that you buy newspaper ads to decry 'CivilAir scaremongering', but how exactly are you achieving your aims of furthering member's interests by acting as a branch of NASIG? As Chief Galah keeps asking, "what's in it for the lighties"? If your ads were decrying the appalling state of the charging system (and subsequently GA), I'd say bravo. You keep strangely quiet on such issues, yet find money to do Dick's bidding.
The U.S charging system is great, let's get that.Tobzalp.
I'll think you'll find more than 2 people win Tattslotto every week.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lies, damn lies and statistics...
I'll think you'll find more than 2 people win Tattslotto every week
Sheesh!
Andy
Grandpa Aerotart
snarek are you really so nieve as to believe that the govt will ever pay for ANYTHING being fitted into a private aircraft?
To do so would require that they first admit that they have changed the airspace model to one that is less safe!!
I can just see tha Minister of the day reporting to the House, "We have decided that AusNAS, which we insisted on against all professional advice, both local and international, would be made significantly safer if we paid for all private aircraft with electrical systems to be fitted with ADSB/CDTI/ Mode S Transponder equipment at a cost to the public purse of xxxmillions$. This, once again shows the Govts unwaivering support for aviation safety!!!
What chance of that?
I'm getting pretty sick of your's and AOPA's constant whining along the lines of "WE WANT TO FLY ANYWHERE AND WE'RE NOT PAYING A CENT".
And what makes me chortle with undisguised glee? You're not getting, nor will get, what you all seem to believe is some sort of holy grail. Freedom to meander over the top of Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne/where ever, VFR/sans radio
And what's this crap about VFR avoiding IFR routes?
Anyone seen a ERC/Jepp chart lately...pick me route from say Redcliffe to Cairns avoiding all navaids, airfields and published route data...but thinking about it why would I fly from A to B with no published route data, wouldn't that be unsafe...irresponsible even?
Hell I might even blunder through a live restricted area full of.....high speed jets
There's not a country on the planet that 'conforms' to ICAO! Hell in China they use metric and the only time they use 'english' is when they are talking to foriegn registered aircraft. Great fun...believe me!!
We're not getting USNAS.
It's going to cost more money not the huge savings claimed by the spin doctors and biscuit makers.
More ATC being told to give less service and 'we' WILL end up paying.
200 more ATCOs...seems like enough to answer the odd enroute question to me!!
I am coming to believe we are approaching a time when we will be 'between systems' for an extended period...why?
Because of meddling on the part of individuals & groups who have no business in the airspace design process.
It wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.
Education?
Why bother when a proportion of the users can't be bothered knowing enough about the current system to get exactly what they want MOST of the time!!
E for VFR is just G by another name and will be treated as such by the likes of snarek and the rest of the "Im not paying" brigade.
In future, unless I'm a LONG way off the beaten track, or below 5000' I'll be filing IFR. And you can bet I'll be monitoring appropriate ATC frequencies even VFR.
NASIG = Not A Sensible Idea Group.
Chuck.
To do so would require that they first admit that they have changed the airspace model to one that is less safe!!
I can just see tha Minister of the day reporting to the House, "We have decided that AusNAS, which we insisted on against all professional advice, both local and international, would be made significantly safer if we paid for all private aircraft with electrical systems to be fitted with ADSB/CDTI/ Mode S Transponder equipment at a cost to the public purse of xxxmillions$. This, once again shows the Govts unwaivering support for aviation safety!!!
What chance of that?
I'm getting pretty sick of your's and AOPA's constant whining along the lines of "WE WANT TO FLY ANYWHERE AND WE'RE NOT PAYING A CENT".
And what makes me chortle with undisguised glee? You're not getting, nor will get, what you all seem to believe is some sort of holy grail. Freedom to meander over the top of Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne/where ever, VFR/sans radio
And what's this crap about VFR avoiding IFR routes?
Anyone seen a ERC/Jepp chart lately...pick me route from say Redcliffe to Cairns avoiding all navaids, airfields and published route data...but thinking about it why would I fly from A to B with no published route data, wouldn't that be unsafe...irresponsible even?
Hell I might even blunder through a live restricted area full of.....high speed jets
There's not a country on the planet that 'conforms' to ICAO! Hell in China they use metric and the only time they use 'english' is when they are talking to foriegn registered aircraft. Great fun...believe me!!
We're not getting USNAS.
It's going to cost more money not the huge savings claimed by the spin doctors and biscuit makers.
More ATC being told to give less service and 'we' WILL end up paying.
200 more ATCOs...seems like enough to answer the odd enroute question to me!!
I am coming to believe we are approaching a time when we will be 'between systems' for an extended period...why?
Because of meddling on the part of individuals & groups who have no business in the airspace design process.
It wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.
Education?
Why bother when a proportion of the users can't be bothered knowing enough about the current system to get exactly what they want MOST of the time!!
E for VFR is just G by another name and will be treated as such by the likes of snarek and the rest of the "Im not paying" brigade.
In future, unless I'm a LONG way off the beaten track, or below 5000' I'll be filing IFR. And you can bet I'll be monitoring appropriate ATC frequencies even VFR.
NASIG = Not A Sensible Idea Group.
Chuck.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather #3,
Mate I use 126.7(multicom) all the time.Alot of places we fly too dont have published IFR routes ,so how do we know when to avoid flying these route when going VFR? Everyone seems to be talking light a/c conflicting with Ifr jet traffic.Out here IFR traffic could be another 210 operating below 10.Ive still got to climb/decend thru his IFR level,He dosnt have TCAS and most of the 402s,Chieftans Ive seen dont either.
Time will Tell.
Mate I use 126.7(multicom) all the time.Alot of places we fly too dont have published IFR routes ,so how do we know when to avoid flying these route when going VFR? Everyone seems to be talking light a/c conflicting with Ifr jet traffic.Out here IFR traffic could be another 210 operating below 10.Ive still got to climb/decend thru his IFR level,He dosnt have TCAS and most of the 402s,Chieftans Ive seen dont either.
Time will Tell.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic
That is not my understanding of the AOPA position. My understanding we supported them above 8500. Transponders in E is also not the US NAS model. I doubt there are many aircraft out there not Txp fitted, but I cannot see that they should be fitted if E is to be lowered to almost ground level under NAS. The idea of E is it is transparent to VFR.
There is no clear benefit to VFR having transponders in E. If there is a Govt funded fit for ADSB then that problem will evaporate, however I doubt AOPA will assist the Govt to get a mandatory, owner funded, fit.
Of course, as a member we welcome your input and experience, but we also need to take into account members with $30K PA 28s on $45K a year.
By the way, have you priced a King Txp lately with Mode C. About $1800 US. It costs about $250 to 'tune' the Mode C, what expence for Mode S???
That alone wouldn't be so bad, what offends me is the ABSOLUTELY NEEDLESS CAR 35s, drawings and 'load calculations' for VFR aircraft, which I think are never really done, just charged for!!!
Edited to add this bit.
Ferris
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 want 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.
AK
AOPA have previously agreed to transponders in E and I don't see they can back away from that position just because it is not a requirement in the USA. In this day and age, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. As a member I would lobby strongly to keep that policy in place.
There is no clear benefit to VFR having transponders in E. If there is a Govt funded fit for ADSB then that problem will evaporate, however I doubt AOPA will assist the Govt to get a mandatory, owner funded, fit.
Of course, as a member we welcome your input and experience, but we also need to take into account members with $30K PA 28s on $45K a year.
By the way, have you priced a King Txp lately with Mode C. About $1800 US. It costs about $250 to 'tune' the Mode C, what expence for Mode S???
That alone wouldn't be so bad, what offends me is the ABSOLUTELY NEEDLESS CAR 35s, drawings and 'load calculations' for VFR aircraft, which I think are never really done, just charged for!!!
Edited to add this bit.
Ferris
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 want 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.
AK
Last edited by snarek; 31st Oct 2003 at 06:50.