NAS Area frequencies and boundaries
I still haven't made up my mind on the new system, so I won't be expressing an opinion as yet, but I will put forward this scenario, based on a real-life event (one of many) I experienced and subsequently resolved because of the use transmissions on the area frequency.
The setting is NW WA, late afternoon, VMC exists but visibility slightly reduced due smoke haze. Two VFR aircraft - aircraft "A" a single with a TAS of around 150kts, tracking roughly 200 degrees, maintaining 6500'. The other aircraft "B" a twin with a TAS of 175kts is tracking approximately 260 degrees (i.e. looking into the sun), climbing to 8500 having departed from an ALA/Multicom some 20nm to the East of aircraft "A"s track.
Aircraft "A" is monitoring the local area frequency, and only has one VHF comm and one HF. Aircraft "B" has two VHF comm radios plus HF, and gives all necessary calls on the Multicom frequency, advising tracking details and altitude on climb to. Aircraft "B" then makes an "All-stations" broadcast on the area frequency when approximately 10nm from departure aerodrome, advising positon, altitiude and tracking details. Aircraft "A" hears this, and advises "B" of their position, altitude and tracking details. Aircraft "B" makes the decision to level the climb at 5500' until they are visually clear. Aircraft "A" acknowledges.
Aircraft "B" sights and passes directly under "A" by 1000', and acknowledges so, then continues climb to 8500'.
The pilot of Aircraft "B" sees the pilot of "A" the next day at another airfield and comments that he did not have "A" visual until the very last moment because of haze/sun, despite being aware of "A"s approximate position and positively looking for traffic in the area.
Is this not good airmanship? It blocks the area frequency for probably a total of 15 secs at the very most. The aircraft were obviously on conflicting tracks and passed directly under each other.
With NAS, would this exchange have taken place on 123.45 or some other frequency?
Thoughts/comments?
TL
The setting is NW WA, late afternoon, VMC exists but visibility slightly reduced due smoke haze. Two VFR aircraft - aircraft "A" a single with a TAS of around 150kts, tracking roughly 200 degrees, maintaining 6500'. The other aircraft "B" a twin with a TAS of 175kts is tracking approximately 260 degrees (i.e. looking into the sun), climbing to 8500 having departed from an ALA/Multicom some 20nm to the East of aircraft "A"s track.
Aircraft "A" is monitoring the local area frequency, and only has one VHF comm and one HF. Aircraft "B" has two VHF comm radios plus HF, and gives all necessary calls on the Multicom frequency, advising tracking details and altitude on climb to. Aircraft "B" then makes an "All-stations" broadcast on the area frequency when approximately 10nm from departure aerodrome, advising positon, altitiude and tracking details. Aircraft "A" hears this, and advises "B" of their position, altitude and tracking details. Aircraft "B" makes the decision to level the climb at 5500' until they are visually clear. Aircraft "A" acknowledges.
Aircraft "B" sights and passes directly under "A" by 1000', and acknowledges so, then continues climb to 8500'.
The pilot of Aircraft "B" sees the pilot of "A" the next day at another airfield and comments that he did not have "A" visual until the very last moment because of haze/sun, despite being aware of "A"s approximate position and positively looking for traffic in the area.
Is this not good airmanship? It blocks the area frequency for probably a total of 15 secs at the very most. The aircraft were obviously on conflicting tracks and passed directly under each other.
With NAS, would this exchange have taken place on 123.45 or some other frequency?
Thoughts/comments?
TL
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TL.
Obviuosly, under NAS, as both are VFR in enroute airspace, they won't be using the radio. Relative speeds, angles of attack, sun, haze etc have nothing to do with it. The primary, secondary and be-all-and-end-all method of missing is see and avoid.
The NASites will argue that in that scenario, would the aircraft have actually collided? The answer is: Probably not. Even if they miss by a foot, they didn't collide. But you roll the dice enough times, you get double 6, or in this case 666. This doesn't seem to bother them.
Some of the rest of us might like more than a bee's dick between us and a horrible, unnecessary death.
The very scenario you describe is what Dick & co. rave on about. Unnecessary use of the radio. In their opinion. Read Dick's posts. VFR aircraft shouldn't be talking on the radio. This is the philosophy driving NAS, and about to be visited upon all airspace users, like it or not. Do you get a feeling for where some of the opposition is coming from now?
eta23. ATC jobs my arse! Controllers won't be the ones doing the crashing. NFI, mate, NFI.
Obviuosly, under NAS, as both are VFR in enroute airspace, they won't be using the radio. Relative speeds, angles of attack, sun, haze etc have nothing to do with it. The primary, secondary and be-all-and-end-all method of missing is see and avoid.
The NASites will argue that in that scenario, would the aircraft have actually collided? The answer is: Probably not. Even if they miss by a foot, they didn't collide. But you roll the dice enough times, you get double 6, or in this case 666. This doesn't seem to bother them.
Some of the rest of us might like more than a bee's dick between us and a horrible, unnecessary death.The very scenario you describe is what Dick & co. rave on about. Unnecessary use of the radio. In their opinion. Read Dick's posts. VFR aircraft shouldn't be talking on the radio. This is the philosophy driving NAS, and about to be visited upon all airspace users, like it or not. Do you get a feeling for where some of the opposition is coming from now?
eta23. ATC jobs my arse! Controllers won't be the ones doing the crashing. NFI, mate, NFI.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ugly: the docs linked to above were to the CivilAir website, so probably not much point venting your anti-BillGates spleen here on the subject And even if you "don't want to make Bill Gates rich" you can probably read the above docs using OpenOffice for free anyway.
Transition Layer and ferris: Isn't it suggested that you tune to the relevant aerodrome frequencies (typically 126.7 I think) near to your track when en route for this reason? So instead of broadcasting the impending departure to the whole region on the area frequency, aircraft B's initial call would have been on the CTAF (say) and if aircraft A was employing good airmanship he would've been monitoring same whilst passing nearby.
This is how it works in many places - here in the UK, for example, if in class G and flying nearby to an airfield en route at low-ish levels, and if you were not in receipt of some other traffic service (e.g. LARS), one might typically tune the TWR, AFIS or RADIO frequency when within say 10 miles or so. I just don't see how doing this on an AREA frequency instead (I guess that would be equivalent to say LONDON INFORMATION which covers the whole of England practically) has any advantage?
(Note that England is a fraction of the size of the East Pilbara Shire in the NW of WA in which I once resided - not that its relevant, but still ...
)
Moreover, think how much safer the scenario you describe would be if both a/c were transponding Mode-C (at least) and if at least one of them had a TCAS display (can be included even with relatively cheap gear like GNS-430 these days). If such were common fit, then it would seem to make even less sense to to tie up an AREA frequency and other people's time hundred's of miles away with the transmissions you describe.
That's my thoughts anyway...
Andy
And even if you "don't want to make Bill Gates rich" you can probably read the above docs using OpenOffice for free anyway.Transition Layer and ferris: Isn't it suggested that you tune to the relevant aerodrome frequencies (typically 126.7 I think) near to your track when en route for this reason? So instead of broadcasting the impending departure to the whole region on the area frequency, aircraft B's initial call would have been on the CTAF (say) and if aircraft A was employing good airmanship he would've been monitoring same whilst passing nearby.
This is how it works in many places - here in the UK, for example, if in class G and flying nearby to an airfield en route at low-ish levels, and if you were not in receipt of some other traffic service (e.g. LARS), one might typically tune the TWR, AFIS or RADIO frequency when within say 10 miles or so. I just don't see how doing this on an AREA frequency instead (I guess that would be equivalent to say LONDON INFORMATION which covers the whole of England practically) has any advantage?
(Note that England is a fraction of the size of the East Pilbara Shire in the NW of WA in which I once resided - not that its relevant, but still ...
)Moreover, think how much safer the scenario you describe would be if both a/c were transponding Mode-C (at least) and if at least one of them had a TCAS display (can be included even with relatively cheap gear like GNS-430 these days). If such were common fit, then it would seem to make even less sense to to tie up an AREA frequency and other people's time hundred's of miles away with the transmissions you describe.
That's my thoughts anyway...
Andy
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coral
I suspect the intended end result of the NAS will be fewer controllers. The controllers have obviously figured this out.
I'm not the least bit surprised at what their trade union is doing.
What it doesn't have is anything to do with air safety despite the bleatings emanating from various so called "professionals" here and elswhere.
The biggest threat to air safety after Nov 27th will be from the unprofessional behaviour of controllers and pilots opposed to the new system because for once they won't have got their own way.
Interestingly, I was in the US not long after Reagan fired all the controllers in 1981. I heard not one word of sympathy for them from any of the aviation people I talked to ranging from soaring pilots to commercial charter operators, airline employees, military, NASA etc. This was in the US where the controllers are actually friendly and helpful.
I suspect the intended end result of the NAS will be fewer controllers. The controllers have obviously figured this out.
I'm not the least bit surprised at what their trade union is doing.
What it doesn't have is anything to do with air safety despite the bleatings emanating from various so called "professionals" here and elswhere.
The biggest threat to air safety after Nov 27th will be from the unprofessional behaviour of controllers and pilots opposed to the new system because for once they won't have got their own way.
Interestingly, I was in the US not long after Reagan fired all the controllers in 1981. I heard not one word of sympathy for them from any of the aviation people I talked to ranging from soaring pilots to commercial charter operators, airline employees, military, NASA etc. This was in the US where the controllers are actually friendly and helpful.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ugly: the docs linked to above were to the CivilAir website, so probably not much point venting your anti-BillGates spleen here on the subject And even if you "don't want to make Bill Gates rich" you can probably read the above docs using OpenOffice for free anyway.
M$ Office or OpenOffice - still a bloody slow way to read something that should be html or pdf.
The docs were in closed topics on civilair forum so couldn't reply there - I was hoping the poster might occsionally visit here ...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not one controller worth his or her salt will ever behave unprofessionally. I for one will professionally and safely deliver whatever service I'm required to provide.
It's probably been said before (not a regular reader of the NAS threads) but I'm afraid it will probably take an incident post 27/11 for a rollback of airspace and procedures. I suspect this will be east-coast closish to capital city in high density VFR areas.
ps/ it might be the PCs that i use, but PDF files take a lot longer to load than word docs.
It's probably been said before (not a regular reader of the NAS threads) but I'm afraid it will probably take an incident post 27/11 for a rollback of airspace and procedures. I suspect this will be east-coast closish to capital city in high density VFR areas.
ps/ it might be the PCs that i use, but PDF files take a lot longer to load than word docs.
Open Mike is being grilled by the Senate Committee as we speak. Go here: http://www.aph.gov.au/live/webcast1.asp
and pick the link to the Senate Committee and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport broadcast
and pick the link to the Senate Committee and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport broadcast
I'm an RPT pilot. Received my "Pilot Pack" yesterday in the mail. Frankly, I'm stunned. This airspace system means RPT flying is less safe than before. I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise. Passengers flying on RPT aircraft in Australia are being exposed to a less safe system. This is despite Mike Smith's assertion at the start of the glossy:
"And most importantly, [the current airspace system] does not deliver the level of safety that could be achieved by adopting a system designed to world's best practice"
What an obscure statement. He is trying to create the impression that the new system is safer. However the statement can really be read two ways: and one way is that the new level of safety achieved could actually be lower. It doesn't say the level of safety achieved is actually higher!! So I'll say it again: this is a less safe system for RPT passengers. Someone explain to me otherwise.
B747's, 767's, 737's, 717's now mixing it in Class E airspace with unknown, unnotified VFR traffic. Reliant on the VFR bloke remembering to turn his transponder on. Or we have to look out the window whilst doing 330kts and 4500 fpm descent, see a guy and manoeuvre to avoid hitting him? Pleeeeease.... And he may not even be on the same radio frequency. One of my near misses in a former life was in Class E airspace off the coast of L.A. Controller tried to advise us but got stepped on..... He managed to get an urgent heading change to us at the last second - as the TCAS went off.... Hmmm, Class E, great system of airspace..... right....
Yes, Duff Man, what's it going to take....?
"And most importantly, [the current airspace system] does not deliver the level of safety that could be achieved by adopting a system designed to world's best practice"
What an obscure statement. He is trying to create the impression that the new system is safer. However the statement can really be read two ways: and one way is that the new level of safety achieved could actually be lower. It doesn't say the level of safety achieved is actually higher!! So I'll say it again: this is a less safe system for RPT passengers. Someone explain to me otherwise.
B747's, 767's, 737's, 717's now mixing it in Class E airspace with unknown, unnotified VFR traffic. Reliant on the VFR bloke remembering to turn his transponder on. Or we have to look out the window whilst doing 330kts and 4500 fpm descent, see a guy and manoeuvre to avoid hitting him? Pleeeeease.... And he may not even be on the same radio frequency. One of my near misses in a former life was in Class E airspace off the coast of L.A. Controller tried to advise us but got stepped on..... He managed to get an urgent heading change to us at the last second - as the TCAS went off.... Hmmm, Class E, great system of airspace..... right....
Yes, Duff Man, what's it going to take....?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be afraid
Just having a read of the "Propaganda Pack".
- They say "There is a suite of tools to assist see and avoid, which includes flying at correct hemispherical levels, radio, use of lights, TCAS and ATC Radar"
I am sorry for the VFR pilots out there in GA world, because when descending from FL 180 in E space,in a PC9, IFR, My lights are not on (attached to the gear( gear speed is 150kts)),I don't have TCAS, and I am descending at 250kts+and about 4000FPM. Single pilot, no autopilot, and yet be able to see and avoid other VFR traffic. Yeah Right.
Bring on the Near Misses!
- They say "There is a suite of tools to assist see and avoid, which includes flying at correct hemispherical levels, radio, use of lights, TCAS and ATC Radar"
I am sorry for the VFR pilots out there in GA world, because when descending from FL 180 in E space,in a PC9, IFR, My lights are not on (attached to the gear( gear speed is 150kts)),I don't have TCAS, and I am descending at 250kts+and about 4000FPM. Single pilot, no autopilot, and yet be able to see and avoid other VFR traffic. Yeah Right.
Bring on the Near Misses!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,967
Received 93 Likes
on
54 Posts
Just my 10 toea worth;
As an unemployed CPL with background in Charter and RPT; Recieved my pilot pack yesterday. Very nicely laid out, glossy\expensive etc. Read and ''inwardly digested" same.
Could someone please inform me why I have feelings of trepidation?
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
As an unemployed CPL with background in Charter and RPT; Recieved my pilot pack yesterday. Very nicely laid out, glossy\expensive etc. Read and ''inwardly digested" same.
Could someone please inform me why I have feelings of trepidation?
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A disaster waiting to happen.
The first paragraph on the page titled "WHY CHANGE?" in the flashy propaganda booklet sums it all up.
We're going back to the good ole days.
But how does that tie in with;
Pages describing effective scanning techniques including "having a clean windscreen" and "avoid high traffic areas" show that this new airspace model is a joke.
Situational awareness through listening to the radio is a lot easier than scanning a windscreen from left to right for hours at a time.
What are VFR pilot going to think now? Turn the transponder on, listen to 121.5 and plough on up into it.
When the blood spills as a result of this inadequate, outdated and unsafe system where will the blame lay?
The first paragraph on the page titled "WHY CHANGE?" in the flashy propaganda booklet sums it all up.
Until the 1920s, pioneer Australian aviators flew "by the seat of their pants" - without air traffic control and with no radio contact with the ground
...some area frequencies and all boundary information has been removed from the charts. This reduces chart clutter and is consistent with a much greater emphasis on monitoring a range of appropriate frequencies...
Constantly monitoring an ATC frequency, where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area
Situational awareness through listening to the radio is a lot easier than scanning a windscreen from left to right for hours at a time.
What are VFR pilot going to think now? Turn the transponder on, listen to 121.5 and plough on up into it.
When the blood spills as a result of this inadequate, outdated and unsafe system where will the blame lay?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the debate - we have been trying to get pilots involved in opposing this in its current design for months but to no avail. Read the now closed NAS thread - nobody seems to see the madness.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It I suppose makes some sense that most pilots did not really have an opinion until now. We at ATC have had these procedures and all of the paper work for quite a while and have been able to see the idiocy as it unfolded. Pilots have only recently received their info and from the new arrivals here are now adding to the growing concern.
Lets check a few things off here.
ATC don't think it is safe
Pilots do not think it is safe
A growing band of the Public (via their representatives) do not think it is safe.
NO JOBS WILL BE LOST FROM THE WORKFACE
THE TRAINING COST IS MASSIVE
So we have all the users and the customers saying it is not safe. Can someone tell me why we are doing this if it saves no money but costs lots for a degredation of service?
Lets check a few things off here.
ATC don't think it is safe
Pilots do not think it is safe
A growing band of the Public (via their representatives) do not think it is safe.
NO JOBS WILL BE LOST FROM THE WORKFACE
THE TRAINING COST IS MASSIVE
So we have all the users and the customers saying it is not safe. Can someone tell me why we are doing this if it saves no money but costs lots for a degredation of service?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Eta23 and Bill Pike
Please answer those concerns just voiced by the pilots above. Eta23 you may hate controllers because of your lost flight plan, but there are a lot of guys out there flying for a living who appreciate what we do, and most importantly agree that the new system and the new charts are a joke (a very dangerous joke). So please respond, and try going the issues not the man. Also if you are able try and place yourself in a real pilots shoes and try and see there genuine concerns.
Those guys aren't trying to save there jobs, as you like to say, so why oh why are they agreeing with us that the system is more dangerous???
Those guys aren't trying to save there jobs, as you like to say, so why oh why are they agreeing with us that the system is more dangerous???
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's suddenly clicked.
Take the above quote in the context of Airservices' TCU Integration project. Common thread? An incompetant department of transport? A minister being used as a puppet? Spare me the conspiracy theories but something is seriously wrong in this industry right now. I just hope ABC's Four Corners are starting their research now, it'll sure be a big story in the next few months. Oh, but I guess the old ABC bias chestnut will be trotted out. As chestnuts do.
ATC don't think it is safe
Pilots do not think it is safe
A growing band of the Public (via their representatives) do not think it is safe.
NO JOBS WILL BE LOST FROM THE WORKFACE
THE TRAINING COST IS MASSIVE
Pilots do not think it is safe
A growing band of the Public (via their representatives) do not think it is safe.
NO JOBS WILL BE LOST FROM THE WORKFACE
THE TRAINING COST IS MASSIVE
Than proof Hansard of the Senate Committee’s hearing will be put here, within the next couple of days: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/s-rrat.htm
Search for “04/11/03” at that link, later today or tomorrow.
Interesting evidence by ATSB on the Whyalla tragedy, BTW.
Search for “04/11/03” at that link, later today or tomorrow.
Interesting evidence by ATSB on the Whyalla tragedy, BTW.
Grandpa Aerotart
****su tonka I think I've been on here for a while voicing a pilot's concern over this debacle
As stated above, pilots have only recieved, until the last 36 hours, small piecemeal snippets of 'education' on NAS. I recieved mine last Monday and have been reading it off and on since.
Let me first say the education package is truly impressive...oh that we had been given it three months ago. But then I suspect the result would have been more informed opposition to those aspects which are not terribly well thought out. Hardly what NASIG would have wanted!!
Big shame the effort hasn't been put into education on a airspace system which is inclusive of ALL airspace users and one that the majority of regular users believe is an improvement on what we had.
It's fairly obvious that the BIG winners in NAS is the VFR end of the industry, and if you read the education package from that narrow perspective it's all good news.
As an aircraft owner who frequently flies VFR I can see that being able to overfly class D at 4500 is kinda cool. But then I used to happily do that anyway...all it took was "Maroochy Tower, ABC, Moffet Head, 2500, tracking coastal north bound, request airways clearance"
Class C was/is no more dramatic, I just file a flightplan before leaving home...takes several minutes...big f**king deal!!!
We're told that NAS means a massive increase in Controlled airspace with it's attendant 'increased' levels of service. Well maybe but when is CTA not CTA. From VFR pilot's point of view it's a massive decrease in CTA with an attendant decrease in service.
I drew rye satisfaction from the "Let's Go Flying-Case Study". Having told us ad-nauseum that VFR should avoid IFR routes they actually managed to find two points not joined by an IFR route, I wonder how long that took. Two points among a spider web of IFR routes...man I just hope none of the pilots at Armidale or Gunnedah want to fly to Narrabri, Quirindi, Tamworth etc.
And on page 45 the picture of the single engine aircraft superimposed on the TAC/ERC under the heading how to use them...wandering northbound miles to the east of the IFR Route.
No real probems with the little 'frequency bubbles'..I'm used to that using Jepps on International flying...but then I'm not worried about looking outside at FL370 while I search half the chart to find the next frequency I need...and usually trying more than one to get two way comms!
TCAS has now been elevated from last ditch collision avoidance to, along with looking out the window, a primary self seperation tool. What a shame that a significant % of IFR aircraft aren't fitted. But that's OK affordable safety means that B717 etc don't hit anything....must be deemed affordable if a B200/C441/B58 etc clean up a non reported VFR, with his head down searching for the frequency 'good airmanship' now dictates he should be monitoring.
TCAS WAS NEVER DESIGNED AS A PRIMARY SEPARATION TOOL!!
VFR pilot's seem to now require, on top of WACs etc, a set of IFR charts and approach plates...not that they will be allowed to access the information therein to enhance the safety levels of their own operation...just so they can stay away from airspace which encompasses approaches used by IFR traffic.
Now I carry my Jepps on every flight, because I'm Instrument rated and may need them/do use them, but they're not cheap...do we really believe the average VFR pilot will be flying with current IAL information? Given the continued rhetoric from AOPA about they're not paying for this and that I hardly think so.
From an IFR pilot's point of view, particularly High Capacity RPT pilots, Australian airspace is about to become a scarier place.
So many gains for VFR users, who pay (virtually) nothing towards the systems upkeep. No gains but, arguably, less safety for IFR users who do pay.
Looks to me as though Professor Reason's Swiss cheese slices are lining up just a little better
Chuck.
As stated above, pilots have only recieved, until the last 36 hours, small piecemeal snippets of 'education' on NAS. I recieved mine last Monday and have been reading it off and on since.
Let me first say the education package is truly impressive...oh that we had been given it three months ago. But then I suspect the result would have been more informed opposition to those aspects which are not terribly well thought out. Hardly what NASIG would have wanted!!
Big shame the effort hasn't been put into education on a airspace system which is inclusive of ALL airspace users and one that the majority of regular users believe is an improvement on what we had.
It's fairly obvious that the BIG winners in NAS is the VFR end of the industry, and if you read the education package from that narrow perspective it's all good news.
As an aircraft owner who frequently flies VFR I can see that being able to overfly class D at 4500 is kinda cool. But then I used to happily do that anyway...all it took was "Maroochy Tower, ABC, Moffet Head, 2500, tracking coastal north bound, request airways clearance"
Class C was/is no more dramatic, I just file a flightplan before leaving home...takes several minutes...big f**king deal!!!
We're told that NAS means a massive increase in Controlled airspace with it's attendant 'increased' levels of service. Well maybe but when is CTA not CTA. From VFR pilot's point of view it's a massive decrease in CTA with an attendant decrease in service.
I drew rye satisfaction from the "Let's Go Flying-Case Study". Having told us ad-nauseum that VFR should avoid IFR routes they actually managed to find two points not joined by an IFR route, I wonder how long that took. Two points among a spider web of IFR routes...man I just hope none of the pilots at Armidale or Gunnedah want to fly to Narrabri, Quirindi, Tamworth etc.
And on page 45 the picture of the single engine aircraft superimposed on the TAC/ERC under the heading how to use them...wandering northbound miles to the east of the IFR Route.
No real probems with the little 'frequency bubbles'..I'm used to that using Jepps on International flying...but then I'm not worried about looking outside at FL370 while I search half the chart to find the next frequency I need...and usually trying more than one to get two way comms!
TCAS has now been elevated from last ditch collision avoidance to, along with looking out the window, a primary self seperation tool. What a shame that a significant % of IFR aircraft aren't fitted. But that's OK affordable safety means that B717 etc don't hit anything....must be deemed affordable if a B200/C441/B58 etc clean up a non reported VFR, with his head down searching for the frequency 'good airmanship' now dictates he should be monitoring.
TCAS WAS NEVER DESIGNED AS A PRIMARY SEPARATION TOOL!!
VFR pilot's seem to now require, on top of WACs etc, a set of IFR charts and approach plates...not that they will be allowed to access the information therein to enhance the safety levels of their own operation...just so they can stay away from airspace which encompasses approaches used by IFR traffic.
Now I carry my Jepps on every flight, because I'm Instrument rated and may need them/do use them, but they're not cheap...do we really believe the average VFR pilot will be flying with current IAL information? Given the continued rhetoric from AOPA about they're not paying for this and that I hardly think so.
From an IFR pilot's point of view, particularly High Capacity RPT pilots, Australian airspace is about to become a scarier place.
So many gains for VFR users, who pay (virtually) nothing towards the systems upkeep. No gains but, arguably, less safety for IFR users who do pay.
Looks to me as though Professor Reason's Swiss cheese slices are lining up just a little better
Chuck.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got my pilot pack......... what a load of propagander and rubbish. I am now being ordered to fly around like the half licensed cockies in unserviced machines that have no idea whats going on in the real world, that we all rubbish.
If they ever had to change the globes in my aircraft they would never tell us to keep our lights on either.
What an expensive load of unnecessary bolloks.
If they ever had to change the globes in my aircraft they would never tell us to keep our lights on either.
What an expensive load of unnecessary bolloks.