Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

NAS Frequency Boundaries continued.

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

NAS Frequency Boundaries continued.

Old 13th Nov 2003, 11:26
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
plazbot

Yup, just as I read it too. No mention of avoiding routes, because on routes we have altitude separation.

Why someone would be doing a GPS approach in VMC without a good lookout still baffles me though.

That said, I am fast forming the view, and this view is infulenced by AOPA member views on the AOPA forum, that we need freqs on V-charts and that the NAS education process leaves a lot to be desired.

AK

www.aopa.com.au
snarek is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 11:46
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,781
Snarek you have done exactly what Mike Smith did in the Senate hearing, ignored Climb & Descent...

Yup, just as I read it too. No mention of avoiding routes, because on routes we have altitude separation.
You need to update your documents I think...

The smart thing (which we probably all do anyway) is, if VFR in VMC avoid non-quadrantal in E or G above LSALT. But then, if it is VMC why fly 'on the dials'???
I use hemispherical and all it guarantees is that the two aircraft will collide at an angle less than 179 degrees from one another. I gave you more credit than that. One aircraft tracking 330 and one tracking 240...... how does hemispherical help prevent a mid air? Please enlighten me?!
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 11:54
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Icarus

Oh yeah, forgot about those millions of midairs every day for the past 40 years while flying hemis 'OCTA'

Besides, if you are on a 'route' your argument has always been everyone else will be following it. Make up yer mind!!!

By routes, I also mean on track flying hemis. In descent I would use the CTAF anyway, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see area and approach on V-Charts.

can we stop nit-picking the argument now and concentrate on basics???

AK

Last edited by snarek; 13th Nov 2003 at 12:19.
snarek is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 12:04
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YSBK
Posts: 45
snarek, I see they give you a hard time here too just like on AGACF

Keep your head up.
Piper Arrow is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 12:16
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,781
I don't believe i am nit picking I think I am talking about the basics. As I fly in and out of cloud are you saying I should take comfort because I am hemispherical and therefore 500 feet from opposite direction VFR traffic but at the same level as same direction traffic from the same hemisphere?

For Mr Smith to answer in the Senate hearing in a way that made the hemispherical rule sound like a cure all for conflicts was scandalous. Almost as scandalous as him explaining that the reason we need to stop people talking on the radio is frequency clutter....which was engineered by design (AsA) by pairing disparate frequencies from different ends of the country. So he plans to fix a problem that AsA themselves caused!

Have you ever had a close encounter with another aircraft on a similar track whereby your closing angle and speed is low and a door pillar or similar is in the way then as you shuffle in your seat you catch sight of the aircraft? Well I have and it was very scarey. The hemispherical rule was and is not sufficient especially for climb and descent.

Pilot's need to know which frequency to use in which area, whether they talk is a mute point. What about SAR alerting methods when the cabin fills with smoke which frequency do you call on? The CTAF? Or perhaps 121.5 mhz which as it is guarded may be of limited help but since AsA do not monitor or record that frequency there will be no playback facility available to ATC and therefore SAR authorities so that the unclear location given in a hurried Mayday call may be lost in to space.

As I keep saying where is the motivation for the changes as we now know they may cost MORE MONEY than the present system.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 12:22
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Piper

At least here it don't get personal and noone is asking me to waste my time rolling their toilet paper for them

Besides, some of the opinion here (not there) is valid

Icarus

the basics. As I fly in and out of cloud are you saying I should take comfort because I am hemispherical and therefore 500 feet from opposite direction VFR traffic
Well you will be fine then. If you are above LSALT in most of Oz the VFR will be AT LEAST 1000' feet away, if you are in cloud.

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 14:48
  #67 (permalink)  
PPruNaholic!
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 57
Posts: 1,615
"avoid when practicable"
is obviously different to
"must remain clear"
...but if it makes people feel more excited by exagerating each point and whipping yourselves into a frenzy, then I guess thats fine too
Aussie Andy is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 15:33
  #68 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
snarek the 'educational' material says avoid IFR routes...my understanding of an IFR route is any two airfields/navaids joined on an ERC/Jepp by a blue line with track/distance/lsalt info.

Now you and I know that is a rediculous proposition. But clearly the NASIG doesn't...they must expect VFR aircraft to tack along track

I mentioned this in more than one post weeks & weeks ago. Just one more example of a badly thought out system where they are trying to bandaid fix their own f**kups.

Clearly the enroute climb and descent phase of flight is being ignored as plain inconveniant.

Yes Minister!!!!

23 years ago when was learning air navigation I was shown a RNC and told to use it as a flight planning tool as often as possible...I was told fly in controlled airspace when available...this was all described as good airmanship and showed a professional attitude.

My how times have changed!!!

Had a chance to peruse a new VTC today....for chist sake put the fu**ing frequencies back, for PPL holders who only fly occassionally it's beyond a joke. They'll now have to carry ERC as well.

Chuck
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 15:54
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Smile

I gotta write me a book on PPRuNe solecisms and malapropisms.
whether they talk is a mute point.
That is a work of art. Ironically, I’m speechless.

Seriously though: welcome back Icarus2001.

And a warning to all: this debate is bordering on civilised and objective. Childish it up a bit, please!
Creampuff is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 16:57
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Once more into the fray !!

Four Seven Eleven, you state:

"I am at a loss as to what economic or other benefit will be achieved by exposing a B747 on descent into Sydney, or a B717 climbing out of Hobart, to the possibility of unknown, non-communication traffic, where a full separation service currently exists."

Economic benefit? Perhaps it's saving VFR aircraft from flying large extra distances over tiger country when denied a clearance into non-radar terminal Class C.

Let's look at an example. A VFR aircraft is tracking at 8,500' overhead Launceston, Hobart to Port Davy in south-west Tasmania, where it requires a clearance into the Hobart Class C procedural airspace. What does the controller do when there is already an RPT jet descending into Hobart from the north? As the separation standard is, I believe, something like 10 minutes or 30 miles ( plus a bit for Mum and the kids) for a Baron doing 180 knots, the VFR aircraft cannot normally be given a radial or a DME distance or a geographical fix to track by, surely the standard thing would be for the air traffic controller to tell the VFR aircraft - perhaps a commercial charter operator to "remain OCTA". That, is indeed, what normally happens, large extra distances are flown, while totally extraordinary separation standards from the 1940s are kept.

I haven’t checked the schedules for the Apple Ilse for a while, but I recall that tower hours did not always cover RPT movements, and the RPT operators were more than somewhat disinclined to pay to have the tower hours extended, when commercial demand changed the airline schedules. So much for the Class C or whatever protection as an article of faith.

I've seen it happen at Wagga before the tower was removed and currently at Tamworth, ie VFR aircraft are told to remain OCTA and fly very substantial extra distances because Class C terminal airspace is actually designed for a radar environment. It happens to me continually at Coffs Harbour, if there is an RPT movement, the alternative, really long delays or an invitation to disappear off towards the high ground. I am still conservative enough that I carefully consider where I fly single engine. The probability of an engine failure is several orders of magnitude more likely than an “in air encounter”.

Former CEO of Air Services, Bill Pollard, after a third glass of red, often warmed to a favorite subject, why on earth we wanted to have all the inflexibility of trying to use a “radar” class of airspace, C, without radar, particularly with the miniscule local traffic levels.

It is the miniscule traffic level that is the reason why there are not totally unacceptable commercial delays.

So there you have it, the reason it works at all is the same reason it’s not needed, there’s sod all traffic (by real world standards) in this (and most other Australian) airspace.

Straight out of the ACT Textbook, "Alice in Wonderland".

Tootle pip !!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 19:59
  #71 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Does QLD have a textbook as well? Cos thats where I live.
tobzalp is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2003, 21:58
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
Beware the Jabberwock - the jaws that bite, the claws that snatch

Why someone would be doing a GPS approach in VMC without a good lookout still baffles me though
Bon Jour my flatulent friends. Weeks have passed and PPRuNe has not graced my electronic link with the world due to rapid apathy escalation as the NAS witching hour approaches.

AK's comment above. What can I say? I worked GAAP for a while and lots of enroute before and after and one thing stands proud in my memories. A pilot's job is to take an Air Traffic Controller's licence from him or her. (Hmm is that it?)

OK, it's an obvious over-dramatisation to make a point. Old controllers, like parents, scare young controllers into submission to the social norms by continual brainwashing and psychological torture - or is that just me? The standard in the industry should be "Treat everyone else as an idiot - check everything". Lots of people stuff up and this game is one where other people's mistakes can cost you your life. There are lots of people flying in 8 OKTAS of blue who do instrument approaches for fun or practice and my experience is that if they're learning or out of recency they're pretty busy concentrating on the instruments. I've sat with pilots sh!tting bricks over a difficult approach when I can see for 100nm through the impeccably clean windscreen 1 foot in front of me, even with my dodgy radar screen myopia. For some reason it's sometime more real when you're doing it for practice.

I've seen near mid-airs in the circuit when pilots have told me they're following number 1 because the trainee was under the hood. If they're busy inside they're not maintaining the best watch outside. Every capital city has a reasonable amount of instrument training occurring within the 30 - 50 odd mile range of the primary airport and there are plenty of regional locations with the same happening there. Sorry Snarek, it's not isolated and it's not mitigated against by reducing the frequency monitoring requirements.

Damn, I swore I wouldn't try and use reason any more...
DickyBaby is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2003, 02:20
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
From experience - one man's VMC is another's - " I'll just fly around/over/under this cloud." OR "I can see the ground - It's VMC"

I queried Mr. M. Smiths statement from Hansard :

The service provided by air traffic control in class E airspace is separation for instrument flight rules aircraft from other instrument flight rules aircraft and from known visual flight rules aircraft."
Reply
Senator (******) referred your email to the NAS Implementation Group. Please be advised that Mike Smith was accurate in his comments re VFR flights because he refers to KNOWN VFR flights.

In the circumstance where a VFR is known and looks to be in conflict with an IFR, ATC will provide a traffic advisory to both aircraft but with no guarantee that the VFR will hear so the focus will always be on the IFR aircraft.
What th'??? Para. 2 is so pathetic, it's laughable.

snarek you may be a nice bloke and a great aviator, but a little naive in regard to this issue. Please include brianh in this evaluation.

CG
Chief galah is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2003, 03:56
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,781
Creampuff Thank you for noticing.

Snarek An interesting point you make. Indeed if I am in and out of cloud VFR may be 1000' away, however because of the rule changes in the early 1990's, below 3000'AMSL VFR may fly with their tail fin in the cloud. CLEAR of CLOUD operations are ONLY permitted with the carriage and use of VHF radio. Now how will that help if the VFR pilot does not know what frequency to listen for IFR traffic? I thought it was a silly exemption when it came out and my opinion hasn't changed. IFR aircraft talk in IFR reporting points, DME distance, radials etc which are often meaningless to VFR guys or at best unuseable, so even on the same frequency it is a poor mitigator.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2003, 04:00
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
possibly so

CG

I may be a bit naive, I have only been flying a tad over 20 years and, until recently, VFR.

But (and I'm agreeing with Chucles a bit now) I usually only listen on the radio and squark when things get 5 mileish.

So, that said I'd probably prefer to see area freqs on V-Charts. I DETEST the ERSA!!! Bulky and only 1/20th as useful as the AOPA AFD!!!! I don't want to be constantly fishing this BRICK outa my bag on the back seat and looking through it WHEN I SHOULD BE LOOKING OUTSIDE!!!

I am baffled as to why App has gone from said charts. Tell me exaulted and un-naive ATCers, won't that stuff things up more 'on the airbands'???

(Prolly OK for those of you swanning it in Cbr, Coffs and Hamilton Is, but what about the boys and gals in Cairns???).

Edited to say ... Icarus, you show me somewhere with high traffic density where the LSALT is below 3000'. Otherwise you is on the CTAF and there should be comms (even without the freqs, which I query above).

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2003, 07:59
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
I'm amazed that this topic still attracts debate.

After reading the education material recently received, it has become painfully clear to me that these changes are [email protected]#ing dangerous.

I'm single pilot IFR all the time in twin turbo prop aircraft into all classes of airspace, and the possibility of redecorating my windscreen with unknown VFR traffic maintaining radio silence on ATC freqs seriously concerns me. It's bad enough as it is trying to get some aircraft to talk to you about where they are and what they're doing. These changes simply promote radio silence serving to compound an already dangerous situation, now forcing me to take a spare pair of undies when ever i fly (IF i fly, beyond 27 Nov.)

It should also be very worrying to VFR pilots aswell but for some reason, reading this topic, I don't get that impression.
Bargearse is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2003, 12:26
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Bargey,

I think the concept is if I'm VFR I can avoid the others, I'm skilled and it's in my ineterest to avoid hitting others.

Until the first Cessna or Piper gets cleaned up or knocked over by wake by a high performance aircraft coming up behind the normal visual range, i.e not from the front 160 degrees, it will never be a problem, but the rear not in normal vision 200; even with head turning.

The fishing out ERSA, AIP, ERC-L instead of the VTC, to find the frequency... changing the CD, keeping the kids quiet etc. will not be distracting from the task at hand...

Bottle of Rum.

Where are the 'special Qantas changes'?
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2003, 13:18
  #78 (permalink)  
PPruNaholic!
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 57
Posts: 1,615
Bargearse: are you sure that the present system of chatter on very wide area frequencies is what is "protecting" you now? I think this is not at all clear, and may be a false sense of comfort..?
Aussie Andy is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2003, 10:32
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Lets just assume for a moment everything is fine about NAS....

That is, E airspace is an acceptable airspace to have jets on climb out of Sydney and Melbourne and also on descent. Lets just say that the whole idea of the new airspace design is hunky dory.

Just taking the frequency on charts issue in isolation, it worries me that the designers of this whole thing have cut off their nose to spite their face. I can see that their first priority in all this is to stop VFR broadcasts on ATC frequencys. They have said this is the case, they do not want unneccesary broadcasts on ATC frequencys, and their opinion is all VFR calls other than an emergency is unneccesary.

To encourage this change in pilot culture they have changed the charts so the VFR guys will have trouble finding the ATC frequencys hence making them less inclined to make broadcasts. Problem is the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

One thing more important than VFR broadcasts in E airspace is that VFR monitoring the frequency. This is a real safety issue, as I wouldn't really mind not having VFR broadcasts made, but when I see an unidentified VFR paint I think may be an issue for an aircraft I am controlling, it is a great relief to get contact with that VFR and find out his intentions, so I can pass those on to the IFR guy. Nothing worse than passing traffic to a guy, only to have the other guy start to change level, or make a sharp turn, contradicting what you've just told your guy.

So my question, just like everyone else is, if you are going to introduce more E airspace, and place more separation responsibilty onto these VFR pilots, shouldn't we be encouraging them to be able to at least hear if not talk to the IFR guys in the same airspace. Instead we hide all the frequencys???????

Aussie Andy, the present system of chatter on wide area frequencys only came about because of the first step towards affordable safety. That was the killing of flight service. This is just another step towards Dicks end state of affordable safety. All I can say is the wide area frequency chatter, has saved pilots backsides on occasions. And you may say one life isn't worth having all this for, but hell if its your life I bet you'd be glad it was there. And its not just separation, its passing on of real time first hand weather information, which is much more valuable than what you would ever get from the beaureau of Met.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2003, 11:57
  #80 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Speaking of affordable safety, do i take it that an air ticket is going to be cheaper after the 27th with all of the savings being made? Or wll it be more exensive because of the user pays principle and VFRs are pretty much out of the system? Or will they stay exactly the same? AND WHY?
tobzalp is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.