Senate hearing and NAS – interesting answers from CASA
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
So many points...where do I start?
I know nothing of the progress, or even existence of an Airspace Change Proposal to redesignate some Class G airspace to Class E around some non-controlled aerodromes. It is you who, in another thread, had heard rumours of an impending change. All I have done is amend my previously stated position on the issue on the basis of advice given to me by someone I judge as knowledgeable about these things. I wouldn't for a minute dream that the attitude of one anonymous individual would influence the decision making of the OAR.
You bemoan the inertia of the OAR. I actually agree that they are a little slow and reluctant to make controversial decisions. However, let me remind you that this entire bureaucratic structure of OAR and a specific branch of the Department dedicated to airspace policy was set up after the industry tore itself apart over your NAS "policy".
Your vision for the Canberra (and others like it) terminal airspace may have merit. Why don't you submit an ACP to the OAR and see how it goes? You never know all your naysayers may be proved wrong (but they may also be proved right) on cost grounds. I reckon the task would be easier in the Canberra case if it were kept Class C though.
On Class C vs E generally I will have to defer to the words of le pinguoin
I maintain that NAS was inappropriate policy. It was, to borrow a phrase, far too down in the weeds. The minister should not be directing which designations should apply to certain volumes of airspace. He/she should set the overall tenets by which the airspace should be administered and the long-term strategic goals to be achieved by airspace management. As to whether the NAS characteristics enhanced safety, we'll never know as at the time there was never any proper analyses carried out nor were they implemented properly (which if I recall correctly was one of the Voices of Reasons central themes - happy to be contradicted on that though).
Whether the NAS is actually pulled from the Airspace Policy Statement is immaterial though as I understand that any remaining characteristics, some of which may actually work in Australia, are to be subject to the proper processes that you never insisted upon when heading the Airspace Reform Group.
I am no expert on GAAP vs Class D procedures anymore but I am happy to abide by whatever decision the OAR may make after proper analyses.
Just remember it was you that has politicised airspace management in Australia. The industry is happy to leave it to due process by professionals but you insist on imposing your vision for airspace with a crash or crash through approach.
If you are so keen on seeing your vision implemented get involved in the process instead of sniping through your political proxies.
So many points...where do I start?
I know nothing of the progress, or even existence of an Airspace Change Proposal to redesignate some Class G airspace to Class E around some non-controlled aerodromes. It is you who, in another thread, had heard rumours of an impending change. All I have done is amend my previously stated position on the issue on the basis of advice given to me by someone I judge as knowledgeable about these things. I wouldn't for a minute dream that the attitude of one anonymous individual would influence the decision making of the OAR.
You bemoan the inertia of the OAR. I actually agree that they are a little slow and reluctant to make controversial decisions. However, let me remind you that this entire bureaucratic structure of OAR and a specific branch of the Department dedicated to airspace policy was set up after the industry tore itself apart over your NAS "policy".
Your vision for the Canberra (and others like it) terminal airspace may have merit. Why don't you submit an ACP to the OAR and see how it goes? You never know all your naysayers may be proved wrong (but they may also be proved right) on cost grounds. I reckon the task would be easier in the Canberra case if it were kept Class C though.
On Class C vs E generally I will have to defer to the words of le pinguoin
A tiny bit of convenience for a tiny number of users.
Whether the NAS is actually pulled from the Airspace Policy Statement is immaterial though as I understand that any remaining characteristics, some of which may actually work in Australia, are to be subject to the proper processes that you never insisted upon when heading the Airspace Reform Group.
I am no expert on GAAP vs Class D procedures anymore but I am happy to abide by whatever decision the OAR may make after proper analyses.
Just remember it was you that has politicised airspace management in Australia. The industry is happy to leave it to due process by professionals but you insist on imposing your vision for airspace with a crash or crash through approach.
If you are so keen on seeing your vision implemented get involved in the process instead of sniping through your political proxies.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bilbert, on matters aviation and so-called 'astute questions', I doubt Senator H would know a prop from his elbow. It seemed pretty clear to me, and it seems some others, that he'd been fed his lines. Neat, though, the way risk increasers were sold as 'safety improvements.' Gotta pay credit to his handler on that one.
Or was ya just joshin' an' bein' all sarcastic like?
Or was ya just joshin' an' bein' all sarcastic like?
Thread Starter
GaryGnu, you are not even confident enough to put your own name on a post when you are commenting about safety issues that affect the people you fly. What complete gutlessness!
I love your comment:
First of all, I have never had a “crash or crash through approach” – you have fallen for the left wing propaganda from Liz Jackson at 4 Corners. She is an inaccurate journalist who is so sloppy that she should hand back any awards she has ever achieved.
By the way, if I hadn’t imposed a vision on this industry, we would still have something like $100 million per annum being spent on a full position VFR reporting system – which would have cost $1.7 billion over the last 17 years, and probably meant that you wouldn’t have a job.
I love your comment:
Just remember it was you that has politicised airspace management in Australia. The industry is happy to leave it to due process by professionals but you insist on imposing your vision for airspace with a crash or crash through approach.
By the way, if I hadn’t imposed a vision on this industry, we would still have something like $100 million per annum being spent on a full position VFR reporting system – which would have cost $1.7 billion over the last 17 years, and probably meant that you wouldn’t have a job.
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs, I love it. So set in your mind is the fundamentalism of what you learnt that you can’t possibly grasp that there could be something better.
For example, you state:
Bloggs, haven’t you realised that there is absolutely no standard for IFR separation in Class G? If you are in cloud with your fare paying passengers, and at the same time there is a low time pilot who has just got his or her instrument rating, that is the standard that would be set.
Why do we bother to have controllers at all if pilots can safely separate themselves when in cloud in the terminal area? Why would we have procedural standards at all? Why don't we let air traffic controllers make up the standard for separation in IMC if we allow low time pilots, just having got their instrument rating, to decide the "standard" they are going to use to separate their aircraft from yours when in cloud in Class G?
Capn Bloggs, at least you are consistent. Everything you state is about retaining the status quo. You simply can’t believe there could be a better way of doing things.
For example, you state:
I do not need IFR separation from the one or two other IFRs in the area because I can do it myself much more efficiently than procedural ATC can. So what's the point of E?
Why do we bother to have controllers at all if pilots can safely separate themselves when in cloud in the terminal area? Why would we have procedural standards at all? Why don't we let air traffic controllers make up the standard for separation in IMC if we allow low time pilots, just having got their instrument rating, to decide the "standard" they are going to use to separate their aircraft from yours when in cloud in Class G?
Capn Bloggs, at least you are consistent. Everything you state is about retaining the status quo. You simply can’t believe there could be a better way of doing things.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Jun 2009 at 06:48.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dick, can't help myself, but the argument can logically be extended to question why we would 'allow low time pilots, just having got their PPL, to decide the standard they are going to use to separate their aircraft from your jet in Class E?'
I love my old Longines automatic watch, which is akin to 1950's airspace procedures that put the onus for separation on the LCD; but my modern, battery-driven, quartz model is more reliable and accurate.
I love my old Longines automatic watch, which is akin to 1950's airspace procedures that put the onus for separation on the LCD; but my modern, battery-driven, quartz model is more reliable and accurate.
Thread Starter
Howabout, because the backup is vigilance and see and avoid when in VMC in E. In cloud you do not have that backup! Thats why I want class E where we can afford it.
Grandpa Aerotart
because the backup is vigilance and see and avoid when in VMC in E
The 'backup' is the most widely discredited form of 'separation' known to aviation.
So how about the lighty cruising 1000' below cloud in E, transponder not on/not calibrated/not in mode C, and possibly not paying a great deal of attention to the radio/not aware of which frequency/on right frequency but insufficient SA , when I come busting out of the could on top of him in my B767 at 350-400kts and 4000'/minute?
Thread Starter
Probably the same as what happens now in class G in which we have many thousands of jet operations per year!
God some people are dopey. If see and avoid does not work you should inform your passengers of the fact that there will be times that that's what you will be relying on.
And you should get another job.
God some people are dopey. If see and avoid does not work you should inform your passengers of the fact that there will be times that that's what you will be relying on.
And you should get another job.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu, you are obviously 'resistant to change' and a dead-set 'fundamentalist.' It's called the big sky theory you dummy, Haven't you caught on yet?
SA is not important - I just put a fresh CD in my player, ignore the radio and keep a good lookout when in E or G. After all, what's the chances of being cleaned up - probably 'vanishingly small.' 1000' is generous - try the scud-runners.
Ah, Mr Boeing's 767 - my favourite.
SA is not important - I just put a fresh CD in my player, ignore the radio and keep a good lookout when in E or G. After all, what's the chances of being cleaned up - probably 'vanishingly small.' 1000' is generous - try the scud-runners.
Ah, Mr Boeing's 767 - my favourite.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also keep a good lookout when in VMC in D,C,B and A as thats where most of the RPT mid-airs happen.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remind me again: who used to cruise in "g" airspace and have a go a people who made VFR radio calls?
normally aspirated piston engined aircraft had a bit of a hard time at 10,000'. 8500' was/is the lower limit for "E" ergo cruising at 8000' and getting ATC separation etc was almost impossible in , say a c310/b58/ac50/pn68/be76 etc etc etc.
so now.... in "G" airspace, which was the ONLY airspace available to us, we were NOT permitted to hear radio calls from diligent VFR aircraft, and were NOT able to get radar traffic from ATC IF/WHEN we needed to descend into an aerodrome! Whose brainwave was this?
DICK... do you deny that you used to listen on the radio and chastise pilots for making VFR calls? .... YES or NO?
normally aspirated piston engined aircraft had a bit of a hard time at 10,000'. 8500' was/is the lower limit for "E" ergo cruising at 8000' and getting ATC separation etc was almost impossible in , say a c310/b58/ac50/pn68/be76 etc etc etc.
so now.... in "G" airspace, which was the ONLY airspace available to us, we were NOT permitted to hear radio calls from diligent VFR aircraft, and were NOT able to get radar traffic from ATC IF/WHEN we needed to descend into an aerodrome! Whose brainwave was this?
DICK... do you deny that you used to listen on the radio and chastise pilots for making VFR calls? .... YES or NO?
Sorry Dick, I've been away fluffing around in dangerous Dirt Road airspace. At night, too. 
Stick to logical argument, Dick, and not the man.
And that's your problem. You have no idea what happens in the real world.
IFR to IFR directed-traffic segregation the same as See and Avoid. Yeh, right.
So that would be so much more dangerous than your would-be no-radio CTAFs also occupied by thousands of jet operations per year would it? Where did you say most of the midairs occurred again? In the vicinity of the aerodrome, was it?
Thank God somebody with brains strongly encouraged (for a time) pilots at MBZs to reply to other aircraft, so we, the ones with all the punters, could make sure he, the just-out-of-flying-school VFR driver, hadn't messed up his situational awareness and wasn't going to run into us. But all that changed with your NAS: "shut up you lot: pilot to pilot conversation is discouraged", AIP said. Actually, IIRC, didn't you write that in a letter to us all when you were in the chair in the 90s?
GaryGnu, you are not even confident enough to put your own name on a post when you are commenting about safety issues that affect the people you fly. What complete gutlessness!
God some people are dopey.
And you should get another job.
Probably the same as what happens now in class G in which we have many thousands of jet operations per year!
IFR to IFR directed-traffic segregation the same as See and Avoid. Yeh, right.
at the same time there is a low time pilot who has just got his or her instrument rating, that is the standard that would be set.
Thank God somebody with brains strongly encouraged (for a time) pilots at MBZs to reply to other aircraft, so we, the ones with all the punters, could make sure he, the just-out-of-flying-school VFR driver, hadn't messed up his situational awareness and wasn't going to run into us. But all that changed with your NAS: "shut up you lot: pilot to pilot conversation is discouraged", AIP said. Actually, IIRC, didn't you write that in a letter to us all when you were in the chair in the 90s?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know about the limitations of 'see and avoid'
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/..._see_avoid.pdf
RECOMMENDATION : R20040015
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/..._see_avoid.pdf
RECOMMENDATION : R20040015
Thread Starter
Apache, you state:
Yes, I do deny it. That claim was well covered on a previous thread on PPRuNe. Eventually an Airservices manager came on the thread, said he’d listened to the tape, and the voice was not mine.
Having said that, I’ve certainly written a lot about VFR pilots making announcements on frequencies which are used by air traffic control to separate IFR traffic. For example, there was an incident with a 747SP a number of years ago, where the excuse given by the air traffic controller for nearly putting this aircraft into another (and killing hundreds of people) was the diversion created by a VFR pilot making self-announcements.
I strongly support announcements when approaching an airfield or in the circuit area. In fact, I moved to take the two announcements that we typically had to move to the 5 US NAS announcements. More announcements and less dialogue will improve safety.
Making announcements flying up and down the Sydney VFR lane, when the frequencies are retransmitted on Sydney approach or departures, will potentially only lead to an airline accident.
If you want to make VFR announcements, we need to return to the old full position system. This means all the announcements will be on a separate frequency and not on an ATC frequency used for separation. The cost will be about $100 million per year – resulting in lots more pilots losing their jobs. If we can go by the last 17 years, no measurable increase in safety will exist for the $1.7 million expended.
AirNoServicesAustralia, I do not believe there is an agreement with ASA which says that you cannot talk publicly about safety issues, and I do not know of any airline that would have a similar agreement – either in writing or implied. If such an agreement was leaked to the press it would make front page headlines, as the travelling public expect pilots and air traffic controllers to speak out about safety issues.
Capn Bloggs, you imply that I support “no-radio CTAFs.” I have never done that. I support the US NAS system, which has the highest compliance of radio in CTAFs that I’ve seen anywhere in the world. That is because it is a simple system, not incredibly complex like ours.
I agree that the system in our old MBZs resulted in some pilots entering into dialogue with other aircraft when in VMC. This may have worked in the old days, when there was hardly any traffic, but once the traffic levels go up it is obvious that dialogue completely jams the frequency with only two aircraft. Announcements do not jam up the frequency as much. Instead of having to discuss on the air when an aircraft is going to turn base, it is known that the aircraft will make an announcement when turning base, so there is no need to jam the frequency with dialogue.
NAMPS, I’m glad you published the ATSB “closed – accepted” response to the see and avoid issue. I totally agree with the statement:
I am surprised by the air traffic controllers and airline pilots who support the ASA and airlines initiative to put profits in front of safety and do everything they can not to have Class D, but to try to introduce no cost complex non-ICAO mandatory radio procedures in an attempt to get an equivalent level of safety. This is impossible.
Justapplhere, I hope the above covers the Apache and AirNoServicesAustralia issues.
In relation to removing relevant frequencies from charts, I think you may be getting it mixed up with the NAS design of not having air traffic control sector boundaries shown on charts. Australia is the only country which shows this. Air traffic control sector boundaries are designed for the workload of air traffic controllers – not for the widest coverage of the VHF transmitter. For example, if a VFR pilot is monitoring the frequency in the sector at Jenolan Caves, it is not within VHF coverage of the transmitter – even though there is a nearby transmitter on a different frequency.
The sector boundaries came from the old Flight Service days. If you want to go back to that, do so, but be prepared to pay about $100 million per year. That is, $1.7 billion over the 17 years since it was removed – and there has not been one fatality attributed to this.
KittyKatKaper, you are only game to go on with this rubbish in relation to “arguing with zealots” because you don’t put your own name on the post. If you are going to defame a poster, at least have the guts to do it under your own name.
If you were game enough to actually phone me, you would find that I’m not a zealot, I’m simply a person who wants us to finally either move back to the old duplicated ATC/full position Flight Service system, or move forward to a system run by air traffic control. This half-way point is ridiculous and only exists because there are no decision makers in the Office of Airspace Regulation to make the decision to go back or go forward.
I love your comment:
If that is so, how did I get any success in my three business operations? I can tell you it was because I had the ability to ask advice, copy the success of others, but have the common sense to decide which was the correct advice.
By the way, if I occasionally have a good idea, why don’t you support that idea? At least it would mean we would move ahead on something.
The reason the US has full radar coverage at flight levels is because it has 20 times the amount of traffic. It has little to do with fuel taxes.
I will say it for the hundredth time. Why don’t we use the safety advantages of the US system where we have good radar coverage? That is, from Melbourne to Cairns. When I say good radar coverage, it is as good as anything I have seen in equivalent areas in the USA.
It looks as if many of the posters on this thread work for the Office of Airspace Regulation, take their huge amounts of money, and also ensure that no change takes place at all so they can’t be held accountable. Then when something goes wrong (like the midair collision at 2RN) they will say, “It wasn’t my responsibility, I knew nothing about it,” in true Wheat Board style.
DICK... do you deny that you used to listen on the radio and chastise pilots for making VFR calls? .... YES or NO?
Having said that, I’ve certainly written a lot about VFR pilots making announcements on frequencies which are used by air traffic control to separate IFR traffic. For example, there was an incident with a 747SP a number of years ago, where the excuse given by the air traffic controller for nearly putting this aircraft into another (and killing hundreds of people) was the diversion created by a VFR pilot making self-announcements.
I strongly support announcements when approaching an airfield or in the circuit area. In fact, I moved to take the two announcements that we typically had to move to the 5 US NAS announcements. More announcements and less dialogue will improve safety.
Making announcements flying up and down the Sydney VFR lane, when the frequencies are retransmitted on Sydney approach or departures, will potentially only lead to an airline accident.
If you want to make VFR announcements, we need to return to the old full position system. This means all the announcements will be on a separate frequency and not on an ATC frequency used for separation. The cost will be about $100 million per year – resulting in lots more pilots losing their jobs. If we can go by the last 17 years, no measurable increase in safety will exist for the $1.7 million expended.
AirNoServicesAustralia, I do not believe there is an agreement with ASA which says that you cannot talk publicly about safety issues, and I do not know of any airline that would have a similar agreement – either in writing or implied. If such an agreement was leaked to the press it would make front page headlines, as the travelling public expect pilots and air traffic controllers to speak out about safety issues.
Capn Bloggs, you imply that I support “no-radio CTAFs.” I have never done that. I support the US NAS system, which has the highest compliance of radio in CTAFs that I’ve seen anywhere in the world. That is because it is a simple system, not incredibly complex like ours.
I agree that the system in our old MBZs resulted in some pilots entering into dialogue with other aircraft when in VMC. This may have worked in the old days, when there was hardly any traffic, but once the traffic levels go up it is obvious that dialogue completely jams the frequency with only two aircraft. Announcements do not jam up the frequency as much. Instead of having to discuss on the air when an aircraft is going to turn base, it is known that the aircraft will make an announcement when turning base, so there is no need to jam the frequency with dialogue.
NAMPS, I’m glad you published the ATSB “closed – accepted” response to the see and avoid issue. I totally agree with the statement:
CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace.
Justapplhere, I hope the above covers the Apache and AirNoServicesAustralia issues.
In relation to removing relevant frequencies from charts, I think you may be getting it mixed up with the NAS design of not having air traffic control sector boundaries shown on charts. Australia is the only country which shows this. Air traffic control sector boundaries are designed for the workload of air traffic controllers – not for the widest coverage of the VHF transmitter. For example, if a VFR pilot is monitoring the frequency in the sector at Jenolan Caves, it is not within VHF coverage of the transmitter – even though there is a nearby transmitter on a different frequency.
The sector boundaries came from the old Flight Service days. If you want to go back to that, do so, but be prepared to pay about $100 million per year. That is, $1.7 billion over the 17 years since it was removed – and there has not been one fatality attributed to this.
KittyKatKaper, you are only game to go on with this rubbish in relation to “arguing with zealots” because you don’t put your own name on the post. If you are going to defame a poster, at least have the guts to do it under your own name.
If you were game enough to actually phone me, you would find that I’m not a zealot, I’m simply a person who wants us to finally either move back to the old duplicated ATC/full position Flight Service system, or move forward to a system run by air traffic control. This half-way point is ridiculous and only exists because there are no decision makers in the Office of Airspace Regulation to make the decision to go back or go forward.
I love your comment:
He occasionally has good ideas but IMHO he does not consider the costs, practicalities and just what is required behind the scenes to achieve what he wants to impose on the rest of us
By the way, if I occasionally have a good idea, why don’t you support that idea? At least it would mean we would move ahead on something.
The reason the US has full radar coverage at flight levels is because it has 20 times the amount of traffic. It has little to do with fuel taxes.
I will say it for the hundredth time. Why don’t we use the safety advantages of the US system where we have good radar coverage? That is, from Melbourne to Cairns. When I say good radar coverage, it is as good as anything I have seen in equivalent areas in the USA.
It looks as if many of the posters on this thread work for the Office of Airspace Regulation, take their huge amounts of money, and also ensure that no change takes place at all so they can’t be held accountable. Then when something goes wrong (like the midair collision at 2RN) they will say, “It wasn’t my responsibility, I knew nothing about it,” in true Wheat Board style.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe there is an agreement with ASA which says that you cannot talk publicly
It is Airservices Australia‘s policy that all media contact is to be coordinated by Corporate Affairs. Individual employees should not communicate any information concerning Airservices Australia’s business activities to the media
Dick,
Compliance? With what?
Get real. It is not incredibly complex. If you think it is, you shouldn't be in the business.
Yet another example demonstrating that you have little idea of what goes on in the real world. I suggest you get out of your bugsmasher mindset and start listening to the people that do this stuff for a living. As I pointed out to your yank ATC mate Richard Woodward a few years back, management of a confliction in the circuit works much more efficiently than me, in my 50 tonne jet, trying to avoid a C152 by listening to his 5 radio calls but otherwise doing his own thing.
I suppose though that this ideological codswallop is expected from experts who aren't really experts at all.
What a joke. No-radio CTAF straight to a tower. What a waste of money and pilot's jobs. What happened to your famed Unicoms? Or were they just a bit of icing to make you feel warm and fuzzy coz that's what they do in the USA?
Capn Bloggs, you imply that I support “no-radio CTAFs.” I have never done that. I support the US NAS system, which has the highest compliance of radio in CTAFs that I’ve seen anywhere in the world.
That is because it is a simple system, not incredibly complex like ours.
I agree that the system in our old MBZs resulted in some pilots entering into dialogue with other aircraft when in VMC. This may have worked in the old days, when there was hardly any traffic, but once the traffic levels go up it is obvious that dialogue completely jams the frequency with only two aircraft. Announcements do not jam up the frequency as much. Instead of having to discuss on the air when an aircraft is going to turn base, it is known that the aircraft will make an announcement when turning base, so there is no need to jam the frequency with dialogue.
I suppose though that this ideological codswallop is expected from experts who aren't really experts at all.
I totally agree with the statement:
CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace
CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace
Dick Smith said:
Australia does not show air traffic control boundaries on charts .......
Per chart legends, the green lines are Class G Flight Information Area boundaries.
Some individual lines may happen to coincide with part of an ATC sector boundary, but the primary function of the lines is to designate the FIA frequency to be used in the area, and are often placed with respect to VHF coverage to assist pilots select the most appropriate frequency.
I think you may be getting it mixed up with the NAS design of not having air traffic control sector boundaries shown on charts. Australia is the only country which shows this.
Per chart legends, the green lines are Class G Flight Information Area boundaries.
Some individual lines may happen to coincide with part of an ATC sector boundary, but the primary function of the lines is to designate the FIA frequency to be used in the area, and are often placed with respect to VHF coverage to assist pilots select the most appropriate frequency.