Seems a bit late for that now. Don't tell me you all agreed without really thinking about it in the first place?!

Lodown, ftrplt et al
Yes, it most certainly is an issue for jets into Sydney. Class E will be outside 45NM, down to 8,500ft – ensuring that B747s etc. will have to fly in E when arriving at Sydney. In some configurations, aircraft are required to be at 10,000ft by 45NM, so staying up at FL190 to 45NM is not even a theoretical option, never mind a practical one.

Class D towers often have the additional risk of little or no radar coverage.

Yes, TAAATS does have a STCA function. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is not 100% reliable for real conflicts (often giving its first alert after the aircraft have passed) - quite apart from the already significant problem of ‘false’ alerts. The new procedures (as well as older methods of reduced separation such as visual separation etc.) will lead to an increasing number of these false, ‘desensitizing’ alerts.

GPS, paradoxically, increases the risk of a collision, as its very accuracy ensures that two aircraft which are on reciprocal tracks will be right on track. In the ‘old days’, NDB VOR or dead reckoning errors would increase the likelihood that aircraft would miss each other, even when they were one the same ‘nominal’ track.

I concur most heartily. Perhaps our difference on emphasis is that I would prefer to see our current system enhanced by new technology, rather than replaced by it, especially when the equipment was designed as a fall-back, rather than as a primary system of defence.

Two minds are always better than none at all. I am yet to be convinced that the current system is as user ‘unfriendly’ as it is made out to be. Unfortunately, introduction of E, both inside and outside radar coverage does impinge on the ‘big boys’. It reduces their current level of safety.

Consider the following scenario:

A Boeing 737 on descent, with a ground speed of 450KT and a rate of descent of 2,500fpm. The weather is overcast at 13,000FT, VMC below. It is night time.

Ahead of the 737 is a light twin, maintaining FL125 (VFR) with a ground speed of 150KT.

The 737 breaks out of cloud at FL130, and has 12 seconds (500ft at 2,500 fpm ROD) to see the lights of the twin against the lights of the town below, identify it as an aircraft, identify it as a collision risk, and either arrest the rate of descent or take lateral avoiding action. The distance between the aircraft at first visual contact opportunity would be one mile (300KTS closing speed for 12 seconds)

The light twin, not being equipped with rear view mirrors, never has an opportunity to see the 737 at all.

Yes, this is a ‘worst case’ type scenario, but most accidents tend to be. I ask you to consider whether this is the basis for a safe system.

The current option is for the VFR aircraft to be known to the ‘system’ and the aircraft to be separated.

Aussie Andy
Lest any of our more 'sensitive' characters draw any unwarranted inferences from the refence to the timing of NAS vs the next election, the only implication is that NAS is supported by the current minister and is opposed by the ALP. Thus, it would need to be impelemented before the election in case the coalition was voted out.

Genuine question, just how many VFR's are there above 10 000ft, let alone above 7 to 8000ft???

AK: With all the respect I can muster for the remains of AOPA I have to still ask why are you formulating a policy position on NAS at what is once again the 11th hour? Especially as AOPA have been involved in preparing the education package for heaven knows how long?

Converesly the professional associations have been trying to get responses to specific technical concerns for a long time - the issues were identified long ago. But they were dismissed as 'unions protecting jobs', and scaremongering. This was always rejected as pro-NAS rhetoric.

I am glad you now see it was and is not.

And that the latent failures in this system are now apparent to all , except the minister - publically at least.

Now we just await the inevitable public realisation - once again at the 11th hour - any bets on dates? The 11/11 has passed after all!

ftrplt
Probably not many. This does raise a few points:
1) The real danger is going to be when the jets are at and around 10-9,000FT and descending through the VFR maintaining 9,5000FT
2) Due to costs, what proportion of Metros etc. will be ‘encouraged’ to fly VFR through E (above 10,000FT) to save on charges?
3) It only takes one mid-air collision to ruin your day.
4) If the answer to your question is in fact ‘so few that the system is perfectly safe’ – then it begs the question – “why bother, if the benefit is there for so few aircraft?”

By the way, over Class D towers, Class E will extend to 4,500FT.

plazbot

Because we have seen some charts (although I ask as hard as I can I don't get any).

I am not sure whether to blame incompetence or conspiracy, but either way NASIG have relied on AOPA support without providing the material to the Board to earn or reinforce that support.

But, like I said, we will fly the maps and make our views known.

My first personal view, why no approach freqs???

Do I call Tower and get told call approach??? (unnecessary chatter).

I am interested in other AOPA member views on the charts as they become available.

AK

G'day 4-7-11, Not very different to a B747 etc. from LHR on descent to Newark NJ southbound from Albany NY through Class E really. Again, I just think that to have the debate in isolation of practices and outcomes elsewhere when the whole idea is to implement practices common elsewhere weakens your argument.

The example you give of a GA VFR a/c 500' below cloud might be a little bit misleading also as one should maintain 1000' from the cloudbase ideally - but the point is still taken (yes, 24 seconds is not much better than 12 seconds! :uhoh: ) and anyway given datum errors or poor airmanship etc. (scud-running, moi!?), then I see the point. In the US they simply indicate approach and descent paths (with a little light-blue jet on the chart) that you are "recommended" to avoid. Doesn't sound great does it, but the outcomes appear to be OK: and that's the point.

Re- ALP, well (as a long standing member of both the ALP and subsequently the British Labour Party now that I live here) I casn only say that when in opposition, one opposes!

Andy ;)

Don't forget those holding patterns in E e.g. North of Brisbane (SMOKA, MLY). But VFR should know to keep clear of them anyway, right? :yuk:

When do we see the rest of the education and training ???

Huh!

Speak to AOPA as they have it all under control. Check their forum http://www.aopa.com.au/forum/phpBB2/ or ask snarek. :ok:

I received the two volume package that most pilots seem to have received, containing the reference guide and the in-flight guide but I heard on the grapevine that there was an Instructor Pack.

So I searched the website but could see no reference to an Instructor Pack. I rang the "hotline" and the lady who answered could not help me as she had not heard of an Instructor Pack either and to my surprise arranged to get someone to call me the next afternoon!

Two days later I had not heard so I called again. Eventually I arranged to have one delivered.

Are other instructors getting them automatically?
Are flight schools getting them automatically?
How come the "hotline" staff do not know anything about them?
Why did I have to wait over 24 hours for a response?

2001...you're not suggesting Hot mike was less than candid with the minister when he suggested there existed an instructor pack are you:uhoh:

Seems like nothing he said in hansard was accurate:suspect:

Chuck.

Aussie Andy
Indeed you are correct. The VFR aircraft would need to be 1000FT vertically from cloud, giving the jet a theoretical 24 seconds to react. Having just checked on the VMC minima in E, however, an even more frightening ‘worst case’ scenario arises.

The VFR aircraft is required to be 1,500M horizontally from cloud. This gives our unfortunate jet driver potentially less than one NM or say 10seconds to see, identify and react to the conflict.

Either way, I am not just trying to score points by finding ever worsening scenarios. What I am saying is that the system needs many tiers of defence, because, however remote or otherwise the odds of a collision are, the consequences of a single accident are horrific.

You also said:
I agree that international harmonisation is an important issue in aviation. It should be remembered that Australia is very often at the leading edge of changes to procedures. For instance, Australia introduced RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima) some years ago, whilst the US is planning on implementing this significant change some time in the next two years.

No-one is suggesting that we should regress to the current US system of vertical separation. Rather, we wait for the US to catch up with Australia, many Asian countries and Europe.

Other examples of Australia leading the way are RNAV separation, ‘automated’ ATC systems (TAAATS) etc. My point is that following the US system is not necessarily always progress. Some studies in the US have suggested that the system there needs to made safer by including the VFR into the system.

Edited to correct some dodgy mathematics

So much for all those 'safety' features on TAAATS. Reminds me of the cartoon (Dilbert, I think) where one of the characters was talking about all the worrisome bugs in a new planned software release. Another character commented to go ahead with the release and call them 'features'.

4711, can't the same situation regarding VFR aircraft at upper altitudes mixing with 737s occur now? It comes back to having figures which support a thorough safety analysis.

To implement practices used elsewhere in an environment with differing infrastructure is not implementing "the proven US model".

Do they have greater radar coverage in the US? Yes

Do they have briefing offices? Yes

Do they pay for charts etc in the Us?

Back to first principles, we have assertions that NAS will lead to significant savings. Mr R Smith used a figure of $70 million. Now we see in Senate commitees that there may even be a cost, from less service.

So where is the motivation for the changes?

Lodown

No - at least not into any controlled aerodrome. At jet levels it is currently all Class A, C or D, which means that IFR get fully separated from evryone. VFRs need a clearance to be there.

The only way a jet could be in that situation now would be in the lower traffic/lower risk areas where they descend from C, perhaps through E into G.

In NAS 2B, IFR jets, even on the busiest routes into our busiest aerodrome, lose separation services. In some of the less busy places (e.g. Launceston), they don't even have the possibility of a radar service to alert them - assuming the VFR is painting on radar.

PS - DOn't give anyone any ideas! The second our 'bugs' become 'features', we will have to start paying for them!!!!:D ;)

Point of note to consider. Using the logic that there is a massive increase in controlled airspace (E), there are massive restrictions placed on VFR aircraft as well.

A class is introduced above E over all of CTA. The J curve for example has today (pretty much) G to A085, some E between SY and CG A085 to F125, C F125 to F285 and A above. Post NAS the C goes and E and A come in with A above F180 all the way up. So 9000 feet of potential VFR activity is gone. That's some 35% ladies and gents.

So here is the NAS model simplified.

More Controllers required.
Less service given to more aircraft
Costs Increase
VFRs have a 35% reduction in allowed airspace
VFRs must remain clear of IFR routes and all approach and departure paths
There are no frequency boundaries
There are no frequencies
Did I mention that it is going to cost more?
Aircraft IFR can enter supposed controlled airspace without a clearance (IFR Pick UP)

Add to this that the exemption for Flight without a transponder in E within 40nm of a D tower is added (no glider flying in the E steps above Caboulture or in the Steps above Alice Springs I'm affraid guys).

If I were a VFR pilot I would feel pretty cheated. But hang on, this is all designed for the VFR pilots, Isn't it?

tobzalp

Where did you get this from, point to a reference please. My reading of the available info leaves me with the opinion we should avoid flying through instrument approaches (which I do anyway) but nowhere do I find the much vaunted requirement to avoid routes.

Essentially, that is impossible unless I adopt the same navigation techniques I use in my yacht!! :E

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'???

AK

It seems to me there is overwhelming logic and evidence to discontinue with this debacle. Nobody is better off except the Air Traffic Controllers who will be recruited to make it work - apart from the fact they won't be able to do their primary job - separating aircraft.

The only way it can therefore continue is by pure bloody minded determination of the political kind with individuals of the character that can push on and through in spite of all the contadictory facts blocking their paths.......... batter up?

(It might also be said that these types may also possess a demonstrated ability to flip-flop at the 11th hour..... hmmm? Where can we find someone like that???)

Meanwhile the NASOMETER $$$ keeps adding up --->>
http://www.greenindconsulting.com/cl...ator_anim2.gif
and YOU are paying for it

From the Dotars Web site Pilot education online version (poor format due cut and paste)


VFR pilots should avoid when practicable areas where
IFR flights may be in a holding pattern:
Holding patterns are depicted on ERC-Low charts as
an oval track e.g. left hand pattern centerd on NICKY
VFR pilots should remain clear of GPS
approaches:
IFR flights will track to the open triangle and
begin the approach from there
If there is more than one open triangle an IFR
flight may begin from any of them
Copies of most instrument approaches are available
from the Airservices Australia website:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...re/aip/dap.htm
IFR flights will track to the open triangle and begin
the approach from there
If there is more than one open triangle an IFR
flight may begin from any of the positions
Copies of most instrument approaches are available
from the Airservices Australia website:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...re/aip/dap.htm
Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft
operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain
vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome
INSTRUMENT APPROACH (NDB/DME)
INSTRUMENT APPROACH (GPS)
HOLDING PATTERN
VFR flights should remain clear of instrument
approaches:
Holding patterns in Class E airspace around Sydney
are shown on VTC and VNC charts as a star
IFR flights may be holding in Class E
AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS


Plus I forgot about turning on those lights below A100. More bulbs to wear out faster. I bet the Government will pay for the extras because they are paying for ADSB afterall, aren't they?
:yuk: :zzz:

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 you have done exactly what Mike Smith did in the Senate hearing, ignored Climb & Descent...

You need to update your documents I think...

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?!

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

snarek, I see they give you a hard time here too just like on AGACF

Keep your head up. :)

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.

Piper

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

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

Icarus

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:}

is obviously different to...but if it makes people feel more excited by exagerating each point and whipping yourselves into a frenzy, then I guess thats fine too :O

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:ugh:

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:yuk:

I gotta write me a book on PPRuNe solecisms and malapropisms.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!

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 !!

Does QLD have a textbook as well? Cos thats where I live.

Beware the Jabberwock - the jaws that bite, the claws that snatch
 

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... ;)

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 :

Reply
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

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.

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

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 fu@#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.

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'?

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..?

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.

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?