Why not look it up? In many other territory's VFR charts don't have area most ATC frequencies on and boundaries on them (other than say FIS), so IF YOU NEED IT you look it up before flight and WRITE IT ON YOUR KNEEBOARD / PLOG!

Oh dear, unless its printed ON THE CHART we can't find it!?!?!

Wish me luck fellas: I'm just heading out the door to fly VFR in Southern England - I won't be speaking to the controllers dealing with the aircraft in the airways above me or those descending under IFR through the CLASS G around me!!!

coral - I suspect you'll find on 27NOV its odds on that the sky is the same and your a/c works the same and all will be OK - other than (as I have said above) that there will be confusion due to the apparent haste of the rollout (which I believe is the real risk you guys are facing).

Andy :}

OK Andy,

So you are down for 1:2

No worries ;)

p.s. I survived 1.5hrs in Class G VFR today, whilst IFR descents took place around and about to the multiple airfields in the vicinity...

Anyway, AT LEAST WE WON THE RUGBY!!!!!

Andy :ok:

Ausssie Andy... and the radar coverage in your area of operation today was?

Because you were not on the ATC frequency you will never know how many IFR aircraft were given you as traffic and vectored away will you? Try that in 85% of Australia.

Icarus2001: yes there is surveillance radar coverage for the IFR traffic in this high density area of southern England, as there is around Sydney - yet we get the alarmist cr&p above (back a couple of pages) such as talk of the dangers of "exposing a B747 on descent into Sydney"...

And of course here in the UK / Europe - as elsewhere - there is not radar coverage everywhere! It depends on the level of traffic!

Of course it would be better to have a wider area in which surveillance is available - and you are fortunate to be going down the ADS-B path which could make this a practical outcome. And eventually such technology will enable pilots in areas of relatively low traffic density self-separate - which would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

============================================

coral: In the links you give there is an alarmist comment quoted in a Singaporean article in which Mr Lang says: This seems to be having the apparently calculated effect of needlessly alarming the Singaporean public from spending their money in Australia:How will this outcome benefit Australian Air Traffic Control Association's constituents?

Perhaps for balance he should also suggest that Miss Lim also avoids flying to places such as the US where she will suffer similar "dangers"!?

Good job fellas....

Now I must dash off... Let's see if the Pom's can beat the French in the Rugby today!

Andy

All I can say is 'if it's s o o safe:yuk: then why have we been deluged with more paper than we can possibly consume before the due date?':\

The glossy brochure I recieved states-

"Australian aviation faces difficult times. The once thriving market for private flying is in decline, with flying schools closing as fewer people take up aviation as a recreational activity."

I have to ask how increasing the risk factor is going to affect this? Are they trying to turn aviation into an extreme sport. These changes, rushed in as they have been will only have the opposite effect as people decide it isn't worth the effort. I for one will probably stay out of the skies until I am convinced it is safe and at the moment nothing I have seen comes close to convincing me.

I am a fairly low hours pilot and am still getting comfortable with what I learned to pass the test. One thing I do know is they wouldn't have given me my licence by just giving me a glossy brochure to read and then declaring I knew enough to hold the licence. So what is with the race to bring this in?

We keep coming up on the phrase "Affordable air safety" but the current system is affordable or it wouldn't be in place. What the phrase really means is Cut price air safety but that is too emotive a term and would alert the public to what is really happening here. Again we see the buzz words "International best practice" but that ignores geographical and technological differences. It also ignores the fact that if everyone is doing the same thing, how do you know it is the best?

My personal opinion is that all pilots would be best doing just what I intend to do. Refuse to fly until they have been convinced it is safe to do so, or have been trained fully to handle the new regs. I doubt the necessary training could be carried out in the time remaining.

:hmm: :sad:

Affordable Safety is so passe...

It is now known as... McSafety

Under Class E,Alice controll upper limit will be 4500.ILS starts at 5500.VFR a/c flying @4500(no clearence req)avoiding controll area and remains to the west, Flys straight thru the glide slope.IFR pc 12(no TCAS)conducting practice approach Still outside and above controll zone.See and Avoid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YEAH Righto.Good luck
We need radar here for the new system even having the slightess chance of working.

Aussie Andy: Remarkably identical posts to others that have been asked and answered in the various incarnations of this thread. Trying again;

Where exactly in England does International traffic descend in class E? Heathrow? Manchester? Where are the ILS paths in class E with no radar coverage, used by jet traffic? Where are the holding stacks in class E? Lambeth? Are aircraft actively discouraged from using the radio there?

GB has LARS, RIS, RAS etc all over the show (along with a large number of other differences to ICAO). Is this 'world's best practice'? If yes, why doesn't the U.S. do it? If not, why does a mighty nation like Britain accept less than 'world's best practice'? Has GA in Britain vanished? Is the decline due to the airspace design, as inferred here? Or is GA in Aus in decline because of the CHARGING REGIME (where aviation is treated as another tax revenue source- profit from ATC, sell off public airports then charge for their use etc. etc. Not to mention the demographic change. The city drift is powerful!)

The comparison is invalid (and a reason why NAS is flawed). The US doesn't have places served by the huge variety of aircraft to such low density areas that oz does. We don't have the population to support the infrastructure, and have developed our own system over time that strikes a balance between safety and cost. DTI, talking on the radio etc are cheap safety enhancements.
. Eventually, ADS-B will be a perfect enhancement for aus. One day. That day is not Nov 27 2003. The new system is being introduced from the standpoint of a private, amateur pilot with enough clout to change part of the nation's infrastructure, just so that he doesn't have to play. And it's being done HIS WAY.
Why is this "needlessly alarming"? If the Sinaporeans are fully informed about what's going on, then choose not to come, is that Ted Lang's fault, or Dick Smith's? Get angry with the right person. Or are you from the "what they don't know won't hurt them school", treating the 'great unwashed' with the disdain they deserve? Did Ted say anything untrue?
It won't. That is not the aim of the statement. How will standing idly by and watching this disgrace happen, benfit the constituents? The reasonable method has been tried, and been pushed aside by the NAS juggernaut. I don't blame them for taking the gloves off. Not long to go! What would a midair between a Singapore 747 and a lightie do for the tourist industry? All the 'doomsayers' could sit back and say "I told you so". That would be so much better, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?
Perhaps you'd care to point out where that might be? Once again, aus IS NOT GETTING THE US SYSTEM. The US dont operate their system the way it's written in the books (because the controllers do extra things that are not required, but they consider essential- ask them). Oz and the US are chalk and cheese. There is very little that is similar actually, in terms of airspace usage. I won't bore you with a lot of technical stuff, but in oz there are fewer controllers per movement. Those controllers look at much bigger pieces of sky because of lighter traffic density. An ATC talking to those jets on descent into a capital airport might typically have his screen set at a 425NM range. A US ATC doing the same sort of job might have his screen set to 45NM. Can you appreciate the difference in spotting conflicts with unidentified, not talking VFRs based on the screen size alone? (That, of course, relies on them squawking correctly, due to the lack of primary radar in aus).

At the end of the day, this is about money. And that has very little to do with the airspace design. Fix the charging system . If we got the US charging system, then the 'reformers' might have some credibility.

Ferris,
Well said.

Aussie Andy,
The pommie class G really works well eh. Just read in Flight Intl where a 146, on radar at 7000ft got a Resolution Advisory on a Jaguar that suddenly appeared no-radio and not identified.

Great system you've got there mate.

ferris:1) I didn't say that we have descent in Class E - worse: class G. Mate, its not all QFxxx into EGLL/LHR you know! :O. There is plenty of IFR traffic - international & domestic, pax & freight, MIL & CIV - which often traverses Class G while on descent (or climbout) under radar control to/from airways into / out of southern England airports such as e.g. EGVN, EGDL, EGVA (these are MIL), EGGD (mixed MIL/CIV), EGLF (now CIV), EGTG, EGBJ, EGKB, EGMC, EGMH, EGHD, EGTE (all CIV). I don't dispute that there are others of course, such as EGLL, EGGW, EGLC, EGKK, EGSS, EGBB, where the airways link to either the surrounding TMA or Class D so you have a fully protected environment for IFR all the way down/up as the case may be. The point is that universal Class A, B, C, D protection for all IFR into/out of all airports is not the norm, so I think this makes your apparent argument that such-like is "must have" a tough one to persuade some of us outside of Australia about.

2) I didn't say there are holds in Class E (did I..!) but there are certainly plenty of ILS approaches through Class G: a quick glace at my Southern England ICAO half-mil chart edition 29 shows several places already listed (including Gloucestershire, Shoreham, Southend, Manston, and more) where this is shown on the map for the benefit of VFR a/c traversing the area to be aware of these.

3) Lambeth is a borough - Lambourne (LAM) is a VOR ;) [OK, that point is petty and doesn't help my argument - sorry!]

4) There is no requirement to use radio enroute OCTA. Furthermore, aircraft flying in Class G (or say Class E in north-eastern France) are in fact sometimes discouraged from using the radio to contact en-route ATC services in some situations: for example, the LARS services (which are very good and should be used when possible) are very often too busy to provide a service to VFR - anyone who flies around here on a busy weekend will tell you that it is not uncommon to try to do the right thing by calling say Brize Radar as we did yesterday for a LARS service to be told on first contact "sorry mate, we're a bit busy, remain OCTA - there is a lot of traffic in the area, recommend you keep a good lookout. Out". You can always get a Flight Information Service from London Information on 124.6 or 124.75 depending where you are, but these folks don't have radar and are unable to provide any separation of any kind (if someopne happened to just have called them from near your position they will tell yo this, that's all). Still they are a much valued and appreciated, helpful and useful service - especially when crossing the Channel as an alerting service, or for getting information (which they are there for) about wx, freq's, etc. It is of course necessary - and VFR are certainly encouraged to - use the radio as appropriate when entering or within controlled airspace, such as an ATZ within 2 miles of many airfields, or to take a flight information service (no separation provide) from some ATC unit which is appropriate, available and reasonably close your en-route track: but this is not a control service and does not address the situations you are worrying about as they have no knowledge of al;l of the traffic in their surrounding airspace (LARS is the exception, but as said above in busy periods, i.e. when most needed, this is often not available to us).

Being called for my lunch now: will try to respond to your further points later on mate.

Bon appetit!


Andy :8

under radar control I don't think you fully appreciate those 3 little words (especially in the aus context). Furthermore, how can you be under "Radar Control" in class G? The fact is the airspace is not class G, it is just called that in GB (as I'm sure you're fully aware, GB has a unique, non-ICAO airspace system. Better not let Dick Smith find out). Renders your 'comparison' somewhat void.
Radar coverage, radar coverage, radar coverage. Aus is not like the rest of the world, which is why unique procedures have developed. The argument that because they are unique, they are bad is spurious (case in point- unique UK procedures).
But there will be in oz (as well as parachute jumping!)
Not available in oz. Do you think it's wise to have VFR's doing their own thing amongst IFR's who are not receiving LARS? Don't you agree that it would be nice for low time pilots such as myself to have that facility available? (might even encourage more GA). What is so wrong with the oz system that we are moving to exclude VFR? The US FAA aknowledges that an inclusive system is better.
A hidden feature that will eventually be sprung upon the industry is the removal of all service in G (true G). This is where this is going. The ARG don't have the balls to come out and say so, but that is where the 'end state' will be.

All these 'stages' just bricks in the road.......

I'm off to Iftar buffet (Ramadan does have it's advantages). Ma Salama.;)

Isnt the silence from Anderson, Smith, Smith, and Smith ....well, silent! So much controversy and disagreement amongst us lot here...... but it must all be pissing in th wind because there has been no reaction from AUSNIG, CASA, ASA, DOTRS, QF, VB, A Current Affair....

Still waiting for my pilot education pack by the way Mike. I am sure it is in the mail and I have plenty of time to bone up on how my skies will be safer as I listen out... sorry, look out.

Aussie Andy
A genuine question: "Where?"

A comment: If the area frequency can indeed be looked up, what is the benefit in not displaying it in pictorial form (i.e. on the chart the pilot is already using for navigation)?

Another comment: Whatever the 'appropriate' frquency might be, it seems self-evident that it is most useful if everyone in the same area is on the same frequency. That way, if you do need to talk to someone, you can do so.
How did you know about the IFR aircraft?

NAS
 

There are at least 3 species of pilots out there.

Those that just cruise along at low level minding their own business having a fun and the occasional scary 'aviation' experience and generally staying away from anywhere the airspace is coloured or has the letter 'C' or 'R' in it. They never use the radio or transponder so hey, any new changes don't effect them!

The second group are those that take their flying seriously but are always on the edge as they don't really do enough hours. They have a few ratings, can point some pretty mean stuff at the sky, fly NVFR and PIFR, and bust the occasional cloud. They make plenty of radio calls and generally try to do the right thing but as we all know currency is everything. These blokes see themselves as semi-professionals and go where no man has gone before. They push their limits. These are the guys to educate. They don't know what can hurt them (& others), and they don't have the time to read and understand all the issues and then consolidate them in practise.

The third lot are the blokes flying for food. I actually think that this group will need to be the most careful and aware and will carry most of the responsibility for safety under NAS. Its this group that are effectively being busted out of the cocoon, chucked out of the nest, being told to ****** off and look after themselves!

Its not just a matter of radio frequencies and boundaries. AirNoServices Aust said it perfectly. We now only have control frequencies so SHUT-UP. Those of you who can't, we will make it as hard as possible for you to find the correct frequencies and boundaries.

To demonstrate, take a walk through the 'reference guide'. For those asking about the instructor pack I have one and its the same written material plus a video & a couple of CD roms for a PowerPoint presentation just mimicking the guide, nothing new.

The guide amplifies the NAS education and training supplement, ' DETAILS OF STAGES OF REFORM' which says,
> " No longer an area frequency for VFR" < " A major change is that there is no longer an area frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute"

The guide pg 8 says, " VFR pilots should listen on a freq appropriate to the airspace within which they are operating." Throughout the guide, ( pg 8, 17, 22, 27, 30, 39, etc.) it mentions flightwatch, AERIS, AWIB, ATIS, enroute ATC, App terminal freq., CTAF, MBZ, Multicom, 121.5, 123.45 . Now I ask you, for enroute VFR what would be the appropriate frequency? It obviously is the frequency for the area that you are in, and which all aircraft in that area will be on, i.e. the enroute ATC frequency. Now that we are all happy with that, what do we make of the following statement? pg 8. " The important point is that when enroute .......... A pilot should give more emphasis to monitoring CTAF/MBZ Multicolm where collision risk is many times higher. 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." WHAT A RED HERRING! Everyone with a radio is on the MBZ or CTAF freq. when in that airspace. This is already a legal requirement. The ATC freq. takes a back seat or is turned down or on standby. This type of argument is used throughout the guide where an example of something which is incorrect or not happening, is used to justify a change, ( to correct something which is not happening der der der!!!) Its about as stupid as saying it may be more appropriate to monitor 121.5 enroute. (You may be able to check your ELT works after the collision!) On that point, who would want to be frantically hunting for an enroute hard to find ATC freq. if they had a Mayday situation enroute? See and be seen basically doesn't work enroute in any but the best (read good luck) situations, and situational awareness through everymeans possible including radio is essential.

The guide pg 8 goes on to say, " The other important change is that a pilot of a VFR flight should not make broadcasts on ATC frequencies. All calls should be directed to ATC or flightwatch" ( This is the same for IFR pilots, pg 42 ) So if my situational awareness tells me I am probably going to conflict with xyz am I to contact ATC and get them to co-ordinate safe separation procedures? Or as the guide says, ask control to ask xyz to change to 123.45 and have a natter? This will create a nightmare for ATC as shown by the demonstrated procedure of the VFR flight requesting traffic information inbound to Armidale on pg 21. Instead of pilot to pilot it will always be via ATC. VFR pilots will soon be on a first name basis with ATC! I can also see 3 radio monitoring frequencies coming up, enroute ATC, 123.45, and MBZs. Great system! The ridiculousness of this situation is obvious from the following statements throughout the guide. pg 17. " Be aware that there may be aircraft in your vicinity not listening or transmitting on the radio, because they have selected another frequency." pg 39. " Pilots of IFR flights should not expect a pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time...." The situation with the IFR pickup and VFR (IFR) on top makes this plan seem even more stupid. pg 42. " These procedures are undertaken in controlled airspace (Class E) and pilots must not use the ATC freq. to exchange additional pilot to pilot information." Hey, in these procedures there is no separation for the pickup bit and when on top or VFR (IFR) enroute, and the pilot is operating at VFR levels. Woopee! The VFR pilot may not (and is not required to be) even be on the same frequency! I'll have another class of carrot juice please! AirNoServices Aust got it right.... those VFR dudes just want to yap on the radio and the only way to fix them is to remove the frequencies and silly boundaries cause they 'clutter' the charts! pg 44. "The previous system relied on a fixed boundary for freq. change that did not necessarily reflect actual coverage, which can vary with local conditions." pg 8. "This reduces clutter and is consistent with a much greater emphasis on monitoring a range of frequencies including those used by by arriving and departing traffic at airports." Hell, what can I say? This is absolute crap. Its suggesting that people are ignoring CTAF & MBZ frequencies which is not the case. These changes will not improve anything. It is in fact going to ensure VFR pilots are more confused and more likely to select an inappropriate enroute frequency. We have gone from a bit of uncertainty re area boundaries to total uncertainty on area boundaries AND frequencies. xyz on 121.2, "BN Center xyz invisible blob, Nanango 30, 7500 inbound to kilcoy for nav aid work, any traffic? xyz BN Center, you're on the wrong frequency, monitor BN Center 129.0. On the matter of clutter, I always wanted to know where you were transmitting from; Kalamunda, Mt Macedon, Mt William, Mt Tassie, Turkey Hill ( I think I know where that is! ), Mt Glorious, etc. etc. Might try one of those interesting places for my next hols!

The NAS concept of VFR Airmanship as espoused on pg 30 & 31 is flawed and creates a second class airman, the VFR pilot.
pg. 24. VFR airmanship. " Avoiding high traffic areas and instrument approaches, Avoiding holding patterns." pg 30. " Avoid as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns." pg 21. " This possible conflict in the Armidale circuit raises a point all VFR pilots should consider in their flight planning when there is a chance RPT or IFR traffic will be operating in the same airspace." Pity about that- the VFR pilot may not be monitoring the same frequency. pg 39. "Pilots of IFR flights should not expect the pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time." In fact, he is positively encouraged by the new radio procedures not to be due to the removal of the correct frequency and boundaries and the shut up policy. I would like to ask the NAS team, do they really think, and should VFR pilots be obliged to look-up and find all the IFR procedure that could effect their flight, and avoid aerodromes and nav aids? No they should not, nor more to the point will they. I would strongly advise IFR pilots in VMC to stick them eyeballs to the windscreen and LOOK-OUT. Pilots are taught to navigate via airports and towns, and later with reference to the NDB & VOR. GPS is programmed similarly. It is a totally unreasonable request to ask VFR pilots to navigate otherwise and I do not consider this procedure as exhibiting bad airmanship by the VFR pilot. How about classifying IFR procedures in VMC conditions as bad airmanship? The overlay on the WAC pg 31. shows how ridiculous this concept is and the imposition it would be to VFR pilots all over the country. I note that holding patterns at MT McQuiod, Bindook and MONDO in Class E are supposed to have warnings for VFR pilots of these holding patterns.( pg 31) I have not been able to find these warnings on any of the new charts except the Sydney VTC for Mt McQuiod. This should at least be noted on the ERC LO for the area. The whole concept as I said is flawed and introduces a completely new and impractical element for VFR pilots. I believe it will be ignored because it is both unfair and impractical.

In the instructors pack there is a video of Mike Smith doing a flight in a PA31 through inland NSW. The flight goes beautifully and Mike even does some good landings! Nothing goes wrong, nobody talks much and we all live happily ever-after. However in the real world ignorance is not bliss. In real life how many aircraft could Mike be totally unaware of and vice versa because of no common VFR area frequency? I note that like some other misconceptions of operational realities and practises in the guide, Mr Smith says on landing at Albury, " When landing and taking off we recommend you have your lights on, this will give you a strong visual presence." Shucks, thanks Mike!

I think that one of the unforseen outcomes of the NAS could be the possibility of disenfranchising VFR pilots from the system. Will this be considered a systemic 'error of management' if a serious mid air collision occurs?

I hope that all elements of ATC are prepared, willing AND happy to handle the problems that will beset the VFR pilot under NAS and accommodate the increasing no of 'pop-ups' that will occur wanting clearances etc.

And all you RPT and IFR boys and girls. Please show patience and tolerance to all the bottom dwellers trying to fly in the system as best they can, remember they did,nt ask for it.

GOODLUCK, and thank God for that BIG BLUE SKY!

How cheap would it have been to simply give the biscuit bomber his own discrete code and let him fly where and when he wanted without a radio and just get everyone else the hell out of his way.

You know it makes sense.

But Bush Pelican this system is designed for VFRs. It is what you want. AOPA and Dick Smith told us so!