Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie,
I can't actually be bothered spoon feeding you. Do your own research. Google Earth will find the airstrips. Some have a dozen aircraft based. All close enough to YTWB to make using YTWB CTAF the sensible option.
I suspect though that a lot of people who operate from these strips listen on YTWB CTAF, shut up and LOOK OUT.
It is amazing what you see when you LOOK OUT.
le Pingouin, how about you give us your version of how the NAS was sabotaged?
I can't actually be bothered spoon feeding you. Do your own research. Google Earth will find the airstrips. Some have a dozen aircraft based. All close enough to YTWB to make using YTWB CTAF the sensible option.
I suspect though that a lot of people who operate from these strips listen on YTWB CTAF, shut up and LOOK OUT.
It is amazing what you see when you LOOK OUT.
le Pingouin, how about you give us your version of how the NAS was sabotaged?
You don’t say, Eyrie?
Can I write that down in the Big Book of Aviation Wisdom?
I wonder who it was who said, in this thread, that they were taught this:
So far, only Cynical P has won a Kewpie Doll.
Can I write that down in the Big Book of Aviation Wisdom?
I wonder who it was who said, in this thread, that they were taught this:
Always assume there's always traffic around that is:
- not required to carry serviceable VHF, or
- on the wrong frequency or suffering other finger trouble,
and, if operating in and out of a flat piece of terra firma of any description, depicted or otherwise, will be carrying out 'unusual' circuit joins, going in 'unusual' circuit directions and flying at 'unusual' heights.
There shouldn't need to be a rule about keeping a lookout, but I note that there is one. It's a very good idea to comply with it.
- not required to carry serviceable VHF, or
- on the wrong frequency or suffering other finger trouble,
and, if operating in and out of a flat piece of terra firma of any description, depicted or otherwise, will be carrying out 'unusual' circuit joins, going in 'unusual' circuit directions and flying at 'unusual' heights.
There shouldn't need to be a rule about keeping a lookout, but I note that there is one. It's a very good idea to comply with it.
The frequency biscuits have been eating away at me. The search function on PPRuNe is very useful.
Here’s an interesting snippet from a 2003 thread titled “NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?”:
A thread titled “NAS Frequency Boundaries continued” opens with some quotes from Hansard. Those quotes include:
Dick
Just so I understand what you are asserting about the frequency biscuits, can you confirm that:
- the biscuits were included in the first editions of the VNCs and VTCs published without area frequency boundaries, and
- you always intended the biscuits to be included in those charts from the start?
Here’s an interesting snippet from a 2003 thread titled “NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?”:
I'm told that these frequency information "biscuits" will not be on the VFR charts i.e. VTC & VNC. The only freq. info. on those will be the APP/Radar freq. within 30nm. The biscuits are purely for the IFR charts.
If you are VFR outside 30nm and want a RIS, or clearance to climb into CTA, or you are in a pickle, the only way to find out what frequency to call on would be to try Flightwatch.
If you are VFR outside 30nm and want a RIS, or clearance to climb into CTA, or you are in a pickle, the only way to find out what frequency to call on would be to try Flightwatch.
Senator O’BRIEN—I have been informed that the meeting insisted on the inclusion of common appropriate—that is, area radio—frequencies on both instrument flying rules and visual flying rules charts together with their relevant FIO boundaries.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—I am informed that that meeting resolved that, although the removal of certain items from the maps might be compliant with the USA model, it was deemed unacceptable to occur without the fullscale architecture—that is, the risks were too high.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—There is a dispute about radio frequencies in these charts. As I understand it, the ARG deemed that meeting’s view inappropriate and decided to proceed without the frequency information being included on the charts.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—My understanding of the issue being complained about is that during transition the lack of frequency information on charts may lead to visual flying rules, pilots selecting an inappropriate frequency, so that when another aircraft broadcasts on the area frequency they just might not be aware of one another, therefore increasing the risk of collision.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—It has been put to me that at that meeting you personally assured the meeting that, should there be insufficient time to effect these changes to the charts, the implementation can be delayed to suit.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—It is put to me that Mr Heath, the convenor, wrote to you on 9 July confirming what I have described as the finding of the meeting and saying that ‘VNC and ERC charts to depict common or consistent local frequency’ and ‘to be depicted by FAOI boundaries’ and, further, that industry will accept a delay in the implementation if additional work is required to achieve these requirements in the 2b states. It is something similar to what you just said to me, but I am attempting to quote from the letter.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—I am informed that that meeting resolved that, although the removal of certain items from the maps might be compliant with the USA model, it was deemed unacceptable to occur without the fullscale architecture—that is, the risks were too high.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—There is a dispute about radio frequencies in these charts. As I understand it, the ARG deemed that meeting’s view inappropriate and decided to proceed without the frequency information being included on the charts.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—My understanding of the issue being complained about is that during transition the lack of frequency information on charts may lead to visual flying rules, pilots selecting an inappropriate frequency, so that when another aircraft broadcasts on the area frequency they just might not be aware of one another, therefore increasing the risk of collision.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—It has been put to me that at that meeting you personally assured the meeting that, should there be insufficient time to effect these changes to the charts, the implementation can be delayed to suit.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—It is put to me that Mr Heath, the convenor, wrote to you on 9 July confirming what I have described as the finding of the meeting and saying that ‘VNC and ERC charts to depict common or consistent local frequency’ and ‘to be depicted by FAOI boundaries’ and, further, that industry will accept a delay in the implementation if additional work is required to achieve these requirements in the 2b states. It is something similar to what you just said to me, but I am attempting to quote from the letter.
Just so I understand what you are asserting about the frequency biscuits, can you confirm that:
- the biscuits were included in the first editions of the VNCs and VTCs published without area frequency boundaries, and
- you always intended the biscuits to be included in those charts from the start?
Errors or omissions with AIP charts, report to Airservices (don't think someone else will):
https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...rd/default.asp
or
[email protected]
or
Fax: +61262685689
It's my recollection that industry reps at all the state RAPACs kicked up a fuss about the FIA boundaries omitted from maps, which resulted in them being put back on.
https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...rd/default.asp
or
[email protected]
or
Fax: +61262685689
It's my recollection that industry reps at all the state RAPACs kicked up a fuss about the FIA boundaries omitted from maps, which resulted in them being put back on.
Just to continue the off topic...YPDA is on the print VNC and it's not a white border at the top, it's just how I had folded it over to fit it on the table when i took the photo
Looks like it's just chopped off. I will send something to Airservices to let them know.
And BTW: It is centrally relevant to the topic. The point is that all the movements at these places that are not depicted on aeronautical charts, and the confusion about what chart or charts an airstrip has to be marked on to count as 'depicted on aeronautical charts', will result in area frequency broadcasts that may result in a 30,000' death plunge for 500 people.
Thread Starter
Creamy. As far as I can remember yes to your first question and yes to your second question.
I did not keep my charts .
I will post shortly a scan of page 23 of the origional NAS reference guide headed. " how VFR use new charts". It shows both ATC and Flightwatch frequency biscuits .
Where a terminal RIS was available the approach frequency was included on the VNC and VTC charts - not otherwise.
Captain. You are correct. The RAPAC members by in large resisted change and were not interested how the NAS was supposed to work
They wanted to continue to fly by radio and insisted the old system be reinstated but did not understand the implications. I phoned dozens of individuals but got nowhere .
Thet is why we now have this present problem. As I said . Go back to pre 1991 and re instate FS or move forward to the proven safe US FAA NAS system. Not even a recommended frequency to monitor when enroute VFR in class E or G in the US.
But RAPACs would probably object until a few more oldies die out!
I did not keep my charts .
I will post shortly a scan of page 23 of the origional NAS reference guide headed. " how VFR use new charts". It shows both ATC and Flightwatch frequency biscuits .
Where a terminal RIS was available the approach frequency was included on the VNC and VTC charts - not otherwise.
Captain. You are correct. The RAPAC members by in large resisted change and were not interested how the NAS was supposed to work
They wanted to continue to fly by radio and insisted the old system be reinstated but did not understand the implications. I phoned dozens of individuals but got nowhere .
Thet is why we now have this present problem. As I said . Go back to pre 1991 and re instate FS or move forward to the proven safe US FAA NAS system. Not even a recommended frequency to monitor when enroute VFR in class E or G in the US.
But RAPACs would probably object until a few more oldies die out!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 29th Oct 2014 at 23:01.
.jpg)
Thanks for the copy of the page from the glossy brochure, dated 27 November 2003, Dick.
I note another thread on PPRuNe, called “NAS Operational questions” that was started on 6 June 2003 – i.e. more than 5 months before the effectivity date of the glossy brochure.
The first post on that thread asked a number of questions, including these:
A PPRuNer with the handle ‘triadic’ posted these answers, on the same date:
Why would someone ask, in June 2003, about frequency information for VFRs OCTA, if the plan was always to put the biscuits with that information on the chart? 
If that was always the plan, why didn’t triadic nominate the biscuits as the answer to the questions?
I also note that you said, earlier in this thread:
I’ll ask one last time: Are you asserting that you always intended the charts to include area frequency biscuits for use by VFR aircraft OCTA, wherever they happened to be?
Why would you have volunteered those biscuits for use by VFRs OCTA, when your position then and now remains not only that VFRs OCTA don’t need to know those frequencies, but should be ‘banned’ from broadcasting on them?
It might just be my concrete idiot mind, but it doesn’t make sense to me. What makes sense to me is that you were forced to put the biscuits on the charts for use by VFRs OCTA.
In any event, that is all academic. (Entertaining, but nonetheless academic.)
The current safety issue continues to be whether broadcasts from aircraft operating in and out of places that aren’t depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are causing disruption and confusion for ATC comms in fact. I realise you and triadic reckon that there are thousands of these hives of activity, and we’re being saved from aluminium confetti because everyone’s just ignoring the ‘new’ broadcast rule. I reckon that’s the syndrome known as “living in denial”.
I note another thread on PPRuNe, called “NAS Operational questions” that was started on 6 June 2003 – i.e. more than 5 months before the effectivity date of the glossy brochure.
The first post on that thread asked a number of questions, including these:
Dick Smith, Open Mic - or anyone else who is involved – please comment if you would. Hopefully, you can dispel some of the myths and misunderstanding (including my own).
…
2) Frequencies
What frequency (if any) should VFR aircraft monitor when in:
a) Class G airspace?
b) Class E airspace?
3) Frequencies (Follow-up)
Where will the frequencies be published for VFR aircraft?
…
…
2) Frequencies
What frequency (if any) should VFR aircraft monitor when in:
a) Class G airspace?
b) Class E airspace?
3) Frequencies (Follow-up)
Where will the frequencies be published for VFR aircraft?
…
…
2) None - turn the radio off and listen to the stereo
3) VFR use radio? Why publish the freqs?
…
2) None - turn the radio off and listen to the stereo
3) VFR use radio? Why publish the freqs?
…
If that was always the plan, why didn’t triadic nominate the biscuits as the answer to the questions? I also note that you said, earlier in this thread:
The RAPAC members by in large resisted change and were not interested how the NAS was supposed to work
They wanted to continue to fly by radio and insisted the old system be reinstated but did not understand the implications. I phoned dozens of individuals but got nowhere.
Thet is why we now have this present problem.
They wanted to continue to fly by radio and insisted the old system be reinstated but did not understand the implications. I phoned dozens of individuals but got nowhere.
Thet is why we now have this present problem.
Why would you have volunteered those biscuits for use by VFRs OCTA, when your position then and now remains not only that VFRs OCTA don’t need to know those frequencies, but should be ‘banned’ from broadcasting on them?
It might just be my concrete idiot mind, but it doesn’t make sense to me. What makes sense to me is that you were forced to put the biscuits on the charts for use by VFRs OCTA.
In any event, that is all academic. (Entertaining, but nonetheless academic.)
The current safety issue continues to be whether broadcasts from aircraft operating in and out of places that aren’t depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are causing disruption and confusion for ATC comms in fact. I realise you and triadic reckon that there are thousands of these hives of activity, and we’re being saved from aluminium confetti because everyone’s just ignoring the ‘new’ broadcast rule. I reckon that’s the syndrome known as “living in denial”.
Thread Starter
Creamy
You remind me a bit of a young teenager who just never gives up on an issue and keeps trying to twist everything so they can get a win.
If I remember correctly, the biscuits were put on the chart so pilots could call up to arrange a radar flight following service. This is as per the US NAS. Of course, in the US it is mainly Flight Service outlets that you call and they will then give you the frequency of the correct air traffic control centre. Because we did not have enough flight service/Flightwatch outlets, at some places we showed the ATC outlet and simply said, “call the nearest VHF outlet if you want to request a service”. In fact, I will quote directly from page 22 of the same document.
Elsewhere it says,
So the answer is yes, we always intended to include area frequency biscuits on charts where they were necessary so a pilot could call up and get a radar information service or even simply request weather information.
This is totally consistent with, to use your words, “banning VFR aircraft from broadcasting on these frequencies”.
You say,
Creamy, why don’t you give me a phone call? I’m sure you have my number. Or if you email me at [email protected] I will send it to you.
You remind me a bit of a young teenager who just never gives up on an issue and keeps trying to twist everything so they can get a win.
If I remember correctly, the biscuits were put on the chart so pilots could call up to arrange a radar flight following service. This is as per the US NAS. Of course, in the US it is mainly Flight Service outlets that you call and they will then give you the frequency of the correct air traffic control centre. Because we did not have enough flight service/Flightwatch outlets, at some places we showed the ATC outlet and simply said, “call the nearest VHF outlet if you want to request a service”. In fact, I will quote directly from page 22 of the same document.
How to use the New Charts
To identify where a Radar Information Service is available in a terminal area and to find the appropriate frequency, look for a data block (Figure A). This data block depicts the service provider, the location of the transmitter and the frequency.
To identify where a Radar Information Service is available in a terminal area and to find the appropriate frequency, look for a data block (Figure A). This data block depicts the service provider, the location of the transmitter and the frequency.
While operating under visual flight rules, pilots must ensure they maintain constant visual surveillance and refrain from broadcasting their position on an ATC frequency.
This is totally consistent with, to use your words, “banning VFR aircraft from broadcasting on these frequencies”.
You say,
But it doesn’t make sense to me.
Then we’re all agreed: Charts with the area frequency boundaries achieve exactly the same outcome. 
It’s just about the broadcast rules.
Are you suggesting the sentence you quoted from a 10 year old glossy brochure is the original source of an obligation not to broadcast on the area frequency in G, and that this 'obligation' persisted until the recent ‘change’?
And Dick: I don’t need to ‘win’ anything. It’s you that’s lobbying to ‘undo’ the ‘change’.
It’s just about the broadcast rules.
Are you suggesting the sentence you quoted from a 10 year old glossy brochure is the original source of an obligation not to broadcast on the area frequency in G, and that this 'obligation' persisted until the recent ‘change’?
And Dick: I don’t need to ‘win’ anything. It’s you that’s lobbying to ‘undo’ the ‘change’.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the answer is yes, we always intended to include area frequency biscuits on charts where they were necessary so a pilot could call up and get a radar information service or even simply request weather information.
This is totally consistent with, to use your words, “banning VFR aircraft from broadcasting on these frequencies”.
This is totally consistent with, to use your words, “banning VFR aircraft from broadcasting on these frequencies”.
Just clarify for me please, Dick. You were providing area frequencies so VFR pilots could call up ATC but, at the same time you were banning them from making a call?
Does this mean its ok to risk Creamy's shower of aluminium confetti from 30,000 in order to get a weather update but not to alert others of the risk when stooging VFR through an area populated with unmarked landing grounds subject to high intensity use?
Kaz
Dick
A couple of serious questions, based on a factual scenario.
When I look at the Sydney VNC, I see, for example, a green boundary around a big area that covers places like Bathurst, Orange, Cowra etc.
Within the area inside the green boundary are a couple of boxes, inside each of which is “ML CEN 118.5” in brown text and “ML CEN 135.25 MT CANOBALAS” in green text.
There’s also “A LL FL180” in blue text, and “E LL 8500” in brown text.
The legend for that chart says:
- the green boundary denotes an “FIA boundary”, and
- the numbers in the boxes are “FIS FREQUENC[IES]”
- the “A LL FL180” in blue denotes the lower level of Class A airspace is Flight Level 180, and
- the “E LL 8500” in brown text denote the level of Class E airspace is 8,500’.
In this scenario:
(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?
(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?
As I say, serious questions.
A couple of serious questions, based on a factual scenario.
When I look at the Sydney VNC, I see, for example, a green boundary around a big area that covers places like Bathurst, Orange, Cowra etc.
Within the area inside the green boundary are a couple of boxes, inside each of which is “ML CEN 118.5” in brown text and “ML CEN 135.25 MT CANOBALAS” in green text.
There’s also “A LL FL180” in blue text, and “E LL 8500” in brown text.
The legend for that chart says:
- the green boundary denotes an “FIA boundary”, and
- the numbers in the boxes are “FIS FREQUENC[IES]”
- the “A LL FL180” in blue denotes the lower level of Class A airspace is Flight Level 180, and
- the “E LL 8500” in brown text denote the level of Class E airspace is 8,500’.
In this scenario:
(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?
(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?
As I say, serious questions.
Thread Starter
Kaz3g
Making a broadcast is quite different to making a directed call to ATC. I thought this would be clear.
Under the NAS, it is prohibited from making a broadcast on ATC frequencies that are used for separation – just common sense.
Yes, you can call ATC and request a workload permitting radar information service or request weather information. That means that ATC can simply say “stand by” or “radar service not available”. However making announcements on ATC frequencies, such as taxiing calls or inbound calls for a circuit area can block out necessary ATC transmissions.
Creamy
The present system is a complete mess. I have asked lots of pilots similar questions to the one you are now asking – everyone gives a different answer. This is because people with concrete minds who are trying to resist change and have never once, ever, thought of copying the best from wherever it is in the world, insisted on changing back towards the old separate Flightservice / ATC system. This is clearly impossible because we no longer have a separate Flightservice system.
There are absolute dopes who think the present system means that you have everyone on the correct frequency to use “radio arranged separation” as we did pre-1991. Of course, this is not so. The system at present is so incredibly complex that most people either don’t know what frequency to be on or have made an error and are on the wrong frequency, whatever that may be.
Go to the United States and there are simply no frequency boundaries marked on charts. You can call up a local Flightwatch outlet or on the air traffic control charts there are small boxes (you can call them ‘biscuits’) which allow you to call directly to ATC; even then, the ATC will tell you what frequency to change to for a service depending on what area you are in. It works superbly in the USA and it will work superbly here once we have enough sense to copy the best.
Making a broadcast is quite different to making a directed call to ATC. I thought this would be clear.
Under the NAS, it is prohibited from making a broadcast on ATC frequencies that are used for separation – just common sense.
Yes, you can call ATC and request a workload permitting radar information service or request weather information. That means that ATC can simply say “stand by” or “radar service not available”. However making announcements on ATC frequencies, such as taxiing calls or inbound calls for a circuit area can block out necessary ATC transmissions.
Creamy
The present system is a complete mess. I have asked lots of pilots similar questions to the one you are now asking – everyone gives a different answer. This is because people with concrete minds who are trying to resist change and have never once, ever, thought of copying the best from wherever it is in the world, insisted on changing back towards the old separate Flightservice / ATC system. This is clearly impossible because we no longer have a separate Flightservice system.
There are absolute dopes who think the present system means that you have everyone on the correct frequency to use “radio arranged separation” as we did pre-1991. Of course, this is not so. The system at present is so incredibly complex that most people either don’t know what frequency to be on or have made an error and are on the wrong frequency, whatever that may be.
Go to the United States and there are simply no frequency boundaries marked on charts. You can call up a local Flightwatch outlet or on the air traffic control charts there are small boxes (you can call them ‘biscuits’) which allow you to call directly to ATC; even then, the ATC will tell you what frequency to change to for a service depending on what area you are in. It works superbly in the USA and it will work superbly here once we have enough sense to copy the best.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, as I once emailed you: "trying to change Australian aviation is just like what Simon Bolivar said about making revolution in South America - it is like plowing the sea."
Unfortunately it will slowly decline and in 10 to 15 years GA will be mostly gone. So will RAAus and gliding when you look at the age profile of the current pilots.
I remember the frequency biscuits on the NAS charts. No problem as to what to do if you actually read the guidance material.
As I said, it is amazing what you can see if you actually look.
"It might just be my concrete idiot mind". Got it in one Creamie. Pathetic.
Unfortunately it will slowly decline and in 10 to 15 years GA will be mostly gone. So will RAAus and gliding when you look at the age profile of the current pilots.
I remember the frequency biscuits on the NAS charts. No problem as to what to do if you actually read the guidance material.
As I said, it is amazing what you can see if you actually look.
"It might just be my concrete idiot mind". Got it in one Creamie. Pathetic.
As usual, I can confidently guess the answer when I don't get the answer to the questions I actually asked.
For completeness' sake, I repeat the questions I asked at post 139:
I'm confident that the correct answers don't need around 500 words, Dick.
Eyrie, the charts with the biscuits were, along with the expensive guidance material, reduced to cockie-cage lining over a decade ago.
From my perspective, the concrete-minded are those who don't comprehend that I'm trying to help Dick, by exposing the weaknesses that will be used to counter his scaremongering. If an idiot like me can identify and address them, in 5 minutes' research and typing, I'm pretty sure I won't be the only one.
Bear in mind that when Dick publishes his hard-hitting press release and punters look to the government for salvation from the threat of the 30,000' death plunge, a team of people much smarter than me will be tasked to provide a brief and a draft press release for the minister in response.
In those circumstances, people who support Dick's cause (me included) might see the value of exposing, in advance, the potential flaws in the assumptions of his proposed course of action, so that those flaws can be considered and coherently addressed before the minister and CASA let loose on Dick.
But as I say, I'm a nobody.
For completeness' sake, I repeat the questions I asked at post 139:
[In the scenario I set out in post 139]:
(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?
(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?
(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?
(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?
Eyrie, the charts with the biscuits were, along with the expensive guidance material, reduced to cockie-cage lining over a decade ago.
From my perspective, the concrete-minded are those who don't comprehend that I'm trying to help Dick, by exposing the weaknesses that will be used to counter his scaremongering. If an idiot like me can identify and address them, in 5 minutes' research and typing, I'm pretty sure I won't be the only one.
Bear in mind that when Dick publishes his hard-hitting press release and punters look to the government for salvation from the threat of the 30,000' death plunge, a team of people much smarter than me will be tasked to provide a brief and a draft press release for the minister in response.
In those circumstances, people who support Dick's cause (me included) might see the value of exposing, in advance, the potential flaws in the assumptions of his proposed course of action, so that those flaws can be considered and coherently addressed before the minister and CASA let loose on Dick.
But as I say, I'm a nobody.
Last edited by Creampuff; 30th Oct 2014 at 10:03.
Thread Starter
I will send out the press release but it will have no effect.
I'm glad I put that bit in about 100s of pax - otherwise it would have been a complete flop- at least got creamy going!
I am glad CASA sent out their NOTAM - it makes it clear they havn't a clue about airspace.
One day it will be resolved!
I'm glad I put that bit in about 100s of pax - otherwise it would have been a complete flop- at least got creamy going!
I am glad CASA sent out their NOTAM - it makes it clear they havn't a clue about airspace.
One day it will be resolved!
So you're prepared to send out a press release which, by your own admission:
- "will have no effect", and
- warns of 500 lives lost,
just to ensure it's "not a complete flop".
To borrow the language of Clare Prop: "Wow"! "Just: Wow"! [Exclamation marks added]
I think it would be imprudent for you to pursue the foreshadowed course of action, but it's entirely a matter for you, Dick.
- "will have no effect", and
- warns of 500 lives lost,
just to ensure it's "not a complete flop".
To borrow the language of Clare Prop: "Wow"! "Just: Wow"! [Exclamation marks added]
I think it would be imprudent for you to pursue the foreshadowed course of action, but it's entirely a matter for you, Dick.
If one asks somebody to come along for a flight in a GA aircraft, this is an all too common response: "But they are always crashing."
Fortunately, there are many that welcome the opportunity. And invariably they really enjoy the trip.
So I don't see how Dick's "press release" will do anything to benefit GA.
(And from a private citizen, isn't "press release" just a little pretentious?)
Fortunately, there are many that welcome the opportunity. And invariably they really enjoy the trip.
So I don't see how Dick's "press release" will do anything to benefit GA.
(And from a private citizen, isn't "press release" just a little pretentious?)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I don't see how Dick's "press release" will do anything to benefit GA
RPT will apparently have the benefit of a less polluted communications environment and VFR will lose the "RIS" currently available to them as they wend their way across a landscape littered with busy, unmarked landing grounds and multitudes of parachutists.
But, you never know, some bright spark in the brave new Regulator's Citadel might decide it would be a good idea to have separate Area frequencies below 5000' so we can all call as we ascend into the presence of the blessed.
Apparently we did that at some time past but I'm too old to remember such things now.
Funny though, with all this concern to avoid broadcasting on ATC frequencies, we have all for years and years been required to broadcast (got it right this time, Dick) on the Area Frequency 135.7 as we aviate along the VFR coastal or inland routes around Melbourne where all those big and middling aeroplanes are coming down to the lower levels and it is REALLY busy.
For example, from the Visual Pilot Guide...
"Melbourne Coastal Route Traffic, ZFR Cessna 172, Altona South eastbound, 1500, Melbourne Coastal Route."
And woe betide the VFR pilot who isn't listening to Melbourne Radar as parachutists launch themselves above Point Ormond, right in the middle of that coastal route in close proximity to Moorabbin, Essendon and Avalon airspace, and numerous helicopter landing sites.
Kaz
Funny you should mention the VPG for Melbourne, Kaz.
In a related thread I raised the question of whether student pilots around Melbourne were being instructed not to monitor the area frequency or make broadcasts in accordance with the VPG. As I recall neither Jack Ranga nor triadic responded. But my recollection may be inaccurate.
In a related thread I raised the question of whether student pilots around Melbourne were being instructed not to monitor the area frequency or make broadcasts in accordance with the VPG. As I recall neither Jack Ranga nor triadic responded. But my recollection may be inaccurate.