Williamtown VFR Flight Planning
I'd like to see you sell the mixing of high cap RPT with uncontrolled VFR to the general public.
Which would never happen in Australia, of course. Oh, wait !!! we do very day, unlike the almost complete absence of G in USA.
You know, as well as I do, that your last post is a complete distortion, and in no way even attempts to answer my question: "What is the US downside"??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was always under the impression that filing a flight plan for every flight is an excellent idea, and greatly assists with any SAR effort, when you disappear off the radar, or don't turn up at your destination.
Dick obviously thinks flight plans are an anachronism, and everyone should be able to just jump in their bugsmasher and tool around the sky, blithely darting here and there, and dropping into airfields at whim, just to keep ATC on their toes.
Is the U.S. aviation scene so much safer, because their systems are so much freer and better?? Inquiring minds need to know.
Dick obviously thinks flight plans are an anachronism, and everyone should be able to just jump in their bugsmasher and tool around the sky, blithely darting here and there, and dropping into airfields at whim, just to keep ATC on their toes.
Is the U.S. aviation scene so much safer, because their systems are so much freer and better?? Inquiring minds need to know.
If you want to move from one system to another the transition needs to be accounted for. How is that a complete distortion?
Where do we have A380s going OCTA? And what, prey tell, is the difference between E and G where IFR encountering VFR is concerned? Oh wait, there is none.
Where do we have A380s going OCTA? And what, prey tell, is the difference between E and G where IFR encountering VFR is concerned? Oh wait, there is none.
Change!
The problem with introducing any change in the first instance is that it must be safe, and part of that process is to conduct a safety case/risk analysis on the proposed change. It may well be that the new proposed system is better and considered safer, HOWEVER, you must also conduct a safety case on the transition and in many cases the change does not go ahead because the risks during the change are unacceptable.
The other important consideration is CULTURE. It may well be that any proposed change is seen as good from most points of view, but then the change in culture must be addressed and that requires a mountain of education/training which may well be beyond the budget allocated or available???
Yes, it would be good to have a USA/FAA system in Oz, but it would need a bucket of $$'s and a significant change in the culture of the whole aviation community from the Minister, the regulator, service provider and all those that fly from ATPL to Students, RAoz and Gliders Etc Etc.
As above, a risk analysis on such a change would most likely find that the risks associated with such a change unacceptable, even tho' the end product might be highly desirable.
Bottom line.... Work on making our existing system more user friendly.
I recall a ferry flight from the UK through all those countries and the the culture of them all was that you are treated as a professional until you show that you are an idiot - cross into Oz airspace and you are treated like an idiot until you show you are a professional- that was a few years back. One can only hope it has changed. However the culture in our regulator is presently part of the problem and the new Director is yet to show that he has yet had much influence on changing it where it counts.
Now to go flying in G!!
The other important consideration is CULTURE. It may well be that any proposed change is seen as good from most points of view, but then the change in culture must be addressed and that requires a mountain of education/training which may well be beyond the budget allocated or available???
Yes, it would be good to have a USA/FAA system in Oz, but it would need a bucket of $$'s and a significant change in the culture of the whole aviation community from the Minister, the regulator, service provider and all those that fly from ATPL to Students, RAoz and Gliders Etc Etc.
As above, a risk analysis on such a change would most likely find that the risks associated with such a change unacceptable, even tho' the end product might be highly desirable.
Bottom line.... Work on making our existing system more user friendly.
I recall a ferry flight from the UK through all those countries and the the culture of them all was that you are treated as a professional until you show that you are an idiot - cross into Oz airspace and you are treated like an idiot until you show you are a professional- that was a few years back. One can only hope it has changed. However the culture in our regulator is presently part of the problem and the new Director is yet to show that he has yet had much influence on changing it where it counts.
Now to go flying in G!!
Where do we have A380s going OCTA?
Originally Posted by Ledsled
Oh, wait !!! we do very day, unlike the almost complete absence of G in USA.
Either that or you don't even know/understand what services are provided in our "Non-Controlled" airspace...
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YWLM overhead route altitudes
what's the highest altitude you can realistically ask to be cleared for the overhead route? Can you climb to 8500 at 55DME sydney, thence to 9500 to clear R976/R977, and then ask for overhead at 9500? or should I go low and try for it at 2500-3500?
Cue the warries from LS when he was flying the 747 with Qantas passengers thru Class G... in Afghanistan.
Your abysmal ignorance is showing, to this day Qantas aircraft operate in G in many areas around the world (including AU) --- as do most international airlines.
As for your 'We don't have G in Australia, it's F", all I can do is suggest you read, digest and try to understand the definitions of G and F. Australian G is G, not F.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Sticking with facts and not fantasy will never do my credibility (where it counts) any damage.
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Feb 2016 at 02:52.
Bloggs,
Your abysmal ignorance is showing,
Your abysmal ignorance is showing,
That was during a discussion in which you continually evaded the point as to how specifically you operated IFR in Class G, hiding behind vague statements like 'I refuse to take part in illegal self-separation' etc, but never answering the question when it came to whether and how you do actually fly in such circumstances.
You never actually answered the question, and while I don't expect to ever hear a straight answer from you about anything, I do feel it's necessary to point out the pattern of attack, then run and hide, in your online behaviour.
Credibility isn't the thing that stands out in your communications, that's for sure.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Class F under ICAO is very clearly non radio for VFR. Every document shows this. Yet Bloggs is obsessed with radio for VFR.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Something strange here!
The fact of the matter is we have a superior system that works well in our area of operations and you "overseas experts" have failed in trying to squash it into the alphabet soup airspace descriptors. You can call it F- or G+, but don't think you can con me by calling it ICAO Class G.
And your ready arrogance and rudeness is showing, Leadsled.
Interpret my approach as you wish, I say what I mean, and mean what I say, and I have no time for PC getting in the way of clear meaning.
As for "questions" for which you demand "answers", looks like you will have to live with it.
Fact is, so many of you have little or no real aviation experience outside Australia, and therefore no understanding that aviation happens quite successfully, throughout the world, but particularly in US, without the anal, hide-bound, criminal law pedantic rule-throttled approach of Australia, all of which has been, no doubt, a major contribution to Australia's comparatively poor aviation safety outcomes.
"Fly the rules" takes precedence over "fly the aeroplane" in AU, and the results are there for all to see.
Bloggs,
I suggest you review the ICAO definition of Class F airspace, you might be surprised.
Tootle pip!!
I say what I mean, and mean what I say, and I have no time for PC getting in the way of clear meaning.
Calling people abysmally ignorant hasn't got anything to do with PC-ness or otherwise, it's just rude.
---- but don't answer clear and direct questions you don't like
I don't particularly "like" or "dislike" your questions, I just regard them as a nonsense.
As incomprehensible as it may seem to you, you apparently being a product of the Australian "system", there is no one "correct" answer to the questions, to which you have demanded answers.
As to who would say and do what, when, in and around an airfield in Class G, doesn't that entirely depend on the circumstances, and ,while we are at it, I see little difference between IFR and VHF equipped VFR flights?
Tootle pip!!
PS: I suppose you realise that the "The Australian Way" (do-it- yourself ATC) as above has been subject of considerable scrutiny/study over the years (and not "just" by Dick, but major consulting orgs., with seriously heavyweight credibility, hired by AU Government entities) and been found to NOT be the optimum in minimizing the risks of operation in G.
Still bloody waffling!
You stated a few times you wouldn't take part in what you called illegal self separation in Class G.
I, quite reasonably I thought, asked the obvious question - what do you do instead then? It is a clear question, and while you hide by saying, oh, it depends on circumstances, you don't do your so-called credibility any favours by harrumphing and talking in circles.
Clearly you either don't fly in Aussie Class G in the circumstances described in that other thread in which you carried on like a know-all pork chop, or if you do, you must be bloody dangerous when there's cloud about!
You stated a few times you wouldn't take part in what you called illegal self separation in Class G.
I, quite reasonably I thought, asked the obvious question - what do you do instead then? It is a clear question, and while you hide by saying, oh, it depends on circumstances, you don't do your so-called credibility any favours by harrumphing and talking in circles.
Clearly you either don't fly in Aussie Class G in the circumstances described in that other thread in which you carried on like a know-all pork chop, or if you do, you must be bloody dangerous when there's cloud about!
Originally Posted by Sleed
Bloggs,
I suggest you review the ICAO definition of Class F airspace, you might be surprised.
I suggest you review the ICAO definition of Class F airspace, you might be surprised.
Take heed of your own advice, LS. As I said, credibility = ZERO.
To think that you are running around the halls of power sprouting off as though you know everything is a real worry. No wonder "everybody" doesn't do what you and Dick say they should...
We have Class F: accept it and get over it.
I think you're confusing the provision of traffic information for air traffic control separation, Bloggs.
The substantial difference between F and G is that in F, air traffic control has authority over IFR. In G, air traffic control has no authority over IFR (or VFR).
I'm yet to hear Centre give ATC instructions to any IFR aircraft in Australian G about what what heading or altitude to use while in G.
The substantial difference between F and G is that in F, air traffic control has authority over IFR. In G, air traffic control has no authority over IFR (or VFR).
I'm yet to hear Centre give ATC instructions to any IFR aircraft in Australian G about what what heading or altitude to use while in G.
What, precisely, do you say are the precise differences between ICAO F and ICAO G? I say it's that ATC has some authority over IFR in F, but no authority over IFR in G.
Classification of Airspace - SKYbrary Aviation Safety
IMO ATC does not have any "authority" over IFR in F; the ATAS provides for ATS to suggest a course of action to avoid (as happens now in Surv airspace eg ADS-B/radar coverage if a conflict appears).
IMO ATC does not have any "authority" over IFR in F; the ATAS provides for ATS to suggest a course of action to avoid (as happens now in Surv airspace eg ADS-B/radar coverage if a conflict appears).
What, precisely, do you say are the precise differences between ICAO F and ICAO G?
I'm not sure that traffic information is the same as traffic separation.
I'm not sure that traffic information is the same as traffic separation.