Williamtown VFR Flight Planning
I think it boils down to the difference between (1) an "air traffic advisory service", and (2) a "flight information service".
My reading of ICAO Annex 11 App 4 is that IFR gets 1 and 2 in F, but IFR only gets 2 in G.
(1) is defined to mean
"advisory airspace" is defined to mean:
(2) is defined to mean:
AIP GEN 3.3 has provisions about "traffic information service" and "traffic information in Class G".
The details of the traffic information service described in the AIP seem to result in that service being neither completely fish (1) nor completely fowl (2).
But I have to ask the obvious questions: If the intention was that IFR be given, and are in fact being given, an "air traffic advisory service" in accordance with ICAO Class F:
- why isn't it called an "air traffic advisory service" in AIP, and
- why isn't the airspace designated Class F?
My spidey senses say that when something in aviation regulation makes no sense, the answer must be: politics.
For ATC and flight service folks out there, do you consider you are, in fact, providing an "air traffic advisory service", as defined above, to IFR in 'G'. If 'yes', why doesn't AIP simply call it that?
My reading of ICAO Annex 11 App 4 is that IFR gets 1 and 2 in F, but IFR only gets 2 in G.
(1) is defined to mean
Air traffic advisory service. A service provided within advisory airspace to ensure separation, in so far as practical, between aircraft which are operating on IFR flight plans.
Advisory airspace. An airspace of defined dimensions, or designated route, within which air traffic advisory service is available.
Flight information service. A service provided for the purpose of giving advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights.
The details of the traffic information service described in the AIP seem to result in that service being neither completely fish (1) nor completely fowl (2).
But I have to ask the obvious questions: If the intention was that IFR be given, and are in fact being given, an "air traffic advisory service" in accordance with ICAO Class F:
- why isn't it called an "air traffic advisory service" in AIP, and
- why isn't the airspace designated Class F?
My spidey senses say that when something in aviation regulation makes no sense, the answer must be: politics.
For ATC and flight service folks out there, do you consider you are, in fact, providing an "air traffic advisory service", as defined above, to IFR in 'G'. If 'yes', why doesn't AIP simply call it that?
You stated a few times you wouldn't take part in what you called illegal self separation in Class G.
It is clearly beyond your imagination to think that there might be other ways of achieving minimum risk operations around airfields in G, without the "do-it-yourself" ATC that prevails, as a matter of learned habit, without any legal sanction.
Indeed, I would suggest that what happens in practice is (still) non-compliant with CAR 166, and certainly the intent of CAR 166.
The great danger of what does go on (as been picked up in a number of studies, including PCH, Bureau Veritas and Roake Manor Research) among other things, is the false sense of security, that those "participating" are the only aircraft in the area.
It is quite pathetic, some of the indignant reactions I have seen, by Regional crews, when "other traffic" does not get out of their way, or otherwise behave as "directed".
Best example, recently, the PIC of the "other traffic" was a very very senior Commonwealth civil servant, who is also a very experienced aviator, and knows the "rools". Seldom have I seen an "RPT" pilot back down so fast, when he recognised just who he was dealing with, probably from TV news. Suddenly realised it was not some hapless "Blundering Bug Smasher" who could be intimidated by a self-confessed "professional".
Reminds me of a similar occasion, Armidale, the "Weekend Warrior" in the C-152, the target of the "professional", also happened to be a very senior Canberra civil servant and very experienced aviator.
Tootle pip!!
There is no "advisory" airspace declared within Australian territory, so no "Air Traffic Advisory Service".
There is no Class F airspace declared within Australian territory.
What is not declared as Class A/C/D/E is declared as Class G.
Traffic information in Class G airspace is a component of the FIS, and detailed in AIP GEN 3.3 2.13.
Forget about what ICAO may or may not say and political conspiracy theories.
Go and sniff the roses ......
There is no Class F airspace declared within Australian territory.
What is not declared as Class A/C/D/E is declared as Class G.
Traffic information in Class G airspace is a component of the FIS, and detailed in AIP GEN 3.3 2.13.
Forget about what ICAO may or may not say and political conspiracy theories.
Go and sniff the roses ......
There is no "advisory" airspace declared within Australian territory, so no "Air Traffic Advisory Service".
There is no Class F airspace declared within Australian territory.
What is not declared as Class A/C/D/E is declared as Class G.
Traffic information in Class G airspace is a component of the FIS, and detailed in AIP GEN 3.3 2.13.
Forget about what ICAO may or may not say and political conspiracy theories.
Go and sniff the roses ......
There is no Class F airspace declared within Australian territory.
What is not declared as Class A/C/D/E is declared as Class G.
Traffic information in Class G airspace is a component of the FIS, and detailed in AIP GEN 3.3 2.13.
Forget about what ICAO may or may not say and political conspiracy theories.
Go and sniff the roses ......
You've already answered your question - politics. The reason it's called "G" and not "F" is because it was a pre-emptive naming to reflect the desired end-state. Nothing to do with reality.
What we do is far closer to "F" than "G".
What we do is far closer to "F" than "G".
Le P, meet the Capt; Capt meet Le P.
I'm talking about the nature of the service being provided and the good Captain is talking about the legal requirements for airspace classification. They aren't mutually exclusive.
True, there is no class F airspace, but that doesn't mean we aren't providing a service that looks a lot more like "F" than "G".
True, there is no class F airspace, but that doesn't mean we aren't providing a service that looks a lot more like "F" than "G".
The reason it's called "G" and not "F" is because it was a pre-emptive naming to reflect the desired end-state. Nothing to do with reality.
Closest i.e. a better fit was Class G and that's what is declared, with some variations from ICAO Class G which make it F-ish as le P says.
ICAO permits States to provide a higher level of service than normally applies with a classification.
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...
One thing that has been absolutely consistent now for how long?? over 35+ years, is that I (and many others) totally disagree with the inward looking and inflexible "no change" approach of you and your cohort, particularly no change to anything that smacks of the way the US conducts aviation.
To quote an AFAP Technical Director, at an "airspace" meeting, some years ago, now: "I don't care if the Yanks are safer, we are not going to do it here".
Indeed, it was this insular and ignorant attitude (still much in evidence among AU domestic pilots) that resulted in the breakup of the old AFAP and the formation of AIPA, the AFAP domestics adopted a Luddite approach that we, in the then Overseas Branch, would not accept.
We at QF had to live in the real world, not the aviation Galapagos called Australia.
On a more particular level, I well recall you demanding changes to G procedures because: "when I am doing 250 kt in the circuit, GA aeroplanes
are hard to see ----" and my simple answer, slow down. Your retort was that it would cost several minutes. Commercial saving took precedence over good airmanship, ie: applied common sense, apparently, in your outfit. And, as I recall, given the aeroplane you were flying at the time, wondering how close you were to Vno at low level at 250kt, given bird strike limitations of the era.
You conveniently forget that we did have major airspace change in, and it was working well, as judged by independent and unbiased assessment, it was industrial action/pressure that forced its reversal, not operational safety problems. The "famous" "bottom drawer letter".
When it come to credibility, I will back myself against you any time.
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Leddsled
I well recall you demanding changes to G procedures because: "when I am doing 250 kt in the circuit, GA aeroplanes
are hard to see ----" and my simple answer, slow down. Your retort was that it would cost several minutes.
are hard to see ----" and my simple answer, slow down. Your retort was that it would cost several minutes.
the inward looking and inflexible "no change" approach of you and your cohort, particularly no change to anything that smacks of the way the US conducts aviation.
You are the inflexible one; our airspace system has served us well,for decades (midair jet collisions here, anyone? Over there? Oh yes, been a few...) and you lot can't see it. Oh yes, the Tobago driver at Launy saw the 737, said nothing and almost ran into it! See and been seen in Class E. Good one. You need to open your eyes.
Well massaged, Captain M! 
I should have realised: The answer would be yes, no and maybe, with some bad industrial relations blood always in the mix. My spidey senses are rarely wrong.
Australian aviation regulation: Ridiculous one day; more ridiculous the next; and a complete bugger's muddle two decades later.
Bewdy!
I should have realised: The answer would be yes, no and maybe, with some bad industrial relations blood always in the mix. My spidey senses are rarely wrong.
Australian aviation regulation: Ridiculous one day; more ridiculous the next; and a complete bugger's muddle two decades later.
Bewdy!
Look, LeadSled, I've only been coming back at you because you've been dodging around the point so much after using a lot of belittling language about others.
You called me and others abysmally ignorant, now you're saying things are clearly beyond my imagination etc ... this is insulting talk that's just not called for.
I asked you a simple question, you didn't answer - not just once, but a number of times now. I don't want some off topic diversion, I just want to know (because you've never supplied the answer but have been happy to keep up some kind of wacky pretence that you know more than the rest of us) - if you don't use pilot separation over the radio in Australian Class G airspace when IFR in IMC at a CTAF, then what do you do instead?
It's a simple question, so really, just answer it or stop pretending.
You called me and others abysmally ignorant, now you're saying things are clearly beyond my imagination etc ... this is insulting talk that's just not called for.
I asked you a simple question, you didn't answer - not just once, but a number of times now. I don't want some off topic diversion, I just want to know (because you've never supplied the answer but have been happy to keep up some kind of wacky pretence that you know more than the rest of us) - if you don't use pilot separation over the radio in Australian Class G airspace when IFR in IMC at a CTAF, then what do you do instead?
It's a simple question, so really, just answer it or stop pretending.
Originally Posted by Midnight
Traffic information in Class G airspace is a component of the FIS, and detailed in AIP GEN 3.3 2.13.
Australian aviation regulation: Ridiculous one day; more ridiculous the next; and a complete bugger's muddle two decades later.
The rest of the "complete bugger" changes has been totally, completely and unnecessary and I suspect has driven many lighty pilots from the industry as they just can't keep up. MBZ, CTAF R, radio requirements, E corridors, CTAFs, alphabet soup airspace, what has this change achieved? Nothing! You lot should be ashamed of yourselves.
Call the airspace what you like, but don't you dare run around scaring everybody saying we've got "dirt Road" Class G airspace and we need to upgrade because we haven't. Our OCTA, especially now with more surveillance, is nothing like ICAO (or Septic) Class G, nothing like it. You know it but you won't admit it.
Speaking of bad blood ...
Other than Dick, to whom are you referring when you say "you" won't admit "it", Bloggsie?
And wasn't Dick appointed and allowed by governments to bring about some of the changes that you don't like?
And I remain confused about whether Australia has F called G or G called G.
Other than Dick, to whom are you referring when you say "you" won't admit "it", Bloggsie?
And wasn't Dick appointed and allowed by governments to bring about some of the changes that you don't like?
And I remain confused about whether Australia has F called G or G called G.
I'm referring to Leadie, not you, Leadie.
Of course he was. And I'll give you one guess why.
Changes? We're mostly back to square one, with a few minor changes. That's my point. Everything's changed, but nothing's changed. What a shambles...
You've got the ICAO documents. I might be getting paranoid, but the old adage, never ask a question unless you know the answer comes to mind, Leadie... 
And wasn't Dick appointed and allowed by governments to bring about some of the changes that you don't like?
Changes? We're mostly back to square one, with a few minor changes. That's my point. Everything's changed, but nothing's changed. What a shambles...
And I remain confused about whether Australia has F called G or G called G.
From now on, I'll call it "FORG".
