Why no full position reports in G and E ?
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Le ping, it may be a bit easier for them to prove something was observed, or should have been observed, if your one of the controllers who iql's all VFR in your airspace as per the way they teach at the academy.
I tell you what else is considered un-Australian: whinging, spitting the dummy, taking one's bat and ball and going home, not admitting one is wrong, dobbing, line shooting, hogging, thinking one is better than others. Anybody else want to add to the list?
" your letter 4 April now completely reverses this advice and explains the AIP states that pilots do not have to give position reports when " identified"- What's going on? How can you change your position by 180 degrees and not explain the reason for this change"
So ittsnot, what is the correct procedure- give full position reports so monitoring VFR aircraft can reply if necessary, or don't give position reports?
It's over to you or Bloggs to advise what the correct procedure is. I think I know but I am human and make mistakes from time to time. That's why I always ask advice. That's what I am doing now and I notice both of you do not make a clear statement!
So ittsnot, what is the correct procedure- give full position reports so monitoring VFR aircraft can reply if necessary, or don't give position reports?
It's over to you or Bloggs to advise what the correct procedure is. I think I know but I am human and make mistakes from time to time. That's why I always ask advice. That's what I am doing now and I notice both of you do not make a clear statement!
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing we should have, but I'll reiterate what I wrote earlier. Any system that requires IFR aircraft, in CTA and identified via SSR or ADS-B, to make full position reports is preposterous.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responsible for VFR aircraft in E? Since when was that a thing for ATC? You tell IFR aircraft of visible VFR aircraft when giving traffic, but there is not a direct responsibly for ATC at all for VFR in E. Seriously... Before you go and point fingers, get you facts right.
Gee Dick,
I don't know just when the quoted number of FSOs reached 700...was that 700 at any one time, as in, all at the same time?
Genuine query, just wondering about your 'source'...
And, re,
"Below 5000 FSOs had no responsibility for non reporting VFRs because they didn't have a radar screen therefore did not know they were there."
I'm not sure I follow your argument here.
You are correct in that we did not have access to RADAR (Verboten List), and so, we would not know who was where if they did not 'report' or make a 'broadcast' even.
At one time we would 'raise a pink strip' for any calls heard from any aircraft anywhere and keep it on the board for 10 minutes, just in case....
However I can't remember when that practice ceased.
The only strip we might have had for the 'non-reporting VFR' may have been a SARTIME strip, (Pink Strip) which contained the bare 'essentials' of Callsign, acft type, DEP point & Destination for where the SARTIME was nominated, and sometimes the route.
Of course, when the 'non-reporting VFR entered the AFIZ 30nm area, he was required to call, so became 'reporting'.
And as far as I can recall, there was no restriction on SARTIME acft flying above 5,000ft - as long as they flew 'quadrantal' - in that way, all traffic was in the same 'quarter' and generally were easy to spot if one was 'overtaking'.
We didn't have 'fast movers' at low levels in those days, well not many anyway...Some of our Military friends may have done some 'scenics' down low, but they were generally well into the 'B050' country.....where the 'quadrantal rule' did not apply. (If I remember correctly...)
Brain cells attempting to 'listen up and fly right'...)
Cheers
I don't know just when the quoted number of FSOs reached 700...was that 700 at any one time, as in, all at the same time?
Genuine query, just wondering about your 'source'...
And, re,
"Below 5000 FSOs had no responsibility for non reporting VFRs because they didn't have a radar screen therefore did not know they were there."
I'm not sure I follow your argument here.
You are correct in that we did not have access to RADAR (Verboten List), and so, we would not know who was where if they did not 'report' or make a 'broadcast' even.
At one time we would 'raise a pink strip' for any calls heard from any aircraft anywhere and keep it on the board for 10 minutes, just in case....
However I can't remember when that practice ceased.
The only strip we might have had for the 'non-reporting VFR' may have been a SARTIME strip, (Pink Strip) which contained the bare 'essentials' of Callsign, acft type, DEP point & Destination for where the SARTIME was nominated, and sometimes the route.
Of course, when the 'non-reporting VFR entered the AFIZ 30nm area, he was required to call, so became 'reporting'.
And as far as I can recall, there was no restriction on SARTIME acft flying above 5,000ft - as long as they flew 'quadrantal' - in that way, all traffic was in the same 'quarter' and generally were easy to spot if one was 'overtaking'.
We didn't have 'fast movers' at low levels in those days, well not many anyway...Some of our Military friends may have done some 'scenics' down low, but they were generally well into the 'B050' country.....where the 'quadrantal rule' did not apply. (If I remember correctly...)
Brain cells attempting to 'listen up and fly right'...)
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 9th Apr 2016 at 05:23.
It's over to you or Bloggs to advise what the correct procedure is. I think I know but I am human and make mistakes from time to time. That's why I always ask advice. That's what I am doing now and I notice both of you do not make a clear statement!
No clear statement required, Dick; it's in AIP in black and white. That particular procedure has been in place for over 2 decades. You'd better watch out; Ean Higgins might get wind of this...
PS: How about showing us what Hoody sent you so we can make considered judgement on your reply?
Dick
You do realise that CASA can require you to sit another flight rules and procedures exam?
You do realise that CASA can require you to sit another flight rules and procedures exam?
Thread Starter
Ok. So if IFR no longer give position reports how do VFR know they are traffic for the IFR and make an announcement - the prime reason the system was wound back and the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts ?
It's also the only reason CASA has fallen out with the RAPACs over calling at non map marked aerodromes. That is trying to get part of the old pre AMATs system going again.
It's also the only reason CASA has fallen out with the RAPACs over calling at non map marked aerodromes. That is trying to get part of the old pre AMATs system going again.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
It will be fun as Bloggs desperately tries to go back to 1990.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With your apparent lack of knowledge of current rules maybe it's a good thing for everyone else you're getting out of aviation!
Just because you're an enthusiastic amateur and not a proffesional pilot doesn't give you an excuse not to know current rules and procedures, whether you agree with them or not.
Just because you're an enthusiastic amateur and not a proffesional pilot doesn't give you an excuse not to know current rules and procedures, whether you agree with them or not.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
In Australia our ATCs have a responsibility for VFR aircraft in E and G when in survailance coverage . That's why the ATC frequency boundaries are shown!
That's great. Airservices can be sued by the family of a VFR pilot if involved in a mid air and the ATC did not call the pilot.
Nothing like it anywhere in the world but great for Aussie VFR pilots
That's great. Airservices can be sued by the family of a VFR pilot if involved in a mid air and the ATC did not call the pilot.
Nothing like it anywhere in the world but great for Aussie VFR pilots
Yes, as you say, having a SIS is great for our VFR pilots. Great also that the ATC frequencies are on the charts so VFR pilots know instantly what to call on for their SIS.
This is going to end badly...
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all it's all recorded. When the frequency of 124.55 has been silent for five minutes there is a chance that a court would find that two VFRs with mode C may have been easily informed they were about to hit each other.
I wouldn't even suggest industrial action. Just a letter to CASA stating that the system is half wound back without any pilot education at all.
The letter could also mention that in no other country are ATC frequency boundaries shown on charts with the express purpose of having ATCs call VFR aircraft to help prevent a collision. With the non ICAO mandatory radio reqirement for all VFR in E and G they are trying to turn the air spaces into a form of D and hold ATCs responsible for any accidents.
It's un Australian ! !
I wouldn't even suggest industrial action. Just a letter to CASA stating that the system is half wound back without any pilot education at all.
The letter could also mention that in no other country are ATC frequency boundaries shown on charts with the express purpose of having ATCs call VFR aircraft to help prevent a collision. With the non ICAO mandatory radio reqirement for all VFR in E and G they are trying to turn the air spaces into a form of D and hold ATCs responsible for any accidents.
It's un Australian ! !
Dick, how do Vfr even know Vfr are around when they don't make reports?
Yikes!
Even if ifr make position reports, how many of the Vfr only flyers will have an ifr chart let alone know where those positions are?
Part of the reason, for example, prior to when IFR leave CTA passing F180 they broadcast on area.
Gawd you like mixing your un-linked arguments together. Where's the RAAF bashing in this one?
Yikes!
Even if ifr make position reports, how many of the Vfr only flyers will have an ifr chart let alone know where those positions are?
Part of the reason, for example, prior to when IFR leave CTA passing F180 they broadcast on area.
Gawd you like mixing your un-linked arguments together. Where's the RAAF bashing in this one?
Let's face it Dick, the introduction of AMATS and the subsequent removal of flight service removed an incredibly knowledgable group of professionals from the system. Located in remote locations the knew the geography, they knew the people, they knew the weather and how local variations that were invisible to people looking at computer models in a big room in the capital cities impacted the local area. In short they were an invaluable resource that no longer exists.
It was a c.o.c.k up deluxe (the don't insult anyone filter changed it to dog up if you can believe that!). Saving 1.4 billion over 20 odd years, but at what cost? How was the 1.4 billion quantified? We could have saved some of that by not rebranding CAA into AsA and casa!
I agree we sometimes manage to find a unique way to make the simple complex, but sometimes the Australian way, which may well be different to the rest of the world, is in fact the better way and we ARE worlds best practice - the rest of the world simply needed to catch up!
It was a c.o.c.k up deluxe (the don't insult anyone filter changed it to dog up if you can believe that!). Saving 1.4 billion over 20 odd years, but at what cost? How was the 1.4 billion quantified? We could have saved some of that by not rebranding CAA into AsA and casa!
I agree we sometimes manage to find a unique way to make the simple complex, but sometimes the Australian way, which may well be different to the rest of the world, is in fact the better way and we ARE worlds best practice - the rest of the world simply needed to catch up!
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if IFR no longer give position reports how do VFR know they are traffic for the IFR and make an announcement - the prime reason the system was wound back and the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts ?