Why no full position reports in G and E ?
IFR must give position reports in all classes of airspace except when identified - refer to the AIP, Dick (ENR 1.1 -19).
You have got the wrong end of the stick.
VFR aircraft in E and G don't need to hear every IFR aircraft or broadcast themselves in the cruise - if they're above 5000 they should cruising 500 ft separated from IFR, and if they're inbound or outbound to a CTAF where radio is required they will make, and expect to hear, the appropriate calls.
IFR not in cloud should look out. TCAS and reports of observed traffic will provide some alerting if that doesn't work.
Nobody is banned from making calls, but they shouldn't as a matter of course be making them when not required.
Call me crazy, but I've always been pretty OK with how much information and separation I'm getting in all classes of airspace, IFR and VFR, and you're not inspiring me with your display of lack of knowledge about the current situation, rules and how things actually work in practice, yet you're happy to run media campaigns pushing for change. Get your facts straight before you publish, eh?
You have got the wrong end of the stick.
VFR aircraft in E and G don't need to hear every IFR aircraft or broadcast themselves in the cruise - if they're above 5000 they should cruising 500 ft separated from IFR, and if they're inbound or outbound to a CTAF where radio is required they will make, and expect to hear, the appropriate calls.
IFR not in cloud should look out. TCAS and reports of observed traffic will provide some alerting if that doesn't work.
Nobody is banned from making calls, but they shouldn't as a matter of course be making them when not required.
Call me crazy, but I've always been pretty OK with how much information and separation I'm getting in all classes of airspace, IFR and VFR, and you're not inspiring me with your display of lack of knowledge about the current situation, rules and how things actually work in practice, yet you're happy to run media campaigns pushing for change. Get your facts straight before you publish, eh?
CASA own the AIP content via the head of power provided by their regs. and they determine, write and are responsible for radio and broadcast procedures. Also being the airspace regulator, they determine what class of airspace is required where and the procedures therein result from that (i.e. "the system")
The content of the AIP is sourced from the exercise of a range of powers exercised by various people from various agencies at various times. And who's responsible for what keeps changing.
The pea and thimble tricks played by those moving the airspace designation powers and broadcast requirements may confuse people like Dick, but those in the know are still watching.
No, it's not.
We are talking about radio reports and broadcasts here, most of which have a HoP by CASA regs. and they are indeed responsible for the content, not DoTRS, Customs or Airservices.
And watch your language.
We are talking about radio reports and broadcasts here, most of which have a HoP by CASA regs. and they are indeed responsible for the content, not DoTRS, Customs or Airservices.
And watch your language.
Some of the key peas may be hidden under the CASA thimble at the moment, but they've turned up under other thimbles before and will almost certainly turn up under different thimbles again. All in the interests of air safety, of course.
(I wasn't aware that you had such delicate sensibilities CM. My genuine apologies.)
(I wasn't aware that you had such delicate sensibilities CM. My genuine apologies.)
No delicate sensibilities. Just tiring of abuse and language creeping into this forum.
Apology accepted
I can assure you that other than ATC-type control/CTA phraseologies etc. it is CASA who file an RFC with Airservices's AIP document people to make changes to pilot reports, broadcasts etc.
In fact I think even to change ATC-related phraseology stuff, Airservices have to file an RFC with CASA for their endorsement.
CASA's authority over AIP is covered in CASR Part 175.
Apology accepted
I can assure you that other than ATC-type control/CTA phraseologies etc. it is CASA who file an RFC with Airservices's AIP document people to make changes to pilot reports, broadcasts etc.
In fact I think even to change ATC-related phraseology stuff, Airservices have to file an RFC with CASA for their endorsement.
CASA's authority over AIP is covered in CASR Part 175.
That may well be the position today. But as you, more than most, will know, the only constant in aviation regulation in Australia is change.
For example, airspace declaration powers could disappear out of CASA and reappear in Airservices or some other agency, at the stroke of a legalisation pen. In an election year with one of Australia's living treasures throwing his popularity weight around on matters airspace, just about anything is possible.
For example, airspace declaration powers could disappear out of CASA and reappear in Airservices or some other agency, at the stroke of a legalisation pen. In an election year with one of Australia's living treasures throwing his popularity weight around on matters airspace, just about anything is possible.
Thread Starter
Arm out the window – I do understand the present requirements.
What I am pointing out is how Airservices believed that IFR aircraft in class G and E airspace even when under radar surveillance gave position reports. That’s the whole reason Airservices undermined CASA and the NAS and sent out a chart with radio frequency boundaries to over 30,000 pilots without any education material at all.
Surely it is obvious from my letter to Greg Russell, that Airservices thought the actual system was operating with the old potential for ‘radio arranged separation’ when it clearly wasn’t.
Remember no other country in the world has Air Traffic Control sector frequency boundaries marked on charts.
Why should we be the odd man out? The answer is clear. In the past we had everyone operating full position reporting over 5000ft in class G uncontrolled airspace and this was monitored by flight service. Now that we’ve moved to the more modern international system, there are those who are desperately trying to cling to the past.
The problem is, the frequency boundaries are there for workload purposes, they don’t reflect the coverage of the VHF ground station. That is why the NAS documentation clearly said, monitor the nearest ATC outlet if required. This of course meant, communication could be directly obtained where possible.
Another one of the problems with our present half wound-back system, is that flying training organisations overseas are using it as an advantage in gaining students. For example, one of the largest areas of flight training in the world, I’m told, is Moncton in Canada. It’s a place of absolutely lousy weather conditions, however, the organisations have been telling potential students there, that if you learn in Australia, you are taught in a system like nothing else in the world – and a pilot will have to be retrained to operate in Europe, Canada or the USA.
Remember this is all about resistance to change – desperation to going back to the way that we were originally trained.
Thank heavens there are some new, young pilots coming along.
What I am pointing out is how Airservices believed that IFR aircraft in class G and E airspace even when under radar surveillance gave position reports. That’s the whole reason Airservices undermined CASA and the NAS and sent out a chart with radio frequency boundaries to over 30,000 pilots without any education material at all.
Surely it is obvious from my letter to Greg Russell, that Airservices thought the actual system was operating with the old potential for ‘radio arranged separation’ when it clearly wasn’t.
Remember no other country in the world has Air Traffic Control sector frequency boundaries marked on charts.
Why should we be the odd man out? The answer is clear. In the past we had everyone operating full position reporting over 5000ft in class G uncontrolled airspace and this was monitored by flight service. Now that we’ve moved to the more modern international system, there are those who are desperately trying to cling to the past.
The problem is, the frequency boundaries are there for workload purposes, they don’t reflect the coverage of the VHF ground station. That is why the NAS documentation clearly said, monitor the nearest ATC outlet if required. This of course meant, communication could be directly obtained where possible.
Another one of the problems with our present half wound-back system, is that flying training organisations overseas are using it as an advantage in gaining students. For example, one of the largest areas of flight training in the world, I’m told, is Moncton in Canada. It’s a place of absolutely lousy weather conditions, however, the organisations have been telling potential students there, that if you learn in Australia, you are taught in a system like nothing else in the world – and a pilot will have to be retrained to operate in Europe, Canada or the USA.
Remember this is all about resistance to change – desperation to going back to the way that we were originally trained.
Thank heavens there are some new, young pilots coming along.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 13th Apr 2016 at 01:21.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is, the frequency boundaries are there for workload purposes, they don’t reflect the coverage of the VHF ground station.
The advice was that FIA boundaries are placed with VHF coverage as the primary consideration, then straightened out and may be moved slightly to capture the circuit area of AD/ALA or align with an air route or WPT etc. with ATC workload as the secondary consideration.
Instead of making assumptions or relying on bad advice, why don't you ask the people who design airspace?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of making assumptions or relying on bad advice, why don't you ask the people who design airspace?
Gosh it's going to be entertaining when Dick's given another airspace train set to play with so that Barnarby Joyce's chances of re-election in New England are increased.
I'm thinking something like "Airspace Reform Taskforce" with Dick as chairman and a bunch of important bureaucrats tasked with nodding and frowning and compiling an action list every time Dick says something.
Life expectancy: Election Day plus 3 months.
It will be fun watching the fur fly until then, though.
I'm thinking something like "Airspace Reform Taskforce" with Dick as chairman and a bunch of important bureaucrats tasked with nodding and frowning and compiling an action list every time Dick says something.
Life expectancy: Election Day plus 3 months.
It will be fun watching the fur fly until then, though.
Arm out the window – I do understand the present requirements.
If you wanted to know about requirements, you just had to read the AIP.
Further though, you're insistent about making changes to suit your world view of what should and shouldn't be done, but I for one (as I said above) don't particularly have any heartache with how it works now. You will probably call me some names alluding to me being stuck in the past or whatever - feel free if it floats your boat.
Thread Starter
Arm. I have not " now gone back" and edited my first post. I did that within 11 minutes of putting the post on. The edit details clearly show this.
The reason for this thread is to get lots in writing on how others think the " half wound back " system works.
It's worked.
Let's make it clear what my aim is. That is I know I am primarily responsible for Australia moving away from our duplicated , unique , Flight Service - full position -never use existing radar- proven system - to the plan to move to the proven system of North America where radar use and IFR separation is maximised.
But this change was stopped and then half wound back.
I will not give up until we finalise the introduction of a proven safe airspace system.
There are three alternatives;
1. Move back to the proven pre AMATS duplicated system and employ the extra staff required.
2. Move forward and complete the proven North American NAS.
Or 3. Come up with an alternative airspace model that is proven to give the required levels of safety and move to that.
Unfortunately it's clear that there is no one in the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation who is game , or has the ability to, move to 3.
So I will concentrate on 2 !
The reason for this thread is to get lots in writing on how others think the " half wound back " system works.
It's worked.
Let's make it clear what my aim is. That is I know I am primarily responsible for Australia moving away from our duplicated , unique , Flight Service - full position -never use existing radar- proven system - to the plan to move to the proven system of North America where radar use and IFR separation is maximised.
But this change was stopped and then half wound back.
I will not give up until we finalise the introduction of a proven safe airspace system.
There are three alternatives;
1. Move back to the proven pre AMATS duplicated system and employ the extra staff required.
2. Move forward and complete the proven North American NAS.
Or 3. Come up with an alternative airspace model that is proven to give the required levels of safety and move to that.
Unfortunately it's clear that there is no one in the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation who is game , or has the ability to, move to 3.
So I will concentrate on 2 !
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick,
If there were three alternatives;
1. Move back to the proven pre AMATS duplicated system and employ the extra staff required.
2. Introduce the North American NAS and employ the extra controllers and buy and install radar etc etc
Or 3. Accept that our airspace is proven due lack of systemic airspace related incidents and accidents ( certainly since 2004 and compared to other countries including the US) that arguably give the required levels of safety - provided of course like all airspace, ongoing assessment and refinements continue..
?
If there were three alternatives;
1. Move back to the proven pre AMATS duplicated system and employ the extra staff required.
2. Introduce the North American NAS and employ the extra controllers and buy and install radar etc etc
Or 3. Accept that our airspace is proven due lack of systemic airspace related incidents and accidents ( certainly since 2004 and compared to other countries including the US) that arguably give the required levels of safety - provided of course like all airspace, ongoing assessment and refinements continue..
?
The reason for this thread is to get lots in writing on how others think the " half wound back " system works.
Still, the current system works fine and given the ever-increasing rate of technological advance, we'll all have ADS-B and TCAS type gear soon enough which will take radar largely out of the picture I'd imagine and spread the opportunity for control or at least situation awareness enhancement much wider.
I'd like to think the old wooden no radio bug smasher will still have a place in the mix, and I'm sure it will.
Thread Starter
Yair. Resist resist resist change in every way. Keep the present system even if it's half Dick Smith. Just don't change anything.
And why would we want to look around the world and copy the best. No need to do that. We built the Nomad .
And Jaba - ignore those deaths at Benalla - it was clearly the pilots fault. Nothing to learn there.
And why would we want to look around the world and copy the best. No need to do that. We built the Nomad .
And Jaba - ignore those deaths at Benalla - it was clearly the pilots fault. Nothing to learn there.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you really need to drop the old 'resist change' argument from your portfolio, it's not helping you because it's simply wrong.
A pilots (and an ATCs) life is nothing but change. Look at what's changed since say 1990. Every amendment, every SUP, every AIRAC, every NFC is a CHANGE. It goes on ad-infinitum. And yet the professionals still manage to toe the line and meet the KPI's.
Despite that, the fact is that Australians call a spade a spade. If your 'opinion of the definition' is bulls
t, expect to get called on it. The person doing the calling may be putting their career at risk, but it still happens (God bless 'em).
You amuse me. You come on here bitching about the changes you foisted on the industry with no sense of guilt or shame. You are no better than the people you rant against tbh.
A pilots (and an ATCs) life is nothing but change. Look at what's changed since say 1990. Every amendment, every SUP, every AIRAC, every NFC is a CHANGE. It goes on ad-infinitum. And yet the professionals still manage to toe the line and meet the KPI's.
Despite that, the fact is that Australians call a spade a spade. If your 'opinion of the definition' is bulls
t, expect to get called on it. The person doing the calling may be putting their career at risk, but it still happens (God bless 'em).You amuse me. You come on here bitching about the changes you foisted on the industry with no sense of guilt or shame. You are no better than the people you rant against tbh.
Last edited by Hempy; 13th Apr 2016 at 14:22.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Hempy, and that's just the documentation. Then there is the new equipment, procedures, transfers and training. Added to that there are rating papers, OJTI, check shifts, accidents and incidents. Life was constant change, retirement's ok.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And Jaba - ignore those deaths at Benalla - it was clearly the pilots fault. Nothing to learn there.
What about this at Ballina. Put in a series of Class D steps with appropriate surveillance, all managed by a Radar Approach controller in Brisbane? Just thinking outside the box.
Just been looking, how about Mt Isa, Bundy? Hamilton Island. If Hammo gets a D Tower Mt Isa deserves something way before Ballina.
Or is YBNA more important to you for some reason?
Remember no other country in the world has Air Traffic Control sector frequency boundaries marked on charts.