Why no full position reports in G and E ?
What about the bit you just quoted? Not everything is in the phraseologies. Phraseologies are just that, a selection of phrases to be used in certain circumstances. They are not an exhaustive list of all broadcast/reporting requirements.
I don't disagree with your theory at all, in fact I agree with it. I am just curious why a lot of operators (Rex for example) don't make/mandate the call.
They do make the call.
Because it is mandatory.
Because it is mandatory.
If you're bimbling along inbound or overflying an aerodrome in G, you'll generally hear the TOD call on Area and the same call on the CTAF shortly thereafter.
They should make the call. I know of people in my own company who don't know the reference and who don't think they need to. I also know of a captain who thought it was no longer required because it had been removed from the phraseologies section.
I think the intent of the call is hinted at by the requirement to broadcast on Area VHF if you've done your call to Centre via HF. It is not intended just to communicate with ATC and/or Flightwatch it is also for broadcasting intentions to any traffic in the area. Most VFRs will pick up your CTAF call but if they are transiting only then they might not be monitoring CTAF. I also find it useful for IFR/IFR separation. The traffic information given by ATC is not always up to date and doesn't necessarily have the same detail as a descent broadcast.
I think the intent of the call is hinted at by the requirement to broadcast on Area VHF if you've done your call to Centre via HF. It is not intended just to communicate with ATC and/or Flightwatch it is also for broadcasting intentions to any traffic in the area. Most VFRs will pick up your CTAF call but if they are transiting only then they might not be monitoring CTAF. I also find it useful for IFR/IFR separation. The traffic information given by ATC is not always up to date and doesn't necessarily have the same detail as a descent broadcast.
Thread Starter
Many pilots do not give this " descent call" . The reason its still a requirement is because those who have minds that resist change want to go back to the system that existed before 1990.
As I have clearly shown, Airservices management believed there was still a requirement for IFR aircraft pilots to still give full position reports in E and G ,even when radar identified. This was so the frequency boundary on charts " windback " would work.
They were wrong - someone in CASA removed the full position requirement but failed to explain how the old system could still work.
It's experimenting with human lives.. Only reason no accidents is hardly any aircraft.
No other country I know of has such a requiement. I wonder why?
One day we will follow a proven safe system and it's procedures.
As I have clearly shown, Airservices management believed there was still a requirement for IFR aircraft pilots to still give full position reports in E and G ,even when radar identified. This was so the frequency boundary on charts " windback " would work.
They were wrong - someone in CASA removed the full position requirement but failed to explain how the old system could still work.
It's experimenting with human lives.. Only reason no accidents is hardly any aircraft.
No other country I know of has such a requiement. I wonder why?
One day we will follow a proven safe system and it's procedures.
Eh, no Dick, It was so people flying around without the benefit of a radar console would have some idea of where aircraft were. What difference does surveillance or non-surveillance make to a pilot having an idea of where other aircraft are?
Your paranoia and conspiracy theories really are becoming tiresome.
Your paranoia and conspiracy theories really are becoming tiresome.
The reason its still a requirement is because those who have minds that resist change want to go back to the system that existed before 1990.
As for what AsA management said (when was that, 2008?), who cares?
No other country I know of has such a requiement. I wonder why?
You know Dick, the more you go on about the frequencies on the charts, the more it becomes obvious that it is a good idea.
As for ATC relaying a message to a lighty through a third party high-flyer about a VCA, are you serious?
The number of times an aircraft has crashed when it wanted to get a message to ATC but couldn't would be??
Paranoia indeed, Le Ping.
So let's see
Aus - leaving cruising level in E or approaching base of C to enter E or G, do a broadcast to alert VFR not in vicinity of CTAF and then a broadcast approaching the CTAF.
USA - broadcast approaching the CTAF. I assume they don't broadcast on 121.5 to alert VFR not in the vicinity of the CTAF.
Let me quess which provides more safety than sight and avoid.
Aus - leaving cruising level in E or approaching base of C to enter E or G, do a broadcast to alert VFR not in vicinity of CTAF and then a broadcast approaching the CTAF.
USA - broadcast approaching the CTAF. I assume they don't broadcast on 121.5 to alert VFR not in the vicinity of the CTAF.
Let me quess which provides more safety than sight and avoid.
Thread Starter
Bloggs and le Ping, if its to warn VFR that an IFR is about to appear in the windsceen why did CASA remove the requirement for IFR to give full position reports when in radar covered E and G airspace?
Surely you should be calling for CASA to put that requirement back in and enforce it. Why are you silent on this?
How do VFR monitoring the area frequency and climbing to FL175 know where the IFR aircraft is if the IFR aircraft had just received an instruction from ATC. " XYZ descend to 9000' " and it's answered " 9000' XYZ".
By the way blogs. I always give the required descent call. But as noted here, many professional pilots don't .
I also religiously ( or possibly semi- religiously ) monitor the ATC area frequencies when flying VFR en route. Not once in the last decade have I identified a call that was rellevent traffic for my flight. It may happen one day but hasn't yet. I do hear lots of IFR aircraft communicating to ATC but in most cases I don't know where they are - mostly because they don't give full position reports and when they do I have no idea where a particular IFR waypoint may be. Sometimes I have looked up the waypoint only to find its over 300 nm away in another state.
The system is a complete stuff up. If you want to resist change and not copy a simpler overseas proven system you really need to go back to our proven pre 1990 AMATS system where a DIRECTED traffic information service was given to all above 5000'. But it will cost a motza!
But why would you? The NAS works in northern Canada with hardly any surveillance and no ATC frequency boundaries marked on charts.
Surely you should be calling for CASA to put that requirement back in and enforce it. Why are you silent on this?
How do VFR monitoring the area frequency and climbing to FL175 know where the IFR aircraft is if the IFR aircraft had just received an instruction from ATC. " XYZ descend to 9000' " and it's answered " 9000' XYZ".
By the way blogs. I always give the required descent call. But as noted here, many professional pilots don't .
I also religiously ( or possibly semi- religiously ) monitor the ATC area frequencies when flying VFR en route. Not once in the last decade have I identified a call that was rellevent traffic for my flight. It may happen one day but hasn't yet. I do hear lots of IFR aircraft communicating to ATC but in most cases I don't know where they are - mostly because they don't give full position reports and when they do I have no idea where a particular IFR waypoint may be. Sometimes I have looked up the waypoint only to find its over 300 nm away in another state.
The system is a complete stuff up. If you want to resist change and not copy a simpler overseas proven system you really need to go back to our proven pre 1990 AMATS system where a DIRECTED traffic information service was given to all above 5000'. But it will cost a motza!
But why would you? The NAS works in northern Canada with hardly any surveillance and no ATC frequency boundaries marked on charts.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 17th Apr 2016 at 23:42.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also religiously ( or possibly semi- religiously ) monitor the ATC area frequencies when flying VFR en route. Not once in the last decade have I identified a call that was rellevent traffic for my flight. It may happen one day but hasn't yet.
The traffic was me in my bugsmasher, so I spoke up, was asked to ident, and had a chat with the Saab to arrange for us not to meet. It all took about 30 seconds, ATC thanked me for my effort and we went on our merry way. Had I been on any frequency other than FIA, I would never have known he was there, and he would have been left wondering just what I was doing next. Not the way to run an RPT operation, I feel.
If this has truly not happened to you in 10 years, we must yet again exist in parallel universes, because it's a semi-regular occurrence for me.
Hi Dick,
The reason I would like frequency boundaries isn't for monitoring, nor does it impose liability on ATC. After all there's no requirement to even be on the frequency if VFR unless you are requesting or receiving a service.
As it is now, finding the correct controller frequency to use to request a service can be hit or miss - and that's only because only ATC knows where their boundaries are. It's a little easier if you have approach charts because a nearby aerodrome with an approach will have an approach frequency published on the chart so that's a pretty good bet (but not 100%). Not the case if you don't have (and aren't required to have, anyway) approach charts. Also, some charts show the relevant frequencies, however when near the (unmarked) boundary you can call the wrong one. As it is now, you call on your best guess when the appropriate frequency isn't obvious, it's either correct and you proceed with a service request - or it's wrong and you get told to contact xxx.yy. All a boundary does is inform the pilot that xxx.yy is correct for 'here', and yyy.xx is correct 'over there' if you wish to contact ATS to request a service.
It's fallacious to say that having frequencies published on various documents doesn't impose a duty of care, and then argue that adding a boundary does. After all, implicit in publishing an approach frequency on an approach chart, or showing one on a map, or publishing a list of frequencies for different quadrants, is that that frequency is the correct one for that area. Knowing the correct frequency to call in a given area is not the same as imposing a duty of care on the other end because duty of care is already accounted for in the rules for the provision & acceptance of service in the different airspace classes.
But having said all that? I still prefer the US system to Oz, and both US & Oz to the UK's archaic practices (multiple, variable transition altitudes? WTF? Have to have an Aerodrome Controller to do an instrument approach? More WTF? Using QFE instead of QNH but terrain, obstacles & overlying airspace is QNH based? Double WTF?)
The reason I would like frequency boundaries isn't for monitoring, nor does it impose liability on ATC. After all there's no requirement to even be on the frequency if VFR unless you are requesting or receiving a service.
As it is now, finding the correct controller frequency to use to request a service can be hit or miss - and that's only because only ATC knows where their boundaries are. It's a little easier if you have approach charts because a nearby aerodrome with an approach will have an approach frequency published on the chart so that's a pretty good bet (but not 100%). Not the case if you don't have (and aren't required to have, anyway) approach charts. Also, some charts show the relevant frequencies, however when near the (unmarked) boundary you can call the wrong one. As it is now, you call on your best guess when the appropriate frequency isn't obvious, it's either correct and you proceed with a service request - or it's wrong and you get told to contact xxx.yy. All a boundary does is inform the pilot that xxx.yy is correct for 'here', and yyy.xx is correct 'over there' if you wish to contact ATS to request a service.
It's fallacious to say that having frequencies published on various documents doesn't impose a duty of care, and then argue that adding a boundary does. After all, implicit in publishing an approach frequency on an approach chart, or showing one on a map, or publishing a list of frequencies for different quadrants, is that that frequency is the correct one for that area. Knowing the correct frequency to call in a given area is not the same as imposing a duty of care on the other end because duty of care is already accounted for in the rules for the provision & acceptance of service in the different airspace classes.
But having said all that? I still prefer the US system to Oz, and both US & Oz to the UK's archaic practices (multiple, variable transition altitudes? WTF? Have to have an Aerodrome Controller to do an instrument approach? More WTF? Using QFE instead of QNH but terrain, obstacles & overlying airspace is QNH based? Double WTF?)
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 18th Apr 2016 at 03:23.
Thread Starter
Agra. If you had followed the NAS educational material you would have been monitoring the CTAF if in the approach and departure airspace of the airport. You would have heard the taxiing call and given a position report on the CTAF if necessary.
ATC would not have been involved and with less frequency loading may in future have been able to provide a class E separation service to the IFR aircraft when IMC exists .
And Agra. Don't try that in any other country in the world . You will end up with licence action.
Tin, And are you sure there is no requirement for a mandatory radio VFR aircraft above 5000' to monitor any particular frequency? Does everyone agree?
ATC would not have been involved and with less frequency loading may in future have been able to provide a class E separation service to the IFR aircraft when IMC exists .
And Agra. Don't try that in any other country in the world . You will end up with licence action.
Tin, And are you sure there is no requirement for a mandatory radio VFR aircraft above 5000' to monitor any particular frequency? Does everyone agree?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agra. If you had followed the NAS educational material you would have been monitoring the CTAF if in the approach and departure airspace of the airport. You would have heard the taxiing call and given a position report on the CTAF if necessary.
ATC would not have been involved and with less frequency loading may in future have been able to provide a class E separation service to the IFR aircraft when IMC exists .
ATC would not have been involved and with less frequency loading may in future have been able to provide a class E separation service to the IFR aircraft when IMC exists .
We were both in VMC, and the frequency was in no way "loaded." In fact he seemed quite happy to hear from me, and no A380s were endangered.
And Agra. Don't try that in any other country in the world . You will end up with licence action.
Sorry Dick, for my tardy response, I've out flying. I am now in a position to comment on yet another rediculous post of yours.
You just don't get it, do you? Because aeroplanes generally don't run into each other in level flight (apart from those on almost opposite-direction tracks...sorry the hemispherical rule). There is no need to jibber jabber when identified. Besides, if the IFR is identified, so will the VFR because as you well know, transponders are mandated for all aircraft in E and all aircraft above 10k in G, as well as "it must be switched on" if you have one fitted. IFR will therefore be given traffic on the pesky, non-talking VFR.
Because the VFR, if he has nay brains at all, will broadcast his climb or descent manoeuvre. You see Dick, one of your major problems is that you think that IFR and VFR live in two different worlds. They don't. Metal is metal. A climbing VRR can quite happily hit a cruising IFR and the other way round. That's why IFR have mandatory broadcasts before descent. And why is it very good airmanship for a VFR to transmit a descent or climb broadcast.
Glad to hear it.
Yep, it only has to happen once...
You don't need to know, as I explained above. What you (and I) need to know is when one of those * aircraft (*insert IFR or VFR) starts descent, to see if they will conflict with you.
Complete and utter nonsense. When you understand how the system works, you'll realise why your charted-frequency crusade is a WOFTAM.
Bloggs and le Ping, if its to warn VFR that an IFR is about to appear in the windscreen why did CASA remove the requirement for IFR to give full position reports when in radar covered E and G airspace?
Surely you should be calling for CASA to put that requirement back in and enforce it. Why are you silent on this?
Surely you should be calling for CASA to put that requirement back in and enforce it. Why are you silent on this?
How do VFR monitoring the area frequency and climbing to FL175 know where the IFR aircraft is if the IFR aircraft had just received an instruction from ATC. " XYZ descend to 9000' " and it's answered " 9000' XYZ".
By the way blogs. I always give the required descent call. But as noted here, many professional pilots don't .
I also religiously ( or possibly semi- religiously ) monitor the ATC area frequencies when flying VFR en route. Not once in the last decade have I identified a call that was rellevent traffic for my flight. It may happen one day but hasn't yet.
I do hear lots of IFR aircraft communicating to ATC but in most cases I don't know where they are - mostly because they don't give full position reports and when they do I have no idea where a particular IFR waypoint may be. Sometimes I have looked up the waypoint only to find its over 300 nm away in another state.
The system is a complete stuff up. If you want to resist change and not copy a simpler overseas proven system you really need to go back to our proven pre 1990 AMATS system where a DIRECTED traffic information service was given to all above 5000'. But it will cost a motza!
Since I was cruising at 8500', and some 30 miles from the airport, CTAF would have been completely inappropriate. There were other CTAFs around - which one should I have been monitoring? And, to head off the next obvious riposte, if I'd been on 126.7 or 121.5, I'd have heard nothing at all.
We were both in VMC, and the frequency was in no way "loaded." In fact he seemed quite happy to hear from me, and no A380s were endangered.
We were both in VMC, and the frequency was in no way "loaded." In fact he seemed quite happy to hear from me, and no A380s were endangered.
Every now and then I'll hear a call from an IFR aircraft descending to aerodrome I may or may not be tracking to, but 'near'. Or Centre will report me as unidentified traffic to an IFR. Piping up and saying 'I'm here' or 'that's me', and the short process used to work out my level of cluelessness, usually doesn't take long or overtransmit anybody.
Thread Starter
So Bloggs also believes that VFR should broadcast their climb and descent manoeuvres
Has anyone heard a VFR pilot doing this in en route G or E airspace? I haven't .
Agra. I really hope you remain vigilant and keep a good lookout. And remember many IFR pilots descending into class G don't give a full position report. How will you have " radio arranged separation" with them.
Has anyone heard a VFR pilot doing this in en route G or E airspace? I haven't .
Agra. I really hope you remain vigilant and keep a good lookout. And remember many IFR pilots descending into class G don't give a full position report. How will you have " radio arranged separation" with them.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agra. I really hope you remain vigilant and keep a good lookout. And remember many IFR pilots descending into class G don't give a full position report. How will you have " radio arranged separation" with them.
If these IFR pilots are not making a mandatory call, that means they are at fault, not the system. And whatever calls they do make, that's still better than the complete silence I'd hear if I was on a different frequency.
Despite your inference, I've never claimed that radio was the only tool available for arranging separation. But IMHO it's lunacy to have it, and not take advantage of it.
Thread Starter
Yair. As I have said before. Those Americans, Canadians,Europeans and the British are so dopey.
They should have a system where VFR aircraft should monitor ATC frequencies in E and G airspace and where all aircraft give full position reports even if in radar coverage so VFR aircraft can speak up for " radio arranged separation" .
For its " lunacy" to have radio and not use it.
The ATC should then come on the air and thank the VFR for speaking up. Love to see that in France or the USA with their traffic densities.
And if we ever get more overseas students for training we can offer a special course at an extra cost that " converts " these students to the international system before they leave.
They should have a system where VFR aircraft should monitor ATC frequencies in E and G airspace and where all aircraft give full position reports even if in radar coverage so VFR aircraft can speak up for " radio arranged separation" .
For its " lunacy" to have radio and not use it.
The ATC should then come on the air and thank the VFR for speaking up. Love to see that in France or the USA with their traffic densities.
And if we ever get more overseas students for training we can offer a special course at an extra cost that " converts " these students to the international system before they leave.