Why no full position reports in G and E ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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" .
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" .
How about we let the overseas mob do what works in their airspace, geography and weather, and we do what works in ours? Since we are half a world away, I'm sure they won't mind.
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.
And, more importantly, whose interests are we trying to serve here? The overseas students'? Yours? I thought this discussion was about what practices worked for Australian pilots, in Australian airspace.
I'm totally confused about this entire argument...
Dick, when I was tracking North up the VFR lane (in G) from Moorabbin to Kilmore at 2000' (cloud and terrain limited) monitoring the Area frequency, ATC warned me that there were FIVE VFR aircraft coming SOuth in the same corridor and proceeded to help us arrange separation. without which we would definitely have had an airport. Are you saying that ATC should not have provided us such a service?
Dick, when I was tracking North up the VFR lane (in G) from Moorabbin to Kilmore at 2000' (cloud and terrain limited) monitoring the Area frequency, ATC warned me that there were FIVE VFR aircraft coming SOuth in the same corridor and proceeded to help us arrange separation. without which we would definitely have had an airport. Are you saying that ATC should not have provided us such a service?
Thread Starter
Sunfish. It's clear- when Airservices undermined the governments NAS decision and without CASA approval printed special charts with all the frequency boundaries back on that this would be the result.
No wonder you are confused.
I would imagine the ATC involved would be a nervous wreck knowing the duty of care now existing and hearing how the ATC s lives were destroyed as they were partially blamed for the 13th March 1974 fatal mid air at Bankstown.
Personally I don't think they had any blame at all- but the law is clearly based on the fact that the ATC could have readily called one of the planes and given a warning. Just like our wound back system.
What I find interesting is that the similar "duty of care" service is not provided by Sydney radar on 124.55 when there is no communication for ten minutes at a time -so clearly could be given " workload permitting "
There is going to be a huge payout by Airservices when the inevitable mid air occurs.
Perhaps Le Ping could advise why the Melbourne service is not provided in Sydney.?
No wonder you are confused.
I would imagine the ATC involved would be a nervous wreck knowing the duty of care now existing and hearing how the ATC s lives were destroyed as they were partially blamed for the 13th March 1974 fatal mid air at Bankstown.
Personally I don't think they had any blame at all- but the law is clearly based on the fact that the ATC could have readily called one of the planes and given a warning. Just like our wound back system.
What I find interesting is that the similar "duty of care" service is not provided by Sydney radar on 124.55 when there is no communication for ten minutes at a time -so clearly could be given " workload permitting "
There is going to be a huge payout by Airservices when the inevitable mid air occurs.
Perhaps Le Ping could advise why the Melbourne service is not provided in Sydney.?
Does anyone reckon that 'Workload permitting' would satisfy 'Milaud'....In the event of...at the subsequent enquiry....?
"Why did you not call for assistance"? Might be the appropriate question back.(?)
(There must be a 'supervisor' somewhere.....)?
Just sayin'....
Cheers
"Why did you not call for assistance"? Might be the appropriate question back.(?)
(There must be a 'supervisor' somewhere.....)?
Just sayin'....
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick,
Well as a result ATC's do everything they can to give such advice. You being a benefactor.
Have you ever been in a similar situation at YSBK where a metal to metal noise was averted by a highly talented and caring ATC by any chance? Just like the old wound back system?
Personally I don't think they had any blame at all- but the law is clearly based on the fact that the ATC could have readily called one of the planes and given a warning. Just like our wound back system.
Have you ever been in a similar situation at YSBK where a metal to metal noise was averted by a highly talented and caring ATC by any chance? Just like the old wound back system?
Again with the incident cherry picking. Bankstown was 42 years ago. Where were ATC partially blamed? The accident report blames the pilots and crews for failure to see and avoid whilst OCTA. There is no mention of ATC not alerting them, or maybe alerting them. Was it the coronial inquest, or just trial by media?
Thread Starter
A huge damages case. Millions paid out by the Government. It was the reason that Civil Air mandated full IFR type separation for VFR in all controlled airspace. I would hold for up to 20 minutes at Hornsby in my helicopter to be separated by Sydney approach from another VFR helicopter. See the chapter on this in Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick,
Well as a result ATC's do everything they can to give such advice. You being a benefactor.
Have you ever been in a similar situation at YSBK where a metal to metal noise was averted by a highly talented and caring ATC by any chance? Just like the old wound back system?
Well as a result ATC's do everything they can to give such advice. You being a benefactor.
Have you ever been in a similar situation at YSBK where a metal to metal noise was averted by a highly talented and caring ATC by any chance? Just like the old wound back system?
Thread Starter
No. Not yet. But I am sure it will happen.
If ATCs are going to be held responsible for providing traffic to VFR. That's D airspace.
Not E or G with some half baked Australian modification. ICAO classifications are very disiplined to protect ATCs.
If ATCs are going to be held responsible for providing traffic to VFR. That's D airspace.
Not E or G with some half baked Australian modification. ICAO classifications are very disiplined to protect ATCs.
Dick,
I refer you to the FAA AIM section 3-2-5
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi.../media/AIM.pdf
In the USA a VFR flight in Class D is required to maintain their own separation from other traffic. The tower is just there to sequence aircraft so that the flow is orderly and smooth.
I refer you to the FAA AIM section 3-2-5
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi.../media/AIM.pdf
4(e)Separation for VFR Aircraft. No separation
services are provided to VFR aircraft.
services are provided to VFR aircraft.
Thread Starter
Yes. As I said in the previous post re class D "providing traffic for VFR". Nothing to do with separation.
In other countries un identified VFR are not called by ATC in G in a panic and intermittantly to give info on other VFR.
Only in Australia. And only now and then. Totally amateurish.
In other countries un identified VFR are not called by ATC in G in a panic and intermittantly to give info on other VFR.
Only in Australia. And only now and then. Totally amateurish.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 20th Apr 2016 at 08:58.
Yes. As I said in the previous post. " Re class D providing traffic for VFR". Nothing to do with separation.
In other countries un identified VFR are not called by ATC in a panic and intermittantly to give info on other VFR.
Only in Australia. And only now and then. Totally amateurish.
In other countries un identified VFR are not called by ATC in a panic and intermittantly to give info on other VFR.
Only in Australia. And only now and then. Totally amateurish.
If I get nothing from ATC then there is no point in listening on area frequencies. After all you have TCAS and can stay out of my way if you do not wish to talk and arrange separation. To put that another way, it is only equitable that if ATC ignore my needs, then I can ignore theirs.
Thread Starter
Sunfish. You can call for " flight following"
ATC may then give you , workload permitting, a full traffic information service on all relevant traffic the ATC knows about - and - wait for it - advise you if you are about to enter controlled airspace.
Its a disciplined and regulated service based on the US NAS. This means it's proven and the ATC is protected against a Bankstown type action.
When you leave the ATCs area of responsibility or the workload from IFR gets to high for the ATC you will be terminated with the very clear un-ambiguous words " frequency change approved" . This is to make it clear that the ATC no longer has a responsibility to you .
Then again , knowing that you don't have to bother to call for such a service in Aus because Airservices have trained their controllers to randomly call VFR and give them an un requested traffic information service does I suppose save you showing any decision making ability at all.
And also gives the rest of us the chance to sue Airservices for millions in the case of a mid air because we thought that their controller would have called us when another VFR got close. Why do it in the lane south of Kilmore as Sunfish mentions if they don't do it at Hornsby or Gawler?
ATC may then give you , workload permitting, a full traffic information service on all relevant traffic the ATC knows about - and - wait for it - advise you if you are about to enter controlled airspace.
Its a disciplined and regulated service based on the US NAS. This means it's proven and the ATC is protected against a Bankstown type action.
When you leave the ATCs area of responsibility or the workload from IFR gets to high for the ATC you will be terminated with the very clear un-ambiguous words " frequency change approved" . This is to make it clear that the ATC no longer has a responsibility to you .
Then again , knowing that you don't have to bother to call for such a service in Aus because Airservices have trained their controllers to randomly call VFR and give them an un requested traffic information service does I suppose save you showing any decision making ability at all.
And also gives the rest of us the chance to sue Airservices for millions in the case of a mid air because we thought that their controller would have called us when another VFR got close. Why do it in the lane south of Kilmore as Sunfish mentions if they don't do it at Hornsby or Gawler?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 20th Apr 2016 at 09:41.
But the request for "flight following" might block out an important ATC instruction to an A380.
I'm sure you will agree that this is not safe.
I'm sure you will agree that this is not safe.
Thread Starter
Leady You win. Let's stick with the half wound back stuff up system.
I am amazed Civil Air , the ATC Union doesn't do something about this.
Randomly calling VFRs near Kilmore is an extraordinary way to run an ATC system. And it's clear pilots like Sunfish believe it's how the system is supposed to work.
I would imagine he places some reliance on this system to avoid a mid air.
I am amazed Civil Air , the ATC Union doesn't do something about this.
Randomly calling VFRs near Kilmore is an extraordinary way to run an ATC system. And it's clear pilots like Sunfish believe it's how the system is supposed to work.
I would imagine he places some reliance on this system to avoid a mid air.
Phew! Does that mean you're now going home and we can all get some sleep?
I'll make a wild guess that the answer is no ...
When do you expect the announcement of your appointment as 'Airspace Supremo'?
I'll make a wild guess that the answer is no ...
When do you expect the announcement of your appointment as 'Airspace Supremo'?
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And are you sure there is no requirement for a mandatory radio VFR aircraft above 5000' to monitor any particular frequency? Does everyone agree?
ENR 1.1 3.5
Within VHF radio coverage, pilots must maintain continuous communications with ATC when operating in classes A, C and D airspace, as must pilots of IFR flights in Class E airspace. Further, when in Class E airspace, pilots of VFR flights should monitor the ATS frequency appropriate to their area of operation.
b. monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce if in
potential conflict;
potential conflict;
Thread Starter
Yes. It's clear CASA has turned E airspace within surveillance into a type of D airspace as far as ATC responsibility goes . This happened after the NAS half wind back.
I would be very concerned if I was an Australian ATC.
See it works both ways. If the VFR has a responsibility to announce if in conflict its clear ATC must have an equivalent responsibility to advise if two aircraft are close but have not announced.
By the way. It is not ICAO class E. ICAO class E has no radio requirement for VFR for obvious reasons.
I would be very concerned if I was an Australian ATC.
See it works both ways. If the VFR has a responsibility to announce if in conflict its clear ATC must have an equivalent responsibility to advise if two aircraft are close but have not announced.
By the way. It is not ICAO class E. ICAO class E has no radio requirement for VFR for obvious reasons.
By the way. It is not ICAO class E. ICAO class E has no radio requirement for VFR for obvious reasons.
- to have a transponder (those aircraft types capable of powering one), and
- monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce when appropriate (gliders and small sport aviation types excepted)
Got it.
Thread Starter
Captain. I have got it.
However it simply doesn't work because aircraft no longer give position reports in most E airspace
However it does have a major advantage for our aviation community. Just as in the huge Bankstown payout ,apportioning blame to the ATCs , assisted the families of those who died in the mid air the same thing will happen again.
You would wonder what the CEO of Airservices thinks of this? No extra income from the VFR but huge potential liability to Airservices if an accident occurs .
And as I have said before the ATC Union Civil Air remains silent on the issue of ICAO recommendations being changed in this way .
Amazing situation.
However it simply doesn't work because aircraft no longer give position reports in most E airspace
However it does have a major advantage for our aviation community. Just as in the huge Bankstown payout ,apportioning blame to the ATCs , assisted the families of those who died in the mid air the same thing will happen again.
You would wonder what the CEO of Airservices thinks of this? No extra income from the VFR but huge potential liability to Airservices if an accident occurs .
And as I have said before the ATC Union Civil Air remains silent on the issue of ICAO recommendations being changed in this way .
Amazing situation.