Why no full position reports in G and E ?
Thread Starter
Tinstaafl. Congratulations. Simply the best post on prune so far this year. I am really glad people from the Ministers office read all of this.
Firstly you say , as a pilot with experience in the Australian system, that the US NAS is
" sooo much easier than Oz "
Then you say you would prefer that they change their system and place the ATC frequency boundaries on the charts.
Of course, as a pilot that's what I would prefer too, but it's not going to happen. I have discussed this with the FAA experts and they state the obvious- it's a liability issue.
If you show the frequency of the Controller responsible for the airspace and then you mandate VFR monitoring that frequency it clearly ends up with a duty of care situation for Controllers to protect you against collisions in all but high ATC workload situations.
That is the Controller has a responsibility to attempt to call you if you are near another VFR paint. It happens all the time in Australia , mainly in low traffic density airspace. I have even been called by ATC when flying east of Griffith to advise on another VFR aircraft.
The first mid air collision between VFR aircraft in survailance covered AsA airspace will result in a major liability case against the controllers involved and Airservices. In will most likely result in a huge payout by Airservices similar to the Bankstown mid air of the 13th March 1974.where the government and controllers were held partially responsible because the aircraft were on mandatory ATC frequencies.
And the whole problem was generated by the totally incompetent management at Airservices who started the NAS wind back by printing the frequency boundary charts and sending them out without CASA approval.
Yes these charts were sent out at the emotive request of many pilots like Bloggs . All the Airservices management had to advise Bloggs at the time was that he was looking for an ICAO class D traffic service and that Airservices would provide class D with the 700 extra controllers at a reasonable cost where required.
I am amazed that the ATC Union Civil Air allowed this to happen, they have really let down thir members on this one. All they had to tell the minister that no other country in the world had such a system.
Remember in the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR in E and G airspace . They are ICAO compliant with the clear message to pilots and leech lawyers that Class D , properly manned by ATC, is where you get a service to VFR. US controllers don't attempt to call VFR aircraft in E and G and advise they are near another VFR- they cant believe the Australian system when I explain it. Reckon I must be mistaken.
Firstly you say , as a pilot with experience in the Australian system, that the US NAS is
" sooo much easier than Oz "
Then you say you would prefer that they change their system and place the ATC frequency boundaries on the charts.
Of course, as a pilot that's what I would prefer too, but it's not going to happen. I have discussed this with the FAA experts and they state the obvious- it's a liability issue.
If you show the frequency of the Controller responsible for the airspace and then you mandate VFR monitoring that frequency it clearly ends up with a duty of care situation for Controllers to protect you against collisions in all but high ATC workload situations.
That is the Controller has a responsibility to attempt to call you if you are near another VFR paint. It happens all the time in Australia , mainly in low traffic density airspace. I have even been called by ATC when flying east of Griffith to advise on another VFR aircraft.
The first mid air collision between VFR aircraft in survailance covered AsA airspace will result in a major liability case against the controllers involved and Airservices. In will most likely result in a huge payout by Airservices similar to the Bankstown mid air of the 13th March 1974.where the government and controllers were held partially responsible because the aircraft were on mandatory ATC frequencies.
And the whole problem was generated by the totally incompetent management at Airservices who started the NAS wind back by printing the frequency boundary charts and sending them out without CASA approval.
Yes these charts were sent out at the emotive request of many pilots like Bloggs . All the Airservices management had to advise Bloggs at the time was that he was looking for an ICAO class D traffic service and that Airservices would provide class D with the 700 extra controllers at a reasonable cost where required.
I am amazed that the ATC Union Civil Air allowed this to happen, they have really let down thir members on this one. All they had to tell the minister that no other country in the world had such a system.
Remember in the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR in E and G airspace . They are ICAO compliant with the clear message to pilots and leech lawyers that Class D , properly manned by ATC, is where you get a service to VFR. US controllers don't attempt to call VFR aircraft in E and G and advise they are near another VFR- they cant believe the Australian system when I explain it. Reckon I must be mistaken.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Apr 2016 at 04:09.
Thread Starter
Griffo Very astute. As you have pointed out the half wound back system is a stuff up.
VFR pilots who are supposed to be monitoring and answering IFR in many cases don't even know where the IFR position is located.
In the pre AMATS days pilots were given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained FSO.
That service no longer exists. The closest ICAO airspace that brings in VFR traffic is class D. Can have it en route but it will be very expensive and it will not address any measurable safety issue.
VFR pilots who are supposed to be monitoring and answering IFR in many cases don't even know where the IFR position is located.
In the pre AMATS days pilots were given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained FSO.
That service no longer exists. The closest ICAO airspace that brings in VFR traffic is class D. Can have it en route but it will be very expensive and it will not address any measurable safety issue.
In the pre AMATS days pilots were given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained FSO.
In the pre AMATS days pilots were given a directed traffic information service by a skilled and highly trained FSO.
Dick, how much liability would there be if the boundaries were not on the charts, people therefore didn't know what the "most appropriate" frequency to monitor would be, and then two things prang mid air?
It's the exact same doomsday scenario you describe but this time just without the boundaries marked. I highly doubt the markings being there make our airspace less safe!
It's the exact same doomsday scenario you describe but this time just without the boundaries marked. I highly doubt the markings being there make our airspace less safe!
Prior to the 1991 AMATS changes all VFR above 5000' in G gave mandatory full position reports as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels.
Both IFR and VFR could not even communicate to a radar controller even when in radar airspace.
That's why I made the changes.
Thread Starter
Traffic. One the reasons we made the changes was so that less chance of a MDX type fatal accident. This aircraft went for nearly 30 min in the wrong direction in full radar coverage but was never told.
Why?
Because of a union demarcation dispute about who should use radar. I fixed that despite huge resistance to change.
Why?
Because of a union demarcation dispute about who should use radar. I fixed that despite huge resistance to change.
If my memory is correct, VFRs and IFRS flew at different levels, above 5000, in the old system. Not, as you say, at the same levels.
Also, being west or east of Griffith doesn't preclude the occurrence of conflicting traffic. If you think that, you certainly don't have a realistic handle on the real world of aviation.
Also, being west or east of Griffith doesn't preclude the occurrence of conflicting traffic. If you think that, you certainly don't have a realistic handle on the real world of aviation.
All the IFR flights I hear descending into G make their position report by bearing and distance from the airfield they're inbound to so VFR traffic will know where they are.
Thread Starter
Peuce. No. That is the ICAO semi circular rule that my team introduced.
Before the AMATS changes in 1991 we used the Quadrantal Rule and IFR and VFR flew at exactly the same level. That's why they were all in the system and had to operate full position reporting when above 5000'.
In fact FS gave traffic and didn't even mention if it was IFR or VFR. It was irrelevant .
Interesting how most can't even remember the system that they fought so hard to keep. It will be the same a couple of years after we finally introduce NAS.
Before the AMATS changes in 1991 we used the Quadrantal Rule and IFR and VFR flew at exactly the same level. That's why they were all in the system and had to operate full position reporting when above 5000'.
In fact FS gave traffic and didn't even mention if it was IFR or VFR. It was irrelevant .
Interesting how most can't even remember the system that they fought so hard to keep. It will be the same a couple of years after we finally introduce NAS.
Whilst I don't really care about the pro's or con's of either rule, at least with the quadrantal rule any aircraft crossing tracks while both were heading east or west had at least some chance of 500ft separation. Now if they are the same flight rules, they are the same level, but I guess if that's what the rest of the world does, why should we be any different.
As for the traffic, only the IFR's were provided with traffic, so the flight rules of the other aircraft were irrelevant.
As for the traffic, only the IFR's were provided with traffic, so the flight rules of the other aircraft were irrelevant.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 10th Apr 2016 at 12:32.
Originally Posted by dejapoo
Seriously Capt Bloggs, I'm sick of your constant toxic posts.
Yes, keep going Bloggs - Dick's saturation bombing campaign with thread after provocatively-named thread full of disjointed factoids wears you down after a while, and I for one am glad there's a few to call him out when he gets too carried away.
He's on a mission to do something but I'm buggered if I can work out exactly what!
He's on a mission to do something but I'm buggered if I can work out exactly what!
Thread Starter
On my post #18 on this thread I said I would post the letter to Mr Greg Russell in relation to position reports.
Here it is - dated 15th April 2008 – some 8 years ago. It shows quite clearly that Airservices put the boundaries back on the charts because they thought they were going back to the system where IFR aircraft gave full position reports when in flight service airspace. This was because flight service did not have radar.
It’s now clear the system is a major stuff up, and that’s obviously why I did not receive an answer to my letter of 15th April 2008.
As I’ve said repeatedly, you can’t go back to something that half and half - this is a classic example of resisting change.
Untitled ? DICK SMITH Phone: Fax: E-mail:61 2 9450...
Here it is - dated 15th April 2008 – some 8 years ago. It shows quite clearly that Airservices put the boundaries back on the charts because they thought they were going back to the system where IFR aircraft gave full position reports when in flight service airspace. This was because flight service did not have radar.
It’s now clear the system is a major stuff up, and that’s obviously why I did not receive an answer to my letter of 15th April 2008.
As I’ve said repeatedly, you can’t go back to something that half and half - this is a classic example of resisting change.
Untitled ? DICK SMITH Phone: Fax: E-mail:61 2 9450...
Weren't VFR required to be equipped with a transponder to enable them to operate in E airspace and wasn't this requirement because VFR did not require a clearance to operate in E but IFR did?
On my post #18 on this thread I said I would post the letter to Mr Greg Russell in relation to position reports.
So why would you write to the CEO of the ATSP/ANSP instead of the responsible source?