Why no full position reports in G and E ?
Thread Starter
Why no full position reports in G and E ?
Is there still a mandatory requirement that even if under survailance by radar or ADSB that IFR aircraft must give full position reports in E and G airspace?
This was so VFR aircraft could reply and ensure radio arranged separation.
It is a unique Australian requirement. It is of course the reason for the CASA CTAF decision on non mapped airports.
Of more recent times I note that under survailance quite often full position reports are not given by IFR aircraft in E and G . For example you hear " Melbourne Centre Mike Alpha Mike on descent to 5000' "
Such a call is completely useless to VFR who are forced by law, only in Australia, to monitor all the time and reply if necessary.
If it is mandatory , why is it being widely ignored? Are pilots using commonsense?
Late edit. Have just been informed that pilots are no longer required to give full position reports in E and G if under surveillance. How then are VFR pilots , who are forced to monitor class E and G ATC frequencies able to reply as relevant traffic. Sounds like a complete stuff up caused by the half wind back from NAS. That is the ATC frequency boundaries were put back on charts in an attempt to go back to the 1950s when IFR and VFR flew at the same levels, not ICAO semi circular rule levels which I introduced with AMATS.
This was so VFR aircraft could reply and ensure radio arranged separation.
It is a unique Australian requirement. It is of course the reason for the CASA CTAF decision on non mapped airports.
Of more recent times I note that under survailance quite often full position reports are not given by IFR aircraft in E and G . For example you hear " Melbourne Centre Mike Alpha Mike on descent to 5000' "
Such a call is completely useless to VFR who are forced by law, only in Australia, to monitor all the time and reply if necessary.
If it is mandatory , why is it being widely ignored? Are pilots using commonsense?
Late edit. Have just been informed that pilots are no longer required to give full position reports in E and G if under surveillance. How then are VFR pilots , who are forced to monitor class E and G ATC frequencies able to reply as relevant traffic. Sounds like a complete stuff up caused by the half wind back from NAS. That is the ATC frequency boundaries were put back on charts in an attempt to go back to the 1950s when IFR and VFR flew at the same levels, not ICAO semi circular rule levels which I introduced with AMATS.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 8th Apr 2016 at 23:33.
For an IFR aircraft equipped with ADS-B and CPDLC, identified by ATC and flying in CTA, to have to give full position reports would be about the greatest example of half-arsed 1930s dirt-track thinking I can think of. If it's really necessary for VFR in Class E to work properly, maybe that says something about Class E.
What do they do in the States?
What do they do in the States?
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Is there still a mandatory requirement that even if under survailance by radar or ADSB that IFR aircraft must give full position reports in E and G airspace?
A question for you: what are the comms requirements for IFR when descending into Class GorF? No contacting your Brain's Trust.
What frequency you should monitor has got nothing to do with charts. In fact, to help protect fare-paying passengers, VFR should be on the same freqs, which is done by monitoring the freqs on the charts.
Originally Posted by Itsnotthatbloodyhard
For an IFR aircraft equipped with ADS-B and CPDLC, identified by ATC and flying in CTA, to have to give full position reports would be about the greatest example of half-arsed 1930s dirt-track thinking I can think of.
Thread Starter
In the USA and Canada they are not obsessed with VFR. Huge amounts of E and no radio or transponder requirement for VFR while en route below 10,000' .
If VFR are radio equipped it's recommended they monitor and announce if necessary on the CTAF if in the vicinity of an aerodrome otherwise leave your radio on 121.5 for emergency and intercept procedures.
Pretty simple really. No way in other countries that VFR would know the correct en route ATC frequency to be on .
Reason they don't have the Australian requirements - no measurable safety problem!
If VFR are radio equipped it's recommended they monitor and announce if necessary on the CTAF if in the vicinity of an aerodrome otherwise leave your radio on 121.5 for emergency and intercept procedures.
Pretty simple really. No way in other countries that VFR would know the correct en route ATC frequency to be on .
Reason they don't have the Australian requirements - no measurable safety problem!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 9th Apr 2016 at 01:40.
Thread Starter
Bloggs. How about some assistance on the interpretation of the CASA requirements on this?
One lot of advice I got in writing was that full position reports must be given and then another letter stated they should not be made when identified. Which is current? What do you do?
I will post the Greg Russell letter which refers to this on Monday
One lot of advice I got in writing was that full position reports must be given and then another letter stated they should not be made when identified. Which is current? What do you do?
I will post the Greg Russell letter which refers to this on Monday
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ENR 1.1 - 19
11.2
Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft
in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using
the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes
E and G airspace
11.2
Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft
in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using
the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes
E and G airspace
Thread Starter
So if position reports are not made how can the wound back system work?
What's the use of VFR being forced to listen to hundreds of calls when flying in the J curve that don't give any relevant positional information?
Typical CASA gobbledegook . What does it mean? Should IFR aircraft give full position reports when identified in E and G airspace?
Looks as if they don't have to. Any lawyers around?
What's the use of VFR being forced to listen to hundreds of calls when flying in the J curve that don't give any relevant positional information?
Typical CASA gobbledegook . What does it mean? Should IFR aircraft give full position reports when identified in E and G airspace?
Looks as if they don't have to. Any lawyers around?
VFR observed to be in proximity to other traffic (or an active restricted area) can be contacted by ATC and alerted to the situation if they are monitoring the frequency.
If equipped, the ADS-B of the aircraft reveals its identity, otherwise "VFR traffic observed 12 miles west of Cessnock, south-east bound at A055, be advised traffic crossing L to R in 3 mins, 500' above"
If equipped, the ADS-B of the aircraft reveals its identity, otherwise "VFR traffic observed 12 miles west of Cessnock, south-east bound at A055, be advised traffic crossing L to R in 3 mins, 500' above"
Thread Starter
Are now I understand. 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- lousy for Aussie ATCs and their employer, Airservices. Must have huge extra insurance costs .
Amazing Civil Air allows this. Not protecting the interest of its members. In other countries that's called class D airspace and it is adequately manned.
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- lousy for Aussie ATCs and their employer, Airservices. Must have huge extra insurance costs .
Amazing Civil Air allows this. Not protecting the interest of its members. In other countries that's called class D airspace and it is adequately manned.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 9th Apr 2016 at 02:49.
Thread Starter
And most importantly in the old system, before I introduced the AMATS changes , 700 FSOs were responsible for giving traffic to everyone, both IFR and VFR above 5000 where the risk was lowest.
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.
Saved the industry $1.4 billion since then and now I'm told that ATCs should give a radar service free of charge to anyone that appears on the ATC screen at no extra cost. No need to call for a workload permitting radar advisory service in Australia . Fantastic!
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.
Saved the industry $1.4 billion since then and now I'm told that ATCs should give a radar service free of charge to anyone that appears on the ATC screen at no extra cost. No need to call for a workload permitting radar advisory service in Australia . Fantastic!
Have just been informed that pilots are no longer required to give full position reports in E and G if under surveillance.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, would you prefer that ATC just sit there and watch the VFR paints get closer and closer until they both disappear at once? Frankly I'm happy to give whatever service I can to VFR aircraft, and I'm not one of those controllers that work under the theory that VFR pay nothing so don't get any service. Ultimately, I want every aircraft to get home safely and will do anything in my power to make it happen.
Thread Starter
That's why I will post the letter to Greg Russell on Monday.
A quote from it
" 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!
A quote from it
" 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!
Thread Starter
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 ! !