CASA Class G Discussion Paper
The other part of this equation is the introduction of many new waypoint names - both enroute and within GNS approaches that mean NOTHING to the VFR pilot whatsoever - if indeed you can say them! Using these waypoint names during descent into a CTAF for an approach is a waste of effort in so far as the VFR pilot is concerned. Using the points of the compass and distance in nm is simple and easy for all to understand. (not radials, as half get it wrong by 180deg). Pity some IFR pilots don't appreciate that!
Triadic and Poteroo, your pilots would be well-advised to take heed of section 4.7 of CAAP 166:
Pilots flying IFR should give position reports in plain English so as to be easily understood by VFR pilots, who generally have no knowledge of IFR approach points or procedures. In general, positions should include altitude, distance and direction from the aerodrome.
Including details such as the outbound/inbound legs of an instrument approach, or area navigation fixes, will generally be of little assistance to VFR pilots in establishing situational awareness.
Including details such as the outbound/inbound legs of an instrument approach, or area navigation fixes, will generally be of little assistance to VFR pilots in establishing situational awareness.
No.
It as 2 FIRs.
I think the current count of FIAs is 28.
Please try harder not to give Bloggs and CM and your other enemies ammunition to fire at you.
It as 2 FIRs.
I think the current count of FIAs is 28.
Please try harder not to give Bloggs and CM and your other enemies ammunition to fire at you.
It would be brave of CASA - the airspace regulator and originator of the Legislative Instruments - to decide FIAs are no longer required and not be published.[
I think some people are conflating the safety benefits of publishing FIA frequencies with the benefits of publishing FIA boundaries.
Dick wants/ed the former published on charts at the approximate position of the transmitter, but wants/ed the latter removed.
Dick wants/ed the former published on charts at the approximate position of the transmitter, but wants/ed the latter removed.
Thread Starter
Lead. I have always said I am constantly learning.
Someone once quoted on this site that my view on airspace was that of the last person I had spoken too!
Not quite. But I am easily convinced by a rational argument .
Someone once quoted on this site that my view on airspace was that of the last person I had spoken too!
Not quite. But I am easily convinced by a rational argument .
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But they’re all talking on the same frequency, triadic. That’s the main thing.
You are unlikely to be aware of the VFR that will hold or just stay away until the RPT/IFR has landed and say nothing!
Triadic and Poteroo, your pilots would be well-advised to take heed of section 4.7 of CAAP 166:
Lets just face it, the 20nm CTAFs will not work, it makes the system far too complicated. If we want the VFRs to be with us, it has to be simple.
My apologies, triadic. I was trying - evidently unsuccessfully due to my lame facetiousness - to make the point that not all talk on the radio is necessarily helpful. That’s why I previously posted:
As you and poteroo have pointed out, broadcasting in IFR Martian doesn’t mean much to someone listening in VFR Venusian.
I think you’ll find that Bloggsie knows perfectly well that the section he quoted from CAAP 166 is not for the education of your or poteroo’s student pilots.
Correct. Unfortunately, that increases the probabilities of them being introduced. 
Radio, if used appropriately, will reduce the probabilities of aircraft with radios colliding with other aircraft with radios.
I think you’ll find that Bloggsie knows perfectly well that the section he quoted from CAAP 166 is not for the education of your or poteroo’s student pilots.
Lets just face it, the 20nm CTAFs will not work, it makes the system far too complicated.
Thread Starter
Is there even one person in our aviation industry that supports this CASA plan of 40 mile diameter and 5000’ CTAFs?
Please come on and say so if so!
Or is there not even one !
Please come on and say so if so!
Or is there not even one !
I read Bloggsie’s #247 as meaning he has some attraction to the idea. He’s not saying that 20nm radius is THE number, but he loves that YPPD AFIS...
Thread Starter
Yep. Flew to Port Headland. It took me back to the 1970s
Never heard so much radio talk in all my life! If more talk means more safety it sure must have been safe. Surely we should start winding back to AFIS procedures in places like Tennant Creek and Charlieville.
We could put back on the 700 FS Officers as they would be cheaper than the ATCs used at Headland.
Never heard so much radio talk in all my life! If more talk means more safety it sure must have been safe. Surely we should start winding back to AFIS procedures in places like Tennant Creek and Charlieville.
We could put back on the 700 FS Officers as they would be cheaper than the ATCs used at Headland.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 14th Dec 2017 at 05:55.
No danger of people being on wrong frequency and missing a call. No need to use a chart to find it, no need to work out where the boundary is (well unless you are really lost)
Now ya’ talkin’.
I think the current count of FIAs is 28.
Yep. Flew to Port Headland. It took me back to the 1970s
Never heard so much radio talk in all my life!
Never heard so much radio talk in all my life!
Would KA or BRM have any less comms, particularly with their TWR & SMC combined on the same frequency a.k.a. PD?
Course if PD is that busy, perhaps it needs a TWR -
I think you meant to assert that there are “over 150” FIAs.
But your substantial point is valid and I made a mistake: I confused the re-aligned Area Forecast areas for the FIAs.
I look forward to Australia oozing even more safety with the re-introduction of AFIZ procedures at as many places as possible.
But your substantial point is valid and I made a mistake: I confused the re-aligned Area Forecast areas for the FIAs.
I look forward to Australia oozing even more safety with the re-introduction of AFIZ procedures at as many places as possible.
above 5,000 feet you went ‘full position reporting’ and were given traffic on everybody.