CASA Class G Discussion Paper
I think Bloggsie is referring to Dick and me.
Thread Starter
Wow! We have a supporter of the enormous 40nm diameter, 5000’ altitude CTAFs! In The Australian this morning, in an article written by Annabel Hepworth, it states:
He goes on to say:
It seems really strange to me that Mike is so supportive, when every single RAPAC member I have spoken to is violently opposed.
Mike, under NAS that was approved by Federal Cabinet, the procedures in relation to monitoring the CTAF were the following three dot points:
If you don’t agree with the international system, can you advise what procedures will be used where there are lots of conflicting runways within the 40 mile diameter but on different CTAF frequencies.
How will pilots be trained to be on the particular relevant frequency? Are you suggesting lots of extra maps showing dotted lines and frequency boundaries within CTAFs? I would just like to know.
“However Regional Aviation Association of Australia boss Mike Higgins said his organisation supported the 20 nautical mile radius.”
“However, it’s not unmanageable for a pilot to understand where they are within those 20 mile radii and therefore understand where the overlap is…there’s no reason why an average pilot shouldn’t be able to manage that.”
Mike, under NAS that was approved by Federal Cabinet, the procedures in relation to monitoring the CTAF were the following three dot points:
- When close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations.
- When approaching or departing an aerodrome.
- When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.
If you don’t agree with the international system, can you advise what procedures will be used where there are lots of conflicting runways within the 40 mile diameter but on different CTAF frequencies.
How will pilots be trained to be on the particular relevant frequency? Are you suggesting lots of extra maps showing dotted lines and frequency boundaries within CTAFs? I would just like to know.
It would appear that the RAAA represents quite a range of operators ("Download Member Directory" at the link below), so presumably it's not simply his personal opinion.
https://raaa.com.au/members/directory/
https://raaa.com.au/members/directory/
Thread Starter
I agree. But he was quoted so he may be able to get an answer.
No doubt they have staggering influence as appear to be the only organisation that wants this prescriptive and unique requirement.
Also many of the regional airline people believe the less GA aircraft the more likely people will be forced to fly in an airline .
No doubt they have staggering influence as appear to be the only organisation that wants this prescriptive and unique requirement.
Also many of the regional airline people believe the less GA aircraft the more likely people will be forced to fly in an airline .
Come on, Dick.
Instead of all of this:
just "be on freq by XXnm".
Are you deliberately trying to make things difficult?? Or are you having yet another ideological meltdown about this because this isn't the way the yanks do it?
Seriously??
I liked your rant and rave about YPPD, by the way. One of those stupid Flight Service Stations, you know, as they have in the States and Canada. All that's missing is the scantily-clad Follow-Me vannette... Griffo, I have a job for you!
Instead of all of this:
•When close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations.
•When approaching or departing an aerodrome.
•When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.
•When approaching or departing an aerodrome.
•When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.
Are you deliberately trying to make things difficult?? Or are you having yet another ideological meltdown about this because this isn't the way the yanks do it?
Originally Posted by Dick
Also many of the regional airline people believe the less GA aircraft the more likely people will be forced to fly in an airline .
I liked your rant and rave about YPPD, by the way. One of those stupid Flight Service Stations, you know, as they have in the States and Canada. All that's missing is the scantily-clad Follow-Me vannette... Griffo, I have a job for you!
You haven’t explained how this will work in the vicinity of places like YGTH and YNAR, both serviced by RPT aircraft, with different CTAFs, no AFIS and not more than 40nm apart.
Thread Starter
Under this new CASA proposal what frequency is a pilot to be on under 5000’ at Brooklyn Bridge?
Sydney radar ? Nope , the Somersby dirt strip CTAF!
Also when on the multicom enroute B050 how do you receive a radar flight following service?
Gad ! We are so incredibly incompetent we did not think of that!
We will have to start drawing up some new maps with even more complexity to get this to work.
Have you noticed that no individual CASA person puts his or her name to this proposal and that in the preparatory information sent out that the CASA names were blacked out. Like an ASIO document .
Sydney radar ? Nope , the Somersby dirt strip CTAF!
Also when on the multicom enroute B050 how do you receive a radar flight following service?
Gad ! We are so incredibly incompetent we did not think of that!
We will have to start drawing up some new maps with even more complexity to get this to work.
Have you noticed that no individual CASA person puts his or her name to this proposal and that in the preparatory information sent out that the CASA names were blacked out. Like an ASIO document .
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note: For the literal minded, it's not a requirement. Good practice when able, whether in or out of the US, but absolutely not a requirement in the United States.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much class G is there really in the USA ? (genuine question), because my quick searching indicates that it is mostly at very low levels (around 1200' AGL) with class E above.
ie. there is little need to mark frequency boundaries because it's either class E or whatever ATC tells you. everywhere war to restart)[/size]
ie. there is little need to mark frequency boundaries because it's either class E or whatever ATC tells you. everywhere war to restart)[/size]
You may, if you so *choose*, request VFR flight following from the appropriate ATC facility while flying VFR in Class E airspace, but that is completely a choice, as in something you may choose to do or not. There is no requirement to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, my Airline, for one. And my previous airline. Re-reading the question, Mine isn't a "Jet" airline, and I'm not sure what RPT means, but both operators are/were airlines certificated under US Part 121.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the multiple consecutive posts. I read this thread from the beginning for the first time, and was commenting on things as I encountered them. Given that "the way things are done in the US" seems to be a pretty common theme in this discussion, I thought it would be useful to address some of the misconceptions which are being advanced about the US system. FWIW, There is no mandatory enroute VFR frequency in the US. I have spent a fair amount of time operating in Northern Canada, and I like their system 126.7 being the enroute frequency for everywhere (or at least in the Northern Domestic Airspace I've operated in) However, it works in Northern Canada, because the area is huge, and the air traffic very sparse. A similar "one frequency everywhere" system would be completely unworkable in most of the continental US because the frequency congestion would render it completely useless. Also FWIW, there is a completely different philosophy regarding ATC and VFR traffic. As far as ATC is concerned, VFR traffic is something they need to keep IFR traffic from hitting, and that's about it. I have no doubt that an Enroute Air Traffic Controller would be saddened to learn that 2 VFR aircraft collided in class E airspace within his sector, much as he'd be saddened to learn that someone he didn't know died in a traffic accident a block from his home. Apart from that, ATC has no obligation to keep VFR traffic from running into each other, nor are they given any means to accomplish that. The only proviso, would be if the VFR aircraft had contacted him, and requested VFR flight following, in which case ATC would give traffic advisories "on a workload permitting basis" meaning, there is no obligation to do so, and the request may be denied.
Re "All that's missing is the scantily-clad Follow-Me vannette... Griffo, I have a job for you! "
Sorry, Bloggsie.....I just don't qualify.......
CHEEERRRSSS.....
Sorry, Bloggsie.....I just don't qualify.......
CHEEERRRSSS.....
Most of the US has Class E airspace above 1200 AGL or lower. However, when flying VFR in Class E Airspace, you are not required to monitor or transmit on any frequency, ATC or otherwise. And that includes 121.5, there is no requirement to monitor 121.5.
You may, if you so *choose*, request VFR flight following from the appropriate ATC facility while flying VFR in Class E airspace, but that is completely a choice, as in something you may choose to do or not. There is no requirement to do so.
You may, if you so *choose*, request VFR flight following from the appropriate ATC facility while flying VFR in Class E airspace, but that is completely a choice, as in something you may choose to do or not. There is no requirement to do so.
<snip>. I have spent a fair amount of time operating in Northern Canada, and I like their system 126.7 being the enroute frequency for everywhere (or at least in the Northern Domestic Airspace I've operated in) However, it works in Northern Canada, because the area is huge, and the air traffic very sparse. A similar "one frequency everywhere" system would be completely unworkable in most of the continental US because the frequency congestion would render it completely useless. <snip>
I think I tried to explain to Dick, elsewhere, that his understanding and experience of the “MULTICOM” concept and conflation of the US and Canadian systems was a little superficial.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 16th Dec 2017 at 08:45.