CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of the Continental US has very good radar coverage down to pretty low altitudes. There are areas of Alaska and some of the mountainous Western State where the coverage is not as good. But for most of the US, operating IFR outside of Radar coverage is something Earnest Gann used to do.
Thread Starter
Last time I checked at more than 50% of US non tower airports with IFR approaches the IAF was below radar coverage .
There are airports within 200 nm of Washington DC in mountain valleys that have IFR approaches below radar coverage.
But let’s keep saying “we can’t copy the US system because they have more radar coverage” for the next 50 years as this will stop any change at places last like Ballina or Mt Hotham.
Resist resist resist change. Keep the mind set in concrete!
A Squared. We don’t have class E below 8500’ at non towered airports and our airline aircraft use a do it yourself amateur calling in the blind system when on an instrument approach in IMC hoping other aircraft will answer with a correct position report. (Didn’t work with professional pilots at Mt Hotham ) There are no separation standards set. It’s just up to the pilot who’s prepared to take the greatest risks. Yes this includes separating 737s from 172s !
There are airports within 200 nm of Washington DC in mountain valleys that have IFR approaches below radar coverage.
But let’s keep saying “we can’t copy the US system because they have more radar coverage” for the next 50 years as this will stop any change at places last like Ballina or Mt Hotham.
Resist resist resist change. Keep the mind set in concrete!
A Squared. We don’t have class E below 8500’ at non towered airports and our airline aircraft use a do it yourself amateur calling in the blind system when on an instrument approach in IMC hoping other aircraft will answer with a correct position report. (Didn’t work with professional pilots at Mt Hotham ) There are no separation standards set. It’s just up to the pilot who’s prepared to take the greatest risks. Yes this includes separating 737s from 172s !
Last edited by Dick Smith; 17th Dec 2017 at 01:41.
Thread Starter
Found this
i]First and foremost, I'd like to remind everyone that the FAA put out a
FDC NOTAM 12 years ago requiring all pilots flying anywhere in the USA
to monitor 121.5. This was promulgated as an FDC NOTAM rather than a
regulation, but unlike the advisory L/D-NOTAMs, which are merely
inform you of certain conditions, FDC NOTAMs have regulatory force.
The one involved is FDC 4/4386, which says in part, "ALL AIRCRAFT
OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL
MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF 243.0." I'd like to emphasize that when the FAA says
"shall", that term "is used in an imperative sense", meaning you have
no choice about doing it.
ASquared. Do I get an correction?
i]First and foremost, I'd like to remind everyone that the FAA put out a
FDC NOTAM 12 years ago requiring all pilots flying anywhere in the USA
to monitor 121.5. This was promulgated as an FDC NOTAM rather than a
regulation, but unlike the advisory L/D-NOTAMs, which are merely
inform you of certain conditions, FDC NOTAMs have regulatory force.
The one involved is FDC 4/4386, which says in part, "ALL AIRCRAFT
OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL
MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF 243.0." I'd like to emphasize that when the FAA says
"shall", that term "is used in an imperative sense", meaning you have
no choice about doing it.
ASquared. Do I get an correction?
From the FAA:
FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL
REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION
MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6,
PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL
AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY
AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO
BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY
THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO
CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF
FORCE.
(My bolding). Bit subjective. I guess if you've got other things to do with the radio you don't have to monitor it. Might get shot down though!
FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL
REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION
MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6,
PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL
AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY
AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO
BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY
THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO
CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF
FORCE.
(My bolding). Bit subjective. I guess if you've got other things to do with the radio you don't have to monitor it. Might get shot down though!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll concede the the point with the observation that "if capable" is subjective and determined by the pilot.
You will find that Australia's favorite aviation word, "mandatory" is largely absent from the US aviation lexicon. As is "strict liability blah blah blah ----" although FAA has quite adequate enforcement powers and penalties.
Many years ago, then FAA Administrator Donald Engen (USN R-Admiral, Retired) paid a brief visit to Australia, about four days. In that time he picked up "the vibe".
On the way home, he said to us:" You know, in US, if a person is a pilot, we trust them, in Australia, if a person is a pilot, you mistrust them".
There is something very sick in Australian aviation, the current nonsense with CTAFs and frequencies is a good example, it just wouldn't have happened in US.
For starters, FAA would not. out of the blue, suddenly, without consultation , have "clarified" frequency usage, which is where this present nonsense started. If FAA had identified a possible risk (there is and was no new risk, just a brainfart somehwere in CASA) they would have started with a cost/benefit analysis, which is where any change would have died.
Here we have months (years??) of discussions, with almost every aviation group against (except RAAA, which is currying favor with CASA for other reasons, and need to demonstrate their multi-lingual expertise, and practice their arselikan) and instead of CASA dropping the whole thing, we get this nonsense process, with "out of nowhere" semi-giant CTAFs based on what analysis --- precisely none.
A further prime example of the CASA KULTCHA at work, and to hell with the interests of the aviation community.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 17th Dec 2017 at 07:19.
Thread Starter
Biggles. Not the CFIT. The King Air incident that involved the pilot that later lost his life at Essendon . ATSB can’t even finalise a report in 2 years because they are not game to say I am correct and we should at least try some lower level class E.
A Squared. Have a feeling you new nothing about this requirement ! Could that be so? By the sound of it “if capable” would cover nearly all En route flying!
A Squared. Have a feeling you new nothing about this requirement ! Could that be so? By the sound of it “if capable” would cover nearly all En route flying!
Originally Posted by Dick
Yes this includes separating 737s from 172s !
Mandatory ADS-B for all so Dick can implement positive ATC between ALL aircraft in E; BRING IT ON!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been said that we are looking to the return of MBZs or something similar?... doubt if that will work either? Pity there is nobody in CASA that remembers what happened 15 to 20 yrs ago..!
Isn’t YPPD already effectively a 20nm radius 8,500’ MBZ during the hours of operation of the AFIS?
Bloggsie wants that replicated at places like YMIA, YSDU, YSWG.
Hopefully history will repeat and I can reuse my old VECs and FISCOM charts.
The RAAA will be all for it until Airservices gives an estimate of the bill I reckon.
Bloggsie wants that replicated at places like YMIA, YSDU, YSWG.
Hopefully history will repeat and I can reuse my old VECs and FISCOM charts.
The RAAA will be all for it until Airservices gives an estimate of the bill I reckon.
In all seriousness, full surveillance down to approaches country wide with E airspace is an extremely safe system.
How we get there with equipage and training is the discussion.
How we get there with equipage and training is the discussion.
Thread Starter
Our existing radar/ADSB coverage in the J curve is not dissimilar to the coverage in many parts of the USA.
That’s made no difference to those who have stopped the lowering of class E .
Resist resist change. Let’s go back to the MBZ or AFIZ!
That’s made no difference to those who have stopped the lowering of class E .
Resist resist change. Let’s go back to the MBZ or AFIZ!
The RAAA will be all for it until Airservices gives an estimate of the bill I reckon.
That will be the clincher!! I am sure you all understand that 1200 returns are often suppressed, undoubtedly the same does/will apply the VFR traffic with ADS-B.
I find it very interesting that nobody wants to consider rational risk analysis, what is it about vanishingly small mid-air collision risk probability that results in completely irrational discussions about "mandating" ADS-B ??
Tootle pip!!
They haven't been suppressed in all the time I've been working in Melbourne, so never in the last 23 years. As I said, on a fine afternoon, particularly after a period of poor weather, there are plenty of VFR returns visible.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear that Airservices are about to completely rollback the surveillance approach service they introduced in 2013/14 into Rockhampton and Mackay. Only operated after the tower shut using E airspace to 700'. In fact it has been turning on and off as a service recently - not sure why. How much did all that cost to set up and now they are turning it off! Seems like a large waste of money! May be its progress? But who is accountable for the money spent? How much was spent?
I’m finding it difficult to understand why some pilots are effectively asking to have the ATC freq boundaries removed from the charts, yet in the next sentence, demand a higher situational awareness. Am I missing something?
Thread Starter
No. By removing the frequency boundaries and recommending pilots monitor and announce when flying in the airspace used for approach and departure from an airport the best situational awareness will occur .
Primarily because it is a simple system without complex dimensions and created frequency boundaries.
And it complies with the commonsense test.
Primarily because it is a simple system without complex dimensions and created frequency boundaries.
And it complies with the commonsense test.