CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Rubbish. Was myself sitting on what was a Sydney sector overlying FIS 5(4?). A chap was stuck on top. FIS had him call me with ident. We found a hole courtesy of the Warnavale PJE and away he went. NCD.
Thread Starter
Non current Yes. Because we started changes in 1991 that were resisted in a similar way to what is happening now.
History repeats itself. One day we will complete the NAS and within 12 months it will be accepted.
There will be no giant prescriptive 40 mile 5000’ CTAFs and no complicated frequency boundaries on the charts. There will even be some E to 700’ at places like Ballina and it will work with greater safety and without extra costs or measurable delays. We will introduce zero extra cost Unicoms like North America.
Yes. Sounds impossible but you would need to go and fly in Canada or the USA to see how well it can work. Exciting times are coming. Australia will also move to becoming the world leader in flying training and recreational aviation. Big dollars from overseas! Lots more Aussies employed !
History repeats itself. One day we will complete the NAS and within 12 months it will be accepted.
There will be no giant prescriptive 40 mile 5000’ CTAFs and no complicated frequency boundaries on the charts. There will even be some E to 700’ at places like Ballina and it will work with greater safety and without extra costs or measurable delays. We will introduce zero extra cost Unicoms like North America.
Yes. Sounds impossible but you would need to go and fly in Canada or the USA to see how well it can work. Exciting times are coming. Australia will also move to becoming the world leader in flying training and recreational aviation. Big dollars from overseas! Lots more Aussies employed !
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Dec 2017 at 21:02.
[Y]ou would need to go and fly in Canada ... to see how well it can work.
4.5 Aircraft Operations — Uncontrolled Aerodromes
4.5.1 General
An uncontrolled aerodrome is an aerodrome without a control tower, or one where the tower is not in operation. There is no substitute for alertness while in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome. It is essential that pilots be aware of, and look out for, other traffic, and exchange traffic information when approaching or departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome, particularly since some aircraft may not have communication capability. To achieve the greatest degree of safety, it is essential that all radio-equipped aircraft monitor a common designated frequency, such as the published MF or ATF, and follow the reporting procedures specified for use in an MF area, while operating on the manoeuvring area or flying within an MF area surrounding an uncontrolled aerodrome.
• MF area means an area in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome for which an MF has been designated. The area within which MF procedures apply at a particular aerodrome is defined in the Aerodrome/Facility Directory Section of the CFS, under the heading COMM.
Normally, the MF area is a circle with a 5-NM radius capped at 3 000 ft AAE.
At uncontrolled aerodromes without a published MF or ATF, the common frequency for the broadcast of aircraft position and the intentions of pilots flying in the vicinity of that aerodrome is 123.2 MHz.
…
9.13 IFR Procedures at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome in Uncontrolled Airspace
Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Once established on the MF, the pilot shall make the reports listed in RAC 9.12 (see RAC 4.5.4 for MF procedures, and RAC 4.5.5 for the use of 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exists).
…
4.5.1 General
An uncontrolled aerodrome is an aerodrome without a control tower, or one where the tower is not in operation. There is no substitute for alertness while in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome. It is essential that pilots be aware of, and look out for, other traffic, and exchange traffic information when approaching or departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome, particularly since some aircraft may not have communication capability. To achieve the greatest degree of safety, it is essential that all radio-equipped aircraft monitor a common designated frequency, such as the published MF or ATF, and follow the reporting procedures specified for use in an MF area, while operating on the manoeuvring area or flying within an MF area surrounding an uncontrolled aerodrome.
• MF area means an area in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome for which an MF has been designated. The area within which MF procedures apply at a particular aerodrome is defined in the Aerodrome/Facility Directory Section of the CFS, under the heading COMM.
Normally, the MF area is a circle with a 5-NM radius capped at 3 000 ft AAE.
At uncontrolled aerodromes without a published MF or ATF, the common frequency for the broadcast of aircraft position and the intentions of pilots flying in the vicinity of that aerodrome is 123.2 MHz.
…
9.13 IFR Procedures at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome in Uncontrolled Airspace
Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Once established on the MF, the pilot shall make the reports listed in RAC 9.12 (see RAC 4.5.4 for MF procedures, and RAC 4.5.5 for the use of 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exists).
…
The equivalent of the default CTAF in the system described above is 123.2.
Is that the system you are advocating, Dick?
Thread Starter
To a degree. This is “free in G” as i have often mentioned. We have 126.7 because I picked it after my North Pole flights. Don’t tell anyone otherwise we will have to wind back to some old Aus frequency from the 60s!
Note. In Canada 126.7 is for all G. Not just below 5000’. It would not work if just below 5000’. And they do not have an Aus style DTI.
Of course they have a separate CTAF frequency . I have always said we copy the best and incorporate with whatever we already do better!
More importantly the Canadians do not have ATC frequency boundaries marked on charts and they have vast areas without low level radar. Sounds impossible I know.
The ARG decided it was better to follow the US system and not have prescriptive dimensions around a CTAF. Otherwise using the Australian mentality they would have to be huge and create more problems than they would solve . We now have experience of that!
Note. In Canada 126.7 is for all G. Not just below 5000’. It would not work if just below 5000’. And they do not have an Aus style DTI.
Of course they have a separate CTAF frequency . I have always said we copy the best and incorporate with whatever we already do better!
More importantly the Canadians do not have ATC frequency boundaries marked on charts and they have vast areas without low level radar. Sounds impossible I know.
The ARG decided it was better to follow the US system and not have prescriptive dimensions around a CTAF. Otherwise using the Australian mentality they would have to be huge and create more problems than they would solve . We now have experience of that!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Dec 2017 at 21:07.
Australia will also move to becoming the world leader in flying training and recreational aviation.
incorporate with whatever we already do better
Thread Starter
Traffic. The way we self separate IFR at low traffic non tower airports in G is better in my view. In the USA pilots are not trained to do this That’s why I have always stated that low level E should be introduced at certain airports depending on traffic density and types of operations
So we have a better safer system because we provide a DTI to IFR in G. But to do that, the aircraft have to be on an ATC frequency. This makes our "area" also an ATC frequency. Canada don't do this, because G is blanket 126.7. ATC is provided in the other various category airpaces on other frequencies, I presume. Airspace category boundaries are shown from what I can gather, so Canada does have ATC boundaries marked on their charts. They just don't have area boundaries marked as there are none. If our various area frequencies are also used as ATC frequencies due to our better safer system, I think it is legitimate that their boundaries are depicted on the relevant charts, just like other ATC areas are.
Thread Starter
The reason some are obsessed with atc frequency boundaries on charts is so we can go back to a form of “radio arranged separation” that existed between IFR and VFR in most un controlled en route airspace. That was when IFR and VFR used the quadrantial rule and flew at identical levels when on the same heading .
Under ICAO class G does not require radio for VFR. It is considered a see and avoid airspace.
If safety dictates that traffic information on VFR is required for IFR aircraft then that requires a minimum of class D.
Some try and turn G into D re VFR traffic. Unfortunately will not work.
Under ICAO class G does not require radio for VFR. It is considered a see and avoid airspace.
If safety dictates that traffic information on VFR is required for IFR aircraft then that requires a minimum of class D.
Some try and turn G into D re VFR traffic. Unfortunately will not work.
Thread Starter
Traffic. As in australia all of Canadian class G is overlaid with controlled airspace operated by ATC on allocated frequencies.
I Canada there is not a requirement for non controlled aircraft to monitor and announce on these frequencies.
This saves money because in low traffic density airspace they do not have to stratify the airspace so costs can be reduced.
Our system is not better or safer. Canada has low level E at certain non tower airports just like the USA.
We don’t as yet because it’s claimed we will need more controllers and consoles resulting in extra costs.
It appears our existing controllers are already at the max!
I Canada there is not a requirement for non controlled aircraft to monitor and announce on these frequencies.
This saves money because in low traffic density airspace they do not have to stratify the airspace so costs can be reduced.
Our system is not better or safer. Canada has low level E at certain non tower airports just like the USA.
We don’t as yet because it’s claimed we will need more controllers and consoles resulting in extra costs.
It appears our existing controllers are already at the max!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Dec 2017 at 01:15.
Australia doesn’t have ICAO Class G.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick.
Obsessed, to dominate or preoccupy the thoughts, feelings, or desires of (a person); beset, trouble, or haunt persistently or abnormally: This borders in a disorder. To be still pushing your view after nearly ten months and over 400 posts could be considered obsessive.
Twice you have linked obsession with frequency boundaries. I am not obsessed, I just find boundaries easier for me. Because we have differing opinions, doesn’t make one right and the other wrong. I am entitled to my opinion without being labelled obsessive.
Obsessed, to dominate or preoccupy the thoughts, feelings, or desires of (a person); beset, trouble, or haunt persistently or abnormally: This borders in a disorder. To be still pushing your view after nearly ten months and over 400 posts could be considered obsessive.
Twice you have linked obsession with frequency boundaries. I am not obsessed, I just find boundaries easier for me. Because we have differing opinions, doesn’t make one right and the other wrong. I am entitled to my opinion without being labelled obsessive.
Thread Starter
Fujji. Don’t you see the only reason CASA is proposing ginormous CTAFs is in an attempt to get the system which requires VFR pilots to be monitoring ATC frequencies to work?
Remove the frequency boundaries on the charts and there is no need for the giant CTAFs. We could use the NAS procedure from page 27 of the NAS Reference Guide as follows.
-monitor and announce on the CTAF “ - when en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome “
Remove the frequency boundaries on the charts and there is no need for the giant CTAFs. We could use the NAS procedure from page 27 of the NAS Reference Guide as follows.
-monitor and announce on the CTAF “ - when en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome “
I am totally over this so called debate. Australia may not have the best system in whole or part and neither does any other country. What works for you should prevail.
Outside of controlled airspace ops above 5000' amsl (or 3000' agl in the high country) should listen on area frequency and use ATC services if and when required only.
A blanket 126.7 multicom beneath with broadcasts only as required and if appropriate in the vicinity of marked or unmarked airfields. Obviously CTAF's with other designated frequencies would provide the exception. And let's get rid of this stupid idea of 20 mn radius CTAFs. 15 mn max are adequate.
Nothing in the above would preclude earlier calls on CTAF frequencies if considered warranted. Neither would it preclude requests for assistance on ATC frequencies (marked on charts or not) at any time.
If pilots are particularly hung up about the above twin Comms might help as would IFR aircraft giving more appropriate top of descent calls on appropriate multicom frequencies to alert VFR aircraft below. All this can't be too freakin hard and use our existing resources.
Outside of controlled airspace ops above 5000' amsl (or 3000' agl in the high country) should listen on area frequency and use ATC services if and when required only.
A blanket 126.7 multicom beneath with broadcasts only as required and if appropriate in the vicinity of marked or unmarked airfields. Obviously CTAF's with other designated frequencies would provide the exception. And let's get rid of this stupid idea of 20 mn radius CTAFs. 15 mn max are adequate.
Nothing in the above would preclude earlier calls on CTAF frequencies if considered warranted. Neither would it preclude requests for assistance on ATC frequencies (marked on charts or not) at any time.
If pilots are particularly hung up about the above twin Comms might help as would IFR aircraft giving more appropriate top of descent calls on appropriate multicom frequencies to alert VFR aircraft below. All this can't be too freakin hard and use our existing resources.
Last edited by On eyre; 27th Dec 2017 at 05:37.
Fujji. Don’t you see the only reason CASA is proposing ginormous CTAFs is in an attempt to get the system which requires VFR pilots to be monitoring ATC frequencies to work?
Remove the frequency boundaries on the charts and there is no need for the giant CTAFs. We could use the NAS procedure from page 27 of the NAS Reference Guide as follows.
-monitor and announce on the CTAF “ - when en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome “
Remove the frequency boundaries on the charts and there is no need for the giant CTAFs. We could use the NAS procedure from page 27 of the NAS Reference Guide as follows.
-monitor and announce on the CTAF “ - when en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome “
Frequency boundaries or not, CASA could still mandate VFR be on the area freq (even via the freq method you propose by looking for the site).
CASA could also mandate giant CTAFs even if there were no frequency boundaries. The two are not necessarily correlated.
As an aside, how does one know what the "airspace normally used by arriving and departing traffic" is? It can be different depending on the aircraft. Are they all expected to know the approach procedures and DGA steps etc? Your "in the airspace" may not be the same as someone else's "in the airspace".
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am totally over this so called debate. Australia may not have the best system in whole or part and neither does any other country. What works for you should prevail.
Outside of controlled airspace ops above 5000' amsl (or 3000' agl in the high country) should listen on area frequency and use ATC services if and when required only.
A blanket 126.7 multicom beneath with broadcasts only as required and if appropriate in the vicinity of marked or unmarked airfields. Obviously CTAF's with other designated frequencies would provide the exception. And let's get rid of this stupid idea of 20 mn radius CTAFs. 15 mn max are adequate.
Nothing in the above would preclude earlier calls on CTAF frequencies if considered warranted. Neither would it preclude requests for assistance on ATC frequencies (marked on charts or not) at any time.
If pilots are particularly hung up about the above twin Comms might help as would IFR aircraft giving more appropriate top of descent calls on appropriate multicom frequencies to alert VFR aircraft below. All this can't be too freakin hard and use our existing resources.
Outside of controlled airspace ops above 5000' amsl (or 3000' agl in the high country) should listen on area frequency and use ATC services if and when required only.
A blanket 126.7 multicom beneath with broadcasts only as required and if appropriate in the vicinity of marked or unmarked airfields. Obviously CTAF's with other designated frequencies would provide the exception. And let's get rid of this stupid idea of 20 mn radius CTAFs. 15 mn max are adequate.
Nothing in the above would preclude earlier calls on CTAF frequencies if considered warranted. Neither would it preclude requests for assistance on ATC frequencies (marked on charts or not) at any time.
If pilots are particularly hung up about the above twin Comms might help as would IFR aircraft giving more appropriate top of descent calls on appropriate multicom frequencies to alert VFR aircraft below. All this can't be too freakin hard and use our existing resources.
Now you muddy the water even further by proposing a 15 NM Procedural boundary at this late stage....WTH
Kaz
Thread Starter
Why should a VFR pilot have to monitor what is the equivalent of the truck channel every time he or she goes flying? P No wonder GA is stuffed. Different if you are working and being paid not to relax!