CASA Class G Discussion Paper
No Kaz I don't think 15 nm muddies the water at all. It more closely relates to current CTAF boundaries than 20 nm and reduces the problem of overlapping ones.
I operate in an area with several airfields with different frequencies including a busy mixed use airfield with up to 20 RPT movements a day. RPT as a matter of course make inbound calls further out than the recommended distance often to accomodate a RNAV approach.
Radar coverage is not available in the circuit area but ATC is contactable on VHF on the
ground.
It all works safely.
The biggest problem is too much chatter in my opinion.
I believe it is impossible to have all airstrips marked on charts but a low level multicom used sensibly would at least give some alerting of traffic leading to see and avoid without ATC frequency cluttering.
In my opinion the NPRM should not have linked together the two issues of multicom and CTAF in the one yes or no question.
I operate in an area with several airfields with different frequencies including a busy mixed use airfield with up to 20 RPT movements a day. RPT as a matter of course make inbound calls further out than the recommended distance often to accomodate a RNAV approach.
Radar coverage is not available in the circuit area but ATC is contactable on VHF on the
ground.
It all works safely.
The biggest problem is too much chatter in my opinion.
I believe it is impossible to have all airstrips marked on charts but a low level multicom used sensibly would at least give some alerting of traffic leading to see and avoid without ATC frequency cluttering.
In my opinion the NPRM should not have linked together the two issues of multicom and CTAF in the one yes or no question.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few questions arise:
1. How do the amateur and the professional arrange to avoid each other? They’re in the same sky.
2. What jf the amateur is actually a professional, on his day off? Which rule does he follow?
3. What if the amateur wants to enjoy the same level of separation and safety as his professional mate?
FWIW I regularly find myself in category 2 above. I feel a responsibility to my passengers, or even just myself if solo, to minimise my chances of an unwanted encounter, and to fit in as smoothly as possible with other traffic. That means, among other things, communicating with others when appropriate.
It does not mean, just because I’m on a VFR pleasure flight, turning the radio down and trusting my eyesight to detect every potential threat. Nor does it mean happily accepting that someone else is doing so, just because he can’t be arsed participating in our mutual safety.
Every trainee pilot has been taught to use the radio, almost since day 1. It’s not difficult, onerous or time-consuming. And it’s complete insanity for aircraft in the same piece of sky to be using different frequencies, or none at all, when they have a choice.
Last edited by Agrajag; 27th Dec 2017 at 22:06. Reason: Typo
And therein lies the rub. We have Australian G. But that's ok, because we can take some overseas things and add the things we do better, like providing a DTI to IFRs in G where we can. That has to be safer than not doing it, surely.The cost of that extra safety is that we need everyone to be on a known frequency, rather than some random one they've decided to listen to, because we know that alerted see and avoid works much better than just see and avoid. Sure, it makes it a bit noisier, but that's a small price to pay. In fact, it doesn't cost anything. How good is that!
Thread Starter
Agra. No. I am not advocating any such thing.
The only place a non pressurised VFR aircraft flying en route in uncontrolled airspace can collide with a pressurised airline aircraft is in the airspace used for approach and departure to an airport.
That’s why under NAS VFR aircraft monitor and announce on the CTAF when flying in the airspace use for approach and departure to that aerodrome .
So why then would you add the “ cry wolf” problem by making a VFR pilot flying at 5500’ beyond the back of Bourke monitor the ATC frequency that is re transmitted to 30 sectors as far away as Cape York?
Airline pilots don’t even have to do that when en route at flight levels. Most of the high level sectors do not have re transmit from halfway across the country. From my experience in the Citation when outback the high level en route frequencies are pretty quite.
The only place a non pressurised VFR aircraft flying en route in uncontrolled airspace can collide with a pressurised airline aircraft is in the airspace used for approach and departure to an airport.
That’s why under NAS VFR aircraft monitor and announce on the CTAF when flying in the airspace use for approach and departure to that aerodrome .
So why then would you add the “ cry wolf” problem by making a VFR pilot flying at 5500’ beyond the back of Bourke monitor the ATC frequency that is re transmitted to 30 sectors as far away as Cape York?
Airline pilots don’t even have to do that when en route at flight levels. Most of the high level sectors do not have re transmit from halfway across the country. From my experience in the Citation when outback the high level en route frequencies are pretty quite.
Thread Starter
Agra. How does a VFR aircraft know the location of an en route IFR aircraft that is within radar or ADSB coverage ? I am not sure if you have noticed but most do not give full position reports.
Mind reading? Surely you are just resisting change!
Mind reading? Surely you are just resisting change!
And therein lies the rub. We have Australian G. But that's ok, because we can take some overseas things and add the things we do better, like providing a DTI to IFRs in G where we can. That has to be safer than not doing it, surely.The cost of that extra safety is that we need everyone to be on a known frequency, rather than some random one they've decided to listen to, because we know that alerted see and avoid works much better than just see and avoid. Sure, it makes it a bit noisier, but that's a small price to pay. In fact, it doesn't cost anything. How good is that!
I like the current system. I don’t give a tinker’s cuss whether the ‘default’ frequency for use in the vicinity of an uncontrolled airfield that isn’t marked on charts is the FIA or 126.7. (The real risk in the vicinity of those places will continue to be no radio aircraft.)
I just want complicators to STOP F*CKING WITH THINGS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF RISK.
Round peg, square hole. Australia is huge with pretty poor radar coverage on average across the volume *see volume v density.
Most of the world outside Africa and Australia has good radar coverage. Controllers are all like, don't hit that obvious target, see ya, but when tech limitations present either the authority puts in more resources or downgrades the service. Pick one.
Most of the world outside Africa and Australia has good radar coverage. Controllers are all like, don't hit that obvious target, see ya, but when tech limitations present either the authority puts in more resources or downgrades the service. Pick one.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are lots of pros out there in the lower levels. (Some of them are private pilots, holding themselves to a professional standard. I personally know plenty of them.)
That’s why under NAS VFR aircraft monitor and announce on the CTAF when flying in the airspace use for approach and departure to that aerodrome .
So why then would you add the “ cry wolf” problem by making a VFR pilot flying at 5500’ beyond the back of Bourke monitor the ATC frequency that is re transmitted to 30 sectors as far away as Cape York?
So why then would you add the “ cry wolf” problem by making a VFR pilot flying at 5500’ beyond the back of Bourke monitor the ATC frequency that is re transmitted to 30 sectors as far away as Cape York?
Airline pilots don’t even have to do that when en route at flight levels. Most of the high level sectors do not have re transmit from halfway across the country.
And the sectors are huge, precisely because they aren't that busy. On one route i fly, we are talking to the same controller for about 1500 miles. The frequency changes, yes, but it's the same voice at the other end. That means I am hearing calls via retransmit from all over the place, and it doesn't bother me a bit.
The geographical coverage is not relevant, as long as the frequency I'm on has enough periods of silence for me to get a word in when needed. As you say below, that's far from an actual problem.
From my experience in the Citation when outback the high level en route frequencies are pretty quite.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mind reading? Surely you are just resisting change!
Thread Starter
Agra. Most VFR aircraft are not fitted with ADSB. How then does the controller know where the VFR aircraft is located?
And Agra. It’s sits perfectly with my claims. Just one call at the wrong time could over transmit an important ATC instruction. It’s when the holes in the cheese line up!
And Agra. It’s sits perfectly with my claims. Just one call at the wrong time could over transmit an important ATC instruction. It’s when the holes in the cheese line up!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Dec 2017 at 23:36.
Thread Starter
Ok. You all win. It’s just not possible for us the have the simpler system they have in Europe Canada and the USA where VFR pilots can fly en route and not have to monitor a truck channel of irrelevant calls and constantly changing frequency depending on unique lines on a map. And go ahead giant 40 mile CTAFs as this is the only way that system would work.
Most VFR aircraft are not fitted with ADSB. How then does the controller know where the VFR aircraft is located?
Just one call at the wrong time could over transmit an important ATC instruction.
Ok. You all win.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. You all win. It’s just not possible for us the have the simpler system they have in Europe Canada and the USA where VFR pilots can fly en route and not have to monitor a truck channel of irrelevant calls and constantly changing frequency depending on unique lines on a map. And go ahead giant 40 mile CTAFs as this is the only way that system would work.
You proudly proclaim that your undoubted success is due to surrounding yourself with people who know what they're talking about, and then following their advice. It's a great strategy.
Yet here, you've had input from folks from every corner of aviation, most of whom disagree with your position for clearly defined reasons. And you won't change your view one jot. In fact your only response has been to repeat the same tired old discredited stuff again and again, as though somehow it'll suddenly become valid. And when that temporarily runs out of steam, it's a petulant response such as the above quote.
So, are we all wrong? Or do you only pay lip service to that "taking advice" thing?
As others have said, if you have an argument that stands up, for the right reasons, I'm ready to hear it. But please don't just repeat the same mantra you started with, while completely ignoring any contrary views. You are not the only one here with an opinion, and certainly not the only one with plenty of experience in the real world.
[OPINION]FWIW I am quite comfortable with the system as it currently stands. It took my instructor about 15 minutes to explain it to me when I got back into GA flying, and a couple of flights to see how it worked in practice. It's not rocket science and it works, so why are we messing with it? [/OPINiON]
Thread Starter
Agra. You may be happy with the system as it is now but CASA clearly isn’t.
That’s why they started the two year saga costing a fortune in wasted time and money that has left us with 40 mile CTAFs that RAPAC members are opposed to.
The reason I am not accepting the advice from anonymous posters here is that there is a good chance some of you want to damage our country as much as you can. Why wouldn’t people want to support harmonisation so we can be flight training leaders in the world?
Already the Canadians tell potential students not to train here as Australia has a different airspace system where jet airline pilots at busy non tower airports have to perform a do it yourself traffic avoidance procedure when in cloud. Very amateurish!
That’s why they started the two year saga costing a fortune in wasted time and money that has left us with 40 mile CTAFs that RAPAC members are opposed to.
The reason I am not accepting the advice from anonymous posters here is that there is a good chance some of you want to damage our country as much as you can. Why wouldn’t people want to support harmonisation so we can be flight training leaders in the world?
Already the Canadians tell potential students not to train here as Australia has a different airspace system where jet airline pilots at busy non tower airports have to perform a do it yourself traffic avoidance procedure when in cloud. Very amateurish!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Dec 2017 at 07:01.
Thread Starter
If I wanted to undermine and damage Australia I would get a person to post anonymously on public discussion sites information which would damage the country.
There is a chance this is happening now .
There is a chance this is happening now .
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I am not accepting the advice from anonymous posters here is that there is a good chance some of you want to damage our country as much as you can. Why wouldn’t people want to support harmonisation so we can be flight training leaders in the world?
Already the Canadians tell potential students that Australia has a different airspace system where jet airline pilots have to perform a do it yourself traffic avoidance procedure when in cloud. Very amateurish!
Don't despair too much Dick. A look at most online sites open to public comment shows those having a negative view of change are much more likely to post. It doesn't mean it's necessarily the majority view, although it can certainly seem so. I love your tenacity!
Thread Starter
Cloudee. Thanks. As you have probably noticed I use pprune a bit like Mel Gibson’s “ What Women Want”
That is you get to find out what some people really believe but for some reason would not be game to say so openly. Coupled with some posts that could possibly be directed to undermining our aviation industry. It is all really helpful to determining the best way to finalise the important changes!
That is you get to find out what some people really believe but for some reason would not be game to say so openly. Coupled with some posts that could possibly be directed to undermining our aviation industry. It is all really helpful to determining the best way to finalise the important changes!
Thread Starter
Agra. What the Canadians say has some truth.
A place like Ballina would be safer with Canadian/US style E to 700’ compared to what we have now where there isn’t even a CASA published separation standard when in IMC.
A place like Ballina would be safer with Canadian/US style E to 700’ compared to what we have now where there isn’t even a CASA published separation standard when in IMC.