CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Dick, I’m not too keen on 20 nm radius CTAFs, and I’m always interested in ideas for doing things in ways that are simpler and better (and not just change for the sake of it). If you can propose something that’s genuinely simpler and better, then I’m all ears. But for God’s sake, you need to quit with stuff like
beacuse to be quite honest, it just makes you sound bat**** crazy.
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
Thread Starter
At a similar airspace at Bundaberg two professional pilots were performing an instrument approach at the same time in IMC. One had dialed up the wrong ctaf and the other thought the first aircraft had already landed. It’s the reason other countries have a minimum of class E in similar airspace .
Do you really think we should wait for a fatal before copying the best?
Do you really think we should wait for a fatal before copying the best?
For Ballina see here file:///C:/Users/Kim/Downloads/aeronautical_study_ballina2013%20(1).pdf and here https://www.casa.gov.au/files/supple...wayjuly2015pdf
Thread Starter
Hold on. A different CTAF for Lismore won’t work because it will be 4 miles within the new giant Ballina 20 mile CTAF!
CASA people havnt even considered what a giant stuff up their latest recommendations are!
CASA people havnt even considered what a giant stuff up their latest recommendations are!
This is all just so rediculous. Who would be on the Ballina CTAF on the other side of Lismore?
In any case, why would not having a distance rule be any better (or the current 10nm)? The same problem still exists: aircraft potentially on the wrong freq and therefore alerted See and Avoid cannot function, depending on when the ace-of-the-base 100hr pilot thinks it is best to swap freqs.
What a great system; the safety of the whole system relies on the skill and ability of the lowest common denominator, the low-hour private pilot. The same pilot will be VFR swanning around in Class E a couple of miles from Ballina while jets are being messed about, probably micro-managed almost to the ground because there is another IFR in the area, by an ATC! So we have the two IFR crews (worse if only single pilot) running two radios and two traffic situations. Madness.
If Ballina is a worry, PUT IN A TOWER.
And a similar scenario could never happen between an RPT jet and a bugsmasher in a CTAF just because it's VMC? Anybody who thinks that either the jet crew or the bugsmasher driver have any realistic chance of visually avoiding each other if they don't know where the other is is just delusional and quite frankly a menace to the safety of our skies. The skies are just as dangerous when it is 8/8 CAVOK and Class E won't fix that (apart from mandating transponders).
There was almost a Fatal at Mildura IMO because of the too-small "10nm" CTAF. Had we "copied the best" it would have been 15nm (MBZ) or 20nm (AFIZ); Australian "creations".
In any case, why would not having a distance rule be any better (or the current 10nm)? The same problem still exists: aircraft potentially on the wrong freq and therefore alerted See and Avoid cannot function, depending on when the ace-of-the-base 100hr pilot thinks it is best to swap freqs.
What a great system; the safety of the whole system relies on the skill and ability of the lowest common denominator, the low-hour private pilot. The same pilot will be VFR swanning around in Class E a couple of miles from Ballina while jets are being messed about, probably micro-managed almost to the ground because there is another IFR in the area, by an ATC! So we have the two IFR crews (worse if only single pilot) running two radios and two traffic situations. Madness.
If Ballina is a worry, PUT IN A TOWER.
At a similar airspace at Bundaberg two professional pilots were performing an instrument approach at the same time in IMC. One had dialed up the wrong ctaf and the other thought the first aircraft had already landed.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Do you really think we should wait for a fatal before copying the best?
Thread Starter
Bloggs. It’s so sad. You are still completely utterly misinformed on how an international ICAO based airspace system works. The sad thing is that many of those at CASA involved in airspace are just as mis informed.
Tell the truth. Have you ever flown as pilot in command on an IFR flight in IMC at a non tower airport in Canada or the US? I bet not. If you have -advise us of the location.
I have a feeling your extremely limited international experience is similar to those in the “ iron ring” at CASA.
Tell the truth. Have you ever flown as pilot in command on an IFR flight in IMC at a non tower airport in Canada or the US? I bet not. If you have -advise us of the location.
I have a feeling your extremely limited international experience is similar to those in the “ iron ring” at CASA.
Thread Starter
Thanks. I have read that report and can’t see how such an incident could be prevented by having more prescriptive dimensions on a ctaf . The incident once again shows the importance of remaining visually vigilant at all times.
May have been assisted by a NAS US style Unicom which all equivalent aerodromes in the US with RPT have. The Unicom would most likely advised of over transmissions if they occurred.
Shows that even with professional pilots that incidents can take place .
Always keep a good lookout. Even in C airspace under control. Remember Coolangatta !
May have been assisted by a NAS US style Unicom which all equivalent aerodromes in the US with RPT have. The Unicom would most likely advised of over transmissions if they occurred.
Shows that even with professional pilots that incidents can take place .
Always keep a good lookout. Even in C airspace under control. Remember Coolangatta !
Dick, I notice that you are conspicuously silent with your solution to my problem of two IFRs simultaneously being controlled by ATC and having to deal with two VFRs in the circuit on the CTAF. A call to your brain's trust in America, you know those types that do actually fly heavy metal (unlike yourself, isn't that right?) for a living into and out of these E+CTAFs, is allowed.
Thread Starter
Etrust. The CTAF system that operated with complete safety from the introduction of NAS on the 27 TH Nov 2003 for 3 months until Airservices undermined the whole proposal when they printed and published a “ wind back” map with the 1960s frequency boundaries on them.
This is how the proven system works.
When en route if in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodrome ctaf.
Too simple I know. No dimensions required.
Then bring in the next stage of NAS where busy RPT aerodromes like Ballina have E dropped to a low level coupled with the wide scale introduction of non prescriptive no cost US style unicoms. It will happen one day. Just need a few of the concrete minded to retire or die
This is how the proven system works.
When en route if in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodrome ctaf.
Too simple I know. No dimensions required.
Then bring in the next stage of NAS where busy RPT aerodromes like Ballina have E dropped to a low level coupled with the wide scale introduction of non prescriptive no cost US style unicoms. It will happen one day. Just need a few of the concrete minded to retire or die
Thread Starter
Bloggs. Pretty similar to what happens at a place like Coffs Harbour at the moment. Tower controllers can’t see in cloud and VFR can’t fly in cloud. E works from the centre just as efficiently.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I notice that you are conspicuously silent with your solution to my problem of two IFRs simultaneously being controlled by ATC and having to deal with two VFRs in the circuit on the CTAF. A call to your brain's trust in America, you know those types that do actually fly heavy metal (unlike yourself, isn't that right?) for a living into and out of these E+CTAFs, is allowed.
No idea if this supports or detracts from Dick's crusade, but that's how that situation works in the US.
Etrust. The CTAF system that operated with complete safety from the introduction of NAS on the 27 TH Nov 2003 for 3 months until Airservices undermined the whole proposal when they printed and published a “ wind back” map with the 1960s frequency boundaries on them.
This is how the proven system works.
When en route if in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodrome ctaf.
Too simple I know. No dimensions required.
This is how the proven system works.
When en route if in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodrome ctaf.
Too simple I know. No dimensions required.
1. No real changes to published alphabet procedures as they currently exist.
2. Changes to Charts to remove the green frequency boundaries for class G
3. Lowering E into what is now G, where radar can cover it.
4. For VFR ops in G, frequency choice is up to pilots based on operational proximity (rather than fixed distance) to aerodromes (and any approach/departure areas associated with aerodromes) - ie if you believe you may be mixing with a particular aerodrome's traffic, you monitor the aerodrome frequency.
Is this correct?
Originally Posted by Dick
Pretty similar to what happens at a place like Coffs Harbour at the moment. Tower controllers can’t see in cloud and VFR can’t fly in cloud. E works from the centre just as efficiently.
Thanks A Squared. Similar to what happens here, but we do that ourselves, all on the same freq so we don't have two masters. Not hard. We could have ATC involved (Class E), but because Dick has never done a cost-benefit analysis, you know, for another few/many TAAATS sectors, ATC approach training, VHF comms to the ground, nobody knows how much it would cost. Oh and I forgot the mandated transponders for all the VFR players in E.
C'mon Dick. How about it? You're the famous business man, surely you've costed this whole thing out?
Thread Starter
Jonkster. Sort of. Remove all frequency boundary lines from charts. Not just green ones. No other country has such charts. It’s a hangover from the old full position flight service days.
Re extra E. Do a trial at a radar covered and non radar airport. Check delays and cost .
Copy the best and incorporate with what we already do better.
Re extra E. Do a trial at a radar covered and non radar airport. Check delays and cost .
Copy the best and incorporate with what we already do better.
Under NAS we had a system where VFR were very close to IFR jets in E, but this was not regarded as an issue because there was no breakdown of separation, as no separation was required between VFR and IFR in E. Prior to NAS, the airspace had been class C and separation would have been applied - tell me which is safer?
Sorry to use the initial words in the next para, but I have seen a regular correspondent to this site use them.
"I was told" that due to the above non-incidents and the lack of a proper safety case, lawyers told Airservices that they would be liable for any mid-airs that occurred in the NAS airspace - hence the rollback of NAS - not just frequencies on a chart. RIP PF.
Sorry to use the initial words in the next para, but I have seen a regular correspondent to this site use them.
"I was told" that due to the above non-incidents and the lack of a proper safety case, lawyers told Airservices that they would be liable for any mid-airs that occurred in the NAS airspace - hence the rollback of NAS - not just frequencies on a chart. RIP PF.
Arr, yes, the TCAS RA non-incidents.
This chart business has nothing to do with the CTAF/Multicom issue, and Dick has said nothing to justify his claims that is linked. It is just a red herring in an attempt to continue the Class E/Unicom noise that gets trotted out regularly. The hamster-wheel is spinning again.
This chart business has nothing to do with the CTAF/Multicom issue, and Dick has said nothing to justify his claims that is linked. It is just a red herring in an attempt to continue the Class E/Unicom noise that gets trotted out regularly. The hamster-wheel is spinning again.