CASA Class G Discussion Paper
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.
Not trying to be deliberately obtuse or negative - I want to understand the implications of your proposal before I make up my mind.
Be patient as I am a bit thick. I think I am missing something.
The big thing I am not getting is why the depiction of frequency areas is a problem.
Currently VFR in G, I select a frequency based on the area I am in (obtained ultimately by looking at a chart).
In areas of high congestion (say a lane of entry) I will broadcast but mostly otherwise mostly just monitor. On the odd occasion I may contact flightwatch (eg I have a sartime amendment or perhaps want some updated weather unexpectedly due diversion). I also know in the unlikely event of an emergency situation I am in contact with someone with resources on the ground and with other aircraft in the area. Mostly though just monitor.
This seems to work OK from my perspective so I am not seeing it as a problem that needs a solution. Why is the depiction of frequencies an issue? - what is the issue/problem that gets solved or improved if the frequencies are not marked on charts? If removed, are the appropriate frequencies for an area available elsewhere? If so how?
In practical terms:
1. What frequency should I monitor if there is none marked on the chart? Is it a common aircraft-aircraft unicom or is there still a FIS frequency available - how do I find it?
2. if unicom, suppose as a VFR flight in G, I want to contact someone on the ground to get details or change something - (eg I have lodged a sartime and I need to amend it or want to ask for weather after an unexpected route change), who do I call and how do I find their frequency?
2. If unicom if I encounter an urgency/emergency situation and I need to alert someone, I assume the procedure would be to make a call on 121.5 is that correct?
3. If I encounter un-forecast nasty weather and want to make a short airep - who do I call? If someone else encounters that situation how do I hear their report? I am assuming all aircraft in my area will be on a common unicom frequency - is that correct - in which case I would make a broadcast on the unicom?
4. If I enter E, how do I know what frequency to monitor if it is not marked? Or do I remain on unicom?
5. If I want flight following, who do I contact and how do I find the appropriate frequency?
Genuine questions - I want to know how your system works before making any judgement.
Thread Starter
Jonkster. The only reason CASA has spent over two years and a large amount of money on this major dispute with all RAPACs is that CASA attempted to get the reason for frequency boundaries on charts to work.
CASA stated that all non map marked airport operations should be on the area ATC map marked frequency.
Do you grasp that ?
This was so aircraft flying en route and monitoring the correct map marked area ATC frequency would be on the same frequency as aircraft operating at non map marked airports.
This was the system we had before my group made the 1991 AMATs changes. In those days there was no such thing as a CTAF and the airport traffic operated on the area frequency . That’s why the charts had to show the frequency boundaries.
The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft. There was no CAA regulation in relation to remaining visually vigilant. I had to introduce that by copying the FAA wording!
The system required an extra 700 staff to monitor all these non tower airports .
The CAA Board made the decision in in 1990 to more closely harmonise with the North American airspace system. This copied the CTAF concept and removed the requirement for VFR to monitor ATS frequencies.
You say there is not a problem that needs a solution. The RAPACs or CASA clearly do not agree. That’s why the major dispute occurred. It had nothing to do with me. I just watched from the sidelines.
The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs
The answers
1. While en route if in the airspace used for for the departure and approach of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodromes CTAF Otherwise monitor the nearest ATC ground outlet if you wish to listen to atc Or monitor 121.5 if you want to get an emergency call out with maximum chance of quick action and don’t want a truck type radio going in your ear all the time.
2. At any time you can push the nearest button on your GPS and request a service from the nearest ATC ground outlet. Or look at the location of the nearest outlet on your chart.
3. Same as above. You can give safety information to the nearest outlet. It has never been shown anywhere in the world that aireps to to other VFR aircraft are necessary for the safety of the system.
4 E is the same as G in relation to VFR radio requirements. See 1.
5. Call the closest ATC ground outlet. Either look at the outlet location on your map or use the nearest ATC outlet function on your GPS. That’s why it is there. The controller will provide you with a service worlkload permitting or advise a change to another frequency. It’s how The rest of the world works,
Most importantly. Keep a good lookout when in VMC. Even when under an ATC clearance keep a good lookout. Many mid airs take place close to the airport in controlled airspace. Be vigilant. You could die if you remain obsessed with the Australian 1960s culture of looking down at frequencies on a chart and writing down call signs of other traffic rather rather than looking out.
Look forward to your judgment. By the way. Have you ever rented a car in another country? Other than knowing what side of the road to drive on the rules have been standardised. What’s wrong with Australia doing that with Aviation. We will earn a fortune in export income if we make it simpler for other aviators to spend there money here!
CASA stated that all non map marked airport operations should be on the area ATC map marked frequency.
Do you grasp that ?
This was so aircraft flying en route and monitoring the correct map marked area ATC frequency would be on the same frequency as aircraft operating at non map marked airports.
This was the system we had before my group made the 1991 AMATs changes. In those days there was no such thing as a CTAF and the airport traffic operated on the area frequency . That’s why the charts had to show the frequency boundaries.
The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft. There was no CAA regulation in relation to remaining visually vigilant. I had to introduce that by copying the FAA wording!
The system required an extra 700 staff to monitor all these non tower airports .
The CAA Board made the decision in in 1990 to more closely harmonise with the North American airspace system. This copied the CTAF concept and removed the requirement for VFR to monitor ATS frequencies.
You say there is not a problem that needs a solution. The RAPACs or CASA clearly do not agree. That’s why the major dispute occurred. It had nothing to do with me. I just watched from the sidelines.
The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs
The answers
1. While en route if in the airspace used for for the departure and approach of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodromes CTAF Otherwise monitor the nearest ATC ground outlet if you wish to listen to atc Or monitor 121.5 if you want to get an emergency call out with maximum chance of quick action and don’t want a truck type radio going in your ear all the time.
2. At any time you can push the nearest button on your GPS and request a service from the nearest ATC ground outlet. Or look at the location of the nearest outlet on your chart.
3. Same as above. You can give safety information to the nearest outlet. It has never been shown anywhere in the world that aireps to to other VFR aircraft are necessary for the safety of the system.
4 E is the same as G in relation to VFR radio requirements. See 1.
5. Call the closest ATC ground outlet. Either look at the outlet location on your map or use the nearest ATC outlet function on your GPS. That’s why it is there. The controller will provide you with a service worlkload permitting or advise a change to another frequency. It’s how The rest of the world works,
Most importantly. Keep a good lookout when in VMC. Even when under an ATC clearance keep a good lookout. Many mid airs take place close to the airport in controlled airspace. Be vigilant. You could die if you remain obsessed with the Australian 1960s culture of looking down at frequencies on a chart and writing down call signs of other traffic rather rather than looking out.
Look forward to your judgment. By the way. Have you ever rented a car in another country? Other than knowing what side of the road to drive on the rules have been standardised. What’s wrong with Australia doing that with Aviation. We will earn a fortune in export income if we make it simpler for other aviators to spend there money here!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 31st Dec 2017 at 00:05.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
FS never monitored "all these non tower airports". NEVER. They only monitored AFIZs (and HF, Sartimes).
Such a system is fundamentally sound! Who in their right mind would design a system where aircraft in the same piece of sky were on different frequencies? Unalerted See and Avoid ie "looking out the window" does not work with large speed mismatches.
What dispute? The original dispute was the freq to be used at unmarked fields. That has NOTHING to do with charted freq boundaries (it is a pity that someone in CASA added in the 20nm CTAF thingee. That should have been kept separate).
FS never monitored "all these non tower airports". NEVER. They only monitored AFIZs (and HF, Sartimes).
The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft.
The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs
Thread Starter
The only way CASA could nominate an area frequency at non map marked airports is that such a frequency existed because of the wind back.
So the dispute was caused by the frequency boundaries being put back on the charts.
Pretty simple.
Bloggs. If the smaller airports were not on the area FIS frequency what frequency were they on? Gotcha!
So the dispute was caused by the frequency boundaries being put back on the charts.
Pretty simple.
Bloggs. If the smaller airports were not on the area FIS frequency what frequency were they on? Gotcha!
Dick, seriously, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions and again I stress I am not trying to argue - I am trying to understand.
I think there is something here I am missing.
Ultimately any change should be evaluated on the questions of:
1. does it increase safety? (and by how much?)
2. how much does it cost? (and does the safety increase justify the cost?)
3. does it make things easier (by how much and at what impact to safety and cost)
I have no problems with existing ICAO alphabet airspace and removal of mandatory reporting for VFR etc.
I always understood the idea in the early 90s was to reduce excessive costs associated with the existing system that only provided marginal increases in safety and I get the concept that you can bankrupt yourself trying to remove all risks rather than very marginally increase risk for a huge reduction in cost (especially when the risk is actually quite low to start with).
The idea of a 40nm CTAF is something that seems a furphy as far as I can see.
1. I think it is totally unnecessary
2. despite that I also do not see how an expanded size is a necessary consequence of having frequency boundaries on charts
We have managed to operate with the frequency boundaries on charts and current sized CTAFs fine for years (in my opinion - willing to hear others who had problems though). Why is it now an issue?
Surely just say "when operating near CTAFs and the traffic threat is most likely from aircraft operating around that CTAF, use common sense and monitor that CTAF and give timely calls if you plan to enter that airspace"?
that is not really any different from the current procedure most people use in practice and it makes sense. No problems from me.
I assume the idea is you would look at your current location and look for the nearest box with a frequency in it? If so, this is the bit I am not getting - is it much different from looking at the bounded area I am in and finding the box in that?
My impression is it achieves the same result (ie I find the appropriate frequency) but perhaps more quickly with the area's boundary marked because I direct my scan to that area.
Look, not a deal breaker either way for me but I just don't see why that particular issue gets so much prominence and is seen as a problem.
I can see that up to a point but know from giving people simulated emergencies during their BFRs most will be operating at maximum brain power already just dealing with flying with little left over to deal with radio calls etc, so in a real situation I tend to think they will be highly likely to waste time dialing rather than flying, (or dial a wrong frequency or just blurt out on whatever frequency they have dialed in at the time) if it was a real scenario.
Again, my opinion, but a mayday on area, even if overtransmitted in a busy chatter environment tends to shut people up quick smart and is pretty likely to be heard by many and if ATC/FIS is the one over transmitting I am sure they will be immediately alerted by another aircraft who did hear the call if the urgency or distress call is not acknowledged.
I can see if you always had 121.5 dialled in on standby that would make sense though.
That said to me it seems to add a layer of complexity for many VFR PPLs but I can live with it - we would just train people to keep 121.5 dialed up and to use it in simulated emergencies.
Again not a deal breaker.
If using a chart, wouldn't having a boundary perhaps make finding the nearest outlet easier? Again not a deal breaker if the boundary wasn't there but still not getting why having it is seen as a big problem.
well... I have made operational decisions based on hearing one.
Agree though it is not common however IMO does add an extra swiss cheese hole filler.
I look on the chart. Under your system I find the nearest box to me, on the current system I restrict where I look to the marked boundary and find the box in that region. That part fine either way for me.
Your system works though if the various outlets are re-transmitted - what if they aren't? Would that not mean I could be monitoring an adjacent area's IFR traffic rather than what is in my vicinity or am I getting something wrong?
fair enough. That said if I call the wrong one I just waste time and bandwidth while we sort out the correct frequency but look, not a big deal.
To me it still seems very similar to the existing system we have except we draw an area around the outlet and they don't What am I missing?
I could easily adapt to not having the boundaries but also cannot see how it would really confuse someone from overseas flying here either - surely they would look at the chart/display and say - "oh isn't that neat! the nearest outlet has a boundary around it!", and carry on. Again - am I missing something
no problem with that at all. Agree 100%
TBH what I am seeing are pilots who spend their VFR time staring at the little purple line on their EFB. Same disease different symptom - relying on technology rather than pilotage. 
Most un-necessary looking at charts (and EFB displays) tends to be done by people map crawling rather than looking for radio frequencies. Having a boundary would potentially make it quicker to find an outlet wouldn't it? (and so reduce time spent head down?)
still digesting this as I think I am not getting the issues.
I am all for enhancing our GA industry, particularly the training side.
I am struggling to see how much different we really are though (and if different, how much adjustment would pilots changing airspace in different countries need to make? - the changes in procedures you want seem relatively minor to me - we currently have some boundaries on the chart and have less class E).
I could see advantage if the changes save cost and have little negative safety impact (or positive effects).
In light of my original basis for assessing this:
1. How much would it improve safety (I am seeing little change either way TBH).
2. How much would it cost? (some cost - probably minor - would need to produce training material, briefings etc etc)
3. Does it make it easier? Would it make it more likely foreign students would find it beneficial if it matched their system? (to me adaption either way appears trivial - here you look for the box in the boundary - there you hunt for the nearest box to where you are, here you have more G and less E but basically similar procedures).
I am not seeing the problem. Certainly ditch the 20nm CTAF idea but that seems a side issue.
Again thank you for your detailed responses to my questions - sorry if I am missing something and happy to be corrected or have things better explained.
I think there is something here I am missing.
Ultimately any change should be evaluated on the questions of:
1. does it increase safety? (and by how much?)
2. how much does it cost? (and does the safety increase justify the cost?)
3. does it make things easier (by how much and at what impact to safety and cost)
The only reason CASA has spent over This was the system we had before my group made the 1991 AMATs changes. In those days there was no such thing as a CTAF and the airport traffic operated on the area frequency . That’s why the charts had to show the frequency boundaries.
The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft.
The system required an extra 700 staff to monitor all these non tower airports .
The CAA Board made the decision in in 1990 to more closely harmonise with the North American airspace system. This copied the CTAF concept and removed the requirement for VFR to monitor ATS frequencies.
The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft.
The system required an extra 700 staff to monitor all these non tower airports .
The CAA Board made the decision in in 1990 to more closely harmonise with the North American airspace system. This copied the CTAF concept and removed the requirement for VFR to monitor ATS frequencies.
I have no problems with existing ICAO alphabet airspace and removal of mandatory reporting for VFR etc.
I always understood the idea in the early 90s was to reduce excessive costs associated with the existing system that only provided marginal increases in safety and I get the concept that you can bankrupt yourself trying to remove all risks rather than very marginally increase risk for a huge reduction in cost (especially when the risk is actually quite low to start with).
You say there is not a problem that needs a solution. The RAPACs or CASA clearly do not agree. That’s why the major dispute occurred. It had nothing to do with me. I just watched from the sidelines.
The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs
The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs
1. I think it is totally unnecessary
2. despite that I also do not see how an expanded size is a necessary consequence of having frequency boundaries on charts
We have managed to operate with the frequency boundaries on charts and current sized CTAFs fine for years (in my opinion - willing to hear others who had problems though). Why is it now an issue?
Surely just say "when operating near CTAFs and the traffic threat is most likely from aircraft operating around that CTAF, use common sense and monitor that CTAF and give timely calls if you plan to enter that airspace"?
My impression is it achieves the same result (ie I find the appropriate frequency) but perhaps more quickly with the area's boundary marked because I direct my scan to that area.
Look, not a deal breaker either way for me but I just don't see why that particular issue gets so much prominence and is seen as a problem.
Again, my opinion, but a mayday on area, even if overtransmitted in a busy chatter environment tends to shut people up quick smart and is pretty likely to be heard by many and if ATC/FIS is the one over transmitting I am sure they will be immediately alerted by another aircraft who did hear the call if the urgency or distress call is not acknowledged.
I can see if you always had 121.5 dialled in on standby that would make sense though.
That said to me it seems to add a layer of complexity for many VFR PPLs but I can live with it - we would just train people to keep 121.5 dialed up and to use it in simulated emergencies.
Again not a deal breaker.
Agree though it is not common however IMO does add an extra swiss cheese hole filler.
I look on the chart. Under your system I find the nearest box to me, on the current system I restrict where I look to the marked boundary and find the box in that region. That part fine either way for me.
Your system works though if the various outlets are re-transmitted - what if they aren't? Would that not mean I could be monitoring an adjacent area's IFR traffic rather than what is in my vicinity or am I getting something wrong?
5. Call the closest ATC ground outlet. Either look at the outlet location on your map or use the nearest ATC outlet function on your GPS. That’s why it is there. The controller will provide you with a service worlkload permitting or advise a change to another frequency.
To me it still seems very similar to the existing system we have except we draw an area around the outlet and they don't
What am I missing?I could easily adapt to not having the boundaries but also cannot see how it would really confuse someone from overseas flying here either - surely they would look at the chart/display and say - "oh isn't that neat! the nearest outlet has a boundary around it!", and carry on. Again - am I missing something
Most un-necessary looking at charts (and EFB displays) tends to be done by people map crawling rather than looking for radio frequencies. Having a boundary would potentially make it quicker to find an outlet wouldn't it? (and so reduce time spent head down?)
still digesting this as I think I am not getting the issues.
By the way. Have you ever rented a car in another country? Other than knowing what side of the road to drive on the rules have been standardised. What’s wrong with Australia doing that with Aviation. We will earn a fortune in export income if we make it simpler for other aviators to spend there money here!
I am struggling to see how much different we really are though (and if different, how much adjustment would pilots changing airspace in different countries need to make? - the changes in procedures you want seem relatively minor to me - we currently have some boundaries on the chart and have less class E).
I could see advantage if the changes save cost and have little negative safety impact (or positive effects).
In light of my original basis for assessing this:
1. How much would it improve safety (I am seeing little change either way TBH).
2. How much would it cost? (some cost - probably minor - would need to produce training material, briefings etc etc)
3. Does it make it easier? Would it make it more likely foreign students would find it beneficial if it matched their system? (to me adaption either way appears trivial - here you look for the box in the boundary - there you hunt for the nearest box to where you are, here you have more G and less E but basically similar procedures).
I am not seeing the problem. Certainly ditch the 20nm CTAF idea but that seems a side issue.
Again thank you for your detailed responses to my questions - sorry if I am missing something and happy to be corrected or have things better explained.
jonkster
Your analysis and conclusions are pretty much spot on. I make a few points.
Monitoring 121.5 and broadcasting on it in the event of an emergency would be far less likely to achieve satisfactory action than if done on an FIA frequency. On 121.5 you would be likely to at best be heard by a high flyer, who may be an international with a poor command of the English language, or even if a local may also not have a clue what you are saying WRT your location and difficulties just when needed. In any case, they would have to note what you are saying then relay to ATC on a high level frequency and act as the go between.
However a broadcast made on an FIA would mean you are likely to be in direct contact with the ATC responsible for your area with a good knowledge of locations, and able to provide direct assistance including with other aircraft in the area. If you are below the ATCs VHF coverage, these other aircraft in the area will most likely to hear your call and will relay and are likely to have some familiarity with your location.
This has been the practice followed for at least the last 40 years or so of my experience. I've heard many Mayday calls directed to FS/ATC on FIAs, none heard at all on 121.5, only the odd ELB. Monitoring an FIA also brings all the other advantages as previously outlined in posts here.
Deleting FIA boundaries and relying instead on boxes placed in the vicinity of a communications outlet would also introduce the problems associated with not necessarily talking to the ATC responsible for the area you are in. Some outlets are not located in the area they serve, and instead may be on a mountain top outside the area with directional antennas pointing towards the area served.
As you have said, it is far easier to interpret a chart or moving map display with boundaries included.
All points made some 15 years ago and no doubt the reasoning behind the then industry associations requesting the boundaries to be reintroduced promptly to the charts.
NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?
As far as I am aware, there is no industry proposal to delete FIA boundaries from charts. If there were, the proposal would need to be subject to a benefit analysis, HAZID and safety case and widespread industry support.
Your analysis and conclusions are pretty much spot on. I make a few points.
Monitoring 121.5 and broadcasting on it in the event of an emergency would be far less likely to achieve satisfactory action than if done on an FIA frequency. On 121.5 you would be likely to at best be heard by a high flyer, who may be an international with a poor command of the English language, or even if a local may also not have a clue what you are saying WRT your location and difficulties just when needed. In any case, they would have to note what you are saying then relay to ATC on a high level frequency and act as the go between.
However a broadcast made on an FIA would mean you are likely to be in direct contact with the ATC responsible for your area with a good knowledge of locations, and able to provide direct assistance including with other aircraft in the area. If you are below the ATCs VHF coverage, these other aircraft in the area will most likely to hear your call and will relay and are likely to have some familiarity with your location.
This has been the practice followed for at least the last 40 years or so of my experience. I've heard many Mayday calls directed to FS/ATC on FIAs, none heard at all on 121.5, only the odd ELB. Monitoring an FIA also brings all the other advantages as previously outlined in posts here.
Deleting FIA boundaries and relying instead on boxes placed in the vicinity of a communications outlet would also introduce the problems associated with not necessarily talking to the ATC responsible for the area you are in. Some outlets are not located in the area they serve, and instead may be on a mountain top outside the area with directional antennas pointing towards the area served.
As you have said, it is far easier to interpret a chart or moving map display with boundaries included.
All points made some 15 years ago and no doubt the reasoning behind the then industry associations requesting the boundaries to be reintroduced promptly to the charts.
NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?
As far as I am aware, there is no industry proposal to delete FIA boundaries from charts. If there were, the proposal would need to be subject to a benefit analysis, HAZID and safety case and widespread industry support.
The only way CASA could nominate an area frequency at non map marked airports is that such a frequency existed because of the wind back.
So the dispute was caused by the frequency boundaries being put back on the charts.
Pretty simple.
Bloggs. If the smaller airports were not on the area FIS frequency what frequency were they on? Gotcha!
So the dispute was caused by the frequency boundaries being put back on the charts.
Pretty simple.
Bloggs. If the smaller airports were not on the area FIS frequency what frequency were they on? Gotcha!
Perhaps the frequency boundaries were put back on charts because ATC provide a traffic service to IFR in G on Area, much like FS did back in the day, and so it behoves the IFR and the traffic to be on the same frequency. How do they know what or where that frequncy is? They look at the charts. Then there is no guessing what frequency the other might be on. It's area, or CTAF if in the vicinity.
And no Dick, FS didn't monitor those non-tower airports. Our only interest traffic wise was if an IFR was arriving or departing.there. Even then, the VFR traffic that was passed was only that known to us. If there were NOSAR or SARTIME aircraft in the vicinity, the broadcasts made by the arriving/departing aircraft were meant to alert those. And guess what, they were made on area, because that's all there was. If the traffic at an aerodrome outside an AFIZ was all VFR, we didn't get involved. Our only interest with VFRs at non-controlled aerodromes was for SAR alerting or FIS, not for traffic to each other. FIS as a service in an FIA was for anyone who asked for it, or by broadcast if necessary. Directed FIS and traffic went only to some. You seem to think that FS was only there for traffic. We weren't.
Canada still does it, to some degree.
And no Dick, FS didn't monitor those non-tower airports. Our only interest traffic wise was if an IFR was arriving or departing.there. Even then, the VFR traffic that was passed was only that known to us. If there were NOSAR or SARTIME aircraft in the vicinity, the broadcasts made by the arriving/departing aircraft were meant to alert those. And guess what, they were made on area, because that's all there was. If the traffic at an aerodrome outside an AFIZ was all VFR, we didn't get involved. Our only interest with VFRs at non-controlled aerodromes was for SAR alerting or FIS, not for traffic to each other. FIS as a service in an FIA was for anyone who asked for it, or by broadcast if necessary. Directed FIS and traffic went only to some. You seem to think that FS was only there for traffic. We weren't.
Canada still does it, to some degree.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 31st Dec 2017 at 10:53.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, there I was just today, trundling around the local training area.
On the FIA freq, I heard an IFR aircraft inbound to Bankstown from the west. Cloud was below MSA, so he was doing the RNAV into BK. He was still IMC; we were VMC, but any time soon he'd be dropping into our piece of sky. The sector controller gave us as unknown traffic to him. Pretty obvious who he was talking about, so I spoke up and assured ATC we'd stop manoeuvring and stay on heading till the other guy passed aft of us.
We never saw each other, but were unofficially separated by the helpful ATC and all went happily on their way.
I wonder how all that would have played out if I were on the proposed new system of 126.7 in G? Or, gods help us, on 121.5?
I'm not a fan of 20nm CTAFs out in the bush, and I hope that particular change doesn't get up. But to have aircraft on different frequencies in the same airspace is sheer insanity.
On the FIA freq, I heard an IFR aircraft inbound to Bankstown from the west. Cloud was below MSA, so he was doing the RNAV into BK. He was still IMC; we were VMC, but any time soon he'd be dropping into our piece of sky. The sector controller gave us as unknown traffic to him. Pretty obvious who he was talking about, so I spoke up and assured ATC we'd stop manoeuvring and stay on heading till the other guy passed aft of us.
We never saw each other, but were unofficially separated by the helpful ATC and all went happily on their way.
I wonder how all that would have played out if I were on the proposed new system of 126.7 in G? Or, gods help us, on 121.5?
I'm not a fan of 20nm CTAFs out in the bush, and I hope that particular change doesn't get up. But to have aircraft on different frequencies in the same airspace is sheer insanity.
Thread Starter
There is nothing that stops a person from posting under their real name on this site. Yes. There are times when anonymity is necessary to protect an individual who is whistle blowing
But discussing airspace! Come on.
I once explained to a FAA ATC and airspace expert how a few concrete minded dopes in Australia had converted ICAO E airspace into a nightmare that could not work.
I explained that in Australia it was a mandatory requirement for VFR to have radio in E and not only monitor the ATC frequency at all times but also to call an IFR aircraft directly on the ATC frequency if they thought they were “ traffic “ .
I explained that for this to work we had to show the ATC sector boundaries on the charts so the VFR pilots would be on the “ correct “ frequency. I explained that this was a hangover from the days when IFR and VFR flew at the same flight levels and used “ radio arranged separation” with the Air traffic service provider ( not a controller )just looking on and not actually providing a control service .
The FAA person was rolling on the floor.
He asked. “So in your system I could be responsible for giving an IFR separation service to a pilot that at the same time on the same frequency was self arranging separation from a VFR aircraft?
I said. Well yes. That’s how it is supposed to work but I have never actually heard of such a situation as our aviation sector is so stuffed there are hardly any aircraft!
So we have a situation where our E is supposed to operate in a way that would make an ATCs job impossible.
This has come about because a few really dumb people have not been prepared to ask advice and copy the best.
But discussing airspace! Come on.
I once explained to a FAA ATC and airspace expert how a few concrete minded dopes in Australia had converted ICAO E airspace into a nightmare that could not work.
I explained that in Australia it was a mandatory requirement for VFR to have radio in E and not only monitor the ATC frequency at all times but also to call an IFR aircraft directly on the ATC frequency if they thought they were “ traffic “ .
I explained that for this to work we had to show the ATC sector boundaries on the charts so the VFR pilots would be on the “ correct “ frequency. I explained that this was a hangover from the days when IFR and VFR flew at the same flight levels and used “ radio arranged separation” with the Air traffic service provider ( not a controller )just looking on and not actually providing a control service .
The FAA person was rolling on the floor.
He asked. “So in your system I could be responsible for giving an IFR separation service to a pilot that at the same time on the same frequency was self arranging separation from a VFR aircraft?
I said. Well yes. That’s how it is supposed to work but I have never actually heard of such a situation as our aviation sector is so stuffed there are hardly any aircraft!
So we have a situation where our E is supposed to operate in a way that would make an ATCs job impossible.
This has come about because a few really dumb people have not been prepared to ask advice and copy the best.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 31st Dec 2017 at 08:27.
Thread Starter
Jonkster. You write as if you really don’t know what is going on here. I doubt this.
I will say again. It has also been stated by others on this site.
The radio frequency boundaries on the charts do not primarily reflect the range of the ground located transmitter. They are there primarily for other purposes.
If you want the maximum chance of communicating to a ground station go for the one which is closest. That’s why all good GPS units have this function.
I will say again. It has also been stated by others on this site.
The radio frequency boundaries on the charts do not primarily reflect the range of the ground located transmitter. They are there primarily for other purposes.
If you want the maximum chance of communicating to a ground station go for the one which is closest. That’s why all good GPS units have this function.
Thread Starter
Agra. Please answer one question for me .
What is the reason CASA has spent a fortune on the class G study and come up with the 20 mile CTAF you don’t like.
What is the reason CASA has spent a fortune on the class G study and come up with the 20 mile CTAF you don’t like.
Thread Starter
Agra. Another question. Why wasn’t the controller providing a Control service to the IFR pilot that was in total radar and hopefully ADSB coverage?
Why was the pilot groping around in un controlled airspace when on approach over mountainous terrain going into what was once one of the busiest airports in the country ?
I will give you a hint. Concrete minds. Never update G to E unless DS brings it in.
Why was the pilot groping around in un controlled airspace when on approach over mountainous terrain going into what was once one of the busiest airports in the country ?
I will give you a hint. Concrete minds. Never update G to E unless DS brings it in.
....in Australia had converted ICAO E airspace into a nightmare that could not work.
So we have a situation where our E is supposed to operate in a way that would make an ATCs job impossible.
Wow. I can see why you people post anonymously. You must be complete failures in life.
Or just possibly you are members of the CASA “ iron ring” who are are not even confident enough in your reasoning skills that you have to insist your names are blacked out from safety documents.
There is nothing that stops a person from posting under their real name on this site.
Or just possibly you are members of the CASA “ iron ring” who are are not even confident enough in your reasoning skills that you have to insist your names are blacked out from safety documents.
There is nothing that stops a person from posting under their real name on this site.
More than happy to give you my contact details by PM - I am also pretty sure many people could work out who I am from my posts anyway.
I can understand why people may choose a modicum of anonymity on an this forum - unlike people who have an independent source of income, many here (including me) are employees of aviation businesses and would not be 100% sure their employers would be that happy about them publicly debating contentious views, particularly when in online debates, animosity and misunderstandings can easily occur.
Not a good look when as an employee you alienate potential customers or have the company associated with my private views.
Thread Starter
Captain. I have done over a decade of testing on which frequency a pilot is more likely to get an instant answer on,
From my experience 121.5 winds hands down- especially at low level.
From my experience 121.5 winds hands down- especially at low level.
Thread Starter
Special briefing and instruction for a US pilot about to go flying VFR in Australia.
Mate. There’s a slight difference here. You will have to take a close look at the chart so that whenever you are flying in class E airspace you change to the Class E ATC frequency. There are special coloured lines on the charts. Some brown. Some green. Watch out for altitudes- different everywhere.
If you hear an IFR aircraft and you think it may be close make sure you make a position announcement and then use “ radio arranged separation” with the IFR aircraft .
You may hear some complaints from ATC but ignore them .
It’s our improvement of ICAO class E. Sort of makes it a bit like D but without the cost! After all. We built the Nomad.
Mate. There’s a slight difference here. You will have to take a close look at the chart so that whenever you are flying in class E airspace you change to the Class E ATC frequency. There are special coloured lines on the charts. Some brown. Some green. Watch out for altitudes- different everywhere.
If you hear an IFR aircraft and you think it may be close make sure you make a position announcement and then use “ radio arranged separation” with the IFR aircraft .
You may hear some complaints from ATC but ignore them .
It’s our improvement of ICAO class E. Sort of makes it a bit like D but without the cost! After all. We built the Nomad.
Dick, I'm disappointed in your insulting other posters. I thought you were enough of a man to accept that you just might not be right in everything you post. My mistake.
Let's stick to the issues.
Let's stick to the issues.