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
Also, it might interest you to know that there is a push by the FAA in Alaska to get more VFR traffic on enroute advisory frequencies. This comes after a rash of mid-air collisions between VFR aircraft. There have been frequencies assigned for areas, mostly 122.8 or 122.9. I live in Alaska, so pretty much all of my personal VFR flying is done here. I can say that there has been a significant increase in VFR pilots reporting position and intentions on these frequencies. Of course these are not ATC frequencies, and participation is recommended, not regulatory. By it's worth noting that officially, the view is that the system wasn't working quite so well and changes were needed.
From Dick Smith:
The CTAF bit sounds pretty normal and “ international “ to me. That is NAS and great!
An “ area frequency “ for VFR is unknown in international procedures. After all ICAO has no radio requirements for VFR in E or G.
Are you listening on the area frequency so you can answer IFR aircraft and organise “ radio arranged separation “ ? How often have you had to do this?
I do this "with one ear" to increase my situational awareness of what is going on around and above me. That may be surveying, aerobatics, power line survey, drone use or all sorts of airwork. It also regularly includes interrogatory calls to "VFR aircraft at X thousand at ABC?" or calls to IFR traffic "Unverified VFR traffic at ..... And occasionally collision avoidance advice for VFR aircraft.
To put that another way, once in a while ATC makes a call to someone about VFR traffic I realise "oh &*^& that's me!" I call ATC, confirm position and altitude, ATC arranges the separation, not me, unless asked, which has never happened.
No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?
My new audio panel lets me play them soothing music, or not, depending on what sort of passenger they are.
Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?
How many times on the flight - say from Bankstown- did you have to look down at the panel to change the area frequency? Was it six or seven times or more?
My new radios, I think do it for me, Dynon Skyview pushes frequencies to radios. Otherwise i just look at the box o the chart.
As you flew right on the frequency boundary west of Forbes what frequency did you monitor?
"Dunno" never been there.
Would you be prepared to try the US or Canadian system where there was no such thing as an area frequency and therefore no requirement to listen ?
Judging from what i see on the web, I wouldn't mind BUT the bug smasher guys in the US have TIS, cheap ADSB in and out, and have the freedom to do curved approaches and a whole lot of other things that appear to make collision unlikely
An “ area frequency “ for VFR is unknown in international procedures. After all ICAO has no radio requirements for VFR in E or G.
Are you listening on the area frequency so you can answer IFR aircraft and organise “ radio arranged separation “ ? How often have you had to do this?
I do this "with one ear" to increase my situational awareness of what is going on around and above me. That may be surveying, aerobatics, power line survey, drone use or all sorts of airwork. It also regularly includes interrogatory calls to "VFR aircraft at X thousand at ABC?" or calls to IFR traffic "Unverified VFR traffic at ..... And occasionally collision avoidance advice for VFR aircraft.
To put that another way, once in a while ATC makes a call to someone about VFR traffic I realise "oh &*^& that's me!" I call ATC, confirm position and altitude, ATC arranges the separation, not me, unless asked, which has never happened.
No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?
My new audio panel lets me play them soothing music, or not, depending on what sort of passenger they are.
Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?
How many times on the flight - say from Bankstown- did you have to look down at the panel to change the area frequency? Was it six or seven times or more?
My new radios, I think do it for me, Dynon Skyview pushes frequencies to radios. Otherwise i just look at the box o the chart.
As you flew right on the frequency boundary west of Forbes what frequency did you monitor?
"Dunno" never been there.
Would you be prepared to try the US or Canadian system where there was no such thing as an area frequency and therefore no requirement to listen ?
Judging from what i see on the web, I wouldn't mind BUT the bug smasher guys in the US have TIS, cheap ADSB in and out, and have the freedom to do curved approaches and a whole lot of other things that appear to make collision unlikely
Thread Starter
When I fly at Terrey Hills and in the light aircraft lane I constantly here the parachuting plane at Wollongong. It’s also quite often re transmitted on the Sydney terminal frequencies so a Cathay 747 in the way to Hong Kong can get this totally useless information
Great system
Great system
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I fly at Terrey Hills and in the light aircraft lane I constantly here the parachuting plane at Wollongong. It’s also quite often re transmitted on the Sydney terminal frequencies so a Cathay 747 in the way to Hong Kong can get this totally useless information
Great system
Great system
Kaz
They have also prevented FAA style IFR Flight Planned aircraft climbing VMC in E without a clearance by claiming that in Aus once you have given a taxiing call on an IFR plan you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without a clearance. Once again sheer bastardry to damage Australian aviation .
A pilot of an IFR flight, operating in VMC, in classes D and E airspace, may request to climb/descend VFR
Thread Starter
TopDrop. I am correct. Note the words in the Aus regulation “ may request “. That’s totally different to the US NAS.
In the US an IFR pilot who has filed an IFR plan can climb in E in VMC without communicating to ATC. In practice a big difference.
It’s one of the reasons that I have not been able to get any low level E in at non tower airports. But it will happen
In the US an IFR pilot who has filed an IFR plan can climb in E in VMC without communicating to ATC. In practice a big difference.
It’s one of the reasons that I have not been able to get any low level E in at non tower airports. But it will happen
Once again sheer bastardry to damage Australian aviation
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, if you're at a non-radar, non towered airport and ATC will not give you a clearance to depart IFR because of inbound traffic, You're still allowed to depart VFR, and pick up your IFR clearance when clear of the traffic. provided of course that it's VFR and you're able to maintain that. That's not something you *request* from ATC, that's something you tell ATC you're doing. Until you've been given an IFR clearance, ATC isn't controlling you and can't tell you not to do something. I gather from the discussion here that in Australia, once you've made a taxi call, you are not permitted to do this.
Just to clarify, once you are on an IFR clearance enroute, you may not climb VFR at your discretion, you must request a clearance to do so.
Exactly the same if you are VFR in controlled airspace.
And just to clarify, we can have an IFR plan in the system. Launch from a place OCTA without talking to ATC, enter E. We can then "change rules". Just because you have an IFR plan in the system doesn't mean you are actually operating IFR at that time.
Even if you are cleared IFR, ATC are incredibly unlikely to deny a request for a VFR climb.
It really isn't all that difficult here.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly the same if you are VFR in controlled airspace.
And just to clarify, we can have an IFR plan in the system. Launch from a place OCTA without talking to ATC, enter E. We can then "change rules". Just because you have an IFR plan in the system doesn't mean you are actually operating IFR at that time.
And just to clarify, we can have an IFR plan in the system. Launch from a place OCTA without talking to ATC, enter E. We can then "change rules". Just because you have an IFR plan in the system doesn't mean you are actually operating IFR at that time.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: somewhere underneath 3rd rock
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Musta. Come on. CASA has just spent two years and a lot of our industries money in attempting to get the class G with the frequency boundaries on charts working correctly in their view.
First they wanted the system to work by getting all non map marked airports on the ATC frequency that covers that area.
All RAPACs disagreed. Now CASA has come up with another answer to the “ problem “. That is unique 40 mile CTAFs like nowhere else .
Not many like that proposal. So where do we go from here?
Great idea. Why not copy a proven safe system from another country?
Just a suggestion .
First they wanted the system to work by getting all non map marked airports on the ATC frequency that covers that area.
All RAPACs disagreed. Now CASA has come up with another answer to the “ problem “. That is unique 40 mile CTAFs like nowhere else .
Not many like that proposal. So where do we go from here?
Great idea. Why not copy a proven safe system from another country?
Just a suggestion .
Sadly, both CASA and the RAPACs are missing the obvious, probably because they don't like it - the need to forget radio at all when VFR in G or E (except in the vicinity of a marked airfield).
If an airfield isn't marked (like the majority of the farm strips about the place), there is a high probability that you neither know what they are called, or know where they are. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that any broadcast from someone operating from such a field will have zero meaning to you, even if you see a farm strip AND see someone takeoff from it, any radio call will still be meaningless to you. Your best bet is to keep your eyes open and looking out. If it looks like their might be a conflict, assume they haven't seen you and alter course and/or altitude predictably so as to maintain separation. Trying to use radio to contact them will take more time than you probably have.
Thread Starter
Wat no. You are correct. So many people attempting to convert ICAO class E and G into a zero cost D where VFR traffic info is available. They cannot work out why it can’t be made to work!
If an airfield isn't marked (like the majority of the farm strips about the place), there is a high probability that you neither know what they are called, or know where they are. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that any broadcast from someone operating from such a field will have zero meaning to you, even if you see a farm strip AND see someone takeoff from it, any radio call will still be meaningless to you
Anyone departing from a strip unlikely to be known would broadcast something like:
ALL STATIONS, ABC C172 taxying at a private strip 22 miles east of Ballarat, departing to the North below 5000.
It's not rocket science ...
Thread Starter
A Squared. Yes. That’s what I am referring to. We are completely different in Australia
It’s because CASA has maintained that if you file an IFR plan and then give The prescribed taxi call you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without first communicating with ATC to request a VFR climb or cancel IFR.
This is not required in other countries
It’s because CASA has maintained that if you file an IFR plan and then give The prescribed taxi call you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without first communicating with ATC to request a VFR climb or cancel IFR.
This is not required in other countries
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, both CASA and the RAPACs are missing the obvious, probably because they don't like it - the need to forget radio at all when VFR in G or E (except in the vicinity of a marked airfield).
If an airfield isn't marked (like the majority of the farm strips about the place), there is a high probability that you neither know what they are called, or know where they are. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that any broadcast from someone operating from such a field will have zero meaning to you, even if you see a farm strip AND see someone takeoff from it, any radio call will still be meaningless to you. Your best bet is to keep your eyes open and looking out. If it looks like their might be a conflict, assume they haven't seen you and alter course and/or altitude predictably so as to maintain separation. Trying to use radio to contact them will take more time than you probably have.
If an airfield isn't marked (like the majority of the farm strips about the place), there is a high probability that you neither know what they are called, or know where they are. This should lead to the obvious conclusion that any broadcast from someone operating from such a field will have zero meaning to you, even if you see a farm strip AND see someone takeoff from it, any radio call will still be meaningless to you. Your best bet is to keep your eyes open and looking out. If it looks like their might be a conflict, assume they haven't seen you and alter course and/or altitude predictably so as to maintain separation. Trying to use radio to contact them will take more time than you probably have.
And I can still arrange separation at 10 NM with the nice guy flying the air ambulance who is approaching at twice my speed rather than leaving my call to 4 NM?
Kaz
Thread Starter
Kaz. If it was that simple why wouldn’t other countries mark the atc frequency boundaries on charts so that their controllers would have the duty of care to call non participating VFR aircraft and tell them they are close to other aircraft?
Now think about it? Any idea?
A hint. Most likely it would reduce safety as it would dilute responsibility- “no need to remain vigilant because I’ll get called by a friendly ATC.”
And it simply doesn’t work. For example the riskiest place for mid airs would be in the Bankstown training area. Yet in all my flying career I have never heard ATC make the obvious call. “ VFR aircraft near Waragamba Dam. - turn left. You are about to collide with another VFR aircraft “
So if you go flying in G airspace with the hope that an ATC will randomly call you to prevent a collision you are delusional and should see you doctor!
Now think about it? Any idea?
A hint. Most likely it would reduce safety as it would dilute responsibility- “no need to remain vigilant because I’ll get called by a friendly ATC.”
And it simply doesn’t work. For example the riskiest place for mid airs would be in the Bankstown training area. Yet in all my flying career I have never heard ATC make the obvious call. “ VFR aircraft near Waragamba Dam. - turn left. You are about to collide with another VFR aircraft “
So if you go flying in G airspace with the hope that an ATC will randomly call you to prevent a collision you are delusional and should see you doctor!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaz. If it was that simple why wouldn’t other countries mark the atc frequency boundaries on charts so that their controllers could call non participating VFR aircraft and tell them they are close to other aircraft?
Now think about it? Any idea?
A hint. Most likely it would reduce safety as it would dilute responsibility- no need to remain vigilant because I’ll get called by a friendly ATC.
Now think about it? Any idea?
A hint. Most likely it would reduce safety as it would dilute responsibility- no need to remain vigilant because I’ll get called by a friendly ATC.
Kaz
Thread Starter
Kaz. The evidence shows this is not so. Our radar coverage under the J curve is similar to the radar coverage in the US an Canada in similar traffic density airspace .
And as we learned on another post the Low Level Radar service in the UK isn’t even available on weekends!
So don’t come on with that one despite the fact that people at CASA have used it for years to stop the intro of NAS.
And as we learned on another post the Low Level Radar service in the UK isn’t even available on weekends!
So don’t come on with that one despite the fact that people at CASA have used it for years to stop the intro of NAS.
Originally Posted by A Squared
In the US, if you're at a non-radar, non towered airport and ATC will not give you a clearance to depart IFR because of inbound traffic, You're still allowed to depart VFR, and pick up your IFR clearance when clear of the traffic.
So Dick, here we have a jet (?) trying to depart a place but cannot get a clearance from ATC because of other IFR aircraft in the area. "Who cares about that! We'll just cancel IFR, keep the eyeballs out and launch anyway!"
That is no different (worse, actually) than our DTI in "G", the situation that you despise, telling us that the sky will fall in. Actually, in this case, ours is better because the other crew is also involved (or at least know about the VFR jet jockey who's about to blast through their level).
You're clutching at straws...
I think it is you who needs to move out of the 60s.
As for your earlier comment that you introduced transponders into E, you only did that because you had a complete and totally justified revolt on your hands had you not done so. You were quite happy to allow unannounced VFR to swan through the terminal areas of major capital city airports, with big jets weaving around them, just so Arthur (or was it John) and Martha could go flying "free".
The most crazy thing I have ever heard was a Qantas widebody getting traffic on a parachute aeroplane while the widebody was on descent. Madness. Fortunately, that E got killed pretty quick.