CASA Class G Discussion Paper
requirement for radio equipped aircraft to monitor 121.5
monitor the nearest atc frequency
we recommended that the VFR pilots monitored and announced on the aerodrome frequency
calls should be on the multicom
Geez, how many radios do you have to have? What happened to "beautiful silence"?
How about you just listen to Area and the relevant CTAF if necessary. Wouldn't that be easier?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked an American friend what frequency he monitors enroute VFR and he said he just turns the radio volume down!! And they have how much traffic? Class E & G
Thread Starter
I would agree. It's a staggering contrast to the workload of ATCs here in Australia .
And Airservices claim that their ATCs can't give a class E service to low levels at Ballina without extra staffing
When your friend is flying en route away from a terminal area in the USA how does he know the correct ATC frequency to be on?
Remember the ATC sector boundaries are not marked on any charts in the USA or Canada.
Does he have paranormal powers?
And Airservices claim that their ATCs can't give a class E service to low levels at Ballina without extra staffing
When your friend is flying en route away from a terminal area in the USA how does he know the correct ATC frequency to be on?
Remember the ATC sector boundaries are not marked on any charts in the USA or Canada.
Does he have paranormal powers?
Thread Starter
Cogwheel. Ha ha. Trying to stop discussion about this? I started the thread and it's very much about why this dispute started in the first place.
And I can assure you it's totally linked to Airservices undermining the CASA NAS introduction by putting the frequency boundaries back on the charts with no pilot education in any way.
The CASA people are correct. If we are to have the old FS style frequency boundaries on the charts it's logical to follow the old system where Ctaf's did not exist.
I introduced the CTAF and Multicom. Before then you operated in the circuit area on the FS area frequency. I remember the screams when that change was introduced- " we are all going to die"
Difficult to be half pregnant.
And I can assure you it's totally linked to Airservices undermining the CASA NAS introduction by putting the frequency boundaries back on the charts with no pilot education in any way.
The CASA people are correct. If we are to have the old FS style frequency boundaries on the charts it's logical to follow the old system where Ctaf's did not exist.
I introduced the CTAF and Multicom. Before then you operated in the circuit area on the FS area frequency. I remember the screams when that change was introduced- " we are all going to die"
Difficult to be half pregnant.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 3rd Mar 2017 at 22:10.
I introduced the CTAF and Multicom. Before then you operated in the circuit area on the FS area frequency.
Thread Starter
Yes. Shows classic resistance to change.
There is no confusion in the USA and Canada about what frequency to be on.
The half windback has created the confusion.
There is no confusion in the USA and Canada about what frequency to be on.
The half windback has created the confusion.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much class G is there really in the USA ? (genuine question), because my quick searching indicates that it is mostly at very low levels (around 1200' AGL) with class E above.
ie. there is little need to mark frequency boundaries because it's either class E or whatever ATC tells you.
Here, we need the frequency boundaries because our class E generally starts at the higher altitudes so we need to know where the G/E boundary is.
and no, I do NOT want the class-E-everywhere war to restart)
ie. there is little need to mark frequency boundaries because it's either class E or whatever ATC tells you.
Here, we need the frequency boundaries because our class E generally starts at the higher altitudes so we need to know where the G/E boundary is.
and no, I do NOT want the class-E-everywhere war to restart)
Flying VFR in class E in the USA noone tells me what frequency and is pretty much like class G here in my experience.
https://www.faa.gov/c/content/dam/faa/regulations-policies/documents/17_phak_ch15.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/c/content/dam/faa/regulations-policies/documents/17_phak_ch15.pdf
Biggles - if you look at the mandatory traffic information requirements imposed by Australia on IFR traffic when outside controlled airspace (which is A, C, D & E) then you will find that Australia does not have any Class G airspace. It is in fact Class F airspace, however CASA and Airservices refuse to use the correct category for reasons unknown to me.
Class G by definition is airspace where traffic information is given on a workload permitting basis; but not for our ATCs, they are required to give IFR traffic information. That, by definition is Class F and incidentally exactly what Australia had before the NAS changes; then we called it Flight Service.
What has actually happened is that CASA and Airservices, being full of ex-FSO/ATC people who love the old ways, have re-created the old ways but under the guise of the new airspace categories.
The more things change the more they stay the same! Vive la change!
Class G by definition is airspace where traffic information is given on a workload permitting basis; but not for our ATCs, they are required to give IFR traffic information. That, by definition is Class F and incidentally exactly what Australia had before the NAS changes; then we called it Flight Service.
What has actually happened is that CASA and Airservices, being full of ex-FSO/ATC people who love the old ways, have re-created the old ways but under the guise of the new airspace categories.
The more things change the more they stay the same! Vive la change!
Last edited by Mr Approach; 4th Mar 2017 at 08:58. Reason: spelling and grammar
And around we go again!
If we waited for the technology to fill in the blank spaces all of this NASdebating would have resolved itself. We are still a long way to go until the majority of GA VFR are squitting 1090ES. If that day ever comes, I will not need the services of ATC out in the GAFA...remember! 1090ES doesn't need a ground station to be seen by other 1090ES Rx units unlike UAT. No need to yak, no need for boundaries...I can be warned of your presence and you of mine...Simples!
You really should have waited, Dick.
If we waited for the technology to fill in the blank spaces all of this NASdebating would have resolved itself. We are still a long way to go until the majority of GA VFR are squitting 1090ES. If that day ever comes, I will not need the services of ATC out in the GAFA...remember! 1090ES doesn't need a ground station to be seen by other 1090ES Rx units unlike UAT. No need to yak, no need for boundaries...I can be warned of your presence and you of mine...Simples!
You really should have waited, Dick.
Twelve - Twelve - '91..... Or 12. 12. '91....... The Day The '****-Up' occurred!!!
OR, 12 , 12, '91.....OR 12. 12. 1991......OR.....
The Day I really 'LOST INTEREST'........ But.... It still took 9 years Dick..!!
To get rid of "Perth", that is.....
(p.s. Thanx for the .....)
"****e".....OI feel half - pregnant.......and 'lookee' likee it too.......
But then,....Oi am also 'resistant to change'....n'est-ce-pas......
OR, 12 , 12, '91.....OR 12. 12. 1991......OR.....
The Day I really 'LOST INTEREST'........ But.... It still took 9 years Dick..!!
To get rid of "Perth", that is.....
(p.s. Thanx for the .....)
"****e".....OI feel half - pregnant.......and 'lookee' likee it too.......
But then,....Oi am also 'resistant to change'....n'est-ce-pas......
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was one of those resistant to change types. I was indoctrinated with the 'ASA is the best ANSP in the world' 'ASA knows all there is to know about running airspace'
That was until I flew quite a few hours in another system. You don't monitor an ATC frequency, you don't need to. If you want to, fill your boots. If you have an emergency every body monitors 122.5, the ATC is always there and can help if you need them.
It's not much wonder ASA can't get enough controllers when they're forcing controllers to provide the nanny service to VFR that are not wanted or needed. The liability placed on controllers (and by extension ASA) is a ridiculous state of affairs that contributes to the cost of aviation. If they didn't have to provide this rubbish there'd be more money for surveillance and the controllers to person Class E sectors to an approach service.
Dick, you are truly wasting your time. From someone who spent 25 years in there, you will never change the minds of the self appointed risk management experts. Most of them have never set foot in or used the services provided by other ANSP's.
That was until I flew quite a few hours in another system. You don't monitor an ATC frequency, you don't need to. If you want to, fill your boots. If you have an emergency every body monitors 122.5, the ATC is always there and can help if you need them.
It's not much wonder ASA can't get enough controllers when they're forcing controllers to provide the nanny service to VFR that are not wanted or needed. The liability placed on controllers (and by extension ASA) is a ridiculous state of affairs that contributes to the cost of aviation. If they didn't have to provide this rubbish there'd be more money for surveillance and the controllers to person Class E sectors to an approach service.
Dick, you are truly wasting your time. From someone who spent 25 years in there, you will never change the minds of the self appointed risk management experts. Most of them have never set foot in or used the services provided by other ANSP's.
Thread Starter
True. By putting the frequency boundaries on charts and requiring VFR to be on frequency results in a duty of care by ATCs.
That's why you sometimes here a controller desperately calling a VFR aircraft to give a traffic advisory .
Doesn't happen anywhere else in the world .
That's why you sometimes here a controller desperately calling a VFR aircraft to give a traffic advisory .
Doesn't happen anywhere else in the world .
If frequency boundaries weren't on charts, it would be even more stupid than it is now! At least people flying around in the same airspace should know what frequency is most appropriate for their situation.
Yes, by all means, let's get 126.7 in use as the multicom for airfields that don't have another freq specified, but why all this hoo-ha about getting frequencies off charts so we can be like the US? Storm in a teacup. However, Dick always has an agenda, so I guess we will see what transpires.
Yes, by all means, let's get 126.7 in use as the multicom for airfields that don't have another freq specified, but why all this hoo-ha about getting frequencies off charts so we can be like the US? Storm in a teacup. However, Dick always has an agenda, so I guess we will see what transpires.
It may just be me, but it sounded like there were many more CTAF calls mistakenly made on the FIA frequency rather than CTAF today.
Thread Starter
The hoo ha was generated by CASA enforcing a requirement that the RAPACs did not believe in.
The situation only occurred because the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts without any education on how this half woundback system would work .
Clearly a half woundback system doesn't work. If it did there would be no dispute.
Arm. Are you saying the North American system is stupid. Why?
The situation only occurred because the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts without any education on how this half woundback system would work .
Clearly a half woundback system doesn't work. If it did there would be no dispute.
Arm. Are you saying the North American system is stupid. Why?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<rant on>
Well, to me the USA situation where in E "... You don't monitor an ATC frequency, you don't need to. ..." and RAPACs comment in the DP about the USA "... but away from an aerodrome VFR pilots typically turn down the volume on their radios and don’t monitor any frequency. ..." worry me mightily., because the only way that the USA system *can* work is that it is *E*, not G, *and* they have multiple times more ATC staff *and* smaller ATC sectors *and* much better surveillance than what we can economically justify to separate *and* divert IFR from the VFR.
<rant off>
arrooiiight. here's my proposal for the DP.
Why *not* have a multicom that starts at a lowish MSL, eg 4000' AMSL ?
We currently have a whole pile of CTAFs, many with their own frequencies, plus quite a few largish and weirdly-shaped broadcast zones, also with their own frequencies.,
so instead of trying to figure out if one is 'in the vicinity of a whatever, or just which CTAF/Broadcast frequency one needs to use, it all becomes just one multicom below a defined level.
Downsides are ;
-more received traffic on the multicom, particularly with A/C on descent. (line-of-sight and all that)
-confusion about where a location actually is.
Upsides are ;
-less traffic on Area frequencies.
-less confusion about which frequency to monitor.
There will be 'edge/corner' cases, but they should be resolvable with some re-assigning of FIA boundaries.
Well, to me the USA situation where in E "... You don't monitor an ATC frequency, you don't need to. ..." and RAPACs comment in the DP about the USA "... but away from an aerodrome VFR pilots typically turn down the volume on their radios and don’t monitor any frequency. ..." worry me mightily., because the only way that the USA system *can* work is that it is *E*, not G, *and* they have multiple times more ATC staff *and* smaller ATC sectors *and* much better surveillance than what we can economically justify to separate *and* divert IFR from the VFR.
<rant off>
arrooiiight. here's my proposal for the DP.
Why *not* have a multicom that starts at a lowish MSL, eg 4000' AMSL ?
We currently have a whole pile of CTAFs, many with their own frequencies, plus quite a few largish and weirdly-shaped broadcast zones, also with their own frequencies.,
so instead of trying to figure out if one is 'in the vicinity of a whatever, or just which CTAF/Broadcast frequency one needs to use, it all becomes just one multicom below a defined level.
Downsides are ;
-more received traffic on the multicom, particularly with A/C on descent. (line-of-sight and all that)
-confusion about where a location actually is.
Upsides are ;
-less traffic on Area frequencies.
-less confusion about which frequency to monitor.
There will be 'edge/corner' cases, but they should be resolvable with some re-assigning of FIA boundaries.