CASA Class G Discussion Paper
all aircraft above 5000’ were treated as “ in the system” and given a directed traffic information service
Thread Starter
Car. I do not understand the question.
At any time with a decent aviation GPS you can look at the “nearest”pages.
I think Garmin has nearest ARTC amongst others.
On a flight from tls to gdo I would imagine the nearest function would show four or five different frequencies depending on your location at the time.
It’s primarily of use if you want to call to get flight following or wx info.
As I have mentioned many times the frequency boundaries on charts are not primarily designed on low level VHF coverage but for ATC workload and other purposes.
At any time with a decent aviation GPS you can look at the “nearest”pages.
I think Garmin has nearest ARTC amongst others.
On a flight from tls to gdo I would imagine the nearest function would show four or five different frequencies depending on your location at the time.
It’s primarily of use if you want to call to get flight following or wx info.
As I have mentioned many times the frequency boundaries on charts are not primarily designed on low level VHF coverage but for ATC workload and other purposes.
all aircraft above 5000’ were treated as “ in the system” and given a directed traffic information service
No they weren't.
It's always been clear that some here either have - or had at the time - a poor understanding of the earlier procedures.
The very fact that we have not even tried any terminal Class E airspace at a non-tower airport shows the incredible resistance to change – or possibly because of the lack of people with the ability to show leadership at CASA.
The earlier attempt to introduce NAS highlighted the fact that due process had not been followed by various parties, and instead it was said a "crash or crash through" approach had been adopted.
Airspace Reform – Quiet Reflection
Safety Management System Failure - Australia
I suspect that these days a "trial" would not be entertained unless at the minimum evidence of a safety risk existed at a location that required addressing (in which case why would it be a "trial"??), followed by a CBA, industry consultation - particularly by the directly affected parties - with agreement, a thorough education campaign completed etc. etc.
Dick, I was under the impression that one of your motives for removing the boundaries was that you'd likely have less frequency changes, as that was a topic of your previous posts; and therefore less to monitor (I know your primary aim is to not monitor though).
Does the "nearest" frequency listed on the GPS guarantee coverage if you did need to call up ATC?
Does the "nearest" frequency listed on the GPS guarantee coverage if you did need to call up ATC?
The near-miss at Mildura was caused by a communication breakdown. It is plainly obvious that such a breakdown could easily happen at Ballina with E to 700ft. IFR operating on two frequencies simultaneously at a busy airport is a recipe for disaster.
It should either be controlled airspace for all or uncontrolled airspace for all, not some mish-mash of two different worlds.
Get your heads out of the sand!
It should either be controlled airspace for all or uncontrolled airspace for all, not some mish-mash of two different worlds.
Get your heads out of the sand!
Thread Starter
Captain Midnight.
So how did VFR fly around above 5000’ at the same quadrantral levels as the IFR aircraft and not be a collision hazard ?
And a hazard clearly exists at “ do it yourself terminal G”. You mind is set so you ignore the two aircraft in IMC on the same approach at Bundy and the Rex and Bank run aircraft in IMC at Orange.
Do you want to wait for the fatalities before you upgrade?
All the stuff you require is to prevent change. Or do you have a vested interest in all these invented safety studies?
And are you suggesting people like Angus Houston and the Secretary of DOT were part of “crash through studies”. You are wrong .
And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.
If VOR has a genuine interest in public safety they would clearly operate publicly.
What a con!
You are clearly angling for huge amounts of money to be paid for all these Australian unique studies. It won’t work!
So how did VFR fly around above 5000’ at the same quadrantral levels as the IFR aircraft and not be a collision hazard ?
And a hazard clearly exists at “ do it yourself terminal G”. You mind is set so you ignore the two aircraft in IMC on the same approach at Bundy and the Rex and Bank run aircraft in IMC at Orange.
Do you want to wait for the fatalities before you upgrade?
All the stuff you require is to prevent change. Or do you have a vested interest in all these invented safety studies?
And are you suggesting people like Angus Houston and the Secretary of DOT were part of “crash through studies”. You are wrong .
And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.
If VOR has a genuine interest in public safety they would clearly operate publicly.
What a con!
You are clearly angling for huge amounts of money to be paid for all these Australian unique studies. It won’t work!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th Jan 2018 at 09:17.
Thread Starter
Car ramrod. My primary motive for removing the boundaries is that the system does not work. That’s why CASA has spent two years and a huge amount of money in attempting to fix it.
Why else do we have the ridiculous 40 mile CTAF proposal?
It’s a half wound back system they are experimenting with.
If we remove the boundaries and advise VFR to monitor the aerodrome frequency if en route and in the airspace normally used for approach and departure we end up with a very safe system that is simple and straightforward.
And no. The nearest frequency does not guarantee coverage however you are more likely to get coverage than using an area frequency that is primarily there for a different purpose. I have already explained that just one example is south of Charlieville where the area frequency does not get the ground station however the nearest frequency of St George does.
Why else do we have the ridiculous 40 mile CTAF proposal?
It’s a half wound back system they are experimenting with.
If we remove the boundaries and advise VFR to monitor the aerodrome frequency if en route and in the airspace normally used for approach and departure we end up with a very safe system that is simple and straightforward.
And no. The nearest frequency does not guarantee coverage however you are more likely to get coverage than using an area frequency that is primarily there for a different purpose. I have already explained that just one example is south of Charlieville where the area frequency does not get the ground station however the nearest frequency of St George does.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th Jan 2018 at 09:39.
Because they were trying to fix one problem and introduced another. Thinking they were keeping some happy but in turn annoying others.
You can't keep everyone happy.
And what is the "airspace normally used for approach and departure"? What I might think is normal, and be on frequency, might be different to you. You go sailing through said airspace thinking your not in the way, but in this case you happen to be in my way? If I really wanted to I'm sure I could conjure up and cherry pick some specific instances to support this case. Similar to you picking your examples to support your viewpoint But I really cannot be bothered.
I understand what you are getting at, and there are pros, but there are also cons. Much like the 20nm radius CTAF.
Whether we keep the current system, or change to yours, do you think 100% of users are going to like the system? No.
And they won't dislike it just to spite you, they'll just dislike it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti change". Can our airspace and ATC system be better? Yes I'm sure it can, and I have my own thoughts on other unrelated conversation topics here.
Can the US system be improved? I'm sure it can.
But I'm not sure that your proposed changes are what the masses want. If it was, don't you think there'd be more support for it? Change isn't necessarily good. Remember part 61? Industry is still struggling with that!
You can't keep everyone happy.
And what is the "airspace normally used for approach and departure"? What I might think is normal, and be on frequency, might be different to you. You go sailing through said airspace thinking your not in the way, but in this case you happen to be in my way? If I really wanted to I'm sure I could conjure up and cherry pick some specific instances to support this case. Similar to you picking your examples to support your viewpoint But I really cannot be bothered.
I understand what you are getting at, and there are pros, but there are also cons. Much like the 20nm radius CTAF.
Whether we keep the current system, or change to yours, do you think 100% of users are going to like the system? No.
And they won't dislike it just to spite you, they'll just dislike it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti change". Can our airspace and ATC system be better? Yes I'm sure it can, and I have my own thoughts on other unrelated conversation topics here.
Can the US system be improved? I'm sure it can.
But I'm not sure that your proposed changes are what the masses want. If it was, don't you think there'd be more support for it? Change isn't necessarily good. Remember part 61? Industry is still struggling with that!
Thread Starter
It’s not my system. It’s a system based on the best in the world.
That’s because it has evolved in very wealthy and also litigious society with high mountains and sometimes terrible weather. And
thirty times the number of aircraft.
As I have said before it’s the 747 of airspace. We have the Nomad.
And if our part 61 was similar to the US part 61 it would be fantastic.
And “ the masses” wanted to keep the pre AMATS system where radar could not be used in radar covered uncontrolled airspace. Now most are happy with that change.
Would you get the masses to design your next airline aircraft?
That’s because it has evolved in very wealthy and also litigious society with high mountains and sometimes terrible weather. And
thirty times the number of aircraft.
As I have said before it’s the 747 of airspace. We have the Nomad.
And if our part 61 was similar to the US part 61 it would be fantastic.
And “ the masses” wanted to keep the pre AMATS system where radar could not be used in radar covered uncontrolled airspace. Now most are happy with that change.
Would you get the masses to design your next airline aircraft?
So how did VFR fly around above 5000’ at the same quadrantral levels as the IFR aircraft and not be a collision hazard ?
It’s a system based on the best in the world.
https://www.economist.com/news/scien...sky-navigating
And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.
Do you have any evidence for this? VOR clearly stated during the NAS debate that they had no vested interest. I don't think you rebutted them at that time, so why are you trying to do it now - perhaps they are no longer around to respond.
Thread Starter
Traffic. Good try. I think you may find they are not actually referring to the US NAS airspace allocations and procedures. Possibly the actual equipment.
But keep trying. There must be some reason we can be unique and not copy the success of others.
But keep trying. There must be some reason we can be unique and not copy the success of others.
Thread Starter
Topdrop. If VOR , an anonymous poster on this site claimed they had no vested interest that just must be true.
If there was an organisation or individual who wanted to inflict the maximum damage on our aviation industry they would obviously be honest , open and tell us.
We already have individuals at CASA who are unintentionally damaging the GA industry by continually adding costly regulations. Why couldn’t we have a group who are doing this intentionally?
If there was an organisation or individual who wanted to inflict the maximum damage on our aviation industry they would obviously be honest , open and tell us.
We already have individuals at CASA who are unintentionally damaging the GA industry by continually adding costly regulations. Why couldn’t we have a group who are doing this intentionally?
Thread Starter
Traffic. At my time if you wanted to fly VFR above 5000’ you had to give full position reports and next estimate to Flight Service. That was why we were the only country in the world that had a non ICAO mandatory radio requirement for VFR above 5000’
Are you telling me I could have flown around VFR at the same cruising levels as IFR airline aircraft?
And Bloggs wants to go back to those days?
Are you telling me I could have flown around VFR at the same cruising levels as IFR airline aircraft?
And Bloggs wants to go back to those days?
Originally Posted by Dick
And Bloggs wants to go back to those days?
"But keep trying".
Again, how do I manage the CTAF on one radio and ATC on the other? Maybe get the PF on ATC radio #1, then the PNF can run the CTAF on the other. That should work...
All the stuff you require is to prevent change. Or do you have a vested interest in all these invented safety studies?
And are you suggesting people like Angus Houston and the Secretary of DOT were part of “crash through studies”. You are wrong .
And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.
If VOR has a genuine interest in public safety they would clearly operate publicly.
What a con!
You are clearly anglingg for huge amounts of money to be paid for all these Australian unique studies. It won’t work
And are you suggesting people like Angus Houston and the Secretary of DOT were part of “crash through studies”. You are wrong .
And I am delighted you bring up Voices of Reason . Clearly some group with a vested interest in making huge money out of such humbug. If in doubt always follow self interest and the money trail.
If VOR has a genuine interest in public safety they would clearly operate publicly.
What a con!
You are clearly anglingg for huge amounts of money to be paid for all these Australian unique studies. It won’t work
I was merely quoting what had been said in earlier threads (para 5 in the second link), and the safety assessment and change management process outlined in my last sentence is what has been required by CASA OAR for quite some time and detailed in their various documents here:
https://www.casa.gov.au/airspace/sta...change-process
Thread Starter
Captain Midnight.
Surely you understand all that gobbledygook is to stop any change that someone may be held accountable for.
Have you noticed that the time consuming and therefore expensive Office of Airspace Regulation airspace studies nearly always recommend the status quo.
How would it be possible to do a study on Ballina and not even consider E to 700 agl?
Have you noticed they only employ people in that office who have zero or mis informed knowledge about the North American airspace ? It’s not accident.
Surely you understand all that gobbledygook is to stop any change that someone may be held accountable for.
Have you noticed that the time consuming and therefore expensive Office of Airspace Regulation airspace studies nearly always recommend the status quo.
How would it be possible to do a study on Ballina and not even consider E to 700 agl?
Have you noticed they only employ people in that office who have zero or mis informed knowledge about the North American airspace ? It’s not accident.