CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon if you pulled out a chart of FIS boundaries from 25 years ago there won't be been all that much change - the VHF outlets are still in the same place.
When it got busy we'd select retransmit, although we did get good at listening to two calls at once. At cruise CTA traffic says very little, particularly when identified and even less when using CPDLC.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my day FS would monitor VHF at one or perhaps two locations and domestic HF. The international high flyers would work international HF from the time they were out of VHF of ATC. At one time the whole of north Australia was on 122.1.
FS away from the J curve only heard the odd high flyer when there was problems with HF. Most FSO's could monitor more than one frequency at the same time and copy the details, both VHF and HF. To my memory, FS never had retransmission - they did not need it as they usually only had one area to look after, except the major FSC's which covered the country FSU's at night time.
Sorry for the thread drift, but this should be about the CASA DP.
FS away from the J curve only heard the odd high flyer when there was problems with HF. Most FSO's could monitor more than one frequency at the same time and copy the details, both VHF and HF. To my memory, FS never had retransmission - they did not need it as they usually only had one area to look after, except the major FSC's which covered the country FSU's at night time.
Sorry for the thread drift, but this should be about the CASA DP.
You might be right about the retransmit - it might have only been selecting all transmitters. I started in Adelaide in 90 so by that time most of the remote units were gone - we took Ceduna and Alice not long after I started.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cogwheel
There is little or no consideration given for lower level ops in the design of sector boundaries.
Resectorisation seems to be an issue that's in the 'too hard' basket i.e the cost and man-hours involved in training, system upgrades, new charts and documents etc. is prohibitive.
Last edited by Hempy; 9th Mar 2017 at 12:31.
I finally got around to seeking out the discussion paper, up till now only relying on the RAPAC convenor's response, and the DP was interesting reading.
As far as I can tell no-one here has posted a link to it, so here goes. If you haven't read it I recommend you do, for a balanced view to the arguments here.
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/dp1610aspdf
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/dp1610asannexapdf
As far as I can tell no-one here has posted a link to it, so here goes. If you haven't read it I recommend you do, for a balanced view to the arguments here.
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/dp1610aspdf
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/dp1610asannexapdf
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Up here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balanced view? Have you actually read that risk assessment?
They give an example of non radio aircraft, with the option of other pilots using the multicom or using the area frequency. They use the same risk mitigation for both options.
How is it possible that their risk assessment can result in two completely different safety outcomes? According to the risk assessment, if using the area frequency the risk is reduced to level 5 through "education" and "targeted advice to flying schools re procedures/collision avoidance", but using the multicom and using the same risk mitigation strategies of "education" and "targeted advice" it is level 7.
Why is the risk level different?
They give an example of non radio aircraft, with the option of other pilots using the multicom or using the area frequency. They use the same risk mitigation for both options.
How is it possible that their risk assessment can result in two completely different safety outcomes? According to the risk assessment, if using the area frequency the risk is reduced to level 5 through "education" and "targeted advice to flying schools re procedures/collision avoidance", but using the multicom and using the same risk mitigation strategies of "education" and "targeted advice" it is level 7.
Why is the risk level different?
Thread Starter
A very experienced flight instructor from the UK has advised me that in that country, there is no prescribed frequency for VFR aircraft when flying in uncontrolled airspace.
He said most of them just listen to music through the headphones. They can call up for a radar advisory just as we can, but not many people do that and quite often it is not available.
He also said:
He pointed out that the UK follows ICAO recommendations for Class G airspace, which means that VFR don’t even require a radio.
He said most of them just listen to music through the headphones. They can call up for a radar advisory just as we can, but not many people do that and quite often it is not available.
He also said:
“Australia is a nanny state where the rules are made by people who feel they have a more valid claim on what they consider to be good for you than you do.”
He pointed out that the UK follows ICAO recommendations for Class G airspace, which means that VFR don’t even require a radio.
Dick
In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?
Maybe the problem is the belief that if a radio is fitted it has to be switched on all the time and monitored all the time. You might find that the Australian rules accommodate the UK approach, but the obsession with radio calls means it doesn't happen as a matter of practicality.
And note: I'm talking Class G away from the vicinity of aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory.
In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?
Maybe the problem is the belief that if a radio is fitted it has to be switched on all the time and monitored all the time. You might find that the Australian rules accommodate the UK approach, but the obsession with radio calls means it doesn't happen as a matter of practicality.
And note: I'm talking Class G away from the vicinity of aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?
The introduction of the MULTICOM would make a standard frequency for all low level ops clear of CTAFs and BAs. But then you have the gliders and PJE ops that use their own frequencies, so there will always be exceptions. But better than having a choice and contributing to congestion on the Area Freq.
But I was addressing Dick's point about the UK. Why don't you just turn the VHF off when clear of a CTAF or BA? Then you don't have to care what frequency has to be tuned.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The slippery Risk Assessment!
Clarie....
Balanced view? Have you actually read that risk assessment?
Balanced view? Have you actually read that risk assessment?
It should be noted that they consider the risk assessment (RA) invalid because:
a) It was conducted over a year after the change - which creates doubt over the results as they may well be in support of the change (??)
b) There was no CASA ID or file number or reference on the document
c) The date is only found within the document (was it really then or perhaps at all?)
d) The change process and the RA was not discussed with industry at any stage and not tabled at the RAPACs, which is the forum for such matters,
e) After being conducted, the RA was kept secret for over a year and one approach from a RAPAC member for same was told to go to FOI to get it! It was only after a direct approach to the then DAS that it was released and a commitment to have the MULTICOM DP was made.
f) The names and qualifications/experience of those participating are blacked out. As anyone that conducts such reviews and audits would know the identity and experience of those participating in the RA must be shown in order to validate the discussions. It is not valid for this reason alone.
g) One comment from an experienced aviator and auditor asked how an extreme risk might be mitigated by a radio procedure? It can’t be!
As indicated by Clarie the RA is full of errors and shows that experience in class G operations was perhaps minimal and without representatives from industry which has such experience it is really a total embarrassment to CASA and should not have been published.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems that the UK class G is actually class F if surveillance is available.
From UK Flight Information Services CAP774 (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...74Issue2_3.pdf)
"1.4 ... The conditions for the provision of deconfliction in Class G airspace and ATS in Class E airspace are predicated on flight rules. Deconfliction Service and Procedural Service are only available to flights in Class G airspace operating under IFR."
followed by
"Deconfliction
"4.7 A controller shall provide traffic information, accompanied with a heading and/or level aimed at achieving a planned deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft in:
Class G airspace;
..."
As I see it, it means that the VFR in G don't hear, or care about, ATC vectoring the IFR out of their way.
From UK Flight Information Services CAP774 (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...74Issue2_3.pdf)
"1.4 ... The conditions for the provision of deconfliction in Class G airspace and ATS in Class E airspace are predicated on flight rules. Deconfliction Service and Procedural Service are only available to flights in Class G airspace operating under IFR."
followed by
"Deconfliction
"4.7 A controller shall provide traffic information, accompanied with a heading and/or level aimed at achieving a planned deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft in:
Class G airspace;
..."
As I see it, it means that the VFR in G don't hear, or care about, ATC vectoring the IFR out of their way.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I was addressing Dick's point about the UK. Why don't you just turn the VHF off when clear of a CTAF or BA? Then you don't have to care what frequency has to be tuned.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very experienced flight instructor from the UK has advised me that in that country, there is no prescribed frequency for VFR aircraft when flying in uncontrolled airspace.
He said most of them just listen to music through the headphones. They can call up for a radar advisory just as we can, but not many people do that and quite often it is not available.
He said most of them just listen to music through the headphones. They can call up for a radar advisory just as we can, but not many people do that and quite often it is not available.
“Australia is a nanny state where the rules are made by people who feel they have a more valid claim on what they consider to be good for you than you do.”
He pointed out that the UK follows ICAO recommendations for Class G airspace, which means that VFR don’t even require a radio.
Clarie said:
Cambridge Dictionary: Meaning of “balanced”:
Links posted in the interest of the above.
What I agree with or not in the content is another matter
Balanced view? Have you actually read that risk assessment?
considering all sides or opinions equally
What I agree with or not in the content is another matter
Dick
In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?
Maybe the problem is the belief that if a radio is fitted it has to be switched on all the time and monitored all the time. You might find that the Australian rules accommodate the UK approach, but the obsession with radio calls means it doesn't happen as a matter of practicality.
And note: I'm talking Class G away from the vicinity of aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory.
In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?
Maybe the problem is the belief that if a radio is fitted it has to be switched on all the time and monitored all the time. You might find that the Australian rules accommodate the UK approach, but the obsession with radio calls means it doesn't happen as a matter of practicality.
And note: I'm talking Class G away from the vicinity of aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 243 Listening watch
In the USA (and probably the UK, I don't know) there is no such rule.
Last edited by no_one; 10th Mar 2017 at 02:14. Reason: Grammar
I guess the culture in Oz is that many believe that a frequency should be monitored in the name of good airmanship. I guess if that is the case then the selection of that frequency should be simple and standardised so as to gain maximum benefit from not having the music on.
The MULTICOM fills that role when operating below 2000 or 3000ft agl.
Like it or not, there will always be noradio aircraft about, hence it is better value to look out rather than play with the iPad......
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As indicated above the RAPAC Convenors contributed to the CASA DP. Many of their recommended changes have been incorporated in the published DP.
The Convenors have written their own response which is available on the link below. It should be noted that the Convenors paper was written prior to the publication of the CASA DP and in places the tense is dated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1vdvjwga7...rs v7.pdf?dl=0
The Convenors have written their own response which is available on the link below. It should be noted that the Convenors paper was written prior to the publication of the CASA DP and in places the tense is dated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1vdvjwga7...rs v7.pdf?dl=0
Thread Starter
No one. You are 100% correct. Our regulatory obsession with radio started with the AFIZ many decades ago.
As a " make jobs" for FSO's every aircraft within an AFIZ had to communicate with the FS ground station. Fly 15 miles away from Dubbo and you had to call them with a full position report.
Then we brought in mandatory radio and full postition reporting for VFR above 5000'.
Created lots of complexity and jobs and then ingrained on most of us that " fly by radio" was the only way we would stay alive.
We nearly fixed that with the introduction of NAS2b however after 3 months of no frequency boundaries on the charts and when it was just starting to work really well , Airservices undermined the whole change by sending out a chart with frequency boundaries.. they gave no education as they didn't even know how this half wound back system should work.
Since then it has been a stuff up!
As a " make jobs" for FSO's every aircraft within an AFIZ had to communicate with the FS ground station. Fly 15 miles away from Dubbo and you had to call them with a full position report.
Then we brought in mandatory radio and full postition reporting for VFR above 5000'.
Created lots of complexity and jobs and then ingrained on most of us that " fly by radio" was the only way we would stay alive.
We nearly fixed that with the introduction of NAS2b however after 3 months of no frequency boundaries on the charts and when it was just starting to work really well , Airservices undermined the whole change by sending out a chart with frequency boundaries.. they gave no education as they didn't even know how this half wound back system should work.
Since then it has been a stuff up!