CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Soooo, let's get CAR 243 changed so that you don't have to use a VHF, if fitted, when you are VFR in G and not in the vicinity of an aerodrome at which VHF is mandatory.
I really don't know what you're on about, Dick. What's your point? Get rid of radios for VFR in G?
Right now, you don't have to make any reports when VFR in G unless they're associated with doing something at an aerodrome (joining, departing, or operating in the circuit or on the runway) or you consider them necessary for safety. In the cruise, just fly along and listen out, or if you think you need to call to alert someone to your presence, make a call.
Calls near airfields make things safer, no doubt about it - ever heard a call from someone in the same position, co-altitude that you hadn't seen and could have hit? I certainly have. Then there's the idiots who fly through CTAFs and don't call.
Yes, get the circuit calls on to 126.7 or another designated frequency and off the area freq, but what's all this other stuff you're rambling on about, half wound back or what we used to do ... we all know that stuff, what's important is where we are now, not going off on some personal agenda to do who knows what.
And while I'm on a rant, yes, if you have a radio, bloody listen out on it.
Right now, you don't have to make any reports when VFR in G unless they're associated with doing something at an aerodrome (joining, departing, or operating in the circuit or on the runway) or you consider them necessary for safety. In the cruise, just fly along and listen out, or if you think you need to call to alert someone to your presence, make a call.
Calls near airfields make things safer, no doubt about it - ever heard a call from someone in the same position, co-altitude that you hadn't seen and could have hit? I certainly have. Then there's the idiots who fly through CTAFs and don't call.
Yes, get the circuit calls on to 126.7 or another designated frequency and off the area freq, but what's all this other stuff you're rambling on about, half wound back or what we used to do ... we all know that stuff, what's important is where we are now, not going off on some personal agenda to do who knows what.
And while I'm on a rant, yes, if you have a radio, bloody listen out on it.
And....
Does it really matter? If there are aircraft in the same G airspace that are not required to be fitted with VHF and aircraft that could be tuned to the wrong frequency anyway, the collision mitigating action does not involve blabbing on the radio.
I reckon that focussing on known risks often results in blissful ignorance of unknown, higher risks.
Does it really matter? If there are aircraft in the same G airspace that are not required to be fitted with VHF and aircraft that could be tuned to the wrong frequency anyway, the collision mitigating action does not involve blabbing on the radio.
I reckon that focussing on known risks often results in blissful ignorance of unknown, higher risks.
Good airmanship, good situational awareness - if for example I hear centre say to IFR aircraft "VFR traffic observed in your area height XXXX unverified" and I know it's me, I speak up and resolve the issue, everyone wins.
On balance, radios good, no radios not so good ...
On balance, radios good, no radios not so good ...
Radios are great, if you are on frequency to hear and respond...
But what of the aircraft that don't have to be fitted with VHF? (Let's deal with the simplest example, first.)
But what of the aircraft that don't have to be fitted with VHF? (Let's deal with the simplest example, first.)
If they don't have to be fitted for particular reasons (e.g. electrical system can't handle it, antique aircraft or whatever), fair enough, but that doesn't flow on to everyone else.
ENR 1.4 Section 4.
A voice of reason.
LB, the system is not designed to operate with your fringe scenarios (no radio, wrong freq bla bla bla). I know you don't fly but just remember, there is heavy metal around below 10k just outside "the vicinity". To cancel 243 for VFR would be plain silly.
Originally Posted by AOTW
If they don't have to be fitted for particular reasons (e.g. electrical system can't handle it, antique aircraft or whatever), fair enough, but that doesn't flow on to everyone else.
LB, the system is not designed to operate with your fringe scenarios (no radio, wrong freq bla bla bla). I know you don't fly but just remember, there is heavy metal around below 10k just outside "the vicinity". To cancel 243 for VFR would be plain silly.
As a " make jobs" for FSO's
As for complexity, it wasn't really. Everyone knew how it worked, everyone seemed to manage, and it worked fine for years. Bring in the alphabet and get away from a capital city, and these discussions have been happening for years.
I do laugh at the blissful ignorance of the number of no-radio aircraft out there in G.
Rolled open the hangar doors one afternoon over the Christmas break, and there was a hang glider on my doorstep. G'day I said. German hang gliding champion. He and a bunch of colleagues from other countries were warming up for championships. He'd come a long way. He'd got up to 10,000'. Some of his colleagues made it as far as my home aerodrome. They were a long way up. I was surprised to learn - and observed first-hand - that their biggest problem was getting down.
Some went further. Some not. And while we were chatting, there were numerous glider launches by the gliding club that was operating there for a couple of weeks.
All these aircraft were operating at altitudes and on tracks intersecting IFR routes. No radio. (Although I don't fly, I can read an ERC.) Gliding club at YMIA... (BTW, when I wasn't flying over YMIA on Sunday, I didn't have a couple of very respectful and helpful interactions on the Area frequency and the YMIA CTAF with an outbound RPT and inbound IFR lightie MKR was it? I'll have to look at my EFB scratchpad to see if I deleted my notes.)
I realise that you people who are used to the cocoon of the command and control paradigm feel safer if you believe these no-radio aircraft are just the "fringe", but in terms of numbers they are substantial and becoming more substantial. And then there are aircraft with the radio tuned to the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down or other finger trouble...
Best to keep a good look out.
(And you, Bloggs, have a comprehension problem as well. I didn't say "cancel" 243. In any event, the evidence from countries with real traffic densities shows it would not be "silly" to do so for G.)
Triadic: Let's say I'm cruising at 5,500' AMSL but on my track I am continuously going below and then above and then below the MULTICOM AGL 'ceiling'. What frequency do I monitor if I have a singe VHF in the system you are advocating?
Rolled open the hangar doors one afternoon over the Christmas break, and there was a hang glider on my doorstep. G'day I said. German hang gliding champion. He and a bunch of colleagues from other countries were warming up for championships. He'd come a long way. He'd got up to 10,000'. Some of his colleagues made it as far as my home aerodrome. They were a long way up. I was surprised to learn - and observed first-hand - that their biggest problem was getting down.
Some went further. Some not. And while we were chatting, there were numerous glider launches by the gliding club that was operating there for a couple of weeks.
All these aircraft were operating at altitudes and on tracks intersecting IFR routes. No radio. (Although I don't fly, I can read an ERC.) Gliding club at YMIA... (BTW, when I wasn't flying over YMIA on Sunday, I didn't have a couple of very respectful and helpful interactions on the Area frequency and the YMIA CTAF with an outbound RPT and inbound IFR lightie MKR was it? I'll have to look at my EFB scratchpad to see if I deleted my notes.)
I realise that you people who are used to the cocoon of the command and control paradigm feel safer if you believe these no-radio aircraft are just the "fringe", but in terms of numbers they are substantial and becoming more substantial. And then there are aircraft with the radio tuned to the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down or other finger trouble...
Best to keep a good look out.
(And you, Bloggs, have a comprehension problem as well. I didn't say "cancel" 243. In any event, the evidence from countries with real traffic densities shows it would not be "silly" to do so for G.)
Triadic: Let's say I'm cruising at 5,500' AMSL but on my track I am continuously going below and then above and then below the MULTICOM AGL 'ceiling'. What frequency do I monitor if I have a singe VHF in the system you are advocating?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 10th Mar 2017 at 21:23.
CGAF.......
Is that not exactly what you are trying to do with ATC now? Ie, your implication is they are there, they are doing nothing, lets have them do this just to fill in their day. I, and probably every other ex-FSO, find that pretty insulting.
'They have built up a bureaucracy in Canberra. They keep putting people on, it is like a secret society. Airservices could have a lot less people and still run effectively.'
'he was not concerned about the job cuts provided they did not affect operational staff'
Your throwaway comments such as 'secret society' are clearly loved by the press, but while that stuff is fine on an internet forum, when you go out in public people listen to your comments, some of which I reckon are pretty baseless (not all).
Triadic: Let's say I'm cruising at 5,500' AMSL but on my track I am continuously going below and then above and then below the MULTICOM AGL 'ceiling'. What frequency do I monitor if I have a singe VHF in the system you are advocating?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB... A good question. Like all other facits of your flying you make decisions based on many factors including risk. When operating VFR in the circumstances you outline the choice of what frequency to operate on is that of the PIC. As a VFR operation the selection is 'recommended' so it is simply your choice. Just keep a good lookout as usual
Last edited by triadic; 20th Mar 2017 at 05:21. Reason: spelling
Thanks triadic.
It does raise the question that screams silently from CAR 1988 243: On what frequency is one obliged to maintain a listening watch when you're in G but not in the vicinity of an aerodrome?
It does raise the question that screams silently from CAR 1988 243: On what frequency is one obliged to maintain a listening watch when you're in G but not in the vicinity of an aerodrome?
Supplementary question, triadic.
Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.
In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?
Specifics, please.
I'm assuming you won't be telling the student: "It is simply your choice". Or is my assumption incorrect?
Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.
In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?
Specifics, please.
I'm assuming you won't be telling the student: "It is simply your choice". Or is my assumption incorrect?