CASA Class G Discussion Paper
You only hear about times where things broke down, not where things worked as they should.
Other than that - I agree - pilots need to look. Radio or not.
So does this mean that if we are below 5000' and the Area Frequency Controller sees possible conflicting traffic, he won't be able to advise us?
I have had two advisories at least this year, both unsolicited, whilst en-route below 5000', from Area Frequency Controllers and have been very grateful for this care and attention on both occasions.
How are they going to advise/ping a pilot who has flown into controlled airspace if that pilot is on 126.7?
I will continue to monitor both frequencies as well as discrete frequencies as required even though I fly VFR only these days.
I have had two advisories at least this year, both unsolicited, whilst en-route below 5000', from Area Frequency Controllers and have been very grateful for this care and attention on both occasions.
How are they going to advise/ping a pilot who has flown into controlled airspace if that pilot is on 126.7?
I will continue to monitor both frequencies as well as discrete frequencies as required even though I fly VFR only these days.
So does this mean that if we are below 5000' and the Area Frequency Controller sees possible conflicting traffic, he won't be able to advise us?
How are they going to advise/ping a pilot who has flown into controlled airspace if that pilot is on 126.7?
I will continue to monitor both frequencies as well as discrete frequencies as required even though I fly VFR only these days.
How are they going to advise/ping a pilot who has flown into controlled airspace if that pilot is on 126.7?
I will continue to monitor both frequencies as well as discrete frequencies as required even though I fly VFR only these days.
They've only ever been able to warn anyone if they are on the same frequency. It's only over been mandatory to monitor area over 5000'. So no change, and no one is saying not to monitor area anytime you want. What it will do is get rid of the ridiculous requirement to make circuit calls on area frequency for airfields not marked on the chart.
At non-controlled aerodromes this change would expand the volume of airspace contained in the CTAF to a 20 nautical mile radius laterally
Also beneath low CTA steps e.g. within 30NM Melbourne in Class G everyone IFR & VFR will need to be on a CTAF or 126.7 and not contactable by ATC unless dual VHF.
They've only ever been able to warn anyone if they are on the same frequency.
no one is saying not to monitor area anytime you want.
I have a cunning plan: Centre should monitor and be able to transmit on 126.7. 
Am I in the vicintiy of an aerodrome if I’m flying past 15nms away? It could get much noisier on 126.7!
Am I in the vicintiy of an aerodrome if I’m flying past 15nms away? It could get much noisier on 126.7!
My question still remains, will the area frequency controller, unless there is an IFR plane involved, call a VFR plane up about conflicting traffic below 5000' or will they not bother expecting that plane would be on 126.7 and not listening on the area frequency?
They called me yesterday in just such a circumstance when I was VFR in a CTAF with a designated frequency at 3500'. I was monitoring area and responded even though they would have expected I was on CTAF. Appreciated although I had visual anyway. I expect this won't change.
Thread Starter
The proposal is outrageous. Nothing like this complexity anywhere else in the world.
Why is there no discussion re harmonisation with the leading aviation countries in the world?
5000’ came about from 1950s Flight Service workload and staffing levels. Collision risk is clearly higher below 5000’
Let’s go back to the 1950s!
Why is there no discussion re harmonisation with the leading aviation countries in the world?
5000’ came about from 1950s Flight Service workload and staffing levels. Collision risk is clearly higher below 5000’
Let’s go back to the 1950s!
What it will do is get rid of the ridiculous requirement to make circuit calls on area frequency for airfields not marked on the chart.
I have never heard anyone broadcasting circuit or taxiing calls on the area frequency - a totally unenforceable rule which I think was roundly ignored by those who actually heard about it. The vast majority of the piloting population probably never ever got to know about this new rule anyway, certainly not Farmer Bloggs on his dirt strip in Upper Whoop-Whoop(er...no relation Capn!).
Last edited by Possum1; 7th Dec 2017 at 06:38.
Thread Starter
Bloggs. You clearly don’t understand risk management.
The total risk may be reduced but it will still be higher below 5000 where aircraft tend to be closer together as they approach or depart the limited number of terminal areas.
The total risk may be reduced but it will still be higher below 5000 where aircraft tend to be closer together as they approach or depart the limited number of terminal areas.
Cloudee said:
If/when this comes in, then within 30NM Melbourne one of those two radios will be set to 126.7 and the other dialling up all the various CTAFs you are within 20NM miles of.
Unless you have a third radio, you won't be listening to an FIA
This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.
No IFR aircraft I've been in have not had dual radios. Most modern radios in VFR aircraft can monitor two frequencies, such as Garmin SL30/40 or Icom 210
Unless you have a third radio, you won't be listening to an FIA
This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.
Cloudee said:If/when this comes in, then within 30NM Melbourne one of those two radios will be set to 126.7 and the other dialling up all the various CTAFs you are within 20NM miles of.
Unless you have a third radio, you won't be listening to an FIA
This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.
Unless you have a third radio, you won't be listening to an FIA
This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.
I think the idea is to be on 126.7 or the designated ctaf frequency. That leaves you with capacity to monitor area freq. I can't see why you would monitor 126.7 when you are in a ctaf with a designated frequency.
Yes Dick, you have been ranting and raving on about how the risk is greatest at the airport. What better risk management than to have everybody at an airport on the same non-ATC frequency (Multicom/CTAF), or have you now changed your tune and think operating on the Area in the circuit, with ATC providing traffic info, is better?
Midnight, nothing will be. There is no perfect system. If you want ATC looking over your shoulder, get a second radio. If you don't, use Ozrunways to keep out of CTA and all will be well.
At least we will now know what "in the vicinity" actually means, instead of the current weasel-words introduced by Dick.
This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.
At least we will now know what "in the vicinity" actually means, instead of the current weasel-words introduced by Dick.
I can't see why you would monitor 126.7 when you are in a ctaf with a designated frequency.
But if you are transiting a CTAF (or a bunch of them) you might want to keep monitoring 126.7 as well for situational awareness.
Bloggs: True. Actually the current AIP dated 17 AUG 2017 says:
ENR 1.1 - 75
10.1.4.2 Pilots of aircraft transiting in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome should monitor the designated CTAF while within 10NM of the aerodrome.
10.1.4.2 Pilots of aircraft transiting in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome should monitor the designated CTAF while within 10NM of the aerodrome.
I am reminded of a statement that used to be frequently made by a prominent flyer in the Melbourne area when asked by any VFR broadcasting traffic to him and seeking a response:
"If you're VFR, keep your eyes open and your mouth shut".
Not particularly helpful and usually got a stunned silence.
It sounds like I'm going to need to add dual radios with dual frequency monitoring to my Christmas wish list for Santa so that I can fly safely in Australian skies.
Thread Starter
So let’s say you are VFR and flying en route at 500 agl 19 nm to the west of Wollongong CTAF.
What frequency under the proposed system would you monitor and announce on."?
And what frequency will a pilot monitor in the Sydney light aircraft lane near Hornsby. Have a guess,!
What frequency under the proposed system would you monitor and announce on."?
And what frequency will a pilot monitor in the Sydney light aircraft lane near Hornsby. Have a guess,!
5000’ came about from 1950s Flight Service workload and staffing levels. Collision risk is clearly higher below 5000’