CASA Class G Discussion Paper
I fail to see any problem with having frequency boundaries on the chart. I find it very helpful to help me ensure that I'm on the appropriate frequency.
If other pilots have a problem with the boundaries being displayed, they can ignore them and their problem is solved.
Making emergency calls on 121.5 is just not going to work at low level and you know it Dick. In over 40 years of RPT jet operations, mainly long haul international, I have only ever heard two emergency calls on 121.5 and they were oceanic where there was no VHF ground station anyway. I have heard quite a few on the control frequencies though.
If other pilots have a problem with the boundaries being displayed, they can ignore them and their problem is solved.
Making emergency calls on 121.5 is just not going to work at low level and you know it Dick. In over 40 years of RPT jet operations, mainly long haul international, I have only ever heard two emergency calls on 121.5 and they were oceanic where there was no VHF ground station anyway. I have heard quite a few on the control frequencies though.
I don’t recall ever hearing “complaints from ATC” on the airwaves, Dick. Very occasionally I get a courteous question from ATC that brings to my attention my own stuff up, and I’m thankful for it.
Thread Starter
Musta. Come on. CASA has just spent two years and a lot of our industries money in attempting to get the class G with the frequency boundaries on charts working correctly in their view.
First they wanted the system to work by getting all non map marked airports on the ATC frequency that covers that area.
All RAPACs disagreed. Now CASA has come up with another answer to the “ problem “. That is unique 40 mile CTAFs like nowhere else .
Not many like that proposal. So where do we go from here?
Great idea. Why not copy a proven safe system from another country?
Just a suggestion .
First they wanted the system to work by getting all non map marked airports on the ATC frequency that covers that area.
All RAPACs disagreed. Now CASA has come up with another answer to the “ problem “. That is unique 40 mile CTAFs like nowhere else .
Not many like that proposal. So where do we go from here?
Great idea. Why not copy a proven safe system from another country?
Just a suggestion .
Captain. I have done over a decade of testing on which frequency a pilot is more likely to get an instant answer on,
From my experience 121.5 winds hands down- especially at low level.
From my experience 121.5 winds hands down- especially at low level.
- doing a check call, at altitude in a modern well equipped aircraft v.s.
- calling MAYDAY in a bug smasher suffering an emergency with hands full on the way down ...
Dick: If I want to maximise my chances of being heard and assisted quickly in an emergency in Australia, I’m going to:
(1) turn on my ELT and PLB
(2) broadcast my MAYDAY on the FIA frequency.
1 will result in noises being made on 121.5 and my GPS position being sent to a friendly rescue organisation via satellite.
2 will be heard by anyone within range on the FIA including, in many cases, Centre.
Aircraft who hear either or both will tell Centre anyway. Centre will contact a friendly rescue organisation by telephone.
(1) turn on my ELT and PLB
(2) broadcast my MAYDAY on the FIA frequency.
1 will result in noises being made on 121.5 and my GPS position being sent to a friendly rescue organisation via satellite.
2 will be heard by anyone within range on the FIA including, in many cases, Centre.
Aircraft who hear either or both will tell Centre anyway. Centre will contact a friendly rescue organisation by telephone.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
The FAA person was rolling on the floor.
He asked. “So in your system I could be responsible for giving an IFR separation service to a pilot that at the same time on the same frequency was self arranging separation from a VFR aircraft?
He asked. “So in your system I could be responsible for giving an IFR separation service to a pilot that at the same time on the same frequency was self arranging separation from a VFR aircraft?
No wonder there was a rollback!
Oh, and the FAA probably mandate monitoring 121.5 because ATC monitor and can transmit on it.
I understand that Australian ATC cannot and do not monitor 121.5.
Thread Starter
Captain. Yes come up with any explanation that keeps the procedures you were taught from the 60s. Whatever you do don’t open up your mind to new ideas and ways .
Captain. Yes come up with any explanation
Instead of personal attacks (obviously you have something over the mods because if I ranted and raved like you are increasingly doing here I'd be banned) how about you explain how Terminal Class E, with it's unalerted See and Avoid for VFR, is better than C or D, or indeed even DTI as we get in an AFIZ.
Thread Starter
The E is safer than G for a number of reasons.
In cloud you cannot use see and avoid. Or even use alerted see and avoid.
With E the only aircraft operating in IMC are fully separated by a third party using a recognised safe separation standard.
Also all VFR in E must have the minimum of a mode C transponder allowing for the extra safety backup of TCAS.
With G it’s up to the lowest common denominator to choose a separation “ standard “. Could be set by a 300 hr very inexperienced pilot.
There is no dual frequency problem in E . If cloud is at the minimum the IFR remains on the centre ATC frequency as VFR are not allowed in the airspace without a special VFR clearance from the centre.
When VMC exists IFR in E can use similar procedures that we now use in G. There is no less alerted see and avoid.
It is a very versatile and safe airspace. Remember what VOR stated years ago on this site. I will try and find the post.
Bloggs. Do you want me to donate to you the cost of an air ticket to the USA so you can find out the truth about E ?
In cloud you cannot use see and avoid. Or even use alerted see and avoid.
With E the only aircraft operating in IMC are fully separated by a third party using a recognised safe separation standard.
Also all VFR in E must have the minimum of a mode C transponder allowing for the extra safety backup of TCAS.
With G it’s up to the lowest common denominator to choose a separation “ standard “. Could be set by a 300 hr very inexperienced pilot.
There is no dual frequency problem in E . If cloud is at the minimum the IFR remains on the centre ATC frequency as VFR are not allowed in the airspace without a special VFR clearance from the centre.
When VMC exists IFR in E can use similar procedures that we now use in G. There is no less alerted see and avoid.
It is a very versatile and safe airspace. Remember what VOR stated years ago on this site. I will try and find the post.
Bloggs. Do you want me to donate to you the cost of an air ticket to the USA so you can find out the truth about E ?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Jan 2018 at 03:27.
Thread Starter
Bloggs. Re Launceston. The VFR pilot monitored all of the calls from the airline.
He stated that he had the airline aircraft visual at all times and there was never any chance of a collision in his view. It was an alerted see and avoid system working correctly.
He did not call the airline aircraft as he stated that in his view there was no reason to.
No it was not a “ radio arranged separation “ system that you obviously have your mind set in concrete over. That was in the 60s I am afraid. Times have moved on.
Thanks for continually showing your ignorance on these issues. It shows others why CASA can’t come up to speed and copy the best. There are clearly some of your clones working there .
More importantly the VFR pilot continually stated that the ATSB had lied in the report in relation to the transcript of the communication. The pilot was never able to get the transcript of even his communication during the incident.
I challenge ATSB to allow the pilot to have a copy of his communication to the tower and then I ask them to correct the report.
He stated that he had the airline aircraft visual at all times and there was never any chance of a collision in his view. It was an alerted see and avoid system working correctly.
He did not call the airline aircraft as he stated that in his view there was no reason to.
No it was not a “ radio arranged separation “ system that you obviously have your mind set in concrete over. That was in the 60s I am afraid. Times have moved on.
Thanks for continually showing your ignorance on these issues. It shows others why CASA can’t come up to speed and copy the best. There are clearly some of your clones working there .
More importantly the VFR pilot continually stated that the ATSB had lied in the report in relation to the transcript of the communication. The pilot was never able to get the transcript of even his communication during the incident.
I challenge ATSB to allow the pilot to have a copy of his communication to the tower and then I ask them to correct the report.
Thread Starter
Topdrop No. You havnt heard any reports because no one takes any notice of the stupid idea.
However I can assure you the class E frequency boundaries were put back on the charts so VFR pilots could monitor and communicate to IFR pilots just as they did in pre 1990s G!
However I can assure you the class E frequency boundaries were put back on the charts so VFR pilots could monitor and communicate to IFR pilots just as they did in pre 1990s G!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I looked, clock and compass was still an approved method of navigating VFR on paper charts.
I'm happy to use marked boundaries and FIA outside of 10 NM CTAFs.
Question for you Dick: how often do YOU fly VFR below 5000'?
Kaz
Thread Starter
Topdrop. You say it is a good idea.
Why then wouldn’t other countries take this “ good idea” and at a minimum recommend that VFR pilots in class E monitor and announce on ATC frequencies?
Could it be that it would turn ICAO class E into a bastardised form of ICAO class D?
And what is the ATC supposed to do when separating two IFR in E and a VFR pops up on frequency and commences to arrange separation with one or both of the IFR aircraft?
Do you still think it’s a good idea or haven’t you actually thought how it would work in practice?
Why then wouldn’t other countries take this “ good idea” and at a minimum recommend that VFR pilots in class E monitor and announce on ATC frequencies?
Could it be that it would turn ICAO class E into a bastardised form of ICAO class D?
And what is the ATC supposed to do when separating two IFR in E and a VFR pops up on frequency and commences to arrange separation with one or both of the IFR aircraft?
Do you still think it’s a good idea or haven’t you actually thought how it would work in practice?
No, Dick.
You have simply not latched onto the idea that we don't do "See and Avoid"! We do "know/find out about and separate until sighting". That statement alone indicates to me you do not understand or have any experience in what goes on in the real world.
You also obviously do not understand that it is immaterial whether there's cloud about or not. And for your info, 90% of my flying out bush in in gin-clear VMC. As far as I am concerned, my operation doesn't change one iota. I know that visual lookout, even alerted, is as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to closure rates of 300+ knots.
This applies, in VMC, to E as well, as amply demonstrated at Launy. I could be at the mercy of some low-time "expert" who "in his view" (your words) thinks we aren't going to hit. That pilot completely misread the situation because he didn't know what the 737 was actually doing, nor did he pipe up so that the 737 crew (and tower controller!!) could assess the situation. Instead, they got so close they got a TCAS RA. Do you consider that this is a satisfactory situation?
Well it should have been. If I had found out that he was opposite direction within a few degrees of my track, climbing through my level, I would have screamed blue-murder.
You don't seem to understand that E doesn't magically make IFRs operate in a different vacuum to VFRs. We're all there, mixing it, but now you have this warm and fuzzy feeling that IFRs will be separated and VFRs will use Unalerted See and Avoid to miss all and sundry. Well it doesn't work like that, and the fact that you will not admit it indicates to me that you either have so little real-world experience that you can't see it, or that you are ideologically driven.
Pot calling the kettle black, methinks!
Straight from the handbook of theory. What about if the cloudbase at Ballina is 1500ft, allowing VFR underneath, worse, say doing circuits, while the jet crew is being controlled on the Centre freq? You are dealing with absolutes; we deal with reality.
Arr, the conspiracy theories start again.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
In cloud you cannot use see and avoid. Or even use alerted see and avoid.
You also obviously do not understand that it is immaterial whether there's cloud about or not. And for your info, 90% of my flying out bush in in gin-clear VMC. As far as I am concerned, my operation doesn't change one iota. I know that visual lookout, even alerted, is as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to closure rates of 300+ knots.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
With G it’s up to the lowest common denominator to choose a separation “ standard “. Could be set by a 300 hr very inexperienced pilot.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
No it was not a “ radio arranged separation “ system that you obviously have your mind set in concrete over. That was in the 60s I am afraid. Times have moved on.
You don't seem to understand that E doesn't magically make IFRs operate in a different vacuum to VFRs. We're all there, mixing it, but now you have this warm and fuzzy feeling that IFRs will be separated and VFRs will use Unalerted See and Avoid to miss all and sundry. Well it doesn't work like that, and the fact that you will not admit it indicates to me that you either have so little real-world experience that you can't see it, or that you are ideologically driven.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Thanks for continually showing your ignorance on these issues.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
There is no dual frequency problem in E . If cloud is at the minimum the IFR remains on the centre ATC frequency as VFR are not allowed in the airspace without a special VFR clearance from the centre.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
More importantly the VFR pilot continually stated that the ATSB had lied in the report in relation to the transcript of the communication.
Thread Starter
Kaz
Probably do about half my flying below 5000’. Other than three major trips in the Caravan this year to the west and back where I normally fly about 10 k the balance of my flying is about 1500 agl in the Agusta or the Longranger.
In over 30 years of flying Terrey Hills to Gundaroo ,including the busy light aircraft lane and training area
,religiously monitoring all of the ATC frequencies I have never once been in a position where it was prudent to answer an IFR or VFR aircraft when enroute .I am still waiting for this exciting day .
On my major outback trips in the Caravan over 21 years I have only had to answer other aircraft on CTAF frequencies when en route. I always monitor the ATC sector frequency as required other than when I am in the terminal airspace of a CTAF.
Where possible I keep the second radio in 121.5 with the mic selected as thorough checking throughout the world shows that’s where you are most likely to get an instant answer from a high flying airline aircraft.
I fly on average every second day. Now done a bit over 10,000 hrs
Probably do about half my flying below 5000’. Other than three major trips in the Caravan this year to the west and back where I normally fly about 10 k the balance of my flying is about 1500 agl in the Agusta or the Longranger.
In over 30 years of flying Terrey Hills to Gundaroo ,including the busy light aircraft lane and training area
,religiously monitoring all of the ATC frequencies I have never once been in a position where it was prudent to answer an IFR or VFR aircraft when enroute .I am still waiting for this exciting day .
On my major outback trips in the Caravan over 21 years I have only had to answer other aircraft on CTAF frequencies when en route. I always monitor the ATC sector frequency as required other than when I am in the terminal airspace of a CTAF.
Where possible I keep the second radio in 121.5 with the mic selected as thorough checking throughout the world shows that’s where you are most likely to get an instant answer from a high flying airline aircraft.
I fly on average every second day. Now done a bit over 10,000 hrs
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Jan 2018 at 04:59.
Thread Starter
Bloggs you shouldn’t really be flying passengers as it’s clear you believe the present system in G does not meet acceptable safety levels. The type of VFR pilot at Launy is the type of pilot mixing in your airspace all the time . He would have made a similar decision in G or E.
The only reason the airline pilot knew of him was because under my introduction of E a transponder was required. At launy the airline crew never never sited the Tobago
As there is no transponder requirement for VFR in the terminal G you fly in all the time how do you know that there have not been dozens of times where VFR pilots have heard your announcements and not replied. You would not know!
As many would not have transponders they would not appear on your TCAS and you constantly state see and avoid does not give acceptable levels of safety.
The only reason the airline pilot knew of him was because under my introduction of E a transponder was required. At launy the airline crew never never sited the Tobago
As there is no transponder requirement for VFR in the terminal G you fly in all the time how do you know that there have not been dozens of times where VFR pilots have heard your announcements and not replied. You would not know!
As many would not have transponders they would not appear on your TCAS and you constantly state see and avoid does not give acceptable levels of safety.