CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Dick, still grappling with what you are trying to get across.
Am I correct in sensing the real issue for you is not so much how G airspace is flown or what frequency you use in G but that you want to increase the amount of E in Oz? (by lowering it into a lot of our current G).
In addition you want VFR in E to not be required to be on the ATC frequency?
Is that a fair summary?
If so am I correct in assuming your reasoning for this is that in the US most actual airspace is E and there, VFR ops in E are not required to be on the ATC frequency? (and that in the US that works safely hence it is not as risky as it would appear on first blush?).
Is that correct?
Am I correct in sensing the real issue for you is not so much how G airspace is flown or what frequency you use in G but that you want to increase the amount of E in Oz? (by lowering it into a lot of our current G).
In addition you want VFR in E to not be required to be on the ATC frequency?
Is that a fair summary?
If so am I correct in assuming your reasoning for this is that in the US most actual airspace is E and there, VFR ops in E are not required to be on the ATC frequency? (and that in the US that works safely hence it is not as risky as it would appear on first blush?).
Is that correct?
Thread Starter
Jonkster. No. It’s not a fair summary. My prime aim is to get an airspace system which is proven and with minimum differences to airspace used in leading aviation countries.
That will maximise export income for Australia.”
Our present airspace is a half wound back system. That’s the prime reason for the previously unheard of total disagreement between CASA and the RAPACs.
I am concerned that an airspace system that we are supposed to rely on is bastardising the intention of the ICAO classification system and is not the way to go.
For example ICAO class E and G airspace have no radio requirement for VFR. This is not accidental. If safety dictates VFR need to be in the system a minimum of ICAO class D is required,
As stated before the present system is a crock. To mandate radio for VFR against ICAO recommendations and then rely on VFR pilots monitoring hundreds of non directed calls , sometimes retransmitted over 100’s of miles ,just doesn’t work. It’s trying to hold on to the past without allocating the necessary resources for the system to work .
Yes. I would like to see some more E. I can’t believe we have our airline pilots performing a do it yourself amateur like separation service at places like Ballina in IMC while the ATC sits in front of the radar with no responsibility for keeping the aircraft apart.
It’s all been planned and approved by the government. But stopped by ignorance and resistance to change. Why don’t you give me a ring.
Recently I made an offer to Mr Carmondy that I give a presentation on the Aus approved NAS
He refused.
That will maximise export income for Australia.”
Our present airspace is a half wound back system. That’s the prime reason for the previously unheard of total disagreement between CASA and the RAPACs.
I am concerned that an airspace system that we are supposed to rely on is bastardising the intention of the ICAO classification system and is not the way to go.
For example ICAO class E and G airspace have no radio requirement for VFR. This is not accidental. If safety dictates VFR need to be in the system a minimum of ICAO class D is required,
As stated before the present system is a crock. To mandate radio for VFR against ICAO recommendations and then rely on VFR pilots monitoring hundreds of non directed calls , sometimes retransmitted over 100’s of miles ,just doesn’t work. It’s trying to hold on to the past without allocating the necessary resources for the system to work .
Yes. I would like to see some more E. I can’t believe we have our airline pilots performing a do it yourself amateur like separation service at places like Ballina in IMC while the ATC sits in front of the radar with no responsibility for keeping the aircraft apart.
It’s all been planned and approved by the government. But stopped by ignorance and resistance to change. Why don’t you give me a ring.
Recently I made an offer to Mr Carmondy that I give a presentation on the Aus approved NAS
He refused.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Jan 2018 at 08:54.
I don't understand the issues here.
As a VFR radio equipped aircraft, I fly towards Broken Hill. I listen on area and the CTAF.
I hear Rex broadcast on CTAF that he is six minutes out on a straight in approach to runway xx. I reply I am 4 minutes to the circuit for xx and will join upwind xx and extend out until I see him go past.
What is wrong with that?
As a VFR radio equipped aircraft, I fly towards Broken Hill. I listen on area and the CTAF.
I hear Rex broadcast on CTAF that he is six minutes out on a straight in approach to runway xx. I reply I am 4 minutes to the circuit for xx and will join upwind xx and extend out until I see him go past.
What is wrong with that?
Thread Starter
The CTAF bit sounds pretty normal and “ international “ to me. That is NAS and great!
An “ area frequency “ for VFR is unknown in international procedures. After all ICAO has no radio requirements for VFR in E or G.
Are you listening on the area frequency so you can answer IFR aircraft and organise “ radio arranged separation “ ? How often have you had to do this?
No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?
Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?
How many times on the flight - say from Bankstown- did you have to look down at the panel to change the area frequency? Was it six or seven times or more?
As you flew right on the frequency boundary west of Forbes what frequency did you monitor?
Would you be prepared to try the US or Canadian system where there was no such thing as an area frequency and therefore no requirement to listen ?
An “ area frequency “ for VFR is unknown in international procedures. After all ICAO has no radio requirements for VFR in E or G.
Are you listening on the area frequency so you can answer IFR aircraft and organise “ radio arranged separation “ ? How often have you had to do this?
No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?
Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?
How many times on the flight - say from Bankstown- did you have to look down at the panel to change the area frequency? Was it six or seven times or more?
As you flew right on the frequency boundary west of Forbes what frequency did you monitor?
Would you be prepared to try the US or Canadian system where there was no such thing as an area frequency and therefore no requirement to listen ?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Jan 2018 at 09:29.
Isn’t 126.7 the ‘area frequency’ below 5,000’ in Canada?
Thread Starter
No. Thank heavens! No other country as ever heard of 5000’ as a demarcation line.
If you want to head off into IMC in G in the UK just do so. No radio calls even necessary. And lots of G .
If you want to do this in Canada Just monitor and announce on 126.7. No flight plan or costs necessary. I called it “ free in G “ in NAS.
126.7 is not the Multicom in Canada. We had planned to use 127.7 in Aus for free in G
In both Canada and the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR en route in G or E. And there is about 30 times the amount of traffic .
If you want to head off into IMC in G in the UK just do so. No radio calls even necessary. And lots of G .
If you want to do this in Canada Just monitor and announce on 126.7. No flight plan or costs necessary. I called it “ free in G “ in NAS.
126.7 is not the Multicom in Canada. We had planned to use 127.7 in Aus for free in G
In both Canada and the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR en route in G or E. And there is about 30 times the amount of traffic .
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Jan 2018 at 08:59.
Leadie, to all intents and purposed it is, if you are outside any other classification of airspace.
**Whispers** Just not allowed to call it "area" as that doesn't fit the narrative.
**Whispers** Just not allowed to call it "area" as that doesn't fit the narrative.
Thread Starter
For Bloggs. Re Launceston
TThe Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has recommended a review of parts of the National Airspace System (NAS) after describing a mid-air incident over Launceston at Christmas as "serious".
The ATSB report found a Virgin Boeing 737 and a Tobago light aircraft came so close during the incident over Tasmania that a threat to the safety of the aircraft may have existed.
The bureau was unable to say exactly how close the two planes came, but passengers on board the 737 saw the light aircraft on the left side of the commercial jet.
Federal Transport Minister John Anderson says he is not embarassed that the new rules are being reviewed.
"I'm concerned to make sure we get it right, embarrassed, no, that would be far too weak a response," he said.
Despite the ATSB finding, the pilot of the light plane involved in the incident, Peter Scollard, says there was never any danger of a collision.
"At no stage was there ever any risk of collision," he said.
"This day was a beautiful blue day and if I ever thought there was risk of collision, I could have easily changed my course, or I could have descended 1,000 feet, or 2,000 feet, without any major problems, and I could have done that instantly."
Scaremongering
Air traffic controllers have raised safety concerns about new airspace regulations since they were introduced by the Howard Government late last year.
Mr Anderson has dismissed union concerns as scaremongering but has admitted incidents could occur.
The ATSB's investigation found the pilot of the Boeing 737 was in descent at 8,300 feet when it had to do an immediate climb to avoid a light aircraft travelling in the opposite direction.
The 737 crew did not see the Tobago aircraft, even after alerts from the traffic and collision avoidance systems.
The Tobago pilot did see the 737 and thought he would have enough room.
The investigation recommends the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia review NAS rules for Class E airspace which relate to passenger planes, to help improve pilots awareness of the new airspace rules.
Virgin Blue has welcomed the findings of the investigation.
Public relations manager Amanda Bolger has commended the crew on board the 737.
"We believe that Australia has the safest skies in the world and we certainly commend our crew, who followed the procedures to the letter as per their many years of training," she said.
"There are always ways to make sure we can learn from our experience.
"Obviously our pilots will be working closely with Qantas, with CASA and other appropriate authorities to see what can be learnt from the report."
Mr Scollard used alerted see and avoid and the incident was beaten up anonymous people at the ATSB.
TThe Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has recommended a review of parts of the National Airspace System (NAS) after describing a mid-air incident over Launceston at Christmas as "serious".
The ATSB report found a Virgin Boeing 737 and a Tobago light aircraft came so close during the incident over Tasmania that a threat to the safety of the aircraft may have existed.
The bureau was unable to say exactly how close the two planes came, but passengers on board the 737 saw the light aircraft on the left side of the commercial jet.
Federal Transport Minister John Anderson says he is not embarassed that the new rules are being reviewed.
"I'm concerned to make sure we get it right, embarrassed, no, that would be far too weak a response," he said.
Despite the ATSB finding, the pilot of the light plane involved in the incident, Peter Scollard, says there was never any danger of a collision.
"At no stage was there ever any risk of collision," he said.
"This day was a beautiful blue day and if I ever thought there was risk of collision, I could have easily changed my course, or I could have descended 1,000 feet, or 2,000 feet, without any major problems, and I could have done that instantly."
Scaremongering
Air traffic controllers have raised safety concerns about new airspace regulations since they were introduced by the Howard Government late last year.
Mr Anderson has dismissed union concerns as scaremongering but has admitted incidents could occur.
The ATSB's investigation found the pilot of the Boeing 737 was in descent at 8,300 feet when it had to do an immediate climb to avoid a light aircraft travelling in the opposite direction.
The 737 crew did not see the Tobago aircraft, even after alerts from the traffic and collision avoidance systems.
The Tobago pilot did see the 737 and thought he would have enough room.
The investigation recommends the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia review NAS rules for Class E airspace which relate to passenger planes, to help improve pilots awareness of the new airspace rules.
Virgin Blue has welcomed the findings of the investigation.
Public relations manager Amanda Bolger has commended the crew on board the 737.
"We believe that Australia has the safest skies in the world and we certainly commend our crew, who followed the procedures to the letter as per their many years of training," she said.
"There are always ways to make sure we can learn from our experience.
"Obviously our pilots will be working closely with Qantas, with CASA and other appropriate authorities to see what can be learnt from the report."
Mr Scollard used alerted see and avoid and the incident was beaten up anonymous people at the ATSB.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Jan 2018 at 09:24.
Thread Starter
I reckon it should be called area in Aus. Because that is what it is.
I will say again. An attempt to go back to a system that many old people on this thread did their training in.
Sort of DC3 compared to 777
I will say again. An attempt to go back to a system that many old people on this thread did their training in.
Sort of DC3 compared to 777
So we make 126.7 the ‘area’ frequency in G (really ForG).
What should the default CTAF be?
What should the default CTAF be?
I find it incongruous that with the all the advances in technology over the decades, the demand to seemingly go backwards and simply look out the window is seen as desirable.
Looking out the window is not ‘desirable’. It’s essential.
The flaws and failure modes of advanced technology will keep pilots and their Mark I eyeballs employed for a long time yet.
The flaws and failure modes of advanced technology will keep pilots and their Mark I eyeballs employed for a long time yet.
No doubt there is a constant barrage of calls on the “ area” frequency. Are your passengers forced to listen to those calls ? Is that relaxing for them?
Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?
Or do you just monitor the calls yourself?
What a lot of people have asked in these threads, myself included, is what specific changes you want, and I haven't seen any actual answers. You keep talking about half-rolled back systems and how things are done differently in the USA and the UK, and "My prime aim is to get an airspace system which is proven and with minimum differences to airspace used in leading aviation countries" but what are the specific changes? The actual differences from the current system, and what you want?
I get that one part of it (the only part I've seen explained clearly) is the removal of frequency boundaries from charts, and I dont understand why this in general is a desirable thing? Either the information is relevant, or it isnt. If it is, make it easy to use for pilots to determine unambiguously which frequency they should be on, and if it isnt, remove it altogether to reduce chart clutter. Maybe the equipment in your aircraft makes it easy to determine the nearest FIA transmitter, mine certainly doesnt, there are plenty of aircraft that dont have that equipment, and I cant pull out the protractor and dividers onto the EFB charts to measure which of three different frequencies I should be on. I get that there are locations where the current area frequency will not be received at low level, but another area frequency will, but these are nowhere near the majority of cases, and hardly seem to justify making the rest of the maps harder to use. It's not like this idea hasnt been tested - you may even remember a time a few years back when the charts were all issued without frequency boundaries, it wasn't much fun, people found them harder to use, and the frequency boundaries were very quickly put back on.
... In both Canada and the USA there is no radio requirement for VFR en route in G or E. And there is about 30 times the amount of traffic .
Give ASA x20 more controllers and more radars and more consoles and then I'll be more amenable to your crusade.
Thread Starter
I love it. Every reason why we must not change. Did you notice the UK lower level radar service is only available on weekdays! During the weekends they fly in IMC without radar.
Yes other countries have more radar coverage because they have more traffic to justify it.
Why can’t we copy the best of what they do for our radar covered J curve without extra costs and controllers.
No way. Stick to the 60s!
Yes other countries have more radar coverage because they have more traffic to justify it.
Why can’t we copy the best of what they do for our radar covered J curve without extra costs and controllers.
No way. Stick to the 60s!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Crap.
From AIP ENR 1.2-2 Cm 1.2.3
Special VFR is not permitted in E airspace.
Special VFR is a control zone procedure issued by a controller responsible for that zone and used to operate only in the zone. This usually means the Aerodrome controller, not Centre.
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.
Crap.
From AIP ENR 1.2-2 Cm 1.2.3
Special VFR is not permitted in E airspace.
Special VFR is a control zone procedure issued by a controller responsible for that zone and used to operate only in the zone. This usually means the Aerodrome controller, not Centre.
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?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick you're correct that there is no radio requirement for enroute VFR in Class E and G airspace in the US, nor even a designated enroute frequency. Also correct that there's no demarcation altitude in US or Canada. Technically, you are correct that there is no radio requirement for VFR enroute in Canada, also. It's a "recommendation" in the AIP, which technically lacks the force of law. However, in my experience flying in Canada's Northern Domestic Airspace, VFR traffic *does* as a rule, report position and intentions on 126.7. You will hear helicopters, floatplanes etc, making position reports on the enroute frequency. Are there other VFR aircraft not reporting? That's hard to say based on observation, certainly there may be, but my impression from having flown there is that the VFR traffic does for the most part comply with the system, just like the IFR traffic.
Thread Starter
Fuji. I was referring to the US system. Just another example of how concrete minds have done everything they can to prevent change and stop the best from overseas being copied.
They have also prevented FAA style IFR Flight Planned aircraft climbing VMC in E without a clearance by claiming that in Aus once you have given a taxiing call on an IFR plan you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without a clearance. Once again sheer bastardry to damage Australian aviation .
A Squared. Sounds pretty sensible to me as the calls are not on an ATC frequency. It’s all part of “ free in G” which has been stopped here!
They have also prevented FAA style IFR Flight Planned aircraft climbing VMC in E without a clearance by claiming that in Aus once you have given a taxiing call on an IFR plan you are then IFR and cannot enter E even in VMC without a clearance. Once again sheer bastardry to damage Australian aviation .
A Squared. Sounds pretty sensible to me as the calls are not on an ATC frequency. It’s all part of “ free in G” which has been stopped here!