CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Thread Starter
Traffic. Of course not. I want Aussie VFR pilots to be real pilots. And to act at all times like real pilots
Lots of radio calls, lots of communication and lots of writing down call signs on the knee pad. No relaxing or enjoying even for a second. Real men is what I want .
And none of this one radio wimp stuff. At least two radios. Preferably three. One on the ctaf, one on area ATC with the volume well up and one on the guard frequency to inform Qantas or Virgin pilots if they are on the wrong frequency.
Lots of radio calls, lots of communication and lots of writing down call signs on the knee pad. No relaxing or enjoying even for a second. Real men is what I want .
And none of this one radio wimp stuff. At least two radios. Preferably three. One on the ctaf, one on area ATC with the volume well up and one on the guard frequency to inform Qantas or Virgin pilots if they are on the wrong frequency.
Thread Starter
I wonder if those of you posting on this site who want to keep our incredibly complex frequency boundaries on the chart actually fly in the system very often. Can I suggest you use your Ozrunways, Avplan, or even just a VFR chart, and put in a typical route I fly.
That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.
Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.
Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then through the busy training area where no one gives position reports. Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming over Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).
That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.
Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. And have never had to announce because of other nearby traffic reports .
Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – Mostly high flying airline aircraft being re transmitted. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.
On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal frequency to give a MAYDAY or if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.
I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.
Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports and a radio is not even required? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?
Or is it mostly resistance to change?
Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it! Hint. It could be to do with a frequency change!
That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.
Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.
Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then through the busy training area where no one gives position reports. Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming over Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).
That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.
Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. And have never had to announce because of other nearby traffic reports .
Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – Mostly high flying airline aircraft being re transmitted. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.
On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal frequency to give a MAYDAY or if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.
I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.
Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports and a radio is not even required? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?
Or is it mostly resistance to change?
Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it! Hint. It could be to do with a frequency change!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 3rd Jan 2018 at 05:19.
I wonder if those of you posting on this site who want to keep our incredibly complex frequency boundaries on the chart actually fly in the system very often. Can I suggest you use your Ozrunways, Avplan, or even just a VFR chart, and put in a typical route I fly.
That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.
Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.
Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming into Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).
That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.
Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – I think it is high flying airline aircraft. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.
On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal position to give a MAYDAY and if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.
I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.
Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?
Just a suggestion.
Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it!
That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.
Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.
Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming into Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).
That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.
Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – I think it is high flying airline aircraft. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.
On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal position to give a MAYDAY and if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.
I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.
Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?
Just a suggestion.
Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it!
So there you are not monitoring the area frequency (on 121.5 instead), while an IFR aircraft inbound to BK could be in the solid deck of cloud above you (as you could be just operating clear of cloud), with either of you knowing what the other is doing.... Monitor 24.55, and bazinga, you both now can communicate with each other and the IFR a/c coming inbound won't have to have a heart attack in the process of not knowing what the hell you are doing.. We all know Sydney isn't exactly accomodating either with allowing you to cross those Class C steps out that way which doesn't help either.
I'm sure you know how it feels (as I have heard you in SHW on that exact WATLE track into BK), being told "Numerous VFR paints, random manoeuvres", with these aircraft 500' below you and meanwhile you're surfing along a layer of cloud. When it gets real close, it's not uncommon for SY CTR to either raise the aircraft/do a broadcast on behalf of the IFR a/c, and 9 times out of the 10, the VFR aircraft will reply and let them know they either have the IFR plane sighted, or tell the controller/aircraft what they are doing.
Although I guess going by your logic you want the whole TA for BK to be class E down to 700'.. Guess that means we have to fit all the non transponder aircraft with transponders.... geez thats extra cost for the GA flight training industry (but thats OK, maybe the chinese can help us out with those costs)
When I did some flying GA over in the states, a handy feature on the garmin units is the nearest ARTCC page... I used to maintain a listening watch on that, just like I would here by using the boundaries on the map.
Might I also remind you that below 5000' it is NOT a requirement to follow hemispherical cruising levels (it is a SHOULD not a MUST in the AIP). Therefore, and as has happened to me numerous times, the area frequency controller frequently provides safety alerts for two aircraft coming into close proximity (and with the invention of ADS-B, typically already knows the callsign of one of them and tries to raise them on the appropriate boundary freq). Going by your proposal of just listening to 121.5, how is this increasing safety/situational awareness what-so-ever?
Last edited by MikeHatter732; 3rd Jan 2018 at 05:22.
Try going YTRY-HSY-MYF-YGDO. Any better?
Personally I don't think your route is all that complicated, but I reckon I just made it a lot easier, with zero extra track miles. Would it be wrong of me to think that you purposely made a more "complicated" route structure?
Personally I don't think your route is all that complicated, but I reckon I just made it a lot easier, with zero extra track miles. Would it be wrong of me to think that you purposely made a more "complicated" route structure?
Thread Starter
Mike. I plan that route so that the GPS approach people are about 1000’ above me where we would normally cross.
Are you suggesting as a VFR aircraft I should call ATC and tell them I am there?
Are you suggesting as a VFR aircraft I should call ATC and tell them I am there?
I never said you have to make progress calls as you go along to ATC about where you are. I said you should have the ability to actively listen to the frequency so if ATC are trying to call you about a possible traffic situation, you are able to respond and act accordingly, something you would not be able to do if listening to the stereo and guard frequency. If you don't think thats a good idea, well I pray I never have to fly around in the same chunk of airspace as you where a possible collision risk is quite likely (i.e. the BK/CN TA).
Similar, yes.
Amount of changes? Less
Checked, yes. Did you?
It also avoids flying through the circuit areas at Camden and Goulburn.
Further away in general from approaches to both of those fields too. Especially Camden. 1500ft at the oaks with someone coming down the RNAV into Camden who could be bombing it down to 2000ft (the segment MSA) as the Yanks (if you want to copy "the best) like their dive n drive approaches, yeah I don't think that's a great place to be.
Further to this, under your NAS you'd still be on those CTAFs as you are within the "approach or departure" area, unless you define that differently to me.
However, as some food for thought "massive 40nm CTAFs" or not, do you think it might be a good idea to listen out anyway? For just a minute let's say there's no 20nm radius, your 15 or 25miles away. You now have a serious engine/pax/other issue and divert to that field. If you've been listening out your already tuned so one less thing to do, you've heard the traffic or lack of so you've got good situational awareness of what's happening there. Maybe beneficial or would you disagree?
Last edited by Car RAMROD; 3rd Jan 2018 at 06:14.
Thread Starter
Mike. So you believe ATC has a duty of care and a responsibility to call VFR aircraft in G and E and tell the pilot of nearby aircraft?
I suppose that means you rely on that to a certain extent. That’s why you want this unique system
Do you know if it actually works? If it does why don’t other countries instruct their atcs to call nearby VFR aircraft?
And I have always said there is nothing to stop a pilot from monitoring ATC. That’s why the nearest ATC button is on most gps units.
I suppose that means you rely on that to a certain extent. That’s why you want this unique system
Do you know if it actually works? If it does why don’t other countries instruct their atcs to call nearby VFR aircraft?
And I have always said there is nothing to stop a pilot from monitoring ATC. That’s why the nearest ATC button is on most gps units.
Thread Starter
Mike. You have turned ICAO class G and E into a form of D where Air Traffic Controllers have a responsibility to call VFR aircraft when they are not too busy.
As I pilot I think this is fantastic. I can see some big payouts coming after the next mid air.
Must admit that I am amazed our ATCs are let down in this way. Class D would guarantee proper job levels and clear responsibility.
As I pilot I think this is fantastic. I can see some big payouts coming after the next mid air.
Must admit that I am amazed our ATCs are let down in this way. Class D would guarantee proper job levels and clear responsibility.
You do also realise that VFR flight following over in the states is a big thing as well (used much more than it is here, and when I did a checkout with a flight school over there was told that it is recommended among most DPE's that flight following is used)
I never said ATC have a duty, or responsiblity to provide a traffic service to VFR a/c in Class G. But if it means that a more accurate traffic information service can be provided to the IFR passing through the Class G (by knowing what the intentions of the VFR bug smasher is), I don't see the problem.
I am still at a loss to how having a little box with the frequency at the site of the transmitter (rather than FIA boundaries) would change your frequency changing requirements on your flight? You are still going to have to change frequency along your route no matter what (just like if I was flying from Oshkosh down past Chicago, I will have to go between Chicago Center's numerous frequencies, than Chicago TRACON's numerous frequencies etc etc, the frequencies on the NRST page change just as frequent as they do on the flight you mentioned from Terry Hills to Gundaroo).
Last edited by MikeHatter732; 3rd Jan 2018 at 06:47.
Here's another route for you to try Dick.
YTRY-HSY-NPBR-YGDO
Only adds 6 miles and just about totally misses the Camden training area (the most minor of shaves inside D552, and a slight shave in D451 which is UAV testing.
You could also add GUNN to the above before YGDO. This makes it a total of 10nm more than your trip. Avoids all those danger areas and further away from any other CTAFs.
Still all with less frequency changing than your route.
I have effectively zero knowledge of the Sydney basin. Yet I came up with those suggestions in a matter of minutes. And you've flown your route for over 20 years. Now what was that about resisting change?
YTRY-HSY-NPBR-YGDO
Only adds 6 miles and just about totally misses the Camden training area (the most minor of shaves inside D552, and a slight shave in D451 which is UAV testing.
You could also add GUNN to the above before YGDO. This makes it a total of 10nm more than your trip. Avoids all those danger areas and further away from any other CTAFs.
Still all with less frequency changing than your route.
I have effectively zero knowledge of the Sydney basin. Yet I came up with those suggestions in a matter of minutes. And you've flown your route for over 20 years. Now what was that about resisting change?
Last edited by Car RAMROD; 3rd Jan 2018 at 06:53.
Thread Starter
Come on. I said it’s a typical route I fly. And I put in known waypoints so others could see the frequency change nightmare. No wonder so many pilots are not flying anymore. Many have told me it’s too complex.
You all appear to be intentionally missing the point I am making.
During over 20 years of flying on this general route and back again while religiously monitoring the wound back frequency system I have never been able to make use of the fundamental reason for our non ICAO system. That is to answer another aircraft that was relevant traffic.
Talk about a cry wolf useless system
But keep your minds set in concrete
You all appear to be intentionally missing the point I am making.
During over 20 years of flying on this general route and back again while religiously monitoring the wound back frequency system I have never been able to make use of the fundamental reason for our non ICAO system. That is to answer another aircraft that was relevant traffic.
Talk about a cry wolf useless system
But keep your minds set in concrete
I am still at a loss to how having a little box with the frequency at the site of the transmitter (rather than FIA boundaries) would change your frequency changing requirements on your flight? You are still going to have to change frequency along your route no matter what (just like if I was flying from Oshkosh down past Chicago, I will have to go between Chicago Center's numerous frequencies, than Chicago TRACON's numerous frequencies etc etc, the frequencies on the NRST page change just as frequent as they do on the flight you mentioned from Terry Hills to Gundaroo).
In fact, I was so curious I planned a quick flight of similar length to your YTRY-YGDO, but in the land of the free using Skyvector/Foreflight (in numerous cities including Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco). All flights in similar length have similar frequency changing requirements to your one here in Australia (backed up by flying on the Garmin GNS430 simulator with an up to date Jeppesen package while monitoring the NRST ARTCC/FSS page).
.....and I'd like to see you explain how our charts are more cluttered than theirs - have you looked at their TAC's??!!. Almost got a migraine just looking at them).
Thread Starter
Mike. A blatant lie
The two systems are totally different.
There are no atc frequency boundary lines shown on US charts in the way we do it in australia.
Let alone different coloured lines for different E and G frequencies depending on altitude .
US pilots are not taught to monitor the ATC frequency when flying VFR en route and announce on an ATC frequency if they believe they are traffic for an IFR aircraft. They would likely have their licence revoked if they did that.
Yes. They can call on the frequency of a ground outlet and request Flight Following. That’s exactly as we planned with our nas before it was half wound back.
The two systems are totally different.
There are no atc frequency boundary lines shown on US charts in the way we do it in australia.
Let alone different coloured lines for different E and G frequencies depending on altitude .
US pilots are not taught to monitor the ATC frequency when flying VFR en route and announce on an ATC frequency if they believe they are traffic for an IFR aircraft. They would likely have their licence revoked if they did that.
Yes. They can call on the frequency of a ground outlet and request Flight Following. That’s exactly as we planned with our nas before it was half wound back.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 3rd Jan 2018 at 08:53.
Thread Starter
I notice no one has found the deliberate error. It’s the frequency after 45 dme syd I’m told.
Appears the frequency listed is the class E one for above 8500’.
Easy error because casa reversed the FAA colours. Green for G and brown for E. Opposite in North America
Appears the frequency listed is the class E one for above 8500’.
Easy error because casa reversed the FAA colours. Green for G and brown for E. Opposite in North America
You surely can't be serious right now.and Class E is not green in America....its magenta (what was that about you and their 'de-cluttered' charts again?
) 
You are flying a multi-million dollar twin engined helicopter, and you say changing radio frequencies is too complex?
Thread Starter
Traffic. No. Not for me or you. We are a lot more capable than the average.
However every time a pilot has to look down at the chart or iPad to get the correct frequency and then look inside the cockpit again to change frequency could possibly mean less looking outside. Just possible .
Don’t forget. Before my group made the AMATs changes it was a directed traffic service and the pilot was told when to change frequency and the frequency to change to. We could get that back again for about $70 million a year!
However every time a pilot has to look down at the chart or iPad to get the correct frequency and then look inside the cockpit again to change frequency could possibly mean less looking outside. Just possible .
Don’t forget. Before my group made the AMATs changes it was a directed traffic service and the pilot was told when to change frequency and the frequency to change to. We could get that back again for about $70 million a year!
To be honest I didn't go looking at specific frequencies, I just looked at your route and the changeovers to see if it really was as difficult as you claim. Then I found other simpler routes with negligible distance additions that cut down on your despised frequency changes. A question for you, with your fancy GPS (that not all of us have), how often does the nearest ATC frequency change for you on said flight?
Also, just because you haven't had to announce as traffic to someone, or vice versa, does not mean that your experience is the same as everyone else's. Your experience may vary. Just like ADSB- plenty of us have had benefit from its installation.
If you are wanting to copy "the best" being USA, are you wanting to bring their RTF standards here too? God I hope not.
P.S I've not heard one pilot say they are giving up because the frequency changes are too hard. ASIC, medical, constant rule-set changes that make life actually difficult (part 61 etc) are the sorts of things that are driving people away. Put your efforts here into changing this (oh change, I said a dirty word!) and you'll probably have a lot more support from people; and a better GA industry.
Last edited by Car RAMROD; 3rd Jan 2018 at 13:10.