CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Thread Starter
Car. I must admit I don’t hear other VFR pilots popping up and making self announcements when an IFR aircraft could be close ,on these flights.
Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage
What a complete joke of a system! It worked a bit in the old flight service days because everyone had to give full position reports as FS officers were not allowed to look at a radar screen.
It is pathetic what some of you are trying to justify. All about resistance to change!
Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage
What a complete joke of a system! It worked a bit in the old flight service days because everyone had to give full position reports as FS officers were not allowed to look at a radar screen.
It is pathetic what some of you are trying to justify. All about resistance to change!
What's next? We don't have a nav log because we don't want to look down? We can't look at our approach plate because we are looking inside once again?
I was taught as a student pilot to note the frequencies down in advance while flight planning onto my navlog. I would put the frequency either next to the turning point where I would change the frequency (or if it was half way along a certain leg, put it in between the two points on the paper plan).
Car. I must admit I don’t hear other VFR pilots popping up and making self announcements when an IFR aircraft could be close ,on these flights.
Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage
It is pathetic what some of you are trying to justify. All about resistance to change!
Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage
It is pathetic what some of you are trying to justify. All about resistance to change!
If the controller sees two aircraft which may come into close range of each other, they put out a safety alert to alert the two pilots - I still don't understand how you think this is a bad thing... and no if the two aircraft did hit, its not the controllers fault and they won't get sued as you alluded to before!
You obviously don't maintain a very good listening watch because its a daily occurrence on many of the regional low level sectors and on Sydney Center (Brooklyn Bridge is another prime spot when two aircraft meet at the same time... Yes, both pilots are still maintaining a lookout and abiding by the VFR 'see and avoid'... It's just the controller adding a helping hand, which once again, IS NOT A BAD THING (even though you won't stop going on about how it is....)
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this idea of 126.7 below 5000' and the CTAF distance boundaries... I do however agree with monitoring area frequencies though (no matter what your height is) and having the boundaries on the map, as I have seen it directly improve air safety in numerous scenarios. If that means looking down at a map for 2 seconds to figure out what frequency you need to be on, so be it!
I also am slowly warming to the idea of lower Class E limits around the place as well, but I will not sit here and listen to your constant rhetoric about resistance to change when there is no advantage at removing the boundaries off maps.
Last edited by MikeHatter732; 3rd Jan 2018 at 13:57.
Once again, on the flight and route you proposed, how often does your GPS change the "nearest" ATC frequency?
MikeHatter, a flawed argument indeed.
Every time a pilot looks down and changes the tunes they are listening to (or GPS screen for nearest ATC unit) whilst in Dick's NAS is taking them away from looking outside!
Dick, is this a better summary?
A. the changes you want are:
1. Class G - FIS frequencies not marked as boundaries on charts but outlets shown (similar to AERIS currently?)
2. Class G - VFR - no radio required at any altitude (as opposed to current requirement above 5000')
3. Class G - VFR - if radio is carried, no required frequency to monitor (as opposed to current AIP that says "the area VHF") - (or monitor unicom? or 121.5?)
4. Class E - no frequency boundaries marked on charts but outlets marked
5. Class E - lowering to replace current G in those areas that radar can support it (ie most of the SE Oz 'J Curve')
6. Class E - VFR - need radio but same requirements as VFR in G (ie no mandated monitoring frequency for VFR)
7. Class E - IFR - similar to existing system except you can depart VFR on IFR plan and enter E without clearance and then pick up the IFR clearance.
Is this basically correct?
Also - are there any changes to aircraft transponder/equipment requirements?
B. The reasons you want these changes are:
1. It will be easier to use
2. It will make our procedures similar to other countries (particularly the US)
3. It will encourage more training in Oz of foreign students
Is that correct?
In all of the above, is there anything I have not mentioned that is important or is incorrect?
not exactly sure how I do that...
Jonkster
As I understand it, Dick’s overarching point is that the aviation safety system, including the airspace system, should be designed and run on the basis of objective risk assessments and cost-effective risk mitigation. It’s hard to argue with that point, in principle.
Unfortunately, the aviation safety system in Australia is designed and run as much on the basis of politics, industrial relations (to the small extent that industrial relations isn’t politics), intuition (usually the gross over-estimation of the probabilities of things like mid-air collisions) and the leverage that provides to the bureaucracy (summarised as ‘the mystique of aviation’) as it is on objective risk and cost.
This ‘discussion’ is just déjà vu all over again, again, once again.
There is, in fact, a cultural difference between Australia and countries like the USA, especially in relation to how aviation and individual aviators fit into the ‘fabric’ of society. This thread on Beechtalk is a very real and instructive manifestation of the difference: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/vie...p?f=7&t=147342. I’ll guarantee that there will be Australian aviators and ATCers who would read the content of that thread and conclude that private pilots choosing to fly VFR in the USA are selfish and the airspace and radio arrangements are ‘dangerous’. However, there are some very good reasons why the USA is the greatest aviation nation in the world. One of those reasons is that private aviation is part of the fabric of the culture and an individual pilot’s rights are considered paramount. In Australia, individuals are the playthings of regulators.
Many pilots in Australia don’t spend much time in uncontrolled airspace in proximity to lots of other aircraft. The thought of an unknown, uncontrolled aircraft ‘nearby’ is very scary.
The natural response to the perception of the consequences of an airborne collision is the over-estimation of its probabilities, with the outcome being calls for the imposition of more requirements and restrictions, such as enlarging the areas in which CTAF procedures must be used/MBZs/AFIZs/compulsory radio.
As Dick points out, an objective assessment of collision risk at places like Port Bloggsland or Mildura either justifies e.g. Class D airspace as a cost-effective mitigation of the risk, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then the internationally-agreed airspace classification would be either E, F or G, depending on the risk.
Evidently the airspace regulator does not consider the risk sufficient to justify e.g. Class D at places like Port Bloggsland or Mildura. Whether that outcome is the result of an objective assessment of risk and the cost benefit of Class D - who knows. This is where the political game of pass the stinking parcel gets played. And it always seems that it’s the private/recreational pilots - the ‘lowest common denominators’ - who eventually get the stinking parcel dumped in their laps.
Class D would cost money. Do the airlines want to pay for it? No way. Stinking parcel passed into the lap of the boys and girls at the front of the RPT aircraft that operate in and out of these places. Those boys and girls think - sh*t! - there are all these unknown aircraft out there that are collision risks when I’m inbound to and outbound from uncontrolled aerodromes. And they are the ‘lowest common denominator’. (I always consider that sleight to be as much a reflection on the person’s unconscious evaluation of their own skills and lack of experience as anything else. Some skygods seem to be unaware of how many heavy metal and fast-jet drivers fly light powered or unpowered aircraft in their leisure time.)
The solution? We want to know who’s there, and we want as big an area as possible in which everyone has to broadcast their location and intentions so we can make operational decisions in a timely way. And thus the 20nm CTAF area/MBZ/AFIZ ideas are hatched/reincarnated. (The irony is that there were always exceptions to that rule, and no-radio aircraft have operated in lots of these places. Out of sight/ears, out of mind and no risk!)
Let’s pass the stinking parcel into the laps of the ‘lowest common denominators’. Fit radio and use it or you are banned from this chunk of sky! The operators of Mildura thought they could do this by simply putting a sentence in ERSA. Bloggsie even runs his own air traffic control system at Port Bloggsland, from his seat 0A.
Forget the objective risk: We’ll run this or press for it to be run on the basis of our perceptions.
Nobody wants aircraft to have mid-air collisions. More power to the arms of the people who dedicate their lives on the ground to keeping aircraft separated in flight. But they have small screens with big blips, and a couple of nautical miles looks quite close. And pilots dedicate their lives to not killing their passengers, so the avoidance of mid-air collisions is kinda ‘core business’. But they naturally over-estimate the probabilities of those collisions.
The outcome is that all this time and energy and controversy and change and cost is dedicated to a risk that is orders of magnitude smaller than the risks that are killing people and could be mitigated at less cost. The proximity of another aircraft probably didn’t kill the people in the seaplane tragedy on the river at Cowan in Sydney. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Kingair tragedy at Essendon. It probably didn’t kill the Angel Flight patient in the tragedy at Mount Gambier. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Mallard tragedy on the Swan River. It probably didn’t kill the people on board the C210s near Albany and Darwin. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Metro tragedy at Lockhart River. It probably didn’t kill most of the people who’ve died in aviation accidents in Australia.
Someone will usually pipe up and say: All it will take is one collision with an RPT aircraft at a place like Mildura and there will be and immediate ‘upgrade’ in the airspace or restrictions on the aircraft that may operate near the aerodrome. And that prediction is probably accurate.
But that’s what’s wrong with perception-driven regulation. There is, in fact, no airspace classification that results in zero risk of collisions. None. If you design and build an airspace system on the basis of an objective risk assessment and cost-effective mitigation, you build a system with the understanding that there is a calculated level of risk that a collision will occur, but the cost of mitigating that risk is greater than the cost of the collision. If the counter-argument is that ‘you can’t put a price on a life’, it inexorably follows that all airspace should be Class A - if manned aviation is to occur at all. (And nobody should be allowed to drive on the roads.)
I agree with your implicit point that it’s difficult-if-not impossible to pin Dick down on the all-important devilish-detail of the system he is advocating. He’s his own worst enemy some times.
For my part, I just want a stable system that isn’t constantly fiddled with on the basis of perceived - invariably grossly overestimated - risk.
As I understand it, Dick’s overarching point is that the aviation safety system, including the airspace system, should be designed and run on the basis of objective risk assessments and cost-effective risk mitigation. It’s hard to argue with that point, in principle.
Unfortunately, the aviation safety system in Australia is designed and run as much on the basis of politics, industrial relations (to the small extent that industrial relations isn’t politics), intuition (usually the gross over-estimation of the probabilities of things like mid-air collisions) and the leverage that provides to the bureaucracy (summarised as ‘the mystique of aviation’) as it is on objective risk and cost.
This ‘discussion’ is just déjà vu all over again, again, once again.
There is, in fact, a cultural difference between Australia and countries like the USA, especially in relation to how aviation and individual aviators fit into the ‘fabric’ of society. This thread on Beechtalk is a very real and instructive manifestation of the difference: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/vie...p?f=7&t=147342. I’ll guarantee that there will be Australian aviators and ATCers who would read the content of that thread and conclude that private pilots choosing to fly VFR in the USA are selfish and the airspace and radio arrangements are ‘dangerous’. However, there are some very good reasons why the USA is the greatest aviation nation in the world. One of those reasons is that private aviation is part of the fabric of the culture and an individual pilot’s rights are considered paramount. In Australia, individuals are the playthings of regulators.
Many pilots in Australia don’t spend much time in uncontrolled airspace in proximity to lots of other aircraft. The thought of an unknown, uncontrolled aircraft ‘nearby’ is very scary.
The natural response to the perception of the consequences of an airborne collision is the over-estimation of its probabilities, with the outcome being calls for the imposition of more requirements and restrictions, such as enlarging the areas in which CTAF procedures must be used/MBZs/AFIZs/compulsory radio.
As Dick points out, an objective assessment of collision risk at places like Port Bloggsland or Mildura either justifies e.g. Class D airspace as a cost-effective mitigation of the risk, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then the internationally-agreed airspace classification would be either E, F or G, depending on the risk.
Evidently the airspace regulator does not consider the risk sufficient to justify e.g. Class D at places like Port Bloggsland or Mildura. Whether that outcome is the result of an objective assessment of risk and the cost benefit of Class D - who knows. This is where the political game of pass the stinking parcel gets played. And it always seems that it’s the private/recreational pilots - the ‘lowest common denominators’ - who eventually get the stinking parcel dumped in their laps.
Class D would cost money. Do the airlines want to pay for it? No way. Stinking parcel passed into the lap of the boys and girls at the front of the RPT aircraft that operate in and out of these places. Those boys and girls think - sh*t! - there are all these unknown aircraft out there that are collision risks when I’m inbound to and outbound from uncontrolled aerodromes. And they are the ‘lowest common denominator’. (I always consider that sleight to be as much a reflection on the person’s unconscious evaluation of their own skills and lack of experience as anything else. Some skygods seem to be unaware of how many heavy metal and fast-jet drivers fly light powered or unpowered aircraft in their leisure time.)
The solution? We want to know who’s there, and we want as big an area as possible in which everyone has to broadcast their location and intentions so we can make operational decisions in a timely way. And thus the 20nm CTAF area/MBZ/AFIZ ideas are hatched/reincarnated. (The irony is that there were always exceptions to that rule, and no-radio aircraft have operated in lots of these places. Out of sight/ears, out of mind and no risk!)
Let’s pass the stinking parcel into the laps of the ‘lowest common denominators’. Fit radio and use it or you are banned from this chunk of sky! The operators of Mildura thought they could do this by simply putting a sentence in ERSA. Bloggsie even runs his own air traffic control system at Port Bloggsland, from his seat 0A.
Forget the objective risk: We’ll run this or press for it to be run on the basis of our perceptions.
Nobody wants aircraft to have mid-air collisions. More power to the arms of the people who dedicate their lives on the ground to keeping aircraft separated in flight. But they have small screens with big blips, and a couple of nautical miles looks quite close. And pilots dedicate their lives to not killing their passengers, so the avoidance of mid-air collisions is kinda ‘core business’. But they naturally over-estimate the probabilities of those collisions.
The outcome is that all this time and energy and controversy and change and cost is dedicated to a risk that is orders of magnitude smaller than the risks that are killing people and could be mitigated at less cost. The proximity of another aircraft probably didn’t kill the people in the seaplane tragedy on the river at Cowan in Sydney. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Kingair tragedy at Essendon. It probably didn’t kill the Angel Flight patient in the tragedy at Mount Gambier. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Mallard tragedy on the Swan River. It probably didn’t kill the people on board the C210s near Albany and Darwin. It probably didn’t kill the people in the Metro tragedy at Lockhart River. It probably didn’t kill most of the people who’ve died in aviation accidents in Australia.
Someone will usually pipe up and say: All it will take is one collision with an RPT aircraft at a place like Mildura and there will be and immediate ‘upgrade’ in the airspace or restrictions on the aircraft that may operate near the aerodrome. And that prediction is probably accurate.
But that’s what’s wrong with perception-driven regulation. There is, in fact, no airspace classification that results in zero risk of collisions. None. If you design and build an airspace system on the basis of an objective risk assessment and cost-effective mitigation, you build a system with the understanding that there is a calculated level of risk that a collision will occur, but the cost of mitigating that risk is greater than the cost of the collision. If the counter-argument is that ‘you can’t put a price on a life’, it inexorably follows that all airspace should be Class A - if manned aviation is to occur at all. (And nobody should be allowed to drive on the roads.)
I agree with your implicit point that it’s difficult-if-not impossible to pin Dick down on the all-important devilish-detail of the system he is advocating. He’s his own worst enemy some times.
For my part, I just want a stable system that isn’t constantly fiddled with on the basis of perceived - invariably grossly overestimated - risk.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: California
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still curious of your answer to this question, Dick.
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).
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).
Here in California there is very good radar coverage but it is not universal and there are times when flying even at quite high levels that ATC will tell a pilot who is getting an IFR service that radar contact has been lost. In other parts of the country radar coverage is less complete. There is a good uptake of ADS-B but still most aircraft are not equipped, particularly GA aircraft. I use Foreflight but I don't have, nor do I feel the need to have, ADS-B in.
On a typical VFR instructional flight we have the radio volume turned down so that we can concentrate on the lesson at hand. There is no frequency we are supposed to be monitoring unless we are in the traffic pattern at the airport. Although pilots typically make all the recommended radio calls, and there are only a handful of CTAF frequencies in use, frequency congestion is seldom a problem.
I have discussed the use of flight following with the Designated Pilot Examiner we most often use (on average we are doing 2 to 3 check rides per week) and he prefers candidates not to use it since it distracts from the test. Of-course, when accessing Class D or Class C airspace we do communicate with ATC. I personally use flight following when I'm flying in very congested airspace such as flying to the San Francisco area from here but I don't routinely use it in the Central Valley/Sacramento area.
I flew my Beech Duchess to Oshkosh last year, a round trip total of about 20 hours. As I, and most pilots flying VFR here do, I did not monitor any ATC frequency, including flight following for almost all of the trip. In fact, as you approach Oshkosh, the busiest airspace of the trip, the FAA specifically say that flight following is not available.
Flying IFR here is quite similar to what it is in Australia from a communications perspective. ATC sectors cover varying geographic areas or volumes of airspace depending on how busy they are. In quiet periods, ATC combine sectors but, unlike Australia, they don't use re-transmit so as a pilot you need to be mindful of potential over transmits.
In essence, not having frequency boundaries on the charts is a non-issue. If I need to call ATC I look for the nearest outlet and use that, but most of the time, like most pilots here, I don't want to monitor any ATC frequency unless I'm accessing an ATC service.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: somewhere underneath 3rd rock
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're far more likely to see one of the 50 or so gliders in that general area who didn't make a call at all. Even if you do sight a C172, how do you know it was the one who made the call? The most dangerous situation VFR (in the circuit) is believing you have seen everyone based on radio calls received and then not bothering to look for anyone else.
Lead Balloon, you have obviously never heard of the concepts of unalerted See and Avoid and Alerted See and Avoid. The ATSB/BASI has some stuff on them. Based on your apparent lack of understanding of the limitations of the concepts, I suggest you read and digest.
Looking forward to my Class F CTR at Mildura. Or would a Class E CTR be better to protect me from those LCDs??
Looking forward to my Class F CTR at Mildura. Or would a Class E CTR be better to protect me from those LCDs??
Here is an example of a frequency which is recommended to be listened to in a relatively busy training area (or practise area is what you call them over there).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: somewhere underneath 3rd rock
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
You don't even need to really go anywhere to find an area with lots of appropriate frequencies to monitor.
A glider on a training flight out of Pipers Field (3 miles west of Bathurst) immediately should be monitoring the CTAF for Pipers Field (122.7), Bathurst (127.35) and Orange (119.0). Then also, 126.7 for the new huge CTAFs for the numerous farm strips in the area, 135.25 below 8,500', 118.5 above 8500' before even thinking about the other glider safety frequencies of 122.5 or 122.9 (122.7 is a glider safety frequency as well).
That's 8 frequencies to monitor whilst on a training flight, never going more than 5 miles from Pipers Field - I don't want to even consider the required changes as they are just about constant.
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight:
So common sense applies.
Anyone departing from a strip unlikely to be known would broadcast something like:
ALL STATIONS, ABC C172 taxying at a private strip 22 miles east of Ballarat, departing to the North below 5000.
It's not rocket science ...
So common sense applies.
Anyone departing from a strip unlikely to be known would broadcast something like:
ALL STATIONS, ABC C172 taxying at a private strip 22 miles east of Ballarat, departing to the North below 5000.
It's not rocket science ...
It was just an example and not taking into account the specifics of the particular geographic area.
All I'm saying is if a broadcast in that format was given by someone taxying at a private strip not likely to be well known, any aircraft in the vicinity overhearing it would be able to assess if a conflict may exist or not.
Better than the taxying aircraft a) saying nothing or b) saying "Taxying at Dimwit Downs ...".
What the Captain said.
Wot No Engines, from my perspective, you have completely missed the point of these broadcasts, as has Dick and others. If somebody makes a broadcast, you obviously start looking, if he is close. But far more important, because I will probably not be able to see him initially, is to use the info he gave to keep myself away from him, until we pass (whether using visual manoeuvring to avoid or not).
This could well be overkill if you are in your two bugsmashers (listening to your idevices, tapping on your ipads) and if I was well away from a proper airfield I wouldn't bother. 172 to 172 head-on not a big issue, unalerted see and Avoid. If they collide, a few posters here would say "so what; it was low risk but it happened, that's tough, move along"...
Cream a jet approaching the circuit because some selfish fool wanted either zero radio participation or a Class D tower in accordance with ICAO airspace, and there would be a justifiable uproar. Because some wally sitting in Brussels created alphabet airspace doesn't mean it's right or safe.
Some people just don't get it.
Wot No Engines, from my perspective, you have completely missed the point of these broadcasts, as has Dick and others. If somebody makes a broadcast, you obviously start looking, if he is close. But far more important, because I will probably not be able to see him initially, is to use the info he gave to keep myself away from him, until we pass (whether using visual manoeuvring to avoid or not).
This could well be overkill if you are in your two bugsmashers (listening to your idevices, tapping on your ipads) and if I was well away from a proper airfield I wouldn't bother. 172 to 172 head-on not a big issue, unalerted see and Avoid. If they collide, a few posters here would say "so what; it was low risk but it happened, that's tough, move along"...
Cream a jet approaching the circuit because some selfish fool wanted either zero radio participation or a Class D tower in accordance with ICAO airspace, and there would be a justifiable uproar. Because some wally sitting in Brussels created alphabet airspace doesn't mean it's right or safe.
Some people just don't get it.
Lead Balloon, you have obviously never heard of the concepts of unalerted See and Avoid and Alerted See and Avoid. The ATSB/BASI has some stuff on them. Based on your apparent lack of understanding of the limitations of the concepts, I suggest you read and digest.
Looking forward to my Class F CTR at Mildura. Or would a Class E CTR be better to protect me from those LCDs??
Looking forward to my Class F CTR at Mildura. Or would a Class E CTR be better to protect me from those LCDs??
(1) fitted with radio
(2) tuned to the correct frequency
(3) always broadcasting accurate positions and estimates.
(Yesterday I listened to a perfect inbound call to Griffith broadcast on 126.7. The pilot appreciated my response highlighting that 126.7 is not the Griffith CTAF. On almost every flight I hear Centre informing a pilot that s/he made a CTAF broadcast on the FIA frequency rather than the correct CTAF.)
Presumably you are never so imprudent so as to make any of the above assumptions? (Methinks Wot No Engines understands this point very well.)
But you are conflating the question as to how to increase the probabilities of being able to see so as to be able to avoid, on the one hand, with the question as to the objective probabilities of circumstances that objectively require avoidance action on the other. Rather than try to convince you of what the objective risks are, I’ll merely ask that you describe the airspace arrangements, avionic requirements and pilot requirements that will make you feel sufficiently ‘safe’.
It can’t be airspace in which aircraft are allowed to operate without radios. That knocks out quite a few classes of airspace. It can’t be airspace in which LCDs could be mistakenly broadcasting on the wrong frequency, or broadcasting mistaken position or estimate information, without you or a third party knowing. That knocks out quite a few more classes of airspace. It can’t be airspace in which aircraft are allowed to fly with U/S ADS-B / transponders. Gosh - options seem to have dried up...
What, precisely, are the airspace arrangements, avionic requirements and pilot requirements that will make you feel sufficiently ‘safe’?
Thread Starter
Jonkster, I’m going to do my best and answer your questions from post #585.
Yes, you are right, I do not want the frequency boundaries to be marked on charts as this is clearly giving a message that you can use radio arranged separation when that is no longer possible, as Class G is primarily a see and avoid airspace, you have to remain absolutely vigilant.
If a small number of people make announcements, that means pilots will start looking in that direction and could collide with someone who isn’t announcing. Of course it would be simply impossible for everyone to announce – other than in a circuit area where we have good, sensible procedures (which I support).
No way! There would be no way I would be game to take away at the present time the current mandatory radio above 5,000 feet or in many CTAFs. It is a fundamental religion of many people, including Mr Bloggs, that above 5,000 feet you must have radio in E and G airspace.
All it does is probably reduce safety, because it may give pilots false confidence that they can use radio instead of being vigilant when flying in this airspace. As we know, quite often a pilot can be on the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down.
Not quite. I believe that if you are VFR enroute and flying in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure operations of an airport, you should monitor the CTAF of that airport. Surely that is just common sense.
I don’t put any dimensions on this. Surely any pilot can use common sense to work out where to do this.
At other places, I would recommend using 121.5, as very thorough testing for over 20 years in Australia and around the world has shown that is the frequency you are most likely to get an instant answer – from a high flying airline aircraft. I have even tested this over the Indian Ocean near Cocos Islands and got an immediate answer from a US Hercules.
Yes.
Definitely not. I want to be able to leave airspace for enroute “free in G.” That is the Canadian system, where you can fly in most parts of the country, IFR (on a self-announce basis), without having to pay a toll to the service provider.
In most cases I would leave the Class E at 8,500 feet as it is now, but certainly bring some Class E down to 700 feet AGL at the busy airports which have airline traffic.
Yes.
Yes, I agree with this, however my terminology would be that you can depart VFR on an IFR plan, without having to inform ATC that you are doing this. I believe in the US and Canadian system, where even if you have filed an IFR flight plan, until you have actually received an airways clearance, you can keep climbing in VMC in Class E. In fact, that’s what is expected.
Regarding the transponder requirements, I introduced the transponder requirements for Class E at the level it is now. I believe if we are going to drop Class E to low levels in the terminal area, we should have some type of a procedure to allow a non-transponder equipped aircraft (or one with a faulty transponder) to transit that airspace or land at that airport. It could be simple – having the transponder mandate not below 1,500 feet AGL, or a simple procedure where the plane can call ATC to transit. I think this requires further thought.
Of course, the US system is simpler – you don’t require a transponder at all!
Yes, I agree with your points B1, 2 and 3.
Jonkster, I’m sure there are lots of things we haven’t discussed here. How can you possibly sort this out on an anonymous forum like PPRuNe?
I have been involved in airspace reform since July 1988, and in that time we have gradually moved towards a more international system, with one or two reversals. I am still confident we will eventually get to a more compliant system that will encourage everyone to fly more and be very safe.
A. the changes you want are:
1. Class G - FIS frequencies not marked as boundaries on charts but outlets shown (similar to AERIS currently?)
1. Class G - FIS frequencies not marked as boundaries on charts but outlets shown (similar to AERIS currently?)
If a small number of people make announcements, that means pilots will start looking in that direction and could collide with someone who isn’t announcing. Of course it would be simply impossible for everyone to announce – other than in a circuit area where we have good, sensible procedures (which I support).
2. Class G - VFR - no radio required at any altitude (as opposed to current requirement above 5000')
All it does is probably reduce safety, because it may give pilots false confidence that they can use radio instead of being vigilant when flying in this airspace. As we know, quite often a pilot can be on the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down.
3. Class G - VFR - if radio is carried, no required frequency to monitor (as opposed to current AIP that says "the area VHF") - (or monitor unicom? or 121.5?)
I don’t put any dimensions on this. Surely any pilot can use common sense to work out where to do this.
At other places, I would recommend using 121.5, as very thorough testing for over 20 years in Australia and around the world has shown that is the frequency you are most likely to get an instant answer – from a high flying airline aircraft. I have even tested this over the Indian Ocean near Cocos Islands and got an immediate answer from a US Hercules.
4. Class E - no frequency boundaries marked on charts but outlets marked
5. Class E - lowering to replace current G in those areas that radar can support it (ie most of the SE Oz 'J Curve')
In most cases I would leave the Class E at 8,500 feet as it is now, but certainly bring some Class E down to 700 feet AGL at the busy airports which have airline traffic.
6. Class E - VFR - need radio but same requirements as VFR in G (ie no mandated monitoring frequency for VFR)
7. Class E - IFR - similar to existing system except you can depart VFR on IFR plan and enter E without clearance and then pick up the IFR clearance.
Regarding the transponder requirements, I introduced the transponder requirements for Class E at the level it is now. I believe if we are going to drop Class E to low levels in the terminal area, we should have some type of a procedure to allow a non-transponder equipped aircraft (or one with a faulty transponder) to transit that airspace or land at that airport. It could be simple – having the transponder mandate not below 1,500 feet AGL, or a simple procedure where the plane can call ATC to transit. I think this requires further thought.
Of course, the US system is simpler – you don’t require a transponder at all!
B. The reasons you want these changes are:
1. It will be easier to use
2. It will make our procedures similar to other countries (particularly the US)
3. It will encourage more training in Oz of foreign students
Is that correct?
1. It will be easier to use
2. It will make our procedures similar to other countries (particularly the US)
3. It will encourage more training in Oz of foreign students
Is that correct?
Jonkster, I’m sure there are lots of things we haven’t discussed here. How can you possibly sort this out on an anonymous forum like PPRuNe?
I have been involved in airspace reform since July 1988, and in that time we have gradually moved towards a more international system, with one or two reversals. I am still confident we will eventually get to a more compliant system that will encourage everyone to fly more and be very safe.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Jan 2018 at 05:24.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon, you have made the following statement:
Lead Balloon, why don’t you pick up the phone and talk to me? The “all-important devilish-detail” simply can’t be explained on PPRuNe. It is quite childish the way this goes on with this site.
We are supposed to have an office of airspace management that should be coming up with some leadership on this issue. Can you believe it, they are not even game to talk to me.
I spoke to Mr Shane Carmody on the phone and offered to give a briefing to his airspace people on what the plans were over the years. He wrote back and basically said, “If we need you, we will ask you.”
It is quite obvious that most of the people at CASA have absolutely no idea in relation to airspace. They have never experienced overseas airspace. They have been put into positions where you need strong leadership and ability to be able to copy the best, however they don’t seem to have those abilities. What a pity.
Then again, maybe they just need some better leadership at the top.
I agree with your implicit point that it’s difficult-if-not impossible to pin Dick down on the all-important devilish-detail of the system he is advocating. He’s his own worst enemy some times.
We are supposed to have an office of airspace management that should be coming up with some leadership on this issue. Can you believe it, they are not even game to talk to me.
I spoke to Mr Shane Carmody on the phone and offered to give a briefing to his airspace people on what the plans were over the years. He wrote back and basically said, “If we need you, we will ask you.”
It is quite obvious that most of the people at CASA have absolutely no idea in relation to airspace. They have never experienced overseas airspace. They have been put into positions where you need strong leadership and ability to be able to copy the best, however they don’t seem to have those abilities. What a pity.
Then again, maybe they just need some better leadership at the top.
The “all-important devilish-detail” simply can’t be explained on PPRuNe.
If it were true, the system will not work.
As Class G is primarily a see and avoid airspace, you have to remain absolutely vigilant.
fly VFR en route listening to the stereo and looking out at the amazing scenery.
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.
Thread Starter
Not so.
If you flew VFR above 5000’ it was mandatory to go full reporting.
Derr. It had to be. We had the quadrantal rule and IFR and VFR flew at the same levels. In fact when you were given traffic you were not advised if it was VFR or IFR.
It cost a fortune for the taxpayer and industry.
About the only thing it did was to engrain in some people’s minds that VFR meant fly by radio otherwise they would die. The myth still exists today. Especially on pprune.
My group then introduced the ICAO semi circular cruising levels. VFR at a different level for the first time.
If you flew VFR above 5000’ it was mandatory to go full reporting.
Derr. It had to be. We had the quadrantal rule and IFR and VFR flew at the same levels. In fact when you were given traffic you were not advised if it was VFR or IFR.
It cost a fortune for the taxpayer and industry.
About the only thing it did was to engrain in some people’s minds that VFR meant fly by radio otherwise they would die. The myth still exists today. Especially on pprune.
My group then introduced the ICAO semi circular cruising levels. VFR at a different level for the first time.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Jan 2018 at 08:06.