CASA Class G Discussion Paper
How concerning somebody who is so vocal and critical of everybody, doesn't know what he is talking about and has to ask.
Find out and let us know.
Get back on thread. And get out of the way!
Find out and let us know.
Get back on thread. And get out of the way!
It is interesting referring back to the ATSB study of mid-airs, with regard to the angst shown about which frequency to be on at any given time or place, to see that radio use had little impact on the numbers, that the risk is greatest in or near the circuit area (understandably), but overall is extremely low anyway, and that, averaged out per 100000 hrs of GA flying to account for the vastly differing traffic densities, the much vaunted, proven, safe system used overseas results in a 5.8 times greater chance of having a mid air collision once you depart the circuit area.
Perhaps it's much ado about nothing.
Perhaps it's much ado about nothing.
Down here in Victoria, I am almost always within 20 miles of a CTAF, perhaps even more than one.The 20 mile boundary means I will be talking almost all the time.......but to what end? Radios aren't mandatory for CTAF users.
Never been able to bring in low level E like the USA .
One of the reasons is that CASA have done everthing they can to undermine the FAA system where in the US an IFR planned aircraft can climb in VMC in E without a clearance .
In Aus CASA insists that if you have filed an IFR plan and given a taxiing call you are IFR and therefore can’t enter E , even in VMC , without an IFR clearance.
This prevents the fantastic NAS system from working as designed.
Sheer bastardry
One of the reasons is that CASA have done everthing they can to undermine the FAA system where in the US an IFR planned aircraft can climb in VMC in E without a clearance .
In Aus CASA insists that if you have filed an IFR plan and given a taxiing call you are IFR and therefore can’t enter E , even in VMC , without an IFR clearance.
This prevents the fantastic NAS system from working as designed.
Sheer bastardry
Anyone who has done some flying over there knows that the pilot will be issued a clearance, given a clearance void time, and until that time, that uncontrolled aerodrome is treated as one in-one out for all aircraft IFR/SVFR going in...
I bet you wouldn't like to be told that you can't go into Bathurst because a training Duchess has just called up for a clearance and has effectively closed the surrounding Class E @ BTH for all IFR and SVFR a/c. Can't imagine Rex would like the sound of that either.
Can't have the best of both worlds Dick!
Last edited by MikeHatter732; 9th Dec 2017 at 06:01.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radios aren't mandatory for CTAF users.
Going back to having the 'jam tins' is really not a workable option, regardless of the size.
It will be interested to see their risk analysis on this proposal and what other options were considered.
All things considered it might have been easier and safer to just remove the poorly thought out requirement to use the Area Frequency at 'unmarked' airfields, making the MULTICOM the default low level frequency outside of BA's and CTAFs with a different freq - with no dimensions, just recommended practices...
How low is "low level"? Are you suggesting a blanket stratification? Below, say, 3000ft everyone is on Multicom (unless in area with a prescribed alternative frequency), above that they are on the appropriate Area (ATC)? That would keep circuit chatter off Area.
Or 126.7 becomes the default blanket frequency, and the old Area frequencies become just ATC low level frequencies. If you are using ATC services you monitor both if in an airspace where you need to, if not then just Multicom. Don't bother ATC with stuff they don't need to hear.
Or 126.7 becomes the default blanket frequency, and the old Area frequencies become just ATC low level frequencies. If you are using ATC services you monitor both if in an airspace where you need to, if not then just Multicom. Don't bother ATC with stuff they don't need to hear.
the old Area frequencies become just ATC low level frequencies
The FIA's are declared volumes of airspace for exactly that purpose i.e. Flight Information Areas, on which ATC's provide ATS.
All things considered it might have been easier and safer to just remove the poorly thought out requirement to use the Area Frequency at 'unmarked' airfields, making the MULTICOM the default low level frequency outside of BA's and CTAFs with a different freq - with no dimensions, just recommended practices
All things considered it might have been easier and safer to just remove the poorly thought out requirement to use the Area Frequency at 'unmarked' airfields, making the MULTICOM the default low level frequency outside of BA's and CTAFs with a different freq - with no dimensions, just recommended practices
To quote Spodman:
May Jesus pee in a bucket, what are these useless wombats on???
Thread Starter
Mike hatter. Yair. Those Americans are so incompetent.
They have this system where aircraft sit around being delayed and they are too stupid to copy our more efficient system. Then again they don’t have much traffic and they only designed the 747 and we designed the Nomad.
For readers with open minds. ; the US has procedures which result is no measurable delays when compared to
Aus!
They have this system where aircraft sit around being delayed and they are too stupid to copy our more efficient system. Then again they don’t have much traffic and they only designed the 747 and we designed the Nomad.
For readers with open minds. ; the US has procedures which result is no measurable delays when compared to
Aus!
Thread Starter
Does anyone agree with this new CASA proposal for giant 40 nautical mile diameter CTAFs to 5000’?
What’s the bet there is 100% opposition!
Then again Bloggs probably does? Do you Bloggsy?
What’s the bet there is 100% opposition!
Then again Bloggs probably does? Do you Bloggsy?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and then what happens when someone calls up the FSS for a clearance on the ground (which may I add, is the recommended and most commonly used method in the States)...
Anyone who has done some flying over there knows that the pilot will be issued a clearance, given a clearance void time, and until that time, that uncontrolled aerodrome is treated as one in-one out for all aircraft IFR/SVFR going in...
I bet you wouldn't like to be told that you can't go into Bathurst because a training Duchess has just called up for a clearance and has effectively closed the surrounding Class E @ BTH for all IFR and SVFR a/c.
Anyone who has done some flying over there knows that the pilot will be issued a clearance, given a clearance void time, and until that time, that uncontrolled aerodrome is treated as one in-one out for all aircraft IFR/SVFR going in...
I bet you wouldn't like to be told that you can't go into Bathurst because a training Duchess has just called up for a clearance and has effectively closed the surrounding Class E @ BTH for all IFR and SVFR a/c.
Thread Starter
That’s a major point. When VMC exists a competent US pilot operates like we do in Australia and gets going without delay.
When IMC exists they have very enlightened IFR separation requirements that in practice result in a similar outcome to what competent Aussie pilots do in practice. We can simply bring in rules which allow sensible separation like we have now in G.
Even in Aus not many pilots depart an airport in IMC when another aircraft is in IMC on approach. It’s called “ wanting to stay alive”
When IMC exists they have very enlightened IFR separation requirements that in practice result in a similar outcome to what competent Aussie pilots do in practice. We can simply bring in rules which allow sensible separation like we have now in G.
Even in Aus not many pilots depart an airport in IMC when another aircraft is in IMC on approach. It’s called “ wanting to stay alive”
You may be correct about Bloggsie. He runs his own air traffic control system out in the heart of darkness.
Thread Starter
Anyone support the CASA position on Ginenormous 40 nautical mile CTAFs ?
Surely must be someone who works at CASA who does? Or is the whole paper a con!
Surely must be someone who works at CASA who does? Or is the whole paper a con!
Originally Posted by Dick
Then again Bloggs probably does? Do you Bloggsy?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Can we get a comment from a RAPAC member?
It was this organisation that started this very expensive episode. Or are people being ordered not to comment ?
It was this organisation that started this very expensive episode. Or are people being ordered not to comment ?