CASA Class G Discussion Paper

[BlockNotAvailable]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

No. By removing the frequency boundaries and recommending pilots monitor and announce when flying in the airspace used for approach and departure from an airport the best situational awareness will occur .

Primarily because it is a simple system without complex dimensions and created frequency boundaries.

And it complies with the commonsense test.

I must be stupid. What area frequency do they broadcast on if they don't know which one they are on?
I don't hear them very often, but Rex and QL often will broadcast inbound. But not many else do. Sometimes you hear VFR announcing their location and intentions, but most VFR pilots don't use the area frequencies to broadcast, and most IFRs don't use it to call inbound on descent. I know they're out there, I can see them!!

Also if we were to provide ATC services to A012AGL, every single regional services controller would also need an approach rating (as well as currently a radar and procedural control ratings). For what benefit? We pass traffic and give suggestions based of IFR and known VFR traffic right? Wouldn't we use the same information to separate? To what? "You're there the same time as a medevac Flydoc, suggest reduce by 25kts to make some space" "Due medevac traffic, reduce by 25kts indicated" I mean whats the point in spending the money, when our job is to do our best to make OCTA traffic not hit. (Here's the real headline, we do that in CTA do with a different method.) It's not like VFRs are likely to respond to us in E (or G) 99% of the time anyway. TBH as much as we suggest, the pilots have to make their own decisions, and sometime they don't listen and I don't blame them. If I say you'll pass behind but they go down 1000 ft I don't blame them at all. Pilot's in charge. Also if lower CTA was introduced, by God you will be delayed. The CTA mindset kicks in and the 'one for mum' extra bits will be added in.

[Dick Smith]

VFR don’t broadcast on any “area frequency “. There is no need as they are flying at an ICAO 500’ cruising level. They are on the CTAF when in a particular airports approach and departure airspace.

No extra delays if you allow ATCs to use the same separation “standards” that are used by pilots in IMC in existing class G.

Yes it requires new rules.

Are you suggesting the FAA NAS system in non radar airspace results in excessive delays?

Why do you reckon the Americans are so stupid?

[fujii]

If frequency boundaries are removed, which frequency should I select? A guess, stay on one I selected a hundred miles back? VFR does broadcast on area frequencies. If I have an emergency, navigation difficulty or a sick passenger, you can be sure I will be broadcasting and would like a boundary so I know I should be in range and get an answer.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, what separation "standards" are used by pilots in IMC in G? Controllers don't do that in the US, so why are you wanting us to?

[BlockNotAvailable]

Originally Posted by le Pingouin

Dick, what separation "standards" are used by pilots in IMC in G? Controllers don't do that in the US, so why are you wanting us to?

It's the "I'm not going to hit them" standard. Can you imagine if we tried using that in CTA

Also can you inform me Dick, of what procedural separation standard they would use for two successive arrivals, or an arrival and departure that wouldn't delay an aircraft? Must be a good one! USA sure has come up leaps and bounds ahead of us on that front.

[triadic]

Area Frequency boundaries.....

Firstly Australia is I believe the only country that publishes same.

If you remove the boundaries, the ATC frequency for best use would be in 'biscuit' located on the chart somewhere near the outlet. If you call on the wrong one, you get transferred.

There are many locations where VHF coverage on the nominated frequency is not available, but is available on another nearby or adjacent sector. Only local knowledge will tell you that. In those circumstances the boundaries are not required.

Any change must be subject to the appropriate education and life will go on and nobody will notice the difference

[le Pingouin]

And if we don't remove the boundaries? The sky certainly doesn't fall in, most people will be happy, there will only be the same tired old wailing from the same handlful and no re-education required. Show us the cost benefit analysis for removing them........

[Plazbot]

"Firstly Australia is I believe the only country that publishes same."

It's not. While most of the dribble eminating from DICK is just noise,there is an unfortunate stream of similar claims from the other side.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. There is another country. It’s PNG

That’s a great one to harmonise with. That will bring us lots of international flight training students.

The only reason CASA is proposing rediculous prescriptive unique 40 mile diameter CTAFs is to solve the problem introduced by the frequency boundaries .

Plazbot. If you are going to defame me why don’t you post under your own name?

Fuji. If you were obsessed with monitoring an atc frequency you could monitor the closest ground outlet. All good gps units will show you that.

[fujii]

Fuji. If you were obsessed with monitoring an atc frequency you could monitor the closest ground outlet. All good gps units will show you that.

Dick, there is no need for the low key personal attack. I am not obsessed. How about:

Fujii, you could monitor the closest ground outlet. All good gps units will show you that.

[Dick Smith]

Nothing should be a secret in aviation safety and you would think CASA would encourage a culture of openness and accepting responsibility, especially in risk management.

Just look at this table from the CASA risk assessment brief for the Discussion Paper DP 1610AS – Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace. Yes, all of the names have been blacked out. Is there a good reason that they can’t be named?

[Dick Smith]

Block. Are you suggesting that our jet airline captains would blunder on into IMC in the terminal area when another aircraft was there and it was not safe to do so?

Wouldn’t they hold in the air or on the ground so that adequate safety was ensured?

Surely then the delays would be the same !

Or are you suggesting that the present ATC separation standards are more restrictive than they need to be to give adequate levels of safety?

[le Pingouin]

Existing sep standards are what they are. They're international standards so good luck in changing them!

[BlockNotAvailable]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Block. Are you suggesting that our jet airline captains would blunder on into IMC in the terminal area when another aircraft was there and it was not safe to do so?

No. I'm asking what standard will be used for two arrivals or an arrival and departure. All we do is separate to the base of CTA, then it's up to the pilots. I can tell you they get closer than our sep standards allow. That's up to them. What you are suggesting is just do what US ATCOs do. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY DO? Please?

I don't know how pilots self separate, and frankly I don't care. I tell them what I know about traffic, and they use their experience to stay apart.

[Dick Smith]

Monitoring 121.5

Now that I have shown it is mandatory to monitor 121.5 in the USA, I thought others may be interested in what the ICAO recommendations are in relation to 121.5. Here they are:

ICAO ANEX 10, Vol II

5.2.2.1.1.1. Aircraft on long over-water flights, or on flights over designated areas over which the carriage of an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) is required, shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz, except for those periods when aircraft are carrying out communications on other VHF channels or when airborne equipment limitations or cockpit duties do not permit simultaneous guarding of two channels.

5.2.2.1.1.2 Aircraft shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz in areas or over routes where the possibility of interception of aircraft or other hazardous situations exist, and a requirement has been established by the appropriate authority.

5.2.2.1.1.3 Recommendation – aircraft on flights other than those specified in 5.2.2.1.1.1 and 5.2.2.1.1.2 should guard the emergency frequency 121.5 MHz to the extent possible.

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by BlockNotAvailable

All we do is separate to the base of CTA, then it's up to the pilots. I can tell you they get closer than our sep standards allow. That's up to them. What you are suggesting is just do what US ATCOs do. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY DO? Please?

If they are getting closer than ATC separation standards allow, hopefully they are operating and separating visually. Otherwise it is just separation based on the "If no-one saw it it didn't happen" big sky standard. There is no basis to believe that pilots can self separate in IMC with equivalent safety as provided by ATC. Self separation in IMC should have greater separation than allowed under ATC control.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2008-030/

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Andrew R

Otherwise it is just separation based on the "If no-one saw it it didn't happen" big sky standard.

Absolute nonsense. Get off your flight sim.

If you want ATC to the ground, find the few-hundred mill for the extra ATCs and consoles and while you're at it, put ADS-B in all aircraft. That'll make things nice and SAFE.

[andrewr]

Absolute nonsense. Get off your flight sim.

So how do pilots self separate in IMC better than ATC could do it?

Not much IFR traffic OCTA?
Not much real IMC OCTA?
No minimum separation standards?

[werbil]

Pilots can use GNSS for separation, ATC can't. Comparative range and bearing from any waypoint.

Pilots can also use the theoretically impossible to collide self separation standard even though it doesn't comply with an ATC separation standard.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

mandatory to monitor 121.5 in the USA

But only if you are capable. If you are not, then it's not. As reflected in the ICAO you you quoted.

re Post #280

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Yes you were!

I'll repeat. No you weren't.