CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Thread Starter
CASA Class G Discussion Paper
What a misleading document the CASA Class G discussion paper is.
Such a discussion paper would not be fair and accurate unless it examined the issue of a special FIA frequency boundary chart which was sent out by Airservices without CASA’s approval, and without any educational material at all.
This chart was sent out because of the most abysmal ignorance and resistance to change from some of the least intelligent people in Australian aviation. It resulted in a sort of ‘half wound back’ airspace system. This has been completely left out of the paper.
It is clear that CASA is the most dysfunctional organisation of all time. The people who prepared the paper are either not game, or have been given instructions not to tell the truth to explain that the wind back was due to ignorance, not because of any safety concern.
I haven’t seen any reason why we can’t be like other leading aviation countries in the world and have uncluttered charts without frequency boundaries marked on them. After all, if it can work in Europe, Canada and the USA, you would think it could possibly work here – considering that we have such a low traffic density.
Try to find an ATC frequency boundary on a chart there – you won’t be able to, because they didn’t have an archaic system in the past of flight service giving traffic information to VFR aircraft.
Such a discussion paper would not be fair and accurate unless it examined the issue of a special FIA frequency boundary chart which was sent out by Airservices without CASA’s approval, and without any educational material at all.
This chart was sent out because of the most abysmal ignorance and resistance to change from some of the least intelligent people in Australian aviation. It resulted in a sort of ‘half wound back’ airspace system. This has been completely left out of the paper.
It is clear that CASA is the most dysfunctional organisation of all time. The people who prepared the paper are either not game, or have been given instructions not to tell the truth to explain that the wind back was due to ignorance, not because of any safety concern.
I haven’t seen any reason why we can’t be like other leading aviation countries in the world and have uncluttered charts without frequency boundaries marked on them. After all, if it can work in Europe, Canada and the USA, you would think it could possibly work here – considering that we have such a low traffic density.
Try to find an ATC frequency boundary on a chart there – you won’t be able to, because they didn’t have an archaic system in the past of flight service giving traffic information to VFR aircraft.
Very unkind of you to describe CASA in that way, Dick. On Monday 27 Feb during Estimates hearings the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee asked this question of the Acting Director of Aviation Safety:
Mr Carmody's response was:
You see Dick, in the world of government, perception is reality.
The fact that CASA (and Airservices and ATSB) are complete basket cases and the above interchange is champagne comedy is neither here nor there. "Informed Australians" perceive CASA to be the "pre-eminent adviser on air safety" in Australia.
Luckily for Australians, little of what CASA does has any causal connection with aviation safety. Unfortunately for the aviation industry, the little that CASA does that has some causal connection with aviation safety is often detrimental.
If we were to ask informed Australians who was the pre-eminent adviser on air safety in this nation, do you think that they might nominate your organisation?
No doubt.
The fact that CASA (and Airservices and ATSB) are complete basket cases and the above interchange is champagne comedy is neither here nor there. "Informed Australians" perceive CASA to be the "pre-eminent adviser on air safety" in Australia.
Luckily for Australians, little of what CASA does has any causal connection with aviation safety. Unfortunately for the aviation industry, the little that CASA does that has some causal connection with aviation safety is often detrimental.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sub-committee of the RAPAC Convenors representing the eleven RAPACs Australia Wide concluded their paper on the MULTICOM with the following:
Ask your local RAPAC Convenor for a copy of their paper. As indicated above it supports the establishment of the MULTICOM as the recommended frequency for use at low heights when clear of established CTAF's and Broadcast Areas (BA's).
CONCLUSIONS
• It must be emphasised that the prime method for traffic avoidance for operations in Class G airspace in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) is and always will be SEE AND AVOID. This applies to VFR and IFR planned flights.
• IFR pilots must continue to risk-manage their flights at or near LSALT for the likelihood of VFR aircraft using the MULTICOM 126.7 in the same way they currently do for no-radio VFR flights in Class G airspace.
• The need to have a simple procedure for low-height flights in Class G airspace is based on the use of radio to help enhance the alerting and presence of other aircraft that may be in conflict, especially for VFR operations by recreational aviators.
• Recommended procedures in Class G airspace should make it easy to establish the primary frequency for any location.
• Such procedures are enhanced greatly and are significantly safer if a common and well-known frequency is recommended for radio-equipped aircraft flying at low heights above the ground.
• Having a single commonly-known frequency is a simple procedure that does not rely on other factors such as ATS frequency boundaries and whether or not a landing area is marked on a particular chart.
• The exercising of good airmanship reduces or negates perceived risks such as not being on an ATS frequency for traffic or other flight information services (FIS).
• Simple is Safer, therefore it is our recommendation that MULTICOM 126.7 MHz procedures be recommended for all operations at low heights (below 3000ft or 2000ft AGL) in Class G airspace when clear of established CTAFs and Broadcast Areas.
OTHER ASSOCIATED ISSUES
The following matters flow from this discussion and need to be addressed with industry, Airservices and the RAPACs:
1) Criteria for the marking of ALAs on charts.
2) Marking on charts a symbol for the locations of ATS Area VHF transmitter sites.
3) Removal of ATS Area Frequency boundaries from charts (in conjunction with 2 above).
4) Consider the re-introduction of the Visual Enroute Chart (VEC) or similar (if FIA frequency boundaries remain on charts).
5) Increased pilot education, in particular, the use of radio, trigger broadcasts, airmanship, and See-and-Avoid (collision avoidance) techniques especially for IFR operations in VMC.
6) A review (audit) be conducted of all Broadcast Areas (BAs) and CTAFs with a view to the reduction of the number of frequencies used.
• It must be emphasised that the prime method for traffic avoidance for operations in Class G airspace in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) is and always will be SEE AND AVOID. This applies to VFR and IFR planned flights.
• IFR pilots must continue to risk-manage their flights at or near LSALT for the likelihood of VFR aircraft using the MULTICOM 126.7 in the same way they currently do for no-radio VFR flights in Class G airspace.
• The need to have a simple procedure for low-height flights in Class G airspace is based on the use of radio to help enhance the alerting and presence of other aircraft that may be in conflict, especially for VFR operations by recreational aviators.
• Recommended procedures in Class G airspace should make it easy to establish the primary frequency for any location.
• Such procedures are enhanced greatly and are significantly safer if a common and well-known frequency is recommended for radio-equipped aircraft flying at low heights above the ground.
• Having a single commonly-known frequency is a simple procedure that does not rely on other factors such as ATS frequency boundaries and whether or not a landing area is marked on a particular chart.
• The exercising of good airmanship reduces or negates perceived risks such as not being on an ATS frequency for traffic or other flight information services (FIS).
• Simple is Safer, therefore it is our recommendation that MULTICOM 126.7 MHz procedures be recommended for all operations at low heights (below 3000ft or 2000ft AGL) in Class G airspace when clear of established CTAFs and Broadcast Areas.
OTHER ASSOCIATED ISSUES
The following matters flow from this discussion and need to be addressed with industry, Airservices and the RAPACs:
1) Criteria for the marking of ALAs on charts.
2) Marking on charts a symbol for the locations of ATS Area VHF transmitter sites.
3) Removal of ATS Area Frequency boundaries from charts (in conjunction with 2 above).
4) Consider the re-introduction of the Visual Enroute Chart (VEC) or similar (if FIA frequency boundaries remain on charts).
5) Increased pilot education, in particular, the use of radio, trigger broadcasts, airmanship, and See-and-Avoid (collision avoidance) techniques especially for IFR operations in VMC.
6) A review (audit) be conducted of all Broadcast Areas (BAs) and CTAFs with a view to the reduction of the number of frequencies used.
It's a discussion paper about your beloved Multicom, Dick, if you hadn't noticed, not Rollback, from your preferred system where uncontrolled, unknown VFRs were mixing it with RPT jets. Contrary to your ramblings about "some of the least intelligent people in Australian aviation", CASA is laying the Multicom issue on the table for all to have a say. There are good arguments for each system.
Have your say!
As for you, LB, what would you expect Mr Carmody to say? What would you have answered?
Have your say!
As for you, LB, what would you expect Mr Carmody to say? What would you have answered?
I would have answered the question honestly.
Australians who are informed about aviation would not nominate CASA as the pre-eminent adviser on air safety in Australia. The fact that CASA presumes that role or is assumed by the uninformed to have that role is merely an appeal to authority or an assumption rather than a judgment of the substance of the matter.
You should read the report arising from the ASRR.
Australians who are informed about aviation would not nominate CASA as the pre-eminent adviser on air safety in Australia. The fact that CASA presumes that role or is assumed by the uninformed to have that role is merely an appeal to authority or an assumption rather than a judgment of the substance of the matter.
You should read the report arising from the ASRR.
Thread Starter
Triadic. Sounds sensible. CASA are not considering going to the proven simple North American system .
The paper proposes two types of half wound back system.
If a simpler system works around the world with far higher traffic densities you would wonder why it wouldn't work here.
Minds are set in concrete. No wonder the morale is so low. I wonder why the Board does not ask why we just can't harmonise with the simplest.
In our present system flying VFR you can monitor hundreds of calls that have no importance.
The paper proposes two types of half wound back system.
If a simpler system works around the world with far higher traffic densities you would wonder why it wouldn't work here.
Minds are set in concrete. No wonder the morale is so low. I wonder why the Board does not ask why we just can't harmonise with the simplest.
In our present system flying VFR you can monitor hundreds of calls that have no importance.
So Bloggs, you think an industry that does not trust CASA nonetheless considers CASA to be the pre-eminent adviser on air safety?
You don't even know who runs CASA.
You don't even know who runs CASA.
Who runs CASA, Bloggs?
MULTICOM 126.7 MHz procedures be recommended for all operations at low heights (below 3000ft or 2000ft AGL) in Class G airspace when clear of established CTAFs and Broadcast Areas.
The CTA LL being 2500 and lower means that aircraft will no longer be on the FIA and therefore would be uncontactable by ATC in the event of penetrations of the CTR or CTA (check the link below, "Airspace Infringement Hotspots"). Also unless dual VHF, IFR will be out of comms with ATC if proceeding through Class G airspace, thus no SIS or SAR.
I recall someone at the Victorian RAPAC was once pushing for a broadcast area which would do the same thing, and the proposal was rejected both by ATC and CASA for these reasons.
Airspace infringement | Airservices
Marking on charts a symbol for the locations of ATS Area VHF transmitter sites.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Dick, if it works in the US, why can't it work here with lower traffic densities? Why can you fly over the top of O'Hare at 10,000ft VFR, no clearance required and you can't do it at Tulla or Kingsford Smith?
Vote 1: Nanny State.
Vote 1: Nanny State.
I would imagine that it could be very 'handy' knowing where your nearest ATS VHF site is located - if only for the purpose of selecting that frequency IF within range, and making your 'mayday' or 'pan' call, or your 'request' DIRECT TO ATS, should you need to.....
Better than a 'call in the blind' hoping that someone is within range to hear you and relay for you, your request / position or whatever...
Cheers
Better than a 'call in the blind' hoping that someone is within range to hear you and relay for you, your request / position or whatever...
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 3rd Mar 2017 at 00:50. Reason: spelling...
Ah yes...it's coming back now.
'Dick's Biscuits' on the charts. I may still have one.
'Dick's Biscuits' on the charts. I may still have one.
I'm going to go crazy here and say what's the problem with having frequency boundaries marked on charts?
Green and brown lines on ERC with frequency boxes saying what the most appropriate frequencies to listen out on have never gotten in the way of me being able to read the other information as far as I can tell, and they're pretty bloody handy when at medium levels and you want to know what is the best freq to punch out a mayday on or try to get some operational information.
Why wouldn't you want those details on there, all past history aside?
Green and brown lines on ERC with frequency boxes saying what the most appropriate frequencies to listen out on have never gotten in the way of me being able to read the other information as far as I can tell, and they're pretty bloody handy when at medium levels and you want to know what is the best freq to punch out a mayday on or try to get some operational information.
Why wouldn't you want those details on there, all past history aside?
Marking on charts a symbol for the locations of ATS Area VHF transmitter sites.
I'm interested in the point of this. Why do I care where a ATS VHF transmitter is physically located? What operational decisions do I make on the basis of that information?
I'm interested in the point of this. Why do I care where a ATS VHF transmitter is physically located? What operational decisions do I make on the basis of that information?
the area freq boundaries are designed mainly for high and medium air routes
Certainly, there are advantages for having the boundaries on the charts. If you're not in the weeds, you know who to call and more importantly you know what freq other aircraft will be on (unless in the weeds on the Multicom
). Likewise, I see the (possible) advantage in knowing where the transmitter is. Over here, probably half the transmitters are shown anyway, being at airports. I can't see an issue with adding the non-airport transmitter locations on the charts: wouldn't increase clutter at all.I wonder though whether Dick would fly around studiously tuning the nearest outlet JIC?
I find it interesting that the RAPAC subcommittee is now pushing for removal of FIA boundaries from charts, given it was RAPACs nationally who demanded that they be returned to the charts.
I recall their comments at the time, such as biscuits with no boundaries being useless, boundaries were far more easily interpreted, particularly the fact they aligned with an ATC sector's responsibility for that area including vertical limits for Class G and E comms.
The biscuits on current charts within FIA and Class E areas already include the outlet location, something introduced when the boundaries were returned way back.
I recall their comments at the time, such as biscuits with no boundaries being useless, boundaries were far more easily interpreted, particularly the fact they aligned with an ATC sector's responsibility for that area including vertical limits for Class G and E comms.
The biscuits on current charts within FIA and Class E areas already include the outlet location, something introduced when the boundaries were returned way back.
They have the name of the location, which is not quite the same as having a map symbol denoting the actual location.
And the biscuits on the current charts aren't true biscuits. Back in the (very short) day they were the shape of Arnott's Milk Coffee biscuits (with the wiggly edges).
But I agree that the on-and-off-again arguments about boundary depictions is confusing.
And the biscuits on the current charts aren't true biscuits. Back in the (very short) day they were the shape of Arnott's Milk Coffee biscuits (with the wiggly edges).
But I agree that the on-and-off-again arguments about boundary depictions is confusing.