20nm CTAF Dumped
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Baloon, please get some new material. You keep repeating yourself.
You keep repeating yourself. You keep repeating yourself. You keep repeating yourself. You keep repeating yourself.
You keep repeating yourself. You keep repeating yourself. You keep repeating yourself. You keep repeating yourself.
Mate, I know the risk is infinitesimal, even in the areas where it is most likely to happen, but alerted see and avoid is still better than unalerted see and avoid, and it's not that hard to organize the alerted part. I realize FS is dead and buried, and I agree with your summation of the benefits. In the list of duties of an FSO, traffic provision was a few dot points down the list. Technology has moved on and replaced the job. My beef is with the poster who has a VERY selective memory about the past, and forgets that technology and infrastructure were very different then, but blames all of today's woes on those who worked or flew within that system.
In which class of airspace do you consider that the probabilities of being alerted are higher: Australian E or Australian G?
BSD - at least get the spelling of my name correct.
BSD - at least get the spelling of my name correct.
If you are VFR, neither by the system (ignoring the case in E where an IFR passed traffic information on you may call you, thus 'alerting' you), so the alerting needs to be done by some other mechanism.
Class E and G are designed to minimise participation in the system by VFR aircraft. The onus for separation in E, by design, is on the pilots of IFR-VFR and VFR-VFR conflicts, and there is no standard for that separation. A miss is as good a a mile. Relying on transponders and TCAS is just trying to put a bandaid on an ugly sore.
Class E and G are designed to minimise participation in the system by VFR aircraft. The onus for separation in E, by design, is on the pilots of IFR-VFR and VFR-VFR conflicts, and there is no standard for that separation. A miss is as good a a mile. Relying on transponders and TCAS is just trying to put a bandaid on an ugly sore.
The answer to the question I asked at #63 is a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’.
My apologies. You are correct, fujii. My question is closed, but the answer is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’.
The answer to my question at #63 is ‘G’ or ‘E’.
In which class of airspace do you consider that the probabilities of being alerted are higher: Australian E or Australian G?
The answer to my question at #63 is ‘G’ or ‘E’.
In which class of airspace do you consider that the probabilities of being alerted are higher: Australian E or Australian G?
Indeed. Yet in the thread and report about ZPJ and XGA at YMIA, the TCAS is taken (by some) as Gospel.
And an LCD reporting where s/he think s/he is in G “may not be where they seem”, either...
And an LCD reporting where s/he think s/he is in G “may not be where they seem”, either...
LB, you cannot sit on the fence as a foil for Smith. This is the exact same argument from over ten years ago. TCAS is last line of defence. It is not the first option to cut out a radio service.
........bloody phone friendly page!
........bloody phone friendly page!
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 12th Feb 2018 at 05:11.
Again in English, if possible?
Understood re phones and fat thumbs!
But I still don’t get your last sentence.
As to your comment re Mr Smith, you will see in the other recent thread about the Class G proposal plucked out of CASA’s ar*e that I asked Dick for the devilish detail of the system he wants, and he said he couldn’t provide it. I then said the system he wants will never work.
You see, I agree with Dick on some points, and disagree with Dick on others. It seems an oddly Australian trait that people will disagree with every point made by someone the person doesn’t like, and agree with every point made by someone the person likes. Weird.
At this point in this thread I’m merely getting some amusement from the Galapagos phenomenon that results in intelligent adults holding firmly to the view that Australian Class G is safer than Australian Class E.
But I still don’t get your last sentence.
As to your comment re Mr Smith, you will see in the other recent thread about the Class G proposal plucked out of CASA’s ar*e that I asked Dick for the devilish detail of the system he wants, and he said he couldn’t provide it. I then said the system he wants will never work.
You see, I agree with Dick on some points, and disagree with Dick on others. It seems an oddly Australian trait that people will disagree with every point made by someone the person doesn’t like, and agree with every point made by someone the person likes. Weird.
At this point in this thread I’m merely getting some amusement from the Galapagos phenomenon that results in intelligent adults holding firmly to the view that Australian Class G is safer than Australian Class E.
Some people argue that TCAS and similar tools can be used as a mitigator for reducing radio calls - you can fly around not talking because they can see you on a screen. That's not what it's for. It's to save your arse when all else fails.
Let’s see if I am following your logic.
In the system today, an LCD in the vicinity of an aerodrome with a CTAF in G uses his or her own judgment as to when and where to make radio calls, if any. Remember: There are no compulsory point in time or distance calls for operations in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G. (Port Bloggsland is different, because Port Bloggsland is ‘special’.)
Tomorrow we declare Class E down to the circuit area of the same aerodrome. Are you telling me that the same LCD will make a different judgment as to when and where to make radio calls, if any, in the vicinity of that aerodrome?
Is that what you’re telling me?
And in the G scenario the LCD is not obliged to be flying an aircraft fitted with a serviceable transponder. In the E scenario the LCD is obliged to be flying an aircraft fitted with a serviceable transponder.
That intelligent adults could come to the conclusion that the E scenario is less safe than the G scenario just shows what a splendid Galapagos Australia is.
Lowest Common Denominator.
Us dangerous (scholiaist) private VFR pilots who pose such a high risk to the safety of air navigation.
Us dangerous (scholiaist) private VFR pilots who pose such a high risk to the safety of air navigation.
I cant see what's wrong with the current system of listening on Area, using a discrete CTAF freq from ERSA where applicable and 126.7 elsewhere.
The idea that somehow no communication is safer than the current system is just alien. I want alerted see and avoid wherever possible.
The idea that somehow no communication is safer than the current system is just alien. I want alerted see and avoid wherever possible.
I can’t see what’s wrong with the current system, either. And who said “no communication” is safer?
But the story so far is that (1) a bunch of people pressed for 126.7 to be the ‘low level’ area frequency (in addition to being the ‘default’ CTAF) and (2) CASA plucked the 20nm radius CTAF procedure idea out of its ar*e and, as a result of (1) and (2) we are (3) having a discussion about the various benefits and risks of various classes of airspace, for about the 20th time in the last 20 or so years.
But the story so far is that (1) a bunch of people pressed for 126.7 to be the ‘low level’ area frequency (in addition to being the ‘default’ CTAF) and (2) CASA plucked the 20nm radius CTAF procedure idea out of its ar*e and, as a result of (1) and (2) we are (3) having a discussion about the various benefits and risks of various classes of airspace, for about the 20th time in the last 20 or so years.