What are the rules in relation to position reporting in non-controlled airspace?
Are we being a bit harsh on Dick. The question of how the VFR guy knows you're there is not a bad one. Criticizing Dick for supposedly not knowing the rules doesn't answer the question of "how does the VFR guy know you're there?". The rules ARE that position reports are not required - so if the sector controller is too busy to give alerts, it is entirely possible that VFR Bruce doesn't know you're there.
Now that I've supported Dick, let me go the other way. Wasn't it you Dick that around 15 or more years ago was pushing a barrow very long and hard about just looking out the window to attain traffic in CTAFs? (or was it MTAFs, or MBZs, or AFIZs). Now that was truly dumb. So many times I've had traffic all over the TCAS and buggar me if I can find em. See and be seen???????? Sure! !!!!!!!!!! Even when I know they're there I can't find em. So shouldn't the VFR guy in your question, descending through your level, just look out the window and see you???????
Hope I'm making sense. Lots of beers.
Now that I've supported Dick, let me go the other way. Wasn't it you Dick that around 15 or more years ago was pushing a barrow very long and hard about just looking out the window to attain traffic in CTAFs? (or was it MTAFs, or MBZs, or AFIZs). Now that was truly dumb. So many times I've had traffic all over the TCAS and buggar me if I can find em. See and be seen???????? Sure! !!!!!!!!!! Even when I know they're there I can't find em. So shouldn't the VFR guy in your question, descending through your level, just look out the window and see you???????
Hope I'm making sense. Lots of beers.
And I would agree that anyone working at CASA in an operational or management role should hold :
- An ATPL obtained on the "new" requirements,
- A current IPC conducted in a transport category aircraft by an airline,
- An be an airline line pilot (even if it is just enough to stay current)
- An ATPL obtained on the "new" requirements,
- A current IPC conducted in a transport category aircraft by an airline,
- An be an airline line pilot (even if it is just enough to stay current)
Like Trevor, I don't like Dick bashing (did I just say that?) but, unless Dick is doing a double twist here, and assuming its Class E where he's talking about...its perfectly in line with his philosophy that got us the Alphabet Airspace.....VFRs look out in E ! So, what's the real problem Dick?
Thread Starter
The problem is this. The airspace was half wound back by putting the 1950s frequency boundaries back on the charts.
A mandate with a big fine was then introduced that required VFR to monitor and announce where necessary to IFR aircraft.
But now IFR aircraft do not give position reports when under surveillance so the system clearly does not work as planned.
What a joke.
A mandate with a big fine was then introduced that required VFR to monitor and announce where necessary to IFR aircraft.
But now IFR aircraft do not give position reports when under surveillance so the system clearly does not work as planned.
What a joke.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if the IFR does make a position report, with all the new waypoint names changes, it is unlikely that the VFR will have any idea whatsoever in those cases where the IFR is.
Recent RAPAC meetings have attempted to raise this matter but have been resisted by Airservices as the changes were undertaken in line with ICAO requirements, even tho' there is workable alternatives. The fact that we share the same waypoint name area with the USA does not help! How the heck could someone in their right mind use a waypoint some 1000's of nm away is beyond me but that is the sort of issue we are up against!
Recent RAPAC meetings have attempted to raise this matter but have been resisted by Airservices as the changes were undertaken in line with ICAO requirements, even tho' there is workable alternatives. The fact that we share the same waypoint name area with the USA does not help! How the heck could someone in their right mind use a waypoint some 1000's of nm away is beyond me but that is the sort of issue we are up against!
Do VFR give position reports in G? What is the difference to the VFR if the "traffic" is IFR under surveillance and not reporting, or VFR not under surveillance and not reporting? It's still the same dot in the windscreen is it not? I guess with the frequencies marked on the chart, if either aircraft wants to talk to the other, they will have a reasonable certainty of knowing which one the other should be listening on.
I occasionally hear Centre reporting me as unverified-altitude traffic to IFR aircraft. I usually pipe up and say I’m at X location at Y altitude on Z QNH. Centre usually asks me to squawk ident. Presumably Centre can then ‘trust’ the altitude from my transponder as verified and disregard me (or otherwise) as a risk to nearby IFR aircraft.
I also occasionally hear Centre broadcasting to multiple VFR aircraft at a particular location, simply to warn of their proximity to each other.
These interactions are probably not necessary, but they certainly cannot hurt so far as I can tell.
The one that I always get a giggle at - because I’m sure it would give Dick conniptions - is when a VFR pilot makes his or her perfect inbound call on Area rather than CTAF, and Centre pipes up and tells the pilot that s/he’s on Area rather than CTAF...
I also occasionally hear Centre broadcasting to multiple VFR aircraft at a particular location, simply to warn of their proximity to each other.
These interactions are probably not necessary, but they certainly cannot hurt so far as I can tell.
The one that I always get a giggle at - because I’m sure it would give Dick conniptions - is when a VFR pilot makes his or her perfect inbound call on Area rather than CTAF, and Centre pipes up and tells the pilot that s/he’s on Area rather than CTAF...
It's mainly to identify you as the unknown VFR in question (or not) as there can be several to choose from.
For anyone reading - we're very definitely not telling you off for broadcasting on area rather than the CTAF, just letting you know the intended audience won't have heard you.
For anyone reading - we're very definitely not telling you off for broadcasting on area rather than the CTAF, just letting you know the intended audience won't have heard you.
The one that I always get a giggle at - because I’m sure it would give Dick conniptions
In level flight, opposite direction aircraft are separated by the cruising level rules (would have been nice to hit someone at 89° instead of 179° but, whatever...). IFR will be making a pre-descent radio call, which will alert VFR. IFR also make departure calls, which also alert VFR. These calls, of course, are made on the frequencies for the FIAs marked on the charts, which are being monitored by VFR as pointed out by The Love Doctor.
While a VFR may not have to also make these calls, if they do not, they are an idiot, and are endangering themselves and others.
As usual, your comprehension skills let you down Bloggs.
I didn’t suggest there’re no safety implications of broadcasts on the wrong frequency. My amusement arises from an irony that evidently escapes you.
I didn’t suggest there’re no safety implications of broadcasts on the wrong frequency. My amusement arises from an irony that evidently escapes you.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. Some idiot rammed through changes without bothering to check if the implementation was in accordance with a certain organisation's legal requirements. Such changes that were implemented properly stayed. Those that weren't were wound back. The idiot lost interest, we have a half-implemented system a decade later.
Over NW @ 8000 you are in coverage of SSR and primary radar. Workload permitting you will get a radar advisory on VFR traffic, maybe even on a non-transponder aircraft. Over Upper Combucter West @ 8000 there is no surveillance coverage, but your position report may spark interest from the cloud of VFR over the airport. Risks are mitigated, procedures are simple.
Despite the above, I agree. I like having the green lines on the chart, I find it reassuring to reliably dial up a freq I can belt out a mayday on to an interested audience if required. The NAS frequency 'cloudy biscuits' were just hopeless, even the minimal information they provided at the time being fought against by a certain idiot. Having the information available lets motivated pilots use it. I don't believe enforcement of such a system adds any real safety benefit. A power-mad regulator attempting enforcement of such a system is just farcical, and yet another example of CASA's mania to enforce their concept of safety even if it hurts aviation as a whole.Conclusion: Support your campaign to remove the concept of compliance from what frequency VFR listen to (if any) in enroute airspace. Leave the green lines and numbers on the charts.
Folks,
You can (in G) but you don't, because the UK (and most others, except Australia) systems do assume that pilots will apply common sense, as opposed to our "system" of blind and mindless compliance with a criminal law based system that attempts to describe, prescribe and micro-manage everything, including even before you get out of bed in the morning ---- assumed sleep apnea based on BMI.
Tootle pip!!
You can (in G) but you don't, because the UK (and most others, except Australia) systems do assume that pilots will apply common sense, as opposed to our "system" of blind and mindless compliance with a criminal law based system that attempts to describe, prescribe and micro-manage everything, including even before you get out of bed in the morning ---- assumed sleep apnea based on BMI.
Tootle pip!!
It is not just aviation that has an abundance of regulation. Last night I saw some well meaning but off with the fairies person wanting more regulatory control on food to stop people getting fat!!! As if that will stop idiots who stuff their faces.
Too true!!
The good old Australian answer to everything : " They should make a regulation ----------".
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have just had a great idea: Make being fat a strict liability criminal offense, 50PP. That will fix it, it fixes all aviation problems, doesn't it??
