Running out of rego’s
Perhaps I'm confused (happens a fair bit to be honest) but am I the only one thinking that one number and two letters will give you even less callsigns than three letters, there being 26 letters in the alphabet and only 8 available digits (not counting 1 or 0 as mentioned above)?
Ahhh... disregard, I see now that they can come in any order, so there's heaps more permutations - or is that combinations?
Ahhh... disregard, I see now that they can come in any order, so there's heaps more permutations - or is that combinations?
Seems there are quite a few drones that have picked up VH- regos of late. Why can’t they be in a block of their own and leave some traditional rego’s to more conventional aircraft? After all, the gliders had a lot in the G block for many years. Drones could be VH-D2A etc.... I’m sure there would be others?
Always happy to be proven wrong of course - then I'll have learnt something.
Originally Posted by mustafagander
Do we really have numbers of aircraft on the Oz register approaching 17,576??
Why on Earth are drones given VH registration?
Seems a return to some understanding of basic principles might help. VH and other country prefixes, and their corresponding registries, exist primarily to show evidence of nationality of aircraft flying internationally. Since when do ‘Australian’ drones fly internationally?
Seems a return to some understanding of basic principles might help. VH and other country prefixes, and their corresponding registries, exist primarily to show evidence of nationality of aircraft flying internationally. Since when do ‘Australian’ drones fly internationally?
. Given they aren't mandating everyone change from the current VH-AAA to VH-AAA/N, rather they are adding an extra 8 possible figures in one column, I think it should be calculated as 26*26*34 - as it doesn't matter where the numeral is inserted, the *34 can be used anywhere in the formula.
If I had to wager, an Aussie drone could fly internationally if its owner brought it overseas and flew it there 
As for why they need registration in the first place well I suppose that is CASA's decision to make. I can see an argument for it as it helps to identify drones that are ostensibly operated by people who should know the rules about where they should be flown. I don't believe they are given a VH registration though?
As for why they need registration in the first place well I suppose that is CASA's decision to make. I can see an argument for it as it helps to identify drones that are ostensibly operated by people who should know the rules about where they should be flown. I don't believe they are given a VH registration though?
I see. So you think that an Australian citizen who happens to be in the USA and buys a drone to fly while in the USA will be applying for and granted VH registration for that drone by CASA?
As to your second point, there are many aircraft flying around in Australia without VH registration. Have you heard of RAAus, for example? CASA seems to think there’s no ‘regulatory risk’ in those aircraft not being on the VH register.
As to your second point, there are many aircraft flying around in Australia without VH registration. Have you heard of RAAus, for example? CASA seems to think there’s no ‘regulatory risk’ in those aircraft not being on the VH register.
Since when is VH-XXX exclusively a 'GA registration'. Last time I looked, Part 135, 138, 121, etc. operators used the same registrations.
I vaguely recall a proposal some years ago (maybe mid-90's) to change the Australian prefix from VH- to V-.
The Canadians did this 40-odd years ago, and changed from CF- to C-, thus freeing up thousands of new possibilities.
As I see it, starting a VI- prefix would only cause confusion; what if VH-ABC and VI-ABC are on the same frequency at the same time?
The Canadians did this 40-odd years ago, and changed from CF- to C-, thus freeing up thousands of new possibilities.
As I see it, starting a VI- prefix would only cause confusion; what if VH-ABC and VI-ABC are on the same frequency at the same time?
Not necessarily on the airline side. Even the old DCS that Qantas and most of the world's airlines used (and the new Amadeus Suite is much more flexible) would take any registration combination you entered. We could have gone into the system and changed all of the QF regos to AU-OJA, AU-OJB, VHOJA, VH-OJA or whatever. The only requirement the system had was that if you selected an aircraft type under a Qantas flight, the registration would have to match how the registration was entered in the table of registrations. This was sometimes confusing as Load Controllers would go from one BA type system to another and some operators would leave the hyphen out in between - e.g. ZK-NCN would be set up as ZKNCN (not saying NZ did this, just as an example).
It was set up like this for a very good reason, like when Qantas wet-leased that 747-123 that still had a US registration and with PH-MCF.
Don't know about non airline software.
It was set up like this for a very good reason, like when Qantas wet-leased that 747-123 that still had a US registration and with PH-MCF.
Don't know about non airline software.
With quite a lot of commercial flight operations using the airline flight numbers these days for radio comms, the problems may be more likely administrative rather than operational.
Adding another letter on the end of the existing three letter suffix seems a reasonable solution. The British and the French operate thusly - and have done so for years - so any potential issues there would seem to have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Where ops require aircraft identification by rego rather than flight number (or military designation), more precise radio procedures may be required, and everyone needs to be alert for the possibility of potential errors, but surely we are up to that. The expansion of data base requirements at all levels to fit the extra character needed could be something of a challenge, but we came through Y2K pretty well unscathed. In any event - we already have RAAus aircraft in the operational mix using the 2+4 numerical combinations, so changes in the mainstream aviation system should be quite workable if and when they become essential.
Finally, from what read, I think ICAO may well need to be involved in any change anyway.
Adding another letter on the end of the existing three letter suffix seems a reasonable solution. The British and the French operate thusly - and have done so for years - so any potential issues there would seem to have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Where ops require aircraft identification by rego rather than flight number (or military designation), more precise radio procedures may be required, and everyone needs to be alert for the possibility of potential errors, but surely we are up to that. The expansion of data base requirements at all levels to fit the extra character needed could be something of a challenge, but we came through Y2K pretty well unscathed. In any event - we already have RAAus aircraft in the operational mix using the 2+4 numerical combinations, so changes in the mainstream aviation system should be quite workable if and when they become essential.
Finally, from what read, I think ICAO may well need to be involved in any change anyway.
Why on Earth are drones given VH registration?
Seems a return to some understanding of basic principles might help. VH and other country prefixes, and their corresponding registries, exist primarily to show evidence of nationality of aircraft flying internationally. Since when do ‘Australian’ drones fly internationally?
Seems a return to some understanding of basic principles might help. VH and other country prefixes, and their corresponding registries, exist primarily to show evidence of nationality of aircraft flying internationally. Since when do ‘Australian’ drones fly internationally?