NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?
 

Don't think this one fits in with the other NAS threads,
Just received the AIC 10/03 amongst the bundle of others.

Just read through the chart simplification and has got me wondering...:confused: Why why why????:* :*

• Removal of FIA boundaries and associated ATS frequency information
• Designated remote areas will be removed from charts
• Addition of specific holding patterns in Class E airspace on VNC charts
• RIS and appropriate approach frequencies will be depicted on VNC and VTC

Ok first point, WHY would we want to remove FIA boundaries and ATS frequency information on VTC and VNC? What additional SAFETY purpose could it hold?

Ditto with removing point two. Several occasions I've had to divert unexpectedly and having this info on particularly the ERC chart has assisted in avoiding the area.

Holding pattern on VNC chart???? Ok, perhaps I'm missing something with the word specific holding patterns. However by its name the VNC is a visual chart. Why do we need to add a holding pattern to a visual chart? Granted IFR pilots should carry necessary visual charts but why would I ever consult a visual chart when IFR when it comes to holding patterns? :eek:

Fourth point, hoooorah! We're getting something of use added to the charts!

Anybody care to add any thoughts?

GA Driver:ok:

I'm off to corner the landing light market in case Operation Lights On is taken seriously. Progress hey!

I think the removal of the FIA and ATS frequencies from the Visual Charts would be so that finding the appropriate frequency to make a tracking call for a VFR aircraft isn't so easy. This will then lead to less VFR calls being made (which is what NAS wants from what I have read) as no one will be bothered looking for it.

I think they should also take it one step further and add appropriate Flight Watch frequencies on the appropriate visual charts (unless i've read point 4 wrong) so that VFR flights can have this information readily at hand as this is the frequency we are being encouraged to use more.

As for the holding points the only reason I can think of is so that VFR flights know where there may be a higher number of possible IFR flights that may conflict with their flight and that VFR flights should stay away from these areas.

They say "removal ... associated ATC information", yet the charts will still display the freq! All the green lines have gone, yet you can still get a freq from the nearest "Dick's biscuit" (you'll understand when you see them.) RIS, approach & FW freq will be depicted the same (they are the same:8 ) The detailed information when one sector is stacked on another in G or E airspace is gone. The sectors are still stacked, but you have only been given one of the frequencies...

The aim is, as somebody else noted, to sabotage VFR broadcasting, and perhaps also to discourage IFR broadcasting, to make everybody look out their windows in the hope this will replace the concept.:confused:

It clearly states in AIP that it is the responsibility of VFR traffic in E to avoid areas of IFR activity. Including the holding points is intended to allow you to do so. "Specific" holding points merely indicates that an IFR could actually be held ANYWHERE.

Removal of the remote areas. Well, they are still in ERSA. It really says something about NAS. There is no compelling reason to remove them, and no justification offered to remove them. It is claimed that goobers don't display them on their charts, so we CAN'T.

Well it is obvious why we need simplified NAS charts by the Photo Below.
 

It looks like these guys have drifted into uncontrolled airspace doing a low level run in a 747 below 5000’ or maybe they are trying to land at Bankstown while they get their photo taken by the hostess.

Great Photo; a lesson on not what to do! :E

http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/dust/aopa.htm/AOPA.jpg

Drover - that is a Herc flight deck(even if you don't know what either flight deck looks like, the olive green flight jacket and gloves should tell you that they are not flying a 747) - exactly the type of AC you have to look out for low level. High speed mil AC at low level are a hazard I have come across occasionally

ps -from the position of the needles on the dials, this photo was taken when the engines were shutdown so I don't think you will see Raafies doing much of this airborne.

Great Photo; a lesson in how little some people actually know!

The goobers don't have them so we can't...

Yet some state produced charts, such as Virginia for example, have the boundaries and advertise this as an advantage and one of the reasons you should come fly in Virginia.

Wonder what the advantages would be? Why don't we recognise them here?

Bottle of Rum

On the subject of designated remote areas, weren't they depicted in the past because aircraft weren't supposed to fly in the areas unless they had those extremely reliable HF radios or some other such thing? What's the point of them these days with improved VHF coverage, GPS positioning, EPIRB's, etc? As far as I am concerned, those depictions of designated remote areas can go follow HF radios into oblivion. Waste of space on the charts.

Out of order I know, but what purpose do the FIA boundary depictions serve anyway? Aren't they just a carry-over from the days of full reporting? If there is no requirement for full reporting, then why have the boundaries marked? Pilots can call on what they determine to be the most suitable frequency. If that doesn't work, they can try another. Even under the pre-NAS arrangement, when do pilots most need to contact other pilots? I would suggest in the CTAF. BIK's Big Sky Theory works perfectly well away from the choke points.

I can understand the concern, but some of these points are just making mountains out of molehills. As Triadic suggested, the NAS education really needs to step up to the plate.

Surely the easiest way for a VFR pilot to know which is the best frequency to call for help, is to have the relevant frequency marked on the chart.

On Track, as karrank mentioned above, the frequencies will still be marked. They just won't be plastered all over the charts with frequency boundaries. Try it and see. I think you will find the arrangements sufficient. If they aren't suitable, then raise the subject at the next available RAPAC and get a vote on putting some additional script back on. I think you will find it far easier getting additions to the charts than getting things removed.

lets see a show of hands, how many of you can't read the current charts.....I can't see the problem all the info can be seen clearly
If it's not broke DON'T fix it

But it IS broke.

The information has absolutely NO use now and will have even less after NAS. Would you like to explain your reasoning for the retention of designated remote areas and FIA boundaries and how they will work under NAS?

Well Lodown, I'll wait till I see the new charts.

However I don't see anything wrong with current layout.

I'm told that these frequency information "biscuits" will not be on the VFR charts i.e. VTC & VNC. The only freq. info. on those will be the APP/Radar freq. within 30nm. The biscuits are purely for the IFR charts.

If you are VFR outside 30nm and want a RIS, or clearance to climb into CTA, or you are in a pickle, the only way to find out what frequency to call on would be to try Flightwatch.

Lodown Whilst I agree that VHF has improved and most A/C carry ELTs nowadays, I dont generally carry survival equipment with me on most charter flights (Other than my lunch! ;) ) Hence why my original post says I wanted to avoid them.


Don't know whether I agree with that one. If I want a clearance through Melbourne Radar's airspace, its going to be no good calling Melbourne Centre on a frequency that is for use 90 miles away!:eek: It's just a waste of everyones time.



Couldnt agree with you more on that one! :ok:

My whole point to the original post, is I dont see that benefit of removing these things. These are items have never caused any hassle before so whats the big problem now?

I'll be interested to see if in 2-3 years some bright spark decides that 'itd be a great idea if we had the frequencies on the chart, imagine the time and effort it would save!' :rolleyes:

Cheers
GA Driver:ok::

I think if we looked into it a bit, Designated Remote Areas were probably set up based on expectations that a search in the area for a missing aircraft would be difficult to undertake because of the equipment and technology available at the time. Pilots of the era had to carry certain survival equipment and utilise contact procedures based on the expectation that communication would be lost and any search for a missing aircraft and its occupants could be a protracted affair. Maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am, but I am also assuming designated remote areas were established sometime in the first half of the last century when satellites were unknown, search teams relied solely on visual cues and the Mark I eyeball, airlines were doing well to have a couple of flights a day on the east coast, other aviation traffic over the areas was almost non-existent and the few helicopters in the country, if any, were devoted to use by the military.
Do those circumstances and reasons for establishing designated remote areas and depicting them on charts still exist?

Regarding FIA boundaries. I think they were established to indicate a changeover point from one frequency to the next for full reporting procedures. If all aircraft were on, or required to be on, the same frequency, then the boundaries would still be useful. But pilots are not on the one frequency anymore. So, other than providing a very, very rough guide for approximate radio coverage, what use are they now? And after NAS comes in, the frequency variations will be even more pronounced with some aircraft on VFR chat freqs, others on Class E, others on CTAF, each with different radio requirements. The frequency each aircraft will be on will be dependent on their altitude, position, configuration, intentions, etc. So what information would you expect to receive from still having the boundaries marked, and how dependable could you expect that information to be? Just my thoughts, but after NAS they will be pointless. There'll be no boundary for a frequency to indicate and VHF radio range will do as it has always done and improve with altitude.

I think while much of this might not seem logical at this stage, it will become apparent and self-explanatory as we become accustomed to working in the NAS environment...I hope.

What the lines do now is indicate very well what frequency to call departing a particular aerodrome, needing assistance or not; you will be in range of the frequency; you will get to talk to an ATC, the right one for the area.
Without lines, it will be hit and miss; no value in the change. ERC-L is loosing the lines; isn't that an IFR (who still need the right frequencies) map?

Bottle of Rum

Apologies on drawing this out, but another consideration is that placing frequency information and boundaries on the charts might do no more than encourage pilots to be on the wrong frequency when they should perhaps be on the CTAF or MBZ frequency. Perhaps there is a safety issue if boundary depictions are retained. Frankly, I would prefer to fly with less clutter on the charts. A little pre-planning and having the frequencies written on a notepad suits me.

Lowdown, your assumptions regarding how Designated Remote Areas came about are a bit off the mark. They were in fact very remote, largely unihabited and inhospitable parts of this country. Survival was known to be 'difficult' in these areas. Not only the obvious bits of SA, NT, QLD and WA were on the list but the Eastern Victorian Great Divide and just about half of Tassy.

Comming down in any of these areas was something one considered and planned for (but hoped like hell the planning was unneccessary). Mind you if you had either an ELT or HF then you had a bit freer hand in your track planning, although there was (and I'm sure still is) some most uninviting real estate around Oz. This was of course all before GPS became all the rage and real men navigated using a pencil, a compass, a watch and a map.

Designated Remote Areas are exactly that, remote areas and they deserve your respect.

Disco Stu

I don't disagree with you. However, when the DRA's were established, in many cases once the crash scene was found, rescuers would have to retrieve the occupants of downed aircraft on foot/horse/camel necessitating a lengthy wait for rescue. Things have changed and in my opinion, the situation of a downed aircraft within a DRA is not necessarily all that different from a downed aircraft in other parts of the country. I just don't think the DRA is as applicable nowadays as it used to be. At the same time, I don't mind much if they remain on the charts. My preference, since the subject came up, is that they no longer serve the purpose for which they were established and as such can be removed from the regs and charts.

(In my younger days had I have come down in a designated remote area and survived the landing, I would have poisoned myself trying to drink the water that we carried in the plane.)