I always look at the appropriate chart, Dick. It's called the ERC Low. But I find Ozrunways very handy these days, too.

Don't you ever just fly down below 10,000' looking out the window for a bit of fun?

Bit of it going around at the moment, apparently.

Kaz

Are you saying that VFR pilots must subscibe to IFR charts to get the required info to fly VFR?

Kaz... Ever tried to copy an area frequency boundary from an ERC(L) to a WAC? or better still from a little screen?? Your error might be 25 or 30 miles!

Dick and triadic

VFR pilots have to have access to ERC(L), in order to know the location and boundaries of Romeo and Delta areas, and airspace boundaries, that are outside the coverage of VTCs and VNCs.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

They probably should so that they have an idea of where PRDs are located.

I always thought NAS was the Hughes H-4 of airspace.

Many VFR pilots I have spoken to have difficulty in working out what the correct frequency is when at 8500 in areas where there are different frequencies allocated above and below 8500.

It's a complex nightmare for many- amazing how all the other leading aviation countries in the world don't have such complexity. But we wouldn't even want to know how they do it

We must never copy the success of others Keep the concrete set

Oh for god's sake Dick. I'm getting cross now...

When I was still a student pilot, I was taught that upper airspace limits are inclusive; lower limits are exclusive. If you're at the base level of a piece of airspace, you're not in it. The same applies worldwide. I don't remember anyone having trouble with the concept when I later worked as an instructor.

If "many VFR pilots" have trouble grasping this, a quick chat with someone who knows would clear up their glaring ignorance of basic rules.

So, is this the best case you can make for claiming that the current airspace model needs yet another revision? We've established that the original threat of innocent bodies cascading from RPT jets in the stratosphere is invalid. We also know that the required frequencies to monitor are listed on the same charts used by any responsible pilot to avoid PRD areas. Now we're supposed to rejig the whole system because a few people get confused when they cruise at 8500'?

I'm no longer sure what the agenda is here. You may even have some valid points to make, even if I don't agree with them. But whatever laudable goals you have for the betterment of GA are lost in the noise, when you employ specious arguments such as these.

There's already enough uninformed opposition to the practice of flying light aircraft around the country. You know that your comments inevitably find their way into the slavering jaws of the mass media. Please don't give them more material with which to discredit our activity, by using wildly shifting and hyperbolic anecdotes to support your view.

Very well articulated, Agrajag. I entirely agree with you.

Thank goodness for Ozrunways then.

Many, Dick? Many? Another piece of anecdotal effluvium. Not that many VFR pilots bother climbing that high and almost all of them will have Ozrunways with them, anyway.

Kaz

Always best to presume that, in Australia at least, the agenda is always more about politics, industrial relations or other sectional interests, dressed up as concerns about safety. It's exactly what's happening now with pilot CVD and a section of the medical and regulatory industry that's evolved to make a comfortable living out of scaring punters about non-issues.

Dick and triadic: I notice you've not bothered to answer my question whether you were suggesting VFR pilots are not obliged to have access to ERC(L).

I'll ask my question a different way: What would your advice be to VFR pilots who want to work out whether they are allowed to conduct the following flights:

A VFR jolly from William Creek DCT Prominent Hill DCT Coober Pedy DCT William Creek.

A VFR jolly with a leg Warren DCT Bourke.

A VFR jolly with a leg Parkes DCT Narromine.

(From my limited but first-hand experience, the ERC(L) is essential to working out whether, and if so when and at what altitudes, those jollies can be conducted.)

When a VFR pilot undergoing a flight review is given a diversion, to C, half way along a leg A to B, and all of A, B and C are outside the coverage of VTCs and VNCs, how does the pilot work out how to get to C in accordance with the rules? Any Romeo or Danger areas along the way? What are the hours of activation and altitudes? What if the pilot considers it would be prudent to obtain a TAF and NOTAMs for C?

(From my limited but first-hand experience, instructors will expect the candidate to check the ERC(L) to find out whether there are any airspace obstacles to getting to C, and to obtain a TAF and NOTAMs if the pilot doesn't already have access to them.)

But you're the experts.

Not too many VFR pilots would venture outside their local circuit area without a Garmin and an iPad with Ozrunways. Assuming our hero has enough money to go flying in the first place, he has enough for these gizmos. Both of my devices have frequencies and airspace boundaries in a format that leaves no doubt which is applicable to current position. The Garmin terrain alert is set to 400 feet.
VFR became a whole lot easier and safer when these goodies came along.
Add a paper WAC or ONC to get you home at 1500 feet if all else fails. Otherwise the only use for paper in the cockpit is if you get caught short or have a bad fright.....

Does the Ozrunways VFR package include the low level IFR charts ?

Amazingly in other countries a VFR pilot can use the VFR charts and be compliant.

Ours is a complex system for VFR and clearly not always complied with. Surely that's why in the last month I have not heard one circuit call on an area frequency.

Why the resistance to copying a proven simpler system where pilots can easily comply.

Of course those VFR packages do, Dick, because ERC(L) is a source of essential information for VFR operations outside the coverage of VTC and VNC.

This is a perfect of example of my point about copying the whole of the system that you want.

The US has VFR Sectional Charts covering the entirety of continental USA (and Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands etc). VFR Sectional Charts have a scale of 1:500,000 and, as well as depicting land data like cities, rivers and topography, also show airports, navigation aids and special use airspace, complete with frequencies.

There is no equivalent in Australia, once you’re beyond the coverage of VNCs.

There used to be an equivalent in Australia, called VEC – Visual Enroute Charts – but someone had them scrapped.

When VECs were scrapped, the only remaining source of airspace information essential for VFR operations beyond VNC coverage became ERC(L).

So Dick, when will you be arranging for VFR Sectional Charts to cover Australia, so VFR pilots will cease to be legally obliged to have access to ERC(L)? Surely you will agree that if you are going to "copy" a system, that must involve copying the whole of the system.

And PS: Remember that during the implementation of NAS, VFR pilots were advised to avoid IFR routes ...

Most if not all the areas you quote are in VNC coverage so if what you claim re VFR pilot difficulties interpreting charts is true, that's a sad indictment of the state of training.

Incidentally, where is it prescribed that ERC's are "IFR" only charts?

For the close on 40 years I've been in this game many VFR pilots have also used ERC Lows (and RNCs before them) both inside and outside visual chart coverage because of all the useful info on them, including tracks, distances & LSALTs between major locations, location of IFR waypoints and HPs etc. i.e. data which just isn't available on visual charts.

VEC – Visual En-route Chart.
 

Anyone remember this first class, free series of charts (back in the day). Like an ERC only without the tracks, distances, LSALT etc. Seems to me it would resolve this 'scuffle'. I still have a full series in the library – worked through the puzzles set earlier – a breeze, with the right gear (point to point lines, reporting points, aerodromes, beacons, boundaries, R and D areas and frequencies) all in. Perhaps 'whoever' is making the money out of printing a series of charts which require the VFR bloke (or blokette) to carry, or even consult an ERC should consider 're-thinking' the requirements of aircrew.

Good stuff, a bit like the 'Crash comic'; valuable, useful, informative and supporting 'safer' operations.

Just saying.

When I was taught to fly, the 'old and the bold' said that in a pinch you could navigate safely VFR in Australia on VECs alone.

On reflection, as a middle aged wimp, I reckon they were correct.

A little drift-in a good cause.
 

When something like the VEC is 'scrapped', it has been my habit to keep a version of the last iteration. Creamy's questions earlier prompted a trip down memory lane, which led to a mini 'time, motion and situational awareness' exercise. It went like this:-

Picked a log book from the shelf; opened randomly, put finger on a line and selected the flight from the day. From – to and knocked out a plan using the VEC, straight line first A-B; then modified the track to miss the R and avoid as much D as possible; altered again to maximise use of the available aids; picked out 'reporting/ turning' points; jotted them down on a flight plan, measured tracks, distances and LSALT, picked up the Met data, onto the whiz wheel, time and distance, done and dusted. Fuel calculation from time – all up 12 minutes.

Next the computer 'flight planner' got fired up; same data entered; the data base did not have a couple of the points I wanted, so create user waypoint, find coordinates and modify: enter: off we go. No sweat operation, Met in, Fuel out – 7 minutes all up.

Remember though, this was not a route flown regularly, so there was no standard plan in my system and my knowledge of the route was minimal to say the least, so the WAC was dragged out, just to get a 'feel' for the country and any items which may be of interest. So, perhaps, allowing time to mark the WAC (track and drift lines, six minute markers etc.) I spent a pleasant 20minutes, with a coffee to 'manually' nut out a 'flight plan' and navigation log.

Now I am completely aware that the computer is slicker and quicker; but, and to my mind, it's a big but (don't be rude) doing the 'plan' in the 'old fashioned way' gave me a sense of satisfaction, a feeling of 'preparedness' (for wont of better), options, alternative strategy, escape routes and, IMO an increased 'situational' awareness. The subject flight was lengthy, operated with one ADF, DME and a VOR, no auto pilot and GPS was 'star-wars' gear. It's all changed now; and, in some ways for the better but I wonder what price we have paid for being technologically 'dependent'. The VEC was a great aid to 'situational' awareness, which placed the pilot 'in the picture' from the planning stage, rather than the 'remoteness' or detachment one feels in a modern, all automatic aircraft where the plan is stored and little 'constructive' thinking is required. Enter, Enter, Enter, Enter, Enter, GO.

Anyway – Drift off, two bob well spent.

If anyone is still monitoring this thread, the latest info on the MULTICOM versus Area VHF saga is on a new website at RAPAC Convenors' website