My strong suggestion about making a MAYDAY call on area frequency was in response to Draggertail's post about the frequency management practices of the PPLs and RAAus pilots who fly into 'private' strips in Australia

It had nothing to do with international adventures to Outer Mongolia or beyond.

Of course you've a good chance of contacting someone on 121.5. I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert. But the person who broadcast that result couldn't have arranged assistance for me any quicker than Centre or the aircraft I could hear communicating with Centre on the area frequency. And as I said, a 406 GPS ELT or PLB will make noise on 121.5 and provide accurate position information to professional responders, very quickly.

But, as usual, that's not the point.

When it comes to arguing for the banning of 'ordinary' broadcasts from VFR aircraft on area frequency, the number of those broadcasts will put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control.

(In the bizzarro world of aviation in Australia, nobody seems to be interested in facts, like how many movements there actually are, each day, of VHF carrying aircraft to and from strips that are not marked on aeronautical charts, or how often ATC instructions are over-transmitted without anyone knowing. Nup: Just assert that there are thousands of these places and 500 lives are at risk in a 30,000' death plunge, and let the cognitive bias of the punters do the rest. And you d*ckheads wonder why CASA gets away with imposing ever-increasing amounts of regulation on aviation.)

When it comes to arguing that it's OK for VFR aircraft to make requests to ATC for RIS or flight following, the number of those requests won't put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control. (At least in this case there are facts to show whether or not that's true.)

When it comes to arguing against using area frequency for MAYDAY calls, the risk is that Centre may not hear them at all. (Perhaps the person in distress could disguise the call as an ordinary taxi call, to increase the probabilities of being heard?) We could be in Outer Mongolia.

The point is that you change the circumstantial assumptions when the implications become inconvenient for your lost cause.

Creampuff wrote:

"I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert."

Some may see this as a throw away line but it isn't.

On that day, Creampuff flew his BE35 aircraft from YBAS to YLRE and return in support of the 'Cherokee Challenge' guys. (Andy Hardy and Sam Kidd who flew Andy's 1967 Cherokee 'C', G-ATYS from the UK to Australia.) Those guys needed an important structural item for their aircraft. A wreck was found at Longreach to cannibalise the part. So Creampuff, Margaret (from our crew) and Sam Kidd did the trip. I stayed on the ground at Lasseters Resort for the day.

And it was a mission accomplished. But a very long day of flying for Creampuff! :D:D:D

So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.

in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.

You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.

In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!

Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .

Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen

A gentle stir.
 

I reckon we just persuade Griffo out of retirement; ASA made 100 million profit after spending another 90 million on bits and pieces. Shirley they could support and pay for a 'unit' to service flights, hold SAR, handle the HF, take position reports and pass on traffic.

Industry pays a truck load for piss poor service and is now stuck with the expensive 'all singing' transponder rip off.

FSU not FU, seems like a fair call......:D

Dick

We all know what you and triadic wanted.

The fact is that you didn't get it.

That fact is that you didn't get it because lots of people didn't want it.

You can call them concrete minded or whatever you like, but the outcome is the same.

Arguing with people on PPRuNe will make no difference.

If you and triadic want to advise VFR pilots to fly around with the VHF switched off, listening to music on the stereo: go for it.

Just bear in mind that it is open to other people to advise VFR pilots to use their VHF (if they have to carry one) in accordance with the current rules and the current guidance, and to help keep them and others safe.

My concern is that the tactic you're now using is detrimental to general aviation in Australia. When you say 500 people are at risk of the 30,000' death plunge, all the punters do is call for more regulation. Your solution is to cherry pick one characteristic out of a frequency and broadcast system that became cockie cage liner over a decade ago. Those nuances are lost on punters. They just want those dangerous little aircraft banned.

If you really want NAS, it's not the punters you should be scaring. :=

triadic You completely missed it - my comment about RAPAC reps was tongue in cheek - Dick was having a shot at them.

and
I totally agree with what you say about RAPACs and have said on many posts on this forum if you want your point made - talk to your industry rep.

The thing with any proposed change is you must first get industry on side i.e. supportive of the change, understand why it is necessary, the benefits to be gained and address their issues and concerns. Without industry on board you're pushing it uphill.

FWIW that NOTAM expired 2 months ago. The content has been in AIP since then.

Creamy. I have no doubt the necessary changes will be made- either back to duplicated FS and ATC or forward to the NAS.

I would like to see the changes made before an unecessary accident occurs.

Like to place a bet on my success? Say $100 ?

And I havn't scared one punter - just discredited those at CASA who never ask advice or copy the success of others- their minds are set in concrete- just like the Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days!

Nah Dick - the only activity on which I make such "investments" is the Melbourne Cup.

If CASA being "discredited" is all that is required to precipitate change, CASA would be a very, very different place today, this zephyr in a thimble notwithstanding.

Good luck. :ok:

Dick, I know your heart is in the right place, but there's a lot of hysteria and disinformation here.

So let me propose how it might work, if the current rules were not already in place:

When I'm flying around in my lightie, I'd like to know that other aircraft in my piece of the sky were on the same frequency as I am. That way, if the need to talk arose, we could do so. Ideally, if we're in an area of radar coverage, we'd be on a frequency where a controller could call out potential conflicts if he sees them. (Given the level of VHF and ADS-B coverage across the country these days, such areas are pretty broad. And, yes, I have been the happy recipient of a few of these calls.)

Should I have a problem, I'd like to be already on a frequency where the best response will come to my distress call. I won't already be on 121.5 as I only have one VHF, and changing channels will be well down the list of things to do.

If I happen to be near one of the parachuting sites you mention, I'd like to know their intentions.

I occasionally go into a private strip, unmarked on any chart. So, on the off-chance someone is transiting the area as I approach or depart, I'd like him to know about me. Again, we'd need to be on the same frequency. But in all likelihood, I'd be the only one around that strip at the time, so one inbound or taxying call would be all I'd need.

In all the above cases, there's really only one frequency that would serve the purpose, and that's the documented ATC frequency for the area. How do I know what that is? Easy: it's constantly displayed on my OzRunways screen, which most people seem to have these days. Failing that, it'll be on one of the relevant charts which I'm required to carry.

If I go into a busy enough airport, it'll have its own CTAF frequency or, if not , we'll all use 126.7.

Now, let's address the potential for conflict with one of the RPT jets on the same frequency. Should a controller need to send an urgent message to separate two jets carrying hundreds of innocent punters, this implies that several cockups have already occurred. First, either the controller or at least one of the crews has gotten an instruction wrong. Second, the TCAS required on both jets has failed to do its job. And, for the appalling midair to occur, the controller's last-ditch instruction has to come at the same time as a lightie making a taxying or inbound call at an unmarked strip. (Or, for that matter, another jet making a routine report.) That's all incredibly remote.

From my other seat, in one of the aforementioned RPT jets, I can't help but notice the relative peace on the frequencies. That's even on a weekend, with the parachute aircraft and sightseeing lighties going flat out. (And the frequency used by these guys covers only a relatively small area; not the hundreds of miles of jet routes you've previously implied.) The China Southern guy doesn't need to know where Brooklyn Bridge is, because the traffic is not relevant to him. He's in at least Class C all the way, where he knows it's the controller's job to arrange separation for him.

I just don't hear the non-stop chatter of lighties broadcasting intentions at unmarked locations. That's either because they're choosing not to do so or, more likely, there just aren't that many of them.

I'll agree that the promulgation of the instructions on which frequency to be on, was not good. (I still managed to discover it, though.) But really, when bimbling along from A to B, or operating from a strip no-one else knows about, what is the only sensible frequency to use? I'd submit, it's the one everyone else in the area is on.

The alternative is, as seems to happen in areas of the USA, to be on some random frequency and listening to no-one in particular. That certainly fits better with the lofty goals of "free flight; go where you please and tell nobody." But my opinion is, if I have a working radio, and someone else is in my piece of the sky, I'd rather know about him and be able to communicate if really necessary.

So, to summarise, let's look at the ideal frequencies we could use in different areas down in the GA levels. Near an airport with a CTAF? Use that. Known airport with no discrete CTAF? 126.7. Neither of the above? Depicted ATC frequency.

Oh wait, that's what we're already doing.

What Agrajag said.....
Thank you, even the simplest mind can surely grasp his penultimate paragraph. Maybe that is how the rules should be worded.
Hopefully all users of our airspace will apply it.

Agrajag. Don't you have any worries about the 747 incident I quoted where the controllers attention was taken by VFR announcements?

Obviously the controllers have to listen to all these VFR calls- are you convinced this can have no effect on there proper job of keeping IFR airline aircraft apart?

If so. Hope you are correct. Love to see the evidence.

By the way. When you fly through the training area west of BK or up the light aircraft lane do you rely on radio arranged separation? Do you make position reports every few minutes in these areas? If not how do you avoid a collision?

Or are you going to tell me that where the collision risk is greatest your system of radio calls does not work?

Agrajag - well said :ok:

Are they complaining? Submitting reports?

The controllers may believe that those who have given them this system are competent.

They may not know that the present airspace system has come about by ignorance and resistance to change.

Apologies... This got stuck in the prune juice...

Which Cabinet and when, Dick? Cabinet doesn't make the rules under the present system of government and Parliament gave that responsibility to CASA. If Cabinet wants to change this it needs to change the law.

A bit awkward for all those aircraft flying from those unmarked airfields wishing to depart in CTA.

You gave anecdotal evidence, Dick. It would have more credibility if you provided information about the circumstances including when and where (sorry, it's the lawyer thing) and what actually occurred. Was the VFR pilot acting in accordance with the rules at the time?

Those parachutists are being dropped from 14,000 and 15,000 feet respectively. The jump aircraft are clearly in class C and are getting clearances precisely because of potential conflict with other Aircraft in that airspace. Bit embarrassing if one of the jumpers met up with an RPT on descent into Sydney.

The calls at Brooklyn Bridge are mandated (and have been for yonks) because they are aircraft entering the VFR lane below class C (2500) and it gives the RIS chappie a little peace of mind to know that they know they are there and where they are going.

Some may be irrelevant to the foreign captain but not to the controller working to ensure separation in, and avoid unauthorised incursions into CTA.

I don't know about these things, Dick but I like a good argument based on facts, not imagination. Where is the evidence that VFR aircraft are jamming area frequencies? How would you separate a jump aircraft flying at 14000 from an RPT descending through the same levels?

I can't speak for Creamy and he does very well speaking for himself, but I have appreciated the information flow that is provided by Area controllers as I have doddered along on my VFR flights.

I have been grateful for warnings that parachutists are about to drop into the rather busy environs of Point Ormond (midway along the busiest bit of The very busy coastal route between Moorabbin and Point Cook) while I transited same; or the Yarra Valley as I approached that beautifully scenic place from the north. I have heard JR calling in vain on Area to alert an errant pilot that he/she is heading directly into the Nagambie drop zone...they don't learn, Jack, that you try to keep them safe!

And I'm yet to hear anyone taxiing at an unmarked airstrip call anyone.

But the reality is, Dick, you don't have to convince me. I saw Dick Gower post a view similar to your own and I have huge respect for his contribution to GA over many years. So you seem to have RAPAC on side and you have a new DAS to lobby now.

I actually agree it would be better to have a separate FS for VFR and use 126.7 at all those unmarked LGs, but in this brave world of user pays it probably ain't gonna happen. If it does it will be the end of what is left of GA.

The fall back is the status quo.

Kaz

Dick, As a pilot and ATC I know what I thought of NAS :yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

Of course I do, though I must confess I've never heard of it. And, in the day job, I've never yet had my comms with ATC interrupted by a lightie down low.

I think you're asking me to prove a negative there; clearly impossible. And I'd dispute that ATC's "proper" job is just separating heavies. Whilst it may be their priority, in my experience they do a pretty good job of keeping the rest of us informed as well. Again, when in the jet I've never felt they were not paying enough attention to me as a result. In most cases that's because the Class G area frequencies are different to the ones we're on.

I keep my eyes & ears open, and speak up if I need to coordinate with someone. But if there's a private strip I don't know about in such an area, and someone is about to launch from it as I go by, I'd sure appreciate it if he let me know.

Hang on... Weren't we talking about a midair between a couple of jets in the flight levels?

As an option to my previous suggestions, perhaps we need a separate range of frequencies on which the low-level traffic could communicate, not bothering ATC at all. There could even be operators on the ground monitoring these frequencies and passing on relevant information.

Oh, wait...

Waypoint NASUX at the time was slipped in for good reason :)

Media Releases, Journalism and Comments
 

Media Releases, Journalism and Comments by bloggers [which includes all of us] will be caught here:

No surprise in all this. Australia has been slowly turning into a Gulag for some time. Liberal governments changing the laws to suit themselves, the eradication of freeness of speach, the government circumventing parliament, hiding information on boat arrivals, trying to usurp our basic rights and now, effectively, gag Journo's. You might as well name our country North Korea.
And not to mention the way the government systematically stymies transparency and honesty by turning a blind eye to some highly critical and factual evidence of Government corruption and malfeasance in the public service sector which oversights and advises on the aviation industry.

It's a disgrace

I get my area frequencies off the IFR charts when in remote areas

How does a VFR pilot obtain the area frequency boundary information when in an area not covered by a VTC or VNC?

Captain. NAS was the 747 of airspace and our present system is like the australian designed Nomad aircraft.

I agree. There are still a few who reckon the Nomad was OK

It's called delusion !

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