An alternative
 

It is disappointing that CASA don't seem to have much knowledge on what happens in Class G and keep trying to put forward suggested solutions that we out in G land know will have significant issues.
A few industry groups have come up with suggestions but sadly they have not reached first base within Fort Fumble.
Their latest proposal in fact suggests that it is ok to operate on both the MULTICOM and Area Frequency at low levels in Class G. This suggestion in fact destroys the aim of having a common frequency (the MULTICOM) at low levels in G. How dumb!
What we need now is some support from industry including the RAPACs to come up with something that will work in a practical sense and is easy to understand and put into practice.
There is support for making the recommended upper limit of the MULTICOM at 3000ft agl. This would help ensure that low level ops would know the primary recommended frequency in that airspace. It would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own frequency.
Further, by bringing 'circuit area' into the discussion they have created yet another distraction and I suggest that 'in the vicinity' is a better description and better caters for aircraft with different performance and allows pilots to make an appropriate judgement on when to make an inbound call.
We need to wrap this up and by standing up to the dumb ideas so far tabled we are more likely to obtain a workable result suitable to the majority.

and Works for me, if the widespread push is for a low level MULTICOM.

I can see 126.7 becoming far busier though, so many ADs that currently use CTAF 126.7 will no doubt apply to CASA to consider allocation of a discrete frequency.

Leady, I concede that having individual frequencies for marked airfields might be a nice to have but in practice it does not meet the need to keep the system simple. The whole idea of the MULTICOM in Oz is to (a) have low level traffic on the same frequency, and (b) having procedures that are simple and easy to understand/teach/use. Fort Fumble have a knack of making something simple almost impossible to understand or work - not only in airspace!

Except in a few areas, I don't believe the congestion on 126.7 is as bad as some make out. We have to move forward on this in stages and if it can be demonstrated that we have a congestion problem in a particular area, then not only do CASA have to ramp up their education in that area, but consideration be given to a dedicated frequency. I understand that the issue of multiple circuit calls is on CASA's hit list for education once this is sorted out. Like it or not we have only a limited number of frequencies available and allocating a frequency at some locations would be a waste of resources, and of course take away some of the desired simplicity. I am of the view that some CTAFs with their own frequency do not have the traffic to justify that. Maybe all CTAFs other than those that serve RPT should be reviewed from time to time. That might free up a frequency or two?

We used to have a system that areas of a manageable size for the volume of chatter had a discrete frequency. Everybody that was flying in what is now Class G was on the same frequency, you didn't have to guess what the most appropriate one was.

To further enhance safety, the frequency was monitored and useful operational information (traffic, estimated crossing times, WX etc) was passed on. Those that monitored the frequency even told you when to change to the next frequency and accepted position reports and SARTIME details from VFR aircraft.

Given the lack of radar coverage it was a great system. Now ADSB provides an opportunity to provide similar services at lower cost (if Australia had adopted the US standard).

In summery, draw some lines on a Class G map, give the box a frequency and everybody in the box monitor it and broadcast when required. Simple.

That nonsense again. Ever heard of the GAFA?

And I reckon that's what we all need to learn to do again. Eyes outside the cockpit, away from iPads and all the rest of the internal distractions. Aviate, Navigate then Communicate VFR in Class G.

Dick,Act and FAR rewrite...your goal! Stop sidetracking on to something that you have been arguing about for nearly thirty years. If you left it alone, it would have evolved into something you would have been proud of. You wanted limited interaction with ATC and no FS...ADS-B coupled with TAAATS would have provided everything you ever wished for...no AMATS,no AIRSPACE 2000 no class G trials, no MBZ/CTAF(R)/CTAF/MULTICOM, all you needed to do was wait for the technology. FS could have been absorbed within the ATS as an enroute position providing DTI for VFR and full service to IFR. VFR submit plan, activate with a departure call and then monitor area frequency. Report any changes to plan if required. Inside SSR/ADS-B coverage track is monitored and reported as traffic to IFR. Outside coverage, rely on virtual track and position reports from IFR. If VFR hears they are traffic by callsign, then keep vigilant. Circuit area traffic only minimum of calls..inbound call, joining circuit, base with intentions. Circuits, line up call with intention, base call with intention. Deparing, line up call with intention, departing circuit with intention and then call ATS with departure report to activate plan....all on area frequency for all airspace BLW CTA.

Gerry111; Or as you would remember, in the case of old 'Uniform Lima', a dodgy Pye Bantam with only the two abovementioned frequencies. And we managed ok, did we not?

And UL was the only BVGC Glider to have a radio IIRC.

True.