|
What are the rules in relation to position reporting in non-controlled airspace?
I flew the Caravan C208B to Merimbula on the weekend and decided to go IFR so I could pay a little bit towards the controllers’ salaries and superannuation through the enroute “toll” charge.
I asked the controller in the Melbourne Centre if I needed to give a position report overhead Nowra at 8,000 feet but was told that this was not required because I was within radar/ADS-B coverage. It appears that commercial pilots routinely do not give position reports in uncontrolled airspace when operating IFR when they are in radar/ADS-B coverage. In looking up the CASA regulations, it looks as if you still have to give a position report under certain circumstances when under surveillance. If you don’t (and I didn’t) how does an unsuspecting VFR pilot who is descending through your level know where you are? As you know, we are the only country in the world that has all of the frequency boundaries on the charts so VFR pilots must monitor and answer IFR pilots when in the vicinity of each other. In this particular case, all the hundreds of VFR pilots flying nearby, monitoring the frequency and passing through my level would have had no idea I was there. Can someone bring me up to date on what the rules are? |
Hundreds of VFR pilots nearby descending through your level?
Doesn't fit the CASA has killed GA narrative. |
It’s tongue in cheek! And before anyone asks Nowra was not active. |
From my experience Dick, in similar airspace where IFR are mixed with VFR, they simply advise the IFR aircraft where the VFR are if they are nearby and are perceived to be a threat. The issues with that are that the controller hasn't necessarily spoken at all to the VFR pilot in class E airspace so he doesn't know who they are or where they are going or even verified their altitude, so they will need to report to the IFR guy as such. You'd have to think the risk was moderately low if you're up high as not many VFR are within the 8,500ft to FL180 but you never know do you, perhaps a VFR L39 from the AOPA L39 owners club could be playing up there! The VFR guy only needs to be capable of comms with ATC and not demonstrate it unless I'm mistaken so who knows if he will respond to requests from ATC... |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10203569)
Can someone bring me up to date on what the rules are?
AIP Enroute - it's all there. Try 10.5 Climb and Cruise Procedures for a start. |
So Captain. What is the answer? Are position reports required overhead NW for IFR in uncontrolled airspace when in radar coverage. It may be a worry to you but do you know the factual answer? |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10203790)
So Captain. What is the answer? Are position reports required overhead NW for IFR in uncontrolled airspace when in radar coverage. It may be a worry to you but do you know the factual answer? Who did your last IPC? hmmmmmmmm Short answer is no, routine reports not required |
The AIP says, unless identified, position reports for IFRs are mandatory. If you are in radar coverage, you are identified, thus they are not mandatory. But of course you are IFR in VMC, so you will be looking out the window, as will the VFR. If you are IFR in IMC, you won't have to worry about the VFRs.
|
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10203929)
If you are IFR in IMC, you won't have to worry about the VFRs.
|
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10203929)
If you are IFR in IMC, you won't have to worry about the VFRs.
|
Its OK Dick...…...You missed me...…..
Or, I missed you....which is the troo story.. ?? Cheers....and Tks again...…. |
"non-controlled airspace", now which letter of the alphabet would that be?
|
VFR and descending through 8000' - cor blimey Dick, I would have a nose bleed before I got to half way to that lofty height.
|
I wouldn't bet my house on that! |
So glad the aviation expert the media keeps running to in this country doesn't know how basic IFR procedures work.
No wonder we are in such a sorry state. |
Don't worry, he knows the procedures. He just likes "asking questions" to score various points.
|
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
(Post 10203699)
That's a worry.
Dick was the head of CASA. He flies turbine fixed, and rotary wing equipment in Australian airspace - he also seems to have an overwhelming desire to make position reports in controlled airspace when radar identified; Just in case some guy/girl in a C152 happens to be there ? WTF. How do we have the ex-head of CASA that doesn’t understand how IFR works ? I won’t even start on the complete lack of understanding of RNP and RNAV from his previous posts. No wonder Oz still lives in the dark ages. |
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10205305)
Don't worry, he knows the procedures. He just likes "asking questions" to score various points.
He wanted the approach charts renamed to match whatever non standard, shonky Garmin Software he was using. Someone should have forced him to try and pass an airline PIC check before he started the job at CASA. No, I don’t think that’s a badge of intelligence, or courage. But it would have given him at least an idea about standardization and how the industry works (unles you own a turbine helicopter of course;) Now, I hesitate to propose a solution. |
Originally Posted by missy
(Post 10203978)
"non-controlled airspace", now which letter of the alphabet would that be?
|
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10203569)
Can someone bring me up to date on what the rules are? |
Are we being a bit harsh on Dick. The question of how the VFR guy knows you're there is not a bad one. Criticizing Dick for supposedly not knowing the rules doesn't answer the question of "how does the VFR guy know you're there?". The rules ARE that position reports are not required - so if the sector controller is too busy to give alerts, it is entirely possible that VFR Bruce doesn't know you're there.
Now that I've supported Dick, let me go the other way. Wasn't it you Dick that around 15 or more years ago was pushing a barrow very long and hard about just looking out the window to attain traffic in CTAFs? (or was it MTAFs, or MBZs, or AFIZs). Now that was truly dumb. So many times I've had traffic all over the TCAS and buggar me if I can find em. See and be seen???????? Sure! !!!!!!!!!! Even when I know they're there I can't find em. So shouldn't the VFR guy in your question, descending through your level, just look out the window and see you??????? Hope I'm making sense. Lots of beers. :) |
Originally Posted by The Love Doctor
(Post 10205464)
And I would agree that anyone working at CASA in an operational or management role should hold :
- An ATPL obtained on the "new" requirements, - A current IPC conducted in a transport category aircraft by an airline, - An be an airline line pilot (even if it is just enough to stay current) |
Like Trevor, I don't like Dick bashing (did I just say that?) but, unless Dick is doing a double twist here, and assuming its Class E where he's talking about...its perfectly in line with his philosophy that got us the Alphabet Airspace.....VFRs look out in E ! So, what's the real problem Dick?
|
I simply cannot believe you just said that...…….
Cheeerrrsss… |
The problem is this. The airspace was half wound back by putting the 1950s frequency boundaries back on the charts. A mandate with a big fine was then introduced that required VFR to monitor and announce where necessary to IFR aircraft. But now IFR aircraft do not give position reports when under surveillance so the system clearly does not work as planned. What a joke. |
And if the IFR does make a position report, with all the new waypoint names changes, it is unlikely that the VFR will have any idea whatsoever in those cases where the IFR is.
Recent RAPAC meetings have attempted to raise this matter but have been resisted by Airservices as the changes were undertaken in line with ICAO requirements, even tho' there is workable alternatives. The fact that we share the same waypoint name area with the USA does not help! How the heck could someone in their right mind use a waypoint some 1000's of nm away is beyond me but that is the sort of issue we are up against! |
Hang on.......is there a time machine in operation here?
https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...ports-g-e.html http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploa...ound-gif-8.gif |
Do VFR give position reports in G? What is the difference to the VFR if the "traffic" is IFR under surveillance and not reporting, or VFR not under surveillance and not reporting? It's still the same dot in the windscreen is it not? I guess with the frequencies marked on the chart, if either aircraft wants to talk to the other, they will have a reasonable certainty of knowing which one the other should be listening on.
|
I occasionally hear Centre reporting me as unverified-altitude traffic to IFR aircraft. I usually pipe up and say I’m at X location at Y altitude on Z QNH. Centre usually asks me to squawk ident. Presumably Centre can then ‘trust’ the altitude from my transponder as verified and disregard me (or otherwise) as a risk to nearby IFR aircraft. I also occasionally hear Centre broadcasting to multiple VFR aircraft at a particular location, simply to warn of their proximity to each other. These interactions are probably not necessary, but they certainly cannot hurt so far as I can tell. The one that I always get a giggle at - because I’m sure it would give Dick conniptions - is when a VFR pilot makes his or her perfect inbound call on Area rather than CTAF, and Centre pipes up and tells the pilot that s/he’s on Area rather than CTAF... |
It's mainly to identify you as the unknown VFR in question (or not) as there can be several to choose from.
For anyone reading - we're very definitely not telling you off for broadcasting on area rather than the CTAF, just letting you know the intended audience won't have heard you. |
The one that I always get a giggle at - because I’m sure it would give Dick conniptions In level flight, opposite direction aircraft are separated by the cruising level rules (would have been nice to hit someone at 89° instead of 179° but, whatever...). IFR will be making a pre-descent radio call, which will alert VFR. IFR also make departure calls, which also alert VFR. These calls, of course, are made on the frequencies for the FIAs marked on the charts, which are being monitored by VFR as pointed out by The Love Doctor. While a VFR may not have to also make these calls, if they do not, they are an idiot, and are endangering themselves and others. |
As usual, your comprehension skills let you down Bloggs. I didn’t suggest there’re no safety implications of broadcasts on the wrong frequency. My amusement arises from an irony that evidently escapes you. |
Hook, Line and Sinker...
|
Bloggs,
I am surprised you needed any bait. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10207430)
The problem is this. The airspace was half wound back by putting the 1950s frequency boundaries back on the charts. No. Some idiot rammed through changes without bothering to check if the implementation was in accordance with a certain organisation's legal requirements. Such changes that were implemented properly stayed. Those that weren't were wound back. The idiot lost interest, we have a half-implemented system a decade later. Despite the above, I agree. I like having the green lines on the chart, I find it reassuring to reliably dial up a freq I can belt out a mayday on to an interested audience if required. The NAS frequency 'cloudy biscuits' were just hopeless, even the minimal information they provided at the time being fought against by a certain idiot. Having the information available lets motivated pilots use it. I don't believe enforcement of such a system adds any real safety benefit. A power-mad regulator attempting enforcement of such a system is just farcical, and yet another example of CASA's mania to enforce their concept of safety even if it hurts aviation as a whole.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10207430)
A mandate with a big fine was then introduced that required VFR to monitor and announce where necessary to IFR aircraft.
But now IFR aircraft do not give position reports when under surveillance so the system clearly does not work as planned.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10207430)
What a joke.
Conclusion: Support your campaign to remove the concept of compliance from what frequency VFR listen to (if any) in enroute airspace. Leave the green lines and numbers on the charts. |
In the UK you can fly IFR without radio contact with anyone.
|
Originally Posted by Checkboard
(Post 10215142)
In the UK you can fly IFR without radio contact with anyone.
|
Originally Posted by Checkboard
(Post 10215142)
In the UK you can fly IFR without radio contact with anyone.
You can (in G) but you don't, because the UK (and most others, except Australia) systems do assume that pilots will apply common sense, as opposed to our "system" of blind and mindless compliance with a criminal law based system that attempts to describe, prescribe and micro-manage everything, including even before you get out of bed in the morning ---- assumed sleep apnea based on BMI. Tootle pip!! |
It is not just aviation that has an abundance of regulation. Last night I saw some well meaning but off with the fairies person wanting more regulatory control on food to stop people getting fat!!! As if that will stop idiots who stuff their faces.
|
Originally Posted by Vag277
(Post 10215745)
It is not just aviation that has an abundance of regulation. Last night I saw some well meaning but off with the fairies person wanting more regulatory control on food to stop people getting fat!!! As if that will stop idiots who stuff their faces.
Too true!! The good old Australian answer to everything : " They should make a regulation ----------". Tootle pip!! PS: I have just had a great idea: Make being fat a strict liability criminal offense, 50PP. That will fix it, it fixes all aviation problems, doesn't it?? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.