|
Avcharges Evasion?
VFR aircraft settles at an IFR level and requests “Flight Following”. Is this fair enough? To absolve responsibility of “see and avoid”? Thoughts? Clever? |
The responsibility to see and avoid as a VFR will always be there. Day, night, 500', 10,000'+, flight following or no flight following.
Are you trying to gain IFR 'protection' without paying for it? Is this what you mean? |
Flight following for VFR is strictly on a workload permitting basis. That’s why it is free. A pilot would risk CASA enforcement action if operating VFR at an IFR level. |
A pilot would risk CASA enforcement action if operating VFR at an IFR level. Operating VFR at an IFR level AND in IMC, definitely. |
Idiotic. I don’t want (and I presume my passengers agree) to have a mid air collision in my RPT Turboprop with something like a Cirrus who has climbed up to and “settled” at my level and is trying to get out a radio call asking for flight following. |
It’s not a hypothetical. It happened this week, and I thought “What’s going on here?” |
Originally Posted by TwoFiftyBelowTen
(Post 10243064)
It’s not a hypothetical. It happened this week, and I thought “What’s going on here?” I like to keep it simple. I thought the law was clear, VFR aeroplanes fly at VFR levels and IFR aircraft fly at IFR levels. A VFR aircraft does not have the option of using an IFR level. It's not "just in the AIP", it has a legal head of power, going right back to ICAO Annex II. Tootle pip!! |
Are we talking class G or E here or both? Have heard it done and have done it plenty of times in C and E, but of course we know there are requirements that make it safe(r) in both of those, in particular E. It doesn’t always suit to be at a certain level, mainly due weather naturally. |
When you say you have heard and done “it” plenty of times, is the “it” a VFR aircraft cruising at IFR levels? That would be illegal... |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10243871)
When you say you have heard and done “it” done plenty of times, is the “it” a VFR aircraft cruising at IFR levels? That would be illegal... |
That would be all classes of airspace. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10243948)
That would be all classes of airspace. |
Indeed. Just goes to show that despite a couple of decades of ‘reform’ and ‘simplification’, fundamental rules that have been in place for half a century (with a slight hiccup from quandrantal to hemisphical in Australia) seem to escape some of the people produced by this wonderfully ‘safe’ ‘system’. |
I think the rot started to set in from the early 1990's.
That was around the time the briefing offices @ the then GAAP aerodromes started to close. Many pilots including students and instructors used to wander in to the briefing office and ask questions of ATC & FS staff, who in those briefing roles and locations really knew their stuff. Along with the MET man, of course. That availability of face to face knowledge base disappeared, people were left to their own interpretations and what they'd been taught, and here we are. |
A while ago I was shooting the breeze with a private pilot who was scratching his head about an interaction he’d had in the air with a QantasLink pilot about the ‘transition layer’. I had to explain what the transition layer is and why he wasn’t supposed to have cruised in it... I don’t think it’s about the absence of briefing offices, CM. I think it’s more about the slow mediocritization of the instructing system. And the ever-increasing level of regulatory complexity means there’s far more trivial regulatory chaff distracting from the airmanship wheat. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10243948)
That would be all classes of airspace. ATC regularly give IFR cruising levels for VFR in class C. Are you saying that ATC are “breaking the law?” |
AIP ENR 1.7-5 (my bolding):
3. CRUISING LEVELS 3.1 Selection of Levels 3.1.1 Flights must be planned in accordance with levels selected from the tables at Section 5. Any part of a flight that will take place south of 80°S must be planned in accordance with levels selected from the tables at Section 6. 3.1.2 Within controlled airspace, ATC may assign and pilots may request a level that does not accord with the tables in Section 5. 3.1.2.1 Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request. 3.1.3 ATC will only assign cruising level s not conforming to these tables when traffic or other operational circumstances require. I don’t think it’s about the absence of briefing offices, the slow mediocritization of the instructing system Something like the old "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance" >> "Send three and four pence, we're going to a dance". |
Thanks CaptainMidnight, a nice and informative post that clears up the logic behind the point I made. I also note the use of the “must plan” terminology which gives an out when it comes time to the actual flight. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 10244034)
Thanks CaptainMidnight, a nice and informative post that clears up the logic behind the point I made. I also note the use of the “must plan” terminology which gives an out when it comes time to the actual flight. 173 Cruising level to be appropriate to magnetic track (1)When a V.F.R. flight is conducted at a height of 5,000 feet or more above mean sea level, the pilot in command must, subject to any contrary air traffic control instructions, ensure that the cruising level of the aircraft is appropriate to its magnetic track. Penalty: 25 penalty units. (2)When a V.F.R. flight is conducted at a height less than 5,000 feet above mean sea level, the pilot in command must, subject to any contrary air traffic control instructions, ensure that the cruising level of the aircraft is, whenever practicable, appropriate to its magnetic track. Penalty: 25 penalty units. (2A) CASA must notify in AIP or NOTAMS the cruising levels appropriate to an aircraft’s magnetic track. You cruise at an IFR level when operating VFR in E or G: You’re operating illegally unless you’re below 5,000’ AGL and it’s not practicable for you to operate at a VFR level. In controlled airspace you have to plan to cruise at a VFR level if operating to the VFR, but ATC can - obviously - direct otherwise. Note: E is not controlled airspace for VFR aircraft. Please learn the basic rules and comply with them. |
I feel as though you must fly in Qld or somewhere where there are always blue skies and no mountains, or you don’t fly much. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 10244497)
I feel as though you must fly in Qld or somewhere where there are always blue skies and no mountains, or you don’t fly much. One thing that used to astound me was that most of the fish CASA fried threw themselves into the boat. Enjoy your licence while you can. |
Oh that’s right, I forgot you used to work for CASA. |
Here’s what’s going to happen, Squawk: 1. IFR pilots submit numerous reports to ATSB about VFR pilots cruising at IFR levels (and maybe in the transition layer). 2. ATSB passes on aircraft callsign and day/time information to CASA. 3. CASA does a little bit of digging and issues a notice to you, under CAR 1988 301, requiring you to surrender your pilot logbook. CASA uses these to work out you were the PIC of the aircraft the subject of the reports. 4. CASA gives you notice, under CAR 1988 299, requiring you to undergo a test of your knowledge of flight rules and procedures. (4(a). Depending on the seriousness of CASA’s concerns, CASA might suspend your licence, under CAR 1988 265, until you have successfully completed the test at #4.) I’d urge you to entertain the possibility - even the remote possibility - that CAR 1988 173 means what it says and that CASA interprets it to mean what it says. |
And if there is something in yr log book....even way back,.that may incriminate you, nothing to do with the case in hand...do you tug the forelock and comply with the 301 demand ?
Doesnt the law say that you do not have to incriminate yourself.; by statement, written or verbal ? CAsA WILL trawl back thru yr book and should an entry line be incomplete or blank ..LOOK OUT ! If you want to chuck yr money away...much cheaper to relax with a smoke in the airliner dunny.! |
Pilots - in particular new instructors - were largely left to themselves to interpret requirements. You make it sound like they make it up as they go along. As for other pilots, it would have been explained in their training how to choose a level and why. Basic stuff. |
So how do you explain:
Indeed. Just goes to show that despite a couple of decades of ‘reform’ and ‘simplification’, fundamental rules that have been in place for half a century (with a slight hiccup from quandrantal to hemisphical in Australia) seem to escape some of the people produced by this wonderfully ‘safe’ ‘system’. A while ago I was shooting the breeze with a private pilot who was scratching his head about an interaction he’d had in the air with a QantasLink pilot about the ‘transition layer’. I had to explain what the transition layer is and why he wasn’t supposed to have cruised in it... I don’t think it’s about the absence of briefing offices, CM. I think it’s more about the slow mediocritization of the instructing system. |
This might be a clue as to a source of the problem: [A] CFI who is burdened with enough manuals and syllabi to sink a small boat. That paperwork explains how and what will be taught. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10245427)
This might be a clue as to a source of the problem:Part of the art of instructing is the ability to distinguish between wheat and chaff and impart an understanding of the relative importance of each. I suspect that these days it’s mostly: Open wide, here comes a fire hose full of stuff to regurgitate at test time. And all in a "pingya" format for teaching/instructing "compliance", rather than teaching the fundamentals of flying. The volume of CASA "show compliance" paperwork now generated, to do a job that has not fundamentally changed in may years, is just ridiculous. Tootle pip!! PINGYA : Do ------- "so they can't ping you" --- establish a non-compliance. |
LB:
Here’s what’s going to happen, Squawk: 1. IFR pilots submit numerous reports to ATSB about VFR pilots cruising at IFR levels (and maybe in the transition layer). 2. ATSB passes on aircraft callsign and day/time information to CASA. 3. CASA does a little bit of digging and issues a notice to you, under CAR 1988 301, requiring you to surrender your pilot logbook. CASA uses these to work out you were the PIC of the aircraft the subject of the reports. 4. CASA gives you notice, under CAR 1988 299, requiring you to undergo a test of your knowledge of flight rules and procedures. (4(a). Depending on the seriousness of CASA’s concerns, CASA might suspend your licence, under CAR 1988 265, until you have successfully completed the test at #4.) I’d urge you to entertain the possibility - even the remote possibility - that CAR 1988 173 means what it says and that CASA interprets it to mean what it says. |
3.1.2 Within controlled airspace, ATC may assign and pilots may request a level that does not accord with the tables in Section 5. 3.1.2.1 Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request. 3.1.3 ATC will only assign cruising level s not conforming to these tables when traffic or other operational circumstances require. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10246237)
LB:
So to avoid punitive action by CASA, our VFR pilot files no flight plan, switches off the transponder, makes no radio calls and does their best to remain invisible, what a recipe for safe flight. I've encountered an RV pilot who virtually confessed to doing 'a bit of IFR" despite not being IFR rated, to get from A to B sometimes. He was relying on his whizz bang electronics and autopilot. I also seem to recall reading a lament in the crash comics (back when we had them), that the rate of fatalities caused by flight into IFR conditions by pilots and/or aircraft unqualified for the task seemed to remain at a constant rate irrespective of how many articles about how that often turns out that were published over the years in the digest. I think it also mentioned a similar issue with pilots suffering fuel exhaustion (again despite the number of articles published). I sometimes wonder when we comment about the lack of airmanship and pilotage skills exhibited by the newer generation of GA pilots and when we criticise the poor standard of today's instruction and instructors, we may be looking through rose coloured glasses when comparing it to the good old days. I suspect in GA that poor judgement, a lacking of skills and knowledge and poor airmanship are not things that have only just appeared. |
Originally Posted by aroa
(Post 10245315)
And if there is something in yr log book....even way back,.that may incriminate you, nothing to do with the case in hand...do you tug the forelock and comply with the 301 demand ?
Doesnt the law say that you do not have to incriminate yourself.; by statement, written or verbal ? CAsA WILL trawl back thru yr book and should an entry line be incomplete or blank ..LOOK OUT ! If you want to chuck yr money away...much cheaper to relax with a smoke in the airliner dunny.! Many years ago, a lawyer whose time on earth has long since expired, used to advise "losing a long book", because a log book not produced to order was a lower potential penalty than having a "falsified" (to CASA definition) log book. Tootle pip!! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.