IFR being held at 8,500 feet in VMC – less safety
 

We have 1/20 of the traffic and IFR pilots are legally required to prevent collisions by looking out in VMC. What's the problem?

Not this again........................FFS!

:ugh::ugh:

When does anyone have a problem getting a clearance though... this is some serious low quality bait.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I am pretty sure in the situation you describe, the pilots will be operating under visual flight rules until they have their IFR clearance i.e. despite the flight plan they are VFR. And the opposite seems pretty common on approach, cancelling IFR once they are visual and no longer need IFR-IFR separation by ATC.

I don't know if there is a procedure to change from VFR to IFR in the air in Australia - it seems like it must be possible?

By 8000 it already has.

Why would they need to use IFR pickup Dick when they get a clearance. As seaid previously, on the incredibly rare circumstance that there is a delay in clearance, it is due to there being another IFR aircraft in CTA. And you want to just plough on through?

More often than not ATC will propose another option like a radial or heading to expect clearance on with a very minor delay.

Bear in mind that most aircraft that'll hit 8k fast enough to possibly cause a delay will be covered by company ops that require they don't do IFR pickup and furthermore, I know of places that will require the 'passive' party to IFR pickup to ask for avoidance.

How would you feel if you're IFR, punching along at 9k, or 13k and hear some jet denied a clearance due traffic in CTA only to have that jet then ask to punch through you on their own perogative?

I'm not sure I follow your response Dick. The option of IFR pickup exists. The fact of the matter is that it is rarely needed, in the occasions that there is a conflict preventing a clearance, it is common for ATC to provide another option to ensure segregation such as a radial and in the very rare instances where it is used, the passive party wants out of it. Separation standards exist for a reason. Most everyone buys into them and this issue you appear to be trying to highlight is so rare in occuring that it's a non issue.

Say what? Pilot to pilots self-segregation comms on the Class E ATC freq? No! :D

As pointed out by Gruntle (welcome on board the Hampster Wheel) you'd be mad and/or an idiot to let another aeroplane, denied a clearance by ATC, go through your level without finding out where they are and what they are doing. Classic Class E hogpodge. Clayton's airspace.

PS: Glad you finally agree our Class G+ is a great system. :ok:

Please explain what Mt Hotham has to do with this Dick? That was an aircraft flying an arrival procedure in G, what are you suggesting needs to change to prevent a recurrence of such an incident?

I really fail to see (as someone who operates IFR out of Class G daily) how this is necessary or could be justified in Australia with our traffic density.

If there's traffic, talk to them. It's really not that hard.

That is exactly the big sky theory. Talking works most of the time, there have been a few instances where talking failed, and we were reliant 100% on big sky theory. There are almost certainly more we never hear about.

The problem is, accurate navigation i.e. IFR effectively makes the sky a lot smaller. That is why ATC was invented.

Sort of, but only once.

Coming out of Glen Innes in the dead of winter, freezing level well below LSALT with lots of wet, grey cloud about topping at about 9,000. I was IFR, in IMC (but out of the clouds) and ATC said to remain outside controlled airspace.

A quick response of "required due weather" was all it took and the clearance was given.

We have great ATC here in Aus and I really, really had to scratch my head to remember the sole example that might qualify for Ramrod.

This thread should be made into a YouTube video !!

How, just how, did I know that this was going to contain exactly the same drivel as the last 2,000 threads started on the very same subject by the very same person over the past 10 years............. I can hardly wait for the reference to Williamtown Airspace and that bloody VFR lane or whatever it is up there and the Mt Hotham crash........... Oh... I see it's already a few posts back.........oh well, I'll just have to wait for Lismore & Ballina then........

Utter gibberish nonsense

Oggers,
You do understand the extent of E in US, do you? And the slightly different use of terminology with VFR and VMC in the US? Although the result is the same.
Not to mention the ease of getting a clearance in US, or filing airborne, and I am not referring to radar or VHF coverage.
Tootle pip!!

Have you ever tried flying a 737 in the USA? It's great not having to worry about bloody CTA steps on descent like I have to here :rolleyes:

Except if it doesn't agree with your preconception. Then you denigrate and insult.
QED

pp24 of Airservices Corporate Plan??

Dick,

A thinking pilot will set a standard IFR level OCTA (in your example 8,000 west bound OR 7,000 east bound) until receiving the clearance airborne.
It ain't rocket science.

I'm not in the slightest way angry - it's not in my nature, nor do I have a chip on my shoulder........to say that is entirely an assumption on your part

I simply have neither the need, nor indeed desire, to fly in that airspace and frankly, I could not care any less about it. I'm sick and tired of reading the same thing over and over and over again about it.

Having said that ...............as you wish.....