Son you don't want cta. You want g airspace.

How is G any more ‘effective’ than controlled airspace in solving the problem of needing to listen for potentially-relevant information on multiple frequencies in a single radio aircraft?

I can’t imagine why any IFR pilot would ‘want’ G airspace in preference to E (or D or C or B or A), but some apparently do.

With a single radio I have the same problem, if not worse problems, in G.

Easy fix, hire an aircraft with two radios!

Oh wait, you can’t, because over 70% of the GA fleet in this country are pre 1975 models!

(well not really, but you get the point)

Ah, the Good Ole Days ..

Before CTAFs MTAFs MBZs etc, if you were in Class G (OCTA) it was only the relevant FIA frequency to be monitored and communicated on.

:):)

I think a fairly big point is being missed here. If it is VMC you don't need to sit on the ground waiting for an approach to terminate. If it was VMC both the IFR aircraft can cancel IFR and continue their airwork while 30 hundred aircraft depart the aerodrome. It happens on CTAF's in VMC every day between IFR training aircraft. 'Are you happy if we separate visually?' 'Yep'

If you are at Caboolture you're not waiting for anyone, there's no approach there. If there's an IFR doing some sort of let down procedure to LSALT and you had to 'wait' then I'd suggest there's a bigger problem, like, maybe your eyes are painted on? It won't be Class E that forces you to 'wait'

How many days a year at these places are you weathered in, forcing you to wait on the ground until an approach becomes visual? Yet again, it shouldn't be Class E that delays your departure. It will be Class E that stops you welding your aircraft to another.

Why would you cancel IFR? Operating visually clear of terrain and traffic is a perfectly acceptable IFR procedure. Hell, you can even request a VFR climb through class E if you have VMC. No need to throw away your surveillance and SARwatch services.

The important thing that’s relevant to this accident and class E is that the Seminole would not have been given a clearance on the ground to depart if there was overlying class E. In class G they should’ve been given traffic but they weren’t.

Quote:

---

Why would you cancel IFR? Operating visually clear of terrain and traffic is a perfectly acceptable IFR procedure. Hell, you can even request a VFR climb through class E if you have VMC. No need to throw away your surveillance and SARwatch services.

---

Don't cancel it, no problem. You can still operate in the way I laid out.

Quote:

---

The important thing that’s relevant to this accident and class E is that the Seminole would not have been given a clearance on the ground to depart if there was overlying class E. In class G they should’ve been given traffic but they weren’t.

---

'would not' not necessarily. Depends if a procedural clearance could have been issued.

'but they weren't' oh yes they were given traffic. It's the timing of the traffic delivery and the airspace limitations that will be subject to a fair amount of scrutiny in the investigation. You'll just have to wait until 2023-ish to find out.

You can’t depart IFR unless you are cleared to LSALT as a minimum. And you won’t get a clearance if that level is occupied.

Same thing in class G except that they didn’t get the traffic on the ground, they got it on departure. At which point the option to stay on the ground was gone.

you can’t depart in to IMC and then decide to level off below LSALT or MSA because of traffic. Do you see what I’m saying?

Quote:

---

You can’t depart IFR unless you are cleared to LSALT as a minimum. And you won’t get a clearance if that level is occupied.

---

You CAN depart if it's a procedural clearance which includes climb above LSALT.

Quote:

---

Same thing in class G except that they didn’t get the traffic on the ground, they got it on departure. At which point the option to stay on the ground was gone.

---

So now you're saying they did get traffic? Changing your story? Or just refraining from manipulating the facts of what actually happened to suit your agenda?

Quote:

---

you can’t depart in to IMC and then decide to level off below LSALT or MSA because of traffic. Do you see what I’m saying?

---

Yes, as an IFR rated pilot I'm aware of that. Beside the fact none of what I've posted suggests that you do that.

Bodie. That is outrageous if the final report takes until 2003 to come out.

There could be further deaths in that time.

The ATSB would have enough information now to issue an emergency advice.

ATSB report will take a considerable time to prepare and release. What about the ASA report, has that been released?

Dick, what would this advice say?

Bodie, I said they didn’t get traffic on the ground. I was talking about how if there was CTA they would’ve been denied a clearance on the ground. Read it.

They got traffic on departure. 2 minutes before they collided. and they collided at what was essentially LSALT. So even if they got the traffic right after takeoff, they still had no opportunity to do anything. That’s the issue here. Nothing to do with playing VFR and visually separating as you seemed to think that everyone was missing.

My story is exactly that from the preliminary report, I suggest you read it so that you know what everyone else here is talking about.

My only agenda Is uncovering why so much known information was omitted from the preliminary report.

Sunny. A recommendation that AsA look at providing a class E service to low level at the airport because of the density of IFR traffic.

If they can do it for every IFR approach in the USA you would think we could do it at least at the busy airports.

This is a warning of what could happen at Ballina.

Nomde plume, no, you specifically said that traffic wasn't given. Not that traffic wasn't given on the ground. If that's what you meant how about you construct the sentence accordingly.

I'll say it again, they may NOT have been denied a clearance in Class E if a procedural clearance could have been issued.

I've read the preliminary report, it means 2 tenths of sweet **** all. It has NO information in it that you can construct a cause from. There's nothing to 'uncover' from a preliminary report. In fact I don't know why they're published, it serves no purpose.

Dick, the Renmark accident accident took 3 years, so has every other major accident report. This won't be any different.

Ballina is not a question of if, it's a question of when.

SunnySA, I don't know anything about ASA or their investigation process. Traffic was given.

The important thing that’s relevant to this accident and class E is that the Seminole would not have been given a clearance on the ground to depart if there was overlying class E. In class G they should’ve been given traffic but they werent.

Paragraphs: for when you have something to say that fits in two or more sentences. Not sure why you’re fighting that battle mate. No one is arguing they never got traffic. Look at my posts earlier in the thread, I said the exact same thing.

So you’re suggesting SIDs and STARs for all of these airports? Great idea. Good luck with that.

You can construct that JQF was first given traffic info no more than 2 minutes before the two aircraft collided. It explicitly states that.

What I want to know is exactly what was said, and where were the two aircraft relative to each other when the calls were made. It would be very easy to construct by comparing the radar data vs ATC tapes.