Flightwatch VHF gooooooone!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Seems to me Jack is a little on the unstable side.....you sure you want him at ATC TOBZ?
I think we all know the problem, and its not because the operators are useless at all. They are quite the opposite. Its the system. Too much being asked from too little.
I have had similar experiences at times as to those described by Squawkie and Forkie, and within 300 miles of the coast, so not exactly outside the VHF footprint.
So stop shooting the messenger would ya Jack.
J
I think we all know the problem, and its not because the operators are useless at all. They are quite the opposite. Its the system. Too much being asked from too little.
I have had similar experiences at times as to those described by Squawkie and Forkie, and within 300 miles of the coast, so not exactly outside the VHF footprint.
So stop shooting the messenger would ya Jack.
J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW,
The real problem is the half-arsed approach given to the facilites provided to Flighwatch. ATC taking over FS freqs to fill in gaps in their coverage (totally reasonable proposition) left holes in the remaining coverage.
Actually go and look at ERSA GEN - FIS, Section 9 Flightwatch VHF Organisation.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...0-Aug-2007.pdf
None of the FW freqs have secondary equipment available in the case of a failure so that is another hole.
But with the complete provision of FIS by ATC on FIA freqs, all the "cannot contact FW" situations are gone.
I don't know how to put this but I will try again...your location reference the coast is irrelevant.
Flightwatch VHF coverage is not universal. It does not cover the entire country nor does it even give complete coverage down the entire east coast.
ATC have more freqs and transmitter sites than Flightwatch and therefore you will be able to have two-way vhf comms with ATC and not flightwatch...
...and even where ATC and FW freqs are co-located, the FW antenna is way lower on the mast in most if not all circumstances and therefore does not afford the same coverage.
Go look at ERSA, note the FW freqs and locations and give it a fair dinkim go.
The real problem is the half-arsed approach given to the facilites provided to Flighwatch. ATC taking over FS freqs to fill in gaps in their coverage (totally reasonable proposition) left holes in the remaining coverage.
Actually go and look at ERSA GEN - FIS, Section 9 Flightwatch VHF Organisation.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...0-Aug-2007.pdf
None of the FW freqs have secondary equipment available in the case of a failure so that is another hole.
But with the complete provision of FIS by ATC on FIA freqs, all the "cannot contact FW" situations are gone.
I have had similar experiences at times as to those described by Squawkie and Forkie, and within 300 miles of the coast, so not exactly outside the VHF footprint.
Flightwatch VHF coverage is not universal. It does not cover the entire country nor does it even give complete coverage down the entire east coast.
ATC have more freqs and transmitter sites than Flightwatch and therefore you will be able to have two-way vhf comms with ATC and not flightwatch...
...and even where ATC and FW freqs are co-located, the FW antenna is way lower on the mast in most if not all circumstances and therefore does not afford the same coverage.
Go look at ERSA, note the FW freqs and locations and give it a fair dinkim go.
"I don't know how to put this but I will try again..."
FW on VHF as it has existed for the past X years has been completely useless to the average working pilot - at least in the part of Australia where I fly.
It is complete crap to suggest that it has been viable if you are near enough to a station. The whole f*cking point of the argument is that the coverage has not been enough to be of any use.
Smartarse f*cking remarks about tuning the correct frequency etc add nothing to the discussion.
Dr
FW on VHF as it has existed for the past X years has been completely useless to the average working pilot - at least in the part of Australia where I fly.
It is complete crap to suggest that it has been viable if you are near enough to a station. The whole f*cking point of the argument is that the coverage has not been enough to be of any use.
Smartarse f*cking remarks about tuning the correct frequency etc add nothing to the discussion.
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 27th Oct 2007 at 03:12.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fantasy Isthmus
Age: 51
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JackoSchitt,
I'm confused - what is your connection to all of this?
According to this thread, you're not a pilot, a Flightwatch operator or an ATC - what difference does it make to you about the current status of Flightwatch?
I'm confused - what is your connection to all of this?
According to this thread, you're not a pilot, a Flightwatch operator or an ATC - what difference does it make to you about the current status of Flightwatch?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TLAW,
Sorry to answer your question with a question but...
...but does one need to have a direct connection to something to have an opinion or be able to enter a debate?
Does someone have to be affected by something before they can highlight a deficiency or make a comment?
If anything, I am expressing opinion of some people who wish to remain off the record but still want a message out there.
As for me personally, absolutley no difference what so ever.
Sorry to answer your question with a question but...
...but does one need to have a direct connection to something to have an opinion or be able to enter a debate?
Does someone have to be affected by something before they can highlight a deficiency or make a comment?
If anything, I am expressing opinion of some people who wish to remain off the record but still want a message out there.
As for me personally, absolutley no difference what so ever.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackschitt,
Can't agree with you more. There's nothing better than trying to sequence a busy gaggle whilst broadcasting AFOR's for some poor dude who may already have his hands full with some unexpected WX condition.
It's an absolute crock!!!
Can't agree with you more. There's nothing better than trying to sequence a busy gaggle whilst broadcasting AFOR's for some poor dude who may already have his hands full with some unexpected WX condition.
It's an absolute crock!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OS,
You might like to actually read the posts here to understand the flow of the debate. I was asked what difference the current state of Flightwatch make to me and I responded with the words you quoted.
How exactly is that relevant to your question/statement???
However, in response, I'm sorry to disappoint you but there are way better things to ponder in the universe than to waste time thinking about hating ATCs. scheech.
You might like to actually read the posts here to understand the flow of the debate. I was asked what difference the current state of Flightwatch make to me and I responded with the words you quoted.
How exactly is that relevant to your question/statement???
However, in response, I'm sorry to disappoint you but there are way better things to ponder in the universe than to waste time thinking about hating ATCs. scheech.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MS250Kts,
Ta.
You hit the nail on the head. As your busy doin' vectorin' victor an' stuff as the Wx clags in, like say a ring of TS around MEL, and everyone wants the Wx at MEL and for their alternates - something has to give.
How the hell it is going to be "effective and more efficient" than a standalone function that can be accessed in parallel to the traffic service rather than insteadof a traffic service is beyond me. I don't need to have vested interest to see that surely?
Go back to the creation of the Flightwatch function in the first place, It was to take away the distraction or providing in-flight information from ATCs on TAAATS. How exactly has THAT necessity changed?
Again, I don't give a rats what happens to flightwatch but at least come up with at functional arguement to justify the change....and "effective and more efficient" ain't it!!!
Ta.
You hit the nail on the head. As your busy doin' vectorin' victor an' stuff as the Wx clags in, like say a ring of TS around MEL, and everyone wants the Wx at MEL and for their alternates - something has to give.
How the hell it is going to be "effective and more efficient" than a standalone function that can be accessed in parallel to the traffic service rather than insteadof a traffic service is beyond me. I don't need to have vested interest to see that surely?
Go back to the creation of the Flightwatch function in the first place, It was to take away the distraction or providing in-flight information from ATCs on TAAATS. How exactly has THAT necessity changed?
Again, I don't give a rats what happens to flightwatch but at least come up with at functional arguement to justify the change....and "effective and more efficient" ain't it!!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fantasy Isthmus
Age: 51
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JackoSchitt
...does one need to have a direct connection to something to have an opinion or be able to enter a debate?
Originally Posted by JackoSchitt
but hey, you’re a pilot (One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight) – I bow to your superiority. 
Originally Posted by JackoSchitt
Nah, not even I could compete with ATC egos.
Personally, I think the change to Flightwatch is a crock as well. I'm discouraged from interrupting a busy controller for a small piece of info that is trivial to him, but vital to me. That is not good for aviation safety.
I was told by ATC yesterday to "attempt" to contact flightwatch while they were a little overrun with other things. I got straight through (probably because no one else was even trying!), but then when I contacted them again about an hour later, I was told that "this is no longer a flightwatch frequency, however we will be monitoring it for about the next 2 months during the transition".
morno
morno
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TLAW,
No; you are looking for position power and I don't choose to give that to you or anyone else.
As for the other two quotes that you have chosen to take out of context; both were responses to other posts of people trying to play the same game...an' I'm not going to play that way.
Unfortunately, FTDK (the target of your quote #2) has deleted numberous posts to this thread for reasons known only to themselves so you cannot pick up the thread properly. Co-incidence? probably not.
if you want credibility
As for the other two quotes that you have chosen to take out of context; both were responses to other posts of people trying to play the same game...an' I'm not going to play that way.
Unfortunately, FTDK (the target of your quote #2) has deleted numberous posts to this thread for reasons known only to themselves so you cannot pick up the thread properly. Co-incidence? probably not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morno,
Good to see the system working as per the AIPSUP
"2.5 To assist in the transition of the VHF Flightwatch function from
AusFIC to ATC, AusFIC will remain accessible for ATC to refer specific aircraft/
callsigns where tactical management or workload dictates. This contingency
will remain in place until the 20th December 2007."
Shame ATC had to refer you in the first place. Logical question to flow is "what happens after 20th December 2007?
I was told that "this is no longer a flightwatch frequency, however we will be monitoring it for about the next 2 months during the transition".
"2.5 To assist in the transition of the VHF Flightwatch function from
AusFIC to ATC, AusFIC will remain accessible for ATC to refer specific aircraft/
callsigns where tactical management or workload dictates. This contingency
will remain in place until the 20th December 2007."
Shame ATC had to refer you in the first place. Logical question to flow is "what happens after 20th December 2007?
The referring to Flightwatch was actually a 50/50 thing JackSh!t. I suggested I do it through flightwatch as I could clearly tell they were overrun, and they directed me to the correct frequency and agreed with my suggestion.
The stupid thing is, yes, what is going to happen after they do away with it completely. When I want to make my flight plan amendment and the HF flightwatch is overrun as well, do I just have to overload the ATCer even more?
morno
The stupid thing is, yes, what is going to happen after they do away with it completely. When I want to make my flight plan amendment and the HF flightwatch is overrun as well, do I just have to overload the ATCer even more?
morno
