CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Are you telling me I could have flown around VFR at the same cruising levels as IFR airline aircraft?
Thread Starter
Traffic. Post 622 you said VFR above 5000’ were not given a traffic info service .
Now you allude the opposite. Are you playing with words?
I clearly remember what happened above 5000’. You obviously don’t.
Now you allude the opposite. Are you playing with words?
I clearly remember what happened above 5000’. You obviously don’t.
Traffic. Post 622 you said VFR above 5000’ were not given a traffic info service.
In the last half of 1978 a change came in that outside an AFIZ, VFR were no longer given traffic on other VFR.
Caused a bit of consternation in ATS at the time i.e. if FS had strips indicating two VFRs were going to be at the same place at the same level and about the same time, and they weren't supposed to give traffic ....
Now you allude the opposite. Are you playing with words?
I don't think it's me that's playing with words.
I clearly remember what happened above 5000’. You obviously don’t.
Thread Starter
To others who don’t understand what is going on here. - before 1990 there was a total obsession with “ radio Arranged separation” between VFR aircraft and RPT in un controlled airspace.
Even alerted see and avoid was not enough for some pilots.
It just resulted in a staggering mis allocation of finite safety dollars.
This obsession is still stopping important airspace refoms to day
Lead balloon has attempted to explain
Even alerted see and avoid was not enough for some pilots.
It just resulted in a staggering mis allocation of finite safety dollars.
This obsession is still stopping important airspace refoms to day
Lead balloon has attempted to explain
------your perception of the probabilities of being hit is many orders of magnitude higher than the objective probabilities. This is natural.
Hence Bloggs' mates long time and continuing demands, quite formally, that not only objective risk (demonstrated risk) be addressed, but "perception of risk" must also be addressed by "the system".
Irrational, quite irrational.
Put another way, they demand that risk that has been shown to be non-existent, must be catered for, because they fundamentally will not accept ICAO risk based allocation of CNS/ATM resources.
Tootle pip!!
Yair, non-existent risk at Mildura or Launy. Free in G, go for it.
Keh?
Originally Posted by Sleddee Leadie
because they fundamentally will not accept ICAO risk based allocation of CNS/ATM resources.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
This obsession is still stopping important airspace refoms to day
So why do those jet crews with a hundred+ punters on board still fly in airspace with aircraft with no radio, transponder or ADS?
Enlighten us Leddie (balloon-type, that is). What airspace would that be?
For you Bloggsie: None.
You can rest assured that 21nms from YPPD there is no collision risk with anything at the levels at which you operate.
Your ignorance results in even greater bliss for the rest of us than it does for you.
You can rest assured that 21nms from YPPD there is no collision risk with anything at the levels at which you operate.
Your ignorance results in even greater bliss for the rest of us than it does for you.
Originally Posted by Bloggs
Enlighten us Leddie (balloon-type, that is). What airspace would that be?
Originally Posted by LB
For you Bloggsie: None.
You can rest assured that 21nms from YPPD there is no collision risk with anything at the levels at which you operate.
Your ignorance results in even greater bliss for the rest of us than it does for you.
You can rest assured that 21nms from YPPD there is no collision risk with anything at the levels at which you operate.
Your ignorance results in even greater bliss for the rest of us than it does for you.
But keep it all coming. I find myself quivering with delight every time I open Prune to read what you have posted next.
PS: Hint hint: what level am I at at 20nm? Your 777 brain's trust should be able to help you out...unless he's from xxxx
! More dot-joining hints coming soon...
Relax Bloggsie
There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome in G (or in the YPPD AFIthing) on the wrong frequency.
There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome lawfully able to operate without a radio.
There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome suffering 180 degree confusion as to their location with reference to the aerodrome.
There is no one at 10,000’ with no radio, no transponder and no ADS (or a legal requirement to have them).
And for completeness’ sake: You’d never make a mistake about the frequency in use or your location, and your aircraft would never suffer an unserviceability in its avionics.
Fortunately for you and the 100 punters down the back, the probabilities arising from the risks of which you are so blissfully ignorant work in your and their favour.
There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome in G (or in the YPPD AFIthing) on the wrong frequency.
There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome lawfully able to operate without a radio.
There is no one operating in the vicinity of a certified aerodrome suffering 180 degree confusion as to their location with reference to the aerodrome.
There is no one at 10,000’ with no radio, no transponder and no ADS (or a legal requirement to have them).
And for completeness’ sake: You’d never make a mistake about the frequency in use or your location, and your aircraft would never suffer an unserviceability in its avionics.
Fortunately for you and the 100 punters down the back, the probabilities arising from the risks of which you are so blissfully ignorant work in your and their favour.
before 1990 there was a total obsession with “ radio Arranged separation” between VFR aircraft and RPT in un controlled airspace.
Its amusing that your statement implies that after 1990, no one gave a rats about separation between VFRs and RPTs OCTA.
the problem for blogs seems to be that he thinks that his 100 pax seater is 100 times more important than a 2 seat vfr aircraft. accordingly his safety is 100 times more important than the vfr joe. this is the root of the problem.
to have a reasoned discussion requires abandoning this specious assumption by assuming bloggs aircraft is empty of pax and there is no moral right of bloggsie to prevail.
we can then have a reasoned discussion,
to have a reasoned discussion requires abandoning this specious assumption by assuming bloggs aircraft is empty of pax and there is no moral right of bloggsie to prevail.
we can then have a reasoned discussion,
Sunfish, I normally enjoy reading your well thought-out and reasoned posts, so on this occasion I assume you have had too many reds!
Anyways, if you did mean everything you wrote, if I was in my 172, I couldn't give two hoots about any of this stuff. I'd just get in and go for a fly. No CTAF, no transponder, no calls. I am a realist. I do know that there is a good chance I could avoid another lighty even if I only did pick him up at the last minute.
The reality is though that the more people you kill, the more unpopular you become. So yes, I am a bit more interested about keeping myself away from others, by finding out where they are before I get there. And the 100+ punters sitting behind me have as much right to be in the same piece of sky as you. Safely. So don't start this Arthur (sorry John) and Martha rubbish about "Free In G and the rest can jump in the lake", the epitome of this being an A380 dodging Dick in his bugsmasher in Class E because that's his right.
Oh, and another thing. Hitting me in my wonderjet will cause you just as much grief whether I have a full load of punters or I'm empty. I still can't see out of it very well, I'm not very manoeuverable, and I have a lot to do internally to get thing safely on the ground which reduces my lookout. So it is your interest to know where I am and where I am going, so that you can look after your butt, by talking.
Anyways, if you did mean everything you wrote, if I was in my 172, I couldn't give two hoots about any of this stuff. I'd just get in and go for a fly. No CTAF, no transponder, no calls. I am a realist. I do know that there is a good chance I could avoid another lighty even if I only did pick him up at the last minute.
The reality is though that the more people you kill, the more unpopular you become. So yes, I am a bit more interested about keeping myself away from others, by finding out where they are before I get there. And the 100+ punters sitting behind me have as much right to be in the same piece of sky as you. Safely. So don't start this Arthur (sorry John) and Martha rubbish about "Free In G and the rest can jump in the lake", the epitome of this being an A380 dodging Dick in his bugsmasher in Class E because that's his right.
Oh, and another thing. Hitting me in my wonderjet will cause you just as much grief whether I have a full load of punters or I'm empty. I still can't see out of it very well, I'm not very manoeuverable, and I have a lot to do internally to get thing safely on the ground which reduces my lookout. So it is your interest to know where I am and where I am going, so that you can look after your butt, by talking.
Thread Starter
The pre 1990 airspace had a huge safety disadvantage
When OCTA under the J curve with pretty good radar coverage the pathetic system, which was supported by most pilots, did not facilitate any direct communication to the person with the radar screen. Yep.
It’s the same type of people resisting change today that delayed my AMATS changes.
So I have experience of minds set in concrete.BASI didn’t even make a recommendation to use the radar in future in similar circumstances.
The poor MDX mob may have all lived if they had been communicating to the person with the radar screen
It never once happened!
People get killed if you don’t ask advice and copy the best!
When OCTA under the J curve with pretty good radar coverage the pathetic system, which was supported by most pilots, did not facilitate any direct communication to the person with the radar screen. Yep.
It’s the same type of people resisting change today that delayed my AMATS changes.
So I have experience of minds set in concrete.BASI didn’t even make a recommendation to use the radar in future in similar circumstances.
The poor MDX mob may have all lived if they had been communicating to the person with the radar screen
It never once happened!
People get killed if you don’t ask advice and copy the best!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, but you put the ATC frequency in one radio and the CTAF frequency in the other. You use the transmit selector to select which one you're transmitting.
In the US, ATC will normally instruct you to "Switch to Advisory" once they have cleared you for the approach. That means they are done talking to you, and not expecting to hear from you until you are on the ground or on the missed approach. If there is no conflicting IFR traffic, this may be 30 nm or more from the airport. If there is other IFR traffic for the same airport your instructions to "Switch to Advisory" may be delayed as late as the final approach fix. Regardless, it's my practice to have the CTAF tuned, and have made a traffic call between 20-30 miles out.
he thinks that his 100 pax seater is 100 times more important than a 2 seat vfr aircraft. accordingly his safety is 100 times more important than the vfr
the pathetic system, which was supported by most pilots
It’s the same type of people resisting change today
Perhaps you should take account of the opinions of "most pilots" rather than just the opinion of one?
So I have experience of minds set in concrete