Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?
Thread Starter
It’s the unique frequency boundaries on charts that has led us to the giant 40 mile 5000’ CTAFs
Under the government approved NAS it particularly stated that a major change was removing the frequency boundaries. That was so pilots could concentrate on monitoring the aerodrome frequency if flying in the arrival and departure area of that aerodrome . And it worked! The frequency boundaries were put back on by those who’s minds are clearly set in concrete
Triadic. Most of Australia is flat and as vhf is line of site the nearest ground outlet will give you the maximum range. That’s why any good aviation GPS has a nearest ATC / FS function.
Check board Now with ADSB most IFR pilots do not give full position reports on atc frequencies. How then does a VFR pilot know when to respond?
Under the government approved NAS it particularly stated that a major change was removing the frequency boundaries. That was so pilots could concentrate on monitoring the aerodrome frequency if flying in the arrival and departure area of that aerodrome . And it worked! The frequency boundaries were put back on by those who’s minds are clearly set in concrete
Triadic. Most of Australia is flat and as vhf is line of site the nearest ground outlet will give you the maximum range. That’s why any good aviation GPS has a nearest ATC / FS function.
Check board Now with ADSB most IFR pilots do not give full position reports on atc frequencies. How then does a VFR pilot know when to respond?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Dec 2017 at 14:28.
The frequency boundaries were put back on by those who’s minds are clearly set in concrete
People like me - who don't apreciate being called concrete-headed when they have a decent amount of experience and legitimate concerns based on that experience. You win no arguments by insulting those you are trying to convince, Dick. It's in that book about winning friends and infuencing people.
If you remove the area frequency boundaries from the charts the frequencies would be displayed in the vicinity of the outlet.
Yes - but if you're bowling along above the MILTICOM level - IFR traffic get directed frequency transfers from ATC?
Or they are professional pilots flying above 5000' rather than private pilots on a local jolly below 5000'
I fail to see the problem with the introduction of MULTICOM applying below 5000 coexisting with published FIA boundaries.
- If operating below 5000, use MULTICOM or CTAF as applicable (and if dual VHF consider also monitoring the FIA);
- if operating at or above 5000, use FIA.
Thread Starter
The 5000’ is rediculous. Just a hangover from the 1960s Full position flight service union demarcation days.
It’s clearly not based on any objective safety case. No other country uses 5000’ as a demarcation line- just trying to go back to what was set in concrete with a small number of older pilots!
Why does a VFR aircraft flying en route at a VFR 500’ level above 5000’ need to monitor ATC? Like driving your car on a weekend with your family and being forced to monitor the truck channel on your CB.
Now that would be relaxing. No wonder GA flight hours are down and Aussie’s being sacked
It’s clearly not based on any objective safety case. No other country uses 5000’ as a demarcation line- just trying to go back to what was set in concrete with a small number of older pilots!
Why does a VFR aircraft flying en route at a VFR 500’ level above 5000’ need to monitor ATC? Like driving your car on a weekend with your family and being forced to monitor the truck channel on your CB.
Now that would be relaxing. No wonder GA flight hours are down and Aussie’s being sacked
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Dec 2017 at 23:39.
Why does a VFR aircraft flying en route at a VFR 500’ level above 5000’ need to monitor ATC?
Thread Starter
Captain. No other country has such a system. Why do you believe we need to be different?
On a flight from Bankstown to The Kimberly and back in my caravan I monitored over 1000 calls while VFR en route in G and not one was of any significance to my flight. Would you consider that a bit of a “cry wolf “ problem ?
Remember before I was responsible for the AMATS changes in 1991 it was a directed traffic service as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels when above 5000’. What was the use of changing to the ICAO semi circular rule if the old system was to remain?
On a flight from Bankstown to The Kimberly and back in my caravan I monitored over 1000 calls while VFR en route in G and not one was of any significance to my flight. Would you consider that a bit of a “cry wolf “ problem ?
Remember before I was responsible for the AMATS changes in 1991 it was a directed traffic service as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels when above 5000’. What was the use of changing to the ICAO semi circular rule if the old system was to remain?
Thread Starter
Everyone. Have you noticed I want to make the system simpler and lowest cost while many who post anonymously on this site want the opposite!
I wonder if most are on the gravy plane?
Prescriptive huge 5000’ 40 nm CTAFs are complete madness. That’s why casa didn’t dare discuss them in the proposal.
Are these people well meaning? Or do they have a programme to destroy our once viable GA industry?
I wonder if most are on the gravy plane?
Prescriptive huge 5000’ 40 nm CTAFs are complete madness. That’s why casa didn’t dare discuss them in the proposal.
Are these people well meaning? Or do they have a programme to destroy our once viable GA industry?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain. No other country has such a system. Why do you believe we need to be different?
On a flight from Bankstown to The Kimberly and back in my caravan I monitored over 1000 calls while VFR en route in G and not one was of any significance to my flight. Would you consider that a bit of a “cry wolf “ problem ?
I remember the last time you made this claim, and I did some arithmetic.
My little bugsmasher can get to the Kimberley and back in about 20 hours. Your Caravan is a bit quicker, but let's give you a bit of slack and use the same number.
That means you heard an irrelevant call, on average, every minute and 12 seconds, nonstop from when you left to when you got back. That doesn't include the ones that were relevant, as you must presumably at some stage have conversed with someone using the same airport.
And I just don't believe it.
Even if true, you must have been a bundle of fun on that holiday: teeth clenched and temples gently throbbing as you logged every call in order to substantiate your later claims.
When someone tells whoppers in order to bolster their position, it's a pretty frank admission that said position is untenable. Even if the true number were a fraction of your claim, the fact is that aircraft radio is a party line. We all learn to filter out those calls not important to us, and accept that they matter to someone else.
Remember before I was responsible for the AMATS changes in 1991 it was a directed traffic service as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels when above 5000’. What was the use of changing to the ICAO semi circular rule if the old system was to remain?
Really Dick? Not one of those transmissions was relevant to you? I call bull****!
Secondly, you have not presented a problem, only a solution....which is why no one understands the reasoning behind your proposal.
So in simple to understand terms and without relating to anything historical and with out mentioning the words 'half wound back' explain what you understand to be the problem. Keep it simple. Dont present a solution, just state the problem
Bet you can't.
Secondly, you have not presented a problem, only a solution....which is why no one understands the reasoning behind your proposal.
So in simple to understand terms and without relating to anything historical and with out mentioning the words 'half wound back' explain what you understand to be the problem. Keep it simple. Dont present a solution, just state the problem
Bet you can't.
"Le ping. I can see why you are not game to stand behind your posts with your honest real name."
Probably for the same reason as Caroline Thulip - remember her, you know, the one you were going to sue because she made comments you didn't agree with?
Also, I remember on another website you specifically stating that you understood why pilots wished to remain anonymous with their posts - so which is it?
VH-MLE
Probably for the same reason as Caroline Thulip - remember her, you know, the one you were going to sue because she made comments you didn't agree with?
Also, I remember on another website you specifically stating that you understood why pilots wished to remain anonymous with their posts - so which is it?
VH-MLE
Thread Starter
Agra. Completely factual. From Tennant Ck to Birdsville I had to listen to traffic at Horn Island north of Cape York. Near Griffith I was listening to traffic in Tasmania .
When flying in WA I spent a lot of time looking at the chart to attempt to work out where sme locations were. Hopeless system
Did I once hear up to thirty old low level sectors can now be operated on retransmit?
Yes. I mark down the calls to see if the present system works better than when I fly VFR en route in Canada , USA or the UK. It clearly doesn’t and it is one of the reasons that some GA pilots have stopped flying. They have told me it is just too complicated !
When flying in WA I spent a lot of time looking at the chart to attempt to work out where sme locations were. Hopeless system
Did I once hear up to thirty old low level sectors can now be operated on retransmit?
Yes. I mark down the calls to see if the present system works better than when I fly VFR en route in Canada , USA or the UK. It clearly doesn’t and it is one of the reasons that some GA pilots have stopped flying. They have told me it is just too complicated !
Thread Starter
VH. What rubbish. I have never ever threatened to sue someone for making comments I don’t agree with. I like such comments .
But fabricate lies and post them anonymously while you are a CASA employee and I will expose who you are. What could be fairer!
But fabricate lies and post them anonymously while you are a CASA employee and I will expose who you are. What could be fairer!
Thread Starter
Alpha. The situation is simple. CASA put out a direction that forced pilots at non marked airports to communicate on the ATC frequency.
Every RAPAC violently disagreed.
Why did CASA issue the direction? So the could attempt to get the 51% wound back system to work. But it will never work. Copy the simple safe US system for VFR procedures and it will be fantastic
Every RAPAC violently disagreed.
Why did CASA issue the direction? So the could attempt to get the 51% wound back system to work. But it will never work. Copy the simple safe US system for VFR procedures and it will be fantastic
Thread Starter
Agra. The US NAS does not stop you from being on an ATC frequency. You can call up and get flight following or other safety related info. Our NAS was to be the same. The ATC frequency outlets were shown on the chart. At their ground locations. The system worked incredibly well until AsA sent out a chart to undermine the internationally proven simple procedures.
Remember under ICAO there is no radio required for VFR in class G and E. That’s not accidental- if you need VFR traffic info it’s called class D
Remember under ICAO there is no radio required for VFR in class G and E. That’s not accidental- if you need VFR traffic info it’s called class D
But by removing the atc boundaries, wont CASA then require you to broadcast on the nearest 'biscuit' freq. So what changes?
Do you know what casa thinks is the problem that getting unmarked airfield ops to broadcast on area is solving? (Genuine question)
Removing atc boundaries sounds like a solution to a problem implemented by another solutiom with no defined problem. Im not sure removing atc boundaries wont cause some other problems.
Honestly not taking a pot shot here, but you seem to fail to realise that the current system is ungrained in us all. Its how we have all been taught. I dont think there is a natural resistance to change, i just think we are all so change fatigued we now look for explanations before accepting change.
Is this really a problem that needs a solution?
Do you know what casa thinks is the problem that getting unmarked airfield ops to broadcast on area is solving? (Genuine question)
Removing atc boundaries sounds like a solution to a problem implemented by another solutiom with no defined problem. Im not sure removing atc boundaries wont cause some other problems.
Honestly not taking a pot shot here, but you seem to fail to realise that the current system is ungrained in us all. Its how we have all been taught. I dont think there is a natural resistance to change, i just think we are all so change fatigued we now look for explanations before accepting change.
Is this really a problem that needs a solution?
Biscuits or boundaries, im not sure i see whole lot of difference. So why the need for change?
On your flight to the Kimberley, you would have been listening to the nearest biscuit, and people would have been broadcasting on the nearest bbiscuit. You still would have heard 11000 irrelevant broadcasts
On your flight to the Kimberley, you would have been listening to the nearest biscuit, and people would have been broadcasting on the nearest bbiscuit. You still would have heard 11000 irrelevant broadcasts
Thread Starter
Alpha. Re the genuine question. The CASA groupthink was that aircraft flying en route and monitoring the ATC frequency could run into an aircraft in the circuit of an aerodrome not marked on the chart .
That was the sole reason they wanted pilots at these airports to give a calls on the ATC frequency.
It’s an attempt to turn ICAO class G into something else!
That was the sole reason they wanted pilots at these airports to give a calls on the ATC frequency.
It’s an attempt to turn ICAO class G into something else!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agra. The US NAS does not stop you from being on an ATC frequency. You can call up and get flight following or other safety related info. Our NAS was to be the same. The ATC frequency outlets were shown on the chart. At their ground locations. The system worked incredibly well until AsA sent out a chart to undermine the internationally proven simple procedures.
Remember under ICAO there is no radio required for VFR in class G and E. That’s not accidental- if you need VFR traffic info it’s called class D
Remember under ICAO there is no radio required for VFR in class G and E. That’s not accidental- if you need VFR traffic info it’s called class D
And I still don't believe the numbers of calls you are asserting, because I've been there too. It's simply not that busy.
If the call is referring to some place nowhere near you, then mentally dismiss it. Or take a bit of casual interest in someone else's adventures, which I find to be more enjoyable than foaming at the mouth because they interrupted my reverie.