CAR 166 changes

[Frank Arouet]

The CASA website is difficult to navigate on this issue, but taking all written available data into consideration I cannot find what a Registered, Certified or Military non towered airport now conforms to with regard lateral and vertical dimension.

It would also appear the operative words are (for certified anyway), any aerodrome with a runway "SUITABLE" for aircraft with more than 30 passengers, and is available, (whether used as such or not), for regular RPT services.

The Readers Digest short version would suffice for my limited education if anyone has that information.

[muddergoose]

Would there be anything stated in the manual of standards (MOS) - aerodromes?

Under the heading of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is the MOS link

Here (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90406)

You may have to dig a little but no guarantee.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, it would appear it will come down to the entry in ERSA as per their example.

From the draft CAAP-In the vicinity (CAR 166):
An aircraft is in the vicinity of a nontowered
aerodrome if it is within:
• airspace other than controlled airspace; and
• a horizontal distance of 10 miles from the aerodrome; and
• a height above the aerodrome reference point of the
aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at
the aerodrome.

[Capn Bloggs]

Nobody's got the balls to make it 15nm and 5000ft. Stop all this luvvy duvvy self-regulation-feel-good please-do-the-right-thing commonsense rubbish and keep it simple - legislate and be done with it!

We had a top-class, simple airspace system before the septic sympathisers got hold of the pollies. My hunch is that when all this is over, we will have a system just like the one that was ditched all those years ago, but with countless millions of dollars and thousands of hours of effort to placate said septic sympathisers wasted in the meantime. Sad, and pathetic.

[Frank Arouet]

There seems to be a lot of legal non written, nonesense that "can" be misinterpreted like, "may be suitable" and "could result". No wonder players in the aviation game in this country are confused.

If this is the result of "regulatory reform" God help us!

Nobody's got the balls to make it 15nm and 5000ft.

or 5nm and 2000ft at aerodromes that "may be suitable" for RPT operations, but are not used as such so "possibly" can't "result" in a "conflict"- but then again they "possibly" "can".

Some place like say, Goodooga in NSW, (population 328), which is a REGISTERED aerodrome in the latest ERSA. (also notes AD not available to ACFT ABV 5700KG and windsock sometimes stolen, phone mainly U/S, limited Limo service for locals, but no taxi, and nearly 6 nm miles as the crow flies to walk to town).

And you need a radio to land there.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And there you go. Remember once someone bought up VRD as a security controlled airport...ASIC reqd...yet it is uncertified and therefore doesnt reguire radio????

Conundrum!

Francis...this time I am on your side:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

I'm not an advocate of no radio, but why do you need one to land somewhere that BN CTR can't talk with you below about 6,000ft to get to a telephone that more than likely doesn't work to cancel a SARTIME.

Conundrum...............

Yes some work on the principle of Taurus Excreta Conundrum Cerebellum.:ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

I've just been informed that there is a modification by way of a CAR 166 (A). The presence of which makes one think there is something "shifty" going on. What is written in the current Flight Safety magazine bears no resemblence to what was reported in the NFRM.

One such example was that if you had a radio it was mandatory that it be turned on and used in a CTAF. The lack of objections to a sensible matter seems to be taken by CASA that everybody supported whatever decision they made.

What is written in the magazine says: "carriage of radio is "mandatory" at all certified, registered or military non towered aerodromes.

[rmcdonal]

And there you go. Remember once someone bought up VRD as a security controlled airport...ASIC reqd...yet it is uncertified and therefore doesnt reguire radio????
Any airport that can't keep the roos out should not be counted as a security controlled airport. :ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

Well, there you go. the magazine sumarises the new rules. It appears a second NPRM was published but not very well advertised and the AFAP had very much of a win.

They didn't quiet get mandatory radio for everything that flies anywhere because of some heavy lobbying by GFA and RA-Aus.

I can see the next NATFLY being at a claypan out west next year. The 95:10 aircraft either get a radio or they can't fly to or at Temora or Narromine or Mangalore.

The Japanese tourist glider pilots at Narromine will clog the airwaves with broken English.:suspect:

[Dick Smyth]

Why do we need a Law to tell pilots when it is appropriate to listen to the radio?
Aren't we all above average thinkers?

The old system of assigning vertical and horizontal boundaries to CTAF/MBZs caused incidents including a very close mid air at YWLM when operating as an MBZ. One jet pilot on MBZ frequency climbing quickly and another pilot at 5500 not even listening to the frequency. I say no boundaries is safer because it challenges the pilot to research the aerodromes he/she is overflying and determine what height and lateral distance is appropriate to be listening to the frequency.

This kind of thinking needs to be applied to radio calls as well. eg if im at some strip in the middle of nowhere and no-one is around then im not going to make a calls turning downwind, base and final. If im at YBTH with 5 C172s inbound and joining the circuit + a rex flight inbound then yes i am going to make more calls. This is the idea of 'alerted see and avoid'. Mandatory radio calls gives the system user a false sense of security. Make calls when appropriate.

CASA when making these changes needs to be sure a thorough training and education package is released so the same confusion is not seen like as seen in the implementation of NAS 2c.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

The old system of assigning vertical and horizontal boundaries to CTAF/MBZs caused incidents including a very close mid air at YWLM when operating as an MBZ. One jet pilot on MBZ frequency climbing quickly and another pilot at 5500 not even listening to the frequency. I say no boundaries is safer because it challenges the pilot to research the aerodromes he/she is overflying and determine what height and lateral distance is appropriate to be listening to the frequency.
I and my 115 pax do not want be faced with a pilot who is to be challenged to work out when to listen and when to talk!:=

The MBZ comms issue was, as I assume you know, covered adequately by the-then rules. No broadcast on Area? No leave the MBZ. Sure it was tight sometimes. Make the MBZ 30nm and 10k ft for more wiggle room. Problem solved. The system worked well before your namesake came along and made everything pilot-discretion: "in the vicinity of the airfield". Please.

CASA when making these changes needs to be sure a thorough training and education package is released so the same confusion is not seen like as seen in the implementation of NAS 2c.
The only confusion with NAS 2c was because Dick insisted that everything be "recommended" so everybody got confused about exactly what was meant by "recommended".