Multicom vs area frequency

[gfunc]

So this is something noted by my instructors recently (see my bolding):

CAAP 166-1 (Dec 2013): "At aerodromes where the carriage of radio is not mandatory, pilots of radio-equipped aircraft should monitor the CTAF and, at a minimum, broadcast their intentions in accordance with the minimum calls set-out in Section 7.3 of this CAAP. Good airmanship also implies that pilots should monitor and broadcast their intentions on the relevant Area Frequency when operating at aerodromes not in ESRA or marked on charts."

It then goes onto say explicitly:

"Note: Feedback from the industry suggests there is some confusion about this procedure, and many pilots are using the Multicom frequency, 126.7 MHz, at aerodromes without a CTAF. Pilots should use the relevant Area Frequency as described above, unless they are in the vicinity of a CTAF aerodrome or in a Broadcast Area."

- We tried this on a navex, got told to bugger off by the area controller.

So the CAAP is telling me to use the area frequency when there is not a CTAF specified. Now if you go to the AIP (GEN) you find the definition of Multicom (126.7) as "Multicom: The frequency (126.7MHZ) used for broadcasts while operating to or from a non--towered aerodrome that does not have a discrete CTAF assigned." With a bit more in GEN 4.5.1.

So, my question is: You're operating at an aerodrome with no designated CTAF and a single radio, what frequency are you on?

There are two conflicting official guidelines here (obviously AIP trumps CAAP from a [technical] legal perspective) which is a detriment to safety.

Gareth.

[FokkerInYour12]

On a divergent track:

Surely there's enough frequencies available for EVERY airstrip to have a CTAF frequency to get rid of this multicom rubbish (is that scratchy sound I hear someone actually trying to communicate with me from a gyrocopter or is it someone 100NM away?).

[Capn Bloggs]

You're operating at an aerodrome with no designated CTAF and a single radio, what frequency are you on?

There are two conflicting official guidelines here (obviously AIP trumps CAAP from a [technical] legal perspective) which is a detriment to safety.
Before you pointed out that CAAP, I would have said the Multicom, being 126.7.

Now I'm confused! :confused:

On a divergent track:
Stay on target, you dirty little Fokker! :}

[peterc005]

Doesn't ERSA specify Multicom 126.7 specifically as the CTAF for smaller fields?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Shouldn't be too hard to clear up - even for you bloggs :-)

CTAFs are established wherever shown in AIP - ERSA, maps etc. When operating in a CTAF, monitor and transmit on the CTAF.

When no CTAF is established by AIP, monitor and transmit on 126.7 (as required by AIP). Good airmanship - as per CAAP is also to listen in and transmit intentions on area (in case Joe Bloggs (captains mate...) is flying past.

I suspect your confusion comes from the missing word 'frequency'

"Multicom: The frequency (126.7MHZ) used for broadcasts while operating to or from a non--towered aerodrome that does not have a discrete CTAF assigned."

An aerodrome can have a CTAF without having a discrete CTAF frequency assigned. In this case - the Multicom and the CTAF are the same.

So, for your examples
- operating to a non-towered, non-CTAF airport with one radio - 126.7.
- operating to a non-towered, CTAF airport without a discrete CTAF (frequency) - 126.7
- operating to a non-towered, non-CTAF airport with two radios - 126.7 and Area

As for being told to bugger off - good airmanship also includes not clogging up airwaves when ATC needs them..... I would think that the CAAP is telling you to make a general broadcast on area when taxing or when 15nm (or so) out. Not to broadcast every leg.

[Capn Bloggs]

Doesn't ERSA specify Multicom 126.7 specifically as the CTAF for smaller fields?
It may do. That's gfunc's point; the CAAP clearly says to use the Area freq when there's no assigned CTAF (by that I assume CASA means "at smaller fields").

- operating to a non-towered, CTAF airport without a discrete CTAF (frequency) - 126.7

Still confused. Is there such an animal? Example? ;)

[peterc005]

A quick look thru ERSA showed every airport entry listed a CTAF frequency, and that the smaller ones all used Multicom 126.7

If that's the CTAF, that's the CTAF.

[VH-XXX]

operating to a non-towered, CTAF airport without a discrete CTAF (frequency) - 126.7

Still confused. Is there such an animal? Example? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

An airport without it's OWN discrete frequency (eg 124.6), therefore 126.7. He means if it doesn't have a frequency listed other than 126.7, then use 126.7.

Bairnsdale and Yarram in Vic would be examples as they don't have their own discreet frequency, so use 126.7.

Unless I am mistaken, I think that's what was intended!

[avconnection]

Surely the "good airmanship" comment relates to an area broadcast a la an IFR flight departing an aerodrome outside VHF coverage who is either holding a departure SAR or communicating via HF.

But that would be a best practise assumption...

[FokkerInYour12]

I want my CTAF discrete frequency and I want it now.

Apart form the Air Services frequency allocation fee, why not?

[Capn Bloggs]

Bairnsdale and Yarram in Vic would be examples as they don't have their own discreet frequency, so use 126.7.

They both do have a discrete CTAF published in ERSA: 126.7.

Without going through every airport in ERSA to find one that doesn't have a discrete CTAF (which may well be 126.7), the original question stands:

If there's no CTAF published (eg farmer Brown's strip), do you use the Multicom or Area? My money would be on the Multicom.

[CB Hunter]

I would agree with Underneath The Radar. 126.7 for all airstrips without a published CTAF frequency.

Although they really need to give each aerodrome a discrete frequency, it gets stupidly busy at times to the point that someone in the circuit you are joining can't be heard, only because other traffic miles away are transmitting.

The calls certainly should be made no matter how small the strip. All too often I go into smaller strips only to find an aircraft in the circuit not making a single call. Or even better, a glider who ignored my inbound call recently and he was climbing in a thermal ON my inbound track and didn't respond or make a single call after I made 3 inbound calls- and I had to turn to avoid ... Turns out he had a serviceable radio, heard my calls but just didn't know where he was. :confused:

[DaisyDuck]

Y'all a bit slow... This AIP amendment was put in 30th May.
Confusions-Maximus now reigns. Been a moot point with CASA ever since, however it is a VERY slow process getting anyone to understand there is a serious contradiction in AIP. However it is being worked on...hopefully...

[Checkboard]

I was asking exactly the same question when CTAFs were first invented in 1989 or so!

[VH-XXX]

They both do have a discrete CTAF published in ERSA: 126.7.


I'm struggling with the use of the work "discrete" in this context as I would consider 126.7 to not be discrete....

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Agree with XXX - "discrete" = not 126.7

[Old Akro]

I was asking exactly the same question when CTAFs were first invented in 1989 or so!

Who else remembers 119.9 from the sixties / seventies? Its an old concept, just a new acronym to give the appearance of action by CASA

[Capn Bloggs]

just a new acronym to give the appearance of action by CASA
Rubbish Akro. Not CASA's fault at all. All this radio nonsense was caused by he who cannot be named. AFIZ>MTAF>CTAF (R)/Multicom>CTAF... Fortunately someone in CASA finally had the balls to say enough is enough, mandatory radio is the go, and now we might have a stable system for a few years.

CASA, AsA and industry jumping through political hoops for over two decades chasing the septic tank dream. For what? Probably thousands driven out of the industry by continually changing rules and procedures, or driven "underground" where it's taken years and years to get people talking again. Disgraceful.

[Capn Bloggs]

I forgot MBZs. :}

[triadic]

This subject was discussed at length by all the RAPACs in the late 90's.

There was a choice - At airfields / landing grounds / Farmer Joe's paddock etc that DO NOT have a promulgated CTAF with an associated frequency - ie: Not in ERSA;

Either you publish a frequency for use at such locations,
or
Use the area frequency.

The former was decided upon and in line with our comrades in North America it was called "MULTICOM" - In all cases the MULTICOM is 126.7.

Good airmanship suggests that the area frequency be monitored if you have two comms, but broadcasts should be made on the MULTICOM, unless there is a need to resolve a conflict (or whatever) on the area frequency. IFR ops would use those procedures common with any published CTAFs.

My guess is that the confusion in the CASA document relates to a lack of corporate history and/or understanding of the subject by the writer.

[triadic]

I was asking exactly the same question when CTAFs were first invented in 1989 or so!
Who else remembers 119.9 from the sixties / seventies? Its an old concept, just a new acronym to give the appearance of action by CASA

Actually I recall it being 119.1 and it was used at many rural airfields, mainly by aero clubs and flying schools etc.

I'm struggling with the use of the work "discrete" in this context as I would consider 126.7 to not be discrete....

My understanding of "discrete" is not published (anywhere)...

[Creampuff]

I’m wondering whether I’ll ever get to read a CAAP for purposes other than amusement. (Perhaps that’s what the second “A” really stands for… :confused:)

Confusion caused by a confused regulator’s attempt to clear up confusion. It’s so … hmmm … Australian. :D

Maybe they should be renamed “CRAPs”.

[Capn Bloggs]

I think the 166s are generally good value, current discussion point excepted.

[tecman]

Intentional or not, maybe Triadic is on to something. Perhaps the regulator joins the long list of individuals and entities who don't know the difference between 'discrete' and 'discreet'. Maybe they really mean 'discreet' in the sense that it's a close-kept secret.

Bur seriously...how dumb is this? Such a fundamental bit of bread and butter ops obscured by poorly coordinated and worded documentation.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"Contact Kalgoorlie (Flight Service Unit) on 122.1....G'Day....."

How it 'USED' to be.... S I M P L E ......

No Cheers:yuk:

[Creampuff]

To add to the confusion…

I think what the quoted bits of the CAAP are trying to ‘clarify’ is the frequency that should be used if you are operating at a ‘place’ – to use a neutral term - that is not in ERSA and not marked on charts.

If you are operating in or out of Ma and Pa Kettle’s strip that isn’t in ERSA and not marked on any charts, it seems you should be using the area frequency to make your circuit broadcasts.

If you are operating in or out of a strip that is in ERSA or is marked on charts, you should be using the CTAF specified in ERSA or on the chart or, if no CTAF is specified, 126.7.

This seems to be consistent with AIP ENR 1.1 44.

Dare I say it seems to make sense? If you are operating in and out of a place that isn’t in ERSA and isn’t marked on any chart, aircraft in the vicinity are not going to be listening out for you on 126.7.

If you broadcast “Joining downwind Ma and Pa Kettle’s sheep paddock” on the area frequency, I’m not sure Centre should be complaining.

[CaptainMidnight]

One of CASA's problems is that they don't seem to have people who really understand what it is they are writing about. Sometimes it appears stuff is just written by someone straight off the street (low experience pilots included).

In their online "Out-n-Back" series, the section about checking NOTAMs has this gem:

Don't get bogged down in reading NOTAMs starting with or including 'DAH' ... it refers to the Designated Airspace Handbook that applies only to military personnel.

[Creampuff]

"DAH" and "FLIP": Nearly the same sound and number of letters!

[kaz3g]

"To add to the confusion…

I think what the quoted bits of the CAAP are trying to ‘clarify’ is the frequency that should be used if you are operating at a ‘place’ – to use a neutral term - that is not in ERSA and not marked on charts.

If you are operating in or out of Ma and Pa Kettle’s strip that isn’t in ERSA and not marked on any charts, it seems you should be using the area frequency to make your circuit broadcasts.

If you are operating in or out of a strip that is in ERSA or is marked on charts, you should be using the CTAF specified in ERSA or on the chart or, if no CTAF is specified, 126.7.

This seems to be consistent with AIP ENR 1.1 44.

Dare I say it seems to make sense? If you are operating in and out of a place that isn’t in ERSA and isn’t marked on any chart, aircraft in the vicinity are not going to be listening out for you on 126.7.

If you broadcast “Joining downwind Ma and Pa Kettle’s sheep paddock” on the area frequency, I’m not sure Centre should be complaining."


I think Creamy has it tidily put in a nutshell, so to speak....kaz

[Capn Bloggs]

I don't think that makes sense at all. Busy CTAFs will have their own CTAF (comprehendi?! :)). All the others seem to have 126.7.

The idea of the Multicom was to have a low-altitude freq for use at light traffic airports (or Ma and Pa Kettle's) so that the Area freq wasn't congested.

IFR would have Area/Discrete CTAF and VFR would have Multicom (if not a discrete CTAF).

I think the CAAP has got it wrong.

Cruising around monitoring the (combined) Area freq(s) getting ready for descent we hear Joe Bloggs at Ma Kettle's place; not the way it should be. He should be on the Multicom. Good on him for talking, but he should be on the "in the vicinity" freq, logically, IMO, the Multicom.

[Creampuff]

We should start with the question: What do the rules require?

That would lead to an automatic answer to the question: What should the CAAP say?

It is a sad indictment on the state of Australian aviation that the answer to the first question is not instantly and universally known and agreed. :(

Bloggsie: If a VFR bugsmasha is taxiing for take off out of ‘Sandlewood Park’, about 15 nms to the West of Mildura – not in ERSA and not marked as an airstrip on any chart – for a climb to say 9,500 on a track slightly East of North, who’d be assisted by the taxi call being made on 126.7? :confused:

[Capn Bloggs]

It is a sad indictment on the state of Australian aviation that the answer to the first question is not instantly and universally known and agreed.
The answer's pretty obvious, as the OP points out: AIP GEN Def of Multicom and ENR 1.4, 3.2.1.

I'll say it again. The CAAP's got it wrong, IMO. Back to the books for you puff! :ouch:

If a VFR bugsmasha is taxiing for take off out of ‘Sandlewood Park’, about 15 nms to the West of Mildura – not in ERSA and not marked as an airstrip on any chart – for a climb to say 9,500 on a track slightly East of North, who’d be assisted by the taxi call being made on 126.7?
The same people who'd be assisted by departures from any one of the myriad tin-pot airfields listed in ERSA as having a CTAF of 126.7. :) At least we biggies (and the controllers) don't hear their taxiing and entering calls.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing farmer Kettle yabbering on the Area when taxiing at his property (I can see both positions); the whole thread, which we seem have come back to, is what the pubs say.

[Creampuff]

I know what all the various bits of the books say, Bloggsie. ;) The problem is that the sum of all the bits is, demonstrably, confusion (at least for the regulator).

I’ll never be a ‘biggie’, but if I were and I was organising myself for a straight in approach to Mildura from the West, I know on which frequency I’d prefer an aircraft operating from a strip to West of Mildura that isn’t in ERSA or marked on any chart to be broadcasting its taxi call …

[triadic]

If a VFR bugsmasha is taxiing for take off out of ‘Sandlewood Park’, about 15 nms to the West of Mildura – not in ERSA and not marked as an airstrip on any chart – for a climb to say 9,500 on a track slightly East of North, who’d be assisted by the taxi call being made on 126.7?

Any pilot worth his salt, would make the taxi call on the Multicom (and maybe even on the MIA CTAF due its proximity)for the benefit of other traffic that might be at "Sandlewoood Park" and then once airborne and setting course to climb to A095, would make an appropriate b'cast on the area frequency and the MIA CTAF. Thats how it should work, and dare I say until the CASA comment there was no confusion and it worked fine...!

The 'Biggie' doing the SIA from the West would be at around 3000ft at that distance... If conducting an IFR approach maybe a bit lower, but then our mate would not be climbing to A095...

[Creampuff]

A broadcast on Multicom then a broadcast on Area then a broadcast on Mildura CTAF? Another variation!

If the second broadcast is desirable, what's the safety issue with making it the first? I am the only person operating in and out of Sandlewood Park: I own it (hypothetically).

I don't understand this statement, triadic: ... but then our mate would not be climbing to A095...She is climbing to 9,500. That's my point.

If the biggie's SIA call was made before the bugsmasha switches to Area, and the bugsmasha made her taxi call (to herself) on Multicom, they are each blissfully ignorant of the other (unless she makes another broadcast on Area ...).

[peuce]

Thank God we've harmonised with the USA :ok:

[andrewr]

I’ll never be a ‘biggie’, but if I were and I was organising myself for a straight in approach to Mildura from the West, I know on which frequency I’d prefer an aircraft operating from a strip to West of Mildura that isn’t in ERSA or marked on any chart to be broadcasting its taxi call …

Mildura CTAF? IIRC you are supposed to broadcast on the CTAF frequency when in the vicinity of an airfield and your operations may conflict with operations at the airfield.

As I see it, radio broadcasts at this type of strip are primarily about coordinating operations in the circuit i.e. at or below 1000 AGL. Outside the circuit there's not much practical difference between someone planning to land at an unmarked strip, or just flying around.

For your own private strip that isn't marked on charts there is not much value in broadcasting intentions, unless there may be more than one aircraft operating. If you have a BBQ and a dozen of your mates are flying in, and they will be doing a few sightseeing flights as well, there is value in broadcasting taxying/inbound/circuit calls etc. I wouldn't think it would be welcome on area though.

[Creampuff]

Ahhh, yet another approach: Broadcast on the Mildura CTAF!As I see it, radio broadcasts at this type of strip are primarily about coordinating operations in the circuit i.e. at or below 1000 AGL.Really?

So why then would I be broadcasting on the Mildura CTAF when I’m operating out of my unmarked strip 17 nautical miles away? :confused: If it’s because my departure might conflict with traffic tracking into or out of Mildura, why wouldn’t I broadcast on the Area frequency that should be monitored by the traffic tracking into or out of Mildura and near my actual location?

And if CTAF’s just about coordinating circuit traffic, why do I have to broadcast on the CTAF if I’m overflying at 3,500’?

[andrewr]

And if CTAF’s just about coordinating circuit traffic, why do I have to broadcast on the CTAF if I’m overflying at 3,500’?

I said "at this type of strip" i.e. in this example, your own private strip. You broadcast overflying a regular CTAF because you might conflict with other aircraft at the airport, e.g. an instrument approach that might begin a few thousand feet above. That's different from a private strip somewhere.

If the broadcast at a private strip is not primarily about conflict during takeoff and landing, why would you broadcast when you are landing at your private strip, but not if you e.g. orbit a neighbors house without a strip?

Ultimately you need to figure out whether you are likely to conflict with other traffic, and if so, what frequency that traffic is most likely to be on. If you expect to conflict with Mildura traffic, Mildura CTAF would seem to be the most likely frequency. If you are too far away from Mildura for the frequency to be applicable, how likely are you to conflict with the traffic, really?

For better or worse, it was decided a long time ago that details of VFR movements should not, in general, be broadcast on the area frequency.

[dubbleyew eight]

I'm with creampuff.

it is not only about transmitting your intentions, it is also about listening to and developing a situational awareness of conflicting traffic.

what use is transmitting on multicom, then switching to area frequency and transmitting then switching to the nearby ctaf and transmitting if you don't hear the call " :mad::mad::mad: XYZ you are turning directly into my path..."

this is all regulatory incompetence in an area of aviation that was once so simple.

[Back Seat Driver]

+1 for Creampuff

[andrewr]

Creampuff is saying the situation is confused, and I agree, but I'm not sure whether he is endorsing a specific answer.

You can't pick a frequency based on the number of aircraft, so whatever you choose has to work if you are the only aircraft flying into your private strip, or if you have multiple aircraft flying in for a BBQ and spot landing competition.

[dubbleyew eight]

well the only real reason you would be discouraged from using the area frequency is the massive rebroadcasting done by air services in an effort to reduce staff.

this is an error caused by the "system", it is not error caused by pilots.

[Creampuff]

I think I’ll leave this one to CASA to ‘fix’…

For my part, here’s what I’d do if wasn’t a wheelchair-bound geek from Hicksville USA.

On taxiing at my property at Sandlewood Park I’d be monitoring the Area frequency and Mildura CTAF. I’d transmit this on the Area frequency: “All stations, alpha bravo Charlie, a VFR Cessna 192, is taxiing at Sandlewood Park, one seven miles to the West of Mildura, for Menindee to the North East, niner thousand fife hundred.”

Any broadcast on 126.7 would seem to me to be a waste of breath and electromagnetic radiation.

[Lasiorhinus]

If you're the owner of a strip 17 miles from a busy airport, reasonably aligned with the runway centreline, you would be daft to designate any other frequency other than the CTAF of the nearby busy airport as your own CTAF.

Just use the same frequency as MIA CTAF and the problem goes away.

[Creampuff]

Yet another variation: Only the MIA CTAF!

One key problem, Las: I don’t get to ‘designate’ anything.

This discussion is about (or at least was about) what frequency the rules require me to use at a strip that’s not in ERSA nor on any chart. As far as I can tell, there are only 2 choices in the circumstances I described: 126.7 or the Area frequency. The CAAP Note says Area and the AIP says 126.7.

I don’t know to what “problem” you refer when you say “the problem” goes away if I use the same frequency as MIA CTAF. Don’t I create other problems if I use the MIA CTAF when I’m 17 miles away and tracking away from MIA? What about the people monitoring the Area frequency?

Bottom line for me in the hypothetical: If I have one radio, I’m broadcasting on Area. If I have two radios, I’m broadcasting on Area and monitoring the MIA CTAF.

No doubt the regulatory reform program will clear all this up by 2003. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

No doubt the regulatory reform program will clear all this up by 2003.
You're 100 years out, Puff. By then, all you bug-smashers will have ADSB out and radio calls will be a thing of the past!! :} :} :ok:

[kaz3g]

If you are overflying Joe's paddock airstrip on the way into Mildura and 17 miles out without it marked on the charts or listed in ERSA, how the heck would you know it was there unless you happened to see it as you went over, and how would you know where Joe's place was if someone else gave a "10 miles inbound Joe's paddock" call?

Joe's paddock isn't a CTAF and I'll be on the Area.

Kaz

[Creampuff]

That's why I came to the same conclusion.

And it appears that whoever drafted the 'Note' in the CAAP agrees.

All Australia needs to do now is change the advisory material to match the rules, or change the rules to match the advisory material. Unfortunately, that's waaaay beyond the means of mortal mankind. :confused:

[andrewr]

What's the difference between landing in Joe's paddock, and flying an orbit around his house at 1000' AGL?

Would you announce the latter on area?

[Creampuff]

Yes of course.

The only people who would benefit from the broadcast will be monitoring the Area frequency.

[andrewr]

There are many, many similar VFR operations happening all the time. I'm pretty sure that the current expectation is that VFR aircraft will not broadcast every detail of their operations on area, and I suspect they would be unwelcome if they did.

[Capn Bloggs]

We've got to get back to who were protecting here.

I'm sure a lot of VFR bugsmashers would like not having to talk to anyone.

Captain Figjam and his pax though need to know that the VFR may be in the way, hence if a place is busy enough for it's own CTAF then anybody in the vicinity (did I hear someone say 15nm/5000ft MBZ??) needs to be on that freq. If they are somewhere else, then Capt Figjam doesn't need or want to know (nor do ATC).

If the VFR is going into Capt Figjam's territory (did someone mention above 5000ft outside 15nm?) then they need to talk/announce on... the Area freq.

So I can see a lot of sense in having, in effect, a huge broadcast area at lowish level on 126.7 (unless of course a discrete CTAF is warranted), as is currently effectively the case. All the low-level smashers on it and only pertinent broadcasts on the Area freq above it.

As for Creampuff's scenario, there will always be unique situations which might not fit the mould. In that case, it's up to the farmer to know the local area and make intelligent calls.

[Creampuff]

Bloggsie, confronting as it may be, it’s not just about you and your pax, and it’s not your territory. ;) There are lots of other tax-paying citizens flying around who don’t want to listen to every 126.7 transmission within 100 miles, and who will be just as dead as you and your pax if they have a mid-air with you. You might be surprised at how many of them make operational decisions based on what the biggies broadcast about their intentions on Area.

No andrewr, there are not ‘many, many similar VFR operations happening all the time’ at strips that are neither in ERSA nor marked on any chart. Most of them are happening at strips that are at least marked on charts, in the vicinity of which strips the frequency is, therefore, 126.7, unless some other frequency is specified as the CTAF.

There is no requirement in the rules to broadcast ‘orbiting Joe’s house at one thousand feet’, just as there is no requirement to report inbound and overflying Joe’s house at one thousand feet, if Joe’s house isn’t next to a strip marked on a chart or in ERSA. But if I thought a broadcast of those facts might benefit anyone potentially in the vicinity, I’d be broadcasting on Area.

[andrewr]

No andrewr, there are not ‘many, many similar VFR operations happening all the time’

This was in relation to my question: would you announce flying an orbit around Joe's house at 1000 AGL on area, which you replied "Yes, of course".

There are many VFR operations flying around at essentially random routes, maybe making an orbit of a the occasional house, interesting hill or lake etc. They do not tend to broadcast anything on area.

So the question is: what is different about landing in a paddock that requires a broadcast on area, while circling around a house, hill, lake or other interesting feature does not?

My answer is that there may be multiple aircraft operating to the same paddock e.g. Joe has a BBQ or spot landing competition with a few mates, in which case you want to coordinate between the aircraft flying to the same place. This is what the 126.7 frequency is provided for - to coordinate between aircraft flying in to a location where a discrete CTAF is not provided.

Nobody wants Joe's spot landing competition on area.

AIP appears to support this interpretation - although as pointed out, the CAAP has a different interpretation.

[Creampuff]

You are correct: I should have finished the sentence. :ouch:

Yes of course I would broadcast on Area if I thought anyone would benefit from knowing that I’m orbiting Joe’s house. A broadcast on any other frequency is, for the reason explained by Kaz, pointless.

The conundrum with the BBQ or spot landing competition at Joe’s paddock example is this: Unless Joe’s paddock is on charts, in ERSA or the subject of a NOTAM, aircraft in the vicinity will be monitoring Area and won’t know about activities that may be relevant to their safety and operational decision-making. If lots of aircraft are converging on, operating at and departing from a spot on a map, others in the area have an interest in knowing about it.

AIP ENR 1.1 paras 44.1 and 44.2 say:Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF frequency and announce if in potential conflict. Pilots intercepting broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge by transmitting own call-sign and, as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions.

The appropriate frequency stated above is:

a. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete CTAF shown (including Broadcast Area CTAF) or otherwise;

b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the CTAF 126.7; or

c. In all other cases the FIA frequency.[Underlining in the AIP. Bolding added]

An alternative is as suggested by Bloggsie: Make the Area frequency 126.7 everywhere that’s both outside C/D/E and below e.g. 5,000 AMSL.

But I don’t make the rules.

[uncle8]

You should, Creampuff, you've got a good grip on this.

[andrewr]

AIP ENR1.1 44 refers to Climb and Cruise procedures. If you are on climb or in cruise, I agree with you, but not if you are operating at an aerodrome.

AIP ENR 1.4 para 3.2 refers to the CTAF and procedures at non towered aerodromes.

Para 3.2.1: The CTAF is the frequency on which pilots operating at a non-towered aerodrome should make positional radio broadcasts. If a discrete frequency is not listed use Multicom 126.7MHZ.

Para 3.2.7: ENR 1.1 paras 21.1 lists the broadcasts for operations at non-towered aerodromes. Sections 40., 43. and 47. [Not section 44.] detail the communication requirements for operations at non-towered aerodromes.
Where a discrete CTAF is prescribed, these frequencies are shown in ERSA and ERC Low charts. Where no specific frequency is prescribed the default CTAF is 126.7MHZ.

The question then is: Is Joe's paddock an aerodrome? There is a definition of an aerodrome in AIP: A defined area of land or water ... intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and movement of aircraft.

It appears to me that if you mow or mark a strip, you have defined an area of land intended for the arrival, departure etc. of aircraft.

If you tell your friends to land in the paddock behind the house, you have probably defined an area of land intended for the arrival, departure etc. of aircraft.

If you land in a random paddock to take a leak, it is probably not a defined area intended for the arrival and departure of aircraft.

The rationale as I understand it is that 2 aircraft, one landing at an unmarked strip and one in cruise don't have a significantly greater risk of collision than 2 aircraft in cruise.

The increased risk of collision comes when you have 2 aircraft going to the same place, i.e.both going to the same unmarked strip. The CTAF is designed to allow those aircraft to communicate - not for aircraft operating at a strip to communicate with aircraft in cruise, where the risk is very remote.

[Capn Bloggs]

I agree, Andrew. Get circuit traffic at any landing point onto the CTAF and if no CTAF, the Multicom. If/when they depart (to above 5000ft ;)), then call "departed" on Area for my/IFR/higher-altitude VFR's benefit.

[Creampuff]

Are you saying I’m not allowed to cruise at 500’ or 1000’ AGL over the millions of square kilometres of farmer Joe’s and Josephine’s paddocks out there?

You and your spot landing competition mates might decide famer Joe’s paddock is an aerodrome and use 126.7, but nobody else knows about you. Bloggsie up in the thin air may not want to know about you, but mere mortals closer to the ground do.

What’s to stop someone cruising through your ‘circuit area’ at 500’ or 1000’?

There are other options to deal with these issues, which options have worked perfectly well for decades: NOTAM farmer Joe’s paddock for the duration of the spot landing competition, or get it marked on the charts. Fireworks display organisers and kite flyers seem to be able to manage it without too much difficulty. :ok:

[mcgrath50]

Whatever happened to see and avoid?

[Capn Bloggs]

Are you saying I’m not allowed to cruise at 500’ or 1000’ AGL over the millions of square kilometres of farmer Joe’s and Josephine’s paddocks out there?
No, just do it on the Multicom. Come near a published CTAF? Transfer to it untill passed. :ok:

Whatever happened to see and avoid?
No worky with big fast unmanoeuvrable aeroplanes (or bugsmashers with the driver head-down in his Garmin 1000/Oz Runways/Navbag EFB...)

Example (http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html)

[andrewr]

Are you saying I’m not allowed to cruise at 500’ or 1000’ AGL over the millions of square kilometres of farmer Joe’s and Josephine’s paddocks out there?

No, just that the probability of conflict with operations at an unmarked strip is low enough (almost certainly lower than the probability of conflicts when cruising at hemispherical levels) that broadcasts on area are not warranted.

[Creampuff]

All you have to do now is convince the regulator and all the aviators I know.

Good luck with that. :ok:

[andrewr]

All you have to do now is convince the regulator and all the aviators I know.

The stuff I quoted is from AIP, which is from the regulator. It is also how I was trained. I'm not sure why the aviators you now would think differently, but if they do it won't bother me particularly - but might annoy the occasional ATC with broadcasts on area...

[Dick Smith]

An article about this very issue is in today's Australian in the aviation section.

Can someone with ability put it up on this thread.?

[triton140]

Can someone put it up on this thread.?

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is under fire over its handling of changes to the radio frequency used by light aircraft in uncontrolled airspace at some small airstrips.

Victoria’s regional airspace and procedures advisory committee was worried enough about confusion over the changes that it warned they posed “a serious safety risk’’ and it asked CASA to convene a summit to explain them. But CASA says it has already moved to address the issues raised.

The changes were introduced in May last year and amended this month. They mean that aircraft operating into airports without a discrete common traffic advisory frequency, the radio frequencies on which pilots tell each other of their position and intentions, are now required to broadcast on the frequency en-route air traffic controllers use to talk to airlines flying at high levels. The move mostly affects uncharted agricultural and country landing strips.

A meeting of the Victorian RAPAC was told the change was so poorly managed that most light aircraft pilots were unaware of it.

“It was pointed out that had there been any industry consultation prior to the change, the risk of accidental jamming of air traffic control instructions to airline traffic could have been clear,’’ committee representatives told The Australian.

RAPAC members also see the way in which the changes were announced as part of the problem. They say they were announced in the airservices information package, which is generally not used by the visual flight rules pilots, but not in other places such as the visual flight rules guide.

As a result, even CASA admitted there was confusion and many pilots were still using the multicom frequency.

Victorian RAPAC member Dick Gower said he had been in touch with other committees around Australia “and they’re all saying the same thing”.

The Victorian RAPAC has put a series of questions to CASA on matters such as what issue the changes were trying to address and whether the authority was complying with its own requirements to consult with industry.

A CASA spokesman said the regulator had the advisory publication and information booklet on civil aviation regulation 166 to include information on the issue. A notice to airmen had also been issued and CASA aviation safety advisers include this information during presentations to pilots.

“If pilots are aware of frequency congestion this should be reported to the relevant RAPAC to request a frequency change such as a broadcast area,’’ he said.

The spokesman said pilots should use the published CTAF frequency at non-controlled aerodromes with a CTAF and the multicom frequency of 126.7 MHz at uncontrolled aerodromes marked on a chart.

“At or near aerodromes not marked on a chart pilots should use the relevant VHF area frequency,’’ he said.

“Using the multicom at these unmarked aerodromes is not appropriate as other pilots operating in the area who are unaware of the aerodrome will be on the area frequency.’’
..........

[Squawk7700]

The Australian - Click here for original article (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-under-fire-over-handling-of-frequency-changes-for-light-pilots/story-e6frg95x-1227024664249?nk=f4c6f8cd360487186d7c2c6ebc5a627d)

[On eyre]

Another SNAFU

[Creampuff]

They mean that aircraft operating into airports without a discrete common traffic advisory frequency, the radio frequencies on which pilots tell each other of their position and intentions, are now required to broadcast on the frequency en-route air traffic controllers use to talk to airlines flying at high levels.It would be churlish of me to say: "I told you so", so I won't.

It seems to me to be the least impractical solution (and what I'd thought had been the requirement for many years).

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff. Are you suggesting a system where VFR and IFR aircraft using "radio arranged separation " in the Australian way on frequencies which are also used by ATC to separate aircraft is " the least impractical solution".

That clearly means the ATC does not have control of the frequency.

And you don't seem to have a problem with this . Does it concern you that no other country allows aircraft to aircraft communications on ATC control frequencies unless approval has been obtained from the ATC?

[Creampuff]

Creampuff. Are you suggesting a system where VFR and IFR aircraft using "radio arranged separation " in the Australian way on frequencies which are also used by ATC to separate aircraft is " the least impractical solution".I didn't suggest that. I positively asserted it.That clearly means the ATC does not have control of the frequency.Oh no! It's going to rain aluminium!And you don't seem to have a problem with this . Does it concern you that no other country allows aircraft to aircraft communications on ATC control frequencies unless approval has been obtained from the ATC?There are lots of things that concern me about the third world joke that Australian aviation regulation and infrastructure has become. An occasional broadcast on the Centre frequency isn't high on my list, though.

I don't make the rules, Dick. I just try to work out what they are - this week - and comply with them.

[Jack Ranga]

Awesome :D I can't wait for this, best rule change ever :ok:

[Draggertail]

Notam c119/14

operational frequency requirements


in lieu of current aip information regarding operations at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes, pilots must use the following frequencies for broadcasts:

A. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete ctaf shown (including broadcast area ctaf), or otherwise;

b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the ctaf 126.7; or

c. In all other cases, area vhf.

Procedures incorporated in aip effective 21 aug 2014.

From 07 180435 to 08 201559

[Dick Smith]

Complete madness I would reckon. Can anyone advise which section of CASA has come up with this requirement?

Is it an individual at CASA who drove it or was it someone from the industry?

If they want to return to "radio arranged separation " as operated before the AMATS changes in the early 90's they need to employ the FSO's again and bring back separate FIS and ATC airspace and frequencies again. Nothing $30 to $100 m a year wouldn't cover .

Of course they will need to put IFR and VFR at the same Quadrantral levels again and abolish that crazy ICAO semi circular rule that puts IFR and VFR at separate cruising levels!

[andrewr]

Which charts? Any chart? All charts?

There are airfields marked e.g. on the WAC but not on the VNC. Which frequency would you use in this case?

[CaptainMidnight]

The article suggests a lack of understanding of:


an "area" frequency i.e. FIA Flight Information Area;
a high altitude ATC control frequency (which aren't normally the same);


The explanation in the NOTAM is a no brainer - the procedures are what should be used and have been for many years.

Whatever conflicting text has been in AIP since May 2013 was originated by CASA. It sounds like they either worded it poorly or got it wrong.

[Creampuff]

The explanation in the NOTAM is a no brainer - the procedures are what should be used and have been for many years.Correct.

The number of calls that have been made and will continue to be made on the area frequency in the vicinity of strips that aren't marked on charts will continue to be approximately three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.

[Capn Bloggs]

Hey Dick, some advice often given to me by my 14yo daughter: "Calm your farm". :cool:

[andrewr]

The number of calls that have been made and will continue to be made on the area frequency in the vicinity of strips that aren't marked on charts will continue to be approximately three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.

Is that because no-one flys out of unmarked strips, or because they don't read these updates and will continue to do what they have always done and use 126.7? Or possibly they make no calls at all at their own private strip?

[Creampuff]

Irrespective of the answers to your questions, the rule is now crystal clear.

Comply with it, or get it changed. Simple. :ok:

Trust me: The world of aviation safety ain't gonna come tumbling down on this one. There are important things to worry about. This isn't one of them.

[Aussie Bob]

Or possibly they make no calls at all at their own private strip?

Sounds the go to me ...

[Duck Pilot]

What's the big deal, it's a complete no brainer?

[andrewr]

the rule is now crystal clear.

Except where the airfield is on some charts, but not the one you are using.

The world of aviation safety ain't gonna come tumbling down on this one.

True. The worst that will happen is that it might irritate airlines or ATC - and they probably do have the influence to get it changed if necessary.

[Dick Smith]

In many cases the ATC who is monitoring the G frequency is also responsible for separating aircraft in controlled airspace.

In some cases aircraft in G making self announce calls at low level block out calls that they cannot hear that are being made to or from aircraft being separated by ATC. That's why procedures in other modern aviation countries prohibit such calls on ATC separation frequencies.

Or take away the concentration by the ATC where it should be. Look up the BASI report on the breakdown of separation in relation to a 747SP in Queensland a number of years ago. A VFR aircraft making position reports was one of the reasons given for the error.

First a breakdown of separation then a real accident killing people. That's why I would like to know which individual has pushed this.

Come on. Some one must know- send me a private message if you would like!

[Duck Pilot]

Irritate the airlines and ATC? Maybe/maybe not who cares! When I fly around VFR (for fun) I always make an all stations call on the area VHF if I believe its applicable regardless of what ATC and the IFR pilots think (I hold a current IFR rating). As Creamie indicated, if this new rule gets people wound up they are loosing sight of the big picture. Could be fun and games for some when all the new rules are rolled out........

[Aussie Bob]

The worst that will happen is that it might irritate airlines or ATC

Many GA and RAA pilots make the following calls:

10 miles
5 miles
Joining circuit
Joining downwind
Joining base
Joining final
Vacating the runway

Let's take the case of a flyaway for a BBQ ... to a strip not marked on any charts and the above dudes are out in force. It is also a busy Sunday for the good folk at Flight Service, a lot is happening, many area frequencies are tied together, staff are few.

I see mega irritation happening!

[Duck Pilot]

If people are making that many calls Bob, these need to be re-educated - that's just madness if there is no other traffic around!!!! They should go and get a job at a radio station. Inbound, circuit entry and an initial taxi call (and a departure call if there was traffic around) should be suffice in my opinion. We need to also remember that just about all of these airstrips effected by this rule in most cases have very little traffic operating in and out of them.

[majorca]

Good on you, Dick. For one, controllers can over transmit communications if necessary plus there are other methods that can be used; simply, " ABC standby". To bring up the incident Of the 747 SP is rubbish and not relevant. When incidents are investigated ATC's/Pilots manufacture all sorts of excuses and this case it is of no relevance. Besides, you've recommended/presided over some crap.......the latest being GAAP to Class D Procedures.

[triadic]

This issue is more than just the existence and use of the MULTICOM frequency.

Whether you agree with the concept of the MULTICOM or not, it was introduced some 10+ years ago to remove aircraft chat on the ATS frequencies which was then seen as a significant frequency congestion issue along with re-transmission which was expanding at the time. There are many areas where low level ops cannot be heard by Centre and visa versa, but they can all be heard by high flyers. During the discussions held by the RAPACs back then, the introduction was based on a similar process in North America. If it works there, it should work here was the philosophy - however it's introduction was not covered by an appropriate level of education - and there was, as usual, with airspace and procedure changes, little or no allowance for Ozzie culture, which is basically to talk far too much!! Why a country (such as the USA) with significantly more aviation activity can exist with a MULTICOM and significantly less CTAF frequencies than here is a question that needs to addressed, through education.

The real issue with this change is the failure of CASA to discuss / consult with industry and the RAPACs, which is seen by many in the industry as an attempt to undermind the process and push changes to procedures etc through because it is thought to be a good idea and there is little or no corporate history of why the procedure is there in the first place, something that the RAPACs could have provided advise on. This change has obviously been pushed by someone with little or no understanding of the background of the issue and no desire to to be influenced by industry, who perhaps understand the issues better than they....

Yet another failure by CASA.:ugh:

[Creampuff]

It's not a change. Sure: there's the usual chronic confusion and folklore about the rules, caused by too much poorly implemented 'reform'.

People who think there's lots of "aircraft chat" on area frequencies obviously don't spend too much time listening to area frequencies.

Can someone nominate a busy airstrip that's not marked on any WAC, VNC or VTC, from which all this disruptive, 747 mid-air collision causing chit-chat will be emanating?

[Jack Ranga]

If people are making that many calls Bob, these need to be re-educated

lol :D:D:D

Good luck with that cuz :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. It is a change. When we introduced CTAFs it was following procedures that had been proven to give acceptable levels of safety in North America.

In those countries pilots are not approved to make self announcements or circuit calls on ATC separation frequencies.

Do you agree that by publishing ATC sector frequencies on the maps and making it mandatory for VFR to monitor and announce this gives AsA a responsibility to try and prevent a mid air if two VFR aircraft a seen close together in radar airspace.?

In other words if two such aircraft collide and it is shown that ATC workload was low and could have prevented the mid air if the aircraft were called and given traffic on each other when close together.

I will ask again. Who is behind this annoucement- surely if they believe -as Creamy does -that there has been no change they will admit to their involvement? Then again they may hide and that's why I wish to know from others who drove this.

And can someone remind me. What are the MANDATORY calls at an aerodrome ?

[Dick Smith]

Marjorca. As I understand it , controllers have no authority to tell pilots transmitting in class G airspace to standby. The pilot may judge that the announcement / communication is important for immediate safety .

Do you know differently?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I'm having a 'Groundhog Day'......:sad:

Nurse, my medication please......:eek:

It USED to be all SO CLEAR......:8

[Aussie Bob]

And can someone remind me. What are the MANDATORY calls at an aerodrome ?

To the best of my knowledge, there are none ...

If people are making that many calls Bob, these need to be re-educated

I try! Doesn't seem to work very well though. I was listening to one of my ex students the other day (now a PPL). He was giving a running commentary of his actions. He DID NOT learn it from me. Next time I see him I will offer a free can of Mr. Sheen and some soft rags in an attempt to reeducate him.

[CaptainMidnight]

No, its not a change.

The NOTAM simply reinforces/restates the procedures that have been in place for over 10 years, and are plain common sense.

As I said, the FIA frequency is NOT normally the same as a high level control frequency.

In situations of remote areas where they may be common, and in other areas during periods of light workload where the retransmit facility is active, I suspect ATC are experienced enough to "tune out" mentally to the odd broadcast they hear on an FIA frequency, and "tune in" to a call on a separate control frequency they're using.

[Dick Smith]

Aussie. Mate. This is Australia. I bet there are mandatory calls in the vicinity of an aerodrome- with big fines.

Captain. Under the J curve arn't most low level E airspace frequencies the same as the G below? Sure happens where I fly!

[Creampuff]

Captain Midnight is (still) correct.

Dick: Can you nominate a busy airstrip - just one - that's not marked on any WAC, VNC or VTC, from which all this disruptive, 747 mid-air collision causing chit-chat will be emanating?

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. It's not one busy airport that is the problem. It's 100s of landings taking placed very day at private strips all over our land. This requirement will only work if most don't give any radio calls- and that's what must happen.

However if most don't give calls why have this unique requirement?

Also I am positive some calls are mandatory in the vicinity of an airport. Creamy you understand the law- are you telling me a pilot can arrive at a CTAF and give no calls at all?

[Creampuff]

Dick

You're off with the fairies. I don't know what's prompted this particular foray into fairyland, but believe me: there are important things to worry about, and this isn't one of them.

[Dick Smith]

Majorca. You say rubbish. Do you think the controller was fibbing? Are you stating that VFR position reports and radio arranged separation on ATC frequencies does not effect controller workload. ?

How are you qualified to say this. Do other controllers agree?

[CaptainMidnight]

Under the J curve arn't most low level E airspace frequencies the same as the G below?Yes, but there aren't too many airliners and 747's flying in low level E airspace, which at best in the J curve only goes up to FL180 (FL125 in some areas).

[Dick Smith]

Captain. It looks as if you will say anything to justify this unique system

RPT aircraft have to be separated by ATC from other IFR aircraft up to fl180.

While other VFR aircraft are supposed to be making circuit calls on the same frequency. Obviously only works if hardly any VFR pilots comply.

Clinton. How about some answers to my genuine questions? Re duty of care and mandatory CTAF calls?

[Creampuff]

I see your point Dick.

All those hundreds of landings taking place every day at strips that aren't marked on the charts are going to generate so many calls on the area frequency that air traffic control will descend into chaos. It will be raining RPT aluminium.

Can you see any pixies where you are? Walk towards the light: That's the direction of the top of the garden and back to reality.

[Aussie Bob]

Aussie. Mate. This is Australia. I bet there are mandatory calls in the vicinity of an aerodrome- with big fines.

So what did you ask the question for then Dick? My guess is there are none, your guess is there are some, it appears that neither of us can be bothered with the rule book.

Can anyone quote legislation?

[Dick Smith]

I am bothered by the rule book but it's all too complicated for a simple car radio installer. That's why I ask advice. Hope this can be answered in a genuine way.

Creampuff. It is a lot more serious than you make out.

My point is that the requirement is likely to have been introduced on the tactic understanding that most pilots will not comply. I am sure you will agree that if this is so it is not a prudent way to regulate!

Do AsA ATCs have any responsibility to VFR aircraft that are mandatory on their ATC frequency and clearly close together on radar in G airspace ? I am told this is the reason other countries such as the USA do not publish the ATC class E sector frequency boundaries?

What's your expert view on this as a legal expert!

[Creampuff]

My view is that everyone should worry.

Worry lots.

In fact, best if everyone panics.

Only in Australia can a clear statement of a rule that has been in place for over a decade generate this amount of silliness.

In the absence of a competent agency delivering effective industry education, nearly everyone will continue to muddle along with folklore-based procedures anyway. So calm your farm, Dick!

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff. I was involved in the introduction of CTAFs. Up until then there was no such thing in Aus - all calls were on a frequency monitored by the government employed FSO.

If the rule has been in for a decade as you claim it came about from someone who had no idea of the plan for reform and in my view is an error.

That's why I would like to know who is driving it so I can find out the reason.

Over 50% of US airports are below radar coverage yet they can somehow get away with a system that does not require circuit traffic to report on Government monitored ATC control frequencies.

If this requirement was actually complied with by all pilots the area frequencies would be seriously disrupted and I believe safety for fare paying passengers reduced. If a traffic information service is required on VFR there is an ICAO airspace that covers this. It is called class D !

Or go back to the FS system that was in place before AMATS.

[Dick Smith]

Did I read the article correctly. That is the Victorian RAPAC supports this CASA ruling where aircraft at these strips must give calls on the AsA control frequency - not the multicom procedure that was introduced at my time.

Are the members obsessed with radio? Would they support moving back to the old system where all calls were on the government provided frequency and CTAFs did not exist?

Would they pay the tens of millions this cost?

Or do they believe this proposal will work and cost nothing?

[Creampuff]

I'm looking forward to hearing all those departure and arrival broadcasts from aircraft operating at unmarked airstrips. It can sometimes get extraordinarily quiet and lonely on the area frequency.

I'd always thought that the almost complete absence of broadcasts on area was due to the tiny number of movements in and out of unmarked airstrips, but I live and learn.

[Clare Prop]

From an instructor's point of view I teach my students when on navexes to use the frequency that will give them the best situational awareness of other aircraft in their vicinity.

When you are bimbling along VFR at 3500 I don't see how listening to ATC giving IFR clearances to RPT at flight levels is going to achieve this.

The only time that Centre (are they called Area now?) frequency is of any use to us is if we have a flight plan/SARtime amendment or a mayday. Trying to get their attention can sometimes take up to ten minutes if they are busy doing their real job.

Where is the safety improvement if Farmer Joe departs Woop Woop Station talking on Melbourne Centre and we are on 126.7 in the vicinity? How is him knowing that Qantas are at FL350 going to improve safety?

Personally I think Centre should be used for IFR and if we VFR need to talk to someone for assistance, relevant CTAF for everything else.

IN real life though the chances of it actually making a difference to safety are very small. It also shows that the CAAPs have limited or no legal status (Am I right Creampuff?) and you must always refer to the AIP.

[Dick Smith]

Clare prop. Good on you. All commonsense . However not what CASA is now telling everyone .

And I reckon the monitoring and calls are not advisory. Mandatory and prescriptive I would reckon. Surly someone can give us a definitive answer on this- Creamy clearly doesn't know!

[porch monkey]

Surly gave up worrying about this kind of first world bull**** long ago.....

[Creampuff]

So Clare, you must be one of the instructors who's teaching the pilots that I hear Centre trying, unsuccessfully, to contact, to warn them of a pending penetration of an active Romeo or controlled airspace. Or to try to get them to squawk ident to confirm location and then altitude, for the safety of other nearby, IFR, traffic. Or to try to confirm the location of an aircraft that's past its SARTIME.

Astonishing.

Absolutely astonishing. :ugh:

[Aussie Bob]

Surly gave up worrying about this kind of first world bull**** long ago.....

Me too Monkey, a broadcast on area frequency from the outer whoop whoop grass paddock is pretty much a pointless thing.

By the way Creamie, there are a few ALA's in my area, not on the charts that occasionally get busy with fly ins. The last one I recall had over 40 aircraft present. If the clubbies elect to use 126.7 are they now breaking the law?

[triton140]

Surly someone can give us a definitive answer on this

CAR 166C is the bit - only mandatory calls are those required to avoid a collision!

166C Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio
(1) If:
(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non‑controlled aerodrome; and
(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and
(c) the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;
the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).
(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:
(a) the name of the aerodrome;
(b) the aircraft’s type and call sign;
(c) the position of the aircraft and the pilot’s intentions.

[Dick Smith]

Why does Civil Air. , the ATC Union accept this?

They must know that CASA will step away and blame the ATC if a mid air occurs because attention is taken away by self announcements by VFR pilots on ATC frequencies.

The ATCs were given a proportion of the blame for the Bankstown mid air even though the airspace at the time required pilot separation.

In many cases the ATCs will not be able to hear taxiing calls from aircraft but the calls could block out separation instructions.

Then again. As Creamy points out, it hasn't happened yet - so let's not worry!

Fascinating. No one is game to say who is pushing this at CASA and whether the calls are mandatory.

Sorry. My edit. We do have a sort of an answer from Triton- thanks

[Creampuff]

By the way Creamie, there are a few ALA's in my area, not on the charts that occasionally get busy with fly ins. The last one I recall had over 40 aircraft present. If the clubbies elect to use 126.7 are they now breaking the law?What should happen, and what used to happen when aviation was regulated competently and pilots were trained to a standard, was that the organisers of the fly in would arrange for the promulgation of a thing called a 'NOTAM' that pilots used to 'read' and 'comprehend' as part of their 'pre-flight planning' and 'operational decision-making', in which NOTAM the location of and discrete frequency for the activity could be specified.

Just do whatever Dick says is common sense. Nothing could possibly go wrong. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. We had better gave a cuppa next time I come to Canberra. You seem to be getting old and cranky.

Yes yes. I know. The old days when we were with the regulator were far better!

[Biggles_in_Oz]

As triton140 and CAR 166C say, the only mandatory broadcasts are to avoid collisions (which sortof implies that we are all-seeing/all-knowing sky gods who can foretell when problems will arise)

CASA have a publication (dated 2014) called "Operations at non-controlled aerodromes" http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/nca_booklet.pdf

It explicitly says "Under CAR 166 C, you must make a radio broadcast whenever it is reasonably necessary to avoid a collision or the risk of a collision."
and also
" Pilots should monitor and broadcast their intentions on the relevant Area VHF when operating at aerodromes not depicted on aeronautical charts."

So it becomes a matter of just what the word, "should', really means.

[Clare Prop]

So Clare, you must be one of the instructors who's teaching the pilots that I hear Centre trying, unsuccessfully, to contact, to warn them of a pending penetration of an active Romeo or controlled airspace. Or to try to get them to squawk ident to confirm location and then altitude, for the safety of other nearby, IFR, traffic. Or to try to confirm the location of an aircraft that's past its SARTIME.


Well Creampuff, I can't speak for other training providers but must say I'm astonished too, that you think the we let our students get themselves into those sorts of situations. Perhaps you need to become familiar with the competencies required to get a PPL before going on the attack like that.

We don't cruise at IFR altitudes, for a start. :ugh: We don't go cruising merrily into Romeo or Class C airspace and we keep track of our SARtimes. Just basic stuff, really. And you would be amazed how much less likely it is with some of the things like Ozrunways around.

I think this shows exactly how some segments of industry have absolutely no idea how others operate. I can assure you all there was zero consultation with CFIs about any of this, as usual. We just have to try and present a dogs breakfast in a logical way.

I still have a lot to learn but I think my 11.000 hours of instructing may be worth something in this debate.

What is the point of being on Melbourne Centre when we are too low for them to see on radar? And usually they can't hear us either, or perhaps they are just ignoring us. Perth Centre is different but they are not doing the same job as Melbourne Centre.

Meanwhile I will continue to use the broadcasts even though they are no longer mandatory ...because how will you know if a collision risk exists if everyone is in stealth mode....and will do it on CTAF...and only use aerodromes that are published on charts (which we do anyway)

[Dick Smith]

" Pilots should monitor and broadcast their intentions on the relevant Area VHF when operating at aerodromes not depicted on aeronautical charts."

This is stark raving mad. That's where the multicom of 126.7 was to be used.

Then again I suppose if professional controllers don't object to such madness on their frequencies- why should we?

It's clearly an attempt to return to what someone once learnt in the 60's.

Where's our retired FSO when we need him!

Come on. Someone must be able to advise who drove this revisionism at CASA?

Or could it be Creamy?

Try doing this in Canada, USA or the UK- they will have you certified.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Gotta agree with you on this one Dick!

Seems like a really stupid idea.

Dr :8

[Creampuff]

Clare: Your students don't make mistakes? Wow - will you and they be starting a religion?

Actually, your students do make mistakes. But that's not the main point.

Your students don't need to be making a mistake in order for Centre to want to talk to them. Your aces may well be cruising at the proper VFR cruising level, but Centre needs to talk to your aces in order to verify the accuracy of the information being transmitted by the transponder, before passing information to the IFR aircraft nearby. Or your aces may be blissfully ignorant of the fact that the transponder fitted to the aircraft is transmitting an inaccurate altitude that's causing problems for others in the system.

It might be a student from another school that's forgotten to cancel his SARTIME, and your aces might help save a lot of SAR resources if they can provide information to Centre.

If you and your aces monitored the area frequency, rather than bimbling along listing to 126.7 alone, you and they would already know this.

Dick: It's me. I decided that the rules would require this. Everyone else said "no", but I said I didn't care and that the rules had to say what I wanted them to say or I would stamp my feet and hold my breath. Worked a treat. :ok:

Listen everybody: Do what ever you like. It's your licence, not mine.

[tecman]

I've never had any doubt about what I'm supposed to do when there is no marked airfield on the map: listen and broadcast on the area freq or Centre as required. Definitely had a few terse controllers from time to time, and there's often a need for very minimal and judicious broadcasts. But it's the only approach that makes sense of the rules as written.

It's not a big issue these days as the $1200 comm in my bug smasher has a dual-watch function for two frequencies, which is a poor man's twin transceiver arrangement. Works well, and often buzz around Perth local area with the CTAFs as the primary freq and Centre as the secondary.

While I appreciate many of Dick's reforms, I thought the uncertainty introduced in frequency selection was a real step backwards. To have a situation where a pilot with precise 3-space coordinates experiences ambiguity as to which frequencies to use is plain silly, and by the looks of this thread we have a way to go yet in setting it right.

[Clare Prop]

Wow, just...wow.

It is a required competency in order to qualify for a PPL, that you don't do stuff like that.

Being competent doesn't mean you are an "ace" as far as I know "aces"are in the air force and I am a civvie pilot so I don't quite know what you mean.

I'm just trying to present this from the point of view as someone who trains and tests people who are going to be using these procedures during Day VFR. There is enough here in Australian aviation which is very illogical, which makes it harder to teach and learn and now we have more.

Clearly there are those "on high" who know better than us because there was zero consultation or education to industry. Zero.

But I do know that some friends who do charter out of a popular REGISTERED aerodrome with a discrete CTAF who are having more problems with people rocking up and saying nothing, and this is at an aerodrome where carriage of radio is mandatory....now it seems USING it is optional and the collision risk has now gone from known to unknown.

Once again I ask the question, how can you know a collision risk exists if nobody is talking? I really don't want a repeat of having an Air Tractor taking off in the opposite direction to me on short final because he didn't feel like talking or listening to anyone that day.

[Tankengine]

Let us not even mention those who either don't talk or use someone else's callsign to avoid movement charges!:hmm: whoops!:E

[Creampuff]

Isn't one of the performance criteria for an element of the PPL, under Unit C8:Maintains radio communications and listening watch with ATS/ATCHow does one do that on 126.7?

Clare: If your students aren't being taught to monitor the area frequency, wherever they may go or be, my view is that they may not be as effective a participant in the system of safety as they might otherwise be. (But note: I'm a nobody.)

I agree it's a complete dog's breakfast (that I didn't cook).

Maybe it would be less of a dog's breafast if people at least complied with the rules that are clear (not many of those) and, if the clear rules are wrong, got them changed. (Good luck with that - did I say I was a nobody - and I'm jiggered if I know who's in charge of the rules.)

[Clare Prop]

If you only have one radio, as most of our aircraft do, it would be nuts to monitor the "area" frequency rather than the one that other people are (hopefully) broadcasting on in your vicinity.

Most of the time on navexes here in WA we are way out of range of any ATC and down below 5000 calls to Melbourne Centre for flight plan amendments if they are heard are being ignored. So that listening watch would be "if" they were required to in order to operate in controlled airspace.

If we are on Melbourne Centre, hearing RPT aircraft at flight levels is not really going to contribute to the safety of our flight.

If we are operating at an aerodrome that has an instrument approach, those aircraft are also on the CTAF.

So the students are taught to decide which frequency will give them the best chance of gaining situational awareness of aircraft in their vicinity.

I'll refer you to the MOS Schedule 2 Section 2 unit C1.2 and unit OGA 2.1 (c)

[Creampuff]

If you only have one radio, as most of our aircraft do, it would be nuts to monitor the "area" frequency rather than the one that other people are (hopefully) broadcasting on in your vicinity.That's a completely circular argument.

The frequency on which other people should be broadcasting is determined by the rules. The rules are in the NOTAM quoted earlier in this thread, and are the rules that I and every other pilot I know thought already applied for over a decade.

If you want to teach your students to bimble along listening to 126.7 alone, even when they are not in the vicinity of a strip marked on a chart, go for it: it's a free world. Just note that there could be other people bimbling along monitoring and broadcasting on the area frequency.

I don't make the rules. I just try to work out what they mean - this week - and comply with them.

[andrewr]

What should happen, and what used to happen when aviation was regulated competently and pilots were trained to a standard, was that the organisers of the fly in would arrange for the promulgation of a thing called a 'NOTAM' that pilots used to 'read' and 'comprehend' as part of their 'pre-flight planning' and 'operational decision-making', in which NOTAM the location of and discrete frequency for the activity could be specified.

So when the local aero club has a members-only fly in BBQ at a member's farm strip they should be publishing a NOTAM?

[andrewr]

The rules are in the NOTAM quoted earlier in this thread, and are the rules that I and every other pilot I know thought already applied for over a decade.

The rules as I understood them (and other pilots I have spoken to, but I haven't asked every pilot I know) were that at an airfield you used the specific frequency if one had been specified, and 126.7 if no specific frequency had been assigned.

Away from airfields, you monitored but did not broadcast on area (except for some specific high traffic areas e.g. Melbourne coastal route where broadcasts were recommended).

This sounds like it is heading back towards a requirement for VFR aircraft in general to broadcast on area. Otherwise I'm not sure what is special about an unmarked strip that requires a broadcast, as opposed to leaving an airfield where there is a CTAF defined.

[Creampuff]

So when the local aero club has a members-only fly in BBQ at a member's farm strip they should be publishing a NOTAM?Depending on where that strip is, and depending on whether it’s marked on a chart and you want to avoid clogging up the area frequency if it isn’t marked on a chart: YES. OF COURSE. PUBLISH A NOTAM. I’ve read NOTAMS about kite flying and kid’s balloon releases FFS. It ain’t hard. (I will make my point another way: What is the risk in arranging for a NOTAM about the fly-in to be published?)

Although I realise it may be particularly confronting for Gen Ys, it not all about them. It’s also about ‘others’ who ‘share’ the sky and also want to be safe. Others may have an interest in avoiding the vicinity of an unmarked airstrip at which this fly-in activity will occur. I'm not sure what is special about an unmarked strip that requires a broadcast, as opposed to leaving an airfield where there is a CTAF defined.And therein lies the crux of the operational conundrum.

To someone who’s flying near but unaware of an airstrip that isn’t marked on the charts, it looks just like all the other million square miles of land that doesn’t have a marked airstrip. People around there will be monitoring the area frequency, because that’s what the rules require and they don’t know about the unmarked strip - it's unmarked.

The people flying in and out of the unmarked airstrip will know about it, but others won’t. Others would like to know. Given that the others are obliged to be monitoring the area frequency, the way in which to alert them to activities at an airstrip that is not marked on the charts for that area is to …. get the people operating at the airstrip to broadcast on area (or get the strip marked or get a NOTAM published).

And in a wonderful coincidence, here’s the text of a post from the ‘QLINK CTAF calls on Centre’ thread: Yet despite these calls we still get targets on the TCAS who are conveniently mute and all the while we are coming up on their caboose at a great rate of knots.

To the 'weekend warriors' and smaller operators out there - PLEASE be on the appropriate frequency and be proactive in letting us know where you are. Saves on paperwork later onThere are rules about what the ‘appropriate frequency’ is.

[Trent 972]

Creampuff is correct. The law is the law.
Dick Smith is correct. The law is an ass.
Clare is correct. Teaching common sense.
The law has been tested by the vast majority of GA pilots and is ignored as being unworkable.

[Creampuff]

Yet there are lots of pilots who say the requirements set out in the NOTAM quoted in this thread are a ‘no-brainer’.

Just goes to show that what may appear common sense to one man may appear stupid to another.

I guess that’s one of the reasons societies make rules.

[dartman2]

A couple of observations:

1. When referring to AD's marked on charts, which charts? There are lots that may be on a VNC but not on the WAC or VV covering the same location. this of course can lead to two aircraft at the same place on different frequencies.

2. The "area frequencies" are primarily for aircraft in class A/C airspace. They are not the same as the old FS frequencies. Nobody in upper airspace needs to hear somebody in a light aircraft operating into his mates farm. Many of these frequencies are retransmitted so half the country gets to listen to it.

3. Just to further complicate things there is a lot of confusion out there which area frequency should be monitored (class C or E where applicable).

The answer should be:
1. Use the TWR frequency if airspace is not active
2. Use the designated CTAF for the AD or broadcast area
3. In ALL other cases use 126.7

Alternatively bring back Flight Service (like they have done at Headland).

[Creampuff]

The "area frequencies" are primarily for aircraft in class C airspace. … [T]here is a lot of confusion out there which area frequency should be monitored (class C or E where applicable).Evidently.

So d2, let’s take the ERC LL and the stuff on it around - random pluck - Broken Hill.

On that chart there are some green solid lines, and some brown dashed lines, that make a big box, near the centre of which is Broken Hill.

The chart legend says that the green solid line means “G Frequency Boundary” and the brown dashed line means “E Frequency Boundary”.

On that chart there is also a frequency box near Broken Hill. In that box there are brown letters and numbers that say “ML CEN 122.6” and green letters and numbers that say “ML CEN 122.6”.

There are also some blue letters and numbers that say “A LL FL245” and some brown letters and numbers that say “E LL FL180”.

What is a “G Frequency”?

What frequency should aircraft below FL 180 be monitoring in that area around Broken Hill, if the aircraft is not in the vicinity of any aerodrome?

[dartman2]

Creampuff, yes I know that but plenty do not. That was my point.

I know of many that think they should monitor the overlying E frequency (which is sometimes different).

[Creampuff]

Goodo.

Gotta say that your knowledge wasn’t abundantly clear from your post, but be that as it may and while we’re on a roll with the area around Broken Hill ….

On what frequency should Farmer Brown transmit if he wants people to know that he’s taking off from his un-marked airstrip 65 nautical miles to the East of Broken Hill (and coincidentally right under W516), and what frequency should he be monitoring until in the vicinity of Broken Hill during his flight over at 6,500’?

[dartman2]

Creampuff, you have a PM

[Creampuff]

You have a response. (Should we be using some form of secret code? :confused: )

[FokkerInYour12]

Surely we have enough frequencies left over for each aerodrome to have its own discrete frequency rather than a big multicom?

And for places where multiple strips are in proximity just give them an area multicom.

At 5000 feet, VHF is about 60NM.

So let's say any given place has 20 discrete frequencies dedicated to high level comms and you can't reallocate them within 400NM, this leaves

At 25Khz spacing, we have 760 channels to choose from.
At 50Khz spacing, we have 360 channels to choose from.

How many strips exist?
Country airstrip guide has a total of about 1900 airstrips.
NSW about 310
NT has 182
QLD has 595
SA has 178
TAS has 64
VIC has 143
WA has 382

"AOPA Airfield directory" says about 2000 (ERSA plus unlicensed).

At 25Khz spacing I really think we have enough for every airstrip to have a discrete frequency including "farmer joe's paddock".

I'd be happy with mandatory radio calls required for operations at an aerodrome plus ops 0-2500ft AGL within X NM of aerodrome are required to tune into said aerodrome.

Really we need avionics to come into the 21st century where you just press a button for GPS-linked "choose suitable frequency button".

Or, better yet, a transmit-and-store mechanism built into avionics that lets multiple people speak simultaneously and transmissions "keyed" by various items such as callsign (eg. adsb ID). Aircraft have two transmit buttons - one for ATC direct comms and the other for broadcast. Let's also have a "replay" button in case you want to re-hear that again.

But I digress!

[andrewr]

In light of various claims of folklore and nothing having changed, I figured I would dig out an old AIP and compare. I had one from 2010, which is probably a good age - not prehistoric, but old enough to be prior to the current set of changes.

There are 2 sections dealing with the CTAF frequency - Climb and Cruise Procedures, and Procedures at Non-Towered Aerodromes.

2010 AIP

OPERATIONS IN CLASS G AIRSPACE - CLIMB AND CRUISE PROCEDURES

A pilot of a flight intending to operate in the vicinity of a non-towered aerodrome at altitudes used by arriving and departing aircraft should:
a) monitor the appropriate CTAF, and broadcast by 10NM or earlier

It does not specify the appropriate CTAF but it is obviously the aerodrome CTAF

CLASS G AIRSPACE - The Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) and procedures at non-towered aerodromes

The CTAF is the frequency on which pilots operating at a non-towered aerodrome should make positional radio broadcasts. If a discrete frequency is not listed use Multicom 126.7MHZ.

Pretty clear - if no other frequency is listed, use Multicom 126.7. No mention of whether or not the aerodrome is marked on charts, or the area frequency.

6 MAR 2014 AIP

OPERATIONS IN CLASS G AIRSPACE - CLIMB AND CRUISE PROCEDURES

Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF frequency and announce if in potential conflict.

The appropriate VHF frequency is:
a) in the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete CTAF shown.
b) in the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency, the CTAF 126.7
c) in all other cases the FIA frequency

OK, here we have the aeronautical charts and area frequency appearing.

CLASS G AIRSPACE - The Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) and procedures at non-towered aerodromes

The CTAF is the frequency on which pilots operating at a non-towered aerodrome should make positional radio broadcasts. If a discrete frequency is not listed use Multicom 126.7MHZ.

No change to procedures at non-towered aerodromes - still use 126.7!

21 AUG 14 AIP

OPERATIONS IN CLASS G AIRSPACE - CLIMB AND CRUISE PROCEDURES

Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF frequency and announce if in potential conflict.

The appropriate VHF frequency is:
a) in the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete CTAF shown.
b) in the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency, the CTAF 126.7
c) in all other cases Area VHF

No significant difference from 6 MAR 2014.

CLASS G AIRSPACE - The Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) and procedures at non-towered aerodromes

Entire section is deleted!

My observations:



Each Climb and Cruise procedures section specifies the frequency that the pilot should be listening to, not broadcasting on.
The initial change appears to be trying to say that, in climb and cruise, if the aerodrome is not marked on charts you should be listening to area not 126.7 - which seems reasonable as these would normally be low traffic airfields.
This seems to have created some confusion because of a perceived requirement to that aircraft in climb or cruise should be receiving broadcasts from aircraft operating at unmarked strips. In practice this is debatable - the likelihood of conflict appears to be much lower than with other aircraft in cruise, yet no broadcast is required there.
It is slightly bizarre that the whole Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) and procedures at non-towered aerodromes section has been deleted. They seem to have seen a conflict with the cruise and climb procedures and decided it was redundant, without realizing that it applies to a different phase of flight.

Conclusion:

It definitely has changed - even 6 March 2014 clearly says that 126.7 should be used if no frequency is listed. The distinction between marked an unmarked strips is only in the climb and cruise procedures, not operations at the airfield.

[Creampuff]

And what was the definition of 'non-towered aerodrome' for the purposes of the 2010 AIP you quoted?

[YPJT]

Depending on where that strip is, and depending on whether it’s marked on a chart and you want to avoid clogging up the area frequency if it isn’t marked on a chart: YES. OF COURSE. PUBLISH A NOTAM. I’ve read NOTAMS about kite flying and kid’s balloon releases FFS. It ain’t hard. (I will make my point another way: What is the risk in arranging for a NOTAM about the fly-in to be published?)
In an ideal world maybe. The fact is though that Airservices will only publish NOTAMs for certified and registered aerodromes. The added burden of trying to administer reports for every ALA in existence is mind boggling.

[andrewr]

And what was the definition of 'non-towered aerodrome' for the purposes of the 2010 AIP you quoted?

Good question.

Non-towered Aerodrome: An aerodrome at which air traffic control is not operating

Aerodrome: A defined area of land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and movement of aircraft.

It would be difficult to argue that an area is either not defined or not intended to be used by aircraft unless it appears on a chart. Charts generally show the location of an airfield, rather than defining an area.

My unqualified opinion: Marking a runway (white tyres etc.) is sufficient to define an area of land intended to be used by aircraft. Probably, erecting a windsock and saying I am going to use the back paddock to takeoff and land also defines an area of land intended to be used by aircraft.

If the argument is that it isn't an aerodrome if it's not on a chart, does that have implications for every other rule about operations at non-towered aerodromes?

[CaptainMidnight]

2. The "area frequencies" are primarily for aircraft in class A/C airspace. This is incorrect, if by "Area" you mean FIA - Flight Information Area frequencies.

AIP:
Flight Information Area (FIA): An airspace of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.

The FIA frequency is the appropriate one to use when stooging along in Class G (away from the vicinity of aerodromes where a discrete CTAF, or 126.7 are used of course).

In fact in the event of having strife, a broadcast by you on an FIA is more likely to be heard by ATC and/or other aircraft, than relying on other aircraft hearing and understanding you on 126.7 (and them then being put in the position of trying to figure out who to notify and on what frequency …….).

The fact is though that Airservices will only publish NOTAMs for certified and registered aerodromes.No, the others are covered by Brisbane or Melbourne FIR NOTAMs. Organisers of fly-ins, field days etc. contact their local CASA Operations office and they have the NOTAM issued by Airservices.

[Creampuff]

*sigh*

**bigger sigh**

Random pick from today's NOTAMS:

C4532/14 REVIEW C2206/14
METEOROLOGICAL BALLOON RELEASE FROM KAHNCOBAN, NSW
PSN S36 13.3 E148 06.5 (BRG 098 MAG 12.8NM FM 'CRG' CORRYONG NDB)
SINGLE BALLOONS WILL RELEASED AT 3-HOURLY INTERVALS
OPR SNOWY HYDRO LIMITED CTC TEL 0438 370 828
SFC TO UNL
FROM 07 020328 TO 10 010300 ESTFly-ins don't happen every day at Farmer Brown's Farm. Why would anyone need to promulgate a NOTAM every day for a fly-in BBQ at Farmer Brown's Farm?

Every Farmer Brown's Farm out there is some distance and direction from something identified on some chart that Airservices cares about.

Couldn't you just do what every other sentient being on the planet seems to be able to do, and tell Airservices that some 'intense aviation activity' is going to happen at a specified latitude and longitude and direction and bearing from a 'real' aviation thing, between specified times on specified dates?

EDIT: My post was posted before I saw Capt M's. Ignore mine: Read Capt M's.

[Jack Ranga]

This is just the most awesomest thread :ok: can we have more of these :ok:

[Creampuff]

[I]n the event of having strife, a broadcast by you on an FIA is more likely to be heard by ATC and/or other aircraft, than relying on other aircraft hearing and understanding you on 126.7.Please tell your students this, Clare.

(Jack: Please take your medicine in accordance with the psychiatrist's directions!)

[Jack Ranga]

Nothing worse than when lawyers are involved in aviation Creampuff :ok: make that when they're involved in anything :ok: they created all this garbage in the first place not aviators

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Geezus JR.....

"Nursie Nursie, pain's gettin' worsie....wotcha gonna do..??

IT USED TO BE ALL SO 'SIMPLES'.......

And WHO changed it..???

(P.S. Tks again for the redundo.......)

:}

[Jack Ranga]

Just call me Jack :ok: I'm more comfortable with that (I'm not the messiah)

[Creampuff]

Nothing worse than when lawyers are involved in aviation Creampuff Exactly!

Avmed zealots on a medical crusade to rid the skies of commercial pilots with CVD? The lawyers did it!

DJ to blame for the ditching of NGA? The lawyers did it!

Airspace management a political plaything? The lawyers did it!

CASA and ATSB tell the Senate Committee to shove it? The lawyers did it!

Only lawyers would be prepared to separate pathetically weak aviators from their rights and money. Because it's fun! :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

You got it :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Ex FSO. The reason it is not simple now is that the NAS airspace change was not completed .

I believe we should either go back to the airspace pre 1991AMATS ( yes. And recruit another 700 FSOs ) or complete the introduction of NAS which was based on the North American system.

Try giving circuit or other announcements on ATC frequencies in the USA or Canada and you would be jumped on pretty smartly. It just not allowed!

It looks to me that there is no one in CASA who understands the approved NAS plan.

For example the current airspace has class C in the lower collision risk link airspace to non radar towers but then lower category class D in the higher collision risk tower airspace. Only dopes could justify that- no wonder the morale at CASA is so low!

[triadic]

Firstly there is obviously some confusion on what MULTICOM was designed to do and there is obviously a lack of corporate history and knowledge within CASA on the background and purpose of the MULTICOM, hence the misguided changes that they have pushed thru over the past year.

It was o so simple and what’s more it worked, but as I said earlier, the education at the time (10+years ago) was for some reason poor and as a result, I suspect that many did not even know it existed (and this thread seems to prove that!).

As Dick says, (and he is correct on this one) it was only ever designed for locations where there was no published CTAF and back then there was no mention of if it was on the charts or not! The en-route area frequency in Class G is now operated by the respective Centres and the procedures were never designed to cater for a/a chat - as in other countries all calls should be made thru Centre. The MULTICOM was only there to take the chat off the area Class G frequency as specific CTAF frequencies do - not to just cruise along and listen to it, tho' I believe many pilots do as they don't wish to listen to the Jets above! Call MAYDAY on 126.7 and see how many will answer…. you might be surprised?

Back in the days of FS, many aero clubs at rural locations used 119.1 as a local frequency, which might have been the MULTICOM of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s(??) – for exactly the same reason as it was introduced more than a decade ago – to get the LOCAL chat off the area frequency! Particularly when the area frequency is now operated by ATC.

The discussion above on having a NOTAM for farmer Joe's fly-in is not something that is practical as NOTAMs are only issued against promulgated locations and navaids and such NOTAMs will only be published in the FIR list (not against any nearby locations), which is, I suggest, not something that the average GA flyer would check very often as there is usually a bucket load in the list and it is very difficult to find something on the list that might be relevant. A subject of much discussion at the RAPACs over the years, but NOTAMs have very strict guidelines in accordance with ICAO recommended standards etc.

Surely we have enough frequencies left over for each aerodrome to have its own discrete frequency rather than a big multicom?

Actually we don't! The frequency spectrum is one of the most polluted part of our environment and there are often technical reasons why some air band frequencies cannot be used in some locations.

How come we have a never ending list of CTAF frequencies in Oz when in North America there is perhaps less than half a dozen?? The reason here, I suggest, is that our procedures encourage us to talk far too much! Again, something that the folk at CASA don’t appear to understand.:ugh:

One can live in hope that those in CASA that pushed this change thru so poorly might see the light (!!) and review this mess. I would be also interested to know how they got ASA to agree to this change? Or were they just bullied in the name of safety?? CASA know best... actually they don't!:ugh:

I suspect that our Controller friends might have something to say on this in due course.:mad:

[Creampuff]

The discussion above on having a NOTAM for farmer Joe's fly-in is not something that is practical as NOTAMs are only issued against promulgated locations and navaids and such NOTAMs will only be published in the FIR list (not against any nearby locations), which is, I suggest, not something that the average GA flyer would check very often as there is usually a bucket load in the list and it is very difficult to find something on the list that might be relevant. A subject of much discussion at the RAPACs over the years, but NOTAMs have very strict guidelines in accordance with ICAO recommended standards etc.If strategic decisions are going to be made on the basis of an assumption that GA pilots are too lazy or incompetent to read FIR NOTAMS, and participants in fly-ins are too lazy or incompetent to organise a NOTAM about the fly-in, trivia like confusion about broadcast requirements is the least of Australian aviation’s worries.

If you’re saying it’s not possible to get a NOTAM promulgated to say that a fly-in is going to happen at a specified distance and bearing from an aerodrome or Navaid with a code that’s on a chart, I call ‘bullsh*t’.

The suggestion that there’s all this ‘chat’ going on at hundreds of unmarked airstrips across the country, that’s going to clog up the area frequencies when it ‘moves’ from 126.7, is laughable. I listen to three frequencies when I fly: Area frequency, 126.7 and the nearest CTAF that’s not 126.7 (or sometimes 123.45 if there are friends around and we do want to ‘chat’). I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of calls I’ve heard on any of those frequencies from an airstrip that isn’t marked on a chart.

There is a NOTAM in force, today, that says the area VHF frequency must be used for operations at and in the vicinity of strips that aren’t marked on charts. Have the area frequencies been flooded with broadcasts from all those people operating in and out of unmarked strips who were previously broadcasting on 126.7? Have 747s collided because of the ‘chat’ and confusion? (That’s right – I forgot: The people that operate in and out of these places are too lazy or incompetent to read NOTAMS. :rolleyes:)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Issued by CASA today......

http://casa.grapevine.com.au/lists/lt.php?id=f0UFBg0CCAYBWR9VAQsETA4A

Page 21 refers......

Calls on 'the area VHF' get a mention - Yep! - That's the one ATC use to sort out their lot & issue clearances etc etc.....

p.s. Hi Dick, you wouldn't need anywhere near 700 FSO's these days.
But a few with 'strategically placed' AREA VHF outlets would be more than just 'good'.....OVAH.....

Cheers:ok:

[triton140]

Notes to today's revision of CAAP166-1 are interesting:

Note 1: The intent is to ensure broadcasts are made on a frequency that other aircraft in the vicinity will be monitoring. A broadcast made only on Multicom 126.7 at an aerodrome whose existence is only known through local knowledge is misguided, as transiting aircraft relying on aeronautical charts for aerodrome location information will be monitoring area frequency.

Note 2: Nonetheless, pilots should study all authorised aeronautical charts relevant to their flight route and category, in accordance with CAR 233 (1)(h). This is because some details may be omitted from charts of different scales even though they cover the same area (usually to avoid clutter).4

So the answer to a previous question about differences between charts seems to be if it appears on any relevant chart, then it's the CTAF or 126.7, only if it doesn't appear on any relevant chart should we use area.

Seems to me to make some sense, particularly given that Farmer Brown has no mandatory requirement to broadcast anything at all at his farm strip, shouldn't be a lot of clutter on area.

[Trent 972]

There is a NOTAM in force, today, that says the area VHF frequency must be used for operations at and in the vicinity of strips that aren’t marked on charts. Have the area frequencies been flooded with broadcasts from all those people operating in and out of unmarked strips who were previously broadcasting on 126.7?….
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from a Brisbane Center Operator who does the NT sectors surrounding Darwin, on Area Freq. broadcasts being used instead of 126.7 for all ops from uncharted airstrips. (My guess would be - instant meltdown).

[Creampuff]

There seems to be confusion about what the phrase "aeronautical charts" means.

There shouldn't be.

Good question, Trent 972: Has there been 'instant meltdown'?

As a matter of interest, Trent, can you nominate a few of those uncharted airstrips? I'm very keen to look at the applicable WAC (and VNC and VTC if it/they cover/s the area), to see if they are indeed unmarked on the current versions of the aeronautical charts.

[Dick Smith]

Today's revision of the CAAP is a credit to those who have worked on it.

I like the way it makes it clear that you must remain vigilant to see and avoid because the other pilot may be on the wrong frequency or volume turned down .

Yes it is complicated. But that's the Aussie way. The FAA equivalent will be half the size!

I believe there is still an error re the non marked strips and communicating on the area frequency- let's hope than can be fixed soon!

[Creampuff]

So: Any 'instant melt down' anywhere yet?

Trent: I'm still very interested in the names of some of those "uncharted airstrips" to which you referred.

Dick: Same request to you. I'm very interested in the names of some strips that aren't on any aeronautical chart and have lots of aviation activity.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from a Brisbane Center Operator who does the NT sectors surrounding Darwin, on Area Freq. broadcasts being used instead of 126.7 for all ops from uncharted airstrips. (My guess would be - instant meltdown). Do aircraft from those all depart and arrive at the same time? Do they make lengthy calls, or do they just make an all stations call taxying giving location, departure track and altitude? Are they all in the same FIA, or are there multiple FIAs involved potentially managed by different ATC sectors? Did the problem exist for FS when they managed the frequencies?

FWIW a few advantages of being on the relevant FIA frequency when enroute in Class G:


immediate SAR alerting, by either direct contact with ATC or if below/outside their VHF coverage, contact with another aircraft on a common frequency with ATC;
monitoring Hazard Alert broadcasts, and broadcasts of other operational information;
alert by ATC in the event of penetration or imminent penetration of CTA or an active Restricted Area;
alert to reactivation of Restricted Areas that have been released to ATC;
alert to broadcasts by other traffic in your area, and traffic information passed to other aircraft potentially about you;
availability of RIS
feel free to add others


The amount of broadcasts by ATC relating to point 3 suggests many are indeed either switched off or monitoring 126.7, completely oblivious to what is going on around them.

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. There are over a dozen small grass strips in the Bowral- Marulen area and on weekends quite a bit of traffic

Fortunately they don't give calls on the area frequency - a taxiing aircraft call may not be heard by the ATC but likely block out communication to en route IFR aircraft - not a safe system!

[Creampuff]

Creamy. There are over a dozen small grass strips in the Bowral- Marulen area and on weekends quite a bit of trafficRighto.

Given the potentially profound consequences for aviation safety - ATC meltdown and 747 crashes and all that - could you be a bit more specific as to location and number of movements? Don't want to be picky, but "quite a bit of traffic" is silly imprecise.

[triadic]

Capt Midnight - The Multicom was designed to keep low level circuit chat off the area frequency and not to be monitored en-route, where for the reasons you suggest it is best to monitor area.

Creamy - ref the NOTAMs, have a look at the ICAO Annex 15 to see the requirements. There are additional Oz requirments also. I did not suggest that you don't check the NOTAMs, but checking the FIR NOTAMS can take some time and the direct relevance to a GA flight is often zero, hence I suggest that many GA pilots might not check them very often. Sure you can ask for a NOTAM on Farmer Joe's strip for a fly-in, but I think you will find that the details might be distributed by Joe. Such a NOTAM will only be in the FIR list unless it is very close to a published location or navaid, which is not often the case.

cheers

[Dick Smith]

I don't have any movement numbers however I was part of the team that introduced the multicom frequency of 126.7 to cover all strips which did not have a different allocated CTAF.s.

It was based on a proven safe system from the USA and Canada. It allowed Australia to move away from the very expensive duplicated FS and ATC system that existed prior to 1991.

Saved our aviation industry over $1 billion since then with no measurable reduction in safety.

Creamy I don't think that CASA actually knows why they are insisting on this different system - notice how no individual is actually identified with the requirement.?

I believe it will eventually cause an unnecessary ATC incident or accident as ATC separation frequencies should be free of non directed communication.

[triadic]

Given the potentially profound consequences for aviation safety - ATC meltdown and 747 crashes and all that - could you be a bit more specific as to location and number of movements? Don't want to be picky, but "quite a bit of traffic" is silly imprecise.

Creamy - I am sure if this is a problem we will hear from the Controllers and airline pilots in due course...... Depending on the sector/s, the VHF coverage and traffic density, the problem vary greatly. Movement levels are now often a best guess as ATS don't keep records like FS used to. It will be best judged by the ATCO and the number of reports made.


cheers

[Creampuff]

Well, triadic, it follows that all these activities at strips that aren't marked on charts can't practicably be the subject of a NOTAM and now require broadcasts on area frequency, which broadcasts will, apparently, result in 'meltdown'.

I'll be monitoring 121.2, for the next week, to hear, first-hand, the horror of the mayhem caused by the broadcasts from all the activity at all those strips in the Bowral - Marulen area, to which Dick referred.

Still waiting for Trent to nominate a few airstrip names that will be contributing to the 'melt down' s/he forewarned for the NT sectors surrounding Darwin.

[Dick Smith]

You won't hear any calls as no one takes any notice of the rule!

Is that the type of rule that you support Creamy?

How then do pilots know which rules should be complied and which rules should be ignored?

[Jabawocky]

How then do pilots know which rules should be complied and which rules should be ignored?

Good question. And perhaps the best one in this thread. However it should be asked across the whole ruleset.

The simple answer is comply with the ones that if you do not, it is dangerous. The others, which are mostly empire building BS, well…… :E

[majorca]

Quote:

It was based on a proven safe system from the USA and Canada. It allowed Australia to move away from the very expensive duplicated FS and ATC system that existed prior to 1991.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact, Dick, that the US and Canada has a dual FSS and ATC system. It works very well providing the aviation industry with a good service.
FS in Australia did not provide the same service as ATC so how was it duplicated? Sure it was a top heavy Public Service organisation that needed cleaning out, but kill it off completely, why?
Also, you're whole idea of NAS (or is it NAS2B ?) is not based on sound reasoning considering Australia's airspace structure is completely different than the US. Do you want to introduce FAA standards into Australia?
CASA did not get it right when they introduced your NAS 2B , aka Class D, procedures. No matter how good your intentions were.

[Creampuff]

Therefore, Dick, on your own logic there's no safety issue.

It must be extraordinarily comfortable living in your head. Some rule will cause mayhem, so everyone needs to be alerted to the impending disaster. But no one's going to comply, so in fact there's no problem.

All those people operating at unmarked strips around Marulen and Bowral could have clogged up the area frequency, but they won't because they won't be complying.

Phew! Now we can all get some sleep!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Once upon a time, boys and girls, there existed a really, really strange system where pilots requiring Air Traffic Control talked to Air Traffic Controllers, and everyone else didn't. They used a mystical thing called the Area Frequency, and everybody was happy. Imagine that! Just a choice of 2 frequencies.
Then a simple car radio installer came up with a scheme that he said would be the salvation of the Australian aviation industry. He chopped the airspace up into an alphabet, and made ATC responsible for everything, and made lots of new frequencies available, depending on where you were or what you were doing. To make it easier for the poor overloaded ATC, pilots were told not to say anything, to only speak when spoken to, and to just look out the windows and enjoy the view, which after all, is what flying is for. Also, they didn't have to worry about track keeping or traffic now as well, as those clever ATC's with their big radars would be keeping a watch over all of Australia, just like Santa. If something bad was going to happen, the ATC would forget all about those pesky jets full of hundreds of people and give all the help he could, because, maybe he might end up in court if he didn't. After all, he had nothing better to do than watch a couple of C172's cross tracks.
So now things are even simpler than they were before, if you can believe it!
There is absolutely no confusion about any of the rules, pilots don't have to worry about which frequency to be on as they are not supposed to talk on it anyway, and the Australian Aviation Industry has gorged on the savings and grown and prospered until it has become the example the world turns to.
And then they all lived happily ever after.....

workload permitting.

[Trent 972]

Creampuff, apologies for the delay.
Without boring everyone with a long list of Yxxx's, if you have OZRunways, try putting up the WAC Chart, zoom into the northern part of the NT, lets say from a line north of Roper River to the east and to Port Keats in the west, then go to the left side list of display items and turn on the second icon from the top (ALA's etc.)-
More than a hundred airstrips not shown on the WAC will be displayed.
Try it for yourself. :p
Of course your next question will be. Yes but how many VFR aircraft are active daily in the NT?
Well, as Brian said, when asked how much he hated the Romans, A LOT. :)

[Tee Emm]

You seem to be ignorant of the fact, Dick


Why is it that whenever Dick Smith (who at least has the courage to use his own name on Pprune), makes a comment or an opinion, some posters are quick to use sarcasm and rubbish - whatever he says? Maybe I am old fashioned but to me it smacks of bad manners. :=

[Creampuff]

Creampuff, apologies for the delay.

Without boring everyone with a long list of Yxxx's, if you have OZRunways, try putting up the WAC Chart, zoom into the northern part of the NT, lets say from a line north of Roper River to the east and to Port Keats in the west, then go to the left side list of display items and turn on the second icon from the top (ALA's etc.)-

More than a hundred airstrips not shown on the WAC will be displayed.
Try it for yourself.No need to apologise: I was only prodding you for fun – but you probably already knew that… :p

However, on a serious note, you raise a very important operational issue that I confess I’d taken for granted but may be a mistake on my behalf.

I use AVPLAN. AVPLAN has been approved under CAR 233(1)(h).

Therefore, the latest editions of aeronautical maps, charts and other information and instructions published by AVPLAN are authoritative for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h).

AVPLAN shows all those ALAs to which you referred (and evidently so does OzR). I count that as being “depicted on aeronautical charts”. To put this another way, in the real world I would assume 126.7 is the frequency for use during operations at or in the vicinity of those places.

But let’s talk in specifics, so that we can refine the regulatory and operational issues rather than bluster in overblown hyperbole.

There is a ‘place’ – to use a neutral term – called ‘Mount Ringwood’ to the South East of Darwin. YRIN is not marked on the Darwin paper WAC, but is marked on the VNC and VTC. I therefore take YRIN to be “depicted on aeronautical charts”.

Anyone like to argue that YRIN is not depicted on aeronautical charts?

[Creampuff]

On a very quick scan, here are some more, South East of Darwin, that aren’t on the WAC but are on VTC/VNC:

Mt Bundy Mine (YMBN)

Anaburroo (YANR)

Kapalga (YKPG)

Wildman Lagoon Camp (YCWC)

Shady Camp (YSHA)

....

Anyone like to nominate a hive of aviation activity that isn’t marked on any aeronautical chart?

[Aussie Bob]

Anyone like to nominate a hive of aviation activity that isn’t marked on any aeronautical chart?

Umm are there any hives of aviation activity in Australia anywhere?

[Creampuff]

Well there must be, at numerous unmarked airstrips across the country, because we’re told by Dick and others that the flood of broadcasts on area frequency from them would cause ‘instant meltdown’. (Apparently we’ve been saved because they all ignore, or don’t read, NOTAMs.)

[Jack Ranga]

Everyone's an expert. Especially those who don't or have never operated an air ground frequency. When on combine my group operates 7 frequencies on re-transmit. Some aircraft can't hear when other aircraft are transmitting due mainly to geographic limitations, so let's just complicate it just a little bit more :D

I doubt this will be a problem anyway, in my experience rarely are VFR aircraft: monitoring the area frequency or situationally aware :ok:

[Creampuff]

Precisely!

There’s no problem, because VFR pilots either ignore, or don’t read, NOTAMs. They don’t need no steeeenkin’ area frequency or seeetuashonal awareness.

[Creampuff]

Radio Check. Tap tap. Is this thing working?

Anyone like to nominate a hive of aviation activity that isn’t marked on any aeronautical chart?

Has there been a meltdown anywhere, as a consequence of all the broadcasts on area frequency?

Hello...

(I must be transmitting on a discrete CTAF :E )

[Jack Ranga]

It'll only take one occurrence, a coroners court, blame apportioned where it shouldn't be and watch what happens then. :D

[Creampuff]

The only ‘occurrence’ that would be relevant to this issue is an incident caused by an area frequency being clogged up by broadcasts that would allegedly have happened on 126.7 at all these unmarked hives of aviation activity. That’s why I’m interested to know where they are, and also what ‘meltdowns’ have occurred as a consequence of the ‘change’.

If I had to bet money on the more likely matter to end up in front of coroner, it will be a low hours private pilot, with pax, in the middle of nowhere, who transmits a MAYDAY on 126.7 and either no one hears or the only people who do hear are not competent to take effective action in response to what they heard.

[Jack Ranga]

The only ‘occurrence’ that would be relevant to this issue is an incident caused by an area frequency being clogged up by broadcasts that would allegedly have happened on 126.7 at all these unmarked hives of aviation activity.

That's what I just said :cool:

If I had to bet money on the more likely matter to end up in front of coroner, it will be a low hours private pilot, with pax, in the middle of nowhere, who transmits a MAYDAY on 126.7 and either no one hears or the only people who do hear are not competent to take effective action in response to what they heard.

I like the occasional punt but I probably wouldn't like the odds on that one, I pretty much always back the favourite.

[Creampuff]

So .... now that the NOTAM and AIP make crystal clear that broadcasts by aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of aerodromes that aren’t depicted on any aeronautical charts must be made on the area frequency, has there been a melt-down anywhere?

Is it remotely possible that the number of these places and movements in and out of them is of no substantial consequence to the volume of broadcasts on area frequency?

Or are people comfortable with the delusion that the pilots operating at and around these places either deliberately ignore, or don’t read, NOTAMs or AIP?

[Jack Ranga]

It'll only take one occurrence, a coroners court, blame apportioned where it shouldn't be and watch what happens then. :D

[Dick Smith]

It's not a delusion- it's most likely a fact that most pilots will ignore this requirement or will not read the NOTAM or AIP.

The NAS plan approved by the Aviation Reform Group which included the current Chair of AsA Angus Houston and the heads of just about everything else in aviation clearly stated that such calls should be on the multicom frequency.

This decision has not been rescinded .

Notice how no " named " person from CASA is identifying with this requirement.

But I bet they will all harden their views - can't possibly admit to making such a basic error!

[kaz3g]

Jack said . Everyone's an expert. Especially those who don't or have never operated an air ground frequency. When on combine my group operates 7 frequencies on re-transmit. Some aircraft can't hear when other aircraft are transmitting due mainly to geographic limitations, so let's just complicate it just a little bit more

I doubt this will be a problem anyway, in my experience rarely are VFR aircraft: monitoring the area frequency or situationally aware

That's a sad comment, Jack. I just flew to a conference in Alice and back to Shepparton in my Auster. Got back today.

I lodged my sartimes with ASA by Internet where possible and otherwise by radio. I monitored area frequencies all the way and I tried to be very situationally aware. Ozrunways was a big help in keeping track of frequency changes in the remote areas.

The tower people at Alice as always were helpful and tolerant of this 70 yo pilot in her 70 yo aeroplane. I went up to say "hi" to Paul in the tower whom I last saw there in 2009. The Area Controllers I spoke to were likewise very helpful and friendly. Departing William Creek the other day, I didn't get radio coverage until 7500 and then lodged a Sartime request by radio. Reception was poor but the Controller was assisted by a couple of IFR aircraft in the area and my plan was lodged.

I'm always grateful to those who keep me safe and I listen out on 122.4 when appropriate at home.

Kaz

[Jack Ranga]

Kaz, I operate 122.4, you'll know how busy it is in the YSHT, YMNG area. You'd be surprised at how many times VFR aircraft fly through dropzones neither on the area or CTAF frequency. Rarely does a call from Centre to a VFR get answered. Stuffed if I know what they're listening to? Airspace violations are a regular occurence, once again, with ozrunways & Avplan how does this happen?

Frequencies are a dog's breakfast now, these changes will make it? Interesting? I don't sit at home reading ICAO documents so I don't know where this has come from? Neither do most of my colleagues.

[Creampuff]

Maybe if irresponsible dills weren't encouraging them to stay off the area frequency, you might be able to contact them and assist with their situational awareness.

[Dick Smith]

It's come from people attempting to keep the pre 1990 " radio arranged separation" techniques in the twenty first century.

In the old system CTAFs did not exist- all calls at non tower aerodromes were on the FS frequency allocated to the area where the aerodrome existed.

It worked pretty well but cost a lot of money to have FSOs monitoring all these calls.

Aussie pilots should note- don't try making announcements on ATC frequencies in other countries - it's not allowed due to safety reasons. All communication must be directed to the Controller.

No doubt after an unnecessary accident or serious incident it will be prohibited here too.

[triadic]

I find it interesting that after over ten years in the books there are folk about that don't seem to know that it ever existed..!!

No doubt it will change again.....

[kaz3g]

. Kaz, I operate 122.4, you'll know how busy it is in the YSHT, YMNG area. You'd be surprised at how many times VFR aircraft fly through dropzones neither on the area or CTAF frequency. Rarely does a call from Centre to a VFR get answered. Stuffed if I know what they're listening to? Airspace violations are a regular occurence, once again, with ozrunways & Avplan how does this happen?

Frequencies are a dog's breakfast now...

I know you are on 122.4, Jack and I greatly appreciate your presence.

I've heard you and Melbourne Radar castigating infringements and rightly so, but I don't really know why they happen other than those pilots are either awfully slack or incredibly selfish or both.

I tend to avoid Mangalore these days:-) At Shepparton we try to look after one another and the two flying schools are very professional. I got back from Alice via Renmark and Swan Hill today and the AWIS wasn't working. When I gave my inbound call, Alan Cole (Gawne's CFI) kindly came on the radio to welcome me and to give me the wind...my Auster has max dem XW of just 9 knots.

It would be nice if everyone cared like that and would no doubt make your workload a tad easier, too.

It seems to me that all these little airfields people are mentioning are not CTAFs at all. Wignells at Euroa is an example. It's a private strip south of the Highway marked Euroa on the WAC. The old gliding strip north of the Highway is marked Euroa Soaring Centre on the same chart. But on the VNC, Wignells isn't shown at all and the ESC strip becomes Euroa. Neither is listed in ERSA. I haven't seen or heard anything flying out of either of them for ages. When the charts are confused I guess it's not unreasonable to expect confusion amongst the players, too.

I listen to you there because I know you will tell me if something is likely to cause me grief as it follows the iron compass down to Seymour or up to Benalla...no-one ever comes on 126.7 there and only a very few remember to call Locksley AND Mangalore.

Kaz

[Capn Bloggs]

Aussie pilots should note- don't try making announcements on ATC frequencies in other countries - it's not allowed due to safety reasons.
Yeh, good idea, just keep your trap shut in Class E (or G for that matter) and hope the other guy has a TCAS to prevent the collision...

[triadic]

Like I said.... there are both "professional" and "recreational" pilots here who obviously don't understand how the system is meant to work.

There has always been and always will be a culture that resists change (human nature at its best) if there is a lack of understanding in the purpose of the change. The responsibility for such education rests in this case in the first instance with CASA, but sadly they don't seem to have any idea of how to do that! One has only to go back to '97 when the revised read-back requirements came in and CASA were told by industry the various outcomes. The education failed and exactly what industry said has come to pass, and the errors are being passed on by instructors and training pilots....

Creamy – I usually enjoy your posts, however on this topic you have pulled the leg too far and the outcome I suggest is even more confusion. Sadly, it seems you are in the group mentioned in para one above… but you can take pride in that along with others, it is not your fault!

[Creampuff]

I see.

So everyone should ignore what the NOTAM and now AIP make crystal clear, and should instead do what the people who claim to “understand how the system is meant to work” say to do. Doing what they say to do, rather than complying with the rules will, apparently, reduce confusion.

How will we be able to differentiate between the people who “understand how the system is meant to work” and those who don’t? For example, how do I know that Captain Midnight doesn’t understand how the system is meant to work?

Where will I find the rule book written by the people who understand how the system is meant to work? If I comply with that rule book, is that a defence for failing to comply with the law?

[CaptainMidnight]

outcome I suggest is even more confusionGeez, it's not rocket science.

Follow the NOTAM and now AIP 21 August 2014 ENR 1.1-46

Sadly the MCS (Manual of Common Sense) has been out of print for years -

[majorca]

I can name the PEOPLE, Dick. But what's that going to achieve? Very few rec pilots follow AIP procedures etc etc but you should take a good hard look at yourself. You have the sycophants on this blog that agree with everything you say or propose but the reality is you STUFFED a really good structure.
You now have highly paid ATC's doing the job of FS Officers as well as trying to separate aircraft in controlled airspace. There is NO cost saving! Your idea of frequency separation is fanciful and naive! Sit on it Dick, you stuffed it!

[majorca]

CASA brought in Multicom with good intentions trying to relieve frequency congestion, amongst other things. Sure, it's not not working but you've created a system whereby highly paid controllers now have to take over FS duties. Frequency separation! What rubbish! You throw around names like Angus Houston, but what does he know about civil ATC? He only goes by recommendations from people like yourself. Sorry, Dick, consult the real experts before you jump in.

[kaz3g]

. Quote:
[I]n the event of having strife, a broadcast by you on an FIA is more likely to be heard by ATC and/or other aircraft, than relying on other aircraft hearing and understanding you on 126.7.

I just flew VFR SE solo from Central Victoria to Alice and return and trust me, I stayed tuned to Area at around 7500 all the way except when transiting CTAFs marked on the WAC or during arrivals and departures.

No, I didn't have long conversations with either Centre or the heavy metal miles overhead. But I did draw comfort from the fact that I could hear the conversations between them and on one occasion one of the RPT relayed my flight plan details due poor transmission at my altitude.

I confess to all that I didn't make a call near any of the graded bits of dirt 50 miles from anywhere that I saw along the way.

Kaz

[majorca]

Excuse me, Tee Emm, my comments were not sarcastic nor were they based on ignorance. Have a good look at the facts , as I was suggesting to Dick, before you criticise.

[Dick Smith]

Majorca. My success has only come from asking advice and surrounding myself with capable people. Yes I do get a lot of differing advice- then I use commonsense to decide which advice is more likely to be correct .

That's when it appears to offend people like yourself!

If you look at the Dicksmithflyer site you will see how I attempted to save the VHF Flightwatch remote outlets. I have always wanted to harmonise with highly proven airspace practice and procedures . Both the USA and Canada have retained this service.

Now that Airservices have removed these outlets ( so they could increase profits and management bonuses ) do you have any evidence of a reduction in safety?

When pilots in the current system call on ATC frequencies to file flight plans and ammend them does this effect safety? Have there been any incidents?

And you broadcast to everyone on this site that I stuffed up the airspace but you hide behind anonymity . What particular parts would you like reversed?

[dubbleyew eight]

so none of the problems are caused by air services combining all the frequencies together it is all caused by pilots making transmissions in the course of flying.

naughty pilots. obviously the solution is to stop everyone flying.


(do air services select people for rampant insanity or is it something that develops on the job ?)

[Jack Ranga]

There was a dood using the new procedure today, i.e. calling inbound to an unmarked airstrip on the area frequency. He'd obviously read the guidance material and kept the calls brief.

[Creampuff]

And did the sky fall in?

[Jack Ranga]

No, not at all. I never said it would. It was good to hear concise, professional (airmanship) calls. Made when the frequency was free. I'll let you know if it becomes a problem.

[CaptainMidnight]

And did the sky fall in? No, but Jack probably fell out of his chair .....When pilots in the current system call on ATC frequencies to file flight plans and ammend them does this effect safetyAs you well know, there are no such things as "ATC frequencies".

There are frequencies used by ATC to provide services, including Class G FIA (Flight Information Area) frequencies. They are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided. It is entirely appropriate - and required in the scenario outlined in the NOTAM and AIP - to use FIA frequencies for their intended purpose.

To not use or monitor FIA frequencies when appropriate and required could cause a nasty situation, given the wrong circumstances.

Whether an FIA frequency is retransmitted onto other frequencies by Airservices is irrelevant to pilots, and not a reason to not use it or ignore the rules.

[Dick Smith]

The frequencies I am referring to are operated by ATCs and are also used by ATC to CONTROL aircraft - that's why I call them ATC frequencies .

That is the conflict. NAS that was accepted as government policy did not require pilots to make announcements on ATC control frequencies.

If the 320 million population in the USA can get by with a disciplined system that does not allow (for safety reasons) VFR pilots to make announcements on frequencies that are utilized for separation - why can't we

[Creampuff]

Australia can.

Just get the rules changed.

...and the population densities and infrastructure of the USA

...oh, and governments who care about aviation and have a modicum of integrity

...and representative bodies which know how to lobby government.

...plus kill the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program.

[Dick Smith]

Integrity is the key word Creamy.

I was quite surprised with the " Canberra system"

Sort of dishonest. I have not experienced that basic lack of ethics in the private business community.

I guess it's probably because of the politics. We laughed at Yes Minister as it showed us lie after lie. And it was an accurate example of what happens in Canberra!

[Frank Arouet]

Yes Minister:


"It is unthinkable that politicians should be allowed to remove civil servants on grounds of incompetence. Of course some civil servants are incompetent but not incompetent enough for a politician to notice. And if civil servants could remove politicians on grounds of incompetence it would empty the House of Commons, remove the Cabinet, and be the end of democracy and the beginning of responsible government."

[Creampuff]

Just to try to tie off the loose end raised by andrewr and what is and isn’t an “aerodrome”, as with most matters aviation in Australia it’s necessary to look at the history to see the various points at which poorly-implemented, sectional interest-motivated ‘reforms’ occurred, to assist in identifying where some of the prevailing and chronic confusion arises about what was and was not a ‘non-towered aerodrome’.

The original CARs were made in 1988. Unlike the 2000 + pages of simple and clear regulations Australia has today, back in 1988 the regulations were an extraordinarily complex 155 pages long.

Back then regulation 92(2) relevantly said:An aircraft shall not land at, or take off from, any place unless:
(a) the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;
(b) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a licence granted under regulation 88;
(c) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by the Authority under regulation 89 [and various operational criteria were satisfied].Note that aircraft weren’t allowed to land at or take off from anywhere else.

The third category above was known as ‘authorised landing areas’. They were what the name suggested: areas that the Authority had authorised.

As you can envisage, the process for obtaining authorisation from the Authority for an ALA required the satisfaction of various physical criteria, and the Authority gave lots of directions about the use of ALAs. Key point: Therefore, back then, there weren’t many ALAs and the existence, location of, and the required procedures at, all of them were known to everyone.

The term “authorised landing area” was used, deliberately, to distinguish between them and “licensed aerodromes”. Note there was no concept of an ‘unlicensed aerodrome’. The place had to be licensed as an aerodrome, or authorised by the Authority and ‘in the system’ (or established under the ANRs – effectively an international airport), or you simply weren’t allowed to operate there. (‘Ultralight’ activities were a related but separate issue, authorised by an exemption subject to many conditions.)

Putting some cones or gable markers around a flat paddock did not turn the place into a place at which aircraft were allowed to take off or land, much less a licensed aerodrome. At most, the place might have become an ALA if the Authority decided to authorise it.

The concept of a paddock being an “aerodrome” was never in the aviation lexicon.

Then a fundamental regulatory change occurred.

The ‘ALA’ part of regulation 92 was changed so that no authorisation was required from the Authority to use a place for take off or landing. The test in the regulation was, and remains, merely that the place be “suitable” for the purposes of taking off and landing of the particular aircraft, having regard to all circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off. There is no requirement for the place to have cones or gable markers or anything else that is usually associated with an aerodrome. If the back paddock at my property is long enough and flat enough for me to take off and land in my Genericorp Jizzler, in VMC and with the right wind conditions, I’m allowed to take off and land my Genericorp Jizzler from and at my back paddock, in VMC and with the right wind conditions. One kind of aircraft – a helicopter – can land at and take off from almost anywhere.

Thus an almost infinite number of places became what used to be called ALAs and, by definition, nobody knows where they are all located. Almost anywhere can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft.

(The remnants of the original ALA concept – in which the first “A” stood for “authorised” – can be seen in the current regulatory and guidance materials, some of which define ALA to mean “aircraft landing area” and others of which define ALA to mean “aeroplane landing area”. )

If:

(1) almost anywhere can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft, and

(2) anywhere that can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft is, for the purposes of the rules, an ‘aerodrome’,

.... it follows that everyone below a few thousand feet AGL is always in the vicinity of an almost infinite number of ‘aerodromes’, and therefore should be continuously broadcasting inbound or overflying ‘everywhere’.

I think the ‘depicted on charts’ and ‘defined area’ concepts are among the attempts to distinguish between ‘places’ that are known to everyone, and the rules therefore treat as aerodromes, always, and other ‘places’ that are not known to anyone except users, in which case the place becomes an aerodrome for the purposes of the rules when, and only during the period in which, it is being used for take off or landing.

Or perhaps I’m confused.

(In parallel with this was the oh-so-successful sell-off or abandonment, by the Commonwealth, of licensed aerodromes. Many of the transferees of those licensed aerodromes discovered that maintaining the standards for a licensed aerodrome needs “work” and “money”, and lots of transferees decided to “stuff this for a joke”. Thus many places that were once licensed aerodromes in effect became ALAs, but everyone kept calling them aerodromes because they continued to look and smell like aerodromes. Many of them are now “uncertified and unregistered” aerodromes (or warehouses…). You can imagine trying (and failing) to keep up with all these changes on maps and charts.)

Never fear: It will all become clear when the new rules are finished. According to the ASRR Panel report, the ETA is now 2019. Can’t wait!

[Tankengine]

My first post on this subject.

Creampuff, on the issue of ALAs you are sorely mistaken.:ugh:

Way prior to 1988 pilots we're using ALAs to fly from any "paddock" that met the Requirements of an ALA as described in the VFG and ANOs etc. (remember them?:E)

There were millions of them, known and unknown to everybody.:rolleyes:

Contrary to your last post ANY "paddock" that met the requirements WAS therefore "authorised"!:hmm:

There were some well known ones which were really aerodromes not meeting the requirements of a "licenced" aerodrome for various reasons.

Just because someone posts a lot on this forum does not make them an authority.:=

[Creampuff]

Then I must be confused.

I did quote from the actual regulations...

I was there ...

The VFG wasn't regulatory ...

I did mention the exemption for 'ultralights'...

I do realise there were ALAs. All of the ones that VH-registered aircraft were allowed to operate in and out of were marked on charts.

But given I'm wrong, it follows that everywhere is an aerodrome. Good luck with that! :ok:

[Aussie Bob]

But given I'm wrong, it follows that everywhere is an aerodrome.

Well it is isn't it? All I need to land my aeroplane is permission from the land owner. Obviously the land needs to be big enough. I put in a a strip on my neighbors place. He gave me permission.

When I broadcast on area I call "all stations Pete's farm". Yet to get a reply.

[Creampuff]

Yes, everywhere is an aerodrome.

Therefore, below a few thousand AGLs you're always in the vicinity of an infinite number of aerodromes. :ok:

[Tankengine]

"I do realise there were ALAs. All of the ones that VH-registered aircraft were allowed to operate in and out of were marked on charts."

Creampuff, that statement is simply wrong!:ugh:

ALAs were any area that met ALA size requirements. The ones marked on charts were merely well known ones.:zzz:
Since you are such a scholar regarding regs perhaps you can back up that statement.:E

Apparently you ARE confused!;)

[Jack Ranga]

Nup, he's a lawyer, nuf said.

[gerry111]

Jack Ranga wrote: "Nup, he's a lawyer, nuf said."


Goodness! I've been flying with Creampuff for the best part of thirty years and know him to be a rather competent chappie. It's true that he does have a particular interest in Australian aviation law. (He holds an LLB with First Class Honours from ANU). But as with all of us, he's human and does make the occasional mistake.


That said, I'm prepared to take my chances following his legal counsel far beyond that of Tankengine, Aussie Bob, Jack Ranga or Dick Smith. :E

[Jack Ranga]

Gees, taking the piss mate :E it's a bulletin board full of dubious characters, I wouldn't put too much faith in anything anyone says ;-)

[Creampuff]

I will try a different approach.

When you were taxiing for take off at Farmer Brown's farm in the mid-eighties, on what frequency did you broadcast?

When you were taxiing for take off at a licenced aerodrome in the mid-eighties, on what frequency did you broadcast?

[triadic]

Nice try.... But the airspace model is now very different!

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. You gave your calls on the FS frequency. There were no CTAFs in those days in Australia .

Now that ATC separates aircraft on some of these "area" frequencies there are real problems if pilots make announcements .

[Creampuff]

You gave your calls on the FS frequency. There were no CTAFs in those days in Australia .Correct!

In the mid-eighties, you broadcast on the equivalent of what is now the area frequency at both Farmer Brown’s paddock and the licensed aerodrome.

Then what happened, frequency-wise, at the licensed aerodromes?

I’m merely trying to explain the prevailing confusion about the ‘correct’ frequency on which to broadcast when in the vicinity of an ‘aerodrome’.

As I say, it may just be me that’s confused.

[andrewr]

Yes, everywhere is an aerodrome.

Therefore, below a few thousand AGLs you're always in the vicinity of an infinite number of aerodromes.

Yes, you do seem to be confused. You are missing the distinction between "permitted" and "intended to be used for". It is easy to find areas where aircraft are permitted to take off and land (large parts of Australia), but are not intended to be used for aircraft to take off and land (slightly less of Australia).

The definition again from AIP:
Aerodrome: A defined area of land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and movement of aircraft.
(my bold)

By your definition the whole of Australia wouldn't be an infinite number of aerodromes, it would be one giant aerodrome - because the area of land you have defined is "Australia".

[Tankengine]

Gerry - "legal counsel";)

You do realise that in court cases around 50% of lawyers lose!:*

I actually agree with a lot of what Creampuff is saying re frequencies.

On the subject of ALAs, old and new he is wrong in what he wrote. (Coming from a professional pilot of over 30 years, GA then Airline, with plenty of Sport Aviation as well)
(Regardless whether you have known him for 30 years and whether he is a good pilot, bloke or whatever):ooh:

Dick is on the right track with his comments about Control frequencies. In my professional employment I must say it is distracting to hear low level calls from a huge area, thanks to re-transmission, on high altitude frequencies. 126.7 would, in my opinion, be a better place for circuit calls.:ok:

[Creampuff]

andrewr: The definition of aerodrome in AIP is not the definition for the purposes of the aviation law.

Tank: In court cases 100% of lawyers win. Always. ;)

But all of this doesn't help to sort out my confusion.

In the mid-eighties, you broadcast on the equivalent of what is now the area frequency at both Farmer Brown’s paddock and the licensed aerodrome.

Then what happened, frequency-wise, at the licensed aerodromes?

You claim to have been around for a while Tank. Walk us through the broadcast rule changes that happened with the demise of the AFIZ’s and the introduction of CTAFs and MBZs and CTAF(R)s and the removal of area frequencies from the charts and the introduction of Dick’s biscuits to the charts and the demise of Dick’s biscuits and CTAF(R)s and the reinstatement of area frequencies to the charts and the introduction of ‘non-towered aerodromes’ and ‘registered’ and ‘licensed’ aerodromes.

I’m sure the explanation you provide will demonstrate that the broadcast rules and frequencies at the places that were ALAs in the mid-eighties have always remained the same as the broadcast rules and frequencies at the places that were licensed aerodromes in the mid-eighties.

Or perhaps not. :ok:

[Trent 972]

Finally, Creamy admits he is confused.
Case closed, Your Honour. :p
Ps
My shout for drinks out of this years QANTAS profit share and shares dividend.

[andrewr]

The definition of aerodrome in AIP is not the definition for the purposes of the aviation law

The procedures we are discussing are in AIP. The definition of an aerodrome in AIP would have a fair bit of weight when determining what AIP means when referring to an aerodrome.

You may be able to argue for a different definition, but I don't think you would be arguing a position of strength.

[Creampuff]

So where does the legal obligation to broadcast in the vicinity of aerodromes come from?

I could be confused, but I thought it was regulation 166C of the 1988 Civil Aviation Regulations, not AIP.

[Creampuff]

And perhaps the definition of "aerodrome" in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is of some relevance. ;)

[kaz3g]

. Dick is on the right track with his comments about Control frequencies. In my professional employment I must say it is distracting to hear low level calls from a huge area, thanks to re-transmission, on high altitude frequencies. 126.7 would, in my opinion, be a better place for circuit calls

No offence to tanks or Dick, but I strongly suggest the real issue is what is now the law and why.

If 126.7 is used for airfields that are not marked on published ASA charts, those flying in and out of them VFR will NOT be listening to area and will not be contactable by either Centre or all those other VFR pilots in the vicinity who have no idea of the airfield's presence. This would be dangerous and much more likely tp result in a tragedy.

The alternative is for ASA to require all such airfields to be notified and incorporated in the charts. Not terribly practical as is evident when you fly VFR across remote Australia.

Kaz

[kaz3g]

. Creampuff

Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 2,521

And perhaps the definition of "aerodrome" in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is of some relevance.


Clearly the definition in the Act is the appropriate one and any other definition in an AIP or CAAP would be ultra vires.

Kaz

[thorn bird]

Jeez my heads spinning!!

Back when I learnt to fly there were no radios.

An aerodrome was any convenient paddock or beach.

Even when you decided to mix it with the big boys a nice man in the tower flashed some coloured...(oops! sorry shouldn't have said that!)..err different intensity lights at you..and down you went!

Is this stuff really rocket science??

Aviate, communicate...etc

I dunno its all getting so prescriptive..funs all gone out of it!!

FFKn lawyers!!..Creamie excepted of course.

[Capn Bloggs]

If 126.7 is used for airfields that are not marked on published ASA charts, those flying in and out of them VFR will NOT be listening to area and will not be contactable by either Centre or all those other VFR pilots in the vicinity who have no idea of the airfield's presence. This would be dangerous and much more likely tp result in a tragedy.

The VFR that was going up above 5000ft would make a broadcast on the Area freq before getting to 5000ft. Similarly, descending below (into the "potential" Multicom area) they would broadcast on 126.7 before they got there.

There are many Broadcast Areas (Mega CTAFs) where the frequency split at 5000ft occurs, and arguably, the same thing happens at normal CTAFs today: broadcast on the CTAF before you "enter" and broadcast on the Area during departure before getting too far away from the airport.

[Tankengine]

Can somebody please show me where you need to say anything at all flying at a "paddock" ALA?:confused:
Not too big on history, I just do what my employers tell me to and in my private flying normally stay on gliding frequencies!:E

Yeah, you know, the couple of hundred of us flying around every weekend largely ignoring this crap!:E

[Jack Ranga]

Riveting stuff this Richie :D

[CaptainMidnight]

The VFR that was going up above 5000ft would make a broadcast on the Area freq before getting to 5000ft. Similarly, descending below (into the "potential" Multicom area) they would broadcast on 126.7 before they got there.

There are many Broadcast Areas (Mega CTAFs) where the frequency split at 5000ft occurs, and arguably, the same thing happens at normal CTAFs today: broadcast on the CTAF before you "enter" and broadcast on the Area during departure before getting too far away from the airport. Exactly! :D

Geez guys - its not rocket science .......

[Dick Smith]

I just spent six days flying in the area between Bankstown - Port Pirie - Ayers Rock - Bankstown in the C208. Most flying was at levels between 5500 and 9500. I strictly monitored the "area " frequency spending some of the time looking down at the charts to work out the correct frequency rather than looking out for other aircraft. Not once did I hear a VFR aircraft call when climbing above 5000'. I monitored hundreds of calls - not one rellevent to my flight .

On three occasions I heard the centre call VFR aircraft at identified locations-no doubt to give the pilots traffic info on nearby aircraft . At no stage did a VFR aircraft reply to the ATC call.

The current system is a sham. Either go back to the pre-AMATS system and reintroduce FS or move forward the the proven North American NAS system as decided by Federal Cabinet.

Giving non directed calls calls from VFR aircraft on frequencies used by ATC for separation purposes is clearly a safety problem. That's no doubt why most pilots do not comply.

[Creampuff]

Can somebody please show me where you need to say anything at all flying at a "paddock" ALA? *sigh*

That’s why the definition of “aerodrome” is so important. The broadcast obligations apply when you are in the vicinity of and operating to and from an “aerodrome”.

That’s why I was hoping you’d walk us through the evolution (demolition?) of the mid-eighties system to where Australia is now.

We started by noting that back in the mid-eighties broadcasts for operations to and from Farmer Brown’s paddock and from licensed aerodromes were on the same frequency: the equivalent of what is now the area frequency. Then the old licensed aerodromes became MBZs and CTAFs and CTAF(Rs) and non-towered and unlicensed and unregistered, and they had frequencies marked on the Chart and in ERSA, there was confusion about the difference between procedures and airspace classifications, blah, blah, blah. But through it all, Farmer Brown’s paddock didn’t rate a mention.

Is Farmer Brown’s paddock an aerodrome? My (perhaps confused) assumption is that it is an aerodrome, but only during the period in which it is being used for the take off and landing of an aircraft. At other times it's used to amuse sheep. During the periods in which it is being used for the take off and landing of aircraft, it’s in the interests of safety for people to know that the place is being used for the take off and landing of aircraft. And, if Farmer Brown’s paddock isn’t marked on the charts, the only sensible frequency on which to broadcast what’s happening is – dare I say: remains – the frequency you used in the mid-eighties.

The voice of sweet reason: If 126.7 is used for airfields that are not marked on published ASA charts, those flying in and out of them VFR will NOT be listening to area and will not be contactable by either Centre or all those other VFR pilots in the vicinity who have no idea of the airfield's presence. This would be dangerous and much more likely tp result in a tragedy.

The alternative is for ASA to require all such airfields to be notified and incorporated in the charts. Not terribly practical as is evident when you fly VFR across remote Australia. :D

And BTW Trent, any word on the nomination of a hive of aviation activity that isn’t marked on any aeronautical chart? Any meltdowns yet? :p

Edited to add: Then why not just turn the radio off and listen to music Dick? No one else complies with the rules, apparently.

[kaz3g]

I just spent six days flying in the area between Bankstown - Port Pirie - Ayers Rock - Bankstown in the C208. Most flying was at levels between 5500 and 9500. I strictly monitored the "area " frequency spending some of the time looking down at the charts to work out the correct frequency rather than looking out for other aircraft. Not once did I hear a VFR aircraft call when climbing above 5000'. I monitored hundreds of calls - not one rellevent to my flight .

On three occasions I heard the centre call VFR aircraft at identified locations-no doubt to give the pilots traffic info on nearby aircraft . At no stage did a VFR aircraft reply to the ATC call.

I'm just back from a similar trip except originating at Shepparton. Monitoring the correct FIA frequencies was easy because I use Ozrunways and all it takes is a regular glance at the screen to check.

Perhaps those aircraft above 5000 filed their plans and made their calls in another FIA? Perhaps they were below 5000 and in proximity of an airfield with a CTAF? Or perhaps, like JR said, they just aren't listening?

Buggered if I know what conclusion should be drawn from your anecdote, but the legal requirement is pretty clear. In my view, the safety comes more from listening than making unnecessary calls in remote areas.

The only traffic I actually physically saw while in the air on my whole trip were RPT jets at AYE and BAS, helicopters at AYE, and a mate arriving at BHI in an RFDS Kingair at the same time as I joined the circuit (he waited for me, too). The absence of other light GA aerial activity was starkly apparent. The only collective activity I saw while on the ground was a group of 5 avid aviators in RAA aircraft at Curtin Springs who had arrived from the Whitsundays via Cape Leveque and were on their way home via the French Line across the Simpson.

We are having an open day and fly-in at Shepparton Aerodrome in conjunction with the Heritage weekend organised by "Emerald Bank" on 7 September. The Victorian Minister for Aviation, Gordon Rich-Phillips will be attending and all visitors are welcome. The Unicom is 118.8 and the FIA is 122.4.

Kaz

[Dick Smith]

Kaz. Did you at any time fly above 5000 ? If so. Did you give a call on the area frequency as you climbed above 5000 each time ? If not why not?

[Dick Smith]

And there will be even less GA activity when the IFR ADSB mandate comes in. The FAA has no such plans for aircraft that fly below 10.000

[kaz3g]

I was lower than 5000 most of the way over because of headwinds but coming home across SA I did a lot at 7500 where I caught some good tailwinds and I gave the FIA a heads-up as I climbed.

I didn't call as I crossed boundaries because the only and infrequent traffic was much higher than me and I could see the regular interrogation of my transponder showed ATC knew I was there. But I listened the whole time. I gave an inbound on the FIA frequency at PAG because an RFDS aircraft called 30 NM out but he was on the ground before I got there. I think I was descending through 5500 about 15 NM out then.

Departing WMC. I couldn't make contact until above 7500 and even then had difficulty filing my SARTIME by radio (no mobile coverage). Velocity someone or other very kindly helped out along with another high flyer whose call sign I didn't catch.

I was very impressed with the RPT and scenic helicopter drivers at AYE...lots of courtesy and lots of checking in/notifying positions and altitudes.

Are you coming to Shepp?

Kaz

[Creampuff]

Did you give a call on the area frequency as you climbed above 5000 each time ? If not why not?Oh oh. Is this another rule that’s in the rule book of the people who “understand how the system is meant to work”?

For those of us who don’t have access to that rulebook and don’t understand how the system is meant to work, Dick, should we be broadcasting on area when climbing through 5,000’?I strictly monitored the "area" frequency spending some of the time looking down at the charts to work out the correct frequency rather than looking out for other aircraft.Must be a nightmare, having to look at the charts! Are there no charts in the system as it’s meant to work?