Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation

[Dick Smith]

Unless some sensible advice can be given to the contrary, I plan to send out the following Media Release next Thursday, 30 October.

DICK SMITH SAYS, "PILOTS SHOULD THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE COMPLYING WITH LATEST CASA RADIO CALL ADVICE
- WHICH OTHER COUNTRIES PROHIBIT"

Following an article by Steve Creedy in The Australian (5.9.2014), “CASA Panned for Frequency Changes”, I have been contacted by committee members of the Regional Airspace and Procedure Advisory Committees (RAPACs) querying the Advice.

I have also had multiple communications with CASA on this issue. The original requirement under the Federal Cabinet approved National Airspace System (“NAS”) policy was for all small aerodromes that do not have an allocated CTAF frequency for pilots to use the Multicom frequency of 126.7.

More recently, CASA has changed this Advice so that at aerodromes which are not marked on charts (literally thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips), the calling frequencies for taxi and circuit calls must be on the area frequency.

While such calls may help in alerted see-and-avoid for light aircraft in the vicinity of the strips, there is a major implication for the safety of airline passengers. That is, the calls are likely to interfere with air traffic control instructions to airline aircraft.

Dick Smith says, “CASA seems to be obsessed with a non-existent frequency congestion issue but do not understand that no country in the world allows small aircraft to give non-directed calls on frequencies that are used by Air Traffic Controllers to separate airline aircraft. This is for obvious safety reasons”.

“There are many times when an immediate call has to be given to an airline aircraft for safety purposes, however if a taxiing aircraft at a small strip is blocking the frequency, this call may not get through to the airline crew”, says Dick Smith.

Dick Smith says, “After communications with CASA it is obvious that they do not understand the safety implications of their Advice – in fact, they have no understanding of the airspace policy that was approved by Federal Cabinet”.

“Whilst I agree that the chance of an accident is small because of this unique CASA Advice, the result of an accident could be horrendous – with up to five hundred people being killed if two airline aircraft happened to collide because an important communication from Air Traffic Control was blocked. That is clearly why other countries prohibit small aircraft from giving non-directed calls on Air Traffic Control separation frequencies”, says Dick Smith.

Dick Smith says, “All pilots complying with this latest CASA Advice should be aware that they could unintentionally be responsible for a major airline accident in the future”.


The reason for this is that after Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager of the Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division at CASA, told me the decision in relation to radio calls at non-CTAF marked aerodromes was not his but the people in Operations, I realised that CASA was becoming more dysfunctional every day.

I have had numerous communications backwards-and-forwards on this issue – and also with the ATS-B. It looks to me as if the people making up the advice have minds which are set in concrete. They have never bothered to ask advice or see how airspace works in other countries around the world.

Their advice for aircraft to monitor and announce on air traffic control frequencies when in the circuit area of non-CTAF marked aerodromes may help reduce the almost infinitesimal chance of a mid-air at such locations, however at the same time it adds a serious safety implication; that is, the obvious chance of blocking out air traffic controller instructions.

The problem is that some of these ill-informed, but no doubt genuine, people at CASA and the ATSB are attempting to put the old Flightservice “radio range separation techniques” where IFR and VFR flew at the same quadrant levels into a halfway-stage NAS.

I have stated many times that we need to go back to the pre-1991 AMATS system and the quadrantial rule and for full position reporting with separate ATC/Flightservice frequency sectors – or we need to continue to the proven NAS airspace.

I have been informed that the Government policy on NAS is no longer accepted by CASA. In that case, then what is the policy? It is clear that no-one knows.

Unless there is sound, rational advice on why I should not send out this Media Release, it will be issued next Thursday.

[50 50]

Nice work Dick. Every Jabiru, Ultralight and c152 broadcasting taxi or circuit calls on area frequency would be a bloody nightmare. It's hard enough to get some people of the air as it is.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. It's pretty clear this latest CASA requirement only works if virtually no-one complies.

And that seems to be happening.

Then again you only need one call to block out an important ATC clearance or instruction .

Remember it's unlikely the controller will hear a taxiing call as ground to ground VHF communication is limited in range.

[Ixixly]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but is it saying any Strip not marked on a WAC should, instead of calling on 126.7, use the Area Frequency?

What now happens if you have a Strip that is not marked on a WAC but is close to another Strip which is? You could quite potentially have a busy marked strip making calls on 126.7 as normal and another nearby un-marked strip making calls on the Area Frequency?!

[Dangly Bits]

Can you get Airservices to stop using the term "Metro D" when referring to Class D Airspace. I can't find Metro D airspace in the AIP.

[On Track]

I support you on this one, Dick.

[Creampuff]

Caught a cockroach the other day, put it on the table and yelled: “Walk!” It walked.

I recaptured the cockroach, pulled its legs off, put it on the table again, and again yelled: “Walk!” It didn’t walk.

That proves cockroaches hear through their legs.

“There are literally thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips.” Wow!

How many movements are there each day at these places? To the closest million.

How many of those movements involve aircraft that are required to have a serviceable VHF? To the closest hundred thousand.

Of course, the almost complete silence I hear on area and 126.7 as I fly over these thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips couldn’t possibly be attributed to the fact that there’s three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all happening there. Nor could it possibly be attributed to the fact that to the extent that anything’s happening at all at these places, much of it involves aircraft that are not required to carry serviceable VHF.

It’s instead because all those thousands of aircraft engaged in all those millions of movements are not complying with the CASA requirement.

Don’t worry Dick: Everyone will continue to do what you do and just make sh*t up, untroubled by conflicting messages.

(DB: That’s why you have “Metro D”. It’s code for ... sssshhhhhh ... GAAP. That’s why the procedures for flying in and out of e.g. YSBK today are almost identical to the procedures for flying in and out of YSBK around 30 years ago. Only difference is that 2FC is now 2RN, no more Westmead Hospital approach point and there’s less than half the traffic. Those naughty ATCers finally got their way on taxi clearances at GAAP though, but that’s effectively just a timing thing.)

[Dick Smith]

Ixix it is extremely complicated according to CASA . In some cases you would use the nearest CTAF frequency- in other cases you would not!

The FAA has no problems with this as there are no area frequencies . Outrageous I here you shout. Yes they know little about aviation there. They only built the 747 and we built the Nomad.

Creamy. You are of course correct. Hardly any calls as hardly anyone flying.

However it may take only one call for the holes in the cheese to line up and cause an ATC related accident. That's why Pilots are not permitted to make annoucements on ATC separation frequencies in other countries.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

There is a solution...no radio calls required:E

[uncle8]

I thought that we had resolved this on another thread.
When operating out of a strip which is not marked on maps, the pilot wants to be on the same frequency as anyone else who might be in the area. That's normally not 126.7.
There is a prominent ATC on here who keeps telling us that there is no frequency congestion because of this. I believe him.
Also, an ATC who lets a critical situation develop such that any call from someone else will result in disaster, needs retraining. It doesn't have to be an OCTA lightie making an untimely call, it could be any one of the other fifteen aircraft being separated by that controller.

[uncle8]

Another thought. In the USA, how does an overflying pilot know when to change to 126.7 if there is no way of him knowing that he is about to fly through the circuit of a strip?

[CaptainMidnight]

Ixixly

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but is it saying any Strip not marked on a WAC should, instead of calling on 126.7, use the Area Frequency?

What now happens if you have a Strip that is not marked on a WAC but is close to another Strip which is? You could quite potentially have a busy marked strip making calls on 126.7 as normal and another nearby un-marked strip making calls on the Area Frequency?! FWIW WACs are only updated every few years. VTC VNC ERC are updated twice a year and so are far more up to date.

AIP is straightforward.


If the aerodrome/strip is marked on a chart and has a discrete CTAF: use that;
If the aerodrome/strip is marked on a chart and doesn't have a discrete CTAF: use 126.7;
if the aerodrome/strip isn't marked on a chart: use the FIA frequency.


In the scenario you mention i.e. a strip not marked on a chart in close proximity to another that is, common sense applies:
make a broadcast on 126.7 as well as the FIA.
If the strip not marked on a chart is in close proximity to one that is which has a discrete CTAF:
make a broadcast on that discrete CTAF as well as the FIA.


CASA has longstanding procedures in place if chatter becomes a problem on an FIA frequency from traffic at an aerodrome/strip not marked on a chart. Amongst other options:


direct that it be published on charts, then 126.7 will apply.
ATC are indeed the ones who know whether or not chatter is a problem on FIA frequencies. Suffice to say if chatter were to become a problem somewhere, ATC would not hesitate to kick up a fuss :)

[Ixixly]

Ok CaptainMidnight, sure that makes sense when explained like that but it seems like a fairly over complicated system which increases the risk of 2 aircraft not being on the right frequency. I haven't been back in Aus for a few years but when I was outback it was simple, unless an aerodrome had it's own frequency you use 126.7, simple, I just don't see what possible issue this solves?

I operated around Arnhemland and on a busy day you could have 6 relatively close airstrips all with someone coming, going or both and very rarely did we ever have any particular problems, I can imagine an area like Arnhemland becoming exceptionally confusing now.

So if there is a problem they will direct it be published and that takes how long for it to be published and even then everyone is using slightly different charts for a while so therefore if there is a problem Strip that needs to be published on all relevant charts that problem is left un-fixed for perhaps up to a year whilst the relevant red tape is sorted, the maps finally get printed and everyone updates their maps.

It just seems very silly and all for no particular reason.

[gerry111]

A recent personal event that showed monitoring Area Freq to be a good idea.


An IFR Bonanza climbing out of Mudgee was advised by Centre that there was an unidentified aircraft where we were. We called Centre to tell them that we were a VFR Bonanza at 9500' abeam Orange en route Katoomba on a QNH of 1023. Centre told us that their area QNH was 1022 so we adjusted our altimeters and cruise height. Centre gave us a squawk code and we identified. Centre confirmed that we were the aircraft in question. The IFR Bonanza confirmed that he had a TCAS RA and afterwards that he had us sighted. All safe and stress free for everyone. And MEL Cen even thanked us for the call!


And I didn't hear of any heavy metal crashing that day, Dick...

[Creampuff]

Ixixly

Could you please, please (please) nominate which of those strips are not marked on any chart?

Please.

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff. There are many in the mittagong to goulburn area- even with windsocks- but not marked on the charts.

Captain. It's not chatter that is the problem- it's just the one transmission that blocks an ATC call that may be needed to prevent a mid air!

Gerry - and if you were not monitoring the area frequency the IFR aircraft would have been given a traffic information service on you and it would have used alerted see and avoid to keep clear!

[framer]

The IFR Bonanza confirmed that he had a TCAS RA and afterwards that he had us sighted. All safe and stress free for everyone.
I doubt it was stress free for the IFR Bonanza if he got an RA off you. I had an RA about 6000hrs ago and I still remember it quite clearly :eek:

[Dick Smith]

Gerry. Sounds like the most amateurish and complicated way of keeping aircraft apart.

In the USA the IFR aircraft would have been in class E and could have simply requested a vector away from the VFR aircraft.

Of course not possible in Aus as both aircraft were in un- controlled airspace.

As I said - amateurish - but CASA will resist any update to class E as per the Government NAS policy - because we have always had class G ! Minds set in concrete.

[ShyTorque]

Another thought. In the USA, how does an overflying pilot know when to change to 126.7 if there is no way of him knowing that he is about to fly through the circuit of a strip?

In UK we have "safetycom" (135.475) for operating at locations with no allocated frequency of their own. In many cases it's pointless calling, because even if another pilot hears the call from an aircraft lifting from an unmarked strip (or helicopter landing place), it may mean nothing to him. If the place in question isn't on aviation charts he might well not recognise the name or the relevance. He may also hear irrelevant and distracting calls from other aircraft operating many miles away. We usually have other more relevant (or mandatory) frequencies to monitor.

[andrewr]

Personally I think the risk to jet traffic is virtually nil, so the proposed media release has the feel of crying wolf to me. If blocked transmissions is really a problem then combining frequencies and competing with new IFR students making reports etc. is a much bigger issue.

I see it as an occasional annoyance for ATC than a serious risk, and if it becomes a problem they have the ability to deal with it.

The risk of collision between someone using such a strip and passing traffic is also miniscule.

The only real risk of collision is between aircraft trying to use the same strip (or in some cases strips in close proximity). This means that the only people who really need to hear the transmissions are those people - but people using the same strip DO need to be on the same frequency. A dedicated frequency makes perfect sense for this - the area frequency does not.

The real risk from the change is that many (I suspect most) will keep using 126.7, and will be on a different frequency from anyone following the CASA rule.

I know that there are a lot of unmarked strips in the area where I fly. I have spoken to a few people who fly out of them. My conclusion is that:


Many make no calls because it is their own private strip and nobody else is likely to be using it
Some make calls on 126.7
Some I suspect used to make calls on 126.7 but now will make no calls
Nobody makes calls on area

Most of the people with unmarked strips don't want them marked or the location generally known. Apparently there are some ATOs who view a private strip as an ideal place to test precautionary search procedures, but the owners are less than enthusiastic about 50' passes over their backyards. I couldn't tell you whether the ATO/student announced their intentions on the area frequency...

[kaz3g]

Creampuff. There are many in the mittagong to goulburn area- even with windsocks- but not marked on the charts.

The real questions are how many aircraft are using them and how many of your "at risk" RPT's are sharing the same airspace below 10000' in the run between Mittagong and within 10 NM north-east of Towrang?

t It's not chatter that is the problem- it's just the one transmission that blocks an ATC call that may be needed to prevent a mid air!

Your own post to Gerry 111 seems to answer that because ATC will surely have provided advice long before a collision is imminent and both aircraft, being on the same frequency, should hear it.

In your scenario, 2 VFR pilots on a collision course will get no assistance from ATC at all because they will both be on another frequency un available to the Controller (presumably 126.7). I heard an urgent warning call from Melbourne Radar on 135.7 while stooging around the Pheasant Creek area under the VFR a few years ago and climbed rapidly while turning east to avoid another aircraft that sailed though a few hundred feet underneath my port rear quarter from the south-east. He wasn't in my vision and he certainly hadn't seen me. There is an unmarked private strip in the area but I'm glad I was on area and not 126.7. I'm also very grateful for the diligence of MR giving me the heads up before I got more than just a fright.

Kaz

[Dick Smith]

Kazakh. Could I suggest you remain vigilant and look out at all times. The service you got was a once only fluke. Rely on that system and you are likely to die.

[Draggertail]

Luckily my radio lets me listen to area and ctaf. Have to listen to a lot of crap though!

[le Pingouin]

Two points Dick, there's nothing stopping an aircraft requesting headings to avoid - the pilot is responsible for terrain avoidance as we'll be saying "suggest heading". What makes you think vectoring is a good solution? It's not when you have absolutely no idea what the mystery aircraft is doing. Levels is far safer - aircraft routinely make sharp turns but don't tend to change level abruptly.

Don't listen and you may get unlucky - I've been thanked a few times by pilots for saving their necks. It's an extra tool in the arsenal to avoid each other.

[kaz3g]

Dick Smith:
Could I suggest you remain vigilant and look out at all times. The service you got was a once only fluke. Rely on that system and you are likely to die.


I try really hard Dick and I appreciate your concern.

Problem was this one was coming from my rear and climbing underneath me. Perhaps he had his head in his chart, or perhaps he was partially dazzled by the sun, but it's clear he didn't see me and he didn't answer the somewhat exasperated calls from MR either.

Similarly, I have heard JR and his colleagues trying to contact errant pilots to no avail in the vicinity of Nagambie when a jump was pending...goodness knows what frequency they are on, possibly Mangalore or possibly Wahring, but the calls go unanswered.

I certainly haven't heard RPT calls being drowned out by VFR calls from relatively low levels anywhere in my travels around Oz.

Kaz

[Ixixly]

Gerry111 in your event it seems like you got damned lucky, a Bonanza with TCAS? What is the likelihood of that occurring? I'm willing to bet there aren't a lot of GA aircraft getting around out there with TCAS. Plus no one is debating the positives of monitoring Area frequency, it's a good idea to monitor whatever you can, it's the idea of splitting now between 126.7 and Area for no particular reason. Personally I don't agree with the argument about clogging up ATC on area, I'm more worried about people not listening in on the right frequency around the many MANY Airstrips used regularly that aren't on WACs.

Creampuff, here's a few we used that weren't on the WACs:
Mammadewere, Gudjektbinj, Marlwan, Gummaringbang, Mumeka, Nonni, Gamagarwan, Marlgowa, all of those are the ones I could find quickly when I looked at my digital map, there were quite a few more on my actual map and all are within a 20nm area and all were heavily used out there by 4 different companies, so now you have aircraft coming in and out of them, you'll have aircraft overflying them as well going back towards Darwin as they were covering a lot of the area that Aircraft going to and from Darwin around the Top End were travelling around some airstrips that ARE on the WAC such as Oenpelli, Jabiru and Maningrida plus a host of other smaller ones which are on the WAC.

As such on a bad day you could have approximately 8 Aircraft operating in and out of those Aerodromes, a few more overflying and all operating between 126.7 and the Area Frequency, sometimes monitoring company frequencies as well, a lot of newbies out there too. I don't know about you but this just sounds like a bad idea to me.

OH and just for funsies, let's imagine that above scenario now also being played out during the Wet Season with everyone stuck at the same 500ft level, that corridor to the East of Darwin is filled with even more strips that aren't on WACs being used regularly and there are a LOT more aircraft around there on a bad day trying to get around. So these ones would now have to monitor 126.7, Darwin ATC, Area Frequency and possibly Company as well... Yup, this sounds like a GREAT idea.

[Draggertail]

Kaz, I haven't heard RPT calls being drowned out by VFR calls from relatively low levels either but that's probably because no one is following the rules that CASA have brought in. They are either on 126.7 or not making calls.

[tyler_durden_80]

My 2 cents...if you are flying under the VFR and not monitoring the appropriate area frequency, you are being negligent and constitute a safety risk.

VFR safety alerts occur in the low level airspace i work numerous times every week. Controllers are trained to scan for and monitor VFR aircraft, and potential conflicts with other VFR aircraft. I hate nothing worse than seeing 2 VFR paints in unsafe proximity, issuing a safety alert, and getting no answer.

Relying on 'See and avoid' and 126.7 is just asking for, at best, a very near miss.

[Dick Smith]

And only in Australia will you as an ATC be given a substantial part of the respondsibilty and guilt if two VFR 's hit in your airspace.

That's because they are on your frequency and you have a duty of care.

In other leading aviation countries there is no way VFR pilots can know the frequency boundaries so ATC's are clearly not responsible unless giving an agreed RIS.

They are treating you as suckers.

And Tyler - giving a traffic service to all VFR is ICAO class D.

[Ixixly]

Tyler, you're forgetting that the real at risk areas as I presented in my last post don't have any radar coverage whatsoever so monitoring Area is next to useless. It's still a good idea to do it when you can but yeah, next to useless.

[triadic]

Dick is correct!

Sadly the education on this aspect of NAS was drowned by many of the other changes back, 12 years or so, when introduced. It is sad that there are some in the industry and even in CASA do not have much of an understanding of what it is all about and how the system is meant to work.

Our friends in ATC do a great job, however they are not always in the best position (due to terrain or aerial position) to hear low level broadcasts. Not the same in Flight Level country tho'.

CASA asking for comments on any resulting frequency congestion is not going to work for the reason/s already mentioned and if indeed the new procedure was accepted, it would be some time, maybe 2 years or more before we might see an effect. And the charts would be covered in airfield/aerodrome symbols that would take clutter to a new level...

Standardisation and simplicity are two of the keys to having good procedures that work and are safe. CASA seems to have forgotten that!

[uncle8]

Seems to me that this proposal is for aircraft inbound and outbound from a private strip which is not marked on maps. That makes sense to me but I am unable to understand how an overflying aircraft would know when to call on 126.7 if he has no way of knowing that there is a strip there.
That's a deal buster AFAIAC.

[gerry111]

kaz3g wrote:


"I certainly haven't heard RPT calls drowned out by VFR calls from relatively low levels anywhere in my travels around Oz."


Same experience for me, over about 30 years too, Kaz!


I'm not sure where Dick is going with all of this.

[uncle8]

He's going nowhere. The assumptions are wrong and there are unanswered questions.

[Sunfish]

If I succeed in buying a country place this weekend and put an aircraft on it as I hope to do, there is no effing way I will make broadcast calls on the Area Frequency.

1. No one will know where the strip is and there is no way I can tell them short of reading the Lat. and Lon.

2. I can guarantee that no IFR traffic will ever get near it since the LSAT at this point is over 2500 ft.

3. I can guarantee that no VFR traffic can get near it unless its the bloke with the helicopter over the creek.

What I will do is check with the other private strips in the area (at least Four), and most probably end up broadcasting on the frequency of the only strip in the locality in ERSA - 126.7. Which is what everyone else apparently does.

[Duck Pilot]

Who cares about NAS that's histoy, need to move forward and look at the practical aspects of this. Has there been a risk based assesment done on the concept of the possibility of two heavies crashing as a result of frequency congestion? Doubt it!

Adopt the U.S. system? Could be considered. Maybe we should also adopt the system that the FAA use to regulate the charity service flights........

[CaptainMidnight]

here's a few we used that weren't on the WACs:
Mammadewere, Gudjektbinj, Marlwan, Gummaringbang, Mumeka, Nonni, Gamagarwan, Marlgowa, all of those are the ones I could find quickly when I looked at my digital map, there were quite a few more on my actual map and all are within a 20nm area and all were heavily used out there by 4 different companiesIn this case, as an alternative to publishing them on charts, one action CASA could take is declare a Broadcast Area capturing all those strips on the one frequency, and publish that area on charts. They have done that in many areas (some refer to these BAs as "large CTAFs".

[Ixixly]

Clinton, I'm honestly a bit confused now between the pair of you as to whom was in which Bonanza and obviously the story isn't quite straight but nonetheless the situation described isn't really what has me worried anywho, it's one I described where you have no radar coverage and now have Pilots splitting their attention between more frequencies leaving an increased chance of 2 aircraft not hearing each other.

As I said there are more than a few areas out there with a fair amount of traffic that don't have radar coverage and will now possible have up to a dozen different aerodromes within close proximity operating on either 126.7 or Area Frequency, the situation becomes worse if you happen to be on the boundary of 2 Area Frequencies as well, I just don't see what was wrong with the old system of using 126.7 unless otherwise specified.

Mitigating factors to remember as well is that often there will be Aircraft operating on Company Frequencies as well. VHF Comms break, if you're in a remote area it probably won't be fixed till next 100hrly which could leave a lot of flight hours where you maybe only have 1 but would have to most likely be monitoring multiple frequencies now to maintain your SA.

I don't particularly agree with Dicks assertion of the congestion of Area Frequency causing a Mid-Air due to missed ATC instructions but I do foresee the issue I've raised where Pilots are now having to monitor too many frequencies and it may not always be clear as to whom is meant to be monitoring what especially outside Radar range where you don't have ATC to back you up. I'm sure a lot of us have been in the situation where a busy Aerodrome has been allocated its own discrete frequency and we all know that causes problems for a few months afterwards where everyone has to be extra vigilant of people possibly using the wrong frequency, imagine that happening on a much larger scale at multiple Aerodromes and strips which is what I imagine happening with this new rule.

I think CASA in this situation would be better doing an educational/awareness campaign to get people to make sure they have at least 2 VHFs and remain vigilant on both 126.7, Area Frequency plus any other nearby relevant frequencies AND that they are making mandatory calls as required rather than this new rule.

Yeah, I thought about that Captain Midnight, but now you'll have either:
A. An aerodrome with a discrete frequency which you use
B. An aerodrome which is marked which doesn't have a discrete frequency so you use 126.7
C. An aerodrome which isn't marked so you use Area Frequency
D. An aerodrome which isn't marked but is within an area prescribed as one you always use 126.7

And this all relies on areas being first identified as being a hazard (Which usually requires time, effort or an accident) Maps being updated and such which can take time not to mention then you need people to all have those correct maps (Which I know we should all have but we are all well aware this isn't always the case) as opposed to the current system where it's either a Discrete Frequency or 126.7, I just don't see what was so difficult or wrong with the current system that this new convoluted one has to be put in place?

[Dick Smith]

le Pingouin - as an air traffic controller you appear to support the unique Australian system that has a VFR aircraft mandatory on ATC radar frequencies. You point out,

I've been thanked a few times by pilots for saving their necks. It's an extra tool in the arsenal to avoid each other.

Why, then, isn’t the service given when it is really necessary? That is, to VFR aircraft in the training area west of Bankstown or in the light aircraft lane.

On many occasions I have flown close to aircraft in both of these locations but never in the fifteen or so years since the airspace was given to a radar controller have I heard a controller say, “aircraft near Hornsby, there’s another aircraft nearby – watch out!”. Your controller colleagues don’t do this because it would be ridiculous. There is simply so much traffic so close to each other that where the service is really needed it isn’t given.

I have been flying out near Cowra at 7,500 feet and been called up as a VFR aircraft and given traffic on someone who was flying at 6,500 feet. I just wonder what false sense of security these random calls give to pilots – as we know, pilots should remain vigilant to see and avoid. Then again, if you think you may be called by air traffic control I suppose you can sit around chatting in the cockpit looking at each other, which many do.

I also find it fascinating that on about 80% of the occasions I hear air traffic control call a VFR pilot for a traffic information service – normally in very low traffic density airspace where the risks are low – that no pilot answers, presumably because they are on the wrong frequency or they have the volume turned down.

What the people at CASA are trying to copy is the pre-AMATS system before 1991 where any aircraft above 5,000 was compulsorily giving full position reports and being given a directed traffic information service by over 700 Flightservice officers. This directed traffic service included a directed traffic service across frequency boundaries as co-ordination was done by the Flight officers. That doesn’t happen now, but I see there are those in CASA desperately trying to keep the old system with the half-way new NAS. It is impossible.

As I have said many times before, go back to the old dual Flightservice/ATC system or move forward to the proven NAS. The halfway point will simply end up with an accident – most likely because a call is blocked out (no, not by frequency congestion) but simply because the holes in the cheese have lined up.

And instead of concentrating on IFR airline traffic with many passengers you must be taking your attention away to look at VFR traffic. Not good!

[Dick Smith]

Ixixly, you state,

I don't particularly agree with Dicks assertion of the congestion of Area Frequency causing a Mid-Air due to missed ATC instructions
Ixixly, I have never mentioned that it is a congestion problem – it is just a probability problem. That is, one important call is blocked out some time in the next five or ten years resulting in an horrendous accident.

Just why air traffic controllers would want VFR aircraft taxiing and in the circuit area of aerodromes giving non-directed calls on air traffic control frequencies that are used for separation is beyond me.

I will say it again – no, not congestion, just simply one call at the wrong time. That is how accidents are caused.

[Creampuff]

Creampuff, here's a few we used that weren't on the WACs:
Mammadewere, Gudjektbinj, Marlwan, Gummaringbang, Mumeka, Nonni, Gamagarwan, MarlgowaI’ve just opened the charts published by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h), and what do I see on the charts?

- Mamadawerre (YMMA). There’s also one coded YGMD near a property called Mamadawerre
- Mumeka (YMUM)
- YGTJ
- YMRN
- YGUB
- YNAM

You see Ix, like Trent972 previously, you answered a question I didn’t ask.

I didn’t ask you to nominate airstrips that aren’t marked on a 30 year old paper WAC. I asked you to nominate airstrips that aren’t marked on a chart – that is, the things the ‘latest editions of which’ the law requires pilots to have available in the cockpit.

These ‘discussions’ generally lead nowhere because they are rarely based on ‘facts’ and are almost invariably based on confusion about the rules.

They are usually based on someone’s strongly-held opinion, untroubled by the whole of the facts, unhindered by a knowledge of the rules, and heavily influenced by industrial relations and political biases.

For example, I’m all for Dick’s airspace model, provided it comes with all of the attributes of the model on which it is based, not just the bits he likes and lacking the bits he doesn’t like or isn’t aware of.

Please understand how the ‘multicom’ system works. In the multicom system, the equivalent of area frequency in G is the multicom frequency. However, and critically importantly, the equivalent of the ‘default’ CTAF – that is, the frequency to be used for any strip marked on a chart that doesn’t have a published discrete frequency – is a different frequency to the multicom frequency.

I will repeat that: The multicom frequency is a different frequency to the default CTAF.

Dick and triadic’s bright idea seems to be that both frequencies should be the same: 126.7.

You can stick that where the sun don’t shine.

[Dexta]

All CAsA need to do to fix this issue is mandate that ALL aircraft be fitted with ADS-B IN and OUT, plus TCAS, all aircraft with two or more seats must be multi-crewed to help see-and-avoid. Stricter medicals to test hearing deficiency and eye-sight must be 20/20 or better. ALL equipment tested every 3 months. Oh and for good measure any aircraft that has done over 1000 hours must be rebuilt back to "as new". This should pretty much reduce the GA fleet to zero so that the only aircraft flying will be military or airlines. Problem solved!

[Dick Smith]

Cream Puff – I love it!

I’m all for Dick’s airspace model, provided it comes with all of the attributes of the model on which it is based, not just the bits he likes and lacking the bits he doesn’t like or isn’t aware of.

Creamy, what a great put-down, but in fact I don’t think you are correct. I notice you never phone me to discuss this issue.

Any success I have ever had in life is the product of copying successful systems from overseas and incorporating them with successful things that are done here in Australia. One fool from the old Department of Aviation told me that if we were going to take the advantages of the US system we had to have the disadvantages. Sometimes that is forced on you, but mostly it isn’t. In fact, you can take the advantages of both systems and that is what I have always done in my business career (with some success).

The NAS document, which I am looking at now, as approved by Federal Cabinet was certainly based on the North American Airspace System, but it kept some of the advantages we have proven safe. For example, all instrument approaches in the USA are in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace. We have had years of experience of IFR pilots self-separating in G airspace – then why wouldn’t we keep this?

So I can assure you – if we want to be successful in Australian aviation, then we search the world and find out the regulations which allow the required level of safety at the absolute lowest cost and we then incorporate these with those things in our present system that we already do better. Then we will be really humming - as long as the process isn’t stopped by people like you.

[andrewr]

I’ve just opened the charts published by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h)

Are you suggesting that 126.7 applies if the strip is marked on ANY chart approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h)?

The most important thing is that aircraft operating into the same place are on the same frequency. It is already a problem for this rule that different strips are shown on WACs, VTC, VNC etc. Are you saying that a pilot needs to check every source approved for CAR 233(1)(h) to see if the strip is marked on any chart? How do you even get the list of what is approved for CAR 233(1)(h)?

Or are you going to operate on 126.7 and when you have a near miss with someone on area say, "Well, it was marked on MY chart"?

[Creampuff]

Stopped by people like me, Dick?

Gosh I must be powerful! I’m chuffed. :}

OK everyone: Kick the spivs out of the airports, rebuild CASA from the ground up, kill, cremate and bury the regulatory reform Frankenstein, rebuild ATSB from the ground up, rebuild AA from the ground up, elect governments with integrity and competence, and rid the world of Ebola.


[Listens for the sounds of immediate change. Only hears crickets chirping....]

Dick, I don’t understand why you are unable to face the fact that “the NAS document … as approved by the Federal Cabinet”, was simply a modern day version of shiny beads and comfy blankets: a very cheap way of buying your support. You’re not still labouring under the misapprehension that they meant it, surely? :confused:

PS: Andrewr. Here's an idea: What does the rule say?

[andrewr]

PS: Andrewr. Here's an idea: What does the rule say?

I can't find anywhere where it specifically defines which charts.

[Creampuff]

What does the rule say?

[Ixixly]

Creampuff, you asked, and I quote:
"Could you please, please (please) nominate which of those strips are not marked on any chart?"
My response was poorly worded, so to clarify, those were ones that were not on Published charts at the time I was operating which was about 3 years ago now but had been heavily use for a number of years. I was requested by my company at the time to create a WAC chart with all of them put on, the WACs I used were current at the time but did not display any of those and many many more. I wouldn't be surprised if more had popped up, they often close and re-open strips around there as they fall into disuse or reopen due to a group deciding to live there again. I would very much like to know your source for finding these strips, which published charts are you referencing?

Also, here's a simple question for you to answer Creampuff, How do you think aircraft using the Area Frequency when operating at an Aerodrome that isn't published on any chart will increase safety? I've pointed out how I think it will decrease it so if you are fine with the idea you must have a reason for it.

[CaptainMidnight]

Yeah, I thought about that Captain Midnight, but now you'll have either:
A. An aerodrome with a discrete frequency which you use
B. An aerodrome which is marked which doesn't have a discrete frequency so you use 126.7
C. An aerodrome which isn't marked so you use Area Frequency
D. An aerodrome which isn't marked but is within an area prescribed as one you always use 126.7

And this all relies on areas being first identified as being a hazard (Which usually requires time, effort or an accident) Maps being updated and such which can take time not to mention then you need people to all have those correct maps (Which I know we should all have but we are all well aware this isn't always the case) as opposed to the current system where it's either a Discrete Frequency or 126.7, I just don't see what was so difficult or wrong with the current system that this new convoluted one has to be put in place? It's not new - it's how things have been for the last 10 years or so. All CASA has done is clarify things in AIP.

There is no huge time delay publishing. 6 months for the main suite of charts, and if in the interim CASA feel a safety issue warrants an AIP SUP with a map or NOTAM & AVFAX product, they'll go down that path.

The problem of pilots not carrying current maps and/or not reading NOTAM, AIC & AIP SUPPs is another matter.

Creampuff, How do you think aircraft using the Area Frequency when operating at an Aerodrome that isn't published on any chart will increase safety?Because other aircraft unaware of that aerodrome (because it isn't marked on charts) will be listening enroute on the FIA frequency, and so will hear the broadcast.

[Creampuff]

I would very much like to know your source for finding these strips, which published charts are you referencing?The only ones that I now carry: Those published by one of the publishers approved under CAR 233(1)(h). I wouldn’t know what’s on paper charts any more, and I don’t care.How do you think aircraft using the Area Frequency when operating at an Aerodrome that isn't published on any chart will increase safety?Let’s imagine a world in which pilots exercise judgment and make decisions based on a good comprehension of the ‘big picture’ and his or her own contribution to the safety of the system. Hard to imagine – I know – in a country like Australia where everything must be put in rules. But suspend belief for a moment.

This imaginary pilot is about to depart an airstrip that isn’t marked on any chart. Let’s assume it’s a property called “Camelot”, 20 nautical miles to the southwest of an aerodrome that is marked on a chart. Let’s call that “Mildura”.

This imaginary pilot assumes that any aircraft in the area around Camelot will be monitoring the area frequency for that area. Comprehending the potential contribution he can make to his own safety and that of the other aircraft potentially in the area, he makes this broadcast:

“Traffic in the area near a place that I’m not going to tell you the location of, ABC’s taking off and going somewhere else and will just drone on for a while just to clog up the area frequency.”

Or….

“All traffic, ABC is taxiing at Camelot, a property 20 nautical miles to the southwest of Mildura, for Gulargambone to the west, climbing to 8,500.”

At that point the pilot then keeps a look out for aluminium confetti caused by the colliding RPTs.

FFS. Is it really that hard?

[andrewr]

The rule says:

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.

I don't see how that answers my question. Can you perhaps elaborate?

I don't see any definition of aeronautical chart. My working definition is charts in AIP, i.e. WAC, ERC, VNC, VTC. You seem to prefer "approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h)." I have no idea what else is included for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h). OzRunways claims to be, does that mean pilots MUST have access to OzRunways to check whether an airstrip is depicted in OzRunways, in order to know the correct frequency?

I am also interested in the answer to
which published charts are you referencing?
Your description
charts published by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h)

is a bit cryptic and goes to my point that this rule requires that everybody use consistent charts, and if you won't tell us which charts you are using there is a problem with the rule.

[Ixixly]

You still didn't answer either of my questions Creampuff, what is the source where you found the Strips I mentioned and what do you feel the contribution to safety is by using Area Frequencies at Unpublished Aerodromes? How is it BETTER for your Captain Arthur departing Camelot to make the call on Area instead of 126.7?

You have a crack at me for apparently answering a question you didn't ask but then can't go and directly answer a question you were asked.

[andrewr]

FFS. Is it really that hard?

Except that the RPT leaving Mildura didn't hear him because they switched the radios on 30 seconds after the broadcast.

They don't know about the guy who left Broken Hill for Swan Hill either, because he broadcast on Broken Hill CTAF, but never area, and even if he had it was before they were listening.

It's just a piece of the old system that has been resurrected for some reason. There's nothing wrong with it, except that it can't work the way people are describing without other bits of the old system. Specifically, everybody broadcasting on area, and someone listening, tracking aircraft and relaying relevant information that was broadcast before you were on frequency.

The aircraft I see when out flying are other aircraft flying from CTAF to CTAF, with no broadcasts on area. Aircraft taking off from unmarked strips are a miniscule risk to aircraft in cruise - far less than other aircraft also in cruise.

[triadic]

It's not new - it's how things have been for the last 10 years or so. All CASA has done is clarify things in AIP.

Actually it is a CHANGE from what was instigated in NAS. However the major problem is that CASA (through their ignorance of the intent of original procedure) thought it was a CLARIFICATION and failed as a result to conduct any sort of risk assessment or safety case in support of what is now a CHANGE.

In the great majority of cases the MULTICOM would only be used at low levels and good airmanship would suggest that once en-route, the area frequency would be monitored. Discussion about its use at higher altitudes is irrelevant to this discussion.

So what about the strip that is on or close to an area frequency boundary??

[Creampuff]

I should no longer be, but I remain, perpetually astonished at the way in which demonstrably intelligent people reason.

andrewr: The definition of ‘aeronautical charts’ is: “a game played on infidel flavour psychological submarine”.

I didn’t say the charts “approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h)”. I said the charts published by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h). It’s the publisher that’s approved, not the charts.

Now it just so happens that, in order to get an approval for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h), the publisher must have systems in place to ensure that what they publish is, in fact, “the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions” to which a pilot must have access in order to comply with CAR 233(1)(h). Otherwise, it’s a bit pointless approving the publisher and buying their product…

I’m very comfortable that if I look at a map or chart published by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h), and there is a symbol on that map or chart, and the legend for that map or chart calls that symbol an “aerodrome” of some kind, I can very safely assume that the position of that location in the real world fits the description: “an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts” in terms of the rule you quoted.

If you think places depicted as aerodromes on maps and charts published by publishers approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h) are not “aerodromes depicted on aeronautical charts” in terms of the rule you quoted, I’m afraid my brain isn’t big enough to understand the complexity of that reasoning.

Someone might wave around a paper WAC that’s the latest edition, hot off the press, and say: “Look – Gallargambone isn’t marked!” But has the person incorporated the manuscript amendments in accordance with the current AIP SUP? Have a look at H69/14 and see how many “Add Aerodrome” line items there are. Are AIP SUPs published for funsees?
what is the source where you found the Strips I mentionedI gave you the answer to that question Ix, but I refrained from mentioning a commercial business. There are two private businesses with approvals, under 233(1)(h), to publish the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions to which pilots are obliged to have access. You work out the rest.How is it BETTER for your Captain Arthur departing Camelot to make the call on Area instead of 126.7?Because other aircraft with serviceable VHF in the vicinity will at least be monitoring area, or at least should be, and may not be monitoring 126.7 because there are no aerodromes depicted on charts in the vicinity of Camelot. Therefore, a broadcast on 126.7 is more likely to be a complete waste of breath and electromagnetic radiation, whereas a broadcast on area is more likely to be of benefit to Arthur and pilots in the vicinity of Camelot.Except that the RPT leaving Mildura didn't hear him because they switched the radios on 30 seconds after the broadcast.And precisely the same outcome will be achieved if he transmits on 126.7 or 45394.9774. And precisely the same outcome will be acheived with the multicom system.The aircraft I see when out flying are other aircraft flying from CTAF to CTAF, with no broadcasts on area. Aircraft taking off from unmarked strips are a miniscule risk to aircraft in cruise - far less than other aircraft also in cruise.This is why all of this is a beat up, to address an industrial relations and political issue rather than a safety issue.

As I keep saying, many of the aircraft operating in and out of these places are not required to have serviceable VHF anyway, so the phony discussion about the safety consequences of these broadcast and frequency rules is almost entirely academic.

[Pontius]

Returning to the original post:

“Whilst I agree that the chance of an accident is small because of this unique CASA Advice, the result of an accident could be horrendous – with up to five hundred people being killed if two airline aircraft happened to collide because an important communication from Air Traffic Control was blocked. That is clearly why other countries prohibit small aircraft from giving non-directed calls on Air Traffic Control separation frequencies”, says Dick Smith.

Dick Smith says, “All pilots complying with this latest CASA Advice should be aware that they could unintentionally be responsible for a major airline accident in the future”.

Dick,

Might I suggest you remove some of the rhetoric and scaremongering from your article. Your missive suggests that if one radio call is missed then two airliners can end up colliding, with the loss of up to five hundred lives. This is the type of rambling that I would expect from a hack journalist, with no idea of the various safety nets in place in aviation, just to sensationalise a story. Hundreds, if not thousands, of radio calls are missed worldwide every single day and I'm at a loss of see the pieces of aircraft falling from the sky. Reduce that to only Australia and the chances of TCAS not working AND two aircraft colliding because they missed ONE blocked call are so infinitesimally small that a statistician's calculator screen would be too small to show the result and certainly does not command the scaremongering that your article portrays.

Clearly you have view that differs to CASA on this subject and that is all well and good but please don't write such sensationalist nonsense just to get the aviation-ignorant public on your side by getting them to believe they are going to be collecting bits of 747 in their garden because a mate flying around the GAFA in his Jabiru over talked ATC.

[Up-into-the-air]

It amazes that CP can post in work hours and paid for by the community!!

Explain this post CP:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/549858-planned-media-release-re-casa-misinformation-2.html#post8711004

[Dick Smith]

Pontius
Why do you think it is prohibited in other leading aviation countries for pilots to make announcements on ATC frequencies that are also used for aircraft separation?

Why did the origional NAS documentation make it clear that announcements were not to be made on ATC frequencies ?

Its all about offering a system that does not have design flaws that could lead to an unnecessary accident .

How else would you suggest we get commonsense to prevail?

[kaz3g]

Why do you think it is prohibited in other leading aviation countries for pilots to make announcements on ATC frequencies that are also used for aircraft separation?

Traffic density might have something to do with it. Possibly the prohibition of the re-broadcasting that saves ASA's dollars but amplifies the risk of over transmission. Possibly because they have lots of other good ideas and more staff to implement them.

Why did the origional NAS documentation make it clear that announcements were not to be made on ATC frequencies ?

Probably something to do with the authors' perceptions and experiences.

Its all about offering a system that does not have design flaws that could lead to an unnecessary accident .

No. What you are suggesting appears to me to be aimed at reducing the infinitesimal risk of a major collision involving an RPT aircraft (500 deaths) that might occur at the higher altitudes in which they fly, but below 10,000, due to a momentary over-transmission which must clearly occur despite the RPT's radar and collision warning systems. It also seems to me that your proposal sacrifices the safety afforded the "littlies" that occurs by allowing them communications that will alert them to traffic operating outside the usual radius of known CTAFs (those marked on a chart of some sort).

How else would you suggest we get commonsense to prevail?

By bringing everyone down off their hobby horses and listening to the major proponents put their cases,,, it's called industry consultation.

Kaz

[Creampuff]

UITA: Me "work"? Stuff that for a joke.

Dick: What kaz said! :D:D

[Pontius]

How else would you suggest we get commonsense to prevail?

Dick,

If you read what I wrote you will realise that I'm not necessarily arguing against your point but the manner in which you state it. Trying to conjour up images of plummeting aircraft to the public who know nothing of TCAS etc, all because the crew missed a radio transmission is disingenuous nonsense and does your argument no good at all, especially to those of us who know the realities of flying airliners.

In your original post you said that you would be pushing out your press release unless you had any good ideas to the contrary. What I'm saying is go ahead with your opinion but just leave out the exaggeration, which conveniently ignores all the other safety nets in place preventing the loss of five hundred lives. Remove the rhetoric and scaremongering and crack on with your crusade.

[Creampuff]

Come now, Pontius. You know full well that as a consequence of VFRs overtransmitting safety-critical ATC transmissions, punters will be at increased risk of a 30,000' death plunge.

That's why we must also rid the sky of pilots with CVD.

And anyone with androgenic alopecia ...

And anyone with - you know - 'wierd' - like, you know - 'colouring', that we all know means the person will never have the 'right stuff'...

And anyone that's - well - you know - someone who gives us the strong uneasy feeling they may be from another planet.

[andrewr]

I’m very comfortable that if I look at a map or chart published by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h), and there is a symbol on that map or chart, and the legend for that map or chart calls that symbol an “aerodrome” of some kind, I can very safely assume that the position of that location in the real world fits the description: “an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts” in terms of the rule you quoted.


Sure, that's obvious. (With the possible exception of places like Lake Bolac.) As long as approval for CAR 233(1)(h) forbids them from showing any airfield not shown on the official charts (whichever charts they may be) and you can't create user defined points that are shown as airfields.

However the important thing is not whether or not it is on the chart, it is whether everyone agrees whether it is on the chart and is therefore on the same frequency.

Are you comfortable that everybody else using the airfield knows it is on your chart?

Are you comfortable that when your chart does NOT show an aerodrome, that there is no other chart that does show an aerodrome at that location?

There are aerodromes shown on the VNC not on the WAC and vice-versa, which is why I keep saying we now have to check every chart and there is a danger that people in the same location are on different frequencies.

What about places where the the aerodrome is marked with an ultralight or hang gliding symbol but no aerodrome symbol? I suspect these locations typicallly use 126.7, and DO have significant traffic. Is someone going to tell them they should be on area? Or does an ultralight symbol count as an aerodrome marked on a chart?

[Creampuff]

Are you comfortable that everybody else using the airfield knows it is on your chart?No. Are you comfortable that when your chart does NOT show an aerodrome, that there is no other chart that does show an aerodrome at that location?No. What about places where the the aerodrome is marked with an ultralight or hang gliding symbol but no aerodrome symbol? I suspect these locations typicallly use 126.7, and DO have significant traffic. Is someone going to tell them they should be on area? Or does an ultralight symbol count as an aerodrome marked on a chart?Don't know and don't care.

It doesn't matter, if you do what I was taught to do:

Always assume there's always traffic around that is:

- not required to carry serviceable VHF, or
- on the wrong frequency or suffering other finger trouble,

and, if operating in and out of a flat piece of terra firma of any description, depicted or otherwise, will be carrying out 'unusual' circuit joins, going in 'unusual' circuit directions and flying at 'unusual' heights.

There shouldn't need to be a rule about keeping a lookout, but I note that there is one. It's a very good idea to comply with it. :ok:

If pilots want to fly around with the VHF welded to 126.7 - they can go for it. Many of them will eventually work out the benefits - to everyone - of monitoring area frequency and broadcasting on it when appropriate.

[Creampuff]

Name the place so that we can check the facts.

[triadic]

Simple.... Under the revised CASA interpretation if marked on a chart, use MULTICOM - if in ERSA use that.... 126.7 is the default in such cases and has been since NAS was introduced. :ok:

SIMPLE unless you work for CASA!!

[Strainer]

YJST is on the Adelaide VNC.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ho hum......

And it USED to be ALL so 'ZIMPLES'....!!!

In CTA = talk to ATC on ATC Freqs.....

OCTA = talk to that 'OTHER MOB' .... I.e. FLIGHT SERVICE.....on separate freqs
(Dedicated to all those, who, can remember......)

Now, you just go now, & talk amongst yerselves now....

Cheers :ok:

(P.s. thanks again Dick.......Still enjoying it.....).

[Creampuff]

Strainer: Thanks for that fact.

Triadic: On what frequency would you advise someone to transmit a MAYDAY?

And Dick and Triadic: Can you confirm that in the system you're advocating, the default CTAF frequency is the same frequency as what is currently the area frequency in G? It's a yes or no answer.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Creamie,

I would definitely select the freq. that the MOST people are likely to be listening to......AND to which I might get the most IMMEDIATE response...

I.e. Within range of a ATC repeater site - ATC freq.

or, Out in the GAFA...it might well be 121.5 if not near anything else......Hoping for a 'high flier' to acknowledge......

HF..???

AND ACTIVATE the ole' EPIRB.....At least the 406 Satt. should get it OK....

(If all of the above fails, then I'd simply ring 'Mum'.....at home....via Telstra.....After I've tried the RCC.... IF time vs workload permits......Aviate/Navigate/Communicate...!!!)

Cheers:ok:

[Creampuff]

Sounds like a very good procedure! :ok:

I'd make some slight adjustments to your first sentence:I would definitely select the freq. that the MOST professional aviators and air traffic controllers are likely to be listening to......AND to which I might get the most IMMEDIATE AND EFFECTIVE response... because they have DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ACCESS to the nationally-established network of PROFESSIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hence the 121.5 comment.....

I 'used' to be one of those 'responders'.....

Cheers Mr C

[kimwestt]

Nope - yer rong ;
aviate,aviate,aviate!!!!:=

[cogwheel]

Interesting question Creamy....

Can you confirm that in the system you're advocating, the default CTAF frequency is the same frequency as what is currently the area frequency in G? It's a yes or no answer.

Now, not wishing to rubbish your legal speak, but the default CTAF frequency for the past decade or so has been 126.7, the Multicom, not the area frequency. :=

It is a sad indictment of the education and the process that has obviously left many of the posters on this thread showing their collective ignorance of what has existed for that time. Even CASA don't know! And whats more it has worked quite well in that time. Now they want to complicate it....!

:mad::mad:

[Creampuff]

Now, not wishing to rubbish your legal speak, but the default CTAF frequency for the past decade or so has been 126.7, the Multicom, not the area frequency.No ****? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I do apologise for confusing everyone with my "legal speak".

At the risk confusing people, even more, with impenetrably complex language:

In a real Multicom system, the equivalent of the area frequency in G is the Multicom, and the equivalent of the default CTAF is the Unicom, and they are different frequencies.

In the system that I understand Dick and triadic are advocating, both frequencies would be the same. But I may have misunderstood them. That's why I asked the question.

And by the way, the recent controversy arises from one, and only one, question: what is the correct frequency to use when operating in and out of a place that is not an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts.

Again, I apologise for confusing everyone with my "legal speak".

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day 'KW'......

Not much use just 'aviatin', if ya dinna know just where ya 'aviatin' to......

Ya could just 'navigate' the thing between those two big trees.....???

And step out...

Hopefully

Cheers:ok:

[triadic]

O dear Creamy, like some others here you seem to have you own idea on this matter. Suggest you check AIP for the relevant definitions. The refs are GEN 22-17 & 22-24. Oz runways does not permit cut & paste, so follows from another source.


Common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), is the name given to the VHF radio frequency used for air-to-air communication at US, Canadian and Australian non-towered airports.

In Australia, there are many landing strips in remote locations that have CTAF operations 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are also CTAF(R) landing strips which require the aircraft intending to enter the area of operation to be fitted with a radio. The most common CTAF frequency is 126.7 MHz at non towered aerodromes except for when two CTAF airports are near each other. Aerodromes using CTAF outside tower hours typically nominate a frequency that is used during tower hours.


A UNICOM (Universal Communications) station is an air-ground communication facility operated by a non-air traffic control private agency to provide advisory service at uncontrolled aerodromes and airports and to provide various non-flight services, such as requesting a taxi, even at towered airports.(on another frequency) A bit like FS if you are that old!

The MULTICOM is not the G frequency, never has been. All references to the MULTICOM in Oz are to 126.7 only. What we have now, like it or not is that the G frequency is by default the area frequency on which various ATS is provided including ATC.

A Unicom on the other hand is a service usually provided on the CTAF, be it the MULTICOM or the promulgated CTAF frequency.

Re your second last para... The controversy as you say it, only came to light because someone in CASA, like you did not understand what was in place already and thought it should be changed, and had the power to do it, not really understanding that it was a change and therefore not conducting a risk analysis.
All this because they did not bother to ask!!:ugh:

[Creampuff]

From the Canadian equivalent of the Australian AIP, section called "RAC". Except for the bolding in headings, the bolding and underlining are my additions:4.5 Aircraft Operations — Uncontrolled Aerodromes

4.5.1 General

An uncontrolled aerodrome is an aerodrome without a control tower, or one where the tower is not in operation. There is no substitute for alertness while in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome. It is essential that pilots be aware of, and look out for, other traffic, and exchange traffic information when approaching or departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome, particularly since some aircraft may not have communication capability. To achieve the greatest degree of safety, it is essential that all radio-equipped aircraft monitor a common designated frequency, such as the published MF or ATF, and follow the reporting procedures specified for use in an MF area, while operating on the manoeuvring area or flying within an MF area surrounding an uncontrolled aerodrome.

• MF area means an area in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome for which an MF has been designated. The area within which MF procedures apply at a particular aerodrome is defined in the Aerodrome/Facility Directory Section of the CFS, under the heading COMM.

Normally, the MF area is a circle with a 5-NM radius capped at 3 000 ft AAE.

At uncontrolled aerodromes without a published MF or ATF, the common frequency for the broadcast of aircraft position and the intentions of pilots flying in the vicinity of that aerodrome is 123.2 MHz.
…

9.13 IFR Procedures at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome in Uncontrolled Airspace

Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Once established on the MF, the pilot shall make the reports listed in RAC 9.12 (see RAC 4.5.4 for MF procedures, and RAC 4.5.5 for the use of 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exists).
…The equivalent of the area frequency in G in the system described above seems to be 126.7.

The equivalent of the default CTAF if the system described above seems to be 123.2.

When I did maths, 126.7 was a different number to 123.2.

I repeat my question:

Dick and triadic: Can you confirm that in the system you're advocating, the default CTAF frequency is the same frequency as what is currently the area frequency in G?

The answer remains a 'yes' or a 'no'.

[kaz3g]

So Creamy, wading through all the legalese, if we were to adopt this you-beaut foreign system, would this mean that those who were flying along blissfully unaware of all the thousands of unmarked aerodromes whose circuits they are encroaching upon would be listening to an area frequency and the hundreds of busy little pilots flying into those unmarked airstrips that they know are there would be using another?

Sounds dangerous to me.

Kaz

[Creampuff]

It's all too complicated for me, Kaz. :ok:

[Draggertail]

Yep, a foreign system designed by them strange foreigners couldn't possibly work in Oz. We need to something for "Australian Conditions". Good thing we have our own great system that everyone understands. I just don't understand why the rest of the world doesn't copy it.:rolleyes:

[triadic]

Creamy.... You are showing your lack of understanding of the Oz airspace model.

Your quote of the Canadian doc is interesting but not relevant to this question.

The actual freq is not relevant just so long as it is standard. We chose 126.7 as it was the standard used in the US, just as we chose 1200 for VFR on the transponder.

In many countries the class for the lower levels is Class E, where there is an ATS service to IFR only, unless you specifically ask for and are granted flight following, which is always subject to controller workload. The majority of G in the USA for instance is below 1200ft or 700ft over airports.

As a result you have asked the wrong question! :ugh:

If you were around and flying some 40+ yrs ago, it was a time when the great majority of OCTA when handled by FS on just one freq:122.1. As traffic increased more FS freqs were introduced. I suggest that at that time everyone understood the procedures and good airmanship was the norm. Many rural aero clubs used 119.1 back then before anyone knew what a CTAF was, but from a practical point of view it was about the same.

When NAS was introduced there was much discussion on what class of airspace our OCTA might be. Class F was the other option, but at the end of the day it was G. In many countries there is NO service in G, so we are not strictly ICAO as we provide a service.

Australia has a process that many other countries and their aviation industries wish they had. It is called RAPAC and it is perhaps the most successful industry forum we have. My information is that the majority of RAPAC's don't support the use of the area freq for general b'casts. CASA might have to listen!!

[Creampuff]

I understand all of that and the turgid history.

I'll say it again: Go forth and implement the system that you say works so well. Just make sure you implement the whole system. :ok:

I will repeat my questions.

Dick and triadic: In the system you are advocating, will the equivalent of the area frequency in G and the default CTAF be the same frequency?

It's a yes or no answer.

triadic: In the current system, on what frequency would you advise someone to transmit a MAYDAY? Area or 126.7?

The 'general broadcast on Area' zephyr in a thimble relates only to aerodromes that are not depicted on charts. Everyone, including you and Dick, knows that the number of places and the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these places is infinitessimally small.

That's why the fearmongering is so disgusting. It's something that I'd expect from the zealots in CASA AVMED, but not from experienced aviators. :=

[Dexta]

OK, here is a real world example and an honest question:

Not far from Adelaide is Tailem Bend which has a VOR and NDB but no airfield and it is used quite heavily by the various training organisations and flying schools for IFR approach practice. The procedure was that after requesting traffic for descent if there were other aircraft operating or inbound to TBD, ATC would give the traffic information and then you would switch to 126.7 and coordinate with each aircraft at what levels you would operate, how long, intentions etc. then switch back to ATC and give your operating levels and OPS Normal time. This obviously stops all the chatter being over the Area Freq. 125.3.
Now as there is no CTAF (or airfield) I can think of 3 possibilities;
1. This procedure (whilst expedient) has always been incorrect and the Area Freq. should have been used to coordinate between aircraft.
2. This procedure was correct but should not be used anymore as all transmissions should be on area freq.
3. This procedure was correct and still is correct.

I'm not sure which of the 3 possibilities is correct, anybody know the answer?

[Draggertail]

Dexta, good question. Remember also that Tailem Bend VOR is only about 5 nm NE of Brooklands Air Park (YBAK) near Wellington. It is on the Adelaide VNC without an allocated CTAF so shouldn't aircraft operating within 10nm and below say 5000' (and therefore in the vicinity of YBAK) be on 126.7 anyway?

[cogwheel]

The easy answer is to go back to what was introduced with NAS over a decade ago .....

Multicom 126.7 for all low level ops at those sites without a designated frequency other than 126.7

Remove the area frequency boundaries from the charts - they are not relevant to VFR ops, provided the frequency is marked in the vicinity of the aerial site.

Good airmanship and some pre-flight preparation would provide the frequencies to use in an emergency. There are plenty of locations now that comms with centre cannot be made on the area frequency, but can on an adjacent area!

[Creampuff]

I think I know what you meant by this:Multicom 126.7 for all low level ops at those sites with a designated frequency other than 126.7I’m guessing you meant: “Multicom 126.7 for all low level ops at those sites without a designated frequency other than 126.7.”

Could you provide some more detail around what you mean by ‘low level’. For example, what about a VFR cruising at e.g. 6,500’.

It’s all well and good to advocate going back to what was introduced with NAS over a decade ago, and it’s all well and good for some to pretend that the broadcast rules are a ‘recent change’. But that ignores what actually happened after NAS was introduced over a decade ago...

The area frequency boundaries were in fact removed from the Australian charts, when NAS was introduced.

But then what happened? ‘Dick’s Biscuits’ suddenly appeared. You remember why they were put on the charts, Dick.

And then Dick’s Biscuits were removed and the area frequency boundaries were reinstated to the charts.

In short, the frequency monitoring and broadcast rules went in a big orbit back to where they started.

And for the record, I didn't then and don’t now care a tinker’s cuss what the rules are, provided there is just one set that everyone understands and does their best to comply with (even if some individuals don’t agree with some of the rules in principle).

[CaptainMidnight]

Remember also that Tailem Bend VOR is only about 5 nm NE of Brooklands Air Park (YBAK) near Wellington. It is on the Adelaide VNC without an allocated CTAF so shouldn't aircraft operating within 10nm and below say 5000' (and therefore in the vicinity of YBAK) be on 126.7 anyway? Correct.

So Dexta: your point 3. is correct.

And if YBAK had a discrete CTAF, then "the various training organisations and flying schools for IFR approach practice" would "switch to the discrete CTAF and coordinate with each aircraft at what levels you would operate, how long, intentions etc."

Simple.

[Dick Smith]

Creamy

I remember well. Complete ignorance and concrete minds put the frequency boundaries from the old Flight Service days back on the charts.

Under ICAO there is not even a radio requirement for VFR in class E F and G airspace.

If a system is to work with frequency boundaries we need to move back to the old pre 1991 AMATS system and re instate Flight Service on separate frequencies to ATC.

Then there will be no radar advisories available in uncontrolled airspace as FS will have their Quill pens and green eyeshades and a microphone!

But everyone can yak yak yak giving full position reports every 30 minutes like old times and impress the girlfriend.

In the US there is not even a recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when en route. Pilots can call on the frequency of a nearby remote VHF outlet and request a workload permitting RAS.

Our NAS recommended that if en route and in the airspace normally used for approach and departing traffic of an airport - to monitor the frequency of that airport.


This was to satisfy those who believe that VFR pilots will run into someone if they can't use radio arranged separation and never stop yakking.

And no. I don't know how the present system should work as it is unproven and probably unworkable!

[Eyrie]

I'm sure Brisbane Center and the IFR guys it talks to would just love to hear from those of us operating from the private strips south of and around Toowoomba. Within 15nm there are at least 8 I know of. Make that 9 (one Sunday afternoon Mrs Eyrie and I went out to do some practice forced landings and on the go round from the first she remarked that it looked like a really good paddock as it came complete with hangar and windsock) plus the new Wagner's Folly (aka Brisbane West Wellcamp) airport - a really dumb name as someone may get the idea it has something to do with Brisbane and I'm sure there are others.
We all do the sensible thing and operate on Toowoomba CTAF especially as the Toowoomba training area encompasses all these private strips, none of which are on the charts.

Yes, please. Bring back the NAS of 10 years ago and implement all of it. Pity some idiots couldn't get over not having frequency boundaries on the charts.

Could we just outsource air traffic management to the FAA? I'm sure it would be an improvement.

Come to think of it we could get the FAA to replace CASA. They could call it the far south west Hawaiian office.

[Dick Smith]

Eyrie. Good on you. I think it is now possible to re introduce NAS as planned as many of those old pilots who were obsessed with talking all the time and not getting a radar service -even if IFR in radar coverage - are now retiring.

Those who fly in the US know what a fantastic system it is.

Just have to suggest some of those in CASA operations in Canberra open their minds and copy the best. Not likely at the moment!

But who knows what may happen with a new CEO?

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. The biscuits appeared at the same time as the frequency boundaries were removed. Not after. That was the whole point .

It was all properly planned and it would have worked if Bernie Smith , the PPL CEO of AsA , had not undermined the cabinet approved system by publishing a chart putting the frequency boundaries back into the system. He was obsessed with " fly by radio" as many were.

From then on it became a pathetic joke and has been since then. Totally amateurish ignorance against change.

I am available to complete the plan- it will result in the best airspace system in the world when completed

[cogwheel]

Could you provide some more detail around what you mean by ‘low level’. For example, what about a VFR cruising at e.g. 6,500’.


Personally, I would not advocate use of the Multicom above what altitude (AGL) you might be at around 10nm from the strip you intend to land at. As a VFR operation, you can listen to music if you want... and I understand many do….

In the cruise, good airmanship might suggest that you listen to Area or maybe 121.5 or one of the glider frequencies if around a gliding area or whatever you believe you might get the best relevant info from.

This discussion seems to rely on too much reliance on talk and not enough on keeping a good look out. It does of course help if those with radio are on the same frequency. Shame that CASA don’t understand that… Is the “S” for Safety or Stupid???

[Creampuff]

I'm sure Brisbane Center and the IFR guys it talks to would just love to hear from those of us operating from the private strips south of and around Toowoomba. Within 15nm there are at least 8 I know of. Make that 9 ...) A giddy spin of déjà vu...

Name them so we can check the facts.

Please tell me they the don't include YCFN, YSOB, YPWH, YBWW ... Creamy. The biscuits appeared at the same time as the frequency boundaries were removed. Not after.Not true.

The biscuits were added later, because "some idiots couldn't get over not having frequency boundaries on the charts." Indeed, the same idiots managed to get the frequency boundaries reinstated to the charts.

Must be frustrating, being defeated by idiots, complete ignorance and concrete minds. :rolleyes:

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. I am looking at the origional NAS document titled "Reference Guide" that went to pilots for the system effective from 27 th Nov 2003. It's the famous blue document of 52 pages on quality paper- cost a fortune and now a collectors item!

It says. " a major change is that ....... all frequency boundary information has been removed from charts.."

It then says. " data blocks have been placed on the charts to enable pilots to make the best use of available frequencies"

It then shows a very clear diagram with four " biscuits" listing what appears on the charts.


It then says " to determine the ATC frequency and the location of the transmitter look at the frequency data block ( figure A ) "

Nothing could be clearer so what are you talking about?

[Creampuff]

My recollection is that the actual charts that were originally published did not have the biscuits. However, if the glossy brochure said they were supposed to have biscuits from the start, I stand corrected: My apologies for suggesting that the omission was deliberate.

In any event, the boundaries were reinstated.

[Dick Smith]

The document also states

"Please do not make broadcast transmissions or engage in chatter on an ATC frequency. The safety of others depends on you not doing this.

" ..... All calls should be directed to ATC or Flightwatch if operating on those frequencies"

"A pilot should give emphasis to monitoring CTAF - MBZ Multicom where collision risk is many times higher. Constantly monitoring an ATC ,frequency where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area "

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. No " not supposed to have biscuits from the start". The charts did have biscuits from the start. I accept your correction .

[Creampuff]

And, in relation to broadcasts on area from aircraft operating in and out of aerodromes that are not depicted on aeronautical charts, the decade-old glossy brochure is obviously contrary to the current AIP.

Do you stand by your scaremongering statement about 500 people being killed?

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. Yes. For sure. It's got you riled and writing about the issue- others also

Hopefully a decision will be made to go back pre 1991 ( sad ) or move forward and complete the change to a proven system that allocates resources to where the most risk is.

And I will be sending the press release out as so far nothing said here shows I should not.

Hopefully airspace decisions will be made using rational evidence - not resistance to change.

[Creampuff]

Then good luck, Dick.

I say again, I didn't then, and don’t now, care a tinker’s cuss what the rules are, provided there is just one set and everyone understands and does their best to comply.

My personal view is that you have snowflakes', not only because of the lessons learned by the pollies last time they let you play with airspace, but also because the obvious scaremongering tactic won't win too many new converts to your cause.

[kaz3g]

Hopefully airspace decisions will be made using rational evidence - not resistance to change

I hope so too, Dick. But claims of 500 falling out of the sky seem just a tad over the top and I respectfully suggest seriously diminish your argument's credibility.

Yes, it could happen...but the probability is remote by all rational standards of risk assessment.

Kaz

[Eyrie]

Creampuff,

No mate. Not Southbrook(which BTW I've never managed to find - not sure it still exists), Clifton or Pittsworth and I did specifically mention BWW in *addition* to the private strips I know of.

Here's a hint for you - when you are in hole, stop digging.

Thanks, Dick. I loved the 2003-2004 NAS. Shot down by the Air Traffic Controllers' Trade Union and a weak Minister, in addition to various reactionaries who like to complain about Australian aviation and the way it is run but then turn on anyone who wants to change it for the better.

While we are at rational change, isn't it about time the Albury and Coffs towers were shut down? I was told last week by a recently retired ATC that they don't meet the traffic requirements to have a tower by modern standards.

[le Pingouin]

Eyrie, you owe me a new keyboard with "Shot down by the Air Traffic Controllers' Trade Union". Haven't laughed so hard in a while. I hear there's a nice bridge in Sydney-town for sale.

[Creampuff]

Eyrie: Please name the places so that the facts can be checked.

You and others seem to be labouring under the misconception that if you prove me wrong on some fact, the area frequency boundaries will magically disappear from the charts and the AIP will be changed. Bad news: The area frequency boundaries will remain on the charts and the AIP will say what it says, no matter how many mistakes I make in a thread on pprune. I'm a nobody. (Oh, and BTW: I'm very happy for the area frequency boundaries to be removed from the charts and for there to be a complete separation of Centre and 'VFR OCTA' frequencies.)

If you and others want things changed, because 500 lives are at risk through broadcasts from all those operations at thousands of small agricultural and private grass strips that are not depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts, it's up to you to show that it's true by providing "rational evidence".

As it turns out, the track record of nominations of these places hasn't been very good so far. Lots of factual errors through nomination of places that turn out to be depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts. (You have a chance to improve the track record.... :ok:)

And, in any event and more importantly, anyone with any experience in aviation knows that the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these unmarked aerodromes is three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.

That's why the then Minister for Transport asked this rhetorical question the last time Dick scaremongered himself into airspace oblivion: "Who listens to Dick Smith on airspace any more? Only Dick Smith."

That's why Dick's Media Release will be ignored by the people who have the power to change things. A frustratingly sad waste of energy and unique public profile that could be directed to far greater effect and benefit for aviation in Australia. :(

[Trent 972]

I'll give it a shot.

YNKR

Somehow that one seemed appropriate. :E

(WAC chart only thanks creamy. That's all that is required in that area, (if you need a hint, it IS on the the TINDAL VNC))
edit.
Please don't bother yourself to reply. I'm just playing with you.

[andrewr]

Please name the places so that the facts can be checked.

Often places aren't marked because the owners don't want them to be generally known. Naming them would be a bit rude.

Lots of factual errors through nomination of places that turn out to be depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts.

Which is my point - the biggest problem with this change is that some will think they are marked, some unmarked, and others will just use 126.7 as they have always done. Any rule about broadcasts is useless if people are not using the same frequency.

anyone with any experience in aviation knows that the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these unmarked aerodromes is three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

I do agree about the media release - the real risk to RPT is miniscule.

[Creampuff]

anyone with any experience in aviation knows that the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these unmarked aerodromes is three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."I’ve done and continue to do lots of flying around Australia while listening to not one, not two, but three frequencies: Area, 126.7 and the CTAF of the nearest aerodrome with a CTAF other than 126.7.

For example, flying to the southwest of Sydney I will often hear, on Area, the parachute drop aircraft from Ngambie, Goulburn, Moruya, Wollongong and Wilton. I will also hear numerous aircraft broadcasting on 126.7 at places the name of which I recognise and which are aerodromes depicted on charts.

However, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of broadcasts I’ve heard, in thirty years, on any frequency anywhere in Australia from someone operating at a place that is not depicted on an aeronautical chart. It's very unusual but a very pleasant surprise.

The inferences that I draw from that experience are: First, there are very few movements to and from these places and, even assuming I am wrong, most of those movements don’t involve broadcasts on any frequency.

The scaremongers are suggesting that there are lots of broadcasts on 126.7 in the vicinity of places that are not depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts – the “literally thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips” – and, so their argument goes, it may rain aluminium confetti if those people start broadcasting on 126.7 instead.

Question: Why don’t I hear any of those calls on 126.7 from those places now?

My answer: Because there are so few of them.

Does anyone have any other rational explanation?WAC chart only thanks creamy. That's all that is required in that areaBest to brush up on your aviation law before your next flight review Trent. I think you’ll find you’re required to have the current ERC as well. You know: the ERC that, along with the VNC, depicts Nackeroo as an aerodrome … :ok:

But let’s assume Nackeroo isn’t depicted as an aerodrome on the ERC or VNC.

Nackeroo is three miles from Timber Creek (YTBR) which is depicted on the WAC.

There’s a rule about the frequency to use when in the vicinity of YTBR. :ok:

But let’s assume Nackeroo isn’t depicted as an aerodrome on any aeronautical chart, and is many miles from any aerodrome depicted on charts.

What’s your estimate, Trent, of the number of movements there each day?

To the nearest 100. :ok:

Surely we should be warning Brisbane Centre that 122.6 is going to be swamped with broadcasts from aircraft in the vicinity of YNKR. Lives are at risk. :rolleyes:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"****-A-BRICK!!"

Re : FS will have their Quill pens and green eyeshades and a microphone!

Wot DID Oi do wif me 'green eyeshade'??????

Well Pluck a Duck and sharpen up me penknife...this quill needs replacing...again!!
And, was that 'microphone' or 'megaphone'.... ???

(p.s. Thanks again.........Still enjoyin' it....);

:D

[Trent 972]

To the nearest 100.
Well that would make it 100 then, multiplied by 10,000 unmarked airstrips = 1,000,000 extra radio calls, possibly on ATC freq's.
My God creamy, you're right. Aluminium is going to rain! hehehehe.
In the meantime, I'm not looking forward to listening to the radio chatter to work out what is significant to me, and what is going on way below in farmer McKenzies paddock and whether farmer McKenzie has blocked out a call that was important to me and the 500 or so others along for the ride. :ok:
CAsA had better prepare themselves, if this lunacy is not amended.

[Creampuff]

Fear not: I can assure you that the number of movements of VHF carrying aircraft at places that aren’t marked on aeronautical charts is – to the nearest 100 - three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all. :ok:

[Up-into-the-air]

Good advice Eyrie:

Here's a hint for you - when you are in hole, stop digging.

[Creampuff]

Are you sure, Cynical?

It’s on mine, on the northern side of the town, to the east of the road marked as going to Yatina and Peterborough, and between the railway line marked as going north and the railway line marked as ‘dismantled’ going north east, with both lines converging at Yongala. :confused:

[Strainer]

Originally Posted by Strainer
YJST is on the Adelaide VNC.

I'm looking at the most recent Adelaide VNC right now and it isn't.

Cynical, haven't got a hard copy with me, but the Adelaide VNC as depicted in Ozrunways has Jamestown right on the edge of the map.

[Creampuff]

Cynical: Can you confirm that the effective date of your Adelaide VNC is 29 May 2014? :confused:

[Creampuff]

Hmmmm

The version published by both of the private companies with approvals to publish under 233(1)(h) have YJST marked on the Adelaide VNC.

There is a 'disconnect' between those versions and the paper version copied by Cynical.

(It's not on the electronic or paper version of the WAC.)

A quality control problem on someone's behalf, methinks.

So, until that's fixed, we can assume that YJST may be the source of aluminium confetti due to area frequency jamming broadcasts. Any idea of how many VHF equipped aircraft operating there, Cynical?

[Creampuff]

Cynical

I think you'll find that one or a number of things will happen quite quickly:

- another centimetre will be added to the top of the paper Adelaide VNC
- YJST will be the subject of a manuscript amendment to the WAC
- maybe a NOTAM.

The outcome will be electronic and paper maps and charts that are consistent as between themselves, and with the ERSA entry.

I support the intent of NAS too. It's unfortunate that its main enemy is the scaremongering tactic used by its highest profile proponent

[kaz3g]

My point being not that anybody is right or wrong but to illustrate that the official paperwork doesn't match the rules either

Is anyone surprised?

Kaz

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day Mr Tr,

Re; As traffic increased more FS freqs were introduced.....Post #85....

Not only 'as traffic increased', but with the introduction of the 'Jets', as the percentage of 'high flying' traffic increased, and the calls on 122.1 from the FK.28 in one area (For example...) at FL280 were 'superimposed' onto the adjoining area(s) by virtue of the transmitting aircraft's altitude, then it soon became obvious that a 'separation' of frequencies was required.....

Hence the various differing frequency 'numbers' ...around 'the adjoining traps'.....(F.I.A.'s)....

Cheers:ok:

[Creampuff]

It's quite odd. It appears the printers of the paper chart have simply put a 1cm white border over the detail at the top of the chart, rather than outside the detail. Genius!

Cynical: As a matter of interest, does Parndana (YPDA) on Kangaroo Island feature on the bottom of your paper version? It looks like it's within 1cm of the bottom edge of the electronic version.

[Eyrie]

Creamie,
I can't actually be bothered spoon feeding you. Do your own research. Google Earth will find the airstrips. Some have a dozen aircraft based. All close enough to YTWB to make using YTWB CTAF the sensible option.
I suspect though that a lot of people who operate from these strips listen on YTWB CTAF, shut up and LOOK OUT.
It is amazing what you see when you LOOK OUT.

le Pingouin, how about you give us your version of how the NAS was sabotaged?

[Creampuff]

You don’t say, Eyrie?

Can I write that down in the Big Book of Aviation Wisdom?

I wonder who it was who said, in this thread, that they were taught this: Always assume there's always traffic around that is:

- not required to carry serviceable VHF, or

- on the wrong frequency or suffering other finger trouble,

and, if operating in and out of a flat piece of terra firma of any description, depicted or otherwise, will be carrying out 'unusual' circuit joins, going in 'unusual' circuit directions and flying at 'unusual' heights.

There shouldn't need to be a rule about keeping a lookout, but I note that there is one. It's a very good idea to comply with it.

So far, only Cynical P has won a Kewpie Doll.

[Creampuff]

The frequency biscuits have been eating away at me. The search function on PPRuNe is very useful.

Here’s an interesting snippet from a 2003 thread titled “NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?”: I'm told that these frequency information "biscuits" will not be on the VFR charts i.e. VTC & VNC. The only freq. info. on those will be the APP/Radar freq. within 30nm. The biscuits are purely for the IFR charts.

If you are VFR outside 30nm and want a RIS, or clearance to climb into CTA, or you are in a pickle, the only way to find out what frequency to call on would be to try Flightwatch.A thread titled “NAS Frequency Boundaries continued” opens with some quotes from Hansard. Those quotes include: Senator O’BRIEN—I have been informed that the meeting insisted on the inclusion of common appropriate—that is, area radio—frequencies on both instrument flying rules and visual flying rules charts together with their relevant FIO boundaries.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—I am informed that that meeting resolved that, although the removal of certain items from the maps might be compliant with the USA model, it was deemed unacceptable to occur without the fullscale architecture—that is, the risks were too high.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—There is a dispute about radio frequencies in these charts. As I understand it, the ARG deemed that meeting’s view inappropriate and decided to proceed without the frequency information being included on the charts.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—My understanding of the issue being complained about is that during transition the lack of frequency information on charts may lead to visual flying rules, pilots selecting an inappropriate frequency, so that when another aircraft broadcasts on the area frequency they just might not be aware of one another, therefore increasing the risk of collision.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—It has been put to me that at that meeting you personally assured the meeting that, should there be insufficient time to effect these changes to the charts, the implementation can be delayed to suit.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—It is put to me that Mr Heath, the convenor, wrote to you on 9 July confirming what I have described as the finding of the meeting and saying that ‘VNC and ERC charts to depict common or consistent local frequency’ and ‘to be depicted by FAOI boundaries’ and, further, that industry will accept a delay in the implementation if additional work is required to achieve these requirements in the 2b states. It is something similar to what you just said to me, but I am attempting to quote from the letter.Dick

Just so I understand what you are asserting about the frequency biscuits, can you confirm that:

- the biscuits were included in the first editions of the VNCs and VTCs published without area frequency boundaries, and

- you always intended the biscuits to be included in those charts from the start?

[CaptainMidnight]

Errors or omissions with AIP charts, report to Airservices (don't think someone else will):

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/ccard/default.asp
or
[email protected]
or
Fax: +61262685689

It's my recollection that industry reps at all the state RAPACs kicked up a fuss about the FIA boundaries omitted from maps, which resulted in them being put back on.

[Creampuff]

Just to continue the off topic...YPDA is on the print VNC and it's not a white border at the top, it's just how I had folded it over to fit it on the table when i took the photo Thanks Cynical.

Looks like it's just chopped off. I will send something to Airservices to let them know.

And BTW: It is centrally relevant to the topic. The point is that all the movements at these places that are not depicted on aeronautical charts, and the confusion about what chart or charts an airstrip has to be marked on to count as 'depicted on aeronautical charts', will result in area frequency broadcasts that may result in a 30,000' death plunge for 500 people.

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. As far as I can remember yes to your first question and yes to your second question.

I did not keep my charts .

I will post shortly a scan of page 23 of the origional NAS reference guide headed. " how VFR use new charts". It shows both ATC and Flightwatch frequency biscuits .

Where a terminal RIS was available the approach frequency was included on the VNC and VTC charts - not otherwise.

Captain. You are correct. The RAPAC members by in large resisted change and were not interested how the NAS was supposed to work

They wanted to continue to fly by radio and insisted the old system be reinstated but did not understand the implications. I phoned dozens of individuals but got nowhere .

Thet is why we now have this present problem. As I said . Go back to pre 1991 and re instate FS or move forward to the proven safe US FAA NAS system. Not even a recommended frequency to monitor when enroute VFR in class E or G in the US.

But RAPACs would probably object until a few more oldies die out!

[Dick Smith]

Following on from my post #133 - here is page 23 of the original NAS Reference Guide:

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/page23(s).jpg

[Creampuff]

Thanks for the copy of the page from the glossy brochure, dated 27 November 2003, Dick.

I note another thread on PPRuNe, called “NAS Operational questions” that was started on 6 June 2003 – i.e. more than 5 months before the effectivity date of the glossy brochure.

The first post on that thread asked a number of questions, including these: Dick Smith, Open Mic - or anyone else who is involved – please comment if you would. Hopefully, you can dispel some of the myths and misunderstanding (including my own).
…
2) Frequencies
What frequency (if any) should VFR aircraft monitor when in:
a) Class G airspace?
b) Class E airspace?

3) Frequencies (Follow-up)
Where will the frequencies be published for VFR aircraft?
…A PPRuNer with the handle ‘triadic’ posted these answers, on the same date:…
2) None - turn the radio off and listen to the stereo
3) VFR use radio? Why publish the freqs?
…Why would someone ask, in June 2003, about frequency information for VFRs OCTA, if the plan was always to put the biscuits with that information on the chart? :confused: If that was always the plan, why didn’t triadic nominate the biscuits as the answer to the questions? :confused:

I also note that you said, earlier in this thread:The RAPAC members by in large resisted change and were not interested how the NAS was supposed to work

They wanted to continue to fly by radio and insisted the old system be reinstated but did not understand the implications. I phoned dozens of individuals but got nowhere.

Thet is why we now have this present problem.I’ll ask one last time: Are you asserting that you always intended the charts to include area frequency biscuits for use by VFR aircraft OCTA, wherever they happened to be?

Why would you have volunteered those biscuits for use by VFRs OCTA, when your position then and now remains not only that VFRs OCTA don’t need to know those frequencies, but should be ‘banned’ from broadcasting on them? :confused:

It might just be my concrete idiot mind, but it doesn’t make sense to me. What makes sense to me is that you were forced to put the biscuits on the charts for use by VFRs OCTA.

In any event, that is all academic. (Entertaining, but nonetheless academic.)

The current safety issue continues to be whether broadcasts from aircraft operating in and out of places that aren’t depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are causing disruption and confusion for ATC comms in fact. I realise you and triadic reckon that there are thousands of these hives of activity, and we’re being saved from aluminium confetti because everyone’s just ignoring the ‘new’ broadcast rule. I reckon that’s the syndrome known as “living in denial”.

[Dick Smith]

Creamy

You remind me a bit of a young teenager who just never gives up on an issue and keeps trying to twist everything so they can get a win.

If I remember correctly, the biscuits were put on the chart so pilots could call up to arrange a radar flight following service. This is as per the US NAS. Of course, in the US it is mainly Flight Service outlets that you call and they will then give you the frequency of the correct air traffic control centre. Because we did not have enough flight service/Flightwatch outlets, at some places we showed the ATC outlet and simply said, “call the nearest VHF outlet if you want to request a service”. In fact, I will quote directly from page 22 of the same document.

How to use the New Charts
To identify where a Radar Information Service is available in a terminal area and to find the appropriate frequency, look for a data block (Figure A). This data block depicts the service provider, the location of the transmitter and the frequency.

Elsewhere it says,

While operating under visual flight rules, pilots must ensure they maintain constant visual surveillance and refrain from broadcasting their position on an ATC frequency.

So the answer is yes, we always intended to include area frequency biscuits on charts where they were necessary so a pilot could call up and get a radar information service or even simply request weather information.

This is totally consistent with, to use your words, “banning VFR aircraft from broadcasting on these frequencies”.

You say,

But it doesn’t make sense to me.

Creamy, why don’t you give me a phone call? I’m sure you have my number. Or if you email me at [email protected] I will send it to you.

[Creampuff]

Then we’re all agreed: Charts with the area frequency boundaries achieve exactly the same outcome. :ok:

It’s just about the broadcast rules.

Are you suggesting the sentence you quoted from a 10 year old glossy brochure is the original source of an obligation not to broadcast on the area frequency in G, and that this 'obligation' persisted until the recent ‘change’?

And Dick: I don’t need to ‘win’ anything. It’s you that’s lobbying to ‘undo’ the ‘change’. :ok:

[kaz3g]

So the answer is yes, we always intended to include area frequency biscuits on charts where they were necessary so a pilot could call up and get a radar information service or even simply request weather information.

This is totally consistent with, to use your words, “banning VFR aircraft from broadcasting on these frequencies”.

I'm an old body, but just a PPL/owner with nothing to do with RAPAC and not ready to die out yet.

Just clarify for me please, Dick. You were providing area frequencies so VFR pilots could call up ATC but, at the same time you were banning them from making a call?

Does this mean its ok to risk Creamy's shower of aluminium confetti from 30,000 in order to get a weather update but not to alert others of the risk when stooging VFR through an area populated with unmarked landing grounds subject to high intensity use?

Kaz

[Creampuff]

Dick

A couple of serious questions, based on a factual scenario.

When I look at the Sydney VNC, I see, for example, a green boundary around a big area that covers places like Bathurst, Orange, Cowra etc.
Within the area inside the green boundary are a couple of boxes, inside each of which is “ML CEN 118.5” in brown text and “ML CEN 135.25 MT CANOBALAS” in green text.

There’s also “A LL FL180” in blue text, and “E LL 8500” in brown text.

The legend for that chart says:
- the green boundary denotes an “FIA boundary”, and
- the numbers in the boxes are “FIS FREQUENC[IES]”
- the “A LL FL180” in blue denotes the lower level of Class A airspace is Flight Level 180, and
- the “E LL 8500” in brown text denote the level of Class E airspace is 8,500’.

In this scenario:

(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?

(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?

As I say, serious questions.

[Dick Smith]

Kaz3g
Making a broadcast is quite different to making a directed call to ATC. I thought this would be clear.

Under the NAS, it is prohibited from making a broadcast on ATC frequencies that are used for separation – just common sense.

Yes, you can call ATC and request a workload permitting radar information service or request weather information. That means that ATC can simply say “stand by” or “radar service not available”. However making announcements on ATC frequencies, such as taxiing calls or inbound calls for a circuit area can block out necessary ATC transmissions.

Creamy
The present system is a complete mess. I have asked lots of pilots similar questions to the one you are now asking – everyone gives a different answer. This is because people with concrete minds who are trying to resist change and have never once, ever, thought of copying the best from wherever it is in the world, insisted on changing back towards the old separate Flightservice / ATC system. This is clearly impossible because we no longer have a separate Flightservice system.

There are absolute dopes who think the present system means that you have everyone on the correct frequency to use “radio arranged separation” as we did pre-1991. Of course, this is not so. The system at present is so incredibly complex that most people either don’t know what frequency to be on or have made an error and are on the wrong frequency, whatever that may be.

Go to the United States and there are simply no frequency boundaries marked on charts. You can call up a local Flightwatch outlet or on the air traffic control charts there are small boxes (you can call them ‘biscuits’) which allow you to call directly to ATC; even then, the ATC will tell you what frequency to change to for a service depending on what area you are in. It works superbly in the USA and it will work superbly here once we have enough sense to copy the best.

[Eyrie]

Dick, as I once emailed you: "trying to change Australian aviation is just like what Simon Bolivar said about making revolution in South America - it is like plowing the sea."
Unfortunately it will slowly decline and in 10 to 15 years GA will be mostly gone. So will RAAus and gliding when you look at the age profile of the current pilots.
I remember the frequency biscuits on the NAS charts. No problem as to what to do if you actually read the guidance material.
As I said, it is amazing what you can see if you actually look.

"It might just be my concrete idiot mind". Got it in one Creamie. Pathetic.

[Creampuff]

As usual, I can confidently guess the answer when I don't get the answer to the questions I actually asked.

For completeness' sake, I repeat the questions I asked at post 139:[In the scenario I set out in post 139]:

(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?

(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?I'm confident that the correct answers don't need around 500 words, Dick.

Eyrie, the charts with the biscuits were, along with the expensive guidance material, reduced to cockie-cage lining over a decade ago.

From my perspective, the concrete-minded are those who don't comprehend that I'm trying to help Dick, by exposing the weaknesses that will be used to counter his scaremongering. If an idiot like me can identify and address them, in 5 minutes' research and typing, I'm pretty sure I won't be the only one.

Bear in mind that when Dick publishes his hard-hitting press release and punters look to the government for salvation from the threat of the 30,000' death plunge, a team of people much smarter than me will be tasked to provide a brief and a draft press release for the minister in response.

In those circumstances, people who support Dick's cause (me included) might see the value of exposing, in advance, the potential flaws in the assumptions of his proposed course of action, so that those flaws can be considered and coherently addressed before the minister and CASA let loose on Dick.

But as I say, I'm a nobody.

[Dick Smith]

I will send out the press release but it will have no effect.

I'm glad I put that bit in about 100s of pax - otherwise it would have been a complete flop- at least got creamy going!

I am glad CASA sent out their NOTAM - it makes it clear they havn't a clue about airspace.

One day it will be resolved!

[Creampuff]

So you're prepared to send out a press release which, by your own admission:

- "will have no effect", and
- warns of 500 lives lost,

just to ensure it's "not a complete flop".

To borrow the language of Clare Prop: "Wow"! "Just: Wow"! [Exclamation marks added]

I think it would be imprudent for you to pursue the foreshadowed course of action, but it's entirely a matter for you, Dick.

[gerry111]

If one asks somebody to come along for a flight in a GA aircraft, this is an all too common response: "But they are always crashing."

Fortunately, there are many that welcome the opportunity. And invariably they really enjoy the trip. :cool:

So I don't see how Dick's "press release" will do anything to benefit GA.

(And from a private citizen, isn't "press release" just a little pretentious?)

[kaz3g]

So I don't see how Dick's "press release" will do anything to benefit GA

I don't think his press release will do anything at all but the intention behind it would theoretically add to the safety of RPT and most certainly decrease safety for just about everyone else.

RPT will apparently have the benefit of a less polluted communications environment and VFR will lose the "RIS" currently available to them as they wend their way across a landscape littered with busy, unmarked landing grounds and multitudes of parachutists.

But, you never know, some bright spark in the brave new Regulator's Citadel might decide it would be a good idea to have separate Area frequencies below 5000' so we can all call as we ascend into the presence of the blessed.

Apparently we did that at some time past but I'm too old to remember such things now.

Funny though, with all this concern to avoid broadcasting on ATC frequencies, we have all for years and years been required to broadcast (got it right this time, Dick) on the Area Frequency 135.7 as we aviate along the VFR coastal or inland routes around Melbourne where all those big and middling aeroplanes are coming down to the lower levels and it is REALLY busy.

For example, from the Visual Pilot Guide...

"Melbourne Coastal Route Traffic, ZFR Cessna 172, Altona South eastbound, 1500, Melbourne Coastal Route."

And woe betide the VFR pilot who isn't listening to Melbourne Radar as parachutists launch themselves above Point Ormond, right in the middle of that coastal route in close proximity to Moorabbin, Essendon and Avalon airspace, and numerous helicopter landing sites.


Kaz

[Creampuff]

Funny you should mention the VPG for Melbourne, Kaz.

In a related thread I raised the question of whether student pilots around Melbourne were being instructed not to monitor the area frequency or make broadcasts in accordance with the VPG. As I recall neither Jack Ranga nor triadic responded. But my recollection may be inaccurate. :confused:

[Dick Smith]

Is 135.7 used by ATC to Control aircraft - or is it only a radar advisory frequency?

Is it retransmitted on a control frequency?

That's the important issue.

[Creampuff]

So Dick, are you really suggesting that you don't know, for sure, whether the green FIS frequencies on which all these life threatening broadcasts are being made are in fact used for air traffic control?

Jeez, it would be pretty embarrassing if some of those green frequencies are used just for what the chart says: FIS.

It would also be a bit embarrassing if the guidance material recommending that VFRs make specific broadcasts on specific frequencies used for air traffic control made those recommendations for purposes including the reduction of risks to aircraft under air traffic control.

On a related subject, does anyone have any first hand evidence of a person called "Steve Creedy" having ever produced an original piece of work? More to the point, does anyone have any first hand evidence that a person called "Steve Creedy" ever existed? I have suspicions that 'he' is just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the sub-editor (who is probably 'himself' just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the 'pap content' address used to fill in the gaps between the advertising in the cockie-cage liner).

[kaz3g]

Is 135.7 used by ATC to Control aircraft - or is it only a radar advisory frequency?

Is it retransmitted on a control frequency?

That's the important issue.

I dunno Dick...it's in little green boxes in 5 different places on the Melbourne VTC marked

[ML CEN 135.7]
[MT MACEDON]

And the man that owns it gets really cross if you aren't listening and don't respond when he calls.

And the VPG does say to BROADCAST on that frequency on the VFR routes

And the VPG for Moorabbin clearly says that 135.7 is the FIA.

Kaz

[kaz3g]

Whatever it is Dick, the last page of the VPG says:

"Did you know that a radar information service (RIS) or an ATC flight following service is available in class E and G airspace. Services available are:

Navigation service
Position information
Traffic information
SAR alerting

You must be in direct contact with ATC, transponder equipped and squawking.

See AIP GEN 3.3-13 (2.16) for procedures."

Kaz

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. Another good childish one

I have made it clear that the problem is when calls are made that could interfere with ATC control instructions.

I bet that at many times the Melbourne frequency is retransmitted on ATC frequencies that are also used to give control instructions.

In Queensland a number of years ago there was a serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline aircraft . One of the explanations given by the contoller for the error was that his attention was taken away from the airline aircraft because of constant position reporting by a VFR aircraft.

Sounded a reasonable explanation to me - next time could be a real mid air.

I will say it again- go back to the old , proven but incredibly expensive duplicated ATC and FS system and VFR can give calls to abandon on the low level area frequencies- or move properly forward to the lower cost NAS system where all calls must be directed to ATC.

I love the concrete resistance to change. No wonder GA is in such a terrible situation.

[Dick Smith]

Kaz. Yes. That's the FAA type NAS radar service that was introduced during my involvement in airspace change. It replaced an un workable australian invented " one shot " radar service that had been introduced by ASA earlier.

All calls are directed to ATC and it is workload permitting so the controller remains in charge

Not so with the current CASA directive of inbound and taxiing calls on ATC frequencies that are used for separation.

[kaz3g]

Dick, I haven't heard any evidence that the CAAP is causing problems for ASA but, if there is a problem, it is surely the rebroadcasting of frequencies used by those in C class?

Kaz

[CaptainMidnight]

The CAAP and AIP amendment didn't change anything - CASA's change to the AIP wording just clarified things. The procedures have been in for some 10 years or so despite some claiming or thinking otherwise, I suspect largely due poor education, lack of understanding and confusion due all the changes 10 years ago. The answer to one genuine question at the time being "turn off the radio and listen to the stereo" wouldn't have helped pilot understanding of the situation then.

As I said in an earlier post 1) had there been problems or in the event there are in the future, ATC will certainly say something, and 2) there are measures CASA can - and do - take to address chatter problems.

[Creampuff]

It's very simple, kaz.

If you call ATC to request a RIS or flight following, it's safe.

However, if you make a taxi broadcast of exactly the same duration on the same frequency, because you happen to be the one out of a million movements that isn't in the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, it may rain aluminium confetti.

All the VFRs can request a RIS or flight following, and ATC has to respond, even if to say "too busy". That's safe, because the risk of the VFR requests over-transmitting safety-critical instructions to aircraft under air traffic control is dealt with by read-back requirements.

However, if ABC makes a broadcast, on area, taxiing at a property 20 miles to the southwest of Mildura, for Bullamanka to the west at 8,500', some safety-critical air traffic control instruction may be over-transmitted without anyone knowing.

Like CASA issuing corporate credit cards with the paywave function enabled, and CASA staff holding up their wallets to the paywave terminal with the expectation that it will charge a different card, it all makes perfect sense.

[Draggertail]

Very well put Creampuff.

Asking around locally I would say the majority of PPL and RAAus pilots flying into a private strip are still unaware of the requirement to transmit on area, and if they are aware, normally they don't because they don't want to clutter up the frequency, or maybe they are shy. Most listen to 126.7, some do that and monitor area.

Lets face it there is no traffic congestion around the strips in question, so just keeping your eyes open will suffice.

If everyone were to go by the rules and transmit on area frequency it would add to traffic congestion and could cause problems as Dick said. It isn't because, as Dick said in post #3, not many are following the rule.

I don't think this will change. So the general flying community are using common sense and making the system work!

[Creampuff]

Yes - change fatigue and abysmal levels of industry education results in vastly different understandings and practices.

I'm still fascinated to know where all these movements at all these 'private strips' that aren't depicted on charts are occurring. No one has actually nominated one yet. (Jamestown is cut off the top of the paper VNC, but that will be fixed.)

I'm also fascinated to understand why people don't implement the 'no brainer' solution to Dick's problem: get the strips depicted on the charts.

"Lots of aircraft operate in and out of that airstrip." "Really? Have you considered getting it marked on the charts?" "No way: If we did that, the chart would be accurate and VHF carrying aircraft operating in and out of here wouldn't be required to broadcast on area ..."

The current list of manuscript amendments (AIP SUP H69/14) adds over a dozen strips to the WACs. AIC 11/14 adds them to the other charts. Somebody seems to have worked out how to make this happen.

(PS: My very strong suggestion, based on first-hand experience, is that pilots of aircraft with VHF should monitor area frequency and, if they suffer an emergency, broadcast a MAYDAY on the area frequency. That broadcast will almost certainly result in an immediate response by professional responders. Broadcasting a MAYDAY on 126.7 will almost certainly result in a bunch of other pilots earnestly hoping that it all ends up OK, but may not result in an immediate response by professional responders.)

[Dick Smith]

Bad advice creamy. There are many places in Australia that a call from low level on an " area " frequency will get you no reply.

That's why I leave my second radio and mic selector on 121.5 guard frequency. Testing in Australian and around the world has always shown an instant response from a high flying airline aircraft.

That's why the origional NAS document listed 121.5 as a suggested appropriate frequency to monitor for VFR traffic.

And there is no "Dicks problem" to solve. The correct frequency to use at unmarked airstrips is 126.7. There is simply no way of knowing the "area" frequency under the FAA NAS as there is no such thing. The origional charts sent out with the cabinet approved NAS changes specifically deleted the frequency boundaries as they are there for ATC workload purposes - not VHF coverage reasons.

It became the stuff up which it now is because people at RAPACs and Bernie Smith could not accept that VFR flying at different levels to IFR could provide an acceptably safe system. They demanded the boundaries be re introduced however gave no advice how such a unique system would work.

In fact it doesn't - that's why just about every pilot ignores the CASA NOTAM .

[Creampuff]

And who's listening to 121.5, Dick?

[Dick Smith]

From my experience- every high flying airline- which gives tremendous line of site range.

[thorn bird]

I know I do.

[Creampuff]

So if I broadcast a taxi call on area frequency, I clog up important comms between ATC and airliners.

But if I broadcast a MAYDAY on area frequency, nobody will hear me.

More perfect sense.

Some important facts, folks.

ATC doesn't monitor 121.5.
The Rescue Coordination Centre doesn't monitor 121.5.
Lots of pilots don't monitor 121.5.
Many of the aircraft that will hear you on 121.5 may be monitoring the area frequency as well. And all they are going to do is .... call Centre.

The advantage of transmitting on the area frequency is that you might not only get the attention of aircraft monitoring area, but Centre might hear you as well. The sooner Centre gets the message, the sooner help is on its way.

If you want to make a noise on 121.5, switch on your ELT/PLB. (You should do that anyway.) Aircraft monitoring 121.5 will report the beacon sound to Centre. Centre will report it to RCC. If you're smart and your ELT/PLB is GPS equipped and registered with AMSA, the Rescue Coordination Centre will find out where you are and who you are quite quickly, from the 406 satellites and the beacon register.

[CaptainMidnight]

It became the stuff up which it now is because people at RAPACs Industry reps - fools - what would they know.

ignores the CASA NOTAMWhat CASA NOTAM?

[triadic]

Industry reps - fools - what would they know.

You mean to say that you don't provide input to your representative association on airspace and other matters? If you have a view or an opinion, then may I suggest that you are the fool!

Like any representative body, they are only as good as the people on them that spend their time trying to make things better for all of us. The industry reps on the RAPACs come from every sector of the industry, from airlines to U/L's and probably know a lot more than you think. You are bound to have a rep somewhere if you bother to ask about.


So if I broadcast a taxi call on area frequency, I clog up important comms between ATC and airliners.

Indeed you may, depending on the area and your elevation and the position of the area frequency aerial.


But if I broadcast a MAYDAY on area frequency, nobody will hear me

Again, depending on your position and altitude, you may not be heard by Centre, but you may be heard by high flyers who can relay. Same goes for 121.5 as it is SOPs of the airlines to monitor that freq when above transition.

I would suggest that 121.5 would get you on average a better response than the area frequency in many locations. There are always high flyers about 24hrs a day and from above FL300 the coverage is very wide. And of course there is no boundaries on 121.5

[triadic]

What CASA NOTAM?

This one perhaps.....

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 AIPeffective 21 Aug 2014.

From 07 180435 to 08 201559

[Dick Smith]

In five flights around the world I have tested 121.5 in some pretty unusual places..

Even halfway across the Indian Ocean between Diago Garcia and Cocos I got an instant reply after a test call on 121.5 - from a high flying US military aircraft.

All across Australia - normally in my chopper at 500agl - from SW Tasmania to Cape York and in the Kimberly in valleys - a quick test call on 121.5 has always resulted in an answer.

No looking down at charts all the time to work out what frequency to be on if this became a recommended practice .

No it isn't a requirement in the USA - they have no recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when en route in E or G. VFR don't even require a radio!

And they don't have frequency boundaries marked on charts!
How could the system ever work? How could all those aircraft get to Oshkosh ?

[Creampuff]

My strong suggestion about making a MAYDAY call on area frequency was in response to Draggertail's post about the frequency management practices of the PPLs and RAAus pilots who fly into 'private' strips in Australia

It had nothing to do with international adventures to Outer Mongolia or beyond.

Of course you've a good chance of contacting someone on 121.5. I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert. But the person who broadcast that result couldn't have arranged assistance for me any quicker than Centre or the aircraft I could hear communicating with Centre on the area frequency. And as I said, a 406 GPS ELT or PLB will make noise on 121.5 and provide accurate position information to professional responders, very quickly.

But, as usual, that's not the point.

When it comes to arguing for the banning of 'ordinary' broadcasts from VFR aircraft on area frequency, the number of those broadcasts will put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control.

(In the bizzarro world of aviation in Australia, nobody seems to be interested in facts, like how many movements there actually are, each day, of VHF carrying aircraft to and from strips that are not marked on aeronautical charts, or how often ATC instructions are over-transmitted without anyone knowing. Nup: Just assert that there are thousands of these places and 500 lives are at risk in a 30,000' death plunge, and let the cognitive bias of the punters do the rest. And you d*ckheads wonder why CASA gets away with imposing ever-increasing amounts of regulation on aviation.)

When it comes to arguing that it's OK for VFR aircraft to make requests to ATC for RIS or flight following, the number of those requests won't put at risk communications between air traffic control and aircraft under air traffic control. (At least in this case there are facts to show whether or not that's true.)

When it comes to arguing against using area frequency for MAYDAY calls, the risk is that Centre may not hear them at all. (Perhaps the person in distress could disguise the call as an ordinary taxi call, to increase the probabilities of being heard?) We could be in Outer Mongolia.

The point is that you change the circumstantial assumptions when the implications become inconvenient for your lost cause.

[gerry111]

Creampuff wrote:

"I learnt last year's Melbourne Cup results on 121.5, while over the Simpson Desert."

Some may see this as a throw away line but it isn't.

On that day, Creampuff flew his BE35 aircraft from YBAS to YLRE and return in support of the 'Cherokee Challenge' guys. (Andy Hardy and Sam Kidd who flew Andy's 1967 Cherokee 'C', G-ATYS from the UK to Australia.) Those guys needed an important structural item for their aircraft. A wreck was found at Longreach to cannibalise the part. So Creampuff, Margaret (from our crew) and Sam Kidd did the trip. I stayed on the ground at Lasseters Resort for the day.

And it was a mission accomplished. But a very long day of flying for Creampuff! :D:D:D

[Dick Smith]

So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.

in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.

You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.

In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!

Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .

Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen

[Kharon]

I reckon we just persuade Griffo out of retirement; ASA made 100 million profit after spending another 90 million on bits and pieces. Shirley they could support and pay for a 'unit' to service flights, hold SAR, handle the HF, take position reports and pass on traffic.

Industry pays a truck load for piss poor service and is now stuck with the expensive 'all singing' transponder rip off.

FSU not FU, seems like a fair call......:D

[Creampuff]

Dick

We all know what you and triadic wanted.

The fact is that you didn't get it.

That fact is that you didn't get it because lots of people didn't want it.

You can call them concrete minded or whatever you like, but the outcome is the same.

Arguing with people on PPRuNe will make no difference.

If you and triadic want to advise VFR pilots to fly around with the VHF switched off, listening to music on the stereo: go for it.

Just bear in mind that it is open to other people to advise VFR pilots to use their VHF (if they have to carry one) in accordance with the current rules and the current guidance, and to help keep them and others safe.

My concern is that the tactic you're now using is detrimental to general aviation in Australia. When you say 500 people are at risk of the 30,000' death plunge, all the punters do is call for more regulation. Your solution is to cherry pick one characteristic out of a frequency and broadcast system that became cockie cage liner over a decade ago. Those nuances are lost on punters. They just want those dangerous little aircraft banned.

If you really want NAS, it's not the punters you should be scaring. :=

[CaptainMidnight]

You mean to say that you don't provide input to your representative association on airspace and other matters? If you have a view or an opinion, then may I suggest that you are the fool!

Like any representative body, they are only as good as the people on them that spend their time trying to make things better for all of us. The industry reps on the RAPACs come from every sector of the industry, from airlines to U/L's and probably know a lot more than you think. You are bound to have a rep somewhere if you bother to ask about.
triadic You completely missed it - my comment about RAPAC reps was tongue in cheek - Dick was having a shot at them.

It became the stuff up which it now is because people at RAPACs
and
Captain. You are correct. The RAPAC members by in large resisted change and were not interested how the NAS was supposed to work

I totally agree with what you say about RAPACs and have said on many posts on this forum if you want your point made - talk to your industry rep.

The thing with any proposed change is you must first get industry on side i.e. supportive of the change, understand why it is necessary, the benefits to be gained and address their issues and concerns. Without industry on board you're pushing it uphill.

FWIW that NOTAM expired 2 months ago. The content has been in AIP since then.

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. I have no doubt the necessary changes will be made- either back to duplicated FS and ATC or forward to the NAS.

I would like to see the changes made before an unecessary accident occurs.

Like to place a bet on my success? Say $100 ?

And I havn't scared one punter - just discredited those at CASA who never ask advice or copy the success of others- their minds are set in concrete- just like the Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days!

[Creampuff]

Nah Dick - the only activity on which I make such "investments" is the Melbourne Cup.

If CASA being "discredited" is all that is required to precipitate change, CASA would be a very, very different place today, this zephyr in a thimble notwithstanding.

Good luck. :ok:

[Agrajag]

So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.

in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on.

You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.

In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!

Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .

Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen Dick, I know your heart is in the right place, but there's a lot of hysteria and disinformation here.

So let me propose how it might work, if the current rules were not already in place:

When I'm flying around in my lightie, I'd like to know that other aircraft in my piece of the sky were on the same frequency as I am. That way, if the need to talk arose, we could do so. Ideally, if we're in an area of radar coverage, we'd be on a frequency where a controller could call out potential conflicts if he sees them. (Given the level of VHF and ADS-B coverage across the country these days, such areas are pretty broad. And, yes, I have been the happy recipient of a few of these calls.)

Should I have a problem, I'd like to be already on a frequency where the best response will come to my distress call. I won't already be on 121.5 as I only have one VHF, and changing channels will be well down the list of things to do.

If I happen to be near one of the parachuting sites you mention, I'd like to know their intentions.

I occasionally go into a private strip, unmarked on any chart. So, on the off-chance someone is transiting the area as I approach or depart, I'd like him to know about me. Again, we'd need to be on the same frequency. But in all likelihood, I'd be the only one around that strip at the time, so one inbound or taxying call would be all I'd need.

In all the above cases, there's really only one frequency that would serve the purpose, and that's the documented ATC frequency for the area. How do I know what that is? Easy: it's constantly displayed on my OzRunways screen, which most people seem to have these days. Failing that, it'll be on one of the relevant charts which I'm required to carry.

If I go into a busy enough airport, it'll have its own CTAF frequency or, if not , we'll all use 126.7.

Now, let's address the potential for conflict with one of the RPT jets on the same frequency. Should a controller need to send an urgent message to separate two jets carrying hundreds of innocent punters, this implies that several cockups have already occurred. First, either the controller or at least one of the crews has gotten an instruction wrong. Second, the TCAS required on both jets has failed to do its job. And, for the appalling midair to occur, the controller's last-ditch instruction has to come at the same time as a lightie making a taxying or inbound call at an unmarked strip. (Or, for that matter, another jet making a routine report.) That's all incredibly remote.

From my other seat, in one of the aforementioned RPT jets, I can't help but notice the relative peace on the frequencies. That's even on a weekend, with the parachute aircraft and sightseeing lighties going flat out. (And the frequency used by these guys covers only a relatively small area; not the hundreds of miles of jet routes you've previously implied.) The China Southern guy doesn't need to know where Brooklyn Bridge is, because the traffic is not relevant to him. He's in at least Class C all the way, where he knows it's the controller's job to arrange separation for him.

I just don't hear the non-stop chatter of lighties broadcasting intentions at unmarked locations. That's either because they're choosing not to do so or, more likely, there just aren't that many of them.

I'll agree that the promulgation of the instructions on which frequency to be on, was not good. (I still managed to discover it, though.) But really, when bimbling along from A to B, or operating from a strip no-one else knows about, what is the only sensible frequency to use? I'd submit, it's the one everyone else in the area is on.

The alternative is, as seems to happen in areas of the USA, to be on some random frequency and listening to no-one in particular. That certainly fits better with the lofty goals of "free flight; go where you please and tell nobody." But my opinion is, if I have a working radio, and someone else is in my piece of the sky, I'd rather know about him and be able to communicate if really necessary.

So, to summarise, let's look at the ideal frequencies we could use in different areas down in the GA levels. Near an airport with a CTAF? Use that. Known airport with no discrete CTAF? 126.7. Neither of the above? Depicted ATC frequency.

Oh wait, that's what we're already doing.

[Mach E Avelli]

What Agrajag said.....
Thank you, even the simplest mind can surely grasp his penultimate paragraph. Maybe that is how the rules should be worded.
Hopefully all users of our airspace will apply it.

[Dick Smith]

Agrajag. Don't you have any worries about the 747 incident I quoted where the controllers attention was taken by VFR announcements?

Obviously the controllers have to listen to all these VFR calls- are you convinced this can have no effect on there proper job of keeping IFR airline aircraft apart?

If so. Hope you are correct. Love to see the evidence.

By the way. When you fly through the training area west of BK or up the light aircraft lane do you rely on radio arranged separation? Do you make position reports every few minutes in these areas? If not how do you avoid a collision?

Or are you going to tell me that where the collision risk is greatest your system of radio calls does not work?

[CaptainMidnight]

Agrajag - well said :ok:

Obviously the controllers have to listen to all these VFR callsAre they complaining? Submitting reports?

[Dick Smith]

The controllers may believe that those who have given them this system are competent.

They may not know that the present airspace system has come about by ignorance and resistance to change.

[kaz3g]

Apologies... This got stuck in the prune juice...

So creamy. If we followed the NAS as approved by cabinet the frequency boundaries would not have been put back on the charts.

Which Cabinet and when, Dick? Cabinet doesn't make the rules under the present system of government and Parliament gave that responsibility to CASA. If Cabinet wants to change this it needs to change the law.

...in this case it would not be possible to comply with the CASA NOTAM as a pilot would not know the " area " frequency to be on

A bit awkward for all those aircraft flying from those unmarked airfields wishing to depart in CTA.

You conveniently also have ignored the evidence I gave re the serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline because a VFR pilot was giving postion reports on an ATC control frequency.

You gave anecdotal evidence, Dick. It would have more credibility if you provided information about the circumstances including when and where (sorry, it's the lawyer thing) and what actually occurred. Was the VFR pilot acting in accordance with the rules at the time?

In the Sydney area on a weekend we have 100's of VFR annoucements being re transmitted on the Sydney approach frequency including parachuting at Wyong and Wollongong and announcements from aircraft at Brooklyn Bridge and other places.

Those parachutists are being dropped from 14,000 and 15,000 feet respectively. The jump aircraft are clearly in class C and are getting clearances precisely because of potential conflict with other Aircraft in that airspace. Bit embarrassing if one of the jumpers met up with an RPT on descent into Sydney.

The calls at Brooklyn Bridge are mandated (and have been for yonks) because they are aircraft entering the VFR lane below class C (2500) and it gives the RIS chappie a little peace of mind to know that they know they are there and where they are going.

At the same time the controllor is giving separation instuctions to Airbus 380's and 747's and the crew of these aircraft are forced to listen to this irrellevent traffic. It's obvious that an Airline pilot from China Southern or other foreign airlines would most likely have no knowledge of where Brooklyn Bridge or Wyong was!

Some may be irrelevant to the foreign captain but not to the controller working to ensure separation in, and avoid unauthorised incursions into CTA.

Imagine being an airline pilot flying a wide body into Heathrow or LAX and having VFR aircraft jamming the frequency with Position announcements. It would never happen as their airspace is properly planned .

I don't know about these things, Dick but I like a good argument based on facts, not imagination. Where is the evidence that VFR aircraft are jamming area frequencies? How would you separate a jump aircraft flying at 14000 from an RPT descending through the same levels?

Creamy. This is all rellevant to the current argument that you do not grasp - CASA advice to give taxiing and circuit calls on frequencys also used to separate airline aircraft will never be sensible - no matter how few calls you can childishly try and prove may or may not happen

I can't speak for Creamy and he does very well speaking for himself, but I have appreciated the information flow that is provided by Area controllers as I have doddered along on my VFR flights.

I have been grateful for warnings that parachutists are about to drop into the rather busy environs of Point Ormond (midway along the busiest bit of The very busy coastal route between Moorabbin and Point Cook) while I transited same; or the Yarra Valley as I approached that beautifully scenic place from the north. I have heard JR calling in vain on Area to alert an errant pilot that he/she is heading directly into the Nagambie drop zone...they don't learn, Jack, that you try to keep them safe!

And I'm yet to hear anyone taxiing at an unmarked airstrip call anyone.

But the reality is, Dick, you don't have to convince me. I saw Dick Gower post a view similar to your own and I have huge respect for his contribution to GA over many years. So you seem to have RAPAC on side and you have a new DAS to lobby now.

I actually agree it would be better to have a separate FS for VFR and use 126.7 at all those unmarked LGs, but in this brave world of user pays it probably ain't gonna happen. If it does it will be the end of what is left of GA.

The fall back is the status quo.

Kaz

[topdrop]

Dick, As a pilot and ATC I know what I thought of NAS :yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

[Agrajag]

Agrajag. Don't you have any worries about the 747 incident I quoted where the controllers attention was taken by VFR announcements?

Of course I do, though I must confess I've never heard of it. And, in the day job, I've never yet had my comms with ATC interrupted by a lightie down low.

Obviously the controllers have to listen to all these VFR calls- are you convinced this can have no effect on there proper job of keeping IFR airline aircraft apart?

If so. Hope you are correct. Love to see the evidence.

I think you're asking me to prove a negative there; clearly impossible. And I'd dispute that ATC's "proper" job is just separating heavies. Whilst it may be their priority, in my experience they do a pretty good job of keeping the rest of us informed as well. Again, when in the jet I've never felt they were not paying enough attention to me as a result. In most cases that's because the Class G area frequencies are different to the ones we're on.

By the way. When you fly through the training area west of BK or up the light aircraft lane do you rely on radio arranged separation? Do you make position reports every few minutes in these areas? If not how do you avoid a collision?

I keep my eyes & ears open, and speak up if I need to coordinate with someone. But if there's a private strip I don't know about in such an area, and someone is about to launch from it as I go by, I'd sure appreciate it if he let me know.

Or are you going to tell me that where the collision risk is greatest your system of radio calls does not work?

Hang on... Weren't we talking about a midair between a couple of jets in the flight levels?

As an option to my previous suggestions, perhaps we need a separate range of frequencies on which the low-level traffic could communicate, not bothering ATC at all. There could even be operators on the ground monitoring these frequencies and passing on relevant information.

Oh, wait...

[CaptainMidnight]

Dick, As a pilot and ATC I know what I thought of NASWaypoint NASUX at the time was slipped in for good reason :)

[Up-into-the-air]

Media Releases, Journalism and Comments by bloggers [which includes all of us] will be caught here:



Journalists' union criticises attorney general's power to prosecute them (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/31/journalists-union-criticises-attorney-generals-power-to-prosecute-them)

That the attorney general would decide whether to prosecute under new security laws ‘gives us no comfort’, says MEAA



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/31/1414731081754/25f82104-47cb-4180-938d-286a2243b3d3-460x276.jpeg

Under section 35P of new national security laws, the publishing of SIO information is punishable by up to 10 years’ jail. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian

The union representing journalists has criticised George Brandis’s announcement that prosecution of journalists under the government’s new national security laws would have to be cleared by the attorney general.
Paul Murphy, the director of media at the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), has told Guardian Australia “it gives us no comfort at all that politicians will sit and decide” who goes to jail under the laws.
Section 35P of the new national security legislation, which cleared both houses of parliament last month, states that the publishing of special intelligence operations (SIOs) information can be punishable by up to 10 years’ jail. The government can deem which operations can be defined as an SIO.
Civil Liberties Australia expressed its opposition to Brandis’s oversight provisions.
“Changing the ultimate decision-maker might advance political ends, but it is no extra or comforting protection for journalists or the Australian people. In fact, cynics would think such a proviso was capable of being used to threaten to prosecute a journalist so as to “encourage” them to reveal their source,” it said.
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said Brandis’s decision to become “a sort of last sentinel on the wall of press freedom” was not satisfactory.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the provisions amounted to the “politicisation of national security”. He said the focus on journalists under 35P was a “remarkable deception” by Brandis, as the laws could apply to anyone.
“There are no protections for whistleblowers under this legislation, and that’s no accident. It’s designed that way,” Ludlam said. He said Australians may unwittingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
“Sharing a Facebook post on a national security story is enough to see you prosecuted,” Ludlam said. “It’s clear that 35P will be used to prosecute people,” Murphy said. “If not journalists, then whistleblowers and sources.”
He said the fact that Brandis mentioned American whistleblower Edward Snowden in the press conference he held on Thursday was “quite telling”.
Brandis said in that press conference that the prosecution of journalists was a “barely imaginable event”, and that 35P was “intended to deal with a ‘Snowden’ type situation.
“There is no possibility, no practical or foreseeable possibility, that in our liberal democracy a journalist would ever be prosecuted for doing their job,” Brandis said on Thursday.
“The prosecution can only be brought by the director of public prosecutions but this would add a very powerful safeguard by providing that the attorney general would be required to consent to and therefore accept personal and political responsibility for a prosecution, in the barely imaginable event that such a prosecution were brought.”
Shorten had a change of heart about the national security laws after the legislation was passed, saying Labor has “concerns” about the powers contained within 35P. He’s calling on the government to implement a review of the legislation, undertaken by the national security legislation monitor (NSLM), by the end of June.
The government had proposed to scrap the NSLM earlier in the year, but reversed the decision in August in light of national security changes.

[Soteria]

No surprise in all this. Australia has been slowly turning into a Gulag for some time. Liberal governments changing the laws to suit themselves, the eradication of freeness of speach, the government circumventing parliament, hiding information on boat arrivals, trying to usurp our basic rights and now, effectively, gag Journo's. You might as well name our country North Korea.
And not to mention the way the government systematically stymies transparency and honesty by turning a blind eye to some highly critical and factual evidence of Government corruption and malfeasance in the public service sector which oversights and advises on the aviation industry.

It's a disgrace

[Dick Smith]

I get my area frequencies off the IFR charts when in remote areas

How does a VFR pilot obtain the area frequency boundary information when in an area not covered by a VTC or VNC?

Captain. NAS was the 747 of airspace and our present system is like the australian designed Nomad aircraft.

I agree. There are still a few who reckon the Nomad was OK

It's called delusion !

[kaz3g]

I get my area frequencies off the IFR charts when in remote areas

How does a VFR pilot obtain the area frequency boundary information when in an area not covered by a VTC or VNC?

I always look at the appropriate chart, Dick. It's called the ERC Low. But I find Ozrunways very handy these days, too.

Don't you ever just fly down below 10,000' looking out the window for a bit of fun?

It's called delusion !

Bit of it going around at the moment, apparently.

Kaz

[Dick Smith]

Are you saying that VFR pilots must subscibe to IFR charts to get the required info to fly VFR?

[triadic]

Kaz... Ever tried to copy an area frequency boundary from an ERC(L) to a WAC? or better still from a little screen?? Your error might be 25 or 30 miles!

[Creampuff]

Dick and triadic

VFR pilots have to have access to ERC(L), in order to know the location and boundaries of Romeo and Delta areas, and airspace boundaries, that are outside the coverage of VTCs and VNCs.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

[Check_Thrust]

I get my area frequencies off the IFR charts when in remote areas

How does a VFR pilot obtain the area frequency boundary information when in an area not covered by a VTC or VNC?

Are you saying that VFR pilots must subscibe to IFR charts to get the required info to fly VFR?

They probably should so that they have an idea of where PRDs are located.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Captain. NAS was the 747 of airspace and our present system is like the australian designed Nomad aircraft.

I always thought NAS was the Hughes H-4 of airspace.

[Dick Smith]

Many VFR pilots I have spoken to have difficulty in working out what the correct frequency is when at 8500 in areas where there are different frequencies allocated above and below 8500.

It's a complex nightmare for many- amazing how all the other leading aviation countries in the world don't have such complexity. But we wouldn't even want to know how they do it

We must never copy the success of others Keep the concrete set

[Agrajag]

Many VFR pilots I have spoken to have difficulty in working out what the correct frequency is when at 8500 in areas where there are different frequencies allocated above and below 8500.

It's a complex nightmare for many- amazing how all the other leading aviation countries in the world don't have such complexity. But we wouldn't even want to know how they do it

Oh for god's sake Dick. I'm getting cross now...

When I was still a student pilot, I was taught that upper airspace limits are inclusive; lower limits are exclusive. If you're at the base level of a piece of airspace, you're not in it. The same applies worldwide. I don't remember anyone having trouble with the concept when I later worked as an instructor.

If "many VFR pilots" have trouble grasping this, a quick chat with someone who knows would clear up their glaring ignorance of basic rules.

So, is this the best case you can make for claiming that the current airspace model needs yet another revision? We've established that the original threat of innocent bodies cascading from RPT jets in the stratosphere is invalid. We also know that the required frequencies to monitor are listed on the same charts used by any responsible pilot to avoid PRD areas. Now we're supposed to rejig the whole system because a few people get confused when they cruise at 8500'?

I'm no longer sure what the agenda is here. You may even have some valid points to make, even if I don't agree with them. But whatever laudable goals you have for the betterment of GA are lost in the noise, when you employ specious arguments such as these.

There's already enough uninformed opposition to the practice of flying light aircraft around the country. You know that your comments inevitably find their way into the slavering jaws of the mass media. Please don't give them more material with which to discredit our activity, by using wildly shifting and hyperbolic anecdotes to support your view.

[gerry111]

Very well articulated, Agrajag. I entirely agree with you.

[kaz3g]

Ever tried to copy an area frequency boundary from an ERC(L) to a WAC? or better still from a little screen?? Your error might be 25 or 30 miles!


Thank goodness for Ozrunways then.

Many VFR pilots I have spoken to have difficulty in working out what the correct frequency is when at 8500 in areas where there are different frequencies allocated above and below 8500.

It's a complex nightmare for many- ....

Many, Dick? Many? Another piece of anecdotal effluvium. Not that many VFR pilots bother climbing that high and almost all of them will have Ozrunways with them, anyway.

Kaz

[Creampuff]

I'm no longer sure what the agenda is here.Always best to presume that, in Australia at least, the agenda is always more about politics, industrial relations or other sectional interests, dressed up as concerns about safety. It's exactly what's happening now with pilot CVD and a section of the medical and regulatory industry that's evolved to make a comfortable living out of scaring punters about non-issues.

Dick and triadic: I notice you've not bothered to answer my question whether you were suggesting VFR pilots are not obliged to have access to ERC(L).

I'll ask my question a different way: What would your advice be to VFR pilots who want to work out whether they are allowed to conduct the following flights:

A VFR jolly from William Creek DCT Prominent Hill DCT Coober Pedy DCT William Creek.

A VFR jolly with a leg Warren DCT Bourke.

A VFR jolly with a leg Parkes DCT Narromine.

(From my limited but first-hand experience, the ERC(L) is essential to working out whether, and if so when and at what altitudes, those jollies can be conducted.)

When a VFR pilot undergoing a flight review is given a diversion, to C, half way along a leg A to B, and all of A, B and C are outside the coverage of VTCs and VNCs, how does the pilot work out how to get to C in accordance with the rules? Any Romeo or Danger areas along the way? What are the hours of activation and altitudes? What if the pilot considers it would be prudent to obtain a TAF and NOTAMs for C?

(From my limited but first-hand experience, instructors will expect the candidate to check the ERC(L) to find out whether there are any airspace obstacles to getting to C, and to obtain a TAF and NOTAMs if the pilot doesn't already have access to them.)

But you're the experts.

[Mach E Avelli]

Not too many VFR pilots would venture outside their local circuit area without a Garmin and an iPad with Ozrunways. Assuming our hero has enough money to go flying in the first place, he has enough for these gizmos. Both of my devices have frequencies and airspace boundaries in a format that leaves no doubt which is applicable to current position. The Garmin terrain alert is set to 400 feet.
VFR became a whole lot easier and safer when these goodies came along.
Add a paper WAC or ONC to get you home at 1500 feet if all else fails. Otherwise the only use for paper in the cockpit is if you get caught short or have a bad fright.....

[Dick Smith]

Does the Ozrunways VFR package include the low level IFR charts ?

Amazingly in other countries a VFR pilot can use the VFR charts and be compliant.

Ours is a complex system for VFR and clearly not always complied with. Surely that's why in the last month I have not heard one circuit call on an area frequency.

Why the resistance to copying a proven simpler system where pilots can easily comply.

[Creampuff]

Of course those VFR packages do, Dick, because ERC(L) is a source of essential information for VFR operations outside the coverage of VTC and VNC.

This is a perfect of example of my point about copying the whole of the system that you want.

The US has VFR Sectional Charts covering the entirety of continental USA (and Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands etc). VFR Sectional Charts have a scale of 1:500,000 and, as well as depicting land data like cities, rivers and topography, also show airports, navigation aids and special use airspace, complete with frequencies.

There is no equivalent in Australia, once you’re beyond the coverage of VNCs.

There used to be an equivalent in Australia, called VEC – Visual Enroute Charts – but someone had them scrapped.

When VECs were scrapped, the only remaining source of airspace information essential for VFR operations beyond VNC coverage became ERC(L).

So Dick, when will you be arranging for VFR Sectional Charts to cover Australia, so VFR pilots will cease to be legally obliged to have access to ERC(L)? Surely you will agree that if you are going to "copy" a system, that must involve copying the whole of the system.

And PS: Remember that during the implementation of NAS, VFR pilots were advised to avoid IFR routes ...

[CaptainMidnight]

Many VFR pilots I have spoken to have difficulty in working out what the correct frequency is when at 8500 in areas where there are different frequencies allocated above and below 8500.

Most if not all the areas you quote are in VNC coverage so if what you claim re VFR pilot difficulties interpreting charts is true, that's a sad indictment of the state of training.

Incidentally, where is it prescribed that ERC's are "IFR" only charts?

For the close on 40 years I've been in this game many VFR pilots have also used ERC Lows (and RNCs before them) both inside and outside visual chart coverage because of all the useful info on them, including tracks, distances & LSALTs between major locations, location of IFR waypoints and HPs etc. i.e. data which just isn't available on visual charts.

[Kharon]

Anyone remember this first class, free series of charts (back in the day). Like an ERC only without the tracks, distances, LSALT etc. Seems to me it would resolve this 'scuffle'. I still have a full series in the library – worked through the puzzles set earlier – a breeze, with the right gear (point to point lines, reporting points, aerodromes, beacons, boundaries, R and D areas and frequencies) all in. Perhaps 'whoever' is making the money out of printing a series of charts which require the VFR bloke (or blokette) to carry, or even consult an ERC should consider 're-thinking' the requirements of aircrew.

Good stuff, a bit like the 'Crash comic'; valuable, useful, informative and supporting 'safer' operations.

Just saying.

[Creampuff]

When I was taught to fly, the 'old and the bold' said that in a pinch you could navigate safely VFR in Australia on VECs alone.

On reflection, as a middle aged wimp, I reckon they were correct.

[Kharon]

When something like the VEC is 'scrapped', it has been my habit to keep a version of the last iteration. Creamy's questions earlier prompted a trip down memory lane, which led to a mini 'time, motion and situational awareness' exercise. It went like this:-

Picked a log book from the shelf; opened randomly, put finger on a line and selected the flight from the day. From – to and knocked out a plan using the VEC, straight line first A-B; then modified the track to miss the R and avoid as much D as possible; altered again to maximise use of the available aids; picked out 'reporting/ turning' points; jotted them down on a flight plan, measured tracks, distances and LSALT, picked up the Met data, onto the whiz wheel, time and distance, done and dusted. Fuel calculation from time – all up 12 minutes.

Next the computer 'flight planner' got fired up; same data entered; the data base did not have a couple of the points I wanted, so create user waypoint, find coordinates and modify: enter: off we go. No sweat operation, Met in, Fuel out – 7 minutes all up.

Remember though, this was not a route flown regularly, so there was no standard plan in my system and my knowledge of the route was minimal to say the least, so the WAC was dragged out, just to get a 'feel' for the country and any items which may be of interest. So, perhaps, allowing time to mark the WAC (track and drift lines, six minute markers etc.) I spent a pleasant 20minutes, with a coffee to 'manually' nut out a 'flight plan' and navigation log.

Now I am completely aware that the computer is slicker and quicker; but, and to my mind, it's a big but (don't be rude) doing the 'plan' in the 'old fashioned way' gave me a sense of satisfaction, a feeling of 'preparedness' (for wont of better), options, alternative strategy, escape routes and, IMO an increased 'situational' awareness. The subject flight was lengthy, operated with one ADF, DME and a VOR, no auto pilot and GPS was 'star-wars' gear. It's all changed now; and, in some ways for the better but I wonder what price we have paid for being technologically 'dependent'. The VEC was a great aid to 'situational' awareness, which placed the pilot 'in the picture' from the planning stage, rather than the 'remoteness' or detachment one feels in a modern, all automatic aircraft where the plan is stored and little 'constructive' thinking is required. Enter, Enter, Enter, Enter, Enter, GO.

Anyway – Drift off, two bob well spent.

[Radar Man]

If anyone is still monitoring this thread, the latest info on the MULTICOM versus Area VHF saga is on a new website at RAPAC Convenors' website (http://www.rapac.org.au/projects/MULTICOM.htm)