Multicom vs area frequency
I see.
So everyone should ignore what the NOTAM and now AIP make crystal clear, and should instead do what the people who claim to “understand how the system is meant to work” say to do. Doing what they say to do, rather than complying with the rules will, apparently, reduce confusion.
How will we be able to differentiate between the people who “understand how the system is meant to work” and those who don’t? For example, how do I know that Captain Midnight doesn’t understand how the system is meant to work?
Where will I find the rule book written by the people who understand how the system is meant to work? If I comply with that rule book, is that a defence for failing to comply with the law?
So everyone should ignore what the NOTAM and now AIP make crystal clear, and should instead do what the people who claim to “understand how the system is meant to work” say to do. Doing what they say to do, rather than complying with the rules will, apparently, reduce confusion.
How will we be able to differentiate between the people who “understand how the system is meant to work” and those who don’t? For example, how do I know that Captain Midnight doesn’t understand how the system is meant to work?
Where will I find the rule book written by the people who understand how the system is meant to work? If I comply with that rule book, is that a defence for failing to comply with the law?
Last edited by Creampuff; 22nd Aug 2014 at 04:23.
outcome I suggest is even more confusion
Follow the NOTAM and now AIP 21 August 2014 ENR 1.1-46
Sadly the MCS (Manual of Common Sense) has been out of print for years -
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can name the PEOPLE, Dick. But what's that going to achieve? Very few rec pilots follow AIP procedures etc etc but you should take a good hard look at yourself. You have the sycophants on this blog that agree with everything you say or propose but the reality is you STUFFED a really good structure.
You now have highly paid ATC's doing the job of FS Officers as well as trying to separate aircraft in controlled airspace. There is NO cost saving! Your idea of frequency separation is fanciful and naive! Sit on it Dick, you stuffed it!
You now have highly paid ATC's doing the job of FS Officers as well as trying to separate aircraft in controlled airspace. There is NO cost saving! Your idea of frequency separation is fanciful and naive! Sit on it Dick, you stuffed it!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA brought in Multicom with good intentions trying to relieve frequency congestion, amongst other things. Sure, it's not not working but you've created a system whereby highly paid controllers now have to take over FS duties. Frequency separation! What rubbish! You throw around names like Angus Houston, but what does he know about civil ATC? He only goes by recommendations from people like yourself. Sorry, Dick, consult the real experts before you jump in.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Quote:
[I]n the event of having strife, a broadcast by you on an FIA is more likely to be heard by ATC and/or other aircraft, than relying on other aircraft hearing and understanding you on 126.7.
[I]n the event of having strife, a broadcast by you on an FIA is more likely to be heard by ATC and/or other aircraft, than relying on other aircraft hearing and understanding you on 126.7.
No, I didn't have long conversations with either Centre or the heavy metal miles overhead. But I did draw comfort from the fact that I could hear the conversations between them and on one occasion one of the RPT relayed my flight plan details due poor transmission at my altitude.
I confess to all that I didn't make a call near any of the graded bits of dirt 50 miles from anywhere that I saw along the way.
Kaz
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me, Tee Emm, my comments were not sarcastic nor were they based on ignorance. Have a good look at the facts , as I was suggesting to Dick, before you criticise.
Last edited by majorca; 22nd Aug 2014 at 11:20.
Majorca. My success has only come from asking advice and surrounding myself with capable people. Yes I do get a lot of differing advice- then I use commonsense to decide which advice is more likely to be correct .
That's when it appears to offend people like yourself!
If you look at the Dicksmithflyer site you will see how I attempted to save the VHF Flightwatch remote outlets. I have always wanted to harmonise with highly proven airspace practice and procedures . Both the USA and Canada have retained this service.
Now that Airservices have removed these outlets ( so they could increase profits and management bonuses ) do you have any evidence of a reduction in safety?
When pilots in the current system call on ATC frequencies to file flight plans and ammend them does this effect safety? Have there been any incidents?
And you broadcast to everyone on this site that I stuffed up the airspace but you hide behind anonymity . What particular parts would you like reversed?
That's when it appears to offend people like yourself!
If you look at the Dicksmithflyer site you will see how I attempted to save the VHF Flightwatch remote outlets. I have always wanted to harmonise with highly proven airspace practice and procedures . Both the USA and Canada have retained this service.
Now that Airservices have removed these outlets ( so they could increase profits and management bonuses ) do you have any evidence of a reduction in safety?
When pilots in the current system call on ATC frequencies to file flight plans and ammend them does this effect safety? Have there been any incidents?
And you broadcast to everyone on this site that I stuffed up the airspace but you hide behind anonymity . What particular parts would you like reversed?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so none of the problems are caused by air services combining all the frequencies together it is all caused by pilots making transmissions in the course of flying.
naughty pilots. obviously the solution is to stop everyone flying.
(do air services select people for rampant insanity or is it something that develops on the job ?)
naughty pilots. obviously the solution is to stop everyone flying.
(do air services select people for rampant insanity or is it something that develops on the job ?)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a dood using the new procedure today, i.e. calling inbound to an unmarked airstrip on the area frequency. He'd obviously read the guidance material and kept the calls brief.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not at all. I never said it would. It was good to hear concise, professional (airmanship) calls. Made when the frequency was free. I'll let you know if it becomes a problem.
And did the sky fall in?
When pilots in the current system call on ATC frequencies to file flight plans and ammend them does this effect safety
There are frequencies used by ATC to provide services, including Class G FIA (Flight Information Area) frequencies. They are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided. It is entirely appropriate - and required in the scenario outlined in the NOTAM and AIP - to use FIA frequencies for their intended purpose.
To not use or monitor FIA frequencies when appropriate and required could cause a nasty situation, given the wrong circumstances.
Whether an FIA frequency is retransmitted onto other frequencies by Airservices is irrelevant to pilots, and not a reason to not use it or ignore the rules.
The frequencies I am referring to are operated by ATCs and are also used by ATC to CONTROL aircraft - that's why I call them ATC frequencies .
That is the conflict. NAS that was accepted as government policy did not require pilots to make announcements on ATC control frequencies.
If the 320 million population in the USA can get by with a disciplined system that does not allow (for safety reasons) VFR pilots to make announcements on frequencies that are utilized for separation - why can't we
That is the conflict. NAS that was accepted as government policy did not require pilots to make announcements on ATC control frequencies.
If the 320 million population in the USA can get by with a disciplined system that does not allow (for safety reasons) VFR pilots to make announcements on frequencies that are utilized for separation - why can't we
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Aug 2014 at 11:13.
Australia can.
Just get the rules changed.
...and the population densities and infrastructure of the USA
...oh, and governments who care about aviation and have a modicum of integrity
...and representative bodies which know how to lobby government.
...plus kill the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program.
Just get the rules changed.
...and the population densities and infrastructure of the USA
...oh, and governments who care about aviation and have a modicum of integrity
...and representative bodies which know how to lobby government.
...plus kill the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program.
Integrity is the key word Creamy.
I was quite surprised with the " Canberra system"
Sort of dishonest. I have not experienced that basic lack of ethics in the private business community.
I guess it's probably because of the politics. We laughed at Yes Minister as it showed us lie after lie. And it was an accurate example of what happens in Canberra!
I was quite surprised with the " Canberra system"
Sort of dishonest. I have not experienced that basic lack of ethics in the private business community.
I guess it's probably because of the politics. We laughed at Yes Minister as it showed us lie after lie. And it was an accurate example of what happens in Canberra!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Minister:
"It is unthinkable that politicians should be allowed to remove civil servants on grounds of incompetence. Of course some civil servants are incompetent but not incompetent enough for a politician to notice. And if civil servants could remove politicians on grounds of incompetence it would empty the House of Commons, remove the Cabinet, and be the end of democracy and the beginning of responsible government."
"It is unthinkable that politicians should be allowed to remove civil servants on grounds of incompetence. Of course some civil servants are incompetent but not incompetent enough for a politician to notice. And if civil servants could remove politicians on grounds of incompetence it would empty the House of Commons, remove the Cabinet, and be the end of democracy and the beginning of responsible government."
Just to try to tie off the loose end raised by andrewr and what is and isn’t an “aerodrome”, as with most matters aviation in Australia it’s necessary to look at the history to see the various points at which poorly-implemented, sectional interest-motivated ‘reforms’ occurred, to assist in identifying where some of the prevailing and chronic confusion arises about what was and was not a ‘non-towered aerodrome’.
The original CARs were made in 1988. Unlike the 2000 + pages of simple and clear regulations Australia has today, back in 1988 the regulations were an extraordinarily complex 155 pages long.
Back then regulation 92(2) relevantly said:
Note that aircraft weren’t allowed to land at or take off from anywhere else.
The third category above was known as ‘authorised landing areas’. They were what the name suggested: areas that the Authority had authorised.
As you can envisage, the process for obtaining authorisation from the Authority for an ALA required the satisfaction of various physical criteria, and the Authority gave lots of directions about the use of ALAs. Key point: Therefore, back then, there weren’t many ALAs and the existence, location of, and the required procedures at, all of them were known to everyone.
The term “authorised landing area” was used, deliberately, to distinguish between them and “licensed aerodromes”. Note there was no concept of an ‘unlicensed aerodrome’. The place had to be licensed as an aerodrome, or authorised by the Authority and ‘in the system’ (or established under the ANRs – effectively an international airport), or you simply weren’t allowed to operate there. (‘Ultralight’ activities were a related but separate issue, authorised by an exemption subject to many conditions.)
Putting some cones or gable markers around a flat paddock did not turn the place into a place at which aircraft were allowed to take off or land, much less a licensed aerodrome. At most, the place might have become an ALA if the Authority decided to authorise it.
The concept of a paddock being an “aerodrome” was never in the aviation lexicon.
Then a fundamental regulatory change occurred.
The ‘ALA’ part of regulation 92 was changed so that no authorisation was required from the Authority to use a place for take off or landing. The test in the regulation was, and remains, merely that the place be “suitable” for the purposes of taking off and landing of the particular aircraft, having regard to all circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off. There is no requirement for the place to have cones or gable markers or anything else that is usually associated with an aerodrome. If the back paddock at my property is long enough and flat enough for me to take off and land in my Genericorp Jizzler, in VMC and with the right wind conditions, I’m allowed to take off and land my Genericorp Jizzler from and at my back paddock, in VMC and with the right wind conditions. One kind of aircraft – a helicopter – can land at and take off from almost anywhere.
Thus an almost infinite number of places became what used to be called ALAs and, by definition, nobody knows where they are all located. Almost anywhere can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft.
(The remnants of the original ALA concept – in which the first “A” stood for “authorised” – can be seen in the current regulatory and guidance materials, some of which define ALA to mean “aircraft landing area” and others of which define ALA to mean “aeroplane landing area”. )
If:
(1) almost anywhere can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft, and
(2) anywhere that can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft is, for the purposes of the rules, an ‘aerodrome’,
.... it follows that everyone below a few thousand feet AGL is always in the vicinity of an almost infinite number of ‘aerodromes’, and therefore should be continuously broadcasting inbound or overflying ‘everywhere’.
I think the ‘depicted on charts’ and ‘defined area’ concepts are among the attempts to distinguish between ‘places’ that are known to everyone, and the rules therefore treat as aerodromes, always, and other ‘places’ that are not known to anyone except users, in which case the place becomes an aerodrome for the purposes of the rules when, and only during the period in which, it is being used for take off or landing.
Or perhaps I’m confused.
(In parallel with this was the oh-so-successful sell-off or abandonment, by the Commonwealth, of licensed aerodromes. Many of the transferees of those licensed aerodromes discovered that maintaining the standards for a licensed aerodrome needs “work” and “money”, and lots of transferees decided to “stuff this for a joke”. Thus many places that were once licensed aerodromes in effect became ALAs, but everyone kept calling them aerodromes because they continued to look and smell like aerodromes. Many of them are now “uncertified and unregistered” aerodromes (or warehouses…). You can imagine trying (and failing) to keep up with all these changes on maps and charts.)
Never fear: It will all become clear when the new rules are finished. According to the ASRR Panel report, the ETA is now 2019. Can’t wait!
The original CARs were made in 1988. Unlike the 2000 + pages of simple and clear regulations Australia has today, back in 1988 the regulations were an extraordinarily complex 155 pages long.
Back then regulation 92(2) relevantly said:
An aircraft shall not land at, or take off from, any place unless:
(a) the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;
(b) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a licence granted under regulation 88;
(c) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by the Authority under regulation 89 [and various operational criteria were satisfied].
(a) the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;
(b) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a licence granted under regulation 88;
(c) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by the Authority under regulation 89 [and various operational criteria were satisfied].
The third category above was known as ‘authorised landing areas’. They were what the name suggested: areas that the Authority had authorised.
As you can envisage, the process for obtaining authorisation from the Authority for an ALA required the satisfaction of various physical criteria, and the Authority gave lots of directions about the use of ALAs. Key point: Therefore, back then, there weren’t many ALAs and the existence, location of, and the required procedures at, all of them were known to everyone.
The term “authorised landing area” was used, deliberately, to distinguish between them and “licensed aerodromes”. Note there was no concept of an ‘unlicensed aerodrome’. The place had to be licensed as an aerodrome, or authorised by the Authority and ‘in the system’ (or established under the ANRs – effectively an international airport), or you simply weren’t allowed to operate there. (‘Ultralight’ activities were a related but separate issue, authorised by an exemption subject to many conditions.)
Putting some cones or gable markers around a flat paddock did not turn the place into a place at which aircraft were allowed to take off or land, much less a licensed aerodrome. At most, the place might have become an ALA if the Authority decided to authorise it.
The concept of a paddock being an “aerodrome” was never in the aviation lexicon.
Then a fundamental regulatory change occurred.
The ‘ALA’ part of regulation 92 was changed so that no authorisation was required from the Authority to use a place for take off or landing. The test in the regulation was, and remains, merely that the place be “suitable” for the purposes of taking off and landing of the particular aircraft, having regard to all circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off. There is no requirement for the place to have cones or gable markers or anything else that is usually associated with an aerodrome. If the back paddock at my property is long enough and flat enough for me to take off and land in my Genericorp Jizzler, in VMC and with the right wind conditions, I’m allowed to take off and land my Genericorp Jizzler from and at my back paddock, in VMC and with the right wind conditions. One kind of aircraft – a helicopter – can land at and take off from almost anywhere.
Thus an almost infinite number of places became what used to be called ALAs and, by definition, nobody knows where they are all located. Almost anywhere can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft.
(The remnants of the original ALA concept – in which the first “A” stood for “authorised” – can be seen in the current regulatory and guidance materials, some of which define ALA to mean “aircraft landing area” and others of which define ALA to mean “aeroplane landing area”. )
If:
(1) almost anywhere can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft, and
(2) anywhere that can, in some circumstances, be suitable for the take off and landing of some kind of aircraft is, for the purposes of the rules, an ‘aerodrome’,
.... it follows that everyone below a few thousand feet AGL is always in the vicinity of an almost infinite number of ‘aerodromes’, and therefore should be continuously broadcasting inbound or overflying ‘everywhere’.
I think the ‘depicted on charts’ and ‘defined area’ concepts are among the attempts to distinguish between ‘places’ that are known to everyone, and the rules therefore treat as aerodromes, always, and other ‘places’ that are not known to anyone except users, in which case the place becomes an aerodrome for the purposes of the rules when, and only during the period in which, it is being used for take off or landing.
Or perhaps I’m confused.
(In parallel with this was the oh-so-successful sell-off or abandonment, by the Commonwealth, of licensed aerodromes. Many of the transferees of those licensed aerodromes discovered that maintaining the standards for a licensed aerodrome needs “work” and “money”, and lots of transferees decided to “stuff this for a joke”. Thus many places that were once licensed aerodromes in effect became ALAs, but everyone kept calling them aerodromes because they continued to look and smell like aerodromes. Many of them are now “uncertified and unregistered” aerodromes (or warehouses…). You can imagine trying (and failing) to keep up with all these changes on maps and charts.)
Never fear: It will all become clear when the new rules are finished. According to the ASRR Panel report, the ETA is now 2019. Can’t wait!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first post on this subject.
Creampuff, on the issue of ALAs you are sorely mistaken.
Way prior to 1988 pilots we're using ALAs to fly from any "paddock" that met the Requirements of an ALA as described in the VFG and ANOs etc. (remember them?
)
There were millions of them, known and unknown to everybody.
Contrary to your last post ANY "paddock" that met the requirements WAS therefore "authorised"!
There were some well known ones which were really aerodromes not meeting the requirements of a "licenced" aerodrome for various reasons.
Just because someone posts a lot on this forum does not make them an authority.
Creampuff, on the issue of ALAs you are sorely mistaken.
Way prior to 1988 pilots we're using ALAs to fly from any "paddock" that met the Requirements of an ALA as described in the VFG and ANOs etc. (remember them?
)There were millions of them, known and unknown to everybody.
Contrary to your last post ANY "paddock" that met the requirements WAS therefore "authorised"!
There were some well known ones which were really aerodromes not meeting the requirements of a "licenced" aerodrome for various reasons.
Just because someone posts a lot on this forum does not make them an authority.
Then I must be confused.
I did quote from the actual regulations...
I was there ...
The VFG wasn't regulatory ...
I did mention the exemption for 'ultralights'...
I do realise there were ALAs. All of the ones that VH-registered aircraft were allowed to operate in and out of were marked on charts.
But given I'm wrong, it follows that everywhere is an aerodrome. Good luck with that!
I did quote from the actual regulations...
I was there ...
The VFG wasn't regulatory ...
I did mention the exemption for 'ultralights'...
I do realise there were ALAs. All of the ones that VH-registered aircraft were allowed to operate in and out of were marked on charts.
But given I'm wrong, it follows that everywhere is an aerodrome. Good luck with that!
But given I'm wrong, it follows that everywhere is an aerodrome.
When I broadcast on area I call "all stations Pete's farm". Yet to get a reply.
