Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff. There are many in the mittagong to goulburn area- even with windsocks- but not marked on the charts.
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!
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
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
That's a deal buster AFAIAC.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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........
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........
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
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
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?
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?
Thread Starter
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,
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!
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.
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!
Thread Starter
Ixixly, you state,
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.
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.