Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation

[Creampuff]

Creampuff, here's a few we used that weren't on the WACs:
Mammadewere, Gudjektbinj, Marlwan, Gummaringbang, Mumeka, Nonni, Gamagarwan, Marlgowa

I’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]

What's the problem?

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?

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 mentioned

I 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]

creamer posts again - Not at work??

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

Explain this post CP:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#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!