Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How else would you suggest we get commonsense to prevail?
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by Creampuff; 25th Oct 2014 at 05:09.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
SIMPLE unless you work for CASA!!
SIMPLE unless you work for CASA!!
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
(P.s. thanks again Dick.......Still enjoying it.....).
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
(P.s. thanks again Dick.......Still enjoying it.....).
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 25th Oct 2014 at 14:42.
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.
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.
Last edited by Creampuff; 25th Oct 2014 at 22:51.
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
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
Sounds like a very good procedure!
I'd make some slight adjustments to your first sentence:
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 ...
Interesting question Creamy....
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....!
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.
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....!
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.
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".
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
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
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!!
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.
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)
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!!
From the Canadian equivalent of the Australian AIP, section called "RAC". Except for the bolding in headings, the bolding and underlining are my additions:
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'.
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).
…
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 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'.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Sounds dangerous to me.
Kaz