Watch out for AMSA advice – you could die!
IN the 'industry', when 'committing aviation' and you heard a colleague 'on air', the usual inviting transmission was - 'See U on the Numbers' - and the response was simply a 'click click' on the button.....
The 'numbers' being 123.4....And one went there to exchange the 'local goss'.... UNTIL they became a 'frequency' somewhere....
In WA, the Newman Area Freq became 123.4, so that stopped that, unless the guys and gals (In WA) KNEW that, and they were far enuf away so as not to....interfere?
119.1 was an 'Aero Club' freq. in the 'ole days' and used similarly....
Don't know about ICAO being consulted though....
Cheers
The 'numbers' being 123.4....And one went there to exchange the 'local goss'.... UNTIL they became a 'frequency' somewhere....
In WA, the Newman Area Freq became 123.4, so that stopped that, unless the guys and gals (In WA) KNEW that, and they were far enuf away so as not to....interfere?
119.1 was an 'Aero Club' freq. in the 'ole days' and used similarly....
Don't know about ICAO being consulted though....
Cheers
The 'numbers' are now 123.45.
Eavesdropped on a group of aircraft doing an Anzac Day fly-over at Condobolin on Monday morning coordinating their activities on it.
I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency.
Eavesdropped on a group of aircraft doing an Anzac Day fly-over at Condobolin on Monday morning coordinating their activities on it.
I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency.
Maybe some common sense will come out of this at last.
Multi com 126.7 for all ops B050 for all landing places OCTA except where a specific CTAF frequency is allocated. IFR aircraft usually with two Comms would then have to listen out/broadcast on the multicom passing 5000' on descent as appropriate. Problem solved and no unnecessary transmissions on area ATS frequencies.
Multi com 126.7 for all ops B050 for all landing places OCTA except where a specific CTAF frequency is allocated. IFR aircraft usually with two Comms would then have to listen out/broadcast on the multicom passing 5000' on descent as appropriate. Problem solved and no unnecessary transmissions on area ATS frequencies.
The 'numbers' are now 123.45.
119.1 used to be the accepted default airport frequency until CASA needed to re-organise to give the appearance of progress, so it became 126.7
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
And by the way, frequency congestion never seemed to be a problem in the 70's & 80's when there was a) more GA traffic and b) we were all on full reporting with calls at every waypoint and c) we got full flight service on area frequency, with weather, etc on request.
119.1 used to be the accepted default airport frequency until CASA needed to re-organise to give the appearance of progress, so it became 126.7
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote-
" I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency."
Most craft I know have 2 VHF and maybe a HF. 1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5 as a HF can not.
If you have 3 VHF that is great, but to monitor Area and gossip channel I personally think is not the safest way to get vital info out in a emergency.
123.45 is not monitored for a emergency use but uses more transmitting time than most Area frequencies.
" I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency."
Most craft I know have 2 VHF and maybe a HF. 1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5 as a HF can not.
If you have 3 VHF that is great, but to monitor Area and gossip channel I personally think is not the safest way to get vital info out in a emergency.
123.45 is not monitored for a emergency use but uses more transmitting time than most Area frequencies.
Most craft I know have 2 VHF and maybe a HF. 1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5 as a HF can not.
If you have 3 VHF that is great...
If you have 3 VHF that is great...
There have been VHF RX/TX products available for quite some time that have the function of monitoring a different frequency to the active frequency. E.g.: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t.../prod6440.html. I note this from the link:
The [product's] frequency-monitoring function gives you the ability to monitor ATIS or the 121.5 emergency frequency without leaving your assigned ATC channel. This allows you to listen to standby frequencies while giving priority to the active channel, meaning you'll never miss a transmission.
A deeply insightful statement of the bleeding obvious.
1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5
- Com 1: FIA, Class E or whatever frequency communicating with/listening to ATC on;
- Com 2: switched between CTAFs approaching or in the vicinity thereof, other times sits on 126.7
Thread Starter
Yair Bandalot . Definitely VFR should be monitoring and answering four frequencies in our Australian system. Only way to achieve a successful safety outcome .
Those stupid Americans with 30 times the amount of traffic are ICAO compliant and don't even have a radio requirement for VFR in E and G.
Four frequencies against none. No wonder we are a leader in the world in red tape , complexity and bureaucracy.
And it's generally those in the industry who want and support this additional complexity . No understanding of copying the most proven system in the world.
I note that most of the members of RAPAC who want the simple US type CTAF system for the frequency of non mapped airports still want the 1950s ATC frequency boundaries on the charts here in an attempt to keep the extra complexity and resist any change to the system they were taught on.
Those stupid Americans with 30 times the amount of traffic are ICAO compliant and don't even have a radio requirement for VFR in E and G.
Four frequencies against none. No wonder we are a leader in the world in red tape , complexity and bureaucracy.
And it's generally those in the industry who want and support this additional complexity . No understanding of copying the most proven system in the world.
I note that most of the members of RAPAC who want the simple US type CTAF system for the frequency of non mapped airports still want the 1950s ATC frequency boundaries on the charts here in an attempt to keep the extra complexity and resist any change to the system they were taught on.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the point of broadcasting your location on area, when it's more than likely no-one knows where the location of your position actually is? "All stations,,, all stations, can you hear me?? ABC is, arghh, 7 miles west of Fred's house, 1000 feet , tracking to join the circuit on a left crosswind, runway, arghh, 24" It's absolutely pointless doing that. You're better getting off the primary frequency and onto a specific one ie 126.7. When the traffic levels are sufficiently high, the aerodrome gets a dedicated frequency.
Shouldn't the discussion paper actually be HAZID workshops? Attended by a cross section of the aviation industry? Where hazards are identified etc etc???
Shouldn't the discussion paper actually be HAZID workshops? Attended by a cross section of the aviation industry? Where hazards are identified etc etc???
It would be "absolutely pointless" to make that broadcast on any frequency. If the standards of training and airmanship deteriorate to the point at which a pilot would consider otherwise, the industry will have far bigger problems to deal with.
And Dick: I was only making the point that you don't need 2 VHFs to be able to monitor 2 VHF frequencies. Even if you are successful in getting VHF removed as a requirement for VFR aircraft in ForG and E in Australia, people can still choose to have VHF. And I thought it was you advocating the benefits of monitoring and broadcasting MAYDAY on 121.5 in an emergency. Bit difficult to broadcast a MAYDAY on 121.5 if you don't have a VHF. (Of course, an ELT and PLB that comply with the required standards will transmit on 121.5 as well as 406 ....)
And Dick: I was only making the point that you don't need 2 VHFs to be able to monitor 2 VHF frequencies. Even if you are successful in getting VHF removed as a requirement for VFR aircraft in ForG and E in Australia, people can still choose to have VHF. And I thought it was you advocating the benefits of monitoring and broadcasting MAYDAY on 121.5 in an emergency. Bit difficult to broadcast a MAYDAY on 121.5 if you don't have a VHF. (Of course, an ELT and PLB that comply with the required standards will transmit on 121.5 as well as 406 ..
..)
I note that most of the members of RAPAC who want the simple US type CTAF
One of the great unanswered questions is what provision AsA is making for navaid training / currency in the major training hubs around Australia.
Periodically, I go through the RAPAC minutes. I'd encourage everyone to do that and see how much their scope is limited. Try reading the November 2015 Victorian minutes regarding CTAF frequencies.
The guys on RAPAC I know are smart guys with good intent. But the information flow to RAPAC and the agenda is controlled by CASA / AsA.
I think one of the problems with our system is that we essentially have 5 levels of users, each with their own rules / protocols and each of these groups have very little understanding of how the others operate.
My 5 levels / groups are:
1. Airline / upper FL traffic
2. IFR / higher level / long distance VFR
3. VFR VH
4. RA Aus
5. Gliders
Some of this has been evident in this tread. Clearly the guys advocating jumping from one CTAF frequency to another don't cruise at my levels - let alone jet / pressurised levels. Its not often that a LSALT will allow me to cruise at a level that would have conflicting traffic - even if I wanted to. At my normal 8,000ft - 10,000ft cruise I have no benefit from monitoring CTAF frequencies with traffic that is below 3,000ft.
The much, much, much higher rates of pilots who are IFR rated in the US (aside from enhancing safety) mean that more people understand the broader system. CASA's discouraging of people gaining IFR ratings (via overly complex training, ADS-B, aircraft inspection regimes) is scandalous.
I don't know how the US deals with LSA. But my observation is that few RA Aus pilots have any idea of the normal VFR protocols and treat the radio like a car CB.
Recently, I was at a regional Victorian airfield listening to 2 aircraft from a prominent Moorabbin school on the CTAF frequency. They were over 20nm apart, but had long detailed discussions about what levels they should be flying to be clear of each other.
Something is very wrong with our system and / or discipline. But read the Nov Victorian RAPAC minutes, the the NSW ones and you'd despair that CASA will ever get their hands dirty and engage with the real issues of pilots.
Old Akro, yes, something is very wrong with our system. From my experience, there is no specific training provided in the PPL, let alone RAA, regarding avoiding air to air incidents. We are taught "the rules of the road" and circuit joining and departure procedures, standard radio calls, etc,but not how to put all that together into a coherent set of behaviors consistent with good airmanship - that is not part of the syllabus! So much for competence based training!
My experiences therefore include: trying to land in the wrong direction at Maree because the Lake Eyre NOTAM confused me about appropriate broadcast frequencies in the vicinity of the circuit; learning that "oblique downwind" really means edging into downwind with your eyes over your left shoulder (sorry to the Twin driver), getting forcibly reminded that the join is at 1500 ft for good reason and numerous attempts to communicate with students of a Melbourne flying school West of that city who are too scared to say anything at all, even when it looks like they are heading for the same waypoint and will pass within 100 meters.
My "airmanship" now equates to something like orbiting immediately I get a garbled transmission that indicates another aircraft may be nearby unless I can establish Two way comms with the other pilot. If I hear an RPT aircraft heading for the circuit my initial reaction is to run and hide until it's clear. Frankly, I have no faith in anyone's ability these days and my airmanship "training" has been from scaring myself or being growled at by other pilots.
And a pet peeve of mine: experienced pilots who seem to follow the old (Military - artillery) habit of confusing professionalism with speaking as fast as they can as one word: "traffiswunhillcesntwoohsixtenmilsouondescentforwunsevtraffi swunhi" and expect that the rest of us to understand and comprehend.
My experiences therefore include: trying to land in the wrong direction at Maree because the Lake Eyre NOTAM confused me about appropriate broadcast frequencies in the vicinity of the circuit; learning that "oblique downwind" really means edging into downwind with your eyes over your left shoulder (sorry to the Twin driver), getting forcibly reminded that the join is at 1500 ft for good reason and numerous attempts to communicate with students of a Melbourne flying school West of that city who are too scared to say anything at all, even when it looks like they are heading for the same waypoint and will pass within 100 meters.
My "airmanship" now equates to something like orbiting immediately I get a garbled transmission that indicates another aircraft may be nearby unless I can establish Two way comms with the other pilot. If I hear an RPT aircraft heading for the circuit my initial reaction is to run and hide until it's clear. Frankly, I have no faith in anyone's ability these days and my airmanship "training" has been from scaring myself or being growled at by other pilots.
And a pet peeve of mine: experienced pilots who seem to follow the old (Military - artillery) habit of confusing professionalism with speaking as fast as they can as one word: "traffiswunhillcesntwoohsixtenmilsouondescentforwunsevtraffi swunhi" and expect that the rest of us to understand and comprehend.
