This is a popular and serious thread, and it seems some of the scribes do not understand all of the related issues. Dick is correct, however he is fighting a small vocal minority that fail to understand that the entrenched culture must change if there is to be any improvement in aviation in Australia, and this is not only applicable to airspace matters. How many of the scribes here participate in their local RAPAC and add their voice to the discussion? Does not seem to be many by some of the remarks to date?
Sadly, both CASA and the RAPACs are missing the obvious, probably because they don't like it - the need to forget radio at all when VFR in G or E (except in the vicinity of a marked airfield).
Yes, CASA (or certain folk within?) have totally missed the point, however the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common
recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries and if the airfield was or was not marked on a chart (which chart?).
The DP addressed these issues and the result of the feedback was significantly in favour of retaining the MULTICOM as a national low level frequency.
The issue now is that CASA tabled a proposal that came from left field introducing a 20nm CTAF which was NOT part of the DP nor placed on the table with industry at large or the RAPACs at any stage.
This all came about back in 2013 when without any consultation or it seems any knowledge of what they were doing some officers introduced a change under the pretext that it was a "clarification" with no obvious consideration of the unintended consequences. It took the RAPACs some three years just to get the then DAS to agree to a DP.
At this time it is understood that the RAPACs have made it know to the DAS that it was not appropriate to introduce the 20nm CTAF with this proposal, however the diehards within have refused to separate the two questions which makes their survey invalid by not offering a choice and locking the two questions together.
The latest position of the RAPACs is to seek the wind-back of the change that introduced this mess, and that is to remove the requirement to use the area frequency at airfields not marked on charts. It is believed that this could be undertaken quickly and simply by NOTAM and AIP amendment. The remainder could then be discussed further including the 20nm CTAFs which we know from experience will not work.
Those readers that have been in this industry for some time will know that the only thing that is consistent in aviation is change. How we manage that change is part of the issue as there are always those that have such a deep culture that they fight any change. This "culturelock" is of course is not unique to aviation.
Many of the changes introduced with NAS etc were based on the need to have some international harmonisation in our rules and procedures. Many of us know that the air in Australia is the same as other places in the world (except in the US where you can breath at 12000ft without O2), so why do we need to be different? Much of this goes to the top levels of Government and the bureaucracy where there is an element of 'power and control' that in Oz we must do things our own way. At the end of the day this costs the country and the industry money as we really do not have to reinvent the wheel.
