triadic said:
Quote:
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
My bolding.
So there is no proposal from the RAPACs to also delete FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from the charts.
The issue with the boundaries and the change in 2013 was that there was no direction as to what might be the recommended frequency for those airfields that might be close to the area frequency boundaries. My good airmanship in selecting a frequency, might be different to your good airmanship and as a result we would have frequency separation at that location!
In fact there are locations where area frequency boundaries join resulting in an option of three (3) frequencies to choose from
The position of the RAPACs was to solve (or try to) the problem that CASA created in saying that the area frequency should be used at unmarked airfields.
The previous use of the MULTICOM worked well and it was not until CASA made the change did the confusion begin. The boundaries on the charts was not a prime issue at the time, rather the priority was to try and obtain a common frequency for all to know and use at lower levels. The feedback at the time was that very few pilots used the Area Frequency and continued to use the MULTICOM, much to the frustration of those in CASA that still did not understand the issues and the obvious support of a process that had been in place for over a decade and had worked.
It is understood that the RAPACs position prior to Christmas is that there should be a return to the pre 2013 status where the MULTICOM was used at low levels in the vicinity of airfields not on a different frequency or in a BA. The issue of boundaries on or not on charts has been raised at some meetings but has not, I understand, progressed due to other matters.
The other issue that gets a mention is that we should have all these airfields marked on charts. Those of us that have been around for some time know that this is at best a dream due to chart production lead times (WACs can be four years - perhaps longer than the life of the airfield?) and the quality of information required.
Airservices as the data collection agency for airfields have recently issued an AIC H43/17 seeking data on airfields that are marked on charts for which they have no contact or sufficient info. Unless they get the data some of these well used airfields may vanish from charts!
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...up/a17-h43.pdf
If you know the person/s responsible for any of the named airfields, then perhaps it might be wise to pass the message on.
There a quite a few hospitals and helipads on the list (including YTRY) so we need to get the word out.