Originally Posted by
gerry111
I reckon that kaz3g may have meant that all the unmarked airfields should use 126.7 and all the marked airfields have their own CTAF's other than 126.7?
That was my reading as well.
My point is that at each twist and turn in this expensive journey - remember, there are people on 6 figures in CASA feeding off never-ending change and increasing complexity - we come up with yet another Galapogos concept.
The genesis of this process was - I thought - a controversy about one question and one question alone: Should the 'default' frequency for use in the vicinity of an airfield that is not marked on the charts be the FIA frequency or 126.7. Full stop. Nothing about CTAF 'dimensions'; nothing about the frequency for use at marked aerodromes.
But obviously a bunch of people with bright ideas and strong opinions about how to make us even 'safer' decided to use the process as a vehicle to promote those bright ideas.
Given that the last proposal by CASA seems to have been decided on the basis of numbers 'for' and 'against', the way in which to raise and determine questions in future seems obvious: A vote by ARN holders. Anyone can come up with an idea, that idea is expressed as a 'yes' or 'no' question - e.g. 'Should there be mandatory distance-based broadcasts by aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome?" - this goes into some portal software run by CASA - there must be some expensive software involved - and ARN holders log in and vote.
Another Galapogos development that's sure to provide (costly) entertainment.