Unless some sensible advice can be given to the contrary, I plan to send out the following Media Release next Thursday, 30 October.
DICK SMITH SAYS, "PILOTS SHOULD THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE COMPLYING WITH LATEST CASA RADIO CALL ADVICE
- WHICH OTHER COUNTRIES PROHIBIT"
Following an article by Steve Creedy in The Australian (5.9.2014),
CASA Panned for Frequency Changes, I have been contacted by committee members of the Regional Airspace and Procedure Advisory Committees (RAPACs) querying the Advice.
I have also had multiple communications with CASA on this issue. The original requirement under the Federal Cabinet approved National Airspace System (NAS) policy was for all small aerodromes that do not have an allocated CTAF frequency for pilots to use the Multicom frequency of 126.7.
More recently, CASA has changed this Advice so that at aerodromes which are not marked on charts (literally thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips), the calling frequencies for taxi and circuit calls must be on the area frequency.
While such calls may help in alerted see-and-avoid for light aircraft in the vicinity of the strips, there is a major implication for the safety of airline passengers. That is, the calls are likely to interfere with air traffic control instructions to airline aircraft.
Dick Smith says,
CASA seems to be obsessed with a non-existent frequency congestion issue but do not understand that no country in the world allows small aircraft to give non-directed calls on frequencies that are used by Air Traffic Controllers to separate airline aircraft. This is for obvious safety reasons.
There are many times when an immediate call has to be given to an airline aircraft for safety purposes, however if a taxiing aircraft at a small strip is blocking the frequency, this call may not get through to the airline crew, says Dick Smith.
Dick Smith says,
After communications with CASA it is obvious that they do not understand the safety implications of their Advice in fact, they have no understanding of the airspace policy that was approved by Federal Cabinet.
Whilst I agree that the chance of an accident is small because of this unique CASA Advice, the result of an accident could be horrendous with up to five hundred people being killed if two airline aircraft happened to collide because an important communication from Air Traffic Control was blocked. That is clearly why other countries prohibit small aircraft from giving non-directed calls on Air Traffic Control separation frequencies, says Dick Smith.
Dick Smith says,
All pilots complying with this latest CASA Advice should be aware that they could unintentionally be responsible for a major airline accident in the future.
The reason for this is that after Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager of the Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division at CASA, told me the decision in relation to radio calls at non-CTAF marked aerodromes was not his but the people in Operations, I realised that CASA was becoming more dysfunctional every day.
I have had numerous communications backwards-and-forwards on this issue and also with the ATS-B. It looks to me as if the people making up the advice have minds which are set in concrete. They have never bothered to ask advice or see how airspace works in other countries around the world.
Their advice for aircraft to monitor and announce on air traffic control frequencies when in the circuit area of non-CTAF marked aerodromes may help reduce the almost infinitesimal chance of a mid-air at such locations, however at the same time it adds a serious safety implication; that is, the obvious chance of blocking out air traffic controller instructions.
The problem is that some of these ill-informed, but no doubt genuine, people at CASA and the ATSB are attempting to put the old Flightservice radio range separation techniques where IFR and VFR flew at the same quadrant levels into a halfway-stage NAS.
I have stated many times that we need to go back to the pre-1991 AMATS system and the quadrantial rule and for full position reporting with separate ATC/Flightservice frequency sectors or we need to continue to the proven NAS airspace.
I have been informed that the Government policy on NAS is no longer accepted by CASA. In that case, then what is the policy? It is clear that no-one knows.
Unless there is sound, rational advice on why I should not send out this Media Release, it will be issued next Thursday.