Ok,
Yes, the measure should have been to leave it as it was....it worked.
Raising the questions: what was "the measure" and what did it do that "worked"?
Reword it to, The decision made. should have been...........
What in heaven's name does "no overlying CTAF" mean?
Out here in the Yarra Valley, we have several strips that are within the Lilydale/Coldstream (or Yarra Valley if you like) CTAF. They have an overlying CTAF...or if you wish to be pedantic, are inside the Yarra Valley CTAF, and therefore should operate on 119.1
By saying they have no 'overlying ctaf' I also mean other airspace classes, except G. In G under the current rule, they should be on the Area Freq...
Quoting Captain Midnight, and myself
I know of 3 unmarked strips within the Melbourne Basin, that have no overlying CTAF and their location puts them on 135.7...there are probably more.
These 3 cannot recieve ATC on the ground.
So it is unlikely ATC will hear them, and 135.7 is FIA SFC - base of CTA.
So what is the problem with those aircraft when taxying making a broadcast on 135.7 like:
You are correct, ATC won't hear them. The crux is that the lil guy on the ground cannot hear ATC as well. He would be clueless that he is Tx over the top of ATC..the jet over the top can certainly hear him! Its that info suppressed by a guy trying to comply with the rules that generates a problem.
His compliance with the rules, especially so close to a control zone, means that he is likely to transmit over important information intended for people that need it.
As some readers would be aware, the change to the MULTICOM in 2013 was conducted with no consultation and no risk analysis or safety case to industry knowledge.
Says it all really