Wow! We have a supporter of the enormous 40nm diameter, 5000’ altitude CTAFs! In
The Australian this morning, in an article written by Annabel Hepworth, it states:
“However Regional Aviation Association of Australia boss Mike Higgins said his organisation supported the 20 nautical mile radius.”
He goes on to say:
“However, it’s not unmanageable for a pilot to understand where they are within those 20 mile radii and therefore understand where the overlap is…there’s no reason why an average pilot shouldn’t be able to manage that.”
It seems really strange to me that Mike is so supportive, when every single RAPAC member I have spoken to is violently opposed.
Mike, under NAS that was approved by Federal Cabinet, the procedures in relation to monitoring the CTAF were the following three dot points:
- When close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations.
- When approaching or departing an aerodrome.
- When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.
Mike, this is the highly proven international system. Note there are no dimensions or altitude given. Would the Regional Airlines Association have any objection with us harmonising with this system, and was it ever given to you as an option?
If you don’t agree with the international system, can you advise what procedures will be used where there are lots of conflicting runways within the 40 mile diameter but on different CTAF frequencies.
How will pilots be trained to be on the particular relevant frequency? Are you suggesting lots of extra maps showing dotted lines and frequency boundaries within CTAFs? I would just like to know.