Exactly, LB. "Come in spinner" seems particularly appropriate here.
My overall comments on the draft RAPAC submission I have seen are that it is too long, suffers from repetition, and does not clearly articulate the issues in terms that a Minister might understand.
I also think RAPAC and many others whose contributions I have read have been blindsided by what appears to be two clear cut choices, rather than taking a wider view.
That said, I support absolutely the concerns expressed about the proposed doubling of the radius of CTAF's. I also give conditional support to a limited change in frequencies but continue to hold grave doubts about 126.7 as the ultimate in choices for the following reasons:
1. The unmarked airfield bogey
The stated prime issue has been the decision to nominate Area frequency for those aviating at unmarked airfields outside of existing CTAF boundaries. Surely, if there is so much traffic associated with unmarked airfields the first step to improve safety is to mark more of them so pilots know they are there? Why hasn't RAPAC mentioned this?
Step 2 is to nominate 126.7 as the frequency for all ALA's that don't have a discrete other frequency, including those that are marked. There is hardly a VFR pilot flying now that doesn't have OzRunways or similar so responding to the presence of all marked strips will be routine. Licensed aerodromes are already well covered except some need to move from 126.7 to a new assigned frequency to reduce the prospect of over-transmissions. There will be few strips remaining of any substance that are not identified on the charts.
2. The best frequency Outside CTAF boundaries
My view remains that Area is the most appropriate prime frequency for VFR outside the boundaries of CTAFs, both existing and new. The reduction in unmarked fields should leave our concerns with only the least active; those that continue to be unmarked.
Radar assisted conflict avoidance on Area is available to VFR and I have had the benefit of it on at least a couple of occasions. If someone is departing their unmarked ALA at some obscure location, how the heck will the passing pilot know if it is relevant to her? Does the departing pilot tie up the frequency (126.7 now being used by all and sundry) with a detailed description of their location....GPS coords, distance and bearing from, plan including height and track and the state of the nation? That's not helpful to the myriad of other people "listening" to the frequency. I suggest many will just switch off, either mentally or literally.
3. No radio VFR and single listening watch
The issue of no radio flights isn't resolved by this change but it may very well lead to mandated radio which would be difficult for a number of old aircraft (and pilots?). Perhaps that would suit CASA's aspirations?
A lot of us are flying with radios that do not have dual watch. I'm one of those at the present time and I know my strong preference is to fly with Area away from CTAF's. I will upgrade when I can but Area will continue to be my first choice.
4. Area boundaries marked
The stuff circulating about this is beyond belief. I happily change frequencies moving across boundaries whether Area or CTAF and so is just about everyone else. And I certainly don't want to see an increase in the amount of E at the expense of G which is getting heaps of lobbying support from the biggies even though I run a Tx mode C.
5. Increased CTAF volume and definition.
Ridiculous! Totally unworkable as even next door's donkey would tell them.
Leave the bloody thing alone...change just increases the hazards of non-compliance due confusion, anyway.
Personally, I prefer the 10 NM distance with an ETA circuit rather than a specified time to circuit. The Kingair arriving at 200 knots knows exactly where I am, anyway.
Kaz (stoking the fire)