NAS 2C Rollback?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

A few stories doing the rounds of an incremental roll back of some of the NAS 2C Changes. Apparently a few highly paid government lawyers worried that appropriate frequency selection is very ambiguous. Talk about ... wait for it... CTAF boundaries going back on the charts?

If this continual confusion wasn't so serious it would be a very black comedy.

Also noted this comment from the recent QLD RAPAC minutes:

Members discussed the proposition of placing CTAF boundaries back on the charts to avoid the confusion that currently exists.
Lisa Duncan responded advising lines on maps can give a false sense of security to pilots when it comes to being on the same
frequency in a particular area. Tom Redwood commented there would be a higher probability of a pilot being on the same
frequency in the same area if there were lines on the charts.
The issue regarding the number of calls in the circuit area was discussed, with some members requesting clarification of the
NAS 2C requirements. Lisa advised pilots should make all the recommended calls unless it is operationally impractical to do
so. She further explained that there is a safety benefit to making all the recommended calls in the circuit at the appropriate time
as most incidents occur within 10nm of an aerodrome.
Some members commented that they disagree with some of the changes implemented reference CTAFs and believe that their
feedback is not being considered by the NASIG.

[gaunty]

Some members commented that they disagree with some of the changes implemented reference CTAFs and believe that their
feedback is not being considered by the NASIG.

Looks like we are back to the floggings will continue until morale improves routine.:ugh:

[karrank]

CTAF boundaries What boundaries??:confused:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Good point Karrank!

[AerocatS2A]

I don't really give a rat's arse what they do, as long as they decide on something and STICK WITH IT!

[putytat]

There will be no rollback!

But an enhancement here and there is not out of the question.

"Lisa advised pilots should make all the recommended calls unless it is operationally impractical to do so."

Surely this is clear for all.

It is mandatory that pilots use the full suite of recommended calls. However it is recommended that pilots shall mandate the recommended mandatory calls unless it is recommended that one should not use them! All operational calls shall be recommended to be mandatory unless they should not be!

[Henry]

Regardless of whether you agree with NAS, or not, Putytat, that was one of the most gutless posts on this forum that I have seen.

If you have never heard the term Schadenfreude, I suggest you look it up.

[Capn Bloggs]

Putytat,

Well said. This verbal :yuk: is a joke. The armchair experts of the NASIG should get off their couches or out of their 152s to get into the real world.

"Operationally impractical": what a legalistic load of nonsense. They'd be the first to have your arse if you clobbered somebody (or they clobbered you!) if you didn't make every effing call that was in the book.

Schadenfreude
Totally irrelevant in this case. She has been in the thick of this stuff for years and loves it. No "misfortune" there!

[YesTAM]

I am continually amazed at the use of the excuse for not providing information is that "it would give a false sense of security" to some one.

I fail completely to understand the connection between making someone slightly more informed about their situation, for example providing CTAF boundaries, is somehow less safe than providing no information at all.

Try as I might, I cannot see any logical deductive path.

We know unalerted see and avoid is manifestly and totally unsafe, as has been proven by many studies.

CTAF boundaries and mandatory radio calls provide the best chance of creating an "alerted see and avoid" situation. In that a drawn CTAf boundary provides an opportunity for a pilot to realise that they are about to enter said CTAF without getting out a ruler.

I am personally concerned because I live at a crossroads where several zones converge and the "correct" frequency is hard to determine.

PS there is one CTAF marked on the latest charts - the Yarra one.

[karrank]

I fail completely to understand the connection between making someone slightly more informed about their situation, for example providing CTAF boundaries, is somehow less safe than providing no information at all.
Because, thanks to a bungled information pack from DOTARS, bungled rulemaking by CASA & various Smiths not understanding the US procedure, most people are completely ignorant of the intent! It doesn't matter if you are within 10 NM of 30 aerodromes, it matters if you will enter or transit the vicinity of the circuit area of any of them. It is not the 10 NM that needs marking on the charts to provide your piece of mind, it is the circuit area of all aerodromes, and maybe its 'vicinity'. Get started with a pencil and tell us how you get on. Don't forget to include all paddocks that could accommodate a Slepcev Storch or a helicopter & rivers, lakes & oceans that could take a floatplane...

The likelihood of a confliction increases as you approach an aerodrome. Your workload increases as you approach an aerodrome. 10 NM for a Drifter is not the same point on the risk/workload curve as 10 NM for a Chieftain or 10 NM for a Lear Jet. Now (finally) its time to answer your question:
:ugh: Putting a 10 NM circle on the chart could lead a pilot of a Lear to believe he has done what is required by making the call at 10 NM. If he switches to a busy CTAF at 10 NM and his report is overtransmitted not only will the other traffic be unalerted to his presence, he also won't have heard the other aircraft he is overtaking inbound and outbound on the same radial. You switch at a time to GAIN situational awareness for yourself, and PASS it to others.
:ugh: Given that the rule is 10 NM, if the boundaries were on the chart they would be 10 NM circles, your 'crossroads' situation would be unresolved as all the boundaries would still overlap.

[Chimbu chuckles]

If the eggsperts could just get their heads around making it a time rather than a distance I think things would improve.

I am completely ambivalent about 10nm rings being on the charts or not...I make the call at 5 minutes to ETA...15nm in my Bonanza, 7 or 8 in a drifter, 20+ in a 737/Lear.

But I gave up expecting common sense from Cs Against Safe Aviation over 20 years ago.

[karrank]

make the call at 5 minutes to ETA An eminently reasonable and commonsense proposal, that (sadly) might cost you some penalty units one day:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Interesting aside, I'm reading some old newsletters and came across an account of Vance Atkinson's Cozy's first flight. He described his CTAF call thusly:

"I taxied onto the runway and announced on Unicom "N43CZ taking the active for a high speed taxi", and smoothly added power."

Does that look like anything from the training documents? Should he have said "active" twice?? Is this what we were aiming for when we implemented "US CTAF"???

[YesTAM]

I once made the mistake of "Taking" something instead of "requesting" something from the Tower. I'll never live that one down. my ears burned for weeks.:\

[transonic dragon]

Yeah, lighten up Henry! This industry's way too serious as it is.