ctaf procedures

[rep]

can someone please confirm if this is correct:

1) when staying in the circuit climb to within 300' of circuit height before turning xwind
2) when departing the circuit in the circuit direction, climb to 1000' before turning xwind
3) when departing the circuit opposite to the circuit direction, climb to 1500' before turning xwind

every instructor seems to have a different oppinion these days!

cheers!

[ejectx3]

correct. except change 1000' to 1500' for high performance aircraft

also....

· Climb to circuit height, then turn 45 ˚ in circuit direction if departing same direction as circuit (AIP ENR 1.1 - 59)

[Niles Crane]

Anyhting goes as it is now "Recommended" so yes everyone is doing whatever they please in all levels of the industry.

Welcome to Dick Smith Space!

[Ando1Bar]

Ahhh, the non-towered aerodrome debate.


every instructor seems to have a different oppinion these days!


More instructors need to read the AIPs/Jeps. Rep, you are correct.


· Climb to circuit height, then turn 45 ˚ in circuit direction if departing same direction as circuit (AIP ENR 1.1 - 59)


My understanding of this requirement is it makes your departure wider than the circuit, keeping you further away from the circuit traffic.

Follow the recommendations, but do whatever is safe and sensible.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

59 Departure Information

59.1 Pilots of departing aircraft should:
a) If departing in the direction of the circuit, climb on the extended centreline to circuit height. When past the departure end of the runway continue straight ahead or make a 45 degree turn in the circuit direction

b) If departing contrary to circuit direction, pilots should wait until 500 feet above circuit height before turning and bradcast on the CTAF

So it is not AGL, but circuit height - which is not necessarily 1000 feet AGL, otherwise you would not be able to depart contrary to circuit direction at Jandakot (circuit height 900 feet AGL) outside tower hours without busting Perth CTA.

It's a worry if instructors don't know their AIPs...or the difference between "should" and "recommended"...:eek:

[Cap'n Arrr]

Isn't contrary to circuit direction either 500' abv OR 3nm out?

[PyroTek]

1) when staying in the circuit climb to within 300' of circuit height before turning xwindAt YRED i've been instructed to turn xwind at 500'...

[Cap'n Arrr]

If you look up YCNK in the ERSA it has a similar rule.

I believe the within 300' is "unless there is a specific aerodrome procedure"

Having said that the old system used to be turning XWind at 500' AGL, so they could just still be using the old rules.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

1) when staying in the circuit climb to within 300' of circuit height before turning xwind
2) when departing the circuit in the circuit direction, climb to 1000' before turning xwind
3) when departing the circuit opposite to the circuit direction, climb to 1500' before turning xwind



Huh? When did this happen?

Dr :8

[Vref+5]

About 2 1/2 years ago.

My interpretation is the procedures are aimed at having those who are remaining the circuit established at circuit height before you turn downwind. If you are not remaining in the circuit the procedures are aimed at keeping you clear of the circuit pattern.

Of course, the standard procedures do not work in every possible scenario, that is why they are recommended, it lets the pilot in command decide the safest course of action.

Same with the radio calls. If you can get the standard ones in great. If not just make the next one in the sequence, as opposed to the "I'm half way down on a wide left downwind, over Joe's house". Of course if you need to speak up do so "Tracking number 2 to ABC" etc.

Safe flying.:ok:

[VH-XXX]

I like the idea of following the procedure as best as you can and possibly varying if you can't for whatever reason, I don't have a problem with that.

What I DO have a problem with is the LOSERS that take it upon themselves to inform me that I haven't done the correct procedure.

ie. Yesterday, a straight in approach at CTAF, called at 9 miles, 5 miles, then 2.5, for a number of reasons. Only to be greeted with VH-XXX "the correct procedure for a straight in approach is to call at 5, 3 & 1 miles." I said thanks for that Mr. Air Traffic Control.

If you're not manly enough to say who you are on the radio when attempting to tell someone they have done the wrong thing (in your opinion), stay off the damn radio! rant over.

[gettin' there]

1) when staying in the circuit climb to within 300' of circuit height before turning xwind



Remember these are only "recomended."

Its going to depend alot on the aircraft that your are flying. Some of the guys i follow around bashing the CCT fly wide eough as it is and they all turn at 500' AGL. If they waited till 700' they would be outside of the CTAF anyway!!!

Personally i reckon that the sooner you turn X-wind (of course not bellow 500AGL) the closer you stay to the RWY, the less time you are spending when you are not gonna make it back to the RWY if your donk dies.

Common sense i say, depends on where you are and what you are in.

[Ando1Bar]

At YRED i've been instructed to turn xwind at 500'...


Pyrotek, RAC choose to do this because of noise abatement (there are a lot of loud, rich, noisy residents at Scarborough).


What I DO have a problem with is the LOSERS that take it upon themselves to inform me that I haven't done the correct procedure.

ie. Yesterday, a straight in approach at CTAF, called at 9 miles, 5 miles, then 2.5, for a number of reasons. Only to be greeted with VH-XXX "the correct procedure for a straight in approach is to call at 5, 3 & 1 miles." I said thanks for that Mr. Air Traffic Control.

If you're not manly enough to say who you are on the radio when attempting to tell someone they have done the wrong thing (in your opinion), stay off the damn radio! rant over.


:ugh: If they are going to have a go at you XXX, they should learn the procedures also. There is no 5 mile call - 10, 3 & 1 only.

[chode1984]

64.6.3 A pilot should include the intention to conduct a straight−in approach
with the inbound broadcast. Further broadcasts on the
CTAF at 3NM final, and 1NM final (with intentions) should be
made.

[VH-XXX]

Interesting point chode - intentions for straight-in with inbound call, then you specically mention 3 and 1. I assumed 10, 5 (with intentions), 3 & 1.
Not picking at you, just temporarily confused. Because 10 is nowdays the first call versus 5...

[Cap'n Arrr]

Nope... no call required at 5nm, it's just the point at which you must be established on final by.:ok:

Radio inbound with intentions for straight in at 10nm, then call 3nm and 1nm final. And give way to anyone established in the circuit (try convincing some of the people out there to do that!:eek:)

[flyinggit]

I guess technically you could be established for a straight in at 50 mls out or beyond only giving calls as necessary. The word "should" & "recomended" in the regs means to me anyway that it's not B&W & as others have said it depends on a lot of variables. I hear some regionals give 5 ml calls as established as "'cap'n"' said, they have done so for many years prior to ctafs straight ins.


FG

[Capn Bloggs]

All,

Before you start blasting people for not knowing the rules, make sure you know them yourself. In addition to the AIP CTAF calls, HiCap RPT are required to announce at 15nm AND 5nm their intention to conduct a SI App. CAO 82.5 refers. So depending on what the aircraft is, it is quite conceivable that from an aircraft doing a SI App, calls at 15, 5, 3, and 1 will be made.

Anyway, I wouldn't be getting your curlies in a knot about the current CTAF calls. The washup of the PIR of NAS 2c has them being thrown out with only two mandatory calls for inbound and two for inbound. :ok: :D Watch this space.

[Ultralights]

YHOX today
VH-XXX "hoxton blah bla, 5 miles west inbound at 1700 ft"
VH-XXX "hoxton blah 3 miles west inbound at 1700 ft
VH-XXX "above runway 34 at 1700 will descend to circuit on the dead side"
VH-XXX "turning downind on the dead side of circuit and descending"
VH-XXX "joining circuit crosswind 34 blah blah
tunring downwind call, turning base call, turning final call...

thats was enough, but worst of all, there were 2 aircraft doing the exact same calls!!!! both within about 1 minute of each other! :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: with me joining the circuit as well, there would have been no chance of a 4th aircraft to get even 1 call in! i was struggling to find a gap in the constant commentary to get my standard calls in!
throw in their accents, and the situation was beyond a joke!:mad:

[Ando1Bar]

VH-XXX "hoxton blah bla, 5 miles west inbound at 1700 ft"
VH-XXX "hoxton blah 3 miles west inbound at 1700 ft
VH-XXX "above runway 34 at 1700 will descend to circuit on the dead side"
VH-XXX "turning downind on the dead side of circuit and descending"
VH-XXX "joining circuit crosswind 34 blah blah
tunring downwind call, turning base call, turning final call...

Why so many calls? It amazes me why pilots are taught to give radio calls overhead and then the dead side - joining crosswind is enough. Common sense applies though if you are trying to avoid a collision (however, most times this is not the case).

My favourite poor CTAF call is the departure call (which is not found in the recommended radio calls). "Caboolture traffic, Cessna 172 ABC, departed 48, tracking 220 for Warwick, passing 1600 climbing to 3500, estimate Warwick time 30".

The problem is some pilots/instructors seem to get confused with an IFR departure report from the AIPs/Jeps. CTAF depature calls are good at times, don't get me wrong, but who cares what time you are going to be at an aerodrome many miles away? Inbound calls with circuit estimates are a different kettle of fish.

Learn the procedures, use common sense. Don't speak sh#t.

[Cap'n Arrr]

I generally make the following calls:

- 10 nm inbound "XXX TFC, ABC is one zero miles NW, 4500, inbound, XXX"
- Overhead the runway (I know you don't have to, and if it's busy I don't always throw it in, but it lets the guys in the circuit know where you are, and if noones in the circuit it lets people know which runway is in use. My current companies rule is to make an overfly call when overflying a CTAF.
- Joining X-Wind. (You DO NOT have to make a turning downwind call when joining crosswind)
- Turning Base with intentions
- I also do make departure calls, mainly along the lines of "XXX departed from downwind <Aerodrome> at time __, tracking 220 to <Next point>, on climb to 5500 passing 2500." Generally don't use the ETA for next reporting point. Making this call has given a heads up to potentially conflicting traffic more than once, and it also means that the guy behind you in the circuit isn't left wondering what you're doing.

[flyinggit]

CTAF or CTAF/R means = Common Traffic Advisory Frequency. My instructor told me that it's all 'advisory' (apart from what mandatory as per regs) & extra calls ought to be made when applicable.

FG

[VH-XXX]

You guys have gotta stop using my rego for your written examples (VH-XXX), it's costing me a fortune in Avdata and Airservices fees!

[antzx6r]

This is a mixed bag at the moment. There are the manditory calls (I think inbound, joining and base calls) and apart from that its common sense. ie if some one is holding ready to line up, make a finals call just as an extra heads up(so to speak). But remember there is no requirement for a radio at all for CTAF aerodromes (unlike CTAF(r)), so really your eyes should be out of the cockpit at all times and broadcasts to a minimum req, with safety in mind for any 'extra' calls. That's what ive been taught anyway.
On the issue of climb out to 300' of cct height, I too was told that this is to ensure all aircraft are at cct height for the turn downwind without making the cct too 'wide'. Not really an issue for us 'lighter' aircraft as we are usually at cct height before you can blink. No problem turning xwind at 500 agl and still keeping a tight cct. Although as an xtra point we are required to follow those 152's forever till they can turn xwind. (such an annoyance... na just ribbin' ya ;) )

[VH-XXX]

For those that missed it over 2 years ago, the regs now clearly state to turn crosswind at 300ft below circuit height, so 700 or 1200...

[Ando1Bar]

For those that missed it over 2 years ago, the regs now clearly state to turn crosswind at 300ft below circuit height, so 700 or 1200...


This is only applicable when remaining in the circuit.

[VH-XXX]

ANY CTAF..... don't always believe what your instructor has been telling you, he might have not realised like half of the others on here.

[Jabawocky]

This is not rocket science. This thread should have stopped after about 3-4 posts.:ugh:

Now I know why FTDK and a few other old timers on here complain about the degrading of training standards:sad:

J

[Swanie]

Car 166 (operating in vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome)
paragraph 2(h);
"After take-off, maintain the same track from the take-off untill the aircraft is 500' above the terrain unless a change to the track is necessary for terrain avoidance"

AIP
"Pilots remaining in the circuit SHOULD climb to within 300' of circuit height before turning crosswind"


:E

[antzx6r]

Trust CASA to make something so simple, vague enough to cause this much confusion.:hmm:
We really need reform. Or at least some clarification. How hard is it to get some simple rules. Maybe its just to keep us on our toes or maybe to thin us down to make way for RPT. Now theres a grizzly thought.:suspect:

[Cap'n Arrr]

Don't see any confliction between the regs there Swanie. Pilots must climb to at least 500' before turning. In addition, remaining in the circuit should climb to within 300' of circuit height.

So just climb to 700', (or 1200 if you have a d/wind speed >120kts) and turn crosswind. No rules broken, standard procedures complied with, and all is well in the world.

In my experience much of the confusion about this comes from people who have learnt to fly at a Controlled Aerodrome, where the crosswind turn IS made at 500' AGL, and then don't know the regs for Class G, and just assume it's the same.

[Ando1Bar]

As far as i've been tought, 500ft agl turn x-wind or risk sensible ppl turning inside you anyway (request) because you'll end up further from the runway than necessary and safe, and also use excess fuel...

for calls we are tought when busy, an 10mile inbound call (obvious reasons - nothing worse than some bafoon arriving, piping up saying hes suddenly joinging midfield crosswind when your on downwind)
2. overhead the field,
3. joining downwind,
4. base with intensions
5. final also with traffic (ie, turns final, runway ..., number 2). insures the guy infront of you or behind can vacate the runway hastely or take his time etc.
6. departure call. (so the person coming inbound knows your not climbing into his path)

some may think excessive but helps with the whole situationl awareness


You've been taught the wrong thing. Call overhead the field? Base with intentions? Read your AIPs or the information pack put out by DOTARs. Then show your instructor:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/40pp.pdf

nothing worse than some bafoon arriving,piping up saying hes suddenly joinging midfield crosswind when your on downwind

Nothing wrong with this, a crosswind join is perfectly legit, read the reform.

By the way, you are not 'joining downwind' if coming from overhead the airfield. You have joined crosswind (make the call!) then turned downwind. Joining downwind is from the 45 deg. angle.

As far as i've been tought, 500ft agl turn x-wind or risk sensible ppl turning inside you anyway (request)

It's folk like you that are turning inside of me because YOU are not following the recommendations.

Sorry for the rant, targetting you in particular QCPog, but I've just spent another day guiding my aircraft around others who are not following the recommendations.

I don't always get it 100% right, but I try my hardest to follow the regs and AIP/Jep procedures while trying to pass on airmanship to my students.

[Jabawocky]

Departure call????? FFS if you made you correct broadcast on the ground anyone close enough to conflict with you would have heard that.:ugh:

[Ando1Bar]

Jaba, no doubt this departure call was given following the standard IFR departure report format. This seems to be a favourite amongst some pilots.

[Mark1234]

Ok, slight thread drift; still on the subject of CTAF, I've read what I can find, but I'm confused.. paraphrasing:

CTAFs no longer have defined airspace limits
Aircraft should broadcast by (min) 10nm inbound or overflying and listen out on the ctaf frequency.

So, how high do they go? 3000? 50000? To the base of class E? Higher?
How do you handle en-route - and what constitutes overflying?

For instance if I head southeast from YMMB I head towards/ past Tyabb and Tooradin, both on different CTAF frequencies about 10nm apart. Apart from the practicalities of not overflying Tooradin due parachuting, what *should* I be doing?

[Ando1Bar]

Unfortunately only common sense is the answer. For example, overflying a non-towered aerodrome at 1500ft en-route I will definately give a broadcast and listen to the CTAF. If I'm at 5500ft AGL I'm unlikely to give a broadcast, but will listen to the CTAF for situational awareness about inbound/outbound traffic.

Your example is a little different. If I had only one comm I'd listen to the CTAF I was closest to, or had traffic I was more likely to come into conflict with. If you have two comms, why not one CTAF on both? The only problem then is whether you'd want to be listening to Centre at the same time.

I haven't been past Tyabb or Tooradin for a while so I can't give specific advice.

[james michael]

Mark 1234

As Ando says, common sense IS the answer. That's why the original CTAF showing dimensions was not common sense.

The original TDN CTAF was 3 miles 3000' from memory. If they are dropping tandem paras from 4500' (thus not in CTA) then the old dimensions were unsafe as you would fly straight through them. If you are coming from MB (have a look at the chart) you go from ML Radar to a 3 Nm CTAF just in time to punch thru the paras again.

So, in your flight planning, you are wise to look for symbols like parachuting and also listen on the area and CTAF well back, setting a minimum dimension of 10Nm for a busy CTAF.

The airfields in proximity issue continues to be debated. The best advice on this is Annex E to NFRM 0401AS which states:

Overlap situations.
In some circumstances, an aircraft may be ‘in the vicinity’ of more than one non-controlled aerodrome having different frequencies at any time.
Where this overlap situation occurs, pilots of aircraft that have only one radio should select the CTAF of the aerodrome to which the aircraft is inbound, or if the aircraft is overflying, then the CTAF of the aerodrome to which the aircraft is nearer at any time should be selected.

Even then, commonsense is still needed - technically if you fly past Avalon you should leave the AV CTAF R frequency and transfer to Werribbee 126.7 when closer to Werribee. I don't recommend it!

[Mark1234]

I wasn't looking for advice on those specific airfields per se, just general principles. Common sense is what I am applying at the moment; it just makes me nervous that I'm breaking some rule that I can't find :)

Coming from the uk, the standard ctaf (atz) there is 3/3000, (I believe they can be bigger), and parachute drop zones are protected (P/R/D I don't remember) airspace - you flat don't go there.. def inclined to agree that parachutists and aeroplanes don't mix..

Thanks.

[Capn Bloggs]

Mark,
Coming from the uk, the standard ctaf (atz) there is 3/3000,

Our system was basically the same until Dick Smith got really involved and imposed on us, via "Australian Government policy", the NAS. Now, as you can see from the above posts, the rules/guidelines/commonsense/good airmanship have been muddied to the point of being confusing.

[james michael]

Bloggs

Not going near the DS matter but aircraft travel at very different speeds and CTAF very different traffic volumes and types.

The 'one size fits all' CTAF hardly fits the variation.

Not going into a NAS debate either but if the unique Australian CTAF R and Transponders in E were world's best practice - the world would be following us. They are not.

[Clarie]

Bloggs I understood that Dick Smith wanted a straight copy of the US system which works well, but the regional airline pilots wanted so many changes made it no longer resembles any system at all. :ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

James,

You seem to have come off whatever you were on yesterday :) I enjoyed your tiff with Puff.

aircraft travel at very different speeds and CTAF very different traffic volumes and types.

The 'one size fits all' CTAF hardly fits the variation.

For exactly that reason "about 10nm" doesn't fit either. It would be a simple matter to make a call 5 minutes before entry into an ATZ as Mark puts it, and in any case once you are in it then you use that freq. The old rules of 5nm/3000ft and 15nm/5000ft worked well. Simple, and everybody knew exactly what to yabba dabba on.

if the unique Australian CTAF R and Transponders in E were world's best practice - the world would be following us. They are not.
Who said they were and who said the world had to follow us? Who said we had to follow the world? Will we follow world's best practice and allow handguns in the home? You may think looking out the window of your jet dodging no-radio lighties is fun. I don't.

Clarie,
Dick Smith wanted a straight copy of the US system
Yes, he did, but without the radar, the Flight Service Units and the Follow Me girls. Fly about in the bush sometime - it's a bit different here.

[james michael]

Bloggs

He twaddled once too often!! But, I do have high regard for his logic in most cases and it was a bit of fun.

I think if you re-read your last you are circular to a point. My reading of the NAS is that the 10 Nm is recommended BUT the critical point is to remove distance boundaries as a fixed trigger and insert logical radio change or listen steps depending on speed and CTAF operations.

ANY distance boundary fails to differentiate between the time left to arrival of the Tiger Moth and the Dash 8 (which has landed, disgorged, engorged, and departed between the TM call at 10 Nm and its landing :))

CTAF R and E TXPDR are in a climate where Australia claims to adopt world's best practice. We don't for cultural reasons. As far as 'no radio' lighties goes, it's CASA again that is the hurdle - the Microair radio that works well in Jabirus etc is type limited and not TSO in GA aircraft to my knowledge. I believe there is NO - repeat NO - reason for non-radio aircraft these days, even if it's an Icom handheld with an external aerial (again, not acceptable to CASA). Too much prescription and adherence to CASA mindsets of the days when crystal sets were the airline communications and transponders had to be warmed up to stabilise the (now defunct) crystal oscillator.

Guns - not world's best practice so I disagree re that. Nor are aspects of the NAS - calling intentions on final is too late and, since you mention flying in the bush, my own experience is that (fortunately) the top of descent call by VFR is still used by most as an extra alert as well as the NAS approach.

Looking out the window dodging no-radio lighties cannot be fun. Nor is dodging a Metro coming at a student pilot who is conducting a landing on the most into wind runway, not a SAAB 340 trying to push a student on first solo NAVEX out of place in the circuit position to save time and avtur.
My point being that my own investigations disclose that behavioural and safety problems are right ACROSS the span of pilots and it's time this RPT/GA cultural crud was put to bed and matters examined on human factors and safety case basis.

Steps down off pulpit :)

[antzx6r]

For some, the migration to "lighties" (sounds like... mmm nevermind) is not so much a cost thing as a sea change kind of thing. One airline pilot put it that after listening to a damn headset all week, he craved the uninterupted(no radio) freedom of UL flight on the weekends. Taking that freedom away is a bit much IMO. Personaly (never having had the airline experience above) I get right into the radio stuff. But horses 4 coarses. :ok:

[werbil]

Departure calls are extremely useful where there is significant terrain shielding - YSHR is a classic example - taxi calls cannot be heard by aircraft inbound from certain directions, inbound calls from aircraft arriving from certain directions cannot be heard by taxiing aircraft.

Confusion on which rule applies - there should be none. Anything in the CAR's is a legal requirement. Nothing in the AIP is a legal requirement unless specific provision has been made for it to be a legal requirement in the CAR's.

As far as I am aware, the the only calls legally required to made by a non rpt aircraft are: inbound to a CTAF(R), inbound intending to make a straight in approach, prior to entering a runway at a CTAF(R), and in the vicinity of of a CTAF(R). In the vicinity of an aerodrome is specified in the CARs as 10nm and at a height that could result in conflict with aerodrome traffic. The above are what the CAR's legally require. Any other calls are only "recommended" by the AIP - such as taxiing, turning in or entering the circuit, 3nm and 1nm.

Likewise the requirement for turning crosswind - the only legal requirement that I am aware of is the requirement to climb to 500 feet above ground level unless you require to turn earlier for terrain avoidance or are taking off from water (seaplanes have an exemption). The climb to within 300 feet of circuit height is only "recommended" by the AIP.

Before I get flamed, I am not suggesting to ignore recommended procedures just because they cannot legally be enforced. However there are numerous occasions where the safest option does not include complying the the recommended procedure. Choosing when to follow and when not to follow recommended procedures is command judgment. Recognizing that a pilot may do so is essential for safe aviation rather than blindly following 'recommended' procedures.

JM :ok: to the last post

PS I am happy to be corrected on legalities - references to Regs to be included please.

[Capn Bloggs]

he craved the uninterupted(no radio) freedom of UL flight on the weekends.
I didn't know Dick flew airliners.:}

[Ultralights]

So, how is my straight in approach?
straight in approach (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvERCe0opac)

im PIC, pax took vid, and no, the comments on the screen arnt the actual radio calls, just to let people know where to make them.

i wonder if it would be worthwhile taking video footage with radio calls, and making a series of short educationamal videos for ops at a CTAF?

[james michael]

UL

Looked good, can we have some of your wx please :)

A video could be good. Trouble is, like safety seminars, the good people watch or attend - the ones who need it - don't!

But my research shows that the NAS 2C CTAF changes is acknowledged as an example of an extremely poorly done education process. When CASA and DOTARS revisit the education, perhaps a DVD will be in the pack.

Werbil

I'm with you. Establish minimal safe mandatory procedures and allow pilots to exercise discretion in the recommended ones. Problem with CASA is that they regulate each flight from your sleeping tablet the night before to your maintenance release after landing with so many rules and regulations that if the average flight was a camping trip in your 4WD you'd just give it away and walk to the pub.

There must be rules and regulations but at some point there needs to be emphasis on the PIC acting safely from go to whoa of own volition backed up by simple commonsense guides. If you get to a busy CTAF with training it's laughable to have to try and get a call in between the multiple NAS calls when you know quite well you are number 4 and can see the guy in front anyway.

[Dick Smith]

Clarie, you stated:

Bloggs I understood that Dick Smith wanted a straight copy of the US system which works well, but the regional airline pilots wanted so many changes made it no longer resembles any system at all.

You are 100% correct. The fascinating thing is that the regional airline pilots who wanted the change had absolutely no interest in finding out how the system worked in the USA – the country which invented aviation.

The current mixture of prescription and non-prescription is a disaster. The plan was to make the whole process simple and standardised to get greater compliance – as undoubtedly happens in the USA. What we now have is something more complex and more confusing. Whereas regional airline pilots may be able to follow the complex prescription, many private pilots would not be able to.

These regional airline pilots are not flying around in Australian built aircraft, they are in modern certified aircraft from other leading aviation countries. What they have developed with the CTAF procedures is a classic “Nomad” – a mixture of so many different systems and features that the whole procedure is confusing and less safe.

[antzx6r]

Well put werbil. I was not actually aware of the distinction between CARs and AIP. Maybe more of this(distinctions) needs to be added to RAA's BAK theory. Although, I don't actually remember reading it in my Aviation Theory Centre BAK and Flying Training Manual either... I could be wrong tho. So don't blast me, i'll go home and check that out.
I was taught to make manditory calls (+ a few extras for traffic) and told which to make for safety sake and what height to climb to as a minimum(CARs). When I asked about 700 agl I was told "just to make sure of being at cct height for downwind, so I can't shoot my instructor just yet. (He could have expanded and told me where he based that rule tho)
But it makes sense. If ur in the middle of nowhere at a bush strip, you've been flying around the area all day and there is no-one else in the air. It is kind of stupid to make all those calls to the roos(just in case one is getting ready to line up) but for safety sake minimum heights etc are a must (obviously). And on the flip side, at a busy CTAF(R) it's irresponsible, not to mention down right dangerous, to cruise in making only a 10nm inbound because thats the only "requirement" in CARs. We are pilots. Decision making is our main job in the air, so decide. And stop blasting peole that don't decide as you do. Put it down to experience.
As a rider I learned pretty quick that not everyone is so good at using mirrors and blinkers. I can get agro about it and keep doing things my way(and not live very long), or I can take that into consideration and expect everyone on the road has tunnel vision and is out to knock me down and just ride around them. Keep them in my revision mirror.:cool: So aviation is ahead as this goes, because as a rider I need to bend some laws in order to be safe. (I've done it in front of cops - they know, or most do) We don't need to bend any laws in aviation. We keep the minimums and fly for a safer standard using AIP. ie. extend the upwind to keep a safer cct, make some extra calls for others safety if the cct is busy. Not so others can see how professional you are, no-one gives a S:mad:t.
OK that'll do. Feel the love people. Fly safe.

ps. I never actually mentioned Dick but on the subject I think he has the right idea and CASA only took on a small portion of his sugestions thus muddying the waters even more. Its easy to pick a scapegoat.

pps. USA – the country which invented aviation.
That's if you don't believe that NZ bloke did it first???

Ant

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

The fascinating thing is that the regional airline pilots who wanted the change had absolutely no interest in finding out how the system worked in the USA – the country which invented aviation.

Using your own words, CODSWALLOP. RBA went, observed, then wrote a long speil about how things ARE NOT ICAO in the USA (aviation invented there - spare me - so what?). They are the same clowns that just allowed everybody to carry handguns.

[antzx6r]

Granted, they're an agressive nation and they've taken way too long to get rid of guns and racism. But their history relates to finding out what works best for all and aside from the corruption bread by greed and the violent way to get results they do have a long(ish) history to learn from. We souldn't just ignore it because we don't like the colour of their patriotism.

[EMB120ER]

Hello All

The 10nm is not RECOMENDED, it is in fact in the CAR's.

In the vicinity of an aerodrome is defined as 10nm

CAR 166, makes some interesting reading, like it specificaly lists the areas where you can join a circuit.

25 Penalty units

I am a bit surprised that some of you gurus didn't know this !!

[Thermal Bandit]

US airspace model :bored: last time I checked US stood for Unserviceable

[Dick Smith]

EMB120ER, the 25 penalty units ($2,750) means that if a cropduster at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere joins straight onto base, or joins on a final of less than 5 nautical miles, he or she is up for that fine.

Of course, CASA inspectors ignore it – that’s why they have so little credibility. I don’t blame the inspectors. Imagine working for an organisation that brings in unique prescriptive requirements with substantive fines (because that’s what a few uninformed and closed minded regional pilots want), knowing that they have absolutely no intention of enforcing them.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
that’s what a few uninformed and closed minded regional pilots want
Not quite. The problem is that you wanted no radio, no rules, "free in G" everywhere, even when the airport was frequented by RPT jets.

Keep the spin coming, son. :D

[VH-XXX]

It would be near impossible to enforce given electronics, radio waves, over-transmitting etc. The penalty units system is a load of crap and I'd love to see them try to hit the every day flyer who has the money to fight it for not making a 10 mile call.

[james michael]

EMB

I'll stand behind my earlier comment re 'recommended'.

If you read the NAS 2C SGM 10/05, and AIP ENR Page 1.4-6, specifically 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, and consider CAR 166 defines 'in the vicinity of' rather than recommended procedures, I think you will agree:
1. A pilot operating by the NAS2C material or AIP could claim to have operated legally under appropriate guidance.
2. The calls are recommended - for high speed at 30 Nm not 10 Nm.
3. CAR 166 would not hold up as a penalty point provider, particularly as the NAS2C material defines the CTAF as a procedure not a dimension.

There's even a let out in the AIP where operational considerations prevent calls.

Too much prescription and the CAR 166 unable to cope with reality.

Re comments of others about the USA. The USA NAS is now probably as old as the Harvard and that's tired, out of date, and needing lots of care. After my recent ride in a Jeep, I don't hold the USA up as excellent in any way. Perhaps WE need to define our airspace and procedures to suit OUR country which is entirely different to the USA. (sorry Dick)

Wonder what the Toyota definitions of airspace could bring us :)

[xxgoldxx]

now there is so much #rap about frequency selection it is rediculous.. the old CTAF/MBZ was pretty straight fwd I reckon..

just imagine the sudden urge to land your chopper with a rapid decent from 4500 for whatever reason, mechanical, pax or other, at 15 mile from the local RPT/GA?flight training location.

Should I be on the discreet CTAF (R) (not 10 mile yet)??, area ( im VFR and thats not encouraged)??, 126.70 because its now "all other landing area's"?? (well who else is aware that the paddock is now a landing area) ?? or just say nothing cause its too hard.. (all thats required VFR).

Busy area, put a boundry around it and get people to talk to each other.. if it does nothing why do we insist on CTAF(R) and even CAGRO ?

Check out some of the big and busy areas in the country.. all the local operators stick to what was essentially the old MBZ procedures up to either 5 or 10000 anyway cause it works.....

[EMB120ER]

HI james

I just spent 45 minutes typing out a reply with lots of quotes and tech stuff, but PPrune glitched on me and its off in cyber space some where.

Sufice to say, I really appreciate your good attitude toward knowing whats where in the pubs. Very rare nowdays.

But I don't agree with all of your thinking about following the AIP as if they are rules, as they are not and nor are thay the only set of (CASA approved) procedures in use at many CTAFs.

Dick
I don't belive that you have any right to be judging credability.

[Muffinman]

Same here EMB120ER... lost about 25 minutes of tip tap..:{

Quick summary.... arrr F:mad: it. CTAF comms and procedures are clearly laid out.

When can we expect to get the following crap fixed?

CAO 20.18.9.1B

CAO 82.3.5B.1 and 10.4

[james michael]

EMB and Muffin

I was strike three - I feel better now - when I did my original reply above it was far more detailed but it cradhed also, thus the crack the sads with the system much briefer one as you too EMB.

In an unqualified legal sense, I would argue that the average pilot would win a case based on conformance with the NAS 2C material and the current AIP. I suggest the Court would find the pilot had acted within the bounds of the reasonable man and particularly as the CTAF is defined as a procedure with NO physical boundary.

But in the ultimate, and common sense, if you look at the analyses of MTAF and MBZ matters you may find they were a safety shield 'in the mind'. The brain thinks at its speed = time to analyse and decide, therefore the NAS concept of giving calls at an appropriate distance (not too far or too often) is good commonsense. Where NAS goes astray is too many circuit calls, and in a training environment the intentions call on final is too late - you need to know on the base turn if its a full stop or T&G to establish the correct separation.

I also believe that the VFR pilot training package (which has a little IF flying to ensure one learns about vertigo :)) should have a section later in the training (at NAVEX stage) where one learns a little about IFR procedures at CTAF to comprehend the workload and approach basics. This would greatly assist ensuring separation. I have put this suggestion to CASA.

[Mark1234]

Didn't expect to stir up so much response..

Seems to me that this just creates a confusion zone: e.g. If I'm plodding around in a 172 at 2500ft, 12 miles outside the ctaf (i.e. going around), I'll be on the area freq. That nice turboprop screaming in is on the ctaf at (say) 30nm.. So now we're in the same airspace on different frequencies - so much for aided see and avoid!

Nice for the ctaf to have more warning maybe, but I'm getting no warning whatsoever that he's about to come bombing through my level..

It would seem to make more sense to have a defined ctaf that was appropriately sized for the operations. For that matter, it seems to work OK having a one size fits all for GAAP a/d.

Still, ya get's what ya gets I suppose <shrug> Shall just get on with it :)

[james michael]

Mark

I think you need not worry. The turboprop will be on the area and the CTAF because it will have a minimum of two comms and be calling on area also.

Have a look at AIP ENR 1.1 - 43.

What does surprise me is the number of pilots who lack situational awareness by not using the area frequency to keep track of who is who in the zoo, get the Wx given to IFR, etc. Certainly there's a lot of calls not related to one's immediate location but you filter them out and ensure situational awareness of those that may affect yourself.

I laugh at some systems that play CDs etc for your enjoyment en route - perhaps they should shift to playing "Nearer my God to thee" for those not maintaining a proper listening watch :)

[antzx6r]

You're very correct QCPog. Seems like people are getting confused between legal manditory and good airmanship radio calls. Legally the only calls needed are the few mentioned previously and only in CTAF(R). If we all wish to stay alive however, yoall better be making more calls than that when you here any other traffic in the ctaf. The legal min. is for use in those remote CTAF(R)'s where there is the occasional RPT stopping in but not much other traffic. Making CASA enforce a crap load of calls in these situations would just be annoying and give a perseption of "one size fits all" for our ADs, which is not really applicable for a land like ours. So use that noggin guys (and gals... sorry) and make the calls nessesary for the conditions. Out.

Ant

[werbil]

The problem with excessive unnecessary calls in a busy environment is that more significant calls may be over-transmitted. I have experienced countless occasions where two pilots have jammed the frequency on each other, sometimes with both starting and finishing their calls at the same requiring a 'two in together' broadcast to be made to be able to find out what either of them are doing.

Rather than blindly making every recommended call, developing a situational awareness of other traffic in the area and making appropriate calls will IMHO result in the lowest potential collision risk. There are huge differences between the type and density of traffic around different aerodromes, and unfortunately as a result the 'one size fits all' solution is inherently flawed.

[QSK?]

Making every recommended call when one is the only aircraft operating on the CTAF is a bit like using your indicators on your car when making every turn at 3am with no other cars around !

[DraggingAir]

...years ago when I was overflying a CTAF at 5,000'. I had made no calls leading up to this. Directly overhead I had a gut feeling, made a call and within a minute or so 4 other aircraft had called and identified themselves, one in the circuit below, one at around 2,000' and two others at the same level as me, both of whom I was then able to locate visually! :eek:

[antzx6r]

I find this and similar situations happening to me also. As a new pilot (75hr) i'm still developing this situational awareness. My instructor told me to have a pad and pen to write down call signs and positions as I here them. This is ok for navs but not for in and around ctafs. Does anyone have any technics for visualizing traffic positions or is it just a case of practice makes perfect. I'm not saying i blindly fly around the ctaf waiting for something to happen, but when the cct gets busy my mind goes into overdrive trying to keep count of who and what is where.:\ Joining mid xwind with 4 or 5 doing touch and goes is a nightmare. Any advice?

[DraggingAir]

Monitor the CTAF frequency early and start to build a mental picture from at least 10nm or so out (assuming you are coming in at around 120kt). The faster your ground speed, the earlier you start to build the picture and the earlier you make your inbound call. Remember the recommended call is "by" 10nm, not "at" 10nm.
Assuming 120kt for you and roughly 5 minute laps for those already in the circuit, any aircraft you hear make a call (turning downwind, base or final) when you are 10nm away will be in roughly the same position when you arrive. Write down the details of the relevant circuit traffic.
Listen to the aircraft type to determine their relative circuit size and height i.e. 500', 1,000' or 1,500' AGL - so when you get there you know where to look for them.
You don't need to worry about writing down details for aircraft that:
Have landed and are clear of the runway
Are departing on a track clear of your inbound track
Are overflying well clear of the circuit and clear of your inbound track
Are inbound to land but have an arrival time > 4/5 minutes either side of your ETA
You should record details for aircraft that are inbound and will arrive within say 3 minutes either side of your ETA, especially their inbound track. Remember though that quite often their time keeping will not be the same as yours.
It may be desirable to self separate with these aircraft early i.e. you will remain over water, they will remain over land, or you will remain north of the highway or north of the extended centre line of runway 24 while they remain south etc.
(Don't forget to also record details of aircraft that are taxiing or lining up.)
If you get a bit confused about who is where while you are inbound, use altitude to separate. For example, advise that you will maintain a given height until you have the other aircraft in sight. They will ideally maintain a different level until you can see and separate from each other.
Use your assigned altitude indicator. In the previous case, if they are at 1,500, set 2,500' on your assigned altitude indicator and descend to and maintain that level until you have the other traffic in sight and are sure there is no conflict. Then set circuit height on the AAI and descend as required.
Having said all this however, try to avoid making unnecessary calls to individual aircraft. Try to use the recommended broadcasts to ALL traffic which is the basis of 'alerted see and avoid'.
One last thing. In the circuit you need to focus on the aircraft in front of you. Follow it and know where it is. Always. If it extends long on downwind, dragging you along with it, be ready for the aircraft behind you to possibly lose sight of you and turn base early and cut you off. If you extend upwind for separation with an aircraft on early downwind, again be ready for the aircraft behind you to possibly turn crosswind early and cut you off. So focus on those two - the one in front and the one behind.

[werbil]

Making every recommended call when one is the only aircraft operating on the CTAF is a bit like using your indicators on your car when making every turn at 3am with no other cars around !


There is a difference - using indicators in a car will NOT blind other drivers from seeing you or someone else.

However inbound/overflying and taxying calls are essential at all times - these tell any other pilots that "I'm out here", "I'm monitoring the frequency", and "Broadcast at appropriate points if you could be in conflict". In hilly areas where terrain shielding can occur additional calls are essential as a taxying/circuit/departure aircraft may not hear an inbound/overflying aircraft.

[werbil]

antzx6r
Keeping your eyes outside the aircraft as you approach the circuit is essential - as you say a notepad and pen is fine in navs but no good in the circuit.

What I do is to break aircraft in to different groups - where they are (circuit/departing/arriving) and where they are likely to be conflict. It is something that you develop with practice.

One way of helping developing the skills is to listen to aerodrome radio traffic on the ground - using an air band radio or scanner. Pick an arriving aircraft and relate the other traffic to it as it arrives. Even better be doing something else at the same time.