View Full Version : Carriage and use of Radio and Circuit Procedures NPRM CTAF's.

Frank Arouet
28th Sep 2009, 08:49
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 0908OS - Carriage and use of Radio and Circuit Procedures at, or in the vicinity of, Non-Towered Aerodromes (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93417)

28th Sep 2009, 10:10
That link saysPlease forward your response to CASA by 10 April 2009 by one of the following means: but the preamble PDF says reply by 23 Oct 09.

The key change proposals are * General, performance based regulatory requirement for radio qualified pilots of radio equipped aircraft to make appropriate radio broadcasts at and in the vicinity of all non-towered aerodromes, with specific, recommended standardised calls published in educational and guidance material (CAAPs/AIP). PIC is to be responsible for broadcasting on the aerodrome frequency whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or risk of a collision, between his/her aircraft and any other aircraft operating at, or in the vicinity of, the aerodrome.
* Carriage of serviceable VHF radio, and being qualified to use it, to be mandated for aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of aerodromes that are certified or registered (as published in ERSA) and other aerodromes designated by CASA (and published in ERSA) on a case-by-case risk basis.
* Introduce new provisions for the arrival and departure of aircraft with no radio, and for aircraft having unserviceable radio and for aircraft carrying serviceable radio which the pilot is not qualified to use.
* Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (2)(d) and subregulation (4) - base-leg circuit join no longer prohibited.
* Amend CAR 166 paragraph (2)(f) to allow for non-into wind runway use when the AFM permits.
* Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (2)(g) - 500m minimum length of the final approach leg no longer mandated.
* Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(a) – carriage of a serviceable VHF radio when conducting a straight-in approach no longer required (other than at certified, registered and other designated aerodromes).
* Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(b) – specific mandated broadcast for straight-in approaches deleted (although still recommended in CAAPs/AIP).
* Amendment of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(d) - reduction in the minimum distance from the threshold by which an aircraft making a straight-in approach must be aligned with the runway, from at least 5 miles to not less than 3 miles.

Oh gooodie.., now I can join on base for a 100m final to get in front of those wooosses doing 'standard' circuits. <g>

Lemme see now, someone not talking on the radio and on a 3nm final, + me on base not talking (because it's not mandatory) = change of underwear required.

29th Sep 2009, 02:36
From the draft CAAP

So as not to impede commercial aviation, pilots flying
recreational or sport aircraft for their own enjoyment, or pilots
flying GA aircraft for their own leisure, should consider giving way
to aircraft being used for ‘commerce’ provided that the
inconvenience to their own operation is not great and it can be done

That about sums up the changes in one paragraph.

29th Sep 2009, 11:36
Sh!T..... some common sense coming from the regulator:ooh:

any more gems?

29th Sep 2009, 11:45
gotta love the CAAP
theory meets reality head on

29th Sep 2009, 12:16
Good to see some common sense entering the regulations - with one exception.
Why oh why do we still have regulations permitting non radio equipped aircraft to operate within circuit areas?

These suggested changes would be good, if radio carriage was mandatory in ALL airports.

This is the 21st century people- if you can't be bothered/afford to have a radio in your aircraft, you are playing the wrong game.

29th Sep 2009, 13:45
There is an old saying: If you keep your trap shut, somebody might think you are a fool, why open your mouth and confirm it.
If you bothered to read the NPRM, your would find a provision that, if you have a radio, you must use it, there is nothing "non-mandatory" about using a radio, if it is serviceable, and you are suitably qualified.
This actually plugs a regulatory hole created by "unintended consequences" of previously incomplete legislative change.
This is generally a better than average NPRM, but watch out for Regionals, they will be able to legally land downwind, something they always did, anyway.
Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs
2nd Oct 2009, 10:46
Oh Dear. Dick Won't Be Happy! :}

Dick Smith
2nd Oct 2009, 23:57
Quite the opposite !

Capn Bloggs
3rd Oct 2009, 00:13
Well, wonders will never cease. The next thing you'll be agreeing to is that non-radar E is a WOFTAM.

Or is that the deal: you agree to mandatory radio at every proper "airfield" in Australia provided JMac gives you your beloved E over D?

I knew there was a catch...:hmm:

3rd Oct 2009, 13:29
Bloggs.....straight in from 3 miles...join on Base.......:E

3rd Oct 2009, 14:59
Quite hilarious!

He supports madatory (non US NAS) VFR radio carriage and use OCTA, and at the same time supports non-use of VFR VHF TX in critical climb and descent airspace in so called CTA Class E (TRACON surveilled or otherwise) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif :rolleyes: :ugh: :=

A question for Mr Smith?

How many HC RPT/PTO airports (towered or no) in the US of A handle regular RPT/PTO (of greater than 30 seat pax) with D and overlying E airspace (exclude Hawaii and Guam as they have mainly Helo moves though the D airspace)?

How many airports in the US of A handle regular RPT/PTO (of greater then 30 seat pax) that are class C?

To be clear, I mean ICAO D with overlying E! in other words, if they do not meat ICAO D and E criteria, what services do they ACTUALLY apply?

FAA D (RADAR GAAP + RADAR TRACON) or ICAO C? or B? (TRSA does not count as it is being replaced by C or B anyhow)

As a traitor of all things Australian (particularly as you say, in Airspace), I look forward to your response http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Capn Bloggs
4th Oct 2009, 06:10
...join on Base.......

Visual Straight-ins are hard enough! How am I going to cope with a base join?? Hopefully the FMS will save the day! "Hey Bloggs, program me a right base with a 2nm offset from 25nm will ya?". Button Pusher's Ecstasy. :}

4th Oct 2009, 07:21
And remember to look out the window!