See and avoid still the first line of defence expert says.

[Frank Arouet]

PILOTS fear it is only a matter of time before crossed wires over radio frequencies near Horn Island airport cause a mid-air collision.
They say the problem could be averted if authorities clearly advised pilots that radio frequencies within 20km of Horn Island airport, as published in the latest En-route Supplement Australia booklet, are wrong.
Horn Island airport has one of the busiest unsupervised runways in the state.
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association vice-president Brian Hannan said it was a "see and be seen" airport.
"The eyeball is still the prime way of avoiding collision," he said. "I would be keeping a damn good eye out of the window, what I hear on radio is indicative but I would not stake my life on it."
One pilot said the latest Aeronautical Information Publication Supplement, dated August 27, advised the frequency was wrong but he argued it should be corrected in the daily notes to pilots.
Under CASA regulations, pilots are required to avail themselves of all the operational and published information relevant to their flights.
Another pilot, who also asked not to be named, said the supplement was not enough as many pilots unfamiliar with the area were unlikely to read the supplement and would rely on the original publication.
"It is a very dangerous situation as you could have an itinerant pilot charging in on the frequencies and have a collision with an incoming commercial airliner," the pilot said.
"They could be making all the right calls, but nobody can hear them.
"Not many people walk away from collisions."
An Airservices Australia spokesman said a Notice to Airmen drawing attention to the correction was issued on July 21 and the later supplement should be enough to make pilots aware of the mistake.
"Airservices Australia categorically rejects any suggestion that information was being hidden," he said.
But an additional notice to pilots was issued this week after Airservices became aware of concerns that pilots were operating on incorrect frequencies.

Cairns /Weekend Post, P 017 Roger Dickson Sat 10 OCT 2009.

[Frank Arouet]

The next ERSA issue effective 19th November 2009.

[YPJT]

What makes Brian Hannan think that this scenario is just confined to FNQ. When the fraternity that he represents takes a more responsible approach to it's flying by having up to date AIP docs and charts and receiving up to date pre flight briefings, then maybe the skies will be safer.
If the information in ERSA was wrong, you have to wonder what the local aerodrome operators were doing about it? It's not too damn hard to read the current listing and confirm details are correct. Find an error? Easy, put in a NOTAM. It takes all of 5 minutes.
Either there has been some sloppy journalism here or someone isn't telling the entire story.

[KittyKatKaper]

The following link could explain why it takes a while for changes to make into the ERSA.
Airservices Australia - Document Amendment Calendar (http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/calendar/default.asp)

[Frank Arouet]

I think the basis for complaint was the initial lack of an URGENT NOTAM.

Airservices publish a SUP and within a heap of data is included a mention, "by the way we have changed an important frequency in a busy CTAF (R)"

"Alerted see and avoid"?- Who needs a radio when you can do it by mail?

[ZEEBEE]

Unfortunately, these days only 20% of pilots read notams and of those, only 50% understand them.

Classic is the confusion that arises when a CTAF freq is changed. Several months go by with people still chiming in on the old freq.
Such was/is the case with Cunderdin and Albany to name just two.

It behooves alert pilots to make calls on both for some time just in case.
I've done so and I still get the occasional response from someone who's called on the wrong one and assumed that no response meant no traffic.

The lack of the airfield responder isn't that indicative either, as half the time they're U/S and don't respond.

The MK1 eyeball is still the PRIME instrument in my opinion but it doesn't give you much info about the other guy's intentions.

[YPJT]

I usually keep one of our UNICOM radios on the old freq just in case. It's great to hear the cockiness of an inbound bradcast, circuit or taxiing call being humbled when the pilot is informed that they are on the wrong frequency. Adds more impact when if you also add the effective date change. :E

Zeebee, If an AFRU is not working, pilots only have to tell the AD operator and a NOTAM should immediately be issued. Then we get back to the problem as highlighted in your first paragraph. :ok:

This business of see and avoid, do your own thing in the circuit, pick a number out of a hat and tune your radio to that, might be fine for out of the way ALAs where you are probably only mixing it with aircraft of similar performance. However to adopt the same cavalier approach into regional airports with jet RPT services is just asking for trouble.

It can be quite worrying at times when sitting in your office you are the only one with full situational awareness because you happen to be monitoring a frequency that no one in your area should be using. :ugh:

[kalavo]

Bring on ADS-B to aid see and avoid without relying on the human factor.

[ZEEBEE]

Bring on ADS-B to aid see and avoid without relying on the human factor.

Hmm! Bit divided on that...I wonder whether it's going to increase the radio chatter.
Also, as with FLARM, there is a worry that people may be flying with their head in the cockpit rather than looking outside where the traffic is.

Ready for incoming:uhoh:

[Wally Mk2]

This subject is indeed a worry. See & be seen is fine in some basic cases but situational awareness is going out the window at a rapid rate, a vital part in effective comms. No point in blabbing out all the right calls if someone really doesn't know west from east for Eg.
Also with the advent of cheap, easy to obtain & the use of GPS's these days every man & his dog is flying using one for primary navigation legal or otherwise. Although it's a great tool for a pilot & can mean efficiency as well as accuracy it also means heads are in the cockpit a lot more than days gone by. I know I use the GPS in the circuit a little to remain within my prescribed circling area in less than favorable conditions but am now more aware of what's going on around me than ever & use my Med team to be my eyes at every corner when I can.

Off track a little here (pun intended) I recall some years ago flying across the ditch using GPS as LR Nav when we where head to head with a NZ B767 (lower than us thank God!!). You could have split our plane right down the middle if we where at the same Alt, the accuracy was incredible! This means two A/c can be approaching a circuit coming in from the same departure AD & be pretty much in the same piece of airspace & on diff CTAF freq's, scary stuff!
The answer? Education, no other way round it other than to perhaps becoming more a religious soul, you might as well yr ass belongs to him!!!:}. (see if anyone can pick where that statement came from in a movie?)

Wmk2

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Any idea as to WHY the Albany freq was changed to 127.85?

Do all of the 'cockies' in the area carry VHF's capable of tuning down to the two decimal points......

Just wondering.......

Cheers:ok:

p.s. I would humbly suggest..."See and avoid still the first line of defence expert says."

Be amended to read.... "NOTIFIED See And Avoid......" is STILL far safer....IMHO....

(Hat, coat,.....):}

[Joker 10]

Griffo Right on !!!!! clean perspex will beat any other "aid" on any day, avoid the Stationary dot !!! moving dots are easy to miss, stationary dots are a real problem unless they are dead locusts on the perspex.

[LeadSled]

Any idea as to WHY the Albany freq was changed to 127.85?
Folks,
A very good question, as my VERY clear recollection is that Airservices committed to NOT using such frequencies for low level VHF comms, unless there was absolutely no alternative.

I wonder what the unavoidable frequency allocation problem is in this little part of Australia.

Readers please note, transmitters must meet the tolerance standards for current frequency accuracy, even if the transmitter cannot transmit on 25kc spacing ---- again my clear recollection, anybody have the effectivity dates handy.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

Owen Stanley;

The "expert" said: it was a "see and be seen" airport.
"The eyeball is still the prime way of avoiding collision," he said. "I would be keeping a damn good eye out of the window, what I hear on radio is indicative but I would not stake my life on it." But that's only what he said. I have always believed in alerted see and avoid since rotating beacons were introduced.

LeadSled;

I understand the only reason a tower is at Albury at all dates back to Prince Charles enrolment at "Timbertop" and we couldn't have Royalty flying in uncontrolled airspace could we?

Why it is still there is anybody's guess.

[Spinnerhead]

See and avoid still the first line of defence expert says

Well I don't know about you lot, but for me the lines of defence are as follows
1st The radio
2nd The TCAS
3rd The eyeball

I can't see how the eyeball can preceed the radio, when it is only good for about 5 miles in optimum conditions.

[Frank Arouet]

Omit dot point 2 if VFR then points 3 and 1 respectively.

[spirax]

I understand the only reason a tower is at Albury at all dates back to Prince Charles enrolment at "Timbertop" and we couldn't have Royalty flying in uncontrolled airspace could we?

Note the previous discussion was Albany (WA) not Albury (NSW)....

As for the TWR at Albury...(ABX) One of the main reasons for the TWR there was back in the days when TAA and EWA operated F27's there and almost always scheduled at around the same time. There is no full length taxiway there (a short one for GA now however) and there were significant traffic issues associated with runway occupancy and the need to backtrack etc.