Multicom vs area frequency [Archive] - Page 2

Captain Nomad

31st Aug 2014, 03:33

Remember the early NAS changes when it was decided to remove the Area frequency boundary lines off the VFR charts and randomly print the frequencies on them? Common sense eventually prevailed and the boundary lines returned. Without the boundary lines printed the VFR aircraft certainly had more difficulty trying to be on the correct area frequency. I don't see how hard it can be these days really. A competent, properly prepared VFR pilot should know when to change area frequencies. With Oz Runways and such there is even less excuse these days.

As long as people tell me about themselves and we can mutually arrange to keep ourselves separated, I'll be pleased.

I was at a registered aerodrome with its own CTAF just recently with cloudy/showery weather around. After making IFR taxi calls on CTAF/Area and entering/backtracking runway call the first I heard of an arriving VFR single was when he was practically overhead as I was rolling causing a rapid change of departure planning on the fly. Apparently he hadn't heard any of my previous calls... All the rules in the world won't stops these things from happening unfortunately...

Captain Sand Dune

31st Aug 2014, 05:07

You mean that all the rules in the world wont stop d*ckheads trying to kill you:mad:

Dick Smith

31st Aug 2014, 09:33

Majorca. What complete claptrap No wonder you post anonymously.

The 225s were submitted when my aircraft were flown by commercial pilots and I was not on board . That's why the incidents weren't on the front pages.

It's clear from the evidence that many pilots are not monitoring the so called correct frequency- if you want that system to work put the FSOs back on and give a directed traffic service to all aircraft above 5000 as they did before the AMATS changes.

Dick Smith

31st Aug 2014, 09:45

Captain Nomad. No other country has area frequencies and ATC sector boundaries marked on charts.

How do think they operate VFR aircraft in Class E and G airspace safely in these countries?

Or is your mind closed? I bet you don't fly a Nomad You most likely fly an aircraft from the USA , Canada or Europe. Would you dare fly a GA aircraft in one of these places? Of course you would as the resultant level of safety is as good as or higher than in Australia.

Rather than have a closed mind why extend your boundaries by learning how more modern aviation countries operate

Capn Bloggs

31st Aug 2014, 10:33

Dick, you're the one with the closed mind. The overwhelming view here is that your fabled Multicom is what should happen. If you would now step aside and while you're at it stop carrying on about anonymous posters (it really does annoy you, doesn't it? :D) then we'll go about getting this sorted out.

FokkerInYour12

31st Aug 2014, 11:44

Innovative technology is required, not outdated broadcast modes of communication.

I should be able to hit one of three of four buttons:
1. Big red button - broadcast to anybody nearby and ATC - Mayday or PAN.
2. Send message to ATC for urgent actions (weather issues etc.)
3. Send message to ATC for routine actions (reporting points - shouldn't really be needed with technology, routine flight plan aments amendments, etc.)
4. Local area broadcast - transit or circuit operations

There are no frequencies to recall.

Plus a rewind algorithm so you can repeat a message.

Messages are store-and-forward and contextual. For example, if you hear a message the emergency frequency and respond, it's designated as a "reply". You won't hear any other aircraft's calls irrelevant to you.

A nice display (maybe HUD?) shows you who is talking to you and distance.

Every aircraft is a "repeater" in addition to the existing radio towers dotted around. MIMO antennas provide this capability. Never miss a (relevant) radio call again.

Why can't we do it? Why do we rely on 1940s radio technology?

Captain Nomad

31st Aug 2014, 13:11

Hi Dick,

I am honoured to be personally addressed. No, I don't fly a Nomad - never have and probably never will. Those who know me know that the title is a play on my name and it also kind of fits the pilot occupation well...

I do currently fly an aircraft made in Europe but I have flown in a humble total of 3 countries and there always seems to be a clear description of what radio frequencies people should be using - where and when. The difference is perhaps that in Australia we always seem to be arguing over constant fiddling changes to that which in the end is probably worse and more confusing for people. In one of the other countries (a near neighbour to the north) there most certainly ARE area frequencies and boundaries marked on charts and broadcasts by IFR and VFR is standard practice.

How do think they operate VFR aircraft in Class E and G airspace safely in these countries?

Been done to death before but one of the big differences is radar coverage (or lack thereof) which undoubtedly comes into play - especially when IFR and VFR mix.

I remember occasions in years gone by when operating VFR, being on the correct area frequency enabled me to pipe up to assist in facilitating separation with descending higher performance IFR aircraft. Also, one can take notice and be reminded of military LJR activity in your area as advised by ATC etc.

At the end of the day, it matters not if you are IFR or VFR or ATC, there are times when it is beneficial if everyone sharing a parcel of airspace is on the same page by being on the same frequency. There are also times when locations should have their own frequency for ALL pilots in that area to sort themselves out on. What we really DON'T need is any more confusion about it.

By the way, when I was at Woolies last week I made a point of buying your Australian Strawberry spreadable fruit. Supporting local producers and manufacturers where possible is at least one thing we can hopefully agree on! :ok:

Jack Ranga

31st Aug 2014, 14:18

You what is really, really stupid. Making it my responsibility to transmit an amended area forecast on the area frequency (whoops! Contradiction :ugh:) the stupid amounts of money spent on the stupid changes that are impossible to keep up with would fund weather broadcast on ADSB for the next 100 years.

Dick Smith

31st Aug 2014, 23:06

Jack. Since AsA abolished VHF Flight watch on discrete frequencies do you ever get pilots attempting to file flight plans on ATC frequencies?

Both the USA and Canada have extensive VHF Flight watch networks on non ATC separation frequencies and have no public plans to close down the networks.

Why are these countries so stupid as to have separate networks if it can all be done on existing control frequencies?

Jack Ranga

31st Aug 2014, 23:24

Dick,

* Yes, I have slackarse, lazy pilots submitting on the area frequency. I also have pilots with a genuine need to submit on the area frequency. The former outnumbers the latter significantly.

* I have slackarse, lazy pilots cancelling their sartime on area frequency when they are landing at major regional cities with full mobile phone coverage.

What legal position does it put me in when I haven't got the time to read & digest ARFOR changes NOW due workload. An aircraft spears in without getting the weather info they need NOW.

Dick Smith

31st Aug 2014, 23:48

How can you take details of a flight plan if you are also separating traffic?

Don't you need the have pretty well immediate communication to pilots of aircraft you are separating?

When I have explained our present system to US controllers they say I must be mistaken .

Could this ever cause a breakdown of separation or an accident? Why do you reckon other countries have separate VHF frequencies? And why do you reckon AsA closed the outlets down?

Creampuff

1st Sep 2014, 00:26

The difference is perhaps that in Australia we always seem to be arguing over constant fiddling changes to that which in the end is probably worse and more confusing for people. … What we really DON'T need is any more confusion about it.What Capt N said! :D:D

C’mon Jack and Dick: You know it’s all ‘workload permitting’. Centre has no hesitation in telling the ‘pop up’ VFR to ‘stand by’ while other matters are sorted. [P]retty well immediate communication to pilots of aircraft you are separating.What if one of the aircraft is an IFR SAAB on approach to Wagga and the other is a VFR listening to John Denver on the iPod? I don’t understand the problem with the VFR piping up and saying “That VFR at an unverified 8,500’ is probably me. I’m at 8,500’ on a QNH of 1017, 20 nms NW of Wagga.” My wild guess is that Centre will ask the VFR to squawk ident. My wild guess is that the IFR SAAB will be happy to know that the transponder info is accurate. The VFR might even go crazy and ask whether it would help if they tracked in a particular direction to avoid interfering with the SAAB’s approach.

Dick Smith

1st Sep 2014, 00:48

A radar advisory for VFR is workload permitting. Where does it say or even hint that WX info or flight plan filing is workload permitting ?

Creamy. I love the way you support this pathetic half way system. As I said. Go back to pre AMATS or go forward to the proper NAS as approved by Cabinet.

Jack Ranga

1st Sep 2014, 01:20

How can you take details of a flight plan if you are also separating traffic?

As a rule I shouldn't be. I don't mind if I've got the time.

Don't you need the have pretty well immediate communication to pilots of aircraft you are separating?

Yes, absolutely. As an ATC you can 'control' most of the comms but there are certainly occasions when 'shut the F up' is uttered under your breath.

When I have explained our present system to US controllers they say I must be mistaken

When you spend a bit of time over there, flying & watching what they do, it's (and they are) remarkable! What we do here wouldn't work over there.

Could this ever cause a breakdown of separation or an accident? Why do you reckon other countries have separate VHF frequencies? And why do you reckon AsA closed the outlets down?

* Yes, it certainly could (in extreme circumstances). You put measures in place to not get to that point but.........
* I'll take that as rhetorical! you are 100% correct.
* I think we all know the answer to that.

Jack Ranga

1st Sep 2014, 01:31

C’mon Jack and Dick: You know it’s all ‘workload permitting’. Centre has no hesitation in telling the ‘pop up’ VFR to ‘stand by’ while other matters are sorted.

Yeah right.......(wry, sarcastic smile). Typical response from a lawyer! That is what happens. I'm not talking about the normal scenario. Defended anybody in a coroners court?

Pretty well immediate communication to pilots of aircraft you are separating.
What if one of the aircraft is an IFR SAAB on approach to Wagga and the other is a VFR listening to John Denver on the iPod? I don’t understand the problem with the VFR piping up and saying “That VFR at an unverified 8,500’ is probably me. I’m at 8,500’ on a QNH of 1017, 20 nms NW of Wagga.” My wild guess is that Centre will ask the VFR to squawk ident. My wild guess is that the IFR SAAB will be happy to know that the transponder info is accurate. The VFR might even go crazy and ask whether it would help if they tracked in a particular direction to avoid interfering with the SAAB’s approach.

Even wryer, more sarcastic smile............typical response from someone who's not doing it every day (Minus ROD's & Rec Leave). I can count on one hand the number of times that's happened in 24 years of doing it. Ridiculous uninformed comment, but hey, you're the expert ;)

Creampuff

1st Sep 2014, 01:44

Creamy. I love the way you support this pathetic half way system.And Dick, I love the way that you still have no clue who drives the system.

(Group hug: I can feel the love in the room….)

In fact, I don’t particularly care what the system is, provided its hallmarks do NOT include widespread confusion and folklore-based procedures. Given that I do know who drives the system, I know what the chances are of getting a system like that implemented in Australia. :(

Added PS after reading Jack's post: I know, first-hand, that it happens more frequently than that, Jack. My guess is that you are labouring under the misapprehension that your experience is universal. It's not. However, you are correct: I am not an expert. Yet, oddly, I have more control over the system than you do. Go figure.

Jack Ranga

1st Sep 2014, 01:56

I know, first-hand, that it happens more frequently than that, Jack.

I think my first hand is a little more representative than your first hand. Fact.

I NEVER put myself out there as an expert, just letting you know what happens on a day to day basis.

I really don't care that you've got more power over what happens over the airwaves, really. I deal with what happens at the time ;)

mcgrath50

1st Sep 2014, 02:41

On the topic of ATC doing 'flightwatch jobs', can you illuminate what happens when a pilot calls up to ammend a SARTIME?

I understand you may not have time to make other flight plan amendments but I feel SARTIME ammendments are pretty important. It's not unusual (although hardly common) to call up after a flight and try to cancel the amended SARTIME and the CENSAR guy quotes back the original SARTIME that is expiring in a few minutes time. If the flight is delayed and it expires, is there a mechanism to halt the full on SAR search?

Jack Ranga

1st Sep 2014, 03:26

I directly hold sarwatches of IFR aircraft, that is, I record it, initiate SAR action if the pilot hasn't cancelled by the prescribed time & cancel it when they cancel.

SARTIMES are completely different, they are managed from a unit in Canberra. When you amend them I fill out a pink slip with all the details, ring the unit in Canberra and pass on all the details. These guys are fairly busy as well. It is a distraction to our primary tasks. Like I said, it's not a problem when we're not busy. Cancelling on the area frequency when you've got a mobile in a coverage area when you can tell the controller is flat knacker is a bit rich.

Dick Gower

1st Sep 2014, 19:46

The changes in ENR 1.1 44.1.1 (May 1013) that moved broadcasts from non-charted aerodromes on to the area frequency has caused a lot of concern amongst the RAPACs. Nobody can tell us what perceived problem was being addressed by moving broadcasts from non-charted aerodromes from the Multicom to the area VHF frequency. We can not find any evidence of consultation with any stake holders either.
At the July Vic. RAPAC meeting CASA and the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) refuse to allow it on their agenda for discussion on the basis that it is an "Operational issue" whatever that means.
Having identified four serious issues as a result of the change the RAPAC convenors then tried to have the matter added to the agenda for the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum (AACF) scheduled for Friday 05 Sept.
Again all discussion was blocked by the remarkable response that in spite of being an Airspace and Aerodrome consultative Forum the RAPAC concerns could not be listed on the agenda because it was an operational issue.
What therefore is the purpose of the OAR and the AACF if they cannot discuss all matters relevant to aerodromes and aerospace and why would anybody bother attending such lame events? Nobody has an answer to this as yet.

The RAPACs want all aerodromes without a separate CTAF to broadcast on the Multicom (126.7). Whether they are on charts or otherwise is irrelevant.
The four concerns we have are:
(1) The potential frequency congestion and unintentional jamming on the area VHF because the ATS transmissions do not have coverage down to the lower levels in many places. This is largely because the area VHF boundaries are related to the TAATS overlays not the transmitter sites. In fact some transmitters are actually located outside the actual sector. Nobody knows jut how many non-charted aerodromes there are within VHF coverage of traffic at flight levels but every ag strip would have to be included.
(2) Previously, aerodrome broadcasts were either on a published CTAF or on the Multicom so monitoring the latter made sense in many situations. Now the traffic information from non-charted aerodromes has been lost.
(3) There is now a conflict between the frequency requirements of CAR 166C and the AIP at non-charted aerodromes that are in the vicinity of charted aerodromes.
(4) Where an un-charted aerodrome is situated near the boundary of two area VHF frequencies, two broadcast frequencies for that aerodrome have been unwittingly created.

The whole issue has every sign of a change made without a proper understanding of the consequences followed by an orchestrated refusal to consult with the airspace users.

Creampuff

1st Sep 2014, 21:29

Don't worry: The meltdown and aluminium confetti were apparently avoided through everyone refusing to comply with the broadcast rules. :ok:

Lucky all those hives of aviation activity that aren't marked on any aeronautical chart remain on 126.7. (If you could let me know where one - just one - is located, I'd appreciate that.)

BTW: It wasn't a change.

triadic

1st Sep 2014, 23:50

BTW: It wasn't a change.

Oh yes it is.... seems you did not know about the procedure being in existance for over the last decade!

Creampuff

2nd Sep 2014, 00:04

[S]eems you did not know about the procedure being in existance[sic] for over the last decade!Indeed.

Nor did any of the pilots I know.

Nor did the author of the CAAP that prompted this thread.

The good news for us is that we just keep doing what we’ve always been doing. :ok:

And please, could someone nominate one – just one – hive of aviation activity that isn’t marked on any aeronautical chart, the broadcasts from the vicinity of which are going to cause meltdown and aluminium confetti? Just one. Please?

Capn Bloggs

2nd Sep 2014, 00:19

Come on Puff, I don't hear VFR broadcasting on the Area freq with circuit details at Bullamakanka ALA but when I do I think "I don't need to hear that".

Broadcasts by low-level VFR on the Multicom are imminently more sensible than on Area.

Dick Gower

2nd Sep 2014, 00:29

Don't forget that at flight levels you are within VHF coverage of a very large numbers of non-charted aerodromes.

The procedure came into effect in May 2013 with amendment #75 to the AIP. Before that all aerodromes without a published CTAF broadcast on the Multicom.

Creampuff

2nd Sep 2014, 00:37

I've said this before, Bloggsie, and I know it may be confronting: It's not just about you.

I've also said this before: I don't particularly care what the rules are, provided everyone knows what they are and complies with them. Not much chance of that, going by the discussion on this thread.

I only stir up this hornets' nest for sh*ts and giggles. I'm always amused at the factional wars in Aviation in Australia, with all sides always citing 'safety' as the basis for their irreconcilable positions. :D:D

Capn Bloggs

2nd Sep 2014, 00:54

I've also said this before: I don't particularly care what the rules are...
In that case, Puff, I'll give you the same advice I gave Dick; step aside an let us get this changed to something more sensible.

...provided everyone knows what they are and complies with them. Not much chance of that, going by the discussion on this thread.
Precisely the reason it's been raised by the Vic RAPAC and hopefully will be changed when CASA sees sense.

We can always wallop it with the Government Policy stick... :rolleyes:

I'm always amused at the factional wars in Aviation in Australia, with all sides always citing 'safety' as the basis for their irreconcilable positions.
No wars in this case, or am I missing something? Stay on topic, son. :)

Creampuff

2nd Sep 2014, 03:04

No wars in this case, or am I missing something?So everyone is united on what the rule should be?

That would be everyone … except, strangely, the rule makers.

How is it that the rule makers could be so out of step with what “everyone” says is safe? What could their motivation be for this “change”? I’ll bet you London to a brick that they say: “Safety”.

The fact is that there’s lots and lots (and lots) (and even more lots) of not much happening at places that aren’t marked on any aeronautical charts. The alleged risks arising from the “change” are therefore either invented or merely perceived rather than substantial.

As with everything aviation in Australia, there’s much more to this and it doesn’t have much to do with safety.

I’m not in the way of any change, so my stepping in any direction won’t make any difference.

I look forward to more entertainment watching the attempts at getting the rule “changed”! :D:D

uncle8

2nd Sep 2014, 03:51

I like this rule.
I operate from a quiet farmer's strip which is not marked on any charts and is underneath a busy route to the north of Melbourne.
All aircraft overflying the strip are on the ATC frequency so there is no way that I'm going to be on 126.7 but I keep transmissions to a minimum.
This applied before the rule change too - so the change reflected what was actually happening here.

Capn Bloggs

2nd Sep 2014, 03:59

Uncle, how high are they when overflying, and what is the base of CTA there?

uncle8

2nd Sep 2014, 04:01

CTA base is 3500. Traffic is anywhere between about 1500 and 3500. Strip elevation is 850.

Dick Smith

2nd Sep 2014, 07:33

Yair. No probs in giving CTAF taxi and inbound calls on an ATC frequency that is also used for separation. And if there is traffic you can have a good old discussion on how you are going to keep apart .

Who cares if the calls block out an ATC instructions on the busy route above.

They probably arn't very important.

And who cares that the circuit calls are re transmitted across half of Victoria - makes it look busy for the ATCs and may mean a pay rise!

Dick Smith

2nd Sep 2014, 07:42

For the first time ever I agree with Bloggs. - go Bloggsey!

Jack Ranga

2nd Sep 2014, 08:03

Dick, make that half of Victoria & half of NSW.

And by the way, Bloggs has always been the voice of reason on these types of threads................wait a minute............could he be???

uncle8

2nd Sep 2014, 08:05

If there are too many calls which distract the ATCs from their primary function, couldn't someone arrange to:
Decombine the frequencies so that there is less retransmission and more ATCs to handle the workload and/or
Mark the busy strips on the maps and, if necessary, give them CTAF frequencies.
I agree that there doesn't appear to be many unmarked strips which are busy enough to cause much trouble but I suppose that you could say that any extra transmissions, at all, could cause a controller some stress when he really needs the frequency for something more important.
Don't think so though.

Creampuff

2nd Sep 2014, 08:07

Dick and JR: You guys really need to publish your rule book, soon.

Some anarchists have published a thing called the “Melbourne Basin Visual Pilot Guide”. It says:

- “monitor Melbourne radar 135.7 when within 30nm of Melbourne (40 nm to the south and south east)”

- “Departure [from Moorabbin] Depart by extending the relevant leg of the circuit. Monitor tower frequency until clear of Moorabbin CTR. Then monitor Melbourne Radar (135.7)

- “Entering coastal route … Listen out on Melbourne Radar frequency (135.7) … Make a radio call …”

- “Entering inland route … Listen out on Melbourne Radar frequency (135.7) … Make a traffic call …”

There are equivalent Guides published for other places.

Shouldn’t all this monitoring and calling be on 126.7? :confused:

Please: Save us! :eek:

Jack Ranga

2nd Sep 2014, 08:16

Dood, I guess it's your job to read all sorts of crap into what a person (me) says/writes.

I don't care a tinkers cuss what the rules are either. It's not my rule book & neither should it be. It should be the industries rule book developed in consultation with the stakeholders.

I read what you say should be happening on the area frequency regarding situational awareness from VFR's etc and I'm telling you: It's NOT happening.

CaptainMidnight

2nd Sep 2014, 08:51

Precisely the reason it's been raised by the Vic RAPAC and hopefully will be changed when CASA sees sense.To change anything back/revert to what some may have thought the correct procedures to be can, in itself, present a safety issue potentially greater than one is attempting to solve.

Few seem to recognise or care about that sort of thing these days -

Picture the situation where there is a mid-air due frequency separation, and blame is assigned " .... due to the many and sometimes confusing changes to radio broadcast procedures over the preceding 10 years ......"

Creampuff

2nd Sep 2014, 09:19

Calling all VFR pilots and instructors of VFR students in the Melbourne area: What rule book do you use? What parts of the "Melbourne Basin Visual Pilot Guide" are contrary to your rule book?

Are you not returning JR's calls because you're 'just not in to him', or because you need time with your own friends on 126.7?

Sarcs

2nd Sep 2014, 10:13

Having fun Creamy??:E

Maybe this might help but judging from this thread the timeline may need updating...and the NOTAM has expired :rolleyes:: AR201400052 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2014/ar201400052.aspx) Reporter's concern
The reporter expressed a safety concern regarding the confusion surrounding which frequency should be used at aerodromes which do not have a dedicated CTAF allocated.
The reporter has recently been advised by an Air Safety Advisor that the Area frequency should be used at non-towered aerodromes which do not have a CTAF allocated. This contradicts the information which was supplied by CASA in response to REPCON AR201400031.
If there is confusion by the CASA Air Safety Advisors then there will be confusion throughout the industry.
The reporter has suggested that CASA should release a NOTAM to pilots to clarify the issue.

A second report was received in relation to this and forwarded to CASA:
CASA's release of Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 166-1(2) has created a potential safety risk that undermines the concept of radio-alerted see and avoid at non-towered aerodromes that do not have a CTAF, which is likely the majority of aerodromes and airstrips in Australia.

To summarise the timeline whereby this situation has developed:

More than a decade ago, CASA and Airservices Australia widely published a NAS concept which included a nationwide Multicom frequency of 126.7 MHz. The Multicom was the frequency to be used at every non-towered aerodrome and airstrip in Australia that does not have a CTAF.
Airservices Australia continues to publish the Multicom concept in its AIP Book. Refer to current AIP GEN page 2.2-17 for the Multicom definition, and to ENR page 1.4-8 para 3.2.1 for an elaboration.
CASA updated CAAP 166-1 to version 2 last December. At paragraph 6.6.2, this version specifically discounts the use of 126.7 MHz in favour of the Area Frequency. Previous versions of the CAAP did not have this statement.
Therefore, since December last year, pilots flying in Australia have had conflicting information from the airspace regulator and the airspace service provider as to the appropriate frequency to use at non-towered aerodromes without a CTAF. This is a situation potentially worse than unalerted see and avoid because of the 'comfort' (expectation) that radio-alerted see and avoid procedures provide.

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)

I refer to your emails of 1 July 2014 and 23 July 2014 requesting comment by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on Australian Transport Safety Bureau REPCON AR201400052 about reported concerns regarding the confusion over which frequency to use at non-towered aerodromes which do not have a CTAF.
CASA has reviewed the REPCON. Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 166-1 provides advice on the correct frequency to use in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome. The equivalent advice in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) currently does not align with the CAAP. An AIP amendment rectifying this inconsistency comes into effect on 21 August 2014. In the interim, a Notice to Airmen has been issued to inform pilots about the correct frequencies to use at non-controlled aerodromes. CASA has also taken action to standardise the advice given by CASA's Aviation Safety Advisors.
It was identified in the second report related to this REPCON that paragraph 6.6.2 of CAAP 166-1 (2) appears to "discount" the use of 126.7 MHz (the Multicom frequency) in favour of the area frequency. There is a note following that paragraph, which if read in isolation could give that impression. To address this, CASA has undertaken to amend that section of CAAP 166-1 (2) to ensure it is consistent with the 21 August 2014 AIP amendment and the NOTAM. CASA would like to encourage the REPCON reporters to review the educational material on operations at non-controlled aerodromes which further explain frequency use at these aerodromes. The educational package can be accessed at: www.casa.gov.au (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dii?WCMS:STANDARD::%20pc=PC%20100058)

HEAD OFFICE NOTAM C119/14

C119/14

OPERATIONAL FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS

IN LIEU OF CURRENT AIP INFORMATION REGARDING OPERATIONS AT OR IN THE VICINITY OF NON-CONTROLLED AERODROMES, PILOTS MUST USE THE FOLLOWING FREQUENCIES FOR BROADCASTS:

A. IN THE VICINITY OF AN AERODROME DEPICTED ON AERONAUTICAL CHARTS, WITH A DISCRETE FREQUENCY, THE DISCRETE CTAF SHOWN (INCLUDING BROADCAST AREA CTAF), OR OTHERWISE;

B. IN THE VICINITY OF AN AERODROME DEPICTED ON AERONAUTICAL CHARTS, WITH NO DISCRETE FREQUENCY SHOWN, THE CTAF 126.7;

OR

C. IN ALL OTHER CASES, AREA VHF.

PROCEDURES INCORPORATED IN AIP EFFECTIVE 21 AUG 2014.

FROM 07 180435 TO 08 201559 Here is the link for REPCON - AR201400031 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2014/ar201400031.aspx).

Cheers..:ok:

Creampuff

2nd Sep 2014, 10:41

Comedy gold!

The blind leading the deaf leading the cart before the horse thinking inside the box. :D:D:D:D

"non-towered aerodrome and airstrip". Do a search for that on the electric interweb and see what you find.

CASA's response starts with the CAAP as the source of the wisdom.

Australia: The only third world country in which you can drink the water. :D:D:D

Jack Ranga

2nd Sep 2014, 10:46

Are you not returning JR's calls because you're 'just not in to him', or because you need time with your own friends on 126.7?

Half of Vic & half of NSW :ok:

FokkerInYour12

2nd Sep 2014, 12:05

Last time I was nearby a non-towered aerodrome and had an air strip nearby my Course Deviation Indicator needle pointed directly forward.

Creampuff

2nd Sep 2014, 22:09

I say again: Calling all VFR pilots and instructors of VFR students in the Melbourne area.

What rule book do you use? What parts of the "Melbourne Basin Visual Pilot Guide" are contrary to your rule book?

Are you not returning JR's calls because you're 'just not in to him', or because you need time with your own friends on 126.7?

Jack Ranga

3rd Sep 2014, 05:01

Relax Creampuff, what's with the crusade? It's no skin off my nose if they don't listen/call. Dunno how many times I've got to say it: I'm just telling you what's actually happening on the frequency.

Dick Smith

3rd Sep 2014, 06:41

-
From the very first post on this thread in relation to giving CASA mandated circuit calls on the ATC area frequency

"We tried this on a navex, got told to bugger off by the area controller."

Imagine if you worked for CASA and had to be part if this fiasco - I bet the morale is low.

Of course the last thing competent area controllers want is VFR pilots blocking ATC separation frequencies with self announcements.

I phoned the head of Airspace and Aerodromes at CASA. Peter Cromarty and he informed me that it was not his decision and I should talk to the operations people. I did this and was told that CASA was correct and the calls at unmarked aerodromes must be on the Area Frequency.

So there you have it- nothing like the Governments NAS airspace policy but do what CASA says. Bet they all run a mile if an incident or accident is caused by these incorrect requirements

Jack Ranga

3rd Sep 2014, 07:29

Of course we'll wait for an accident or incident to happen (it's the Australian way) before something's done about stupid procedures.

That accident will maim or kill. Then there will be the court cases apportioning blame to persons that haven't got the financial resources or aren't alive to defend themselves.

But don't worry about the above because there's not enough GA activity to cause the above accident/incident in the first place. Another unique Australianism to be proud of, let an industry die then there'll be no problems caused by it :ok:

CaptainMidnight

3rd Sep 2014, 08:52

Airservices Australia continues to publish the Multicom concept in its AIP Book. and had conflicting information from the airspace regulator and the airspace service provider A minor point, but not well known it seems: Airservices as the AIS provider only publishes AIP Book.

The content with respect to most of it in particular this sort of thing is firmly owned by CASA. They file the text amendment requests with Airservices who make the changes. I gather CASA did so last year and presumably did so a month or so ago for the 21 August amendments.

Creampuff

3rd Sep 2014, 09:35

Captain Midnight is correct again.

My guess is that the fabric of the CASA organisation is so weakened that it assumes some minor amendments to the CAAP and a paragraph of the AIP and voylar: Job done!

Cart pushing horse...

It's fascinating how each individual's limited perspective drives their perception of the entirety of the prevailing risks and how they should be mitigated.

Accidents that "maim and kill" can be caused by all sorts of holes in the swiss cheese. For every scenario that someone can come up with to justify the teensey weensey tiny number of broadcasts from unmarked strips being made on area, there will another scenario to justify those broadcasts not being made on area.

That's one of the reasons societies make rules. Someone has to decide which option out of a range of mutually incompatible options will prevail.

dubbleyew eight

3rd Sep 2014, 09:39

....but in australia creampuff politicians rate anything requiring some nouse as too hard for normal people and appoint experts to independently make up the rules as they go along.

the only reason that australian aviation legislation works is that it isn't policed and it can be ignored.

Creampuff

3rd Sep 2014, 09:44

If broadcasts on the area frequency are going to cause a 30,000' death plunge, they must be banned.

If broadcasts on the area frequency are going to prevent a 30,000' death plunge, they must be mandatory.

Go forth and scare punters into what ever option you want. :ok:

Jack Ranga

3rd Sep 2014, 11:49

One goat Creampuff, one goat.

Gliese 667 Cc

3rd Sep 2014, 12:11

Would a vertical split in ATC sectors avoid the potential frequency problem?

Perhaps make the high level cruise sectors larger above FL210, and smaller geo sectors below?

Greater minds would have thought of this no doubt, must be a reason for not doing something similar.

uncle8

3rd Sep 2014, 12:55

Everyone seems to be whinging here. Can anyone suggest a proper procedure?
How would an overflyer know that there is a strip if it is not shown on any maps?
How would someone departing from such a strip be on 126.7 when everyone overflying is on the ATC frequency?

gerry111

3rd Sep 2014, 13:37

Dick Smith wrote:

"I phoned the head of Airspace and Aerodromes at CASA. Peter Cromarty and he informed me that it was not his decision and I should talk to the operations people. I did this and was told that CASA was correct and at unmarked aerodromes the calls must be on the Area Frequency."

(My emphasis.)

I'm always prepared to apologise for my ignorance, if I'm wrong.

But isn't this pretty well what Creampuff has been arguing about, all along?

Creampuff

3rd Sep 2014, 21:28

Uncle8

No need for anyone to "suggest" a "proper" procedure.

The one you are using is the one required by the rules. :ok:

Jack Ranga

3rd Sep 2014, 21:59

So CASA can now knuckle down, educate the industry through the CFI's & CP's the proper radio procedures so that we're all on the same page :ok:

318 posts later we've got this cat skinned :ok:

Dick Smith

4th Sep 2014, 06:51

Jack. No we havn't. The CASA NOTAM is WRONG!

The multicom is clearly the correct frequency for non marked runways based on the decision made on airspace policy by Federal Cabinet.

We will see how long it takes for the NOTAM to be corrected- probably quite a while. In the meantime remember if you comply you could be blocking out important ATC instructions to large air carriers - and this could result in an accident.

In this case do what safety dictates is the right thing. Sometimes the law is an ass.

dubbleyew eight

4th Sep 2014, 08:19

CAsA is the arse dick.

if area frequency broadcasts are causing problems then declare ctaf frequencies to be used at the airfields.

the two airfields south of perth share a ctaf frequency.

oh, and make them put in beep back units in each ctaf.

CaptainMidnight

4th Sep 2014, 08:47

I seem to recall that when this "Multicom" concept first came in many many moons ago there were complaints at RAPACs across the country from day one.

Complaints from traffic at many aerodromes that they were hearing broadcasts on 126.7 from aircraft nowhere near them, broadcasts from traffic at other aerodromes causing confusion because of the same runway IDs etc. etc.

And that's when discrete CTAFs started to be allocated to specific aerodromes and groups of aerodromes in close proximity to take traffic off 126.7, and that practice of allocating discrete CTAFs continues today. And when the level of radio traffic in a particular area starts to interfere with FIA comms, a Broadcast Area is declaredbased on the decision made on airspace policy by Federal CabinetDick - mate .... you know pollies wouldn't know :mad: from clay :)

Aussie Bob

4th Sep 2014, 09:41

I seem to recall that when this "Multicom" concept first came in many many moons ago there were complaints at RAPACs across the country from day one.

Not much has changed. Pilots, in particular private pilots and RAA pilots are obsessed with the sound of their own voices. I doubt there is anywhere else in the world where you will hear an extensive circuit commentary transmitted to an empty aerodrome as some so love to do here in Australia.

dubbleyew eight

4th Sep 2014, 09:45

Bob, there was a publication put out by Air Services suggesting/ dictating the calls to be used at non towered aerodromes.

Airservices provides services in controlled airspace so why they would publish something about non towered airstrips was puzzling to me.

Those "omelet recipes" you are complaining about are what they suggested in the document.

...another document best ignored :rolleyes:

Dick Smith

4th Sep 2014, 09:47

In this case they made a good decision because the team who made the recommendation made the correct decision.

There was always a multicom and separate CTAF frequencies.

Clare Prop

4th Sep 2014, 10:59

To those who say why say anything at all at an empty aerodrome...how do you know there is nobody else there if there is radio silence?

I have never forgotten an air tractor deciding to line up and take off with a tailwind in Northam, with zero calls, while I was on short final for the reciprocal runway. I had made calls but they chose not to talk or listen. IF they hadn't been such a large aeroplane it could have been possible to miss them.

Creampuff

4th Sep 2014, 11:03

You do of course realise that there could be aircraft with no radio at and in the vicinity of these places?

Tankengine

4th Sep 2014, 12:44

Northam is a well known, "marked" strip so calls on the ctaf needed to be made. Aggies generally do what they want, and don't hit you doing it! Best to ignore them.;)
Radio "silence" is OK at private strips which are not used by anyone else!:hmm:

Creampuff

4th Sep 2014, 21:37

I may be confused, but I think that this week the only places in the vicinity of which VHF radio must be carried and used are 'registered' or 'certified' aerodromes. Northam isn't registered or certified.

There are plenty of places that are marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts but aren't registered or certified.

If you think everyone in the vicinity of a place that's marked as an aerodrome on an aeronautical chart has a radio, please think again and check ERSA. :ok:

Clare Prop

4th Sep 2014, 23:59

Creampuff your scorn is getting really tedious.

I am talking about an aircraft that obviously has a radio as it also operates at Jandakot. A pilot who chose either a) to keep it turned off or b) to depart from a runway with another aircraft on final in the opposite direction.

You're the clever ne so you can post the reference that if you have a radio you must use it.

My point was that for those who feel that total radio silence is preferable to calls at an aerodrome that my not be certified or registered but nevertheless it's own discrete CTAF there could be occasions where you can cause another aircraft who has right of way to have to make a rapid change of course.

Scorn away as you are going on to my ignore list.

dubbleyew eight

5th Sep 2014, 00:39

clare prop that is why CTAF frequencies all need beep back units. so that on your radio call you can tell from the beep back response whether anyone else is active at the time.

the two aircraft I'm restoring have no electrical systems in them at all, just the magnetos.
you are making me think I should leave them as built.

Clare Prop

5th Sep 2014, 01:55

W8 I am aware of that. This was an air tractor who had chosen NOT to use his radio, as many people here seem to think is OK, while I had made what were at the time mandatory calls. There is an AFRU at Northam.

This is an example of when people think that "see and avoid" is enough for situational awareness and presumably why CASA have removed the mandatory requirement for certain calls. This guy had no idea there were other aircraft in the circuit or the runway in use, unless he thought that as his aircraft was about 4x bigger than all the others he could just blast off and we would get out of the way. Which luckily we were able to.

Sarcs

5th Sep 2014, 02:00

Not wanting to weigh into this absorbing debate but there seems to be a couple of sleeping elephants here that most, accept for Creamy (who keeps tweaking tails..:E), RAPAC and maybe Dick seem to be able to identify in amongst the FF smoke & mirrors...:ugh:

There is a safety issue here but IMO it is not the fact that some high flying airliner may get their RT to ATC clipped by annoying knuckle-draggers transmitting on area, which could ultimately lead to Creamy's 30,000 ft death plunge. A simple read of all recent BOS & LOSA incidents will put that fallacy to death. No the real safety issue here is again that of FF's making, which is that through their actions/inactions they are creating;

(a) A fear of non-compliance and therefore confusion in interpretation (as highlighted by this thread), which leads to simply ignoring and not making any RT calls.

(b) A culture of ignorance and complacency that leads to Joe (Private Pilot) Citizen simply ignoring and not making any RT calls (as highlighted in Clare Prop's example).

There is also a third slice of the Swiss cheese here that keeps rearing its' ugly head...:{ This is again of FF's making and is heavily embedded in their current toxic culture i.e. the profoundly DEAF EAR of the big "R" regulator...:=

From the Oz article 05 September 2014 (my bold):CASA under fire over handling of frequency changes for light pilots (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-under-fire-over-handling-of-frequency-changes-for-light-pilots/story-e6frg95x-1227048049314)
The conveners were unhappy with the way the Civil Aviation Safety Authority responded to their concerns and the fact they were unable to list it on the agenda of the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum.

The changes mean that aircraft operating into uncharted airports where there is no discrete common traffic advisory frequency must now use the VHF area *frequency also used by en-route air traffic controllers to talk to airlines flying at high levels.

Members of the Victorian RAPAC became alarmed when they raised the issue in July and were told it was “operational’’ and not a suitable subject of discussion by the committee.

“At best, this announced change to what RAPACs can or cannot discuss was a rather cavalier way to treat a group of volunteers who, for decades, have given considerable am ounts of their time and expertise to sort out airspace issues such as the very one in question,’’ member Dick Gower said.

The RAPACs were also rebuffed in an attempt to get issues agreed by state conveners tabled at a meeting of the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum and were again told it was not *appropriate, Mr Gower said. I think most on here can relate to the Vic RAPAC's extreme frustration with this issue...:ugh: However I'm not sure if complaining to the ICC...

"...Having been frustrated at every attempt to highlight an *important safety issue, the group of conveners have submitted their case to the Industry Complaints Commissioner..’’

...will resolve their anxiety anytime soon..:rolleyes:

People can disagree with Dick's condemnation of the current administration of aviation safety in this country but you certainly have to admire his tenacity to put forward his view and he certainly has the ear of MMSM Steve...:D :Former CASA chairman Dick Smith has also criticised the move, accused the air-safety regulator of using airline passengers as “safety guinea pigs’’ and mishandling the changes.

Mr Smith this week wrote to the chairs at CASA and Air*services as well as to Infrastructure Department secretary Mike Mrdak and ATSB chief Martin Dolan warning of the safety problems of having visual flight rules aircraft making announcements on air traffic control separation frequencies.

Mr Smith said that the *National Airspace System signed off by the Howard government was stopped halfway through and wound back. “I am sure you have all recently seen the terrible *results of the home insulation scheme and the related commission of inquiry,’’ he said.

“I am fearful that a similar situation will occur when we have inevitable loss of life because the airspace system we are now using has not been proven anywhere else in the world.’’

Mr Smith said the government should either move forward and follow the NAS system or return to the proven pre-1990 system of flight services officers, a move that he estimated would require the employment of an additional 700 people. Although Dick, I think your wasting your breath writing to that muppet mi..mi..mi..Beaker, he is too busy counting his recent windfall from the MH370 tragedy..:E

Creampuff

5th Sep 2014, 03:00

For the benefit of readers others than Clare, she is correct: If your aircraft has a serviceable VHF radio you must broadcast in accordance with the rules, even if you happen to be operating at a place at or near which fitment of VHF radio is not mandatory.

The point I was trying (scornfully) to make is that there are lots of places at which aircraft are not required to be fitted with a serviceable VHF radio. At those places it is open to aircraft to operate without a VHF radio fitted, and it is also open to aircraft with VHF radio fitted, but unserviceable, to operate (provided of course the defect is entered in the MR and the radio is placarded U/S). Many of those places are marked on aeronautical charts. Some aren’t.

At those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF. The fact that you may know an aircraft has a VHF that isn’t being used isn’t the same as knowing about the aircraft that don’t have a VHF.

Jack Ranga

5th Sep 2014, 05:32

At those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF.

Calling all VFR pilots and Instructors of VFR pilots in the Melbourne area,

Creampuff would like you to comply with the rules of the day regarding the use of VHF radio on the appropriate frequency :ok:

Creampuff

5th Sep 2014, 06:57

JR: You are conflating the broadcast rules with the carriage of serviceable VHF rules.

If the circumstances of your flight require you to have a serviceable VHF, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.

If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF but you nonetheless choose to fly with a VHF and it’s serviceable, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.

If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF and you choose to fly without a VHF, or you choose to fly with a VHF that is not serviceable, you do not have to comply with the broadcast rules.

The question whether the circumstances of a flight require a serviceable VHF depends on, among other things, whether the flight will be in the vicinity of a registered or certified aerodrome.

Many places marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are not registered or certified aerodromes. Any other place not marked at all is, by definition, not registered or certified. Hence at those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF.

Simple.

The question to the VFR pilots and the instructor of VFR pilots in the Melbourne area - and the question at the heart of this thread - is not about whether someone has to have a serviceable VHF. It’s about the frequency they monitor and broadcast on, if they are required to have or choose to have a serviceable VHF.

Simple.

dubbleyew eight

5th Sep 2014, 07:04

Creampuff is correct.

the problem with legislative change on change on change is that the message gets confused.
add a CAsA with a vindictive streak and the message gets even more confused as people try to appease the bully, never mind the rules.

the benefit in having clear concise rules is that they are more easily understood.

I'm sure over time more and more people will understand less and less of the 1,600 pages of the current rules.

the greatest risk to aviation safety is the lack of competence.
in the minister and CAsA we see a phenomenal lack of competence.:mad:

Creampuff

5th Sep 2014, 07:12

You reminded me, W8. I forgot to add after each sentence:

Penalty: 50 Penalty Units

dubbleyew eight

5th Sep 2014, 07:15

you're such a bully :E

Jack Ranga

5th Sep 2014, 10:07

Dick Smith

5th Sep 2014, 10:10

Isn't it pretty obvious that no one takes any notice of this CASA frequency directive.

As I have stated before - there a dozens of small strips in any area and with retransmission on up to 12 or more frequencies there would be lots of calls on area frequencies on any given weekend - if the rule was complied with.

In the last six months I have flown over many small strips in the mittagong- goulburn area and seen local traffic and some taxiing aircraft . I always - as far as possible - monitor the area frequency on my second radio -as I learnt to fly before 1990 and know that the whole basis of Australian air safety depends on this!

And I have not heard one complying announcement

What is the actual fine in dollar terms for making the announcements only on the multicom or local CTAF frequency ?

Creampuff

5th Sep 2014, 22:32

If the pilot of an aircraft fitted with VHF chooses to be ignorant of or ignore the frequency/broadcast rules, that his or her risk.

My advice to pilots is: If you think a fine is your only potential problem if you fail to comply with the frequency/broadcast rules, think again. Think really hard about the other problems you might have. Also, make sure you write down the name of anyone who advises you to do something contrary to the rules, and the date/time and what was said. That way, that person can 'help' you with the other problems you might have when you act on that advice. :ok:

Creampuff

5th Sep 2014, 23:04

JR: What parts, precisely, of my post you quoted are "****"?

It's actually an accurate summary of the relevant rules. That someone who claims to work as an ATCer describes it as "****" is a bit of a worry. I'm guessing it's because you're labouring under the misapprehension that every aircraft has to have a serviceable VHF. But that's only a guess.

Jack Ranga

5th Sep 2014, 23:19

Creampuff, what I'm describing as '****' are not the participants in this conversation, nor the rules. I can't believe that such a conversation can take place when the industry faces the problems that it does at the moment.

I'm not rubbing people's noses in it, but I travel quite a bit to the States (mainly family reasons). The economy there is obviously in a desperate state but GA, relative to here is pumping. They face a multitude of issues in GA but they get off their arses, mainly in associations, and do something about it. The politics in every little organisation in this country is an embarrassing joke (SAAA, RA-Aus to name a few), I said to another dood that it's too late to fix things here. This industry will have to die and be re-built before things change.

This discussion about multicomm or whatever is amusing, and it's full of crap. Is it that hard to use a bit of common sense, know the rules & follow them? Or do we have to month long discussions about the intricacies involved, how it's going to devastate the industry and ruin our love of following rules here in Australia? Awesome discussion :ok:

Creampuff

5th Sep 2014, 23:37

No argument from me: Australia is a third world country, aviation-wise! :ok:

triadic

12th Sep 2014, 13:29

It is interesting to observe that CASA are still silent on this matter bar some comment to the Oz on Friday. Further gos' is that Airservices were not consulted which is somewhat hard to believe..... Whichever way you think, it's hard to accept that CASA is nothing but a rudderless ship... With lots of holes!!:ugh:

Knackers

13th Sep 2014, 08:35

Airservices provides services in controlled airspace...

Controllers provide services in all airspace classes.

Creampuff

13th Sep 2014, 22:01

Has anyone seen the actual, original direction, by a delegate of the power in section 99A of the CARs, implementing all this stuff? It wouldn't be the first time that amateur dabblers have changed provisions of AIP without a valid exercise of power to authorise the change.

I have to say I'm still intrigued to find out what's really driving the resistance to the current frequency arrangement (which arrangement I had thought was arrangement for a long time). Everyone knows there's three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all aviation activity in and out of places that aren't marked on any aeronautical chart, and that the tiny number of broadcasts on area from aircraft with VHF operating in and out of those places aren't going to bring down the system of ATC. There's something more to this. :hmm:

Capn Bloggs

13th Sep 2014, 23:54

C'mon Puff, 1/simplicity -no discrete CTAF? Then do all your circuit calls on the Multicom. 2/Takes extraneous R/T off Control Freqs. I'd wager that the only reason there are so few calls now is that most pilots think (rightly) it is a silly idea making circuit calls at Bullamakanka on the Control Freq and therefore don't do it. It worked decades ago with lots of small-area segregated Area Freqs, but not now.

kaz3g

14th Sep 2014, 00:32

Capn Bloggs

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 5,143
C'mon Puff, 1/simplicity -no discrete CTAF? Then do all your circuit calls on the Multicom. 2/Takes extraneous R/T off Control Freqs. I'd wager that the only reason there are so few calls now is that most pilots think (rightly) it is a silly idea making circuit calls at Bullamakanka on the Control Freq and therefore don't do it. It worked decades ago with lots of small-area segregated Area Freqs, but not now.

The members of the Bullamakanka Recreational Flying Club unfortunately see ATC as part of the Regulator and are ***t scared of saying the wrong thing and attracting unwarranted attention to their flour bombing competitions.

Unlike someone else's comment about too many calls and otherwise empty circuits by VFR pilots who like the sound of their own voices, my experience is that many keep shtum for fear of saying the wrong thing.

Other than in the southern end of the Melbourne Basin there is an added problem in deciding frequency selection; much of it is populated by CTAF's shown on the charts. The rule therefore requires listening to and transmitting mandatory calls on the CTAF which, in the case of a single radio-equipped (or perhaps non-radio) aircraft means they won't be listening to 135.7.

So, for example, Melbourne Radar calling up an un-identified aircraft apparently straying near YLIL when a jump aircraft has notified his readiness to disgorge his load of unsuspecting adventurers may reasonably not elicit a response from the pilot below. This miscreant may have actually heard the other call on 119.1 and just be dagging around waiting for the circuit to clear. This doesn't do much for MR's ulcers, I'm sure, but in this case the pilot below would correctly be on CTAF and not area.

More grist for the mill.

Kaz

Creampuff

14th Sep 2014, 00:38

Happy to take that bet, Cap'n.

As I said earlier in the thread, I usually monitor three frequencies when I fly: Area, 126.7 and, if there's an aerodrome nearby that has a discrete CTAF, that frequency as well.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of calls I've heard on either Area or 126.7 from aircraft operating in the vicinity of places that are not marked as strips on any aeronautical chart. That includes the area in which Dick says there are lots of unmarked private strips with lots of activity going on. I can tell you, first hand: there aint much happening at places that aren't marked as strips on aeronautical charts.

And people seem to be overlooking the fact that aircraft operating in these places don't have to be fitted with serviceable VHF at all.

People also seem to be overlooking some of the benefits of broadcasting on and monitoring the area frequency.

This discussion reminds me a bit of the CVD issue. CASA has been challenged to quote the text of the recent research to which CASA referred in its recent correspondence about colour vision, and to state the operational situation simulated by the CAD test. CASA has done neither.

And we know why CASA has done neither: There is no recent research to the effect stated by CASA, and the CAD test does not simulate any operational situation.

I think I've put out the challenge at least twice in this thread: Please someone - anyone - nominate one place - just one frickin place - that isn't marked on any aeronautical chart but is a hive of aviation activity.

Nary a nomination.

And I know why.

That's why I'm intrigued to understand what's really behind all the bluff and bluster.

Capn Bloggs

14th Sep 2014, 00:58

I think I've put out the challenge at least twice in this thread: Please someone - anyone - nominate one place - just one frickin place - that isn't marked on any aeronautical chart but is a hive of aviation activity
IMO, that's irrelevant. And if there was eg Farmer Brown's flyin, the Multicom lends itself perfectly to that, without the "just create a NOTAM [that very few in the target audience reads]" nonsense. Do you really expect anybody, in this day and age, to do that, or indeed AsA to publish it? No temporary CTAFs required, no comm-jamming of ATC freqs, just ops normal on the Multicom.

People also seem to be overlooking some of the benefits of broadcasting on and monitoring the area frequency.
There are, and you can easily do it, but is it necessary in the circuit area of Bullamakanka? How many casualties have occurred during accidents in the circuit area that could have been prevented/reduced had the aircraft called on/been on Area?

Creampuff

14th Sep 2014, 01:29

IMO, it's centrally relevant. These are the place the area broadcasts from which were going to cause a meltdown, remember?

But we're going in pointless orbits now.

If the assumption is that pilots don't read NOTAMS and in any event it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, then let's build a system based on that assumption. It would certainly simplify things ...

I've also said this before in this thread: If you're saying it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, I call bullsh*t.

I've also said this before in this thread: It's not just about the pilots at Farmer Brown's fly-in. It's about the pilots who don't know there's a fly-in at Farmer Brown's.

Capn Bloggs

14th Sep 2014, 01:38

If the assumption is that pilots don't read NOTAMS and in any event it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, then let's build a system based on that assumption. It would certainly simplify things ...
It's called a Multicom. :ok:

I've also said this before in this thread: It's not just about the pilots at Farmer Brown's fly-in. It's about the pilots who don't know there's a fly-in at Farmer Brown's.
No, overflyers (including me) would be on the Area and hear any climbing/descending activity. They (and me) are just not interested in the circuit traffic.

Creampuff

14th Sep 2014, 02:00

No, overflyers (including me) would be on the Area and hear any climbing/descending activity.Why would you hear any climbing/descending activity?

Surely that could only happen if the aircraft going into or out of Farmer Brown's fly-in did a broadcast on .....

Area.

Capn Bloggs

14th Sep 2014, 02:02

Why would you hear any climbing/descending activity?

Surely that could only happen if the aircraft going into or out of Farmer Brown's fly-in did a broadcast on .....

Area.
Precisely what happens now when an aircraft (including me) departs a discrete CTAF... a departure call on Area.

Creampuff

14th Sep 2014, 03:07

You realise, of course, that if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart, the VFRs inbound and outbound won't be broadcasting on Area?

kaz3g

14th Sep 2014, 03:07

Precisely what happens now when an aircraft (including me) departs a discrete CTAF... a departure call on Area.

So, now we have VFR flights from a CTAF at a non-towered aerodrome giving:

A departure call on area

A call climbing through 5000 on area

Given that the majority of VFR flights these days are without a flight plan and probably without a sartime as well, I'm curious where the rules for these calls can be found because I'm no doubt doing the wrong thing, again...

Kaz

Creampuff

14th Sep 2014, 03:08

You're probably confused, like me, Kaz. :ok:

kaz3g

14th Sep 2014, 03:16

. You realise, of course, that if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart, the VFRs inbound and outbound won't be broadcasting on Area?

A lot of us won't even be listening to it. One radio and no dual watch (perhaps next year's Christmas present from me).

I'll be on the CTAF if within the 10 NM radius giving my inbound and departure calls, and on the Area if I'm not.

If on Area, above or below 5000', I will be listening to it and not cluttering those important airwaves unless necessary to ensure separation, etc.

Kaz

Edit: and just to make Jack feel less neglected, a couple of weekends ago I saw the Euroa meat bomber taxiing and then responded to the advisory on 122.4 when he called me as an un-identified A/C nearby at 2500. I'm so confused, I'm not now sure if I did the right thing because perhaps I should have been on the Multicom?

Then again, not sure if it was Euroa. It was north of the Highway and my WAC says Euroa is south of it. But the VNC says its north??? Pesky thing keeps moving...it's hard to nail it down. But wait...it's only 9 miles from Locksley on 121.1 so I should be on that frequency...

Oh bugger it...I'll just keep shtum.

triadic

14th Sep 2014, 03:23

Creamy, Blogs correct.
Your assumption that this is not a change is incorrect ...

The MULTICOM has been in existence for over a decade and was part of NAS when introduced. It now has been changed by nameless officers in CASA who obviously don't know the history (like yourself) and the reasons for its establishment.

Re notams: you try and get a NOTAM issued for farmer Joe's strip and it will turn up in the FIR bulletin which does not have a lot of readers in the GA world.

One of the reasons for the MULTICOM is that it kept things simple and standardised - viz 126.7 unless a promulgated CTAF (like in North America). No need to worry about FIA boundaries or being on the correct area freq, especially near a boundary.

You have to remember that in real world calls on area should be directed to the controller, or be relevant to other traffic, ie change of level or descent etc. With retransmission in some cases up to 8 frequencies are linked together. The last thing we need is b'casts that are not relevant, especially when there are many low level dead spots that are not heard by the controller, but are by the high flyers.

What we do need is better education on the use of radio, and not to believe that hitting the PTT will solve everything!! Something that those that operate in stealth mode discovered a long time ago!

Sadly, not everything that CASA does is about safety and this is one such example. It's more about power & ego or protecting their legal backside... Especially when thy don't understand what they are making decisions about. Like I said, a ship without a rudder and many holes..... Heaven help GA if this behaviour continues.

The case here is simple. CASA got it wrong! Now how do you fix that?? :ugh:

triadic

14th Sep 2014, 03:36

So, now we have VFR flights from a CTAF at a non-towered aerodrome giving:
A departure call on area
A call climbing through 5000 on area

If he was IFR that would be so for point one. Point two not required!
Neither required for VFR.....

Capn Bloggs

14th Sep 2014, 04:41

You realise, of course, that if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart, the VFRs inbound and outbound won't be broadcasting on Area?
Yes, I do, because that's what CTAFs are for. Away from the CTAF and above 5000ft, carriage of VHF by VFR is required above 5000ft; AIP ENR 1.4 section 4 refers.

Creampuff

14th Sep 2014, 05:14

The MULTICOM has been in existence for over a decade and was part of NAS when introduced. It now has been changed by nameless officers in CASA who obviously don't know the history (like yourself) and the reasons for its establishment. Actually, I do know the gory and intimate details of, and the reasons for, all of the half-baked, poorly-implemented changes inflicted on aviation in Australia in the last couple of decades. Funny thing is that I've been using the same frequency and broadcast procedures for around the last decade, and numerous biennial/aeroplane flight reviews (or whatever they are called). Funnier still is that all the pilots I know use the same procedures.Re notams: you try and get a NOTAM issued for farmer Joe's strip and it will turn up in the FIR bulletin which does not have a lot of readers in the GA world.You do seem to be changing your tune a little on this issue. Now it's that the NOTAM can be published, but no one in the GA world will read it.

GA pilots thank you for the insult.

I'll say it again: If the standard of airmanship has deteriorated to the point at which pilots aren't reading NOTAMs, trivia like frequency and broadcast rules are the least of Australia's aviation problems.One of the reasons for the MULTICOM is that it kept things simple and standardised - viz 126.7 unless a promulgated CTAF (like in North America). No need to worry about FIA boundaries or being on the correct area freq, especially near a boundary.Great.

But that's not the system currently in place in Australia, and it was only ever in place for a very short time. (I remember the reason for 'Dick's Biscuits' being put on charts. Do you?) You have to remember that in real world calls on area should be directed to the controller, or be relevant to other traffic, ie change of level or descent etc. With retransmission in some cases up to 8 frequencies are linked together. The last thing we need is b'casts that are not relevant, especially when there are many low level dead spots that are not heard by the controller, but are by the high flyers.Poor dears. It must be incredibly disruptive and throw high flying cockpits into complete disarray when they hear a broadcast that is not relevant.

This "problem" is based on a complete fiction: That there is lots of aviation activity going on at places in Australia that aren't marked on aeronautical charts.

Australia isn't the USA. There's lots more of nothing happening at lots more places in Australia.

Another funny thing is that almost all of the broadcasts I hear on any frequency are "not relevant" .... to me. But I continue to figure that the system not just about me. What we do need is better education on the use of radio, and not to believe that hitting the PTT will solve everything!! Something that those that operate in stealth mode discovered a long time ago!I agree. Sadly, not everything that CASA does is about safety and this is one such example. It's more about power & ego or protecting their legal backside... Especially when thy don't understand what they are making decisions about. Like I said, a ship without a rudder and many holes..... Heaven help GA if this behaviour continues.How does broadcasting on area reduce CASA's exposure? I thought the risk of this "change" is that there'll be ATC meltdown and crashing RPTs.The case here is simple. CASA got it wrong! Now how do you fix that??Easy: You get a job in CASA, and fix it.

The funny thing - no, the hilarious thing - is that whatever changes you made, there'd be a bunch of loudmouths telling you that you don't understand what you are making decisions about and you got it wrong!

triadic

14th Sep 2014, 09:18

Actually, I do know the gory and intimate details of, and the reasons for, all of the half-baked, poorly-implemented changes inflicted on aviation in Australia in the last couple of decades. Funny thing is that I've been using the same frequency and broadcast procedures for around the last decade, and numerous biennial/aeroplane flight reviews (or whatever they are called). Funnier still is that all the pilots I know use the same procedures.

Yes, seems you are the victim of the education program of the day which sadly failed to get is message fully across! ... But then it was in the AIP...

You do seem to be changing your tune a little on this issue. Now it's that the NOTAM can be published, but no one in the GA world will read it.

GA pilots thank you for the insult.

I'll say it again: If the standard of airmanship has deteriorated to the point at which pilots aren't reading NOTAMs, trivia like frequency and broadcast rules are the least of Australia's aviation problems.

No, not an insult, just a statement of fact!! How many GA pilots do you know that even check NOTAM's these days, let alone the FIR ones? As for airmanship, it has not been taught significantly for at least 25 years - we now wear the consequences, including it seems younger FOI's who clearly don't understand such things!

But that's not the system currently in place in Australia, and it was only ever in place for a very short time. (I remember the reason for 'Dick's Biscuits' being put on charts. Do you?)

Only because it has been changed by by those that don't understand the way the system is meant to work! And yes, I recall the DS biscuits.

Poor dears. It must be incredibly disruptive and throw high flying cockpits into complete disarray when they hear a broadcast that is not relevant.

This "problem" is based on a complete fiction: That there is lots of aviation activity going on at places in Australia that aren't marked on aeronautical charts.

Australia isn't the USA. There's lots more of nothing happening at lots more places in Australia.

Another funny thing is that almost all of the broadcasts I hear on any frequency are "not relevant" .... to me. But I continue to figure that the system not just about me.

Creamy, have you ever sat in the cruise at FL's and listened to all the low level crap on area? Sad part is you have to listen (good airmanship) in order not to miss the calls from centre directed to you. The level of activity is irrelavent, it is the level of chat that is more the subject of this discussion. Australia will never be the USA because our aviation culture is so different, regardless of the traffic levels. When the education is directed more at the entrenched culture issues it might start to see some positive change! Go fly over there and you will see the difference before the wheels leave the ground.:ok:

How does broadcasting on area reduce CASA's exposure? I thought the risk of this "change" is that there'll be ATC meltdown and crashing RPTs.

Under the present system CASA "make up" the procedures, regardless it seems of what ASA and industry think. This is all about communication, which this example indicates CASA are not much good at!

Easy: You get a job in CASA, and fix it.

Not that easy, except maybe for the new DAS - most walk in the door get brainwashed for a year or so, and then forget all that was previously important to them!

The funny thing - no, the hilarious thing - is that whatever changes you made, there'd be a bunch of loudmouths telling you that you don't understand what you are making decisions about and you got it wrong!

No, the issue is not a lot of loudmouths on either side of the fence, but the failure of some in CASA to realise they don't know all answers, and then have the guts to talk to others in order to arrive at a good decision, which means that everyone should at least have the courtesy to invite discussion and of course listen....:ugh:

CaptainMidnight

15th Sep 2014, 08:25

I've been using the same frequency and broadcast procedures for around the last decade, and numerous biennial/aeroplane flight reviews (or whatever they are called). Funnier still is that all the pilots I know use the same procedures.Exactly, same here.

Triadic - please don't think you and Dick Gower are representing the rest of us.

Creampuff

15th Sep 2014, 10:59

One of the reasons for the MULTICOM is that it kept things simple and standardised - viz 126.7 unless a promulgated CTAF (like in North America). No need to worry about FIA boundaries or being on the correct area freq, especially near a boundary.The mention of "Multicom" and "North America" reminded me of where things went pear shaped in the half-baked attempt to introduce the same concept in Australia over a decade ago. (Do a search for "Multicom" on D&G and you'll see a number of threads on which the ensuing mayhem was discussed.)

If you haven't been following Dick's thread on the Canada forum, pop over there and you'll see that I've extracted some stuff from the Transport Canada equivalent of the Australian AIP.

You'll see that in Canada there's a single frequency for use outside controlled airspace, everywhere!

Everywhere ...... except ....

Everywhere except in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome. When in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome in Canada, you must use either the published frequency for that place or, if there's not a published frequency for that place, the default frequency.

Sound familiar? It should, but...

The difference is that the default frequency for use at any uncontrolled aerodrome for which a discrete frequency has not been published is not the same as the single frequency for use outside controlled airspace. In Canada, the frequency for use outside controlled airspace is - drum roll ...- 126.7 - and the default frequency for use at uncontrolled aerodromes for which a discrete frequency has not been published is - drum roll ... 123.2.

The reason things went pear shaped in Australia is that the default frequency for use at uncontrolled aerodromes was the same as the 'outside controlled airspace' frequency: 126.7. Mayhem on 126.7.

So....

Here's what needs to happen in Australia to introduce a fully-baked version of this system:

1. All broadcasts from aircraft that are both:

- (a) outside controlled airspace, and
- (b) outside the vicinity of places that are not marked on aeronautical charts,

must be made on 126.7.

2. All broadcasts in the vicinity of places that are marked on aeronautical charts but outside controlled airspace must be made on:

- (a) the frequency published for that place, or
- (b) the default frequency of xyz.q (which must NOT be 126.7 or nearby control area frequency).

Capn Bloggs

15th Sep 2014, 11:39

Or, leave everything as is, with the use of the Multicom below 5000ft.

Creampuff

15th Sep 2014, 12:07

No.

If the US system it's to be, then the US system it's to be.

Capn Bloggs

15th Sep 2014, 12:43

If the US system it's to be, then the US system it's to be.
Oh come on Puff, now you're getting irrational. Nobody said it has to be US, well, only one. We operate happily IFR in Class G because our situation is totally different to the US. We don't need/want every Tom, Dick and Harry in the circuit at Timbucktoo yabbering on the Centre freqs. CTAFs to Area works; why won't Multicom to Area??

It is you who is sending this subject around in circles! :rolleyes:

dubbleyew eight

15th Sep 2014, 15:22

creamies elucidation of the frequencies would work right up until air services added those frequencies into its global rebroadcast system :}:}:}
and then it'd be back to scratch :}:}:}

Creampuff

15th Sep 2014, 21:15

No Cap'n

You can't 'cherry pick' the bits that happen to suit you, and impose on everyone else the conseqential inconvenience.

Where is this 'Timbuktu' from which all these area frequency-clogging broadcasts are originating? Is it near Bullamakanka? All fiction rather than fact.

I'm still confused because Jack says no VFRs outside Class Charlie are listening on Area, but according to triadic there's a bunch of skygods in the cruise who have to endure the trauma of listening to "all the low level crap on area". Nominate the frequency, triadic, so I can listen to it.

I've flown across Australia more than a few times, listening to three frequencies at once, and I'm pleasantly surprised when I hear any "low level crap" on any frequency. And yes, I understand the retransmission/area combination system.Why didn't this happen in the first place then??Because IFRs couldn't cope with the concept of there being no traffic information service in Class G, and the demise of Flightwatch left only one option for the provision of on-request services to VFRs.

If you're going to provide a traffic information service to IFRs and on-request service to VFRs in G, you need a frequency on which it can be provided by Airservices. Let's call that the 'Area frequency'. :ok:

Dick Smith

16th Sep 2014, 21:12

Creampuff. Other leading aviation countries such as the USA can provide both of those services without an " area frequency"

How do they do it? Suggest you look at the original cabinet approved NAS document.

It's so simple and safe it doesn't require circuit calls on frequencies used by ATC to separate airline passenger aircraft.

Creampuff

16th Sep 2014, 21:25

Then get it implemented, old boy.

Here's how you do it: Ring up John Howard and tell him that if you don't get the system you want, you'll run a public campaign in support of independents for key House of Representatives seats in NSW electorates. Convince him that the threat is real, and you'll have Airservices executives wearing pink bunny suits if you want.

You really do need to get out of this mindset that assumes any of these decisions are about logic or objective public interest.

Creampuff

17th Sep 2014, 01:03

Of course John Howard.

He and Peta Credlin (and around 40 other Howard protégés in the PMO) are running the government.

Ordinary plebs like us need to use the indirect route: non-major party aligned Senators. But Dick has sufficient public profile and respect to put seats in the HOR at risk. John Howard understands this. Go for it Dick!

Capn Bloggs

17th Sep 2014, 02:39

Gawd this is getting ridiculous. We do not need E airpsace all over Oz, nor do we need no DTI services for IFR in Class G.

Most of us think all we need is a separate freq for circuit operations at places without a discrete CTAF.

Puff, put up some good arguments for not having a Multicom below 5000ft or give this whole thing a rest!

Pinky the pilot

17th Sep 2014, 04:01

How many GA pilots do you know that even check NOTAM's these days, let alone the FIR ones?

To not do so (not check them before departure in other words) was a sackable offence with a few companies I flew with.:hmm:

Creampuff

17th Sep 2014, 05:40

Puff, put up some good arguments for not having a Multicom below 5000ft or give this whole thing a rest!I don’t need to put up sh*t. And provided I’m not breaking pprune rules, I can post whatever I like.

If you want something changed, you get it changed. Given that you purport to speak for “most of us”, it should be easy.

My perspective is that “most of us” haven’t a clue how to get things changed, and instead waste time arguing on pprune.

Just so I can decide whether actually to implement the ‘Multicom below 5000ft’ system, with DTI for IFR in Class G, I need more details. In your proposed system:

- Is the default CTAF the same as the Multicom frequency? (If yes, you can go and get stuffed.)

- Are VFR ‘allowed’ to request services on the frequency used to provide DTI for IFR in Class G? (If no, you can go and get more stuffed.)

(Pinky: I wonder who's signing off of the AFRs of all these GA pilots who don't check FIR NOTAMS. I'm yet to do one review during which the reviewer hasn't required a demonstration of compliance with the legal obligation to have reviewed NOTAMS.)

CaptainMidnight

17th Sep 2014, 07:36

Most of us think all we need is a separate freq for circuit operations at places without a discrete CTAF.We already have that, and have had for over 10 years - 126.7

Creampuff

17th Sep 2014, 09:20

Most of us think all we need is a separate freq for circuit operations at places without a discrete CTAF.

We already have that, and have had for over 10 years - 126.7 Errrmmmmm ...

.... only if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart.

At other places it's Area.

Isn't that the scenario that's of concern to triadic, Cap'n B and Dick? :confused:

CaptainMidnight

17th Sep 2014, 09:38

Errrmmmmm ...

.... only if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart.True - I left out those critical words.

I've heard that a meeting on the subject is being organised with CASA, Airservices and two individuals (not sure who they represent though) to take place in a week or two.

Creampuff

17th Sep 2014, 09:58

This 'meeting' sounds important.

Hopefully a media advisor will produce something about the outcomes. Once the media advisors get involved, you can be confident it's something the government is committed to pretending to take seriously. :ok:

Stretch06

18th Sep 2014, 23:33

Hopefully a media advisor will produce something about the outcomes. Once the media advisors get involved, you can be confident it's something the government is committed to pretending to take seriously. :ok:

Someones been watching Hollowmen and Utopia... :ok:

Creampuff

18th Sep 2014, 23:40

Nope – I’ve been watching real entertainment for about 40 years: how governments really work. :ok:

CaptainMidnight

20th Sep 2014, 03:20

What concerns me is the outcome with only two individuals from the industry.

My experience of RAPACs is that some attendees seem to represent themselves and their views are not necessarily shared by others, or even in some cases shared by those they claim to represent ....

Creampuff

20th Sep 2014, 08:39

Can anyone remember when ERSA, AIP etc were relatively light, thin documents that were easy to read and fairly clear? Not several forests worth of paper or terabytes of memory. Survey, this example is a simple natter and things are not THAT much more complex now are they?About 15 years ago I had an epiphany. It dawned on me that the regulatory reform program in Australia would drift along forever and, sadly, make no difference - at least not a positive one - to aviation in Australia. I also realised that Laborial governments are only really good at a few things: Taxing like robber Barons, spending like drunken sailors and doing favours for 'mates'.

The only things that usually change, only slightly, are the rates and the mates.

So for me, other than a couple of things like the move from quadrantal to hemispherical crusing levels, not many of the basics that will help keep me alive have changed in substance. I figure if I concentrate on those, I probably won't die. Same approach to any risky endeavour.

If there is some arseclown in government who believes that aviation safety will be adversely affected if I don't retain my logbook for 7 years after I've stopped flying, I look forward to that arseclown knocking on my door at 7 years minus one day. :ok:

Creampuff

20th Sep 2014, 09:41

No. Rampaging Roy Slaven and HG Nelson invented the word over a decade ago. :ok:

as350nut

10th Nov 2014, 19:46

My private helipad is my ALA 30m dme YBBN, NOT marked on a chart and 13 miles from nearest CTAF, however I get a lot of overflying low level helicopter and plane flights due to living in a pass in the mountain range(at 800ft) So I "should" transmit on area ATC. 10 miles, base, landing; rolling, departure. All I ever hear on that frequency is the big jets, their going to love me, and I feel like a :mad:transmitting what they are not interested in, how long before ATC tells me to bugger off? I am going to do it now, to the letter, and see what happens and if I get abused I'll refer them "ATC"to CAR 166 :D personally I always have 2 vhf and listen on area and local ctaf/aerodrome freq as I fly around, is that so hard? Can't afford a second radio? How can you afford to fly then?

Creampuff

10th Nov 2014, 23:03

If you were concerned about a potential collision between you and the “overflying low level helicopter and plane flights”, on what frequency would you transmit your location and intentions in an attempt to reduce the risk of a collision?

Since when were “landing” and “rolling” and “departure” calls necessary when operating VFR? If you spend more than 20 seconds, total, transmitting on the way in and the way out of your private helipad, you’re talking way too much.

Don’t worry: Your 20 or so seconds of transmission once or twice a day will not cause aluminium confetti.

If some skygod or ATCer tells you to ‘bugger off’, tell them to ‘bugger off’.

Dick Smith

11th Nov 2014, 07:37

I have this incredible unique idea. Why not follow the official CASA NAS document when flying en route below 3000 agl.

Page 27 under VFR airmanship- choosing frequencies

Multicom 126.7 - a recommended frequency to monitor when flying 3000' AGL or below or nearest CTAF /MBZ if different.

Now I don't think anything could be more logical or straightforward.

Wouldn't this solve the CASA stated problem for enroute alerting of traffic that may fly through a circuit area- yes. It was already thought about but CASA forgot to read their own document- incompetent!

On eyre

11th Nov 2014, 08:04

And that is exactly what I do Dick (and have done for years). Too much like common sense to ignore. But I do monitor the area frequency on second comm when I have one but that is purely for situational awareness for possible traffic (mainly RFDS who could be anywhere).

On Track

11th Nov 2014, 17:25

Exactly. One radio for monitoring area frequency and the other for monitoring the nearest CTAF, no matter what height I'm at.

If need be, speak up on the relevant frequency.

I've always done that. In fact, I thought that was what everyone was doing.

I don't see why a VFR aircraft should use an ATC frequency (which is what an area frequency is) when stooging around the circuit area of some airstrip that is so insignificant that it does not even appear on a chart, and which may well be many thousands of feet below controlled airspace,

as350nut

11th Nov 2014, 18:23

I agree with what you say, and my comments are in frustration with the system. But.Don't you have to make at least a 10 mile call, joining the circuit, turning base. These are mandatory at ctaf, I suppose could argue not required at private helipad? I usually don't make a call at all in and out but feel like making a point that's all. I have tcas in now also which I think is great.

Dick Smith

11th Nov 2014, 19:06

At the present time , as Creamy has pointed out, CASA has advised pilots that the correct frequency at these unmarked airports is the area frequency which is also used by ATC to separate IFR aircraft.

The ATSB also supports CASA on this!

It clearly shows the level of competence at each organisation.

Can someone give a name of the person at CASA who is driving this?

Or is there no individual who is responsible ? Sought of driven by group think and computer generated notams!

Strainer

11th Nov 2014, 22:37

But.Don't you have to make at least a 10 mile call, joining the circuit, turning base. These are mandatory at ctaf

The radio calls that CAsA would like you to give are taxiing, entering the runway, an inbound call and joining the circut. These calls are recommended only, not mandatory as suggested.

Tankengine

11th Nov 2014, 22:55

If operating into and out of a private area that nobody else uses why say anything?:hmm:

Creampuff

12th Nov 2014, 00:00

Aviation in Australia: Orbiting one day. Still orbiting decades later, just closer to the ground.

I thought the supporters of NAS were advocating that VFRs should just turn off the VHF and listen to the stereo.

Now I’m hearing that VFRs should carry two VHFs and monitor two frequencies: area and the nearest CTAF.

And, ironically, I seem to be the only one pointing out that you don’t have carry a serviceable VHF in many of these OCTA circumstances. So for pilots of those aircraft, this debate is entertaining but academic.If need be, speak up on the relevant frequency.And what is “the relevant frequency”, and when do you know if you “need” to “speak up”? (Strainer answered the question about “mandatory” calls.)

Tank: You might want to say something because on the way in or out of your “private area” you might be mixing it with “overflying low level helicopter and plane flights”.

Dick, I’ve decided to give you the nickname: “Cherry Pick”.

In a related thread you threw rocks at the suggestion that VFR pilots had to carry ERC(L) in order to have access to information essential for VFR navigation beyond the coverage of VNC. When it was pointed out to you that NAS cherry picked some but not all elements of the “proven US model”, one of which is nation-wide VFR Sectional coverage, you went very quiet.

You continue to cherry pick from a document that became cocky cage liner over a decade ago. You cherry pick a quote on “airmanship”. Here are some other cherry picked quotes from NAS material about “airmanship”, and questions that remain unanswered.

NASIG launched a website in August 2002, containing ‘basic information’ about NAS. Here’s a cherry picked quote: Airmanship
As part of the pilot education programme, pilots of VFR aircraft will be encouraged where practical to:
- avoid routes likely to be used by IFR aircraft.A question on PPRuNe in response: How the hell are VFR flights supposed to avoid IFR, routes.Another question on PPRuNe in response: And what's this crap about VFR avoiding IFR routes?

Anyone seen a ERC/Jepp chart lately...pick me route from say Redcliffe to Cairns avoiding all navaids, airfields and published route data...More cherry picked quotes from the cocky cage liner (and my all-time favourite NAS comedy gold):From page 30 of the Reference Guide, VFR Airmanship-

"Avoid, as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns." A comment in response to some more NAS material:I drew rye satisfaction from the "Let's Go Flying-Case Study". Having told us ad-nauseum that VFR should avoid IFR routes they actually managed to find two points not joined by an IFR route, I wonder how long that took. Two points among a spider web of IFR routes...man I just hope none of the pilots at Armidale or Gunnedah want to fly to Narrabri, Quirindi, Tamworth etc.
…
VFR pilot's seem to now require, on top of WACs etc, a set of IFR charts and approach plates...not that they will be allowed to access the information therein to enhance the safety levels of their own operation...just so they can stay away from airspace which encompasses approaches used by IFR traffic.More NAS comedy gold, from the DOTARS website pilot education on line version: VFR pilots should avoid when practicable areas where IFR flights may be in a holding pattern:

Holding patterns are depicted on ERC-Low charts as an oval track e.g. left hand pattern centerd on NICKY

VFR pilots should remain clear of GPS approaches:

IFR flights will track to the open triangle and begin the approach from there
If there is more than one open triangle an IFR flight may begin from any of them

Copies of most instrument approaches are available from the Airservices Australia website: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...re/aip/dap.htm

IFR flights will track to the open triangle and begin the approach from there
If there is more than one open triangle an IFR flight may begin from any of the positions

Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome.So, Cherry Pick, according to NAS material, “VFR airmanship” involves “avoid[ing], as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns."

I only ask the following question so that those readers with little-to-no no experience in these matters will comprehend that your non-answer, like that of ‘Reticent Mic’ (nee ‘Open Mic’) over a decade ago, speaks volumes.

I’m a student pilot planning a navigation exercise from A to B to C and back to A again, VFR. Keen to build up that intangible quality known as ‘airmanship’, I refer to the guidance material on NAS.

I ask my instructor: How do I avoid, as far as I can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns?

The instructor says: Dick Smith is the expert on this. Ask Dick.

Over to you, Cherry Pick. :ok:

as350nut

12th Nov 2014, 04:01

Quote The radio calls that CAsA would like you to give are taxiing, entering the runway, an inbound call and joining the circut. These calls are recommended only, not mandatory as suggested.

I think you are in error if you are referring to a CTAF; if not apology in advance

Class G airspace @ CTAF CAR 166C applies
With serviceable radio and qualified person (bizarre wording)
Page 235 of VFG
Requires calls for:
Inbound
Taxiing
enter runway
join circuit
3 nm straight in approach
flying through CTAF boundary

So what happens at a private ALA which I am now told to make a call on ATC freq in terms of these calls --- I can't find a reference :ugh:

Creampuff

12th Nov 2014, 04:29

Don’t confuse guidance material for the definitive rule. Guidance cannot ‘require’ anything.

Here’s what the applicable definitive rule says: 166C Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio

(1) If:

(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non‑controlled aerodrome; and

(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and

(c) the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;
the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).

(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:

(a) the name of the aerodrome;

(b) the aircraft’s type and call sign;

(c) the position of the aircraft and the pilot’s intentions.

Note 1: See the AIP for the recommended format for broadcasting the information mentioned in this regulation.

Note 2: For the requirement to maintain a listening watch, see regulation 243.If you’re operating in and out of your private helipad, and you know that you’re the only person operating in and out of your private helipad, isn’t the only risk of a collision with another aircraft the potential “overflying low level helicopter and plane flights", when you're inbound and outbound?

I’ll bet that if you thought hard about it, you could come up with some way of letting that potential traffic know where you are and where you’re going, in a broadcast of no more than 10 seconds' duration, in each case.

triadic

12th Nov 2014, 06:21

I’ll bet that if you thought hard about it, you could come up with some way of letting that potential traffic know where you are and where you’re going, in a broadcast of no more than 10 seconds' duration, in each case.

I bet in many cases, such a landing ground might be below the level at which two way comms with ATC are achievable. In such a case, you would not hear Centre but only any high flyers that were transmitting. There is as a result that any transmission you make on Area may over-transmit other ATC related transmissions. For this reason, it is obvious that such transmission should be avoided. It was also the reason that the Multicom was introduced.

Bottom line is keep a good lookout!:D

Dick Smith

12th Nov 2014, 06:47

Creamy. All,pretty commonsense.

If flying en route try and avoid tracking through the circuit area of each airport on the way.

That's what I do. I follow the roads and the best scenery.

Most of the stuff about avoiding IFR came about because of the almost total obsession of some older IFR pilots that they would collide with VFR if we didn't keep the old FS system with radio arranged separation.

Last time I looked at the LAX VTC it showed the main airline approach and departure routes through the class E airspace for obvious reasons

Creamy. You almost seem to have a chip on your shoulder! Why not get back involved again in reducing some of the unecessary costs .

And yes. I have always cherry picked the best ideas. If you did the same perhaps you could get your own CJ !

Tankengine

12th Nov 2014, 06:49

triadic,
Correct, 100%:ok:

Creampuff,
The fact is there is a lot of traffic all over the place, a lot more than people think that is no radio, or on other radio frequencies. 50-60 gliders can fly close to each other all day in competition with just a few calls (on a discrete frequency known only to them and those who actually read notams). 99% of radio calls are just white noise! I have heard calls on CTAF from 20miles, 10, 5, joining upwind, joining downwind, base, final etc - with NO responses because nobody is conflicting.
If one was to respond the radio hoggers usually don't respond because they are in their own world.:rolleyes:

The sooner we can standardise on anti collision systems and perhaps ADSB the better,

CaptainMidnight

12th Nov 2014, 07:09

Multicom 126.7 - a recommended frequency to monitor when flying 3000' AGL or below or nearest CTAF /MBZ if different.A classic case of someone/people dreaming up a rule without having the knowledge and experience with airspace design, architecture and ATC.

Such a blanket rule would be inappropriate in proximity to CTRs and TMAs due to the lower levels of CTA. Aircraft following that rule and penetrating CTA would be uncontactable by ATC, which is why the FIA frequency applies.

an ATC frequency (which is what an area frequency is)A common misconception, at least on this forum.

AIP GEN 2.2:
Flight Information Area (FIA):An airspace of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.

An FIA frequency is NOT an "ATC" frequency. It is a frequency an Air Traffic Controller uses to provide a FIS.

Dick Smith

12th Nov 2014, 09:03

Then we don't have any VHF FIA frequencies any more.

So all calls as per the CASA direction appear on ATC frequencies that are also used to separate aircraft.

Captain. In the USA the controllers can't call VFR aircraft that are near terminal controlled airspace. However could the system be safe ? However could it work with 15 times more traffic!

kaz3g

12th Nov 2014, 09:45

Then we don't have any VHF FIA frequencies any more.

Dick, we have lots of VHF FIA frequencies which you can see by looking at a few charts or by browsing the ERSA.

So all calls as per the CASA direction appear on ATC frequencies that are also used to separate aircraft.

No, The calls you are concerned with are made on the FIS frequencies and may be repeated on several other frequencies. They have a number of purposes including the separation of aircraft.

Captain. In the USA the controllers can't call VFR aircraft that are near terminal controlled airspace. However could the system be safe ? However could it work with 15 times more traffic!

No disrespect, Dick. But you are probably better off trying to convince the new DAS than repeating yourself over and over here. But whatever else you do, you have a responsibility to encourage pilots to comply with the rules whatever they are.

Kaz

Creampuff

12th Nov 2014, 10:05

The fact is there is a lot of traffic all over the place, a lot more than people think that is no radio, or on other radio frequencies. 50-60 gliders can fly close to each other all day in competition with just a few calls (on a discrete frequency known only to them and those who actually read notams). 99% of radio calls are just white noise!No ****? I'll have to write that down in the Big Book of Aviation Wisdom too.

All we are talking about are ops, by VHF equipped aircraft, in and out of places that aren't marked on aeronautical charts (or the subject of NOTAMs that are read by those who actually read NOTAMs). No matter how many times I ask, nobody will name one of these hives of activity that will result in aluminium confetti. (Cynical P won a kewpie doll for YJST, but that appears just to be a printing production error that will be rectified.) Creamy. You almost seem to have a chip on your shoulder! Why not get back involved again in reducing some of the unecessary costs.No Dick: The real problem is that I'm obsessed.

I'm obsessed because the broadcast and frequency management rules don't say what I reckon they should say. Oh, wait...

I noted that the NAS material had this 'guidance' on 'VFR airmanship':Avoid, as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns.I asked you, on behalf of all the student pilots learning VFR navigation out there:How do I avoid, as far as I can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns?Your answer appears to be:Most of the stuff about avoiding IFR came about because of the almost total obsession of some older IFR pilots that they would collide with VFR if we didn't keep the old FS system with radio arranged separation.Your students are a little perplexed, Dick.

It would be very helpful if you could identify, with precision, the bits of the cocky cage liner that you say are still authoritative, and the bits are just remnants of e.g. totally obsessed older IFR pilots and are therefore to be ignored. Student pilots can't read your mind.

In a related thread, I gave a scenario and asked some simple questions:A couple of serious questions, based on a factual scenario.

When I look at the Sydney VNC, I see, for example, a green boundary around a big area that covers places like Bathurst, Orange, Cowra etc.
Within the area inside the green boundary are a couple of boxes, inside each of which is “ML CEN 118.5” in brown text and “ML CEN 135.25 MT CANOBALAS” in green text.

There’s also “A LL FL180” in blue text, and “E LL 8500” in brown text.

The legend for that chart says:
- the green boundary denotes an “FIA boundary”, and
- the numbers in the boxes are “FIS FREQUENC[IES]”
- the “A LL FL180” in blue denotes the lower level of Class A airspace is Flight Level 180, and
- the “E LL 8500” in brown text denote the level of Class E airspace is 8,500’.

In this scenario:

(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?

(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?

As I say, serious questions.Your answer, Dick , was the usual 500 word non-answer.

I note what Captain Midnight said above:An FIA frequency is NOT an "ATC" frequency. It is a frequency an Air Traffic Controller uses to provide a FIS.Maybe you don't understand the system you're criticising, Dick.Captain. In the USA the controllers can't call VFR aircraft that are near terminal controlled airspace. However could the system be safe ? However could it work with 15 times more traffic!Because they have a system. A whole system.

Please: Implement the whole of that system in Australia, not just the bits that you've cherry picked.

PLEASE

Speaking of which ... when should Australians expect complete coverage of VFR Sectional Charts?

triadic

12th Nov 2014, 10:11

AIP GEN 3.2 - 10 21Aug14 Para 4.6 Defines 'Broadcast Areas'

Broadcast Areas are defined airspace volumes in class G airspace for which a discrete frequency (CTAF) has been allocated. All operations within the area, including those at aerodromes (charted and uncharted) and landing sites, shall use the assigned CTAF as the broadcast frequency. A note on the charts states "for operations in this area SFC - <altitude> use CTAF <frequency>"

If this is ok in some areas of the country, then what is the problem with having the Multicom elsewhere?? Seems much the same to me.

The organisers of a recent country fly-in at an unmarked airstrip under a frequently used IFR route chose to use 126.7 for all their broadcasts. There would be no way the controller of the relevant sector would have put up with the chat associated with this event on the area frequency.

A classic case of someone/people dreaming up a rule without having the knowledge and experience with airspace design, architecture and ATC.

Well tell us how it works OK in North America?? Let me answer that... we have a different culture here and much of it comes from not wanting any change from the good old FS days. It is now over 20 years since FS closed and we really need to move on.:ok:
Back when that quote was made, the airspace model was developed by a number of airspace experts, the regulator, ASA and industry. It was just not dreamed up! More the pity that many did not understand it and it seems from the discussion here, they still don't!!:=

Speaking of which ... when should Australians expect complete coverage of VFR Sectional Charts?

Never! It was hard enough to get the existing VNC charts? And of course, who is going to pay??

Creampuff

12th Nov 2014, 10:25

Who is going to pay??Finally.

Finally we have orbited, again, back to the real issue that resulted in the implosion of NAS.

The USA has the same land mass as Australia, but the USA has around 15 times the population and GDP of Australia.

Australia can't afford to implement the US system. The whole of the US system.

AUSTRALIA CANNOT AFFORD IT.

So could you and Dick, please, PLEASE just STFU until you've worked out a way for Australia to make the same GDP as the USA.

gerry111

12th Nov 2014, 11:23

Dick Smith wrote in response to Creampuff:

"And yes. I have always cherry picked the best ideas. If you did the same perhaps you could get your own CJ !"

And this member of the audience simply groaned..

Ex FSO GRIFFO

12th Nov 2014, 14:42

Quite a few (Lot..??) of us have been 'groaning' for years, mate..!!

(p.s. Tks again for the redundo.....)

Cheers:ok:

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

13th Nov 2014, 12:36

Perhaps if there were a more selective use of the retransmit buttons on the ATC console, then not everyone would have to hear what everyone else was saying. Perhaps FIS frequencies should not be mixed with and retransmitted with ATC ones. This is not meant to be "separation by radio", just using the relevant frequencies for their established purpose, rather than one huge wide area network.

Jabawocky

13th Nov 2014, 19:57

Perhaps if there were a more selective use of the retransmit buttons on the ATC console,

What the?????

You mean employ enough ATC's to cover the work load? :confused:

You mean actually have enough ATC's that they could actually have some time off for leave, see their kids academic achievement assembly/cricket final/<insert life stuff> and not have to cover shifts when someone else is sicker with the flu than you are? :confused::confused:

Surely you jest?

:ugh:

cogwheel

14th Nov 2014, 12:30

The CAAP and AIP amendment didn't change anything - CASA's change to the AIP wording just clarified things. The procedures have been in for some 10 years or so despite some claiming or thinking otherwise, I suspect largely due poor education, lack of understanding and confusion due all the changes 10 years ago. The answer to one genuine question at the time being "turn off the radio and listen to the stereo" wouldn't have helped pilot understanding of the situation then.

A procedure that changes the frequency to be used on one day, to another frequency on the next day is certinly a change! The procedure has been in for over a decade and has not changed until now.

Dick Smith

16th Nov 2014, 03:10

When AsA undermined NAS by printing a special chart with the frequency sector boundaries I don't believe anyone came out with educational material on how this half wound back system would work.

I think CASA may have presumed that pilots would monitor the sector frequencies when en route.

I stand to be corrected if someone can find the educational material!

Creamy. You are probably correct. We should have simply said with NAS that there is no recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute in E or G as ICAO specifically has no radio requirement for VFR.

I reckon the best is 121.5 as any airline aircraft can call you if requested by ATC ( say you are about to enter restricted airspace) and it's the best frequency for a quick mayday.

Most importantly I monitor the CTAF of the nearest drome if flying in the airspace normally used for approach and departure.

Capn Bloggs

16th Nov 2014, 04:05

You obviously don't know how the system has worked for decades, Dick.

The frequencies went back on the charts so that VFR could monitor IFR climbers and descenders who are "not yet in the vicinity of the airport", using their (the VFRs) radio, if needed, as they are required to do above 5000ft AMSL.

Stationair8

16th Nov 2014, 04:32

The big problem OCTA for any IFR driver is traffic separation from VFR aircraft while you on descent from flight levels or positioning for an instrument approach etc.

Many moons ago at one of those many love in group hug sessions about the 101 airspace designs, one of the experts that was spruiking is knowledge and selling the message got very narky and threatening when pushed about separation between IFR and VFR OCTA.

With your experience Dick, how do you seperate yourself from other traffic when OCTA?

cogwheel

16th Nov 2014, 04:38

The frequencies went back on the charts so that VFR could monitor IFR climbers and descenders who are "not yet in the vicinity of the airport", using their (the VFRs) radio, if needed, as they are required to do above 5000ft AMSL.

Sorry, but that was not the case! ASA republished the charts with the sector boundaries on them because the change was not managed or understood by industry and others at the time.

Change management is often very difficult and needs to be subject to an appropriate risk management assessment. The concept of having VFR not in the system at that time was believed by many to be too much of a change.

Good airmanship should give pilots the opportunity to use the best frequency for their operations. The key is that pilots need to have some basic understanding of the system and how it is meant to work. Many still don't, because there is no standardisation of training on this subject of those that conduct same. That was the case 10+ years ago and whats more is still the case.

The problem that this matter has highlighted is that many in the industry and the responsible CASA officers are in the same boat and obviously are suffering from a lack of airspace education and standardisation over the past 20 years.

There is little doubt that CASA will have to backtrack on this change.

cogwheel

16th Nov 2014, 04:54

The big problem OCTA for any IFR driver is traffic separation from VFR aircraft while you on descent from flight levels or positioning for an instrument approach etc.

As you would be aware, the procedure/s used by most IFR operators is to make a b'cast on the area frequency at TOD, followed by monitoring of the CTAF and the appropriate inbound call. In IMC, you cant do much re any VFRs that might be about, just hope that they are not scud running under your track. In VMC, you do what the VFRs do and that is keep a good lookout (hopefully?).
Using the Multicom makes for standardisation at all aerodromes not allocated a dedicated CTAF frequency and not introduce an increased risk of having one frequency for strips on the charts and another for those that are not.

The potential for frequency congestion is certainly increased when there is activity at a particular location not marked on the charts (which chart?). I am sure the Sector Controller would be P'off with lots of chat on his frequency at the time of a fly in or cattle sale etc.

One such aero club fly-in recently chose to use 126.7 even though the strip was not marked on any charts, and was under a busy IFR route. The associated chat on the day would not have been acceptable on the area frequency. Obviouslly a good decision and in line with the frequency has been used at that location for some time.

Creampuff

16th Nov 2014, 05:12

Good airmanship should give pilots the opportunity to use the best frequency for their operations. The key is that pilots need to have some basic understanding of the system and how it is meant to work.Some more gems for the Big Book of Aviation Wisdom.

What are VFR Sectional Charts for in the USA system?

How is that system supposed to work in Australia where there is no equivalent outside VNC coverage?

What happens if you transmit a MAYDAY on 126.7?

What happens if you transmit a MAYDAY on 121.5?

What happens if you transmit a MAYDAY on the FIS frequency for the area in which you are flying?

Surely you will agree that the answers to those questions are relevant to deciding on the "best frequency".

CaptainMidnight

16th Nov 2014, 07:02

One such aero club fly-in recently chose to use 126.7 even though the strip was not marked on any charts, and was under a busy IFR route. So other aircraft operating on the FIA would have been unaware of the strip, fly-in and that all those aircraft were operating on another frequency?

Because the fly-in situation was off normal with the potential to present various safety issues, the appropriate thing for the organisers to do would have been to contact their local CASA regional office beforehand and ask them to 1) arrange a NOTAM ("INTENSE AVIATION ACTIVITY VCY NNN DUE FLY-IN etc.) and 2) nominate a discrete frequency which would have been included in the NOTAM.

That frequency could well have been 126.7, but at least with the NOTAM the awareness of other airspace users would have been addressed.

triadic

16th Nov 2014, 08:11

What are VFR Sectional Charts for in the USA system?

From a quick Google search..... I'm sure you knew that!

A sectional chart shows topographical features that are important to aviators, such as terrain elevations, ground features identifiable from altitude (rivers, dams, bridges, buildings, etc.), and ground features useful to pilots (airports, beacons, landmarks, etc.). The chart also shows information on airspace classes, ground-based navigation aids, radio frequencies, longitude and latitude, navigation waypoints, navigation routes.

Sectional charts are in 1:500,000 scale and are named for a city on the map. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States publishes over 50 charts covering the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Sectional charts are published by the National Aeronautical Navigation Services Group of the FAA. A number of commercial enterprises, notably Jeppesen, produce compatible, certified sectionals.

The sectionals are complemented by Terminal Area Charts (TACs) at 1:250,000 scale for the areas around major U.S. airports, and World Aeronautical Charts (WACs) at a scale of 1:1,000,000 used by pilots flying slower aircraft and aircraft at high altitude.