Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!

[Howabout]

mgahan, in reply to your post #241, it's always the selective use of language.

It takes a while to navigate around, but off the north-east coast those Canadians that are held up as paragons of virtue, in respect of NAS, have permanent Class F over water and it's been there for yonks. And guess what? You need a clearance beyond 'territorial airspace' to enter!

I researched this years ago when I was involved in the dreaded NAS with all the associated BS. The airspace is on the charts and the requirements are in their AIP and associated docs. F has been there forever!

Additional to the argument is NZ. They originally introduced MOAs with a requirement inside 12nm for a clearance. Check out the current 'Aeronautical Handbook.' They've amended the requirement for all NZ registered aircraft to gain a clearance, no matter how far outside 'territorial waters.' Despite all the bumf, we are not 'unique,' but it takes a while to discover that the wool has been well and truly pulled in respect of 'airspace reform!'

[LeadSled]

Of course, a quick "request further descent" on mid-downwind might also have done the trick,

Its,
Of course, being the average dumb airline Captain, that would never have occurred to me, would it??
Quite apart from the fact that we were not ever downwind, and believe me, neither the customers of the cabin crew knew a thing about it, and nothing heroic, just knowing your aeroplane.
Which reminds me, one afternoon, a gentle reminder that we were still at 10,000, mid downwind for YSSY 16R, again brought the rapid "cleared for visual approach". All in a days work.

The airspace is on the charts and the requirements are in their AIP and associated docs. F has been there forever!

Howabout,
A wonderful example that a little knowledge is dangerous.
Any country can legislate to their hearts content for their own aircraft, just as Australia does.That does not make it enforceable outside the 12 mile limit for non-national aircraft.
Canada or anybody else can call a piece of airspace in their ICAO area of jurisdiction whatever they like, but if it is outside the 12 mile limit??
Australia purports to have military R areas outside the 12 mile limit, they have no enforceable meaning, as the US make the point when the US Navy comes to Australia --- just as the Americans have been doing a little north.
You might have noticed, the whole matter is just a little contentious right now in the North and South China Sea.
Exactly the same legal arguments apply around Australia, under the relevant international law.
As for F in general, plenty of it in India, and it looks pretty permanent to me --- indeed the story of airspace designation yo-yoing over India in recent years (the last 50) is a "ripping good yarn".

Tootle pip

[Mr Approach]

We seem to forget that airspace reform and/or change is not a one-off it is a necessary part of a dynamic aviation system.

Prior to alphabet airspace reform had already started in Australia where, in alphabet terms, we had large amounts of Class B and enormous amounts of Class F. Equivalent Class B was being whittled back to equivalent C by stopping the requirement to separate VFR aircraft from each other in CTA and as far as I am aware no-one wanted to pay for the Class F services, otherwise called FIS/AFIS.

Then ICAO airspace arrived and like everyone else in the world we named all the airspace we then had and changed a few rules to comply with the ICAO classification requirements. Two areas where we did not are Class G and was the GAAP airports, now changed by CASA decree to Class D.

So at the moment for en-route we have settled on Class A (no-one seems to object) with some Class E underneath it (an experiment?). This leads to Class C down towards a controlled airport followed by more Class C or Class D to the ground depending on the amount and type of traffic.

This is what most of the world has other than countries that have been subject to US influence and have Class E overlying Class B, C, and D. We have not gone there yet - but we might. (I haven't mentioned the enormous tracts of airspace fenced off by our military - that is probably a subject for a different thread)

Under all of this we have Class G but with mandatory ATC provided IFR traffic to IFR aircraft - almost Class F. We also insist that all aircraft within 10 NM of a certified airport call on a frequency, often a CTAF. (There are rules for non-radio aircraft however that is out of scope) Strangely enough I don't think a certified airport is required for RPT operations which you might think was why there are mandatory radio procedures.....

An issue has arisen where some airports are felt to need something more but do not warrant a Tower. For some reason very few so-called UNICOMs (another US word) have been created by the airport owners. (The AIP states that such a service can pass weather information if approved by CASA, but not traffic information). I suggest that once again it is because no-one wants to pay for the service. Two airports, soon to become three, have what mgahan calls an air traffic advisory service, what we call an AFIS or CA/GRS, they can both give directed traffic information and there is little difference between the two.

We are still in the transformation stage, mainly because we cannot agree on an airspace "model" and from observation most discussions on the subject end up being a horse trading exercise much like enterprise bargaining.

I'm sure that there is more change ahead and threads like this add to the spread of ideas and opinions. We do not have to follow the US model or any other model but what we do have to do is create an airspace model the country can afford. Hopefully it will also provide an equivalent level of protection to fare paying passengers across the continent.

[Dick Smith]

Ex FSO. Before 1991 VFR and IFR flew at the same levels because of the quadrantal rule.

This meant all VFR above 5000 had to operate full position reporting. In fact in those days when your friendly FSO gave traffic it wasn't even mentioned if it was VFR or IFR .

[Dick Smith]

Mr Approach. The prime reason we don't have lots of zero extra cost Unicoms like the USA and Canada is that most pilots including those at CASA don't believe they are necessary for safety. They believe calling in the blind is OK.

I was directly involved in AMATS and the original document promoted Unicoms and said lots would soon appear! Almost immediately there was a campaign to make sure a Unicom could not operate in the North American way That is non prescriptive giving traffic , weather and anything that may add to safety.

Our AFIS at Port Headland is a return to high cost traffic info that I removed. Same with the CAGRO. All adding to the cost problems that are effecting our industry.

Re Airspace. I have been fortunate fly as a GA pilot in every modern aviation country in the world. I have particularly studied airspace classifications and procedures over many years with an open mind. My plan was to pinch the best ideas for Australia. It's what I did in business allowing me to make a few dollars.

However I have found that many in the industry here have no interest at all in copying the best - or indeed copying anything! There minds are pretty well closed.

Love to talk in person to you some time about what I learnt !

[Howabout]

Howabout,
A wonderful example that a little knowledge is dangerous.Wrong, Leady. I am well aware, and have been for years, of the strict interpretation of access over the high-seas. Unfortunately for me, in that pig of a job, I had to spend hours researching overseas systems to rebut some of the tripe put forward by those that claim we have a 'unique system.' Sound familiar??

The biggest threat, in respect of military operations over water, is one's own nationally registered aircraft, and the ability is there to exclude them to avoid an aluminium shower.

Why do the Canadians have Class F off the coast with a clearance requirement, and the Kiwis have the same as regards their MOAs??

I'll tell you why. Similar to Australia, they both have adopted rules to mitigate, to the maximum extent possible, the risk of some dork bumbling through and collecting a military aircraft.

In the case of NZ, it's rather instructive, Leady old fruit. When they released their Airspace Handbook (circa 2004), there was no requirement to seek a clearance outside the 12-mile limit for entry to an MOA. Four years later, they re-published the Handbook (circa 2008) requiring clearance, whether in or outside the '12-mile' limit.

Why? Because they came to the conclusion that unfettered access, and mixing it with military traffic, was just plain dumb!

I didn't come down in the last shower when it comes to airspace and BS. But thanks for your condescension!

[Awol57]

What does the AFIS in Hedland actually cost industry?

[Howabout]

Further to the last Leady (and the rest of the zealots), cut and paste, then follow the link through Google. You'll be at the top of the search page.

Once you get to the Handbook, go to the bottom of page 10.

Oh those naughty, naughty Kiwis for proving we are not 'unique!'

Yeah, I am just a dumb neophyte, Leady!

Howabout,
A wonderful example that a little knowledge is dangerous.

https://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/GAPs/NZ_Airspace.pdf

[Dick Smith]

Awo. Surely at least $600 k a year but more likely $1 million. 80% paid by Qantas and Virgin and the Internationals thank heavens.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

in those days when your friendly FSO gave traffic it wasn't even mentioned if it was VFR or IFR
It was a long time ago now, but I'm pretty sure we did.

Surely at least $600 k a year but more likely $1 million. 80% paid by Qantas and Virgin and the Internationals
So only a guess then. GA gets a service for only 20% of the cost. Not a bad bargain.

[Howabout]

Time to chuck it in after staying up till 0430 to watch us get smashed by Kholi.

But, as usual, Dick doesn't respond when I post the inconvenient truths.

I guess he must just be hoping that my two previous will slip down the board and disappear.

Night all, including the zealots, and hope you had a good Easter.

[Awol57]

Awo. Surely at least $600 k a year but more likely $1 million. 80% paid by Qantas and Virgin and the Internationals thank heavens.

Are you certain of that? I am pretty confident that there are currently no charges associated with it. Do you know someone that has actually paid a bill for flying into PD that has a charge for the AFIS, as opposed to the normal airways charges.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks for the reminder Dick,

Re the 'Traffic Advice' given by FS;
You are correct in that the statement given was
"ABC, Traffic is 'XYZ, a Beech Baron...position...level etc etc'

It didn't matter if the traffic was IFR or VFR....If you hit it, bad things were going to happen. The fact that it was IFR or VFR was irrelevant, it was still 'traffic' according to the criteria of the time, and was 'of concern' to you.
(So to speak...)

Then after 12/12/91 when we stopped giving any services to VFR, the traffic was only then between IFR to IFR.

And there was even a 'push' by AsA to promote 'IFR Category' vs 'IFR Procedures'. In that an IFR Category acft, cruising in VMC conditions was to be considered 'VFR Conditions',
and the traffic would not apply. It was proposed that having attained flight in VMC, the pilot would advise us, and we would then consider him as VFR!
Truly, this was presented to us, but if I recall, it was the industry that got this 'reversed'.

Various phrases were promulgated to be used in this transition period of the next year or two....
'Known traffic is.....
IFR Traffic is.....
Then simply 'Traffic is.....(Again)

I will admit that this took quite 'some time' to get out of our system, as we may have knowledge about a VFR acft in proximity to an IFR, but were NOT to pass such traffic.

AsA kept telling us that that was the 'new' system.

FSOs generally were more than a little 'concerned' at the time about 'duty of care' and how that might 'play out' in a Court of Law in the unhappy event that....and the 'support' we may have got.....

NIL satisfactory answers were forthcoming, so the new system 'stumbled along' for a while....Even RPT pilots did not have a full 'grasp' of the new rules.

Re the VFR 'at or above 5,000ft', yes we all flew at the same quadrantal levels. I cannot recall flights above 5,000 having to go 'full reporting'.

I was engaged in VFR Charter at the time, and as such, went 'Full SAR' at all times, as required. On the odd occasion I did private flying, I don't recall having to remain B050 because I might have been on a SARTIME due to not having HF on a 'long flight'.....Perhaps others have better recall - Its been a while.... and apart from the 'interest' I really don't care any more.
When I am aviating, I use the radio to keep ME safe...and that seems to have worked for the last 50 odd years....
Goodnight.

Cheers:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

It didn't matter if the traffic was IFR or VFR....If you hit it, bad things were going to happen. The fact that it was IFR or VFR was irrelevant,
Too true. Now we have IFR flying at the same level in almost the opposite direction... at least 90° is front-quarter closing. There was a lot of sense in Quadrantal flying, but because they didn't do it in Yanksville, it got canned.

The same logic drives the E airspace ideology... VFR and IFR exist in two different worlds which never meet... ha ha.

[Dick Smith]

Awo. AsA costs are totally paid by the industry. So the cost of Port Headland is paid by the industry. In this case the cost is loaded on to some other charging regime.

[Awol57]

I understand that, I guess my point was that the airways charges did not go up when the AFIS was introduced and I doubt they will decrease if the AFIS is removed.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I just gotta do this.....

'Tis Port HEDLAND, so named after the sea-faring captain who first sailed into it....

"In April 1863 Captain Peter Hedland aboard the cutter Mystery nosed his craft into the narrow entrance of a channel and discovered a magnificent sheet of water appearing like an inland lake. He named it Mangrove Harbour and two months later it was renamed Port Hedland by the Surveyor-General in his honor."

Not necessarily the 'nicest' place on de planet - I used to live there when commiting full time aviation - the dust is still the same yucky brown.....
And not a 'headland' in sight.....

Cheers :p

[Dick Smith]

Thanks Griffo. Bloggs it got canned because it cost $70 million a year to have a duplicated ATS system.

The ICAO semi circular rule meant VFR did not have to go full position reporting .

I am glad I had that success. I wonder when CASA will get it reversed now that they have reversed the multicom at non mapped airports! Won't be long.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ullo,

You keep saying $70M per year.....

When going around the traps spruiking the then 'new world', 'Mike' (surname forgotten) from the 'implementation team', kept saying it was $80M per year for FS !

At the RAPAC meeting where he kept saying this, I challenged him and said that I really would like my share of that.....
$80M, (or &70M...doesn't matter that much...)
divided by the number of FSO's at the time = a very 'tidy sum' thankyou.

He couldn't justify the amount, but just kept on repeating it - obviously a major part of his 'speel'.....

I do not know, and was never able to ascertain, just how this 'figure' was derived, but can only imagine it was a figure that encompassed all CAA / AsA infrastructure, radio facilities, buildings, vehicles, etc etc a lot of which was joint ATC / FS infrastructure.

And the cost? A 'levy' of 2C per litre on avgas was the FS source of income at the time.

What is the current levy?
And for what?

No Cheers this time.....:=

[Howabout]

Griffo,

And from memory. I think you'll find that the B050 rule applied to NOSAR, not SARTIME, flights for excursions less than 50nm.

Yes, the ageing memory can play tricks, but I am pretty certain on the above.

SARTIME was never restricted by altitude. It was common practice for PICs of 'charters' to plan with a SARTIME coming out of places like Kakadu, and transit was normally in the A060 to A090 range.

[CaptainMidnight]

I do not know, and was never able to ascertain, just how this 'figure' was derived, but can only imagine it was a figure that encompassed all CAA / AsA infrastructure, radio facilities, buildings, vehicles, etc etc a lot of which was joint ATC / FS infrastructure.
We were once told @ a RAPAC in the late 90's that FS actually cost $15m per year, and yes it was funded from the 2c levy on AVGAS.

There were (much) less than a couple of hundred staff Australia-wide by then, and yes the infrastructure was just a component shared with ATC. There wasn't much then that was FS-specific, given all the remote stations and GAAP briefing offices had been closed down.

Others later claimed FS cost $50m per year and now its $70m -

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I WANT MY "SHARE"......

:eek:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Mr H,

Thanks for that.

Cheers:ok:

[Howabout]

It always bemuses me that the 'zealots' can make, what in my opinion, are unsubstantiated allegations in respect of our 'unique' airspace system, but never stump-up when the facts are put as regards the 'inconvenient truths.'

My #251, #256, and #258, Leady and Dick, when it comes to 'pulling the wool!'

Go for it!

[Lead Balloon]

It always bemuses me that ostensibly intelligent people can devote so much energy to refuting arguments that weren't made. In the post to which you referred in your own posts, Howabout, LeadSled said:Any country can legislate to their hearts content for their own aircraft, just as Australia does. That does not make it enforceable outside the 12 mile limit for non-national aircraft.Please read that twice. :ok:

[Howabout]

LB, and with all due respect, I was around the scene for a long, long time. Probably way longer than you when it came to the politics.

Constantly hammered on how our system is/was unique to push an ideological agenda. You see LB, if people are being loose and fast with the truth, I can't but reply.

I don't mind facts, LB, and my arguments stand or fall on fact.

Re-read Leady's posts and mine in rebuttal. Twice!

[Dick Smith]

It was unique and stupid. When in radar coverage in uncontrolled airspace under the J curve you could not talk to a radar controller .

It helped destroy MDX.

That's why I and others pushed for change despite incredible resistance by people who post on this site.

Now if in Radar coverage you can call direct for flight following if VFR and you get a proper radar service if IFR.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Isn't it still for VFR, "When workload permits"...??

Or, have 'things' improved since then....?

Any ATC's wish to verify?

Cheers:(

[Howabout]

Just doesn't answer the question as to how we are 'unique,' Dick. See previous posts in respect of the obfuscation going back years.

Like all your other arguments, you revert to the emotive when pinned.

MDX was dumbass stuff, IMHO. The PIC had choices and did not take the logical.

When in radar coverage in uncontrolled airspace under the J curve you could not talk to a radar controller .

It helped destroy MDX.


I thought it was all the RAAF's fault in respect of your previous arguments. Please, can we have some consistency rather than sprays?

And please answer my question as to how we are 'unique' in comparison to Canada and NZ in respect of offshore airspace?

You and the acolytes hammered this one for years in respect of NAS. 'Uniqueness' underpinned your arguments in pushing a flawed system and offshore airspace was consistently offered up as proof that we are 'unique.'

Well, Cobber, we ain't 'unique,' Once again, see previous posts. When you make an argument about 'uniqueness,' make sure you cross the t's and dot the i's!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

When in radar coverage in uncontrolled airspace under the J curve you could not talk to a radar controller
That's why it was called "uncontrolled". And you could talk to a controller if you needed to. I remember transferring several aircraft over to ATC if they were unsure of their position, and radar could identify them. Usually once they were sorted out, they would be transferred back. Back then I guess, VFR pilots were expected to know what they were doing, and not need mothering along by a controller. Back then it was pretty much accepted that ATC was there to keep the jets apart, and other aircraft away from the jets.
So, if the situation had existed back then that MDX could have requested flight following, but didn't , would the controller have been able to prevent anything, or would it have been just another unknown radar paint doing its own thing? Don't forget that ATC didn't have much in the way of fancy electronics to help them in those days. They were still pushing shrimp boats around their screens.

[Plazbot]

What is quite amusing to me is how DICK talks about the rest of the aviation world with respect to VFR GA rubbish. I have and do work in the rest of the world and I can assure you that this twit would get zero air time. Australia is a small market in a part of the world that does not matter yet you all think you do. Please STFU and let the adults carry on with our business.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Mr P,
Acknowledged and Appreciated.

Unfortunately, the major impact of all of the changes was on VFR GA Ops.

The 'Big End of Town' is still No 1.

And please do appreciate, that when some 'wild claims' are made, if / when I see them.....well, you know how it feels, I am certain....

It just seems 'right' to 'correct the score' even if its only a 'little'.

However, it don't matter no more, really.
Wot's done is done.

Enjoy your next shift.

Cheers:D

[LeadSled]

Four years later, they re-published the Handbook (circa 2008) requiring clearance, whether in or outside the '12-mile' limit.How,
NZ/Canada/ Uncle Tom Cobbley can publish to their heart's content, just as Australia does, but a clearance is as meaningless as designating the airspace as anything other than a Warning area.
In the NZ case, a good question would be" Why bother??" --- RNZAF hardly has any requirement for exercise areas for high speed aircraft --- the fastest thing they have is a B757.
Both the Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the A-Gs know well that all the Australian Rs outside the 12 mile limit is meaningless.
Given the AU/NZ/CA practice, I guess we shouldn't demure from RPChina declaring the whole of the South China Sea Chinese territorial water --- after all, all they did was unilaterally declare a new boundary, the "9 dash line".

Plazbot,
How eloquent. Truly a cry from the depths of hell.
Sounds like you are suffering a major attack of the "great Australian cringe" --- again!! Never fear. Take a deep breath, and it will pass ---- until the next attack hits you. It must be terrible to suffer from such afflictions, I do feel so sorry for you.
There are cures, as even Robert Hughes discovered.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. What an absolute untruth. A Pilot in uncontrolled airspace back then could not request a radar service.. I introduced that after huge resistance to change. Even when we got it going it was a unique " one shot" service for VFR that was next to useless.

Back then if you wanted to check your transponder when OCTA you had to go through Flight Service as you did not know the ATC frequencies .

MDX would have never got across the range if my changes had been introduced by then. The pilot would have been talking directly to the Sydney radar Controllor to arrange the clearance through Willy and that controller would have surely been professional enough to tell the pilot he was not tracking to Singleton- but at near right angles to the correct track.

And Traffic. Why was the pilot of MDX never transferred to the radar controller who could tell him directly which way he was heading? I will tell you why. Because until I came along with my push to copy the best from overseas it was totally fixed in most minds that OCTA meant Flight Service and that meant no radar! Even if four people were being sent to their deaths !

[Dick Smith]

And just as you expected pilots back then to know "what they are doing" and not need an ATC service you no doubt thought the same about the two professional pilots who killed themselves and their passengers at Benalla.

Resist change in every way!

[Howabout]

How,
NZ/Canada/ Uncle Tom Cobbley can publish to their heart's content, just as Australia does, but a clearance is as meaningless as designating the airspace as anything other than a Warning area.

Hi Leady, I agree that restricted areas over the high seas are technically 'meaningless' in respect of anything other than 'state aircraft.' But they are effective!

So here's a challenge old fruit. I am sure you still have wide contacts in the international community when it comes to overseas carriers.

Why don't you get on to a foreign captain, and encourage him to plan direct through WLM offshore airspace and press the point by disregarding our 'illegal requirements' and following on through?

When 400+ pax are killed due to a mid-air with a Hornet 4 v 4, and despite the 'technicalities,' the subsequent litigation costs don't bear thinking about in respect of what the international carrier would be up for.

That oft-loved phrase of litigation lawyers comes to mind - 'duty of care!'

I wouldn't like to be defending the subsequent, and inevitable, class action.

But, then again, WTF would I know?

[Lead Balloon]

Why don't you get on to a foreign captain, and encourage him to plan direct through WLM offshore airspace and press the point by disregarding our 'illegal requirements' and following on through?It happens quite frequently, in the air and on the water.

If a Hornet 4 v 4 collides with a foreign aircraft inside an Australian Romeo area but outside the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea, killing 400 + pax (and some accuse Dick of scaremongering....) it will be the Commonwealth of Australia and its ADF that have the (very) big duty of care problem. WTF would I know?In respect of international law? Evidently not much.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Dick, if a pilot was honest enough with himself to admit that he needed outside assistance, and asked for it, then the whole weight of the system was thrown at him to assist. That's when guys were transferred to (or relayed instructions from) ATC for radar guidance and then back when sorted. Happened all the time. Maybe you weren't paying attention then? You just couldn't do because you felt like it, because it wasn't ATC's primary role, and everyone knew it. And so what if you had to go through an intermediary to get a transponder check? God, what an impost. Not surprised you wanted to bring the whole system crashing down to make that check a little easier.
By the time the pilot of MDX advised he was in difficulties it was too late. As it was, radar was used to locate him (and wasn't really able to establish his heading) within a couple of minutes of him asking for a higher level (which he was never able to get anywhere near) and some 10 mins later it was all over. His problems were manifestly larger than anyone on the ground could have assisted with. Before that, the choice of track and track keeping was the pilot's responsibility, as it was for every other pilot OCTA. It was 1981. Not 1991, or 2001. A lot of aviating happened after that before anything changed. I don't remember there being much of a push for change pre 1981, so a little disingenuous of you saying "if my changes had been introduced by then".
Five died, not four, and yours seems to be sole opinion that they were "sent to their deaths", unless you meant by the actions of the pilot?
As for Benalla, if you are referring to TNP, they did have an ATC service (some assumptions were made, procedures not followed/understood) and they still died. Unfortunately, accidents happen for a multitude of reasons, even after changes are made.

[Howabout]

No it won't LB, with all due respect. And I don't want to get into a slanging match.

If a Hornet 4 v 4 collides with a foreign aircraft inside an Australian Romeo area but outside the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea, killing 400 + pax (and some accuse Dick of scaremongering....) it will be the Commonwealth of Australia and its ADF that have the (very) big duty of care problem.

Well, that's a moot argument when it comes to 'duty of care,' whereby the ADF and Commonwealth have done as much as possible to avoid an aluminium shower.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer to prosecute rather than defend on this one when it comes to an airline that willfully disregarded a restriction that implies military activity and associated risk - regardless of 'international law.'

In respect of international law? Evidently not much.

Don't be condescending.

[Lead Balloon]

If stating facts is condescending, consider me condescending.

Outside the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea is "international airspace". That means what it says. Australia has no jurisdiction over foreign aircraft minding and going about their own business in international airspace, and Australia's ADF doesn't get 'right of way' over foreign aircraft in international airspace.

The Blue Orchids might think that those large Romeos that extend beyond the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea are giant sheltered workshops in which only they are allowed to play, but they'd be wrong. (In fact, I'd be completely astonished if the ADF does not comprehend that foreign aircraft are free to fly through there, and do fly through there, happy as a cloud and without permission from Australia.)Well, that's a moot argument when it comes to 'duty of care,' whereby the ADF and Commonwealth have done as much as possible to avoid an aluminium shower.Say what? They've "done as much as possible" by presuming to take over international airspace they don't own and presuming to prohibit entry by the exercise of powers they don't have?

That's like saying the collision with the little old lady who turned onto the highway was her fault, because the people who were drag racing on it presumed to block off a section of highway they don't own, then presumed to ban everyone else from using it, by exercising powers they don't have.

[Howabout]

LB, I am going to retire from this particular thread right now.

I've said my bit, I haven't received any satisfactory arguments in riposte, and am tiring of the repetition.

The facts just continue to be ignored. As I said before, we were constantly hammered, over years and years, about the way that we fostered a 'unique system.'

Put the facts on the table about our system being 'unique' - the underlying justification for NAS - and they just get ignored. Why? Because they are inconvenient truths.'

Don't bother replying on this one, on this particular thread, because Rx has now been switched off. I've had enough of the 'zealots' that ignore 'fact' because it ain't convenient.

[Sunfish]

this entire argument makes me want to metaphorically put a pillow over my head. I was going to fit Two radios on the basis that the more communication options the better. I now wonder if I could be forgiven for believing "less is more"? If I have no radio, then I can't be convicted of criminal miscommunication.

With one radio and no dual frequency, I have no choices to make and can proceed in blind ignorance, but at least I have a simple choice, even if it's wrong. CTAF if in ERSA, Area if no ERSA entry, period.

That there may Be other aircraft using local frequencies that I don't know about is no longer my concern.

So go AHead, continue to complicate every facet of aviation regulation as far as possible and a significant proportion of what is left of non military, non RPT aviation will just ignore these impossibly complex rules and try and muddle through.

[Dick Smith]

For others. I am the person who has pushed airspace reform and it had zero to do with airspace over international waters.

Mick Toller was correct. Australia was the Galapagos of aviation.

For GA to fly much of its time under radar coverage and not be talking to a radar controller was a crazy system.

For VFR to have to fly at IFR levels was weird.

To have all airports on Flight Service frequencies with not a CTAF in sight was unique.

I am glad I was involved in the reform and am disappointed it's half wound back from ignorance.

But watch what happens over the next few years!

[Capn Bloggs]

continue to complicate every facet of aviation regulation as far as possible
What are you on about, Sunfish? It's not complicated... set your only radio as you described. Simple! If you have two, then all the better to monitor Area with (or listen to the AWIS for accurate up to the second weather info, not some wally driving the follow-me truck taking coffee orders) or 121.5.

Our airspace is only complex because "high profile individuals" make it so with alphabet-soup airspace. :}

[Dick Smith]

If you monitor " area" and you are flying in a non familiar locations you spend a lot of time looking down on your chart to try and work out the locations being mentioned. Less time for actually looking out and remaining vigilant .

That's because up to 13 frequencies are coupled together to try and make it work at an affordable cost.

Going into Birdsville from Tennant Creek nearly all the traffic you hear is at Horn Island.

No other country has such a pathetically amateurish half wound back system. Fortunately soon the last of the change resistors like Bloggs will retire and we can move forward and follow the best proven world practices. Can't wait!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Aye Aye Dick,

'We' in FS used to have 13 VHF's on our consoles, and 4 HF's, ALL 'going' at the same time.

Depending on the time of day, the HF's would be set for the higher or lower freqs to be a little 'above' the others so that we would not miss calls.

The VHF's had a 'select', and a 're-transmit' button, as well as a 'single' freq button, so that the operator could tempo select ONE freq ONLY, by holding in the appropriate button for a few seconds, select the 're-transmit ON or OFF so that when the consoles were on 'Combine' and the one operator was looking after half of the State (WA) pilots in Kununurra could hear the pilots in say, Kalgoorlie, so they would 'listen out and wait their turn' before transmitting.
On the other hand, the operator had the option of de-selecting this facility, and when it got busy again, we could open the adjoining console, and THAT operator would take back certain selected freqs to THAT console...??

When Tx'ing, the operator could select to 'go out' on ALL freqs, or just the one he /she was responding to.

This allowed pilots about to Tx, to 'listen out' first and realise that the operator was communicating with an acft that pilots in other areas could not hear, i.e. they were not 'bombarded unnecessarily' with listening to all acft, faaar faaar awaaay......

Some 'gun' operators had the knack of being able to manage the freqs better than others....so what you heard depended on the operator's selection technique.

I guess the consoles are still 'wired' the same.....

Does that make sense?

Anyway, it did to us.
It was a very 'flexible' system which allowed consoles to be 'on combine' of areas during the nights and 'split' during the busy day periods.

THAT is why you can hear acft calling from 'The Top End' to 'Beyond the Black Stump'....no real 'magic', just good personnel and console management.

Quite efficient, I would say......And better by FAR...(IMHO) than wot we are 'left with' today......

Cheers:ok:

[Car RAMROD]

Going into Birdsville from Tennant Creek nearly all the traffic you hear is at Horn Island.


On what frequency might that be, Mr Smith?

Seeing as though HID is 126.5 and BDV is 126.7, and the CTR is 120.3 and 125.4 respectively, I'm not sure I follow your point.

Maybe your radios need work if they are picking up 126.5 when your tuned to 126.7. Or was centre combined and you somehow caught all the IFR inbound to Horny at the precise time you were flying around? If it's just the IFR then it was probably pretty quiet everywhere else for it to be all combined; thankfully you weren't getting all the local vfr traffic up there too!

None of this "not marked on the map and all ctaf calls are on area" stuff you've been spruiking. Both are marked AND with discrete frequencies.

Or are you hearing other traffic at all the other marked 126.7 locations up in the Straits that aren't HID, kubin, mabuiag, badu, northern peninsula, TI hospital etc?

I've been up near the northern edge of the country and heard things near the southern edge on centre. Not a big deal, nothing to worry about. Frequencies get split when it gets busier. Nothing to see here move along please.

Either way, please clarify the statement I quoted.


you are flying in a non familiar locations you spend a lot of time looking down on your chart to try and work out the locations being mentioned. Less time for actually looking out and remaining vigilant .

still true even if it wasn't an "area frequency" issue. Look at all the CTAFs on 126.7! Someone could be calling at place 10 miles away from you, and you are still unfamiliar, therefor you don't know where it is!

Maybe a bit of pre-study on the route before you go flying into unfamiliar areas wouldn't go astray!


P.S. ADSB! Love it, works a treat. Definitely helped me out! :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Fortunately soon the last of the change resistors like Bloggs will retire and we can move forward and follow the best proven world practices. Can't wait!
Hoo Hoo Hoo, ha ha ha! Over my dead, retired body!! :} You've got more grey hairs than me, Dick. I reckon you'll be out first! :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Car. Possibly you don't understand the CASA half wound back system.

Flying from Tennant to Birdsville the requirement is to monitor the 125.4 MHz area frequency. Obviously the 120.3 Torres Straight frequency is ganged to this to maximise AsA profits.- plus up to another 10 or so transmitters .

It's a joke system built on ignorance of actual risk. It's the reason that CASA has demanded that all aerodromes not marked on charts use the area frequency. A complete stuff up around Wilpena Pound and the Flinders ranges.

[Car RAMROD]

But the casa ruling about "not marked on the map" is not the reason you are hearing HID IFR traffic whilst enroute to BDV.

Or are you hearing vfr traffic calling on the centre frequency, despite HID having its own ctaf as it is marked on a map?

Or, do you want to spend more money and have one controller always for each region (which I can see boundaries on the map I'm looking at!) so that centre frequencies don't get combined?

Like I said, I've heard things on the other side/end/whatever of the continent, it's not a big deal. When it gets busy it gets split.

Maybe there's a conspiracy that the controllers just give you a hard time?
"Half wound back" sounds pessimistic. Half wound forward, come on, be optimistic! :}


P.S. "Strait" :ok:

[sunnySA]

Flying from Tennant to Birdsville the requirement is to monitor the 125.4 MHz area frequency. Obviously the 120.3 Torres Straight frequency is ganged to this to maximise AsA profits.- plus up to another 10 or so transmitters .

You've lost me on this one.

Are you seriously suggesting that 12 or more controllers should be employed so that each controller has a single frequency?

[mgahan]

Griffo,
Back in my days as a separator of airframes and later on as a manager of folk doing that I was always impressed when I watched you guys managing frequencies. Concert pianists had nothing on you guys.

MJG

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

up to 13 frequencies are coupled together to try and make it work at an affordable cost
Sunny, I think that is Dick's preference, as we know what a huge fan he is of winding back the system so that it once again works at an unaffordable cost.
An extra 12 or 13 controllers handling what 1 controller does now would also bring us more into line with the US (we obviously need to copy from the best), as their system requires 15 times more controllers to run it than ours does.

[Dick Smith]

I would prefer the system used in every other leading aviation country in the world for VFR traffic. That is in the approach area for an aerodrome monitor the CTAF.

Otherwise leave your radio on any frequency you think best . Commonsense states that in areas like north of Birdsville the best frequency would be 121.5 as you can get out an emergency call at any time to a high flying airline aircraft. Also ATC can call you if necessary if you have flown into restricted airspace via a high flying airline aircraft as a relay.

Otherwise at typical VFR flight levels in most cases you would be out of VHF range of AsA ground stations so a mayday call will most likely not be received by anyone.

The CTAF frequency problem this thread is covering is entirely caused by the wound back CASA requirement that VFR monitor and announce on area frequencys that are often also used for ATC separation purposes.

No other country has such a 1950s requirement. It worked then because there were 700 Flight Service Officers employed to monitor all these calls and this allowed the calls to be kept off ATC separation frequencies.

[Capn Bloggs]

So Dick, do you think you could get your master of Risk Management and font of all knowledge aviation, Leddie, to give us the numbers on Maydays from VFRs that have been missed by ATC and had a bad outcome when an immediate response to that Mayday would have prevented that bad outcome? Thanks.

Oh, and just to keep you on the straight and narrrow, what enroute frequency you use is totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread: the frequency to use at an aerodrome. Try to stay focussed.

[Lead Balloon]

Commonsense states that in areas like north of Birdsville the best frequency would be 121.5 as you can get out an emergency call at any time to a high flying airline aircraft. Also ATC can call you if necessary if you have flown into restricted airspace via a high flying airline aircraft as a relay.Here's what the experts say, at this website: Aviation search and rescue education - Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) (http://www.amsa.gov.au/search-and-rescue/training-and-education/aviation-sar-education/)The most important things to improve your chances of survival, and to help search and rescuers are:

1. Know how to handle an emergency, forced landing or ditching.

2. Before departing, submit a flight plan, SARTIME or leave a Flight note with someone responsible. If you have to make a forced landing, a major confidence booster to survival is knowing that a search will have commenced.

3. In the event of an emergency, get out a MAYDAY or PAN call. If not operating on an ATS frequency, always have the area or overlying airspace frequency set for immediate use. This is the most responsive method to alert the search and rescue system.

4. During an emergency, after completing the pilot actions and communications calls, activate your 406 MHz distress beacon (ELT, PLB or EPIRB). Make sure it is registered with AMSA.

5. Make sure you have survival equipment suitable for the area being overflown. Know how to use it, and make sure you keep it well maintained. An emergency supply of drinking water is crucial. Also ensure that you have an emergency supply of prescribed medications.[bolding added]

BTW: If you activate your 406MHz beacon, it transmits on 121.5 ...

[Dick Smith]

Lead balloon. AMSA are made up of people who rarely ask advice. I have done over twenty years of testing on what frequency is most likely to get an answer on in an emergency.

Also any recommendation which requires a VFR pilot to be constantly heads down looking at the chart to find the correct frequency is crazy.

The AMSA advice is very likely to get no answer at all if followed 80 nm south of Charlieville at low levels - and lots of other places. But 121.5 I have found always works.

[Capn Bloggs]

Also any recommendation which requires a VFR pilot to be constantly heads down looking at the chart to find the correct frequency is crazy.

It's far easier to see what sector you are in (Ozrunways' ownship posi on ERC Lo) and simply tune that FIA freq than try to run some constant triangulation exercise on the closest outlet. Crazy indeed. Or do you sit down before flight and plot the points of equi distance from each outlet??

and lots of other places
I asked you where before but because you didn't answer, I assumed that you can't name "many/lots" (ignoring, of course, the many places that are just so far from anywhere you'd never get comms anyway). Please now do or don't mention it again.

[Agrajag]

Otherwise leave your radio on any frequency you think best . Commonsense states that in areas like north of Birdsville the best frequency would be 121.5 as you can get out an emergency call at any time to a high flying airline aircraft. Also ATC can call you if necessary if you have flown into restricted airspace via a high flying airline aircraft as a relay.

Sorry Dick, firmly with Bloggs on this one.

These days, anyone who is flying around the GAFA without the benefit of a tablet running OzRunways or AvPlan is seriously hampering their capabilities. The cost of acquisition and subscription is but a couple of hours' flying. On OzR (and I'm betting AvPlan too) you can have a constant display of the active FIA frequency for the area. So, to describe the situation as "constantly heads down" is yet more hyperbole.

The concept of using 121.5 as the primary frequency to monitor has at least one massive flaw: it will degenerate into the general purpose chat channel, as it already has in many less developed countries. And why would it not? If you want to contact someone, and everyone has their one radio on 121.5, how else would you reach them? Witness the chaos in China, as an example of the casual use of what is supposed to be an emergency frequency.

Similarly, the scenario of ATC using an airliner as a relay to warn a lightie of a looming airspace penetration is another furphy. How many R areas are sited where an ATC can see it happening, but out of range of a ground station on which to call him?

I'll make the same point I did the last time this issue reared its head: in a perfect world, the low-level traffic would have their own frequency for a given area, so the ATCs and the jets wouldn't have to hear them. That used to be the case, but was deemed too expensive to maintain.

So the next best option, if there is to be some order in the system, is to be on a similarly assigned area frequency. At the moment that is run by an ATC. Simply monitoring whatever you think appropriate is a descent into anarchy, as no two pilots will agree on what that should be.

Marked airport? Easy, use its CTAF frequency, or 126.7 if it doesn't have one, when you're near it.

Unmarked airport? Use the area frequency, for the benefit of those who don't know the place exists. In the remote event of the place being busy enough for the calls to bother ATC, then arrange to have it marked or NOTAMed, and the CTAF rules will apply.

Oh, wait... That's what we're already supposed to be doing.

[Dick Smith]

Agra. On a recent VFR flight in my Caravan from the east coast to the Kimberly and back I monitored over 1200 calls not one of which was relevant traffic.

It's a "cry wolf" system. Totally useless. You have to look down at your iPad all the time in an attempt to identify locations you have never heard of. And lots of IFR aircraft don't give position reports as on ADSB or under radar coverage. And with up to 13 frequencies on retransmit you are listening to pilots over 500 mn away.

It's a half wound back mess. But keep resisting change. We will make the changes when the new generation comes along.

And if it's so easy tell me the area frequency to monitor at 8500' in these two locations.

First over Goulburn township and second over Goulburn airport. Ha Ha Every second pilot I ask after 5 minutes gives a different answer. And imagine. Completely different frequencies that close and no directed traffic.

And 121.5 won't turn into a chat channel in Aus if it's clear that it's just for emergencies . It's all about leadership. You are just desperately attempting to go back to the system you learnt in!

[Lead Balloon]

On a recent VFR flight in my Caravan from the east coast to the Kimberly and back I monitored over 1200 calls not on of which was relevant traffic.And what do you reckon would have happened if you did the same trip and monitored only 126.7, and all the 'low level' traffIc with radio was required to be on 'MULTICOM'?

I always sigh with regret when I figure the right thing to do is monitor 126.7 because I'm sorta like near-ish to flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome with a CTAF of 126.7. I know that once I push that button, I'm going to hear every call from every radio-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of every 126.7 aerodrome within a couple of hundred miles. Not on[e] of which will usually be relevant traffic ....

Here's a thought, Dick: You can just pull the circuit breaker/s for the VHF/s once you're away from any aerodrome in the vicinity of which VHF Comms capability is mandatory. (Lots of no radio aircraft out there already, after all.) That way you won't be bothered by transmissions from anyone on any frequency, and you can reset the circuit breakers when you have to or want to transmit and can handle all those irrelevant traffic calls. (Don't forget to placard the VHF/s and do the MR paperwork though...). :ok:

[Agrajag]

Agra. On a recent VFR flight in my Caravan from the east coast to the Kimberly and back I monitored over 1200 calls not one of which was relevant traffic.


I just did a domestic sector, in the course of which I heard several dozen calls which weren't intended for, or relevant to me. Oddly, I managed to heed the ones which were, and the others didn't bother me unduly.

It's a "cry wolf" system. Totally useless. You have to look down at your iPad all the time in an attempt to identify locations you have never heard of. And lots of IFR aircraft don't give position reports as on ADSB or under radar coverage. And with up to 13 frequencies on retransmit you are listening to pilots over 500 mn away.

So... hang on. I thought your principal problem with being on an FIA frequency out in the donga was that you were out of VHF range of a ground station, and therefore unable to hear or be heard by anyone. And yet you're bothered by having to exercise the brain to determine whether a remote location mentioned on the radio is of interest to you. Which you heard... how?


It's a half wound back mess. But keep resisting change. We will make the changes when the new generation comes along.

And if it's so easy tell me the area frequency to monitor at 8500' in these two locations.

First over Goulburn township and second over Goulburn airport. Ha Ha Every second pilot I ask after 5 minutes gives a different answer. And imagine. Completely different frequencies that close and no directed traffic.

It is indeed easy, and it takes a lot less than 5 minutes: 124.1 over the town or to the west of the field, 121.2 to the east. It's all there on the chart, or even in the ERSA page. But by all means go looking for another location conveniently on a frequency boundary, to support another concocted argument. The fact that there's an airport on the boundary is irrelevant at 8500' as you are of no concern to the local traffic.

It's also possible, though I haven't checked, that both frequencies are worked by the same controller, so that it won't matter which one you're on. In any case, there are frequency boundaries all over the country - they have to be somewhere! Why you feel it's such a scandal that at some point you have to change from one to another, I have no idea.

And 121.5 won't turn into a chat channel in Aus if it's clear that it's just for emergencies . It's all about leadership.

Right. So these same numpties of your acquaintance, who can't read information off a chart, will have the discipline to keep 121.5 for the incredibly rare case of an emergency. And we'll all be content to float along the rest of the time in complete ignorance of one another, because no-one is using their radio for any other purpose.

You are just desperately attempting to go back to the system you learnt in!

A-a-a-nd there it is. Anyone disagreeing with you is either mired in the past, incapable of change or, worst of all, a RAAF apologist. I'm none of the above, so please give the personal attacks a rest.

For the record, I don't want to go back to the system I learned in. I've adapted to the current one, which doesn't work too badly; certainly better than the alternatives you've been proposing.

[Dick Smith]

The " current one" only works because most pilots do not comply with it.

I would say at least 90% of pilots at aerodromes not marked on charts do not give their calls on the ATC area frequency.

Yes. Even though on some of the flight I was out of VHF ground station range I still ended up with over 1200 useless calls to monitor..

There are many times when the frequency across the chart marked boundary is not worked by the same controller .

The only safe way the system you want can work correctly is to re employ 700 FSOs and put back a directed traffic service.back into class G airspace.

And you haven't answered why all other leading aviation countries do not require frequency boundaries on charts and monitoring by VFR ? Why wouldn't we want to keep it simple and standardise to assist pilots who want to bring their dollars here to rent a plane? It works with cars and the road system.

Re your domestic sector. When I fly the Citation in Aus I am mainly in a stock standard NAS system when en route. Sometimes so quite I have to call the Controller to see if I am still on the air.

It's the low level airspace that is the amateur pathetic joke.

[CaptainMidnight]

I just did a domestic sector, in the course of which I heard several dozen calls which weren't intended for, or relevant to me. Oddly, I managed to heed the ones which were, and the others didn't bother me unduly.
Ditto flying from MEL to SYD @ FL350 wholly within CTA :)

Perhaps we need SELCALL ops. so we only hear those calls specifically for us.


Dick: when was the last time someone told you something here and you realised you were wrong or what you'd been claiming was wrong?

[Dick Smith]

I have realised I was wrong and changed my mind when in communication with real people many times.

Some of the best decisions I have ever made in life are after I have changed my mind after getting more accurate advice. How else do you reckon I have made a few dollars?

But rarely has this happened on this site because those who don't have a genuine confidence in their views to be open and post under their real name or give me a phone call are pathetic creatures in my view.

Many of you may have agendas that may not benefit the Australian aviation industry as a whole . Why else wouldn't you put your real name to such an important issue as airspace that effects the viability and safety of our industry ? Why else wouldn't you contact me so we can work together to improve our industry?

And by the way. Who's the only person who has made any cost reducing changes in aviation over the last 25 years? Who changed the system so that every pilot has direct access to a radar controller when in survailed airspace ? Could have saved MDX if I had been able to make the change earlier .

[Agrajag]

The " current one" only works because most pilots do not comply with it.

I would say at least 90% of pilots at aerodromes not marked on charts do not give their calls on the ATC area frequency.

Really? 90%? A bit of hard evidence would bolster your claim no end.

In the meantime, perhaps those pilots making up their own rules should try complying with the existing ones. Then we could all see whether there's actually a problem, and make the appropriate changes.

Yes. Even though on much of the flight I was out of VHF ground station range I still ended up with over 1200 useless calls to monitor..


Oh, the humanity! I cannot imagine the chaos and disruption that must have caused, having to listen to others' radio calls over the course of several days. I must do a count of the number I encounter during a day's work, and seek appropriate grief counselling.

Then are many times when the frequency across the chart marked boundary are not worked by the same controller .

Well of course there are! At some point, if you go far enough, the airspace becomes a different controller's responsibility. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

The only safe way the system you want can work correctly is to re employ 700 FSOs and put back a directed traffic service.back into class G airspace.

Sorry, which system do you think I want? I already stated, I'm pretty happy with the current one.

And you haven't answered why all other leading aviation countries do not require frequency boundaries on charts and monitoring by VFR ? Why wouldn't we want to keep it simple and standardise to assist pilots who want to bring their dollars here to rent a plane? It works with cars and the road system.

Maybe because you didn't ask me.

The "other countries" of which you speak have systems which relate to their own geography, weather, size of airspace, traffic density, radar coverage, ATC manning levels, and a host of other variables. But I suspect there's only one other country you're really interested in, and a simple cut-and-paste of their setup isn't the solution. I've flown there too, and the system even at jet levels often seems to be made up as they go along, with undocumented local procedures everywhere. Surely that's not what we aspire to.

Finally, to suggest that this be done for the benefit of the teeming hordes who want to come here and rent an aircraft, is possibly your weakest argument yet.

[Dick Smith]

You are actually flying now in the half wound back Dick Smith system. yes the airspace that you " are pretty happy with"

As Bloggs points out the only reason we have the present system is because I removed the 700 FS officers so all pilots could have direct communication with ATC and radar where there was coverage.

The plan was to move to the proven safe North American system. This system does not allow VFR pilots to make announcements on ATC separation frequencies. This is for obvious safety reasons.

[Dick Smith]

Re evidence re 90% not complying.

On the flight to the Kimberly and back I passed over hundreds of strips that were not marked on charts. From time to time a saw taxiing aircraft. Not once did I hear a call on the ATC area frequency .

On my regular flights from Sydney to The Canberra area I pass over dozens of small strips in the Southern Highlands area . Some are quite busy on weekends. I have not heard one taxiing or circuit call on the Area frequency which I monitor because of the half wound back system requirements.

[Lead Balloon]

Given the strength of your convictions, you would no doubt be monitoring 126.7 while flying past all those busy unmarked strips.

Did you hear any calls from them on 126.7?

Do you entertain the possibility that those aircraft have no radios, or have them but their pilots make the decision not to use them? I can't remember the last time I heard a call on 126.7 or Area from someone at a strip that isn't marked on a chart.

[Dick Smith]

I have been attempting to comply with the CASA/Skidmore half wound back rules. I was mostly at 8500'.

I may object to regs which I think are wrong but I always do my best to comply. Also I am interested in seeing if the CASA wound back rules work effectively. If they did I would change my mind and support them.

[Lead Balloon]

Oh. So it's 'others' who aren't complying. Way to lead, Dick!

BTW: What are the mandatory calls for radio equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G, Dick?

Let me do a LeadSled and give a hint: The number is very circular.

[LeadSled]

I've flown there too, and the system even at jet levels often seems to be made up as they go along, with undocumented local procedures everywhere. Surely that's not what we aspire to.

Agrajag,
You must be kidding, I hope you are. Such a statement probably reflects a brief exposure to the system, without ever coming to understand how well, how smoothly, it all works (likewise CA)

Communication (which is not the same as Australian "radio procedures") in US is, in fact, highly disciplined, and ICAO compliant.

But, what it is, is communicating. What it is not is the stilted Australian "radio procedures", which only have an incidental crossover with actually communicating.

No other country has page after page of mandatory radio phraseologies that are found in the Australian AIP.

No other country is proposing to make divergence from the their AIP "radio procedures" strict liability criminal offenses. See draft CASR Part 91.

Where the most important thing is to get all the mandatory words said, so "they" can't pingya. Not ICAO, not anywhere else.

Acquaint yourself with the FAA AIM (or AIP) for the details, or the WW Text of the Jeppesen system.

The country specific pages of the WW Text are telling. Australia has page after page of differences to ICAO. By comparison, US/FAA Comms. differences are limited to a handful of items, three of them defining specific meanings and clearance limits to specific descent clearances --- as far from "made up as you go" as it is possible to be.

If you want another example that is completely removed from the the US, have a look at UK CAP 413, and surprise, surprise, you will find it remarkably similar to the FAA AIM, and again, a very great contrast to stilted and inflexible "radio procedures" in Australia. And it is pleasure to fly in UK airspace.

Or have a look at the NZ AIP, where they seem to manage with a fraction of the "radio procedures" of Australia,just ICAO, just as they manage with a aviation regulations page count of about 15% of Australia (as does USA).

You just don't understand how a friendly, efficient and flexible standardised COMMUNICATIONS system works, as opposed to a prescriptive, inflexible and pedantic system.

And, by the way, my experience there , high level and low, small aircraft through large, goes back to early 1960s, and many thousands of hours, I have seen, heard and experienced the divergence.

How much time have you spent operating in US/FAA of CA airspace? Next time you are there, if there is a next time, be a bit more open minded, as long as your mind is not open at both ends.

Tootle pip!!

[Agrajag]

You are actually flying now in the half wound back Dick Smith system. yes the airspace that you " are pretty happy with"

As Bloggs points out the only reason we have the present system is because I removed the 700 FS officers so all pilots could have direct communication with ATC and radar where there was coverage.

The plan was to move to the proven safe North American system. This system does not allow VFR pilots to make announcements on ATC separation frequencies. This is for obvious safety reasons.

Does anyone else see the contradiction here?

FS was removed so we could speak directly to the controller by being on his frequency, but we shouldn't do so because it would be unsafe.

Your regular example of this alleged problem is the Sydney departures frequency used by parachutists, Harbour Scenics etc Yet you will know the same thing as the rest of us who fly the jets so threatened by this activity: the time we spend in that sector is a few minutes at most, and I have never once been over-transmitted or had an ATC instruction blocked by them.

And another comment:

On my regular flights from Sydney to The Canberra area I pass over dozens of small strips in the Southern Highlands area . Some are quite busy on weekends. I have not heard one taxiing or circuit call on the Area frequency which I monitor because of the half wound back system requirements.

Dozens of unmarked yet busy strips in the Southern Highlands alone? And you had the time to spot this activity at all of them? I sense yet more exaggeration.

But in the remote case they do exist, and they are that busy, perhaps the owners should arrange to get them charted, so they can use a frequency other than ATC? Any place with that much traffic should be documented, for the safety of everyone in the area.

[Dick Smith]

You clearly have no understanding of how the disciplined NAS works.

I have never said a pilot cannot speak directly to a controller. I said a pilot must not make announcements on ATC frequencies. Don't you see the staggering difference?

By all means call ATC to make a request- say for flight following. Just don't make announcements such as taxiing and circuit calls on frequencies that are also used for ATC separation purposes.

No wonder our system is half baked and ATC just turned off the alarm as those six people at Benalla headed to their deaths.

[Lead Balloon]

What are the mandatory calls for radio equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G?

[Agrajag]

You clearly have no understanding of how the disciplined NAS works.

I have never said a pilot cannot speak directly to a controller. I said a pilot must not make announcements on ATC frequencies. Don't you see the staggering difference?

By all means call ATC to make a request- say for flight following. Just don't make announcements such as taxiing and circuit calls on frequencies that are also used for ATC separation purposes.

Well, that might be the way you wish it worked. But it doesn't, because the rules say otherwise. And the problem you claim to exist... also doesn't.

No wonder our system is half baked and ATC just turned off the alarm as those six people at Benalla headed to their deaths.

You what? Dick, you're bouncing around from one incident to another, no matter how irrelevant, as if each in its own way supported your Quixotic position.

How, for the love of all that's holy, did VFR traffic calls at unmarked fields, on ATC frequencies, have any bearing on the Benalla accident? I have a sneaking suspicion that those who lost loved ones in that accident would be a little peeved at your hijacking their loss, for your own personal crusade on a completely unrelated issue.

[Car RAMROD]

Agrajag, I should buy you a beer! I like the cut of your jib!

But by all means go looking for another location conveniently on a frequency boundary, to support another concocted argument.
I had exactly the same thought!
Glad I'm not the only one picking up on the "let's say this to try make my point, despite being irrelevant" comments.


1200 calls Mr Smith, really, you honestly counted? Was that individual pilot calls or centre calls too?
Isn't there something more important that you should be doing instead of counting radio calls? Did you go and find out how many of those calls were at places not marked on maps?


How about we get rid of the problematic frequency boundaries (seemingly, with what has been mentioned, they are a problem) and have one controller doing the entire Australian airspace?



As Bloggs points out the only reason we have the present system is because I removed the 700 FS officers so all pilots could have direct communication with ATC and radar where there was coverage.

So, Mr Smith, you created this problem of Vfr making ctaf calls on area, and now your complaining?

[Aussie Bob]

So, Mr Smith, you created this problem of Vfr making ctaf calls on area, and now your complaining?

Well Ramrod, I would say that Australian pilots made this problem, not Dick. Let's see first we had the inane "request area QNH" heard so regularly that it was disruptive, even though one or two millibars made not one iota of difference to a VFR flight. Then we had 20 mile MBZ's and a whole lot of stuff I have forgotten.

Finally we have endless circuit commentaries, needless broadcasts and pilots who simply love the sound of their own voices feeding back into their ears in an empty circuit. Australian pilots need to grow up and never will while the regulator has "safety" in its name and promotes endless legislation.

So you reckon Dick has created the problem? I reckon you are plain wrong and should admit it.

[Dick Smith]

VFR calls at unmarked aerodromes and the Benalla accident are tightly linked.

They were both caused because CASA has wound back the Government policy to go ahead with NAS.

Under NAS Benalla would be class E and 6 valuable people would most likely be alive today. That's because the ATC would know that responsibility remained until after the IAF especially considering the ATSB report showed this was still within radar coverage.

Under NAS there would be no requirement for aircraft operating at aerodromes not marked on maps to give calls on ATC area frequencies. In fact they are very likely to have prosecution action if they did so.

Car Ramrod. I agree the present problem would not exist if I had not initiated the AMATS decision that allowed all pilots to directly access ATC and radar where available. This is the NAS.

This has had definite safety advantages and may have even prevented an MDX type accident where one of the reasons was that the radar controller did not inform the pilot that he was flying for 20 minutes at near right angles to the correct flight path to Singleton. Five died.
Of course. Just as with the Benalla fatalities it wasn't the controllers responsibility because un controlled airspace was involved and only in Australia are controllers trained to act in this way. Under NAS controllers " control " IFR aircraft whenever it is necessary for safety. But we don't copy the best and the leadership insists the 1950s procedures be kept no matter how many die.

Most importantly the present problems would not exist if the NAS implementation was not stopped and half wound back.

And you can't blame me for that. That was sheer ignorance and a total lack of leadership in Canberra.

And I can assure you I will win on this. Hopefully before more lives are lost.

By win I mean- achieve a full wind back with 700 FSOs being re employed allowing CTAFs to be abolished and all aircraft to go back onto area or AFIS frequencies for calls at non tower aerodromes - or completion of the NAS.

Want to lay a bet on it?

[Dick Smith]

Car ramrod. In your mind is the premise that if we get rid of frequency boundaries we have " one controller doing the entire Australian airspace"

Actually I don't accept this.

Believe it or not there is an alternative. That is to follow the system that is used and proven safe in every other leading aviation country in the world.

Give me a call if you would like to learn how this operates in a very safe way and how controllers in these countries actually provide a " control " service to aircraft in IMC like in a Benalla situation.

Agra. The loved ones of those lost in the Benalla accident totally support my campaign to move Australia to the safer NAS . They even organised and covered the cost of my affidavit for the inquest. Not that that helped them at all. The barrister supporting the coroner leapt up and demanded I not be heard for some complex legal reason. He succeeded . I found out later that that barrister often represented the ATSB and no doubt didn't want to undermine the ATSB Benalla report which made no mention of the NAS policy that had not been followed and may have prevented the accident.

[Car RAMROD]

My only real serious question in my last post was in relation to the 1200 calls- I am presuming that you just totalled calls in the area frequency here too, how many of those calls were at places not marked on the map?
Afterall, ctaf calls on area is the discussion topic. Conveniently not answered, rather rebuttals were thrown back on what I thought were clearly absurd remarks by me (ie one controller!).


Bob, I quoted Mr Smith who said he was to blame, then made a cheeky remark. Did I say Mr Smith caused the problem? No.


If you do win, Me Smith, please don't bring in the terrible radio "professionalism" that the "best" do. God it sucks listening to all their calls!


I have a big spoon. This is certainly a big pot :E
It's Sunday. Might go try enjoy the day. Lawn bowls anyone? I've changed frequency and not "with you" now.

[fujii]

Dick, why would you want to re-employ 700 FSOs? The reason there were that many is because they were spread over a number of remore locations where they operated air/ground radio, intercom channels and briefing. Briefing and flight planning are now on line so that reduces the number required.

With the advances in technology and the training required, re-employing people who retired twenty years ago would be a big job.

The Airservices Learning Academy is built around ATC. Rather than going back to the 1990s and Flight Service, it would be more efficient to employ a few more ATCs. That way everyone would have common training and equipment and able to rotate between high and low level positions during a shift.

This isn't a union grab for more power. It's just a way to efficiently use what is already there.

On another point, it isn't all the fault of Airservices and CASA, many private pilots are too lazy or tight fisted. This goes back to when charges were introduced for charts and documents, pilots stopped buying and keeping up to date with changes. It's easy now with products such as Oz Runways to remain current but some don't want to fork out nearly $1000 to get set up with an iPad and subscription let alone become familiar with how to use it, so private pilots blunder through and think the more radio calls, the safer they are. There is an airfield in the same CTAF as where I fly where every CCT seems to require broadcasting one's life story.

This then links to the death of GA and flying training. It's just plain expensive compared to what else is available. Up until the 1990s if you wanted to fly, that's what you did. Now there are so many cheap thrills available. If you want an aviation experience you can do a warbird flight, a tandem jump and/or an aerobatic flight and still have plenty of change from the $30,000 cost of a PPL for half a dozen overseas trips, a new car or a house deposit. Flying just doesn't have that much attraction any more.

[Dick Smith]

I said " over 1200 calls". Yes I did list the number over a period because I wanted to see if this half wound back system was working. If it was I would shut up and get on with my life. However it's clearly not working.

Already there are those on this site who correctly claim we would not be in the present position had I not started the airspace reforms as CAA chairman in 1991.

No one of course knows haw many lives have been saved because , unlike the MDX situation, now all IFR aircraft are in direct communication with a radar controller when in radar covered airspace . Presumably those radar controllers now inform a pilot if an error is made and the aircraft is tracking at right angles to the correct direction.

When I pushed for this change it was because it followed what I had experienced flying en route low level airspace overseas.

This change was massively resisted at the time and there are still a few old pilots who insist that " calling in the blind, radio arranged separation" in IMC is better and safer than an Air Traffic Control radar separation service.

And Fujji. I don't want to employ an extra 700 of any type. Just pointing out that VFR self announcements on advisory frequencies are very different from VFR self announcements on frequencies that are also used to issue control instructions to airline aircraft . I am amazed that professional ATCs allow this in Australia. They certainly don't in other countries.

Yesterday morning to have the Sydney departures controller responsible for the safe separation of 747s and 380s in the more risky terminal area also being forced to listen to non directed VFR float plane self announcements and chatter is extraordinary in my view. When I explain this to overseas controllers they simply can't believe it.

Imagine departing LAX in the Qantas 380 and the air crew having to listen to VFR traffic making self announcements in the LA basin.

When Mick Toller joined CASA he said one of the first things he was going to fix was this situation. As a Cathay 747 pilot he could not believe that he had put up with VFR aircraft calls in the Sydney northern lane at Hornsby or Brooklyn Bridge as his aircraft was on the Sydney departures frequency and outbound to Hong Kong. He claimed it was not a safe practice.

Now nearly 15 years later no regulatory or airspace change has been made. Fortunately VFR pilots have been encouraged by non CASA people not to give so many announcements that could block important ATC instructions.

[Lead Balloon]

I ask again, Dick: What are the mandatory calls for aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G?

You keep asserting that around 90% of GA are ignoring the 'new' CASA rule. Why is it that I don't hear them on 126.7? I hear lots and lots of calls on 126.7 from aircraft operating at or near aerodromes I've heard of or can identify on a map. Why don't I hear any from all these unmarked strips that are supposed to be so busy? It's not to say it doesn't happen; it's just that it would be so unusual that I would remember it.

Re evidence re 90% not complying.

On the flight to the Kimberly and back I passed over hundreds of strips that were not marked on charts. From time to time a saw taxiing aircraft. Not once did I hear a call on the ATC area frequency .

On my regular flights from Sydney to The Canberra area I pass over dozens of small strips in the Southern Highlands area . Some are quite busy on weekends. I have not heard one taxiing or circuit call on the Area frequency which I monitor because of the half wound back system requirements.And do they transmit on 126.7 instead of Area?

If you're going to tell me with all your frequency monitoring activities you don't listen to 126.7 as well as Area, I'm going to tell you: pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

I also ask again: Do you entertain the possibility that those aircraft have no radios, or have them but their pilots make the decision not to use them?

Or maybe the movements are so rare that you miss the call on Area or 126.7?

Pilots e.g. making announcements northbound or southbound in the 'lane' north of Bankstown is a different issue. Those announcements seem pretty pointless to me - not sure why anyone makes them. But the frequency never seems to me to be overly busy.

[fujii]

Hang on Dick. In post 329 you said:

By win I mean- achieve a full wind back with 700 FSOs being re employed allowing CTAFs to be abolished and all aircraft to go back onto area or AFIS frequencies for calls at non tower aerodromes - or completion of the NAS.

A few posts later you said you don't wast to employ an extra 700 of any type.

Which is it?

[Dick Smith]

Probably quieter in the lane because for over 20 years I have advised pilots to consider in making calls that they could block ATC calls.

Doesn't one of the CASA documents recommend some calls?

[Dick Smith]

Fujji. The second is correct. But I win either way- we get a proven system- not a half wound back by ignorance system.

Can't wait for the matter to get to court and some of these people being cross examined

[Lead Balloon]

Can't wait for the matter to get to court and some of these people being cross examined.You and me both!

My understanding is that the applicant has to provide evidence, too.

I can't wait for someone to give evidence to prove that the current system requires what Ben Sandilands has apparently been led to believe it requires:The comic opera decision to force cattle mustering aircraft onto the airwaves of giant jets flying across Australia contrary to the clearest of instructions has its deadly upside.Champagne comedy! :D:D (Sorry: comic opera...)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well Dick, you may well be 'over-joyed' at the recommendations of the AOPA Newsletter sent out today.....

Its worth the read.

Whether it will 'succeed' or not is up to the 'gods' I guess.....

Cheers :eek:

[Dick Smith]

Ben is correct. Cattle mustering aircraft operating from aerodromes that are not marked on charts have to give their taxiing and circuit calls on the ATC area frequency.

Or has CASA given the musterers a special dispensation?

[Capn Bloggs]

Well Ramrod, I would say that Australian pilots made this problem, not Dick.....

Then we had 20 mile MBZ's and a whole lot of stuff I have forgotten.

Finally we have endless circuit commentaries, needless broadcasts and pilots who simply love the sound of their own voices feeding back into their ears in an empty circuit. Australian pilots need to grow up and never will while the regulator has "safety" in its name and promotes endless legislation....

So you reckon Dick has created the problem? I reckon you are plain wrong and should admit it.
No! Dick Smith introduced the NAS, which included multiple circuit calls (which rightly caused an uproar because of CTAF overload). It took CASA to reverse that particular change back to something logical and safe to the current system of two calls only (similar to what it was before, ironically), with other calls "on demand". All this was, of course, after the famous memo to all pilots from Dick Smith circa early 1990s about keeping quiet on the R/T, so that fare-paying pax operations had to rely on the least experienced in the system to determine the seriousness of a conflict and then pipe up. For over a decade we were encouraging pilots to talk. Now we are encouraging pilots to tone down their talking. All because of...

Rediculous! :{

[Dick Smith]

Clap trap. I have never supported on introduced anything different than the US and Canadian CTAF non prescriptive procedures.

They work superbly and there is no call from anyone in the FAA or NTSB to change them.

As part of the wind back the crazy prescriptive requirements were put in.

Once again I say- copy the best. That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all. Open up your mind a bit. Then you could do really well.

[wishiwasupthere]

it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all.

:eek:

It's like arguing with a child. If he runs for Parliament we can have our own Trump.

[Capn Bloggs]

Claptrap indeed, Dick. This is from the your NAS2c NPRM that IIRC was implemented:

http://s26.postimg.org/vnop1ujex/nas2c.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Another US "thing" which wasn't necessary...

[kaz3g]

Once again I say- copy the best. That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all. Open up your mind a bit. Then you could do really well.

You just lost me, Dick.

First rule of debate is to focus on the argument, not play the man.

Kaz

[Car RAMROD]

Back from my lawn bowls. Great game, got a few strikes so I'm pretty happy about that.

I'm "with you" in "the best" airspace now.


it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all.
Oooh BUUUUUURRRRRN Bloggsy!! Take that!!


But then again, we fly planes better than a shyte-ation for a living, in the current airspace, every day. AND we have ADSB. Seem to do alright don't we?


In all seriousness what is with that "I have a citation and you don't have a plane at all" comment? It really appears to be like you actually look down upon people thinking you are superior, elite, "the best", and subsequently thumb your nose at those who you perceive to be below.
Kaz noticed, I think.

[gerry111]

Dick wrote here:


"That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason that I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all."


I reckon that's simply appalling, arrogant bullying behaviour!


Dick, It is why as a "National Treasure", (as he apparently is to some on the Macquarie radio networks), I now have very limited respect for him.


Dick, Please answer the questions that some of the contributors post here.


For some of them are rather good tests of your logic and credibility.

[tail wheel]

But rarely has this happened on this site because those who don't have a genuine confidence in their views to be open and post under their real name or give me a phone call are pathetic creatures in my view.

Dick, it is not "confidence in their views". If it weren't for the anonymity this site guarantees, we would not have PPRuNe. Unfortunately many of the airline employers of our PPRuNe users are very "sensitive" to criticism - as is CASA and ASA - and for many to post on this forum with their own name could be the kiss of death to their employment and career.

To most, they have no choice but to post anonymously or not participate in PPRuNe.

[Dick Smith]

Good point Tail Wheel. However what is disappointing to me is that a number of posters on this site have strong views on the NAS reforms and they say they are retired.

I get the view that some of them remain anonymous because they have some type of vested interest in stopping the change to a safer system.

There of course Is no requirement on this site to always be anonymous

Re the Citation. Just stating the obvious- if you constantly ask advice and copy the best you can do pretty well. If you don't do this the opposite happens . It's pointed out with delight on this site how I can't spell. That's OK as it's the truth.

Gerry. I thought I had answered all the questions. If you can remind me of those that I have missed I will answer them promptly.

Car ramrod. No don't look down. Just pointing out to Bloggs that there are advantages in asking advice and copying the best from anywhere. What other evidence can I provide.

[Lead Balloon]

Cattle mustering aircraft operating from aerodromes that are not marked on charts have to give their taxiing and circuit calls on the ATC area frequency.I thought I had answered all the questions. If you can remind me of those that I have missed I will answer them promptly.For the fourth time, Dick: What are the mandatory calls for radio equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I don't have a Citation either, I'm afraid. When I was starting out in this game, I realised that the pilots I most admired, the ones I considered the greatest, be they civilian or military, all seemed to have convinced someone else to pay them to fly machinery that was much more interesting and/or capable than a Citation. That's right, these great pilots were being paid good money to fly good aircraft that they never had to buy with their own hard-earned cash! So I thought to myself, "Why not copy the best?" :ok:

(The only problem with everyone always just "copying the best", of course, is that nothing will ever get any better. If that's all anyone had ever aspired to, I guess we'd all still be driving Stanley Steamers, watching black & white telly, and travelling on Handley Page H.P.42s. I suspect that there was a bit more to your success than mere copying, Dick, and that you're selling yourself short.)

[Dick Smith]

Leady. If I said I don't know I would no doubt be committing an offence.

In fact I have lost track on what is mandatory and what is not. No real difference to a competent pilot who would give the calls that were prudent.

So what are you getting at?

The FAA NAS lists recommended calls and that's what the cabinet approved NAS document stated.

Bloggs. It works superbly in the USA with thirty times the traffic levels. Why shouldn't it work here.

[Lead Balloon]

Champagne comedy! :D. (I mean: comic opera).

You're going to kill them in the Federal Court. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Itsnot. All good logic. As well as copying the best you can always add a few new ideas.

But most of what I have done in life has a basis of asking advice and then deciding which is most likely to be the correct advice.

In the case of aviation safety. I would not be that keen to experiment with people's lives when all around the world there's lots of evidence of what can be done with high levels of safety and the lowest cost.

[Lookleft]

Dick you do realise that most long haul jets flying over the GAFA use CPDLC for their comms with ATC? So your hysterics over radio transmissions being blocked by VFR aircraft is just more hyperbole for the masses.

[Agrajag]

Agrajag,
You must be kidding, I hope you are. Such a statement probably reflects a brief exposure to the system, without ever coming to understand how well, how smoothly, it all works (likewise CA)

Communication (which is not the same as Australian "radio procedures") in US is, in fact, highly disciplined, and ICAO compliant. Sorry for the late reply.

But LeadSled, you & I must have been flying in parallel universes.

Highly disciplined? It's like listening in on a CB radio club. How disciplined is, "Center, United XXX, checkin' in three-fahv-oh, smooth."

How about controllers instructing us to "Maintain F200" when we're cruising at F390 and what he really means is "Descend F200." Does he think we're already there? Should we check? Wouldn't it be easier if he just said the right thing in the first place? And why is this a practice at one busy international airport, but not another?

Why do they talk at a million miles an hour, to airlines whose first language is not English, using local colloquialisms? And then get snarky when asked to say it again?

Why do they vector us onto parallel approaches with slower aircraft, then scream blue murder when we go around because of a TCAS RA which we are required to follow? And when our company contacts them to explain how they're setting us up for this situation, why do they keep doing it?

Sorry again, but this is not a model I believe we should emulate.

I'm convinced that the biggest problem we have with comms in Australia is that we have rules, but people can't be arsed to find out what they are and then comply. So we have needless calls to the wrong recipient, or pilots copying what they heard someone else say, because they think it sounded cool.

Perhaps the list of Oz comms procedures is a good thing, because at least it can be used as a reference. It's available to anyone who takes the trouble to find out. Surely that's part of being able to share the airspace responsibly, and is not too much to ask.

[Dick Smith]

Lookleft. What about the 100s of strips that are below the J curve and under terminal airspace?

I am not sure why you are defending this half wound back system.

Commonsense alone shows it is not sensible to have VFR aircraft making self announcements on ATC frequencies.

I am amazed that Professional ATCs don't object to this. They would in other countries.

[neville_nobody]

The problem in Australia is the rules are perpetually changing. MTAF to MBZ to CTAF-R to CTAF to multicom in say 20 years is just one example. Then combine that with poorly worded documentation multiple levels of law and thats why there is so much confusion. I fly professionally and I struggle to actually keep tabs on what the procedures are.

[Agrajag]

Yesterday morning to have the Sydney departures controller responsible for the safe separation of 747s and 380s in the more risky terminal area also being forced to listen to non directed VFR float plane self announcements and chatter is extraordinary in my view. When I explain this to overseas controllers they simply can't believe it.Dick, I'm a regular user of that frequency, in both lighties and jets. And I keep pointing out (as recently as a couple of days ago) that this is not the problem you claim. If there were regular overtransmissions, or if the frequency was too busy to get a call in, you might have a case. But you simply don't.

If you're as good as you claim at listening, and taking advice from qualified others, then why do you keep ignoring all evidence to the contrary on this and many other topics?

Dammit, I wasn't going to get fired up again about this nonsense. I think I will go and lie down now...

[Lookleft]

Lookleft. What about the 100s of strips that are below the J curve and under terminal airspace?

Dick as a professional pilot I fly up and down the J curve more often than you do and I still call BS on your assertions.

[Lead Balloon]

Dick, you are arguing against radio usage rules you don't understand, which is why you keep using scaremongering scenarios that don't exist.

All those pilots in aircraft at all those little unmarked strips on the 'J' curve and mustering cattle in the outback who would cause aluminium confetti aren't blabbing on the Area frequency.

They are not blabbing on the Area frequency for a reason.

The reason is not because they've decided to 'defy' the 'CASA ruling'.

It's because they don't have to blab on any frequency.

There are no mandatory calls at unmarked, unregistered, unlicensed strips in G.

The cattle musterers at Upper Bollogworlldarga are monitoring Area and blabbing on their own chat frequency, confident in the knowledge that they are the only aircraft at 500' within 500 nautical miles.

The aircraft departing an unmarked strip in the Southern Highlands of NSW might, if radio equipped, make a "rolling at / for" call, on Area. However, they are few and far between. And they still get a choice.

CASA is going to make you look very silly.

(BTW - I agree with the point that RPT Ops into places like Ballina in ForG make a complete nonsense out of any comparative risk-based objection to E.)

[Dick Smith]

Are you suggesting that pilots in Australia only do what's mandatory?

Are you suggesting it's good airmanship not to give any radio calls at aerodromes that are not marked on maps?

Surely not. Or am I having a misunderstanding? Isn't there a requirement for VFR to monitor and announce if in potential conflict when en route in G?

What would be the purpose of CASA sending out the Notam covering CTAF frequencies at non marked aerodromes if no one gives any calls!

And do you mean that you support E terminal airspace for Ballina?

[andrewr]

There are no mandatory calls at unmarked, unregistered, unlicensed strips in G.

If you don't make calls anyway, why is it so important that you don't make them on area, rather than not making them on 126.7?

[Lead Balloon]

Are you suggesting that pilots in Australia only do what's mandatory?No.Are you suggesting it's good airmanship not to give any radio calls at aerodromes that are not marked on maps?It depends on whether the call is necessary to reduce the risk of collision. If it's not, it's pointless and poor airmanship to make unnecessary broadcasts on the radio.

And you do, of course, realise that it's not 'bad' airmanship to operate at these places with no radio at all? If it's OK to operate at these places with no radio at all, it's OK to operate at these places and not make broadcasts just for the sake of hearing one's own voice on the radio.Surely not.Surely yes. Or am I having a misunderstanding?Yes you are.Isn't there a requirement for VFR to monitor and announce if in potential conflict when en route in G?Where is that requirement? You seem to be mixing up your en route with your in vicinity. And you might not need to have any radio at all.

You are going to need to be across the detail of this stuff when you get in front of the Federal Court.What would be the purpose of CASA sending out the Notam covering CTAF frequencies at non marked aerodromes if no one gives any calls!So that the pilots of radio equipped aircraft at those places are better able to assess the risk of a collision, and thereby to decide whether it is necessary to make a broadcast to mitigate that risk.

I have an unmarked airstrip on my property that is equidistant from Deniliquin (CTAF 119.0), Tocomwal (CTAF 125.5) and Echuca (CTAF 119.1). Nobody's doing circuits at my place. There is no point in me blabbing away to myself on 126.7 when operating in and out of there. There is no point my broadcasting on any frequency other than Area, and the only useful broadcast is that I'm rolling at X for Y at specified altitude. Job done, other than keeping an eye out for no radio aircraft and listening out on Area.

Same for an unmarked strip in the Southern Highlands.

Cattlemustering pilots in the outback aren't going to be blabbing to each other on the Area frequency, and are perfectly capable of getting themselves in and out of the unmarked strip on a property in the middle of nowhere without making half a dozen calls on the Area frequency.And do you mean that you support E terminal airspace for Ballina?Yes. Allowing RPT jets to operate to aerodromes in ForG but requiring an RFFS seems to me to be one of the more grotesque misallocations of finite safety resources I have seen.

PS for Andrew: Risk mitigation is not just about talking; it's also about listening.

[BuzzBox]

CAR Subregulation 166C (2) states that when "operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non‑controlled aerodrome...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..."

Ergo, if there is no risk of a collision there is no mandatory requirement for a call. I'd suggest that covers the majority of VFR operations at unmarked airfields and I would also suggest that the majority of pilots conducting those operations don't bother broadcasting unless it becomes necessary due to other traffic.

Frankly, this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion and has far more to do with political grandstanding than safety.

[LeadSled]

How about controllers instructing us to "Maintain F200" when we're cruising at F390 and what he really means is "Descend F200." Does he think we're already there? Should we check?

Agrajag,
That is one of the three descent clearances that have a very specific meaning, if you had been up with the very brief US differences to ICAO.

Why do they vector us onto parallel approaches with slower aircraft, then scream blue murder when we go around because of a TCAS RA which we are required to follow? And when our company contacts them to explain how they're setting us up for this situation, why do they keep doing it?Most interesting??

I have operated "heavies" for three different airlines in US airspace, all three has an SOP that said you deselect RA mode in TCASA II, in terminal areas, because you will likely get successive RAs., particularly with US or European traffic levels.

I am not surprised SoCal or NorCal TRACON were a trifle pissed, if it was the West Coast.

It was also the equipment manufacturer's recommendation, Boeing's recommendations, and there is a piece in the AIM on the subject.
So, you were the only soldier in the battalion in step. I would suggest it is your airline's SOPs that should be questioned.

Quite a while ago, some "expert" at ATSB organised a NOTAM requiring all VH- TCAS equipped aircraft to file an incident report every time there was TA, not just RA. We tried to explain that was crazy, but in the usual Australian fashion, why take any notice of anybody (including airlines, not just individual pilots) who actually knows what they are talking about.

So, we decided that the only answer was 100% compliance, and ATSB were swamped with incident reports --- I personally filed seven (7) in one 45 minute flight, EGCC to EGLL, four (4) of which were for every circuit of the hold at Bovingdon - just a normal day. After a couple of weeks, and hundreds of reports, ATSB cancelled the NOTAM.

As I said in a previous post, the difference is between "communicating" and stilted, inflexible and pedantic Australian "radio procedures", far in excess of the ICAO recommendations. Where, beyond the very formal requirements around clearances and read-backs, and a few other specific requirements, ICAO or FAA (or most place else) you are expected to "communicate" in plain language, ICAO English Level 6, not go searching for a "standard" phrase to fit the bill.

Every time we had a new pilot, whose only experience was in Australia, outside Australia, and not only in the US, it was a steep learning curve, and the hardest lesson to learn was that you should dispense with the view that "CASA will provide" a standard and obligatory phrase for every situation.

It was and is a parallel universe to the Australian approach, I am glad I only ever had to spend limited time in Australian FIRs. Flying up and down the east coast of Australia, with the occasional side trip to Adelaide or Perth would have driven me, and most of my colleagues, around the twist.

Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

I agree with the point made by BuzzBox.

The facts set out in LeadSled's post are just that: Facts.

Someone very close to me flies heavies for a very large foreign carrier, and his experiences and comments are the same as LeadSled's.

[Capn Bloggs]

Musta been a different Leddie Sleddie that was revving us about non-compliant ICAO RT a while ago...

far in excess of the ICAO recommendations
That'd be Doc 9432 Manual of Radio Telephony of 102 pages, would it?

Hey Leddie, could you please explain the phrase "fully ready" used by a large international airline just in the last few weeks (and more than once)? Thanks!

if there is no risk of a collision there is no mandatory requirement for a call
I suppose if nobody says anything, nobody knows anybody is there, so there's no risk of a collision, until of course the windscreen fills, then you'd better be the first to transmit. I suggest you lot look at AIP ENR 1.1 page 47.:= And Leddie, please don't give us that claptrap about AIP not being worth the paper it is written on.

[LeadSled]

"fully ready"Bloggsie,
That is a dopy expression, that emanated from the same "source" as that equally dopy readback "XXXX coming down - callsign", as a read-back of a transponder code change. Such affectations grow within some carriers, nobody has ever suggested they are "appropriate", because both example do have standard meanings and read-backs, and are not a subject for ad-libbing.

Re. the Manual of Radio Telephony, most of that is how to do it, the consolidated list of standard phrases and meanings is (as I have previously said) mercifully short, one page in the Jepp. format.

At least, with the spread of datalinks, I no longer have to listen to the tortured non-standard (that is, not in accord with Annex X, Vol. 2) positions reports from VH- aircraft, conforming to said pedantic, inflexible, one-size-fits-all and non-ICAO compliant Australian "radio procedures".

Tootle pip!!

[BuzzBox]

I suppose if nobody says anything, nobody knows anybody is there, so there's no risk of a collision, until of course the windscreen fills, then you'd better be the first to transmit. I suggest you lot look at AIP ENR 1.1 page 47.

Bloggsy:

I agree with your point, but the AIP only says that "good airmanship dictates that pilots of radio-equipped aircraft would also monitor the radio and broadcast their intentions in accordance with the minimum calls...". Nevertheless, such calls are not MANDATORY according to CAR166C, unless there is a risk of a collision.

[Lead Balloon]

I suppose if nobody says anything, nobody knows anybody is there, so there's no risk of a collision, until of course the windscreen fills ..That's the kind of reasoning and sensationalism that I'd expect from ... Dick.

If you're assuming there's no risk of collision because nobody's said anything on the radio, you're flying in blissful ignorance. But I anticipate you were being deliberately silly to make a point.

BuzzBox is a breath of fresh air. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

If you're assuming there's no risk of collision because nobody's said anything on the radio, you're flying in blissful ignorance. But I anticipate you were being deliberately silly to make a point.

You're making an ass out of yourself. ;)

So how else are you going to know about anybody until you spot him, and then what's the point of saying anything?

[Lead Balloon]

This part of the discussion is (or at least was) about Dick's scaremongering about ATC frequencies being choked up by broadcasts from all those aircraft buzzing around unmarked strips under the J curve and at cattle stations in the middle of nowhere.

I merely pointed out that there are no mandatory broadcast requirements imposed on pilots of aircraft operating at those places, even if they have VHF fitted.

So how else are you going to know about anybody until you spot him, and then what's the point of saying anything?In case you aren't being deliberately silly: If he doesn't have VHF, the only way you're going to know about him is to spot him and, if he doesn't VHF, there is, indeed, no point in saying anything. This outcome is permissible and the reality under the current rules at unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed airstrips in G (sorry: ForG).

[Capn Bloggs]

I'm glad we are in agreement on that point. :cool:

[Dick Smith]

I have never suggested that frequencies could be " choked up " by calls from VFR aircraft on ATC frequencies.

I have consistently said that just one self announcement on an ATC frequency normally used for separation of airline traffic could block out an important call. The chance is small but the results could be serious. That's why in other countries pilots would have licence action taken if they gave non directed VFR announcements on ATC frequencies. It's about professionalism compared to amateurism!

It's CASA that constantly refers to " choked up" or " overloading" when the real problem is just one call at the wrong time.

[Lead Balloon]

But you said that it was OK for these aircraft to contact ATC to request flight following.

How will the universe know that a call is to request flight following rather than to announce rolling at Bowral sheep paddock, and arrange the laws of physics so that the request for flight following can never 'block out an important call'?

On the issue of VFR calls on Area, you consistently overstate the risk. I'm guessing that's because you don't understand the rules for broadcasts in the vicinity of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips in ForG.

[Agrajag]

Agrajag,
That is one of the three descent clearances that have a very specific meaning, if you had been up with the very brief US differences to ICAO.How do we know those differences even exist, short of carrying the relevant AIP for every country we visit? And why did we get this terminology on the West Coast, but not the East?

Quote:
Why do they vector us onto parallel approaches with slower aircraft, then scream blue murder when we go around because of a TCAS RA which we are required to follow? And when our company contacts them to explain how they're setting us up for this situation, why do they keep doing it?
Most interesting??

I have operated "heavies" for three different airlines in US airspace, all three has an SOP that said you deselect RA mode in TCASA II, in terminal areas, because you will likely get successive RAs., particularly with US or European traffic levels.

I am not surprised SoCal or NorCal TRACON were a trifle pissed, if it was the West Coast.

It was also the equipment manufacturer's recommendation, Boeing's recommendations, and there is a piece in the AIM on the subject.
So, you were the only soldier in the battalion in step. I would suggest it is your airline's SOPs that should be questioned.We used to do exactly that, once upon a time. And then the TCAS algorithms were tweaked to reduce the number of false alarms, so the policy was rescinded. Accordingly, if we get an RA we have to act on it; no exceptions. That was explained to local ATC, who continued not to get it. So, every so often, a controller would try to be a bit cute, point a 744 on base towards a turboprop on final for the parallel, and then get narky when our equipment told us the closure rate was unacceptable.

It's not good enough to say, "Oh, that often happens here, so just switch it off." The aircraft triggering the alert could be other than the one you already knew about, or the latter might have strayed into your path. Deselecting RA is akin to Zaphod's peril-sensitive glasses, which went instantly black to filter out anything that might scare him. [/HHGTTG]

To address briefly another point you made, it's not just Australians who have a problem over there. It's Asians, Brits, Europeans... in short, anyone who isn't going to each port on a regular basis. The list of local interpretations within the same country, and the short-tempered treatment of anyone who doesn't know them, is long and legendary.

Anyway, this is straying from the original topic, which was Dick's belief that VFR lighties on ATC frequencies present a deadly threat to the heavies, and thus we should copy what the Americans do. I still maintain that they don't, and we shouldn't.

[Dick Smith]

Balloon. Extraordinary ignorance and resistance to change.

The universe will know because the pilot will look on the map for the nearest VHF ATC outlet ( or get it from the " nearest " feature on the gps ) and then state " Melbourne Centre. Mike Apha Mike , request" . Melbourne Centre will tell the pilot to standby or go ahead with the request.

And I can't see how It's relevant whether the calls are mandatory or good safe practice.

If I am about to taxi and enter the runway on even a dirt strip I keep a good lookout and also give the recommended calls. Why wouldn't you? Could be an aircraft about to land coming out of the sun. It's happened.

[Dick Smith]

Agra. Surely you agree that our half wound back system makes VFR flying more complicated.

That is the most experienced pilots have the simplest system. IFR pilots just do what they are told by ATC- even when to change frequency .

But a VFR pilot flying en route has to constantly look down at the iPad and change frequency to the ATC sector. Then after hearing a pilot say " all traffic Windslow" has look down again and attempt to find out where that place is. Due to up to 13 frequencies on re transmit the location could be 400 miles away and not on the chart area being looked at.

This means less remaining vigilant to see other traffic.

See, I have actually flown across Australia testing out how the system works.

And it doesn't. It's a half wound back stuff up and must be fixed.

[actus reus]

Agrajag,

You are correct re TCAS and the changes to the closure algorithms amongst other 'tweaks'.

'TCAS LOAD 7' is the one.

[BuzzBox]

So what's the solution then Dick? All VFR aircraft flogging around on 126.7 unless they're required to be on another frequency? Genuine question.

[Lead Balloon]

Balloon. Extraordinary ignorance and resistance to change.Yep! That's me to a T. I've never supported any change you've suggested. :rolleyes:The universe will know because the pilot will look on the map for the nearest VHF ATC outlet ( or get it from the " nearest " feature on the gps ) and then state " Melbourne Centre. Mike Apha Mike , request" . Melbourne Centre will tell the pilot to standby or go ahead with the request.But how will the pilot know that they aren't about to block out an important call to ATC? How will the universe know, and prevent it?And I can't see how It's relevant whether the calls are mandatory or good safe practice.Nor me.If I am about to taxi and enter the runway on even a dirt strip I keep a good lookout and also give the recommended calls. Recommended "calls" plural? What are the "recommended" calls (plural) when taxiing at, entering the runway at, and departing from this unmarked, unregistered, unlicensed strip?

Again, you'd better get this right before you lob into the Federal Court.

And why is it that those calls represent an unacceptable "block out" risk, but making a request for flight following doesn't?Why wouldn't you? Could be an aircraft about to land coming out of the sun. It's happened.No aircraft has ever landed out of the sun on the unmarked airstrip at my property. It's unmarked. Nobody but me is welcome.

Nonetheless, as a matter of good practice I will make 1 (one) call on Area, after listening to make sure I'm not about to blab while others are already communicating: "ABC is rolling at X for Y at Q altitude." I'm yet to block out a single call on Area doing that.

I've over-transmitted, and have been over-transmitted, many, many times in controlled airspace, however, amazingly (actually not...) there are procedures and safeguards to deal with that fact of every day life.

[Agrajag]

Agra. Surely you agree that our half wound back system makes VFR flying more complicated.

That is the most experienced pilots have the simplest system. IFR pilots just do what they are told by ATC- even when to change frequency .

But a VFR pilot flying en route has to constantly look down at the iPad and change frequency to the ATC sector. Then after hearing a pilot say " all traffic Windslow" has look down again and attempt to find out where that place is. Due to up to 13 frequencies on re transmit the location could be 400 miles away and not on the chart area being looked at. If he looks along his track on the chart, and doesn't see Windslow anywhere, it's not a threat to him is it?

And how many times in a given flight do we actually cross a frequency boundary, and have to switch? It's certainly not "constantly", at GA aircraft speeds.

This means less remaining vigilant to see other traffic.Sorry Dick, but... bollocks, and yet more hyperbole. If he's referring to the chart as often as he should, in order to know where he is, any place he hears mentioned should ring a bell if it's near him. It doesn't take a lot of head-down time at all, and from a decent cruise level the circuit traffic is irrelevant anyway.

See, I have actually flown across Australia testing out how the system works.Good for you. What level of arrogance do you possess, to assume you're the only one who has?

And it doesn't. It's a half wound back stuff up and must be fixed. If I hear that "half wound back" mantra again, I'm gonna scream. Twice in one message, alone!

Dick, I believe you have a lot to offer Australian aviation. Your passion and good intentions are unchallenged, and we need a voice the uninformed masses will heed. But, in order to have any credibility here, I think you need to separate your own personal opinions from verifiable facts. And maybe listen to the many whose experience is different to your own.

[Lead Balloon]

So what's the solution then Dick? All VFR aircraft flogging around on 126.7 unless they're required to be on another frequency? Genuine question.An excellent question.

In your system, what are the recommended calls, on what frequency, when operating in the vicinity of the unmarked airstrip at my property located equidistant from Deniliquin (CTAF 119.0), Tocomwal (CTAF 125.5) and Echuca (CTAF 119.1)?

[Dick Smith]

Re VFR en route monitoring. I think I would just follow the system used in by far the most successful GA country in the world .

But I am not going to describe it here because you will claim such a system is impossible .

Just as when you go driving on the weekend you are not forced to monitor the Truckies channel it's the same for flying VFR in the USA .

But I suggest you find the details yourselves.

[Lead Balloon]

You can't be serious.

[Arm out the window]

Bob Hawke reckoned airline pilots were just like bus drivers ... maybe Dick's onto something there.:confused:

[BuzzBox]

Re VFR en route monitoring. I think I would just follow the system used in by far the most successful GA country in the world .

But I am not going to describe it here because you will claim such a system is impossible .

Dick,

I asked a genuine question because I would truly like to know and understand the system you propose, not because I want to say it's impossible. As an international airline pilot, currently working for an overseas airline, I haven't flown VFR in Australia for many years. Nevertheless, I am very interested in the subject and would have appreciated a genuine answer.

[Dick Smith]

It's in the NAS educational material. If in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor the CTAF of that aerodrome otherwise monitor 121.5 or the nearest ATC outlet if you are obsessed with the old system

However in the USA there is not even a radio requirement for VFR in E or G as they are ICAO compliant. Their regs say monitor 121.5 if radio equipped.

[Arm out the window]

So chat on 121.5 and block distress calls, or just don't say anything and have it as if your radio was turned off?

[Car RAMROD]

Dick, if a ctaf call is being made on area because the airfield is not marked on the map, doesn't it translate that you'll spend effectively zero time heads down looking at a map/iPad for this unmarked strip?

Look out the window, like your meant to when Vfr. Your "alerted" now, so see and avoid!

[Dick Smith]

Arm. No you don't "chat". You monitor and see if you can assist if there is an emergency call. You also advice someone if you hear an ELT signal.

If you have an emergency you use this frequency. Most likely to be instantly answered by a high flying airline.

[Dick Smith]

Car. Making CTAF calls on area frequencies is crazy. Wait for the results of my legal letter.

[Arm out the window]

Arm. No you don't "chat". You monitor and see if you can assist if there is an emergency call. You also advice someone if you hear an ELT signal.

If you have an emergency you use this frequency. Most likely to be instantly answered by a high flying airline.

So what I'm getting at is, you might as well not have a radio except for the emergency listen out and possibility of getting a distress call out yourself.

[Lead Balloon]

If in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor the CTAF of that aerodrome otherwise monitor 121.5 ....Does not seem impossible to me at all.

And it makes sense to me.

What frequency should be used/monitored when operating at or in the vicinity of an unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strip in ForG? I'm assuming 126.7. (Serious question.)

[BuzzBox]

Dick,

Thanks for your reply to my previous question. According to the original NAS proposal, the radio requirements for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace were:


If in airspace normally used by arriving or departing CTAF traffic, monitor/communicate on the CTAF frequency.
If in airspace normally used by arriving and departing aircraft to a Class D tower, monitor/communicate on the tower frequency.
Otherwise monitor the relevant ATC/FIS or monitor 121.5 MHz.

Under that system, I assume that aircraft would use the Multicom frequency (126.7) while operating at an uncontrolled airfield, unless some other frequency has been designated for that purpose.

I understand your objection to CASA’s current requirement for aircraft to broadcast on the Area frequency while operating at unmarked airfields. To be honest, I haven’t found it to be a problem while flying across Australia at high altitude in my RPT jet. Crossed transmissions occur on ATC frequencies regardless of CASA’s broadcast requirements, but in my experience they are managed quite well and without incident.

My understanding is that CASA is concerned that pilots using the Area frequency will not hear broadcasts from aircraft at unmarked airfields, if those broadcasts are made on the Multicom frequency. Is that concern not valid? How is that risk mitigated in the US system?

[Dick Smith]

Lead balloon. Yes the multicom, 126.7

Buzz. You have not found it a problem because in some areas you are on a completely different frequency at flight levels and more importantly the CASA requirement is rejected by the vast majority of pilots .

In the US the only requirement for VFR radio equipped aircraft when flying en route is to monitor 121.5. This is primarily for interception reasons after Sept 11 - but it's great if you have an emergency like an engine failure because a call on this frequency will be monitored by high flying aircraft even if you are at 500' in a valley.

They clearly don't have VFR aircraft flying en route involved in mid airs with aircraft in the circuit area of CTAFs so there is no known safety problem to be addressed . And they have about 30 times the number of aircraft in approximately the same land area.

I suppose commonsense says a pilot doesn't fly through a circuit area of a marked strip. If the strip is not marked it must happen from time to time but has obviously not resulted in a mid air that would get the FAA looking at changing the system.

It's all about perceived risk compared to actual risk. We work on perceived risk.

[BuzzBox]

Thanks Dick. May I respectfully suggest that if the vast majority of pilots have rejected CASA's edict, then they are part of the problem? You would have a much stronger safety case for changing CASA's direction if pilots complied with the direction and it subsequently causes problems on ATC frequencies. At the moment, your case is based on little more than speculation.

[Dick Smith]

No not speculation. Facts. Don't forget every RAPAC has come out against this CASA decision which I understand was made by ex military people who joined CASA, brought in the change, and then promptly left when the xxxx hit the fan.

And the military " code " seems to be to never admit the organisation can make a mistake

Hence Mr Skidmores email stating he does not want to be associated with AOPA in any way.

That's a strong message to CASA staff that the military code of allegiance will be maintained no matter how many errors are made by individuals.

In effect. They will not be held accountable for making errors as long as the protect the code and the group think .

[BuzzBox]

Ok, but upon what "facts" have the RAPACs based their opposition? Why is their opinion any more valid than CASA's?

You have argued that CASA does not have the power to make a direction about the use of Area VHF at unmarked aerodromes. That argument is based, in part, upon opposition from the RAPACs. If CASA has an obligation to prove that there is a safety case to justify its actions, then surely the RAPACs have an obligation to justify their opposition, or is it a one way street?

Could we please leave the military out of this discussion? With respect, that kind of opprobrium does nothing to bolster your argument.

[Lead Balloon]

May I respectfully suggest that if the vast majority of pilots have rejected CASA's edict, then they are part of the problem? You would have a much stronger safety case for changing CASA's direction if pilots complied with the direction and it subsequently causes problems on ATC frequencies. At the moment, your case is based on little more than speculation.Dick seems not to be able to entertain the possibility that the vast majority of pilots actually understand that there are no mandatory broadcast requirements at unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips under the 'J curve' or at cattle stations in the middle of nowhere.

This may be because Dick spends most of his life in "transmit" rather than "receive". (But that's just speculation on my part.)

[Capn Bloggs]

And they have about 30 times the number of aircraft in approximately the same land area.

Dick, I'm surprised that, on those flights across Australia when you noted 1200 overtransmissions/near-midairs/calls on 121.5 (or whatever it was you reported), you failed to notice that 80% of the Australian landmass is devoid of all life, let alone aeroplanes due to the heat and lack of water. Therefore your inference that the Americans have 30 times more traffic for the same land size is complete and utter codswallop.

[Dick Smith]

Lead. You have the classic Bloggs belief that only if it's mandated do pilots act responsibly.

In the USA there is no mandatory radio requirement for VFR in E or G airspace ..nor any mandatory CTAF calls.

That doesn't mean pilots don't have radio and don't give the necessary calls.

In Australia I reckon most pilots give a taxiing and inbound call on 126.7 where they think it is prudent to do so.

[Lead Balloon]

Lead. You have the classic Bloggs belief that only if it's mandated do pilots act responsibly.Not true, Dick. As in false. In Australia I reckon most pilots give a taxiing and inbound call on 126.7 where they think it is prudent to do so.And I reckon you're probably correct, if the place at which they are taxiing or to which they are inbound is a marked strip or is shown in AIP has having a CTAF of 126.7.

But you are demonstrably wrong if you are suggesting those calls are being made on 126.7 by aircraft taxiing at or inbound to unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips in the 'J curve' or cattle stations in the middle of nowhere.

However, let's assume you are right and I am wrong.

If you are correct, it inexorably follows that there is no risk of these aircraft overtransmitting ATC instructions, and your scaremongering campaign about the 'CASA direction' is, at best, misguided.

[Dick Smith]

Buzz box. You say to leave the military out of it however that's not reasonable.

It appears this decision is totally linked to ex military people at CASA.

If not why doesn't Mr Skidmore say this? That's what most CEOs would do- that is correct misleading information.

It's interesting that Sir Angus Houston was part of the group which made the unanimous recommendation to the Minister to go with NAS but has more recently claimed that he supported NAS because it was Government policy and left out his original involvement.

This thread is about the CASA CTAF policy of communicating on Air Traffic Control area frequencies at non map marked airports. This must effect Airservices as it has VFR aircraft who are not paying for any service potentially loading the frequencies.

Why doesn't Sir Angus say anything about this? He must know that this is not NAS compliant. Has he changed his mind about NAS? If so why doesn't he say so?

More importantly it's clear that ex RAAF Mark Skidmore has no stated policy or belief about where CASA is going with airspace . It's clear they want to move away from the North Amerian system however where to? No one knows. No leadership.

[Dick Smith]

Leady. It's an incredibly stupid policy. If you are correct and virtually no one gives a call at non marked airports then there is no need for the CASA notam and AIP change.

What's the use of getting everyone to change to the air traffic control area frequency at these airports if no calls are mandated or given in reality?

What safety issue were these people addressing ? Why get all the RAPACs offside and articles in The Australian to embarrass the Minister? Totally incompetent people- no wonder they left CASA.

And the military code at CASA appears to be to never admit an error so I presume my court case will cost a fortune .

[Capn Bloggs]

You have the classic Bloggs belief that only if it's mandated do pilots act responsibly.

then
What's the use of getting everyone to change to the air traffic control area frequency at these airports if no calls are mandated
:confused:

[Lead Balloon]

What's the use of getting everyone to change to the air traffic control area frequency at these airports if no calls are mandated or given in reality?Are all FIA frequencies ATC frequencies? Leaving that question aside ...

You're going to have to prove it was a "change" as part of your Federal Court action. Good luck with that.

I didn't say no calls are given in reality. I did say they are few and far between.

All those strips you see in the Southern Highlands aren't Bankstown. They are on private properties used by the occupiers maybe once a month. One rolling call and that's it, if anything. There is no inbound call because no one other than the occupier is taxiing or doing circuits at an unmarked strip on private property. Get it?

I know it. I do lots of flying in that area monitoring Area and 126.7. For the last time: I can't remember hearing any call on either either Area or 126.7 from an aircraft operating in or out of or around one of these private strips, and they don't have to have radio in the first place. That's not to say that no broadcasts on Area or 126.7 ever happen. It's just to say that my observations are based on the reality of the tiny number of movements at these places rather than the fantasy that suits your scaremongering.

But go forth and get it changed so that the 'default low level area frequency' for VFRs is 126.7. Doesn't bother me.

Let's hope the education and implementation aren't the usual amateur circus. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Some may have forgotten but before the 1991 AMATS changes CTAFs did not exist. All calls at non tower airports were on the area frequency or AFIS frequency and monitored by Flight Service.

That's what the incompetents at CASA are trying to go back to. They have already put in an AFIS at Port Hedland and the next thing will be to bring back full position reporting for VFR.

Remember many in management their have no idea that cost is important for GA. Their regulatory reform programme has gone from my direction as CAA Chairman of " remove every uneccessary cost- copy the lowest cost from around the world that gives the affordable level of safety" to " make the regs gold plated without reference to cost".

The CASA imposed ADSB requirement for every IFR aircraft will substantially reduce safety as more owners take their aircraft out of the IFR category and are forced to scud run or stay on the ground. Those that can afford the $10,000 to $ 49,000 to fit ADSB will in many cases do less flying or less frequently update their aircraft further effecting the industry.

No other country in the world has such expensive ADSB reqirements and it's not addressing any known safety problem. The CASA RIS states it will cost GA over $30 million and they won't budge on the decision as the code within the organisation is never to admit to an error.

Fortunately the extra costs don't effect me at all - but I feel for others.

[Dick Smith]

Buzz you are a blatant liar. No wonder you hide your name. I have never ever considered that rules did not apply to me. I have always complied with the rules even though I have campaigned to change many including that one.

If such a situation had ever happened it would be on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald the next morning.

Because of the RAAF requirement that a clearance request to fly in the airspace must first be with a phone call I purchased one of the first 007 Telstra phones and would call from the helicopter.

My suggestion is you correct your statement in relation to the claim that I believed that rules did not apply to me or you will have the same action as Caroline Tulip.

[Lead Balloon]

Smart move, Buzz.

[Plazbot]

This is way better than Survivor.

[actus reus]

Humm,

I have not participated in this thread though I have very much enjoyed reading all the comments.

Well done all.

Somehow, after that little exchange, the oxygen seems to have gone out of the air...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re "Are all FIA frequencies ATC frequencies? Leaving that question aside ..."

For 'Flight Information Areas', the answer would be YES!

FIA = (Designated) Flight Information Area = talking to Airservices to gain information = ATC these days....n'est ce pas??

(There MAY be 1 or 2 'Flightwatch' VHF freqs left lurking somewhere in this 'wide brown land'....but if so, they would be very few and far between.....

No??

You can tell me that I'm wrong again....I don't mind - its been a while.....

Cheerrrssss:ok:

[Car RAMROD]

They have already put in an AFIS at Port Hedland and the next thing will be to bring back full position reporting for VFR.


No the next step is (or more correctly, was, due to the decline in traffic over the last couple years) to turn Hedland into D CTR.

Karratha was AFIS before it went to D about 5ish years ago. In both cases it was to get the controllers up to speed on local areas and what goes on before beginning controlling ops.



The CASA imposed ADSB requirement for every IFR aircraft will substantially reduce safety as more owners take their aircraft out of the IFR category and are forced to scud run or stay on the ground.
Nope, nobody is forcing you to scud run. That is your (general "your", not directed at anyone in particular) stupid choice to do that. Just like it would be the same stupid choice to scud run before adsb. Please, stop the scare tactics.


Oh and thanks for not exactly answering my last post. Just to remind you, why would you be looking for an unmarked place on a map because you heard a random ctaf call on area? It is unmarked, afterall!

[Lead Balloon]

[W]hy would you be looking for an unmarked place on a map because you heard a random ctaf call on area? It is unmarked, afterall!Hopefully the broadcast would provide enough location information to enable people on Area to assess the risk. Otherwise the broadcast would, indeed, be completely pointless.

"Cessna 210 ABC rolling at a strip 20 miles West of Tocumwal, for Griffith 9,500'"

Just common sense. I'm sure you will agree. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

That's what the incompetents at CASA are trying to go back to. They have already put in an AFIS at Port Hedland and the next thing will be to bring back full position reporting for VFR.
Dick Dick Dick! Come on! I'll go further than Ramrod and say that CASA has been proactive in minimising costs to industry by canning the planned introduction of the tower at YPPD due to traffic levels that didn't increase enough to indicate a tower was needed, even though the aeronautical study of a few years indicated that a tower was going ot be on the cards. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the near future, the AFIS is removed because of further declining traffic. What will you say then?

To insinuate that CASA is rolling back because they put in an AFIS at YPPD just shows us all that you seem to be pushing your agenda come hell or high water. Your sustained attacks on just about everybody and everything in the industry really does your cause no good at all.

[Clare Prop]

We may get to have our say

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/project-ss-1603-frequency-use-class-g-airspace