Comply with CASA Frequency and die!

[Dick Smith]

A week or so ago I was flying from Lightning Ridge to Charleville at 8500'.

About 90 miles out I called on the CASA required ATC frequency of 124.8 to get an area WX and notam update from the Charleville outlet. No answer so I tried an all stations call. Still no answer. I then tried a check call call on 121.5 and two high flying aircraft immediately answered.

I then called the St George vhf outlet on 118.95 and received an immediate answer. When I queried the problem on 124.8 the Controllor told me that it was not possible to get through to the Charleville outlet from that area but ok to St George because the transmitter was closer.

That of course was the NAS system. The maps showed the location of the outlets- as per North America and advised to use the closest outlet if communication with ATC was required.

Our frequency boundaries are there for ATC workload purposes and clearly don't reflect the VHF coverage. This problem exists all across Australia and it's just another part of the stuff up that happens when you don't ask advice and copy proven systems. One day it could cause the loss of life as it gets far worse at lower flight levels.

Imagine if you were giving a Mayday call. If you followed the current CASA requirements it's most likely no one would receive the call.

If you followed the NAS recommendations of 2003 you would get through on the nearest vhf outlet or on 121.5

And notice how there is not one person at CASA who puts their name to the current half woundback airspace policy. Maybe no one actually believes it .

[framer]

Sounds like there need to be a few pilots involved at the decision making level. Are there?

[Dick Smith]

Last time I checked the person making these decisions was ex RAAF and as we know they protect the existing system. Must be ingrained in them right from the start. The ultimate mates network.

[gerry111]

"Must be ingrained in them right from the start."


I'd blame the RAAF recruit ration packs. With all that bromide in the chocolate, iodine in the coffee and soda in the meat...

[onetrack]

Is there anything the RAAF are not personally responsible for, Dick?? :)

[le Pingouin]

The country hasn't been carpeted with bodies thus far as a result so why would this suddenly change? Oh I know, pilots are clearly suddenly incapable of looking at a chart and trying adjacent frequencies.

So how do they cope in the US if they don't get a response on the nearest VHF outlet? Don't tell me, I know. They try another one!

[Dick Smith]

In the US VFR do not have a requirement to be on a frequency that can be next to useless for emergency purposes.

Our requirement comes from ignorance. That is trying to return to the pre AMATS system when we no longer have 700 FSOs giving a directed traffic service.

[AmarokGTI]

Have you thought about writing for a tabloid newspaper? You are an expert in sensationalism.

[mickjoebill]

Oz has such fabulous vast and empty skies!

Why aren't more SUV drivers pictured heading to the airfield instead of the beach?

The public have little contact with GA and even then it's the mass media reporting accidents, sadly another on the news tonight:(

Firefighting helicopters get plenty of good press but there is no linkage or association made to GA.

A ppl is about same as 1 year depreciation on a posh car.

Perhaps it isn't the cost that is an issue.

Victoria has a $200m "future fund" that offers grants to several industries including education and transport.

Perhaps this can be tapped for research funding?


Mickjoebill

[le Pingouin]

Dick, you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Having everyone in a defined area on a defined frequency makes just a little bit of sense so they can talk to each other. CDF. A nice military phrase, nothing to do with rank or blue suits.

Trying to return? We never left. I'm still doing flight service just like I did 25 years ago.

[Arm out the window]

Good point, Le P.

Around where we are a number of the frequencies are affected by interference and some are NOTAMed as not being monitored by centre, but the boundaries are clearly marked on the charts (not sure what Dick's on about saying they're not), and aircraft can talk to one another.

If you're flogging around below 5000 as many of us do, there is f all chance of getting a mayday out on VHF anyway over the majority of the country.

How to fix it? Maybe mandate a GPS / satellite based surveillance system eh?!

[Capn Bloggs]

Our frequency boundaries are there for ATC workload purposes and clearly don't reflect the VHF coverage. This problem exists all across Australia
More examples please.

Mayday? Precisely what will anybody be able to do for you, Dick? You wanted "Free in G", you got it. Did you put in a plan so that at least we would have some idea where to look? You got rid of full reporting, don't now start whingeing about lack of support from "the system". Do you have ADS-B so that you could be located fairly easily? Weather and NOTAM update half way thru a 204nm flight??

[717tech]

There really needs to be a "like" button on here.

[cogwheel]

Dick is correct re the frequenciy boundaries on/not on charts. They were removed from the chats with the intro of NAS, but reinstated because the change was not educated and many did not understand the reason for that change.l
As another poster says, there is very little GA coal face experience in the regulator. The unintended consequences of such changes made by folk with little experience or understanding of such issues is certainly a safety issue.

[CaptainMidnight]

They were removed from the chats with the intro of NAS, but reinstated because the change was not educated and many did not understand the reason for that change.The frequency boundaries were reinstated on the charts at the insistence of all the regional RAPACs, not the then regulator.

FIA boundaries are placed with the lateral limits of the outlet VHF coverage as the primary consideration, particularly endeavouring to capture the circuit area of remote AD/ALAs. Further adjustments to align with ATC sector boundaries are a secondary consideration. Refer the PCA.

As to why neither ATC nor any other aircraft could be raised by the OP on the Charleville outlet of 124.8 when @ 90NM 8500 is a mystery.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Comply with CASA Frequency and die!

Nothing emotive about that thread title. Or factual either.

[Jabawocky]

Nothing new there either

[The name is Porter]

"A ppl is about same as 1 year depreciation on a posh car"

Hadn't thought of it that way! And you're correct :ok: maybe the problems with this industry go a whole lot deeper.

[le Pingouin]

Who's been hiding the corpses of pilots who were flying no radio? Surely they must have all died by now.

[Jabawocky]

LP

By the volume of GA traffic I see these days…..you would think it is possibly true. :uhoh:

[cogwheel]

The frequency boundaries were reinstated on the charts at the insistence of all the regional RAPACs, not the then regulator

I don't believe it was the RAPAC's back then that caused the boundaries to go back on the charts, but a push from some other sectors of industry, including ASA/ATC. It was certainly not a hot topic at the RAPAC I was involved in. The change occurred with very little consultation and the change was not even bedded down when the lines went back on. The ongoing education seemed to fade away quite quickly, something we still see far too frequently.

[Aerodynamisist]

What side of Charleville were you ? I routinely get 124.8 within 70 or 80 mm at 7000 or 8000 with out having to resort to the squelch. The Warrego weather radar installation that craps out every time it rains is a far greater concern. The only real danger is going to the wrong bakery once you get there.

[Dick Smith]

I was south of Charleville on track from Lightning Ridge.

I may start a separate thread with the factual story of the NAS wind back and why the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts - it was not because of calls from the RAPACs to do so.

It's the key to the present RAPAC problems with the CTAF frequencies- in effect it's not possible to have a safe and efficient half wound back NAS.

To have non directed circuit and taxiing VFR calls on frequencies that are also used by ATC to separate and give clearances to IFR aircraft is clearly fraught with problems.

No other country in the world that I know of has such a system.

We didn't before I bought in the AMATS changes in 1991.

[Stationair8]

Personally Dick, I preferred the pre 91 system, it seemed to work pretty well. Some of those old FSO could be tricky old blokes but they seemed to have a lot of care for old GA.


These days I get confused with so many types of airspace-those smart blokes from the check and training department have those tricky questions about what airspace is this on the chart and what can you do and not do in this airspace!


Now you are on the CTAF(R), and bugsmasha 101 calls up and say he his taxying for the fuel bowser and then bugsmaha 102 calls up that he is taxing for runups, then bugsmasha abc calls up bugsmasha 101 to see if Fred's ultralight is still at the field, meanwhile Qlink and Rex are chasing each other around the holding pattern waiting for the fog to lift.


As they say in Australia we are a modern first world nation!

[CaptainMidnight]

I don't believe it was the RAPAC's back then that caused the boundaries to go back on the charts, but a push from some other sectors of industry, including ASA/ATC. Certainly in the southern states the push originated from RAPAC i.e. NSW, VIC/TAS SA and WA to restore the boundaries on charts and their minutes at the time reflected that. ASA & ATC were interested parties but were not pushing the matter.

The RAPACs were all most vocal against the NASIG towards the end, with the perception that changes weren't being consulted and RAPACs just informed what was going to happen. One of the parties involved didn't win any friends when he said at a meeting "the time for consultation is over".

In fact a search for NASIG, NAS etc. on this forum turns up much info from the time. Couple of examples (note in the first mention of the FIA boundaries at the end of para 6):

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/109692-politicisation-air-safety.html#post1074840

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/104692-nas-chart-simplification-why-why-why.html#post1019849

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

C O R R E C T !!

"We didn't before I bought in the AMATS changes in 1991"

BEFORE the changes of 12/12/91, we STILL had FS freqs, manned by FSO's at consoles.

After the changes when services to VFR acft were 'dropped', 12/12/91, due to the lower volumes of calls from VFR acft, we still had the IFR, but we were now able to 'consolidate' airspace so that larger volumes were now being served by a much lesser number of FSO's.

"Voluntary Redundos" were offered, and took place in 'managed lots'.

More changes 11/11/93....More redundos.....

When the 'redundo's' were final 'sorted', our final staff numbers at Perth FSC went from around 128 to about 48. (I think....'electrons fading again...)

In WA, which is all I can vouch for, our VHF outlets were all eventually re-allocated to ATC use and the freqs changed to ATC use.

So, if a VFR pilot wanted something / anything, who did he /she call?

Call ATC & prefix with the words 'Flightwatch' so that the ATC bod would know it was a request 'outside' his/her 'core business' so, began the phrase, 'when workload permits'...

Tis a 'fair way back' now, but that's gotta be fairly close....
Cheers

[Radar Man]

the push originated from RAPAC i.e. NSW, VIC/TAS SA and WA to restore the boundaries on charts and their minutes at the time reflected that

Capt M/N, do have those meeting dates at your fingertips? The minutes would be good to read.

[cogwheel]

Yes, they would be good to see, as my recollection is somewhat different!

There were in fact two issues then: one was the use and placing of the "frequency biscuits" on the charts, and the second was the removal of the area frequency boundaries from the charts.

The end state was that the "biscuits" stayed and the boundaries returned, due I believe more related to pressure from those in the system than industry. At about the same time the necessary education dried up. The placement of the biscuits needed to be in the vicinity of the transmitter, but I don't think that is the case everywhere now?

It is a very sad state that there are now very few if any staff in the regulator that were about back then. Certainly present observations suggest that the required knowledge and understanding of low level procedures is no longer visible. And you know, they only have to ask, but that culture is not obvious!
:mad:

Recent changes without consultation or a safety case / risk analysis only reinforce the view that the required knowledge of some decision makers is not there.:ugh:

[Trevor the lover]

OK, Dick wins. Disband the RAAF. Wind it up, get rid of it, we don't need it. Let's round up the 13,000 recalcitrants and send them off to Nauru. Let's get flexibility back into society, the economy will improve, Sudanese will stop rioting, pollies will give up their perks, Bronny will resign - we just can't let the RAAF keep causing every ill of society, and best of all - Dick's blood pressure will return to normal.


AOTW - wanna share a tent with me??

[CaptainMidnight]

Capt M/N, do have those meeting dates at your fingertips? No, I didn't keep much however Dick Gower was the RAPAC Convenor for the Victorian RAPAC throughout the period and I suspect he would have kept copies of all the minutes. There was quite some corro. between the other regional convenors on the subject and the NASIG activities at the time.

At the time there was also a national group of reps who provided advice and recommendations to Airservices AIS people re the content and depictions of many things with AIP charts and documents, who also played a part. One of the reps was Victoria based (Gippsland??). I can't recall the name of the group or it's then acronym, but Dick Gower may do.

The links I provided in my post are just two that come up for this forum. A bit more searching you will turn up more info I'm sure.

The placement of the biscuits needed to be in the vicinity of the transmitter, but I don't think that is the case everywhere now?Following recommendation from RAPAC at the time (I think when the FIA boundaries were reinstated), the biscuit content changed from initially stating the area it was supposed to serve (which was found to be a bit vague) to the actual location or mountaintop.

Edit: RADAR Man: I'm left with the impression from another thread that you are or were with CASA at some point. FWIW sometime after 2007 when responsibility for airspace regulation transferred from Airservices to CASA and the latter formed their Office of Airspace Regulation, I believe Airservices handed over copies of all their past RAPAC minutes around the country to the OAR, either on CD or as hard copies. Up until then Airservices provided RAPAC Secretariat services nationally including organising the venues etc., then OAR took this responsibility over as well.

In short, if you chase up OAR they may still have copies of the minutes on CD or hard copies on file :ok:

[Arm out the window]

AOTW - wanna share a tent with me

I only do camper trailers these days mate! But yes, I do see how we should be packed up and shipped off somewhere where we can't hurt aviation any more!:ok: