CASA Class G Discussion Paper

[Dick Smith]

What a misleading document the CASA Class G discussion paper is.

Such a discussion paper would not be fair and accurate unless it examined the issue of a special FIA frequency boundary chart which was sent out by Airservices without CASA’s approval, and without any educational material at all.

This chart was sent out because of the most abysmal ignorance and resistance to change from some of the least intelligent people in Australian aviation. It resulted in a sort of ‘half wound back’ airspace system. This has been completely left out of the paper.

It is clear that CASA is the most dysfunctional organisation of all time. The people who prepared the paper are either not game, or have been given instructions not to tell the truth to explain that the wind back was due to ignorance, not because of any safety concern.

I haven’t seen any reason why we can’t be like other leading aviation countries in the world and have uncluttered charts without frequency boundaries marked on them. After all, if it can work in Europe, Canada and the USA, you would think it could possibly work here – considering that we have such a low traffic density.

Try to find an ATC frequency boundary on a chart there – you won’t be able to, because they didn’t have an archaic system in the past of flight service giving traffic information to VFR aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

Very unkind of you to describe CASA in that way, Dick. On Monday 27 Feb during Estimates hearings the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee asked this question of the Acting Director of Aviation Safety:If we were to ask informed Australians who was the pre-eminent adviser on air safety in this nation, do you think that they might nominate your organisation?Mr Carmody's response was:No doubt.You see Dick, in the world of government, perception is reality.

The fact that CASA (and Airservices and ATSB) are complete basket cases and the above interchange is champagne comedy is neither here nor there. "Informed Australians" perceive CASA to be the "pre-eminent adviser on air safety" in Australia.

Luckily for Australians, little of what CASA does has any causal connection with aviation safety. Unfortunately for the aviation industry, the little that CASA does that has some causal connection with aviation safety is often detrimental.

[triadic]

A sub-committee of the RAPAC Convenors representing the eleven RAPACs Australia Wide concluded their paper on the MULTICOM with the following:


CONCLUSIONS
• It must be emphasised that the prime method for traffic avoidance for operations in Class G airspace in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) is and always will be SEE AND AVOID. This applies to VFR and IFR planned flights.
• IFR pilots must continue to risk-manage their flights at or near LSALT for the likelihood of VFR aircraft using the MULTICOM 126.7 in the same way they currently do for no-radio VFR flights in Class G airspace.
• The need to have a simple procedure for low-height flights in Class G airspace is based on the use of radio to help enhance the alerting and presence of other aircraft that may be in conflict, especially for VFR operations by recreational aviators.
• Recommended procedures in Class G airspace should make it easy to establish the primary frequency for any location.
• Such procedures are enhanced greatly and are significantly safer if a common and well-known frequency is recommended for radio-equipped aircraft flying at low heights above the ground.
• Having a single commonly-known frequency is a simple procedure that does not rely on other factors such as ATS frequency boundaries and whether or not a landing area is marked on a particular chart.
• The exercising of good airmanship reduces or negates perceived risks such as not being on an ATS frequency for traffic or other flight information services (FIS).
• Simple is Safer, therefore it is our recommendation that MULTICOM 126.7 MHz procedures be recommended for all operations at low heights (below 3000ft or 2000ft AGL) in Class G airspace when clear of established CTAFs and Broadcast Areas.

OTHER ASSOCIATED ISSUES
The following matters flow from this discussion and need to be addressed with industry, Airservices and the RAPACs:
1) Criteria for the marking of ALAs on charts.
2) Marking on charts a symbol for the locations of ATS Area VHF transmitter sites.
3) Removal of ATS Area Frequency boundaries from charts (in conjunction with 2 above).
4) Consider the re-introduction of the Visual Enroute Chart (VEC) or similar (if FIA frequency boundaries remain on charts).
5) Increased pilot education, in particular, the use of radio, trigger broadcasts, airmanship, and See-and-Avoid (collision avoidance) techniques especially for IFR operations in VMC.
6) A review (audit) be conducted of all Broadcast Areas (BAs) and CTAFs with a view to the reduction of the number of frequencies used.


Ask your local RAPAC Convenor for a copy of their paper. As indicated above it supports the establishment of the MULTICOM as the recommended frequency for use at low heights when clear of established CTAF's and Broadcast Areas (BA's).

[Capn Bloggs]

It's a discussion paper about your beloved Multicom, Dick, if you hadn't noticed, not Rollback, from your preferred system where uncontrolled, unknown VFRs were mixing it with RPT jets. Contrary to your ramblings about "some of the least intelligent people in Australian aviation", CASA is laying the Multicom issue on the table for all to have a say. There are good arguments for each system.

Have your say!

As for you, LB, what would you expect Mr Carmody to say? What would you have answered? :rolleyes:

[Lead Balloon]

I would have answered the question honestly.

Australians who are informed about aviation would not nominate CASA as the pre-eminent adviser on air safety in Australia. The fact that CASA presumes that role or is assumed by the uninformed to have that role is merely an appeal to authority or an assumption rather than a judgment of the substance of the matter.

You should read the report arising from the ASRR.

[Capn Bloggs]

Keh? Glad you don't run CASA, LB...

[Dick Smith]

Triadic. Sounds sensible. CASA are not considering going to the proven simple North American system .

The paper proposes two types of half wound back system.

If a simpler system works around the world with far higher traffic densities you would wonder why it wouldn't work here.

Minds are set in concrete. No wonder the morale is so low. I wonder why the Board does not ask why we just can't harmonise with the simplest.

In our present system flying VFR you can monitor hundreds of calls that have no importance.

[Lead Balloon]

So Bloggs, you think an industry that does not trust CASA nonetheless considers CASA to be the pre-eminent adviser on air safety?

You don't even know who runs CASA.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yep, just like the Mildura thread. More riddle-laden posts by LB. Why don't you read the DP and give us your opinion instead of ...

[Lead Balloon]

Who runs CASA, Bloggs?

[CaptainMidnight]

MULTICOM 126.7 MHz procedures be recommended for all operations at low heights (below 3000ft or 2000ft AGL) in Class G airspace when clear of established CTAFs and Broadcast Areas.
How is that going to work around the major CTR/CTAs e.g. within 15-20NM of Melbourne?

The CTA LL being 2500 and lower means that aircraft will no longer be on the FIA and therefore would be uncontactable by ATC in the event of penetrations of the CTR or CTA (check the link below, "Airspace Infringement Hotspots"). Also unless dual VHF, IFR will be out of comms with ATC if proceeding through Class G airspace, thus no SIS or SAR.

I recall someone at the Victorian RAPAC was once pushing for a broadcast area which would do the same thing, and the proposal was rejected both by ATC and CASA for these reasons.

Airspace infringement | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/flight-briefing/pilot-and-airside-safety/airspace-infringement/)

[Lead Balloon]

Marking on charts a symbol for the locations of ATS Area VHF transmitter sites.I'm interested in the point of this. Why do I care where a ATS VHF transmitter is physically located? What operational decisions do I make on the basis of that information?

[The name is Porter]

Agree with Dick, if it works in the US, why can't it work here with lower traffic densities? Why can you fly over the top of O'Hare at 10,000ft VFR, no clearance required and you can't do it at Tulla or Kingsford Smith?

Vote 1: Nanny State.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I would imagine that it could be very 'handy' knowing where your nearest ATS VHF site is located - if only for the purpose of selecting that frequency IF within range, and making your 'mayday' or 'pan' call, or your 'request' DIRECT TO ATS, should you need to.....

Better than a 'call in the blind' hoping that someone is within range to hear you and relay for you, your request / position or whatever...

Cheers

[Lead Balloon]

Ah yes...it's coming back now.

'Dick's Biscuits' on the charts. I may still have one.

[Arm out the window]

I'm going to go crazy here and say what's the problem with having frequency boundaries marked on charts?
Green and brown lines on ERC with frequency boxes saying what the most appropriate frequencies to listen out on have never gotten in the way of me being able to read the other information as far as I can tell, and they're pretty bloody handy when at medium levels and you want to know what is the best freq to punch out a mayday on or try to get some operational information.
Why wouldn't you want those details on there, all past history aside?

[cogwheel]

Marking on charts a symbol for the locations of ATS Area VHF transmitter sites.

I'm interested in the point of this. Why do I care where a ATS VHF transmitter is physically located? What operational decisions do I make on the basis of that information?

There are numerous locations where the marked area freq does not work at lower levels, but knowing where the site was might allow you to communicate with centre on another frequency. Remember, the area freq boundaries are designed mainly for high and medium air routes and sectorisation based on ATC work load and staff availability, not on or for low level GA ops.

[Capn Bloggs]

the area freq boundaries are designed mainly for high and medium air routes
High level freqs bear no resemblance to the low level freq areas, at least where I fly. In fact, the high level freqs are not even on the charts.

Certainly, there are advantages for having the boundaries on the charts. If you're not in the weeds, you know who to call and more importantly you know what freq other aircraft will be on (unless in the weeds on the Multicom ;)). Likewise, I see the (possible) advantage in knowing where the transmitter is. Over here, probably half the transmitters are shown anyway, being at airports. I can't see an issue with adding the non-airport transmitter locations on the charts: wouldn't increase clutter at all.

I wonder though whether Dick would fly around studiously tuning the nearest outlet JIC?

[CaptainMidnight]

I find it interesting that the RAPAC subcommittee is now pushing for removal of FIA boundaries from charts, given it was RAPACs nationally who demanded that they be returned to the charts.

I recall their comments at the time, such as biscuits with no boundaries being useless, boundaries were far more easily interpreted, particularly the fact they aligned with an ATC sector's responsibility for that area including vertical limits for Class G and E comms.

The biscuits on current charts within FIA and Class E areas already include the outlet location, something introduced when the boundaries were returned way back.

[Lead Balloon]

They have the name of the location, which is not quite the same as having a map symbol denoting the actual location.

And the biscuits on the current charts aren't true biscuits. Back in the (very short) day they were the shape of Arnott's Milk Coffee biscuits (with the wiggly edges).

But I agree that the on-and-off-again arguments about boundary depictions is confusing.

[Dick Smith]

Arm out the window, you bring up a very good point in your statement:

“What’s the problem with having frequency boundaries marked on charts?”

There is clearly a problem because that is what this CASA discussion paper is about. For over three years now, CASA and the RAPACs haven’t been able to agree on the procedures to be used.

CASA reckons that at unmarked aerodromes, taxiing and circuit calls should be given on the ATC frequency which is also used to separate traffic. Most of the RAPACs reckon that the calls should be on the multicom.

No other country in the world of which I know has air traffic control frequency boundaries marked on charts. Now possibly there could be a reason for this. I know the reason why we have them marked in Australia. It is because many years ago, they were flight service frequencies and VFR and IFR aircraft flew at the same levels. It was called the quadrantal rule, and therefore VFR aircraft had to be in the full position system.

This worked well but was incredibly expensive. I was part of the group many years ago – in 1991 – that made the decision to change to the North American system. Rather than having IFR and VFR aircraft flying at the same levels with the quadrantal rule, we decided to move to the ICAO hemispherical rule, which put VFR aircraft 500 feet apart from IFR.

Then, at the most likely location of a collision – that is when flying en route in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome – we recommended that the VFR pilots monitored and announced on the aerodrome frequency. What could be simpler?

Many seem to think that the best frequency to be on if you have to give a MAYDAY is the area ATC frequency as marked on the charts. This is ridiculous. There are many areas in Australia where you cannot get through to the frequency of the ground based transmitter, but if you call the frequency of another transmitter that is closer, you will get immediate communication. VHF is line of site . That is why all the leading GPS units have a system showing nearest ARTC. That is for the American, Canadian and European system – where if you did need to call ATC, you can simply go to the nearest outlet which is likely to give you communication. It is what you call common sense and it has been proven all around the world.

We are in a situation where there is a conflict between the experts at RAPAC and the experts at CASA, because we have attempted to half roll back a very proven, safe system.

What was left out of the paper is the American requirement for radio equipped aircraft to monitor 121.5. This is the safest way of being able to communicate with an aircraft that may have inadvertently flown into controlled airspace. All the air traffic controller has to do is call a high flying airline aircraft and get them to call the aircraft at that location.

Around Sydney I often hear ATC calling a VFR aircraft in a certain location – only about 50% of the time does it get a reply. This is very likely because the particular aircraft is on the wrong frequency, or has the volume turned down.

As I have pointed out, I have done multi-day trips around Australia monitoring over 1,000 radio calls in our present system, and not one has been relevant for traffic purposes.

Also, with the continuing introduction of ADS-B, where position reports are not given, there is less likelihood of being able to find the location of another aircraft to start talking in the old 1950s system of radio arranged separation.

The prime reason that we have these problems is that there are those around (less and less these days) who want to return to the systems of the 1950 to 1980s – when they were learning to fly. Capn Bloggs is a clear example here.

Capn Bloggs, no we don’t have airline aircraft flying around with unalerted see and avoid. If they are approaching or departing an aerodrome, they can communicate to the VFR aircraft – which if following the recommended practices of NAS, will be monitoring that aerodrome’s frequency.

Having a radio on 121.5 gives the distinct advantage that at any point you can call out MAYDAY with your position if you have an engine failure, and that call will most likely (98% in my experience) be monitored by a high flying airline aircraft. I have checked this in the Indian Ocean near Cocos Island, and also half-way across the Atlantic near Ascension Island, and received an immediate answer to a test call.

This also means that VFR pilots can fly in beautiful silence, appreciating the wonderful scenery and communicating with passengers on the intercom. Imagine if we brought in a requirement that anyone driving on the weekends in there cars must have a CB radio compulsorily on the truck channel. It would be ridiculous.

CASA needs to re-do the paper looking at what the problems would be of going to the international, proven, safe, simpler system.

[Capn Bloggs]

There is clearly a problem because that is what this CASA discussion paper is about.
No it is not. The issue is what freq is used at Bullamakanka dirt strip. Even if it becomes the Multicom, then it is still logical the boundaries stay on the charts.

[Lead Balloon]

I agree with Blogg's point, Dick.

If the ATS VHF frequencies are going to be published on the charts, you might as well publish boundaries for them as well.

"Beautiful silence"? You obviously don't spend much time monitoring your much-loved Multicom.

[kaz3g]

For goodness sake...just leave the bloody thing alone.

More changes will be against safety. We know what the rules are and no-one to my knowledge has died because they called on Area instead of Multicom.

What's the use of me picking up Joe brown calling at Yowling Creek airfield if I don't know the thing exists or where it is?

I like listening to the bigger fellows when I am in remote areas and find their "presence" rather comforting. Joe will only be on air if he is flying and the way GA is going, that won't be very often.

Kaz

[Dick Smith]

Kaz. It's clear most pilots are not following the current CASA rules.

That is they are not using the ATC frequency to give circuit calls at non mapped airports.

Do you reckon CASA rules should be complied with. Or doesn't it matter.

And what's wrong with a simpler system if it's safe and if it works ?

And you can still listen to the big ones. Simply monitor the nearest ATC outlet if you want to .

[Dick Smith]

Lead. The problem was only created when the boundaries were put back on the charts.

If the boundaries are not there it's clear at low level you monitor the ctaf or multicom if you are so obsessed.

When did you learn to fly?

[CaptainMidnight]

If the boundaries are not there it's clear at low level you monitor the ctaf or multicom And what are we supposed to monitor when we aren't low level (i.e. when operating above 3000FT up to FLs)?

The FIA; that's where we get a SIS and/or TFC info, FIS & SAR etc. And for that, the frequencies need to be published, and the boundaries are of enormous assistance. That's why the industry demanded they be returned.

In any case, whatever changes are proposed will need to be subject to a HAZID & ultimately a safety case, and I'm not sure all proposed will pass.

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Can't possibly copy a proven very safe system. What would the yanks and the Canadians know. We built the Nomad. It passed our safety case

And Captain Midnight. What frequency do you suppose the North Americans are " supposed to monitor" when VFR and not at a low level?

Hint. It's not ATC. Can't possibly work. A pilot flying VFR must have wall to wall ATC calls to make it so!

[mustafagander]

As I see it, I want the frequency boundaries on my chart so that when I fly from, say, CN to TEM I can listen out on the appropriate frequency where I can expect to be able to ask for ops info from an appropriate person or if it all goes bad call for help.
It's not that I want a barrage of yap, nor do I want to make one, but I want to know the appropriate frequency rather than take a punt. You never know, somebody might be helped out of a tight spot by being able to call the proper controller.
What then is the downside to having the boundaries on the chart? If you don't like them, ignore them FFS. Stop trying to micromanage Dick.

[Lead Balloon]

The problem was only created when the boundaries were put back on the charts.What "problem" was "created" that will go away if the boundaries are removed?

I'm not "obsessed" about anything. I merely observed that monitoring 126.7 does not usually produce "beautiful silence" and that if FIA frequencies are going to be printed on charts, you might as well print frequency boundaries as well.

Get the rules changed to whatever you like. But please, please (please) make sure that any changes are subject to a better education campaign than has accompanied most other changes in the last couple of decades.

I never learned to fly. I'm afraid of heights.

[kaz3g]

it's clear most pilots are not following the current CASA rules.

That is they are not using the ATC frequency to give circuit calls at non mapped airports.

Do you reckon CASA rules should be complied with. Or doesn't it matter.

And what's wrong with a simpler system if it's safe and if it works ?

And you can still listen to the big ones. Simply monitor the nearest ATC outlet if you want to

Dick, what's clear to me is that few pilots using unmarked strips bother to make a call at all.
Certainly, I never hear them unless they have an organised event in which case they should be asking for a discrete frequency.

There is a significant number of marked airstrips which have 126.7 as their CTAF scattered around the country and I have never heard calls on that frequency from aircraft at unmarked airstrips nearby when over flying. But I have heard pilots transmitting over another because they are both using 126.7 at different locations.

A small aircraft flying without OzRunways is a rarity now and it's an easy job to follow the frequency boundary changes on the electronic chart. Please Do NOT advocate for their removal.

Kaz

[Frontal Lobotomy]

My aircraft is at a strip which is not on charts but is near two which are marked. If I follow current requirements and broadcast on area I will add to the "yap" but will probably not inform those I most need to of my intentions as they will be on CTAF/ Multicom.

Not all aircraft have two VHFs and I know VFR is see and avoid.

Listening on area gives you some situation awareness and indication of what IFR traffic may be headed for your destination before you engage them on CTAF, if required.

[Dick Smith]

Musta. If you want the most reliable contact with atc - monitor the nearest atc frequency as shown on your gps.

If you are 100 miles south of Charleville at 7500 you will not get through to the area frequency Charleville outlet as shown using the frequency boundaries but you will get through to the St George outlet which is nearer. I will say again. VHF is line of site. Closer normally the better.

The boundaries shown on the chart are primarily designed for ATC workload purposes.

If you want the most reliable way of getting a mayday call out. Use 121.5. Its monitored by lots of special transceivers flying at up to 50,000' to give maximum range . They are called jet aircraft.

[cogwheel]

My aircraft is at a strip which is not on the charts but is near two which are marked

The definition of "in the vicinity" is 10nm last time I looked. So if you a within 10nm of the other strips, you would use 126.7 (or the CTAF freq if different)

What about if the area frequency boundary went close to your strip?

One of the reasons the the MULTICOM (NB: in upper case) has an advantage over area is that you may always be in the vicinity of some strip. The safest option is to have a common frequency for low level ops that is simple and easy to remember. Determining a frequency by whether it is on a chart or not only adds a degree of difficulty that was not there before. It is a simple procedure, especially if you don't know where the strips are? Oh!! And what chart was that??

[cogwheel]

NOTE: This thread is about he MULTICOM DP, not area frequency boundaries. Certainly that subject might follow, but it is not what the DP is about!

[Frontal Lobotomy]

Cogwheel

Commonsense prevails. I just feel the current mandated requirements need to be changed.

[Lead Balloon]

What are the "mandated requirements" to which you refer?

[Frontal Lobotomy]

Ok it may be "recommended" but I still think the recommendation needs to be changed.

[Arm out the window]

Watch for Dick's article in the Australian next week, never fails.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I often hear ATC calling a VFR aircraft in a certain location.......
.....has the volume turned down......
.....VFR pilots can fly in beautiful silence.....

Pesky ATC!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

requirement for radio equipped aircraft to monitor 121.5
monitor the nearest atc frequency
we recommended that the VFR pilots monitored and announced on the aerodrome frequency
calls should be on the multicom.

Geez, how many radios do you have to have? What happened to "beautiful silence"?

How about you just listen to Area and the relevant CTAF if necessary. Wouldn't that be easier?

[triadic]

I asked an American friend what frequency he monitors enroute VFR and he said he just turns the radio volume down!! And they have how much traffic? Class E & G

[Dick Smith]

I would agree. It's a staggering contrast to the workload of ATCs here in Australia .

And Airservices claim that their ATCs can't give a class E service to low levels at Ballina without extra staffing

When your friend is flying en route away from a terminal area in the USA how does he know the correct ATC frequency to be on?

Remember the ATC sector boundaries are not marked on any charts in the USA or Canada.

Does he have paranormal powers?

[Dick Smith]

Cogwheel. Ha ha. Trying to stop discussion about this? I started the thread and it's very much about why this dispute started in the first place.

And I can assure you it's totally linked to Airservices undermining the CASA NAS introduction by putting the frequency boundaries back on the charts with no pilot education in any way.

The CASA people are correct. If we are to have the old FS style frequency boundaries on the charts it's logical to follow the old system where Ctaf's did not exist.

I introduced the CTAF and Multicom. Before then you operated in the circuit area on the FS area frequency. I remember the screams when that change was introduced- " we are all going to die"

Difficult to be half pregnant.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I introduced the CTAF and Multicom. Before then you operated in the circuit area on the FS area frequency.

And before then there was absolutely no confusion about which frequency you should be on, and never ending debates and confusion didn't exist.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Shows classic resistance to change.

There is no confusion in the USA and Canada about what frequency to be on.

The half windback has created the confusion.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

How much class G is there really in the USA ? (genuine question), because my quick searching indicates that it is mostly at very low levels (around 1200' AGL) with class E above.
ie. there is little need to mark frequency boundaries because it's either class E or whatever ATC tells you.
Here, we need the frequency boundaries because our class E generally starts at the higher altitudes so we need to know where the G/E boundary is.

and no, I do NOT want the class-E-everywhere war to restart)

[djpil]

Flying VFR in class E in the USA noone tells me what frequency and is pretty much like class G here in my experience.
https://www.faa.gov/c/content/dam/faa/regulations-policies/documents/17_phak_ch15.pdf

[Mr Approach]

Biggles - if you look at the mandatory traffic information requirements imposed by Australia on IFR traffic when outside controlled airspace (which is A, C, D & E) then you will find that Australia does not have any Class G airspace. It is in fact Class F airspace, however CASA and Airservices refuse to use the correct category for reasons unknown to me.

Class G by definition is airspace where traffic information is given on a workload permitting basis; but not for our ATCs, they are required to give IFR traffic information. That, by definition is Class F and incidentally exactly what Australia had before the NAS changes; then we called it Flight Service.

What has actually happened is that CASA and Airservices, being full of ex-FSO/ATC people who love the old ways, have re-created the old ways but under the guise of the new airspace categories.

The more things change the more they stay the same! Vive la change!

[Creampuff]

Mr A is correct. Australia has ForG.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And around we go again!

If we waited for the technology to fill in the blank spaces all of this NASdebating would have resolved itself. We are still a long way to go until the majority of GA VFR are squitting 1090ES. If that day ever comes, I will not need the services of ATC out in the GAFA...remember! 1090ES doesn't need a ground station to be seen by other 1090ES Rx units unlike UAT. No need to yak, no need for boundaries...I can be warned of your presence and you of mine...Simples!

You really should have waited, Dick.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Twelve - Twelve - '91..... Or 12. 12. '91....... The Day The '****-Up' occurred!!!

OR, 12 , 12, '91.....OR 12. 12. 1991......OR.....

The Day I really 'LOST INTEREST'........ But.... It still took 9 years Dick..!!

To get rid of "Perth", that is.....

:D:D:D

(p.s. Thanx for the .....)

"****e".....OI feel half - pregnant.......and 'lookee' likee it too.......

But then,....Oi am also 'resistant to change'....n'est-ce-pas......

[The name is Porter]

I was one of those resistant to change types. I was indoctrinated with the 'ASA is the best ANSP in the world' 'ASA knows all there is to know about running airspace'

That was until I flew quite a few hours in another system. You don't monitor an ATC frequency, you don't need to. If you want to, fill your boots. If you have an emergency every body monitors 122.5, the ATC is always there and can help if you need them.

It's not much wonder ASA can't get enough controllers when they're forcing controllers to provide the nanny service to VFR that are not wanted or needed. The liability placed on controllers (and by extension ASA) is a ridiculous state of affairs that contributes to the cost of aviation. If they didn't have to provide this rubbish there'd be more money for surveillance and the controllers to person Class E sectors to an approach service.

Dick, you are truly wasting your time. From someone who spent 25 years in there, you will never change the minds of the self appointed risk management experts. Most of them have never set foot in or used the services provided by other ANSP's.

[cogwheel]

The only thing in aviation that is consistent is....... change.!!

[Dick Smith]

True. By putting the frequency boundaries on charts and requiring VFR to be on frequency results in a duty of care by ATCs.

That's why you sometimes here a controller desperately calling a VFR aircraft to give a traffic advisory .

Doesn't happen anywhere else in the world .

[Arm out the window]

If frequency boundaries weren't on charts, it would be even more stupid than it is now! At least people flying around in the same airspace should know what frequency is most appropriate for their situation.

Yes, by all means, let's get 126.7 in use as the multicom for airfields that don't have another freq specified, but why all this hoo-ha about getting frequencies off charts so we can be like the US? Storm in a teacup. However, Dick always has an agenda, so I guess we will see what transpires.

[Lead Balloon]

It may just be me, but it sounded like there were many more CTAF calls mistakenly made on the FIA frequency rather than CTAF today.

[Dick Smith]

The hoo ha was generated by CASA enforcing a requirement that the RAPACs did not believe in.

The situation only occurred because the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts without any education on how this half woundback system would work .

Clearly a half woundback system doesn't work. If it did there would be no dispute.

Arm. Are you saying the North American system is stupid. Why?

[gerry111]

"If you have an emergency every body monitors 122.5,"

Are you sure about that, Porter?

[Biggles_in_Oz]

<rant on>
Well, to me the USA situation where in E "... You don't monitor an ATC frequency, you don't need to. ..." and RAPACs comment in the DP about the USA "... but away from an aerodrome VFR pilots typically turn down the volume on their radios and don’t monitor any frequency. ..." worry me mightily., because the only way that the USA system *can* work is that it is *E*, not G, *and* they have multiple times more ATC staff *and* smaller ATC sectors *and* much better surveillance than what we can economically justify to separate *and* divert IFR from the VFR.
<rant off>

arrooiiight. here's my proposal for the DP.
Why *not* have a multicom that starts at a lowish MSL, eg 4000' AMSL ?

We currently have a whole pile of CTAFs, many with their own frequencies, plus quite a few largish and weirdly-shaped broadcast zones, also with their own frequencies.,
so instead of trying to figure out if one is 'in the vicinity of a whatever, or just which CTAF/Broadcast frequency one needs to use, it all becomes just one multicom below a defined level.

Downsides are ;
-more received traffic on the multicom, particularly with A/C on descent. (line-of-sight and all that)
-confusion about where a location actually is.

Upsides are ;
-less traffic on Area frequencies.
-less confusion about which frequency to monitor.

There will be 'edge/corner' cases, but they should be resolvable with some re-assigning of FIA boundaries.

[Plazbot]

Uh oh, that sounds like the G Demo.

[Arm out the window]

Arm. Are you saying the North American system is stupid. Why?

No, I'm not, I'm just saying I like having the frequency boundaries marked on the charts so I know that if someone isn't on a CTAF, they will probably be on the same frequency as me, and also what frequency I should get best contact with centre on should I need to talk to them. I think that's good, not bad.

And could you please leave off about this half wound back thing, you sound like a bloody politician who thinks we all love sound bites!

[CaptainMidnight]

Downsides are ;
-more received traffic on the multicom

That was exactly the problem on day one of one of the previous changes.

I think it was when CTAFs were introduced, and they were all on 126.7. Requests were made immediately for various locations to have a discrete frequency allocated to get around the problem of excessive comms, confusion re RWY vs. location etc. etc. and that has continued ever since.

Some people seem to think that there are simple solutions to problems, not realising the complexity.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Don't forget 126.7 AND the verbal diahorrea of calling EVERY corner of a circuit.

[Arm out the window]

CTAFs are being promulgated on discrete frequencies to reduce congestion (e.g. recently Innisfail / Tully / Dallachy onto 132.9), and while the 'call on all circuit legs' concept was ridiculous, that's been altered now in the relevant CAAP to an as required thing, which for most sensible people I'd suggest would be rolling and base calls if doing continuous circuits.

I don't think the problems are really that complex when it boils down to it, Captain Midnight.

[LeadSled]

which for most sensible people I'd suggest would be rolling and base calls if doing continuous circuits.Arm,
Agreed!
But. sadly, in the part of Australia where I reside, the "pingya" system of instruction all too often prevails --- "Make every call, then they can't pingya", and all too often that is the "standard" required in a flight review ---- which the same schools are now describing as a "license renewal".
I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the presentation of the "competencies" to be demonstrated does not encourage that uncommon commodity, common sense.
Tootle pip!!

PS: The overwhelming number of those I talk to support the use of multicom (and not ATC frequencies) for local operations at any airfield that does not have a designated frequency. The exceptions are the "pingya" brigade, who also seen to be dedicated to the "acoustic lift" theory, if you stop talking the aeroplane stops flying.

[Lead Balloon]

Dick

Let's say you are going to fly from The Oaks to Leeton, 'low level'. You have 1 VHF. In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?

Specifics, please.

[cogwheel]

How low?

If the MULTICOM comes in then if operating below 2000 or 3000 ft agl you would monitor 126.7...except when operating within the vicinity of a CTAF or BA using another frequency.

Above that, it is your choice. If the boundaries stay, then the applicable ATS area frequency would be recommended. If the boundaries go, the the nearest ATS frequency as marked in the biscuit for that area.

Good airmanship would dictate what calls, if any, are made along the way.

[Lead Balloon]

My apologies for not making the implications of my question clear.

On that route I overfly Temora. Also, Leeton has a CTAF that is not 126.7.

Since (I assume) I am going to have to switch to the CTAF for Temora and Leeton when in their vicinity - my having only 1 VHF - I'm trying to understand the advantages and disadvanges of monitoring 126.7 rather than the FIA frequency when I happen to be 'low level'.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The statement was...when 126.7 was introduced. I attended a NASdebate meeting and challenged the American expert on exactly this point..his answer was every call every point ALL the time..no exceptions.

[The name is Porter]

Uhhhmm, gerry, I think you know what frequency I mean't to type :cool:

[sunnySA]

Dick Smith
By putting the frequency boundaries on charts and requiring VFR to be on frequency results in a duty of care by ATCs.

That's why you sometimes here a controller desperately calling a VFR aircraft to give a traffic advisory .

Doesn't happen anywhere else in the world .


Dick are you arguing that if the frequency boundaries weren't on the charts then ATC wouldn't have a duty of care?

[cogwheel]

Leady, I have amended my response - failed to consult map!!

[The name is Porter]

I think he's saying if the frequencies aren't on the charts VFR's wouldn't listen on area frequencies, ATC wouldn't be able to raise them, they could concentrate on the controlled airspace, they'd be released from the ridiculous liabilities placed on them, the workload would be more appropriate, it would cost industry less. I reckon there's probably another 10 or so points.

[sunnySA]

Not sure that would pass the pub test. We might need to re-visit what ATCs are taught about duty of care.

[Hamley]

If I am taxiing at an ALA intending to cruise at A035, there is no need for QF1 to hear about it from FL340. Likewise, I don't need to hear about QF1.

It really is very simple.

[Lead Balloon]

Congratulations on your first post! (Although "It really is very simple" does sound vaguely familiar...)

I'd love to hear QF1 on the Area frequency, but haven't had much luck in the last few decades. Have the crew of QF1 and other RPT aircraft been complaining about your transmissions on Area?

If the Area frequency at 'low level' around your ALA is the same frequency as being used by QF1 at FL340, there's not much traffic around.

[Spodman]

That's why you sometimes here a controller desperately calling a VFR aircraft to give a traffic advisory. I once broadcast a traffic advisory to two VHF opposite direction at the same level. Two effects: 1. The VFR at the non-standard level went to a standard level in one screen update :8 2. I got a hug from the impressively female passenger, (who recognised my voice), at an airshow a month later and met a Mustang pilot.:D

Point is I fly a lot less that Dick has indicated he does, but he must not be listening properly because I hear useful stuff all the time: I've heard MLJ broadcasts and changed my level. I've heard weather broadcasts that made me investigate further, (on the ipad, bugger talking to ATC). I've visually acquired IFR traffic from intercepting their calls to ATC. I heard a safety alert passed to somebody on a city orbit in Melbourne, looked wildly around for a bit and saw a C150 opposite direction. More mundane, I've updated my QNH when it is passed to other flights. Don't think I needed green lines on a map to achieve any of these things, even Dick's 'cloudy biscuits' way back seemed useful, but the ipad is better.

Near Tocumwal and Deniliquin where the 'area VHF' 118.6, (which is based near Griffith), provides less coverage than the closer and higher Mt. Macedon based 126.8. There are probably many examples of this in areas with which I am less familiar.

It's clear most pilots are not following the current CASA rules. That is they are not using the ATC frequency to give circuit calls at non mapped airports. Without admitting anything to CASA goons with their stupid 'interpretation' of the rules, I feel a strong disincentive to make ANY broadcasts on the ATC frequency. I would not say I have omitted any required calls, but any time I am out of range of ATC ground sites, (like when landing at most airports), I am very mindful that ATC may be saying something terribly important to another pilot, and I may block the call with, "Traffic Butthole, turning base, blah, blether, coff."

When I hear such reports on the console, (thankfully not on the sectors I now work), I take the time to look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen and say, "Thanks, f*&^wit."

I think the IFR pilot's mindset of setting up an amateur approach zone around any airport they are heading to is the symptom CASA is pandering too. Weird, seeing that such airspace was so unacceptable to them when they harpooned LLAMP :ugh:

My ideal world? Just make the frikken calls. On the CTAF, or the Multicom.

[Hamley]

I'd love to hear QF1 on the Area frequency, but haven't had much luck in the last few decades.

If the Area frequency at 'low level' around your ALA is the same frequency as being used by QF1 at FL340, there's not much traffic around.

Yes I heard them just the other day.

In the area I operate there is plenty of traffic around. Most of it is low level, and everyone uses 126.7, and it works well.

I have no rusted-on opinions. Seems to me that people use 126.7 because it works. If it didn't they'd be doing something else.

[Lead Balloon]

...I am very mindful that ATC may be saying something terribly important to another pilot, and I may block the call with, "Traffic Butthole, turning base, blah, blether, coff."

When I hear such reports on the console, (thankfully not on the sectors I now work), I take the time to look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen and say, "Thanks, f*&^wit."How very professional of you.

Pilots trying to comply with the rules that CASA has imposed are f*&^wits.

BTW: How is that you can look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen, when the aerodrome is not marked on the charts?

[On eyre]

Spodman - your last sentence spot on - why is this issue so fricken hard. Trying to appease all the IFR mob? Let them receive traffic down to top of Multicom level (whatever that is decided to be) then look and listen out like everyone else from there down !! ��

[Dick Smith]

So what sensible pilots are saying here is quite different to what the CASA experts require.

I see a slight problem here.

It sounds to me if the regulator is not respected.

Remember CASA currently mandates calls at non marked airports to be on the ATC area frequency as marked on the chart.

I can see why the morale at CASA is as it is.

[Spodman]

Pilots trying to comply with the rules that CASA has imposed are f*&^wits Why do you assume I was talking about the pilot?:}

BTW: How is that you can look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen, when the aerodrome is not marked on the charts? Do you really think I would not be familiar with that fantastic and unusual beast? An unmarked aerodrome within VHF coverage at circuit altitude inside the area I know backwards and glare at on the screen everyday? It can't be on a radar screen because it isn't on a chart? It isn't marked on a chart so people can't know where it is???:ugh:

on eyre :ok:

CASA currently mandates calls at non marked airports to be on the ATC area frequency as marked on the chart. If CASA mandates pilots of all aircraft under 5,700kg MTOW must wear pink poodle Onesies while flying I believe I would I feel a strong disincentive to comply, and when I saw somebody climb aboard wearing one I would probably think, "F*&^wit."

[Lead Balloon]

Do you really think I would not be familiar with that fantastic and unusual beast? An unmarked aerodrome within VHF coverage at circuit altitude inside the area I know backwards and glare at on the screen everyday? It can't be on a radar screen because it isn't on a chart? It isn't marked on a chart so people can't know where it is???It therefore follows that the circuit call on Area performs at least one very important safety and money-saving function that might not be obvious to some.

When the pilot who called in the circuit at Butthole fails to return home after dark and search organisations are burning thousands per minute looking for him, Spodman will be able to pinpoint a place and time at which he was apparently alive, because Spodman heard the call and knows the area backwards. Very few other people will have the same knowledge.

And before you point out (correctly) that if the strip were marked and the call made on 126.7 Spodman would not be able to come to the rescue with pinpoint time and place and information, I'd note that that's why there is no perfect solution. Every solution will have downsides. It may be that no one monitoring 126.7 will have any clue where Butthole is.

[Spodman]

It may be that no one monitoring 126.7 will have any clue where Butthole is.I think anybody in the circuit area of an aerodrome not marked on a chart who is monitoring 126.7 by definition knows where their Butthole is... :ok:

When the pilot who called in the circuit at Butthole fails to [blah, blah, waffle...]You are going to build a communication system based on the circumstance of that fantastic and unusual beast? An unmarked aerodrome within ATC VHF coverage at circuit altitude? Sub optimal.

There was a time when a troop of workers, of which I was a proud one, did exactly that, listened to and logged traffic in the circuit, then regurgitated it to the other customers. It was called Flight Service, it was brilliant, but it was not efficient and it is gone. You are advocating to bring it back???

[Lead Balloon]

Nope. Just raising the issues I consider relevant. That's how blogs work.

I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years.

[Spodman]

I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years. I think that is the strength of the US system. The users and regulator consider it works, and they don't f*&k with it. We don't have either of these luxuries.

[Sunfish]

I am not qualified to talk about this subject, but it is already annoying in the circuit in Northern Victoria to have to listen to calls from CTAFS hundreds of miles away who share the same frequency. One wonders how annoying the area frequency will be if it gets cluttered up.

Anyway I'm fitting Two radios and transponder to the build in the hope of both complying with eventual regulation and avoiding a mid air.

[Lead Balloon]

[B]ut it is already annoying in the circuit in Northern Victoria to have to listen to calls from CTAFS hundreds of miles away who share the same frequency. One wonders how annoying the area frequency will be if it gets cluttered up.You have Dick's proposed system the wrong way around.

But it makes little practical difference.

If 126.7 becomes the quasi-Area frequency for low level ops, it will theoretically become even more annoying because calls that would otherwise be made on Area will be made on 126.7. I say "theoretically" because the number of calls made on Area by aircraft operating in the vicinity of strips that aren't marked on charts is 0.001% of Area frequency calls.

Either way, it's never going to be "beautiful silence" on 126.7.

If you have Dick's preference for "beautiful silence", you're better off not fitting a VHF to your aircraft and confining your flights to places at which the carriage of VHF is not mandatory.

[The name is Porter]

How very professional of you.

Pilots trying to comply with the rules that CASA has imposed are f*&^wits.

BTW: How is that you can look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen, when the aerodrome is not marked on the charts?

It's a broken system LB and you know it, it's become an amalgam of garbage. The above comment is from a very experienced ATC with extensive experience in FS as well. He also happens to hold a pilot's licence. If he's not qualified to put forward a 'f@rkwit' comment who is? That's how Australians express themselves ;)

[Lead Balloon]

I agree with you. The fact is that there are many and varied practices out there that are the product of change fatigue and 'self-help' solutions to perceived risks.

It's obvious that most pilots out there either don't have much of clue what the in-vicinity broadcast rules are, or interpret them in many and varied ways. One pilot's risk assessment results in him or her making 15/10/5/crosswind/downwind/base/final/clear calls, another just joining a straight in approach and saying nothing, in similar circumstances. Some people consider more talk equals more safety, others less talk equals more safety.

As I say, I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years.

[The name is Porter]

The biggest problem is that Australians' think they do it best. They refuse to entertain that somebody else may have a better system or do it better. Worse still, they preach from a pulpit that has never flown in these systems. It's arrogant and ignorant.

[Dick Smith]

I was recently speaking to a retired air traffic controller who couldn’t believe that Civil Air is silent on this issue. Why aren’t they standing up for air traffic controllers? Why would they support circuit calls at small country strips on air traffic control frequencies? It is clearly taking away from the whole professionalism of the air traffic control group.

It is clear that nowhere else in the world would VFR aircraft not only be encouraged, but mandated, to give circuit calls on air traffic control separation frequencies.

Is Civil Air completely silent on this issue because they have done some type of deal with CASA? Or have they put in a submission but are going to keep it secret due to some type of arrangement?

While a very small number of people within CASA want this mandate (i.e. that aircraft at small non-marked airstrips give calls on air traffic control separation frequencies) it is obvious that it is against the interests of air traffic controllers.

This is a rumour network. Surely someone must know why Civil Air is doing nothing on this – if that is the position.

[le Pingouin]

For heavens sake Dick, your perpetual reference to conspiracy theories is just laughable. Do you wonder why very few people take you seriously any more?

Why aren't we concerned? Area frequencies are separate from the high level frequencies and in most parts of the J curve handled by different sectors or can be split off.

The aircraft making low level calls in the circuit needs to be in range of the VHF outlet and I'd hazard a guess that the number of such circuit calls being made on any frequency is tiny. More than a few pilots inadvertently make calls on area rather than CTAF already and it's not a huge problem - I'm more concerned about their calls being missed on CTAF than the effect it has on my traffic.

[Lead Balloon]

The aircraft making low level calls in the circuit needs to be in range of the VHF outlet and I'd hazard a guess that the number of such circuit calls being made on any frequency is tiny.No need to guess. You are correct: The number is tiny. More than a few pilots inadvertently make calls on area rather than CTAF already and it's not a huge problem - During a recent trip I was surprised by the number of calls made by Centre advising aircraft that the CTAF call had been made on the Area frequency. It seems to be increasing.I'm more concerned about their calls being missed on CTAF than the effect it has on my traffic.Me too. That's why 2 VHFs can be helpful (for those of us that don't crave "beautiful silence").

[Dick Smith]

Le ping. No wonder you need so many controllers. The plan was to have no stratification of the airspace to make it very efficient.

By having high and low level this also increases costs with double the number of expensive ground stations.

It also makes the lateral dimensions far greater.

This needs to be made more efficient

[Capn Bloggs]

By having high and low level this also increases costs with double the number of expensive ground stations.
Say what? X Controllers and Y Aeroplanes: it doesn't matter how you arrange the airspace! One controller can only talk so much. Give him upper AND lower sectors, that sector has to be smaller. Even those on the Elon Musk moonshot program understand that.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, stratification is a good thing as it gives flexibility in offloading workload when splitting off sectors. I thought you didn't like QFA1 having to hear some trainee IFR pilot bumbling through his navaid training intentions?

No wonder we need so many controllers?!? You really have no idea.

[cogwheel]

One of the significant safety issues with the sectrorisation is RETRANSMISSION where one controller has more than one VHF outlet and the associated sector area linked together. In some circumstances a transmission (broadcast) can be heard 500 or more miles away if within range of an outlet. This in fact causes artificial frequency congestion. The sectors are primarily designed along air routes, but the grouping of sectors together is a staff management issue. There is little or no consideration given for lower level ops in the design of sector boundaries.

[le Pingouin]

I reckon if you pulled out a chart of FIS boundaries from 25 years ago there won't be been all that much change - the VHF outlets are still in the same place.

[triadic]

I reckon if you pulled out a chart of FIS boundaries from 25 years ago there won't be been all that much change - the VHF outlets are still in the same place.

Some maybe similar, but there was no Retransmission and no CTA traffic on the FS frequency at their usual crz levels.

[le Pingouin]

When it got busy we'd select retransmit, although we did get good at listening to two calls at once. At cruise CTA traffic says very little, particularly when identified and even less when using CPDLC.

[triadic]

In my day FS would monitor VHF at one or perhaps two locations and domestic HF. The international high flyers would work international HF from the time they were out of VHF of ATC. At one time the whole of north Australia was on 122.1.

FS away from the J curve only heard the odd high flyer when there was problems with HF. Most FSO's could monitor more than one frequency at the same time and copy the details, both VHF and HF. To my memory, FS never had retransmission - they did not need it as they usually only had one area to look after, except the major FSC's which covered the country FSU's at night time.

Sorry for the thread drift, but this should be about the CASA DP.:sad:

[le Pingouin]

You might be right about the retransmit - it might have only been selecting all transmitters. I started in Adelaide in 90 so by that time most of the remote units were gone - we took Ceduna and Alice not long after I started.

[Hempy]

There is little or no consideration given for lower level ops in the design of sector boundaries.

No consideration. The current lateral sector boudaries vary only slightly (if at all) from the pre-TAAATS/Flight Service days. The biggest change was in the sectors outside the J curve, mainly because it was difficult fitting a long skinny sector on a rectangular screen. The current low level sectors use the old FS frequencies that were under their pre-TAAATS CTA sector ancestor/s.

Resectorisation seems to be an issue that's in the 'too hard' basket i.e the cost and man-hours involved in training, system upgrades, new charts and documents etc. is prohibitive.

[CaptainMidnight]

I finally got around to seeking out the discussion paper, up till now only relying on the RAPAC convenor's response, and the DP was interesting reading.

As far as I can tell no-one here has posted a link to it, so here goes. If you haven't read it I recommend you do, for a balanced view to the arguments here.

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/dp1610aspdf

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/dp1610asannexapdf

[Clarie]

Balanced view? Have you actually read that risk assessment?

They give an example of non radio aircraft, with the option of other pilots using the multicom or using the area frequency. They use the same risk mitigation for both options.

How is it possible that their risk assessment can result in two completely different safety outcomes? According to the risk assessment, if using the area frequency the risk is reduced to level 5 through "education" and "targeted advice to flying schools re procedures/collision avoidance", but using the multicom and using the same risk mitigation strategies of "education" and "targeted advice" it is level 7.

Why is the risk level different?

[Dick Smith]

A very experienced flight instructor from the UK has advised me that in that country, there is no prescribed frequency for VFR aircraft when flying in uncontrolled airspace.

He said most of them just listen to music through the headphones. They can call up for a radar advisory just as we can, but not many people do that and quite often it is not available.

He also said:

“Australia is a nanny state where the rules are made by people who feel they have a more valid claim on what they consider to be good for you than you do.”
He pointed out that the UK follows ICAO recommendations for Class G airspace, which means that VFR don’t even require a radio.

[Lead Balloon]

Dick

In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?

Maybe the problem is the belief that if a radio is fitted it has to be switched on all the time and monitored all the time. You might find that the Australian rules accommodate the UK approach, but the obsession with radio calls means it doesn't happen as a matter of practicality.

And note: I'm talking Class G away from the vicinity of aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory.

[triadic]

In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?

But clear of a CTAF or BA, where does it say what frequency has to be tuned?

The introduction of the MULTICOM would make a standard frequency for all low level ops clear of CTAFs and BAs. But then you have the gliders and PJE ops that use their own frequencies, so there will always be exceptions. But better than having a choice and contributing to congestion on the Area Freq.

[Lead Balloon]

But I was addressing Dick's point about the UK. Why don't you just turn the VHF off when clear of a CTAF or BA? Then you don't have to care what frequency has to be tuned.

[triadic]

Clarie....
Balanced view? Have you actually read that risk assessment?

Good to see you have spotted one of the glaring errors in the risk assessment. The RAPAC Convenors did also.:D

It should be noted that they consider the risk assessment (RA) invalid because:
a) It was conducted over a year after the change - which creates doubt over the results as they may well be in support of the change (??)
b) There was no CASA ID or file number or reference on the document
c) The date is only found within the document (was it really then or perhaps at all?)
d) The change process and the RA was not discussed with industry at any stage and not tabled at the RAPACs, which is the forum for such matters,
e) After being conducted, the RA was kept secret for over a year and one approach from a RAPAC member for same was told to go to FOI to get it! It was only after a direct approach to the then DAS that it was released and a commitment to have the MULTICOM DP was made.
f) The names and qualifications/experience of those participating are blacked out. As anyone that conducts such reviews and audits would know the identity and experience of those participating in the RA must be shown in order to validate the discussions. It is not valid for this reason alone.
g) One comment from an experienced aviator and auditor asked how an extreme risk might be mitigated by a radio procedure? It can’t be!

As indicated by Clarie the RA is full of errors and shows that experience in class G operations was perhaps minimal and without representatives from industry which has such experience it is really a total embarrassment to CASA and should not have been published.
:mad:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Seems that the UK class G is actually class F if surveillance is available.
From UK Flight Information Services CAP774 (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20774Issue2_3.pdf)
"1.4 ... The conditions for the provision of deconfliction in Class G airspace and ATS in Class E airspace are predicated on flight rules. Deconfliction Service and Procedural Service are only available to flights in Class G airspace operating under IFR."
followed by
"Deconfliction
"4.7 A controller shall provide traffic information, accompanied with a heading and/or level aimed at achieving a planned deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft in:
 Class G airspace;
..."
As I see it, it means that the VFR in G don't hear, or care about, ATC vectoring the IFR out of their way.

[triadic]

But I was addressing Dick's point about the UK. Why don't you just turn the VHF off when clear of a CTAF or BA? Then you don't have to care what frequency has to be tuned.

True. Same as the USA where they do exactly that. I guess the culture in Oz is that many believe that a frequency should be monitored in the name of good airmanship. I guess if that is the case then the selection of that frequency should be simple and standardised so as to gain maximum benefit from not having the music on. The MULTICOM fills that role when operating below 2000 or 3000ft agl. Like it or not, there will always be noradio aircraft about, hence it is better value to look out rather than play with the iPad......

[The name is Porter]

A very experienced flight instructor from the UK has advised me that in that country, there is no prescribed frequency for VFR aircraft when flying in uncontrolled airspace.

He said most of them just listen to music through the headphones. They can call up for a radar advisory just as we can, but not many people do that and quite often it is not available.

He also said:

“Australia is a nanny state where the rules are made by people who feel they have a more valid claim on what they consider to be good for you than you do.”

Most Australians have no clue how bad it is here until they operate overseas. You can read all you like how a country manages their airspace but until you operate in and experience it you won't know.

He pointed out that the UK follows ICAO recommendations for Class G airspace, which means that VFR don’t even require a radio.

[CaptainMidnight]

Clarie said: Balanced view? Have you actually read that risk assessment?

Cambridge Dictionary: Meaning of “balanced”: considering all sides or opinions equallyLinks posted in the interest of the above.

What I agree with or not in the content is another matter :)

[no_one]

Dick

In Australian Class G, are you required to have your VHF switched on if you're VFR and nowhere near the vicinity of an aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory?

Maybe the problem is the belief that if a radio is fitted it has to be switched on all the time and monitored all the time. You might find that the Australian rules accommodate the UK approach, but the obsession with radio calls means it doesn't happen as a matter of practicality.

And note: I'm talking Class G away from the vicinity of aerodrome at which carriage of VHF is mandatory.
The huge difference is that in Australia if you have a radio you have to use it(25 penalty Units). See CASR 243
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 243 Listening watch (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s243.html)

In the USA (and probably the UK, I don't know) there is no such rule.

[Lead Balloon]

I guess the culture in Oz is that many believe that a frequency should be monitored in the name of good airmanship. I guess if that is the case then the selection of that frequency should be simple and standardised so as to gain maximum benefit from not having the music on.Maybe the belief of many and your guesses are wrong. Isn't that what Dick is suggesting?The MULTICOM fills that role when operating below 2000 or 3000ft agl.I thought Dick was suggesting 121.5 was all you needed to remember.Like it or not, there will always be noradio aircraft about, hence it is better value to look out rather than play with the iPad......And therefore all this obsession with what frequency people should be monitoring when in G maybe a waste of energy and focus.

[triadic]

As indicated above the RAPAC Convenors contributed to the CASA DP. Many of their recommended changes have been incorporated in the published DP.

The Convenors have written their own response which is available on the link below. It should be noted that the Convenors paper was written prior to the publication of the CASA DP and in places the tense is dated.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1vdvjwga7g33ho/MULTICOM Submission by RAPAC Convenors v7.pdf?dl=0

[Dick Smith]

No one. You are 100% correct. Our regulatory obsession with radio started with the AFIZ many decades ago.

As a " make jobs" for FSO's every aircraft within an AFIZ had to communicate with the FS ground station. Fly 15 miles away from Dubbo and you had to call them with a full position report.

Then we brought in mandatory radio and full postition reporting for VFR above 5000'.

Created lots of complexity and jobs and then ingrained on most of us that " fly by radio" was the only way we would stay alive.

We nearly fixed that with the introduction of NAS2b however after 3 months of no frequency boundaries on the charts and when it was just starting to work really well , Airservices undermined the whole change by sending out a chart with frequency boundaries.. they gave no education as they didn't even know how this half wound back system should work.

Since then it has been a stuff up!

[Lead Balloon]

Soooo, let's get CAR 243 changed so that you don't have to use a VHF, if fitted, when you are VFR in G and not in the vicinity of an aerodrome at which VHF is mandatory.

[Arm out the window]

I really don't know what you're on about, Dick. What's your point? Get rid of radios for VFR in G?

Right now, you don't have to make any reports when VFR in G unless they're associated with doing something at an aerodrome (joining, departing, or operating in the circuit or on the runway) or you consider them necessary for safety. In the cruise, just fly along and listen out, or if you think you need to call to alert someone to your presence, make a call.

Calls near airfields make things safer, no doubt about it - ever heard a call from someone in the same position, co-altitude that you hadn't seen and could have hit? I certainly have. Then there's the idiots who fly through CTAFs and don't call.

Yes, get the circuit calls on to 126.7 or another designated frequency and off the area freq, but what's all this other stuff you're rambling on about, half wound back or what we used to do ... we all know that stuff, what's important is where we are now, not going off on some personal agenda to do who knows what.

And while I'm on a rant, yes, if you have a radio, bloody listen out on it.

[sunnySA]

And while I'm on a rant, yes, if you have a radio, bloody listen out on it.

Isn't this part of the problem - which frequency?

[Lead Balloon]

And....

Does it really matter? If there are aircraft in the same G airspace that are not required to be fitted with VHF and aircraft that could be tuned to the wrong frequency anyway, the collision mitigating action does not involve blabbing on the radio.

I reckon that focussing on known risks often results in blissful ignorance of unknown, higher risks.

[Arm out the window]

Good airmanship, good situational awareness - if for example I hear centre say to IFR aircraft "VFR traffic observed in your area height XXXX unverified" and I know it's me, I speak up and resolve the issue, everyone wins.

On balance, radios good, no radios not so good ...

[Lead Balloon]

Radios are great, if you are on frequency to hear and respond...

But what of the aircraft that don't have to be fitted with VHF? (Let's deal with the simplest example, first.)

[Arm out the window]

If they don't have to be fitted for particular reasons (e.g. electrical system can't handle it, antique aircraft or whatever), fair enough, but that doesn't flow on to everyone else.

[Capn Bloggs]

ENR 1.4 Section 4.

If they don't have to be fitted for particular reasons (e.g. electrical system can't handle it, antique aircraft or whatever), fair enough, but that doesn't flow on to everyone else.
A voice of reason.

LB, the system is not designed to operate with your fringe scenarios (no radio, wrong freq bla bla bla). I know you don't fly but just remember, there is heavy metal around below 10k just outside "the vicinity". To cancel 243 for VFR would be plain silly.

[no_one]

To cancel 243 for VFR would be plain silly.

Yet the USA does pretty well without it....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

As a " make jobs" for FSO's
Is that not exactly what you are trying to do with ATC now? Ie, your implication is they are there, they are doing nothing, lets have them do this just to fill in their day. I, and probably every other ex-FSO, find that pretty insulting. But that's par for the course in these discussions.
As for complexity, it wasn't really. Everyone knew how it worked, everyone seemed to manage, and it worked fine for years. Bring in the alphabet and get away from a capital city, and these discussions have been happening for years.

[Lead Balloon]

I do laugh at the blissful ignorance of the number of no-radio aircraft out there in G.

Rolled open the hangar doors one afternoon over the Christmas break, and there was a hang glider on my doorstep. G'day I said. German hang gliding champion. He and a bunch of colleagues from other countries were warming up for championships. He'd come a long way. He'd got up to 10,000'. Some of his colleagues made it as far as my home aerodrome. They were a long way up. I was surprised to learn - and observed first-hand - that their biggest problem was getting down.

Some went further. Some not. And while we were chatting, there were numerous glider launches by the gliding club that was operating there for a couple of weeks.

All these aircraft were operating at altitudes and on tracks intersecting IFR routes. No radio. (Although I don't fly, I can read an ERC.) Gliding club at YMIA... (BTW, when I wasn't flying over YMIA on Sunday, I didn't have a couple of very respectful and helpful interactions on the Area frequency and the YMIA CTAF with an outbound RPT and inbound IFR lightie MKR was it? I'll have to look at my EFB scratchpad to see if I deleted my notes.)

I realise that you people who are used to the cocoon of the command and control paradigm feel safer if you believe these no-radio aircraft are just the "fringe", but in terms of numbers they are substantial and becoming more substantial. And then there are aircraft with the radio tuned to the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down or other finger trouble...

Best to keep a good look out.

(And you, Bloggs, have a comprehension problem as well. I didn't say "cancel" 243. In any event, the evidence from countries with real traffic densities shows it would not be "silly" to do so for G.)

Triadic: Let's say I'm cruising at 5,500' AMSL but on my track I am continuously going below and then above and then below the MULTICOM AGL 'ceiling'. What frequency do I monitor if I have a singe VHF in the system you are advocating?

[Plazbot]

TLDR..........

[Lead Balloon]

CGAF.......

[Arm out the window]

Is that not exactly what you are trying to do with ATC now? Ie, your implication is they are there, they are doing nothing, lets have them do this just to fill in their day. I, and probably every other ex-FSO, find that pretty insulting.

On that note, Dick's comments in the Australian yesterday regarding ASA:
'They have built up a bureaucracy in Canberra. They keep putting people on, it is like a secret society. Airservices could have a lot less people and still run effectively.'


To be fair, he said that 'he was not concerned about the job cuts provided they did not affect operational staff'

I'd like to know where you got your facts from, Dick - do you know what the back room staff do, or where you might trim off the so-called excess? They're not exactly your standard organisation, are they? Who provides all the tech support? Admin and logistics? Is there that much fat in the organisation?

Your throwaway comments such as 'secret society' are clearly loved by the press, but while that stuff is fine on an internet forum, when you go out in public people listen to your comments, some of which I reckon are pretty baseless (not all).

[Capn Bloggs]

And you, Bloggs, have a comprehension problem as well. I didn't say "cancel" 243.
Whatever. :rolleyes:

[cogwheel]

Back to the top.....

[Lead Balloon]

Triadic: Let's say I'm cruising at 5,500' AMSL but on my track I am continuously going below and then above and then below the MULTICOM AGL 'ceiling'. What frequency do I monitor if I have a singe VHF in the system you are advocating?

[triadic]

LB... A good question. Like all other facits of your flying you make decisions based on many factors including risk. When operating VFR in the circumstances you outline the choice of what frequency to operate on is that of the PIC. As a VFR operation the selection is 'recommended' so it is simply your choice. Just keep a good lookout as usual:ok:

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks triadic.

It does raise the question that screams silently from CAR 1988 243: On what frequency is one obliged to maintain a listening watch when you're in G but not in the vicinity of an aerodrome?

[Lead Balloon]

Supplementary question, triadic.

Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.

In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?

Specifics, please.

I'm assuming you won't be telling the student: "It is simply your choice". Or is my assumption incorrect?

[CaptainMidnight]

And another scenario re this proposed MULTICOM below 3000ft or 2000ft AGL:

IFR single VHF inbound from western Victoria to Moorabbin, intending to proceed OCTA below the CTA steps via PTOM.


What frequency should be set from 20 DME ML where the CTA step is C LL 2500?
if MULTICOM, what does the pilot do re SAR whilst out of comms with ATC?
if the IFR is on MULTICOM, how should ATC manage SAR & SIS?
Indeed the same scenario will apply to IFR inbound to YSBK from the west proceeding OCTA.

[On eyre]

Simple - mandate two VHF for all IFR. Currently mandating ADSB so not too onerous or expensive.

[le Pingouin]

Given that the flight is IFR the pilot must remain in continuous two-way comms. If you need to change to a different frequency for a short time tell us how long for and we'll base SAR on that.

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Mandate. Mandate Mandate. Let's make it three VHFs. And much bigger fines .

Whatever we do - we must not look around the world and copy the best.

We are the leaders in aviation and the rest of the world should be copying us. If they had any brains.

In our system the pilot of MDX was never allowed to talk to anyone with a radar screen

That's why he was never told he was flying almost at right angles to his desired flight

And the BASI report didn't even mention this or recommend the available radar be used in future .

Concrete minds I would say. And that's our problem at the present time

[Arm out the window]

Concrete minds - the same could be said for your continual spin campaign, Dick.

The MDX situation has been discussed at length, but you keep coming up with new conjecture about it to fit your agenda. Are you saying now he didn't know where he was going, and someone with a radar screen should have told him? But no, we should get rid of all those excess lazy bastards sitting around in the Airservices secret society.

[Lead Balloon]

So anyway...

Supplementary question, triadic.

Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.

In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?

Specifics, please.

I'm assuming you won't be telling the student: "It is simply your choice". Or is my assumption incorrect?

[On eyre]

Help - seems like I have been delusional for years.

I have always believed ATC were there to give IFR/VFR aircraft in CTA separation and OCTA IFR traffic information and VFR whatever assistance requested (eg METAR, Flight following etc). This of course means communicating on an appropriate frequency shown on a chart.

A low level multicom/ CTAF for VFR not requiring any ATC services was also preferable.
For IFR to still access traffic service OCTA and still keep track of multicom/CTAF at the same time would require two VHF (which certainly regional RPT do now). Hence my comment above.

The big issue for alerted see and avoid multicom/CTAF below whatever might be an agreed level is too many unnecessary radio calls.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re " was never allowed to talk"....
\
He never asked to...

No Cheers..... And, I wasn't even there....and neither were you.....

:ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

But back in those days you used the frequency that you were told to use.

[Dick Smith]

Lead. The very point I am making.

I once asked FS if they could give me the frequency of ATC in the Bowral area so I could get a transponder check. No way.

They got in touch with ATC on the ti line then asked me to ident . They then passed on to me the confirmation from ATC.

Before we made the AMATS changes the ATC frequency boundaries were not shown on charts- just the FS boundaries. There was no such thing as a radar flight following service until we introduced that with one of the airspace changes.

All because of resistance to change and a resistance to asking advice or copying the best from overseas

And that's what's happening now .

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Look at Devonport(YDPO), for an example.

A Dash8-400 on descent into YDPO the crew will need to be on area frequency 120.70 along with the CTAFR 126.90, then to get the PAL/PAPI activated you need to be on 122.30, then get the AWIS information 133.225 then talk to the company agent- lots of opportunity for missing a radio call from the VFR traffic or broadcasting your intentions on the wrong frequency.

Lot simpler when Oggie was in the Devon FSU!

[Capn Bloggs]

CLX, a bit dramatic there, although I agree CAGROs are the go. Call the company in the cruise, get the PAL put onto the CTAF, and a quick flick off Area to update the AWIS isn't a major issue.

[triadic]

LB
On what frequency is one obliged to maintain a listening watch when you're in G but not in the vicinity of an aerodrome?

That is the choice of the PIC to make considering all the factors available to him/her.
Above 5000 ft I would suggest the Area Frequency. Above the lid of the MULTICOM and below 5000 there is no requirement, but the Area Frequency might be the best choice.

The idea is that with the MULTICOM you don't know when you are 'in the vicinity' of any strip etc, so using the MULTICOM is simple.


Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.

In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?

The choice for a VFR pilot is simple. If he/she is below the lid of the MULTICOM then 126.7 - When in 'in the vicinity' of a promulgated CTAF (on other than 126.7), then that frequency for the appropriate broadcasts.


IFR single VHF inbound from western Victoria to Moorabbin, intending to proceed OCTA below the CTA steps via PTOM.

What frequency should be set from 20 DME ML where the CTA step is C LL 2500?
if MULTICOM, what does the pilot do re SAR whilst out of comms with ATC?
if the IFR is on MULTICOM, how should ATC manage SAR & SIS?


I would expect that as an IFR category aircraft he would normally be given frequency transfers by ATC.
In your example, then he is perhaps changing to VFR procedures in which case he would monitor frequenies as directed by ATC or if he felt the need to change to another frequency such as the MULTICOM then he would advise ATC and nominate a time to call again (a sked). This procedure is used now with CTAFs and BAs.

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks triadic.Above 5000 ft I would suggest the Area Frequency. Above the lid of the MULTICOM and below 5000 there is no requirement, but the Area Frequency might be the best choice.I take it, then, that you support FIA boundaries and frequencies remaining on charts?

The idea is that with the MULTICOM you don't know when you are 'in the vicinity' of any strip etc, so using the MULTICOM is simple.Exactly the same logic and simplicity applies to using Area, I would have thought. If you can work out the Area frequency to use above 5,000 ...

And you don't have to change from Area to MULTICOM when you descend below the 'lid'.

And whether you're on MULTICOM or Area, you still have to change to the CTAF of aerodromes in the vicinity that don't use 126.7.

I'm still not getting it.

[triadic]

Reminder - submissions close at the end of this week on CASA web page.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I once asked

Geez, you can hold a grudge. I reckon 90% of the requests I passed to ATC were answered with "sure, get him to call me on.......". Some of the other times it happened as you described because the ATC was busy. I'm pretty sure that those guys who didn't get to talk to ATC didn't want to change the whole airspace system because of it though. They just wanted their transponder checked.

[boofhead]

I thought that in the advanced world of aviation in Aus that pilots are charged for every landing, maybe every radio call (connected?) so that it might be cheaper not to make those calls, and this might solve your problem.

More seriously I fly in the US and Canada and rarely make any calls while enroute VFR even if in Class E apart from Downwind and Final. If I have a transponder I am Squawking 1200 and if I have ADS-B it looks after me quite well.

If I want someone to know where I am in my flight plan, I tell Flight Service and they appreciate it but it is not required so they don't chase me.

I fly for the CAP and they require a contact every 30 minutes, which is a pain but it is their airplane so I do it and if I miss two calls they report me missing. Sometimes I have to climb to 13,000 feet or so to get through to Flight Service. It would seem to me that this would be a problem in Aus too, given the remoteness of the Outback?

[triadic]

A further one week extension for responses - close now 7 May.

[Mr Approach]

This argument seems interminable and there appear to be just as many arguments for one side as the other. It all seems to hinge around whether alerted see and avoid is better than unalerted see and avoid. My last near death experience was on a CTAF while on descent to the local uncontrolled airport, below CTA steps with an opposite direction Cessna. At no stage do I recall ever hearing from the Cessna on the CTAF. So alerted see and avoid does not work but the big sky theory did; the moving finger of fate did not write about our death that day. (By the way I was nearly cleaned up by a truck driving home and I have no idea which frequency the driver was on)

If we are trying to solve a problem, what is it? According to the ATSB Review of Mid-Air Collisions 1961-2003 <https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36828/Review_of_midair_col.pdf> there were 37 collisions which means Australia averages approximately one per year. Of these 41% were near the five capital city GA airports, there were no dominant factors, and the figures are consistent with mid-airs in other countries.

So are we helping to prevent the remaining 59% of collisions by forcing pilots that have radios to listen on a specific frequency? The evidence would seem to indicate not; the 41% were probably on the GA airport Tower frequency receiving an ATS service.

A conclusion (not the only one) that can be reached is that it seems not to matter which frequency the pilots are on; what does matter is that they are looking out of the cockpit in every direction they can. Much in the way I drive my car or steer my boat. The air radio is very useful for getting assistance and making traffic calls but the report referenced above does not seem to indicate that it can prevent mid-air collisions. Short of having Class A airspace down to ground level, only concentration, eye balls and quick reactions can do that.

The latest threat to my life seem to be drones and I don't see CASA mandated which frequency they will be talking on!

[le Pingouin]

How is your encounter with the Cessna in any way alerted? By definition it was unalerted.

[jonkster]

So are we helping to prevent the remaining 59% of collisions by forcing pilots that have radios to listen on a specific frequency? The evidence would seem to indicate not; the 41% were probably on the GA airport Tower frequency receiving an ATS service.


Problem is with that argument, we don't have statistics saying how many incidents simply never became incidents because people communicated their intentions.

You only hear about times where things broke down, not where things worked as they should.

Other than that - I agree - pilots need to look. Radio or not.

[Cloudee]

Looks like CASA have listened and are proposing changes to airspace below 5000'.


https://consultation.casa.gov.au/stakeholder-engagement-group/nprm1712as/

[Possum1]

So does this mean that if we are below 5000' and the Area Frequency Controller sees possible conflicting traffic, he won't be able to advise us?

I have had two advisories at least this year, both unsolicited, whilst en-route below 5000', from Area Frequency Controllers and have been very grateful for this care and attention on both occasions.

How are they going to advise/ping a pilot who has flown into controlled airspace if that pilot is on 126.7?

I will continue to monitor both frequencies as well as discrete frequencies as required even though I fly VFR only these days.

[Cloudee]

So does this mean that if we are below 5000' and the Area Frequency Controller sees possible conflicting traffic, he won't be able to advise us?


How are they going to advise/ping a pilot who has flown into controlled airspace if that pilot is on 126.7?

I will continue to monitor both frequencies as well as discrete frequencies as required even though I fly VFR only these days.


They've only ever been able to warn anyone if they are on the same frequency. It's only over been mandatory to monitor area over 5000'. So no change, and no one is saying not to monitor area anytime you want. What it will do is get rid of the ridiculous requirement to make circuit calls on area frequency for airfields not marked on the chart.

[CaptainMidnight]

At non-controlled aerodromes this change would expand the volume of airspace contained in the CTAF to a 20 nautical mile radius laterally

Interesting. So if all CTAFs become a defined 20NM radius i.e. 40NM wide, how many overlaps will that cause with others?

Also beneath low CTA steps e.g. within 30NM Melbourne in Class G everyone IFR & VFR will need to be on a CTAF or 126.7 and not contactable by ATC unless dual VHF.They've only ever been able to warn anyone if they are on the same frequency.And right now that's usually what the case is in Class G i.e. ATC and aircraft are on the FIA unless a CTAF or an ALA using 126.7 is involved. This proposal seems to change all that below 5000FT.

no one is saying not to monitor area anytime you want.Not sure that is correct. Looking at the diagram, if you are below 5000FT you will need to be either on 126.7 or a CTAF if necessary. If you are in an area isolated from CTAFs and you have dual VHF, then you could monitor the FIA as well as MULTICOM.

[Lead Balloon]

I have a cunning plan: Centre should monitor and be able to transmit on 126.7. :E

Am I in the vicintiy of an aerodrome if I’m flying past 15nms away? It could get much noisier on 126.7!

[Cloudee]

No IFR aircraft I've been in have not had dual radios. Most modern radios in VFR aircraft can monitor two frequencies, such as Garmin SL30/40 or Icom 210.

[Possum1]

My question still remains, will the area frequency controller, unless there is an IFR plane involved, call a VFR plane up about conflicting traffic below 5000' or will they not bother expecting that plane would be on 126.7 and not listening on the area frequency?

[Cloudee]

My question still remains, will the area frequency controller, unless there is an IFR plane involved, call a VFR plane up about conflicting traffic below 5000' or will they not bother expecting that plane would be on 126.7 and not listening on the area frequency?
They called me yesterday in just such a circumstance when I was VFR in a CTAF with a designated frequency at 3500'. I was monitoring area and responded even though they would have expected I was on CTAF. Appreciated although I had visual anyway. I expect this won't change.

[Dick Smith]

The proposal is outrageous. Nothing like this complexity anywhere else in the world.

Why is there no discussion re harmonisation with the leading aviation countries in the world?

5000’ came about from 1950s Flight Service workload and staffing levels. Collision risk is clearly higher below 5000’

Let’s go back to the 1950s!

[Possum1]

What it will do is get rid of the ridiculous requirement to make circuit calls on area frequency for airfields not marked on the chart.

As if anyone ever did.

I have never heard anyone broadcasting circuit or taxiing calls on the area frequency - a totally unenforceable rule which I think was roundly ignored by those who actually heard about it. The vast majority of the piloting population probably never ever got to know about this new rule anyway, certainly not Farmer Bloggs on his dirt strip in Upper Whoop-Whoop(er...no relation Capn!).

[Capn Bloggs]

Collision risk is clearly higher below 5000’
Not after ADS-B is mandated in ALL aeroplanes, Dick! :}

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. You clearly don’t understand risk management.

The total risk may be reduced but it will still be higher below 5000 where aircraft tend to be closer together as they approach or depart the limited number of terminal areas.

[CaptainMidnight]

Cloudee said:No IFR aircraft I've been in have not had dual radios. Most modern radios in VFR aircraft can monitor two frequencies, such as Garmin SL30/40 or Icom 210If/when this comes in, then within 30NM Melbourne one of those two radios will be set to 126.7 and the other dialling up all the various CTAFs you are within 20NM miles of.

Unless you have a third radio, you won't be listening to an FIA :)

This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.

[Cloudee]

Cloudee said:If/when this comes in, then within 30NM Melbourne one of those two radios will be set to 126.7 and the other dialling up all the various CTAFs you are within 20NM miles of.

Unless you have a third radio, you won't be listening to an FIA :)

This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.


I think the idea is to be on 126.7 or the designated ctaf frequency. That leaves you with capacity to monitor area freq. I can't see why you would monitor 126.7 when you are in a ctaf with a designated frequency.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes Dick, you have been ranting and raving on about how the risk is greatest at the airport. What better risk management than to have everybody at an airport on the same non-ATC frequency (Multicom/CTAF), or have you now changed your tune and think operating on the Area in the circuit, with ATC providing traffic info, is better?

This isn't the simple solution some seem to think it is.
Midnight, nothing will be. There is no perfect system. If you want ATC looking over your shoulder, get a second radio. If you don't, use Ozrunways to keep out of CTA and all will be well.

At least we will now know what "in the vicinity" actually means, instead of the current weasel-words introduced by Dick.

[StickWithTheTruth]

It sounds like I'm going to need to add dual radios with dual frequency monitoring to my Christmas wish list for Santa so that I can fly safely in Australian skies.

[CaptainMidnight]

I can't see why you would monitor 126.7 when you are in a ctaf with a designated frequency. If you intend landing at or departing from that AD, sure.

But if you are transiting a CTAF (or a bunch of them) you might want to keep monitoring 126.7 as well for situational awareness.

Bloggs: True. Actually the current AIP dated 17 AUG 2017 says:

ENR 1.1 - 75
10.1.4.2 Pilots of aircraft transiting in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome should monitor the designated CTAF while within 10NM of the aerodrome. It has change bars, so it may have changed then from the previous "in the vicinity of".

I am reminded of a statement that used to be frequently made by a prominent flyer in the Melbourne area when asked by any VFR broadcasting traffic to him and seeking a response:

"If you're VFR, keep your eyes open and your mouth shut".

Not particularly helpful and usually got a stunned silence.It sounds like I'm going to need to add dual radios with dual frequency monitoring to my Christmas wish list for Santa so that I can fly safely in Australian skies. Nah, it's called "frequency separation" by ATC.

[Dick Smith]

So let’s say you are VFR and flying en route at 500 agl 19 nm to the west of Wollongong CTAF.

What frequency under the proposed system would you monitor and announce on."?

And what frequency will a pilot monitor in the Sydney light aircraft lane near Hornsby. Have a guess,!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

5000’ came about from 1950s Flight Service workload and staffing levels. Collision risk is clearly higher below 5000’

It wasn't FS until the mid 60's. For someone who continually rails against the historical evolution of the Air Traffic Services in this country, your actual knowledge of how it all came about is abysmal.

[Dick Smith]

If your knowledge is superior where did the 5000’ come from?

A FS did exist before the 60s. Just had a different name but a similar service.

And no doubt 1.7 miles north of Hornsby right in the middle of the light aircraft lane you will change to the Somersby CTAF on 132.1.as you will be within its 20 mile radius . Complete madness

[Lead Balloon]

Anyone able to give a rational, safety-based explanation for extending CTAF procedures to 20nm radius? I don’t get it.

[gerry111]

Anyone able to give a rational, safety-based explanation for extending CTAF procedures to 20nm radius? I don’t get it.

Clearly, Us old VFRs in Class G below 5000' will just have to learn how to Communicate, Navigate then Aviate..

[Lead Balloon]

What happens at an unmarked airfield that’s 17nms from an aerodrome with a discreet CTAF and 17nms from an aerodrome that uses 126.7?

[Dick Smith]

Lead.
Yes. It’s an attempt to go back to a system where radio arranged separation can be utilised between IFR and VFR aircraft in uncontrolled airspace

That’s what we had before the AMATs changes of the early 90s .

It’s actually impossible to do this without employing lots more staff and going back to the old or similar full position procedures .

Under ICAO if traffic information is required for safety reasons to IFR aircraft on VFR aircraft it requires a minimum of class D airspace. And it costs money'!

These fools are attempting to invent a zero cost system using the fare paying public as guinea pigs.

They are so ignorant that they think that they can design airspace procedures and dimensions on a “ voting” system using people who have no training or knowledge of airspace design.

The problem was generated by Airservices producing a map with the ATC frequency boundaries back on without even thinking how the half wound back system would work.

It can’t. That’s why no other country in the world has such a system.

Wait for the next step- 50 nm CTAF radius to 10,000’

[Lead Balloon]

None of that makes sense to me, Dick.

[Dick Smith]

Answer to the first part of post 179

You would be on the Wollongong CTAF of 127.3. ( within the YWOL 20 nm CTAF)

Hold on. You would be in the Mittagong circuit area! That CTAF is 126.7!

Well thought out CASA.

[Dick Smith]

And when you are on the Cessnock CTAF of 122.65 when 13 miles North West I suggest keeping a bit of a look out as you will be in the middle of the Singleton 126.7 circuit area,!

Total incompetent stuff up. Watch for this paper to be quickly withdrawn!

[Lead Balloon]

What about my unmarked strip 12nms from Griffith (126.55) and 12nms from Leeton (132.85)?

[Dick Smith]

Thought I may remind those interested what the NAS educational material stated in relation to when the CTAF should be used.

Note how it covers all the relevant safety issues without dimensions.

Dot point one. When close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations

Dot point two. When approaching or departing an aerodrome

Dot point three. When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome .

And Lead. No probs. New charts will be printed showing every CTAF that has conflicting 20 mile problems.

Special endorsement training will be required .

[Capn Bloggs]

Gotta laugh (cry) reading the Bobsie-twins going for it. I'm concerned I might actually share the airspace with you $%^&*(#!

[fujii]

Don’t just grizzle here, make sure you send your comments to CASA.

[Lead Balloon]

I’m not ‘grizzling’. I just want to understand how it will work, and the underlying logic.

The primary problem with changes over the last 20 or so years is inadequate education in advance. That, plus anything counter-intuitive encourages error.

Well argued, Bloggs, as usual. :ok:

[jonkster]

My 2c. Providing the following principles are met I don't care what they do:

1. Major principle:
People roughly in the same areas should be listening on the same frequency, not different ones.

2. Secondary principle:
a. Areas where a lot of traffic is brought closer together for a common purpose (busy aerodromes, transit lanes etc) should have a discrete frequency.

b. Areas where congestion might be an issue (sydney basin?) should have a discrete frequency to avoid too much chatter.


3. Use of radio

a. IFR aircraft need traffic information for separation.

b. VFR should generally monitor rather than broadcast however common sense should be used. In places like aircraft lanes, aerodromes etc appropriate radio procedures should be used.

c. All aircraft should be able to request appropriate information or services relevant to their level of operations, if required (eg for VFR requesting changes to sartimes, QNH, wx updates etc)

d. Radio transmissions should not be used in place of lookout for VFR (the number of calls sometimes made operating in the circuit in some CTAFs where aircraft repeatedly call every circuit leg come to mind :().


4. Same hymn sheet

a. People should be able to readily find the appropriate frequency to use for their location and operations.

b. People should be able to readily find and study the standard phraseology for all the typical radio transmissions appropriate for their level of operations in the AIPs (and duplicated in the VFG).


How hard is that to implement?

Is the existing system that bad? [shrugs shoulders]

[Dick Smith]

Which “ existing system”

Do you mean the one where CASA insist that circuit calls at nonmapped airports be on the ATC area frequency.?

Or the one that most of the RAPACs wanted? That is that calls on such airports be on the 126.7 Multicom?

Jonkstor. What would be the problem with harmonising with the simple proven FAA system?

Notice how CASA did not mention in any of their paper work how that actually worked and why it could not be introduced here.

[jonkster]

Which “ existing system”

Do you mean the one where CASA insist that circuit calls at nonmapped airports be on the ATC area frequency.?

Or the one that most of the RAPACs wanted? That is that calls on such airports be on the 126.7 Multicom?

For me, in practical terms, either.

I haven't noticed problems with people making calls at ALAs on area (mostly because they don't - which makes sense if the ALA has low usage - usually there is no need to tell the world you are turning base at Dragatinalong station, on the rare occasions they need to then the increase in chatter is negligible).

If they changed that to be 126.7 then I wouldn't say that is the end of the world either. So long as people applied common sense and know and follow the procedure.

Changing CTAF boundaries to be 20 nm and having people using the same airspace confused about which frequency to monitor or broadcast on is a different kettle though.

Like I said that is my 2c. In the same area - listen on the same frequency, in high congestion points dedicated frequencies, avoid unnecessary calls, listen more than talk, use common sense, be able to easily find the appropriate frequency and be able to easily find references to the appropriate phraseology.


Jonkstor. What would be the problem with harmonising with the simple proven FAA system?

if it works and we have similar equipment/infrastructure ability to be able to physically implement it, nothing (from my point of view).

Basically I just want to avoid change that in the attempt to simplify actually makes it more complicated. Whatever change (or no change) - measure it by first principles - does it encourage clear, easily followed communication with people that need to know what is going on (and remembering listening is a big part of communicating).

[Dick Smith]

This change makes it far more complicated and clearly won’t work. I have just spoken to a number of RAPAC members and all are opposed to the 20 mile dimension. Claim that there has been no discussion on this .

[Spodman]

Have just read the discussion paper with amazed horror.

Horror; because I knew from reading it I would agree with Dick Smith's comments above, even without reading them, (and I do).

Horror; as they are not rolling back to pre-partially-implemented-then-partially-rolled-back-NAS, they are proposing (mostly) the LLAMP model THEY cancelled before that. They cancelled it by not approving changes to the dimensions of the then-defined CTAF areas.

May Jesus pee in a bucket, what are these useless wombats on???

When I fly enroute I fly my plane, look out the windows, and listening to the radio is a low priority task, with the volume down. I have to listen to that crap when I'm working, not when I'm having fun.

Maybe it is the fault of those who implemented the NAS without explaining that "traffic" translates from the American as "circuit area". Then the incongruity of proposing that somebody at 5000' 20nm from an aerodrome is in the circuit area would be apparent?

[Spodman]

Jonkstor. What would be the problem with harmonising with the simple proven FAA system? The problems are the same as they were during the implementation of NAS. IFR aircraft are using the CTAF for amateur approach control to arrange separation with other IFR flights. This is required because the "approach-service-down-to-1200agl" bit of the simple proven FAA system wasn't implemented anywhere during the time of NAS, and now exists, without any obvious disasters, in only a few locations.

Drunk with pride at resolving IFR issues said pilots extend their skillsets to separation with VFR, and this f@$knitted proposal from CASA is backing that trend.

[CaptainMidnight]

Well, if this 20NM comes in, the CTAF boundaries are just gonna have to go back on the charts ;)

[Lead Balloon]

The problems are the same as they were during the implementation of NAS. IFR aircraft are using the CTAF for amateur approach control to arrange separation with other IFR flights. This is required because the "approach-service-down-to-1200agl" bit of the simple proven FAA system wasn't implemented anywhere during the time of NAS, and now exists, without any obvious disasters, in only a few locations.

Drunk with pride at resolving IFR issues said pilots extend their skillsets to separation with VFR, and this f@$knitted proposal from CASA is backing that trend.I anticipate that Bloggs will take umbrage at you suggesting he engages in amateur approach control. His directions to VFR aircraft in his vicinity are professional!

[Dick Smith]

Never been able to bring in low level E like the USA .

One of the reasons is that CASA have done everthing they can to undermine the FAA system where in the US an IFR planned aircraft can climb in VMC in E without a clearance .

In Aus CASA insists that if you have filed an IFR plan and given a taxiing call you are IFR and therefore can’t enter E , even in VMC , without an IFR clearance.

This prevents the fantastic NAS system from working as designed.

Sheer bastardry

[Capn Bloggs]

I anticipate that Bloggs will take umbrage at you suggesting he engages in amateur approach control. His directions to VFR aircraft in his vicinity are professional!
You can either separate, be separated from, or collide. Your choice.

Lead Balloon=The problem.

Me= The solution.

:ok:

or...

"Lead (as in "leed"), follow or get the hell out of the way". :ok::ok:

[Dick Smith]

Suggested new name
MMBZ

Massive Mandatory Broadcast Zone

Need also to introduce even more massive fines for any hang gliders or ultralights that fly 19 miles away without a radio!

[Spodman]

In Aus CASA insists that if you have filed an IFR plan and given a taxiing call you are IFR and therefore can’t enter E , even in VMC , without an IFR clearance.

Aip gen 3.4-47 "when requesting IFR pick-up [REQUEST IFR PICK-UP]" you can't bag CASA for not permitting a procedure that is still in the books from the time of the NAS debacle. ATC are still trained in its use, (a bit). Nobody ever asks for it. Where is the problem?

[Spodman]

You can either separate, be separated from, or collide. Your choice.

Visions of a guy flying a VOR approach whilst beating his chest and shouting, "oogah, boogah", on the radio to scare vfr's away...

[Capn Bloggs]

Airborne hakka? :)

[Dick Smith]

Spodman, you say “where is the problem” regarding the IFR pick-up. You also state:

“You can’t bag CASA for not permitting a procedure that is still in the books…”

Spodman, I can assure you that CASA is responsible. The people in CASA at the time, and ever since, have done everything they can to make sure that the IFR pick-up procedure does not work. That is why, “nobody ever asks for it.”

In the USA you can put in an IFR flight plan, give taxi calls at the airport then climb in VMC, through the Class E airspace, and then call for your clearance when you get into VHF coverage.

In Australia, a few CASA concrete minded people have made sure that can’t happen. They claim that once you have given the taxi call, even if you haven’t communicated to ATC, you are then IFR and you cannot climb into Class E airspace without a clearance ,even in VMC.

Let me make it absolutely clear. The request “IFR pick-up” requires communication to ATC. The US FAA system does not. It is completely different, and CASA so far has prevented Class E climb from working properly.

That is one of the reasons why no one wants the Class E to be lowered.

In the USA, when VMC exists, Class E is basically identical to Class G. Sensible pilots simply take off as they would in Australia today, and pick up the clearance before they get to FL180.

[Capn Bloggs]

In the USA, when VMC exists, Class E is basically identical to Class G. Sensible pilots simply take off as they would in Australia today, and pick up the clearance before they get to FL180.
Essentially, downgrading to VFR. What airlines in the USA allow RPT jet crews to downgrade to VFR just to get through the level of another aircraft that is so close that ATC won't/can't give a clearance to do so?

[Capn Bloggs]

Get back on topic, you lot! The Class E soapbox is over there>.

[Spodman]

Get back on topic, you lot! The Class E soapbox is over there>.Sorry. My submission to CASA will AGAIN say "no, no, NO!" No airspace changes, no boundaries, the PROCEDURE is aimed at traffic in the circuit.

Apart from anything else, an IFR with single com would be UNABLE to communicate with ATC in this model. Would be doing amateur FSO-ing, without ATC advisories. DUMB.

[Dick Smith]

No. Not downgrading

Remaining with the same level of service we have had for 50 years with G. In the US airlines don’t operate in G. Our pilots are skilled at this so why not have both advantages

But it’s that type of emotive speaking that has stopped us gaining the extra safety by the lowering of E inc mandatory transponder that I introduced for VFR!

[Capn Bloggs]

In the US airlines don’t operate in G.
Neither do ours! Call it Class F, like it should be... oops, stop mentioning that inconvenient truth, Bloggs. :=

E inc mandatory transponder that I introduced for VFR!
Ha ha. Under the threat of total ostracisation! The days of VFR swanning around in E mixing it with RPT jets is long gone; pity some of the "experts" needed to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the real world and have VFR visible to the system in Terminal E... :}

an IFR with single com would be UNABLE to communicate with ATC in this model.
"Changing to XXX CTAF" when will not or can not monitor ATC freq... Not hard, legal, happens every day... ;)

[Dick Smith]

Under ICAO classifications no radio is required for VFR in F and you are totally obsessed with VFR aircraft having mandatory radio.

So certainly not F!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Why 20nm CTAF boundaries? Turboprop at max250Kts is 5000ft and 5minutes from circuit area? Air Ambulance at 220kts is 6 to 7min? Why plan for the worst once in a blue moon movement?

[Lead Balloon]

Visions of a guy flying a VOR approach whilst beating his chest and shouting, "oogah, boogah", on the radio to scare vfr's away...It’s far more ‘sophisticated’ in the Bloggs Flight Information Region, Spod.

In the Bloggs Flight Information Region, Bloggs gives directions as to where and when VFRs report.

Safest procedures in that region!

[Capn Bloggs]

As I said before, Leed, follow or get the hell out of the way. The rest of us have a job to do.

Under ICAO classifications no radio is required for VFR in F and you are totally obsessed with VFR aircraft having mandatory radio.
Like trying to herd cats... the discussion spears off on yet another tangent.

[Lead Balloon]

But Bloggs, your flight has no priority over mine.

I suggest that you follow the rules (not yours, but rather the actual ones) or you’re going to get your bottom smacked.

[Capn Bloggs]

Clueless Balloon.

[Lead Balloon]

What are the rules for determining the priority of flights to and from aerodromes in Class G, Bloggs?

I’m clueless, but you are clue...full?

Being that you are full of whatever it is that’s relevant, you’ll be able to tell us what priority your flight has over VFR flights to and from aerodromes in Class G.

[Capn Bloggs]

How concerning somebody who is so vocal and critical of everybody, doesn't know what he is talking about and has to ask.

Find out and let us know.

Get back on thread. And get out of the way!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It is interesting referring back to the ATSB study of mid-airs, with regard to the angst shown about which frequency to be on at any given time or place, to see that radio use had little impact on the numbers, that the risk is greatest in or near the circuit area (understandably), but overall is extremely low anyway, and that, averaged out per 100000 hrs of GA flying to account for the vastly differing traffic densities, the much vaunted, proven, safe system used overseas results in a 5.8 times greater chance of having a mid air collision once you depart the circuit area.
Perhaps it's much ado about nothing.

[Sunfish]

Down here in Victoria, I am almost always within 20 miles of a CTAF, perhaps even more than one.The 20 mile boundary means I will be talking almost all the time.......but to what end? Radios aren't mandatory for CTAF users.

[MikeHatter732]

Never been able to bring in low level E like the USA .

One of the reasons is that CASA have done everthing they can to undermine the FAA system where in the US an IFR planned aircraft can climb in VMC in E without a clearance .

In Aus CASA insists that if you have filed an IFR plan and given a taxiing call you are IFR and therefore can’t enter E , even in VMC , without an IFR clearance.

This prevents the fantastic NAS system from working as designed.

Sheer bastardry
....and then what happens when someone calls up the FSS for a clearance on the ground (which may I add, is the recommended and most commonly used method in the States)...

Anyone who has done some flying over there knows that the pilot will be issued a clearance, given a clearance void time, and until that time, that uncontrolled aerodrome is treated as one in-one out for all aircraft IFR/SVFR going in...

I bet you wouldn't like to be told that you can't go into Bathurst because a training Duchess has just called up for a clearance and has effectively closed the surrounding Class E @ BTH for all IFR and SVFR a/c. Can't imagine Rex would like the sound of that either.

Can't have the best of both worlds Dick!

[triadic]

Radios aren't mandatory for CTAF users.

Well that depends on what CTAF and the circumstances. CASA does permit aerodrome operators of non Reg/Cert airfields (ALA's) to insert a VHF requirement in their ERSA entry.

Going back to having the 'jam tins' is really not a workable option, regardless of the size.:ugh:

It will be interested to see their risk analysis on this proposal and what other options were considered.

All things considered it might have been easier and safer to just remove the poorly thought out requirement to use the Area Frequency at 'unmarked' airfields, making the MULTICOM the default low level frequency outside of BA's and CTAFs with a different freq - with no dimensions, just recommended practices... :confused:

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

How low is "low level"? Are you suggesting a blanket stratification? Below, say, 3000ft everyone is on Multicom (unless in area with a prescribed alternative frequency), above that they are on the appropriate Area (ATC)? That would keep circuit chatter off Area.
Or 126.7 becomes the default blanket frequency, and the old Area frequencies become just ATC low level frequencies. If you are using ATC services you monitor both if in an airspace where you need to, if not then just Multicom. Don't bother ATC with stuff they don't need to hear.

[CaptainMidnight]

the old Area frequencies become just ATC low level frequenciesNot "old" - they are current :)

The FIA's are declared volumes of airspace for exactly that purpose i.e. Flight Information Areas, on which ATC's provide ATS.All things considered it might have been easier and safer to just remove the poorly thought out requirement to use the Area Frequency at 'unmarked' airfields, making the MULTICOM the default low level frequency outside of BA's and CTAFs with a different freq - with no dimensions, just recommended practicesAnd simpler :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

All things considered it might have been easier and safer to just remove the poorly thought out requirement to use the Area Frequency at 'unmarked' airfields, making the MULTICOM the default low level frequency outside of BA's and CTAFs with a different freq - with no dimensions, just recommended practicesI thought that was the only thing that was being agitated for. :confused:

To quote Spodman:May Jesus pee in a bucket, what are these useless wombats on???

[Dick Smith]

Mike hatter. Yair. Those Americans are so incompetent.

They have this system where aircraft sit around being delayed and they are too stupid to copy our more efficient system. Then again they don’t have much traffic and they only designed the 747 and we designed the Nomad.

For readers with open minds. ; the US has procedures which result is no measurable delays when compared to
Aus!

[Dick Smith]

Does anyone agree with this new CASA proposal for giant 40 nautical mile diameter CTAFs to 5000’?

What’s the bet there is 100% opposition!

Then again Bloggs probably does? Do you Bloggsy?

[gerry111]

Does anyone agree with this new CASA proposal for giant 40 nautical mile diameter CTAFs to 5000’?

On CTAFs and populations, I agree with Dick that bigger isn't necessarily better.

[A Squared]

....and then what happens when someone calls up the FSS for a clearance on the ground (which may I add, is the recommended and most commonly used method in the States)...

Anyone who has done some flying over there knows that the pilot will be issued a clearance, given a clearance void time, and until that time, that uncontrolled aerodrome is treated as one in-one out for all aircraft IFR/SVFR going in...

I bet you wouldn't like to be told that you can't go into Bathurst because a training Duchess has just called up for a clearance and has effectively closed the surrounding Class E @ BTH for all IFR and SVFR a/c.

The point you're missing here is that even though someone on the ground has picked up an IFR clearance, if VFR conditions exist, I may still opt to depart VFR, even though I may have filed an IFR clearance.

[Dick Smith]

That’s a major point. When VMC exists a competent US pilot operates like we do in Australia and gets going without delay.

When IMC exists they have very enlightened IFR separation requirements that in practice result in a similar outcome to what competent Aussie pilots do in practice. We can simply bring in rules which allow sensible separation like we have now in G.

Even in Aus not many pilots depart an airport in IMC when another aircraft is in IMC on approach. It’s called “ wanting to stay alive”

[Lead Balloon]

Does anyone agree with this new CASA proposal for giant 40 nautical mile diameter CTAFs to 5000’?

What’s the bet there is 100% opposition!

Then again Bloggs probably does? Do you Bloggsy?I agree, Dick: CTAF procedures in a 40nm diameter 5,000 chunk of airspace is a nonsense.

You may be correct about Bloggsie. He runs his own air traffic control system out in the heart of darkness.

[Dick Smith]

Anyone support the CASA position on Ginenormous 40 nautical mile CTAFs ?

Surely must be someone who works at CASA who does? Or is the whole paper a con!

[triadic]

It really is simple: The 20nm jam tins will not work

The unintended consequences have obviously not been considered.

[Capn Bloggs]

Then again Bloggs probably does? Do you Bloggsy?
Sorry Dick, haven't even read it yet. Been too busy flying into CTAFs, CTRs, self-segregating with like-minded pilots keen to not crash into me (and me them), who are happy to do whatever is necessary to keep the operation safe but efficient. Magilla coined it: "Mutual inconvenience".

[Peter Pan Pan]

Anyone able to give a rational, safety-based explanation for extending CTAF procedures to 20nm radius? I don’t get it.

I'd hazard a guess that it is to contain the initial approach fixes for a standard 5/5/5 Y or T bar RNAV procedure. CASA have a serious fixation on lateral/vertical separation of RNAV procedures OCTA , and keeping aircraft on an instrument approach on one frequency to cater for all the IFR aircraft that are not flying around with dual coms :confused:

[Dick Smith]

Can we get a comment from a RAPAC member?

It was this organisation that started this very expensive episode. Or are people being ordered not to comment ?

[thunderbird five]

When all else fails:

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/vic171120pdf

[Dick Smith]

So the “action item” is closed!

What does that mean? Everything is now solved?

No objections allowed!

[Aussie Bob]

I couldn't give a stuff what they do or what you blokes argue about. I will continue flying my bugsmasher around looking out the window and saying very little. I might add when you blokes insist on giving running commentaries on everything you are doing I will also turn down the radio so I can't hear the nonsense.

[triadic]

You can be assured that this matter is not closed at any of the RAPACs. The NPRM has generated a significant amount of email traffic between the various Convenors and the members, especially the 20nm CTAFs which are considered unworkable and not required.

[rattly_spats]

Does anyone agree with this new CASA proposal for giant 40 nautical mile diameter CTAFs to 5000’?

I'm guessing that someone in CASA suddenly realised that some planes can fly 20nm in the same time that others (like mine) do 10nm so they mightn't know I was in the "vicinity" if they waited until 10nm to change to the CTAF and make an inbound call. CASA solution: make CTAFs bigger. Perhaps an alternative would be to require an inbound call at or before six minutes out of the circuit area, and do away with CTAF (and 126.7) "boundaries" altogether? The whole point, after all, is simply to have aircraft that are in potential conflict on the same frequency.

As for the 126.7 in cruise below 5000ft rule, that's just crazy. And, sorry Dick, but I like the guidance of having area frequencies on charts.

Rattly

[On eyre]

20 nm CTAF boundary seems excessive to me. If the idea is to capture RNAV approaches then 15 nm radius would suffice. And let's face it there is nothing to stop heavy metal making a CTAF call further out and this happens regularly in my experience.

[triadic]

rattly said:
an inbound call at or before six minutes out of the circuit area,

You may not remember, but some 15 yrs ago, or so, the inbound call was recommended at 7 minutes from ETA. It did not matter if you were a C150 or a GIV, it was time based. Common sense I would say. However it did not get off the ground as someone in CASA pulled that idea! It was supposed to be introduced with all the appropriate bells and whistles in the education area, but again those in CASA just did not understand what goes on the real world. We are now living a repeat as there is very little if any corporate history in the organisation to say what was done 10 years ago, let alone 20years!!:ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

I'm guessing that someone in CASA suddenly realised that some planes can fly 20nm in the same time that others (like mine) do 10nm so they mightn't know I was in the "vicinity"...

Perhaps an alternative would be to require an inbound call at or before six minutes out of the circuit area
CASA's right. The problem with times, Rattly, is as you have surmised; that I may be right up your clacker at 200KIAS when you finally announce on the CTAF and we'll both get a fright. Having a fixed distance means that we will all be on the same freq by the same position; the further out the better for us so we can work out how to avoid you. Remember it all "fitted", because VFR had to be on Area above 5000ft, so would hear our inbound Area call. If they were below 5k, nobody cared. When they got to the 15nm point, they called on the MBZF, I'd most probably be still above 5000ft (having made the MBZ call at 30nm), and if there was going to be a conflict, it could be sorted out before we met.

"CTAFs" were 5nm/3000ft. Basically, the big end of town didn't go into CTAFs so the lighties could do whatever they do (looking out) nice and close to the airfield, on the CTAF and not annoy anybody else.

But all that didn't fit the master plan of he-who-shall-not-be-named, so we ended up with "in the vicinity"~10nm. I have heard plenty of aircraft call AT 10nm; too late for me.

20nm would have been great at Mildura when the E-jet almost clocked the GA-8 coming in from the west. The GA-8 would have been on freq earlier and that in all probability would have facilitated some mutual segregation instead of the tangle-up on Final.

I'm not saying 20nm is THE number... I haven't read the whole proposal yet.

Let's face it, it doesn't matter what distance we are from the airfield (within reason), as long as we are all on the same freq at that distance (and closer, obviously).

Edit: Just saw Triadic's post. Suffice to say I have a different view on the "boundary".

[Lead Balloon]

The whole point, after all, is simply to have aircraft that are in potential conflict on the same frequency.Actually, the whole point is to reduce the probabilities of aircraft colliding. Radio, if used appropriately, will reduce the probabilities of aircraft with radios colliding with other aircraft with radios.

Some people take the view that the more blabbing on the radio, the greater the reduction in the probabilities of aircraft colliding. It’s akin to the belief that more maintenance will make an aircraft more reliable.

I’m still trying to figure out how the 20nm radius CTAF procedures will work. Out of many examples, YGTH and YNAR are ‘only’ 35nms apart. Different CTAFs. If 20nms becomes the magic number, on what frequency does the pilot of an aircraft transitting the overlap start blabbing in order to reduce the probabilities of collisions with RPT aircraft inbound and outbound YGTH or YNAR?

And let us never speak of all the no radio aircraft in the area. If you don’t know about them, they’re not a risk.

(Bloggsie would have an attack of the vapours over here in the real world.)

[Capn Bloggs]

You keep at it, Bobsie 1. Talk about blabbing...

[Lead Balloon]

I get the personal animosity bit - you don’t take kindly to fun being poked at you. (You must have been a real hoot to work with in the RAAF.)

What I don’t get is your apparent unwillingness to engage with the substantial operational issues.

I get it that you feel safe in operating in places like YPPD with a 20nm radius AFIZ and the belief that everyone in that chunk of airspace is on the same frequency and known to you. The removal of the security blanket of controlled airspace is less distressing in those circumstances.

What I don’t get is your apparent inability to understand that there are places in Australia that have RPT-serviced aerodromes that aren’t spread out like they are in WA, that don’t have an AFIS and don’t have the same CTAF. If you don’t have any answers to questions about how the proposed system will actually work at these places, that’s fine. But for those of us who operate in and out of these places, the answers are important.