Whatever you do, don't change anything - CASA Multicom

[Dick Smith]

I love it. CASA has just sent out what is probably their final consultation paper regarding "Frequency use in Class G airspace". Here is a link (https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/radio-frequency-consultation/results/summaryofconsultationoncd1802as.pdf).
Note once again there are no names - no one has the confidence to put their name on any document while earning up to $300,000 per year.

Of course, I could have written the wording in their email notification “We believe the safest and simplest system is the one currently in place.” This is entirely consistent with the whole of CASA. That is, never change anything, never show a skerrick of leadership. Never copy the best from overseas and incorporate with the best we already do here. Just make sure the status quo remains so no one could ever possibly be held accountable for making a decision.

What about the extraordinary cost in CASA doing this, which is paid by the industry? Or the cost of industry people and RAPAC members going to meetings? It is not quite the $1.4 billion waste from the Super Seasprite fiasco but it is the same incompetence.

Imagine working for the place. It must be really demoralising. You have to live dishonestly during the day and then presumably go home and tell your kids and grandkids to be honest.

I presume when they did the study, Mr Carmody said to them, “Whatever you do, don’t look at what happens overseas. In fact I prohibit it completely. You must not look at countries such as the USA, Canada or Europe as our minds are fixed in concrete and there is no way we will ever copy the best in the world. After all, we made the Nomad, and they only made the Airbus A380, the Boeing 747 and the space shuttle.”

[Dick Smith]

And we are converting a French Nuclear Submarine into a “ nomad” but with piston engines!

[Ramjet555]

If this stuff was printed 50 years ago, it would be have immediately been cut into quarters and pushed on a nail in the outhouse where it belongs today.
CASA is constantly on the lookout for ways to waste Taxpayers money, to engage in the delusional world of where they hang their hat on "Safety"
rather than reality and the facts. The ideas of logical reasoning, based on necessity and reliability started down the gurgler decades ago
and the whirlpool has only gotten worse.

CASA think they need to reinvent the wheel that worked well before they decided to to demonstrate corporate narcissism and
engage in financial rape of the aviation industry.

In the USA or Canada, 126.7 is the Class G as they call it frequency for uncontrolled airspace. It's fine for the really remote areas.
Get closer to the big smoke and up high, you hear every clown within 100 miles going thru those long winded radio calls
endlessly yabbering "Conflicting traffic please advise" instead of using eyeballs.

There are other concerns that are more important, with GPS everyone flies a railroad in the sky,
yet do we ever hear of any rules to fly to the right of a direct track when closing speeds can be
a few seconds a mile.

CASA have removed the vocabulary that was common with overseas countries and replaced it with
their own that makes CASA look stark raving mad in the international world.

Now back to reading the sacred scrolls of CASA.

[kaz3g]

Seems like common sense to me. Now they need to sort the direction of opposing traffic in the VFR coastal route around PPB so the match the hemispherical ruse.

kaz

[CaptainMidnight]

In the USA or Canada, 126.7 is the Class G as they call it frequency for uncontrolled airspace. It's fine for the really remote areas.
Get closer to the big smoke and up high, you hear every clown within 100 miles going thru those long winded radio callsendlessly yabbering "Conflicting traffic please advise" instead of using eyeballs

You've made a good case for us NOT implementing MULTICOM 126.7 below 5000 or at unpublished aerodromes.

[triadic]

It was simple and it worked prior to the change in 2013 then made without consultation. In effect we have gone back to that time but at significant cost and confusion!
Well done and it took 5 years to do it!!

[Horatio Leafblower]

This is entirely consistent with the whole of CASA. That is, never change anything, never show a skerrick of leadership.

I wish that was their approach with Part 135/121. :mad:

[Pinky the pilot]

and up high, you hear every clown within 100 miles going thru those long winded radio calls
endlessly yabbering "Conflicting traffic please advise" instead of using eyeballs.


Whenever I fly the Glider Tug here at the local Gliding Club I hear seemingly endless radio calls coming from Gliders on downwind/turning base/final at two other Gliding Clubs, one about 30 km away and the other just over 50 km distant.

As far as I'm aware, neither of these two other Clubs host any powered aircraft.

I learned to fly Gliders at one of those strips way back in 1970 and flew there regularly (like every flamin' weekend!) throughout the 70's. We made no radio calls in the circuit; only one Glider had a radio anyway! But we kept our eyes up and out of the cockpit.

There was only one incident during that time. I had a mid-air collision.......with a Wedge-Tailed Eagle!:eek:

'Nuff said.

[Plazbot]

Europe isn't a country.

[Okihara]

Europe isn't a country.

... and if so, then a very, _very_ dysfunctional one.

[kaz3g]

...
I learned to fly Gliders at one of those strips way back in 1970 and flew there regularly (like every flamin' weekend!) throughout the 70's. We made no radio calls in the circuit; only one Glider had a radio anyway! But we kept our eyes up and out of the cockpit.

There was only one incident during that time. I had a mid-air collision.......with a Wedge-Tailed Eagle!:eek:

'Nuff said.

Wouldna happened if the Audax had a radio!

kaz

[Vref+5]

No no, you’re all wrong. Read Carmody’s piece in today’s Australian . CASA is improving under his watch. Increased customer satisfaction, improved performance. Didn’t say what the parameters were, or if they were changed from the ones used previously, which is the normal way of improving performance. Think train performance

[megan]

no one could ever possibly be held accountable for making a decision. Thats the reason as I see it for the establishment of the office and employment of Rob Walker, Executive Manager Stakeholder Engagement (what a title). Correspondence comes out under his signature, not the individual making the decision. Replying through Mr. Walkers office will educe absolutely no reply. The wombats of bureaucracy remain deep within their burrows, unaccountable and untouchable thanks to Mr. Walker.

[triadic]

megan; You are correct in that there are very few individuals that have their name to anything. Yes Mr Walker has a role and since he moved across from Airservices some 2 years ago the communications out of CASA have improved significantly. There are those within the organisation that still do their own thing and to hell with the industry they are meant to serve. Unfortunately Mr Walker does not have control of those individuals. The sooner those individuals are identified and shown the door the better - what some might say is the last of the iron ring? Those staff are only there for the money and their own ego. CASA is not only a regulator but a service provider. The sad part is that it does far more regulating than it does in service provision. They really need to get the legal people out of the letter writing and decision making - it might be more relevant to aviation then?

[aroa]

The new 'customer satisfaction 'results show that Carmody can and does polish a turd.
As for the wombats in their burrows...and those individuals have been identified, but the chances of any of them being shown the door are Buckley's and none.
Crimes, cronyism and corruption means nothing to these people. Its all done for the good of "safety"
CAsA rocks on, in its own sweet way...at colossal expense and great detriment to GA.
Ops normal.

[cogwheel]

Yes , article in the “Australian” was certainly poorly timed.
There are obviously staff in CASA that have the Director hoodwinked and have allowed their own narrow uninformed views to rule the day, disregarding the views of industry.
They also seem to lack the ability to write something that is easy for the reader to understand in yet another attempt to bend the results of industry preference to suit their own sheltered ideas!
One must remember that the change in 2013 was made within CASA with no justification, consultation or safety case and then those same officers fought tooth and nail for five years to try and justify their crap decision, and from Thursday’s email they are still there. God knows what this exercise cost?

[Icarus2001]

In the USA or Canada, 126.7 is the Class G as they call it frequency for uncontrolled airspace. It's fine for the really remote areas.
Get closer to the big smoke and up high, you hear every clown within 100 miles going thru those long winded radio calls
endlessly yabbering "Conflicting traffic please advise" instead of using eyeballs.

So you seem to be arguing for both sides there, which is it? When I am inbound in my jet to an uncontrolled aerodrome at 250 knots, descending through cloud I give at inbound call at 30nm, around 10,000 feet. That call can result in beep backs from all the CTAFs (ARFUs) on the same frequency, which then prevent the other stations being heard. Once that noise settles down we can actually talk to traffic that we need to, assuming we can get a word in with traffic transmitting every leg of circuit elsewhere. ONE frequency would not work here as it does in the US, their controlled airspace set up is different and they have ALMOST 100% radar coverage allowing traffic advisories.

This is entirely consistent with the whole of CASA. That is, never change anything, never show a skerrick of leadership. Never copy the best from overseas and incorporate with the best we already do here. Dick I am no fan of CASA but they change things all the time, mostly worse such as the Part 61 licence debacle but sometimes better. I received my medical slip the other day by message before I had even left the doctors surgery.

I do share your sentiments about why we tend not to copy the best of the world, we seem to believe we are different. I love hearing the navy brass tell the media how our submarine requirements are "unique" compared to the rest of the world that is why we cannot buy off the shelf. Not one reporter asks "what is unique about our requirements" all sheep.

[Dick Smith]

Yep, imagine we are going to buy nuclear sub bodies and then fit them with piston engines. Incredible. Zero leadership I would say.

[cogwheel]

The sad part of his change is that CASA have disregarded the views of industry and made significant consultation with the RAPACs and others a waste of time. They can’t even write up the changes in a manner that can be understood. And it is my bet many pilots will continue to what they have done since 2003 and use 126.7 at low levels regardless if operating in the vicinity of airfields marked or unmarked on charts. Having a second frequency which promotes frequency separation is clearly less safe and the majority of pilots know that.

[Lead Balloon]

What cracks me up is that, in Canada, although the equivalent of the ‘low level’ area frequency in G is 126.7, the equivalent of the default CTAF is 123.2. In other words, the ‘default’ frequency for use at places that are not marked on charts is NOT 126.7.

Some people seem to be advocating for 126.7 to be the quasi area frequency in G AS WELL AS the default CTAF. That’s NOT how it works in Canada.

From the RAC chapter of the Canadian version of the AIP:4.5 Aircraft Operations — Uncontrolled Aerodromes
4.5.1 General

An uncontrolled aerodrome is an aerodrome without a control tower, or one where the tower is not in operation. There is no substitute for alertness while in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome. It is essential that pilots be aware of, and look out for, other traffic, and exchange traffic information when approaching or departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome, particularly since some aircraft may not have communication capability. To achieve the greatest degree of safety, it is essential that all radio-equipped aircraft monitor a common designated frequency, such as the published MF or ATF, and follow the reporting procedures specified for use in an MF area, while operating on the manoeuvring area or flying within an MF area surrounding an uncontrolled aerodrome.

• MF area means an area in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome for which an MF has been designated. The area within which MF procedures apply at a particular aerodrome is defined in the Aerodrome/Facility Directory Section of the CFS, under the heading COMM.

Normally, the MF area is a circle with a 5-NM radius capped at 3 000 ft AAE.

At uncontrolled aerodromes without a published MF or ATF, the common frequency for the broadcast of aircraft position and the intentions of pilots flying in the vicinity of that aerodrome is 123.2 MHz.
…

9.13 IFR Procedures at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome in Uncontrolled Airspace

Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Once established on the MF, the pilot shall make the reports listed in RAC 9.12 (see RAC 4.5.4 for MF procedures, and RAC 4.5.5 for the use of 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exist.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Yep, imagine we are going to buy nuclear sub bodies and then fit them with piston engines. Incredible. Zero leadership I would say.

Sorry but what has this got to do with anything? If you'd like to go into the technical and tactical reasons for Australia's preference for diesel subs I'm happy to discuss them with you, but it's of zero relevance to this discussion.

[Lead Balloon]

The problem is not diesel subs, per se. The problem is being silly enough to ask for nuclear subs to be converted to diesel.

It’s like asking Boeing to fit radial piston engines and propellers to Jumbo jets. Boeing will do it, for a price. A very expensive price. And the outcome would be Frankenstein’s monster.

The few submariners Australia can assemble to man them will be easy prey to predator unmanned submersibles.

[LeadSled]

Sorry but what has this got to do with anything? If you'd like to go into the technical and tactical reasons for Australia's preference for diesel subs I'm happy to discuss them with you, but it's of zero relevance to this discussion.

Junior VH-LFA,
The core reason is really simple, nuclear power in any form cannot be discussed, it is so non-PC.
We even have lunatic legislation to that end in the Cth and some states.
Can't upset the Loony Left and the Greens --- nobody ever told them sunlight is nuclear radiation.
Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??
Thread drift, I know, but the mind boggles at such a suggestion.
Tootle pip!!

[Icarus2001]

If you'd like to go into the technical and tactical reasons for Australia's preference for diesel subs I'm happy to discuss them with you,

Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??

#metoo

I would love you to start a thread on that JUNIOR.VH-LFA, perhaps the mods would allow the latitude. The mind boggles at Australian exceptionalism.

[Lead Balloon]

Australian exceptionalism is Dick’s point. And that’s why discussing converting nuclear subs into diesel subs is not thread drift in a discussion about Australian airspace arrangements. (Not suggesting you were saying it was thread drift, I2.)

[Pinky the pilot]

Getting back to the subject, sort of....; Only today I was doing a bit of Glider towing again and at one stage I heard an aircraft call up in the circuit area of an airfield about 50 or so km to the East.

He made two inbound calls, one at 20nm and the second at 10nm. He then called overhead, and after making his mind up on which runway to use, downwind on that runway.

He then also made turning base and when established on finals.:rolleyes:

I will make no further comment.

[Lead Balloon]

You should have acknowledged each of those calls ...

[Pinky the pilot]

Nahh sorry, Lead Balloon. I was too busy concentrating on looking around my intended flightpath for any Gliders I had previously launched, and also considering where to take the Glider I was towing to ensure that it was within safe Gliding distance of the airfield if no thermals were around.

Much too busy to talk to some clown at an airfield over 50km away! (Where the only other traffic for the whole day was one RFDS PC12.) Well, that's all I heard!

[Lead Balloon]

Looking out? Are you mad?

Talk more on the radio. You’ll be ‘safer’.

[Pinky the pilot]

Are you mad?

I'll have you know, Lead Balloon, that I'm as sane as the next bloke!:=:D:E

[A Squared]

Europe isn't a country.

Technically true, but to be fair the establishment of the EU has blurred that distinction a bit.

[A Squared]

In the USA or Canada, 126.7 is the Class G as they call it frequency for uncontrolled airspace.

Not true. The US has no designated mandatory enroute frequency for uncontrolled airspace. You are correct about Canada.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Junior VH-LFA,
The core reason is really simple, nuclear power in any form cannot be discussed, it is so non-PC.
We even have lunatic legislation to that end in the Cth and some states.
Can't upset the Loony Left and the Greens --- nobody ever told them sunlight is nuclear radiation.
Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??
Thread drift, I know, but the mind boggles at such a suggestion.
Tootle pip!!

Yes I am seriously suggesting that, with a considerable level of professional knowledge on the subject.

Not withstanding this countries irrational fear of nuclear power, which is absolute and it's beyond ridiculous that we don't use nuclear energy, there are a variety of tactical and strategic reasons for Australia's preference for Diesel power submarines, not least of which is the vessel's increased ability to avoid detection. Our submarines are not nuclear armed, they are not a deterrent. They exist to support the fleet, with particular reference to intelligence gathering.

Here's an interesting article worth your persual:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-one-cheap-submarine-sweden-sank-the-us-navy-battle-25639

Even news.com.au is fielding this:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/russian-varshavyankaclass-stealth-submarines-to-be-based-in-pacific/news-story/44aedda3648115122b06b5bf3aa212b0

I'm sure they Navy would like a combination of both types, but given the role our force finds itself employed in, no one within the RAN wants or is chasing Nuclear submarines at the expense of SSK's. The additional cost, the lack of support facilities, the noise, the inability to perform well in the RAN's core tasks all make them unsuitable for purpose.

As for why the French design was chosen etc, that I can't really help you with. I suspect much of it has to do with having them built here. I am happy to concede that it will probably be an expensive disaster that will rival Collins. No doubt the guys in the fleet will make it work over time, but not without some substantial cost blow outs. Like many Defence acquisitions, operational capability and cost are usually the last thing anyone thinks about, it's usually about "jobs and growth." The RAAF seemingly has learnt the lesson, Growler, P-8, JSF and C-17 have all been good examples of how it should be done. But to say there's no leadership involved just isn't accurate; there very clearly is. It's just bad leadership, aimed at holding office, not achieving outcomes.

[aroa]

126.7
And while we are on shipping matters, anything that floats these days is a moving target imho.
Long range, surface hugging ,supersonic anti ship missiles will make like on the ocean wave jolly exciting.!
The Australian mentality that we cant do things really hasnt changed since WW1.
For the War effort ...,we can build aircraft..oh no we cant we'll by them from the Mother country..

Same goes for nuke subs ...piss weak excuse from some polly waffler the other day...we dont have people with the training and expertise to run a nuclear job. Hullo...there's a decade from whoa to go the get the expertise up and running here. IF that is the case, which I suspect it is not.

In remote Alaska and etc these days, not in Oz of course, container sized stations power the mine.

We sure live in a 'Fantasy' land.
Big heaps of coal for cheap power. Cant use it here tho, but can flog it off to others to use.
Big heaps of Uranium for cheap power and etc. Cant use it here, but can flog it off for others to use.
Maybe we''ll get some sent back one day on the front end of a rocket.

[neville_nobody]

Makes you wonder who the Australian government is really working for.

[arketip]

Looking out? Are you mad?

Talk more on the radio. You’ll be ‘safer’.

Is it really that difficult to do both?

[Sunfish]

the most important defence acquisition criteria is how many overseas postings it will generate and where. I hear France has some beautiful locations, likewise USA. Who wants to be posted to Bankstown or Footscray?

Now if our defence manufacturing capabilities were in Noosa, Margaret River or portsea we might have a chance.....

[Derfred]

nobody ever told them sunlight is nuclear radiation.

Sorry, can’t resist...

It isn’t.

It’s energy source is nuclear fusion, but (with the exception of solar flares), the sun does not emit gamma (nuclear) radiation. It emits electomagnetic radiation at many frequencies including visible light, but nuclear radiation is not one of them.

[A Squared]

In remote Alaska and etc these days, not in Oz of course, container sized stations power the mine.


I don't think that you're find many (read any) mines or other remote facilities in Alaska powered by nuclear reactors. A while back (decades ago) the US military had used so called "Atomic Batteries" to power some remote electronic equipment like radio repeaters.. I suppose technically, they were "reactors", but they were relatively small devices. If any of those remain, they are relatively rare. But a shipping container sized nuclear reactor able to power a remote mine? I think that you have been misled.

[LeadSled]

Sorry, can’t resist...

It isn’t.

It’s energy source is nuclear fusion, but (with the exception of solar flares), the sun does not emit gamma (nuclear) radiation. It emits electomagnetic radiation at many frequencies including visible light, but nuclear radiation is not one of them.

Derfred,
The whole point of the quip is that, in generic terms, virtually all like on earth depends on the great nuclear furnace in the sky.
I don't want to prolong this thread drift, but some would take issue with you that "nuclear radiation" is just gamma radiation.
Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

A square , you may be right, but nuclear in these modern times has many sizes and uses from Ice Breakers, Subs and satellites. Wherever there is a need for continuous long term power

126.7 here and elsewhere, except in specific.designated areas eg Torres Straits
Love that friendly star, our Sun.