What is happening with the MULTICOM?

[Dick Smith]

I have started this new thread because I think most have lost interest on the old threads on this issue.

From what I can understand, CASA has now made a final decision which still states that if there is an unmarked aerodrome, the taxi and circuit calls should be given on the area ATC frequency.

Of course they don’t mention helipads. Presumably if it is an unmarked helipad that someone is flying in or out of, they should give the calls on the area ATC frequency.

Is that how everyone understands it?

[Cloudee]

I have started this new thread because I think most have lost interest on the old threads on this issue.

From what I can understand, CASA has now made a final decision which still states that if there is an unmarked aerodrome, the taxi and circuit calls should be given on the area ATC frequency.

Of course they don’t mention helipads. Presumably if it is an unmarked helipad that someone is flying in or out of, they should give the calls on the area ATC frequency.

Is that how everyone understands it?
Yep, that's how I understand it. I hope that now this has been confirmed by CASA we will all now make those calls on area and see what happens. What isn't clear to me is that if your unmarked field is within the CTAF of a marked airfield what frequency do you use? I know what commons sense says but by the letter of their policy it's area frequency. Also if two marked airfields are less than 20 nm apart which frequency do you use in the overlap? Eg: Aldinga (very busy on 127.15) and Hunt Field (very quiet on 126.7). Currently the Hunt Field locals are using 126.7.

[Dick Smith]

Isn’t it more likely that the CASA position will be ignored? This is what has happened in the past.

[Icarus2001]

What isn't clear to me is that if your unmarked field is within the CTAF of a marked airfield what frequency do you use?

Okay the F in CTAF stands for frequency. A CTAF is not a volume of airspace. It is a frequency to use in the vicinity of an aerodrome (landing area etc).

So it follows than you cannot be "within" a CTAF. If the unmarked field is withing the "normal" circuit size of the aerodrome which has a CTAF then as you say, common sense says use the CTAF.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/182536/download?token=ev1DY9ng

After exploring options for change and considering all feedback, we believe the safest and simplest system is the one currently in place. In other words, the recommended radio frequency to use in non-controlled airspace are:

‘in the vicinity’—within 10nm, and at a height where your operations could be in the way of other traffic—of any non-controlled aerodrome published on aeronautical charts, pilots should use the CTAF (126.7 MHz or discrete frequency) as published
anywhere within a Broadcast Area, pilots should use the dedicated Broadcast Area CTAF
in all other non-controlled airspace, pilots should be on Area VHF .

[cogwheel]

Isn’t it more likely that the CASA position will be ignored? This is what has happened in the past.

You are correct Dick, as very few pilots took any notice of the change back in 2013 that was made without any consultation. Much the same will continue as those of us that operate low down in G know the risks, and what might be the best freq to use*, but seems those in CASA behind this decision don’t have a clue!

* (and it’s not the area freq)

[Nulli Secundus]

But hang on Dick, I thought your position was we must get out of aviation?

[Aussie Bob]

I don’t know about any of the above. IMHO what makes using a single multicom frequency unviable is simply the verbal diarrhoea that flows from most pilots mouths whenever they get the chance. In particular I single out RAA and private pilots. The clear winner here is the running circuit commentary that so many love. Goodbye MULTICOM, hello chatter.

[Sunfish]

Aussie Bob: I don’t know about any of the above. IMHO what makes using a single multicom frequency unviable is simply the verbal diarrhoea that flows from most pilots mouths whenever they get the chance. In particular I single out RAA and private pilots. The clear winner here is the running circuit commentary that so many love. Goodbye MULTICOM, hello chatter.

Speaking as a PPL, you can go and get (censored). There are three issues here, all of which have killed students and inexperienced pilots.

1) The skygods like Aussie Bob who are so used to voice procedure that it is a point of honour to make a transmission so fast as to be unintelligible except to other cognoscenti. I first encountered this in military fire control, but that was amongst a small group who new each other; as in "firemission grid yabba yabba etc." The aviation equivalent is "trffc mildu ayabber yabber in 10". Unintelligible plonkers.

2) The poor feckng chinese or indian student who, despite having passed Cambridge level 3 English, doesn't have a hope in hell of deciphering what Aussie Bob said and carries on regardless in silence.

3) The poor fecking PPL like me who tries to follow CASA dictums that it is better to try and communicate than not.

....and all we get is condescending BS about making too much noise? Tell that to Holly Smith and the poor indian kid who died at YMMB.

[Aussie Bob]

Yes Sunny, an element of truth in what you say but you forget I am a career GA instructor well versed in teaching pilots to fly. Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t teach rapid speak. I do however discourage continuous dribble to an empty circuit.
I gather you are continuously guilty of the above, hogging bandwidth and unintentionally preventing others from having their say.

The observation that it is mostly private and RAA pilots running this commentary game is from direct experience conducting heaps of flight reviews with these folk. I am old enough not to give a rats ass about any of it, I am just saying how it is.

[triadic]

Sunfish, unfortunately Aussie bob is correct in that many pilots in the circuit area of rural airfields, in particular, just talk far too much. In making 6 or 8 calls around the circuit they are only jamming whatever frequency they are using for no other reason than to hear their own voice!

If you taxi out and make a call and nobody answers, perhaps it is wise to say no more unless someone else calls taxi or inbound. Perhaps only a downwind or base call is the only call that needs to be made around the circuit, unless it is determined that there may be a conflict. The answer to this is education which needs to start with the instructors many of whom teach this talkfest!

[Squawk7700]

There are minimum required calls for operating in the circuit and some flying schools in CTAF’s teach students to make 400% of them. Simply not necessary for your average airport !

[Icarus2001]

There are minimum required calls for operating in the circuit and some flying schools in CTAF’s teach students to make 400% of them.

Not even that.

[Aussie Bob]

As an aside to this and slightly off topic, I see two interesting trends happening, the first being the use of the word "midfield" as in XYZ joining midfield crosswind for runway 19. This is now so commonplace I hear it several times per day but a word search of the AIP brings up the word only twice in the entire 800 odd pages. Neither instance remotely relates to a radio call. Often the aircraft saying this are nowhere near the middle of the field either.

The other thing that is now commonplace is the acknowledgement of a transmission by a double key of the microphone. Once never heard, I hear this on an almost day to day regularity.

Again, I don't give a rats business, just saying what I hear and noting a developing trend.

[Lead Balloon]

Not even that.Correct.[T]he use of the word "midfield"..I think you'll find that this is a consequence of some people in CASA's preference for crosswind joins not to be over the upwind 'piano keys' like in the good old days. Their theory is that high performance aircraft can be at 1,000' AGL by the upwind end of a long runway on take off.

That's why the CAAP produced by the people with these opinions now has a picture (Figure 3) of an aircraft described as joining circuit "at (midfield) crosswind". However, that description is an inaccurate description of what the picture depicts and what the text says at paragraph 5.6.3: "somewhere between midfield and the departure end of the runway". What the people in CASA with strong opinions want you to actually do is join somewhere between the halfway point of the runway and the upwind end of the runway, but that's entered the folklore as "midfield".

All that said, wherever someone happens to be joining crosswind, if they have to blab about it all they should be saying is "joining crosswind".

Don't get me started on "joins" this and "joins" that and "joins" the other thing...

[LeadSled]

Sunfish, unfortunately Aussie bob is correct in that many pilots in the circuit area of rural airfields, in particular, just talk far too much. In making 6 or 8 calls around the circuit they are only jamming whatever frequency they are using for no other reason than to hear their own voice!


Folks,
----- they are using for no other reason than to hear their own voice!

Actually not so, they are just doing as they have been trained, or as demanded on their last check -- on pain of "failing" what was supposed to be a review, but has becomes a license renewal, and all too often a method of exploitation by certain organizations.
This is all about the "pingya" system, where legal compliance overrides everything else, but in particular supersedes what once was called "airmanship", or as I prefer, common sense.
If you make every call , every time, "they can't pingya".
Tootle pip!!

PS: One org. recently advised me that "CASA required/mandated a minimum of five hours dual before I could "attempt" a flight review".

[Pinky the pilot]

The poor feckng chinese or indian student who, despite having passed Cambridge level 3 English,

Well, the local airfield gets a fairly constant stream of the above quoted Nationality of students on some days and I wish that they all indeed did have Cambridge level 3 English, as I find most of them quite hard to understand! Some of them have very heavy accents. I will admit though to having over 800 hours in 'Bongo Vans' ( and 1400 or so in Pa-25s) which certainly has not helped!:}

Sorry Sunfish, but I tend to side with Aussie Bob in part. Some of these students will make up to four calls in just one circuit of the airfield.:hmm:

[kaz3g]

There are minimum required calls for operating in the circuit and some flying schools in CTAF’s teach students to make 400% of them. Simply not necessary for your average airport !

There are no minimum (mandated) required calls in the circuit at non-controlled aerodromes.

A pilot of an aircraft fitted with radio must maintain a listening watch...CAR 243

CAR 166C sets out when calls must be made. The most relevant para is:

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

(a) the name of the aerodrome;

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

(c) the position of the aircraft and the pilot's intentions

The rest of the CARs 166* are also instructive. CAAP 166 sets out the recommended calls.

Kaz

[Cloudee]

Well, the local airfield gets a fairly constant stream of the above quoted Nationality of students on some days and I wish that they all indeed did have Cambridge level 3 English, as I find most of them quite hard to understand! Some of them have very heavy accents. I will admit though to having over 800 hours in 'Bongo Vans' ( and 1400 or so in Pa-25s) which certainly has not helped!:}

Sorry Sunfish, but I tend to side with Aussie Bob in part. Some of these students will make up to four calls in just one circuit of the airfield.:hmm:
In South Australia the major training institution for foreign students is FTA. Their instructors are responsible for the saturation of the airways on 126.7 by their students. To hear three FTA aircraft trying to separate themselves coming in to Waikerie or Renmark is just a joke. “ I’m here,where are you” ,time after time. It’s their personal chat channel. The regulator does not seem in the least interested.

[Lead Balloon]

That's because, in Australia, more talk on the radio equals more safety.

[Pinky the pilot]

To hear three FTA aircraft trying to separate themselves coming in to Waikerie or Renmark is just a joke. “ I’m here,where are you” ,time after time. It’s their personal chat channel.

Em nau!:=:rolleyes::ugh:

I have experienced the above mentioned more than once. A Gliding Club Instructor (with no power experience) was once heard, upon hearing an exchange similar to the above quote to comment along the lines of....

"FFS you blokes! Try looking out of the cockpit and bloody well STFU!":mad:

For the record; That particular Gliding Instructor has well over 4,000 Gliding hours and regularly flew Gliders at this airfield back in the days of radio in very few gliders and there being a GA Flying School in residence. And the Gliders that had radio were limited to the Gliding frequencies.

[Lead Balloon]

STFU and look out the window? That's crazy talk.

[Capn Bloggs]

There are no minimum (mandated) required calls in the circuit at non-controlled aerodromes.
Can we please move away from this ridiculous nonsense about mandatory/recommended/not in AIP/I'm not saying a word/you talk too much bla bla bla

There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem. I just don't get why there is so much angst. As is the case with other aspects of the regs themselves, 166 is just a copout to hang some poor bugger, like the "you must lookout" stuff.

If anything, the yabberers are only complying with CAR 166, because they are announcing their position to a potentially unknown aircraft "anywhere" in the sky.

[Lead Balloon]

There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem.Could you cite the provision of AIP that neatly summarises the "set of calls" for use by radio-equipped VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of non-controlled (or whatever the term is this week) aerodromes in G?

And I should note that, even though I'm a dangerous LCD, I always make at least an inbound and joining call, and a taxiing and lining up/rolling call, as well as monitor Area, the nearest CTAF and 121.5 at all times. And I assume there will be no-radio or wrong-frequency aircraft in the vicinity.

If you could suspend your personal animosity to me for a moment, you would realise that part of the problem is the constant change and confusing piecemeal amendments to AIP. The "midfield" join issue highlighted above is a perfect example. When you look at the depiction of arrival paths for non-controlled aerodromes at AIP ENR 1.1-84, it still shows the crosswind arrival path over the upwind 'piano keys'.

When the people in CASA have a 'thought bubble' like: "Let's get everyone who's joining crosswind to do so somewhere between halfway down the runway and the upwind end of the runway", there's no holistic review of every relevant provision and depiction in AIP, CAAP and other reference material to make sure that all the depictions and texts are consistently amended so that there is no confusion about what is intended by the thought bubble. And there's never an adequate education campaign to highlight and reinforce the intent.

Your interpretation of CAR 166 is quite reasonable. It's one of the many regulations that create a paradox. The phrase "the risk of a collision" means everything and nothing. That's why some - including you - interpret it as mandating every call because none of us knows what we don't know.

[kaz3g]

And failing to make the call if there is “the risk of a collision” is a strict liability offence.

kaz

[Cloudee]

There is always some risk of collision unless you know you are the only aircraft in the sky (and that is not possible). There has to be a “reasonable test” when assessing the need to make a call.

[Capn Bloggs]

Cloudee, think about it. How are you going to find out if you are the only one in the sky? By looking around? Of course not. You establish the presence of others by making the 4 AIP calls (2 inbound, 2 outbound) and getting responses. That's it. Then, if a conflict exists, you make extra calls to resolve that conflict. That's it. This isn't hard.

Leadbalon, you're on my Ignore list, remember?

[Cloudee]

Cloudee, think about it. How are you going to find out if you are the only one in the sky? By looking around? Of course not. You establish the presence of others by making the 4 AIP calls (2 inbound, 2 outbound) and getting responses. That's it. Then, if a conflict exists, you make extra calls to resolve that conflict. That's it. This isn't hard.

Leadbalon, you're on my Ignore list, remember?
Well, looking doesn’t hurt! But I agree with what you are saying, and that’s my point, do what’s reasonable, not prattle on unnecessarily.

[ferris]

The FAA advises pilots to self-announce (even when operating VFR) position regularly "when operating in VFR practice areas, VFR routes established for air tour operations, and high-volume traffic environments". Source: Advisory Circular AC 90-48D, 4.6.6
It also mentions that there were 42 mid air collisions in the USA in the 5 years 2009-2014.

[Lead Balloon]

when operating in VFR practice areas, VFR routes established for air tour operations, and high-volume traffic environmentsIs anyone arguing against the use of radio in those situations?

I’d merely observe that when it is prudent to make a call, it would be better (and safer) if it were concise and standard. I’ve made this plea before: Please note everyone stooging around VFR that you are allowed to say this:

“Kickatinalong traffic, Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie is one two miles South, inbound at three thousand five hundred, circuit area at one seven, Kickatinalong.”

..instead of this:

“Kickatinalong traffic this is Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie. I’m currently one two nautical miles South of the field, inbound at three thousand five hundred feet and estimating the circuit area at seventeen minutes past the hour, Kickatinalong traffic.”

The first version conveys exactly the same information as the second, without clogging up the airwaves for as long.

[triadic]

or even:

“Kickatinalong traffic, Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie is one two miles South, inbound at three thousand five hundred, circuit area at one seven, Kickatinalong.”

About a decade ago, the use of link words was discussed at length, but the entrenched culture and pilot speak likes to include same. They add nothing to the equation

Keep it simple and minimal and the the point.

Remember back in 1997 they increased the read-backs significantly - Link words were discouraged in that change, but never surfaced in the education.

[Lead Balloon]

Even better!

[kaz3g]

Can we please move away from this ridiculous nonsense about mandatory/recommended/not in AIP/I'm not saying a word/you talk too much bla bla bla

There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem. I just don't get why there is so much angst. As is the case with other aspects of the regs themselves, 166 is just a copout to hang some poor bugger, like the "you must lookout" stuff.

If anything, the yabberers are only complying with CAR 166, because they are announcing their position to a potentially unknown aircraft "anywhere" in the sky.


No Bloggs. What is ridiculous is the ongoing confusion over what calls are required at non-towered aerodromes and where and when they should be made. It’s not helped by people perpetuating myths.

Omitting calls likely to add to safety is just as bad as making too many of them. CASA’s CAR 166 is a cop out, especially when pilots are in the vicinity of Reg and Cert aerodromes with attendant high traffic. They need to bite the bullet and require a minimum number of calls rather than making suggestions which is all the AIP and CAAP do.

As my RAPAC rep says...”it’s a bit of an anomaly”....Isn’t it?

kaz

[Sunfish]

CASA wishes to have its cake and eat it too. Hence the refusal to make hard and fast rules about calls and the inclusion of the word “reasonably” in the CAR, that is obvious. it preserves CASAS right to prosecute if they feel like it in the event of an incident and the pilot doesn’t have a defence of making a set of mandatory calls. ahence the only rational response by a pilot fearful of becoming a felon is to make all possible calls.

the classic setup for such a prosecution would be a near miss between a turboprop RPT aircraft and a C172 at broken hill.

[CaptainMidnight]

So the current requirements provide some flexibility with reliance on common sense, but instead the requirements should be black & white covering all specific scenarios?

[Lead Balloon]

Kaz

CM will soon point out - correctly - that the current CAR 166 and AIP provisions do not mandate broadcasts for VFR aircraft in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes in G, precisely to enable individual pilots to make their own judgment as to when and where to broadcast what. That outcome is not a coincidence. It is the result of concerted lobbying.

The best way to achieve improvement is education, not more regulation.

The self-serving, incompetent bureaucracies that are CASA and Airservices aren’t going to achieve anything coherent or useful in the near future. Best for folks in the real world to do their best to educate.

[Aussie Bob]

Best for folks in the real world to do their best to educate.

LB I have tried this and it doesn’t work. Here is Sunnies reaction to my assertion that it is Private and RAA pilots who are the biggest chatterboxes in the circuit.

Speaking as a PPL, you can go and get (censored). He did however go on to make some valid points and I respect his post :)

Giving the running circuit commentary absolves folk who are not practiced with the radio and are totally engrossed with aviating from listening. Instead of listening, they continuously broadcast. In fact, apart from hogging bandwidth this works reasonably well. My guess is it is here to stay and who am I to argue. I have tried and lost. The two RAA schools in my vicinity teach running commentaries from scratch thus making a habit that is all but impossible to change by the time the student gets a certificate.

The battle is lost, circuit commentary is here to stay.

[mullokintyre]

Well, while we are on the logging of the airways, its not just the PPL and RAA guys who are at fault.
At YSHT we regularly have IFR training pilots conducting NDB training who announce that they are tracking on the inbound radial, will conduct a missed approach and climb to XXX feet on the outbound radial. Makes no sense to the lowly PPL RAA guys. Does it convey much to the trainees and newbees in the circuit?? Not much.
Most PPL/RAA types don't carry plates with them, and wouldn't know how to read them anyway.
​​​​​​Its talking because thats what they are supposed to say.
Mick

[Lead Balloon]

Mull: Trainees and newbies in the circuit may not be the only people in the vicinity. The fact that you may not hear anyone respond to the IFR broadcasts does not mean nobody’s benefitting from them.

Aussie: That’s truly sad. Be that as it may, I do not think a return to mandated calls is a step in the right direction. Every poorly thought out and poorly educated change in recent times has usually produced more diversity in understandings and operational approaches. The ‘running commentary’ crowd will just keep on commentating and others will start making calls that they otherwise would have judged unnecessary in particular circumstances.

[Sunfish]

This whole debate begs the question of the lack of leadership by CASA in safety critical regulation. CAR 166 is a wishy washy rule designed to allow CASA to prosecute and insure a pilot has no defence - that is the purpose of the “reasonably’ BS. Either make certain calls mandatory and leave the rest as voluntary (with no possibility of penalties) or make all calls voluntary - again no penalties.

The current system requires verbal diarrhoea as well as responses to prove you were listening as required by law.

[CaptainMidnight]

At YSHT we regularly have IFR training pilots conducting NDB training who announce that they are tracking on the inbound radial, will conduct a missed approach and climb to XXX feet on the outbound radial. Makes no sense to the lowly PPL RAA guys. Does it convey much to the trainees and newbees in the circuit?? Not much.

Most PPL/RAA types don't carry plates with them, and wouldn't know how to read them anyway..
Mick
One would think the RAA instructors would have briefed their students at a very early stage of training about the area, obstacles, geo features etc.etc. AND the existence of IFR instrument approaches.

That is, provide their students with a basic overview of what the approaches are about, and in particular which direction the aircraft will appear from and head to on a missed approach etc. Those students will of course be mixing it with other aircraft including RPT at other fields in the future, including some doing instrument approaches, so the education would be worthwhile.

[MagnumPI]

Aussie Bob, for what it's worth where I learnt to fly and am still a flying member of the aero club students are taught the importance of brevity on the airwaves and only making necessary calls. There is also a note in ERSA reminding visitors of this and that the only recommended call is when turning base.

I'm not sure if (as a flying school) we are unusual in this regard or even 'old school' but, like you, I have observed many, many pilots both 'at home' and at other airfields around the traps blathering on. Particularly RAA and glider pilots!

Also, I can't help but think that many younger pilots (like myself) are watching plenty of flying videos on YouTube from American pilots. Most yanks seem to love giving a call for ever leg of the circuit it would seem, and I wonder if people are watching this and thinking this is the best way to do things.

[Squawk7700]

Most yanks seem to love giving a call for ever leg of the circuit it would seem, and I wonder if people are watching this and thinking this is the best way to do things.

There’s a noticeable trend on YouTube where the yanks don’t use their callsign, they often just say the aircraft type.

[mullokintyre]

One would think the RAA instructors would have briefed their students at a very early stage of training about the area, obstacles, geo features etc.etc. AND the existence of IFR instrument approaches.

That is, provide their students with a basic overview of what the approaches are about, and in particular which direction the aircraft will appear from and head to on a missed approach etc. Those students will of course be mixing it with other aircraft including RPT at other fields in the future, including some doing instrument approaches, so the education would be worthwhile.

Most RAA Instructors would not have a clue about what IFR guys do, nor their approaches.
A student pilot has enough learning to do without having to learn about IFR approaches.
An RAA or student RPL should not be out practicing in IFR weather, but for some reason, the most likely time an IFR student is doing NDB work is on a clear blue sky day.
And in the vast majority of cases, at least at YSHT, it is the instructor doing the radio calls. The IFR students are generally silent.
Mick

[Cloudee]

From CAAP 166:

4.7 Practice instrument approaches
4.7.1 Pilots who wish to conduct practice instrument approaches in VMC should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the circuit, so as to avoid impeding the flow of traffic. Pilots flying IFR should give position reports in plain English so as to be easily understood by VFR pilots, who generally have no knowledge of IFR approach points or procedures. In general, positions should include altitude, distance and direction from the aerodrome. Including details such as the outbound/inbound legs of an instrument approach, or area navigation fixes, will generally be of little assistance to VFR pilots in establishing situational awareness.

[CaptainMidnight]

Most RAA Instructors would not have a clue about what IFR guys do, nor their approaches.
A student pilot has enough learning to do without having to learn about IFR approaches.

I'm aware of RAA instructors who do, and do what I said. Clearly your local ones don't.

but for some reason, the most likely time an IFR student is doing NDB work is on a clear blue sky day.So given YSHT usual blue sky weather, they should go somewhere else to practice? Or call off IFR training until winter? Practice under the hood is standard procedure.

Cloudee: agree, that is what should be happening and the instructor should know that.