Nhulunbuy CTAF

[Dick Smith]

Can anyone explain how a pilot operates IFR in the Nhulunbuy CTAF? It is an area of 150 miles x 150 miles (i.e. 22,500 square miles) to 10,000’.

It appears that no directed traffic service is given to IFR aircraft if flying to the Aboriginal communities, however a directed traffic service is given if you are flying enroute through the airspace – work that one out.

It appears that some type of deal was done between Airservices and CASA and because the pilots and air traffic controllers are happy, no safety case has been completed.

There has also been no educational material on how to operate on this airspace. Does anyone know the procedure?

Also does anyone know why this issue has not been beaten up like just about every other airspace change has been in the last 12 years? I think I know the reason but I will let others decide.

[compressor stall]

This and the other Tasmania sized CTAF in the Kimberley are a direct product of Airservices cost cutting approach.

When the new linked frequencies appeared with the demise of Flight Service, suddenly it was too much radio chatter of VFR scum clogging the airwaves of the linked channels, and more controllers were being reuired to run the frequencies that were required to be separate due to the volume of traffic.

To quote one Airservices representative when pressed on the volume of Bungle Bungle traffic on the linked frequencies, he replied "We had no idea all that traffic was out there." :rolleyes:

So...they created a CTAF the seemingly the size of Tassie and pissed it all off. Out of sight out of mind. If its outisde the J curve, Canberra does not care.

It boils down to $$.

Not to mention that brief proposal to phase out HF....that died a quick death...

[ITCZ]

I remember my CP at AirNorth calling me in to a meeting with the AsA airspace rep that had come up from YSCB to discuss the 'big CTAF' proposals that would affect Arnhemland ports.

I was introduced as "here is our Metroliner fleet captain, he should be good to talk to about the airspace proposals. His team operates into MGD, MGB and ELD, and he also has about 2000 hrs of single engine flying in that part of the world. Should be useful input"

I listened to his proposals, told him the bits that I liked about it, got agreement that I understood what he was trying to achieve within cost and operational constraints, weighed it all up and gave him some scenarios. I suggested that the carve up into 3 big CTAFs would pose particular difficulties for the VFR single pilot, and also for the turbine RPT boys that would be bombing in on his airspace. I pointed out that the proposal as it stood had the pilot working three operational frequencies, when the best equipped aircraft only had two Comms. I pointed out that the proposed big CTAF boundaries did not take into account the traffic patterns between the communities (based on language groups of the customers) nor how which smaller communities generated traffic to the larger centres (Milingimbi is closer to MGD, but MGB folk are at the western end of their language group and outstations and travel more to Gove than to MGD, stuff like that). I offered some solutions, and offered to make myself available for further discussions if that was of any help.

The poor man lost all his enthusiasm for meeting 'an Arnhemland expert[!]" Instead he wore an expression similar to that of a teenager with a fresh drivers license that has just been told that he can't use Daddy's BMW. That Canberra technocrat really believed in his airspace model, and seemed most disappointed that I didn't endorse it wholeheartedly.

I still have his card in my file, right here. Never heard from him after that.

That was a few years ago now. I am not surprised that current operators are not happy with the Arnhemland CTAFs.

[Wizofoz]

Seems to me it all harks back to the demise of remote AFISs, a system that worked very well.

Something to do with "Afordable Safety", now who was it who espoused that?

[Blue Sky Baron]

:mad:
Wiz, you took the words right out of my mouth!

[Niles Crane]

This is how I believe this airspace came about:

The pollies in Canberra wanted to have "Airspace Reform" because someone had convinced them that the TAAATS system was the way of the future. TAAATS did not and was never intended to cover all of the airspace and definately not the low level weeds.

The first thing to go in this reform was Flight Service!

After that happened, everyone realised that TAAATS could not cope. Even after being told by AsA and operators.

That was alright except operators outside the J-Curve where having a hard time operating due to the amount of radio traffic.

About this time Llamp was at a stage where the design was getting to the detail. Llamp was looking at DAF's which where basically big CTAF's.

It was descided by NT Rapac to go down this path and consultation began with Airservices, Airnorth, MAF and other operators in the various areas (NT and WA-Kimberley).

The first Big CTAFS appeared and stayed for a number of months, than a revue happened and changes where made to make them more efficient and ultimately Safer for all.

The outcome of this airspace and why all the operators who use the airspace like it is: all aircraft are on the same frequency, situational awareness is improved for all.

These areas have large volumes of COMMERCIAL VFR traffic and very little IFR traffic. Also in Arnham Land there are 3 big CTAF's and in that area there are over 80 airports used on a weekly if not daily basis.

One of the reasons this airspace works so well is because these small airports are close to MBZ's and CTAF's everyone is already on the same frequency, no change of frequency at 15nm, no missed traffic and everyone uses the radio as they should ie, "allerted see and avoid".

As for a safety case, they are existing CTAF procedures, the only difference is the size, so existing CTAF procedures apply.

Putting this down as AsA bashing is ludicrious, they are just the provider of services and had to pick up the mess made by others.

Also some will say the airspace is "Unique to Australia" so therefore should be dropped. Well the operations in these areas are Unique to Australia and the airspace is also very similar if not identical to the proposed European Airspace where they will have ultimately only 2 types of airspace, Known and Unkown. Known will be CTA and the big CTAF, Europe will call it Unknown.

So Australia once again are actually leaders in the field.

[CaptainMidnight]

Dick

By the Airservices bashing in this thread and the other, one can only think it has come about as a result of your (rumoured) bunfight with fellow ARG members. The gloves must be off.

CTAFs & MBZs are declared by CASA, not Airservices. The Industry and/or AA can recommend them, but as the safety regulator CASA is responsible for assessing the proposals, and ultimately making them happen legally. If you perceive a safety issue with them then that is a matter for CASA, not AA.

And Niles, you are spot on.

[Richo]

Hello Dick

I was at the time of the implementation of the East Arnhem CTAF, a member of the NT RAPAC. All proposals and decisions about the CTAF are available in the NT RAPAC minutes.

I am reading your post as more Toung in Cheek than as a legitamate question, but please correct me if I am wrong. I see you asking about items which you yourself support and propose in the YOUR NAS airspace model.

The idea which became the big CTAF model was constructed by AsA after requests/complaints from the major operator in this area (MAF Gove). It related specificaly to the number of small aerodromes in a small area and the number of radio calls made on the centre low freq. The centre freq in this area is very large and is commonly combined with upper centre freq covering much of north Qland and the NT. In order to reduce the clutter on the radio the big CTAF was envisaged.

It did not happen overnight and was as the result of consultation. It was also not unanoumously aggreed to by all operators and NT RAPAC members. But it was accepted.

Operating in this airspace requires a small change in normal procedures and it is radio use and change heavy, especialy if operating higher perfomance aircraft. It does however seem to work out, but only because of the LOW number of aircraft which use it and the fact that most are familiar and experianced in the area.

To my knowledge there was no pilot training information widely distributed, but each company in the area did receive a package and some briefings from AsA and RAPAC about it. There is no change to the AIP procedures for operating in this area.

Personaly I belive that it works ONLY because of the LOW number of movements and transiting aircraft that use it. I firmly belive that it would not work in high density/large town areas down south.

Richo

[NAPAC Convenor]

I think that Richo has covered most of it, but as NAPAC Convenor when these big CTAFs were proposed and party to a special RAPAC meeting in DRW to discuss their introduction I would like to make some comment.

Firstly the demand to introduce some workable arrangements came from industry. The withdrawal of FS and the "taking over" of uncontrolled airspace by ATC using TAAATS brought about some changes which were quite untenable and of significant safety concerns. Low level congestion was significant and often high level traffic (in CTA) could not get a word in for the low level traffic that often the controller could not hear. The controller was often overtransmitted by the same low level traffic when making instructions etc to high level traffic. The whole lot was totally untenable.

The use of retransmission by ATC was significantly different to how it was used by FS insofar as even greater areas were linked together. This brought about quite unnecessary frequency congestion to both low and high level traffic. The frequency grouping control within the TAAATS consol was very different to what FS had and it was not designed to do the FS job or with the same degree of operator flexibility I am told.

Remember that TAAATS was NEVER intended to provide a FS type function in non-controlled airspace.

Very simply the Big CTAFs were an urgent fix as a stop gap answer to a problem that could not be solved at the time within the TAAATS environment.

There was some concern at the time that the BCTAFs would become a de-facto NAS which was never the aim. The difference is a fine line, but they seem to have worked ok. Certainly if there had been any significant problems or incidents we would have heard about them by now. As to procedures and education, the BCTAFs were a simple extension of the normal CTAF procedures so there was no need for specific procedures or any extensive education. If only all changes could be kept so simple?

Part of the problems outlined in this and the other post by Dick is also the result of an urgent need to conduct a review of the sectorization from the time the dust settled on the introduction of TAAATS. This was placed on hold for some time, pending the result of LLAMP and now NAS. I do understand that AsA are now conducting a review of the sectorization which if done in an open and practical manner should see significant efficiencies = cost savings. They certainly need to think outside the square.

The RAPACs have all been briefed on the present situation and what is planned. The overall lack of information from the NAS group is of some concern and is not I believe the way to conduct airspace reform. I am not directly involved any longer, so please talk to your local RAPAC Convenor.

Cheers
Doug Stott
NAPAC Convenor 1983-2001

[Captain Custard]

Is this guy the real Dick, the same one in the CASA/Toller thread beating up on industry experts?

Perhaps we are being had by DS here. Why on earth would he care about the apparent lack of DTI/suspect implementation of the big CTAFs, or is he just fishing to find some answers he can throw back in our faces to further justify the NAS/removal of all services below FL245 because TARTS can't handle them?

[Bill Pike]

Capt Custard,

When you say

"..or is he just fishing to find some answers he can throw back in our faces to further justify the NAS/removal of all services below FL245.."

Are you saying that ppruners shpould not acquaint DS with the truth because the truth does not serve the purposes of some?

[RaTa]

Hey Pikey are you the real William?:p