The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

ctaf procedures

Old 2nd Jul 2008, 01:39
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Up here
Posts: 29
Bloggs I understood that Dick Smith wanted a straight copy of the US system which works well, but the regional airline pilots wanted so many changes made it no longer resembles any system at all.
Clarie is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2008, 02:05
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
James,

You seem to have come off whatever you were on yesterday I enjoyed your tiff with Puff.

aircraft travel at very different speeds and CTAF very different traffic volumes and types.

The 'one size fits all' CTAF hardly fits the variation.
For exactly that reason "about 10nm" doesn't fit either. It would be a simple matter to make a call 5 minutes before entry into an ATZ as Mark puts it, and in any case once you are in it then you use that freq. The old rules of 5nm/3000ft and 15nm/5000ft worked well. Simple, and everybody knew exactly what to yabba dabba on.

if the unique Australian CTAF R and Transponders in E were world's best practice - the world would be following us. They are not.
Who said they were and who said the world had to follow us? Who said we had to follow the world? Will we follow world's best practice and allow handguns in the home? You may think looking out the window of your jet dodging no-radio lighties is fun. I don't.

Clarie,
Dick Smith wanted a straight copy of the US system
Yes, he did, but without the radar, the Flight Service Units and the Follow Me girls. Fly about in the bush sometime - it's a bit different here.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2008, 05:38
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 590
Bloggs

He twaddled once too often!! But, I do have high regard for his logic in most cases and it was a bit of fun.

I think if you re-read your last you are circular to a point. My reading of the NAS is that the 10 Nm is recommended BUT the critical point is to remove distance boundaries as a fixed trigger and insert logical radio change or listen steps depending on speed and CTAF operations.

ANY distance boundary fails to differentiate between the time left to arrival of the Tiger Moth and the Dash 8 (which has landed, disgorged, engorged, and departed between the TM call at 10 Nm and its landing )

CTAF R and E TXPDR are in a climate where Australia claims to adopt world's best practice. We don't for cultural reasons. As far as 'no radio' lighties goes, it's CASA again that is the hurdle - the Microair radio that works well in Jabirus etc is type limited and not TSO in GA aircraft to my knowledge. I believe there is NO - repeat NO - reason for non-radio aircraft these days, even if it's an Icom handheld with an external aerial (again, not acceptable to CASA). Too much prescription and adherence to CASA mindsets of the days when crystal sets were the airline communications and transponders had to be warmed up to stabilise the (now defunct) crystal oscillator.

Guns - not world's best practice so I disagree re that. Nor are aspects of the NAS - calling intentions on final is too late and, since you mention flying in the bush, my own experience is that (fortunately) the top of descent call by VFR is still used by most as an extra alert as well as the NAS approach.

Looking out the window dodging no-radio lighties cannot be fun. Nor is dodging a Metro coming at a student pilot who is conducting a landing on the most into wind runway, not a SAAB 340 trying to push a student on first solo NAVEX out of place in the circuit position to save time and avtur.
My point being that my own investigations disclose that behavioural and safety problems are right ACROSS the span of pilots and it's time this RPT/GA cultural crud was put to bed and matters examined on human factors and safety case basis.

Steps down off pulpit
james michael is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2008, 06:04
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 19
For some, the migration to "lighties" (sounds like... mmm nevermind) is not so much a cost thing as a sea change kind of thing. One airline pilot put it that after listening to a damn headset all week, he craved the uninterupted(no radio) freedom of UL flight on the weekends. Taking that freedom away is a bit much IMO. Personaly (never having had the airline experience above) I get right into the radio stuff. But horses 4 coarses.
antzx6r is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2008, 14:36
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 391
Departure calls are extremely useful where there is significant terrain shielding - YSHR is a classic example - taxi calls cannot be heard by aircraft inbound from certain directions, inbound calls from aircraft arriving from certain directions cannot be heard by taxiing aircraft.

Confusion on which rule applies - there should be none. Anything in the CAR's is a legal requirement. Nothing in the AIP is a legal requirement unless specific provision has been made for it to be a legal requirement in the CAR's.

As far as I am aware, the the only calls legally required to made by a non rpt aircraft are: inbound to a CTAF(R), inbound intending to make a straight in approach, prior to entering a runway at a CTAF(R), and in the vicinity of of a CTAF(R). In the vicinity of an aerodrome is specified in the CARs as 10nm and at a height that could result in conflict with aerodrome traffic. The above are what the CAR's legally require. Any other calls are only "recommended" by the AIP - such as taxiing, turning in or entering the circuit, 3nm and 1nm.

Likewise the requirement for turning crosswind - the only legal requirement that I am aware of is the requirement to climb to 500 feet above ground level unless you require to turn earlier for terrain avoidance or are taking off from water (seaplanes have an exemption). The climb to within 300 feet of circuit height is only "recommended" by the AIP.

Before I get flamed, I am not suggesting to ignore recommended procedures just because they cannot legally be enforced. However there are numerous occasions where the safest option does not include complying the the recommended procedure. Choosing when to follow and when not to follow recommended procedures is command judgment. Recognizing that a pilot may do so is essential for safe aviation rather than blindly following 'recommended' procedures.

JM to the last post

PS I am happy to be corrected on legalities - references to Regs to be included please.
werbil is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2008, 14:57
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
he craved the uninterupted(no radio) freedom of UL flight on the weekends.
I didn't know Dick flew airliners.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2008, 15:45
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
So, how is my straight in approach?
straight in approach

im PIC, pax took vid, and no, the comments on the screen arnt the actual radio calls, just to let people know where to make them.

i wonder if it would be worthwhile taking video footage with radio calls, and making a series of short educationamal videos for ops at a CTAF?
Ultralights is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2008, 20:10
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 590
UL

Looked good, can we have some of your wx please

A video could be good. Trouble is, like safety seminars, the good people watch or attend - the ones who need it - don't!

But my research shows that the NAS 2C CTAF changes is acknowledged as an example of an extremely poorly done education process. When CASA and DOTARS revisit the education, perhaps a DVD will be in the pack.

Werbil

I'm with you. Establish minimal safe mandatory procedures and allow pilots to exercise discretion in the recommended ones. Problem with CASA is that they regulate each flight from your sleeping tablet the night before to your maintenance release after landing with so many rules and regulations that if the average flight was a camping trip in your 4WD you'd just give it away and walk to the pub.

There must be rules and regulations but at some point there needs to be emphasis on the PIC acting safely from go to whoa of own volition backed up by simple commonsense guides. If you get to a busy CTAF with training it's laughable to have to try and get a call in between the multiple NAS calls when you know quite well you are number 4 and can see the guy in front anyway.
james michael is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 00:41
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Clarie, you stated:

Bloggs I understood that Dick Smith wanted a straight copy of the US system which works well, but the regional airline pilots wanted so many changes made it no longer resembles any system at all.
You are 100% correct. The fascinating thing is that the regional airline pilots who wanted the change had absolutely no interest in finding out how the system worked in the USA – the country which invented aviation.

The current mixture of prescription and non-prescription is a disaster. The plan was to make the whole process simple and standardised to get greater compliance – as undoubtedly happens in the USA. What we now have is something more complex and more confusing. Whereas regional airline pilots may be able to follow the complex prescription, many private pilots would not be able to.

These regional airline pilots are not flying around in Australian built aircraft, they are in modern certified aircraft from other leading aviation countries. What they have developed with the CTAF procedures is a classic “Nomad” – a mixture of so many different systems and features that the whole procedure is confusing and less safe.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 01:00
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 19
Well put werbil. I was not actually aware of the distinction between CARs and AIP. Maybe more of this(distinctions) needs to be added to RAA's BAK theory. Although, I don't actually remember reading it in my Aviation Theory Centre BAK and Flying Training Manual either... I could be wrong tho. So don't blast me, i'll go home and check that out.
I was taught to make manditory calls (+ a few extras for traffic) and told which to make for safety sake and what height to climb to as a minimum(CARs). When I asked about 700 agl I was told "just to make sure of being at cct height for downwind, so I can't shoot my instructor just yet. (He could have expanded and told me where he based that rule tho)
But it makes sense. If ur in the middle of nowhere at a bush strip, you've been flying around the area all day and there is no-one else in the air. It is kind of stupid to make all those calls to the roos(just in case one is getting ready to line up) but for safety sake minimum heights etc are a must (obviously). And on the flip side, at a busy CTAF(R) it's irresponsible, not to mention down right dangerous, to cruise in making only a 10nm inbound because thats the only "requirement" in CARs. We are pilots. Decision making is our main job in the air, so decide. And stop blasting peole that don't decide as you do. Put it down to experience.
As a rider I learned pretty quick that not everyone is so good at using mirrors and blinkers. I can get agro about it and keep doing things my way(and not live very long), or I can take that into consideration and expect everyone on the road has tunnel vision and is out to knock me down and just ride around them. Keep them in my revision mirror. So aviation is ahead as this goes, because as a rider I need to bend some laws in order to be safe. (I've done it in front of cops - they know, or most do) We don't need to bend any laws in aviation. We keep the minimums and fly for a safer standard using AIP. ie. extend the upwind to keep a safer cct, make some extra calls for others safety if the cct is busy. Not so others can see how professional you are, no-one gives a St.
OK that'll do. Feel the love people. Fly safe.

ps. I never actually mentioned Dick but on the subject I think he has the right idea and CASA only took on a small portion of his sugestions thus muddying the waters even more. Its easy to pick a scapegoat.

pps.
USA – the country which invented aviation.
That's if you don't believe that NZ bloke did it first???

Ant
antzx6r is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 01:46
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
Dick,

The fascinating thing is that the regional airline pilots who wanted the change had absolutely no interest in finding out how the system worked in the USA – the country which invented aviation.
Using your own words, CODSWALLOP. RBA went, observed, then wrote a long speil about how things ARE NOT ICAO in the USA (aviation invented there - spare me - so what?). They are the same clowns that just allowed everybody to carry handguns.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 02:04
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 19
Granted, they're an agressive nation and they've taken way too long to get rid of guns and racism. But their history relates to finding out what works best for all and aside from the corruption bread by greed and the violent way to get results they do have a long(ish) history to learn from. We souldn't just ignore it because we don't like the colour of their patriotism.
antzx6r is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 03:12
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast
Age: 54
Posts: 37
Hello All

The 10nm is not RECOMENDED, it is in fact in the CAR's.

In the vicinity of an aerodrome is defined as 10nm

CAR 166, makes some interesting reading, like it specificaly lists the areas where you can join a circuit.

25 Penalty units

I am a bit surprised that some of you gurus didn't know this !!
EMB120ER is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 05:02
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
US airspace model last time I checked US stood for Unserviceable
Thermal Bandit is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 05:04
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
EMB120ER, the 25 penalty units ($2,750) means that if a cropduster at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere joins straight onto base, or joins on a final of less than 5 nautical miles, he or she is up for that fine.

Of course, CASA inspectors ignore it – that’s why they have so little credibility. I don’t blame the inspectors. Imagine working for an organisation that brings in unique prescriptive requirements with substantive fines (because that’s what a few uninformed and closed minded regional pilots want), knowing that they have absolutely no intention of enforcing them.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 06:41
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
Dick,
that’s what a few uninformed and closed minded regional pilots want
Not quite. The problem is that you wanted no radio, no rules, "free in G" everywhere, even when the airport was frequented by RPT jets.

Keep the spin coming, son.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 08:19
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,881
It would be near impossible to enforce given electronics, radio waves, over-transmitting etc. The penalty units system is a load of crap and I'd love to see them try to hit the every day flyer who has the money to fight it for not making a 10 mile call.
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 09:36
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 590
EMB

I'll stand behind my earlier comment re 'recommended'.

If you read the NAS 2C SGM 10/05, and AIP ENR Page 1.4-6, specifically 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, and consider CAR 166 defines 'in the vicinity of' rather than recommended procedures, I think you will agree:
1. A pilot operating by the NAS2C material or AIP could claim to have operated legally under appropriate guidance.
2. The calls are recommended - for high speed at 30 Nm not 10 Nm.
3. CAR 166 would not hold up as a penalty point provider, particularly as the NAS2C material defines the CTAF as a procedure not a dimension.

There's even a let out in the AIP where operational considerations prevent calls.

Too much prescription and the CAR 166 unable to cope with reality.

Re comments of others about the USA. The USA NAS is now probably as old as the Harvard and that's tired, out of date, and needing lots of care. After my recent ride in a Jeep, I don't hold the USA up as excellent in any way. Perhaps WE need to define our airspace and procedures to suit OUR country which is entirely different to the USA. (sorry Dick)

Wonder what the Toyota definitions of airspace could bring us
james michael is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 12:29
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 47
Posts: 91
now there is so much #rap about frequency selection it is rediculous.. the old CTAF/MBZ was pretty straight fwd I reckon..

just imagine the sudden urge to land your chopper with a rapid decent from 4500 for whatever reason, mechanical, pax or other, at 15 mile from the local RPT/GA?flight training location.

Should I be on the discreet CTAF (R) (not 10 mile yet)??, area ( im VFR and thats not encouraged)??, 126.70 because its now "all other landing area's"?? (well who else is aware that the paddock is now a landing area) ?? or just say nothing cause its too hard.. (all thats required VFR).

Busy area, put a boundry around it and get people to talk to each other.. if it does nothing why do we insist on CTAF(R) and even CAGRO ?

Check out some of the big and busy areas in the country.. all the local operators stick to what was essentially the old MBZ procedures up to either 5 or 10000 anyway cause it works.....
xxgoldxx is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2008, 13:03
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast
Age: 54
Posts: 37
HI james

I just spent 45 minutes typing out a reply with lots of quotes and tech stuff, but PPRuNe glitched on me and its off in cyber space some where.

Sufice to say, I really appreciate your good attitude toward knowing whats where in the pubs. Very rare nowdays.

But I don't agree with all of your thinking about following the AIP as if they are rules, as they are not and nor are thay the only set of (CASA approved) procedures in use at many CTAFs.

Dick
I don't belive that you have any right to be judging credability.
EMB120ER is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.