Ctaf 126.7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ctaf 126.7
Up here in the Top End (Darwin to be precise) there is a strange phenomina. It's called' Once out of darwin controlled airspace lets transmit our intentions to everyone that is listening on 126.7. that way if we do have any kind of problem it won't be recorded on any area frequency and no one will know where we have gone down. This affliction was mainly related to Private pilots but it seems that they have moved into commercial ops.
Not only is this tying up the frequency but people are over transmitting each other and you could miss a valuable call in reference to you arrival/departure into a genuine CTAF AERODROME.
Biggest culprits are those blokes up near Pearl and and the old flying school. To give an example to those not from around here, there is anywhere from 20-40 ALA's up here that use 126.7. From Port keats across to Ngukurr and anywhere inbetween.
One day there will be an incident/accident due to this......
C. - Common
T. - TERMINAL
A. - Area/Aerodrome
F. - Frequency
Not only is this tying up the frequency but people are over transmitting each other and you could miss a valuable call in reference to you arrival/departure into a genuine CTAF AERODROME.
Biggest culprits are those blokes up near Pearl and and the old flying school. To give an example to those not from around here, there is anywhere from 20-40 ALA's up here that use 126.7. From Port keats across to Ngukurr and anywhere inbetween.
One day there will be an incident/accident due to this......
C. - Common
T. - TERMINAL
A. - Area/Aerodrome
F. - Frequency
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NT RAPAC June 2007 - still unresolved with CASA
Ron Lawford, Convenor, reiterated to members the issue regarding Northern Territory’s Big CTAFs. He explained industry has no problem with the lateral dimensions currently in place for the five large CTAFs however, they request an upper level of 10,000 feet be applied. In addition a separate frequency, other than the area frequency or 126.7, should be allocated to each of the large CTAFs.
Adrian Smith, MAF, gave further support for the large CTAF proposal by advising the frequency congestion experienced in those areas is a safety concern. He explained in one area alone there are 24 landing sites within a 50NM radius, all operating on the same frequency.
Members believe there is a lack of understanding from the regulator regarding the amount of traffic operating in the area and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Ron Lawford, Convenor, reiterated to members the issue regarding Northern Territory’s Big CTAFs. He explained industry has no problem with the lateral dimensions currently in place for the five large CTAFs however, they request an upper level of 10,000 feet be applied. In addition a separate frequency, other than the area frequency or 126.7, should be allocated to each of the large CTAFs.
Adrian Smith, MAF, gave further support for the large CTAF proposal by advising the frequency congestion experienced in those areas is a safety concern. He explained in one area alone there are 24 landing sites within a 50NM radius, all operating on the same frequency.
Members believe there is a lack of understanding from the regulator regarding the amount of traffic operating in the area and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the circling area or on the PAPI
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C. - Common
T. - TERMINAL
A. - Area/Aerodrome
F. - Frequency
T. - TERMINAL
A. - Area/Aerodrome
F. - Frequency
Common Traffic Advisory Frequency
Quick cross check of AIP & VFG seem to confirm above too
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: too far away from home
Age: 38
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I work in northern WA happens the same. It may be sometimes annoying, but from the other side if you have short sectors and/or many airstrips close each other it is also useful to listen to the traffic inbound/outbound the nearby strip. Where else would you like to transmit, on the already busy FIA frequency?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand the short sectors between ALA's but not, for example what I heard recently. ' Traffic to the east of Darwin XXX is a Cessna C210 we're 35nm east of Darwin tracking for Elcho Is (At least 2hrs away) maintaining 5000ft'.
But the best one was an IFR C404 40nm south of Darwin broadcasting where he was and that he was going to Port Keats on 126.7. Is that logical?
If you are flying as you say, between short sectors that have the same freq 126.7 do you really need someone tying up that frequency by telling you that he is going to an ALA 2-4hrs away in a totally different direction/departure point?
Anyone up here when out flying have a listen. Busiest time 8am most mornings you can here all this happening. The MAF guys out in East Arnhem have switched to doing it on the Area freq and have no complaints from Centre and do not clog it up.
But the best one was an IFR C404 40nm south of Darwin broadcasting where he was and that he was going to Port Keats on 126.7. Is that logical?
If you are flying as you say, between short sectors that have the same freq 126.7 do you really need someone tying up that frequency by telling you that he is going to an ALA 2-4hrs away in a totally different direction/departure point?
Anyone up here when out flying have a listen. Busiest time 8am most mornings you can here all this happening. The MAF guys out in East Arnhem have switched to doing it on the Area freq and have no complaints from Centre and do not clog it up.
I suggest that the broadcast is not aimed at pilots 2-4 hours away, but rather those who are much closer...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic it is in CTAF, but I think some did get your point Trop.
Sounds like many of the Darwin blokes need to go to the Aviation Safety Seminar bieng held at the Institute next Tuesday and Wed (9&10 Sep) evening.
Topics are Operations at Non towered aerodromes and Fuel managment.
meet your local Safety advisor and his guests from down south.
hay some of you may even learn something.
richo
Sounds like many of the Darwin blokes need to go to the Aviation Safety Seminar bieng held at the Institute next Tuesday and Wed (9&10 Sep) evening.
Topics are Operations at Non towered aerodromes and Fuel managment.
meet your local Safety advisor and his guests from down south.
hay some of you may even learn something.
richo
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richo
Be a good idea to cover that the multiple calls at a CTAF are not all mandatory, just recommended. Nothing worse than 126.7 tied up by a single aircraft making 8 calls on arriving alone at an unattended CTAF
But it probably won't work - the ones who attend safety seminars are the ones who don't need to be there coz they have the right attitude anyway.
This 126.7 matter will worsen if moreCTAF en route calls proposed by CASA (currently on hold in the rewrite of 166) occur. Might be time for some new CTAF frequencies in NT, Qld, and WA?
Be a good idea to cover that the multiple calls at a CTAF are not all mandatory, just recommended. Nothing worse than 126.7 tied up by a single aircraft making 8 calls on arriving alone at an unattended CTAF
But it probably won't work - the ones who attend safety seminars are the ones who don't need to be there coz they have the right attitude anyway.
This 126.7 matter will worsen if moreCTAF en route calls proposed by CASA (currently on hold in the rewrite of 166) occur. Might be time for some new CTAF frequencies in NT, Qld, and WA?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been some time but this practise has been occuring up in the northern end of WA for years...
Lets use Broome for an example...
The BME CTAF extends for 30nm, so inbound traffic make a call at 30nm (most of the time around 3,500' (pistons) to FL125 (for turbines and jets), now an aircraft that has departed BME outbound does not give a 30nm call on CTAF or a "maintaining" call. So logic would suggest that there is this grey area of 30-35nm that your either on 126.0 or 126.7/127.2, plus monitoring BN Centre. That in this space no calls are made and pilots dont know what FREQ to monitor. From a piston's point of view you would be outbound at 4,500-10,000' so there is this zone of conflict.
Giving a call at 30nm or just outside lets both inbound and outbound aircarft know where you are and what your doing.
Apply this situation up in KNX or any busy non-controlled zone, or just outside a control zone (Darwin).
It has saved my arse on a number of occasions and many of my mates.
It takes 10 seconds to give this call, "ABC a C210/C310 is 30 miles to the east of KNX on the 090 radial/bearing maintaining 5,500' "
And as for giving calls on a CTAF when you cant hear anyone else on it, well thats up to you. But I was under the impression that you make a call when entering the CTAF (10 or 30nm) joining the CCT, turning downwind, base, finals and when clear of the runway...
Just makes the skies that bit safer!
CMN
Lets use Broome for an example...
The BME CTAF extends for 30nm, so inbound traffic make a call at 30nm (most of the time around 3,500' (pistons) to FL125 (for turbines and jets), now an aircraft that has departed BME outbound does not give a 30nm call on CTAF or a "maintaining" call. So logic would suggest that there is this grey area of 30-35nm that your either on 126.0 or 126.7/127.2, plus monitoring BN Centre. That in this space no calls are made and pilots dont know what FREQ to monitor. From a piston's point of view you would be outbound at 4,500-10,000' so there is this zone of conflict.
Giving a call at 30nm or just outside lets both inbound and outbound aircarft know where you are and what your doing.
Apply this situation up in KNX or any busy non-controlled zone, or just outside a control zone (Darwin).
It has saved my arse on a number of occasions and many of my mates.
It takes 10 seconds to give this call, "ABC a C210/C310 is 30 miles to the east of KNX on the 090 radial/bearing maintaining 5,500' "
And as for giving calls on a CTAF when you cant hear anyone else on it, well thats up to you. But I was under the impression that you make a call when entering the CTAF (10 or 30nm) joining the CCT, turning downwind, base, finals and when clear of the runway...
Just makes the skies that bit safer!
CMN
Troppo, how about the boys using 126.7 to arrange friday arvo drinks inbound darwin 30nm at 5pm? Heard that a few times when over at snake bay trying to give circuit broadcasts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CMN
For the heavies the new rule will be 8 minutes or the distance which helps a little.
I think you will find some of those CTAF calls you noted are recommended not mandated. Unfortunately, many look upon 'CASA recommended' as getting shot if not adhered to.
I think your suggestions are robust, the NT case is more a matter of too much activity on 126.7. Like you I make my calls based on risk analysis and the NAS has some gaps. One classic is not giving intentions on the base turn!
For the heavies the new rule will be 8 minutes or the distance which helps a little.
I think you will find some of those CTAF calls you noted are recommended not mandated. Unfortunately, many look upon 'CASA recommended' as getting shot if not adhered to.
I think your suggestions are robust, the NT case is more a matter of too much activity on 126.7. Like you I make my calls based on risk analysis and the NAS has some gaps. One classic is not giving intentions on the base turn!
Originally Posted by james michael
One classic is not giving intentions on the base turn!
If you choose not to make "recommended" calls, you need a valid reason for not making the call. Fuel reserves are also "recommended" now days. You make all the calls, there may be someone guaging your position from your calls, someone who is either not required or not able to respond. If you think that this relatively new way of doing things doesn't work, don't make up your own rules to try and fix it, get onto the regulator and express your concern. Since the introduction of CTAFs, MBZs and now CTAF(R), people have been adding or subtracting their own little bits, trying to make a flawed system workable. Unfortunately, what you end up with is an unregulated and non standard mess with heavy localisms that only work if you are, in fact, a local.
Kelly Slater
A valid reason is they aren’t a required call and the circumstances at the time didn’t make the recommended calls necessary either. Recommended is just that and people need to understand this principle and not act like robots. Only make the calls that are legally required and only do more if the circumstances dictate. And for those that want to organise their social life, use 123.45. Operational frequencies are for operational use only and those that chit chat are firstly breaking the law and secondly risking other people’s lives.
Ah yes but they will be in your company’s ops manual which makes them legal.
If you choose not to make "recommended" calls, you need a valid reason for not making the call.
Fuel reserves are also "recommended" now days.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Darwin
Age: 41
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find that people entering a quiet CTAF with no one but themselves often clog the system by making all the calls. Often you hear: 30nm inbound call, 10nm call, joining circuit, downwind, base, final, late final, back tracking, landed and clear! All these calls clog up the CTAF in areas where there are alot of ALAs around.
Often it is easier to make the following when inbound: Inbound call at 30nm or what ever distance you use, and joining the circuit.
And calls to make when outbound: Taxi call, entering runway, and departure
The only extra calls that need to be made is when a possible conflict arises. E.g. you made a you inbound call at 30nm, you are now 10nm and someone has just fired up on the ground and taxing. Lets stop clogging the frequencies so people can make the calls that are needed to resolve a possible conflict.
Other pet hates is people calling for a 'full stop' in areas which are not a training aerodrome. E.g. Broome, Kunners, Darwin and all their surrounding ALAs. Every landing should be a full stop unless you are conducting training, and if that is a case make a 'touch and go' call! Say if your flying down at Jandakot, Bankstown, Archerfield etc, since they are training aerodromes then make or 'full stop' or 'touch and go' call as required. You don't hear the airliners coming into airports makeing 'tocuh and go' calls do you??
One more issue before I get off my soapbox. Traffic on conflicting headings but with a 1000' seperation. Often in Darwin, Broome, and Kunners people are going out and coming back on conflicting tracks but with a 1000' speration. Why do so many pilots think that this is a conflict and have to make numerous calls with a distence from somehwere until they have the other aircraft sighted and are clear?? Isn't that what the whole point of having the 1000' seperation is so that you are clear?? The only time there will be a conflict on conflicting tracks is when on aircraft is descending into a aerodrome while the other is climbing out and they are going to go through each others altitiude at some stage!
Stepping down now
Often it is easier to make the following when inbound: Inbound call at 30nm or what ever distance you use, and joining the circuit.
And calls to make when outbound: Taxi call, entering runway, and departure
The only extra calls that need to be made is when a possible conflict arises. E.g. you made a you inbound call at 30nm, you are now 10nm and someone has just fired up on the ground and taxing. Lets stop clogging the frequencies so people can make the calls that are needed to resolve a possible conflict.
Other pet hates is people calling for a 'full stop' in areas which are not a training aerodrome. E.g. Broome, Kunners, Darwin and all their surrounding ALAs. Every landing should be a full stop unless you are conducting training, and if that is a case make a 'touch and go' call! Say if your flying down at Jandakot, Bankstown, Archerfield etc, since they are training aerodromes then make or 'full stop' or 'touch and go' call as required. You don't hear the airliners coming into airports makeing 'tocuh and go' calls do you??
One more issue before I get off my soapbox. Traffic on conflicting headings but with a 1000' seperation. Often in Darwin, Broome, and Kunners people are going out and coming back on conflicting tracks but with a 1000' speration. Why do so many pilots think that this is a conflict and have to make numerous calls with a distence from somehwere until they have the other aircraft sighted and are clear?? Isn't that what the whole point of having the 1000' seperation is so that you are clear??
The only time there will be a conflict on conflicting tracks is when on aircraft is descending into a aerodrome while the other is climbing out and they are going to go through each others altitiude at some stage!Stepping down now
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ
It's quite simple really - I did not stipulate the NT - in an instruction environment with a mix of T&G and FS and GA and RA Aus speeds, intentions on final is too late for ease of spacing and the NAS idea of 'extending the downwind' in such cases takes the student beyond gliding distance and routine approach, not good business particularly when low time. Add in three more a/c and the last one needs a map to get back home
The whole idea of the intentions call on the base turn was to allow commonsense separation and an indication to others in the circuit of where the aircraft was turning base as the wings in the turn made the a/c visible to others at the same height.
404 & elcap
It's quite simple really - I did not stipulate the NT - in an instruction environment with a mix of T&G and FS and GA and RA Aus speeds, intentions on final is too late for ease of spacing and the NAS idea of 'extending the downwind' in such cases takes the student beyond gliding distance and routine approach, not good business particularly when low time. Add in three more a/c and the last one needs a map to get back home
The whole idea of the intentions call on the base turn was to allow commonsense separation and an indication to others in the circuit of where the aircraft was turning base as the wings in the turn made the a/c visible to others at the same height.
404 & elcap
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: your house
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point well made troppont. I never understand why a IFR Titan needs to broadcast his intentions for an aerodrome 2 hrs away on 126.7 in a radar environment when BN Centre will give "him" traffic advice??? I don't believe there is requirement in the AIP's to make a "traffic to the N/S/E/W of YXXX" call. If that get's to you, I suppose you'll love those that make transit CTAF calls when they're four and a half thousand feet above that particular aerodrome.. 
S
S
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senshi
A current discussion point with CASA. Here is their position:
Proposed change to the NFRM proposals includes:
- the transiting/overflying monitoring and broadcast requirements are made to apply to radio-equipped aircraft only in respect of aerodromes that are depicted in the relevant aeronautical maps and charts. The requirements related to flights inbound to and outbound from the aerodrome, however, would continue to apply to radio-equipped aircraft at all non-controlled aerodromes, as proposed in the draft NFRM.
Members should note that in addition to the five (5) specific mandated broadcasts that the regulations call up, there is a general requirement for the pilot to make other calls that may be necessary to avoid a collision or risk of a collision. As is the case under the current regulations for CTAF(R) aerodromes, monitoring and broadcasting in relation to transiting/overflying flights at non-controlled aerodromes depicted in the relevant maps and charts would only be required if the aircraft was being operated at a height that could put it in conflict with aerodrome operations. This is made clear in the definition of "in the vicinity of" set out in CAR 166(1).
Re the underline - anyone like to stipulate what that height is or will people as always err on the side of caution?
I have thrown them a small wobbly re the lilac. VFR WAC, IFR ERC - both have different aerodromes depicted
If that get's to you, I suppose you'll love those that make transit CTAF calls when they're four and a half thousand feet above that particular aerodrome.. 
Proposed change to the NFRM proposals includes:
- the transiting/overflying monitoring and broadcast requirements are made to apply to radio-equipped aircraft only in respect of aerodromes that are depicted in the relevant aeronautical maps and charts. The requirements related to flights inbound to and outbound from the aerodrome, however, would continue to apply to radio-equipped aircraft at all non-controlled aerodromes, as proposed in the draft NFRM.
Members should note that in addition to the five (5) specific mandated broadcasts that the regulations call up, there is a general requirement for the pilot to make other calls that may be necessary to avoid a collision or risk of a collision. As is the case under the current regulations for CTAF(R) aerodromes, monitoring and broadcasting in relation to transiting/overflying flights at non-controlled aerodromes depicted in the relevant maps and charts would only be required if the aircraft was being operated at a height that could put it in conflict with aerodrome operations. This is made clear in the definition of "in the vicinity of" set out in CAR 166(1).
Re the underline - anyone like to stipulate what that height is or will people as always err on the side of caution?
I have thrown them a small wobbly re the lilac. VFR WAC, IFR ERC - both have different aerodromes depicted
If you enter a quiet CTAF and elect not to make the recomended calls you are not playing by the guidelines set down by the regulator. You are declaring that you know better so why not tell CASA what will work instead of changing CASAs recommendations to make them work?