New CTAF rules show gross CASA incompetence
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDD
Points well made.
To return to Bloggs Regional RPT view of the MBZ, and the roads analogy, let's examine two intersections:
1. Uncontrolled - look left, right, left again, carefully proceed.
2. Traffic lights (green) - thru we blithely drive, no-one will come thru a red light on our right will they
Alas fate has played many a nasty trick, even to the leagels trying to apportion blame to the person driving thru the green light - with right and might seemingly on their side.
The MBZ and CTAF R progeny are like the green light intersection - a false sense of security is provided to pilots. Fate alas still remains the hunter!
Now to Gary's "There is prosecutorial discretion for CASA in the current regs".
This is akin to suggesting the Pope may turn protestant.
CASA has persistently proven to be a malicious and vexatious litigant and a most recent case - noted on an earlier thread on here - is a warning to all of how one can be singled out for unreasonable treatment. A recent comment by B1 in Senate Estimates questioning (happy to post) confirms that prosecutorial discretion was not exercised. Further, CASA will then turn around and say "oh, it was not us, the CDPP takes over the matter and would not proceed without substance".
If the CASA CEP is properly followed, there is some leeway. However, big however, that requires that we accept that the CASA field staff will cease all vendettas and conflict of interest pursuits. Let's await the Pope's religion change as more probable.
Had the NAS been introduced properly (and let us not blame Dick for that debacle) perhaps we would not have reached this point. But that we have indicates that even in repair mode - the regulation makers have worsened matters with their good intent. The proposed changes may yet achieve more confusion than the NAS.
Points well made.
To return to Bloggs Regional RPT view of the MBZ, and the roads analogy, let's examine two intersections:
1. Uncontrolled - look left, right, left again, carefully proceed.
2. Traffic lights (green) - thru we blithely drive, no-one will come thru a red light on our right will they
Alas fate has played many a nasty trick, even to the leagels trying to apportion blame to the person driving thru the green light - with right and might seemingly on their side.
The MBZ and CTAF R progeny are like the green light intersection - a false sense of security is provided to pilots. Fate alas still remains the hunter!
Now to Gary's "There is prosecutorial discretion for CASA in the current regs".
This is akin to suggesting the Pope may turn protestant.
CASA has persistently proven to be a malicious and vexatious litigant and a most recent case - noted on an earlier thread on here - is a warning to all of how one can be singled out for unreasonable treatment. A recent comment by B1 in Senate Estimates questioning (happy to post) confirms that prosecutorial discretion was not exercised. Further, CASA will then turn around and say "oh, it was not us, the CDPP takes over the matter and would not proceed without substance".
If the CASA CEP is properly followed, there is some leeway. However, big however, that requires that we accept that the CASA field staff will cease all vendettas and conflict of interest pursuits. Let's await the Pope's religion change as more probable.
Had the NAS been introduced properly (and let us not blame Dick for that debacle) perhaps we would not have reached this point. But that we have indicates that even in repair mode - the regulation makers have worsened matters with their good intent. The proposed changes may yet achieve more confusion than the NAS.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some really interesting discussion points james
To an extent true although, I would like to see the body of evidence that suggests successful prosecution of a motorist travelling through a green light is possible without some other factors being relevent! One supposes that even if there were a relatively small number of collisions occurring as a result of an error at traffic lights, authorities do not then decide to do away with traffic lights as a mitigator in favour of stop or giveway signs!
…. This subject is most interesting 
I do agree that CTAF R would not be necessary if all aircraft were required to have and use radio. As to whether some radio alerting is better than none, or lulls into false security, it is IMHO no different to the reverse argument that suggests less prescription is just as safe i.e. not having calls mandated only recommended means a conflicting pilot will have larger numbers of unalerted targets to find and see, yet will do so sucessfully (with greater success) because they are more actively scanning
… where this falls down in my mind is that they have less clues as to where to look. Unalerted see and avoid is proven to be substantially less safe than alerted. Surely the benefits of radio call mandating (in critical area's and phases of flight) outweighs the heightened chance of unalerted see and avoid that comes with only 'recommending’!?
.... otherwise the same argument could be applied with TCAS and TXPDR’s ? .. no?
… agree, my point exactly!
We will have to agree to disagree on this aspect. I am still unconvinced that what proceeded NAS 2C i.e. MTAF and MBZ’s, was any less safe that what we have now, notwithstanding the confusion factor. What preceeded MTAF and MBZ's was safer still, but lets not go there 
… what should be done then? leave it as is!?
1. Uncontrolled - look left, right, left again, carefully proceed.
2. Traffic lights (green) - thru we blithely drive, no-one will come thru a red light on our right will they
Alas fate has played many a nasty trick, even to the leagels trying to apportion blame to the person driving thru the green light - with right and might seemingly on their side.
2. Traffic lights (green) - thru we blithely drive, no-one will come thru a red light on our right will they
Alas fate has played many a nasty trick, even to the leagels trying to apportion blame to the person driving thru the green light - with right and might seemingly on their side.
The MBZ and CTAF R progeny are like the green light intersection - a false sense of security is provided to pilots. Fate alas still remains the hunter!
I do agree that CTAF R would not be necessary if all aircraft were required to have and use radio. As to whether some radio alerting is better than none, or lulls into false security, it is IMHO no different to the reverse argument that suggests less prescription is just as safe i.e. not having calls mandated only recommended means a conflicting pilot will have larger numbers of unalerted targets to find and see, yet will do so sucessfully (with greater success) because they are more actively scanning… where this falls down in my mind is that they have less clues as to where to look. Unalerted see and avoid is proven to be substantially less safe than alerted. Surely the benefits of radio call mandating (in critical area's and phases of flight) outweighs the heightened chance of unalerted see and avoid that comes with only 'recommending’!?
.... otherwise the same argument could be applied with TCAS and TXPDR’s ? .. no?
Now to Gary's "There is prosecutorial discretion for CASA in the current regs".
This is akin to suggesting the Pope may turn protestant.
This is akin to suggesting the Pope may turn protestant.
Had the NAS been introduced properly (and let us not blame Dick for that debacle) perhaps we would not have reached this point.
But that we have indicates that even in repair mode - the regulation makers have worsened matters with their good intent. The proposed changes may yet achieve more confusion than the NAS.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDD
All good points.
At the risk of overdosing on Dick support, I should stress that the NAS we got was not the USA one he wanted so we need to blame the tinkerers as much as the tailor
In examining the MTAF/MBZ/CTAF-R let us note what Ambidji concluded:
"The presence of NORDO aircraft, therefore, can never be discounted by any participating aircraft regardless of whether they are operating in a mandated radio environment, on a published CTAF or an environment using the Multicom frequency.
As can be seen from Ambidji’s review of a wide range of international incidents and accidents, the overwhelming evidence is that the major contributors to aircraft NORDO status is related to pilot non-compliance with recommended radio procedures rather than simply aircraft not being equipped with radio. In fact, despite an extensive search of worldwide safety databases, Ambidji was unable to find any instances where a safety occurrence occurred in non-controlled airspace directly as a result of an aircraft not being equipped with radio."
and - aoplogy for the length of this next but needed for emphasis:
CTAF procedures have been in use in the USA for many years and are accepted standard operating procedures for aircraft arriving at, departing from or operating at a non-controlled airport. Although the radio reporting/broadcast procedures are not mandatory, long-term custom and practice has created an environment where there is compliance with and adherence to the recommended practices.
There is a plethora of educational and guidance material with regard to operations at non-towered airports and, in particular the USA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), through its Air Safety Foundation (ASF), has published a very comprehensive document as part of its Safety Advisor publications.
Safe operations at non-towered airports are reliant upon good airmanship and a high degree of “self-regulation”. Compliance with the FAA recommended procedures provides a mechanism for alerted see and avoid principles.
An analysis of incidents and accidents in the USA from 2005 to the present indicated that there were 12 mid-air collisions. Further analysis would indicate that the main causal factors included failure to follow procedures, aircraft failing to sight each other and radio communications problems.
In Australia, for the corresponding period, there were only six mid-air collisions (i.e. six fewer), but it should be considered in the knowledge that the USA aviation environment is different from that of Australia (greater traffic densities, mix and complexity of air activity etc). The review team was unable to discover any more data that would determine if the USA model is inherently any more or less safe than the Australian.
Amazing the USA with 230,000 active GA aircraft can do it without strict liability
A good point made by you and others about avoidance of landing fees by running silent One ponders whether this is one of the platforms of the brigade opposing the ADS-B mandate?
Hopefully the radio call scenario will be overtaken by the ADS-B scenario where electronic see and be seen saves the day. (Planky, that's my daily fix done
)
SDD, your final query - leave it as it is? NO!!!!!!! But wouldn't it be nice if the fix was unambiguous, simple, recommended, and embraced by industry. Forget that last sentence - I think I went into a fugue and was dreaming of something unlikely in our lifetime
All good points.
At the risk of overdosing on Dick support, I should stress that the NAS we got was not the USA one he wanted so we need to blame the tinkerers as much as the tailor
In examining the MTAF/MBZ/CTAF-R let us note what Ambidji concluded:
"The presence of NORDO aircraft, therefore, can never be discounted by any participating aircraft regardless of whether they are operating in a mandated radio environment, on a published CTAF or an environment using the Multicom frequency.
As can be seen from Ambidji’s review of a wide range of international incidents and accidents, the overwhelming evidence is that the major contributors to aircraft NORDO status is related to pilot non-compliance with recommended radio procedures rather than simply aircraft not being equipped with radio. In fact, despite an extensive search of worldwide safety databases, Ambidji was unable to find any instances where a safety occurrence occurred in non-controlled airspace directly as a result of an aircraft not being equipped with radio."
and - aoplogy for the length of this next but needed for emphasis:
CTAF procedures have been in use in the USA for many years and are accepted standard operating procedures for aircraft arriving at, departing from or operating at a non-controlled airport. Although the radio reporting/broadcast procedures are not mandatory, long-term custom and practice has created an environment where there is compliance with and adherence to the recommended practices.
There is a plethora of educational and guidance material with regard to operations at non-towered airports and, in particular the USA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), through its Air Safety Foundation (ASF), has published a very comprehensive document as part of its Safety Advisor publications.
Safe operations at non-towered airports are reliant upon good airmanship and a high degree of “self-regulation”. Compliance with the FAA recommended procedures provides a mechanism for alerted see and avoid principles.
An analysis of incidents and accidents in the USA from 2005 to the present indicated that there were 12 mid-air collisions. Further analysis would indicate that the main causal factors included failure to follow procedures, aircraft failing to sight each other and radio communications problems.
In Australia, for the corresponding period, there were only six mid-air collisions (i.e. six fewer), but it should be considered in the knowledge that the USA aviation environment is different from that of Australia (greater traffic densities, mix and complexity of air activity etc). The review team was unable to discover any more data that would determine if the USA model is inherently any more or less safe than the Australian.
Amazing the USA with 230,000 active GA aircraft can do it without strict liability
A good point made by you and others about avoidance of landing fees by running silent
One ponders whether this is one of the platforms of the brigade opposing the ADS-B mandate? Hopefully the radio call scenario will be overtaken by the ADS-B scenario where electronic see and be seen saves the day. (Planky, that's my daily fix done
)SDD, your final query - leave it as it is? NO!!!!!!! But wouldn't it be nice if the fix was unambiguous, simple, recommended, and embraced by industry. Forget that last sentence - I think I went into a fugue and was dreaming of something unlikely in our lifetime
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick:
and
You keep pedalling this theme that Australia's MBZ/CTAFR concept is unique to Australia. This is not so. (Underlining is my emphasis).
Canada, South Africa, NZ, and PNG also operate similar concepts to Australia's old MBZ or current CTAFR concept with radio use and calls being mandated. In Canada its called a Mandatory Frequency (MF) area, while in NZ, South Africa and PNG they are called MBZs. In NZ, transponder use is also mandated within some MBZs.
I'm sure if one searched long enough, other example countries would emerge.
We must have unique rules....etc
....why we have to be different to proven, safe, overseas practices. Designing our own procedures is like designing the proverbial Nomad...etc
Canada, South Africa, NZ, and PNG also operate similar concepts to Australia's old MBZ or current CTAFR concept with radio use and calls being mandated. In Canada its called a Mandatory Frequency (MF) area, while in NZ, South Africa and PNG they are called MBZs. In NZ, transponder use is also mandated within some MBZs.
I'm sure if one searched long enough, other example countries would emerge.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QSK
Good points.
The other flaw in Dick's aviation vision is, however, exactly what you cited "why we have to be different to proven, safe, overseas practices. Designing our own procedures is like designing the proverbial Nomad...etc"
If we continue that copy cat philosophy so loved by Dick we will continue to lag the world. We proved a world leader in seatbelts in cars (1970) and saved a lot of lives while the USA pondered the rights of motorists until 1984 and lost a lot of lives and still does not have uniformity.
Our airspace, surveillance, population size and coastal cluttering, land mass mostly outback, different constitutional rights etc hardly rates Oz as a perfect fit for an airspace solution designed for the USA.
It's interesting the Nomad is back. Great country, Australia with the intellectual capability to lead the world - if we can dump those managing our path by rear view mirror.
Good points.
The other flaw in Dick's aviation vision is, however, exactly what you cited "why we have to be different to proven, safe, overseas practices. Designing our own procedures is like designing the proverbial Nomad...etc"
If we continue that copy cat philosophy so loved by Dick we will continue to lag the world. We proved a world leader in seatbelts in cars (1970) and saved a lot of lives while the USA pondered the rights of motorists until 1984 and lost a lot of lives and still does not have uniformity.
Our airspace, surveillance, population size and coastal cluttering, land mass mostly outback, different constitutional rights etc hardly rates Oz as a perfect fit for an airspace solution designed for the USA.
It's interesting the Nomad is back. Great country, Australia with the intellectual capability to lead the world - if we can dump those managing our path by rear view mirror.
