New CTAF rules show gross CASA incompetence
Thread Starter
New CTAF rules show gross CASA incompetence
The new CTAF rules which are to be introduced by CASA in the first quarter of 2009 have been discussed elsewhere on this site.
The plan with NAS – as approved by the Federal Government – was to change to non-prescriptive procedures that work very successfully in the leading aviation countries in the world. This is not acceptable to some regional airline pilots. We must have unique rules with lots of mandatory requirements and $5,000 fines.
It is never discussed (or even considered) why we have to be different to proven, safe, overseas practices. Designing our own procedures is like designing the proverbial Nomad – undoubtedly one of the worst aircraft in the world.
The rules state – to quote the CASA document:
(My underlining).
The prescriptive requirements state:
It then prescribes details that either means 10 nautical miles or 8 minutes flying time. Of course 8 minutes at 120 knots (a typical small plane speed) is 16 miles.
The document says:
(My underlining).
Presumably “aerodrome traffic” is traffic going to or from the particular aerodrome.
Traffic going to or from an aerodrome, say 10 miles to 16 miles out, could be anywhere from 1,000 feet to 3,500 feet in altitude.
Let’s look at a situation of an aircraft flying through the training area near Bankstown – say from 2RN towards Camden during the week, when the Camden Tower is not active. To follow the law and not be fined up to $5,000, separate calls will need to be made on the St Marys, Holsworthy and The Oaks frequency of 126.7, the Camden CTAF of 120.1 and the Hoxton Park CTAF of 127.0.
Let’s look at an aircraft coming in from the southwest – IFR towards Bankstown. When dropping into uncontrolled airspace calls will have to be made on Mittagong, Wilton, Wedderburn, The Oaks, Camden, Holsworthy, St Marys and Hoxton Park – a grand total of 8 announcements with an up to $5,000 fine if one is missed.
We all know that CASA will turn a blind eye to this ridiculous prescriptive, mandatory requirement and only use it to prosecute an individual who has no power. Imagine working for such an unethical organisation. It would be mind destroying. Don’t think they will re-write this requirement and copy proven overseas practice. They wouldn’t even know what happens overseas, nor would they be interested.
Just as crop dusters are never fined for not performing at least a 5 mile straight in approach or fined when they join directly on base for safety and cost reasons, no doubt the same will happen with this prescriptive requirement.
The problem is pilots will have to make a judgment on which CASA rules are actually genuine and are enforced, and which are a complete farce to satisfy Qantas. Don’t hold your breath for any proper changes to this.
The plan with NAS – as approved by the Federal Government – was to change to non-prescriptive procedures that work very successfully in the leading aviation countries in the world. This is not acceptable to some regional airline pilots. We must have unique rules with lots of mandatory requirements and $5,000 fines.
It is never discussed (or even considered) why we have to be different to proven, safe, overseas practices. Designing our own procedures is like designing the proverbial Nomad – undoubtedly one of the worst aircraft in the world.
The rules state – to quote the CASA document:
pilots of radio equipped aircraft will be required to make the radio calls that are necessary for safety purposes when operating at or in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome.
The prescriptive requirements state:
At a minimum, radio calls will be required …
The document says:
This rule will apply not only to aircraft that are inbound to the aerodrome, but also to aircraft that are overflying the aerodrome or simply transiting through this airspace, if the aerodrome is depicted in the aeronautical charts and the aircraft is flying at a height that could put it in conflict with aerodrome traffic.
Presumably “aerodrome traffic” is traffic going to or from the particular aerodrome.
Traffic going to or from an aerodrome, say 10 miles to 16 miles out, could be anywhere from 1,000 feet to 3,500 feet in altitude.
Let’s look at a situation of an aircraft flying through the training area near Bankstown – say from 2RN towards Camden during the week, when the Camden Tower is not active. To follow the law and not be fined up to $5,000, separate calls will need to be made on the St Marys, Holsworthy and The Oaks frequency of 126.7, the Camden CTAF of 120.1 and the Hoxton Park CTAF of 127.0.
Let’s look at an aircraft coming in from the southwest – IFR towards Bankstown. When dropping into uncontrolled airspace calls will have to be made on Mittagong, Wilton, Wedderburn, The Oaks, Camden, Holsworthy, St Marys and Hoxton Park – a grand total of 8 announcements with an up to $5,000 fine if one is missed.
We all know that CASA will turn a blind eye to this ridiculous prescriptive, mandatory requirement and only use it to prosecute an individual who has no power. Imagine working for such an unethical organisation. It would be mind destroying. Don’t think they will re-write this requirement and copy proven overseas practice. They wouldn’t even know what happens overseas, nor would they be interested.
Just as crop dusters are never fined for not performing at least a 5 mile straight in approach or fined when they join directly on base for safety and cost reasons, no doubt the same will happen with this prescriptive requirement.
The problem is pilots will have to make a judgment on which CASA rules are actually genuine and are enforced, and which are a complete farce to satisfy Qantas. Don’t hold your breath for any proper changes to this.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 30th Oct 2008 at 11:16.
Dick, for once I agree with you. I have no doubt that I am in the minority but I can't see the sense in these changes, it just seems like another noose to put your head into.
Guest
Posts: n/a
New CTAF rules show gross CASA incompetence
Imagine working for such an unethical organisation.
The current rules aren't even that, they are recommendations. It becomes pretty clear after just a few minutes flying in around CTAF and CTAF(R) AD's that the current system is pretty well borked, and as a result I've no problem with a move towards a minimum list of mandatory calls (disagreements with the fine print aside).
Dick,
I am at a loss. Your final statement
appears to be where your true grudge lies.
The CTAFs you quote above appear to me to be all part of the training area used east of the Blue Mountains. Can't remember exactly, cos its been a few years since I was there! But if so, then as such, I would have thought monitoring the area frequency was all that is required in this stated training area. (124.55?) Your use of this area is anomolous - there are no other areas like this one in Aussie airspace so as such it is not representative of what the rules are set out for.
Your argument about this always seem to be directed at the majors, and in particular QF. For some reason, I cant fathom how it is that you see the lives of 170 pax onboard a jet to be so inconsequential compared to rights of the weekend warrior in his light bugsmasher (as opposed to that bugsmasher the little 737 ;-)), who is made to put out a couple of extra radio calls in the name of SAFETY!
M
I am at a loss. Your final statement
and which are a complete farce to satisfy Qantas.
The CTAFs you quote above appear to me to be all part of the training area used east of the Blue Mountains. Can't remember exactly, cos its been a few years since I was there! But if so, then as such, I would have thought monitoring the area frequency was all that is required in this stated training area. (124.55?) Your use of this area is anomolous - there are no other areas like this one in Aussie airspace so as such it is not representative of what the rules are set out for.
Your argument about this always seem to be directed at the majors, and in particular QF. For some reason, I cant fathom how it is that you see the lives of 170 pax onboard a jet to be so inconsequential compared to rights of the weekend warrior in his light bugsmasher (as opposed to that bugsmasher the little 737 ;-)), who is made to put out a couple of extra radio calls in the name of SAFETY!
M
Thread Starter
MMM, I was the person who introduced the proposal for the extra recommended calls _ and yes I did that in the interest of safety.
However once you have fools trying to invent unique mandatory procedures that have never been tested or proven you end up with unforseen problems.
There will clearly be other places in Australia where these prescriptive mandatory requirements can not be safely complied with. - thats why no other country in the world has such requirements!
And yes, a pilot will have to monitor 124.55 under our rules plus give all the extra ctaf calls - impossible!
However once you have fools trying to invent unique mandatory procedures that have never been tested or proven you end up with unforseen problems.
There will clearly be other places in Australia where these prescriptive mandatory requirements can not be safely complied with. - thats why no other country in the world has such requirements!
And yes, a pilot will have to monitor 124.55 under our rules plus give all the extra ctaf calls - impossible!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I am pleased to be in general agreement with your thoughts.
The 8 minute call is however an excellent idea for warning others of high speed RPT arrival. The 10 Nm is a legacy of CTAF boundaries and is not valuable as one is far more interested in the time everyone will be mingling in the circuit than trying to calculate that from a distance and aircraft type.
As well, the difference in IFR and VFR charts means different flight rules will be calling on different CTAF en route - and VFR will be off the area frequency more often (when IFR are not) thus reducing situational awareness.
I am pleased to be in general agreement with your thoughts.
The 8 minute call is however an excellent idea for warning others of high speed RPT arrival. The 10 Nm is a legacy of CTAF boundaries and is not valuable as one is far more interested in the time everyone will be mingling in the circuit than trying to calculate that from a distance and aircraft type.
As well, the difference in IFR and VFR charts means different flight rules will be calling on different CTAF en route - and VFR will be off the area frequency more often (when IFR are not) thus reducing situational awareness.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not convinced that the bankstown area is so unique - there's several areas round melbourne where there are multiple CTAF's near to each other - it's far from clear what frequency you should be on, and where.
From what's been posted here, these procedures don't make that really any worse, other than explicitly stating when you must call from further out than 10 miles. What they don't do though is fix the existing problems.
From what's been posted here, these procedures don't make that really any worse, other than explicitly stating when you must call from further out than 10 miles. What they don't do though is fix the existing problems.
Thread Starter
Mark, the new proposals are different and far worse!
You will be at the risk of being prosecuted if you do not make an annoucement on every ctaf frequency that you fly in the vicinity of.
At the present time you can make a decision based on good airmanship- this will no longer be the deciding point.
You will be at the risk of being prosecuted if you do not make an annoucement on every ctaf frequency that you fly in the vicinity of.
At the present time you can make a decision based on good airmanship- this will no longer be the deciding point.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick is right. Overflying HOX and CN out of BK, you'd be lucky to get a call in edgeways sometimes. Communicate is suposed to be 3rd on the list. Student pilots get so stressed about making sure they get their radio calls right they forget about aviating and navigating. Mandating radio calls to that extent is just plain dangerous.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this mean that the monkies that operate in the PMQ area will finally be bought to bear for their flagrent flouting of the rules ( be it two aircraft on the one RWY doing opposite CCTS or the meat bombing with the arrival of a RPT AC). They will be let loose by the Grand Jury and the Poor sap in the Jungle Jet or the 400 will be up for tea and bikkies.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........................pilots of radio equipped aircraft will be required to make the radio calls that are necessary for safety purposes when operating at or in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome.
In bold (showed by me) will be the area that CASA I reckon won't be able to prove too easily.
A defendant could argue, 'what's necessary'? I at the time didn't consider further R/T calls to a particular AD necessary yr honour, I was busy handling an emergency etc. The courts would be backed up more than a politicians septic system!
The new rules won't work, I know that, Dick you know that & just about every current flying pilot will know that. And who pilots A/C that will be effected anyway? WE do, not CASA, they ain't got a clue!
As another has said, aviate navigate communicate in that order.
CW.
In bold (showed by me) will be the area that CASA I reckon won't be able to prove too easily.
A defendant could argue, 'what's necessary'? I at the time didn't consider further R/T calls to a particular AD necessary yr honour, I was busy handling an emergency etc. The courts would be backed up more than a politicians septic system!
The new rules won't work, I know that, Dick you know that & just about every current flying pilot will know that. And who pilots A/C that will be effected anyway? WE do, not CASA, they ain't got a clue!
As another has said, aviate navigate communicate in that order.
CW.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its simple really. When two aircraft crash into each other anywhere near an uncontrolled airport, they can claim - 'it wasn't our fault - they didn't make the required radio calls'. No one in CASA will lose their job for being over prescriptive now will they.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder where CASA are going to get all the staff to police this new rule. Wil they have an inspector based at every CTAF, to monitor all radio calls and book those that do not comply?
I can understand one of the reasons why overflying traffic should be monitoring the CTAF frequency, and that is the departure of a RPT jet. Normally, take off performance is such that in setting course overhead, the aircraft will be through 10,000'. If traffic are on different frequencies, it leaves TCAS as a primary collision avoidance aid, instead of the final back up. Throw in a lightie with a u/s transponder and the holes in the swiss cheese are lining up.
I can understand one of the reasons why overflying traffic should be monitoring the CTAF frequency, and that is the departure of a RPT jet. Normally, take off performance is such that in setting course overhead, the aircraft will be through 10,000'. If traffic are on different frequencies, it leaves TCAS as a primary collision avoidance aid, instead of the final back up. Throw in a lightie with a u/s transponder and the holes in the swiss cheese are lining up.
I can understand one of the reasons why overflying traffic should be monitoring the CTAF frequency, and that is the departure of a RPT jet
If overflying traffic (A050 and above?) are on the area freq and the departing jet makes an "all stations" call on the area freq when taxying (as they now do to get traffic etc) - then surely the overflying traffic and the jet can have a little chat to ensure separation.
Or have I missed something here?
Dr
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my very short few years flying this will be the third system that will be/has been in effect when it comes to uncontrolled aerodromes.
My observations in that time are that any system is only as good or effective as the people using it and there are so many people doing different things under the current system, going and changing it all again will only confuse the issue and leave it open further "interpretations".
Now before anyone jumps down my throat i am a very firm believer in following the rules, regardless of if i personally believe them to be right or not. Rules is rules. I believe that it is a pilot's responsibity weather they are a weekend warrior or a Big Burner Captain to be up do date and informed with current rules and procedures. All very well in an ideal world but its just not going to happen.
You seem to get three types of people.
- The ones who try and follow the rules. Occasionaly they will get it wrong but they try and keep "up to date"
- The ones who think "well when i learnt to fly we did this, ive always done this and so ill keep doing this and i dont want to know about this new fandangled stuff" or "its all too hard, ill just do what i think is right"
- The idiots who have no regard for rules and procedures, think THEY know better and do things the way THEY think it should be done
Unfortunately with yet another new system which will obviously have flaws (have to agree with Dick here) being introduced it will only serve to malke it harder for those from the first group and unfortunately nothing will ever change the minds and opinions of the second two.
Net result we will have what we have now. A system that doens't work because you will have some people doing what is right, some doing what used to be right and some doing whatever the
they feel like.
Bit negative i know but thats just my observations and opinion.
My observations in that time are that any system is only as good or effective as the people using it and there are so many people doing different things under the current system, going and changing it all again will only confuse the issue and leave it open further "interpretations".
Now before anyone jumps down my throat i am a very firm believer in following the rules, regardless of if i personally believe them to be right or not. Rules is rules. I believe that it is a pilot's responsibity weather they are a weekend warrior or a Big Burner Captain to be up do date and informed with current rules and procedures. All very well in an ideal world but its just not going to happen.
You seem to get three types of people.
- The ones who try and follow the rules. Occasionaly they will get it wrong but they try and keep "up to date"
- The ones who think "well when i learnt to fly we did this, ive always done this and so ill keep doing this and i dont want to know about this new fandangled stuff" or "its all too hard, ill just do what i think is right"
- The idiots who have no regard for rules and procedures, think THEY know better and do things the way THEY think it should be done
Unfortunately with yet another new system which will obviously have flaws (have to agree with Dick here) being introduced it will only serve to malke it harder for those from the first group and unfortunately nothing will ever change the minds and opinions of the second two.
Net result we will have what we have now. A system that doens't work because you will have some people doing what is right, some doing what used to be right and some doing whatever the
they feel like. Bit negative i know but thats just my observations and opinion.
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
.... would any of the changed changes of the original changes changed 
have been necessary were it not for the advent of 'strict liability' ?
.
.... god forbid having a system that supports both 'must' and 'should' in various appropriate circumstances, without needing to sell one's family jewels into servitude
post cluster 
when it is clear that 'he/she did the best they could to comply in the given circumstances'
have been necessary were it not for the advent of 'strict liability' ?.
.... god forbid having a system that supports both 'must' and 'should' in various appropriate circumstances, without needing to sell one's family jewels into servitude
post cluster when it is clear that 'he/she did the best they could to comply in the given circumstances'
