CTAF - yet more changes.
You can't have a regulation that is appropriate for both.
We didn't need this level of detail in the regulations 40 years ago when I started flying (an we had twice the air traffic).
Last edited by Icarus2001; 16th Dec 2012 at 03:45.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe more appropriate to do the calls in relation to time rather than distance from the field, then not a problem if you are in a cub or a citation ... Just the way I have done it for 30 years now ....
Icarus2001,
A good starting point would be Avgas consumption --- it is now a fraction of what it was in the '70s, and has not been made up by GA Avtur consumption.
I also remember 12 aircraft in the training circuit at Bankstown at the one time, now it should be called Ghostown. The flying hasn't moved, in the eastern states, it has disappeared.
Tootle pip!!
A good starting point would be Avgas consumption --- it is now a fraction of what it was in the '70s, and has not been made up by GA Avtur consumption.
I also remember 12 aircraft in the training circuit at Bankstown at the one time, now it should be called Ghostown. The flying hasn't moved, in the eastern states, it has disappeared.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 16th Dec 2012 at 13:08.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A year ago I ferried a twin across Aust from Bankstown to Jandakot.
Apart from Circuit traffic at Parafield ( had to go there ) not one of the CTAF all the way across had any, nada, none, traffic.
A U/S Navy helicopter at Ceduna was the only high light of the entire trip, even Kalgoorlie was quiet.
So we really need high traffic procedures for CTAF ?????????
I favour the time to CCT call regime, it allows for performance diferences and gives any other traffic time to decide which is best way to avoid conflict.
Worked for me for 30+ years without a problem , even into active glider operations .
Apart from Circuit traffic at Parafield ( had to go there ) not one of the CTAF all the way across had any, nada, none, traffic.
A U/S Navy helicopter at Ceduna was the only high light of the entire trip, even Kalgoorlie was quiet.
So we really need high traffic procedures for CTAF ?????????
I favour the time to CCT call regime, it allows for performance diferences and gives any other traffic time to decide which is best way to avoid conflict.
Worked for me for 30+ years without a problem , even into active glider operations .
Last edited by T28D; 16th Dec 2012 at 23:23.
Dick Smith has mapped the decline using CASA data. I'm sure its easy to find on his website. CASA have hours flown data on their website too, but I can't find it after the latest redesign. Icarus is the only person I've heard who hasn't accepted that there has been a marked decline in GA.
When I learned to fly at Casey airfield there were airstrips & flying schools at Berwick (Casey - gone), Tooradin (still there) Tyabb (Still there), Moorooduc (gone), Geelong (Lovely Banks & Grovedale both gone). There was another (Rockdale?) towards Bacchus Marsh which is now gone. Moorabbin had simultaneous operation on 3 parallel strips.
There was undeniably more flying from more locations in the seventies & eighties. There were less regulation, less people employed by CASA and its predecessors and (from memory) about the same accident rate per 10,000 hours flown. How have we progressed?
Casey airfield had antique aircraft, homebuilt aircraft, training aircraft, aerobatic aircraft, retractable single touring aircraft (as a newly minted PPL, I flew a Bonanza out of Casey) and occasional twins up to a Cessna 411. All out of a gravel strip that (if memory serves) was 2700 ft long.
For Icarus, road traffic is largely the same speed. Motorbikes, sports cars, cars, 4WD's & trucks basically all do the same regulated speeds. In the suburbs, so do pushbikes (if they're not faster). I fly GA aircraft with cruise speeds from about 50 kts to 220 kts. That is a time difference across 10nm of under 3 minutes to over 11 minutes. My point is that good airmanship would be for the fast aeroplane to make early calls. Not regulation - airmanship. Implicit but unstated in my post is that we could do with less regulation, but more airmanship.
When I learned to fly at Casey airfield there were airstrips & flying schools at Berwick (Casey - gone), Tooradin (still there) Tyabb (Still there), Moorooduc (gone), Geelong (Lovely Banks & Grovedale both gone). There was another (Rockdale?) towards Bacchus Marsh which is now gone. Moorabbin had simultaneous operation on 3 parallel strips.
There was undeniably more flying from more locations in the seventies & eighties. There were less regulation, less people employed by CASA and its predecessors and (from memory) about the same accident rate per 10,000 hours flown. How have we progressed?
Casey airfield had antique aircraft, homebuilt aircraft, training aircraft, aerobatic aircraft, retractable single touring aircraft (as a newly minted PPL, I flew a Bonanza out of Casey) and occasional twins up to a Cessna 411. All out of a gravel strip that (if memory serves) was 2700 ft long.
For Icarus, road traffic is largely the same speed. Motorbikes, sports cars, cars, 4WD's & trucks basically all do the same regulated speeds. In the suburbs, so do pushbikes (if they're not faster). I fly GA aircraft with cruise speeds from about 50 kts to 220 kts. That is a time difference across 10nm of under 3 minutes to over 11 minutes. My point is that good airmanship would be for the fast aeroplane to make early calls. Not regulation - airmanship. Implicit but unstated in my post is that we could do with less regulation, but more airmanship.
Why not take a leaf from the old AFIZ days and call at 30nm on the way in.
Even the jets take around 7 mins or so for the distance, and 'normal' twins around 10 minutes.
Of course your bugsmasher may take up to 20 or so minutes, but at least everyone gets adequate warning with your estimate for the CIRA.....
And, aren't the jets at 1,500ft above, whilst the little fellas are at 1,000ft above?
Just another thought.....
Even the jets take around 7 mins or so for the distance, and 'normal' twins around 10 minutes.
Of course your bugsmasher may take up to 20 or so minutes, but at least everyone gets adequate warning with your estimate for the CIRA.....
And, aren't the jets at 1,500ft above, whilst the little fellas are at 1,000ft above?
Just another thought.....
Dick Smith has mapped the decline using CASA data.
Yes Cap'n......Fully agree!!
But unfortunately, I could not possibly respond without some vitriol 'creeping in' due to his 'evangelistic' dismantling of the system and replacing it with....?????
N O T H I N G !!
But unfortunately, I could not possibly respond without some vitriol 'creeping in' due to his 'evangelistic' dismantling of the system and replacing it with....?????
N O T H I N G !!
We are all lucky that the OH&S police haven't made us wear High Viz waistcoats just yet.
The state of "learned helplessness" caused by these regulatory oxygen thieves has to be seen to be believed.
The state of "learned helplessness" caused by these regulatory oxygen thieves has to be seen to be believed.
CTAF
Old Akro et al
Some stats on aircraft numbers over the years. Sources are CASA and RAAus
RAAus Aircraft
January 2012 3414
January 2011 3216
December 2009 2955
December 2007 2912
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft on the register, 1928 to 2006 Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft on the register, 1928 to 2006
1975 4483 aircraft
2006 12,463 aircraft
Which regulations have changed that make VFR private flying harder or more expensive? When I learned to fly in 1975, it cost $30/hr dual on a graduate engineer pre tax income of $100/week. Today it could cost $250 on a graduate engineer income of about $1200/week.
Some stats on aircraft numbers over the years. Sources are CASA and RAAus
RAAus Aircraft
January 2012 3414
January 2011 3216
December 2009 2955
December 2007 2912
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft on the register, 1928 to 2006 Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft on the register, 1928 to 2006
1975 4483 aircraft
2006 12,463 aircraft
Which regulations have changed that make VFR private flying harder or more expensive? When I learned to fly in 1975, it cost $30/hr dual on a graduate engineer pre tax income of $100/week. Today it could cost $250 on a graduate engineer income of about $1200/week.
1975 4483 aircraft
2006 12,463 aircraft
2006 12,463 aircraft
Never forget, statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital.
Since 1975 the definition of "Australia Aircraft" has been altered, so that the numbers you quote are not comparable. Indeed, the definition was changed to include such as AUF/RAOz aircraft, to bolster the raw number, to try and maintain a figure above 10,000.
The significance of 10,000 ---- apparently less than 10,000, and ICAO doesn't rate you as a "major aviation nation". --- who told me that --- a now very senior bureaucrat in DoIT, then brand new in the job, and perhaps not as discreet as he would be now.
For what is really going on, Avstats figures and avgas sales tell the story.
Aircraft sales are also telling ---- sale of conventional new aircraft is not actually booming, although the high dollar and low prices in US is leading to quite a few used imports --- but numbers are nothing like the rate of the '60's/70's.
As for "hourly rate v. gross income" ---- a telling factor is a comparison using "after tax and other unavoidable deductions".
Another serious "turn-off" is the perceived (whether real or imagined, but a case of the perception is the reality) aggressive enforcement by CASA. As an aside, anecdotal evidence suggests about 80% of students reaching GFPT drop out before getting a PPL, citing difficulty passing the CASA written examinations.
Re. the T-28D story, a colleague and friends recently had a flying holiday from Ghostown to Horn Island and back, via inland routes, although they saw the occasional parked aircraft, they did not encounter one single other movement the whole way up and back. As this group also found, fuel availability is becoming increasingly a problem, with old fueling installations no longer meeting ballooning EPA and OHS regulations, and fallen sales insufficient to justify upgrading.
Tootle pip!!
You should all have a look at the Australian Aviation Association's Forum aviation policy paper for a list of the problems we didn't have in the 70's. ---- and blame cost recovery on the Bosch Report, it was not Dick Smith's idea, all he wanted to do was eliminate unjustified expenditure --- that was to be recovered by the recommendations of Bosch, implemented by Hawke/Keating.
I will gather more facts. In the mean time, note that the CASA numbers are VH registered aircraft while the RA-Aus are separate as noted. The two categories are not double counted.
See here for aviation activity since 1985
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...tivity2010.pdf
Hours flown as reported by industry are higher than they have ever been since 1985 and probably before that.
1985 1.568million hours (nil reported for ultralights)
2010 1.999 million including ultralights
The issue of disposable income is not a regulatory issue so cannot be blamed on CASA or its predecessors. Government cost recovery polices, tax office, litigation lawyers, the welfare state or many other causes.
The issue of CASA enforcement also needs facts. How many prosecutions as percentage of ACO, COA and licence holders? Perception is not a fact - it is usually the product of unsubstantiated rumour.
Fuel availability is an economic issue for fuel companies. No government subsidies any more for regional aerodromes and most regional air services use Jet A1.
See here for aviation activity since 1985
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...tivity2010.pdf
Hours flown as reported by industry are higher than they have ever been since 1985 and probably before that.
1985 1.568million hours (nil reported for ultralights)
2010 1.999 million including ultralights
The issue of disposable income is not a regulatory issue so cannot be blamed on CASA or its predecessors. Government cost recovery polices, tax office, litigation lawyers, the welfare state or many other causes.
The issue of CASA enforcement also needs facts. How many prosecutions as percentage of ACO, COA and licence holders? Perception is not a fact - it is usually the product of unsubstantiated rumour.
Fuel availability is an economic issue for fuel companies. No government subsidies any more for regional aerodromes and most regional air services use Jet A1.
Tried to post a photo. pprune doesn't seem to like the URL. I'll try again later. One of the problems with VAG's figures is that it is total flying. You need to strip out the airlines & choppers. The CASA website used to have a graph of annual GA hours flown, but I can't find it now. Leadsled is also correct in that the register contains a bunch of stuff (like hot air balloons) that didn't used to be there. In the late seventies I used to buy a copy of the register periodically (it came as a thick computer printout with the row of holes down each edge). My clear recollection was that the total number was always in the mid to high 6,000's.
Been through the current CASA annual report. They don't seem to be publishing flying hours any more. I did notice about 1500 balloons & gliders with VH registration and about 1500 helicopters. I suspect both of these would have been a handful only in the seventies.
Dick Smith has a graph of flying hours as the first thing on the Dick Smith Flyer page. And before the Anti-Dick people howl, I'm referring only to the graph which is just publishing the statistics that CASA used to have on its own website.
Dick Smith has a graph of flying hours as the first thing on the Dick Smith Flyer page. And before the Anti-Dick people howl, I'm referring only to the graph which is just publishing the statistics that CASA used to have on its own website.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These reports by the Department into the state of GA in Australia may be useful for this discussion thread:
General Aviation: An Industry Overview
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...eport_v1.2.pdf
General Aviation: An Industry Overview
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...eport_v1.2.pdf
Last edited by QSK?; 18th Dec 2012 at 21:54.
Vag277,
While you are digging up data, see what you can find about increasing use of Administrative Fines, anecdotal "evidence" suggest a very considerable increase, with a number of people who have rung me saying the first they knew of an alleged problem/offence was a request for payment of the penalty turning up in the post.
AMROBA also has some figures on the rather arbitrary use of Administrative Fines and the increasing frequency.
Only the most cynical would suggest it is a Government quest for revenue, it certainly has little to do with "Air Safety".
As for fuel being an "economic argument ", it cannot be so simply compartmentalised, there are a lot on inter-dependencies.
A group who are being driven out of business by aggressive auditing are country maintenance facilities, often "one man bands", who cannot economically cope with ever expanding paperwork demands. One recent casualty, not even in the country, was Sandora Aviation at Caboolture, well know P-51D restorer, as well a a general maintenance facility. Ed Field closed up shop, after about 20 years, he simply couldn't afford the CASA demands for Part 145 like paperwork.
Part 135 will be another nail in the coffin of light aircraft charter, despite various soothing statements about light aircraft maintenance by McCormick. Part 135 is pretty clear, "public transport" aircraft will have to be maintained in a Part 145 facility.
Even Qantas is apparently having trouble getting a Part 145 approval that they can commercially live with!
There has been no safety justification or serious cost/benefit justification of the proposed Part 135, much of the new regulation is regulation for regulation's sake. The fuel "regulations" defy rational legal definition.
The minimum aerodrome standards for Part 135 alone, will eliminate a large percentage of traditional "charter".
Tootle pip!!
While you are digging up data, see what you can find about increasing use of Administrative Fines, anecdotal "evidence" suggest a very considerable increase, with a number of people who have rung me saying the first they knew of an alleged problem/offence was a request for payment of the penalty turning up in the post.
AMROBA also has some figures on the rather arbitrary use of Administrative Fines and the increasing frequency.
Only the most cynical would suggest it is a Government quest for revenue, it certainly has little to do with "Air Safety".
As for fuel being an "economic argument ", it cannot be so simply compartmentalised, there are a lot on inter-dependencies.
A group who are being driven out of business by aggressive auditing are country maintenance facilities, often "one man bands", who cannot economically cope with ever expanding paperwork demands. One recent casualty, not even in the country, was Sandora Aviation at Caboolture, well know P-51D restorer, as well a a general maintenance facility. Ed Field closed up shop, after about 20 years, he simply couldn't afford the CASA demands for Part 145 like paperwork.
Part 135 will be another nail in the coffin of light aircraft charter, despite various soothing statements about light aircraft maintenance by McCormick. Part 135 is pretty clear, "public transport" aircraft will have to be maintained in a Part 145 facility.
Even Qantas is apparently having trouble getting a Part 145 approval that they can commercially live with!
There has been no safety justification or serious cost/benefit justification of the proposed Part 135, much of the new regulation is regulation for regulation's sake. The fuel "regulations" defy rational legal definition.
The minimum aerodrome standards for Part 135 alone, will eliminate a large percentage of traditional "charter".
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Dec 2012 at 23:28.