CTAF - yet more changes.
Thread Starter
CTAF - yet more changes.
Remember when a CTAF was a cheese-shaped volume of air with an upper limit of 3000 feet and a radius of 5 nautical miles around the airport? Not all that long ago, was it? There were specific radio calls that had to be made. It was all pretty clear and easy to understand, and as far as I recall it worked rather well.
Then we had the "new airspace procedures" and operations around non-towered aerodromes. A CTAF could be a CTAF or a CTAF(R). One needed a radio to be carried, the other permitted entry without a radio. The dimensions of the CTAF area changed as well. It became a cylinder of air with no height limit, with a requirement that aircraft be listening to the CTAF frequency "by 10nm". Mandatory radio calls were documented and we all started cluttering up the frequency with call after call after call.
Realising the situation had gone beyond a joke, CASA decided to remove mandatory radio calls altogether and replace them with the catch-all proviso that pilots needed to make calls whenever they felt it necessary to do so in the interests of safety. Oddly enough, most pilots continued making most of the calls that had been mandatory - basically because they were genuinely useful.
Well, with effect from 28th June 2012, a CTAF has been redefined yet again, and now it has a defined upper limit. But the upper limit depends on what airspace lies above the area enclosed by the CTAF. The "by 10nm" requirement remains unaltered - for the time being. Another point; it is unclear whether we are to use the term CTAF now, or use the term NTA (non-tower aerodrome).
The new upper limits are as follows:-
i) if there is class G airspace above the CTAF then the CTAF upper limit is 5000 feet.
ii) if there is low-level class E airspace above the CTAF, then the upper limit is 8500 feet.
iii) if there is a control zone above the CTAF then the upper limit is the base of the control zone.
Instructors will doubtless relish the task of re-training existing student pilots in the new requirements. New students will just accept this as the word of God - until someone with not enough to do in the office of airspace reform in Canberra decides to change it yet again. Naturally all the training manuals, exams etc will be immediately re-written to reflect the changes.
The May-June 2012 edition of "Flight Safety" magazine detailed these changes, but my attention was drawn to it by an article in "Australian Aviation", July 2012 issue, page 84, sub-titled "The massaging of non-tower aerodromes (NTA) procedures continues."
I think the word "massaging" is rather perfumed, actually. I'd be using a far less euphemistic term.
Then we had the "new airspace procedures" and operations around non-towered aerodromes. A CTAF could be a CTAF or a CTAF(R). One needed a radio to be carried, the other permitted entry without a radio. The dimensions of the CTAF area changed as well. It became a cylinder of air with no height limit, with a requirement that aircraft be listening to the CTAF frequency "by 10nm". Mandatory radio calls were documented and we all started cluttering up the frequency with call after call after call.
Realising the situation had gone beyond a joke, CASA decided to remove mandatory radio calls altogether and replace them with the catch-all proviso that pilots needed to make calls whenever they felt it necessary to do so in the interests of safety. Oddly enough, most pilots continued making most of the calls that had been mandatory - basically because they were genuinely useful.
Well, with effect from 28th June 2012, a CTAF has been redefined yet again, and now it has a defined upper limit. But the upper limit depends on what airspace lies above the area enclosed by the CTAF. The "by 10nm" requirement remains unaltered - for the time being. Another point; it is unclear whether we are to use the term CTAF now, or use the term NTA (non-tower aerodrome).
The new upper limits are as follows:-
i) if there is class G airspace above the CTAF then the CTAF upper limit is 5000 feet.
ii) if there is low-level class E airspace above the CTAF, then the upper limit is 8500 feet.
iii) if there is a control zone above the CTAF then the upper limit is the base of the control zone.
Instructors will doubtless relish the task of re-training existing student pilots in the new requirements. New students will just accept this as the word of God - until someone with not enough to do in the office of airspace reform in Canberra decides to change it yet again. Naturally all the training manuals, exams etc will be immediately re-written to reflect the changes.
The May-June 2012 edition of "Flight Safety" magazine detailed these changes, but my attention was drawn to it by an article in "Australian Aviation", July 2012 issue, page 84, sub-titled "The massaging of non-tower aerodromes (NTA) procedures continues."
I think the word "massaging" is rather perfumed, actually. I'd be using a far less euphemistic term.
You'd better give me the AIP references, Critical Mass, because apart from the introduction of Broadcast Areas (aka large CTAFs), I can't see any of what you are talking about in the 28 June revision.
By the way:
is misleading. At least two specific calls inbound and two outbound are "recommended", in addition to the new mandatory call. The rest, quite rightly, have been removed from the mandatory list.
By the way:
CASA decided to remove mandatory radio calls altogether and replace them with the catch-all proviso that pilots needed to make calls whenever they felt it necessary to do so in the interests of safety.
Thread Starter
The last line in the article in "Flight Safety" May-June (page 4) 2012 states:-
"The changes are expected to come into effect on the AIRAC effective date 28 June 2012."
The last amendment to AIP, no 71 dated 28/6/2012 has the changes in section ENR 1.4-7, heading "Broadcast Areas", 3.3, subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2., but adds an additional upper limit in 3.3.2:-
c) Surface to a nominated level.
(Presumably this covers the eventuality that a control zone overlies the NTA but does not come down to SFC.)
3.3.3 states "The lateral and vertical boundaries are defined in AIP MAP.
"The changes are expected to come into effect on the AIRAC effective date 28 June 2012."
The last amendment to AIP, no 71 dated 28/6/2012 has the changes in section ENR 1.4-7, heading "Broadcast Areas", 3.3, subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2., but adds an additional upper limit in 3.3.2:-
c) Surface to a nominated level.
(Presumably this covers the eventuality that a control zone overlies the NTA but does not come down to SFC.)
3.3.3 states "The lateral and vertical boundaries are defined in AIP MAP.
You're reading too much into this. There is no mention of overlying "control zones", although I could see that being logical (although I can't think of a need for a broadcast area under one of the current CTRs). For some years, large CTAFs existed over the top-end, in WA and the NT. The NAS ideologues had them removed a couple of years ago because they didn't exist in the USA. Guess what, they do work well and so CASA is re-instating them.
Yet another example of "I think they do things this way in the USA without really understanding it but let's copy it anyway" is not always the best way of making airspace policy (along with the circuit calls/verbal diarrhoea that was introduced at the "urging" of the same ideologues a couple of years back).
So, really, nothing much has changed this time round; the only change being an improvement/return to what was previously in place.
Yet another example of "I think they do things this way in the USA without really understanding it but let's copy it anyway" is not always the best way of making airspace policy (along with the circuit calls/verbal diarrhoea that was introduced at the "urging" of the same ideologues a couple of years back).
So, really, nothing much has changed this time round; the only change being an improvement/return to what was previously in place.
(Presumably this covers the eventuality that a control zone overlies the NTA but does not come down to SFC.)
Broadcast Areas are not CTAF.
I think you have muddied things to the extent that I recommend all read the 28 June 12 AIP ENR 1.4-7 to understand the real situation.
The problem with the so-called "Large CTAF" was that not having a vertical limit, pilots were unsure at what level overflying they should be on the FIA or Large CTAF. These Broadcast Areas remove that confusion.
A CTAF is just that - a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency. They are not a defined volume of airspace, simply a frequency to be on when in the vicinity (WI 10NM) of an AD/ALA.
126.7. That was an AWESOME idea! Not...
Thread Starter
I think Jabawocky raises an interesting point. How long before some whizz-kid in Canberra decides the "within 10 miles" isn't specific enough and decides all aircraft within (say) a 15 mile radius of an NTA must carry radio, and use it?
I recall precisely what an MBZ was, and it doesn't take much to see the new Broadcast Area with a CTAF surrounding an NTA morphing into something very close to what what we used to call an MBZ. (Why is it every time we re-invent the wheel we have to have this lengthy argument about what colour it should be?)
Now, I'm not against change if it improves safety or removes confusion about what the intention of the regulator is. However I am getting fatigued with the continued tweaking of the definition of a volume of air which constitutes a Broadcast Area (and which has a CTAF associated with it, since a CTAF is by definition just a frequency, not the volume of air itself - point acknowledged and noted).
Actually, I am still trying to remember what was wrong with the old CTAF broadcast area's 5 miles and 3000 feet boundaries. It precisely defined a volume of air. You were either in it or you weren't. The old MBZ of 15 miles radius and 5000 feet did likewise. One height, one radius for each volume of air. It wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well as far as I can recall. The boundaries were even marked with special symbols on the VNC and VTC. That worked too. Not any more. At least we have the radio frequencies on the charts again.
My thanks to Capn Bloggs for the heads-up about Large CTAFs. Being a southern state aviator who has never had the adventure of flying in the far North, I was unaware of these huge areas. Thanks, too, to all who have posted. Your time, input and effort are genuinely appreciated.
I'll grovel through AIP ENR 1.4-7 and try to pick the bones out of it sufficiently to impart the new requirements to any pilots I encounter who may be unaware of it. That's probably just about every pilot who holds any sort of recreational flying certificate, because their respective organisations don't seem to have promulgated anything about this at all. Most eloquent in their silence.
Meanwhile I'll look forward eagerly to the next instalment of the ongoing saga of the new airspace procedures. I don't think we've seen the last of it yet.
I recall precisely what an MBZ was, and it doesn't take much to see the new Broadcast Area with a CTAF surrounding an NTA morphing into something very close to what what we used to call an MBZ. (Why is it every time we re-invent the wheel we have to have this lengthy argument about what colour it should be?)
Now, I'm not against change if it improves safety or removes confusion about what the intention of the regulator is. However I am getting fatigued with the continued tweaking of the definition of a volume of air which constitutes a Broadcast Area (and which has a CTAF associated with it, since a CTAF is by definition just a frequency, not the volume of air itself - point acknowledged and noted).
Actually, I am still trying to remember what was wrong with the old CTAF broadcast area's 5 miles and 3000 feet boundaries. It precisely defined a volume of air. You were either in it or you weren't. The old MBZ of 15 miles radius and 5000 feet did likewise. One height, one radius for each volume of air. It wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well as far as I can recall. The boundaries were even marked with special symbols on the VNC and VTC. That worked too. Not any more. At least we have the radio frequencies on the charts again.
My thanks to Capn Bloggs for the heads-up about Large CTAFs. Being a southern state aviator who has never had the adventure of flying in the far North, I was unaware of these huge areas. Thanks, too, to all who have posted. Your time, input and effort are genuinely appreciated.
I'll grovel through AIP ENR 1.4-7 and try to pick the bones out of it sufficiently to impart the new requirements to any pilots I encounter who may be unaware of it. That's probably just about every pilot who holds any sort of recreational flying certificate, because their respective organisations don't seem to have promulgated anything about this at all. Most eloquent in their silence.
Meanwhile I'll look forward eagerly to the next instalment of the ongoing saga of the new airspace procedures. I don't think we've seen the last of it yet.
their respective organisations don't seem to have promulgated anything about this at all. Most eloquent in their silence.
Wouldn't want to be flying from Moorabbin down Apollo Bay or something under the 'regular' 3500-5000 base cloud that sits around.
Tyabb, St Leonards, Dysdale, Barwon Heads, Grovedale, Torquay, Ceres and Moriac off the top of my head. And that's before you get past Anglesea.
Awful lot of talking to do.
Tyabb, St Leonards, Dysdale, Barwon Heads, Grovedale, Torquay, Ceres and Moriac off the top of my head. And that's before you get past Anglesea.
Awful lot of talking to do.
CTAF as defined volumes of airspace were problematic in that they did not work for medium to high performance aircraft. If you left it until entering the volume to call, you'd have the potential for a facefull of aircraft.
Becoming simply a frequency addressed that, but it does rely on the use of common sense, using the CTAF if your ops may infringe the circuit area or local ops at an AD/ALA.
Becoming simply a frequency addressed that, but it does rely on the use of common sense, using the CTAF if your ops may infringe the circuit area or local ops at an AD/ALA.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree wholeheartedly mr flappy - until the RAAF commenced providing 7-day ATC services at Newcastle, it wasn't uncommon for inbound 737/A320 to make calls at 50-60 miles, again at 25, and then every 5 miles from 15, and still end up in a massive balls-up as someone in a Jabiru or something crossed the Newcastle City CTAF boundary to the south (limit: Hunter River, about 5NM away from the AD) and entered the Newcastle CTAF, in between calls from the jet, and for both concerned to end up with a surprise windscreen full of the other.
Likewise, there are strips like Bathurst or Cessnock where an over-anxious CPL student just can't help themselves from broadcasting engine start, taxiing on alpha, entering 30, backtracking 30, lining up 30, rolling 30, airborne 30, crosswind 30, downwind 30, scratching left nut, had weeties for breakfast etc while the one or two other low-performance aircraft in the area pass through all the phases of rage and frustration to end up gibbering messes in their cockpits while they try to squeeze in an estimate or a request for the cloud base.
It makes far more sense for CTAFs - which are, let's note, a procedure whose risk tolerance is designed around low-density/low-frequency aerodromes - to be of varying size and dimension according to aircraft performance and traffic conditions, and leave it to the professionalism and airmanship of the pilots within it to determine at what point, and with what frequency, they broadcast. If pilots aren't professional/competent enough to manage that, it's beyond the scope of AIP to regulate common sense.
In any case, most of the people who struggle to determine what's appropriate for a particular CTAF probably haven't picked up a copy of AIP since their GFPT - I still run into pilots who remain completely ignorant that we ever went to CTAF(R), let alone got rid of them again!
Likewise, there are strips like Bathurst or Cessnock where an over-anxious CPL student just can't help themselves from broadcasting engine start, taxiing on alpha, entering 30, backtracking 30, lining up 30, rolling 30, airborne 30, crosswind 30, downwind 30, scratching left nut, had weeties for breakfast etc while the one or two other low-performance aircraft in the area pass through all the phases of rage and frustration to end up gibbering messes in their cockpits while they try to squeeze in an estimate or a request for the cloud base.
It makes far more sense for CTAFs - which are, let's note, a procedure whose risk tolerance is designed around low-density/low-frequency aerodromes - to be of varying size and dimension according to aircraft performance and traffic conditions, and leave it to the professionalism and airmanship of the pilots within it to determine at what point, and with what frequency, they broadcast. If pilots aren't professional/competent enough to manage that, it's beyond the scope of AIP to regulate common sense.
In any case, most of the people who struggle to determine what's appropriate for a particular CTAF probably haven't picked up a copy of AIP since their GFPT - I still run into pilots who remain completely ignorant that we ever went to CTAF(R), let alone got rid of them again!
Actually woody, your argument supports fixed boundaries for CTAFs/Areas. The only problem with your scenario was that 5nm was the limit. If it was that airspace actually used by a jet, then the situation would probably have been completely different; before the Jabiru got to the boundary (say 10nm), it would have made a call, alerting the 737 before windscreens got filled. Newcastle was always going to be a dog's breakfast, as was pointed out to the proponent of the Class G Trial and then E there.
Your example highlights two things: the inappropriateness of low-level Class E airspace into a CTAF area for jet operations in busy airspace, and that 5nm was never appropriate/too close in some circumstances; the only reason we got lumped with it was because "that's the way they do it in America".
What is needed is clear, simple rules so that even the most lowly-houred troop can understand and comply with. "Approximately 10nm" doesn't work in many situations where jets are involved, not that the most vocal Free in Gers understand.
Regarding your verbal diarrhoea student, there's only one person to blame for that! Unfortunately, as per your example, it takes years to turn the wheel around.
Your example highlights two things: the inappropriateness of low-level Class E airspace into a CTAF area for jet operations in busy airspace, and that 5nm was never appropriate/too close in some circumstances; the only reason we got lumped with it was because "that's the way they do it in America".
What is needed is clear, simple rules so that even the most lowly-houred troop can understand and comply with. "Approximately 10nm" doesn't work in many situations where jets are involved, not that the most vocal Free in Gers understand.
Regarding your verbal diarrhoea student, there's only one person to blame for that! Unfortunately, as per your example, it takes years to turn the wheel around.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this right...as you enter a Broadcast Area (SFC to 5000 AMSL outside radar coverage...so they actually vary in volume, perhaps leaving only 1000FT clearance with the cct height...), you broadcast on the CTAF or CTAF(R) or Multicom, but these broadcasts are not mandatory...right?
That’s probably correct, maybe for this week, Hempy. I don’t know.
But I’m guessing that’s your point….
With respect to Woodwork, I’m with mr flappy and Capn Bloggs. A system that has some easily rote-learned parameters with low-risk disadvantages seems to me to be better than one that is confusing. Sure there’s always a judgment call, but a system that leaves less scope for bad judgment calls by the inexperienced participants is better than one that creates more.
The best airspace system is the one in which the experts can anticipate and effectively mitigate the bad decisions made by the beginners. (Cliché Copyright Claimed by Creampuff, 2012)
But I’m guessing that’s your point….
With respect to Woodwork, I’m with mr flappy and Capn Bloggs. A system that has some easily rote-learned parameters with low-risk disadvantages seems to me to be better than one that is confusing. Sure there’s always a judgment call, but a system that leaves less scope for bad judgment calls by the inexperienced participants is better than one that creates more.
The best airspace system is the one in which the experts can anticipate and effectively mitigate the bad decisions made by the beginners. (Cliché Copyright Claimed by Creampuff, 2012)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The defined volume is the best option, especially at 5,000ft and 10nm at least. If you're on a local flight you often don't go above 5,000ft but may be anywhere under that. Anyone above 5,000ft is generally going somewhere. Way back in charter days I'd always plan between 7-10,000ft as it got you up out of the way.
Prescribed mandatory calls for taxi, entering runway, inbound and joining circuit are the way to go with a STANDARD FORMAT! Calling every leg of the circuit is rediculous. Make the required mandatory calls and only if needed make more as required.
Use a bit of common sense in regard to inbound calls. Jets/turboprops are monitoring the CTAF (NTA) from a long way out. Faster aircraft call further out as arrival time will be similar to someone closer but slower.
As for the volume of space, a jet/turboprop will usually be at 5-6,000ft 20nm out and 3,000ft at 10nm.
Prescribed mandatory calls for taxi, entering runway, inbound and joining circuit are the way to go with a STANDARD FORMAT! Calling every leg of the circuit is rediculous. Make the required mandatory calls and only if needed make more as required.
Use a bit of common sense in regard to inbound calls. Jets/turboprops are monitoring the CTAF (NTA) from a long way out. Faster aircraft call further out as arrival time will be similar to someone closer but slower.
As for the volume of space, a jet/turboprop will usually be at 5-6,000ft 20nm out and 3,000ft at 10nm.
I think this discussion is mixing up good airmanship with regulation. I fly an antique aeroplane with a cruise below 60 kts and a complex twin with a cruise above 200 kts. You can't have a regulation that is appropriate for both. The bit the bridges the two is airmanship. The problem is that CASA no longer understands what it is and I'm not sure that our flying schools teach it. Regardless of the rules, if I'm on descent to a CTAF from flight levels, doing 200 kts, the radio calls start 30nm out and a listening watch on traffic at probably 60nm - and the calls will be giving a circuit area time estimate not a distance. 180 kts (for easy math) is 3nm a minute. 30 nm takes 10 minutes - about the time it takes a flying school single to do a circuit. On the basis that many guys only seem to listen to about 1 radio call in 2 (maybe 1 in 3?), you need to get out about 3 calls before joining the circuit. Try this approach in a Cessna 150 and between making a 30nm call and joining the circuit and either everyone forgot the first call of the guys in the circuit have all landed and there's a new crop of aircraft in the circuit. A simple 3nm call is adequate in this circumstance.
CASA has accident data going back 80 - 90 years. 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). Why do we need it now?
CASA has accident data going back 80 - 90 years. 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). Why do we need it now?