Multicom vs area frequency
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The changes in ENR 1.1 44.1.1 (May 1013) that moved broadcasts from non-charted aerodromes on to the area frequency has caused a lot of concern amongst the RAPACs. Nobody can tell us what perceived problem was being addressed by moving broadcasts from non-charted aerodromes from the Multicom to the area VHF frequency. We can not find any evidence of consultation with any stake holders either.
At the July Vic. RAPAC meeting CASA and the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) refuse to allow it on their agenda for discussion on the basis that it is an "Operational issue" whatever that means.
Having identified four serious issues as a result of the change the RAPAC convenors then tried to have the matter added to the agenda for the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum (AACF) scheduled for Friday 05 Sept.
Again all discussion was blocked by the remarkable response that in spite of being an Airspace and Aerodrome consultative Forum the RAPAC concerns could not be listed on the agenda because it was an operational issue.
What therefore is the purpose of the OAR and the AACF if they cannot discuss all matters relevant to aerodromes and aerospace and why would anybody bother attending such lame events? Nobody has an answer to this as yet.
The RAPACs want all aerodromes without a separate CTAF to broadcast on the Multicom (126.7). Whether they are on charts or otherwise is irrelevant.
The four concerns we have are:
(1) The potential frequency congestion and unintentional jamming on the area VHF because the ATS transmissions do not have coverage down to the lower levels in many places. This is largely because the area VHF boundaries are related to the TAATS overlays not the transmitter sites. In fact some transmitters are actually located outside the actual sector. Nobody knows jut how many non-charted aerodromes there are within VHF coverage of traffic at flight levels but every ag strip would have to be included.
(2) Previously, aerodrome broadcasts were either on a published CTAF or on the Multicom so monitoring the latter made sense in many situations. Now the traffic information from non-charted aerodromes has been lost.
(3) There is now a conflict between the frequency requirements of CAR 166C and the AIP at non-charted aerodromes that are in the vicinity of charted aerodromes.
(4) Where an un-charted aerodrome is situated near the boundary of two area VHF frequencies, two broadcast frequencies for that aerodrome have been unwittingly created.
The whole issue has every sign of a change made without a proper understanding of the consequences followed by an orchestrated refusal to consult with the airspace users.
At the July Vic. RAPAC meeting CASA and the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) refuse to allow it on their agenda for discussion on the basis that it is an "Operational issue" whatever that means.
Having identified four serious issues as a result of the change the RAPAC convenors then tried to have the matter added to the agenda for the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum (AACF) scheduled for Friday 05 Sept.
Again all discussion was blocked by the remarkable response that in spite of being an Airspace and Aerodrome consultative Forum the RAPAC concerns could not be listed on the agenda because it was an operational issue.
What therefore is the purpose of the OAR and the AACF if they cannot discuss all matters relevant to aerodromes and aerospace and why would anybody bother attending such lame events? Nobody has an answer to this as yet.
The RAPACs want all aerodromes without a separate CTAF to broadcast on the Multicom (126.7). Whether they are on charts or otherwise is irrelevant.
The four concerns we have are:
(1) The potential frequency congestion and unintentional jamming on the area VHF because the ATS transmissions do not have coverage down to the lower levels in many places. This is largely because the area VHF boundaries are related to the TAATS overlays not the transmitter sites. In fact some transmitters are actually located outside the actual sector. Nobody knows jut how many non-charted aerodromes there are within VHF coverage of traffic at flight levels but every ag strip would have to be included.
(2) Previously, aerodrome broadcasts were either on a published CTAF or on the Multicom so monitoring the latter made sense in many situations. Now the traffic information from non-charted aerodromes has been lost.
(3) There is now a conflict between the frequency requirements of CAR 166C and the AIP at non-charted aerodromes that are in the vicinity of charted aerodromes.
(4) Where an un-charted aerodrome is situated near the boundary of two area VHF frequencies, two broadcast frequencies for that aerodrome have been unwittingly created.
The whole issue has every sign of a change made without a proper understanding of the consequences followed by an orchestrated refusal to consult with the airspace users.
Don't worry: The meltdown and aluminium confetti were apparently avoided through everyone refusing to comply with the broadcast rules. 
Lucky all those hives of aviation activity that aren't marked on any aeronautical chart remain on 126.7. (If you could let me know where one - just one - is located, I'd appreciate that.)
BTW: It wasn't a change.
Lucky all those hives of aviation activity that aren't marked on any aeronautical chart remain on 126.7. (If you could let me know where one - just one - is located, I'd appreciate that.)
BTW: It wasn't a change.
[S]eems you did not know about the procedure being in existance[sic] for over the last decade!
Nor did any of the pilots I know.
Nor did the author of the CAAP that prompted this thread.
The good news for us is that we just keep doing what we’ve always been doing.
And please, could someone nominate one – just one – hive of aviation activity that isn’t marked on any aeronautical chart, the broadcasts from the vicinity of which are going to cause meltdown and aluminium confetti? Just one. Please?
Come on Puff, I don't hear VFR broadcasting on the Area freq with circuit details at Bullamakanka ALA but when I do I think "I don't need to hear that".
Broadcasts by low-level VFR on the Multicom are imminently more sensible than on Area.
Broadcasts by low-level VFR on the Multicom are imminently more sensible than on Area.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that at flight levels you are within VHF coverage of a very large numbers of non-charted aerodromes.
The procedure came into effect in May 2013 with amendment #75 to the AIP. Before that all aerodromes without a published CTAF broadcast on the Multicom.
The procedure came into effect in May 2013 with amendment #75 to the AIP. Before that all aerodromes without a published CTAF broadcast on the Multicom.
I've said this before, Bloggsie, and I know it may be confronting: It's not just about you.
I've also said this before: I don't particularly care what the rules are, provided everyone knows what they are and complies with them. Not much chance of that, going by the discussion on this thread.
I only stir up this hornets' nest for sh*ts and giggles. I'm always amused at the factional wars in Aviation in Australia, with all sides always citing 'safety' as the basis for their irreconcilable positions.
I've also said this before: I don't particularly care what the rules are, provided everyone knows what they are and complies with them. Not much chance of that, going by the discussion on this thread.
I only stir up this hornets' nest for sh*ts and giggles. I'm always amused at the factional wars in Aviation in Australia, with all sides always citing 'safety' as the basis for their irreconcilable positions.
I've also said this before: I don't particularly care what the rules are...
...provided everyone knows what they are and complies with them. Not much chance of that, going by the discussion on this thread.
We can always wallop it with the Government Policy stick...
I'm always amused at the factional wars in Aviation in Australia, with all sides always citing 'safety' as the basis for their irreconcilable positions.
No wars in this case, or am I missing something?
That would be everyone … except, strangely, the rule makers.
How is it that the rule makers could be so out of step with what “everyone” says is safe? What could their motivation be for this “change”? I’ll bet you London to a brick that they say: “Safety”.
The fact is that there’s lots and lots (and lots) (and even more lots) of not much happening at places that aren’t marked on any aeronautical charts. The alleged risks arising from the “change” are therefore either invented or merely perceived rather than substantial.
As with everything aviation in Australia, there’s much more to this and it doesn’t have much to do with safety.
I’m not in the way of any change, so my stepping in any direction won’t make any difference.
I look forward to more entertainment watching the attempts at getting the rule “changed”!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like this rule.
I operate from a quiet farmer's strip which is not marked on any charts and is underneath a busy route to the north of Melbourne.
All aircraft overflying the strip are on the ATC frequency so there is no way that I'm going to be on 126.7 but I keep transmissions to a minimum.
This applied before the rule change too - so the change reflected what was actually happening here.
I operate from a quiet farmer's strip which is not marked on any charts and is underneath a busy route to the north of Melbourne.
All aircraft overflying the strip are on the ATC frequency so there is no way that I'm going to be on 126.7 but I keep transmissions to a minimum.
This applied before the rule change too - so the change reflected what was actually happening here.
Last edited by uncle8; 2nd Sep 2014 at 04:40. Reason: added last line.
Yair. No probs in giving CTAF taxi and inbound calls on an ATC frequency that is also used for separation. And if there is traffic you can have a good old discussion on how you are going to keep apart .
Who cares if the calls block out an ATC instructions on the busy route above.
They probably arn't very important.
And who cares that the circuit calls are re transmitted across half of Victoria - makes it look busy for the ATCs and may mean a pay rise!
Who cares if the calls block out an ATC instructions on the busy route above.
They probably arn't very important.
And who cares that the circuit calls are re transmitted across half of Victoria - makes it look busy for the ATCs and may mean a pay rise!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, make that half of Victoria & half of NSW.
And by the way, Bloggs has always been the voice of reason on these types of threads................wait a minute............could he be???
And by the way, Bloggs has always been the voice of reason on these types of threads................wait a minute............could he be???
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there are too many calls which distract the ATCs from their primary function, couldn't someone arrange to:
Decombine the frequencies so that there is less retransmission and more ATCs to handle the workload and/or
Mark the busy strips on the maps and, if necessary, give them CTAF frequencies.
I agree that there doesn't appear to be many unmarked strips which are busy enough to cause much trouble but I suppose that you could say that any extra transmissions, at all, could cause a controller some stress when he really needs the frequency for something more important.
Don't think so though.
Decombine the frequencies so that there is less retransmission and more ATCs to handle the workload and/or
Mark the busy strips on the maps and, if necessary, give them CTAF frequencies.
I agree that there doesn't appear to be many unmarked strips which are busy enough to cause much trouble but I suppose that you could say that any extra transmissions, at all, could cause a controller some stress when he really needs the frequency for something more important.
Don't think so though.
Dick and JR: You guys really need to publish your rule book, soon.
Some anarchists have published a thing called the “Melbourne Basin Visual Pilot Guide”. It says:
- “monitor Melbourne radar 135.7 when within 30nm of Melbourne (40 nm to the south and south east)”
- “Departure [from Moorabbin] Depart by extending the relevant leg of the circuit. Monitor tower frequency until clear of Moorabbin CTR. Then monitor Melbourne Radar (135.7)
- “Entering coastal route … Listen out on Melbourne Radar frequency (135.7) … Make a radio call …”
- “Entering inland route … Listen out on Melbourne Radar frequency (135.7) … Make a traffic call …”
There are equivalent Guides published for other places.
Shouldn’t all this monitoring and calling be on 126.7?
Please: Save us!
Some anarchists have published a thing called the “Melbourne Basin Visual Pilot Guide”. It says:
- “monitor Melbourne radar 135.7 when within 30nm of Melbourne (40 nm to the south and south east)”
- “Departure [from Moorabbin] Depart by extending the relevant leg of the circuit. Monitor tower frequency until clear of Moorabbin CTR. Then monitor Melbourne Radar (135.7)
- “Entering coastal route … Listen out on Melbourne Radar frequency (135.7) … Make a radio call …”
- “Entering inland route … Listen out on Melbourne Radar frequency (135.7) … Make a traffic call …”
There are equivalent Guides published for other places.
Shouldn’t all this monitoring and calling be on 126.7?
Please: Save us!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dood, I guess it's your job to read all sorts of crap into what a person (me) says/writes.
I don't care a tinkers cuss what the rules are either. It's not my rule book & neither should it be. It should be the industries rule book developed in consultation with the stakeholders.
I read what you say should be happening on the area frequency regarding situational awareness from VFR's etc and I'm telling you: It's NOT happening.
I don't care a tinkers cuss what the rules are either. It's not my rule book & neither should it be. It should be the industries rule book developed in consultation with the stakeholders.
I read what you say should be happening on the area frequency regarding situational awareness from VFR's etc and I'm telling you: It's NOT happening.
Precisely the reason it's been raised by the Vic RAPAC and hopefully will be changed when CASA sees sense.
Few seem to recognise or care about that sort of thing these days -
Picture the situation where there is a mid-air due frequency separation, and blame is assigned " .... due to the many and sometimes confusing changes to radio broadcast procedures over the preceding 10 years ......"
Calling all VFR pilots and instructors of VFR students in the Melbourne area: What rule book do you use? What parts of the "Melbourne Basin Visual Pilot Guide" are contrary to your rule book?
Are you not returning JR's calls because you're 'just not in to him', or because you need time with your own friends on 126.7?
Are you not returning JR's calls because you're 'just not in to him', or because you need time with your own friends on 126.7?