Multicom vs area frequency
I seem to recall that when this "Multicom" concept first came in many many moons ago there were complaints at RAPACs across the country from day one.
Complaints from traffic at many aerodromes that they were hearing broadcasts on 126.7 from aircraft nowhere near them, broadcasts from traffic at other aerodromes causing confusion because of the same runway IDs etc. etc.
And that's when discrete CTAFs started to be allocated to specific aerodromes and groups of aerodromes in close proximity to take traffic off 126.7, and that practice of allocating discrete CTAFs continues today. And when the level of radio traffic in a particular area starts to interfere with FIA comms, a Broadcast Area is declared
Dick - mate .... you know pollies wouldn't know 
from clay 
Complaints from traffic at many aerodromes that they were hearing broadcasts on 126.7 from aircraft nowhere near them, broadcasts from traffic at other aerodromes causing confusion because of the same runway IDs etc. etc.
And that's when discrete CTAFs started to be allocated to specific aerodromes and groups of aerodromes in close proximity to take traffic off 126.7, and that practice of allocating discrete CTAFs continues today. And when the level of radio traffic in a particular area starts to interfere with FIA comms, a Broadcast Area is declared
based on the decision made on airspace policy by Federal Cabinet
from clay
I seem to recall that when this "Multicom" concept first came in many many moons ago there were complaints at RAPACs across the country from day one.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, there was a publication put out by Air Services suggesting/ dictating the calls to be used at non towered aerodromes.
Airservices provides services in controlled airspace so why they would publish something about non towered airstrips was puzzling to me.
Those "omelet recipes" you are complaining about are what they suggested in the document.
...another document best ignored
Airservices provides services in controlled airspace so why they would publish something about non towered airstrips was puzzling to me.
Those "omelet recipes" you are complaining about are what they suggested in the document.
...another document best ignored
In this case they made a good decision because the team who made the recommendation made the correct decision.
There was always a multicom and separate CTAF frequencies.
There was always a multicom and separate CTAF frequencies.
To those who say why say anything at all at an empty aerodrome...how do you know there is nobody else there if there is radio silence?
I have never forgotten an air tractor deciding to line up and take off with a tailwind in Northam, with zero calls, while I was on short final for the reciprocal runway. I had made calls but they chose not to talk or listen. IF they hadn't been such a large aeroplane it could have been possible to miss them.
I have never forgotten an air tractor deciding to line up and take off with a tailwind in Northam, with zero calls, while I was on short final for the reciprocal runway. I had made calls but they chose not to talk or listen. IF they hadn't been such a large aeroplane it could have been possible to miss them.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northam is a well known, "marked" strip so calls on the ctaf needed to be made. Aggies generally do what they want, and don't hit you doing it! Best to ignore them.
Radio "silence" is OK at private strips which are not used by anyone else!
Radio "silence" is OK at private strips which are not used by anyone else!
I may be confused, but I think that this week the only places in the vicinity of which VHF radio must be carried and used are 'registered' or 'certified' aerodromes. Northam isn't registered or certified.
There are plenty of places that are marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts but aren't registered or certified.
If you think everyone in the vicinity of a place that's marked as an aerodrome on an aeronautical chart has a radio, please think again and check ERSA.
There are plenty of places that are marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts but aren't registered or certified.
If you think everyone in the vicinity of a place that's marked as an aerodrome on an aeronautical chart has a radio, please think again and check ERSA.
Creampuff your scorn is getting really tedious.
I am talking about an aircraft that obviously has a radio as it also operates at Jandakot. A pilot who chose either a) to keep it turned off or b) to depart from a runway with another aircraft on final in the opposite direction.
You're the clever ne so you can post the reference that if you have a radio you must use it.
My point was that for those who feel that total radio silence is preferable to calls at an aerodrome that my not be certified or registered but nevertheless it's own discrete CTAF there could be occasions where you can cause another aircraft who has right of way to have to make a rapid change of course.
Scorn away as you are going on to my ignore list.
I am talking about an aircraft that obviously has a radio as it also operates at Jandakot. A pilot who chose either a) to keep it turned off or b) to depart from a runway with another aircraft on final in the opposite direction.
You're the clever ne so you can post the reference that if you have a radio you must use it.
My point was that for those who feel that total radio silence is preferable to calls at an aerodrome that my not be certified or registered but nevertheless it's own discrete CTAF there could be occasions where you can cause another aircraft who has right of way to have to make a rapid change of course.
Scorn away as you are going on to my ignore list.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clare prop that is why CTAF frequencies all need beep back units. so that on your radio call you can tell from the beep back response whether anyone else is active at the time.
the two aircraft I'm restoring have no electrical systems in them at all, just the magnetos.
you are making me think I should leave them as built.
the two aircraft I'm restoring have no electrical systems in them at all, just the magnetos.
you are making me think I should leave them as built.
W8 I am aware of that. This was an air tractor who had chosen NOT to use his radio, as many people here seem to think is OK, while I had made what were at the time mandatory calls. There is an AFRU at Northam.
This is an example of when people think that "see and avoid" is enough for situational awareness and presumably why CASA have removed the mandatory requirement for certain calls. This guy had no idea there were other aircraft in the circuit or the runway in use, unless he thought that as his aircraft was about 4x bigger than all the others he could just blast off and we would get out of the way. Which luckily we were able to.
This is an example of when people think that "see and avoid" is enough for situational awareness and presumably why CASA have removed the mandatory requirement for certain calls. This guy had no idea there were other aircraft in the circuit or the runway in use, unless he thought that as his aircraft was about 4x bigger than all the others he could just blast off and we would get out of the way. Which luckily we were able to.
Standing on the sidelines.
Not wanting to weigh into this absorbing debate but there seems to be a couple of sleeping elephants here that most, accept for Creamy (who keeps tweaking tails..
), RAPAC and maybe Dick seem to be able to identify in amongst the FF smoke & mirrors...
There is a safety issue here but IMO it is not the fact that some high flying airliner may get their RT to ATC clipped by annoying knuckle-draggers transmitting on area, which could ultimately lead to Creamy's 30,000 ft death plunge. A simple read of all recent BOS & LOSA incidents will put that fallacy to death. No the real safety issue here is again that of FF's making, which is that through their actions/inactions they are creating;
(a) A fear of non-compliance and therefore confusion in interpretation (as highlighted by this thread), which leads to simply ignoring and not making any RT calls.
(b) A culture of ignorance and complacency that leads to Joe (Private Pilot) Citizen simply ignoring and not making any RT calls (as highlighted in Clare Prop's example).
There is also a third slice of the Swiss cheese here that keeps rearing its' ugly head...
This is again of FF's making and is heavily embedded in their current toxic culture i.e. the profoundly DEAF EAR of the big "R" regulator...
From the Oz article 05 September 2014 (my bold):CASA under fire over handling of frequency changes for light pilots
I think most on here can relate to the Vic RAPAC's extreme frustration with this issue... However I'm not sure if complaining to the ICC...
"...Having been frustrated at every attempt to highlight an *important safety issue, the group of conveners have submitted their case to the Industry Complaints Commissioner..’’
...will resolve their anxiety anytime soon..
People can disagree with Dick's condemnation of the current administration of aviation safety in this country but you certainly have to admire his tenacity to put forward his view and he certainly has the ear of MMSM Steve...
:
Although Dick, I think your wasting your breath writing to that muppet mi..mi..mi..Beaker, he is too busy counting his recent windfall from the MH370 tragedy..
), RAPAC and maybe Dick seem to be able to identify in amongst the FF smoke & mirrors...There is a safety issue here but IMO it is not the fact that some high flying airliner may get their RT to ATC clipped by annoying knuckle-draggers transmitting on area, which could ultimately lead to Creamy's 30,000 ft death plunge. A simple read of all recent BOS & LOSA incidents will put that fallacy to death. No the real safety issue here is again that of FF's making, which is that through their actions/inactions they are creating;
(a) A fear of non-compliance and therefore confusion in interpretation (as highlighted by this thread), which leads to simply ignoring and not making any RT calls.
(b) A culture of ignorance and complacency that leads to Joe (Private Pilot) Citizen simply ignoring and not making any RT calls (as highlighted in Clare Prop's example).
There is also a third slice of the Swiss cheese here that keeps rearing its' ugly head...
This is again of FF's making and is heavily embedded in their current toxic culture i.e. the profoundly DEAF EAR of the big "R" regulator...From the Oz article 05 September 2014 (my bold):CASA under fire over handling of frequency changes for light pilots
The conveners were unhappy with the way the Civil Aviation Safety Authority responded to their concerns and the fact they were unable to list it on the agenda of the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum.
The changes mean that aircraft operating into uncharted airports where there is no discrete common traffic advisory frequency must now use the VHF area *frequency also used by en-route air traffic controllers to talk to airlines flying at high levels.
Members of the Victorian RAPAC became alarmed when they raised the issue in July and were told it was “operational’’ and not a suitable subject of discussion by the committee.
“At best, this announced change to what RAPACs can or cannot discuss was a rather cavalier way to treat a group of volunteers who, for decades, have given considerable am ounts of their time and expertise to sort out airspace issues such as the very one in question,’’ member Dick Gower said.
The RAPACs were also rebuffed in an attempt to get issues agreed by state conveners tabled at a meeting of the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum and were again told it was not *appropriate, Mr Gower said.
The changes mean that aircraft operating into uncharted airports where there is no discrete common traffic advisory frequency must now use the VHF area *frequency also used by en-route air traffic controllers to talk to airlines flying at high levels.
Members of the Victorian RAPAC became alarmed when they raised the issue in July and were told it was “operational’’ and not a suitable subject of discussion by the committee.
“At best, this announced change to what RAPACs can or cannot discuss was a rather cavalier way to treat a group of volunteers who, for decades, have given considerable am ounts of their time and expertise to sort out airspace issues such as the very one in question,’’ member Dick Gower said.
The RAPACs were also rebuffed in an attempt to get issues agreed by state conveners tabled at a meeting of the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum and were again told it was not *appropriate, Mr Gower said.
However I'm not sure if complaining to the ICC..."...Having been frustrated at every attempt to highlight an *important safety issue, the group of conveners have submitted their case to the Industry Complaints Commissioner..’’
...will resolve their anxiety anytime soon..
People can disagree with Dick's condemnation of the current administration of aviation safety in this country but you certainly have to admire his tenacity to put forward his view and he certainly has the ear of MMSM Steve...
:
Former CASA chairman Dick Smith has also criticised the move, accused the air-safety regulator of using airline passengers as “safety guinea pigs’’ and mishandling the changes.
Mr Smith this week wrote to the chairs at CASA and Air*services as well as to Infrastructure Department secretary Mike Mrdak and ATSB chief Martin Dolan warning of the safety problems of having visual flight rules aircraft making announcements on air traffic control separation frequencies.
Mr Smith said that the *National Airspace System signed off by the Howard government was stopped halfway through and wound back. “I am sure you have all recently seen the terrible *results of the home insulation scheme and the related commission of inquiry,’’ he said.
“I am fearful that a similar situation will occur when we have inevitable loss of life because the airspace system we are now using has not been proven anywhere else in the world.’’
Mr Smith said the government should either move forward and follow the NAS system or return to the proven pre-1990 system of flight services officers, a move that he estimated would require the employment of an additional 700 people.
Mr Smith this week wrote to the chairs at CASA and Air*services as well as to Infrastructure Department secretary Mike Mrdak and ATSB chief Martin Dolan warning of the safety problems of having visual flight rules aircraft making announcements on air traffic control separation frequencies.
Mr Smith said that the *National Airspace System signed off by the Howard government was stopped halfway through and wound back. “I am sure you have all recently seen the terrible *results of the home insulation scheme and the related commission of inquiry,’’ he said.
“I am fearful that a similar situation will occur when we have inevitable loss of life because the airspace system we are now using has not been proven anywhere else in the world.’’
Mr Smith said the government should either move forward and follow the NAS system or return to the proven pre-1990 system of flight services officers, a move that he estimated would require the employment of an additional 700 people.
For the benefit of readers others than Clare, she is correct: If your aircraft has a serviceable VHF radio you must broadcast in accordance with the rules, even if you happen to be operating at a place at or near which fitment of VHF radio is not mandatory.
The point I was trying (scornfully) to make is that there are lots of places at which aircraft are not required to be fitted with a serviceable VHF radio. At those places it is open to aircraft to operate without a VHF radio fitted, and it is also open to aircraft with VHF radio fitted, but unserviceable, to operate (provided of course the defect is entered in the MR and the radio is placarded U/S). Many of those places are marked on aeronautical charts. Some aren’t.
At those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF. The fact that you may know an aircraft has a VHF that isn’t being used isn’t the same as knowing about the aircraft that don’t have a VHF.
The point I was trying (scornfully) to make is that there are lots of places at which aircraft are not required to be fitted with a serviceable VHF radio. At those places it is open to aircraft to operate without a VHF radio fitted, and it is also open to aircraft with VHF radio fitted, but unserviceable, to operate (provided of course the defect is entered in the MR and the radio is placarded U/S). Many of those places are marked on aeronautical charts. Some aren’t.
At those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF. The fact that you may know an aircraft has a VHF that isn’t being used isn’t the same as knowing about the aircraft that don’t have a VHF.
Last edited by Creampuff; 5th Sep 2014 at 23:07.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF.
Creampuff would like you to comply with the rules of the day regarding the use of VHF radio on the appropriate frequency
JR: You are conflating the broadcast rules with the carriage of serviceable VHF rules.
If the circumstances of your flight require you to have a serviceable VHF, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF but you nonetheless choose to fly with a VHF and it’s serviceable, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF and you choose to fly without a VHF, or you choose to fly with a VHF that is not serviceable, you do not have to comply with the broadcast rules.
The question whether the circumstances of a flight require a serviceable VHF depends on, among other things, whether the flight will be in the vicinity of a registered or certified aerodrome.
Many places marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are not registered or certified aerodromes. Any other place not marked at all is, by definition, not registered or certified. Hence at those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF.
Simple.
The question to the VFR pilots and the instructor of VFR pilots in the Melbourne area - and the question at the heart of this thread - is not about whether someone has to have a serviceable VHF. It’s about the frequency they monitor and broadcast on, if they are required to have or choose to have a serviceable VHF.
Simple.
If the circumstances of your flight require you to have a serviceable VHF, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF but you nonetheless choose to fly with a VHF and it’s serviceable, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF and you choose to fly without a VHF, or you choose to fly with a VHF that is not serviceable, you do not have to comply with the broadcast rules.
The question whether the circumstances of a flight require a serviceable VHF depends on, among other things, whether the flight will be in the vicinity of a registered or certified aerodrome.
Many places marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are not registered or certified aerodromes. Any other place not marked at all is, by definition, not registered or certified. Hence at those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF.
Simple.
The question to the VFR pilots and the instructor of VFR pilots in the Melbourne area - and the question at the heart of this thread - is not about whether someone has to have a serviceable VHF. It’s about the frequency they monitor and broadcast on, if they are required to have or choose to have a serviceable VHF.
Simple.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff is correct.
the problem with legislative change on change on change is that the message gets confused.
add a CAsA with a vindictive streak and the message gets even more confused as people try to appease the bully, never mind the rules.
the benefit in having clear concise rules is that they are more easily understood.
I'm sure over time more and more people will understand less and less of the 1,600 pages of the current rules.
the greatest risk to aviation safety is the lack of competence.
in the minister and CAsA we see a phenomenal lack of competence.
the problem with legislative change on change on change is that the message gets confused.
add a CAsA with a vindictive streak and the message gets even more confused as people try to appease the bully, never mind the rules.
the benefit in having clear concise rules is that they are more easily understood.
I'm sure over time more and more people will understand less and less of the 1,600 pages of the current rules.
the greatest risk to aviation safety is the lack of competence.
in the minister and CAsA we see a phenomenal lack of competence.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JR: You are conflating the broadcast rules with the carriage of serviceable VHF rules.
If the circumstances of your flight require you to have a serviceable VHF, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF but you nonetheless choose to fly with a VHF and it’s serviceable, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF and you choose to fly without a VHF, or you choose to fly with a VHF that is not serviceable, you do not have to comply with the broadcast rules.
The question whether the circumstances of a flight require a serviceable VHF depends on, among other things, whether the flight will be in the vicinity of a registered or certified aerodrome.
Many places marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are not registered or certified aerodromes. Any other place not marked at all is, by definition, not registered or certified. Hence at those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF.
Simple.
The question to the VFR pilots and the instructor of VFR pilots in the Melbourne area - and the question at the heart of this thread - is not about whether someone has to have a serviceable VHF. It’s about the frequency they monitor and broadcast on, if they are required to have or choose to have a serviceable VHF.
Simple.
If the circumstances of your flight require you to have a serviceable VHF, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF but you nonetheless choose to fly with a VHF and it’s serviceable, you have to comply with the broadcast rules.
If the circumstances of your flight do not require you to have a serviceable VHF and you choose to fly without a VHF, or you choose to fly with a VHF that is not serviceable, you do not have to comply with the broadcast rules.
The question whether the circumstances of a flight require a serviceable VHF depends on, among other things, whether the flight will be in the vicinity of a registered or certified aerodrome.
Many places marked as aerodromes on aeronautical charts are not registered or certified aerodromes. Any other place not marked at all is, by definition, not registered or certified. Hence at those places it is very imprudent to assume everyone is listening to and broadcasting on VHF.
Simple.
The question to the VFR pilots and the instructor of VFR pilots in the Melbourne area - and the question at the heart of this thread - is not about whether someone has to have a serviceable VHF. It’s about the frequency they monitor and broadcast on, if they are required to have or choose to have a serviceable VHF.
Simple.
What? Errrrrr...........ok, you blokes are more full of **** than I am
Isn't it pretty obvious that no one takes any notice of this CASA frequency directive.
As I have stated before - there a dozens of small strips in any area and with retransmission on up to 12 or more frequencies there would be lots of calls on area frequencies on any given weekend - if the rule was complied with.
In the last six months I have flown over many small strips in the mittagong- goulburn area and seen local traffic and some taxiing aircraft . I always - as far as possible - monitor the area frequency on my second radio -as I learnt to fly before 1990 and know that the whole basis of Australian air safety depends on this!
And I have not heard one complying announcement
What is the actual fine in dollar terms for making the announcements only on the multicom or local CTAF frequency ?
As I have stated before - there a dozens of small strips in any area and with retransmission on up to 12 or more frequencies there would be lots of calls on area frequencies on any given weekend - if the rule was complied with.
In the last six months I have flown over many small strips in the mittagong- goulburn area and seen local traffic and some taxiing aircraft . I always - as far as possible - monitor the area frequency on my second radio -as I learnt to fly before 1990 and know that the whole basis of Australian air safety depends on this!
And I have not heard one complying announcement
What is the actual fine in dollar terms for making the announcements only on the multicom or local CTAF frequency ?