Multicom vs area frequency
If the pilot of an aircraft fitted with VHF chooses to be ignorant of or ignore the frequency/broadcast rules, that his or her risk.
My advice to pilots is: If you think a fine is your only potential problem if you fail to comply with the frequency/broadcast rules, think again. Think really hard about the other problems you might have. Also, make sure you write down the name of anyone who advises you to do something contrary to the rules, and the date/time and what was said. That way, that person can 'help' you with the other problems you might have when you act on that advice.
My advice to pilots is: If you think a fine is your only potential problem if you fail to comply with the frequency/broadcast rules, think again. Think really hard about the other problems you might have. Also, make sure you write down the name of anyone who advises you to do something contrary to the rules, and the date/time and what was said. That way, that person can 'help' you with the other problems you might have when you act on that advice.
Last edited by Creampuff; 5th Sep 2014 at 23:13.
JR: What parts, precisely, of my post you quoted are "****"?
It's actually an accurate summary of the relevant rules. That someone who claims to work as an ATCer describes it as "****" is a bit of a worry. I'm guessing it's because you're labouring under the misapprehension that every aircraft has to have a serviceable VHF. But that's only a guess.
It's actually an accurate summary of the relevant rules. That someone who claims to work as an ATCer describes it as "****" is a bit of a worry. I'm guessing it's because you're labouring under the misapprehension that every aircraft has to have a serviceable VHF. But that's only a guess.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, what I'm describing as '****' are not the participants in this conversation, nor the rules. I can't believe that such a conversation can take place when the industry faces the problems that it does at the moment.
I'm not rubbing people's noses in it, but I travel quite a bit to the States (mainly family reasons). The economy there is obviously in a desperate state but GA, relative to here is pumping. They face a multitude of issues in GA but they get off their arses, mainly in associations, and do something about it. The politics in every little organisation in this country is an embarrassing joke (SAAA, RA-Aus to name a few), I said to another dood that it's too late to fix things here. This industry will have to die and be re-built before things change.
This discussion about multicomm or whatever is amusing, and it's full of crap. Is it that hard to use a bit of common sense, know the rules & follow them? Or do we have to month long discussions about the intricacies involved, how it's going to devastate the industry and ruin our love of following rules here in Australia? Awesome discussion
I'm not rubbing people's noses in it, but I travel quite a bit to the States (mainly family reasons). The economy there is obviously in a desperate state but GA, relative to here is pumping. They face a multitude of issues in GA but they get off their arses, mainly in associations, and do something about it. The politics in every little organisation in this country is an embarrassing joke (SAAA, RA-Aus to name a few), I said to another dood that it's too late to fix things here. This industry will have to die and be re-built before things change.
This discussion about multicomm or whatever is amusing, and it's full of crap. Is it that hard to use a bit of common sense, know the rules & follow them? Or do we have to month long discussions about the intricacies involved, how it's going to devastate the industry and ruin our love of following rules here in Australia? Awesome discussion
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting to observe that CASA are still silent on this matter bar some comment to the Oz on Friday. Further gos' is that Airservices were not consulted which is somewhat hard to believe..... Whichever way you think, it's hard to accept that CASA is nothing but a rudderless ship... With lots of holes!!
Has anyone seen the actual, original direction, by a delegate of the power in section 99A of the CARs, implementing all this stuff? It wouldn't be the first time that amateur dabblers have changed provisions of AIP without a valid exercise of power to authorise the change.
I have to say I'm still intrigued to find out what's really driving the resistance to the current frequency arrangement (which arrangement I had thought was arrangement for a long time). Everyone knows there's three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all aviation activity in and out of places that aren't marked on any aeronautical chart, and that the tiny number of broadcasts on area from aircraft with VHF operating in and out of those places aren't going to bring down the system of ATC. There's something more to this.
I have to say I'm still intrigued to find out what's really driving the resistance to the current frequency arrangement (which arrangement I had thought was arrangement for a long time). Everyone knows there's three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all aviation activity in and out of places that aren't marked on any aeronautical chart, and that the tiny number of broadcasts on area from aircraft with VHF operating in and out of those places aren't going to bring down the system of ATC. There's something more to this.
C'mon Puff, 1/simplicity -no discrete CTAF? Then do all your circuit calls on the Multicom. 2/Takes extraneous R/T off Control Freqs. I'd wager that the only reason there are so few calls now is that most pilots think (rightly) it is a silly idea making circuit calls at Bullamakanka on the Control Freq and therefore don't do it. It worked decades ago with lots of small-area segregated Area Freqs, but not now.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 5,143
C'mon Puff, 1/simplicity -no discrete CTAF? Then do all your circuit calls on the Multicom. 2/Takes extraneous R/T off Control Freqs. I'd wager that the only reason there are so few calls now is that most pilots think (rightly) it is a silly idea making circuit calls at Bullamakanka on the Control Freq and therefore don't do it. It worked decades ago with lots of small-area segregated Area Freqs, but not now.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 5,143
C'mon Puff, 1/simplicity -no discrete CTAF? Then do all your circuit calls on the Multicom. 2/Takes extraneous R/T off Control Freqs. I'd wager that the only reason there are so few calls now is that most pilots think (rightly) it is a silly idea making circuit calls at Bullamakanka on the Control Freq and therefore don't do it. It worked decades ago with lots of small-area segregated Area Freqs, but not now.
Unlike someone else's comment about too many calls and otherwise empty circuits by VFR pilots who like the sound of their own voices, my experience is that many keep shtum for fear of saying the wrong thing.
Other than in the southern end of the Melbourne Basin there is an added problem in deciding frequency selection; much of it is populated by CTAF's shown on the charts. The rule therefore requires listening to and transmitting mandatory calls on the CTAF which, in the case of a single radio-equipped (or perhaps non-radio) aircraft means they won't be listening to 135.7.
So, for example, Melbourne Radar calling up an un-identified aircraft apparently straying near YLIL when a jump aircraft has notified his readiness to disgorge his load of unsuspecting adventurers may reasonably not elicit a response from the pilot below. This miscreant may have actually heard the other call on 119.1 and just be dagging around waiting for the circuit to clear. This doesn't do much for MR's ulcers, I'm sure, but in this case the pilot below would correctly be on CTAF and not area.
More grist for the mill.
Kaz
Happy to take that bet, Cap'n.
As I said earlier in the thread, I usually monitor three frequencies when I fly: Area, 126.7 and, if there's an aerodrome nearby that has a discrete CTAF, that frequency as well.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of calls I've heard on either Area or 126.7 from aircraft operating in the vicinity of places that are not marked as strips on any aeronautical chart. That includes the area in which Dick says there are lots of unmarked private strips with lots of activity going on. I can tell you, first hand: there aint much happening at places that aren't marked as strips on aeronautical charts.
And people seem to be overlooking the fact that aircraft operating in these places don't have to be fitted with serviceable VHF at all.
People also seem to be overlooking some of the benefits of broadcasting on and monitoring the area frequency.
This discussion reminds me a bit of the CVD issue. CASA has been challenged to quote the text of the recent research to which CASA referred in its recent correspondence about colour vision, and to state the operational situation simulated by the CAD test. CASA has done neither.
And we know why CASA has done neither: There is no recent research to the effect stated by CASA, and the CAD test does not simulate any operational situation.
I think I've put out the challenge at least twice in this thread: Please someone - anyone - nominate one place - just one frickin place - that isn't marked on any aeronautical chart but is a hive of aviation activity.
Nary a nomination.
And I know why.
That's why I'm intrigued to understand what's really behind all the bluff and bluster.
As I said earlier in the thread, I usually monitor three frequencies when I fly: Area, 126.7 and, if there's an aerodrome nearby that has a discrete CTAF, that frequency as well.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of calls I've heard on either Area or 126.7 from aircraft operating in the vicinity of places that are not marked as strips on any aeronautical chart. That includes the area in which Dick says there are lots of unmarked private strips with lots of activity going on. I can tell you, first hand: there aint much happening at places that aren't marked as strips on aeronautical charts.
And people seem to be overlooking the fact that aircraft operating in these places don't have to be fitted with serviceable VHF at all.
People also seem to be overlooking some of the benefits of broadcasting on and monitoring the area frequency.
This discussion reminds me a bit of the CVD issue. CASA has been challenged to quote the text of the recent research to which CASA referred in its recent correspondence about colour vision, and to state the operational situation simulated by the CAD test. CASA has done neither.
And we know why CASA has done neither: There is no recent research to the effect stated by CASA, and the CAD test does not simulate any operational situation.
I think I've put out the challenge at least twice in this thread: Please someone - anyone - nominate one place - just one frickin place - that isn't marked on any aeronautical chart but is a hive of aviation activity.
Nary a nomination.
And I know why.
That's why I'm intrigued to understand what's really behind all the bluff and bluster.
I think I've put out the challenge at least twice in this thread: Please someone - anyone - nominate one place - just one frickin place - that isn't marked on any aeronautical chart but is a hive of aviation activity
People also seem to be overlooking some of the benefits of broadcasting on and monitoring the area frequency.
IMO, it's centrally relevant. These are the place the area broadcasts from which were going to cause a meltdown, remember?
But we're going in pointless orbits now.
If the assumption is that pilots don't read NOTAMS and in any event it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, then let's build a system based on that assumption. It would certainly simplify things ...
I've also said this before in this thread: If you're saying it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, I call bullsh*t.
I've also said this before in this thread: It's not just about the pilots at Farmer Brown's fly-in. It's about the pilots who don't know there's a fly-in at Farmer Brown's.
But we're going in pointless orbits now.
If the assumption is that pilots don't read NOTAMS and in any event it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, then let's build a system based on that assumption. It would certainly simplify things ...
I've also said this before in this thread: If you're saying it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, I call bullsh*t.
I've also said this before in this thread: It's not just about the pilots at Farmer Brown's fly-in. It's about the pilots who don't know there's a fly-in at Farmer Brown's.
If the assumption is that pilots don't read NOTAMS and in any event it's too hard to get a NOTAM published for Farmer Brown's fly-in, then let's build a system based on that assumption. It would certainly simplify things ...
I've also said this before in this thread: It's not just about the pilots at Farmer Brown's fly-in. It's about the pilots who don't know there's a fly-in at Farmer Brown's.
No, overflyers (including me) would be on the Area and hear any climbing/descending activity.
Surely that could only happen if the aircraft going into or out of Farmer Brown's fly-in did a broadcast on .....
Area.
Why would you hear any climbing/descending activity?
Surely that could only happen if the aircraft going into or out of Farmer Brown's fly-in did a broadcast on .....
Area.
Surely that could only happen if the aircraft going into or out of Farmer Brown's fly-in did a broadcast on .....
Area.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely what happens now when an aircraft (including me) departs a discrete CTAF... a departure call on Area.
- A departure call on area
- A call climbing through 5000 on area
Given that the majority of VFR flights these days are without a flight plan and probably without a sartime as well, I'm curious where the rules for these calls can be found because I'm no doubt doing the wrong thing, again...
Kaz
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. You realise, of course, that if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart, the VFRs inbound and outbound won't be broadcasting on Area?
I'll be on the CTAF if within the 10 NM radius giving my inbound and departure calls, and on the Area if I'm not.
If on Area, above or below 5000', I will be listening to it and not cluttering those important airwaves unless necessary to ensure separation, etc.
Kaz
Edit: and just to make Jack feel less neglected, a couple of weekends ago I saw the Euroa meat bomber taxiing and then responded to the advisory on 122.4 when he called me as an un-identified A/C nearby at 2500. I'm so confused, I'm not now sure if I did the right thing because perhaps I should have been on the Multicom?
Then again, not sure if it was Euroa. It was north of the Highway and my WAC says Euroa is south of it. But the VNC says its north??? Pesky thing keeps moving...it's hard to nail it down. But wait...it's only 9 miles from Locksley on 121.1 so I should be on that frequency...
Oh bugger it...I'll just keep shtum.
Last edited by kaz3g; 14th Sep 2014 at 03:31.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy, Blogs correct.
Your assumption that this is not a change is incorrect ...
The MULTICOM has been in existence for over a decade and was part of NAS when introduced. It now has been changed by nameless officers in CASA who obviously don't know the history (like yourself) and the reasons for its establishment.
Re notams: you try and get a NOTAM issued for farmer Joe's strip and it will turn up in the FIR bulletin which does not have a lot of readers in the GA world.
One of the reasons for the MULTICOM is that it kept things simple and standardised - viz 126.7 unless a promulgated CTAF (like in North America). No need to worry about FIA boundaries or being on the correct area freq, especially near a boundary.
You have to remember that in real world calls on area should be directed to the controller, or be relevant to other traffic, ie change of level or descent etc. With retransmission in some cases up to 8 frequencies are linked together. The last thing we need is b'casts that are not relevant, especially when there are many low level dead spots that are not heard by the controller, but are by the high flyers.
What we do need is better education on the use of radio, and not to believe that hitting the PTT will solve everything!! Something that those that operate in stealth mode discovered a long time ago!
Sadly, not everything that CASA does is about safety and this is one such example. It's more about power & ego or protecting their legal backside... Especially when thy don't understand what they are making decisions about. Like I said, a ship without a rudder and many holes..... Heaven help GA if this behaviour continues.
The case here is simple. CASA got it wrong! Now how do you fix that??
Your assumption that this is not a change is incorrect ...
The MULTICOM has been in existence for over a decade and was part of NAS when introduced. It now has been changed by nameless officers in CASA who obviously don't know the history (like yourself) and the reasons for its establishment.
Re notams: you try and get a NOTAM issued for farmer Joe's strip and it will turn up in the FIR bulletin which does not have a lot of readers in the GA world.
One of the reasons for the MULTICOM is that it kept things simple and standardised - viz 126.7 unless a promulgated CTAF (like in North America). No need to worry about FIA boundaries or being on the correct area freq, especially near a boundary.
You have to remember that in real world calls on area should be directed to the controller, or be relevant to other traffic, ie change of level or descent etc. With retransmission in some cases up to 8 frequencies are linked together. The last thing we need is b'casts that are not relevant, especially when there are many low level dead spots that are not heard by the controller, but are by the high flyers.
What we do need is better education on the use of radio, and not to believe that hitting the PTT will solve everything!! Something that those that operate in stealth mode discovered a long time ago!
Sadly, not everything that CASA does is about safety and this is one such example. It's more about power & ego or protecting their legal backside... Especially when thy don't understand what they are making decisions about. Like I said, a ship without a rudder and many holes..... Heaven help GA if this behaviour continues.
The case here is simple. CASA got it wrong! Now how do you fix that??