Multicom vs area frequency
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, now we have VFR flights from a CTAF at a non-towered aerodrome giving:
A departure call on area
A call climbing through 5000 on area
A departure call on area
A call climbing through 5000 on area
Neither required for VFR.....
Originally Posted by Puff
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?
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.
GA pilots thank you for the insult.
I'll say it again: If the standard of airmanship has deteriorated to the point at which pilots aren't reading NOTAMs, trivia like frequency and broadcast rules are the least of Australia's aviation problems.
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.
But that's not the system currently in place in Australia, and it was only ever in place for a very short time. (I remember the reason for 'Dick's Biscuits' being put on charts. Do you?)
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.
This "problem" is based on a complete fiction: That there is lots of aviation activity going on at places in Australia that aren't marked on aeronautical charts.
Australia isn't the USA. There's lots more of nothing happening at lots more places in Australia.
Another funny thing is that almost all of the broadcasts I hear on any frequency are "not relevant" .... to me. But I continue to figure that the system not just about me.
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??
The funny thing - no, the hilarious thing - is that whatever changes you made, there'd be a bunch of loudmouths telling you that you don't understand what you are making decisions about and you got it wrong!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I do know the gory and intimate details of, and the reasons for, all of the half-baked, poorly-implemented changes inflicted on aviation in Australia in the last couple of decades. Funny thing is that I've been using the same frequency and broadcast procedures for around the last decade, and numerous biennial/aeroplane flight reviews (or whatever they are called). Funnier still is that all the pilots I know use the same procedures.
You do seem to be changing your tune a little on this issue. Now it's that the NOTAM can be published, but no one in the GA world will read it.
GA pilots thank you for the insult.
I'll say it again: If the standard of airmanship has deteriorated to the point at which pilots aren't reading NOTAMs, trivia like frequency and broadcast rules are the least of Australia's aviation problems.
GA pilots thank you for the insult.
I'll say it again: If the standard of airmanship has deteriorated to the point at which pilots aren't reading NOTAMs, trivia like frequency and broadcast rules are the least of Australia's aviation problems.
But that's not the system currently in place in Australia, and it was only ever in place for a very short time. (I remember the reason for 'Dick's Biscuits' being put on charts. Do you?)
Poor dears. It must be incredibly disruptive and throw high flying cockpits into complete disarray when they hear a broadcast that is not relevant.
This "problem" is based on a complete fiction: That there is lots of aviation activity going on at places in Australia that aren't marked on aeronautical charts.
Australia isn't the USA. There's lots more of nothing happening at lots more places in Australia.
Another funny thing is that almost all of the broadcasts I hear on any frequency are "not relevant" .... to me. But I continue to figure that the system not just about me.
This "problem" is based on a complete fiction: That there is lots of aviation activity going on at places in Australia that aren't marked on aeronautical charts.
Australia isn't the USA. There's lots more of nothing happening at lots more places in Australia.
Another funny thing is that almost all of the broadcasts I hear on any frequency are "not relevant" .... to me. But I continue to figure that the system not just about me.
How does broadcasting on area reduce CASA's exposure? I thought the risk of this "change" is that there'll be ATC meltdown and crashing RPTs.
Easy: You get a job in CASA, and fix it.
The funny thing - no, the hilarious thing - is that whatever changes you made, there'd be a bunch of loudmouths telling you that you don't understand what you are making decisions about and you got it wrong!
I've been using the same frequency and broadcast procedures for around the last decade, and numerous biennial/aeroplane flight reviews (or whatever they are called). Funnier still is that all the pilots I know use the same procedures.
Triadic - please don't think you and Dick Gower are representing the rest of us.
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.
If you haven't been following Dick's thread on the Canada forum, pop over there and you'll see that I've extracted some stuff from the Transport Canada equivalent of the Australian AIP.
You'll see that in Canada there's a single frequency for use outside controlled airspace, everywhere!
Everywhere ...... except ....
Everywhere except in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome. When in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome in Canada, you must use either the published frequency for that place or, if there's not a published frequency for that place, the default frequency.
Sound familiar? It should, but...
The difference is that the default frequency for use at any uncontrolled aerodrome for which a discrete frequency has not been published is not the same as the single frequency for use outside controlled airspace. In Canada, the frequency for use outside controlled airspace is - drum roll ...- 126.7 - and the default frequency for use at uncontrolled aerodromes for which a discrete frequency has not been published is - drum roll ... 123.2.
The reason things went pear shaped in Australia is that the default frequency for use at uncontrolled aerodromes was the same as the 'outside controlled airspace' frequency: 126.7. Mayhem on 126.7.
So....
Here's what needs to happen in Australia to introduce a fully-baked version of this system:
1. All broadcasts from aircraft that are both:
- (a) outside controlled airspace, and
- (b) outside the vicinity of places that are not marked on aeronautical charts,
must be made on 126.7.
2. All broadcasts in the vicinity of places that are marked on aeronautical charts but outside controlled airspace must be made on:
- (a) the frequency published for that place, or
- (b) the default frequency of xyz.q (which must NOT be 126.7 or nearby control area frequency).
Last edited by Creampuff; 15th Sep 2014 at 21:40. Reason: Readability
If the US system it's to be, then the US system it's to be.
It is you who is sending this subject around in circles!
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
creamies elucidation of the frequencies would work right up until air services added those frequencies into its global rebroadcast system 
and then it'd be back to scratch
and then it'd be back to scratch
No Cap'n
You can't 'cherry pick' the bits that happen to suit you, and impose on everyone else the conseqential inconvenience.
Where is this 'Timbuktu' from which all these area frequency-clogging broadcasts are originating? Is it near Bullamakanka? All fiction rather than fact.
I'm still confused because Jack says no VFRs outside Class Charlie are listening on Area, but according to triadic there's a bunch of skygods in the cruise who have to endure the trauma of listening to "all the low level crap on area". Nominate the frequency, triadic, so I can listen to it.
I've flown across Australia more than a few times, listening to three frequencies at once, and I'm pleasantly surprised when I hear any "low level crap" on any frequency. And yes, I understand the retransmission/area combination system.
Because IFRs couldn't cope with the concept of there being no traffic information service in Class G, and the demise of Flightwatch left only one option for the provision of on-request services to VFRs.
If you're going to provide a traffic information service to IFRs and on-request service to VFRs in G, you need a frequency on which it can be provided by Airservices. Let's call that the 'Area frequency'.
You can't 'cherry pick' the bits that happen to suit you, and impose on everyone else the conseqential inconvenience.
Where is this 'Timbuktu' from which all these area frequency-clogging broadcasts are originating? Is it near Bullamakanka? All fiction rather than fact.
I'm still confused because Jack says no VFRs outside Class Charlie are listening on Area, but according to triadic there's a bunch of skygods in the cruise who have to endure the trauma of listening to "all the low level crap on area". Nominate the frequency, triadic, so I can listen to it.
I've flown across Australia more than a few times, listening to three frequencies at once, and I'm pleasantly surprised when I hear any "low level crap" on any frequency. And yes, I understand the retransmission/area combination system.
Why didn't this happen in the first place then??
If you're going to provide a traffic information service to IFRs and on-request service to VFRs in G, you need a frequency on which it can be provided by Airservices. Let's call that the 'Area frequency'.
Last edited by Creampuff; 15th Sep 2014 at 21:42.
Creampuff. Other leading aviation countries such as the USA can provide both of those services without an " area frequency"
How do they do it? Suggest you look at the original cabinet approved NAS document.
It's so simple and safe it doesn't require circuit calls on frequencies used by ATC to separate airline passenger aircraft.
How do they do it? Suggest you look at the original cabinet approved NAS document.
It's so simple and safe it doesn't require circuit calls on frequencies used by ATC to separate airline passenger aircraft.
Then get it implemented, old boy.
Here's how you do it: Ring up John Howard and tell him that if you don't get the system you want, you'll run a public campaign in support of independents for key House of Representatives seats in NSW electorates. Convince him that the threat is real, and you'll have Airservices executives wearing pink bunny suits if you want.
You really do need to get out of this mindset that assumes any of these decisions are about logic or objective public interest.
Here's how you do it: Ring up John Howard and tell him that if you don't get the system you want, you'll run a public campaign in support of independents for key House of Representatives seats in NSW electorates. Convince him that the threat is real, and you'll have Airservices executives wearing pink bunny suits if you want.
You really do need to get out of this mindset that assumes any of these decisions are about logic or objective public interest.
Of course John Howard.
He and Peta Credlin (and around 40 other Howard protégés in the PMO) are running the government.
Ordinary plebs like us need to use the indirect route: non-major party aligned Senators. But Dick has sufficient public profile and respect to put seats in the HOR at risk. John Howard understands this. Go for it Dick!
He and Peta Credlin (and around 40 other Howard protégés in the PMO) are running the government.
Ordinary plebs like us need to use the indirect route: non-major party aligned Senators. But Dick has sufficient public profile and respect to put seats in the HOR at risk. John Howard understands this. Go for it Dick!
Gawd this is getting ridiculous. We do not need E airpsace all over Oz, nor do we need no DTI services for IFR in Class G.
Most of us think all we need is a separate freq for circuit operations at places without a discrete CTAF.
Puff, put up some good arguments for not having a Multicom below 5000ft or give this whole thing a rest!
Most of us think all we need is a separate freq for circuit operations at places without a discrete CTAF.
Puff, put up some good arguments for not having a Multicom below 5000ft or give this whole thing a rest!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
How many GA pilots do you know that even check NOTAM's these days, let alone the FIR ones?
Puff, put up some good arguments for not having a Multicom below 5000ft or give this whole thing a rest!
If you want something changed, you get it changed. Given that you purport to speak for “most of us”, it should be easy.
My perspective is that “most of us” haven’t a clue how to get things changed, and instead waste time arguing on pprune.
Just so I can decide whether actually to implement the ‘Multicom below 5000ft’ system, with DTI for IFR in Class G, I need more details. In your proposed system:
- Is the default CTAF the same as the Multicom frequency? (If yes, you can go and get stuffed.)
- Are VFR ‘allowed’ to request services on the frequency used to provide DTI for IFR in Class G? (If no, you can go and get more stuffed.)
(Pinky: I wonder who's signing off of the AFRs of all these GA pilots who don't check FIR NOTAMS. I'm yet to do one review during which the reviewer hasn't required a demonstration of compliance with the legal obligation to have reviewed NOTAMS.)
Most of us think all we need is a separate freq for circuit operations at places without a discrete CTAF.
Most of us think all we need is a separate freq for circuit operations at places without a discrete CTAF.
We already have that, and have had for over 10 years - 126.7
We already have that, and have had for over 10 years - 126.7
.... only if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart.
At other places it's Area.
Isn't that the scenario that's of concern to triadic, Cap'n B and Dick?
Errrmmmmm ...
.... only if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart.
.... only if the place is marked on an aeronautical chart.
I've heard that a meeting on the subject is being organised with CASA, Airservices and two individuals (not sure who they represent though) to take place in a week or two.