Multicom vs area frequency
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic,
Correct, 100%
Creampuff,
The fact is there is a lot of traffic all over the place, a lot more than people think that is no radio, or on other radio frequencies. 50-60 gliders can fly close to each other all day in competition with just a few calls (on a discrete frequency known only to them and those who actually read notams). 99% of radio calls are just white noise! I have heard calls on CTAF from 20miles, 10, 5, joining upwind, joining downwind, base, final etc - with NO responses because nobody is conflicting.
If one was to respond the radio hoggers usually don't respond because they are in their own world.
The sooner we can standardise on anti collision systems and perhaps ADSB the better,
Correct, 100%
Creampuff,
The fact is there is a lot of traffic all over the place, a lot more than people think that is no radio, or on other radio frequencies. 50-60 gliders can fly close to each other all day in competition with just a few calls (on a discrete frequency known only to them and those who actually read notams). 99% of radio calls are just white noise! I have heard calls on CTAF from 20miles, 10, 5, joining upwind, joining downwind, base, final etc - with NO responses because nobody is conflicting.
If one was to respond the radio hoggers usually don't respond because they are in their own world.
The sooner we can standardise on anti collision systems and perhaps ADSB the better,
Multicom 126.7 - a recommended frequency to monitor when flying 3000' AGL or below or nearest CTAF /MBZ if different.
Such a blanket rule would be inappropriate in proximity to CTRs and TMAs due to the lower levels of CTA. Aircraft following that rule and penetrating CTA would be uncontactable by ATC, which is why the FIA frequency applies.
an ATC frequency (which is what an area frequency is)
AIP GEN 2.2:
Flight Information Area (FIA):An airspace of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.
Then we don't have any VHF FIA frequencies any more.
So all calls as per the CASA direction appear on ATC frequencies that are also used to separate aircraft.
Captain. In the USA the controllers can't call VFR aircraft that are near terminal controlled airspace. However could the system be safe ? However could it work with 15 times more traffic!
So all calls as per the CASA direction appear on ATC frequencies that are also used to separate aircraft.
Captain. In the USA the controllers can't call VFR aircraft that are near terminal controlled airspace. However could the system be safe ? However could it work with 15 times more traffic!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then we don't have any VHF FIA frequencies any more.
So all calls as per the CASA direction appear on ATC frequencies that are also used to separate aircraft.
Captain. In the USA the controllers can't call VFR aircraft that are near terminal controlled airspace. However could the system be safe ? However could it work with 15 times more traffic!
Kaz
The fact is there is a lot of traffic all over the place, a lot more than people think that is no radio, or on other radio frequencies. 50-60 gliders can fly close to each other all day in competition with just a few calls (on a discrete frequency known only to them and those who actually read notams). 99% of radio calls are just white noise!
All we are talking about are ops, by VHF equipped aircraft, in and out of places that aren't marked on aeronautical charts (or the subject of NOTAMs that are read by those who actually read NOTAMs). No matter how many times I ask, nobody will name one of these hives of activity that will result in aluminium confetti. (Cynical P won a kewpie doll for YJST, but that appears just to be a printing production error that will be rectified.)
Creamy. You almost seem to have a chip on your shoulder! Why not get back involved again in reducing some of the unecessary costs.
I'm obsessed because the broadcast and frequency management rules don't say what I reckon they should say. Oh, wait...
I noted that the NAS material had this 'guidance' on 'VFR airmanship':
Avoid, as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns.
How do I avoid, as far as I can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns?
Most of the stuff about avoiding IFR came about because of the almost total obsession of some older IFR pilots that they would collide with VFR if we didn't keep the old FS system with radio arranged separation.
It would be very helpful if you could identify, with precision, the bits of the cocky cage liner that you say are still authoritative, and the bits are just remnants of e.g. totally obsessed older IFR pilots and are therefore to be ignored. Student pilots can't read your mind.
In a related thread, I gave a scenario and asked some simple questions:
A couple of serious questions, based on a factual scenario.
When I look at the Sydney VNC, I see, for example, a green boundary around a big area that covers places like Bathurst, Orange, Cowra etc.
Within the area inside the green boundary are a couple of boxes, inside each of which is “ML CEN 118.5” in brown text and “ML CEN 135.25 MT CANOBALAS” in green text.
There’s also “A LL FL180” in blue text, and “E LL 8500” in brown text.
The legend for that chart says:
- the green boundary denotes an “FIA boundary”, and
- the numbers in the boxes are “FIS FREQUENC[IES]”
- the “A LL FL180” in blue denotes the lower level of Class A airspace is Flight Level 180, and
- the “E LL 8500” in brown text denote the level of Class E airspace is 8,500’.
In this scenario:
(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?
(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?
As I say, serious questions.
When I look at the Sydney VNC, I see, for example, a green boundary around a big area that covers places like Bathurst, Orange, Cowra etc.
Within the area inside the green boundary are a couple of boxes, inside each of which is “ML CEN 118.5” in brown text and “ML CEN 135.25 MT CANOBALAS” in green text.
There’s also “A LL FL180” in blue text, and “E LL 8500” in brown text.
The legend for that chart says:
- the green boundary denotes an “FIA boundary”, and
- the numbers in the boxes are “FIS FREQUENC[IES]”
- the “A LL FL180” in blue denotes the lower level of Class A airspace is Flight Level 180, and
- the “E LL 8500” in brown text denote the level of Class E airspace is 8,500’.
In this scenario:
(1) Is 135.25 an “ATC frequency”?
(2) What aircraft on that frequency are under air traffic control?
As I say, serious questions.
I note what Captain Midnight said above:
An FIA frequency is NOT an "ATC" frequency. It is a frequency an Air Traffic Controller uses to provide a FIS.
Captain. In the USA the controllers can't call VFR aircraft that are near terminal controlled airspace. However could the system be safe ? However could it work with 15 times more traffic!
Please: Implement the whole of that system in Australia, not just the bits that you've cherry picked.
PLEASE
Speaking of which ... when should Australians expect complete coverage of VFR Sectional Charts?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIP GEN 3.2 - 10 21Aug14 Para 4.6 Defines 'Broadcast Areas'
If this is ok in some areas of the country, then what is the problem with having the Multicom elsewhere?? Seems much the same to me.
The organisers of a recent country fly-in at an unmarked airstrip under a frequently used IFR route chose to use 126.7 for all their broadcasts. There would be no way the controller of the relevant sector would have put up with the chat associated with this event on the area frequency.
Well tell us how it works OK in North America?? Let me answer that... we have a different culture here and much of it comes from not wanting any change from the good old FS days. It is now over 20 years since FS closed and we really need to move on.
Back when that quote was made, the airspace model was developed by a number of airspace experts, the regulator, ASA and industry. It was just not dreamed up! More the pity that many did not understand it and it seems from the discussion here, they still don't!!
Never! It was hard enough to get the existing VNC charts? And of course, who is going to pay??
Broadcast Areas are defined airspace volumes in class G airspace for which a discrete frequency (CTAF) has been allocated. All operations within the area, including those at aerodromes (charted and uncharted) and landing sites, shall use the assigned CTAF as the broadcast frequency. A note on the charts states "for operations in this area SFC - <altitude> use CTAF <frequency>"
If this is ok in some areas of the country, then what is the problem with having the Multicom elsewhere?? Seems much the same to me.
The organisers of a recent country fly-in at an unmarked airstrip under a frequently used IFR route chose to use 126.7 for all their broadcasts. There would be no way the controller of the relevant sector would have put up with the chat associated with this event on the area frequency.
A classic case of someone/people dreaming up a rule without having the knowledge and experience with airspace design, architecture and ATC.
Back when that quote was made, the airspace model was developed by a number of airspace experts, the regulator, ASA and industry. It was just not dreamed up! More the pity that many did not understand it and it seems from the discussion here, they still don't!!
Speaking of which ... when should Australians expect complete coverage of VFR Sectional Charts?
Who is going to pay??
Finally we have orbited, again, back to the real issue that resulted in the implosion of NAS.
The USA has the same land mass as Australia, but the USA has around 15 times the population and GDP of Australia.
Australia can't afford to implement the US system. The whole of the US system.
AUSTRALIA CANNOT AFFORD IT.
So could you and Dick, please, PLEASE just STFU until you've worked out a way for Australia to make the same GDP as the USA.
Dick Smith wrote in response to Creampuff:
"And yes. I have always cherry picked the best ideas. If you did the same perhaps you could get your own CJ !"
And this member of the audience simply groaned..
"And yes. I have always cherry picked the best ideas. If you did the same perhaps you could get your own CJ !"
And this member of the audience simply groaned..
Perhaps if there were a more selective use of the retransmit buttons on the ATC console, then not everyone would have to hear what everyone else was saying. Perhaps FIS frequencies should not be mixed with and retransmitted with ATC ones. This is not meant to be "separation by radio", just using the relevant frequencies for their established purpose, rather than one huge wide area network.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Perhaps if there were a more selective use of the retransmit buttons on the ATC console,
What the?????
You mean employ enough ATC's to cover the work load?
You mean actually have enough ATC's that they could actually have some time off for leave, see their kids academic achievement assembly/cricket final/<insert life stuff> and not have to cover shifts when someone else is sicker with the flu than you are?
Surely you jest?
The CAAP and AIP amendment didn't change anything - CASA's change to the AIP wording just clarified things. The procedures have been in for some 10 years or so despite some claiming or thinking otherwise, I suspect largely due poor education, lack of understanding and confusion due all the changes 10 years ago. The answer to one genuine question at the time being "turn off the radio and listen to the stereo" wouldn't have helped pilot understanding of the situation then.
When AsA undermined NAS by printing a special chart with the frequency sector boundaries I don't believe anyone came out with educational material on how this half wound back system would work.
I think CASA may have presumed that pilots would monitor the sector frequencies when en route.
I stand to be corrected if someone can find the educational material!
Creamy. You are probably correct. We should have simply said with NAS that there is no recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute in E or G as ICAO specifically has no radio requirement for VFR.
I reckon the best is 121.5 as any airline aircraft can call you if requested by ATC ( say you are about to enter restricted airspace) and it's the best frequency for a quick mayday.
Most importantly I monitor the CTAF of the nearest drome if flying in the airspace normally used for approach and departure.
I think CASA may have presumed that pilots would monitor the sector frequencies when en route.
I stand to be corrected if someone can find the educational material!
Creamy. You are probably correct. We should have simply said with NAS that there is no recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute in E or G as ICAO specifically has no radio requirement for VFR.
I reckon the best is 121.5 as any airline aircraft can call you if requested by ATC ( say you are about to enter restricted airspace) and it's the best frequency for a quick mayday.
Most importantly I monitor the CTAF of the nearest drome if flying in the airspace normally used for approach and departure.
You obviously don't know how the system has worked for decades, Dick.
The frequencies went back on the charts so that VFR could monitor IFR climbers and descenders who are "not yet in the vicinity of the airport", using their (the VFRs) radio, if needed, as they are required to do above 5000ft AMSL.
The frequencies went back on the charts so that VFR could monitor IFR climbers and descenders who are "not yet in the vicinity of the airport", using their (the VFRs) radio, if needed, as they are required to do above 5000ft AMSL.
The big problem OCTA for any IFR driver is traffic separation from VFR aircraft while you on descent from flight levels or positioning for an instrument approach etc.
Many moons ago at one of those many love in group hug sessions about the 101 airspace designs, one of the experts that was spruiking is knowledge and selling the message got very narky and threatening when pushed about separation between IFR and VFR OCTA.
With your experience Dick, how do you seperate yourself from other traffic when OCTA?
Many moons ago at one of those many love in group hug sessions about the 101 airspace designs, one of the experts that was spruiking is knowledge and selling the message got very narky and threatening when pushed about separation between IFR and VFR OCTA.
With your experience Dick, how do you seperate yourself from other traffic when OCTA?
The frequencies went back on the charts so that VFR could monitor IFR climbers and descenders who are "not yet in the vicinity of the airport", using their (the VFRs) radio, if needed, as they are required to do above 5000ft AMSL.
Change management is often very difficult and needs to be subject to an appropriate risk management assessment. The concept of having VFR not in the system at that time was believed by many to be too much of a change.
Good airmanship should give pilots the opportunity to use the best frequency for their operations. The key is that pilots need to have some basic understanding of the system and how it is meant to work. Many still don't, because there is no standardisation of training on this subject of those that conduct same. That was the case 10+ years ago and whats more is still the case.
The problem that this matter has highlighted is that many in the industry and the responsible CASA officers are in the same boat and obviously are suffering from a lack of airspace education and standardisation over the past 20 years.
There is little doubt that CASA will have to backtrack on this change.
The big problem OCTA for any IFR driver is traffic separation from VFR aircraft while you on descent from flight levels or positioning for an instrument approach etc.
Using the Multicom makes for standardisation at all aerodromes not allocated a dedicated CTAF frequency and not introduce an increased risk of having one frequency for strips on the charts and another for those that are not.
The potential for frequency congestion is certainly increased when there is activity at a particular location not marked on the charts (which chart?). I am sure the Sector Controller would be P'off with lots of chat on his frequency at the time of a fly in or cattle sale etc.
One such aero club fly-in recently chose to use 126.7 even though the strip was not marked on any charts, and was under a busy IFR route. The associated chat on the day would not have been acceptable on the area frequency. Obviouslly a good decision and in line with the frequency has been used at that location for some time.
Good airmanship should give pilots the opportunity to use the best frequency for their operations. The key is that pilots need to have some basic understanding of the system and how it is meant to work.
What are VFR Sectional Charts for in the USA system?
How is that system supposed to work in Australia where there is no equivalent outside VNC coverage?
What happens if you transmit a MAYDAY on 126.7?
What happens if you transmit a MAYDAY on 121.5?
What happens if you transmit a MAYDAY on the FIS frequency for the area in which you are flying?
Surely you will agree that the answers to those questions are relevant to deciding on the "best frequency".
One such aero club fly-in recently chose to use 126.7 even though the strip was not marked on any charts, and was under a busy IFR route.
Because the fly-in situation was off normal with the potential to present various safety issues, the appropriate thing for the organisers to do would have been to contact their local CASA regional office beforehand and ask them to 1) arrange a NOTAM ("INTENSE AVIATION ACTIVITY VCY NNN DUE FLY-IN etc.) and 2) nominate a discrete frequency which would have been included in the NOTAM.
That frequency could well have been 126.7, but at least with the NOTAM the awareness of other airspace users would have been addressed.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are VFR Sectional Charts for in the USA system?
A sectional chart shows topographical features that are important to aviators, such as terrain elevations, ground features identifiable from altitude (rivers, dams, bridges, buildings, etc.), and ground features useful to pilots (airports, beacons, landmarks, etc.). The chart also shows information on airspace classes, ground-based navigation aids, radio frequencies, longitude and latitude, navigation waypoints, navigation routes.
Sectional charts are in 1:500,000 scale and are named for a city on the map. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States publishes over 50 charts covering the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Sectional charts are published by the National Aeronautical Navigation Services Group of the FAA. A number of commercial enterprises, notably Jeppesen, produce compatible, certified sectionals.
The sectionals are complemented by Terminal Area Charts (TACs) at 1:250,000 scale for the areas around major U.S. airports, and World Aeronautical Charts (WACs) at a scale of 1:1,000,000 used by pilots flying slower aircraft and aircraft at high altitude.
Sectional charts are in 1:500,000 scale and are named for a city on the map. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States publishes over 50 charts covering the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Sectional charts are published by the National Aeronautical Navigation Services Group of the FAA. A number of commercial enterprises, notably Jeppesen, produce compatible, certified sectionals.
The sectionals are complemented by Terminal Area Charts (TACs) at 1:250,000 scale for the areas around major U.S. airports, and World Aeronautical Charts (WACs) at a scale of 1:1,000,000 used by pilots flying slower aircraft and aircraft at high altitude.