Multicom vs area frequency
Are you saying I’m not allowed to cruise at 500’ or 1000’ AGL over the millions of square kilometres of farmer Joe’s and Josephine’s paddocks out there?
Whatever happened to see and avoid?
Example
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 14th Feb 2014 at 08:48.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying I’m not allowed to cruise at 500’ or 1000’ AGL over the millions of square kilometres of farmer Joe’s and Josephine’s paddocks out there?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All you have to do now is convince the regulator and all the aviators I know.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is under fire over its handling of changes to the radio frequency used by light aircraft in uncontrolled airspace at some small airstrips.
Victoria’s regional airspace and procedures advisory committee was worried enough about confusion over the changes that it warned they posed “a serious safety risk’’ and it asked CASA to convene a summit to explain them. But CASA says it has already moved to address the issues raised.
The changes were introduced in May last year and amended this month. They mean that aircraft operating into airports without a discrete common traffic advisory frequency, the radio frequencies on which pilots tell each other of their position and intentions, are now required to broadcast on the frequency en-route air traffic controllers use to talk to airlines flying at high levels. The move mostly affects uncharted agricultural and country landing strips.
A meeting of the Victorian RAPAC was told the change was so poorly managed that most light aircraft pilots were unaware of it.
“It was pointed out that had there been any industry consultation prior to the change, the risk of accidental jamming of air traffic control instructions to airline traffic could have been clear,’’ committee representatives told The Australian.
RAPAC members also see the way in which the changes were announced as part of the problem. They say they were announced in the airservices information package, which is generally not used by the visual flight rules pilots, but not in other places such as the visual flight rules guide.
As a result, even CASA admitted there was confusion and many pilots were still using the multicom frequency.
Victorian RAPAC member Dick Gower said he had been in touch with other committees around Australia “and they’re all saying the same thing”.
The Victorian RAPAC has put a series of questions to CASA on matters such as what issue the changes were trying to address and whether the authority was complying with its own requirements to consult with industry.
A CASA spokesman said the regulator had the advisory publication and information booklet on civil aviation regulation 166 to include information on the issue. A notice to airmen had also been issued and CASA aviation safety advisers include this information during presentations to pilots.
“If pilots are aware of frequency congestion this should be reported to the relevant RAPAC to request a frequency change such as a broadcast area,’’ he said.
The spokesman said pilots should use the published CTAF frequency at non-controlled aerodromes with a CTAF and the multicom frequency of 126.7 MHz at uncontrolled aerodromes marked on a chart.
“At or near aerodromes not marked on a chart pilots should use the relevant VHF area frequency,’’ he said.
“Using the multicom at these unmarked aerodromes is not appropriate as other pilots operating in the area who are unaware of the aerodrome will be on the area frequency.’’
Victoria’s regional airspace and procedures advisory committee was worried enough about confusion over the changes that it warned they posed “a serious safety risk’’ and it asked CASA to convene a summit to explain them. But CASA says it has already moved to address the issues raised.
The changes were introduced in May last year and amended this month. They mean that aircraft operating into airports without a discrete common traffic advisory frequency, the radio frequencies on which pilots tell each other of their position and intentions, are now required to broadcast on the frequency en-route air traffic controllers use to talk to airlines flying at high levels. The move mostly affects uncharted agricultural and country landing strips.
A meeting of the Victorian RAPAC was told the change was so poorly managed that most light aircraft pilots were unaware of it.
“It was pointed out that had there been any industry consultation prior to the change, the risk of accidental jamming of air traffic control instructions to airline traffic could have been clear,’’ committee representatives told The Australian.
RAPAC members also see the way in which the changes were announced as part of the problem. They say they were announced in the airservices information package, which is generally not used by the visual flight rules pilots, but not in other places such as the visual flight rules guide.
As a result, even CASA admitted there was confusion and many pilots were still using the multicom frequency.
Victorian RAPAC member Dick Gower said he had been in touch with other committees around Australia “and they’re all saying the same thing”.
The Victorian RAPAC has put a series of questions to CASA on matters such as what issue the changes were trying to address and whether the authority was complying with its own requirements to consult with industry.
A CASA spokesman said the regulator had the advisory publication and information booklet on civil aviation regulation 166 to include information on the issue. A notice to airmen had also been issued and CASA aviation safety advisers include this information during presentations to pilots.
“If pilots are aware of frequency congestion this should be reported to the relevant RAPAC to request a frequency change such as a broadcast area,’’ he said.
The spokesman said pilots should use the published CTAF frequency at non-controlled aerodromes with a CTAF and the multicom frequency of 126.7 MHz at uncontrolled aerodromes marked on a chart.
“At or near aerodromes not marked on a chart pilots should use the relevant VHF area frequency,’’ he said.
“Using the multicom at these unmarked aerodromes is not appropriate as other pilots operating in the area who are unaware of the aerodrome will be on the area frequency.’’
Last edited by triton140; 15th Aug 2014 at 12:35.
They mean that aircraft operating into airports without a discrete common traffic advisory frequency, the radio frequencies on which pilots tell each other of their position and intentions, are now required to broadcast on the frequency en-route air traffic controllers use to talk to airlines flying at high levels.
It seems to me to be the least impractical solution (and what I'd thought had been the requirement for many years).
Creampuff. Are you suggesting a system where VFR and IFR aircraft using "radio arranged separation " in the Australian way on frequencies which are also used by ATC to separate aircraft is " the least impractical solution".
That clearly means the ATC does not have control of the frequency.
And you don't seem to have a problem with this . Does it concern you that no other country allows aircraft to aircraft communications on ATC control frequencies unless approval has been obtained from the ATC?
That clearly means the ATC does not have control of the frequency.
And you don't seem to have a problem with this . Does it concern you that no other country allows aircraft to aircraft communications on ATC control frequencies unless approval has been obtained from the ATC?
Creampuff. Are you suggesting a system where VFR and IFR aircraft using "radio arranged separation " in the Australian way on frequencies which are also used by ATC to separate aircraft is " the least impractical solution".
That clearly means the ATC does not have control of the frequency.
And you don't seem to have a problem with this . Does it concern you that no other country allows aircraft to aircraft communications on ATC control frequencies unless approval has been obtained from the ATC?
I don't make the rules, Dick. I just try to work out what they are - this week - and comply with them.
Last edited by Creampuff; 16th Aug 2014 at 05:19.
I can't wait for this, best rule change ever Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notam c119/14
operational frequency requirements
in lieu of current aip information regarding operations at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes, pilots must use the following frequencies for broadcasts:
A. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete ctaf shown (including broadcast area ctaf), or otherwise;
b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the ctaf 126.7; or
c. In all other cases, area vhf.
Procedures incorporated in aip effective 21 aug 2014.
From 07 180435 to 08 201559
operational frequency requirements
in lieu of current aip information regarding operations at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes, pilots must use the following frequencies for broadcasts:
A. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete ctaf shown (including broadcast area ctaf), or otherwise;
b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the ctaf 126.7; or
c. In all other cases, area vhf.
Procedures incorporated in aip effective 21 aug 2014.
From 07 180435 to 08 201559
Complete madness I would reckon. Can anyone advise which section of CASA has come up with this requirement?
Is it an individual at CASA who drove it or was it someone from the industry?
If they want to return to "radio arranged separation " as operated before the AMATS changes in the early 90's they need to employ the FSO's again and bring back separate FIS and ATC airspace and frequencies again. Nothing $30 to $100 m a year wouldn't cover .
Of course they will need to put IFR and VFR at the same Quadrantral levels again and abolish that crazy ICAO semi circular rule that puts IFR and VFR at separate cruising levels!
Is it an individual at CASA who drove it or was it someone from the industry?
If they want to return to "radio arranged separation " as operated before the AMATS changes in the early 90's they need to employ the FSO's again and bring back separate FIS and ATC airspace and frequencies again. Nothing $30 to $100 m a year wouldn't cover .
Of course they will need to put IFR and VFR at the same Quadrantral levels again and abolish that crazy ICAO semi circular rule that puts IFR and VFR at separate cruising levels!
The article suggests a lack of understanding of:
The explanation in the NOTAM is a no brainer - the procedures are what should be used and have been for many years.
Whatever conflicting text has been in AIP since May 2013 was originated by CASA. It sounds like they either worded it poorly or got it wrong.
- an "area" frequency i.e. FIA Flight Information Area;
- a high altitude ATC control frequency (which aren't normally the same);
The explanation in the NOTAM is a no brainer - the procedures are what should be used and have been for many years.
Whatever conflicting text has been in AIP since May 2013 was originated by CASA. It sounds like they either worded it poorly or got it wrong.
The explanation in the NOTAM is a no brainer - the procedures are what should be used and have been for many years.
The number of calls that have been made and will continue to be made on the area frequency in the vicinity of strips that aren't marked on charts will continue to be approximately three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of calls that have been made and will continue to be made on the area frequency in the vicinity of strips that aren't marked on charts will continue to be approximately three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.
