Multicom vs area frequency
Irrespective of the answers to your questions, the rule is now crystal clear.
Comply with it, or get it changed. Simple.
Trust me: The world of aviation safety ain't gonna come tumbling down on this one. There are important things to worry about. This isn't one of them.
Comply with it, or get it changed. Simple.
Trust me: The world of aviation safety ain't gonna come tumbling down on this one. There are important things to worry about. This isn't one of them.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the rule is now crystal clear.
The world of aviation safety ain't gonna come tumbling down on this one.
In many cases the ATC who is monitoring the G frequency is also responsible for separating aircraft in controlled airspace.
In some cases aircraft in G making self announce calls at low level block out calls that they cannot hear that are being made to or from aircraft being separated by ATC. That's why procedures in other modern aviation countries prohibit such calls on ATC separation frequencies.
Or take away the concentration by the ATC where it should be. Look up the BASI report on the breakdown of separation in relation to a 747SP in Queensland a number of years ago. A VFR aircraft making position reports was one of the reasons given for the error.
First a breakdown of separation then a real accident killing people. That's why I would like to know which individual has pushed this.
Come on. Some one must know- send me a private message if you would like!
In some cases aircraft in G making self announce calls at low level block out calls that they cannot hear that are being made to or from aircraft being separated by ATC. That's why procedures in other modern aviation countries prohibit such calls on ATC separation frequencies.
Or take away the concentration by the ATC where it should be. Look up the BASI report on the breakdown of separation in relation to a 747SP in Queensland a number of years ago. A VFR aircraft making position reports was one of the reasons given for the error.
First a breakdown of separation then a real accident killing people. That's why I would like to know which individual has pushed this.
Come on. Some one must know- send me a private message if you would like!
Irritate the airlines and ATC? Maybe/maybe not who cares! When I fly around VFR (for fun) I always make an all stations call on the area VHF if I believe its applicable regardless of what ATC and the IFR pilots think (I hold a current IFR rating). As Creamie indicated, if this new rule gets people wound up they are loosing sight of the big picture. Could be fun and games for some when all the new rules are rolled out........
The worst that will happen is that it might irritate airlines or ATC
10 miles
5 miles
Joining circuit
Joining downwind
Joining base
Joining final
Vacating the runway
Let's take the case of a flyaway for a BBQ ... to a strip not marked on any charts and the above dudes are out in force. It is also a busy Sunday for the good folk at Flight Service, a lot is happening, many area frequencies are tied together, staff are few.
I see mega irritation happening!
If people are making that many calls Bob, these need to be re-educated - that's just madness if there is no other traffic around!!!! They should go and get a job at a radio station. Inbound, circuit entry and an initial taxi call (and a departure call if there was traffic around) should be suffice in my opinion. We need to also remember that just about all of these airstrips effected by this rule in most cases have very little traffic operating in and out of them.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on you, Dick. For one, controllers can over transmit communications if necessary plus there are other methods that can be used; simply, " ABC standby". To bring up the incident Of the 747 SP is rubbish and not relevant. When incidents are investigated ATC's/Pilots manufacture all sorts of excuses and this case it is of no relevance. Besides, you've recommended/presided over some crap.......the latest being GAAP to Class D Procedures.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue is more than just the existence and use of the MULTICOM frequency.
Whether you agree with the concept of the MULTICOM or not, it was introduced some 10+ years ago to remove aircraft chat on the ATS frequencies which was then seen as a significant frequency congestion issue along with re-transmission which was expanding at the time. There are many areas where low level ops cannot be heard by Centre and visa versa, but they can all be heard by high flyers. During the discussions held by the RAPACs back then, the introduction was based on a similar process in North America. If it works there, it should work here was the philosophy - however it's introduction was not covered by an appropriate level of education - and there was, as usual, with airspace and procedure changes, little or no allowance for Ozzie culture, which is basically to talk far too much!! Why a country (such as the USA) with significantly more aviation activity can exist with a MULTICOM and significantly less CTAF frequencies than here is a question that needs to addressed, through education.
The real issue with this change is the failure of CASA to discuss / consult with industry and the RAPACs, which is seen by many in the industry as an attempt to undermind the process and push changes to procedures etc through because it is thought to be a good idea and there is little or no corporate history of why the procedure is there in the first place, something that the RAPACs could have provided advise on. This change has obviously been pushed by someone with little or no understanding of the background of the issue and no desire to to be influenced by industry, who perhaps understand the issues better than they....
Yet another failure by CASA.
Whether you agree with the concept of the MULTICOM or not, it was introduced some 10+ years ago to remove aircraft chat on the ATS frequencies which was then seen as a significant frequency congestion issue along with re-transmission which was expanding at the time. There are many areas where low level ops cannot be heard by Centre and visa versa, but they can all be heard by high flyers. During the discussions held by the RAPACs back then, the introduction was based on a similar process in North America. If it works there, it should work here was the philosophy - however it's introduction was not covered by an appropriate level of education - and there was, as usual, with airspace and procedure changes, little or no allowance for Ozzie culture, which is basically to talk far too much!! Why a country (such as the USA) with significantly more aviation activity can exist with a MULTICOM and significantly less CTAF frequencies than here is a question that needs to addressed, through education.
The real issue with this change is the failure of CASA to discuss / consult with industry and the RAPACs, which is seen by many in the industry as an attempt to undermind the process and push changes to procedures etc through because it is thought to be a good idea and there is little or no corporate history of why the procedure is there in the first place, something that the RAPACs could have provided advise on. This change has obviously been pushed by someone with little or no understanding of the background of the issue and no desire to to be influenced by industry, who perhaps understand the issues better than they....
Yet another failure by CASA.
It's not a change. Sure: there's the usual chronic confusion and folklore about the rules, caused by too much poorly implemented 'reform'.
People who think there's lots of "aircraft chat" on area frequencies obviously don't spend too much time listening to area frequencies.
Can someone nominate a busy airstrip that's not marked on any WAC, VNC or VTC, from which all this disruptive, 747 mid-air collision causing chit-chat will be emanating?
People who think there's lots of "aircraft chat" on area frequencies obviously don't spend too much time listening to area frequencies.
Can someone nominate a busy airstrip that's not marked on any WAC, VNC or VTC, from which all this disruptive, 747 mid-air collision causing chit-chat will be emanating?
Creamy. It is a change. When we introduced CTAFs it was following procedures that had been proven to give acceptable levels of safety in North America.
In those countries pilots are not approved to make self announcements or circuit calls on ATC separation frequencies.
Do you agree that by publishing ATC sector frequencies on the maps and making it mandatory for VFR to monitor and announce this gives AsA a responsibility to try and prevent a mid air if two VFR aircraft a seen close together in radar airspace.?
In other words if two such aircraft collide and it is shown that ATC workload was low and could have prevented the mid air if the aircraft were called and given traffic on each other when close together.
I will ask again. Who is behind this annoucement- surely if they believe -as Creamy does -that there has been no change they will admit to their involvement? Then again they may hide and that's why I wish to know from others who drove this.
And can someone remind me. What are the MANDATORY calls at an aerodrome ?
In those countries pilots are not approved to make self announcements or circuit calls on ATC separation frequencies.
Do you agree that by publishing ATC sector frequencies on the maps and making it mandatory for VFR to monitor and announce this gives AsA a responsibility to try and prevent a mid air if two VFR aircraft a seen close together in radar airspace.?
In other words if two such aircraft collide and it is shown that ATC workload was low and could have prevented the mid air if the aircraft were called and given traffic on each other when close together.
I will ask again. Who is behind this annoucement- surely if they believe -as Creamy does -that there has been no change they will admit to their involvement? Then again they may hide and that's why I wish to know from others who drove this.
And can someone remind me. What are the MANDATORY calls at an aerodrome ?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 17th Aug 2014 at 04:04.
Marjorca. As I understand it , controllers have no authority to tell pilots transmitting in class G airspace to standby. The pilot may judge that the announcement / communication is important for immediate safety .
Do you know differently?
Do you know differently?
And can someone remind me. What are the MANDATORY calls at an aerodrome ?
If people are making that many calls Bob, these need to be re-educated
No, its not a change.
The NOTAM simply reinforces/restates the procedures that have been in place for over 10 years, and are plain common sense.
As I said, the FIA frequency is NOT normally the same as a high level control frequency.
In situations of remote areas where they may be common, and in other areas during periods of light workload where the retransmit facility is active, I suspect ATC are experienced enough to "tune out" mentally to the odd broadcast they hear on an FIA frequency, and "tune in" to a call on a separate control frequency they're using.
The NOTAM simply reinforces/restates the procedures that have been in place for over 10 years, and are plain common sense.
As I said, the FIA frequency is NOT normally the same as a high level control frequency.
In situations of remote areas where they may be common, and in other areas during periods of light workload where the retransmit facility is active, I suspect ATC are experienced enough to "tune out" mentally to the odd broadcast they hear on an FIA frequency, and "tune in" to a call on a separate control frequency they're using.
Aussie. Mate. This is Australia. I bet there are mandatory calls in the vicinity of an aerodrome- with big fines.
Captain. Under the J curve arn't most low level E airspace frequencies the same as the G below? Sure happens where I fly!
Captain. Under the J curve arn't most low level E airspace frequencies the same as the G below? Sure happens where I fly!
Captain Midnight is (still) correct.
Dick: Can you nominate a busy airstrip - just one - that's not marked on any WAC, VNC or VTC, from which all this disruptive, 747 mid-air collision causing chit-chat will be emanating?
Dick: Can you nominate a busy airstrip - just one - that's not marked on any WAC, VNC or VTC, from which all this disruptive, 747 mid-air collision causing chit-chat will be emanating?
Creamy. It's not one busy airport that is the problem. It's 100s of landings taking placed very day at private strips all over our land. This requirement will only work if most don't give any radio calls- and that's what must happen.
However if most don't give calls why have this unique requirement?
Also I am positive some calls are mandatory in the vicinity of an airport. Creamy you understand the law- are you telling me a pilot can arrive at a CTAF and give no calls at all?
However if most don't give calls why have this unique requirement?
Also I am positive some calls are mandatory in the vicinity of an airport. Creamy you understand the law- are you telling me a pilot can arrive at a CTAF and give no calls at all?