Multicom vs area frequency

[triton140]

Notes to today's revision of CAAP166-1 are interesting:

Note 1: The intent is to ensure broadcasts are made on a frequency that other aircraft in the vicinity will be monitoring. A broadcast made only on Multicom 126.7 at an aerodrome whose existence is only known through local knowledge is misguided, as transiting aircraft relying on aeronautical charts for aerodrome location information will be monitoring area frequency.

Note 2: Nonetheless, pilots should study all authorised aeronautical charts relevant to their flight route and category, in accordance with CAR 233 (1)(h). This is because some details may be omitted from charts of different scales even though they cover the same area (usually to avoid clutter).4

So the answer to a previous question about differences between charts seems to be if it appears on any relevant chart, then it's the CTAF or 126.7, only if it doesn't appear on any relevant chart should we use area.

Seems to me to make some sense, particularly given that Farmer Brown has no mandatory requirement to broadcast anything at all at his farm strip, shouldn't be a lot of clutter on area.

[Trent 972]

There is a NOTAM in force, today, that says the area VHF frequency must be used for operations at and in the vicinity of strips that aren’t marked on charts. Have the area frequencies been flooded with broadcasts from all those people operating in and out of unmarked strips who were previously broadcasting on 126.7?….

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from a Brisbane Center Operator who does the NT sectors surrounding Darwin, on Area Freq. broadcasts being used instead of 126.7 for all ops from uncharted airstrips. (My guess would be - instant meltdown).

[Creampuff]

There seems to be confusion about what the phrase "aeronautical charts" means.

There shouldn't be.

Good question, Trent 972: Has there been 'instant meltdown'?

As a matter of interest, Trent, can you nominate a few of those uncharted airstrips? I'm very keen to look at the applicable WAC (and VNC and VTC if it/they cover/s the area), to see if they are indeed unmarked on the current versions of the aeronautical charts.

[Dick Smith]

Today's revision of the CAAP is a credit to those who have worked on it.

I like the way it makes it clear that you must remain vigilant to see and avoid because the other pilot may be on the wrong frequency or volume turned down .

Yes it is complicated. But that's the Aussie way. The FAA equivalent will be half the size!

I believe there is still an error re the non marked strips and communicating on the area frequency- let's hope than can be fixed soon!

[Creampuff]

So: Any 'instant melt down' anywhere yet?

Trent: I'm still very interested in the names of some of those "uncharted airstrips" to which you referred.

Dick: Same request to you. I'm very interested in the names of some strips that aren't on any aeronautical chart and have lots of aviation activity.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from a Brisbane Center Operator who does the NT sectors surrounding Darwin, on Area Freq. broadcasts being used instead of 126.7 for all ops from uncharted airstrips. (My guess would be - instant meltdown).

Do aircraft from those all depart and arrive at the same time? Do they make lengthy calls, or do they just make an all stations call taxying giving location, departure track and altitude? Are they all in the same FIA, or are there multiple FIAs involved potentially managed by different ATC sectors? Did the problem exist for FS when they managed the frequencies?

FWIW a few advantages of being on the relevant FIA frequency when enroute in Class G:

• immediate SAR alerting, by either direct contact with ATC or if below/outside their VHF coverage, contact with another aircraft on a common frequency with ATC;
• monitoring Hazard Alert broadcasts, and broadcasts of other operational information;
• alert by ATC in the event of penetration or imminent penetration of CTA or an active Restricted Area;
• alert to reactivation of Restricted Areas that have been released to ATC;
• alert to broadcasts by other traffic in your area, and traffic information passed to other aircraft potentially about you;
• availability of RIS
• feel free to add others

The amount of broadcasts by ATC relating to point 3 suggests many are indeed either switched off or monitoring 126.7, completely oblivious to what is going on around them.

[Dick Smith]

Creamy. There are over a dozen small grass strips in the Bowral- Marulen area and on weekends quite a bit of traffic

Fortunately they don't give calls on the area frequency - a taxiing aircraft call may not be heard by the ATC but likely block out communication to en route IFR aircraft - not a safe system!

[Creampuff]

Creamy. There are over a dozen small grass strips in the Bowral- Marulen area and on weekends quite a bit of traffic

Righto.

Given the potentially profound consequences for aviation safety - ATC meltdown and 747 crashes and all that - could you be a bit more specific as to location and number of movements? Don't want to be picky, but "quite a bit of traffic" is silly imprecise.

[triadic]

Capt Midnight - The Multicom was designed to keep low level circuit chat off the area frequency and not to be monitored en-route, where for the reasons you suggest it is best to monitor area.

Creamy - ref the NOTAMs, have a look at the ICAO Annex 15 to see the requirements. There are additional Oz requirments also. I did not suggest that you don't check the NOTAMs, but checking the FIR NOTAMS can take some time and the direct relevance to a GA flight is often zero, hence I suggest that many GA pilots might not check them very often. Sure you can ask for a NOTAM on Farmer Joe's strip for a fly-in, but I think you will find that the details might be distributed by Joe. Such a NOTAM will only be in the FIR list unless it is very close to a published location or navaid, which is not often the case.

cheers

[Dick Smith]

I don't have any movement numbers however I was part of the team that introduced the multicom frequency of 126.7 to cover all strips which did not have a different allocated CTAF.s.

It was based on a proven safe system from the USA and Canada. It allowed Australia to move away from the very expensive duplicated FS and ATC system that existed prior to 1991.

Saved our aviation industry over $1 billion since then with no measurable reduction in safety.

Creamy I don't think that CASA actually knows why they are insisting on this different system - notice how no individual is actually identified with the requirement.?

I believe it will eventually cause an unnecessary ATC incident or accident as ATC separation frequencies should be free of non directed communication.

[triadic]

Given the potentially profound consequences for aviation safety - ATC meltdown and 747 crashes and all that - could you be a bit more specific as to location and number of movements? Don't want to be picky, but "quite a bit of traffic" is silly imprecise.

Creamy - I am sure if this is a problem we will hear from the Controllers and airline pilots in due course...... Depending on the sector/s, the VHF coverage and traffic density, the problem vary greatly. Movement levels are now often a best guess as ATS don't keep records like FS used to. It will be best judged by the ATCO and the number of reports made.


cheers

[Creampuff]

Well, triadic, it follows that all these activities at strips that aren't marked on charts can't practicably be the subject of a NOTAM and now require broadcasts on area frequency, which broadcasts will, apparently, result in 'meltdown'.

I'll be monitoring 121.2, for the next week, to hear, first-hand, the horror of the mayhem caused by the broadcasts from all the activity at all those strips in the Bowral - Marulen area, to which Dick referred.

Still waiting for Trent to nominate a few airstrip names that will be contributing to the 'melt down' s/he forewarned for the NT sectors surrounding Darwin.

[Dick Smith]

You won't hear any calls as no one takes any notice of the rule!

Is that the type of rule that you support Creamy?

How then do pilots know which rules should be complied and which rules should be ignored?

[Jabawocky]

How then do pilots know which rules should be complied and which rules should be ignored?

Good question. And perhaps the best one in this thread. However it should be asked across the whole ruleset.

The simple answer is comply with the ones that if you do not, it is dangerous. The others, which are mostly empire building BS, well……

[majorca]

Quote:

It was based on a proven safe system from the USA and Canada. It allowed Australia to move away from the very expensive duplicated FS and ATC system that existed prior to 1991.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact, Dick, that the US and Canada has a dual FSS and ATC system. It works very well providing the aviation industry with a good service.
FS in Australia did not provide the same service as ATC so how was it duplicated? Sure it was a top heavy Public Service organisation that needed cleaning out, but kill it off completely, why?
Also, you're whole idea of NAS (or is it NAS2B ?) is not based on sound reasoning considering Australia's airspace structure is completely different than the US. Do you want to introduce FAA standards into Australia?
CASA did not get it right when they introduced your NAS 2B , aka Class D, procedures. No matter how good your intentions were.

[Creampuff]

Therefore, Dick, on your own logic there's no safety issue.

It must be extraordinarily comfortable living in your head. Some rule will cause mayhem, so everyone needs to be alerted to the impending disaster. But no one's going to comply, so in fact there's no problem.

All those people operating at unmarked strips around Marulen and Bowral could have clogged up the area frequency, but they won't because they won't be complying.

Phew! Now we can all get some sleep!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Once upon a time, boys and girls, there existed a really, really strange system where pilots requiring Air Traffic Control talked to Air Traffic Controllers, and everyone else didn't. They used a mystical thing called the Area Frequency, and everybody was happy. Imagine that! Just a choice of 2 frequencies.
Then a simple car radio installer came up with a scheme that he said would be the salvation of the Australian aviation industry. He chopped the airspace up into an alphabet, and made ATC responsible for everything, and made lots of new frequencies available, depending on where you were or what you were doing. To make it easier for the poor overloaded ATC, pilots were told not to say anything, to only speak when spoken to, and to just look out the windows and enjoy the view, which after all, is what flying is for. Also, they didn't have to worry about track keeping or traffic now as well, as those clever ATC's with their big radars would be keeping a watch over all of Australia, just like Santa. If something bad was going to happen, the ATC would forget all about those pesky jets full of hundreds of people and give all the help he could, because, maybe he might end up in court if he didn't. After all, he had nothing better to do than watch a couple of C172's cross tracks.
So now things are even simpler than they were before, if you can believe it!
There is absolutely no confusion about any of the rules, pilots don't have to worry about which frequency to be on as they are not supposed to talk on it anyway, and the Australian Aviation Industry has gorged on the savings and grown and prospered until it has become the example the world turns to.
And then they all lived happily ever after.....

workload permitting.

[Trent 972]

Creampuff, apologies for the delay.
Without boring everyone with a long list of Yxxx's, if you have OZRunways, try putting up the WAC Chart, zoom into the northern part of the NT, lets say from a line north of Roper River to the east and to Port Keats in the west, then go to the left side list of display items and turn on the second icon from the top (ALA's etc.)-
More than a hundred airstrips not shown on the WAC will be displayed.
Try it for yourself.
Of course your next question will be. Yes but how many VFR aircraft are active daily in the NT?
Well, as Brian said, when asked how much he hated the Romans, A LOT.

[Tee Emm]

You seem to be ignorant of the fact, Dick

Why is it that whenever Dick Smith (who at least has the courage to use his own name on Pprune), makes a comment or an opinion, some posters are quick to use sarcasm and rubbish - whatever he says? Maybe I am old fashioned but to me it smacks of bad manners.

[Creampuff]

Creampuff, apologies for the delay.

Without boring everyone with a long list of Yxxx's, if you have OZRunways, try putting up the WAC Chart, zoom into the northern part of the NT, lets say from a line north of Roper River to the east and to Port Keats in the west, then go to the left side list of display items and turn on the second icon from the top (ALA's etc.)-

More than a hundred airstrips not shown on the WAC will be displayed.
Try it for yourself.

No need to apologise: I was only prodding you for fun – but you probably already knew that…

However, on a serious note, you raise a very important operational issue that I confess I’d taken for granted but may be a mistake on my behalf.

I use AVPLAN. AVPLAN has been approved under CAR 233(1)(h).

Therefore, the latest editions of aeronautical maps, charts and other information and instructions published by AVPLAN are authoritative for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h).

AVPLAN shows all those ALAs to which you referred (and evidently so does OzR). I count that as being “depicted on aeronautical charts”. To put this another way, in the real world I would assume 126.7 is the frequency for use during operations at or in the vicinity of those places.

But let’s talk in specifics, so that we can refine the regulatory and operational issues rather than bluster in overblown hyperbole.

There is a ‘place’ – to use a neutral term – called ‘Mount Ringwood’ to the South East of Darwin. YRIN is not marked on the Darwin paper WAC, but is marked on the VNC and VTC. I therefore take YRIN to be “depicted on aeronautical charts”.

Anyone like to argue that YRIN is not depicted on aeronautical charts?