Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, a foreign system designed by them strange foreigners couldn't possibly work in Oz. We need to something for "Australian Conditions". Good thing we have our own great system that everyone understands. I just don't understand why the rest of the world doesn't copy it.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy.... You are showing your lack of understanding of the Oz airspace model.
Your quote of the Canadian doc is interesting but not relevant to this question.
The actual freq is not relevant just so long as it is standard. We chose 126.7 as it was the standard used in the US, just as we chose 1200 for VFR on the transponder.
In many countries the class for the lower levels is Class E, where there is an ATS service to IFR only, unless you specifically ask for and are granted flight following, which is always subject to controller workload. The majority of G in the USA for instance is below 1200ft or 700ft over airports.
As a result you have asked the wrong question!
If you were around and flying some 40+ yrs ago, it was a time when the great majority of OCTA when handled by FS on just one freq:122.1. As traffic increased more FS freqs were introduced. I suggest that at that time everyone understood the procedures and good airmanship was the norm. Many rural aero clubs used 119.1 back then before anyone knew what a CTAF was, but from a practical point of view it was about the same.
When NAS was introduced there was much discussion on what class of airspace our OCTA might be. Class F was the other option, but at the end of the day it was G. In many countries there is NO service in G, so we are not strictly ICAO as we provide a service.
Australia has a process that many other countries and their aviation industries wish they had. It is called RAPAC and it is perhaps the most successful industry forum we have. My information is that the majority of RAPAC's don't support the use of the area freq for general b'casts. CASA might have to listen!!
Your quote of the Canadian doc is interesting but not relevant to this question.
The actual freq is not relevant just so long as it is standard. We chose 126.7 as it was the standard used in the US, just as we chose 1200 for VFR on the transponder.
In many countries the class for the lower levels is Class E, where there is an ATS service to IFR only, unless you specifically ask for and are granted flight following, which is always subject to controller workload. The majority of G in the USA for instance is below 1200ft or 700ft over airports.
As a result you have asked the wrong question!
If you were around and flying some 40+ yrs ago, it was a time when the great majority of OCTA when handled by FS on just one freq:122.1. As traffic increased more FS freqs were introduced. I suggest that at that time everyone understood the procedures and good airmanship was the norm. Many rural aero clubs used 119.1 back then before anyone knew what a CTAF was, but from a practical point of view it was about the same.
When NAS was introduced there was much discussion on what class of airspace our OCTA might be. Class F was the other option, but at the end of the day it was G. In many countries there is NO service in G, so we are not strictly ICAO as we provide a service.
Australia has a process that many other countries and their aviation industries wish they had. It is called RAPAC and it is perhaps the most successful industry forum we have. My information is that the majority of RAPAC's don't support the use of the area freq for general b'casts. CASA might have to listen!!
I understand all of that and the turgid history.
I'll say it again: Go forth and implement the system that you say works so well. Just make sure you implement the whole system.
I will repeat my questions.
Dick and triadic: In the system you are advocating, will the equivalent of the area frequency in G and the default CTAF be the same frequency?
It's a yes or no answer.
triadic: In the current system, on what frequency would you advise someone to transmit a MAYDAY? Area or 126.7?
The 'general broadcast on Area' zephyr in a thimble relates only to aerodromes that are not depicted on charts. Everyone, including you and Dick, knows that the number of places and the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these places is infinitessimally small.
That's why the fearmongering is so disgusting. It's something that I'd expect from the zealots in CASA AVMED, but not from experienced aviators.
I'll say it again: Go forth and implement the system that you say works so well. Just make sure you implement the whole system.
I will repeat my questions.
Dick and triadic: In the system you are advocating, will the equivalent of the area frequency in G and the default CTAF be the same frequency?
It's a yes or no answer.
triadic: In the current system, on what frequency would you advise someone to transmit a MAYDAY? Area or 126.7?
The 'general broadcast on Area' zephyr in a thimble relates only to aerodromes that are not depicted on charts. Everyone, including you and Dick, knows that the number of places and the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these places is infinitessimally small.
That's why the fearmongering is so disgusting. It's something that I'd expect from the zealots in CASA AVMED, but not from experienced aviators.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here is a real world example and an honest question:
Not far from Adelaide is Tailem Bend which has a VOR and NDB but no airfield and it is used quite heavily by the various training organisations and flying schools for IFR approach practice. The procedure was that after requesting traffic for descent if there were other aircraft operating or inbound to TBD, ATC would give the traffic information and then you would switch to 126.7 and coordinate with each aircraft at what levels you would operate, how long, intentions etc. then switch back to ATC and give your operating levels and OPS Normal time. This obviously stops all the chatter being over the Area Freq. 125.3.
Now as there is no CTAF (or airfield) I can think of 3 possibilities;
1. This procedure (whilst expedient) has always been incorrect and the Area Freq. should have been used to coordinate between aircraft.
2. This procedure was correct but should not be used anymore as all transmissions should be on area freq.
3. This procedure was correct and still is correct.
I'm not sure which of the 3 possibilities is correct, anybody know the answer?
Not far from Adelaide is Tailem Bend which has a VOR and NDB but no airfield and it is used quite heavily by the various training organisations and flying schools for IFR approach practice. The procedure was that after requesting traffic for descent if there were other aircraft operating or inbound to TBD, ATC would give the traffic information and then you would switch to 126.7 and coordinate with each aircraft at what levels you would operate, how long, intentions etc. then switch back to ATC and give your operating levels and OPS Normal time. This obviously stops all the chatter being over the Area Freq. 125.3.
Now as there is no CTAF (or airfield) I can think of 3 possibilities;
1. This procedure (whilst expedient) has always been incorrect and the Area Freq. should have been used to coordinate between aircraft.
2. This procedure was correct but should not be used anymore as all transmissions should be on area freq.
3. This procedure was correct and still is correct.
I'm not sure which of the 3 possibilities is correct, anybody know the answer?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dexta, good question. Remember also that Tailem Bend VOR is only about 5 nm NE of Brooklands Air Park (YBAK) near Wellington. It is on the Adelaide VNC without an allocated CTAF so shouldn't aircraft operating within 10nm and below say 5000' (and therefore in the vicinity of YBAK) be on 126.7 anyway?
The easy answer is to go back to what was introduced with NAS over a decade ago .....
Multicom 126.7 for all low level ops at those sites without a designated frequency other than 126.7
Remove the area frequency boundaries from the charts - they are not relevant to VFR ops, provided the frequency is marked in the vicinity of the aerial site.
Good airmanship and some pre-flight preparation would provide the frequencies to use in an emergency. There are plenty of locations now that comms with centre cannot be made on the area frequency, but can on an adjacent area!
Multicom 126.7 for all low level ops at those sites without a designated frequency other than 126.7
Remove the area frequency boundaries from the charts - they are not relevant to VFR ops, provided the frequency is marked in the vicinity of the aerial site.
Good airmanship and some pre-flight preparation would provide the frequencies to use in an emergency. There are plenty of locations now that comms with centre cannot be made on the area frequency, but can on an adjacent area!
Last edited by cogwheel; 27th Oct 2014 at 08:46. Reason: To correct a deliberate mistake ...
I think I know what you meant by this:
I’m guessing you meant: “Multicom 126.7 for all low level ops at those sites without a designated frequency other than 126.7.”
Could you provide some more detail around what you mean by ‘low level’. For example, what about a VFR cruising at e.g. 6,500’.
It’s all well and good to advocate going back to what was introduced with NAS over a decade ago, and it’s all well and good for some to pretend that the broadcast rules are a ‘recent change’. But that ignores what actually happened after NAS was introduced over a decade ago...
The area frequency boundaries were in fact removed from the Australian charts, when NAS was introduced.
But then what happened? ‘Dick’s Biscuits’ suddenly appeared. You remember why they were put on the charts, Dick.
And then Dick’s Biscuits were removed and the area frequency boundaries were reinstated to the charts.
In short, the frequency monitoring and broadcast rules went in a big orbit back to where they started.
And for the record, I didn't then and don’t now care a tinker’s cuss what the rules are, provided there is just one set that everyone understands and does their best to comply with (even if some individuals don’t agree with some of the rules in principle).
Multicom 126.7 for all low level ops at those sites with a designated frequency other than 126.7
Could you provide some more detail around what you mean by ‘low level’. For example, what about a VFR cruising at e.g. 6,500’.
It’s all well and good to advocate going back to what was introduced with NAS over a decade ago, and it’s all well and good for some to pretend that the broadcast rules are a ‘recent change’. But that ignores what actually happened after NAS was introduced over a decade ago...
The area frequency boundaries were in fact removed from the Australian charts, when NAS was introduced.
But then what happened? ‘Dick’s Biscuits’ suddenly appeared. You remember why they were put on the charts, Dick.
And then Dick’s Biscuits were removed and the area frequency boundaries were reinstated to the charts.
In short, the frequency monitoring and broadcast rules went in a big orbit back to where they started.
And for the record, I didn't then and don’t now care a tinker’s cuss what the rules are, provided there is just one set that everyone understands and does their best to comply with (even if some individuals don’t agree with some of the rules in principle).
Remember also that Tailem Bend VOR is only about 5 nm NE of Brooklands Air Park (YBAK) near Wellington. It is on the Adelaide VNC without an allocated CTAF so shouldn't aircraft operating within 10nm and below say 5000' (and therefore in the vicinity of YBAK) be on 126.7 anyway?
So Dexta: your point 3. is correct.
And if YBAK had a discrete CTAF, then "the various training organisations and flying schools for IFR approach practice" would "switch to the discrete CTAF and coordinate with each aircraft at what levels you would operate, how long, intentions etc."
Simple.
Thread Starter
Creamy
I remember well. Complete ignorance and concrete minds put the frequency boundaries from the old Flight Service days back on the charts.
Under ICAO there is not even a radio requirement for VFR in class E F and G airspace.
If a system is to work with frequency boundaries we need to move back to the old pre 1991 AMATS system and re instate Flight Service on separate frequencies to ATC.
Then there will be no radar advisories available in uncontrolled airspace as FS will have their Quill pens and green eyeshades and a microphone!
But everyone can yak yak yak giving full position reports every 30 minutes like old times and impress the girlfriend.
In the US there is not even a recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when en route. Pilots can call on the frequency of a nearby remote VHF outlet and request a workload permitting RAS.
Our NAS recommended that if en route and in the airspace normally used for approach and departing traffic of an airport - to monitor the frequency of that airport.
This was to satisfy those who believe that VFR pilots will run into someone if they can't use radio arranged separation and never stop yakking.
And no. I don't know how the present system should work as it is unproven and probably unworkable!
I remember well. Complete ignorance and concrete minds put the frequency boundaries from the old Flight Service days back on the charts.
Under ICAO there is not even a radio requirement for VFR in class E F and G airspace.
If a system is to work with frequency boundaries we need to move back to the old pre 1991 AMATS system and re instate Flight Service on separate frequencies to ATC.
Then there will be no radar advisories available in uncontrolled airspace as FS will have their Quill pens and green eyeshades and a microphone!
But everyone can yak yak yak giving full position reports every 30 minutes like old times and impress the girlfriend.
In the US there is not even a recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when en route. Pilots can call on the frequency of a nearby remote VHF outlet and request a workload permitting RAS.
Our NAS recommended that if en route and in the airspace normally used for approach and departing traffic of an airport - to monitor the frequency of that airport.
This was to satisfy those who believe that VFR pilots will run into someone if they can't use radio arranged separation and never stop yakking.
And no. I don't know how the present system should work as it is unproven and probably unworkable!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure Brisbane Center and the IFR guys it talks to would just love to hear from those of us operating from the private strips south of and around Toowoomba. Within 15nm there are at least 8 I know of. Make that 9 (one Sunday afternoon Mrs Eyrie and I went out to do some practice forced landings and on the go round from the first she remarked that it looked like a really good paddock as it came complete with hangar and windsock) plus the new Wagner's Folly (aka Brisbane West Wellcamp) airport - a really dumb name as someone may get the idea it has something to do with Brisbane and I'm sure there are others.
We all do the sensible thing and operate on Toowoomba CTAF especially as the Toowoomba training area encompasses all these private strips, none of which are on the charts.
Yes, please. Bring back the NAS of 10 years ago and implement all of it. Pity some idiots couldn't get over not having frequency boundaries on the charts.
Could we just outsource air traffic management to the FAA? I'm sure it would be an improvement.
Come to think of it we could get the FAA to replace CASA. They could call it the far south west Hawaiian office.
We all do the sensible thing and operate on Toowoomba CTAF especially as the Toowoomba training area encompasses all these private strips, none of which are on the charts.
Yes, please. Bring back the NAS of 10 years ago and implement all of it. Pity some idiots couldn't get over not having frequency boundaries on the charts.
Could we just outsource air traffic management to the FAA? I'm sure it would be an improvement.
Come to think of it we could get the FAA to replace CASA. They could call it the far south west Hawaiian office.
Thread Starter
Eyrie. Good on you. I think it is now possible to re introduce NAS as planned as many of those old pilots who were obsessed with talking all the time and not getting a radar service -even if IFR in radar coverage - are now retiring.
Those who fly in the US know what a fantastic system it is.
Just have to suggest some of those in CASA operations in Canberra open their minds and copy the best. Not likely at the moment!
But who knows what may happen with a new CEO?
Those who fly in the US know what a fantastic system it is.
Just have to suggest some of those in CASA operations in Canberra open their minds and copy the best. Not likely at the moment!
But who knows what may happen with a new CEO?
Thread Starter
Creamy. The biscuits appeared at the same time as the frequency boundaries were removed. Not after. That was the whole point .
It was all properly planned and it would have worked if Bernie Smith , the PPL CEO of AsA , had not undermined the cabinet approved system by publishing a chart putting the frequency boundaries back into the system. He was obsessed with " fly by radio" as many were.
From then on it became a pathetic joke and has been since then. Totally amateurish ignorance against change.
I am available to complete the plan- it will result in the best airspace system in the world when completed
It was all properly planned and it would have worked if Bernie Smith , the PPL CEO of AsA , had not undermined the cabinet approved system by publishing a chart putting the frequency boundaries back into the system. He was obsessed with " fly by radio" as many were.
From then on it became a pathetic joke and has been since then. Totally amateurish ignorance against change.
I am available to complete the plan- it will result in the best airspace system in the world when completed
Could you provide some more detail around what you mean by ‘low level’. For example, what about a VFR cruising at e.g. 6,500’.
Personally, I would not advocate use of the Multicom above what altitude (AGL) you might be at around 10nm from the strip you intend to land at. As a VFR operation, you can listen to music if you want... and I understand many do….
In the cruise, good airmanship might suggest that you listen to Area or maybe 121.5 or one of the glider frequencies if around a gliding area or whatever you believe you might get the best relevant info from.
This discussion seems to rely on too much reliance on talk and not enough on keeping a good look out. It does of course help if those with radio are on the same frequency. Shame that CASA don’t understand that… Is the “S” for Safety or Stupid???
I'm sure Brisbane Center and the IFR guys it talks to would just love to hear from those of us operating from the private strips south of and around Toowoomba. Within 15nm there are at least 8 I know of. Make that 9 ...)
Name them so we can check the facts.
Please tell me they the don't include YCFN, YSOB, YPWH, YBWW ...
Creamy. The biscuits appeared at the same time as the frequency boundaries were removed. Not after.
The biscuits were added later, because "some idiots couldn't get over not having frequency boundaries on the charts." Indeed, the same idiots managed to get the frequency boundaries reinstated to the charts.
Must be frustrating, being defeated by idiots, complete ignorance and concrete minds.
Thread Starter
Creamy. I am looking at the origional NAS document titled "Reference Guide" that went to pilots for the system effective from 27 th Nov 2003. It's the famous blue document of 52 pages on quality paper- cost a fortune and now a collectors item!
It says. " a major change is that ....... all frequency boundary information has been removed from charts.."
It then says. " data blocks have been placed on the charts to enable pilots to make the best use of available frequencies"
It then shows a very clear diagram with four " biscuits" listing what appears on the charts.
It then says " to determine the ATC frequency and the location of the transmitter look at the frequency data block ( figure A ) "
Nothing could be clearer so what are you talking about?
It says. " a major change is that ....... all frequency boundary information has been removed from charts.."
It then says. " data blocks have been placed on the charts to enable pilots to make the best use of available frequencies"
It then shows a very clear diagram with four " biscuits" listing what appears on the charts.
It then says " to determine the ATC frequency and the location of the transmitter look at the frequency data block ( figure A ) "
Nothing could be clearer so what are you talking about?
My recollection is that the actual charts that were originally published did not have the biscuits. However, if the glossy brochure said they were supposed to have biscuits from the start, I stand corrected: My apologies for suggesting that the omission was deliberate.
In any event, the boundaries were reinstated.
In any event, the boundaries were reinstated.
Thread Starter
The document also states
"Please do not make broadcast transmissions or engage in chatter on an ATC frequency. The safety of others depends on you not doing this.
" ..... All calls should be directed to ATC or Flightwatch if operating on those frequencies"
"A pilot should give emphasis to monitoring CTAF - MBZ Multicom where collision risk is many times higher. Constantly monitoring an ATC ,frequency where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area "
"Please do not make broadcast transmissions or engage in chatter on an ATC frequency. The safety of others depends on you not doing this.
" ..... All calls should be directed to ATC or Flightwatch if operating on those frequencies"
"A pilot should give emphasis to monitoring CTAF - MBZ Multicom where collision risk is many times higher. Constantly monitoring an ATC ,frequency where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area "
And, in relation to broadcasts on area from aircraft operating in and out of aerodromes that are not depicted on aeronautical charts, the decade-old glossy brochure is obviously contrary to the current AIP.
Do you stand by your scaremongering statement about 500 people being killed?
Do you stand by your scaremongering statement about 500 people being killed?
Thread Starter
Creamy. Yes. For sure. It's got you riled and writing about the issue- others also
Hopefully a decision will be made to go back pre 1991 ( sad ) or move forward and complete the change to a proven system that allocates resources to where the most risk is.
And I will be sending the press release out as so far nothing said here shows I should not.
Hopefully airspace decisions will be made using rational evidence - not resistance to change.
Hopefully a decision will be made to go back pre 1991 ( sad ) or move forward and complete the change to a proven system that allocates resources to where the most risk is.
And I will be sending the press release out as so far nothing said here shows I should not.
Hopefully airspace decisions will be made using rational evidence - not resistance to change.