Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation

Old 27th Oct 2014, 10:33
  #101 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,153
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.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2014, 10:57
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Then good luck, Dick.

I say again, I didn't then, and don’t now, care a tinker’s cuss what the rules are, provided there is just one set and everyone understands and does their best to comply.

My personal view is that you have snowflakes', not only because of the lessons learned by the pollies last time they let you play with airspace, but also because the obvious scaremongering tactic won't win too many new converts to your cause.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2014, 11:46
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 706
Hopefully airspace decisions will be made using rational evidence - not resistance to change
I hope so too, Dick. But claims of 500 falling out of the sky seem just a tad over the top and I respectfully suggest seriously diminish your argument's credibility.

Yes, it could happen...but the probability is remote by all rational standards of risk assessment.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2014, 12:14
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Creampuff,

No mate. Not Southbrook(which BTW I've never managed to find - not sure it still exists), Clifton or Pittsworth and I did specifically mention BWW in *addition* to the private strips I know of.

Here's a hint for you - when you are in hole, stop digging.

Thanks, Dick. I loved the 2003-2004 NAS. Shot down by the Air Traffic Controllers' Trade Union and a weak Minister, in addition to various reactionaries who like to complain about Australian aviation and the way it is run but then turn on anyone who wants to change it for the better.

While we are at rational change, isn't it about time the Albury and Coffs towers were shut down? I was told last week by a recently retired ATC that they don't meet the traffic requirements to have a tower by modern standards.
Eyrie is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2014, 12:40
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,684
Eyrie, you owe me a new keyboard with "Shot down by the Air Traffic Controllers' Trade Union". Haven't laughed so hard in a while. I hear there's a nice bridge in Sydney-town for sale.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2014, 20:15
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Eyrie: Please name the places so that the facts can be checked.

You and others seem to be labouring under the misconception that if you prove me wrong on some fact, the area frequency boundaries will magically disappear from the charts and the AIP will be changed. Bad news: The area frequency boundaries will remain on the charts and the AIP will say what it says, no matter how many mistakes I make in a thread on PPRuNe. I'm a nobody. (Oh, and BTW: I'm very happy for the area frequency boundaries to be removed from the charts and for there to be a complete separation of Centre and 'VFR OCTA' frequencies.)

If you and others want things changed, because 500 lives are at risk through broadcasts from all those operations at thousands of small agricultural and private grass strips that are not depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts, it's up to you to show that it's true by providing "rational evidence".

As it turns out, the track record of nominations of these places hasn't been very good so far. Lots of factual errors through nomination of places that turn out to be depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts. (You have a chance to improve the track record.... )

And, in any event and more importantly, anyone with any experience in aviation knows that the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these unmarked aerodromes is three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.

That's why the then Minister for Transport asked this rhetorical question the last time Dick scaremongered himself into airspace oblivion: "Who listens to Dick Smith on airspace any more? Only Dick Smith."

That's why Dick's Media Release will be ignored by the people who have the power to change things. A frustratingly sad waste of energy and unique public profile that could be directed to far greater effect and benefit for aviation in Australia.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2014, 21:20
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 556
I'll give it a shot.

YNKR

Somehow that one seemed appropriate.

(WAC chart only thanks creamy. That's all that is required in that area, (if you need a hint, it IS on the the TINDAL VNC))
edit.
Please don't bother yourself to reply. I'm just playing with you.
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2014, 21:57
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 388
Please name the places so that the facts can be checked.
Often places aren't marked because the owners don't want them to be generally known. Naming them would be a bit rude.

Lots of factual errors through nomination of places that turn out to be depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts.
Which is my point - the biggest problem with this change is that some will think they are marked, some unmarked, and others will just use 126.7 as they have always done. Any rule about broadcasts is useless if people are not using the same frequency.

anyone with any experience in aviation knows that the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these unmarked aerodromes is three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

I do agree about the media release - the real risk to RPT is miniscule.
andrewr is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 01:19
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
anyone with any experience in aviation knows that the number of movements by VHF carrying aircraft at these unmarked aerodromes is three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
I’ve done and continue to do lots of flying around Australia while listening to not one, not two, but three frequencies: Area, 126.7 and the CTAF of the nearest aerodrome with a CTAF other than 126.7.

For example, flying to the southwest of Sydney I will often hear, on Area, the parachute drop aircraft from Ngambie, Goulburn, Moruya, Wollongong and Wilton. I will also hear numerous aircraft broadcasting on 126.7 at places the name of which I recognise and which are aerodromes depicted on charts.

However, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of broadcasts I’ve heard, in thirty years, on any frequency anywhere in Australia from someone operating at a place that is not depicted on an aeronautical chart. It's very unusual but a very pleasant surprise.

The inferences that I draw from that experience are: First, there are very few movements to and from these places and, even assuming I am wrong, most of those movements don’t involve broadcasts on any frequency.

The scaremongers are suggesting that there are lots of broadcasts on 126.7 in the vicinity of places that are not depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts – the “literally thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips” – and, so their argument goes, it may rain aluminium confetti if those people start broadcasting on 126.7 instead.

Question: Why don’t I hear any of those calls on 126.7 from those places now?

My answer: Because there are so few of them.

Does anyone have any other rational explanation?
WAC chart only thanks creamy. That's all that is required in that area
Best to brush up on your aviation law before your next flight review Trent. I think you’ll find you’re required to have the current ERC as well. You know: the ERC that, along with the VNC, depicts Nackeroo as an aerodrome …

But let’s assume Nackeroo isn’t depicted as an aerodrome on the ERC or VNC.

Nackeroo is three miles from Timber Creek (YTBR) which is depicted on the WAC.

There’s a rule about the frequency to use when in the vicinity of YTBR.

But let’s assume Nackeroo isn’t depicted as an aerodrome on any aeronautical chart, and is many miles from any aerodrome depicted on charts.

What’s your estimate, Trent, of the number of movements there each day?

To the nearest 100.

Surely we should be warning Brisbane Centre that 122.6 is going to be swamped with broadcasts from aircraft in the vicinity of YNKR. Lives are at risk.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 01:19
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,701
"SHIT-A-BRICK!!"

Re : FS will have their Quill pens and green eyeshades and a microphone!

Wot DID Oi do wif me 'green eyeshade'??????

Well Pluck a Duck and sharpen up me penknife...this quill needs replacing...again!!
And, was that 'microphone' or 'megaphone'.... ???

(p.s. Thanks again.........Still enjoyin' it....);


Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 28th Oct 2014 at 01:31.
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 03:21
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 556
To the nearest 100.
Well that would make it 100 then, multiplied by 10,000 unmarked airstrips = 1,000,000 extra radio calls, possibly on ATC freq's.
My God creamy, you're right. Aluminium is going to rain! hehehehe.
In the meantime, I'm not looking forward to listening to the radio chatter to work out what is significant to me, and what is going on way below in farmer McKenzies paddock and whether farmer McKenzie has blocked out a call that was important to me and the 500 or so others along for the ride.
CAsA had better prepare themselves, if this lunacy is not amended.
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 03:26
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Fear not: I can assure you that the number of movements of VHF carrying aircraft at places that aren’t marked on aeronautical charts is – to the nearest 100 - three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 05:22
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Strainer
YJST is on the Adelaide VNC.
I'm looking at the most recent Adelaide VNC right now and it isn't.
Cynical Pilot is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 05:49
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Are you sure, Cynical?

It’s on mine, on the northern side of the town, to the east of the road marked as going to Yatina and Peterborough, and between the railway line marked as going north and the railway line marked as ‘dismantled’ going north east, with both lines converging at Yongala.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 05:53
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by Strainer
YJST is on the Adelaide VNC.

I'm looking at the most recent Adelaide VNC right now and it isn't.
Cynical, haven't got a hard copy with me, but the Adelaide VNC as depicted in Ozrunways has Jamestown right on the edge of the map.

Last edited by Strainer; 28th Oct 2014 at 05:57. Reason: Deleted some waffle as Creamy beat me to it.
Strainer is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 06:47
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Cynical: Can you confirm that the effective date of your Adelaide VNC is 29 May 2014?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 06:58
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 449
Definitely the 29th May 2014. As you can see only a very small part of Jamestown is actually on the print VNC and certainly nothing about an aerodrome. I haven't got a WAC handy but last time I checked it wasn't on that either.



My point being not that anybody is right or wrong but to illustrate that the official paperwork doesn't match the rules either
Cynical Pilot is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 07:12
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Hmmmm

The version published by both of the private companies with approvals to publish under 233(1)(h) have YJST marked on the Adelaide VNC.

There is a 'disconnect' between those versions and the paper version copied by Cynical.

(It's not on the electronic or paper version of the WAC.)

A quality control problem on someone's behalf, methinks.

So, until that's fixed, we can assume that YJST may be the source of aluminium confetti due to area frequency jamming broadcasts. Any idea of how many VHF equipped aircraft operating there, Cynical?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 07:54
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 449
It gets a bit of training traffic and there's a reasonably active crop dusting scene in that part of the world. My point though is this: ERSA says 126.7, AIP suggests that the area frequency (123.9) would be the one to use as it isn't featured on any printed chart. Which do you use if you are to follow the letter of the law?

For one of the first times in my life I'm leaning towards Mr Smith's viewpoint. I remember the nightmare of NAS, NAS 2.0 etc but to me it makes sense to monitor the area frequency and have the most appropriate CTAF/Multicom on standby (or your second radio if you have one). If you're operating at a lower altitude that would potentially infringe on an aerodrome's pattern (which means you're basically 1500AGL or lower) then you could listen in. The key point being that all of it is alerted see and avoid.

I think there are two separate issues at play here. The first of them is proper use of alerted see and avoid. We know that there are plenty of people who can't use their bloody eyes and that's irritating. (Try listening to 126.7 in some parts of Western NSW/VIC or Eastern SA) The other is frequency congestion on the appropriate area frequency. Given how often controllers manage multiple sectors it can be hard enough to get a call in edgeways sometimes. This leads a bit into Mr Smith's concern although he's seemingly more focussed on people missing critical calls due to VFR congestion. If people actually followed what the AIP says this may well be true but given nobody I know or have ever heard actually does it's not of significance.
Cynical Pilot is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2014, 08:43
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Cynical

I think you'll find that one or a number of things will happen quite quickly:

- another centimetre will be added to the top of the paper Adelaide VNC
- YJST will be the subject of a manuscript amendment to the WAC
- maybe a NOTAM.

The outcome will be electronic and paper maps and charts that are consistent as between themselves, and with the ERSA entry.

I support the intent of NAS too. It's unfortunate that its main enemy is the scaremongering tactic used by its highest profile proponent
Creampuff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.