Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully airspace decisions will be made using rational evidence - not resistance to change
Yes, it could happen...but the probability is remote by all rational standards of risk assessment.
Kaz
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please name the places so that the facts can be checked.
Lots of factual errors through nomination of places that turn out to be depicted as aerodromes on aeronautical charts.
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.
I do agree about the media release - the real risk to RPT is miniscule.
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."
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
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.
"****-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....);
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the nearest 100.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
YJST is on the Adelaide VNC.
I'm looking at the most recent Adelaide VNC right now and it isn't.
Last edited by Strainer; 28th Oct 2014 at 05:57. Reason: Deleted some waffle as Creamy beat me to it.
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?
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?
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
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
G'day Mr Tr,
Re; As traffic increased more FS freqs were introduced.....Post #85....
Not only 'as traffic increased', but with the introduction of the 'Jets', as the percentage of 'high flying' traffic increased, and the calls on 122.1 from the FK.28 in one area (For example...) at FL280 were 'superimposed' onto the adjoining area(s) by virtue of the transmitting aircraft's altitude, then it soon became obvious that a 'separation' of frequencies was required.....
Hence the various differing frequency 'numbers' ...around 'the adjoining traps'.....(F.I.A.'s)....
Cheers
Re; As traffic increased more FS freqs were introduced.....Post #85....
Not only 'as traffic increased', but with the introduction of the 'Jets', as the percentage of 'high flying' traffic increased, and the calls on 122.1 from the FK.28 in one area (For example...) at FL280 were 'superimposed' onto the adjoining area(s) by virtue of the transmitting aircraft's altitude, then it soon became obvious that a 'separation' of frequencies was required.....
Hence the various differing frequency 'numbers' ...around 'the adjoining traps'.....(F.I.A.'s)....
Cheers
It's quite odd. It appears the printers of the paper chart have simply put a 1cm white border over the detail at the top of the chart, rather than outside the detail. Genius!
Cynical: As a matter of interest, does Parndana (YPDA) on Kangaroo Island feature on the bottom of your paper version? It looks like it's within 1cm of the bottom edge of the electronic version.
Cynical: As a matter of interest, does Parndana (YPDA) on Kangaroo Island feature on the bottom of your paper version? It looks like it's within 1cm of the bottom edge of the electronic version.