Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
Thread Starter
Is 135.7 used by ATC to Control aircraft - or is it only a radar advisory frequency?
Is it retransmitted on a control frequency?
That's the important issue.
Is it retransmitted on a control frequency?
That's the important issue.
So Dick, are you really suggesting that you don't know, for sure, whether the green FIS frequencies on which all these life threatening broadcasts are being made are in fact used for air traffic control?
Jeez, it would be pretty embarrassing if some of those green frequencies are used just for what the chart says: FIS.
It would also be a bit embarrassing if the guidance material recommending that VFRs make specific broadcasts on specific frequencies used for air traffic control made those recommendations for purposes including the reduction of risks to aircraft under air traffic control.
On a related subject, does anyone have any first hand evidence of a person called "Steve Creedy" having ever produced an original piece of work? More to the point, does anyone have any first hand evidence that a person called "Steve Creedy" ever existed? I have suspicions that 'he' is just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the sub-editor (who is probably 'himself' just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the 'pap content' address used to fill in the gaps between the advertising in the cockie-cage liner).
Jeez, it would be pretty embarrassing if some of those green frequencies are used just for what the chart says: FIS.
It would also be a bit embarrassing if the guidance material recommending that VFRs make specific broadcasts on specific frequencies used for air traffic control made those recommendations for purposes including the reduction of risks to aircraft under air traffic control.
On a related subject, does anyone have any first hand evidence of a person called "Steve Creedy" having ever produced an original piece of work? More to the point, does anyone have any first hand evidence that a person called "Steve Creedy" ever existed? I have suspicions that 'he' is just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the sub-editor (who is probably 'himself' just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the 'pap content' address used to fill in the gaps between the advertising in the cockie-cage liner).
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is 135.7 used by ATC to Control aircraft - or is it only a radar advisory frequency?
Is it retransmitted on a control frequency?
That's the important issue.
Is it retransmitted on a control frequency?
That's the important issue.
[ML CEN 135.7]
[MT MACEDON]
And the man that owns it gets really cross if you aren't listening and don't respond when he calls.
And the VPG does say to BROADCAST on that frequency on the VFR routes
And the VPG for Moorabbin clearly says that 135.7 is the FIA.
Kaz
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever it is Dick, the last page of the VPG says:
"Did you know that a radar information service (RIS) or an ATC flight following service is available in class E and G airspace. Services available are:
Navigation service
Position information
Traffic information
SAR alerting
You must be in direct contact with ATC, transponder equipped and squawking.
See AIP GEN 3.3-13 (2.16) for procedures."
Kaz
"Did you know that a radar information service (RIS) or an ATC flight following service is available in class E and G airspace. Services available are:
Navigation service
Position information
Traffic information
SAR alerting
You must be in direct contact with ATC, transponder equipped and squawking.
See AIP GEN 3.3-13 (2.16) for procedures."
Kaz
Thread Starter
Creamy. Another good childish one
I have made it clear that the problem is when calls are made that could interfere with ATC control instructions.
I bet that at many times the Melbourne frequency is retransmitted on ATC frequencies that are also used to give control instructions.
In Queensland a number of years ago there was a serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline aircraft . One of the explanations given by the contoller for the error was that his attention was taken away from the airline aircraft because of constant position reporting by a VFR aircraft.
Sounded a reasonable explanation to me - next time could be a real mid air.
I will say it again- go back to the old , proven but incredibly expensive duplicated ATC and FS system and VFR can give calls to abandon on the low level area frequencies- or move properly forward to the lower cost NAS system where all calls must be directed to ATC.
I love the concrete resistance to change. No wonder GA is in such a terrible situation.
I have made it clear that the problem is when calls are made that could interfere with ATC control instructions.
I bet that at many times the Melbourne frequency is retransmitted on ATC frequencies that are also used to give control instructions.
In Queensland a number of years ago there was a serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and another airline aircraft . One of the explanations given by the contoller for the error was that his attention was taken away from the airline aircraft because of constant position reporting by a VFR aircraft.
Sounded a reasonable explanation to me - next time could be a real mid air.
I will say it again- go back to the old , proven but incredibly expensive duplicated ATC and FS system and VFR can give calls to abandon on the low level area frequencies- or move properly forward to the lower cost NAS system where all calls must be directed to ATC.
I love the concrete resistance to change. No wonder GA is in such a terrible situation.
Thread Starter
Kaz. Yes. That's the FAA type NAS radar service that was introduced during my involvement in airspace change. It replaced an un workable australian invented " one shot " radar service that had been introduced by ASA earlier.
All calls are directed to ATC and it is workload permitting so the controller remains in charge
Not so with the current CASA directive of inbound and taxiing calls on ATC frequencies that are used for separation.
All calls are directed to ATC and it is workload permitting so the controller remains in charge
Not so with the current CASA directive of inbound and taxiing calls on ATC frequencies that are used for separation.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I haven't heard any evidence that the CAAP is causing problems for ASA but, if there is a problem, it is surely the rebroadcasting of frequencies used by those in C class?
Kaz
Kaz
The CAAP and AIP amendment didn't change anything - CASA's change to the AIP wording just clarified things. The procedures have been in for some 10 years or so despite some claiming or thinking otherwise, I suspect largely due poor education, lack of understanding and confusion due all the changes 10 years ago. The answer to one genuine question at the time being "turn off the radio and listen to the stereo" wouldn't have helped pilot understanding of the situation then.
As I said in an earlier post 1) had there been problems or in the event there are in the future, ATC will certainly say something, and 2) there are measures CASA can - and do - take to address chatter problems.
As I said in an earlier post 1) had there been problems or in the event there are in the future, ATC will certainly say something, and 2) there are measures CASA can - and do - take to address chatter problems.
It's very simple, kaz.
If you call ATC to request a RIS or flight following, it's safe.
However, if you make a taxi broadcast of exactly the same duration on the same frequency, because you happen to be the one out of a million movements that isn't in the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, it may rain aluminium confetti.
All the VFRs can request a RIS or flight following, and ATC has to respond, even if to say "too busy". That's safe, because the risk of the VFR requests over-transmitting safety-critical instructions to aircraft under air traffic control is dealt with by read-back requirements.
However, if ABC makes a broadcast, on area, taxiing at a property 20 miles to the southwest of Mildura, for Bullamanka to the west at 8,500', some safety-critical air traffic control instruction may be over-transmitted without anyone knowing.
Like CASA issuing corporate credit cards with the paywave function enabled, and CASA staff holding up their wallets to the paywave terminal with the expectation that it will charge a different card, it all makes perfect sense.
If you call ATC to request a RIS or flight following, it's safe.
However, if you make a taxi broadcast of exactly the same duration on the same frequency, because you happen to be the one out of a million movements that isn't in the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, it may rain aluminium confetti.
All the VFRs can request a RIS or flight following, and ATC has to respond, even if to say "too busy". That's safe, because the risk of the VFR requests over-transmitting safety-critical instructions to aircraft under air traffic control is dealt with by read-back requirements.
However, if ABC makes a broadcast, on area, taxiing at a property 20 miles to the southwest of Mildura, for Bullamanka to the west at 8,500', some safety-critical air traffic control instruction may be over-transmitted without anyone knowing.
Like CASA issuing corporate credit cards with the paywave function enabled, and CASA staff holding up their wallets to the paywave terminal with the expectation that it will charge a different card, it all makes perfect sense.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Nov 2014 at 03:32.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well put Creampuff.
Asking around locally I would say the majority of PPL and RAAus pilots flying into a private strip are still unaware of the requirement to transmit on area, and if they are aware, normally they don't because they don't want to clutter up the frequency, or maybe they are shy. Most listen to 126.7, some do that and monitor area.
Lets face it there is no traffic congestion around the strips in question, so just keeping your eyes open will suffice.
If everyone were to go by the rules and transmit on area frequency it would add to traffic congestion and could cause problems as Dick said. It isn't because, as Dick said in post #3, not many are following the rule.
I don't think this will change. So the general flying community are using common sense and making the system work!
Asking around locally I would say the majority of PPL and RAAus pilots flying into a private strip are still unaware of the requirement to transmit on area, and if they are aware, normally they don't because they don't want to clutter up the frequency, or maybe they are shy. Most listen to 126.7, some do that and monitor area.
Lets face it there is no traffic congestion around the strips in question, so just keeping your eyes open will suffice.
If everyone were to go by the rules and transmit on area frequency it would add to traffic congestion and could cause problems as Dick said. It isn't because, as Dick said in post #3, not many are following the rule.
I don't think this will change. So the general flying community are using common sense and making the system work!
Yes - change fatigue and abysmal levels of industry education results in vastly different understandings and practices.
I'm still fascinated to know where all these movements at all these 'private strips' that aren't depicted on charts are occurring. No one has actually nominated one yet. (Jamestown is cut off the top of the paper VNC, but that will be fixed.)
I'm also fascinated to understand why people don't implement the 'no brainer' solution to Dick's problem: get the strips depicted on the charts.
"Lots of aircraft operate in and out of that airstrip." "Really? Have you considered getting it marked on the charts?" "No way: If we did that, the chart would be accurate and VHF carrying aircraft operating in and out of here wouldn't be required to broadcast on area ..."
The current list of manuscript amendments (AIP SUP H69/14) adds over a dozen strips to the WACs. AIC 11/14 adds them to the other charts. Somebody seems to have worked out how to make this happen.
(PS: My very strong suggestion, based on first-hand experience, is that pilots of aircraft with VHF should monitor area frequency and, if they suffer an emergency, broadcast a MAYDAY on the area frequency. That broadcast will almost certainly result in an immediate response by professional responders. Broadcasting a MAYDAY on 126.7 will almost certainly result in a bunch of other pilots earnestly hoping that it all ends up OK, but may not result in an immediate response by professional responders.)
I'm still fascinated to know where all these movements at all these 'private strips' that aren't depicted on charts are occurring. No one has actually nominated one yet. (Jamestown is cut off the top of the paper VNC, but that will be fixed.)
I'm also fascinated to understand why people don't implement the 'no brainer' solution to Dick's problem: get the strips depicted on the charts.
"Lots of aircraft operate in and out of that airstrip." "Really? Have you considered getting it marked on the charts?" "No way: If we did that, the chart would be accurate and VHF carrying aircraft operating in and out of here wouldn't be required to broadcast on area ..."
The current list of manuscript amendments (AIP SUP H69/14) adds over a dozen strips to the WACs. AIC 11/14 adds them to the other charts. Somebody seems to have worked out how to make this happen.
(PS: My very strong suggestion, based on first-hand experience, is that pilots of aircraft with VHF should monitor area frequency and, if they suffer an emergency, broadcast a MAYDAY on the area frequency. That broadcast will almost certainly result in an immediate response by professional responders. Broadcasting a MAYDAY on 126.7 will almost certainly result in a bunch of other pilots earnestly hoping that it all ends up OK, but may not result in an immediate response by professional responders.)
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Nov 2014 at 05:03.
Thread Starter
Bad advice creamy. There are many places in Australia that a call from low level on an " area " frequency will get you no reply.
That's why I leave my second radio and mic selector on 121.5 guard frequency. Testing in Australian and around the world has always shown an instant response from a high flying airline aircraft.
That's why the origional NAS document listed 121.5 as a suggested appropriate frequency to monitor for VFR traffic.
And there is no "Dicks problem" to solve. The correct frequency to use at unmarked airstrips is 126.7. There is simply no way of knowing the "area" frequency under the FAA NAS as there is no such thing. The origional charts sent out with the cabinet approved NAS changes specifically deleted the frequency boundaries as they are there for ATC workload purposes - not VHF coverage reasons.
It became the stuff up which it now is because people at RAPACs and Bernie Smith could not accept that VFR flying at different levels to IFR could provide an acceptably safe system. They demanded the boundaries be re introduced however gave no advice how such a unique system would work.
In fact it doesn't - that's why just about every pilot ignores the CASA NOTAM .
That's why I leave my second radio and mic selector on 121.5 guard frequency. Testing in Australian and around the world has always shown an instant response from a high flying airline aircraft.
That's why the origional NAS document listed 121.5 as a suggested appropriate frequency to monitor for VFR traffic.
And there is no "Dicks problem" to solve. The correct frequency to use at unmarked airstrips is 126.7. There is simply no way of knowing the "area" frequency under the FAA NAS as there is no such thing. The origional charts sent out with the cabinet approved NAS changes specifically deleted the frequency boundaries as they are there for ATC workload purposes - not VHF coverage reasons.
It became the stuff up which it now is because people at RAPACs and Bernie Smith could not accept that VFR flying at different levels to IFR could provide an acceptably safe system. They demanded the boundaries be re introduced however gave no advice how such a unique system would work.
In fact it doesn't - that's why just about every pilot ignores the CASA NOTAM .
So if I broadcast a taxi call on area frequency, I clog up important comms between ATC and airliners.
But if I broadcast a MAYDAY on area frequency, nobody will hear me.
More perfect sense.
Some important facts, folks.
ATC doesn't monitor 121.5.
The Rescue Coordination Centre doesn't monitor 121.5.
Lots of pilots don't monitor 121.5.
Many of the aircraft that will hear you on 121.5 may be monitoring the area frequency as well. And all they are going to do is .... call Centre.
The advantage of transmitting on the area frequency is that you might not only get the attention of aircraft monitoring area, but Centre might hear you as well. The sooner Centre gets the message, the sooner help is on its way.
If you want to make a noise on 121.5, switch on your ELT/PLB. (You should do that anyway.) Aircraft monitoring 121.5 will report the beacon sound to Centre. Centre will report it to RCC. If you're smart and your ELT/PLB is GPS equipped and registered with AMSA, the Rescue Coordination Centre will find out where you are and who you are quite quickly, from the 406 satellites and the beacon register.
But if I broadcast a MAYDAY on area frequency, nobody will hear me.
More perfect sense.
Some important facts, folks.
ATC doesn't monitor 121.5.
The Rescue Coordination Centre doesn't monitor 121.5.
Lots of pilots don't monitor 121.5.
Many of the aircraft that will hear you on 121.5 may be monitoring the area frequency as well. And all they are going to do is .... call Centre.
The advantage of transmitting on the area frequency is that you might not only get the attention of aircraft monitoring area, but Centre might hear you as well. The sooner Centre gets the message, the sooner help is on its way.
If you want to make a noise on 121.5, switch on your ELT/PLB. (You should do that anyway.) Aircraft monitoring 121.5 will report the beacon sound to Centre. Centre will report it to RCC. If you're smart and your ELT/PLB is GPS equipped and registered with AMSA, the Rescue Coordination Centre will find out where you are and who you are quite quickly, from the 406 satellites and the beacon register.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Nov 2014 at 07:05.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Industry reps - fools - what would they know.
Like any representative body, they are only as good as the people on them that spend their time trying to make things better for all of us. The industry reps on the RAPACs come from every sector of the industry, from airlines to U/L's and probably know a lot more than you think. You are bound to have a rep somewhere if you bother to ask about.
So if I broadcast a taxi call on area frequency, I clog up important comms between ATC and airliners.
But if I broadcast a MAYDAY on area frequency, nobody will hear me
I would suggest that 121.5 would get you on average a better response than the area frequency in many locations. There are always high flyers about 24hrs a day and from above FL300 the coverage is very wide. And of course there is no boundaries on 121.5
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What CASA NOTAM?
Notam c119/14
operational frequency requirements
in lieu of current aip information regarding operations at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes, pilots must use the following frequencies for broadcasts:
A. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete ctaf shown (including broadcast area ctaf), or otherwise;
b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the ctaf 126.7; or
c. In all other cases, area vhf.
Procedures incorporated in AIPeffective 21 Aug 2014.
From 07 180435 to 08 201559
operational frequency requirements
in lieu of current aip information regarding operations at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes, pilots must use the following frequencies for broadcasts:
A. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete ctaf shown (including broadcast area ctaf), or otherwise;
b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the ctaf 126.7; or
c. In all other cases, area vhf.
Procedures incorporated in AIPeffective 21 Aug 2014.
From 07 180435 to 08 201559
Thread Starter
In five flights around the world I have tested 121.5 in some pretty unusual places..
Even halfway across the Indian Ocean between Diago Garcia and Cocos I got an instant reply after a test call on 121.5 - from a high flying US military aircraft.
All across Australia - normally in my chopper at 500agl - from SW Tasmania to Cape York and in the Kimberly in valleys - a quick test call on 121.5 has always resulted in an answer.
No looking down at charts all the time to work out what frequency to be on if this became a recommended practice .
No it isn't a requirement in the USA - they have no recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when en route in E or G. VFR don't even require a radio!
And they don't have frequency boundaries marked on charts!
How could the system ever work? How could all those aircraft get to Oshkosh ?
Even halfway across the Indian Ocean between Diago Garcia and Cocos I got an instant reply after a test call on 121.5 - from a high flying US military aircraft.
All across Australia - normally in my chopper at 500agl - from SW Tasmania to Cape York and in the Kimberly in valleys - a quick test call on 121.5 has always resulted in an answer.
No looking down at charts all the time to work out what frequency to be on if this became a recommended practice .
No it isn't a requirement in the USA - they have no recommended frequency for VFR to monitor when en route in E or G. VFR don't even require a radio!
And they don't have frequency boundaries marked on charts!
How could the system ever work? How could all those aircraft get to Oshkosh ?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Nov 2014 at 08:50.