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

Full Industry Defies CASA CTAF Ruling

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

Full Industry Defies CASA CTAF Ruling

Old 7th May 2015, 17:38
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 311
Clinton has it spot on!

My mate's property could be an ALA, therefore I should be on 126.7.

Old mate tootling along at 1000 feet legally is now traffic to me on a different frequency!

DB
Dangly Bits is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 21:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 1,545
From what I have seen a lot are not saying anything at all unless going to a major airport. They then use somebody else's callsign to get around radio billed landing fees!
Tankengine is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 22:29
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,254
I've given up on trying to understand the rules. The only lot who will hear departure calls from my valley strip will be Qantas and Virgin high overhead.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 8th May 2015, 01:37
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055
This old chestnut raised again?

Done to death over 15 months ago after 22 pages:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#post8299600

Move along now - nothing to see here.

CASA bashing is just clouding the matter.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 02:16
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,840
Midnight,
Raised again, because CASA has got it wrong!! To the potential detriment of air safety outcomes.

The CASA attitude is that they are the only soldier in the battalion marching in step.

If we go back before all the recent sodding around with CAR 166, the policy intent (backed by an ICAO compliant safety case) was to keep low level local traffic off ATC (by whatever name) frequencies.

It was never the policy intent that traffic on uncharted strips should use the overlaying ATC frequency.

As to "charting" all the uncharted strips, this is a practical impossibility, even without consideration of map cycles etc.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 03:38
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055
As you well know, there are no such things as "ATC frequencies", but for the education of others:

There are frequencies used by Air Traffic Controllers to provide services, including Class G FIA (Flight Information Area) frequencies (otherwise known as "Area" frequencies). These are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided. It is entirely appropriate - and required in AIP - to use FIA frequencies for their intended purpose.

To not use or monitor FIA frequencies when appropriate and required could cause a nasty situation, given the wrong circumstances.

Whether an FIA frequency is retransmitted onto other frequencies by Airservices is irrelevant to pilots, and not a reason to not use it or ignore the rules.

AIP ENR 1.1 para 44.1:

Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF frequency and announce if in potential conflict. Pilots intercepting broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge by transmitting own call-sign and, as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions.

The appropriate VHF frequency stated in para 44.1 is:

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 Multicom 126.7; or

c. In all other cases, Area VHF.
These procedures have been in place for many (the last 10+?) years. For CASA to try and undo them now would in itself present a safety issue.

I'm not aware of any formal intention to publish all currently uncharted aerodromes on aviation charts, which would clearly be impractical.

If there are such aerodromes that have a significant level of traffic then they probably should be published on charts, in the interests of safety of both the users and itinerant traffic, who would be unaware of the aerodrome. In these cases, when published on aeronautical charts, Multicom 126.7 would apply.

It's not rocket science.

If the level of chatter from an unpublished aerodrome or group of aerodromes causes congestion on an Area frequency, then any one of a number of existing measures would be taken to address that (publish the aerodrome on charts, declare a Broadcast Area, etc.).
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 03:59
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 774
These are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided.
Say what???!! How often do you fly IFR? Been into Class E or A airspace recently? Tried changing levels up there without a clearance have you?

Separation services (at least for some aircraft) are most definitely provided on area frequencies!
Captain Nomad is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 04:20
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,327
Tipsy

It reminds me similarly, CASA ignores/fails to implement findings and recommendations from Coroners Courts as well.
....except for one recommendation - that Charter and RPT be treated the same by the regulator to minimise the exposeure to the general public.

As the changes slowly become effective and are implemented, it is aparrent that the only reason the general public will be "safer" is because there will be no GA sector left to expose them to
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 05:47
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055
Separation services (at least for some aircraft) are most definitely provided on area frequencies!
Take a look at a (say) VNC chart legend.

What we are talking about are the wide green lines, which are Class G FIA ("Area") frequency boundaries. Within those volumes from the surface up to the base of CTA a Flight Information Service is provided, not a separation service.

Wide dashed brown lines are Class E airspace boundaries, on which a separation service is provided to IFR aircraft.

In some instances the frequency used is the same, but the service in the volumes is in accordance with the airspace classification.

See AIP definitions for "Area VHF" and "FIA".

Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 8th May 2015 at 05:58.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 08:49
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 1,545
Thanks to Captain Midnight we have the answer!
You only need to "listen out" and only talk if you hear a "potential conflict"

So : no calls required in or out of your small unmarked private strip!
Tankengine is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 08:59
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Some of you guys really need to visit an ATC Centre and see how things operate tbh
Hempy is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 12:00
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Some of you guys really need to visit a brickworks and see how camels swim.

What's your point, Hempy?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 14:11
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,840
except for one recommendation - that Charter and RPT be treated the same by the regulator to minimise the exposeure to the general public.
Horatio,

That is NOT what the Seaview Royal Commission recommended, what you have quoted is a CASA perversion of the findings just for the purposes of imposing additional unjustified restrictions on "charter".

Specifically, he DID NOT recommend that Charter operate to the same standard as RPT.

As per usual, few in the industry ever bother to check the sources, but just accept the CASA spin. Find yourself a copy and see what Staunton actually said.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Midnight, I did say " ---- (by whatever name)" to avoid exactly the picking of nits that has happened. Perhaps I should have said: " inappropriate CNS/ATM frequencies" to be technically accurate.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 14:53
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Creampuff, my point is in response to

There are frequencies used by Air Traffic Controllers to provide services, including Class G FIA (Flight Information Area) frequencies (otherwise known as "Area" frequencies). These are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided. It is entirely appropriate - and required in AIP - to use FIA frequencies for their intended purpose.
ATC sectors are generally split according to service provision. They are, however, generally combined so that an ATC controlling CTA (remember that one?) also has the Class G frequencies merged. In a headset, there is no differentiation. If you think your calls on the Class G area frequency don't potentially affect comms in CTA you are wrong.
Hempy is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 20:59
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Got it. I knew that.

Let me fix one of Captain Midnight's posts for him:
If the level of chatter from an unpublished aerodrome or group of aerodromes causes congestion on an Area frequency [e.g. by disrupting control of aircraft where a controller has responsibility for an Area frequency combined with a frequency used for the control of aircraft] then any one of a number of existing measures would be taken to address that (publish the aerodrome on charts, declare a Broadcast Area, etc.).
Name the places so that the problem can be addressed using any one of the existing measures designed to address the problem.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 23:53
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055


And Hempy, I am very aware of how the system works
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 9th May 2015, 11:39
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
I'd really like to see a CASA representative tag along on a C208 operating a 11+ sector mail-run, in and out of marked and unmarked strips operating under the IFR single pilot RPT. And how the new rules makes their workload easier and job safer.
anomaly is offline  
Old 9th May 2015, 11:44
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 936
Name the places so that the problem can be addressed using any one of the existing measures designed to address the problem.
It is understood that the NQld RAPAC have a proposal in for a Broadcast Area, south of Cairns, however it seems the introduction is the best part of a year away, which is far from satisfactory for the current problem there.

A problem that the MULTICOM addressed successfully over the past decade or so. This did not become a problem until the recent change re uncharted airfields.
triadic is offline  
Old 9th May 2015, 11:59
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
You'd certainly think that blanket 126.7 (overlap aside) would be a better option.
Hempy is offline  
Old 9th May 2015, 12:27
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 774
Captain Midnight, if you do admit that:

In some instances the frequency used is the same
I think it was a bit disingenuous to say:

These are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided.
Especially given that in a lot of cases (and perhaps particularly in the more regional regions relevant to the discussion) the frequencies indeed ARE the same!

Last edited by Captain Nomad; 9th May 2015 at 12:28. Reason: Formatting
Captain Nomad 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.