Full Industry Defies CASA CTAF Ruling
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
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.
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!!
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!!
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:
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.).
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.
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.
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.).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
These are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided.
Separation services (at least for some aircraft) are most definitely provided on area frequencies!
Tipsy
It reminds me similarly, CASA ignores/fails to implement findings and recommendations from Coroners Courts as well.
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
Separation services (at least for some aircraft) are most definitely provided on area frequencies!
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
except for one recommendation - that Charter and RPT be treated the same by the regulator to minimise the exposeure to the general public.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, my point is in response to
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.
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.
Got it. I knew that.
Let me fix one of Captain Midnight's posts for him:
Name the places so that the problem can be addressed using any one of the existing measures designed to address the problem.
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.).
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Name the places so that the problem can be addressed using any one of the existing measures designed to address the problem.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Captain Midnight, if you do admit that:
I think it was a bit disingenuous to say:
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!
In some instances the frequency used is the same
These are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided.
Last edited by Captain Nomad; 9th May 2015 at 12:28. Reason: Formatting