Full Industry Defies CASA CTAF Ruling
andrewr
The situation DWB50 cites is one where there is a significant increase in traffic in a particular area for an event, and awareness by non-participating aircraft is warranted. Happens all the time across the country with fly-ins, field days etc. and a NOTAM serves to provide that awareness and is entirely appropriate.
Such an event is not related to someone not wanting their private strip "advertised" to the general (flying) public, which I take to mean they don't want it published on charts.
LeadSled
I'm not aware that CASA charge for taking the above action with fly-ins or with glider or hang-gliding clubs to arrange one of those "intense GFY activity" type NOTAM. However no doubt DWB50 will find out when he enquires
As to CASA's actions - or lack of - re the CAR 166 & AIP text change, from all I've read, we're in agreement.
The situation DWB50 cites is one where there is a significant increase in traffic in a particular area for an event, and awareness by non-participating aircraft is warranted. Happens all the time across the country with fly-ins, field days etc. and a NOTAM serves to provide that awareness and is entirely appropriate.
Such an event is not related to someone not wanting their private strip "advertised" to the general (flying) public, which I take to mean they don't want it published on charts.
LeadSled
I'm not aware that CASA charge for taking the above action with fly-ins or with glider or hang-gliding clubs to arrange one of those "intense GFY activity" type NOTAM. However no doubt DWB50 will find out when he enquires
As to CASA's actions - or lack of - re the CAR 166 & AIP text change, from all I've read, we're in agreement.
Just for my continuing education, what difference do the many and varied amateur interpretations of "CAR 166" have to do with the question as to what frequency must be used by VHF-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of aerodromes that are not marked on charts?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
135.7 is FIA SFC - base of CTA. It used to be called "Melbourne RAS", and operated as a standalone position.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And further to Hempy's post,
Have you listened out on 135.7 in the last 10 years? it is a VERY busy Frequency, totally loaded with IFR guys
Its busy enough, that I doubt the controller on it is monitoring any extra frequencies....he/she would be glad the days of vfr's requesting QNH are pretty much gone.
If there is one area with what I have described, there are surely more...
Have you listened out on 135.7 in the last 10 years? it is a VERY busy Frequency, totally loaded with IFR guys
Its busy enough, that I doubt the controller on it is monitoring any extra frequencies....he/she would be glad the days of vfr's requesting QNH are pretty much gone.
If there is one area with what I have described, there are surely more...
The fact that ML CEN 135.7 carries comms from ML APP 132.0 much of the time I agree is not conducive to aircraft in Class G FIA making calls & broadcasts.
Which is not the fault of ATC, as I said:
Which is not the fault of ATC, as I said:
I also make the point that the retransmission situation is not the fault of ATC. Its the result of their having to deal with staffing & workload constraints imposed on them by Airservices.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for my continuing education, what difference do the many and varied amateur interpretations of "CAR 166" have to do with the question as to what frequency must be used by VHF-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of aerodromes that are not marked on charts?
...the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use....
Note 1: See the AIP for the recommended format for broadcasting the information mentioned in this regulation
But then there is always interpretations!
Just for my continuing education, what difference do the many and varied amateur interpretations of "CAR 166" have to do with the question as to what frequency must be used by VHF-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of aerodromes that are not marked on charts?
Only that the CASA co-chair of the SCC Operations Standards Sub-Committee, on this subject, has stated words to the meaning: "CAR 166 has not changed, the CASA interpretation (and hence the AIP) of frequency usage has changed" ----- as has been pointed out by Triadic.
The original "intent" of this part of CAR 166 is quite clear, and was established by an acceptable risk assessment process, including compliance with an ICAO acceptable reference system.
It is all this that somebody in CASA has decided, without justification or genuine consultation, to upend the long standing usage, without a safety case or reasonable and supportable risk analysis, apparently in complete ignorance of why the long standing system was as it was.
Instead the: "Hey! Jack, wouldn't it be safer and a good idea if -----" system of in-depth analysis was undoubtedly the formal process for the change.
Tootle pip!!
The blind leading the blind, as usual.
Nobody's changed their interpretation of 166: everyone continues to agree that it obliges VHF-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome to use the frequency "in use" at the aerodrome.
There are merely diametrically opposed views as to what the frequency "in use" at an unmarked aerodrome is. The answer to that question isn't found in 166.
But given that there is "full industry defiance of the CASA CTAF ruling", surely there's no safety problem?
Nobody's changed their interpretation of 166: everyone continues to agree that it obliges VHF-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome to use the frequency "in use" at the aerodrome.
There are merely diametrically opposed views as to what the frequency "in use" at an unmarked aerodrome is. The answer to that question isn't found in 166.
But given that there is "full industry defiance of the CASA CTAF ruling", surely there's no safety problem?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course Creamy, you are correct, 166 has not changed, but the AIP has.
Say, as the PIC of your mates Cessna, going to a bbq at a popular unmarked strip, using your infinite wisdom and experience what would you do in practice in regard to selecting the frequency in use??
What about if the strip is near an Area Freq boundary?
What about if it is located outside the coverage of a VNC and you have to plot the boundary in flight from another chart or ERC?
What about if the strip is not on your WAC, but on your iPad?
What about if you can hear the high flyers, but not Centre?
Say, as the PIC of your mates Cessna, going to a bbq at a popular unmarked strip, using your infinite wisdom and experience what would you do in practice in regard to selecting the frequency in use??
What about if the strip is near an Area Freq boundary?
What about if it is located outside the coverage of a VNC and you have to plot the boundary in flight from another chart or ERC?
What about if the strip is not on your WAC, but on your iPad?
What about if you can hear the high flyers, but not Centre?
Last edited by triadic; 13th May 2015 at 23:42.
what would you do in practice in regard to selecting the frequency in use??
What about if the strip is near an Area Freq boundary?
What about if it is located outside the coverage of a VNC and you have to plot the boundary in flight from another chart or ERC?
What about if the strip is not on your WAC, but on your iPad?
What about if you can hear the high flyers, but not Centre?
What about if the strip is near an Area Freq boundary?
What about if it is located outside the coverage of a VNC and you have to plot the boundary in flight from another chart or ERC?
What about if the strip is not on your WAC, but on your iPad?
What about if you can hear the high flyers, but not Centre?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Middy:
Certainly some common sense, but that seems to conflict with the AIP which does not cater for the unintended consequences (or the use of common sense) as those that pushed for this change did not/do not understand what was in place, nor conduct a safety case for the change.
As said previously, we had a simple system and now its not simple and certainly less safe.
Common sense and good airmanship should cater for most issues.
Of course, that's not really the point is it??
What would you do in those situations, exercising common sense and IAW AIP?
As said previously, we had a simple system and now its not simple and certainly less safe.
Common sense and good airmanship should cater for most issues.
But given that there is "full industry defiance of the CASA CTAF ruling", surely there's no safety problem?
Of course, that's not really the point is it??
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have reopened this thread. Children, if you find it difficult to post without posting personal attacks, I suggest you don't post at all.
Lest thee face a blocking.
Have I made myself clear?
Lest thee face a blocking.
Have I made myself clear?
I have to deal regularly with a Yachting race director who has a number of what I will call "personal issues", sometimes also called "passive aggressive" behaviour ( and occasionally not so passive). These are a result of what I will call "health issues" earlier in his life.
This person delights in constructing racing instructions some, say, Twelve pages long that appear to be quite prescriptive and detailed….until you attempt to follow the course allegedly mapped out…and discover that half the fleet has gone one way and the other half another..all due to competing interpretations of the instructions.
What normally happens when the perplexed attempt to get a ruling is that the race director smirks and alerts them to the footnote on page Twelve that says the rules change on alternate Wednesdays and that therefore half the fleet sailed the wrong course because they expected the instructions to mean what they say,
Said Race Director gains huge pleasure out of all this by pointing out that the losers missed the footnote and therefore "hadn't read the instructions".
So when I try and read CASA regulations why do I get exactly the same feeling as reading those racing instructions? Because they are deliberately obtuse and self referential for exactly the same reason - to make CASA functionaries feel good.
The regulation should simply state that you will use the area frequency or other designated frequency (not the frequency "in use") period. The regulation may then state how the designated frequency may change and the single location where such a change can be found, leaving absolutely NO pilot in doubt as to what the correct frequency is.
Thus there is no room for interpretation, mind games, autistic pissing contests and other sports beloved of CASA.
Speaking as One who did get designated frequencies confused ( by a NOTAM about Maree in the tourist season) and potentially lined himself up for a midair as a result.
There should be no room for "interpretation" beyond strict common, published Weberian limits and all regulations should be self contained and internally consistent. Hell will freeze over before CASA agrees to this.
This person delights in constructing racing instructions some, say, Twelve pages long that appear to be quite prescriptive and detailed….until you attempt to follow the course allegedly mapped out…and discover that half the fleet has gone one way and the other half another..all due to competing interpretations of the instructions.
What normally happens when the perplexed attempt to get a ruling is that the race director smirks and alerts them to the footnote on page Twelve that says the rules change on alternate Wednesdays and that therefore half the fleet sailed the wrong course because they expected the instructions to mean what they say,
Said Race Director gains huge pleasure out of all this by pointing out that the losers missed the footnote and therefore "hadn't read the instructions".
So when I try and read CASA regulations why do I get exactly the same feeling as reading those racing instructions? Because they are deliberately obtuse and self referential for exactly the same reason - to make CASA functionaries feel good.
The regulation should simply state that you will use the area frequency or other designated frequency (not the frequency "in use") period. The regulation may then state how the designated frequency may change and the single location where such a change can be found, leaving absolutely NO pilot in doubt as to what the correct frequency is.
Thus there is no room for interpretation, mind games, autistic pissing contests and other sports beloved of CASA.
Speaking as One who did get designated frequencies confused ( by a NOTAM about Maree in the tourist season) and potentially lined himself up for a midair as a result.
There should be no room for "interpretation" beyond strict common, published Weberian limits and all regulations should be self contained and internally consistent. Hell will freeze over before CASA agrees to this.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That didn’t strike me as surprising, because that’s my understanding of what the AIP says.
What most of the participants in this discussion are concerned about is that there was a change, with no consultation, no safety case and no apparent consideration of the unintended consequences.
CASA's lack of understanding of the matter was displayed when they indicated that they only considered it a clarification (!!).
Most of us in the flying world out here believe that if the rules say one thing today and another tomorrow, that is a change. Seems some in CASA don't share that view! Seems also to show an ignorance of the established procedures that have been firmly in place for a decade.
At the recent evening at the local aero club there were three CASA safety folk there and this subject did not crack a mention.
I am not going to be dragged into any personal exchanges on this forum, I just want to see some constructive discussion on what is without doubt a safety issue that has not been managed well by the regulator.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks - no offence taken by this duck! I admire your scriptures. I am sure the battle will continue and perhaps one of your suggestions might float. For the benefit of all including those without radio, we need to keep this discussion on the ball and ensure the likes of this exercise is not repeated.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, here we are over half a year later and sadly nothing much has changed!
The subject has been rejected for discussion at some of the RAPACs last year and one CASA officer when asked for the Safety Case suggested that an application be made to FOI !!
Recently there has been much discussion over the procedure in both SA and Tas in relation to ops at strips not marked on charts.
It should also be noted that there would be little need for Broadcast Areas if the MULTICOM procedure was still in place.
Some CASA officers still don't seem to understand the issue.
The matter would never have happened if there had been consultation and a safety case.
The subject has been rejected for discussion at some of the RAPACs last year and one CASA officer when asked for the Safety Case suggested that an application be made to FOI !!
Recently there has been much discussion over the procedure in both SA and Tas in relation to ops at strips not marked on charts.
It should also be noted that there would be little need for Broadcast Areas if the MULTICOM procedure was still in place.
Some CASA officers still don't seem to understand the issue.
The matter would never have happened if there had been consultation and a safety case.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad but true Triadic.
The three unresolved risks still remain unresolved and are causing problems.
There is wide spread confusion re frequency usage and at a recent fly-in event in Tasmania there was a serious congestion problem on the area VHF arising from the event.
I think that the increasing use of the area frequency will eventually get to the point where the problem can no longer be ignored and sanity will then prevail.
What a ridiculous way to manage airspace!
The three unresolved risks still remain unresolved and are causing problems.
There is wide spread confusion re frequency usage and at a recent fly-in event in Tasmania there was a serious congestion problem on the area VHF arising from the event.
I think that the increasing use of the area frequency will eventually get to the point where the problem can no longer be ignored and sanity will then prevail.
What a ridiculous way to manage airspace!