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, 03:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,165
Full Industry Defies CASA CTAF Ruling

Despite meetings with the various RAPACs and with AOPA, it appears that the CASA ”Iron Ring” is still maintaining that pilots operating at aerodromes not marked on maps must give calls – including taxiing calls – on the air traffic control area frequency which is also used to separate traffic.

Since CASA issued the NOTAM I have carefully monitored area frequencies when I fly and I have not heard one pilot comply with the CASA ruling. I have also checked with an air traffic controller who monitors over seven frequencies – he, once again, has not heard one pilot complying.

Notwithstanding this, it is clear that CASA will not change the ruling. It is obviously impossible for CASA to admit to making an error. I wonder how many other CASA regulations are simply ignored by the industry?

Can someone please post what the current position is in relation to negotiations on this issue between RAPAC, AOPA and CASA. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 03:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 943
It is understood that the subject it is still on the table at some of the RAPACs. The OAR, last year, rejected the subject for discussion at most RAPACs but seem to be relenting a bit of late. They say it is not a matter for the RAPACs ! Blimey, the RAPACs have always discussed Procedures which includes what you say on the R/T. I hear that recent letters from CASA have not engaged further and it seems have pulled the shutter down. Like you say Dick, it seems they cannot ever admit they are wrong. Someone in the Iron Ring maybe ?

Yes, it's a dumb decision and there seems to be very little compliance ?

Just have to wait for an incident where Comms between a high flyer and centre is jammed.
triadic is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 04:15
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,165
I love it! Yes I heard that one . RAPACs were told that discussion of this issue was not permitted by CASA management.


The organisation is disfunctional. It will be fascinating to see how this ends up.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 04:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Just don't get involved in an accident after your non-compliance. It wont sit well with the judge.
Hempy is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 04:56
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 39
Biggish sky theory at work

CTAF radio procedures have always been a ugly compromise anyway - unless operating/monitoring with 2 radios - one on area and one on CTAF.


1 aircraft just inside CTAF on CTAF freq & 1 aircraft just outside CTAF on area can be broadcasting correctly just not talking to each other and heading straight for each other.


Jandakot- Rottnest is a classic. Luckily Perth Centre has radar to advise the area frequency aircraft of the other aircraft. And Rottnest is marked on maps...
David75 is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 05:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 943
Hempy: Just don't get involved in an accident after your non-compliance. It wont sit well with the judge.
You have it wrong... It will be your compliance that might contribute to an incident ( or worse..)
triadic is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 05:34
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Overhead but you didn't notice
Age: 16
Posts: 61
The irony of this issue is the fact that the only way to get this rule repealed would be if everyone actually complied with it.
FoolCorsePich is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 05:44
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by David75 View Post
1 aircraft just inside CTAF on CTAF freq & 1 aircraft just outside CTAF on area can be broadcasting correctly just not talking to each other and heading straight for each other.
That is simply called VFR in a CTAF. See and avoid, it's what your eyes and windscreen are for! No different to class D really unless your friendly controllers are bored and bother to give you updates for traffic outside the zone.


Dick - I've heard the occasional call on centre from a lowly non marked CTAF and I would assume on most occasions that centre can't hear the transmission at all due to the remoteness so I'd be surprised if any complaints would come from ATC. I have a 5 watt VHF with Comant 121 antenna and I struggle to get area freq on the ground even 30 miles from a station.

The guys over the top would be affected but they could literally talk over the top of the ground station and Centre would be none the wiser.

I would agree that compliance is low, but not non-existent.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 05:47
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
triadic, you are preaching to the converted with me, it's the CASA lawyers that you'll need to convince..

Stay safe out there.
Hempy is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 06:00
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 943
Good on ya Hempy, yes and the legals certainly don't now much about the subject matter. Part of the iron ring no doubt...?

The irony of this issue is the fact that the only way to get this rule repealed would be if everyone actually complied with it.
Correct!!

S7700, yes, see and avoid is the prime method of collision avoidance at the lower levels, not putting your head down to change frequencies. There are often many a/c about that are not using radio, let alone the CTAF of MULTICOM.
triadic is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 06:46
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
A classic example of Iron Ring speak:

From the CASA minutes of the Regional Aviation Safety Forum (RASF) meeting held 7Oct2014. (from their web page)

7. Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) – Radio Calls Issue
Mr Ward (CASA) facilitated a discussion on issues surrounding radio calls at non-controlled aerodromes not marked on charts. This had been raised at a recent RAPAC meeting in Victoria. Mr Ward (CASA) advised that the changes to the AIP were recently made to clarify and align procedures with the legislation. The issue of area frequency versus Multicom was discussed amongst members and no safety issues were raised. Mr Cromarty (CASA) advised members that this type of issue is not one for RAPAC as it is not an airspace issue but rather a pilot (frequency) issue. Mr Thorpe updated the members on the discussion that was held at the Victorian RAPAC meeting in relation to this issue. Ms Bailey (RA-Aus) advised she would take the opportunity to raise this matter with the RA-Aus CFI’s at their upcoming conference in November 2014 and relay any information back to CASA if required.
This shows that those in that level of management have very little idea of what goes on in the real world, and it seems they don't really care.

If this matter is not for the RAPACs then what world are these people on?

It seems also that the various divisions within are not talking to one another either, otherwise they might have put forward the change to the RAPACs for discussion. But from the above seems the OAR did not like or want that.

So what are they afraid of? True and open consultation maybe ????
cogwheel is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 06:51
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
The irony is spot on

The irony of this issue is the fact that the only way to get this rule repealed would be if everyone actually complied with it.
Could not agree more with that quote.

There are three unintended consequences that CASA claim they are not concerned about (I have their letter stating this).

The most serious issue is unintentional jamming of ATS transmissions by aircraft in the weeds. This occurs because there is no area frequency coverage down to lower levels in vast areas of G airspace Australia wide. Consequently traffic in the weeds do not know when ATS is transmitting.

The lack of coverage is not an issue for the original use of the area VHF frequency but it is a serious issue for the May 2013 changes.

So we have now have a unique situation where an expert consultative group is worried about a safety issue but the regulator is not.

It will be an interesting time if there is a serious event because of this.
Dick Gower is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 07:30
  #13 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: And once again, the fun and good times having come to an end for yet another year, back in the cold, cruel real world and continuing the seemingly never ending search for that bad bottle of Red
Age: 65
Posts: 2,537
Thumbs down

I recently heard a highly experienced GA Instructor and former Charter/RPT pilot say that as far as he was concerned, the sole intention of CASA now appears to be to totally destroy General Aviation in Australia.

I now know that he is correct!

Can they be stopped from doing so, and if so, how?
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 08:04
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
from what i have seen over the last few decades working and living this industry, is that CASA is not out to intentionally ruin or destroy anything. you have to think of CASA as a bureaucracy in that every department is made up entirely of cats. (not fat cats, the 4 legged furry kind) as in, every single one has its own agenda, ideas, attitudes, refuses to talk to any other cats, or anyone for that matter, and goes off totally autonomously at its own leisure following its own rules, that only it made up and understands. put all this into one organisation, and you have a perfect model of CASA.
Ultralights is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 08:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Albany, West Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 482
Out in the real world, where pilots can recognise a stupid rule from a sensible one - there is absolutely bugga all compliance. Mark Skidmores' standing with industry is going to rise, or fall, with his response to his underlings' incompetence. Let's hope he has the bottle to 'retire' or 'retrain' a few of these fools. happy days,
poteroo is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 09:04
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 468
So we have now have a unique situation where an expert consultative group is worried about a safety issue but the regulator is not.
Agree with what Dick says here. It reminds me similarly, CASA ignores/fails to implement findings and recommendations from Coroners Courts as well.

At least they are consistent!

Tipsy
tipsy2 is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 11:49
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Iron Ring Speak - Another Example

Here is a response to a request to discuss the issue at the Sep. 2014 AACF. Note the name: Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum.

19/August, 2014.
Good afternoon Mr Gower,

Thank you for your email. I am happy to confirm your attendance at the Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum 13.

Unfortunately I have been advised that the AACF is not an appropriate forum to discuss your submission for an agenda item ‘Broadcast Requirements in G Airspace – Recent Changes’. This is an Operations/Standards issue and has been referred to these divisions of CASA for action.

Please let me know if I can provide any further information or clarification.

Kind regards,

Elle May Starbuck
Administration Officer
Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
In other words, in spite of our name we are ducking the issue. I did eventually attend as an observer however. It was a CASA talking at the industry all day with no sign at all of any consultation. A total waste of time.
Dick Gower is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 14:12
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 680
I'd say pilots are ignoring the procedure because they don't know about it, not because of defiance.
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 14:26
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
I'm pretty sure it's a cultural thing within CASA.

Every time a senior position opens up, people apply. When interviewed they are asked 'what can you bring to CASA? How can you make things better?'.

This encourages 'change'. The issue is that, in reality, there are only a handfull of possible solutions for any given scenario, therefore the wheel keeps being reinvented.

In one or two iterations of DAS at CASA, we'll be back to a great, wonderful new system of MBZ's...
Hempy is offline  
Old 7th May 2015, 14:47
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 943
The suggestion that presently unmarked airfield/s should be marked on charts is a dream that won't work. What charts? The lead time for most charts is a year or more and for the WACs it can be 4 or more years. Maybe this might change with EFBs, but don't hold your breath. Many such strips would disappear whilst waiting to be marked.

One might recall the NAS procedures introduced over a decade ago, the MULTICOM (126.7) was the catch all at airfields that did not have a designated CTAF frequency. Seems the regulator has forgotten that over the years.

Yet again, they are trying to fix something that was not broke, with no risk assessment/analysis or education to promote the change.

It is far safer to have a single frequency for use at low levels (below 3000ft AGL) than to have a choice of two or three. Besides see and avoid should be the prime collision avoidance procedure at low levels, not the radio. Most pilots, one would hope, would practice same.
triadic 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.