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

ATCs can't have much to do if they can also do Flight Watch

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

ATCs can't have much to do if they can also do Flight Watch

Old 15th Sep 2015, 11:32
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
AMATs. And NAS both clearly showed a separate VHF Flightwatch system as per leading aviation countries. The cost is neglible .

Yes. I removed the duplicated Full Position flight service system as it was extremely costly and unique in the world.

The plan was to have a single system operated by ATCs with a minimum of class E in terminal areas where traffic densities required.

Never happened because of ignorant resistance to change.

Now we are going to lead the world with the most expensive ADSB mandates in the world for all IFR aircraft but not even provide a class E separation service at busy non tower airports.

It's madness!
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2015, 12:22
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flight Service was excellent but waaaay over the top. It was great to drop in and have a chat to blokes like Griffo etc, but the world has moved on. If you want flight service back let's wind back the internet too & take ozrunways & avplan back off you. I remember having to ring up to get an arfor and it was a pain in the arse copying everything down. Let's wind back naips too.

121.5 is NOT used to chat on in the States, it's monitored.

Who ever the tool was that directed aircraft to transmit their circuit calls on centre frequency.............I don't know what to say? Idiot, clown, imbecile doesn't do the tool justice.
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 02:08
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who ever the tool was that directed aircraft to transmit their circuit calls on centre frequency.............I don't know what to say? Idiot, clown, imbecile doesn't do the tool justice.
We have discussed this before but you infer that there is a better frequency to use in the circuit of an airstrip which is not marked on charts. Which one should we use?
uncle8 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 06:22
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Quite clearly the multicom 126.7. That's what it was introduced for.

Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM stating that the area frequency should be used for non chart marked airports.

The question is - Which chart? Some show airfields and others don't. This means pilots are on different frequencies in the circuit area depending on the chart they are looking at - if they comply. Crazy!
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 07:23
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM stating that the area frequency should be used for non chart marked airports.
I don't. I'm too scared to, operating from a very quiet (I am the only user) unmarked strip where there is a lot of overflying traffic, none of which is on 126.7.
I would be talking to myself and another benefit of being on area is being able to receive traffic alerts.
Must admit though that I don't make unnecessary broadcasts on the area frequency, just listen a lot because the surrounding terrain encourages overflying traffic to be well above circuit height.
uncle8 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 09:21
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This doesn't smell right. If I didn't know better I reckon somebody is trying to rewrite history!
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 10:20
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM
Unless I've missed something, the "CASA NOTAM" expired over a year ago.

When did you last check NOTAMs?
buckshot1777 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 10:26
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So if it " expired" does that mean we can go back to the NAS design of using 126.7 at all airports that do not have a different allocated frequency?

Uncle8. Rather than be scared could I suggest you simply keep a good lookout?
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 10:34
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So if it " expired" does that mean we can go back to the NAS design of using 126.7 at all airports that do not have a different allocated frequency?
No, it expired when the relevant text was published in AIP.
buckshot1777 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 11:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Remember that FLIGHTWATCH services by ATC on Area frequencies is workload permitting... you may have to wait!

The issue with the MULTICOM is that those in CASA that promulgated it as a clarification of what they "thought" the instruction was, actually brought about a change to a procedure which was not consulted with industry at the RAPACs or any other forum. The change should have been subject to a Risk Analysis or some sort of safety case - neither of which those in industry that are across this have seen or heard of. This whole mess was brought about by a few people that did not understand what was already in place and as a procedure had worked satisfactory for almost a decade. Now it is a mess and Dick is correct in that many still use the MULTICOM, regardless of the recent change in the AIP. The Area frequency is not one that should be used for such broadcasts.

Unless I've missed something, the "CASA NOTAM" expired over a year ago.
No, it expired when the relevant text was published in AIP.
the text in the AIP was changed as a result of this lack of understanding within CASA and other than some small articles has not been followed up to any degree

Who ever the tool was that directed aircraft to transmit their circuit calls on centre frequency.............I don't know what to say? Idiot, clown, imbecile doesn't do the tool justice.
the same people that said it was only a clarification

Quote:
Just about everyone ignores the CASA NOTAM stating that the area frequency should be used for non chart marked airports.
I don't. I'm too scared to, operating from a very quiet (I am the only user) unmarked strip where there is a lot of overflying traffic, none of which is on 126.7.
How do you know that?? Your primary means of traffic avoidance (in VMC) is KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT - not to rely on hearing calls on either MULTICOM or AREA.

Remember that the gliders and croppies are often on another frequency and don't make many calls at the best of times. The gliders are more concerned about the risk of collision in thermals with other gliders so they are very rarely on area at any altitude.

The MULTICOM is recommended for use not above 3000ft agl. Much easier to have a single frequency for low level use when not near CTAFs with another frequency.

If you are near an area frequency boundary, just which one do you listen to?
Plotting such a boundary outside coverage of VTC/VNC might be 20 or 30 nm in error unless you plot it on the kitchen table first! How many do that? In the USA the area frequency boundaries are not on the charts.

When the risk analysis comes to light, it will no doubt be seen as a safety issue and the MULTICOM will prevail.
(NB: Like CTAF and NOTAM it should be written in CAPITALS...)


Last edited by triadic; 16th Sep 2015 at 11:33.
triadic is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 17:11
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,666
Received 24 Likes on 16 Posts
The MULTICOM is recommended for use not above 3000ft agl.
Recommended by whom?

I'm planning a trip, VFR from Griffith to Wagga via Temora, at 3,500', and back to Griffith via Narrandera at 4,500'. I have one serviceable VHF.

Please tell me what frequency the recommendation would have me set my VHF to, at the various points long that route. Please provide precise details. "From point X to point Y on the route, you should have your VHF set to ... From point Y to point Z on the route, you should have your VHF set to ..." and so on, until I get back to Griffith.

(Should "AGL" be written in CAPITALS too?)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 22:12
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A bit of clarity. Dick, cannot find any current Ambidji reports except a tender reference back in 2008. This would have been the result of your withdrawing legal action against AirServices.

Do you have a link to your report?
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 23:25
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Area frequency is not one that should be used for such broadcasts.
AIP says the Area frequency is to be used for aerodromes not marked on charts.

Don't muddy things by telling people it should not be used, contravening AIP.

There are few such strips and the traffic light to the extent that isolated succinct broadcasts presumably aren't presenting a problem to ATC, but if any do, then there are arrangements in place to publish such strips on charts so then the MULTICOM applies.

If you are near an area frequency boundary,
Make a succinct broadcast on both.

It's not rocket science.

Last edited by buckshot1777; 17th Sep 2015 at 00:11.
buckshot1777 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 00:05
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 59
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I fly daily (and nightly) in some of the most remote areas of this country and I use HF to FW every day. Despite having 4G mobile install, Satphone, VHF and UHF, its the synthesized fully digital HF I can get comms on most reliably in upper bumf!ck at stupid o'clock.
Jamair is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 02:44
  #35 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Buckshot I love it. If you are taxiing at an unmarked aerodrome near a frequency boundary ( like Wilpena) you give the taxiing calls on both ATC area frequencies .

Like nothing else in the world!

Really good info for high flying jets. They must think we are mad!

Jamair. Are you suggesting all aircraft should get fitted with HF just so AsA can increase management bonuses by not having any VHF Flightwatch outlets. Once again moving the costs to the industry!
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:04
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could I ask the question which was not answered the last time this was discussed?
Which unmarked strip(s) are so busy that the circuit calls on area frequency are causing problems for ATC?
uncle8 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:40
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,977
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
If you are taxiing at an unmarked aerodrome near a frequency boundary ( like Wilpena) you give the taxiing calls on both ATC area frequencies
Well how else would anyone else in the vicinity become aware of your intentions? You are at an unmarked strip. Nobody is going to anticipate you popping up in front of them if they don't know an aerodrome is there. That's what an Area Frequency is for, ffs.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:46
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Buckshot I love it. If you are taxiing at an unmarked aerodrome near a frequency boundary ( like Wilpena) you give the taxiing calls on both ATC area frequencies .
No, you use a bit of common sense, and call on the one applicable to the direction you're going. That's where any conflict will most likely be coming from.

How long did it take you to find a suitable unmarked strip near a boundary, to support this fatuous argument?

Like nothing else in the world!
Maybe we've accepted here that see-and-avoid is not the perfect solution, and that a timely radio call adds to the general awareness.

Maybe it's because we're not Americans, who need to impart their entire life story over the radio, so we are capable of keeping it brief.

Maybe we're aware that a VFR aircraft will hurt just as much as an IFR if you hit it.

Really good info for high flying jets. They must think we are mad!
No, they (we) don't.
Agrajag is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 05:25
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
can't have much to do if they can also do Flight Watch

Dear Dick
Was that the 2008 report from Ambidji.
Like everyone on this post has said "Hey Guys, We've Moved on!"
As Griffo pointed out - "Who started this rubbish?"
We are now in the 21st century where GA is just about dead through lack of money, support and modern aircraft; and jets such as F100, E190, B738 and A320 carry lots of passengers to lots of places they never used to!
Roger Gove is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 05:32
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any broadcast on an ATC frequency has the potential to jam or interfere with the prime purpose of the facility. This includes any calls on the ground of which most would not be heard by ATC, but certainly by high flyers. It would only take one jammed call to interfere with the job that ATC are there for. And then there is the tendency for some to talk far too much. Really not needed on an ATC frequency.

Standardisation is a big thing in this business and having a standard frequency for low level ops other than at marked CTAFs goes a long way to making it safer for all concerned.

It is a nonsense to even consider publishing Farmer Joe's strip on the charts - the clutter would be unacceptable. Besides it takes over a year to process such an amendment to the chart and in many cases Farmer Joe might have sold and moved on.

Leady - You have been around for a bit and would know that good knowledge and airmanship should dictate what we select on the VHF. One has to realise that there is the potential to be mixing it with maybe no radio aircraft and others that listen to other frequencies and the stereo etc at those levels. As said before, having a radio and using it without jamming the high flyers is no substitute for keeping a good lookout. On your flight with 3 CTAFs on different frequencies, then outside of the vicinity of those CTAFs at those levels I would only listen on Area in the cruise, but you could quite easily just go from one CTAF to another ?? Your call....
triadic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.