Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
What is quite amusing to me is how DICK talks about the rest of the aviation world with respect to VFR GA rubbish. I have and do work in the rest of the world and I can assure you that this twit would get zero air time. Australia is a small market in a part of the world that does not matter yet you all think you do. Please STFU and let the adults carry on with our business.
Mr P,
Acknowledged and Appreciated.
Unfortunately, the major impact of all of the changes was on VFR GA Ops.
The 'Big End of Town' is still No 1.
And please do appreciate, that when some 'wild claims' are made, if / when I see them.....well, you know how it feels, I am certain....
It just seems 'right' to 'correct the score' even if its only a 'little'.
However, it don't matter no more, really.
Wot's done is done.
Enjoy your next shift.
Cheers
Acknowledged and Appreciated.
Unfortunately, the major impact of all of the changes was on VFR GA Ops.
The 'Big End of Town' is still No 1.
And please do appreciate, that when some 'wild claims' are made, if / when I see them.....well, you know how it feels, I am certain....
It just seems 'right' to 'correct the score' even if its only a 'little'.
However, it don't matter no more, really.
Wot's done is done.
Enjoy your next shift.
Cheers
Four years later, they re-published the Handbook (circa 2008) requiring clearance, whether in or outside the '12-mile' limit.
NZ/Canada/ Uncle Tom Cobbley can publish to their heart's content, just as Australia does, but a clearance is as meaningless as designating the airspace as anything other than a Warning area.
In the NZ case, a good question would be" Why bother??" --- RNZAF hardly has any requirement for exercise areas for high speed aircraft --- the fastest thing they have is a B757.
Both the Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the A-Gs know well that all the Australian Rs outside the 12 mile limit is meaningless.
Given the AU/NZ/CA practice, I guess we shouldn't demure from RPChina declaring the whole of the South China Sea Chinese territorial water --- after all, all they did was unilaterally declare a new boundary, the "9 dash line".
Plazbot,
How eloquent. Truly a cry from the depths of hell.
Sounds like you are suffering a major attack of the "great Australian cringe" --- again!! Never fear. Take a deep breath, and it will pass ---- until the next attack hits you. It must be terrible to suffer from such afflictions, I do feel so sorry for you.
There are cures, as even Robert Hughes discovered.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Traffic. What an absolute untruth. A Pilot in uncontrolled airspace back then could not request a radar service.. I introduced that after huge resistance to change. Even when we got it going it was a unique " one shot" service for VFR that was next to useless.
Back then if you wanted to check your transponder when OCTA you had to go through Flight Service as you did not know the ATC frequencies .
MDX would have never got across the range if my changes had been introduced by then. The pilot would have been talking directly to the Sydney radar Controllor to arrange the clearance through Willy and that controller would have surely been professional enough to tell the pilot he was not tracking to Singleton- but at near right angles to the correct track.
And Traffic. Why was the pilot of MDX never transferred to the radar controller who could tell him directly which way he was heading? I will tell you why. Because until I came along with my push to copy the best from overseas it was totally fixed in most minds that OCTA meant Flight Service and that meant no radar! Even if four people were being sent to their deaths !
Back then if you wanted to check your transponder when OCTA you had to go through Flight Service as you did not know the ATC frequencies .
MDX would have never got across the range if my changes had been introduced by then. The pilot would have been talking directly to the Sydney radar Controllor to arrange the clearance through Willy and that controller would have surely been professional enough to tell the pilot he was not tracking to Singleton- but at near right angles to the correct track.
And Traffic. Why was the pilot of MDX never transferred to the radar controller who could tell him directly which way he was heading? I will tell you why. Because until I came along with my push to copy the best from overseas it was totally fixed in most minds that OCTA meant Flight Service and that meant no radar! Even if four people were being sent to their deaths !
Last edited by Dick Smith; 29th Mar 2016 at 16:27.
Thread Starter
And just as you expected pilots back then to know "what they are doing" and not need an ATC service you no doubt thought the same about the two professional pilots who killed themselves and their passengers at Benalla.
Resist change in every way!
Resist change in every way!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How,
NZ/Canada/ Uncle Tom Cobbley can publish to their heart's content, just as Australia does, but a clearance is as meaningless as designating the airspace as anything other than a Warning area.
NZ/Canada/ Uncle Tom Cobbley can publish to their heart's content, just as Australia does, but a clearance is as meaningless as designating the airspace as anything other than a Warning area.
So here's a challenge old fruit. I am sure you still have wide contacts in the international community when it comes to overseas carriers.
Why don't you get on to a foreign captain, and encourage him to plan direct through WLM offshore airspace and press the point by disregarding our 'illegal requirements' and following on through?
When 400+ pax are killed due to a mid-air with a Hornet 4 v 4, and despite the 'technicalities,' the subsequent litigation costs don't bear thinking about in respect of what the international carrier would be up for.
That oft-loved phrase of litigation lawyers comes to mind - 'duty of care!'
I wouldn't like to be defending the subsequent, and inevitable, class action.
But, then again, WTF would I know?
Why don't you get on to a foreign captain, and encourage him to plan direct through WLM offshore airspace and press the point by disregarding our 'illegal requirements' and following on through?
If a Hornet 4 v 4 collides with a foreign aircraft inside an Australian Romeo area but outside the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea, killing 400 + pax (and some accuse Dick of scaremongering....) it will be the Commonwealth of Australia and its ADF that have the (very) big duty of care problem.
WTF would I know?
Dick, if a pilot was honest enough with himself to admit that he needed outside assistance, and asked for it, then the whole weight of the system was thrown at him to assist. That's when guys were transferred to (or relayed instructions from) ATC for radar guidance and then back when sorted. Happened all the time. Maybe you weren't paying attention then? You just couldn't do because you felt like it, because it wasn't ATC's primary role, and everyone knew it. And so what if you had to go through an intermediary to get a transponder check? God, what an impost. Not surprised you wanted to bring the whole system crashing down to make that check a little easier.
By the time the pilot of MDX advised he was in difficulties it was too late. As it was, radar was used to locate him (and wasn't really able to establish his heading) within a couple of minutes of him asking for a higher level (which he was never able to get anywhere near) and some 10 mins later it was all over. His problems were manifestly larger than anyone on the ground could have assisted with. Before that, the choice of track and track keeping was the pilot's responsibility, as it was for every other pilot OCTA. It was 1981. Not 1991, or 2001. A lot of aviating happened after that before anything changed. I don't remember there being much of a push for change pre 1981, so a little disingenuous of you saying "if my changes had been introduced by then".
Five died, not four, and yours seems to be sole opinion that they were "sent to their deaths", unless you meant by the actions of the pilot?
As for Benalla, if you are referring to TNP, they did have an ATC service (some assumptions were made, procedures not followed/understood) and they still died. Unfortunately, accidents happen for a multitude of reasons, even after changes are made.
By the time the pilot of MDX advised he was in difficulties it was too late. As it was, radar was used to locate him (and wasn't really able to establish his heading) within a couple of minutes of him asking for a higher level (which he was never able to get anywhere near) and some 10 mins later it was all over. His problems were manifestly larger than anyone on the ground could have assisted with. Before that, the choice of track and track keeping was the pilot's responsibility, as it was for every other pilot OCTA. It was 1981. Not 1991, or 2001. A lot of aviating happened after that before anything changed. I don't remember there being much of a push for change pre 1981, so a little disingenuous of you saying "if my changes had been introduced by then".
Five died, not four, and yours seems to be sole opinion that they were "sent to their deaths", unless you meant by the actions of the pilot?
As for Benalla, if you are referring to TNP, they did have an ATC service (some assumptions were made, procedures not followed/understood) and they still died. Unfortunately, accidents happen for a multitude of reasons, even after changes are made.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it won't LB, with all due respect. And I don't want to get into a slanging match.
Well, that's a moot argument when it comes to 'duty of care,' whereby the ADF and Commonwealth have done as much as possible to avoid an aluminium shower.
Quite frankly, I'd prefer to prosecute rather than defend on this one when it comes to an airline that willfully disregarded a restriction that implies military activity and associated risk - regardless of 'international law.'
Don't be condescending.
If a Hornet 4 v 4 collides with a foreign aircraft inside an Australian Romeo area but outside the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea, killing 400 + pax (and some accuse Dick of scaremongering....) it will be the Commonwealth of Australia and its ADF that have the (very) big duty of care problem.
Quite frankly, I'd prefer to prosecute rather than defend on this one when it comes to an airline that willfully disregarded a restriction that implies military activity and associated risk - regardless of 'international law.'
In respect of international law? Evidently not much.
If stating facts is condescending, consider me condescending.
Outside the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea is "international airspace". That means what it says. Australia has no jurisdiction over foreign aircraft minding and going about their own business in international airspace, and Australia's ADF doesn't get 'right of way' over foreign aircraft in international airspace.
The Blue Orchids might think that those large Romeos that extend beyond the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea are giant sheltered workshops in which only they are allowed to play, but they'd be wrong. (In fact, I'd be completely astonished if the ADF does not comprehend that foreign aircraft are free to fly through there, and do fly through there, happy as a cloud and without permission from Australia.)
Say what? They've "done as much as possible" by presuming to take over international airspace they don't own and presuming to prohibit entry by the exercise of powers they don't have?
That's like saying the collision with the little old lady who turned onto the highway was her fault, because the people who were drag racing on it presumed to block off a section of highway they don't own, then presumed to ban everyone else from using it, by exercising powers they don't have.
Outside the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea is "international airspace". That means what it says. Australia has no jurisdiction over foreign aircraft minding and going about their own business in international airspace, and Australia's ADF doesn't get 'right of way' over foreign aircraft in international airspace.
The Blue Orchids might think that those large Romeos that extend beyond the outer boundary of Australia's territorial sea are giant sheltered workshops in which only they are allowed to play, but they'd be wrong. (In fact, I'd be completely astonished if the ADF does not comprehend that foreign aircraft are free to fly through there, and do fly through there, happy as a cloud and without permission from Australia.)
Well, that's a moot argument when it comes to 'duty of care,' whereby the ADF and Commonwealth have done as much as possible to avoid an aluminium shower.
That's like saying the collision with the little old lady who turned onto the highway was her fault, because the people who were drag racing on it presumed to block off a section of highway they don't own, then presumed to ban everyone else from using it, by exercising powers they don't have.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB, I am going to retire from this particular thread right now.
I've said my bit, I haven't received any satisfactory arguments in riposte, and am tiring of the repetition.
The facts just continue to be ignored. As I said before, we were constantly hammered, over years and years, about the way that we fostered a 'unique system.'
Put the facts on the table about our system being 'unique' - the underlying justification for NAS - and they just get ignored. Why? Because they are inconvenient truths.'
Don't bother replying on this one, on this particular thread, because Rx has now been switched off. I've had enough of the 'zealots' that ignore 'fact' because it ain't convenient.
I've said my bit, I haven't received any satisfactory arguments in riposte, and am tiring of the repetition.
The facts just continue to be ignored. As I said before, we were constantly hammered, over years and years, about the way that we fostered a 'unique system.'
Put the facts on the table about our system being 'unique' - the underlying justification for NAS - and they just get ignored. Why? Because they are inconvenient truths.'
Don't bother replying on this one, on this particular thread, because Rx has now been switched off. I've had enough of the 'zealots' that ignore 'fact' because it ain't convenient.
this entire argument makes me want to metaphorically put a pillow over my head. I was going to fit Two radios on the basis that the more communication options the better. I now wonder if I could be forgiven for believing "less is more"? If I have no radio, then I can't be convicted of criminal miscommunication.
With one radio and no dual frequency, I have no choices to make and can proceed in blind ignorance, but at least I have a simple choice, even if it's wrong. CTAF if in ERSA, Area if no ERSA entry, period.
That there may Be other aircraft using local frequencies that I don't know about is no longer my concern.
So go AHead, continue to complicate every facet of aviation regulation as far as possible and a significant proportion of what is left of non military, non RPT aviation will just ignore these impossibly complex rules and try and muddle through.
With one radio and no dual frequency, I have no choices to make and can proceed in blind ignorance, but at least I have a simple choice, even if it's wrong. CTAF if in ERSA, Area if no ERSA entry, period.
That there may Be other aircraft using local frequencies that I don't know about is no longer my concern.
So go AHead, continue to complicate every facet of aviation regulation as far as possible and a significant proportion of what is left of non military, non RPT aviation will just ignore these impossibly complex rules and try and muddle through.
Thread Starter
For others. I am the person who has pushed airspace reform and it had zero to do with airspace over international waters.
Mick Toller was correct. Australia was the Galapagos of aviation.
For GA to fly much of its time under radar coverage and not be talking to a radar controller was a crazy system.
For VFR to have to fly at IFR levels was weird.
To have all airports on Flight Service frequencies with not a CTAF in sight was unique.
I am glad I was involved in the reform and am disappointed it's half wound back from ignorance.
But watch what happens over the next few years!
Mick Toller was correct. Australia was the Galapagos of aviation.
For GA to fly much of its time under radar coverage and not be talking to a radar controller was a crazy system.
For VFR to have to fly at IFR levels was weird.
To have all airports on Flight Service frequencies with not a CTAF in sight was unique.
I am glad I was involved in the reform and am disappointed it's half wound back from ignorance.
But watch what happens over the next few years!
Originally Posted by Sunfish
continue to complicate every facet of aviation regulation as far as possible
Our airspace is only complex because "high profile individuals" make it so with alphabet-soup airspace.
Thread Starter
If you monitor " area" and you are flying in a non familiar locations you spend a lot of time looking down on your chart to try and work out the locations being mentioned. Less time for actually looking out and remaining vigilant .
That's because up to 13 frequencies are coupled together to try and make it work at an affordable cost.
Going into Birdsville from Tennant Creek nearly all the traffic you hear is at Horn Island.
No other country has such a pathetically amateurish half wound back system. Fortunately soon the last of the change resistors like Bloggs will retire and we can move forward and follow the best proven world practices. Can't wait!
That's because up to 13 frequencies are coupled together to try and make it work at an affordable cost.
Going into Birdsville from Tennant Creek nearly all the traffic you hear is at Horn Island.
No other country has such a pathetically amateurish half wound back system. Fortunately soon the last of the change resistors like Bloggs will retire and we can move forward and follow the best proven world practices. Can't wait!
Aye Aye Dick,
'We' in FS used to have 13 VHF's on our consoles, and 4 HF's, ALL 'going' at the same time.
Depending on the time of day, the HF's would be set for the higher or lower freqs to be a little 'above' the others so that we would not miss calls.
The VHF's had a 'select', and a 're-transmit' button, as well as a 'single' freq button, so that the operator could tempo select ONE freq ONLY, by holding in the appropriate button for a few seconds, select the 're-transmit ON or OFF so that when the consoles were on 'Combine' and the one operator was looking after half of the State (WA) pilots in Kununurra could hear the pilots in say, Kalgoorlie, so they would 'listen out and wait their turn' before transmitting.
On the other hand, the operator had the option of de-selecting this facility, and when it got busy again, we could open the adjoining console, and THAT operator would take back certain selected freqs to THAT console...??
When Tx'ing, the operator could select to 'go out' on ALL freqs, or just the one he /she was responding to.
This allowed pilots about to Tx, to 'listen out' first and realise that the operator was communicating with an acft that pilots in other areas could not hear, i.e. they were not 'bombarded unnecessarily' with listening to all acft, faaar faaar awaaay......
Some 'gun' operators had the knack of being able to manage the freqs better than others....so what you heard depended on the operator's selection technique.
I guess the consoles are still 'wired' the same.....
Does that make sense?
Anyway, it did to us.
It was a very 'flexible' system which allowed consoles to be 'on combine' of areas during the nights and 'split' during the busy day periods.
THAT is why you can hear acft calling from 'The Top End' to 'Beyond the Black Stump'....no real 'magic', just good personnel and console management.
Quite efficient, I would say......And better by FAR...(IMHO) than wot we are 'left with' today......
Cheers
'We' in FS used to have 13 VHF's on our consoles, and 4 HF's, ALL 'going' at the same time.
Depending on the time of day, the HF's would be set for the higher or lower freqs to be a little 'above' the others so that we would not miss calls.
The VHF's had a 'select', and a 're-transmit' button, as well as a 'single' freq button, so that the operator could tempo select ONE freq ONLY, by holding in the appropriate button for a few seconds, select the 're-transmit ON or OFF so that when the consoles were on 'Combine' and the one operator was looking after half of the State (WA) pilots in Kununurra could hear the pilots in say, Kalgoorlie, so they would 'listen out and wait their turn' before transmitting.
On the other hand, the operator had the option of de-selecting this facility, and when it got busy again, we could open the adjoining console, and THAT operator would take back certain selected freqs to THAT console...??
When Tx'ing, the operator could select to 'go out' on ALL freqs, or just the one he /she was responding to.
This allowed pilots about to Tx, to 'listen out' first and realise that the operator was communicating with an acft that pilots in other areas could not hear, i.e. they were not 'bombarded unnecessarily' with listening to all acft, faaar faaar awaaay......
Some 'gun' operators had the knack of being able to manage the freqs better than others....so what you heard depended on the operator's selection technique.
I guess the consoles are still 'wired' the same.....
Does that make sense?
Anyway, it did to us.
It was a very 'flexible' system which allowed consoles to be 'on combine' of areas during the nights and 'split' during the busy day periods.
THAT is why you can hear acft calling from 'The Top End' to 'Beyond the Black Stump'....no real 'magic', just good personnel and console management.
Quite efficient, I would say......And better by FAR...(IMHO) than wot we are 'left with' today......
Cheers
Going into Birdsville from Tennant Creek nearly all the traffic you hear is at Horn Island.
Seeing as though HID is 126.5 and BDV is 126.7, and the CTR is 120.3 and 125.4 respectively, I'm not sure I follow your point.
Maybe your radios need work if they are picking up 126.5 when your tuned to 126.7. Or was centre combined and you somehow caught all the IFR inbound to Horny at the precise time you were flying around? If it's just the IFR then it was probably pretty quiet everywhere else for it to be all combined; thankfully you weren't getting all the local vfr traffic up there too!
None of this "not marked on the map and all ctaf calls are on area" stuff you've been spruiking. Both are marked AND with discrete frequencies.
Or are you hearing other traffic at all the other marked 126.7 locations up in the Straits that aren't HID, kubin, mabuiag, badu, northern peninsula, TI hospital etc?
I've been up near the northern edge of the country and heard things near the southern edge on centre. Not a big deal, nothing to worry about. Frequencies get split when it gets busier. Nothing to see here move along please.
Either way, please clarify the statement I quoted.
you are flying in a non familiar locations you spend a lot of time looking down on your chart to try and work out the locations being mentioned. Less time for actually looking out and remaining vigilant .
Maybe a bit of pre-study on the route before you go flying into unfamiliar areas wouldn't go astray!
P.S. ADSB! Love it, works a treat. Definitely helped me out!
Last edited by Car RAMROD; 31st Mar 2016 at 13:03.
Fortunately soon the last of the change resistors like Bloggs will retire and we can move forward and follow the best proven world practices. Can't wait!
You've got more grey hairs than me, Dick. I reckon you'll be out first!
Thread Starter
Car. Possibly you don't understand the CASA half wound back system.
Flying from Tennant to Birdsville the requirement is to monitor the 125.4 MHz area frequency. Obviously the 120.3 Torres Straight frequency is ganged to this to maximise AsA profits.- plus up to another 10 or so transmitters .
It's a joke system built on ignorance of actual risk. It's the reason that CASA has demanded that all aerodromes not marked on charts use the area frequency. A complete stuff up around Wilpena Pound and the Flinders ranges.
Flying from Tennant to Birdsville the requirement is to monitor the 125.4 MHz area frequency. Obviously the 120.3 Torres Straight frequency is ganged to this to maximise AsA profits.- plus up to another 10 or so transmitters .
It's a joke system built on ignorance of actual risk. It's the reason that CASA has demanded that all aerodromes not marked on charts use the area frequency. A complete stuff up around Wilpena Pound and the Flinders ranges.
But the casa ruling about "not marked on the map" is not the reason you are hearing HID IFR traffic whilst enroute to BDV.
Or are you hearing vfr traffic calling on the centre frequency, despite HID having its own ctaf as it is marked on a map?
Or, do you want to spend more money and have one controller always for each region (which I can see boundaries on the map I'm looking at!) so that centre frequencies don't get combined?
Like I said, I've heard things on the other side/end/whatever of the continent, it's not a big deal. When it gets busy it gets split.
Maybe there's a conspiracy that the controllers just give you a hard time?
"Half wound back" sounds pessimistic. Half wound forward, come on, be optimistic!
P.S. "Strait"
Or are you hearing vfr traffic calling on the centre frequency, despite HID having its own ctaf as it is marked on a map?
Or, do you want to spend more money and have one controller always for each region (which I can see boundaries on the map I'm looking at!) so that centre frequencies don't get combined?
Like I said, I've heard things on the other side/end/whatever of the continent, it's not a big deal. When it gets busy it gets split.
Maybe there's a conspiracy that the controllers just give you a hard time?
"Half wound back" sounds pessimistic. Half wound forward, come on, be optimistic!
P.S. "Strait"