Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
Oh. So it's 'others' who aren't complying. Way to lead, Dick!
BTW: What are the mandatory calls for radio equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G, Dick?
Let me do a LeadSled and give a hint: The number is very circular.
BTW: What are the mandatory calls for radio equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G, Dick?
Let me do a LeadSled and give a hint: The number is very circular.
I've flown there too, and the system even at jet levels often seems to be made up as they go along, with undocumented local procedures everywhere. Surely that's not what we aspire to.
You must be kidding, I hope you are. Such a statement probably reflects a brief exposure to the system, without ever coming to understand how well, how smoothly, it all works (likewise CA)
Communication (which is not the same as Australian "radio procedures") in US is, in fact, highly disciplined, and ICAO compliant.
But, what it is, is communicating. What it is not is the stilted Australian "radio procedures", which only have an incidental crossover with actually communicating.
No other country has page after page of mandatory radio phraseologies that are found in the Australian AIP.
No other country is proposing to make divergence from the their AIP "radio procedures" strict liability criminal offenses. See draft CASR Part 91.
Where the most important thing is to get all the mandatory words said, so "they" can't pingya. Not ICAO, not anywhere else.
Acquaint yourself with the FAA AIM (or AIP) for the details, or the WW Text of the Jeppesen system.
The country specific pages of the WW Text are telling. Australia has page after page of differences to ICAO. By comparison, US/FAA Comms. differences are limited to a handful of items, three of them defining specific meanings and clearance limits to specific descent clearances --- as far from "made up as you go" as it is possible to be.
If you want another example that is completely removed from the the US, have a look at UK CAP 413, and surprise, surprise, you will find it remarkably similar to the FAA AIM, and again, a very great contrast to stilted and inflexible "radio procedures" in Australia. And it is pleasure to fly in UK airspace.
Or have a look at the NZ AIP, where they seem to manage with a fraction of the "radio procedures" of Australia,just ICAO, just as they manage with a aviation regulations page count of about 15% of Australia (as does USA).
You just don't understand how a friendly, efficient and flexible standardised COMMUNICATIONS system works, as opposed to a prescriptive, inflexible and pedantic system.
And, by the way, my experience there , high level and low, small aircraft through large, goes back to early 1960s, and many thousands of hours, I have seen, heard and experienced the divergence.
How much time have you spent operating in US/FAA of CA airspace? Next time you are there, if there is a next time, be a bit more open minded, as long as your mind is not open at both ends.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are actually flying now in the half wound back Dick Smith system. yes the airspace that you " are pretty happy with"
As Bloggs points out the only reason we have the present system is because I removed the 700 FS officers so all pilots could have direct communication with ATC and radar where there was coverage.
The plan was to move to the proven safe North American system. This system does not allow VFR pilots to make announcements on ATC separation frequencies. This is for obvious safety reasons.
As Bloggs points out the only reason we have the present system is because I removed the 700 FS officers so all pilots could have direct communication with ATC and radar where there was coverage.
The plan was to move to the proven safe North American system. This system does not allow VFR pilots to make announcements on ATC separation frequencies. This is for obvious safety reasons.
FS was removed so we could speak directly to the controller by being on his frequency, but we shouldn't do so because it would be unsafe.
Your regular example of this alleged problem is the Sydney departures frequency used by parachutists, Harbour Scenics etc Yet you will know the same thing as the rest of us who fly the jets so threatened by this activity: the time we spend in that sector is a few minutes at most, and I have never once been over-transmitted or had an ATC instruction blocked by them.
And another comment:
On my regular flights from Sydney to The Canberra area I pass over dozens of small strips in the Southern Highlands area . Some are quite busy on weekends. I have not heard one taxiing or circuit call on the Area frequency which I monitor because of the half wound back system requirements.
But in the remote case they do exist, and they are that busy, perhaps the owners should arrange to get them charted, so they can use a frequency other than ATC? Any place with that much traffic should be documented, for the safety of everyone in the area.
Thread Starter
You clearly have no understanding of how the disciplined NAS works.
I have never said a pilot cannot speak directly to a controller. I said a pilot must not make announcements on ATC frequencies. Don't you see the staggering difference?
By all means call ATC to make a request- say for flight following. Just don't make announcements such as taxiing and circuit calls on frequencies that are also used for ATC separation purposes.
No wonder our system is half baked and ATC just turned off the alarm as those six people at Benalla headed to their deaths.
I have never said a pilot cannot speak directly to a controller. I said a pilot must not make announcements on ATC frequencies. Don't you see the staggering difference?
By all means call ATC to make a request- say for flight following. Just don't make announcements such as taxiing and circuit calls on frequencies that are also used for ATC separation purposes.
No wonder our system is half baked and ATC just turned off the alarm as those six people at Benalla headed to their deaths.
What are the mandatory calls for radio equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You clearly have no understanding of how the disciplined NAS works.
I have never said a pilot cannot speak directly to a controller. I said a pilot must not make announcements on ATC frequencies. Don't you see the staggering difference?
By all means call ATC to make a request- say for flight following. Just don't make announcements such as taxiing and circuit calls on frequencies that are also used for ATC separation purposes.
I have never said a pilot cannot speak directly to a controller. I said a pilot must not make announcements on ATC frequencies. Don't you see the staggering difference?
By all means call ATC to make a request- say for flight following. Just don't make announcements such as taxiing and circuit calls on frequencies that are also used for ATC separation purposes.
No wonder our system is half baked and ATC just turned off the alarm as those six people at Benalla headed to their deaths.
How, for the love of all that's holy, did VFR traffic calls at unmarked fields, on ATC frequencies, have any bearing on the Benalla accident? I have a sneaking suspicion that those who lost loved ones in that accident would be a little peeved at your hijacking their loss, for your own personal crusade on a completely unrelated issue.
Agrajag, I should buy you a beer! I like the cut of your jib!
I had exactly the same thought!
Glad I'm not the only one picking up on the "let's say this to try make my point, despite being irrelevant" comments.
1200 calls Mr Smith, really, you honestly counted? Was that individual pilot calls or centre calls too?
Isn't there something more important that you should be doing instead of counting radio calls? Did you go and find out how many of those calls were at places not marked on maps?
How about we get rid of the problematic frequency boundaries (seemingly, with what has been mentioned, they are a problem) and have one controller doing the entire Australian airspace?
So, Mr Smith, you created this problem of Vfr making ctaf calls on area, and now your complaining?
But by all means go looking for another location conveniently on a frequency boundary, to support another concocted argument.
Glad I'm not the only one picking up on the "let's say this to try make my point, despite being irrelevant" comments.
1200 calls Mr Smith, really, you honestly counted? Was that individual pilot calls or centre calls too?
Isn't there something more important that you should be doing instead of counting radio calls? Did you go and find out how many of those calls were at places not marked on maps?
How about we get rid of the problematic frequency boundaries (seemingly, with what has been mentioned, they are a problem) and have one controller doing the entire Australian airspace?
As Bloggs points out the only reason we have the present system is because I removed the 700 FS officers so all pilots could have direct communication with ATC and radar where there was coverage.
So, Mr Smith, you created this problem of Vfr making ctaf calls on area, and now your complaining?
Finally we have endless circuit commentaries, needless broadcasts and pilots who simply love the sound of their own voices feeding back into their ears in an empty circuit. Australian pilots need to grow up and never will while the regulator has "safety" in its name and promotes endless legislation.
So you reckon Dick has created the problem? I reckon you are plain wrong and should admit it.
Thread Starter
VFR calls at unmarked aerodromes and the Benalla accident are tightly linked.
They were both caused because CASA has wound back the Government policy to go ahead with NAS.
Under NAS Benalla would be class E and 6 valuable people would most likely be alive today. That's because the ATC would know that responsibility remained until after the IAF especially considering the ATSB report showed this was still within radar coverage.
Under NAS there would be no requirement for aircraft operating at aerodromes not marked on maps to give calls on ATC area frequencies. In fact they are very likely to have prosecution action if they did so.
Car Ramrod. I agree the present problem would not exist if I had not initiated the AMATS decision that allowed all pilots to directly access ATC and radar where available. This is the NAS.
This has had definite safety advantages and may have even prevented an MDX type accident where one of the reasons was that the radar controller did not inform the pilot that he was flying for 20 minutes at near right angles to the correct flight path to Singleton. Five died.
Of course. Just as with the Benalla fatalities it wasn't the controllers responsibility because un controlled airspace was involved and only in Australia are controllers trained to act in this way. Under NAS controllers " control " IFR aircraft whenever it is necessary for safety. But we don't copy the best and the leadership insists the 1950s procedures be kept no matter how many die.
Most importantly the present problems would not exist if the NAS implementation was not stopped and half wound back.
And you can't blame me for that. That was sheer ignorance and a total lack of leadership in Canberra.
And I can assure you I will win on this. Hopefully before more lives are lost.
By win I mean- achieve a full wind back with 700 FSOs being re employed allowing CTAFs to be abolished and all aircraft to go back onto area or AFIS frequencies for calls at non tower aerodromes - or completion of the NAS.
Want to lay a bet on it?
They were both caused because CASA has wound back the Government policy to go ahead with NAS.
Under NAS Benalla would be class E and 6 valuable people would most likely be alive today. That's because the ATC would know that responsibility remained until after the IAF especially considering the ATSB report showed this was still within radar coverage.
Under NAS there would be no requirement for aircraft operating at aerodromes not marked on maps to give calls on ATC area frequencies. In fact they are very likely to have prosecution action if they did so.
Car Ramrod. I agree the present problem would not exist if I had not initiated the AMATS decision that allowed all pilots to directly access ATC and radar where available. This is the NAS.
This has had definite safety advantages and may have even prevented an MDX type accident where one of the reasons was that the radar controller did not inform the pilot that he was flying for 20 minutes at near right angles to the correct flight path to Singleton. Five died.
Of course. Just as with the Benalla fatalities it wasn't the controllers responsibility because un controlled airspace was involved and only in Australia are controllers trained to act in this way. Under NAS controllers " control " IFR aircraft whenever it is necessary for safety. But we don't copy the best and the leadership insists the 1950s procedures be kept no matter how many die.
Most importantly the present problems would not exist if the NAS implementation was not stopped and half wound back.
And you can't blame me for that. That was sheer ignorance and a total lack of leadership in Canberra.
And I can assure you I will win on this. Hopefully before more lives are lost.
By win I mean- achieve a full wind back with 700 FSOs being re employed allowing CTAFs to be abolished and all aircraft to go back onto area or AFIS frequencies for calls at non tower aerodromes - or completion of the NAS.
Want to lay a bet on it?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 2nd Apr 2016 at 22:29.
Thread Starter
Car ramrod. In your mind is the premise that if we get rid of frequency boundaries we have " one controller doing the entire Australian airspace"
Actually I don't accept this.
Believe it or not there is an alternative. That is to follow the system that is used and proven safe in every other leading aviation country in the world.
Give me a call if you would like to learn how this operates in a very safe way and how controllers in these countries actually provide a " control " service to aircraft in IMC like in a Benalla situation.
Agra. The loved ones of those lost in the Benalla accident totally support my campaign to move Australia to the safer NAS . They even organised and covered the cost of my affidavit for the inquest. Not that that helped them at all. The barrister supporting the coroner leapt up and demanded I not be heard for some complex legal reason. He succeeded . I found out later that that barrister often represented the ATSB and no doubt didn't want to undermine the ATSB Benalla report which made no mention of the NAS policy that had not been followed and may have prevented the accident.
Actually I don't accept this.
Believe it or not there is an alternative. That is to follow the system that is used and proven safe in every other leading aviation country in the world.
Give me a call if you would like to learn how this operates in a very safe way and how controllers in these countries actually provide a " control " service to aircraft in IMC like in a Benalla situation.
Agra. The loved ones of those lost in the Benalla accident totally support my campaign to move Australia to the safer NAS . They even organised and covered the cost of my affidavit for the inquest. Not that that helped them at all. The barrister supporting the coroner leapt up and demanded I not be heard for some complex legal reason. He succeeded . I found out later that that barrister often represented the ATSB and no doubt didn't want to undermine the ATSB Benalla report which made no mention of the NAS policy that had not been followed and may have prevented the accident.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 2nd Apr 2016 at 22:56.
My only real serious question in my last post was in relation to the 1200 calls- I am presuming that you just totalled calls in the area frequency here too, how many of those calls were at places not marked on the map?
Afterall, ctaf calls on area is the discussion topic. Conveniently not answered, rather rebuttals were thrown back on what I thought were clearly absurd remarks by me (ie one controller!).
Bob, I quoted Mr Smith who said he was to blame, then made a cheeky remark. Did I say Mr Smith caused the problem? No.
If you do win, Me Smith, please don't bring in the terrible radio "professionalism" that the "best" do. God it sucks listening to all their calls!
I have a big spoon. This is certainly a big pot
It's Sunday. Might go try enjoy the day. Lawn bowls anyone? I've changed frequency and not "with you" now.
Afterall, ctaf calls on area is the discussion topic. Conveniently not answered, rather rebuttals were thrown back on what I thought were clearly absurd remarks by me (ie one controller!).
Bob, I quoted Mr Smith who said he was to blame, then made a cheeky remark. Did I say Mr Smith caused the problem? No.
If you do win, Me Smith, please don't bring in the terrible radio "professionalism" that the "best" do. God it sucks listening to all their calls!
I have a big spoon. This is certainly a big pot
It's Sunday. Might go try enjoy the day. Lawn bowls anyone? I've changed frequency and not "with you" now.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, why would you want to re-employ 700 FSOs? The reason there were that many is because they were spread over a number of remore locations where they operated air/ground radio, intercom channels and briefing. Briefing and flight planning are now on line so that reduces the number required.
With the advances in technology and the training required, re-employing people who retired twenty years ago would be a big job.
The Airservices Learning Academy is built around ATC. Rather than going back to the 1990s and Flight Service, it would be more efficient to employ a few more ATCs. That way everyone would have common training and equipment and able to rotate between high and low level positions during a shift.
This isn't a union grab for more power. It's just a way to efficiently use what is already there.
On another point, it isn't all the fault of Airservices and CASA, many private pilots are too lazy or tight fisted. This goes back to when charges were introduced for charts and documents, pilots stopped buying and keeping up to date with changes. It's easy now with products such as Oz Runways to remain current but some don't want to fork out nearly $1000 to get set up with an iPad and subscription let alone become familiar with how to use it, so private pilots blunder through and think the more radio calls, the safer they are. There is an airfield in the same CTAF as where I fly where every CCT seems to require broadcasting one's life story.
This then links to the death of GA and flying training. It's just plain expensive compared to what else is available. Up until the 1990s if you wanted to fly, that's what you did. Now there are so many cheap thrills available. If you want an aviation experience you can do a warbird flight, a tandem jump and/or an aerobatic flight and still have plenty of change from the $30,000 cost of a PPL for half a dozen overseas trips, a new car or a house deposit. Flying just doesn't have that much attraction any more.
With the advances in technology and the training required, re-employing people who retired twenty years ago would be a big job.
The Airservices Learning Academy is built around ATC. Rather than going back to the 1990s and Flight Service, it would be more efficient to employ a few more ATCs. That way everyone would have common training and equipment and able to rotate between high and low level positions during a shift.
This isn't a union grab for more power. It's just a way to efficiently use what is already there.
On another point, it isn't all the fault of Airservices and CASA, many private pilots are too lazy or tight fisted. This goes back to when charges were introduced for charts and documents, pilots stopped buying and keeping up to date with changes. It's easy now with products such as Oz Runways to remain current but some don't want to fork out nearly $1000 to get set up with an iPad and subscription let alone become familiar with how to use it, so private pilots blunder through and think the more radio calls, the safer they are. There is an airfield in the same CTAF as where I fly where every CCT seems to require broadcasting one's life story.
This then links to the death of GA and flying training. It's just plain expensive compared to what else is available. Up until the 1990s if you wanted to fly, that's what you did. Now there are so many cheap thrills available. If you want an aviation experience you can do a warbird flight, a tandem jump and/or an aerobatic flight and still have plenty of change from the $30,000 cost of a PPL for half a dozen overseas trips, a new car or a house deposit. Flying just doesn't have that much attraction any more.
Thread Starter
I said " over 1200 calls". Yes I did list the number over a period because I wanted to see if this half wound back system was working. If it was I would shut up and get on with my life. However it's clearly not working.
Already there are those on this site who correctly claim we would not be in the present position had I not started the airspace reforms as CAA chairman in 1991.
No one of course knows haw many lives have been saved because , unlike the MDX situation, now all IFR aircraft are in direct communication with a radar controller when in radar covered airspace . Presumably those radar controllers now inform a pilot if an error is made and the aircraft is tracking at right angles to the correct direction.
When I pushed for this change it was because it followed what I had experienced flying en route low level airspace overseas.
This change was massively resisted at the time and there are still a few old pilots who insist that " calling in the blind, radio arranged separation" in IMC is better and safer than an Air Traffic Control radar separation service.
And Fujji. I don't want to employ an extra 700 of any type. Just pointing out that VFR self announcements on advisory frequencies are very different from VFR self announcements on frequencies that are also used to issue control instructions to airline aircraft . I am amazed that professional ATCs allow this in Australia. They certainly don't in other countries.
Yesterday morning to have the Sydney departures controller responsible for the safe separation of 747s and 380s in the more risky terminal area also being forced to listen to non directed VFR float plane self announcements and chatter is extraordinary in my view. When I explain this to overseas controllers they simply can't believe it.
Imagine departing LAX in the Qantas 380 and the air crew having to listen to VFR traffic making self announcements in the LA basin.
When Mick Toller joined CASA he said one of the first things he was going to fix was this situation. As a Cathay 747 pilot he could not believe that he had put up with VFR aircraft calls in the Sydney northern lane at Hornsby or Brooklyn Bridge as his aircraft was on the Sydney departures frequency and outbound to Hong Kong. He claimed it was not a safe practice.
Now nearly 15 years later no regulatory or airspace change has been made. Fortunately VFR pilots have been encouraged by non CASA people not to give so many announcements that could block important ATC instructions.
Already there are those on this site who correctly claim we would not be in the present position had I not started the airspace reforms as CAA chairman in 1991.
No one of course knows haw many lives have been saved because , unlike the MDX situation, now all IFR aircraft are in direct communication with a radar controller when in radar covered airspace . Presumably those radar controllers now inform a pilot if an error is made and the aircraft is tracking at right angles to the correct direction.
When I pushed for this change it was because it followed what I had experienced flying en route low level airspace overseas.
This change was massively resisted at the time and there are still a few old pilots who insist that " calling in the blind, radio arranged separation" in IMC is better and safer than an Air Traffic Control radar separation service.
And Fujji. I don't want to employ an extra 700 of any type. Just pointing out that VFR self announcements on advisory frequencies are very different from VFR self announcements on frequencies that are also used to issue control instructions to airline aircraft . I am amazed that professional ATCs allow this in Australia. They certainly don't in other countries.
Yesterday morning to have the Sydney departures controller responsible for the safe separation of 747s and 380s in the more risky terminal area also being forced to listen to non directed VFR float plane self announcements and chatter is extraordinary in my view. When I explain this to overseas controllers they simply can't believe it.
Imagine departing LAX in the Qantas 380 and the air crew having to listen to VFR traffic making self announcements in the LA basin.
When Mick Toller joined CASA he said one of the first things he was going to fix was this situation. As a Cathay 747 pilot he could not believe that he had put up with VFR aircraft calls in the Sydney northern lane at Hornsby or Brooklyn Bridge as his aircraft was on the Sydney departures frequency and outbound to Hong Kong. He claimed it was not a safe practice.
Now nearly 15 years later no regulatory or airspace change has been made. Fortunately VFR pilots have been encouraged by non CASA people not to give so many announcements that could block important ATC instructions.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 2nd Apr 2016 at 23:45.
I ask again, Dick: What are the mandatory calls for aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of an unmarked, unlicensed, unregistered airstrip in G?
You keep asserting that around 90% of GA are ignoring the 'new' CASA rule. Why is it that I don't hear them on 126.7? I hear lots and lots of calls on 126.7 from aircraft operating at or near aerodromes I've heard of or can identify on a map. Why don't I hear any from all these unmarked strips that are supposed to be so busy? It's not to say it doesn't happen; it's just that it would be so unusual that I would remember it.
And do they transmit on 126.7 instead of Area?
If you're going to tell me with all your frequency monitoring activities you don't listen to 126.7 as well as Area, I'm going to tell you: pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.
I also ask again: Do you entertain the possibility that those aircraft have no radios, or have them but their pilots make the decision not to use them?
Or maybe the movements are so rare that you miss the call on Area or 126.7?
Pilots e.g. making announcements northbound or southbound in the 'lane' north of Bankstown is a different issue. Those announcements seem pretty pointless to me - not sure why anyone makes them. But the frequency never seems to me to be overly busy.
You keep asserting that around 90% of GA are ignoring the 'new' CASA rule. Why is it that I don't hear them on 126.7? I hear lots and lots of calls on 126.7 from aircraft operating at or near aerodromes I've heard of or can identify on a map. Why don't I hear any from all these unmarked strips that are supposed to be so busy? It's not to say it doesn't happen; it's just that it would be so unusual that I would remember it.
Re evidence re 90% not complying.
On the flight to the Kimberly and back I passed over hundreds of strips that were not marked on charts. From time to time a saw taxiing aircraft. Not once did I hear a call on the ATC area frequency .
On my regular flights from Sydney to The Canberra area I pass over dozens of small strips in the Southern Highlands area . Some are quite busy on weekends. I have not heard one taxiing or circuit call on the Area frequency which I monitor because of the half wound back system requirements.
On the flight to the Kimberly and back I passed over hundreds of strips that were not marked on charts. From time to time a saw taxiing aircraft. Not once did I hear a call on the ATC area frequency .
On my regular flights from Sydney to The Canberra area I pass over dozens of small strips in the Southern Highlands area . Some are quite busy on weekends. I have not heard one taxiing or circuit call on the Area frequency which I monitor because of the half wound back system requirements.
If you're going to tell me with all your frequency monitoring activities you don't listen to 126.7 as well as Area, I'm going to tell you: pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.
I also ask again: Do you entertain the possibility that those aircraft have no radios, or have them but their pilots make the decision not to use them?
Or maybe the movements are so rare that you miss the call on Area or 126.7?
Pilots e.g. making announcements northbound or southbound in the 'lane' north of Bankstown is a different issue. Those announcements seem pretty pointless to me - not sure why anyone makes them. But the frequency never seems to me to be overly busy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on Dick. In post 329 you said:
By win I mean- achieve a full wind back with 700 FSOs being re employed allowing CTAFs to be abolished and all aircraft to go back onto area or AFIS frequencies for calls at non tower aerodromes - or completion of the NAS.
A few posts later you said you don't wast to employ an extra 700 of any type.
Which is it?
By win I mean- achieve a full wind back with 700 FSOs being re employed allowing CTAFs to be abolished and all aircraft to go back onto area or AFIS frequencies for calls at non tower aerodromes - or completion of the NAS.
A few posts later you said you don't wast to employ an extra 700 of any type.
Which is it?
Thread Starter
Probably quieter in the lane because for over 20 years I have advised pilots to consider in making calls that they could block ATC calls.
Doesn't one of the CASA documents recommend some calls?
Doesn't one of the CASA documents recommend some calls?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 3rd Apr 2016 at 06:21.
Thread Starter
Fujji. The second is correct. But I win either way- we get a proven system- not a half wound back by ignorance system.
Can't wait for the matter to get to court and some of these people being cross examined
Can't wait for the matter to get to court and some of these people being cross examined
Can't wait for the matter to get to court and some of these people being cross examined.
My understanding is that the applicant has to provide evidence, too.
I can't wait for someone to give evidence to prove that the current system requires what Ben Sandilands has apparently been led to believe it requires:
The comic opera decision to force cattle mustering aircraft onto the airwaves of giant jets flying across Australia contrary to the clearest of instructions has its deadly upside.
(Sorry: comic opera...)
Well Dick, you may well be 'over-joyed' at the recommendations of the AOPA Newsletter sent out today.....
Its worth the read.
Whether it will 'succeed' or not is up to the 'gods' I guess.....
Cheers
Its worth the read.
Whether it will 'succeed' or not is up to the 'gods' I guess.....
Cheers
Thread Starter
Ben is correct. Cattle mustering aircraft operating from aerodromes that are not marked on charts have to give their taxiing and circuit calls on the ATC area frequency.
Or has CASA given the musterers a special dispensation?
Or has CASA given the musterers a special dispensation?