Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob
Well Ramrod, I would say that Australian pilots made this problem, not Dick.....
Then we had 20 mile MBZ's and a whole lot of stuff I have forgotten.
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.
Then we had 20 mile MBZ's and a whole lot of stuff I have forgotten.
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.
Rediculous!
Thread Starter
Clap trap. I have never supported on introduced anything different than the US and Canadian CTAF non prescriptive procedures.
They work superbly and there is no call from anyone in the FAA or NTSB to change them.
As part of the wind back the crazy prescriptive requirements were put in.
Once again I say- copy the best. That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all. Open up your mind a bit. Then you could do really well.
They work superbly and there is no call from anyone in the FAA or NTSB to change them.
As part of the wind back the crazy prescriptive requirements were put in.
Once again I say- copy the best. That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all. Open up your mind a bit. Then you could do really well.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again I say- copy the best. That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all. Open up your mind a bit. Then you could do really well.
First rule of debate is to focus on the argument, not play the man.
Kaz
Back from my lawn bowls. Great game, got a few strikes so I'm pretty happy about that.
I'm "with you" in "the best" airspace now.
Oooh BUUUUUURRRRRN Bloggsy!! Take that!!
But then again, we fly planes better than a shyte-ation for a living, in the current airspace, every day. AND we have ADSB. Seem to do alright don't we?
In all seriousness what is with that "I have a citation and you don't have a plane at all" comment? It really appears to be like you actually look down upon people thinking you are superior, elite, "the best", and subsequently thumb your nose at those who you perceive to be below.
Kaz noticed, I think.
I'm "with you" in "the best" airspace now.
it's the only reason I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all.
But then again, we fly planes better than a shyte-ation for a living, in the current airspace, every day. AND we have ADSB. Seem to do alright don't we?
In all seriousness what is with that "I have a citation and you don't have a plane at all" comment? It really appears to be like you actually look down upon people thinking you are superior, elite, "the best", and subsequently thumb your nose at those who you perceive to be below.
Kaz noticed, I think.
Last edited by Car RAMROD; 3rd Apr 2016 at 13:57.
Dick wrote here:
"That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason that I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all."
I reckon that's simply appalling, arrogant bullying behaviour!
Dick, It is why as a "National Treasure", (as he apparently is to some on the Macquarie radio networks), I now have very limited respect for him.
Dick, Please answer the questions that some of the contributors post here.
For some of them are rather good tests of your logic and credibility.
"That's what I have always done Bloggs and it's the only reason that I have a Citation and you don't have an aircraft at all."
I reckon that's simply appalling, arrogant bullying behaviour!
Dick, It is why as a "National Treasure", (as he apparently is to some on the Macquarie radio networks), I now have very limited respect for him.
Dick, Please answer the questions that some of the contributors post here.
For some of them are rather good tests of your logic and credibility.
Last edited by gerry111; 4th Apr 2016 at 04:20. Reason: Typo
Moderator
But rarely has this happened on this site because those who don't have a genuine confidence in their views to be open and post under their real name or give me a phone call are pathetic creatures in my view.
To most, they have no choice but to post anonymously or not participate in PPRuNe.
Thread Starter
Good point Tail Wheel. However what is disappointing to me is that a number of posters on this site have strong views on the NAS reforms and they say they are retired.
I get the view that some of them remain anonymous because they have some type of vested interest in stopping the change to a safer system.
There of course Is no requirement on this site to always be anonymous
Re the Citation. Just stating the obvious- if you constantly ask advice and copy the best you can do pretty well. If you don't do this the opposite happens . It's pointed out with delight on this site how I can't spell. That's OK as it's the truth.
Gerry. I thought I had answered all the questions. If you can remind me of those that I have missed I will answer them promptly.
Car ramrod. No don't look down. Just pointing out to Bloggs that there are advantages in asking advice and copying the best from anywhere. What other evidence can I provide.
I get the view that some of them remain anonymous because they have some type of vested interest in stopping the change to a safer system.
There of course Is no requirement on this site to always be anonymous
Re the Citation. Just stating the obvious- if you constantly ask advice and copy the best you can do pretty well. If you don't do this the opposite happens . It's pointed out with delight on this site how I can't spell. That's OK as it's the truth.
Gerry. I thought I had answered all the questions. If you can remind me of those that I have missed I will answer them promptly.
Car ramrod. No don't look down. Just pointing out to Bloggs that there are advantages in asking advice and copying the best from anywhere. What other evidence can I provide.
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.
I thought I had answered all the questions. If you can remind me of those that I have missed I will answer them promptly.
I don't have a Citation either, I'm afraid. When I was starting out in this game, I realised that the pilots I most admired, the ones I considered the greatest, be they civilian or military, all seemed to have convinced someone else to pay them to fly machinery that was much more interesting and/or capable than a Citation. That's right, these great pilots were being paid good money to fly good aircraft that they never had to buy with their own hard-earned cash! So I thought to myself, "Why not copy the best?" 
(The only problem with everyone always just "copying the best", of course, is that nothing will ever get any better. If that's all anyone had ever aspired to, I guess we'd all still be driving Stanley Steamers, watching black & white telly, and travelling on Handley Page H.P.42s. I suspect that there was a bit more to your success than mere copying, Dick, and that you're selling yourself short.)
(The only problem with everyone always just "copying the best", of course, is that nothing will ever get any better. If that's all anyone had ever aspired to, I guess we'd all still be driving Stanley Steamers, watching black & white telly, and travelling on Handley Page H.P.42s. I suspect that there was a bit more to your success than mere copying, Dick, and that you're selling yourself short.)
Thread Starter
Leady. If I said I don't know I would no doubt be committing an offence.
In fact I have lost track on what is mandatory and what is not. No real difference to a competent pilot who would give the calls that were prudent.
So what are you getting at?
The FAA NAS lists recommended calls and that's what the cabinet approved NAS document stated.
Bloggs. It works superbly in the USA with thirty times the traffic levels. Why shouldn't it work here.
In fact I have lost track on what is mandatory and what is not. No real difference to a competent pilot who would give the calls that were prudent.
So what are you getting at?
The FAA NAS lists recommended calls and that's what the cabinet approved NAS document stated.
Bloggs. It works superbly in the USA with thirty times the traffic levels. Why shouldn't it work here.
Champagne comedy! 
. (I mean: comic opera).
You're going to kill them in the Federal Court.
. (I mean: comic opera).You're going to kill them in the Federal Court.
Thread Starter
Itsnot. All good logic. As well as copying the best you can always add a few new ideas.
But most of what I have done in life has a basis of asking advice and then deciding which is most likely to be the correct advice.
In the case of aviation safety. I would not be that keen to experiment with people's lives when all around the world there's lots of evidence of what can be done with high levels of safety and the lowest cost.
But most of what I have done in life has a basis of asking advice and then deciding which is most likely to be the correct advice.
In the case of aviation safety. I would not be that keen to experiment with people's lives when all around the world there's lots of evidence of what can be done with high levels of safety and the lowest cost.
Dick you do realise that most long haul jets flying over the GAFA use CPDLC for their comms with ATC? So your hysterics over radio transmissions being blocked by VFR aircraft is just more hyperbole for the masses.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agrajag,
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.
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 LeadSled, you & I must have been flying in parallel universes.
Highly disciplined? It's like listening in on a CB radio club. How disciplined is, "Center, United XXX, checkin' in three-fahv-oh, smooth."
How about controllers instructing us to "Maintain F200" when we're cruising at F390 and what he really means is "Descend F200." Does he think we're already there? Should we check? Wouldn't it be easier if he just said the right thing in the first place? And why is this a practice at one busy international airport, but not another?
Why do they talk at a million miles an hour, to airlines whose first language is not English, using local colloquialisms? And then get snarky when asked to say it again?
Why do they vector us onto parallel approaches with slower aircraft, then scream blue murder when we go around because of a TCAS RA which we are required to follow? And when our company contacts them to explain how they're setting us up for this situation, why do they keep doing it?
Sorry again, but this is not a model I believe we should emulate.
I'm convinced that the biggest problem we have with comms in Australia is that we have rules, but people can't be arsed to find out what they are and then comply. So we have needless calls to the wrong recipient, or pilots copying what they heard someone else say, because they think it sounded cool.
Perhaps the list of Oz comms procedures is a good thing, because at least it can be used as a reference. It's available to anyone who takes the trouble to find out. Surely that's part of being able to share the airspace responsibly, and is not too much to ask.
Thread Starter
Lookleft. What about the 100s of strips that are below the J curve and under terminal airspace?
I am not sure why you are defending this half wound back system.
Commonsense alone shows it is not sensible to have VFR aircraft making self announcements on ATC frequencies.
I am amazed that Professional ATCs don't object to this. They would in other countries.
I am not sure why you are defending this half wound back system.
Commonsense alone shows it is not sensible to have VFR aircraft making self announcements on ATC frequencies.
I am amazed that Professional ATCs don't object to this. They would in other countries.
The problem in Australia is the rules are perpetually changing. MTAF to MBZ to CTAF-R to CTAF to multicom in say 20 years is just one example. Then combine that with poorly worded documentation multiple levels of law and thats why there is so much confusion. I fly professionally and I struggle to actually keep tabs on what the procedures are.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
If you're as good as you claim at listening, and taking advice from qualified others, then why do you keep ignoring all evidence to the contrary on this and many other topics?
Dammit, I wasn't going to get fired up again about this nonsense. I think I will go and lie down now...
Lookleft. What about the 100s of strips that are below the J curve and under terminal airspace?