Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
Dick, you are arguing against radio usage rules you don't understand, which is why you keep using scaremongering scenarios that don't exist.
All those pilots in aircraft at all those little unmarked strips on the 'J' curve and mustering cattle in the outback who would cause aluminium confetti aren't blabbing on the Area frequency.
They are not blabbing on the Area frequency for a reason.
The reason is not because they've decided to 'defy' the 'CASA ruling'.
It's because they don't have to blab on any frequency.
There are no mandatory calls at unmarked, unregistered, unlicensed strips in G.
The cattle musterers at Upper Bollogworlldarga are monitoring Area and blabbing on their own chat frequency, confident in the knowledge that they are the only aircraft at 500' within 500 nautical miles.
The aircraft departing an unmarked strip in the Southern Highlands of NSW might, if radio equipped, make a "rolling at / for" call, on Area. However, they are few and far between. And they still get a choice.
CASA is going to make you look very silly.
(BTW - I agree with the point that RPT Ops into places like Ballina in ForG make a complete nonsense out of any comparative risk-based objection to E.)
All those pilots in aircraft at all those little unmarked strips on the 'J' curve and mustering cattle in the outback who would cause aluminium confetti aren't blabbing on the Area frequency.
They are not blabbing on the Area frequency for a reason.
The reason is not because they've decided to 'defy' the 'CASA ruling'.
It's because they don't have to blab on any frequency.
There are no mandatory calls at unmarked, unregistered, unlicensed strips in G.
The cattle musterers at Upper Bollogworlldarga are monitoring Area and blabbing on their own chat frequency, confident in the knowledge that they are the only aircraft at 500' within 500 nautical miles.
The aircraft departing an unmarked strip in the Southern Highlands of NSW might, if radio equipped, make a "rolling at / for" call, on Area. However, they are few and far between. And they still get a choice.
CASA is going to make you look very silly.
(BTW - I agree with the point that RPT Ops into places like Ballina in ForG make a complete nonsense out of any comparative risk-based objection to E.)
Thread Starter
Are you suggesting that pilots in Australia only do what's mandatory?
Are you suggesting it's good airmanship not to give any radio calls at aerodromes that are not marked on maps?
Surely not. Or am I having a misunderstanding? Isn't there a requirement for VFR to monitor and announce if in potential conflict when en route in G?
What would be the purpose of CASA sending out the Notam covering CTAF frequencies at non marked aerodromes if no one gives any calls!
And do you mean that you support E terminal airspace for Ballina?
Are you suggesting it's good airmanship not to give any radio calls at aerodromes that are not marked on maps?
Surely not. Or am I having a misunderstanding? Isn't there a requirement for VFR to monitor and announce if in potential conflict when en route in G?
What would be the purpose of CASA sending out the Notam covering CTAF frequencies at non marked aerodromes if no one gives any calls!
And do you mean that you support E terminal airspace for Ballina?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no mandatory calls at unmarked, unregistered, unlicensed strips in G.
Are you suggesting that pilots in Australia only do what's mandatory?
Are you suggesting it's good airmanship not to give any radio calls at aerodromes that are not marked on maps?
And you do, of course, realise that it's not 'bad' airmanship to operate at these places with no radio at all? If it's OK to operate at these places with no radio at all, it's OK to operate at these places and not make broadcasts just for the sake of hearing one's own voice on the radio.
Surely not.
Or am I having a misunderstanding?
Isn't there a requirement for VFR to monitor and announce if in potential conflict when en route in G?
You are going to need to be across the detail of this stuff when you get in front of the Federal Court.
What would be the purpose of CASA sending out the Notam covering CTAF frequencies at non marked aerodromes if no one gives any calls!
I have an unmarked airstrip on my property that is equidistant from Deniliquin (CTAF 119.0), Tocomwal (CTAF 125.5) and Echuca (CTAF 119.1). Nobody's doing circuits at my place. There is no point in me blabbing away to myself on 126.7 when operating in and out of there. There is no point my broadcasting on any frequency other than Area, and the only useful broadcast is that I'm rolling at X for Y at specified altitude. Job done, other than keeping an eye out for no radio aircraft and listening out on Area.
Same for an unmarked strip in the Southern Highlands.
Cattlemustering pilots in the outback aren't going to be blabbing to each other on the Area frequency, and are perfectly capable of getting themselves in and out of the unmarked strip on a property in the middle of nowhere without making half a dozen calls on the Area frequency.
And do you mean that you support E terminal airspace for Ballina?
PS for Andrew: Risk mitigation is not just about talking; it's also about listening.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 4th Apr 2016 at 07:36.
CAR Subregulation 166C (2) states that when "operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non‑controlled aerodrome...the pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft..."
Ergo, if there is no risk of a collision there is no mandatory requirement for a call. I'd suggest that covers the majority of VFR operations at unmarked airfields and I would also suggest that the majority of pilots conducting those operations don't bother broadcasting unless it becomes necessary due to other traffic.
Frankly, this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion and has far more to do with political grandstanding than safety.
Ergo, if there is no risk of a collision there is no mandatory requirement for a call. I'd suggest that covers the majority of VFR operations at unmarked airfields and I would also suggest that the majority of pilots conducting those operations don't bother broadcasting unless it becomes necessary due to other traffic.
Frankly, this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion and has far more to do with political grandstanding than safety.
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?
That is one of the three descent clearances that have a very specific meaning, if you had been up with the very brief US differences to ICAO.
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?
I have operated "heavies" for three different airlines in US airspace, all three has an SOP that said you deselect RA mode in TCASA II, in terminal areas, because you will likely get successive RAs., particularly with US or European traffic levels.
I am not surprised SoCal or NorCal TRACON were a trifle pissed, if it was the West Coast.
It was also the equipment manufacturer's recommendation, Boeing's recommendations, and there is a piece in the AIM on the subject.
So, you were the only soldier in the battalion in step. I would suggest it is your airline's SOPs that should be questioned.
Quite a while ago, some "expert" at ATSB organised a NOTAM requiring all VH- TCAS equipped aircraft to file an incident report every time there was TA, not just RA. We tried to explain that was crazy, but in the usual Australian fashion, why take any notice of anybody (including airlines, not just individual pilots) who actually knows what they are talking about.
So, we decided that the only answer was 100% compliance, and ATSB were swamped with incident reports --- I personally filed seven (7) in one 45 minute flight, EGCC to EGLL, four (4) of which were for every circuit of the hold at Bovingdon - just a normal day. After a couple of weeks, and hundreds of reports, ATSB cancelled the NOTAM.
As I said in a previous post, the difference is between "communicating" and stilted, inflexible and pedantic Australian "radio procedures", far in excess of the ICAO recommendations. Where, beyond the very formal requirements around clearances and read-backs, and a few other specific requirements, ICAO or FAA (or most place else) you are expected to "communicate" in plain language, ICAO English Level 6, not go searching for a "standard" phrase to fit the bill.
Every time we had a new pilot, whose only experience was in Australia, outside Australia, and not only in the US, it was a steep learning curve, and the hardest lesson to learn was that you should dispense with the view that "CASA will provide" a standard and obligatory phrase for every situation.
It was and is a parallel universe to the Australian approach, I am glad I only ever had to spend limited time in Australian FIRs. Flying up and down the east coast of Australia, with the occasional side trip to Adelaide or Perth would have driven me, and most of my colleagues, around the twist.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Apr 2016 at 08:31.
I agree with the point made by BuzzBox.
The facts set out in LeadSled's post are just that: Facts.
Someone very close to me flies heavies for a very large foreign carrier, and his experiences and comments are the same as LeadSled's.
The facts set out in LeadSled's post are just that: Facts.
Someone very close to me flies heavies for a very large foreign carrier, and his experiences and comments are the same as LeadSled's.
Musta been a different Leddie Sleddie that was revving us about non-compliant ICAO RT a while ago...
That'd be Doc 9432 Manual of Radio Telephony of 102 pages, would it?
Hey Leddie, could you please explain the phrase "fully ready" used by a large international airline just in the last few weeks (and more than once)? Thanks!
I suppose if nobody says anything, nobody knows anybody is there, so there's no risk of a collision, until of course the windscreen fills, then you'd better be the first to transmit. I suggest you lot look at AIP ENR 1.1 page 47.
And Leddie, please don't give us that claptrap about AIP not being worth the paper it is written on.
far in excess of the ICAO recommendations
Hey Leddie, could you please explain the phrase "fully ready" used by a large international airline just in the last few weeks (and more than once)? Thanks!
if there is no risk of a collision there is no mandatory requirement for a call
And Leddie, please don't give us that claptrap about AIP not being worth the paper it is written on.
"fully ready"
That is a dopy expression, that emanated from the same "source" as that equally dopy readback "XXXX coming down - callsign", as a read-back of a transponder code change. Such affectations grow within some carriers, nobody has ever suggested they are "appropriate", because both example do have standard meanings and read-backs, and are not a subject for ad-libbing.
Re. the Manual of Radio Telephony, most of that is how to do it, the consolidated list of standard phrases and meanings is (as I have previously said) mercifully short, one page in the Jepp. format.
At least, with the spread of datalinks, I no longer have to listen to the tortured non-standard (that is, not in accord with Annex X, Vol. 2) positions reports from VH- aircraft, conforming to said pedantic, inflexible, one-size-fits-all and non-ICAO compliant Australian "radio procedures".
Tootle pip!!
I suppose if nobody says anything, nobody knows anybody is there, so there's no risk of a collision, until of course the windscreen fills, then you'd better be the first to transmit. I suggest you lot look at AIP ENR 1.1 page 47.
I agree with your point, but the AIP only says that "good airmanship dictates that pilots of radio-equipped aircraft would also monitor the radio and broadcast their intentions in accordance with the minimum calls...". Nevertheless, such calls are not MANDATORY according to CAR166C, unless there is a risk of a collision.
I suppose if nobody says anything, nobody knows anybody is there, so there's no risk of a collision, until of course the windscreen fills ..
If you're assuming there's no risk of collision because nobody's said anything on the radio, you're flying in blissful ignorance. But I anticipate you were being deliberately silly to make a point.
BuzzBox is a breath of fresh air.
Originally Posted by Balloon
If you're assuming there's no risk of collision because nobody's said anything on the radio, you're flying in blissful ignorance. But I anticipate you were being deliberately silly to make a point.
So how else are you going to know about anybody until you spot him, and then what's the point of saying anything?
This part of the discussion is (or at least was) about Dick's scaremongering about ATC frequencies being choked up by broadcasts from all those aircraft buzzing around unmarked strips under the J curve and at cattle stations in the middle of nowhere.
I merely pointed out that there are no mandatory broadcast requirements imposed on pilots of aircraft operating at those places, even if they have VHF fitted.
In case you aren't being deliberately silly: If he doesn't have VHF, the only way you're going to know about him is to spot him and, if he doesn't VHF, there is, indeed, no point in saying anything. This outcome is permissible and the reality under the current rules at unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed airstrips in G (sorry: ForG).
I merely pointed out that there are no mandatory broadcast requirements imposed on pilots of aircraft operating at those places, even if they have VHF fitted.
So how else are you going to know about anybody until you spot him, and then what's the point of saying anything?
Thread Starter
I have never suggested that frequencies could be " choked up " by calls from VFR aircraft on ATC frequencies.
I have consistently said that just one self announcement on an ATC frequency normally used for separation of airline traffic could block out an important call. The chance is small but the results could be serious. That's why in other countries pilots would have licence action taken if they gave non directed VFR announcements on ATC frequencies. It's about professionalism compared to amateurism!
It's CASA that constantly refers to " choked up" or " overloading" when the real problem is just one call at the wrong time.
I have consistently said that just one self announcement on an ATC frequency normally used for separation of airline traffic could block out an important call. The chance is small but the results could be serious. That's why in other countries pilots would have licence action taken if they gave non directed VFR announcements on ATC frequencies. It's about professionalism compared to amateurism!
It's CASA that constantly refers to " choked up" or " overloading" when the real problem is just one call at the wrong time.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Apr 2016 at 02:50.
But you said that it was OK for these aircraft to contact ATC to request flight following.
How will the universe know that a call is to request flight following rather than to announce rolling at Bowral sheep paddock, and arrange the laws of physics so that the request for flight following can never 'block out an important call'?
On the issue of VFR calls on Area, you consistently overstate the risk. I'm guessing that's because you don't understand the rules for broadcasts in the vicinity of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips in ForG.
How will the universe know that a call is to request flight following rather than to announce rolling at Bowral sheep paddock, and arrange the laws of physics so that the request for flight following can never 'block out an important call'?
On the issue of VFR calls on Area, you consistently overstate the risk. I'm guessing that's because you don't understand the rules for broadcasts in the vicinity of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips in ForG.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agrajag,
That is one of the three descent clearances that have a very specific meaning, if you had been up with the very brief US differences to ICAO.
That is one of the three descent clearances that have a very specific meaning, if you had been up with the very brief US differences to ICAO.
Quote:
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?
Most interesting??
I have operated "heavies" for three different airlines in US airspace, all three has an SOP that said you deselect RA mode in TCASA II, in terminal areas, because you will likely get successive RAs., particularly with US or European traffic levels.
I am not surprised SoCal or NorCal TRACON were a trifle pissed, if it was the West Coast.
It was also the equipment manufacturer's recommendation, Boeing's recommendations, and there is a piece in the AIM on the subject.
So, you were the only soldier in the battalion in step. I would suggest it is your airline's SOPs that should be questioned.
I have operated "heavies" for three different airlines in US airspace, all three has an SOP that said you deselect RA mode in TCASA II, in terminal areas, because you will likely get successive RAs., particularly with US or European traffic levels.
I am not surprised SoCal or NorCal TRACON were a trifle pissed, if it was the West Coast.
It was also the equipment manufacturer's recommendation, Boeing's recommendations, and there is a piece in the AIM on the subject.
So, you were the only soldier in the battalion in step. I would suggest it is your airline's SOPs that should be questioned.
It's not good enough to say, "Oh, that often happens here, so just switch it off." The aircraft triggering the alert could be other than the one you already knew about, or the latter might have strayed into your path. Deselecting RA is akin to Zaphod's peril-sensitive glasses, which went instantly black to filter out anything that might scare him. [/HHGTTG]
To address briefly another point you made, it's not just Australians who have a problem over there. It's Asians, Brits, Europeans... in short, anyone who isn't going to each port on a regular basis. The list of local interpretations within the same country, and the short-tempered treatment of anyone who doesn't know them, is long and legendary.
Anyway, this is straying from the original topic, which was Dick's belief that VFR lighties on ATC frequencies present a deadly threat to the heavies, and thus we should copy what the Americans do. I still maintain that they don't, and we shouldn't.
Thread Starter
Balloon. Extraordinary ignorance and resistance to change.
The universe will know because the pilot will look on the map for the nearest VHF ATC outlet ( or get it from the " nearest " feature on the gps ) and then state " Melbourne Centre. Mike Apha Mike , request" . Melbourne Centre will tell the pilot to standby or go ahead with the request.
And I can't see how It's relevant whether the calls are mandatory or good safe practice.
If I am about to taxi and enter the runway on even a dirt strip I keep a good lookout and also give the recommended calls. Why wouldn't you? Could be an aircraft about to land coming out of the sun. It's happened.
The universe will know because the pilot will look on the map for the nearest VHF ATC outlet ( or get it from the " nearest " feature on the gps ) and then state " Melbourne Centre. Mike Apha Mike , request" . Melbourne Centre will tell the pilot to standby or go ahead with the request.
And I can't see how It's relevant whether the calls are mandatory or good safe practice.
If I am about to taxi and enter the runway on even a dirt strip I keep a good lookout and also give the recommended calls. Why wouldn't you? Could be an aircraft about to land coming out of the sun. It's happened.
Thread Starter
Agra. Surely you agree that our half wound back system makes VFR flying more complicated.
That is the most experienced pilots have the simplest system. IFR pilots just do what they are told by ATC- even when to change frequency .
But a VFR pilot flying en route has to constantly look down at the iPad and change frequency to the ATC sector. Then after hearing a pilot say " all traffic Windslow" has look down again and attempt to find out where that place is. Due to up to 13 frequencies on re transmit the location could be 400 miles away and not on the chart area being looked at.
This means less remaining vigilant to see other traffic.
See, I have actually flown across Australia testing out how the system works.
And it doesn't. It's a half wound back stuff up and must be fixed.
That is the most experienced pilots have the simplest system. IFR pilots just do what they are told by ATC- even when to change frequency .
But a VFR pilot flying en route has to constantly look down at the iPad and change frequency to the ATC sector. Then after hearing a pilot say " all traffic Windslow" has look down again and attempt to find out where that place is. Due to up to 13 frequencies on re transmit the location could be 400 miles away and not on the chart area being looked at.
This means less remaining vigilant to see other traffic.
See, I have actually flown across Australia testing out how the system works.
And it doesn't. It's a half wound back stuff up and must be fixed.