Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
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.
Again, you'd better get this right before you lob into the Federal Court.
And why is it that those calls represent an unacceptable "block out" risk, but making a request for flight following doesn't?
Why wouldn't you? Could be an aircraft about to land coming out of the sun. It's happened.
Nonetheless, as a matter of good practice I will make 1 (one) call on Area, after listening to make sure I'm not about to blab while others are already communicating: "ABC is rolling at X for Y at Q altitude." I'm yet to block out a single call on Area doing that.
I've over-transmitted, and have been over-transmitted, many, many times in controlled airspace, however, amazingly (actually not...) there are procedures and safeguards to deal with that fact of every day life.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 6th Apr 2016 at 05:34.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
And how many times in a given flight do we actually cross a frequency boundary, and have to switch? It's certainly not "constantly", at GA aircraft speeds.
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.
Dick, I believe you have a lot to offer Australian aviation. Your passion and good intentions are unchallenged, and we need a voice the uninformed masses will heed. But, in order to have any credibility here, I think you need to separate your own personal opinions from verifiable facts. And maybe listen to the many whose experience is different to your own.
So what's the solution then Dick? All VFR aircraft flogging around on 126.7 unless they're required to be on another frequency? Genuine question.
In your system, what are the recommended calls, on what frequency, when operating in the vicinity of the unmarked airstrip at my property located equidistant from Deniliquin (CTAF 119.0), Tocomwal (CTAF 125.5) and Echuca (CTAF 119.1)?
Thread Starter
Re VFR en route monitoring. I think I would just follow the system used in by far the most successful GA country in the world .
But I am not going to describe it here because you will claim such a system is impossible .
Just as when you go driving on the weekend you are not forced to monitor the Truckies channel it's the same for flying VFR in the USA .
But I suggest you find the details yourselves.
But I am not going to describe it here because you will claim such a system is impossible .
Just as when you go driving on the weekend you are not forced to monitor the Truckies channel it's the same for flying VFR in the USA .
But I suggest you find the details yourselves.
You can't be serious.
Re VFR en route monitoring. I think I would just follow the system used in by far the most successful GA country in the world .
But I am not going to describe it here because you will claim such a system is impossible .
But I am not going to describe it here because you will claim such a system is impossible .
I asked a genuine question because I would truly like to know and understand the system you propose, not because I want to say it's impossible. As an international airline pilot, currently working for an overseas airline, I haven't flown VFR in Australia for many years. Nevertheless, I am very interested in the subject and would have appreciated a genuine answer.
Thread Starter
It's in the NAS educational material. If in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor the CTAF of that aerodrome otherwise monitor 121.5 or the nearest ATC outlet if you are obsessed with the old system
However in the USA there is not even a radio requirement for VFR in E or G as they are ICAO compliant. Their regs say monitor 121.5 if radio equipped.
However in the USA there is not even a radio requirement for VFR in E or G as they are ICAO compliant. Their regs say monitor 121.5 if radio equipped.
Dick, if a ctaf call is being made on area because the airfield is not marked on the map, doesn't it translate that you'll spend effectively zero time heads down looking at a map/iPad for this unmarked strip?
Look out the window, like your meant to when Vfr. Your "alerted" now, so see and avoid!
Look out the window, like your meant to when Vfr. Your "alerted" now, so see and avoid!
Thread Starter
Arm. No you don't "chat". You monitor and see if you can assist if there is an emergency call. You also advice someone if you hear an ELT signal.
If you have an emergency you use this frequency. Most likely to be instantly answered by a high flying airline.
If you have an emergency you use this frequency. Most likely to be instantly answered by a high flying airline.
Arm. No you don't "chat". You monitor and see if you can assist if there is an emergency call. You also advice someone if you hear an ELT signal.
If you have an emergency you use this frequency. Most likely to be instantly answered by a high flying airline.
If you have an emergency you use this frequency. Most likely to be instantly answered by a high flying airline.
If in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome monitor the CTAF of that aerodrome otherwise monitor 121.5 ....
And it makes sense to me.
What frequency should be used/monitored when operating at or in the vicinity of an unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strip in ForG? I'm assuming 126.7. (Serious question.)
Dick,
Thanks for your reply to my previous question. According to the original NAS proposal, the radio requirements for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace were:
I understand your objection to CASA’s current requirement for aircraft to broadcast on the Area frequency while operating at unmarked airfields. To be honest, I haven’t found it to be a problem while flying across Australia at high altitude in my RPT jet. Crossed transmissions occur on ATC frequencies regardless of CASA’s broadcast requirements, but in my experience they are managed quite well and without incident.
My understanding is that CASA is concerned that pilots using the Area frequency will not hear broadcasts from aircraft at unmarked airfields, if those broadcasts are made on the Multicom frequency. Is that concern not valid? How is that risk mitigated in the US system?
Thanks for your reply to my previous question. According to the original NAS proposal, the radio requirements for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace were:
- If in airspace normally used by arriving or departing CTAF traffic, monitor/communicate on the CTAF frequency.
- If in airspace normally used by arriving and departing aircraft to a Class D tower, monitor/communicate on the tower frequency.
- Otherwise monitor the relevant ATC/FIS or monitor 121.5 MHz.
I understand your objection to CASA’s current requirement for aircraft to broadcast on the Area frequency while operating at unmarked airfields. To be honest, I haven’t found it to be a problem while flying across Australia at high altitude in my RPT jet. Crossed transmissions occur on ATC frequencies regardless of CASA’s broadcast requirements, but in my experience they are managed quite well and without incident.
My understanding is that CASA is concerned that pilots using the Area frequency will not hear broadcasts from aircraft at unmarked airfields, if those broadcasts are made on the Multicom frequency. Is that concern not valid? How is that risk mitigated in the US system?
Thread Starter
Lead balloon. Yes the multicom, 126.7
Buzz. You have not found it a problem because in some areas you are on a completely different frequency at flight levels and more importantly the CASA requirement is rejected by the vast majority of pilots .
In the US the only requirement for VFR radio equipped aircraft when flying en route is to monitor 121.5. This is primarily for interception reasons after Sept 11 - but it's great if you have an emergency like an engine failure because a call on this frequency will be monitored by high flying aircraft even if you are at 500' in a valley.
They clearly don't have VFR aircraft flying en route involved in mid airs with aircraft in the circuit area of CTAFs so there is no known safety problem to be addressed . And they have about 30 times the number of aircraft in approximately the same land area.
I suppose commonsense says a pilot doesn't fly through a circuit area of a marked strip. If the strip is not marked it must happen from time to time but has obviously not resulted in a mid air that would get the FAA looking at changing the system.
It's all about perceived risk compared to actual risk. We work on perceived risk.
Buzz. You have not found it a problem because in some areas you are on a completely different frequency at flight levels and more importantly the CASA requirement is rejected by the vast majority of pilots .
In the US the only requirement for VFR radio equipped aircraft when flying en route is to monitor 121.5. This is primarily for interception reasons after Sept 11 - but it's great if you have an emergency like an engine failure because a call on this frequency will be monitored by high flying aircraft even if you are at 500' in a valley.
They clearly don't have VFR aircraft flying en route involved in mid airs with aircraft in the circuit area of CTAFs so there is no known safety problem to be addressed . And they have about 30 times the number of aircraft in approximately the same land area.
I suppose commonsense says a pilot doesn't fly through a circuit area of a marked strip. If the strip is not marked it must happen from time to time but has obviously not resulted in a mid air that would get the FAA looking at changing the system.
It's all about perceived risk compared to actual risk. We work on perceived risk.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Apr 2016 at 01:18.
Thanks Dick. May I respectfully suggest that if the vast majority of pilots have rejected CASA's edict, then they are part of the problem? You would have a much stronger safety case for changing CASA's direction if pilots complied with the direction and it subsequently causes problems on ATC frequencies. At the moment, your case is based on little more than speculation.
Thread Starter
No not speculation. Facts. Don't forget every RAPAC has come out against this CASA decision which I understand was made by ex military people who joined CASA, brought in the change, and then promptly left when the xxxx hit the fan.
And the military " code " seems to be to never admit the organisation can make a mistake
Hence Mr Skidmores email stating he does not want to be associated with AOPA in any way.
That's a strong message to CASA staff that the military code of allegiance will be maintained no matter how many errors are made by individuals.
In effect. They will not be held accountable for making errors as long as the protect the code and the group think .
And the military " code " seems to be to never admit the organisation can make a mistake
Hence Mr Skidmores email stating he does not want to be associated with AOPA in any way.
That's a strong message to CASA staff that the military code of allegiance will be maintained no matter how many errors are made by individuals.
In effect. They will not be held accountable for making errors as long as the protect the code and the group think .
Ok, but upon what "facts" have the RAPACs based their opposition? Why is their opinion any more valid than CASA's?
You have argued that CASA does not have the power to make a direction about the use of Area VHF at unmarked aerodromes. That argument is based, in part, upon opposition from the RAPACs. If CASA has an obligation to prove that there is a safety case to justify its actions, then surely the RAPACs have an obligation to justify their opposition, or is it a one way street?
Could we please leave the military out of this discussion? With respect, that kind of opprobrium does nothing to bolster your argument.
You have argued that CASA does not have the power to make a direction about the use of Area VHF at unmarked aerodromes. That argument is based, in part, upon opposition from the RAPACs. If CASA has an obligation to prove that there is a safety case to justify its actions, then surely the RAPACs have an obligation to justify their opposition, or is it a one way street?
Could we please leave the military out of this discussion? With respect, that kind of opprobrium does nothing to bolster your argument.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 7th Apr 2016 at 02:31.