Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
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.
This may be because Dick spends most of his life in "transmit" rather than "receive". (But that's just speculation on my part.)
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
And they have about 30 times the number of aircraft in approximately the same land area.
Thread Starter
Lead. You have the classic Bloggs belief that only if it's mandated do pilots act responsibly.
In the USA there is no mandatory radio requirement for VFR in E or G airspace ..nor any mandatory CTAF calls.
That doesn't mean pilots don't have radio and don't give the necessary calls.
In Australia I reckon most pilots give a taxiing and inbound call on 126.7 where they think it is prudent to do so.
In the USA there is no mandatory radio requirement for VFR in E or G airspace ..nor any mandatory CTAF calls.
That doesn't mean pilots don't have radio and don't give the necessary calls.
In Australia I reckon most pilots give a taxiing and inbound call on 126.7 where they think it is prudent to do so.
Lead. You have the classic Bloggs belief that only if it's mandated do pilots act responsibly.
In Australia I reckon most pilots give a taxiing and inbound call on 126.7 where they think it is prudent to do so.
But you are demonstrably wrong if you are suggesting those calls are being made on 126.7 by aircraft taxiing at or inbound to unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips in the 'J curve' or cattle stations in the middle of nowhere.
However, let's assume you are right and I am wrong.
If you are correct, it inexorably follows that there is no risk of these aircraft overtransmitting ATC instructions, and your scaremongering campaign about the 'CASA direction' is, at best, misguided.
Thread Starter
Buzz box. You say to leave the military out of it however that's not reasonable.
It appears this decision is totally linked to ex military people at CASA.
If not why doesn't Mr Skidmore say this? That's what most CEOs would do- that is correct misleading information.
It's interesting that Sir Angus Houston was part of the group which made the unanimous recommendation to the Minister to go with NAS but has more recently claimed that he supported NAS because it was Government policy and left out his original involvement.
This thread is about the CASA CTAF policy of communicating on Air Traffic Control area frequencies at non map marked airports. This must effect Airservices as it has VFR aircraft who are not paying for any service potentially loading the frequencies.
Why doesn't Sir Angus say anything about this? He must know that this is not NAS compliant. Has he changed his mind about NAS? If so why doesn't he say so?
More importantly it's clear that ex RAAF Mark Skidmore has no stated policy or belief about where CASA is going with airspace . It's clear they want to move away from the North Amerian system however where to? No one knows. No leadership.
It appears this decision is totally linked to ex military people at CASA.
If not why doesn't Mr Skidmore say this? That's what most CEOs would do- that is correct misleading information.
It's interesting that Sir Angus Houston was part of the group which made the unanimous recommendation to the Minister to go with NAS but has more recently claimed that he supported NAS because it was Government policy and left out his original involvement.
This thread is about the CASA CTAF policy of communicating on Air Traffic Control area frequencies at non map marked airports. This must effect Airservices as it has VFR aircraft who are not paying for any service potentially loading the frequencies.
Why doesn't Sir Angus say anything about this? He must know that this is not NAS compliant. Has he changed his mind about NAS? If so why doesn't he say so?
More importantly it's clear that ex RAAF Mark Skidmore has no stated policy or belief about where CASA is going with airspace . It's clear they want to move away from the North Amerian system however where to? No one knows. No leadership.
Thread Starter
Leady. It's an incredibly stupid policy. If you are correct and virtually no one gives a call at non marked airports then there is no need for the CASA notam and AIP change.
What's the use of getting everyone to change to the air traffic control area frequency at these airports if no calls are mandated or given in reality?
What safety issue were these people addressing ? Why get all the RAPACs offside and articles in The Australian to embarrass the Minister? Totally incompetent people- no wonder they left CASA.
And the military code at CASA appears to be to never admit an error so I presume my court case will cost a fortune .
What's the use of getting everyone to change to the air traffic control area frequency at these airports if no calls are mandated or given in reality?
What safety issue were these people addressing ? Why get all the RAPACs offside and articles in The Australian to embarrass the Minister? Totally incompetent people- no wonder they left CASA.
And the military code at CASA appears to be to never admit an error so I presume my court case will cost a fortune .
Originally Posted by Dick
You have the classic Bloggs belief that only if it's mandated do pilots act responsibly.
Originally Posted by Dick
What's the use of getting everyone to change to the air traffic control area frequency at these airports if no calls are mandated
What's the use of getting everyone to change to the air traffic control area frequency at these airports if no calls are mandated or given in reality?
You're going to have to prove it was a "change" as part of your Federal Court action. Good luck with that.
I didn't say no calls are given in reality. I did say they are few and far between.
All those strips you see in the Southern Highlands aren't Bankstown. They are on private properties used by the occupiers maybe once a month. One rolling call and that's it, if anything. There is no inbound call because no one other than the occupier is taxiing or doing circuits at an unmarked strip on private property. Get it?
I know it. I do lots of flying in that area monitoring Area and 126.7. For the last time: I can't remember hearing any call on either either Area or 126.7 from an aircraft operating in or out of or around one of these private strips, and they don't have to have radio in the first place. That's not to say that no broadcasts on Area or 126.7 ever happen. It's just to say that my observations are based on the reality of the tiny number of movements at these places rather than the fantasy that suits your scaremongering.
But go forth and get it changed so that the 'default low level area frequency' for VFRs is 126.7. Doesn't bother me.
Let's hope the education and implementation aren't the usual amateur circus.
Thread Starter
Some may have forgotten but before the 1991 AMATS changes CTAFs did not exist. All calls at non tower airports were on the area frequency or AFIS frequency and monitored by Flight Service.
That's what the incompetents at CASA are trying to go back to. They have already put in an AFIS at Port Hedland and the next thing will be to bring back full position reporting for VFR.
Remember many in management their have no idea that cost is important for GA. Their regulatory reform programme has gone from my direction as CAA Chairman of " remove every uneccessary cost- copy the lowest cost from around the world that gives the affordable level of safety" to " make the regs gold plated without reference to cost".
The CASA imposed ADSB requirement for every IFR aircraft will substantially reduce safety as more owners take their aircraft out of the IFR category and are forced to scud run or stay on the ground. Those that can afford the $10,000 to $ 49,000 to fit ADSB will in many cases do less flying or less frequently update their aircraft further effecting the industry.
No other country in the world has such expensive ADSB reqirements and it's not addressing any known safety problem. The CASA RIS states it will cost GA over $30 million and they won't budge on the decision as the code within the organisation is never to admit to an error.
Fortunately the extra costs don't effect me at all - but I feel for others.
That's what the incompetents at CASA are trying to go back to. They have already put in an AFIS at Port Hedland and the next thing will be to bring back full position reporting for VFR.
Remember many in management their have no idea that cost is important for GA. Their regulatory reform programme has gone from my direction as CAA Chairman of " remove every uneccessary cost- copy the lowest cost from around the world that gives the affordable level of safety" to " make the regs gold plated without reference to cost".
The CASA imposed ADSB requirement for every IFR aircraft will substantially reduce safety as more owners take their aircraft out of the IFR category and are forced to scud run or stay on the ground. Those that can afford the $10,000 to $ 49,000 to fit ADSB will in many cases do less flying or less frequently update their aircraft further effecting the industry.
No other country in the world has such expensive ADSB reqirements and it's not addressing any known safety problem. The CASA RIS states it will cost GA over $30 million and they won't budge on the decision as the code within the organisation is never to admit to an error.
Fortunately the extra costs don't effect me at all - but I feel for others.
Thread Starter
Buzz you are a blatant liar. No wonder you hide your name. I have never ever considered that rules did not apply to me. I have always complied with the rules even though I have campaigned to change many including that one.
If such a situation had ever happened it would be on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald the next morning.
Because of the RAAF requirement that a clearance request to fly in the airspace must first be with a phone call I purchased one of the first 007 Telstra phones and would call from the helicopter.
My suggestion is you correct your statement in relation to the claim that I believed that rules did not apply to me or you will have the same action as Caroline Tulip.
If such a situation had ever happened it would be on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald the next morning.
Because of the RAAF requirement that a clearance request to fly in the airspace must first be with a phone call I purchased one of the first 007 Telstra phones and would call from the helicopter.
My suggestion is you correct your statement in relation to the claim that I believed that rules did not apply to me or you will have the same action as Caroline Tulip.
Smart move, Buzz.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 7th Apr 2016 at 11:58.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humm,
I have not participated in this thread though I have very much enjoyed reading all the comments.
Well done all.
Somehow, after that little exchange, the oxygen seems to have gone out of the air...
I have not participated in this thread though I have very much enjoyed reading all the comments.
Well done all.
Somehow, after that little exchange, the oxygen seems to have gone out of the air...
Re "Are all FIA frequencies ATC frequencies? Leaving that question aside ..."
For 'Flight Information Areas', the answer would be YES!
FIA = (Designated) Flight Information Area = talking to Airservices to gain information = ATC these days....n'est ce pas??
(There MAY be 1 or 2 'Flightwatch' VHF freqs left lurking somewhere in this 'wide brown land'....but if so, they would be very few and far between.....
No??
You can tell me that I'm wrong again....I don't mind - its been a while.....
Cheerrrssss
For 'Flight Information Areas', the answer would be YES!
FIA = (Designated) Flight Information Area = talking to Airservices to gain information = ATC these days....n'est ce pas??
(There MAY be 1 or 2 'Flightwatch' VHF freqs left lurking somewhere in this 'wide brown land'....but if so, they would be very few and far between.....
No??
You can tell me that I'm wrong again....I don't mind - its been a while.....
Cheerrrssss
They have already put in an AFIS at Port Hedland and the next thing will be to bring back full position reporting for VFR.
Karratha was AFIS before it went to D about 5ish years ago. In both cases it was to get the controllers up to speed on local areas and what goes on before beginning controlling ops.
The CASA imposed ADSB requirement for every IFR aircraft will substantially reduce safety as more owners take their aircraft out of the IFR category and are forced to scud run or stay on the ground.
Oh and thanks for not exactly answering my last post. Just to remind you, why would you be looking for an unmarked place on a map because you heard a random ctaf call on area? It is unmarked, afterall!
[W]hy would you be looking for an unmarked place on a map because you heard a random ctaf call on area? It is unmarked, afterall!
"Cessna 210 ABC rolling at a strip 20 miles West of Tocumwal, for Griffith 9,500'"
Just common sense. I'm sure you will agree.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 8th Apr 2016 at 22:20. Reason: Typo
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
That's what the incompetents at CASA are trying to go back to. They have already put in an AFIS at Port Hedland and the next thing will be to bring back full position reporting for VFR.
To insinuate that CASA is rolling back because they put in an AFIS at YPPD just shows us all that you seem to be pushing your agenda come hell or high water. Your sustained attacks on just about everybody and everything in the industry really does your cause no good at all.
