Comply with CASA Frequency and die!
Thread Starter
Comply with CASA Frequency and die!
A week or so ago I was flying from Lightning Ridge to Charleville at 8500'.
About 90 miles out I called on the CASA required ATC frequency of 124.8 to get an area WX and notam update from the Charleville outlet. No answer so I tried an all stations call. Still no answer. I then tried a check call call on 121.5 and two high flying aircraft immediately answered.
I then called the St George vhf outlet on 118.95 and received an immediate answer. When I queried the problem on 124.8 the Controllor told me that it was not possible to get through to the Charleville outlet from that area but ok to St George because the transmitter was closer.
That of course was the NAS system. The maps showed the location of the outlets- as per North America and advised to use the closest outlet if communication with ATC was required.
Our frequency boundaries are there for ATC workload purposes and clearly don't reflect the VHF coverage. This problem exists all across Australia and it's just another part of the stuff up that happens when you don't ask advice and copy proven systems. One day it could cause the loss of life as it gets far worse at lower flight levels.
Imagine if you were giving a Mayday call. If you followed the current CASA requirements it's most likely no one would receive the call.
If you followed the NAS recommendations of 2003 you would get through on the nearest vhf outlet or on 121.5
And notice how there is not one person at CASA who puts their name to the current half woundback airspace policy. Maybe no one actually believes it .
About 90 miles out I called on the CASA required ATC frequency of 124.8 to get an area WX and notam update from the Charleville outlet. No answer so I tried an all stations call. Still no answer. I then tried a check call call on 121.5 and two high flying aircraft immediately answered.
I then called the St George vhf outlet on 118.95 and received an immediate answer. When I queried the problem on 124.8 the Controllor told me that it was not possible to get through to the Charleville outlet from that area but ok to St George because the transmitter was closer.
That of course was the NAS system. The maps showed the location of the outlets- as per North America and advised to use the closest outlet if communication with ATC was required.
Our frequency boundaries are there for ATC workload purposes and clearly don't reflect the VHF coverage. This problem exists all across Australia and it's just another part of the stuff up that happens when you don't ask advice and copy proven systems. One day it could cause the loss of life as it gets far worse at lower flight levels.
Imagine if you were giving a Mayday call. If you followed the current CASA requirements it's most likely no one would receive the call.
If you followed the NAS recommendations of 2003 you would get through on the nearest vhf outlet or on 121.5
And notice how there is not one person at CASA who puts their name to the current half woundback airspace policy. Maybe no one actually believes it .
Thread Starter
Last time I checked the person making these decisions was ex RAAF and as we know they protect the existing system. Must be ingrained in them right from the start. The ultimate mates network.
"Must be ingrained in them right from the start."
I'd blame the RAAF recruit ration packs. With all that bromide in the chocolate, iodine in the coffee and soda in the meat...
I'd blame the RAAF recruit ration packs. With all that bromide in the chocolate, iodine in the coffee and soda in the meat...
The country hasn't been carpeted with bodies thus far as a result so why would this suddenly change? Oh I know, pilots are clearly suddenly incapable of looking at a chart and trying adjacent frequencies.
So how do they cope in the US if they don't get a response on the nearest VHF outlet? Don't tell me, I know. They try another one!
So how do they cope in the US if they don't get a response on the nearest VHF outlet? Don't tell me, I know. They try another one!
Thread Starter
In the US VFR do not have a requirement to be on a frequency that can be next to useless for emergency purposes.
Our requirement comes from ignorance. That is trying to return to the pre AMATS system when we no longer have 700 FSOs giving a directed traffic service.
Our requirement comes from ignorance. That is trying to return to the pre AMATS system when we no longer have 700 FSOs giving a directed traffic service.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 14th Mar 2016 at 08:02.
Oz has such fabulous vast and empty skies!
Why aren't more SUV drivers pictured heading to the airfield instead of the beach?
The public have little contact with GA and even then it's the mass media reporting accidents, sadly another on the news tonight
Firefighting helicopters get plenty of good press but there is no linkage or association made to GA.
A ppl is about same as 1 year depreciation on a posh car.
Perhaps it isn't the cost that is an issue.
Victoria has a $200m "future fund" that offers grants to several industries including education and transport.
Perhaps this can be tapped for research funding?
Mickjoebill
Why aren't more SUV drivers pictured heading to the airfield instead of the beach?
The public have little contact with GA and even then it's the mass media reporting accidents, sadly another on the news tonight
Firefighting helicopters get plenty of good press but there is no linkage or association made to GA.
A ppl is about same as 1 year depreciation on a posh car.
Perhaps it isn't the cost that is an issue.
Victoria has a $200m "future fund" that offers grants to several industries including education and transport.
Perhaps this can be tapped for research funding?
Mickjoebill
Dick, you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Having everyone in a defined area on a defined frequency makes just a little bit of sense so they can talk to each other. CDF. A nice military phrase, nothing to do with rank or blue suits.
Trying to return? We never left. I'm still doing flight service just like I did 25 years ago.
Having everyone in a defined area on a defined frequency makes just a little bit of sense so they can talk to each other. CDF. A nice military phrase, nothing to do with rank or blue suits.
Trying to return? We never left. I'm still doing flight service just like I did 25 years ago.
Good point, Le P.
Around where we are a number of the frequencies are affected by interference and some are NOTAMed as not being monitored by centre, but the boundaries are clearly marked on the charts (not sure what Dick's on about saying they're not), and aircraft can talk to one another.
If you're flogging around below 5000 as many of us do, there is f all chance of getting a mayday out on VHF anyway over the majority of the country.
How to fix it? Maybe mandate a GPS / satellite based surveillance system eh?!
Around where we are a number of the frequencies are affected by interference and some are NOTAMed as not being monitored by centre, but the boundaries are clearly marked on the charts (not sure what Dick's on about saying they're not), and aircraft can talk to one another.
If you're flogging around below 5000 as many of us do, there is f all chance of getting a mayday out on VHF anyway over the majority of the country.
How to fix it? Maybe mandate a GPS / satellite based surveillance system eh?!
Originally Posted by Dick
Our frequency boundaries are there for ATC workload purposes and clearly don't reflect the VHF coverage. This problem exists all across Australia
Mayday? Precisely what will anybody be able to do for you, Dick? You wanted "Free in G", you got it. Did you put in a plan so that at least we would have some idea where to look? You got rid of full reporting, don't now start whingeing about lack of support from "the system". Do you have ADS-B so that you could be located fairly easily? Weather and NOTAM update half way thru a 204nm flight??
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 14th Mar 2016 at 00:36.
Dick is correct re the frequenciy boundaries on/not on charts. They were removed from the chats with the intro of NAS, but reinstated because the change was not educated and many did not understand the reason for that change.l
As another poster says, there is very little GA coal face experience in the regulator. The unintended consequences of such changes made by folk with little experience or understanding of such issues is certainly a safety issue.
As another poster says, there is very little GA coal face experience in the regulator. The unintended consequences of such changes made by folk with little experience or understanding of such issues is certainly a safety issue.
Last edited by cogwheel; 14th Mar 2016 at 01:31.
They were removed from the chats with the intro of NAS, but reinstated because the change was not educated and many did not understand the reason for that change.
FIA boundaries are placed with the lateral limits of the outlet VHF coverage as the primary consideration, particularly endeavouring to capture the circuit area of remote AD/ALAs. Further adjustments to align with ATC sector boundaries are a secondary consideration. Refer the PCA.
As to why neither ATC nor any other aircraft could be raised by the OP on the Charleville outlet of 124.8 when @ 90NM 8500 is a mystery.
Comply with CASA Frequency and die!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A ppl is about same as 1 year depreciation on a posh car"
Hadn't thought of it that way! And you're correct
maybe the problems with this industry go a whole lot deeper.
Hadn't thought of it that way! And you're correct
maybe the problems with this industry go a whole lot deeper.
