Military CTAF changes to AIP?
Thread Starter
Military CTAF changes to AIP?
In a post by a probationary PPruner few weeks ago the following statement was made;
"It is a fact that military -experienced persons were working recently in CASA: two individuals came from the military to work in the Authority, made changes to the AIP to do with radio frequencies in class G, tried to deal with the industry fallout , then retreated back to the military, leaving the civilians amongst us to sort out the mess. I'm not blaming the military, but who in CASA hired them to do the dirty work of bashing more nails in the NAS coffin?"
Can anyone advise if there is truth in this statement? Is it possible to go back again to the military like this?
There is little doubt that requiring pilots at non map marked airports to give calls on area frequencies that are normally used to separate traffic is a nail in the NAS coffin. It's also potentially a major safety problem. Just one call at the wrong time could block out an important ATC separation instruction.. That's why the NAS educational material said;
" VFR should no longer make self announcements on ATC frequencies"
Nothing could be clearer than that.
"It is a fact that military -experienced persons were working recently in CASA: two individuals came from the military to work in the Authority, made changes to the AIP to do with radio frequencies in class G, tried to deal with the industry fallout , then retreated back to the military, leaving the civilians amongst us to sort out the mess. I'm not blaming the military, but who in CASA hired them to do the dirty work of bashing more nails in the NAS coffin?"
Can anyone advise if there is truth in this statement? Is it possible to go back again to the military like this?
There is little doubt that requiring pilots at non map marked airports to give calls on area frequencies that are normally used to separate traffic is a nail in the NAS coffin. It's also potentially a major safety problem. Just one call at the wrong time could block out an important ATC separation instruction.. That's why the NAS educational material said;
" VFR should no longer make self announcements on ATC frequencies"
Nothing could be clearer than that.
"VFR should no longer make self announcements on ATC frequencies"
And that nearly killed a 737 load of pax near Launy. Unalerted see and avoid is crap and that's all you left the 737 crew with except for TCAS
And that nearly killed a 737 load of pax near Launy. Unalerted see and avoid is crap and that's all you left the 737 crew with except for TCAS
Thread Starter
A total untruth. The Tobago pilot copied the radio calls and had the Virgin aircraft sighted at all relevant times and did not call the Virgin aircraft because there was no necessity to do so..
That's how alerted see and avoid works. You are getting mixed up with " radio arranged separation" that we used in the pre AMATS days.
That's how alerted see and avoid works. You are getting mixed up with " radio arranged separation" that we used in the pre AMATS days.
Thread Starter
One day I am going to send the Launceston ATSB report to the NTSB.
They will say what a great load of rubbish.
In the USA every class D airport , and there are hundreds , has E over D with no radio or transponder requirement for VFR that are overflying. There is not even a recommendation for VFR to monitor the tower frequency.
The reason for no mandatory radio and transponder requirement or monitoring recommendation? Because there is no measurable safety issue.
The FAA has told me if there was a safety issue they would act on it even without a recommendation from the NTSB.
And there is over thirty times the number of aircraft in about the same land mass.
They will say what a great load of rubbish.
In the USA every class D airport , and there are hundreds , has E over D with no radio or transponder requirement for VFR that are overflying. There is not even a recommendation for VFR to monitor the tower frequency.
The reason for no mandatory radio and transponder requirement or monitoring recommendation? Because there is no measurable safety issue.
The FAA has told me if there was a safety issue they would act on it even without a recommendation from the NTSB.
And there is over thirty times the number of aircraft in about the same land mass.
Sorry, I'll stick with the facts from a report. You do know what an RA is? It means there's a serious threat of a collision. You can delude yourself all you want but the facts tell a very different story. The Tobago pilot didn't have a clue. How come he saw the 737 move laterally across in front of him when the evidence says it didn't? Do you seriously think he would have been able to manoeuvre to avoid the 737 if he'd had to? There was an RA. It was an AIRPROX. I'd call that a massive failure and they missed by luck not by any action the Tobago pilot took. He was an utterly passive participant.
You placed the safety of the flying public in the hands of the lowest common denominator - a Tobago pilot who didn't have a clue.
You placed the safety of the flying public in the hands of the lowest common denominator - a Tobago pilot who didn't have a clue.
The problem Dick is you seem happy leaving separation to the person who is arguably the one with the least amount of experience, the least understanding of medium/heavy aircraft performance (including wake turbulence) and more often than not the lowest level of recency.
As the captain of a jet operating within Australian airspace I would be ****faced if some bloke in a Tobago made the grand decision that I didn't need to know of his presence, how does he/she know what I am doing/where I am going?
As for unalerted see and avoid and your passionate hatred of radio arranged separation, unalerted see and avoid is a packet of poo tickets, particularly if they either don't talk on the radio or don't talk on a frequency that I am listening too.
I have had traffic on TCAS for some considerable period, known roughly where he was and still not seen him until he was 3 nm away, so how am I going to avoid the inevitable if I don't even know he is there?
Radio arranged separation makes perfect sense to me "I will stay west of the road until we are passed" surely we have a responsibility to do something mildly sensible to make sure we don't have a noise abatement problem?
And yes I have operated in North and South American, European, Asian and Russian airspace, so am not some Australian centric clown who doesn't know what he doesn't know.
As the captain of a jet operating within Australian airspace I would be ****faced if some bloke in a Tobago made the grand decision that I didn't need to know of his presence, how does he/she know what I am doing/where I am going?
As for unalerted see and avoid and your passionate hatred of radio arranged separation, unalerted see and avoid is a packet of poo tickets, particularly if they either don't talk on the radio or don't talk on a frequency that I am listening too.
I have had traffic on TCAS for some considerable period, known roughly where he was and still not seen him until he was 3 nm away, so how am I going to avoid the inevitable if I don't even know he is there?
Radio arranged separation makes perfect sense to me "I will stay west of the road until we are passed" surely we have a responsibility to do something mildly sensible to make sure we don't have a noise abatement problem?
And yes I have operated in North and South American, European, Asian and Russian airspace, so am not some Australian centric clown who doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Thread Starter
So why don't any of you talk about the the time a 747sp was nearly put into a BA146 where ATSB stated. " had not ACAS been fitted the possibility of a collision existed"
What was one of the causes? The controller " was distracted by the radio calls of the VFR aircraft". And the " VFR aircraft had been annoying and frustrating the controller"
See report 199601917
Snake. I don't support un alerted see and avoid and I don't have a hatred of radio arranged separation . I would just prefer at busy non tower airports in IMC to be separated by a controller. We have controllers en route where the collision risk is minuscule but in the terminal area where the experts claim the collision risk is 100 times higher we have a " do it yourself system". Remember the other pilot in cloud could be one of 150 hours total time and there is no prescribed separation standard for IMC in G.
I think you are comfortable with the system you learnt in but don't understand where the objective risks are.
And I am happy with copying the best from around the world .
And how did you fly in these other countries.? You must have been scared to death. I bet not one VFR aircraft started using radio arranged separation with you in North America on ATC frequencies. You would both lose your licences.
What was one of the causes? The controller " was distracted by the radio calls of the VFR aircraft". And the " VFR aircraft had been annoying and frustrating the controller"
See report 199601917
Snake. I don't support un alerted see and avoid and I don't have a hatred of radio arranged separation . I would just prefer at busy non tower airports in IMC to be separated by a controller. We have controllers en route where the collision risk is minuscule but in the terminal area where the experts claim the collision risk is 100 times higher we have a " do it yourself system". Remember the other pilot in cloud could be one of 150 hours total time and there is no prescribed separation standard for IMC in G.
I think you are comfortable with the system you learnt in but don't understand where the objective risks are.
And I am happy with copying the best from around the world .
And how did you fly in these other countries.? You must have been scared to death. I bet not one VFR aircraft started using radio arranged separation with you in North America on ATC frequencies. You would both lose your licences.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 29th Mar 2016 at 17:38.
Thread Starter
Le Ping. I met the Tobago pilot. He did have a clue and claims he was seriously misquoted in the ATSB report.
Remember the ATSB investigators have never once recommended that radar be used properly or that class E be used in places like Benalla. Many are ex military and its all about keeping the status quo with concrete brains.
Remember the ATSB investigators have never once recommended that radar be used properly or that class E be used in places like Benalla. Many are ex military and its all about keeping the status quo with concrete brains.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Here and there
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again Dick you bash the military guys, geez man give it a break. As ex military with many years in the civil world I'm getting peeved and wonder whether you actually have anything valuable to add to the industry. I know that things in the industry are not great, I know that CASA can be a bugger to deal with and yes I wish something could be done about it but so far nothing has come from it all. Me, I'll just go back to my civil job and get on with it.
Dick, this is the same discussion as on other threads but you resurrect it here. Apart from Easter just having gone, I see no reason for this except you're using the forum like a tabloid newspaper - keep splashing up the same (Dick)headline time and again and soon people will believe it, whatever it is.
If moderators let you do this stuff, fine, but funny how threads get merged at the drop of a hat sometimes but you can put up as many equivalent snippets of 'news' as you like and they are left to fester. I don't like ads on my TV either!
If moderators let you do this stuff, fine, but funny how threads get merged at the drop of a hat sometimes but you can put up as many equivalent snippets of 'news' as you like and they are left to fester. I don't like ads on my TV either!
Perhaps there should be a drinking game, where you have a beer every time Dick says, "copying the best from around the world".
I don't know what would go first, my liver or my sanity.
I don't know what would go first, my liver or my sanity.
Thread Starter
It was Le ping who moved off the main theme of the thread.
Can anyone provide details on the decision to change the CTAF description in the AIP?
I wasn't claiming it was done by an ex military person. But very likely with the involvement of those posting anonymously on this thread!
Can anyone provide details on the decision to change the CTAF description in the AIP?
I wasn't claiming it was done by an ex military person. But very likely with the involvement of those posting anonymously on this thread!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Dick, this is the same discussion as on other threads but you resurrect it here." Somebody ranted.
Bugger me, I agree with Dick! Part of the problem is that NOBODY has addressed the question. I don't have an answer to the question either, but fail to see the relevance of an incident concerning two aircraft at 7,500ft nowhere near the circuit to a question about CASA's mad plan for all to make CTAF calls on the area VHF.
As a private pilot I don't really see why half of Victoria would be interested in me pootling VFR around the circuit of a landing area so small it will not be depicted on a map.
As an ATC I have some reservations about my transmissions being stepped on some other VFR pootler, probably not audible to me because of terrain.
As a volunteer CAGRO at a number of airshows/fly-ins I have seen the usefulness of CTAF procedures, even under the stress of busy traffic.
I make all the required broadcasts on the discrete frequencies or the generic CTAF proudly, and find other's broadcasts useful even in busy traffic, and am not too concerned when I see phantoms wandering around the circuit, either non-radio or on the wrong freq. But I double-check mine when it happens.
Due to the above, I have reservations about making such broadcasts on the area frequency, and feel some pressure to not participate in such stupidity when the need arises.
If Dick can find the decision train that led to this pile of crap and expose it to the sterilising light of public review, then all power to him, and if you have the goods then PLEASE give him the details. If he is successful I MIGHT take his face off my dartboard...
Bugger me, I agree with Dick! Part of the problem is that NOBODY has addressed the question. I don't have an answer to the question either, but fail to see the relevance of an incident concerning two aircraft at 7,500ft nowhere near the circuit to a question about CASA's mad plan for all to make CTAF calls on the area VHF.
As a private pilot I don't really see why half of Victoria would be interested in me pootling VFR around the circuit of a landing area so small it will not be depicted on a map.
As an ATC I have some reservations about my transmissions being stepped on some other VFR pootler, probably not audible to me because of terrain.
As a volunteer CAGRO at a number of airshows/fly-ins I have seen the usefulness of CTAF procedures, even under the stress of busy traffic.
I make all the required broadcasts on the discrete frequencies or the generic CTAF proudly, and find other's broadcasts useful even in busy traffic, and am not too concerned when I see phantoms wandering around the circuit, either non-radio or on the wrong freq. But I double-check mine when it happens.
Due to the above, I have reservations about making such broadcasts on the area frequency, and feel some pressure to not participate in such stupidity when the need arises.
If Dick can find the decision train that led to this pile of crap and expose it to the sterilising light of public review, then all power to him, and if you have the goods then PLEASE give him the details. If he is successful I MIGHT take his face off my dartboard...
Hampster Wheel Revvin' Up...
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
The Tobago pilot had the Virgin aircraft sighted at all relevant times and did not call the Virgin aircraft because there was no necessity to do so..
That's how alerted see and avoid works. You are getting mixed up with " radio arranged separation" that we used in the pre AMATS days.
That's how alerted see and avoid works. You are getting mixed up with " radio arranged separation" that we used in the pre AMATS days.
this is the same discussion as on other threads but you resurrect it here. Apart from Easter just having gone
Can anyone advise if there is truth in this statement? Is it possible to go back again to the military like this?
two individuals came from the military to work in the Authority, made changes to the AIP to do with radio frequencies in class G, tried to deal with the industry fallout , then retreated back to the military, leaving the civilians amongst us to sort out the mess.
Cheeerrrsss...
Says it all, really... Clueless.
Yep! Must be the case, all those clueless yanks being so clueless that they haven't adopted the obviously (to you and your mates) superior Australian system of "do-it- yourself" separation, instead of IMC conventional separation services from a third party controller. Hoe negligently, nay criminally, clueless they must be, to have a system, in which it is so pleasant to operate, from the smallest aircraft to the largest, so cluelessly friendly and and efficient.
Dumb, really dumb and clueless, to have so much E airspace, and so little G in US.
And no P/R/D outside the 12 mile limit. How could that possibly work??
The same clueless clots (obviously just clueless dumb luck) somehow manage to produce airsafety outcomes that are so substantially better than Australia -- in every statistical category.
And by some further stroke of dumb luck, these clueless dopes have managed all this without driving GA into the ground, and saddling the big end of town with such extraordinary costs, that Alliance is planning to shift the base of their operations to NZ.
I guess that makes Alliance clueless as well, not understanding how outstanding the Australian "system" is, and that it is the rest of the world that is out of step.
Tootle pip!!
PS:Bloggsie, Have you actually ever operated extensively as PIC in US/CA or EU airspace, in any kind of aircraft. One off deliveries don't count.
Yep, clueless. Leedie me old, I think you might be losing it as you can't argue the point at hand, only continuing on the ideologue.
My "clueless" comment was directed at Dick's description of Alerted See and Avoid verses that strange medieval concept or radio-arranged separation, and his (and yours) misguided notion that if you know someone is there, you obviously won't hit them. You know, like all those times you self-separated your 747 from multitudes of VFR in Class G airspace, what was it, over Aghanistan you told us about, or was that over top of LAX?? Oh, sorry, you haven't done a lot of operating your jumbo efficiently and safely (aka not having costly E or unicoms) while mixing it with bugsmashers in outback Australia, have you??
Help me out here, what are these "W" areas all about?
My "clueless" comment was directed at Dick's description of Alerted See and Avoid verses that strange medieval concept or radio-arranged separation, and his (and yours) misguided notion that if you know someone is there, you obviously won't hit them. You know, like all those times you self-separated your 747 from multitudes of VFR in Class G airspace, what was it, over Aghanistan you told us about, or was that over top of LAX?? Oh, sorry, you haven't done a lot of operating your jumbo efficiently and safely (aka not having costly E or unicoms) while mixing it with bugsmashers in outback Australia, have you??
And no P/R/D outside the 12 mile limit
Help me out here, what are these "W" areas all about?
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...apter%2014.pdf
Warning Areas
Warning areas are similar in nature to restricted areas; however, the United States government does not have sole jurisdiction over the airspace. A warning area is airspace of defined dimensions, extending from 12 NM outward from the coast of the United States, containing activity that may be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The purpose of such areas is to warn nonparticipating pilots of the potential danger. A warning area may be located over domestic or international waters or both. The airspace is designated with a “W” followed by a number (e.g., W-237).
Warning areas are similar in nature to restricted areas; however, the United States government does not have sole jurisdiction over the airspace. A warning area is airspace of defined dimensions, extending from 12 NM outward from the coast of the United States, containing activity that may be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The purpose of such areas is to warn nonparticipating pilots of the potential danger. A warning area may be located over domestic or international waters or both. The airspace is designated with a “W” followed by a number (e.g., W-237).
It appears the USA understands international law a little better than the people in Australia who fiddle with airspace.