Dick Smith: Legal Action against CASA re. CTAFs
Whatever became of Air Safety Australia and the 2000 pilots it represented? They don't seem to have such a high profile in the current debate or did BM find another cause to champion?
What frequencies were involved this morning and roughly what time? I'll pull them off LiveATC and have a listen.
Presumably you'll need to present examples of congestion?
If you could use the help, perhaps Ppruners could be enlisted to monitor
frequencies?
Mickjoebill
Mickj. No. Not examples of congestion. Little chance of congestion in Australia.
It's that one call. The chance in 1000 where it blocks an important ATC instruction.
That's why Airspace Regulators in other countries do not allow VFR non directed announcements on ATC frequencies.
I would also imagine it's about ATC professionalism in those countries - the controller is in " control " of the frequency .
It's that one call. The chance in 1000 where it blocks an important ATC instruction.
That's why Airspace Regulators in other countries do not allow VFR non directed announcements on ATC frequencies.
I would also imagine it's about ATC professionalism in those countries - the controller is in " control " of the frequency .
So on the weekend when Airservices connects Sydney radar class G frequency of 124.55 to retransmit on the Sydney approach/departure frequencies that's in conflict with the ICAO very sensible decision.
And our ATCs say nothing!
You have float planes yakking away at Brooklyn Bridge blocking out communication to a Qantas 380 on departure to LAX.
Only in Australia. It's amateurish. I wrote to CASA suggesting that the 120.8 Victor Lane frequency that I introduced after great resistance be extended to the Brooklyn Bridge area to reduce the chance of VFR self announce calls blocking ATC instructions on approach and departure frequencies. Got nowhere as they resist change.
And our ATCs say nothing!
You have float planes yakking away at Brooklyn Bridge blocking out communication to a Qantas 380 on departure to LAX.
Only in Australia. It's amateurish. I wrote to CASA suggesting that the 120.8 Victor Lane frequency that I introduced after great resistance be extended to the Brooklyn Bridge area to reduce the chance of VFR self announce calls blocking ATC instructions on approach and departure frequencies. Got nowhere as they resist change.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So on the weekend when Airservices connects Sydney radar class G frequency of 124.55 to retransmit on the Sydney approach/departure frequencies that's in conflict with the ICAO very sensible decision.
And our ATCs say nothing!
You have float planes yakking away at Brooklyn Bridge blocking out communication to a Qantas 380 on departure to LAX.
And our ATCs say nothing!
You have float planes yakking away at Brooklyn Bridge blocking out communication to a Qantas 380 on departure to LAX.
It doesn't happen! Maybe that's why the ATCs don't have to say anything in complaint.
The mere fact that you have a bee in your bonnet about the likelihood, doesn't make it so. Neither will hysterical tabloid claims about floatplanes interfering with A380s.
Only in Australia. It's amateurish. I wrote to CASA suggesting that the 120.8 Victor Lane frequency that I introduced after great resistance be extended to the Brooklyn Bridge area to reduce the chance of VFR self announce calls blocking ATC instructions on approach and departure frequencies. Got nowhere as they resist change.
If that's what you call "resistance to change", here and in a heap of other interminable threads you've started, so be it. Sometimes a good reason for resistance to change is that none is needed.
Certainly, if I was the one deciding on such changes, I'd be taking some advice from those regularly using such airspace - at both ends of the comm link. I'd hope not to be consumed by a personal agenda, unrelated to the demonstrated facts.
No. It's just resistance to change. I have experience with that since " 2 years in the aviation hall of doom ". days.
When Mick Toller started with CASA he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.
I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"
Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree. Hasn't happened yet- but that's no reason not to try and fix the problem which has only been caused because , before I made the AMATS changes , those calls would have been on FS frequencies and not affect ATC approach and departure traffic.
And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF 126.7. Oh. Stupid me. I forgot . Latest CASA regs supported by Mr Skidmore say calls at unmarked aorodromes( water landing areas?) must be on the area frequency- which in this case is 125.8/124.55 - the frequencies that are re transmitted on Sydney Departures. Can't win!
When Mick Toller started with CASA he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.
I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"
Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree. Hasn't happened yet- but that's no reason not to try and fix the problem which has only been caused because , before I made the AMATS changes , those calls would have been on FS frequencies and not affect ATC approach and departure traffic.
And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF 126.7. Oh. Stupid me. I forgot . Latest CASA regs supported by Mr Skidmore say calls at unmarked aorodromes( water landing areas?) must be on the area frequency- which in this case is 125.8/124.55 - the frequencies that are re transmitted on Sydney Departures. Can't win!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Apr 2016 at 04:35.
Agra re " doesn't happen"
I tried to get some low level NAS class E in at places like Benalla.
Now six dead.
It does happen if you resist change and don't copy the best.
I tried to get some low level NAS class E in at places like Benalla.
Now six dead.
It does happen if you resist change and don't copy the best.
I tried to get some low level NAS class E in at places like Benalla.
Now six dead.
Now six dead.
he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.
I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"
Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree.
I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"
Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree.
I use Sydney Departures with almost depressing regularity, and there is simply not an issue with VFR aircraft in the lightie lane talking to each other. (Insert retort here along the lines of "Well there aren't any VHF aircraft any more because of the RAAF/frequency boundaries on charts/resistance to change/whatever.") Maybe it was an issue back when Mick Toller was a CX skipper, but that was a long time ago. If there was really a problem now, I'd be squealing as loudly as anyone.
I'll say it again: this is simply not an issue. And even if it was, what in the name of God is this horrendous incident or accident that you claim will happen?
If you've got coherent and sensible arguments to make, then I'm sure people will get on board with them. This is just a beat-up.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Mick Toller started with CASA he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.
I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"
I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"
Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree. Hasn't happened yet- but that's no reason not to try and fix the problem which has only been caused because , before I made the AMATS changes , those calls would have been on FS frequencies and not affect ATC approach and departure traffic.
And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF 126.7. Oh. Stupid me. I forgot . Latest CASA regs supported by Mr Skidmore say calls at unmarked aorodromes( water landing areas?) must be on the area frequency- which in this case is 125.8/124.55 - the frequencies that are re transmitted on Sydney Departures. Can't win!
And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF 126.7. Oh. Stupid me. I forgot . Latest CASA regs supported by Mr Skidmore say calls at unmarked aorodromes( water landing areas?) must be on the area frequency- which in this case is 125.8/124.55 - the frequencies that are re transmitted on Sydney Departures. Can't win!
Maybe, it's because the lightie overflying Cottage Point would actually like to hear that a floatplane is about to launch from under them? Perhaps that might be because the lightie may not even be aware that there's an alighting area there, so he is correctly on 125.8? And maybe the floatplane would also like to hear from the lightie he's about to share the sky with?
And, since you studiously ignore all assurances that your alleged problem doesn't exist, maybe the only person you've ever listened to is the one who agreed with your personal crusade?
Stop resisting change Dick and get ADSB!
Bugger I just realised, I'm in the wrong thread! I get lost amongst all the threads harping on about the same things again and again!
Bugger I just realised, I'm in the wrong thread! I get lost amongst all the threads harping on about the same things again and again!
I was the one who was involved in removing the Flight Service duplicated system. You were clearly not - so have no responsibility.
I have a responsibility to finish the job or ensure we go back to the pre AMATS system where VFR did not make announcements on ATC frequencies. It's amateur- I want a professional internationally proven safe system.
I have a responsibility to finish the job or ensure we go back to the pre AMATS system where VFR did not make announcements on ATC frequencies. It's amateur- I want a professional internationally proven safe system.
Bloody hard. It's about the holes in the cheese lining up.
As just one example look at ATSB report 199601917 of a serious incident on the 21 June 1996 between a 747 and a BA146.
There was the possibility of a disastrous mid air with 100s dead because the ATC was distracted by a VFR pilot making self announcements .
Yes. You don't hear so many VFR calls on Sydney departures because I have done everything I can to advise pilots that their family or friends may be on board the Airline that is involved in a mid air because the ATC is distracted by their calls.
Also the NAS documentation made it very clear that VFR should not make self announcements on ATC frequencies.
But I can see you want a real accident before we copy those experienced from overseas accidents
Yes. That's the history of aviation. Make the changes after people die!
And Agra. If the 120.8 CTAF covered that area there would be no need for calls on ATC approach frequencies and an alerted see and avoid environment would result.
As just one example look at ATSB report 199601917 of a serious incident on the 21 June 1996 between a 747 and a BA146.
There was the possibility of a disastrous mid air with 100s dead because the ATC was distracted by a VFR pilot making self announcements .
Yes. You don't hear so many VFR calls on Sydney departures because I have done everything I can to advise pilots that their family or friends may be on board the Airline that is involved in a mid air because the ATC is distracted by their calls.
Also the NAS documentation made it very clear that VFR should not make self announcements on ATC frequencies.
But I can see you want a real accident before we copy those experienced from overseas accidents
Yes. That's the history of aviation. Make the changes after people die!
And Agra. If the 120.8 CTAF covered that area there would be no need for calls on ATC approach frequencies and an alerted see and avoid environment would result.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Apr 2016 at 22:55.
It seems that the problem in that incident was that the VFR pilot was unnecessarily prefixing his calls with "Brisbane Centre", so it wasn't really self announcements per se that were the problem, more the misunderstanding of the newly introduced RAS system by the VFR pilot, which then required the ATC to respond. Under the RAS, VFR pilots were quite entitled to call ATC, so the pilot was not incorrect in being on frequency. It didn't help that the ATC also used an inappropriate separation procedure in the first place between the 747 and the 146.
It seems that in the 20 years since that incident, the issue does not seem to have been much more of a problem.
It seems that in the 20 years since that incident, the issue does not seem to have been much more of a problem.
Yes. You don't hear so many VFR calls on Sydney departures because I have done everything I can to advise pilots that there family or friends may be on board the Airline that is involved in a mid air because the ATC is distracted by their calls.
So if I understand right, it goes something like this:
Dick: There's a shocking problem with YSSY DEPS that may cause a horrendous accident!
Pilots who frequently use YSSY DEPS: No, there's no such problem.
Dick: That's right, but only because I, personally, have solved this problem.
That's excellent news. I'm sorry, I failed to fully comprehend the extent of your powers. Presumably you could use those powers to solve the current overall non-issue in exactly the same way, instead of taking it to court. The Federal Court's valuable time will be spared, large amounts of public money won't be spent on lawyers, and highly improbable horrendous disasters will continue to be highly improbable. A big thumbs-up from me.
"And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF on 126.7."
Dick,
I sometimes have the wonderful pleasure of driving my friends' 40' wooden boat that is usually moored at KMYC, Cottage Point along Cowan Creek and up to Refuge Bay or other places around the Hawkesbury River.
Often, an amphibious Beaver or Caravan will take off towards us as we cruise along. It's a rather brilliant experience and I believe perfectly safe.
But the next time that I have the pleasure of doing this, I'll be concerned that a QF A380 may crash somewhere due to all the local communications jamming Sydney Departures.
Dick,
I sometimes have the wonderful pleasure of driving my friends' 40' wooden boat that is usually moored at KMYC, Cottage Point along Cowan Creek and up to Refuge Bay or other places around the Hawkesbury River.
Often, an amphibious Beaver or Caravan will take off towards us as we cruise along. It's a rather brilliant experience and I believe perfectly safe.
But the next time that I have the pleasure of doing this, I'll be concerned that a QF A380 may crash somewhere due to all the local communications jamming Sydney Departures.
Traffic. Are you really suggesting that if the VFR pilot had made the same number of calls but without the prefix that the breakdown of separation would not have happened?
Surely any calls must be listened to and therefore can be distracting.
Why do you think in other countries (and also in Australia before the AMATS changes ) it is prohibited for VFR to make non directed announcements on air traffic control frequencies that are also used for separation purposes?
What's wrong with Australian rules protecting our Air Traffic Controllers from an unfair situation and a chance of losing their career because of the calls taking attention away from the real task- keeping passenger jets apart.
What's wrong with having a similarly disciplined system to Europe and North America?
Surely any calls must be listened to and therefore can be distracting.
Why do you think in other countries (and also in Australia before the AMATS changes ) it is prohibited for VFR to make non directed announcements on air traffic control frequencies that are also used for separation purposes?
What's wrong with Australian rules protecting our Air Traffic Controllers from an unfair situation and a chance of losing their career because of the calls taking attention away from the real task- keeping passenger jets apart.
What's wrong with having a similarly disciplined system to Europe and North America?