PPRuNe Forums


The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th Dec 2017, 10:33   #181 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,473
If your knowledge is superior where did the 5000’ come from?

A FS did exist before the 60s. Just had a different name but a similar service.

And no doubt 1.7 miles north of Hornsby right in the middle of the light aircraft lane you will change to the Somersby CTAF on 132.1.as you will be within its 20 mile radius . Complete madness

Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Dec 2017 at 11:36.
Dick Smith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 10:52   #182 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 1,626
Anyone able to give a rational, safety-based explanation for extending CTAF procedures to 20nm radius? I don’t get it.
Lead Balloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:06   #183 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Anyone able to give a rational, safety-based explanation for extending CTAF procedures to 20nm radius? I don’t get it.
Clearly, Us old VFRs in Class G below 5000' will just have to learn how to Communicate, Navigate then Aviate..
gerry111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:14   #184 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 1,626
What happens at an unmarked airfield that’s 17nms from an aerodrome with a discreet CTAF and 17nms from an aerodrome that uses 126.7?
Lead Balloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:17   #185 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,473
Lead.
Yes. It’s an attempt to go back to a system where radio arranged separation can be utilised between IFR and VFR aircraft in uncontrolled airspace

That’s what we had before the AMATs changes of the early 90s .

It’s actually impossible to do this without employing lots more staff and going back to the old or similar full position procedures .

Under ICAO if traffic information is required for safety reasons to IFR aircraft on VFR aircraft it requires a minimum of class D airspace. And it costs money'!

These fools are attempting to invent a zero cost system using the fare paying public as guinea pigs.

They are so ignorant that they think that they can design airspace procedures and dimensions on a “ voting” system using people who have no training or knowledge of airspace design.

The problem was generated by Airservices producing a map with the ATC frequency boundaries back on without even thinking how the half wound back system would work.

It can’t. That’s why no other country in the world has such a system.

Wait for the next step- 50 nm CTAF radius to 10,000’
Dick Smith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:20   #186 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 1,626
None of that makes sense to me, Dick.
Lead Balloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:30   #187 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,473
Answer to the first part of post 179

You would be on the Wollongong CTAF of 127.3. ( within the YWOL 20 nm CTAF)

Hold on. You would be in the Mittagong circuit area! That CTAF is 126.7!

Well thought out CASA.
Dick Smith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:47   #188 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,473
And when you are on the Cessnock CTAF of 122.65 when 13 miles North West I suggest keeping a bit of a look out as you will be in the middle of the Singleton 126.7 circuit area,!

Total incompetent stuff up. Watch for this paper to be quickly withdrawn!
Dick Smith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:54   #189 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 1,626
What about my unmarked strip 12nms from Griffith (126.55) and 12nms from Leeton (132.85)?
Lead Balloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 12:14   #190 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,473
Thought I may remind those interested what the NAS educational material stated in relation to when the CTAF should be used.

Note how it covers all the relevant safety issues without dimensions.

Dot point one. When close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations

Dot point two. When approaching or departing an aerodrome

Dot point three. When en route if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome .

And Lead. No probs. New charts will be printed showing every CTAF that has conflicting 20 mile problems.

Special endorsement training will be required .
Dick Smith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 12:35   #191 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 6,933
Gotta laugh (cry) reading the Bobsie-twins going for it. I'm concerned I might actually share the airspace with you $%^&*(#!
Capn Bloggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 17:58   #192 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 65
Posts: 674
Don’t just grizzle here, make sure you send your comments to CASA.
fujii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 20:33   #193 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 1,626
I’m not ‘grizzling’. I just want to understand how it will work, and the underlying logic.

The primary problem with changes over the last 20 or so years is inadequate education in advance. That, plus anything counter-intuitive encourages error.

Well argued, Bloggs, as usual.
Lead Balloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 20:38   #194 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 138
Post

My 2c. Providing the following principles are met I don't care what they do:

1. Major principle:
People roughly in the same areas should be listening on the same frequency, not different ones.
2. Secondary principle:
a. Areas where a lot of traffic is brought closer together for a common purpose (busy aerodromes, transit lanes etc) should have a discrete frequency.

b. Areas where congestion might be an issue (sydney basin?) should have a discrete frequency to avoid too much chatter.
3. Use of radio

a. IFR aircraft need traffic information for separation.

b. VFR should generally monitor rather than broadcast however common sense should be used. In places like aircraft lanes, aerodromes etc appropriate radio procedures should be used.

c. All aircraft should be able to request appropriate information or services relevant to their level of operations, if required (eg for VFR requesting changes to sartimes, QNH, wx updates etc)

d. Radio transmissions should not be used in place of lookout for VFR (the number of calls sometimes made operating in the circuit in some CTAFs where aircraft repeatedly call every circuit leg come to mind ).
4. Same hymn sheet

a. People should be able to readily find the appropriate frequency to use for their location and operations.

b. People should be able to readily find and study the standard phraseology for all the typical radio transmissions appropriate for their level of operations in the AIPs (and duplicated in the VFG).
How hard is that to implement?

Is the existing system that bad? [shrugs shoulders]
jonkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 21:58   #195 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,473
Which “ existing system”

Do you mean the one where CASA insist that circuit calls at nonmapped airports be on the ATC area frequency.?

Or the one that most of the RAPACs wanted? That is that calls on such airports be on the 126.7 Multicom?

Jonkstor. What would be the problem with harmonising with the simple proven FAA system?

Notice how CASA did not mention in any of their paper work how that actually worked and why it could not be introduced here.
Dick Smith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 22:15   #196 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Which “ existing system”

Do you mean the one where CASA insist that circuit calls at nonmapped airports be on the ATC area frequency.?

Or the one that most of the RAPACs wanted? That is that calls on such airports be on the 126.7 Multicom?
For me, in practical terms, either.

I haven't noticed problems with people making calls at ALAs on area (mostly because they don't - which makes sense if the ALA has low usage - usually there is no need to tell the world you are turning base at Dragatinalong station, on the rare occasions they need to then the increase in chatter is negligible).

If they changed that to be 126.7 then I wouldn't say that is the end of the world either. So long as people applied common sense and know and follow the procedure.

Changing CTAF boundaries to be 20 nm and having people using the same airspace confused about which frequency to monitor or broadcast on is a different kettle though.

Like I said that is my 2c. In the same area - listen on the same frequency, in high congestion points dedicated frequencies, avoid unnecessary calls, listen more than talk, use common sense, be able to easily find the appropriate frequency and be able to easily find references to the appropriate phraseology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Jonkstor. What would be the problem with harmonising with the simple proven FAA system?
if it works and we have similar equipment/infrastructure ability to be able to physically implement it, nothing (from my point of view).

Basically I just want to avoid change that in the attempt to simplify actually makes it more complicated. Whatever change (or no change) - measure it by first principles - does it encourage clear, easily followed communication with people that need to know what is going on (and remembering listening is a big part of communicating).
jonkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 22:45   #197 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,473
This change makes it far more complicated and clearly won’t work. I have just spoken to a number of RAPAC members and all are opposed to the 20 mile dimension. Claim that there has been no discussion on this .
Dick Smith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 22:51   #198 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 58
Posts: 504
Have just read the discussion paper with amazed horror.

Horror; because I knew from reading it I would agree with Dick Smith's comments above, even without reading them, (and I do).

Horror; as they are not rolling back to pre-partially-implemented-then-partially-rolled-back-NAS, they are proposing (mostly) the LLAMP model THEY cancelled before that. They cancelled it by not approving changes to the dimensions of the then-defined CTAF areas.

May Jesus pee in a bucket, what are these useless wombats on???

When I fly enroute I fly my plane, look out the windows, and listening to the radio is a low priority task, with the volume down. I have to listen to that crap when I'm working, not when I'm having fun.

Maybe it is the fault of those who implemented the NAS without explaining that "traffic" translates from the American as "circuit area". Then the incongruity of proposing that somebody at 5000' 20nm from an aerodrome is in the circuit area would be apparent?
Spodman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 23:06   #199 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 58
Posts: 504
Quote:
Jonkstor. What would be the problem with harmonising with the simple proven FAA system?
The problems are the same as they were during the implementation of NAS. IFR aircraft are using the CTAF for amateur approach control to arrange separation with other IFR flights. This is required because the "approach-service-down-to-1200agl" bit of the simple proven FAA system wasn't implemented anywhere during the time of NAS, and now exists, without any obvious disasters, in only a few locations.

Drunk with pride at resolving IFR issues said pilots extend their skillsets to separation with VFR, and this [email protected]$knitted proposal from CASA is backing that trend.
Spodman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 23:10   #200 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 868
Well, if this 20NM comes in, the CTAF boundaries are just gonna have to go back on the charts
CaptainMidnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:59.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1