CASA Class G Discussion Paper
I couldn't give a stuff what they do or what you blokes argue about. I will continue flying my bugsmasher around looking out the window and saying very little. I might add when you blokes insist on giving running commentaries on everything you are doing I will also turn down the radio so I can't hear the nonsense.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can be assured that this matter is not closed at any of the RAPACs. The NPRM has generated a significant amount of email traffic between the various Convenors and the members, especially the 20nm CTAFs which are considered unworkable and not required.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the 126.7 in cruise below 5000ft rule, that's just crazy. And, sorry Dick, but I like the guidance of having area frequencies on charts.
Rattly
20 nm CTAF boundary seems excessive to me. If the idea is to capture RNAV approaches then 15 nm radius would suffice. And let's face it there is nothing to stop heavy metal making a CTAF call further out and this happens regularly in my experience.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rattly said:
You may not remember, but some 15 yrs ago, or so, the inbound call was recommended at 7 minutes from ETA. It did not matter if you were a C150 or a GIV, it was time based. Common sense I would say. However it did not get off the ground as someone in CASA pulled that idea! It was supposed to be introduced with all the appropriate bells and whistles in the education area, but again those in CASA just did not understand what goes on the real world. We are now living a repeat as there is very little if any corporate history in the organisation to say what was done 10 years ago, let alone 20years!!
an inbound call at or before six minutes out of the circuit area,
Originally Posted by Rattly
I'm guessing that someone in CASA suddenly realised that some planes can fly 20nm in the same time that others (like mine) do 10nm so they mightn't know I was in the "vicinity"...
Perhaps an alternative would be to require an inbound call at or before six minutes out of the circuit area
Perhaps an alternative would be to require an inbound call at or before six minutes out of the circuit area
"CTAFs" were 5nm/3000ft. Basically, the big end of town didn't go into CTAFs so the lighties could do whatever they do (looking out) nice and close to the airfield, on the CTAF and not annoy anybody else.
But all that didn't fit the master plan of he-who-shall-not-be-named, so we ended up with "in the vicinity"~10nm. I have heard plenty of aircraft call AT 10nm; too late for me.
20nm would have been great at Mildura when the E-jet almost clocked the GA-8 coming in from the west. The GA-8 would have been on freq earlier and that in all probability would have facilitated some mutual segregation instead of the tangle-up on Final.
I'm not saying 20nm is THE number... I haven't read the whole proposal yet.
Let's face it, it doesn't matter what distance we are from the airfield (within reason), as long as we are all on the same freq at that distance (and closer, obviously).
Edit: Just saw Triadic's post. Suffice to say I have a different view on the "boundary".
The whole point, after all, is simply to have aircraft that are in potential conflict on the same frequency.
Some people take the view that the more blabbing on the radio, the greater the reduction in the probabilities of aircraft colliding. It’s akin to the belief that more maintenance will make an aircraft more reliable.
I’m still trying to figure out how the 20nm radius CTAF procedures will work. Out of many examples, YGTH and YNAR are ‘only’ 35nms apart. Different CTAFs. If 20nms becomes the magic number, on what frequency does the pilot of an aircraft transitting the overlap start blabbing in order to reduce the probabilities of collisions with RPT aircraft inbound and outbound YGTH or YNAR?
And let us never speak of all the no radio aircraft in the area. If you don’t know about them, they’re not a risk.
(Bloggsie would have an attack of the vapours over here in the real world.)
I get the personal animosity bit - you don’t take kindly to fun being poked at you. (You must have been a real hoot to work with in the RAAF.)
What I don’t get is your apparent unwillingness to engage with the substantial operational issues.
I get it that you feel safe in operating in places like YPPD with a 20nm radius AFIZ and the belief that everyone in that chunk of airspace is on the same frequency and known to you. The removal of the security blanket of controlled airspace is less distressing in those circumstances.
What I don’t get is your apparent inability to understand that there are places in Australia that have RPT-serviced aerodromes that aren’t spread out like they are in WA, that don’t have an AFIS and don’t have the same CTAF. If you don’t have any answers to questions about how the proposed system will actually work at these places, that’s fine. But for those of us who operate in and out of these places, the answers are important.
What I don’t get is your apparent unwillingness to engage with the substantial operational issues.
I get it that you feel safe in operating in places like YPPD with a 20nm radius AFIZ and the belief that everyone in that chunk of airspace is on the same frequency and known to you. The removal of the security blanket of controlled airspace is less distressing in those circumstances.
What I don’t get is your apparent inability to understand that there are places in Australia that have RPT-serviced aerodromes that aren’t spread out like they are in WA, that don’t have an AFIS and don’t have the same CTAF. If you don’t have any answers to questions about how the proposed system will actually work at these places, that’s fine. But for those of us who operate in and out of these places, the answers are important.
You really have no idea, LB.
Oh yeh? What was all that "rubbish" I posted in post 247 then? Personal vitriol and sledging, like you do in EVERY ONE of your posts?
As you would be now, I imagine. 
For goodness sake, just do what you do now! This is not rocket science!
What I don’t get is your apparent unwillingness to engage with the substantial operational issues.
You must have been a real hoot to work with in the RAAF.
YGTH and YNAR are ‘only’ 35nms apart. Different CTAFs.
Would you believe that yesterday was the 26th anniversary of the 'first cut' of FS services to VFR aircraft..... 12/12/91.....
Remember when you would simply call FS on the appropriate FS freq.?
Marked on the then "VTC" by the way.....
AAAHHH, it seems like only yesterday....
No Cheeerrrsss
p.s. Thanx ag'in for that 'redundo'....
Remember when you would simply call FS on the appropriate FS freq.?
Marked on the then "VTC" by the way.....
AAAHHH, it seems like only yesterday....
No Cheeerrrsss
p.s. Thanx ag'in for that 'redundo'....
Thread Starter
Yep. Remember it well. I was Chairman of CAA
Accused of being too hands on.
126.7 came from my Canadian North pole experience .
One little bit of harmonisation !
My team introduced the Victor lane ( copied from my flights past JFK ) one month earlier
Those were the days of many changes!
Sad for FS but since then over $1 billion of industry money saved without one life lost because of the changes.
Accused of being too hands on.
126.7 came from my Canadian North pole experience .
One little bit of harmonisation !
My team introduced the Victor lane ( copied from my flights past JFK ) one month earlier
Those were the days of many changes!
Sad for FS but since then over $1 billion of industry money saved without one life lost because of the changes.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 13th Dec 2017 at 01:50.
Lead Balloon said:
I recall you stated elsewhere:
Which some of us have long suspected.
So who are "those of us"?
But for those of us who operate in and out of these places, the answers are important.
I’m scared of heights and aircraft, so haven’t any actual operational experience.
So who are "those of us"?
So far as I can tell, the only attempt at dealing with a substantial operational issue was this from Bloggs:
That seems to be in response to my scenario:
What I do now, Bloggs, is say nothing on either the YGTH or YNAR CTAF if I happen to be tracking equidistant to them. That’s because I’m about 16nms from each. The only exception would be if I heard something on Area about traffic in or out of either that might conflict with me. (Of course, this only happens on my PC flight simulator. It would never happen in real life. Last Saturday was a figment of my imagination.)
If the proposed change to 20nm CTAF procedure radius is implemented, what will I do the next time I ‘fly’ this ‘mission’ on my PC flight simulator?
If you (and CM) consider that I have no clue what I’m talking about, it’s surprising you dedicate time and energy to responding to what I post.
For goodness sake, just do what you do now! This is not rocket science!
I’m still trying to figure out how the 20nm radius CTAF procedures will work. Out of many examples, YGTH and YNAR are ‘only’ 35nms apart. Different CTAFs. If 20nms becomes the magic number, on what frequency does the pilot of an aircraft transitting the overlap start blabbing in order to reduce the probabilities of collisions with RPT aircraft inbound and outbound YGTH or YNAR?
If the proposed change to 20nm CTAF procedure radius is implemented, what will I do the next time I ‘fly’ this ‘mission’ on my PC flight simulator?
If you (and CM) consider that I have no clue what I’m talking about, it’s surprising you dedicate time and energy to responding to what I post.
Yup. 15nm as with the former MBZs should be workable for the FL traffic to appreciate (radio equipped traffic) below them. The problem I hear is that the inbound FL traffic calls at the RNAV entry point - which VFR pilots clearly have no idea about. Result is lighty pilot being unsure of which direction the fast traffic is coming from. Would be more helpful is they were to actually call 'distance/direction from/altitude & ETA'. Lighties would be kept more SA by this - maybe an ETA for a 3nm final would help too - especially where lighties are flying circuits onto any runway at the destination. happy days,
Thread Starter
Rattly spats, you state:
I’m sure this is so, but it is the reason we are having such problems in working out how the CTAFs should work with the MULTICOM frequency. There is no such problem that I know of any other country in the world.
Our frequency boundaries on charts were put there when they were flight service frequency boundaries and there were no such things as CTAFs. The aerodromes within the frequency boundary area operated on that frequency.
Once you put frequency boundaries on the charts, you give everyone a message that the system is going to be similar to what we had pre-1991. That was when IFR and VFR aircraft flew at the same levels, using what was called the quadrantal rule, and above 5,000 feet you went ‘full position reporting’ and were given traffic on everybody.
With the NAS system, ATC frequencies are still shown on the charts at the location of the transmitter, and you can feel free to monitor that frequency if you wish to. In fact, all modern GPS units show the ‘nearest’ centre or flight service frequencies.
When NAS was introduced it was clearly stated there were no frequency boundaries and we were following the proven world system. Surely it must be obvious here that once the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts some three months later, the problems started to exist.
As I have said many times before, it is a half-way, wound-back system.
Did you notice that nowhere in the current CASA documentation sent out have they stated that they have taken into account what happens in other leading aviation countries?
This is all very experimental – trying to get the old pre-1991 system working with a more modern ICAO based classified airspace.
We only tried the “international system” for three months. That was before Airservices printed a chart with frequency boundaries, and wound-back the system half-way, with no education at all. No wonder the poor CASA people can’t work out what is going on.
If we took a vote, I wonder how many people here would be prepared to actually copy the proven North American (i.e. Canadian/US) system and see if it actually worked here? It is very much simpler, it operates somehow without any 20 nautical mile CTAFs with hard dimensions to 5,000 feet, and the resultant safety levels are extremely high considering there is something like 30 times the traffic density with sometimes abysmal weather conditions.
It is interesting that when CASA did the ‘vote’ it was between two types of unique Australian systems. What a pity they weren’t game to ask the question, “As a pilot, would you be prepared to have the system based on the simpler and proven North American airspace procedures as used in Canada and the USA?”
I just wonder now with young people coming along, whether there would be more who would be prepared to copy something which is proven, very simple and extremely safe.
“I like the guidance of having area frequencies on charts.”
Our frequency boundaries on charts were put there when they were flight service frequency boundaries and there were no such things as CTAFs. The aerodromes within the frequency boundary area operated on that frequency.
Once you put frequency boundaries on the charts, you give everyone a message that the system is going to be similar to what we had pre-1991. That was when IFR and VFR aircraft flew at the same levels, using what was called the quadrantal rule, and above 5,000 feet you went ‘full position reporting’ and were given traffic on everybody.
With the NAS system, ATC frequencies are still shown on the charts at the location of the transmitter, and you can feel free to monitor that frequency if you wish to. In fact, all modern GPS units show the ‘nearest’ centre or flight service frequencies.
When NAS was introduced it was clearly stated there were no frequency boundaries and we were following the proven world system. Surely it must be obvious here that once the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts some three months later, the problems started to exist.
As I have said many times before, it is a half-way, wound-back system.
Did you notice that nowhere in the current CASA documentation sent out have they stated that they have taken into account what happens in other leading aviation countries?
This is all very experimental – trying to get the old pre-1991 system working with a more modern ICAO based classified airspace.
We only tried the “international system” for three months. That was before Airservices printed a chart with frequency boundaries, and wound-back the system half-way, with no education at all. No wonder the poor CASA people can’t work out what is going on.
If we took a vote, I wonder how many people here would be prepared to actually copy the proven North American (i.e. Canadian/US) system and see if it actually worked here? It is very much simpler, it operates somehow without any 20 nautical mile CTAFs with hard dimensions to 5,000 feet, and the resultant safety levels are extremely high considering there is something like 30 times the traffic density with sometimes abysmal weather conditions.
It is interesting that when CASA did the ‘vote’ it was between two types of unique Australian systems. What a pity they weren’t game to ask the question, “As a pilot, would you be prepared to have the system based on the simpler and proven North American airspace procedures as used in Canada and the USA?”
I just wonder now with young people coming along, whether there would be more who would be prepared to copy something which is proven, very simple and extremely safe.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 13th Dec 2017 at 03:40.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other part of this equation is the introduction of many new waypoint names - both enroute and within GNS approaches that mean NOTHING to the VFR pilot whatsoever - if indeed you can say them! Using these waypoint names during descent into a CTAF for an approach is a waste of effort in so far as the VFR pilot is concerned. Using the points of the compass and distance in nm is simple and easy for all to understand. (not radials, as half get it wrong by 180deg). Pity some IFR pilots don't appreciate that!
Our frequency boundaries on charts were put there when they were flight service frequency boundaries
The boundaries are Flight Information Area boundaries. FIAs are volumes declared by CASA by a Legislative Instrument.
Flight Information Area (FIA): An airspace of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.
What is relevant is that they are defined areas within which particular air traffic services are provided, and industry (the users and customers) wanted them to remain on aeronautical charts for the information of pilots.
FIAs remain relevant even if MULTICOM below 5000FT comes in, because the volumes and services apply both to flights operating at and above 5000FT, and those below wishing to use the services.
It would be brave of CASA - the airspace regulator and originator of the Legislative Instruments - to decide FIAs are no longer required and not be published.