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

CASA Class G Discussion Paper

Old 3rd Mar 2017, 03:53
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Arm out the window, you bring up a very good point in your statement:

“What’s the problem with having frequency boundaries marked on charts?”
There is clearly a problem because that is what this CASA discussion paper is about. For over three years now, CASA and the RAPACs haven’t been able to agree on the procedures to be used.

CASA reckons that at unmarked aerodromes, taxiing and circuit calls should be given on the ATC frequency which is also used to separate traffic. Most of the RAPACs reckon that the calls should be on the multicom.

No other country in the world of which I know has air traffic control frequency boundaries marked on charts. Now possibly there could be a reason for this. I know the reason why we have them marked in Australia. It is because many years ago, they were flight service frequencies and VFR and IFR aircraft flew at the same levels. It was called the quadrantal rule, and therefore VFR aircraft had to be in the full position system.

This worked well but was incredibly expensive. I was part of the group many years ago – in 1991 – that made the decision to change to the North American system. Rather than having IFR and VFR aircraft flying at the same levels with the quadrantal rule, we decided to move to the ICAO hemispherical rule, which put VFR aircraft 500 feet apart from IFR.

Then, at the most likely location of a collision – that is when flying en route in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome – we recommended that the VFR pilots monitored and announced on the aerodrome frequency. What could be simpler?

Many seem to think that the best frequency to be on if you have to give a MAYDAY is the area ATC frequency as marked on the charts. This is ridiculous. There are many areas in Australia where you cannot get through to the frequency of the ground based transmitter, but if you call the frequency of another transmitter that is closer, you will get immediate communication. VHF is line of site . That is why all the leading GPS units have a system showing nearest ARTC. That is for the American, Canadian and European system – where if you did need to call ATC, you can simply go to the nearest outlet which is likely to give you communication. It is what you call common sense and it has been proven all around the world.

We are in a situation where there is a conflict between the experts at RAPAC and the experts at CASA, because we have attempted to half roll back a very proven, safe system.

What was left out of the paper is the American requirement for radio equipped aircraft to monitor 121.5. This is the safest way of being able to communicate with an aircraft that may have inadvertently flown into controlled airspace. All the air traffic controller has to do is call a high flying airline aircraft and get them to call the aircraft at that location.

Around Sydney I often hear ATC calling a VFR aircraft in a certain location – only about 50% of the time does it get a reply. This is very likely because the particular aircraft is on the wrong frequency, or has the volume turned down.

As I have pointed out, I have done multi-day trips around Australia monitoring over 1,000 radio calls in our present system, and not one has been relevant for traffic purposes.

Also, with the continuing introduction of ADS-B, where position reports are not given, there is less likelihood of being able to find the location of another aircraft to start talking in the old 1950s system of radio arranged separation.

The prime reason that we have these problems is that there are those around (less and less these days) who want to return to the systems of the 1950 to 1980s – when they were learning to fly. Capn Bloggs is a clear example here.

Capn Bloggs, no we don’t have airline aircraft flying around with unalerted see and avoid. If they are approaching or departing an aerodrome, they can communicate to the VFR aircraft – which if following the recommended practices of NAS, will be monitoring that aerodrome’s frequency.

Having a radio on 121.5 gives the distinct advantage that at any point you can call out MAYDAY with your position if you have an engine failure, and that call will most likely (98% in my experience) be monitored by a high flying airline aircraft. I have checked this in the Indian Ocean near Cocos Island, and also half-way across the Atlantic near Ascension Island, and received an immediate answer to a test call.

This also means that VFR pilots can fly in beautiful silence, appreciating the wonderful scenery and communicating with passengers on the intercom. Imagine if we brought in a requirement that anyone driving on the weekends in there cars must have a CB radio compulsorily on the truck channel. It would be ridiculous.

CASA needs to re-do the paper looking at what the problems would be of going to the international, proven, safe, simpler system.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 04:04
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick
There is clearly a problem because that is what this CASA discussion paper is about.
No it is not. The issue is what freq is used at Bullamakanka dirt strip. Even if it becomes the Multicom, then it is still logical the boundaries stay on the charts.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 04:28
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,272
Received 410 Likes on 202 Posts
I agree with Blogg's point, Dick.

If the ATS VHF frequencies are going to be published on the charts, you might as well publish boundaries for them as well.

"Beautiful silence"? You obviously don't spend much time monitoring your much-loved Multicom.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 06:01
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For goodness sake...just leave the bloody thing alone.

More changes will be against safety. We know what the rules are and no-one to my knowledge has died because they called on Area instead of Multicom.

What's the use of me picking up Joe brown calling at Yowling Creek airfield if I don't know the thing exists or where it is?

I like listening to the bigger fellows when I am in remote areas and find their "presence" rather comforting. Joe will only be on air if he is flying and the way GA is going, that won't be very often.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 07:13
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Kaz. It's clear most pilots are not following the current CASA rules.

That is they are not using the ATC frequency to give circuit calls at non mapped airports.

Do you reckon CASA rules should be complied with. Or doesn't it matter.

And what's wrong with a simpler system if it's safe and if it works ?

And you can still listen to the big ones. Simply monitor the nearest ATC outlet if you want to .
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 07:18
  #26 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Lead. The problem was only created when the boundaries were put back on the charts.

If the boundaries are not there it's clear at low level you monitor the ctaf or multicom if you are so obsessed.

When did you learn to fly?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 07:47
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,152
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the boundaries are not there it's clear at low level you monitor the ctaf or multicom
And what are we supposed to monitor when we aren't low level (i.e. when operating above 3000FT up to FLs)?

The FIA; that's where we get a SIS and/or TFC info, FIS & SAR etc. And for that, the frequencies need to be published, and the boundaries are of enormous assistance. That's why the industry demanded they be returned.

In any case, whatever changes are proposed will need to be subject to a HAZID & ultimately a safety case, and I'm not sure all proposed will pass.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 08:20
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Yair. Can't possibly copy a proven very safe system. What would the yanks and the Canadians know. We built the Nomad. It passed our safety case

And Captain Midnight. What frequency do you suppose the North Americans are " supposed to monitor" when VFR and not at a low level?

Hint. It's not ATC. Can't possibly work. A pilot flying VFR must have wall to wall ATC calls to make it so!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 08:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 1,116
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
As I see it, I want the frequency boundaries on my chart so that when I fly from, say, CN to TEM I can listen out on the appropriate frequency where I can expect to be able to ask for ops info from an appropriate person or if it all goes bad call for help.
It's not that I want a barrage of yap, nor do I want to make one, but I want to know the appropriate frequency rather than take a punt. You never know, somebody might be helped out of a tight spot by being able to call the proper controller.
What then is the downside to having the boundaries on the chart? If you don't like them, ignore them FFS. Stop trying to micromanage Dick.
mustafagander is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 08:28
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,272
Received 410 Likes on 202 Posts
The problem was only created when the boundaries were put back on the charts.
What "problem" was "created" that will go away if the boundaries are removed?

I'm not "obsessed" about anything. I merely observed that monitoring 126.7 does not usually produce "beautiful silence" and that if FIA frequencies are going to be printed on charts, you might as well print frequency boundaries as well.

Get the rules changed to whatever you like. But please, please (please) make sure that any changes are subject to a better education campaign than has accompanied most other changes in the last couple of decades.

I never learned to fly. I'm afraid of heights.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 08:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it's clear most pilots are not following the current CASA rules.

That is they are not using the ATC frequency to give circuit calls at non mapped airports.

Do you reckon CASA rules should be complied with. Or doesn't it matter.

And what's wrong with a simpler system if it's safe and if it works ?

And you can still listen to the big ones. Simply monitor the nearest ATC outlet if you want to
Dick, what's clear to me is that few pilots using unmarked strips bother to make a call at all.
Certainly, I never hear them unless they have an organised event in which case they should be asking for a discrete frequency.

There is a significant number of marked airstrips which have 126.7 as their CTAF scattered around the country and I have never heard calls on that frequency from aircraft at unmarked airstrips nearby when over flying. But I have heard pilots transmitting over another because they are both using 126.7 at different locations.

A small aircraft flying without OzRunways is a rarity now and it's an easy job to follow the frequency boundary changes on the electronic chart. Please Do NOT advocate for their removal.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 09:14
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My aircraft is at a strip which is not on charts but is near two which are marked. If I follow current requirements and broadcast on area I will add to the "yap" but will probably not inform those I most need to of my intentions as they will be on CTAF/ Multicom.

Not all aircraft have two VHFs and I know VFR is see and avoid.

Listening on area gives you some situation awareness and indication of what IFR traffic may be headed for your destination before you engage them on CTAF, if required.

Last edited by Frontal Lobotomy; 3rd Mar 2017 at 09:39.
Frontal Lobotomy is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 09:43
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Musta. If you want the most reliable contact with atc - monitor the nearest atc frequency as shown on your gps.

If you are 100 miles south of Charleville at 7500 you will not get through to the area frequency Charleville outlet as shown using the frequency boundaries but you will get through to the St George outlet which is nearer. I will say again. VHF is line of site. Closer normally the better.

The boundaries shown on the chart are primarily designed for ATC workload purposes.

If you want the most reliable way of getting a mayday call out. Use 121.5. Its monitored by lots of special transceivers flying at up to 50,000' to give maximum range . They are called jet aircraft.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 09:45
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
My aircraft is at a strip which is not on the charts but is near two which are marked
The definition of "in the vicinity" is 10nm last time I looked. So if you a within 10nm of the other strips, you would use 126.7 (or the CTAF freq if different)

What about if the area frequency boundary went close to your strip?

One of the reasons the the MULTICOM (NB: in upper case) has an advantage over area is that you may always be in the vicinity of some strip. The safest option is to have a common frequency for low level ops that is simple and easy to remember. Determining a frequency by whether it is on a chart or not only adds a degree of difficulty that was not there before. It is a simple procedure, especially if you don't know where the strips are? Oh!! And what chart was that??
cogwheel is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 09:50
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
NOTE: This thread is about he MULTICOM DP, not area frequency boundaries. Certainly that subject might follow, but it is not what the DP is about!
cogwheel is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 10:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cogwheel

Commonsense prevails. I just feel the current mandated requirements need to be changed.
Frontal Lobotomy is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 10:11
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,272
Received 410 Likes on 202 Posts
What are the "mandated requirements" to which you refer?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 10:27
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ok it may be "recommended" but I still think the recommendation needs to be changed.

Last edited by Frontal Lobotomy; 8th Mar 2017 at 00:08.
Frontal Lobotomy is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 10:46
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Watch for Dick's article in the Australian next week, never fails.
Arm out the window is online now  
Old 3rd Mar 2017, 11:13
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 3,319
Received 174 Likes on 70 Posts
I often hear ATC calling a VFR aircraft in a certain location.......
.....has the volume turned down......
.....VFR pilots can fly in beautiful silence.....
Pesky ATC!

Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 3rd Mar 2017 at 11:26.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.