CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Spodman - your last sentence spot on - why is this issue so fricken hard. Trying to appease all the IFR mob? Let them receive traffic down to top of Multicom level (whatever that is decided to be) then look and listen out like everyone else from there down !! ��
Thread Starter
So what sensible pilots are saying here is quite different to what the CASA experts require.
I see a slight problem here.
It sounds to me if the regulator is not respected.
Remember CASA currently mandates calls at non marked airports to be on the ATC area frequency as marked on the chart.
I can see why the morale at CASA is as it is.
I see a slight problem here.
It sounds to me if the regulator is not respected.
Remember CASA currently mandates calls at non marked airports to be on the ATC area frequency as marked on the chart.
I can see why the morale at CASA is as it is.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots trying to comply with the rules that CASA has imposed are f*&^wits
BTW: How is that you can look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen, when the aerodrome is not marked on the charts?
on eyre
CASA currently mandates calls at non marked airports to be on the ATC area frequency as marked on the chart.
Last edited by Spodman; 7th Mar 2017 at 03:49. Reason: More rhetoricals for Leaddie :)
Do you really think I would not be familiar with that fantastic and unusual beast? An unmarked aerodrome within VHF coverage at circuit altitude inside the area I know backwards and glare at on the screen everyday? It can't be on a radar screen because it isn't on a chart? It isn't marked on a chart so people can't know where it is???
When the pilot who called in the circuit at Butthole fails to return home after dark and search organisations are burning thousands per minute looking for him, Spodman will be able to pinpoint a place and time at which he was apparently alive, because Spodman heard the call and knows the area backwards. Very few other people will have the same knowledge.
And before you point out (correctly) that if the strip were marked and the call made on 126.7 Spodman would not be able to come to the rescue with pinpoint time and place and information, I'd note that that's why there is no perfect solution. Every solution will have downsides. It may be that no one monitoring 126.7 will have any clue where Butthole is.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be that no one monitoring 126.7 will have any clue where Butthole is.
When the pilot who called in the circuit at Butthole fails to [blah, blah, waffle...]
There was a time when a troop of workers, of which I was a proud one, did exactly that, listened to and logged traffic in the circuit, then regurgitated it to the other customers. It was called Flight Service, it was brilliant, but it was not efficient and it is gone. You are advocating to bring it back???
Last edited by Spodman; 7th Mar 2017 at 20:55. Reason: Rant Re-considered
Nope. Just raising the issues I consider relevant. That's how blogs work.
I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years.
I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years.
I am not qualified to talk about this subject, but it is already annoying in the circuit in Northern Victoria to have to listen to calls from CTAFS hundreds of miles away who share the same frequency. One wonders how annoying the area frequency will be if it gets cluttered up.
Anyway I'm fitting Two radios and transponder to the build in the hope of both complying with eventual regulation and avoiding a mid air.
Anyway I'm fitting Two radios and transponder to the build in the hope of both complying with eventual regulation and avoiding a mid air.
[B]ut it is already annoying in the circuit in Northern Victoria to have to listen to calls from CTAFS hundreds of miles away who share the same frequency. One wonders how annoying the area frequency will be if it gets cluttered up.
But it makes little practical difference.
If 126.7 becomes the quasi-Area frequency for low level ops, it will theoretically become even more annoying because calls that would otherwise be made on Area will be made on 126.7. I say "theoretically" because the number of calls made on Area by aircraft operating in the vicinity of strips that aren't marked on charts is 0.001% of Area frequency calls.
Either way, it's never going to be "beautiful silence" on 126.7.
If you have Dick's preference for "beautiful silence", you're better off not fitting a VHF to your aircraft and confining your flights to places at which the carriage of VHF is not mandatory.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How very professional of you.
Pilots trying to comply with the rules that CASA has imposed are f*&^wits.
BTW: How is that you can look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen, when the aerodrome is not marked on the charts?
Pilots trying to comply with the rules that CASA has imposed are f*&^wits.
BTW: How is that you can look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen, when the aerodrome is not marked on the charts?
I agree with you. The fact is that there are many and varied practices out there that are the product of change fatigue and 'self-help' solutions to perceived risks.
It's obvious that most pilots out there either don't have much of clue what the in-vicinity broadcast rules are, or interpret them in many and varied ways. One pilot's risk assessment results in him or her making 15/10/5/crosswind/downwind/base/final/clear calls, another just joining a straight in approach and saying nothing, in similar circumstances. Some people consider more talk equals more safety, others less talk equals more safety.
As I say, I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years.
It's obvious that most pilots out there either don't have much of clue what the in-vicinity broadcast rules are, or interpret them in many and varied ways. One pilot's risk assessment results in him or her making 15/10/5/crosswind/downwind/base/final/clear calls, another just joining a straight in approach and saying nothing, in similar circumstances. Some people consider more talk equals more safety, others less talk equals more safety.
As I say, I don't care much what the system is, provided everyone understands it. Wouldn't it be great if we could achieve that, just once, for a period greater than a few years.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem is that Australians' think they do it best. They refuse to entertain that somebody else may have a better system or do it better. Worse still, they preach from a pulpit that has never flown in these systems. It's arrogant and ignorant.
Thread Starter
What is Civil Air doing?
I was recently speaking to a retired air traffic controller who couldn’t believe that Civil Air is silent on this issue. Why aren’t they standing up for air traffic controllers? Why would they support circuit calls at small country strips on air traffic control frequencies? It is clearly taking away from the whole professionalism of the air traffic control group.
It is clear that nowhere else in the world would VFR aircraft not only be encouraged, but mandated, to give circuit calls on air traffic control separation frequencies.
Is Civil Air completely silent on this issue because they have done some type of deal with CASA? Or have they put in a submission but are going to keep it secret due to some type of arrangement?
While a very small number of people within CASA want this mandate (i.e. that aircraft at small non-marked airstrips give calls on air traffic control separation frequencies) it is obvious that it is against the interests of air traffic controllers.
This is a rumour network. Surely someone must know why Civil Air is doing nothing on this – if that is the position.
It is clear that nowhere else in the world would VFR aircraft not only be encouraged, but mandated, to give circuit calls on air traffic control separation frequencies.
Is Civil Air completely silent on this issue because they have done some type of deal with CASA? Or have they put in a submission but are going to keep it secret due to some type of arrangement?
While a very small number of people within CASA want this mandate (i.e. that aircraft at small non-marked airstrips give calls on air traffic control separation frequencies) it is obvious that it is against the interests of air traffic controllers.
This is a rumour network. Surely someone must know why Civil Air is doing nothing on this – if that is the position.
For heavens sake Dick, your perpetual reference to conspiracy theories is just laughable. Do you wonder why very few people take you seriously any more?
Why aren't we concerned? Area frequencies are separate from the high level frequencies and in most parts of the J curve handled by different sectors or can be split off.
The aircraft making low level calls in the circuit needs to be in range of the VHF outlet and I'd hazard a guess that the number of such circuit calls being made on any frequency is tiny. More than a few pilots inadvertently make calls on area rather than CTAF already and it's not a huge problem - I'm more concerned about their calls being missed on CTAF than the effect it has on my traffic.
Why aren't we concerned? Area frequencies are separate from the high level frequencies and in most parts of the J curve handled by different sectors or can be split off.
The aircraft making low level calls in the circuit needs to be in range of the VHF outlet and I'd hazard a guess that the number of such circuit calls being made on any frequency is tiny. More than a few pilots inadvertently make calls on area rather than CTAF already and it's not a huge problem - I'm more concerned about their calls being missed on CTAF than the effect it has on my traffic.
The aircraft making low level calls in the circuit needs to be in range of the VHF outlet and I'd hazard a guess that the number of such circuit calls being made on any frequency is tiny.
More than a few pilots inadvertently make calls on area rather than CTAF already and it's not a huge problem -
I'm more concerned about their calls being missed on CTAF than the effect it has on my traffic.
Thread Starter
Le ping. No wonder you need so many controllers. The plan was to have no stratification of the airspace to make it very efficient.
By having high and low level this also increases costs with double the number of expensive ground stations.
It also makes the lateral dimensions far greater.
This needs to be made more efficient
By having high and low level this also increases costs with double the number of expensive ground stations.
It also makes the lateral dimensions far greater.
This needs to be made more efficient
Originally Posted by Dick
By having high and low level this also increases costs with double the number of expensive ground stations.
Dick, stratification is a good thing as it gives flexibility in offloading workload when splitting off sectors. I thought you didn't like QFA1 having to hear some trainee IFR pilot bumbling through his navaid training intentions?
No wonder we need so many controllers?!? You really have no idea.
No wonder we need so many controllers?!? You really have no idea.
One of the significant safety issues with the sectrorisation is RETRANSMISSION where one controller has more than one VHF outlet and the associated sector area linked together. In some circumstances a transmission (broadcast) can be heard 500 or more miles away if within range of an outlet. This in fact causes artificial frequency congestion. The sectors are primarily designed along air routes, but the grouping of sectors together is a staff management issue. There is little or no consideration given for lower level ops in the design of sector boundaries.
Last edited by cogwheel; 9th Mar 2017 at 03:54.