CASA Class G Discussion Paper
And another scenario re this proposed MULTICOM below 3000ft or 2000ft AGL:
IFR single VHF inbound from western Victoria to Moorabbin, intending to proceed OCTA below the CTA steps via PTOM.
IFR single VHF inbound from western Victoria to Moorabbin, intending to proceed OCTA below the CTA steps via PTOM.
- What frequency should be set from 20 DME ML where the CTA step is C LL 2500?
- if MULTICOM, what does the pilot do re SAR whilst out of comms with ATC?
- if the IFR is on MULTICOM, how should ATC manage SAR & SIS?
Given that the flight is IFR the pilot must remain in continuous two-way comms. If you need to change to a different frequency for a short time tell us how long for and we'll base SAR on that.
Thread Starter
Yair. Mandate. Mandate Mandate. Let's make it three VHFs. And much bigger fines .
Whatever we do - we must not look around the world and copy the best.
We are the leaders in aviation and the rest of the world should be copying us. If they had any brains.
In our system the pilot of MDX was never allowed to talk to anyone with a radar screen
That's why he was never told he was flying almost at right angles to his desired flight
And the BASI report didn't even mention this or recommend the available radar be used in future .
Concrete minds I would say. And that's our problem at the present time
Whatever we do - we must not look around the world and copy the best.
We are the leaders in aviation and the rest of the world should be copying us. If they had any brains.
In our system the pilot of MDX was never allowed to talk to anyone with a radar screen
That's why he was never told he was flying almost at right angles to his desired flight
And the BASI report didn't even mention this or recommend the available radar be used in future .
Concrete minds I would say. And that's our problem at the present time
Concrete minds - the same could be said for your continual spin campaign, Dick.
The MDX situation has been discussed at length, but you keep coming up with new conjecture about it to fit your agenda. Are you saying now he didn't know where he was going, and someone with a radar screen should have told him? But no, we should get rid of all those excess lazy bastards sitting around in the Airservices secret society.
The MDX situation has been discussed at length, but you keep coming up with new conjecture about it to fit your agenda. Are you saying now he didn't know where he was going, and someone with a radar screen should have told him? But no, we should get rid of all those excess lazy bastards sitting around in the Airservices secret society.
So anyway...
Supplementary question, triadic.
Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.
In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?
Specifics, please.
I'm assuming you won't be telling the student: "It is simply your choice". Or is my assumption incorrect?
Supplementary question, triadic.
Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.
In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?
Specifics, please.
I'm assuming you won't be telling the student: "It is simply your choice". Or is my assumption incorrect?
Help - seems like I have been delusional for years.
I have always believed ATC were there to give IFR/VFR aircraft in CTA separation and OCTA IFR traffic information and VFR whatever assistance requested (eg METAR, Flight following etc). This of course means communicating on an appropriate frequency shown on a chart.
A low level multicom/ CTAF for VFR not requiring any ATC services was also preferable.
For IFR to still access traffic service OCTA and still keep track of multicom/CTAF at the same time would require two VHF (which certainly regional RPT do now). Hence my comment above.
The big issue for alerted see and avoid multicom/CTAF below whatever might be an agreed level is too many unnecessary radio calls.
I have always believed ATC were there to give IFR/VFR aircraft in CTA separation and OCTA IFR traffic information and VFR whatever assistance requested (eg METAR, Flight following etc). This of course means communicating on an appropriate frequency shown on a chart.
A low level multicom/ CTAF for VFR not requiring any ATC services was also preferable.
For IFR to still access traffic service OCTA and still keep track of multicom/CTAF at the same time would require two VHF (which certainly regional RPT do now). Hence my comment above.
The big issue for alerted see and avoid multicom/CTAF below whatever might be an agreed level is too many unnecessary radio calls.
But back in those days you used the frequency that you were told to use.
Thread Starter
Lead. The very point I am making.
I once asked FS if they could give me the frequency of ATC in the Bowral area so I could get a transponder check. No way.
They got in touch with ATC on the ti line then asked me to ident . They then passed on to me the confirmation from ATC.
Before we made the AMATS changes the ATC frequency boundaries were not shown on charts- just the FS boundaries. There was no such thing as a radar flight following service until we introduced that with one of the airspace changes.
All because of resistance to change and a resistance to asking advice or copying the best from overseas
And that's what's happening now .
I once asked FS if they could give me the frequency of ATC in the Bowral area so I could get a transponder check. No way.
They got in touch with ATC on the ti line then asked me to ident . They then passed on to me the confirmation from ATC.
Before we made the AMATS changes the ATC frequency boundaries were not shown on charts- just the FS boundaries. There was no such thing as a radar flight following service until we introduced that with one of the airspace changes.
All because of resistance to change and a resistance to asking advice or copying the best from overseas
And that's what's happening now .
Look at Devonport(YDPO), for an example.
A Dash8-400 on descent into YDPO the crew will need to be on area frequency 120.70 along with the CTAFR 126.90, then to get the PAL/PAPI activated you need to be on 122.30, then get the AWIS information 133.225 then talk to the company agent- lots of opportunity for missing a radio call from the VFR traffic or broadcasting your intentions on the wrong frequency.
Lot simpler when Oggie was in the Devon FSU!
A Dash8-400 on descent into YDPO the crew will need to be on area frequency 120.70 along with the CTAFR 126.90, then to get the PAL/PAPI activated you need to be on 122.30, then get the AWIS information 133.225 then talk to the company agent- lots of opportunity for missing a radio call from the VFR traffic or broadcasting your intentions on the wrong frequency.
Lot simpler when Oggie was in the Devon FSU!
CLX, a bit dramatic there, although I agree CAGROs are the go. Call the company in the cruise, get the PAL put onto the CTAF, and a quick flick off Area to update the AWIS isn't a major issue.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB
That is the choice of the PIC to make considering all the factors available to him/her.
Above 5000 ft I would suggest the Area Frequency. Above the lid of the MULTICOM and below 5000 there is no requirement, but the Area Frequency might be the best choice.
The idea is that with the MULTICOM you don't know when you are 'in the vicinity' of any strip etc, so using the MULTICOM is simple.
The choice for a VFR pilot is simple. If he/she is below the lid of the MULTICOM then 126.7 - When in 'in the vicinity' of a promulgated CTAF (on other than 126.7), then that frequency for the appropriate broadcasts.
I would expect that as an IFR category aircraft he would normally be given frequency transfers by ATC.
In your example, then he is perhaps changing to VFR procedures in which case he would monitor frequenies as directed by ATC or if he felt the need to change to another frequency such as the MULTICOM then he would advise ATC and nominate a time to call again (a sked). This procedure is used now with CTAFs and BAs.
On what frequency is one obliged to maintain a listening watch when you're in G but not in the vicinity of an aerodrome?
Above 5000 ft I would suggest the Area Frequency. Above the lid of the MULTICOM and below 5000 there is no requirement, but the Area Frequency might be the best choice.
The idea is that with the MULTICOM you don't know when you are 'in the vicinity' of any strip etc, so using the MULTICOM is simple.
Let's say one of your students is going to fly from The Oaks (near Camden NSW) to Leeton (in the NSW Riverina), 'low level', VFR. The student will overfly Temora. The aircraft has 1 VHF.
In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?
In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you advise your student to monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?
IFR single VHF inbound from western Victoria to Moorabbin, intending to proceed OCTA below the CTA steps via PTOM.
What frequency should be set from 20 DME ML where the CTA step is C LL 2500?
if MULTICOM, what does the pilot do re SAR whilst out of comms with ATC?
if the IFR is on MULTICOM, how should ATC manage SAR & SIS?
What frequency should be set from 20 DME ML where the CTA step is C LL 2500?
if MULTICOM, what does the pilot do re SAR whilst out of comms with ATC?
if the IFR is on MULTICOM, how should ATC manage SAR & SIS?
In your example, then he is perhaps changing to VFR procedures in which case he would monitor frequenies as directed by ATC or if he felt the need to change to another frequency such as the MULTICOM then he would advise ATC and nominate a time to call again (a sked). This procedure is used now with CTAFs and BAs.
Thanks triadic.
I take it, then, that you support FIA boundaries and frequencies remaining on charts?
Exactly the same logic and simplicity applies to using Area, I would have thought. If you can work out the Area frequency to use above 5,000 ...
And you don't have to change from Area to MULTICOM when you descend below the 'lid'.
And whether you're on MULTICOM or Area, you still have to change to the CTAF of aerodromes in the vicinity that don't use 126.7.
I'm still not getting it.
Above 5000 ft I would suggest the Area Frequency. Above the lid of the MULTICOM and below 5000 there is no requirement, but the Area Frequency might be the best choice.
The idea is that with the MULTICOM you don't know when you are 'in the vicinity' of any strip etc, so using the MULTICOM is simple.
And you don't have to change from Area to MULTICOM when you descend below the 'lid'.
And whether you're on MULTICOM or Area, you still have to change to the CTAF of aerodromes in the vicinity that don't use 126.7.
I'm still not getting it.
I once asked
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that in the advanced world of aviation in Aus that pilots are charged for every landing, maybe every radio call (connected?) so that it might be cheaper not to make those calls, and this might solve your problem.
More seriously I fly in the US and Canada and rarely make any calls while enroute VFR even if in Class E apart from Downwind and Final. If I have a transponder I am Squawking 1200 and if I have ADS-B it looks after me quite well.
If I want someone to know where I am in my flight plan, I tell Flight Service and they appreciate it but it is not required so they don't chase me.
I fly for the CAP and they require a contact every 30 minutes, which is a pain but it is their airplane so I do it and if I miss two calls they report me missing. Sometimes I have to climb to 13,000 feet or so to get through to Flight Service. It would seem to me that this would be a problem in Aus too, given the remoteness of the Outback?
More seriously I fly in the US and Canada and rarely make any calls while enroute VFR even if in Class E apart from Downwind and Final. If I have a transponder I am Squawking 1200 and if I have ADS-B it looks after me quite well.
If I want someone to know where I am in my flight plan, I tell Flight Service and they appreciate it but it is not required so they don't chase me.
I fly for the CAP and they require a contact every 30 minutes, which is a pain but it is their airplane so I do it and if I miss two calls they report me missing. Sometimes I have to climb to 13,000 feet or so to get through to Flight Service. It would seem to me that this would be a problem in Aus too, given the remoteness of the Outback?
This argument seems interminable and there appear to be just as many arguments for one side as the other. It all seems to hinge around whether alerted see and avoid is better than unalerted see and avoid. My last near death experience was on a CTAF while on descent to the local uncontrolled airport, below CTA steps with an opposite direction Cessna. At no stage do I recall ever hearing from the Cessna on the CTAF. So alerted see and avoid does not work but the big sky theory did; the moving finger of fate did not write about our death that day. (By the way I was nearly cleaned up by a truck driving home and I have no idea which frequency the driver was on)
If we are trying to solve a problem, what is it? According to the ATSB Review of Mid-Air Collisions 1961-2003 <https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36828/Review_of_midair_col.pdf> there were 37 collisions which means Australia averages approximately one per year. Of these 41% were near the five capital city GA airports, there were no dominant factors, and the figures are consistent with mid-airs in other countries.
So are we helping to prevent the remaining 59% of collisions by forcing pilots that have radios to listen on a specific frequency? The evidence would seem to indicate not; the 41% were probably on the GA airport Tower frequency receiving an ATS service.
A conclusion (not the only one) that can be reached is that it seems not to matter which frequency the pilots are on; what does matter is that they are looking out of the cockpit in every direction they can. Much in the way I drive my car or steer my boat. The air radio is very useful for getting assistance and making traffic calls but the report referenced above does not seem to indicate that it can prevent mid-air collisions. Short of having Class A airspace down to ground level, only concentration, eye balls and quick reactions can do that.
The latest threat to my life seem to be drones and I don't see CASA mandated which frequency they will be talking on!
If we are trying to solve a problem, what is it? According to the ATSB Review of Mid-Air Collisions 1961-2003 <https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36828/Review_of_midair_col.pdf> there were 37 collisions which means Australia averages approximately one per year. Of these 41% were near the five capital city GA airports, there were no dominant factors, and the figures are consistent with mid-airs in other countries.
So are we helping to prevent the remaining 59% of collisions by forcing pilots that have radios to listen on a specific frequency? The evidence would seem to indicate not; the 41% were probably on the GA airport Tower frequency receiving an ATS service.
A conclusion (not the only one) that can be reached is that it seems not to matter which frequency the pilots are on; what does matter is that they are looking out of the cockpit in every direction they can. Much in the way I drive my car or steer my boat. The air radio is very useful for getting assistance and making traffic calls but the report referenced above does not seem to indicate that it can prevent mid-air collisions. Short of having Class A airspace down to ground level, only concentration, eye balls and quick reactions can do that.
The latest threat to my life seem to be drones and I don't see CASA mandated which frequency they will be talking on!