Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?

[Dick Smith]

Topdrop. I wonder if your question was. “ why have you removed the frequency boundaries from the charts “. “I want them back or I will put on a hissy fit. I don’t care if other countries don’t have them. I can’t cope with change and if you don’t put them back I will kick up such a fuss that I and others will disrupt the complete NAS plan. So there”

[De_flieger]

With the boundary system you like if you are 130 nm south of charlieville at 7500’ the correct frequency to be on will be that of the Charlieville outlet on 124.8. However you will not get communication or an emergency call out to Charlieville on that frequency - if you call the nearest ground outlet which is St George on 118.95 the signal will romp in. I know because I have tried it .

That sounds like there's an incorrectly placed boundary - surely the solution for those cases such as 130NM S of Charleville would be to position the frequency boundaries on the charts accurately to maximise coverage, rather than abolish them altogether? If Google Maps is wrong, would you correct it or remove all the street signs so no-one knows if they're on the wrong street? If the maps are wrong, I'd prefer to fix them rather than removing useful and incorrect information alike.

I've never flown in the UK or USA, but I do remember flying with the "improved" charts put out under the NAS without the frequency boundaries, and it was *not* an improved experience. Beyond removing frequency boundaries from the charts, what is it you are wanting to do? I get that you want a safer and cheaper system, but how are you planning to achieve that? Hypothetically, if you had free reign and a blank cheque, what actual changes beyond the chart boundaries would you make, and how would it make things safer? Please tell me - I'm not entirely averse to change, although a bit tired of what feels like constant regulatory chopping and changing for no apparent benefit. If your plan involves everyone flying OCTA wherever they like without radios in and out of CTAFs, mixing it up with high performance turboprop and jet aircraft, that is making things much less safe.

The solution put forward by Captain Midnight

I fail to see the problem with the introduction of MULTICOM applying below 5000 coexisting with published FIA boundaries.

• If operating below 5000, use MULTICOM or CTAF as applicable (and if dual VHF consider also monitoring the FIA);
• if operating at or above 5000, use FIA.

has my vote too as a simple, reliable and effective method. There are a lot of good reasons for VFR OCTA aircraft to monitor FIA where practical, as explained - for traffic awareness, I fairly regularly hear light aircraft being warned about other aircraft in proximity or crossing paths, and ATC is fairly good at trying to raise unidentified aircraft before they enter restricted airspace or violate controlled airspace. IFR aircraft might cruise at different levels to VFR aircraft, but they both have to get up to and down from those levels at some stage, so will climb through the same levels. If ATC wants to warn me I'm about to fly through a military firing range, I want to know! Why 5000 feet? You need a line somewhere, whether it's 500 feet, 5000 feet or 10,000 ft, and aircraft performing instrument approaches will probably be around 5000 AGL at the start of an RNAV or other instrument approach, so could fairly be said to be operating in the vicinity of the field. Maybe 6000 feet is better? Maybe 4000 feet? Regardless of the exact demarcation point, its a good idea.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yair De flieger, will you please stop typing this nonsensical rediculous rubbish! I just can't cope with it any more!

[Lead Balloon]

So, in the above proposed system:

1. What is the “MULTICOM” frequency and in what operational circumstances would it be used? (A bit more detail than “below 5,000’ AMSL”, please.)

2. What is the default CTAF and when would it be used? (Precision around what would count as in the vicinity, please.)

[Capn Bloggs]

What is the “MULTICOM” frequency

What is the default CTAF

Both in AIP.

[fujii]

Do you reckon we can get some agreement and spell ridiculous correctly?

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Both in AIP.

Your written comprehension problems persist, bloggs. I said “in the above proposed system”, not in the current system.

And I asked for detail and precision.

[Dick Smith]

De f. The boundaries are there primarily for workload purposes - not just VHF coverage.

[Dick Smith]

Wow. Whatever you do don’t look at the front page and the editorial in the Aus this morning. It’s heresy and ridicalous.

[topdrop]

Thanks for the heads up - I certainly won't look, knowing that it will have been written by you, just repeating the same rubbish we get on here.

[De_flieger]

De f. The boundaries are there primarily for workload purposes - not just VHF coverage.

Then they can be changed - not enormous changes but tweaking around the boundaries to fix the situations you refer to. Surely you'd accept that if an air traffic management system isn't adequately supporting the aviators using it, it can be changed?

Fujii -- don't be rudoculis!

So, in the above proposed system:

1. What is the “MULTICOM” frequency and in what operational circumstances would it be used? (A bit more detail than “below 5,000’ AMSL”, please.)

2. What is the default CTAF and when would it be used? (Precision around what would count as in the vicinity, please.)

Multicom - unchanged from the current AIP of 126.7, and used when OCTA, without requiring communications with ATC (vfr low altitude), so 5000' is a reasonable demarcation point.

Default CTAF - unchanged from the current 126.7. Used when operating in the vicinity of an aerodrome, either marked on charts or unmarked, without a discrete CTAF frequency.

Discrete CTAF - unchanged from the current whatever it is on the chart for the location.

Vicinity of an aerodrome? 20 NM sounds reasonable to me - I am monitoring CTAF usually from 30+NM out (only 7-8 minutes) to understand what aircraft are operating in the circuit and area, to set up my separation from them. For the occasional cases where there are multiple aerodromes marked or unmarked within overlapping 20NM areas, either everyone uses the default CTAF, or if the traffic density requires, a region discrete CTAF. This is a procedure already in use and working at places like the Darling Downs area where there is Wellcamp and Toowoomba and probably other strips in close proximity, or the Horn Island/Torres Strait area with a bunch of airstrips all using the one discrete region CTAF.

There isn't ever going to be a perfect system that meets every single user's needs and wants - if you want to fly no-radio, no-transponder in a gyrocopter across Sydney CTR at 1000AGL at 9am, sorry, you don't have that freedom. All I want to do is go to work, fly from A to B and occasionally C, without bumping into anything or breaking stuff, and if that means that people have to carry and use radios, so be it. If you're flying through a CTAF at 2000', not talking to anyone and no transponder, and I descend onto you from above with both aircraft in the other's respective blind spots it doesn't really matter that you were exercising what you see as your right to operate OCTA wherever you like without talking to anyone - no-one will win in the ensuing collision. If you're desperate to operate no-comms, find yourself the appropriate restricted area so I can stay out of the way.

[De_flieger]

Dick, are you able to explain to me what your free reign, blank cheque changes would be? I'm still not sure what it is you want, beyond the removal of frequency boundaries from charts, which in my experience is a backwards step that increases the likelihood of people being on the incorrect frequency.

[cattletruck]

When I started flying 25 years ago I thought it a novelty to have to learn Morse code, but I did. I also thought the radio systems aviation used were a bit crude (back then headsets were an expensive luxury). I then remember GPS arriving and units were limited to programming just the "To" field taking you blissfully through all sorts of control zones and notamed areas.

With all the development in communication technology that have happened in the last 25 years (and there have been lots), we are still using the same old archaic method of separation delivered to us since WWII - the AM radio. Yes it works, mostly, provided it's on, working and tuned to the correct frequency.

You'd think by now we'd have something better and wouldn't have the need for such a discussion.

[Dick Smith]

De F. Under ICAO there is no “ incorrect “ frequency for VFR when en route in G.

Why wouldn’t we at least give the simpler proven international system a go?

I know. We built the Nomad. They built the 747 and the 380!

[triadic]

The area frequency boundaries are designed primarily around upper level air-routes, traffic levels and controller workload. As upper level VHF coverage is not an issue the dead spots are not normally considered. ASA publish VHF coverage at 5000ft and 10,000ft only. Requests have been made previously for a 3000ft coverage but it has never happened. Coverage maps for ADSB is also for the upper levels and certainly not low level. ASA don't even publish the locations of the ADSB units. I would have thought that was of interest to those with ADSB fitted?

[Dick Smith]

Thanks. This of course means that in many areas at low level a pilot won’t get out a mayday to ATC when on the area map marked frequency but may get out a call on the nearest vhf outlet frequency as shown on most GPS units.

[De_flieger]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Thanks. This of course means that in many areas at low level a pilot won’t get out a mayday to ATC when on the area map marked frequency but may get out a call on the nearest vhf outlet frequency as shown on most GPS units.

There are plenty of remote places where making a mayday call on either the marked (current system) or the nearest VHF outlet (your plan) won't reach ATC. Your idea doesnt remove the problem at all, merely reducing it a little in some areas that you are familiar with and have experience of, but not others. If everyone in the area is actually on the same area frequency there's a much greater chance that even if ATC doesn't hear it, someone else will and be able to relay that something has gone wrong. If everyone in the area is picking and choosing their own random frequencies and not monitoring anything because they think they dont want to, then probably no-one will hear the mayday and relay it.

If you want area VHF coverage to the ground everywhere, which doesnt currently exist, there's a significant cost to that which goes against your idea of cheaper and simpler I believe. You still havent explained what changes you want, as opposed to making oblique references to 747s and how things are done elsewhere. Convince me of the merit of your ideas and I'll support them, but so far I don't know what they are!

I have a certain perspective and fly to and from a few of the places you mention fairly regularly, and I see how ATC uses FIA frequencies to enhance the safety of aircraft OCTA. Telling the C150 going one way that they're about to have a close encounter of the ATR-72 kind going another way departing Moranbah is a good thing.

[Lead Balloon]

Multicom - unchanged from the current AIP of 126.7, and used when OCTA, without requiring communications with ATC (vfr low altitude), so 5000' is a reasonable demarcation point.

Default CTAF - unchanged from the current 126.7. Used when operating in the vicinity of an aerodrome, either marked on charts or unmarked, without a discrete CTAF frequency.

So what is the ‘Multicom’ to be used for, precisely?

What broadcasts, precisely, should be made on ‘Multicom’, by whom and when, precisely, that are not part of a CTAF procedure?

Seems remarkably like one giant CTAF area, excluding uncontrolled aerodromes with CTAFs other than 126.7.

In Canada, the Multicom frequency and the default CTAF frequency are different, for very good safety reasons.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Deflated Balloon

Your written comprehension problems persist, bloggs. I said “in the above proposed system”, not in the current system.

As I said, they're in AIP. You have read the discussion paper, have you not?

[De_flieger]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

So what is the ‘Multicom’ to be used for, precisely?

What broadcasts, precisely, should be made on ‘Multicom’, by whom and when, precisely, that are not part of a CTAF procedure?

Seems remarkably like one giant CTAF area, excluding uncontrolled aerodromes with CTAFs other than 126.7.

In Canada, the Multicom frequency and the default CTAF frequency are different, for very good safety reasons.

Precisely - aircraft operating below say 5000 ft that may need to communicate or coordinate with other aircraft in the area, not specifically associated with a CTAF. Examples include but are not limited to aircraft operating from unmarked airstrips, survey aircraft operating at lower levels, search and rescue or firefighting aircraft - any of these may be in conflict with other VFR aircraft operating OCTA. Broadcasts - those necessary to coordinate with other aircraft or avoid collisions.

If there is frequency congestion or it shows to be necessary, MULTICOM could well be on a different frequency to the default CTAF, as in the Canadian example, however this would have to be balanced against the numbers of smaller unmarked or non-ctaf airstrips close to the CTAF locations, to reduce the chances of aircraft being in the same area but on different frequency.