Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?
Since the variety of CTAFs currently in use has arisen from frequency congestion on 126.7, has anyone given any thought to the likely widespread over transmission and confusion arising from use of one frequency across the entire country..
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frequency congestion is not the problem that many make it out to be! A common frequency, such as the MULTICOM, works just fine so long as those that use it have a bit of a think before hitting the PTT. Education is part of the key - we really have to address those that make up to eight (8) calls as they go around the circuit and those that talk and say nothing!!
I wonder if your question was. “ why have you removed the frequency boundaries from the charts “.
Just because you may
put on a hissy fit
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.
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.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People pushing their agendas and bullying others into silence.
Kaz
Originally Posted by Triadic
Education is part of the key - we really have to address those that make up to eight (8) calls as they go around the circuit and those that talk and say nothing!!
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
That’s a relief!
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
That’s a relief!
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
My apologies, De flieger - I did not mean to suggest you aren’t good at the pilot thing.
I, too, have spent the odd decade or three flying all over Australia to some very remote places. I don’t think it matters much what the frequency arrangements are put in place in remote areas - provided the procedures are followed.
However, having the default CTAF and Multicom on the same frequency in non-remote areas will, I’d suggest, produce cluttered confusion on 126.7.
Some supplementary questions:
The Canadian AIP RAC says:
3. In the system you envisage, will IFR aircraft be broadcasting on 126.7 immediately prior to changing altitude when in Australian G?
You said, earlier:
4. In the system you envisage, on what frequency will aircraft engaged in the above activities transmit, if e.g. aerial working at 4,500’ equidistant from e.g. Griffith and Narrandera, each of which is serviced by RPT aircraft and has a different CTAF neither of which is 126.7?
You also said, earlier:
You’ll have to explain that in simpler terms for me. I don’t see how the MULTICOM and ‘default’ CTAF being the same or different frequencies solves the problem of unmarked airstrips being ‘close to’ CTAF locations. Either way, you can end up with an unmarked airstrip where the frequency for use will be different than the CTAF at a nearby aerodrome. Perhaps the rule should be that the frequency in use at an unmarked airstrip should be the CTAF in use at the nearest marked aerodrome? Or maybe we just stick with the status quo?
I, too, have spent the odd decade or three flying all over Australia to some very remote places. I don’t think it matters much what the frequency arrangements are put in place in remote areas - provided the procedures are followed.
However, having the default CTAF and Multicom on the same frequency in non-remote areas will, I’d suggest, produce cluttered confusion on 126.7.
Some supplementary questions:
The Canadian AIP RAC says:
9.13 IFR Procedures at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome in Uncontrolled Airspace
Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach.
Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach.
You said, earlier:
[A]ircraft operating below say 5000 ft [] 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.
You also said, earlier:
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.
Thread Starter
This is all about experimenting with human lives. That’s why I have always supported copying a proven system with minimum differences. Just common sense.
When I am involved again we will introduce CASA overseas visits for people to actually come up to speed on how these simpler procedures work so well!
When I am involved again we will introduce CASA overseas visits for people to actually come up to speed on how these simpler procedures work so well!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all about experimenting with human lives. That’s why I have always supported copying a proven system with minimum differences. Just common sense.
When I am involved again we will introduce CASA overseas visits for people to actually come up to speed on how these simpler procedures work so well!
When I am involved again we will introduce CASA overseas visits for people to actually come up to speed on how these simpler procedures work so well!
Dick, you keep alluding to something you are working on, nearing completion and now when you are involved again. If you want some support, for heaven’s sake tell the rest of us what is going on and stop what looks like an old bloke dreaming of past glory.
Thread Starter
Fuji. Give me a ring sometime. Impossible to do much worthwhile on a site where dead loss losers get the same exposure as a competent and rational minded person.
It’s clear that some who post here are real dopes. But it’s good to hear their views as it helps to handle change .
It’s clear that some who post here are real dopes. But it’s good to hear their views as it helps to handle change .
on a site where dead loss losers get the same exposure as a competent and rational minded person.
But seriously, it's posts like your last that plainly show that you are in fact not interested in hearing what any one else has to say, unless it agrees with your point of view. You make all the right noises about wanting to consult and pick the brains of the best to come up with a workable system, but in reality, it's your way or the highway. When you stoop to the depths of just hurling insults, you do yourself and your cause no favours.
The vast majority of the posters on this site are professionals who spend their working lives in the industry. Can you say that?
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 29th Dec 2017 at 06:49.
Folks,
Let me see if I have this correct:
We are going to have TWO (2) definitions for "in the vicinity", the ICAO one applicable to weather forecasts, and one (of a completely different size) for traffic notifications and communications purposes.
That's pretty smart, maybe to differentiate, we could call them the "little vicinity" and the "big vicinity", to go with the "big CTAF".
While you are at it, could anybody let me have an autographed copy of "The Big Picture", I seem to have lost my original.
Tootle pip!!
PS: We will, of course, notify yet another difference to ICAO, so no visiting pilots will be confused about "in the vicinity" Australia.
Let me see if I have this correct:
We are going to have TWO (2) definitions for "in the vicinity", the ICAO one applicable to weather forecasts, and one (of a completely different size) for traffic notifications and communications purposes.
That's pretty smart, maybe to differentiate, we could call them the "little vicinity" and the "big vicinity", to go with the "big CTAF".
While you are at it, could anybody let me have an autographed copy of "The Big Picture", I seem to have lost my original.
Tootle pip!!
PS: We will, of course, notify yet another difference to ICAO, so no visiting pilots will be confused about "in the vicinity" Australia.
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Dec 2017 at 07:50.
Impossible to do much worthwhile on a site where dead loss losers get the same exposure as a competent and rational minded person.
It’s clear that some who post here are real dopes.
It’s clear that some who post here are real dopes.
Originally Posted by Leddie
We are going to have TWO (2) definitions for "in the vicinity"
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the 2003 airspace system was brilliant. Wonderful experience not listening to Qantas, Air New Zealand etc talking in my ear about stuff that was irrelevant and listened to nearby CTAFs for stuff that was, like taxiing calls. Much better SA.
Can't see what anyone was complaining about. IFR aircraft usually have two radios so make the call on center freq that you are descending through 10000 and make it on the CTAF again so everyone operating below 10000 knows who you are and what your intentions are. Make the new system below 10000 feet and we'll be back there. There then isn't even a need to define a CTAF boundary, just when you make the inbound call.
Anyone who posts who's handle starts with Captain or some variation thereof is suspect.
Can't see what anyone was complaining about. IFR aircraft usually have two radios so make the call on center freq that you are descending through 10000 and make it on the CTAF again so everyone operating below 10000 knows who you are and what your intentions are. Make the new system below 10000 feet and we'll be back there. There then isn't even a need to define a CTAF boundary, just when you make the inbound call.
Anyone who posts who's handle starts with Captain or some variation thereof is suspect.
Thread Starter
That’s what NAS as approved by the federal government was. Clearly stated that if en route in the airspace normally used for approach and departure traffic at an airport monitor and announce if necessary on that airports frequency. No dimensions were given or necessary.
