20nm CTAF Dumped
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew from Shepparton to Wagga Wagga and back above 5000 today. Nice to hear Centre giving IFR the traffic including VFR around YSWG while the heavies and the lighties were mixing it ever so responsibly.
Coming back, switched to 126.7 near YYWG and switched off again because the air was cluttered with over-transmissions and carrier noise from near and far.
I like it the way it is or at least give CTAFs like YYWG and different frequency.
Kaz
Coming back, switched to 126.7 near YYWG and switched off again because the air was cluttered with over-transmissions and carrier noise from near and far.
I like it the way it is or at least give CTAFs like YYWG and different frequency.
Kaz
But you don’t know what real “safety” sounds like, kaz.
When real “safety” is implemented, everyone will be broadcasting on 126.7, and whatever the area frequency might be, 30 nautical miles from wherever you happen to be.
When real “safety” is implemented, everyone will be broadcasting on 126.7, and whatever the area frequency might be, 30 nautical miles from wherever you happen to be.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 102 Likes
on
59 Posts
Checklist Charlie; Thank you Sir. You said exactly what I have been thinking.
Purely a thought; Does anyone else, especially of my 'vintage', think that way back when there were just AFIZ's, MBZ's, Controlled and Uncontrolled airspace, that it was a lot simpler then?
Oh, and for Griffo's benefit; That there was such a thing as Flight Service, and it was considered extremely poor airmanship to make a x country flight without lodging a full reporting flight plan.
A SARTIME flight was considered ok, but only if a full reporting flight was not practical given the circumstances of that particular flight.
Purely a thought; Does anyone else, especially of my 'vintage', think that way back when there were just AFIZ's, MBZ's, Controlled and Uncontrolled airspace, that it was a lot simpler then?
Oh, and for Griffo's benefit; That there was such a thing as Flight Service, and it was considered extremely poor airmanship to make a x country flight without lodging a full reporting flight plan.
A SARTIME flight was considered ok, but only if a full reporting flight was not practical given the circumstances of that particular flight.
I think you’ll find that AFIZ’s and MBZ’s didn’t co-exist. They existed at different times during the evolution of the fascinating mosaic that is the Australian airspace arrangements.
The AFIZ concept has been resuscitated to keep Bloggsie happy over in Port Bloggsland, and MBZs became CTAF(R)s and this week are called licensed/registered aerodromes or something like that.
Do you know who reads and what happens to “full reporting flight plans” that are now lodged in NIS for flights outside controlled airspace?
The AFIZ concept has been resuscitated to keep Bloggsie happy over in Port Bloggsland, and MBZs became CTAF(R)s and this week are called licensed/registered aerodromes or something like that.
Do you know who reads and what happens to “full reporting flight plans” that are now lodged in NIS for flights outside controlled airspace?
Pinky you are correct, life was simpler then; regrettably there is a big world outside of Australia.
When ICAO back in the '90s thought it would be good idea if all the airspace was the same, guess what they found? There were five different types of controlled airspace in use - which one did you have in mind? There were also three types of uncontrolled airspace in use, one of which was also controlled airspace! (the dreaded E of course).
Nah - you're right it was much simpler then!
When ICAO back in the '90s thought it would be good idea if all the airspace was the same, guess what they found? There were five different types of controlled airspace in use - which one did you have in mind? There were also three types of uncontrolled airspace in use, one of which was also controlled airspace! (the dreaded E of course).
Nah - you're right it was much simpler then!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checklist Charlie; Thank you Sir. You said exactly what I have been thinking.
Purely a thought; Does anyone else, especially of my 'vintage', think that way back when there were just AFIZ's, MBZ's, Controlled and Uncontrolled airspace, that it was a lot simpler then?
:
Purely a thought; Does anyone else, especially of my 'vintage', think that way back when there were just AFIZ's, MBZ's, Controlled and Uncontrolled airspace, that it was a lot simpler then?
:
Now there is a phone box in the garden and Internet connection 24/7.
Times change and so do requirements...some good and some plain stupid. 40 mile wide CTAFs and one low level frequency are in the latter basket in my view.
Kaz
Times change and so do requirements...some good and some plain stupid. 40 mile wide CTAFs and one low level frequency are in the latter basket in my view.
Once the airlines flying into CTAF aerodromes have to start broadcasting on the area frequency and 126.7 (and potentially a CTAF on a discrete frequency) before descending below 5,000’, the flaw in the plan will become evident.
There’s a very good reason why the ‘low level’ area frequency and default CTAF are different in Canada.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely we have enough frequencies to go around... with clusters of nearby airstrips getting a common frequency, everywhere else a discrete frequency and 126.7 for anything else.
Seems easy to do and easy to put on a map.
Seems easy to do and easy to put on a map.
As I recall there were deficiencies in the then education as well?
As I recall there was a well known VFR pilot some years back, that allegedly flew IMC on a regular basis. His insurance was to fly at the then VFR levels!!
There will always be holes in the fence, just have to keep them small!
As I recall there were deficiencies in the then education as well?
Bit of light reading. Document download at top right.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...sir199911_001/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/760388..._1991-1993.pdf
....and then this little gem-
.
Fromhttps://www.atsb.gov.au/media/761362...f_airspace.pdf
Has there ever been a study of conflicts before and post 1991?
....and then this little gem-
The debate over "affordable safety" in the Australian airspace system included
the widely promulgated unofficial message that "Australia can only benefit from
these efficiencies if pilots shut up" 3. This was not directed at pilots in MTAF
areas, nor did it suggest that rules should be broken. However, a number of
interviewed pilots believed that this message contributed to the confusion
among some pilots about when it was appropriate to use the radio
the widely promulgated unofficial message that "Australia can only benefit from
these efficiencies if pilots shut up" 3. This was not directed at pilots in MTAF
areas, nor did it suggest that rules should be broken. However, a number of
interviewed pilots believed that this message contributed to the confusion
among some pilots about when it was appropriate to use the radio
Fromhttps://www.atsb.gov.au/media/761362...f_airspace.pdf
Has there ever been a study of conflicts before and post 1991?
News reports suggest that CASA hasn’t dumped the 20nm CTAF radius idea. The entertainment could be back on!
Next thing they’ll work out that there are no mandatory CTAF calls, and therefore changing the radius is of little practical consequence to all the LCDs who make their own judgment call about whether and where to call. Solution: Back to mandatory calls! Genius!
Let’s hope it’s mandatory calls for everyone within 20nms of an aerodrome with a CTAF, B050.
126.7 is going to be chock full of nutritious safety.
Next thing they’ll work out that there are no mandatory CTAF calls, and therefore changing the radius is of little practical consequence to all the LCDs who make their own judgment call about whether and where to call. Solution: Back to mandatory calls! Genius!
Let’s hope it’s mandatory calls for everyone within 20nms of an aerodrome with a CTAF, B050.
126.7 is going to be chock full of nutritious safety.
Sad that CASA spokeswoman have to lie. Imagine the morale in working in such a place.
In an article in the Aus yesterday headed “CASA denies broadcast zone plan is to be canned” a spokeswoman states “As safety is our primary consideration we are keen to have a practical solution-“
If CASA complied wth this they would clearly put a minimum of a Port Headland Type AFIS or class D at every airport served by regional airlines. It’s what we once had before I introduced the substantial cost savings in 1991 that the regionals like REX have so benefitted from.
It’s clear that in this case CASA is putting cost in front of safety. Once again safety is not the primary consideration. Why else wouldn’t they put in a tower?
Imagine having to live a lie. It’s clear to see why the spokeswoman is anonymous.
It’s looks as if in over two years and extraordinary time wasted we are back where we started from .
The 40 mile CTAF proposal is being driven by the RAA. If they truely believe a full “ radio arranged separation “ is necessary for their operations they should support the expensive upgrades as “calling in the blind” will never guarantee that everyone is on frequency.
In an article in the Aus yesterday headed “CASA denies broadcast zone plan is to be canned” a spokeswoman states “As safety is our primary consideration we are keen to have a practical solution-“
If CASA complied wth this they would clearly put a minimum of a Port Headland Type AFIS or class D at every airport served by regional airlines. It’s what we once had before I introduced the substantial cost savings in 1991 that the regionals like REX have so benefitted from.
It’s clear that in this case CASA is putting cost in front of safety. Once again safety is not the primary consideration. Why else wouldn’t they put in a tower?
Imagine having to live a lie. It’s clear to see why the spokeswoman is anonymous.
It’s looks as if in over two years and extraordinary time wasted we are back where we started from .
The 40 mile CTAF proposal is being driven by the RAA. If they truely believe a full “ radio arranged separation “ is necessary for their operations they should support the expensive upgrades as “calling in the blind” will never guarantee that everyone is on frequency.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 9th Feb 2018 at 23:02.
If the B050 ‘area’ frequency is 126.7 and the ‘default’ CTAF is 126.7, there will be less risk of someone being on the wrong frequency.
As I said, 126.7 will be chock full of nutritious safety.
Bring on the entertainment, I say!
As I said, 126.7 will be chock full of nutritious safety.
Bring on the entertainment, I say!
From memory, in the 'good ole AFIZ dayz'....The 30nm call was mandatory, and, the time frame then was about thus....
FK.28 - about 7 mins (average)
Baron / Navajo - about 10 mins
C-210 - about 12 mins
PA.32 - about 15 mins
C-172 - about 18 mins
anything smaller - dunno - could be today, could be tomorra....
There were some 'rare' occasions when we would ask ATC to put the 'Fast Movers' over 'early' for traffic, when we had a 'fair bit' of 'conflicting' traffic in the area.
Like, 6 or more inbound from all over to meet and 'pick up' from the jet, or, an inbound flight on the same track under the jet.
Just so that everybody had the time to 'take note' of where everybody else was.....
Happy Dayz, and 'Rotsa Ruck' to all....
Cheers
Thanks Dick....
FK.28 - about 7 mins (average)
Baron / Navajo - about 10 mins
C-210 - about 12 mins
PA.32 - about 15 mins
C-172 - about 18 mins
anything smaller - dunno - could be today, could be tomorra....
There were some 'rare' occasions when we would ask ATC to put the 'Fast Movers' over 'early' for traffic, when we had a 'fair bit' of 'conflicting' traffic in the area.
Like, 6 or more inbound from all over to meet and 'pick up' from the jet, or, an inbound flight on the same track under the jet.
Just so that everybody had the time to 'take note' of where everybody else was.....
Happy Dayz, and 'Rotsa Ruck' to all....
Cheers
Thanks Dick....
30nm mandatory calls per the old AFIZ procedures would be even ‘safer’! Let’s make it 30nm radius CTAF procedures with mandatory calls on 126.7!
Griffo. With up to six aircraft being given as traffic sounds to me as if a lot of time in the cockpit would be heads down attempting to write down all of those call signs and to try and work out which is relevant traffic.
If it’s heads down it’s clearly less looking out!
Lead. Yair. Triple mandatory mandatory mandatory 60 mile diameter 10,000’ CTAF s is the way to go.
Won’t cost the Regionals a cent and make en route flying below 10,000 such a nightmare that hopefully private pilots will sell their aircraft and travel in a proper airline aircraft.
Hold on. That’s already happening!
If it’s heads down it’s clearly less looking out!
Lead. Yair. Triple mandatory mandatory mandatory 60 mile diameter 10,000’ CTAF s is the way to go.
Won’t cost the Regionals a cent and make en route flying below 10,000 such a nightmare that hopefully private pilots will sell their aircraft and travel in a proper airline aircraft.
Hold on. That’s already happening!
I wonder if the CASA spokeswoman quoted is from the PR department with zero knowledge of safe aviation practices?
Why wouldn’t someone from Flight Standards be confident enough to be quoted with a real name? I wonder if they live in fear of the truth ever coming out- that is a society never has enough money to introduce every potential risk reduction.
CASA current regulations show this- come on Mr Carmody, be open about the truth. It’s the only way we can obtain the highest levels of safety. To allocate the always limited resources where they will save the most lives.
Why wouldn’t someone from Flight Standards be confident enough to be quoted with a real name? I wonder if they live in fear of the truth ever coming out- that is a society never has enough money to introduce every potential risk reduction.
CASA current regulations show this- come on Mr Carmody, be open about the truth. It’s the only way we can obtain the highest levels of safety. To allocate the always limited resources where they will save the most lives.