20nm CTAF Dumped
LB I am not sure anyone pressed for 126.7 to be the low level "area" frequency where area is normally taken to be the ATC frequency. Pedantic I know but the 126.7 multicom for aircraft to aircraft in CTAF's has always had merit.
The debate should always have been about the upper limit for multicom 3000 or 5000 ' amsl and the red herring thrown in by CASA of 20 nm radius should never have been plucked out of someone's posterior.
Hopefully sense will prevail and we can go back to what prevailed prior to the dictate of ATC Area frequency near aerodromes without CTAF's - it all seemed to work perfectly then with alerted see and avoid, the required carriage and use of radio at places the heavier metal frequent and resultant affordable safety.
If CASA want to splash a bit of cash then maybe mandate carriage and use of TXPDR on all aircraft and pay for it. This might provide another layer to placate the higher end of town.
Yet again swine might commit aviation.
The debate should always have been about the upper limit for multicom 3000 or 5000 ' amsl and the red herring thrown in by CASA of 20 nm radius should never have been plucked out of someone's posterior.
Hopefully sense will prevail and we can go back to what prevailed prior to the dictate of ATC Area frequency near aerodromes without CTAF's - it all seemed to work perfectly then with alerted see and avoid, the required carriage and use of radio at places the heavier metal frequent and resultant affordable safety.
If CASA want to splash a bit of cash then maybe mandate carriage and use of TXPDR on all aircraft and pay for it. This might provide another layer to placate the higher end of town.
Yet again swine might commit aviation.
What is the operational difference between 126.7 being the low level “area” frequency and 126.7 being the low level “multicom”?
If the ‘default’ CTAF for aerodromes that are not marked on charts is to be 126.7, doesn’t that result in 126.7 being, in effect, the low level “area” frequency? Maps are awash with the absence of marked aerodromes. In a separate thread de flieger said 126.7 was going to be the frequency for use by firefighting aircraft and emergency aircraft, among others. Doesn’t that mean we’ll have to be monitoring 126.7 continuously, when ‘low level’?
If the ‘default’ CTAF for aerodromes that are not marked on charts is to be 126.7, doesn’t that result in 126.7 being, in effect, the low level “area” frequency? Maps are awash with the absence of marked aerodromes. In a separate thread de flieger said 126.7 was going to be the frequency for use by firefighting aircraft and emergency aircraft, among others. Doesn’t that mean we’ll have to be monitoring 126.7 continuously, when ‘low level’?
LB - "Area" is usually defined as the frequency for use by ATC for communication with aircraft for separational and operational purposes. So if you do not require this then yes 126.7 becomes the "area" frequency. I see no problem with this and it was the way it used to be.
Firefighting aircraft on fire grounds (at least in South Australia) use a discrete VHF frequency (often 135.55). Note that these aircraft are fitted with many comms - usually two airband VHF as well as tactical VHF and GRN (Governement Radio Network) frequencies.
And yes monitoring 126.7 continuously "low level" unless you require ATC services - I see no problem in that at all.
Firefighting aircraft on fire grounds (at least in South Australia) use a discrete VHF frequency (often 135.55). Note that these aircraft are fitted with many comms - usually two airband VHF as well as tactical VHF and GRN (Governement Radio Network) frequencies.
And yes monitoring 126.7 continuously "low level" unless you require ATC services - I see no problem in that at all.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good CASA Discussion Paper on Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace, from a year ago.
It discusses why and how we have the system we have since May 2013 and why a large proportion of the GA community ignore it.
Personal opinion only. If it is so dangerous for LCD's to be continually scanning the ground ahead for unpublished airfields, why is it less dangerous for the LCD to be head in the charts to find frequencies rather than looking out the window? It's an opinion from the paper if you care to read. (about 350kb)
It discusses why and how we have the system we have since May 2013 and why a large proportion of the GA community ignore it.
Personal opinion only. If it is so dangerous for LCD's to be continually scanning the ground ahead for unpublished airfields, why is it less dangerous for the LCD to be head in the charts to find frequencies rather than looking out the window? It's an opinion from the paper if you care to read. (about 350kb)
The confusion in some quarters seems to have started when some people started to abbreviate Flight Information Area (FIA) as "area" i.e. "the area frequency", leading to the interpretation the frequency to be used in certain airspace.
An FIA is:
Big difference compared to MULTICOM (current definition):
An ATS is provided in FIAs, not on MULTICOM.
One or the other "FIA frequency" or "MULTICOM frequency" should be used, not "area" ...
Edit: having just read the linked discussion paper, CASA themselves haven't helped the situation by also just using the term "area VHF"
An FIA is:
An airspace of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.
The frequency (126.7MHz) used for broadcasts while operating to or from a non-controlled aerodrome depicted on an aeronautical chart that does not have a discrete CTAF assigned.
One or the other "FIA frequency" or "MULTICOM frequency" should be used, not "area" ...
Edit: having just read the linked discussion paper, CASA themselves haven't helped the situation by also just using the term "area VHF"
So let’s set aside the defined terms and just focus on how people with actual operational experience consider a ‘default’ 126.7 CTAF frequency for unmarked airstrips would work as a matter of practicality.
An aircraft fitted with one VHF is flying at 4,500’ AMSL / 1,000’ AGL in G.
17nms away is an aerodrome with a published CTAF of 126.55.
16nms away is an aerodrome with a published CTAF of 132.85.
The aircraft happens to be in airspace within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit on 134.65.
The ‘default’ CTAF for any unmarked airstrip is 126.7.
Any firefighting aircraft and EMS aircraft operating at ‘low level’ will be monitoring and broadcasting intentions on 126.7.
In this system, what frequency does the pilot of that aircraft monitor?
What frequency?
An aircraft fitted with one VHF is flying at 4,500’ AMSL / 1,000’ AGL in G.
17nms away is an aerodrome with a published CTAF of 126.55.
16nms away is an aerodrome with a published CTAF of 132.85.
The aircraft happens to be in airspace within which flight information and SAR alerting services are provided by an ATS unit on 134.65.
The ‘default’ CTAF for any unmarked airstrip is 126.7.
Any firefighting aircraft and EMS aircraft operating at ‘low level’ will be monitoring and broadcasting intentions on 126.7.
In this system, what frequency does the pilot of that aircraft monitor?
What frequency?
Ok LB I will bite. And assuming the 20 nm "proposal" gets knocked on its head then obviously 126.7 would do the job. Commonsense!
And bear in mind the 5000' amsl/ 20 nm is only a NPRM at present.
And bear in mind the 5000' amsl/ 20 nm is only a NPRM at present.
And that’s why the system won’t work, On eyre.
Your “common sense” won’t work in a thing called “reality”.
All you need to do is spend some time monitoring 126.7 in the real world (with a modicum of what Australia calls “traffic”). Any more traffic on that frequency will result in even more garbled confusion.
But, as always, I’d welcome the entertainment.
Your “common sense” won’t work in a thing called “reality”.
All you need to do is spend some time monitoring 126.7 in the real world (with a modicum of what Australia calls “traffic”). Any more traffic on that frequency will result in even more garbled confusion.
But, as always, I’d welcome the entertainment.
[H]aving just read the linked discussion paper, CASA themselves haven't helped the situation by also just using the term "area VHF".
And the elephant in the room which no one seems to want to tackle, and means that it maybe cannot work, is not too much traffic but too many unnecessary radio calls.
And it all goes back to training and airmanship.
Eg too many downwind, turning base, turning final, backtracking on runway etc often when no other aircraft in the vicinity - that's the biggest problem !!!
And it all goes back to training and airmanship.
Eg too many downwind, turning base, turning final, backtracking on runway etc often when no other aircraft in the vicinity - that's the biggest problem !!!
Sunfish has obviously never spent much time flying in the ‘j’ curve while monitoring and trying to make sense of transmissions on 4 frequencies. Once his new toy is finished and flying, I look forward to him reporting back on the utility of him monitoring, simultaneously, Area (to placate CM: the ‘real’ Area) frequency, 126.7 and two additional and different CTAFs.
FIA frequency is not the most important frequency, most of the time? I’m smelling the faint whiff of someone else who doesn’t fly much in the ‘j’ curve. I’m guessing you could be one of those pilots that Centre tries to contact to warn of a potential collision or CTA or R bust, to no avail?
FIA frequency is not the most important frequency, most of the time? I’m smelling the faint whiff of someone else who doesn’t fly much in the ‘j’ curve. I’m guessing you could be one of those pilots that Centre tries to contact to warn of a potential collision or CTA or R bust, to no avail?
LB if I'm flying around in CTA or above 5000' OCTA then I will certainly be monitoring and using when appropriate the FIA frequency. I really couldn't give a stuff about what is happening below me in any CTAF.
However B050 then I am certainly monitoring appropriate CTAF frequencies (including the discredited 126.7 if not on a discrete one) assuming my chariot of choice for the day only has single VHF. In practice I monitor both FIA (twin comms) and CTAF but as you can see the choice is made as above.
Now when CTAF boundaries collide one does sometimes have a conundrum. For example YWHA CTAF 126.9 and YPIR 126.7 are a bit less than 20 nm apart. My solution has been to make inbound calls on the appropriate CTAF at say 12 nm the assumption being that any outbound traffic is still going to be listening at 10 nm - I know small margin and with Mk1 eyeball safe.
Now the ridiculous 20 nm proposal is just that - ridiculous !!
Heavier metal than I have the choice to make CTAF calls at a greater distance inbound to account for speed and in my experience that is exactly what they do.
However B050 then I am certainly monitoring appropriate CTAF frequencies (including the discredited 126.7 if not on a discrete one) assuming my chariot of choice for the day only has single VHF. In practice I monitor both FIA (twin comms) and CTAF but as you can see the choice is made as above.
Now when CTAF boundaries collide one does sometimes have a conundrum. For example YWHA CTAF 126.9 and YPIR 126.7 are a bit less than 20 nm apart. My solution has been to make inbound calls on the appropriate CTAF at say 12 nm the assumption being that any outbound traffic is still going to be listening at 10 nm - I know small margin and with Mk1 eyeball safe.
Now the ridiculous 20 nm proposal is just that - ridiculous !!
Heavier metal than I have the choice to make CTAF calls at a greater distance inbound to account for speed and in my experience that is exactly what they do.
And LB you are wrong about me being one of those that Centre trying to contact about traffic or CTA or R bust to no avail as all aircraft I fly are twin comm. Just to clarify.
Que?
OZBD: "TCAS is last line of defence. It is not the first option to cut out a radio service."
LB: "But I still don’t get your last sentence."
LeP: "Some people argue that TCAS and similar tools can be used as a mitigator for reducing radio calls - you can fly around not talking because they can see you on a screen. That's not what it's for. It's to save your arse when all else fails."
LB: "Who are those “some people”?"
LeP: "Dick Smith has been saying it for aeons."
That's the conversation as far as I'm concerned. You must be confusing me with someone else.
OZBD: "TCAS is last line of defence. It is not the first option to cut out a radio service."
LB: "But I still don’t get your last sentence."
LeP: "Some people argue that TCAS and similar tools can be used as a mitigator for reducing radio calls - you can fly around not talking because they can see you on a screen. That's not what it's for. It's to save your arse when all else fails."
LB: "Who are those “some people”?"
LeP: "Dick Smith has been saying it for aeons."
That's the conversation as far as I'm concerned. You must be confusing me with someone else.