20nm CTAF Dumped
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So walk me through how you train someone to decide what calls to make, triadic and On eyre.
Silence in response to a call in the vicinity of an aerodrome does not prove there are no other aircraft in the vicinity who benefit from the call. There is no general obligation to respond.
This is the conundrum created by leaving the judgment call to the pilot, rather than mandating specific time or distance or circuit position calls. Silence in response to a broadcast is no guarantee of anything.
I’m not saying I’m advocating a return to mandatory calls. I’m merely saying that I can understand why some pilots choose to make joining/downwind/base/final/backtracking/clear calls in all circumstances. (And woe betide anyone who suggests to Cap’n Bloggs that it might be better to remain silent while e.g. a jet and a bugsmasher sort out their TCAS-induced drama 10nms away.)
In any event - and I anticipate that Kaz may support me on this - more selective decisions on whether to broadcast won’t overcome, entirely, the over-transmission and general ‘noise’ on 126.7 when operating at moderate altitudes, especially if more broadcasts that would otherwise have been made on Area will instead be made on 126.7 and 126.7 remains the ‘default’ CTAF.
Silence in response to a call in the vicinity of an aerodrome does not prove there are no other aircraft in the vicinity who benefit from the call. There is no general obligation to respond.
This is the conundrum created by leaving the judgment call to the pilot, rather than mandating specific time or distance or circuit position calls. Silence in response to a broadcast is no guarantee of anything.
I’m not saying I’m advocating a return to mandatory calls. I’m merely saying that I can understand why some pilots choose to make joining/downwind/base/final/backtracking/clear calls in all circumstances. (And woe betide anyone who suggests to Cap’n Bloggs that it might be better to remain silent while e.g. a jet and a bugsmasher sort out their TCAS-induced drama 10nms away.)
In any event - and I anticipate that Kaz may support me on this - more selective decisions on whether to broadcast won’t overcome, entirely, the over-transmission and general ‘noise’ on 126.7 when operating at moderate altitudes, especially if more broadcasts that would otherwise have been made on Area will instead be made on 126.7 and 126.7 remains the ‘default’ CTAF.
My call on the MULTICOM (note: in uppercase) if deemed necessary, would be well above 5000ft. By 5000ft I would be on the CTAF.
(1) make a call on Area, at the top of descent or some other time or distance from the aerodrome
(2) make a call on 126.7, before descending through 5,000’ (noting that “if deemed necessary” is buzzword bullsh*t), and
(3) make a call on the discrete CTAF for the aerodrome (noting that in the scenario I gave, the CTAF was not 126.7).
Do I have that right?
It all goes back to the basic purpose or at least intent of CTAF calls ie to assist with alerted see and avoid and relevant separation when required at dare I say it affordable safety levels.
To my mind that requires minimal mandatory broadcasts.
I would suggest taxi (additional rolling calls if a significant time elapses between rolling and the initial taxi call) and an inbound (or overflying) call at a distance to be determined but minimum 10 nm with option to call earlier depending on aircraft speed, profile etc.
All other calls should only be responsive to other traffic as required and not mandatory.
The time saved should then be used productively to improve safety by looking out the windscreen for traffic.
Can't be too frickin' hard.
To my mind that requires minimal mandatory broadcasts.
I would suggest taxi (additional rolling calls if a significant time elapses between rolling and the initial taxi call) and an inbound (or overflying) call at a distance to be determined but minimum 10 nm with option to call earlier depending on aircraft speed, profile etc.
All other calls should only be responsive to other traffic as required and not mandatory.
The time saved should then be used productively to improve safety by looking out the windscreen for traffic.
Can't be too frickin' hard.
Makes sense to me. 
LB I do not understand the requirement for your call (2).
The IFR aircraft or any other for that matter is only going to listen on 126.7 B050 (if that is the decided MULTICOM upper level) and make a call, inbound or overflying, (mandatory I would hope) at the designated CTAF boundary at whatever level it is at then, or at a greater height or distance depending on type or speed.
The IFR aircraft or any other for that matter is only going to listen on 126.7 B050 (if that is the decided MULTICOM upper level) and make a call, inbound or overflying, (mandatory I would hope) at the designated CTAF boundary at whatever level it is at then, or at a greater height or distance depending on type or speed.
My “call 2” arose from this question from me:
triadic’s answer was:
I read that as triadic saying he would make the call before passing 5,000’ rather than when passing 5,000’, but only “if deemed necessary”. (I’ll be interested to hear what factors triadic says will result in that call being “deemed necessary” in some circumstances and not others. The IFR pilot doesn’t know what s/he doesn’t know, and radio-equipped VFR traffic B050 faithfully monitoring 126.7 rather than Area won’t know that the IFR is on his or her way down.)
The reason I asked the question is that in the Canadian system IFR aircraft make that call and, as can seen from my scenario, it could get a bit complicated if the IFR aircraft has to juggle Area, multicom (note: no caps) and a discrete CTAF ...
In the system you envisage, triadic, if an IFR aircraft is inbound to an aerodrome with a CTAF that is not 126.7, will that aircraft be broadcasting on 126.7 when passing through 5,000’?
My call on the MULTICOM (note: in uppercase) if deemed necessary, would be well above 5000ft. By 5000ft I would be on the CTAF.
The reason I asked the question is that in the Canadian system IFR aircraft make that call and, as can seen from my scenario, it could get a bit complicated if the IFR aircraft has to juggle Area, multicom (note: no caps) and a discrete CTAF ...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that as triadic saying he would make the call before passing 5,000’ rather than when passing 5,000’, but only “if deemed necessary”. (I’ll be interested to hear what factors triadic says will result in that call being “deemed necessary” in some circumstances and not others. The IFR pilot doesn’t know what s/he doesn’t know, and radio-equipped VFR traffic B050 faithfully monitoring 126.7 rather than Area won’t know that the IFR is on his or her way down.)
The problem arises when such pilots/operators are not managed within an environment that teaches them the ins and outs of operating in Class G.
The high capacity RPT jets are an example of this as some pilots may not operate in Class G more than a few times a year and as a result are not up to speed with such ops as compared to an operator that operates into Class G and CTAFs on a daily basis. This is where CASA fail in not providing education that provides standardisation and simplification across the board. Whilst we have Chief Pilots and Training pilots all teaching different things, or nothing at all, it will continue to be a mess.
An applicable amount of CDF has to be applied at all times.
So what is the standard, simple, CDF way for an IFR pilot who’s going to descend below 5,000’ when inbound to an aerodrome with a discrete CTAF to manage the risk of radio equipped aircraft in the area monitoring only 126.7?
Is it is what is provided in the Canadian AIP RAC?
Unless you can state, in words of one syllable, who’s going to be transmitting what on what frequencies and where in the system you want, it ain’t gonna happen. Motherhood statements about simplicity and CDF are meaningless.
Is it is what is provided in the Canadian AIP RAC?
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. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF.
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. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you can state, in words of one syllable, who’s going to be transmitting what on what frequencies and where in the system you want, it ain’t gonna happen. Motherhood statements about simplicity and CDF are meaningless.
Yes. Really.
I know my posts can sometimes be obtuse, but I’m actually trying to help your cause.
Unless you can state, in words of one syllable, who’s going to be transmitting what on what frequencies and where in the system you want, it ain’t gonna happen. Motherhood statements about simplicity and CDF are meaningless.
You might have a better understanding than me of how these frequency and airspace arrangements are actually determined in Australia, but I doubt it very much.
You - probably more than anyone - should know what happens when poorly thought-through changes are the subject of half-ar*sed or non-existent education campaigns that just confuse a change-fatigued pilot population.
That said: You make it happen and I’ll work within your system. But I will, first, need to understand it.
I know my posts can sometimes be obtuse, but I’m actually trying to help your cause.
Unless you can state, in words of one syllable, who’s going to be transmitting what on what frequencies and where in the system you want, it ain’t gonna happen. Motherhood statements about simplicity and CDF are meaningless.
You might have a better understanding than me of how these frequency and airspace arrangements are actually determined in Australia, but I doubt it very much.
You - probably more than anyone - should know what happens when poorly thought-through changes are the subject of half-ar*sed or non-existent education campaigns that just confuse a change-fatigued pilot population.
That said: You make it happen and I’ll work within your system. But I will, first, need to understand it.
I’ve flown through them all, and may still have the charts to dust off.
Full reporting and SARWATCH for VFR above 5,000’, AFIZ, MBZ, CTAF(R), VEC charts, charts with and without biscuits, charts with and without frequency boundaries. I do - genuinely - look forward the entertainment of 20 nm CTAF procedures.
The only thing I’ve learnt through it all is the feral weed persistence of parasitic ‘safety’ bureacracies, and the chronic naivety of the industry.
Full reporting and SARWATCH for VFR above 5,000’, AFIZ, MBZ, CTAF(R), VEC charts, charts with and without biscuits, charts with and without frequency boundaries. I do - genuinely - look forward the entertainment of 20 nm CTAF procedures.
The only thing I’ve learnt through it all is the feral weed persistence of parasitic ‘safety’ bureacracies, and the chronic naivety of the industry.
