20nm CTAF Dumped
I’ve said it many times, OZB. I’m pretty happy with the current system.
Monitor the real Area. (Centre assisted the separation of 2 of us LCDs yesterday.)
Use real Area for operations in the vicinity of an airstrip that isn’t marked on a chart. (Amount of traffic doing this? Negligible.)
No mandatory calls in the vicinity of aerodromes in G (or E...
).
I’d be happier if there was less blabbing on 126.7.
It is the last point that I’m very worried about. To the extent that I understand the proposals, they all seem to result in more blabbing on 126.7. Firefighting and EMS, 20nm radius CTAF procedures, IFR broadcasts before descending, and the multicom frequency and the default CTAF being 126.7? That way lies madness, at least in the J curve. 126.7 is already a punish to monitor.
Monitor the real Area. (Centre assisted the separation of 2 of us LCDs yesterday.)
Use real Area for operations in the vicinity of an airstrip that isn’t marked on a chart. (Amount of traffic doing this? Negligible.)
No mandatory calls in the vicinity of aerodromes in G (or E...
).I’d be happier if there was less blabbing on 126.7.
It is the last point that I’m very worried about. To the extent that I understand the proposals, they all seem to result in more blabbing on 126.7. Firefighting and EMS, 20nm radius CTAF procedures, IFR broadcasts before descending, and the multicom frequency and the default CTAF being 126.7? That way lies madness, at least in the J curve. 126.7 is already a punish to monitor.
I have to say that I agree with LB's position above.
126.7 below 5000 just adds yet another frequency aircraft could be on, hence for alerted see and avoid, a broadcast should be made on 126.7 by anyone prior to descending into that layer.
And probably for the same reasons for those intending to climb out to higher, a broadcast on CTAF, 126.7 and the FIA ...
Airservices made the point at a meeting some 3-4 years ago that broadcasts on FIA's by aircraft operating at strips not marked on charts was not currently a problem for ATC. Usually they didn't hear such broadcasts because on ground or low level comms weren't available, unless the strip was in close proximity to one of their ground stations.
They said the longstanding procedure was that if the level of traffic and resulting comms at a particular strip became problematic, that strip would be marked on charts so the default 126.7 applied.
126.7 below 5000 just adds yet another frequency aircraft could be on, hence for alerted see and avoid, a broadcast should be made on 126.7 by anyone prior to descending into that layer.
And probably for the same reasons for those intending to climb out to higher, a broadcast on CTAF, 126.7 and the FIA ...
Airservices made the point at a meeting some 3-4 years ago that broadcasts on FIA's by aircraft operating at strips not marked on charts was not currently a problem for ATC. Usually they didn't hear such broadcasts because on ground or low level comms weren't available, unless the strip was in close proximity to one of their ground stations.
They said the longstanding procedure was that if the level of traffic and resulting comms at a particular strip became problematic, that strip would be marked on charts so the default 126.7 applied.
We would not be having this discussion had an officer in a CAsA silo not made an unresearched, unrealistic, non-consultative, unilateral and stupid decision to make a "clarification" on the frequency to use.
Quite naturally they continue resist any challenge to their "clarification" by throwing up complete red herrings in the form of a 20 mile CTAF.
What is even worse and most unfortunate for aviation as an industry is that the senior management of CAsA either cannot see the subterfuge or if they can, are not doing anything about it.
We are obviously way past the time for a thorough cleanout of those responsible for both the management of CAsA and the oversight of that organisation.
CC
Quite naturally they continue resist any challenge to their "clarification" by throwing up complete red herrings in the form of a 20 mile CTAF.
What is even worse and most unfortunate for aviation as an industry is that the senior management of CAsA either cannot see the subterfuge or if they can, are not doing anything about it.
We are obviously way past the time for a thorough cleanout of those responsible for both the management of CAsA and the oversight of that organisation.
CC
Last edited by Checklist Charlie; 18th Feb 2018 at 22:11. Reason: .
Thread Starter
It is the last point that I’m very worried about. To the extent that I understand the proposals, they all seem to result in more blabbing on 126.7.
What I hear, far too much of the time, is pilots "going through the rituals", or "complying, not flying", far too much being said, far too little being heard, heard as in listened to, considered and understood.
Put another way, lots of noise with little effective contribution to alerted see and avoid.
Tootle pip!!
Maybe just maybe the problem is the size of the CTAF's - perhaps 10 nm radius up to 3000' amsl (higher where elevation of airfields are higher than say 1500') would suffice. Still allowing higher performance or steeper profile traffic or anyone else for that matter that saw the need, the option to make mandatory calls earlier. This would reduce the volume of 126.7 calls on CTAF or Multicom. What calls should be mandatory I have discussed earlier.
It seems to me that IFR aircraft are the biggest problem. They seem to expect to know all traffic including VFR as given by ATC even when most of the traffic is in VMC.
In my experience those IFR aircraft and ATC as well don't help themselves when making TOD calls and responses as in most cases the destination is not revealed just the fact they are on descent.
It seems to me that IFR aircraft are the biggest problem. They seem to expect to know all traffic including VFR as given by ATC even when most of the traffic is in VMC.
In my experience those IFR aircraft and ATC as well don't help themselves when making TOD calls and responses as in most cases the destination is not revealed just the fact they are on descent.
LB, sound points. Listening on real area, agree 100%. Only changing to marked ctaf when needed. 126.7 is a proxy for using "Guard"(yuk!) Circuit calls are US lovefest leftovers.
...although, I have concerns on the amount of idle chatter on full area(FL to GND) chasing smoother levels
...although, I have concerns on the amount of idle chatter on full area(FL to GND) chasing smoother levels
It seems to me that IFR aircraft are the biggest problem. They seem to expect to know all traffic including VFR as given by ATC even when most of the traffic is in VMC.
Cap'n - understand that but nothing to stop them making the CTAF call earlier than the boundary to elicit a response if they want. That is what happens now in practice in my experience.
Understood, and that is what usually happens now.
My point (and I think LBs) is that if 126.7 comes in for below 5000, then it's another frequency for them to broadcast on and monitor for possible response(s) prior to doing the same on the CTAF.
Without that broadcast on 126.7 they won't know if there is any traffic in the airspace outside the CTAF, nor would traffic in that airspace know about them.
And as I said earlier, if the IFR makes that 126.7 broadcast @ (say) 8000FT, they will be heard by other airborne aircraft up to a couple of hundred km away -
My point (and I think LBs) is that if 126.7 comes in for below 5000, then it's another frequency for them to broadcast on and monitor for possible response(s) prior to doing the same on the CTAF.
Without that broadcast on 126.7 they won't know if there is any traffic in the airspace outside the CTAF, nor would traffic in that airspace know about them.
And as I said earlier, if the IFR makes that 126.7 broadcast @ (say) 8000FT, they will be heard by other airborne aircraft up to a couple of hundred km away -
And if they make the same call on the FIA frequency they will often be heard by other aircraft up to a couple of hundred km away or further if retransmitted!
Also many of these IFR aircraft giving TOD calls will be doing so on a discrete CTAF different to the "Multicom" 126.7 so will not be heard by aircraft in other locations listening on 126.7
A lot to be said for keeping the upper CTAF limit as low as possible.
Also many of these IFR aircraft giving TOD calls will be doing so on a discrete CTAF different to the "Multicom" 126.7 so will not be heard by aircraft in other locations listening on 126.7
A lot to be said for keeping the upper CTAF limit as low as possible.
Last edited by On eyre; 19th Feb 2018 at 08:25.
IFRs are already making a broadcast on the ‘real’ Area frequency (that’s often heard by other aircraft a long way away).
That’s not the issue.
The issue is whether another broadcast should be made on 126.7 on descent through/before 5,000’ (or whatever the multicom ‘lid’ happens to be) and another broadcast should be made on the CTAF if the CTAF happens to be something different from 126.7 (in the system that is being advocated), with the obvious consequence that potential responses to all 3 broadcasts should be monitored.
I think it’s also important to get clear that a CTAF is a frequency, not a volume of airspace. Absent mandatory radio procedures at a specified distance or time from an aerodrome with a CTAF, it’s pretty meaningless to discuss the implications of the “upper limit” or “radius” of a CTAF. That’s one of the reasons I’m looking forward to the entertainment of 20nm radius CTAFs.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is whether another broadcast should be made on 126.7 on descent through/before 5,000’ (or whatever the multicom ‘lid’ happens to be) and another broadcast should be made on the CTAF if the CTAF happens to be something different from 126.7 (in the system that is being advocated), with the obvious consequence that potential responses to all 3 broadcasts should be monitored.
I think it’s also important to get clear that a CTAF is a frequency, not a volume of airspace. Absent mandatory radio procedures at a specified distance or time from an aerodrome with a CTAF, it’s pretty meaningless to discuss the implications of the “upper limit” or “radius” of a CTAF. That’s one of the reasons I’m looking forward to the entertainment of 20nm radius CTAFs.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot to be said for keeping the upper CTAF limit as low as possible.
The original proposal was in line with procedures prior to the 'clarification' in 2013 was to have the "lid" of the MULTICOM at 3000ft AGL, however those with infinite wisdom within CASA did not believe that pilots could judge their height AGL. I thought that was basic airmanship!
Agreed.
The original proposal was in line with procedures prior to the 'clarification' in 2013 was to have the "lid" of the MULTICOM at 3000ft AGL, however those with infinite wisdom within CASA did not believe that pilots could judge their height AGL. I thought that was basic airmanship!
The original proposal was in line with procedures prior to the 'clarification' in 2013 was to have the "lid" of the MULTICOM at 3000ft AGL, however those with infinite wisdom within CASA did not believe that pilots could judge their height AGL. I thought that was basic airmanship!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It worked for over a decade prior to the 'clarification'.... or was that a change?
A CTAF is a procedure used in Class G, it is not a block of airspace.
I always thought that a CTAF was simply a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency?
Gerry you are correct - to be used in a prescribed bit of airspace around an airfield. The multicom just extends that to provide a communication frequency between aircraft OCTA without bothering ATC.
How and when that is used for alerted see and avoid and particularly how IFR aircraft are kept happy once they drop out of ATC interest on descent is what the present discussion is all about.
I strongly believe as mentioned above that keeping those bits of airspace as small as possible and mandating two calls only (taxiing and inbound) with anything to follow as required or in response will work (as it used to).
As many have said - the major problem is too much talk on the radio and little communication.
How and when that is used for alerted see and avoid and particularly how IFR aircraft are kept happy once they drop out of ATC interest on descent is what the present discussion is all about.
I strongly believe as mentioned above that keeping those bits of airspace as small as possible and mandating two calls only (taxiing and inbound) with anything to follow as required or in response will work (as it used to).
As many have said - the major problem is too much talk on the radio and little communication.
The practical way forward is therefore obvious:
(1) For those who continue to be peeved about the “clarification” (or “change” or whatever you want to call it), go back to (or continue) using 126.7 for operations in the vicinity of an aerodrome that’s not marked on charts. Knock yourselves out and enjoy. Given that no-radio aircraft may operate lawfully in the area and given the tiny number of movements of this kind, the frequency on which you happen blab in the vicinity of an airstrip that is not marked on a chart has negligible consequences for others’ safety.
(2) Ignore whatever CASA plucks out of its ar*se this time around.
Job done. Move on.
(1) For those who continue to be peeved about the “clarification” (or “change” or whatever you want to call it), go back to (or continue) using 126.7 for operations in the vicinity of an aerodrome that’s not marked on charts. Knock yourselves out and enjoy. Given that no-radio aircraft may operate lawfully in the area and given the tiny number of movements of this kind, the frequency on which you happen blab in the vicinity of an airstrip that is not marked on a chart has negligible consequences for others’ safety.
(2) Ignore whatever CASA plucks out of its ar*se this time around.
Job done. Move on.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from a warm fuzzy feeling, what is the use of a 126.7 broadcast for unmarked strips? If it’s not on the chart, it won’t mean anything to me as I won’t know where you are.
Hence the “clarification” (or change or whatever you want to call it).
So then someone comes up with the low level MULTICOM idea, but overlooks the fact that in places where that concept has been implemented the MULTICOM frequency and default CTAF are different ...
So then someone comes up with the low level MULTICOM idea, but overlooks the fact that in places where that concept has been implemented the MULTICOM frequency and default CTAF are different ...