20nm CTAF Dumped
No, I’m not confusing you with someone else.
It was you who used the phrase “reducing radio calls” in the context of a discussion about the relative safety of Australian E and Australian G. I was just interested in understanding whether you actually believe that an LCD in the vicinity of an aerodrome would actually make different calls if the airspace at circuit level at that aerodrome changed from G to E.
In case you’re interested in facts, the LCD would make exactly the same judgment call as to what calls, if any, to make, and where, in the vicinity of that aerodrome.
I realise that those running interference on Dick want to make the (valid) point that the transponder and TCAS are an unreliable way to mitigate the risk of an LCD flying fat, dumb and happy, saying nothing, in E. But the fact is that the same LCD can fly fat, dumb and happy, saying nothing, in G, in an aircraft without a serviceable transponder. Apparently this results in Australian G being better than Australian E. Go figure.
It was you who used the phrase “reducing radio calls” in the context of a discussion about the relative safety of Australian E and Australian G. I was just interested in understanding whether you actually believe that an LCD in the vicinity of an aerodrome would actually make different calls if the airspace at circuit level at that aerodrome changed from G to E.
In case you’re interested in facts, the LCD would make exactly the same judgment call as to what calls, if any, to make, and where, in the vicinity of that aerodrome.
I realise that those running interference on Dick want to make the (valid) point that the transponder and TCAS are an unreliable way to mitigate the risk of an LCD flying fat, dumb and happy, saying nothing, in E. But the fact is that the same LCD can fly fat, dumb and happy, saying nothing, in G, in an aircraft without a serviceable transponder. Apparently this results in Australian G being better than Australian E. Go figure.
No I used used “reducing radio calls” in the context of:
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."
I was simply trying to explain what TCAS is intended and more importantly not intended for. I wasn't putting it forward as an argument.
As I said, you've confused me with someone else who is actually involved in arguing about the topic - you might notice I've made no other posts in this thread.
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."
I was simply trying to explain what TCAS is intended and more importantly not intended for. I wasn't putting it forward as an argument.
As I said, you've confused me with someone else who is actually involved in arguing about the topic - you might notice I've made no other posts in this thread.
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.
As I said, all you need to do is spend some time monitoring 126.7 the real world with a modicum of traffic.
I usually monitor Area, 121.5 and the CTAF of whatever happens to be the nearest aerodrome. I dread it when the CTAF of the nearest aerodrome is 126.7. Doesn’t matter squat when I’m out the back of Bourke. But frequent garbled confusion in the ‘j’ curve.
Le P: So make another post on this thread. Is Australian G safer than Australian E?
I usually monitor Area, 121.5 and the CTAF of whatever happens to be the nearest aerodrome. I dread it when the CTAF of the nearest aerodrome is 126.7. Doesn’t matter squat when I’m out the back of Bourke. But frequent garbled confusion in the ‘j’ curve.
Le P: So make another post on this thread. Is Australian G safer than Australian E?
Does anyone know how the CTAF frequencies are allocated? I suspect that the chance of getting one, and avoiding the 126.7 crush, is as rare as rocking horse sh!t. eg Bunbury WA could do with its own, but has to share it with everyone at the East Black Stump Regionals. And don't forget to broadcast each leg of the circuit!
Last edited by bolthead; 16th Feb 2018 at 01:43. Reason: Removed first sentence for Leadies benefit
Yes - I’m guessing Sigmund Freud would have some insights into BSD’s state of mind.
As to your substantive question, bolthead, is your experience that 126.7 is frequently garbled confusion? It’s mine, at least while flying in the ‘j’ curve. I’m guessing that back when TIEW was listening to Area frequencies, there weren’t anywhere near the number of AUF/RAus/GFA/HGFA etc aircraft that are now fitted with VHF and wandering (and broadcasting) happy as a cloud.
And BSD: If your question was to me, the answer is that Australian G is, objectively and demonstrably, not safer than Australian E.
PS: If only we’d quoted BSD’s post...
As to your substantive question, bolthead, is your experience that 126.7 is frequently garbled confusion? It’s mine, at least while flying in the ‘j’ curve. I’m guessing that back when TIEW was listening to Area frequencies, there weren’t anywhere near the number of AUF/RAus/GFA/HGFA etc aircraft that are now fitted with VHF and wandering (and broadcasting) happy as a cloud.
And BSD: If your question was to me, the answer is that Australian G is, objectively and demonstrably, not safer than Australian E.
PS: If only we’d quoted BSD’s post...
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 15th Feb 2018 at 03:55. Reason: Added PS after BSD’s post was deleted.
I think you’ll find that a moderator deleted your post. I can’t imagine why... 
Does anyone know how the CTAF frequencies are allocated?
The usual process is that the local CASA office will be asked by RAPAC to assess the problem, and make a recommendation. If a discrete frequency is recommended for BUN, Airservices will be asked to allocate one and publish it in ERSA, AIP MAP DAP etc.
You might review past W.A. RAPAC minutes to see if it has been raised before.
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/eng...ory-committees
Chief Bottle Washer
Re ' there weren’t anywhere near the number of AUF/RAus/GFA/HGFA etc aircraft that are now fitted with VHF and wandering (and broadcasting) happy as a cloud.'.....
I would not be too sure of this claim.......
In 'the hayday', every 'second cocky' had a '172' in the barn, and the number of mining / charter aircraft was quite high.
In the day, they were mostly 6 to 8 seaters - Barons, 402's, Navajo /Chieftain etc. and some 10 seaters, and all in all, there was LOTS of them.
And all at or below A10,000...so lots of talkies...for some....
Then entered the turbines - Kingairs, Jetstreams, Brasilias, etc which carried more, so the number of aircraft actually decreased over time, as their capacity and cruise levels increased.
Now its mostly 'high fliers' jets, in CTA, and only on these dreaded 'Area' freqs on 'the drop'.
So why is there still 'too much chatter' to paraphrase your claim..??
No radio 'discipline' perhaps?
Pilots of today instructed that they 'must' call at....x, y, and z....
Too busy watching their glass house displays instead of...l o o k i n g outside...perish the thought.
(This 'ere gadget' will alert me if......so I can listen to my 'boom boom music' whilst we fly....
Whats that - I can't hear the engine?
Oh Dear...neither can I.....
Didn't hear the revs drop / engine note change with the carby ice?
And then, call with every detail of one's life when on descent to a 'CTAF.' etc.
Is this how it is?
I'll be down in the weeds, so that all other aircraft are easily sighted 'against the sky', when I get to these areas......
Cheers
'Tis been a 'long day'......
Etc Etc
I would not be too sure of this claim.......
In 'the hayday', every 'second cocky' had a '172' in the barn, and the number of mining / charter aircraft was quite high.
In the day, they were mostly 6 to 8 seaters - Barons, 402's, Navajo /Chieftain etc. and some 10 seaters, and all in all, there was LOTS of them.
And all at or below A10,000...so lots of talkies...for some....
Then entered the turbines - Kingairs, Jetstreams, Brasilias, etc which carried more, so the number of aircraft actually decreased over time, as their capacity and cruise levels increased.
Now its mostly 'high fliers' jets, in CTA, and only on these dreaded 'Area' freqs on 'the drop'.
So why is there still 'too much chatter' to paraphrase your claim..??
No radio 'discipline' perhaps?
Pilots of today instructed that they 'must' call at....x, y, and z....
Too busy watching their glass house displays instead of...l o o k i n g outside...perish the thought.
(This 'ere gadget' will alert me if......so I can listen to my 'boom boom music' whilst we fly....
Whats that - I can't hear the engine?
Oh Dear...neither can I.....
Didn't hear the revs drop / engine note change with the carby ice?
And then, call with every detail of one's life when on descent to a 'CTAF.' etc.
Is this how it is?
I'll be down in the weeds, so that all other aircraft are easily sighted 'against the sky', when I get to these areas......
Cheers
'Tis been a 'long day'......
Etc Etc
I’m sure of the claim. Because it’s true.
There’s more chatter on 126.7 because there are more flying ‘things’ with VHF than when you and TIEW were doing whatever you were doing ‘back in the day’.
Not criticising, but when was the last time you (Griffo) or you (TIEW) actually flew around monitoring 126.7?
Rough hours per month.
There’s more chatter on 126.7 because there are more flying ‘things’ with VHF than when you and TIEW were doing whatever you were doing ‘back in the day’.
Not criticising, but when was the last time you (Griffo) or you (TIEW) actually flew around monitoring 126.7?
Rough hours per month.
In my case it has been a while. I was more expressing surprise that with all the efforts to get people onto discrete frequncies so as to reduce congestion, it seems it has only made it worse. I did consider that radios are cheaper and much more portable now, but that the rise in the numbers of sport flying would be offsetting the decline in traditional GA flying. As suggested, perhaps more effort should be expended into promoting more 'efficient" use of radios.
kaz3g said this at #21 of this thread:
We’re not making this stuff up.
I flew from Shepparton to Wagga Wagga and back above 5000 today. ...
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. ...
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. ...
If a pope falls in the forest, is he a catholic?
From the CASA consultation report:
Clearly the likelihood of increased congestion on 126.7 should have been considered, both by respondents and CASA's assessors of the proposal.
The problem occurred during the Class G Demonstration way back in 1998.
A partial quote from that report:
Theoretically, the VHF range for aircraft to aircraft both @ 5000ft is about 140km 
More than eighty per cent of respondents to the discussion paper supported establishing MULTICOM 126.7 MHz as the frequency to use in low level airspace.
The problem occurred during the Class G Demonstration way back in 1998.
A partial quote from that report:
2.2 Operational Safety Factors
- The operation of the national advisory frequency was associated with regular occurrences of frequency congestion and over-transmission. The extent of those problems fluctuated from day to day, but on average did not decrease significantly over the period of the demonstration.
- Pilot workload generally increased during the demonstration, particularly for single-pilot instrument flight rules operations. The main factor contributing to the higher workload was the need for pilots to use multiple radio frequencies.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with frequency congestion on CTAFs and the MULTICOM is as simple as many pilots just talk too much!
There was an article way back in the CASA Flight Safety Magazine which suggested that if pilots first considered what value they were going to get when pushing the PTT, they might reconsider the transmission. Adding to the radio 'noise' does not always give the the desired results except giving the user a warm and fuzzy feeling that s/he is doing something right - wrong!
All of this goes back to training and an understanding of the system that we operate in. Clearly the education provided does not cut the mustard as the results show a widespread lack of understanding with the view that talking on the R/T will solve all the problems. Not only does this include the LCD but the airlines as well. Do we really need some making up to eight, yes eight calls around the circuit? Why do we need to know when you are taxing to the fuel bowser? Give me strength!
The answer is not to have more allocated frequencies either. In fact there should be less. With the appropriate education and understanding of the airspace system by users, many of the dedicated CTAF frequencies could be deleted in favour of the MULTICOM. The less dedicated frequencies the better in my view - it would certainly make operations at low level much more simple in regard to frequency selection.
There was an article way back in the CASA Flight Safety Magazine which suggested that if pilots first considered what value they were going to get when pushing the PTT, they might reconsider the transmission. Adding to the radio 'noise' does not always give the the desired results except giving the user a warm and fuzzy feeling that s/he is doing something right - wrong!
All of this goes back to training and an understanding of the system that we operate in. Clearly the education provided does not cut the mustard as the results show a widespread lack of understanding with the view that talking on the R/T will solve all the problems. Not only does this include the LCD but the airlines as well. Do we really need some making up to eight, yes eight calls around the circuit? Why do we need to know when you are taxing to the fuel bowser? Give me strength!
The answer is not to have more allocated frequencies either. In fact there should be less. With the appropriate education and understanding of the airspace system by users, many of the dedicated CTAF frequencies could be deleted in favour of the MULTICOM. The less dedicated frequencies the better in my view - it would certainly make operations at low level much more simple in regard to frequency selection.
So why is that, in Canada, the Multicom frequency and the ‘default’ CTAF frequency are different? They are 126.7 and 123.2, respectively.
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’?
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’?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why is that, in Canada, the Multicom frequency and the ‘default’ CTAF frequency are different? They are 126.7 and 123.2, respectively.
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’?
The key to this is education and training. Something that CASA have never undertaken to the extent necessary. They have very few that understand what is needed and what needs to be taught by whom and when. They have never addressed standardisation in any shape or form!
LB the answer to your second question is NO as there is no requirement that I am aware to make such a broadcast. A call on the designated CTAF at "an appropriate" distance (Read as yet to be determined) but not less than 10nm or greater is all that is necessary.