Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
Mini MBZ rather than Mega MBZ?
As we keep trying to tell them, CTAF dimensions mean nothing unless there are mandatory distance-based calls. That concept is an “MBZ”.
As we keep trying to tell them, CTAF dimensions mean nothing unless there are mandatory distance-based calls. That concept is an “MBZ”.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what was wrong with "in the vicinity"? Everyone has a different definition of circuit area.... why are we going back in time? As above, the inbound call should be time based. Many moons ago it was suggested to CASA that 7 mins was about right, but they did not take it up (or understand). And still don't it seems!
On top of that they don't seem to understand that the MULTICOM was designed to have a common frequency at low levels. By suggesting it is OK to be on the Area Frequency they are in fact undermining the role of the MULTICOM.
On top of that they don't seem to understand that the MULTICOM was designed to have a common frequency at low levels. By suggesting it is OK to be on the Area Frequency they are in fact undermining the role of the MULTICOM.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any of you ever wondered why other countries don’t put the frequency boundaries on charts?
Imagine you are in charge of Aviation safety in the UK, France , Germany ,Sweden,Norway,Canada or the USA.
The cost of putting frequency boundaries on charts would be negligible- a little ink. Why wouldn’t you do it if it could improve safety?
Either these countries are really dumb compared to Australia or perhaps safety would not be improved by the extra complexity.
You decide.
Imagine you are in charge of Aviation safety in the UK, France , Germany ,Sweden,Norway,Canada or the USA.
The cost of putting frequency boundaries on charts would be negligible- a little ink. Why wouldn’t you do it if it could improve safety?
Either these countries are really dumb compared to Australia or perhaps safety would not be improved by the extra complexity.
You decide.
Australia encompasses the same area as the whole of Europe so there is no comparison.
kaz
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This solution doesn’t upset ATC, primarily restricts communication to the immediate vicinity because of the low level for the broadcast, and gives those flying in or out a chance to broadcast their intentions.
next step would be to allocate different frequencies to those marked CTAFs using 126,7.
Jobs done!
kaz
next step would be to allocate different frequencies to those marked CTAFs using 126,7.
Just when I thought things couldn’t get weirder...
That was my reading as well.
My point is that at each twist and turn in this expensive journey - remember, there are people on 6 figures in CASA feeding off never-ending change and increasing complexity - we come up with yet another Galapogos concept.
The genesis of this process was - I thought - a controversy about one question and one question alone: Should the 'default' frequency for use in the vicinity of an airfield that is not marked on the charts be the FIA frequency or 126.7. Full stop. Nothing about CTAF 'dimensions'; nothing about the frequency for use at marked aerodromes.
But obviously a bunch of people with bright ideas and strong opinions about how to make us even 'safer' decided to use the process as a vehicle to promote those bright ideas.
Given that the last proposal by CASA seems to have been decided on the basis of numbers 'for' and 'against', the way in which to raise and determine questions in future seems obvious: A vote by ARN holders. Anyone can come up with an idea, that idea is expressed as a 'yes' or 'no' question - e.g. 'Should there be mandatory distance-based broadcasts by aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome?" - this goes into some portal software run by CASA - there must be some expensive software involved - and ARN holders log in and vote.
Another Galapogos development that's sure to provide (costly) entertainment.
My point is that at each twist and turn in this expensive journey - remember, there are people on 6 figures in CASA feeding off never-ending change and increasing complexity - we come up with yet another Galapogos concept.
The genesis of this process was - I thought - a controversy about one question and one question alone: Should the 'default' frequency for use in the vicinity of an airfield that is not marked on the charts be the FIA frequency or 126.7. Full stop. Nothing about CTAF 'dimensions'; nothing about the frequency for use at marked aerodromes.
But obviously a bunch of people with bright ideas and strong opinions about how to make us even 'safer' decided to use the process as a vehicle to promote those bright ideas.
Given that the last proposal by CASA seems to have been decided on the basis of numbers 'for' and 'against', the way in which to raise and determine questions in future seems obvious: A vote by ARN holders. Anyone can come up with an idea, that idea is expressed as a 'yes' or 'no' question - e.g. 'Should there be mandatory distance-based broadcasts by aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome?" - this goes into some portal software run by CASA - there must be some expensive software involved - and ARN holders log in and vote.
Another Galapogos development that's sure to provide (costly) entertainment.
Thread Starter
So true. Another Galapagos invention. But more like the tortoise. Slow and lumbering and unique..
The ignorance is incredible.
Kax. Canada is huge and no frequency boundaries. It’s the country I copied the 126.7 frequency from. But don’t tell anyone!
The ignorance is incredible.
Kax. Canada is huge and no frequency boundaries. It’s the country I copied the 126.7 frequency from. But don’t tell anyone!
But you should explain the whole Canadian system to which you refer, Dick. In vast areas of Canada the 'low level area' frequency is 126.7 and the 'default' CTAF is a different frequency.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does CASA even understand the MULTICOM concept?
Back to topic.
By stating that the use of Area Frequency is ok at low levels in Class G they are defeating the whole purpose of having the MULTICOM by promoting frequency separation, which the MULTICOM is designed to help solve. Seems this is not understood within Fort Fumble?
A practical answer to this mess has been proposed, however as usual they are not listening to those with practical experience in Class G.
(Is the iron ring still running the show?)
By stating that the use of Area Frequency is ok at low levels in Class G they are defeating the whole purpose of having the MULTICOM by promoting frequency separation, which the MULTICOM is designed to help solve. Seems this is not understood within Fort Fumble?
A practical answer to this mess has been proposed, however as usual they are not listening to those with practical experience in Class G.
(Is the iron ring still running the show?)
I would have thought that the content of the posts preceding your post was centrally relevant to the topic. But, in any event...
Do you have any experience in flying IFR in ‘real’ G? E.g. the Canadian G that Dick wants to replicate? What services are provided to IFR aircraft in Canadian G?
Don’t get me wrong: I reckon ‘real’ G would be very character building and instructive for Australian aviation.
Do you have any experience in flying IFR in ‘real’ G? E.g. the Canadian G that Dick wants to replicate? What services are provided to IFR aircraft in Canadian G?
Don’t get me wrong: I reckon ‘real’ G would be very character building and instructive for Australian aviation.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing weird about giving busy airfields such as Renmark a discrete frequency rather than leaving them on 126,7.
Renmark, Waikerie and Loxton are all on 126,7. You can’t hear yourself think in the circuit at Renmark when the gliding championships are on at Waikerie.
Kaz
Renmark, Waikerie and Loxton are all on 126,7. You can’t hear yourself think in the circuit at Renmark when the gliding championships are on at Waikerie.
Kaz
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Education and standardisation is the key to solving some of these issues and I understand CASA are working on addressing this.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that the content of the posts preceding your post was centrally relevant to the topic. But, in any event...
Do you have any experience in flying IFR in ‘real’ G? E.g. the Canadian G that Dick wants to replicate? What services are provided to IFR aircraft in Canadian G?
Don’t get me wrong: I reckon ‘real’ G would be very character building and instructive for Australian aviation.
Do you have any experience in flying IFR in ‘real’ G? E.g. the Canadian G that Dick wants to replicate? What services are provided to IFR aircraft in Canadian G?
Don’t get me wrong: I reckon ‘real’ G would be very character building and instructive for Australian aviation.
In relation to Canada:
- Any airspace that is not designated (A, B, C, D, E, or F) is Class G airspace. This airspace is uncontrolled, and ATC is not usually available (though exceptions are made).
- Any aircraft may fly in Class G airspace.
Australia Class G: This airspace is uncontrolled. Both IFR and VFR aircraft are permitted and neither require ATC clearance.
In Australia, all airspace that is not promulgated as class A, C, D, E or restricted is Class G, and is open for flight up to, but not including, 10 000 feet amsl to all holders of a valid Pilot Licence/Certificate flying any RA-Aus/HGFA/ASRA registered aircraft. Flight at or above 5000 feet requires VHF radio. Class G extends over most of Australia from surface level to the overlying CTA base at 8500 feet amsl, FL125 or FL180. The total volume of Class G airspace included between the average land mass elevation of 1100 feet and 10 000 feet is some 20 million cubic kilometres.
USA Class G (uncontrolled) airspace is mostly used for a small layer of airspace near the ground, but there are larger areas of Class G airspace in remote regions.
One significant difference in Oz Class G is the provision of traffic information and flight following to IFR ops. We have learnt to live with that and it is now very much part of our expectations in Class G.
Whilst using the experience of other countries in viewing how we manage Class G we will always come up with some differences, so I suggest there is no 'real G' or perhaps 'unreal G'.
It is a pity that the theory experts in CASA seem to have little or no practical understanding of how Oz Class G has worked since FS was closed.
But you do realise (and admit) that the MULTICOM frequency of 126.7 and the ‘default’ CTAF frequency are different in Canada, do you not?
Yes or no.
Yes or no.
That brings back memories of the mid 1970's in S.A. when a (then) modern sailplane may have had an 'Alpha Genave' two channel radio with only 122.7 and 122.9 MHz available. No FLARM and the odd MAC then..
From Transport Canada’s AIM RAC, here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents...18-1-E-RAC.pdf
In Canadian G, the closest equivalent to Australia’s ‘Area’ frequency is 126.7. 126.7 is - literally - the CTAF for aircraft operating in Canadian G but there is a different frequency for use in the vicinity aerodromes in G. The Canadian equivalent of Australia’s ‘default CTAF’ for use in the vicinity aerodromes in G is 123.2.
8.10 CLASS G AIRSPACE—RECOMMENDED OPERATING PROCEDURES—EN-ROUTE
When aircraft are manoeuvring in the vicinity of uncontrolled aerodromes or cruising in Class G airspace, the lack of information on the movements of other aircraft operating in close proximity may occasion a potential hazard to all concerned. To alleviate this situation, all pilots are advised that:
(a) when operating in Class G airspace, they should continuously monitor frequency 126.7 MHz whenever practicable;
(b) position reports should be made over all NAVAIDs along the route of flight to the nearest station having air-ground communications capability. These reports should be made on frequency 126.7 MHz whenever practicable. If it is necessary to use another frequency to establish communications with the ground station, the report should also be broadcast on 126.7 MHz for information of other aircraft in the area. The report should contain present position, track, altitude, altimeter setting in use, next position and ETA;
(c) immediately before changing altitude, commencing an instrument approach or departing IFR, pilots should broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz whenever practicable. Such broadcasts should contain adequate information to enable other pilots to be fully aware of the position and intentions so that they can determine if there will be any conflict with their flight paths;
(d) at aerodromes where an MF has been designated, arriving pilots shall first broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Pilots departing IFR should broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz, in addition to the MF, prior to takeoff; and
(e) the preceding reporting requirements are considered as the minimum necessary. Pilots are encouraged to make additional reports whenever the possibility of conflicting IFR traffic is suspected. An example would be reporting prior to overflying a facility where cross traffic is probable or where there is a published instrument approach procedure.
When aircraft are manoeuvring in the vicinity of uncontrolled aerodromes or cruising in Class G airspace, the lack of information on the movements of other aircraft operating in close proximity may occasion a potential hazard to all concerned. To alleviate this situation, all pilots are advised that:
(a) when operating in Class G airspace, they should continuously monitor frequency 126.7 MHz whenever practicable;
(b) position reports should be made over all NAVAIDs along the route of flight to the nearest station having air-ground communications capability. These reports should be made on frequency 126.7 MHz whenever practicable. If it is necessary to use another frequency to establish communications with the ground station, the report should also be broadcast on 126.7 MHz for information of other aircraft in the area. The report should contain present position, track, altitude, altimeter setting in use, next position and ETA;
(c) immediately before changing altitude, commencing an instrument approach or departing IFR, pilots should broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz whenever practicable. Such broadcasts should contain adequate information to enable other pilots to be fully aware of the position and intentions so that they can determine if there will be any conflict with their flight paths;
(d) at aerodromes where an MF has been designated, arriving pilots shall first broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Pilots departing IFR should broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz, in addition to the MF, prior to takeoff; and
(e) the preceding reporting requirements are considered as the minimum necessary. Pilots are encouraged to make additional reports whenever the possibility of conflicting IFR traffic is suspected. An example would be reporting prior to overflying a facility where cross traffic is probable or where there is a published instrument approach procedure.
4.5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS— UNCONTROLLED AERODROMES
4.5.4 Mandatory Frequency
Transport Canada has designated a Mandatory Frequency (MF) for use at selected uncontrolled aerodromes, or aerodromes that are uncontrolled between certain hours. Aircraft operating within the area in which the MF is applicable (MF area), on the ground or in the air, shall be equipped with a functioning radio capable of maintaining two-way communication. Reporting procedures shall be followed, as specified in CARs 602.97 to 602.103 inclusive.
4.5.5 Aerodrome Traffic Frequency
An Aerodrome Traffic Frequency (ATF) is normally designated for active uncontrolled aerodromes that do not meet the criteria listed in RAC 4.6.4 for an MF. The ATF is established to ensure that all radio-equipped aircraft operating on the ground or within the area are listening on a common frequency and following common reporting procedures. The ATF will normally be the frequency of the UNICOM where one exists or 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exist.
...
4.5.4 Mandatory Frequency
Transport Canada has designated a Mandatory Frequency (MF) for use at selected uncontrolled aerodromes, or aerodromes that are uncontrolled between certain hours. Aircraft operating within the area in which the MF is applicable (MF area), on the ground or in the air, shall be equipped with a functioning radio capable of maintaining two-way communication. Reporting procedures shall be followed, as specified in CARs 602.97 to 602.103 inclusive.
4.5.5 Aerodrome Traffic Frequency
An Aerodrome Traffic Frequency (ATF) is normally designated for active uncontrolled aerodromes that do not meet the criteria listed in RAC 4.6.4 for an MF. The ATF is established to ensure that all radio-equipped aircraft operating on the ground or within the area are listening on a common frequency and following common reporting procedures. The ATF will normally be the frequency of the UNICOM where one exists or 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exist.
...
Leady, that info is interesting, it’s nice to know, but in the Australian context it is irrelevant.
Whatever the frequency the procedures with the MULTICOM need wherever possible to avoid or minimise frequency separation which CASA seems not to understand unlike our Canadian friends.
Whatever the frequency the procedures with the MULTICOM need wherever possible to avoid or minimise frequency separation which CASA seems not to understand unlike our Canadian friends.
I was merely responding to Dick’s point, at #336: “Canada is huge with no frequency boundaries. Its the country I copied the frequency 126.7 from.”
I was merely pointing out that Canada’s Class G doesn’t work quite the way Dick seems to think it does, and that is precisely why ‘cherry picking’ one facet of it is irrelevant. If Australia is going to “copy” Canadian Class G, it has to copy the lot, in which case - yes - frequency boundaries slicing and dicing G are meaningless.
I was merely pointing out that Canada’s Class G doesn’t work quite the way Dick seems to think it does, and that is precisely why ‘cherry picking’ one facet of it is irrelevant. If Australia is going to “copy” Canadian Class G, it has to copy the lot, in which case - yes - frequency boundaries slicing and dicing G are meaningless.