Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs

Old 1st May 2018, 02:12
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 957
Exclamation An alternative

It is disappointing that CASA don't seem to have much knowledge on what happens in Class G and keep trying to put forward suggested solutions that we out in G land know will have significant issues.
A few industry groups have come up with suggestions but sadly they have not reached first base within Fort Fumble.
Their latest proposal in fact suggests that it is ok to operate on both the MULTICOM and Area Frequency at low levels in Class G. This suggestion in fact destroys the aim of having a common frequency (the MULTICOM) at low levels in G. How dumb!
What we need now is some support from industry including the RAPACs to come up with something that will work in a practical sense and is easy to understand and put into practice.
There is support for making the recommended upper limit of the MULTICOM at 3000ft agl. This would help ensure that low level ops would know the primary recommended frequency in that airspace. It would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own frequency.
Further, by bringing 'circuit area' into the discussion they have created yet another distraction and I suggest that 'in the vicinity' is a better description and better caters for aircraft with different performance and allows pilots to make an appropriate judgement on when to make an inbound call.
We need to wrap this up and by standing up to the dumb ideas so far tabled we are more likely to obtain a workable result suitable to the majority.
triadic is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 03:11
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,071
There is support for making the recommended upper limit of the MULTICOM at 3000ft agl. This would help ensure that low level ops would know the primary recommended frequency in that airspace. It would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own frequency.
and
I suggest that 'in the vicinity' is a better description and better caters for aircraft with different performance and allows pilots to make an appropriate judgement on when to make an inbound call.
Works for me, if the widespread push is for a low level MULTICOM.

I can see 126.7 becoming far busier though, so many ADs that currently use CTAF 126.7 will no doubt apply to CASA to consider allocation of a discrete frequency.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 03:41
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 321
Captain and Triadic - yes multicom 126.7 below 3000 would definitely work for me. Maybe combined with mandatory taxiing and inbound (in the vicinity of) calls only at airfields marked on charts or in ERSA and an education programme to counter the many unnecessary and superfluous calls now.
Still leaves it open for anyone who requires ATS to communicate on the suitable ATC frequency as needed.
All the above would keep the heavy metal reasonably happy also ��.
On eyre is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 04:01
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,995
[MULTICOM] would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own frequency.
I reckon a MULTICOM of 126.7 with an upper limit of 3,000’ AGL will only work as a matter of practicality if the ‘default’ CTAF - at least for marked aerodromes - is something other than 126.7. Otherwise 126.7 will be an even more garbled, screechy blabfest anywhere within cooee of a few aerodromes in G with a bit of traffic on top of all those airborne fire fighting and other emergency services assets that will apparently be using the frequency.

I know you (triadic) argue that the problem is caused by unnecessary radio calls, and I agree with you in part. But that is not the only cause. That’s why I keep highlighting the Canadian frequency arrangements in G. Although I have no idea what I’m talking about, the Canucks do.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 04:12
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 321
LB from my experience in SA fire fighting aircraft use a discrete VHF different to 126.7 on a fire ground.
On eyre is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 04:33
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,995
In this thread: Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision? I asked the questions:
So what is the ‘Multicom’ to be used for, precisely?

What broadcasts, precisely, should be made on ‘Multicom’, by whom and when, precisely, that are not part of a CTAF procedure?
De_flieger’s answer was:
aircraft operating below say 5000 ft that may need to communicate or coordinate with other aircraft in the area, not specifically associated with a CTAF. Examples include but are not limited to aircraft operating from unmarked airstrips, survey aircraft operating at lower levels, search and rescue or firefighting aircraft - any of these may be in conflict with other VFR aircraft operating OCTA. Broadcasts - those necessary to coordinate with other aircraft or avoid collisions.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 04:33
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 957
Leady, I concede that having individual frequencies for marked airfields might be a nice to have but in practice it does not meet the need to keep the system simple. The whole idea of the MULTICOM in Oz is to (a) have low level traffic on the same frequency, and (b) having procedures that are simple and easy to understand/teach/use. Fort Fumble have a knack of making something simple almost impossible to understand or work - not only in airspace!

I can see 126.7 becoming far busier though, so many ADs that currently use CTAF 126.7 will no doubt apply to CASA to consider allocation of a discrete frequency.
Except in a few areas, I don't believe the congestion on 126.7 is as bad as some make out. We have to move forward on this in stages and if it can be demonstrated that we have a congestion problem in a particular area, then not only do CASA have to ramp up their education in that area, but consideration be given to a dedicated frequency. I understand that the issue of multiple circuit calls is on CASA's hit list for education once this is sorted out. Like it or not we have only a limited number of frequencies available and allocating a frequency at some locations would be a waste of resources, and of course take away some of the desired simplicity. I am of the view that some CTAFs with their own frequency do not have the traffic to justify that. Maybe all CTAFs other than those that serve RPT should be reviewed from time to time. That might free up a frequency or two?
triadic is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 04:44
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,071
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post


I reckon a MULTICOM of 126.7 with an upper limit of 3,000’ AGL will only work as a matter of practicality if the ‘default’ CTAF - at least for marked aerodromes - is something other than 126.7. Otherwise 126.7 will be an even more garbled, screechy blabfest anywhere within cooee of a few aerodromes in G with a bit of traffic
The default CTAF could be changed to something other than 126.7, but CASA would have to do a safety assessment and a thorough education campaign to avoid further "frequency separation". Or they could defer to what is the case now, when chatter from other ADs or 126.7 reaches the problem level a discrete frequency can be sought.

on top of all those airborne fire fighting and other emergency services assets that will apparently be using the frequency.
Fire fighting aircraft tend not to be a problem. When two or more are operating at a scene they use a discrete frequency to talk to each other on, At the same time, one (usually the higher level " Bird Dog") monitors the FIA frequency or designated CTAF when a fire is in the vicinity of an AD, broadcasting and responding as necessary. So I would imagine there will be no more talk on 126.7 than there is now, and less on the FIA.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 04:49
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,995
What’s so complicated about having a ‘low level’ MULTICOM of 126.7 and a ‘default’ CTAF for marked airfields of e.g. 123.2?

That way we could at least finally get peace in relation to the tiny number of fringe activities that occur at strips that aren’t marked on charts.

PS: Above posted before I saw CM’s.

CM: All of which shows why all of these proposed changes are unnecessary!
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 06:06
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 99
We used to have a system that areas of a manageable size for the volume of chatter had a discrete frequency. Everybody that was flying in what is now Class G was on the same frequency, you didn't have to guess what the most appropriate one was.

To further enhance safety, the frequency was monitored and useful operational information (traffic, estimated crossing times, WX etc) was passed on. Those that monitored the frequency even told you when to change to the next frequency and accepted position reports and SARTIME details from VFR aircraft.

Given the lack of radar coverage it was a great system. Now ADSB provides an opportunity to provide similar services at lower cost (if Australia had adopted the US standard).

In summery, draw some lines on a Class G map, give the box a frequency and everybody in the box monitor it and broadcast when required. Simple.
dartman2 is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 09:39
  #351 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
I love all these incredibly complex ways of solving a simple issue.

Why not copy the simpler FAA system?

It clearly works with over 15 times the amount of traffic in a similar land area.

I know. We want a Nomad.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 10:51
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,923
with over 15 times the amount of traffic in a similar land area.
That nonsense again. Ever heard of the GAFA?
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 11:58
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by gerry111 View Post
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..
i was flying gliders in the mid 70s and they had no radio at all...but neither did many powered aircraft. We just had to look harder then!

kaz
kaz3g is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 13:18
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,255
Originally Posted by kaz3g View Post


i was flying gliders in the mid 70s and they had no radio at all...but neither did many powered aircraft. We just had to look harder then!

kaz
And I reckon that's what we all need to learn to do again. Eyes outside the cockpit, away from iPads and all the rest of the internal distractions. Aviate, Navigate then Communicate VFR in Class G.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 22:04
  #355 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
I reckon the LAX basin does have a far greater density of aviation than the equivalent areas in Australia. Look at the number of airports.

Same in the New York area.

Traffic seems to to be dropping here all the time.

And even if the same density what would be wrong with copying a simpler system?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 2nd May 2018 at 06:48. Reason: betta inglish
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 22:47
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 346
The real issue here is to put something on the table that will be simple and work. It is all very nice to say let’s copy what others do, but the entrenched Australian culture both in industry and the regulator make that very difficult and time consuming. Industry need to put forward a simple procedure that does not involve a lot of change, which is more likely to be accepted by all involved. There is more to aviation politics than the MULTICOM so this needs to be put to bed yesterday, it has dragged on far too long. Some of the suggestions in this thread are valid and need to be considered by all to achieve that result.
cogwheel is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 23:38
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,493
Dick,Act and FAR rewrite...your goal! Stop sidetracking on to something that you have been arguing about for nearly thirty years. If you left it alone, it would have evolved into something you would have been proud of. You wanted limited interaction with ATC and no FS...ADS-B coupled with TAAATS would have provided everything you ever wished for...no AMATS,no AIRSPACE 2000 no class G trials, no MBZ/CTAF(R)/CTAF/MULTICOM, all you needed to do was wait for the technology. FS could have been absorbed within the ATS as an enroute position providing DTI for VFR and full service to IFR. VFR submit plan, activate with a departure call and then monitor area frequency. Report any changes to plan if required. Inside SSR/ADS-B coverage track is monitored and reported as traffic to IFR. Outside coverage, rely on virtual track and position reports from IFR. If VFR hears they are traffic by callsign, then keep vigilant. Circuit area traffic only minimum of calls..inbound call, joining circuit, base with intentions. Circuits, line up call with intention, base call with intention. Deparing, line up call with intention, departing circuit with intention and then call ATS with departure report to activate plan....all on area frequency for all airspace BLW CTA.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 2nd May 2018, 10:30
  #358 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Awaiting the lifting of travel restrictions out of Oz so I can return to Japan for another stint of flying the Glider Tug, eating great Japanese food and, of course, continuing the never ending search for that bad bottle of Red
Age: 65
Posts: 2,571
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.
Gerry111; Or as you would remember, in the case of old 'Uniform Lima', a dodgy Pye Bantam with only the two abovementioned frequencies. And we managed ok, did we not?

And UL was the only BVGC Glider to have a radio IIRC.

I was flying gliders in the mid 70s and they had no radio at all...but neither did many powered aircraft. We just had to look harder then!
True.
Pinky the pilot is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.