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 20th Mar 2018, 01:56
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Wouldn’t happen to work for CASA, De_f?

Such splendid isolation from reality makes for such creative thinking in this aviation Galapagos.

Aussie Bob will not be alone.

Wombats.
What? No, I don't work for CASA, never have, and don't automatically agree with their proposals. You might also have noticed that my post didn't take a position either way as to whether a 20NM radius CTAF is good or bad. My point, which you don't seem to have understood, is that if you are trying to argue against a CASA proposal, you should at least have up-to-date documentation and try and accurately critique the situation rather than putting out claims that can be disregarded because they appear as misleading by the people you are arguing against. Case in point - Lismore and Ballina - claiming they will have overlapping CTAF areas under the proposed change is misleading because they already have a common shared CTAF frequency for operations in the vicinity of either aerodrome. Likewise Toowoomba, Oakey and West Wellcamp, they already have the Darling Downs broadcast area, overlapping all three aerodromes.

Dick - as it's not your map, then the South Queensland RAPAC doesn't do themselves any favours by presenting a chart years out of date.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 01:58
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob
Bring it on! Aussie Bob, not a care in the world will still bumble around, radio turned down, eyes out the window, enjoying himself as usual, talking when considered necessary, caring not one iota what the legislation states and continuing to have fun.
Do you want mandatory radio carriage and use? Because that's how you get mandatory carriage and use...
De_flieger is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 02:07
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
Yes really. And I’m actually a pilot with a few decades in the logbook. But I’m dangerous, because I take the view that more blabbing doesn’t necessarily result in more safety.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 02:43
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
Question to De_f and mr f.

Assume 20nm radius/5,000’ AGL(?) CTAFs are introduced.

I’m going to fly, VFR, from Bathurst to Wagga at 4,500’. What calls do you say I should (for you mr f, must) make along that route, noting that I’ll pass abeam Cowra (16nms), Young (13nms) and Cootamundra (4nms).
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 03:33
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 321
Oh FFS Lead Balloon - let's not start all that over again.
It was all done to death on another thread (and speaking of death the corpse aka the CASA NPRM has not yet decided whether it is dead or alive, to rise again or be reincarnated) - let us pray !!

Last edited by On eyre; 20th Mar 2018 at 05:49.
On eyre is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 06:10
  #26 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
Mr flappy. So if I pass 18 miles north of one of these airports at 500 or 1000 agl I would have to make an announcement?

At 18 miles wouldn’t an rpt aircraft be about 5500 agl on approach and even higher on departure? What would the use of the mandatory calls be ?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 06:19
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
----because I take the view that more blabbing doesn’t necessarily result in more safety.
LB,
My dear chap, you obviously don't accept the CASA preferred explanation for the miracle of flight.

I refer, of course, to the acoustic lift theory, where continued flight is dependent of flapping your gums, as soon as you stop talking the aeroplane quits flying. Also sometimes called fly by mouth.

Remember, the three golden rules of "safe" aviation in Australia, in order: Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Tootle pip!!

PS: With apologies to the authors of the original acoustic lift theory.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 06:27
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
Originally Posted by mr flappy View Post
Actually, a generic call on the CTAF frequency addressing each of those places before flying near them so that traffic can seperate themselves from you
Gosh, another one living in splendid isolation from reality.

Anything more precise? Where/when? What terminology. You are, after all, the expert on the AIP and the mandatory calls.

What about the next leg: Wagga to Hilston, abeam Narrandera (15nms) and Griffith (12nms), each of which has a different CTAF?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 07:00
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,890
Non Regulation??????? Safety??????

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 166C
Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio

(1) If:

(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and

(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and

(c) the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;

the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).

(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:

(a) the name of the aerodrome;

(b) the aircraft's type and call sign;

(c) the position of the aircraft and the pilot's intentions.

and:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 243 Listening watch
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 243
Listening watch

(1) When an aircraft is equipped with radio apparatus for use during flight, the pilot in command must maintain a listening watch, or must ensure that a listening watch is maintained, at all times commencing immediately prior to the time at which the aircraft commences to move on the manoeuvring area prior to flight and lasting until the aircraft is brought to a stop at the apron or other point of termination of the flight.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(2) Where the means of communication between air traffic control and an aircraft under its control is a voice communication channel, the pilot in command and any other pilot for the time being operating the controls of the aircraft shall personally maintain a listening watch on the appropriate radio frequency.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code

This is non regulation designed to absolve CASA and government from any responsibility for safety outcomes.

The kicker is the use of the words "reasonably necessary". Well if you hit anyone with or without a broadcast its the pilots fault. Either you didn't broadcast when you should have, or the other guy didn't listen or one or both of you botched the avoidance manoeuvre. Whoever survives can be prosecuted.

Since you have no way of knowing what is "reasonably necessary" when transiting a CTAF - since no radio noise does ot mean aircraft arent present, the nly solution is to talk loud and long at every CTAF border.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 07:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,179
Since you have no way of knowing what is "reasonably necessary" when transiting a CTAF - since no radio noise does ot mean aircraft arent present, the nly solution is to talk loud and long at every CTAF border.
Good one Sunny, we already have people doing this everywhere and it is painful and useless. The only solution is to keep chatter to a very minimum, keep a good lookout and say nothing but what is required and listen to others very very carefully. If I shared your paranoia of regulations I would probably give up flying.
Aussie Bob is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 07:48
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 2,668
Mr Flappy, how many jets travel VFR?

As an IFR machine, they will have traffic on other IFR passed to them. Each one will be heard on the control frequency, even on taxying.
Ascend Charlie is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 08:42
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
I am not talking about the VFR aircraft approaching or departing an aerodrome. I am talking about a VFR that is flying past at low level
And at all times at least 18 miles from the airport.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 11:01
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
So what exactly is the point of the proposed 20nm radius, when a CTAF is merely a frequency to be used for broadcasts that a pilot has discretion to make, rather than a volume of airspace within or by the boundaries of which a pilot must make broadcasts?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 22:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 346
LB... correct. A CTAF is a procedure, not a block of airspace, something that some in CASA don’t seem to realise or uderstand.
cogwheel is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 03:59
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,764
Just to clarify..... as described above.....

C - Common
T - Traffic
A - Advisory
F - Frequency

'Tis just a 'frequency', no mention of 'real estate' dimensions at all....

The 'When' do we use it should contain a bit of 'common' sense.
Yeah. I know.......

Cheers

(Tks again Dick....)
Ex FSO GRIFFO is online now  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 05:51
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
My bunion is itching.

I can feel an MMBZ or MBZ 2.0 announcement coming on....
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 06:17
  #37 (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: 2,572
I can feel an MMBZ or MBZ 2.0 announcement coming on....
Why was the MBZ abolished anyway?
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 07:22
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
C’mon Pinky. You know the answer to the question: Safety!

That’s why there’s an RFFS but no tower at Ballina. Safety!
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 07:24
  #39 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
Blame me for that Pinky!

Abolished because they were a unique Australian invention and for some strange reason I thought we should harmonise with simpler proven overseas procedures.

We however have wound back to a 1950s AFIZ at Port Headland so we can probably wind back to MBZs.

Where would you like them ?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 07:36
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
Wild guesses: Mildura, Wagga, Dubbo...

The good news is that MBZ 2.0 will be even safer, because it’s bigger!
Lead Balloon is offline  

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.