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 6th Apr 2018, 04:21
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,063
MBZ 2.0.

It combines a buzzword - “two point zero” - with a clue as to its dimensions - two zero miles radius.

Or maybe MBZ “20.5”?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2018, 09:12
  #102 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,226
Ok. Surely there must be some ideas. This is a rumour network!

I will add a jar of Ozenuts.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2018, 01:21
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,330
They are getting some flak on this, but are they listening?. Maybe. Maybe not.

I posit the following compromise, for those that reckon 20 nm too big, and those that reckon 10nm too small.
1 The CTAF radius will be 15 nm
2 the lid will be 4500'
3 the strict liability penalties will be calculated on the basis of your height and your distance from the 'drome when you made a 'faulty' /non standard radio call/ their allegation,(either unsubstantiated or untrue) and you can spend a bundle contesting that or spend a bundle paying the CAsA's claims. Your call.

Probably best that your radio 'fail' 22 miles out and just keep a good look out and listen carefully. Safer and MUCH cheaper.
2c
aroa is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2018, 12:06
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 962
See the following link:
https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...up/nprm1712as/
triadic is online now  
Old 10th Apr 2018, 12:12
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,063
Sad at a number of levels.

I was looking forward to the entertainment.

One can only imagine how much this journey in circles cost the industry.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2018, 12:24
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
One one level, they appeared to have listened..that's good isn't it?
vne165 is online now  
Old 10th Apr 2018, 12:28
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,063
At one level, yes.

But they didn’t need to create and shouldn’t have invited the noise that needed to be listened to in the first place.

This is what happens when you pay people six figure salaries to come up with bright new ideas about what someone else should do at their cost and risk.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2018, 13:15
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,266
I reckon REX's response scared 'em off?

It was rather Sharp.
gerry111 is online now  
Old 11th Apr 2018, 00:24
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,077
I'm surprised that 42.8% supported the proposal. This suggests there are many who didn't understand or appreciate the implications.

Also spotted this gem:

“Multicom makes good sense for flights B050. ATC/Flight Service etc MUST monitor this frequency in case of PAN/mayday calls.”
That ain't gonna happen
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2018, 00:35
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 962
I'm surprised that 42.8% supported the proposal. This suggests there are many who didn't understand or appreciate the implications.
Exactly! And the sad bit is many of them should!
triadic is online now  
Old 11th Apr 2018, 11:19
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,063
Multicom makes good sense for flights B050. ATC/Flight Service etc MUST monitor this frequency in case of PAN/mayday calls.
Whoa! That comment manifests a breathtaking level of naivety.

In the interests of promoting timely assistance to those in distress: ATC/Flight Service do not monitor 126.7 or 121.5 and I can’t see that happening any time soon.

The Area frequency is helpful if you need assistance. Set off your PLB or ELT too and it will make noises on 121.5.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2018, 15:21
  #112 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,226
So who at CASA will be held accountable for the cost of this stuff up?

Who drove this? Surely someone has a name?

And Rex has been ignored. Great way to treat Airline Pilots. They voted about 90% for the big CTAFs on safety grounds. No doubt they will undermine CASA on this.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2018, 23:02
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
And Rex has been ignored. Great way to treat Airline Pilots. They voted about 90% for the big CTAFs on safety grounds. No doubt they will undermine CASA on this.
Folks,
AFAP ???
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 10:09
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 755
Neither RAPAC nor the numbers flyers got what they wanted, either..

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 10:22
  #115 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,226
I have a suggestion from left field.

Why don’t we follow the simple recommended procedures as used in Canada and the USA?

I forgot. Could never work here. So little traffic we need far more onerous procedures preferably with HUGE fines for non compliance.

No wonder CASA has a $180 m budget. This disaster would have cost a lot.

Imagine. Designing airspace procedures by vote. Could design the next Nomad this way.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 19:02
  #116 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 6,538
CASA backs down on unpopular move to expand common frequencies

CASA backs down on unpopular move to expand common frequencies

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...efb6ca284a0ff3

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is set to issue a new proposal on radio frequencies used by light aircraft at some small airstrips after backing down on the controversial plan to expand the common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas near non-towered aerodromes.

After a backlash, CASA has abandoned its proposal to increase the radius for the common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas that pilots use to announce their position and intentions at non-controlled airfields. But CASA has broad support for another key part of the proposal: to tell light aircraft pilots at some small airstrips to use the 126.7Mhz “multicom” frequency.

The safety authority is expected to release a “new option” soon that will then be the subject of further consultation.

CASA chief executive and director of aviation safety Shane Carmody said the agency was looking at “whether there is another way”.

This could include effectively returning to the practice before contentious changes in 2013.

Before those changes, pilots used the multicom when near unchartered aerodromes that did not have a discrete frequency.

“There’s no one-size-fits-all here,” Mr Carmody told The Australian yesterday.

“How do we get the mix right and make it simple for people who are flying in the same sky being able to talk to one another?”

The backdown by CASA is significant as the issue of radio frequency use at low levels in uncontrolled airspace was an area that Mr Carmody had previously said was being pushed towards a resolution.

Critics of the CTAF proposal included aviator Dick Smith, the Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee and Recreational Aviation Australia.

This week, CASA revealed that of the 1064 survey responses to its consultation on the proposal, it was rejected by 57.2 per cent of *respondents.

While most favoured the use of multicom, a “substantial” number did not want the CTAF expanded from 10 nautical miles to 20. Concerns included the prospect of overlapping CTAFs, causing confusion about which frequency to use, and congestion.

According to a summary of consultation released this week, there were fears that multicom could be misused as a “chat *channel”.

Also, paragliders and hang gliders had been worried they would have to carry a radio or monitor two frequencies.

Mr Smith said that North America, Europe and the UK had a simpler system, without prescriptive giant CTAFs.

The chairman of Recreational Aviation Australia, Michael Monck, said his group wanted a true solution that “doesn’t compromise safety of the frequency users of airfields in favour of the odd RPT (regular public transport) aircraft”.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 21:43
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,063
The "new option" was supposed to be the only potential change being canvassed from the start.

The rest was typical regulatory adventurism.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2018, 00:12
  #118 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,226
So CASA is now going to introduce a new option. Could I suggest that new option is the Cabinet approved NAS?

It provides exactly what the regional airline pilots want in a very simple and non-prescriptive way because it follows the proven systems from overseas.

Have a look at page 27 from the document Reference Guide – How to operate in the National Airspace System effective from 17 November 2003. Yes, that is over 15 years ago.

Under ‘Appropriate frequency’ it says:

“Tower/MBZ/CTAF
        This system worked incredibly well for over three months, with no CTAF incidents reported from this at all.

        Yes, there was an outcry from people who resisted change. They stated they wanted to have the frequency boundaries from the 1950s full position system put back on the charts. Without the approval of CASA, Airservices printed a chart with the frequency boundaries and sent it out to every pilot in Australia. No education program was put in place on how this “wound-back” system would work.

        On page 8 of the same Reference Guide it states:

        “A major change is that …all frequency boundary information has been removed from the charts.”
        A little later on the same page it says:

        “The important point is that when en route, if flying through the airspace used for approaching and departing traffic at an aerodrome, the frequency of that aerodrome should be monitored. This will provide the best situational awareness of traffic in your area.

        A pilot should give more emphasis to monitoring CTAF…Multicom where the collision risk is many times higher. Constantly monitoring an ATC frequency, where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness for alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area.”
        Note how there are no dimensions given.

        Also on page 27 of the Reference Guide, under ‘Appropriate frequency’, it mentions:

        “ATC
          For situational awareness a pilot can simply monitor the closest ATC frequency outlet, which is shown on all modern GPS units. Of course it may have had some useful information 15 years ago, but now with ADS-B, most aircraft are not giving position reports – so monitoring the frequency is nearly useless for situational awareness purposes.

          I ask everyone to have an open mind and consider whether we could return to the non-prescriptive, international National Airspace System (NAS) as introduced in November 2003. When I say “return”, well it was in for three months!

          It is non-prescriptive based on common sense and good airmanship. Yes, I know there are those in CASA who believe you should write a regulation for everything so common sense and good airmanship is not required, but that will obviously never work.

          I note in talking to people, especially younger pilots, there is less pressure to keep the 1950s frequency boundaries on the charts. One day we will have to move forward and copy the best. Why not now?
          Dick Smith is offline  
          Old 13th Apr 2018, 03:20
            #119 (permalink)  
           
          Join Date: May 2003
          Location: AUSTRALIA
          Posts: 74
          I note in talking to people, especially younger pilots,
          As a relative young'un, I find the FIA boundaries to be one of the most useful things on the charts. Ditto flying buddies.

          If there was a push from AOPA (or RAPAC) to have them deleted, they've lost me.

          In fact it's a pity the FIA boundaries aren't on the WACs along with other airspace to make them more VNC-like, but I appreciate the WAC publication cycle is different.
          buckshot1777 is offline  
          Old 13th Apr 2018, 03:47
            #120 (permalink)  
           
          Join Date: Dec 2000
          Location: Australia
          Posts: 1,077
          Industry reps via all the state RAPACs were the ones who pushed for the boundaries to be put back on the charts, and so far as I am aware, there has been no proposal to have them deleted again.

          And FWIW, back then CASA was represented at those RAPACs.
          CaptainMidnight 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.