Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
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.
Such splendid isolation from reality makes for such creative thinking in this aviation Galapagos.
Aussie Bob will not be alone.
Wombats.
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- as it's not your map, then the South Queensland RAPAC doesn't do themselves any favours by presenting a chart years out of date.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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 !!
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.
Thread Starter
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 ?
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 ?
----because I take the view that more blabbing doesn’t necessarily result in more safety.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
And at all times at least 18 miles from the airport.
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?
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....)
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....)
My bunion is itching.
I can feel an MMBZ or MBZ 2.0 announcement coming on....
I can feel an MMBZ or MBZ 2.0 announcement coming on....
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,964
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
I can feel an MMBZ or MBZ 2.0 announcement coming on....
C’mon Pinky. You know the answer to the question: Safety!
That’s why there’s an RFFS but no tower at Ballina. Safety!
That’s why there’s an RFFS but no tower at Ballina. Safety!
Thread Starter
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 ?
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 ?
Wild guesses: Mildura, Wagga, Dubbo...
The good news is that MBZ 2.0 will be even safer, because it’s bigger!
The good news is that MBZ 2.0 will be even safer, because it’s bigger!
