Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The “topic” covers the misconceptions of experienced Australian air traffic controllers (even retired ones like you) and commercial pilots (like Bloggs). It is those misconceptions that result in the gross over-exaggeration of risks and Galapagos ideas like CTAF (or maybe MBZ or AFIZ?) procedures within a 20nm radius and 5,000’ above aerodromes in G.
Only two insults in one day? If you have any opinion about anything and express it on PPRuNe, you should have a higher score than that.
Good to see that you don’t support 20nm radius CTAF procedures. I reckon we’re being softened up for a return to 15nm AFIZs.
Good to see that you don’t support 20nm radius CTAF procedures. I reckon we’re being softened up for a return to 15nm AFIZs.
Approaching which, (AFIZ) you were obliged to 'call' at 30nm....
So that you would usually have 'everything' prior to actually entering.
However, I betcha most GA pilots would tell you, with fingers crossed, that the ole' AFIZ was a 30 nm dimension......
And who can say they are 'rong'..?
Cheeerrrss....
(Tks again Dick for.......)
So that you would usually have 'everything' prior to actually entering.
However, I betcha most GA pilots would tell you, with fingers crossed, that the ole' AFIZ was a 30 nm dimension......
And who can say they are 'rong'..?
Cheeerrrss....
(Tks again Dick for.......)
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: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
A most interesting thread, I think. May one who started learning to fly back in '82 make an observation or two..
I had a RPPL in early '83, the UPPL in early '84 and the CPL in mid '85.
And a MECIR in early '88.
Back then, there was Controlled airspace, where a prior clearance to enter was required. Most of everywhere else was Uncontrolled airspace. So you were either 'In' or OCTA and you were on the radio frequency as shown on the chart which had boundaries showing where to change frequency.
There were MBZ's and AFIZ's (I think that's what they were called)
There was Flight Service, which was funded by a 2 cent/litre levy on Avgas. You had a real voice from that end to assist as required with Wx information, Nav help etc etc.
It was considered 'poor airmanship' to fly NOSAR No details. Full reporting flightplans were the desired norm but SARTIME was acceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, all this was safe, simple and sensible.
Do I think what we have now is safe simple and sensible?
No! And I suspect that I'm not alone in such a view.
I had a RPPL in early '83, the UPPL in early '84 and the CPL in mid '85.
And a MECIR in early '88.
Back then, there was Controlled airspace, where a prior clearance to enter was required. Most of everywhere else was Uncontrolled airspace. So you were either 'In' or OCTA and you were on the radio frequency as shown on the chart which had boundaries showing where to change frequency.
There were MBZ's and AFIZ's (I think that's what they were called)
There was Flight Service, which was funded by a 2 cent/litre levy on Avgas. You had a real voice from that end to assist as required with Wx information, Nav help etc etc.
It was considered 'poor airmanship' to fly NOSAR No details. Full reporting flightplans were the desired norm but SARTIME was acceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, all this was safe, simple and sensible.
Do I think what we have now is safe simple and sensible?
No! And I suspect that I'm not alone in such a view.
No! And I suspect that I'm not alone in such a view.
Sadly, the accident record does not support the notion that Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step, that Australia has got it right, the rest of the civilised world has got it wrong.
Tootle pip!!
However, I betcha most GA pilots would tell you, with fingers crossed, that the ole' AFIZ was a 30 nm dimension.....
I’m all-a-quiver in anticipation of what genius idea CASA is going to implement.
Is it gonna be a mega AFIZs with an AFIS at each?
Is it gonna be MBZ 2.0?
Just imagine how many Swan River Mallard, Essendon Kingair, Mount Gambier Angel Flight, Cessna 441 Renmark and Cessna 210 mid-air break-up tragedies would have been avoided as a consequence of the re-establishment of AFIZs or MBZs!
The old AFIZ system “worked” alright. Worked a treat. But what 21st century risk is it that an AFIZ system will mitigate, and why is that risk a higher priority than what’s actually killing people?
MBZs “worked”. But they only worked “as planned” when everyone in the MBZ had a serviceable radio that was tuned to the correct frequency and the volume turned up, and broadcasts were mandatory. MBZ is the Latin acronym for “blissful ignorance”. Make them 20nm radius and it’s still blissful ignorance.
We need Towers in Class C. Everywhere.
Is it gonna be a mega AFIZs with an AFIS at each?
Is it gonna be MBZ 2.0?
Just imagine how many Swan River Mallard, Essendon Kingair, Mount Gambier Angel Flight, Cessna 441 Renmark and Cessna 210 mid-air break-up tragedies would have been avoided as a consequence of the re-establishment of AFIZs or MBZs!
The old AFIZ system “worked” alright. Worked a treat. But what 21st century risk is it that an AFIZ system will mitigate, and why is that risk a higher priority than what’s actually killing people?
MBZs “worked”. But they only worked “as planned” when everyone in the MBZ had a serviceable radio that was tuned to the correct frequency and the volume turned up, and broadcasts were mandatory. MBZ is the Latin acronym for “blissful ignorance”. Make them 20nm radius and it’s still blissful ignorance.
We need Towers in Class C. Everywhere.
G'day Topdrop,
You are correct Sir.
My reference has to be read in conjunction with 'LB's post above.
He correctly calls it as '15nm AFIZ'.
Then insert my bit about the 30nm call, and all should be 'clear'.
However, I stand by my point that most GA drivers of the time will recall the 30nm 'Call', and define the AFIZ as that....
For consideration...
Not that it really matters 'these days'....
But, you are correct in that 'it did work very well'.
Cheers
You are correct Sir.
My reference has to be read in conjunction with 'LB's post above.
He correctly calls it as '15nm AFIZ'.
Then insert my bit about the 30nm call, and all should be 'clear'.
However, I stand by my point that most GA drivers of the time will recall the 30nm 'Call', and define the AFIZ as that....
For consideration...
Not that it really matters 'these days'....
But, you are correct in that 'it did work very well'.
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 26th Mar 2018 at 12:34. Reason: Clarification.... I hope....
My recollection is the same as others’: The call before entering an AFIZ was supposed to be at 30nms, even though the dimensions of the zone itself were only 15nms.
BTW: I think the Kiwis still have AFIZs/AFISs.
Is Port Hedland the only current example of the resuscitated concept in Australia?
BTW: I think the Kiwis still have AFIZs/AFISs.
Is Port Hedland the only current example of the resuscitated concept in Australia?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 26th Mar 2018 at 11:22.
Hi 'LB', I dunno what the current situation is at Hedland - honestly, I couldn't be bothered to look it up.
The last I heard (some time ago now) was that one of our ex Perth FSO's was still 'having fun' as the 'CAGRO'.
I used to fly out of PD 'many moons' ago - it was a 'dump' then and is more of a 'dump' now...IMHO of course....
For example, 'Derbs' was 'GREAT' in comparison.... Now, that should tell you something.... I remained in 'Derbs' for the better part of 3 years - by choice.
Many 'moons ago' whilst still in Perth FSC, I heard that Canada had adopted the 'AFIZ' and the 'Remote AFIZ' concept rather than inserting 'Towers' in some of their more 'remote' busy aerodromes.
It was cheaper than ATC providing a 'Tower' service.
"Remote AFIZ' being where the Zone is serviced by a FSO (or Canadian equivalent) from a Centre location, many miles away in a Capital City somewhere providing the 'AFIZ' service....Just like when we in WA operated 'Broome' as a "Remote AFIZ', initially from Derby, then later, operated all Remote AFIZ's from Perth FSC, almost 'pretending' if you like, that we were in the location.
Callsign was 'Perth'.
However, to be honest, I cannot justify the claim with numbers or names of Canadian aerodromes concerned.
It was reportedly seen as an 'economic' solution that worked - just like 'ours' did.
Just 'for info'.....
Cheers...
The last I heard (some time ago now) was that one of our ex Perth FSO's was still 'having fun' as the 'CAGRO'.
I used to fly out of PD 'many moons' ago - it was a 'dump' then and is more of a 'dump' now...IMHO of course....
For example, 'Derbs' was 'GREAT' in comparison.... Now, that should tell you something.... I remained in 'Derbs' for the better part of 3 years - by choice.
Many 'moons ago' whilst still in Perth FSC, I heard that Canada had adopted the 'AFIZ' and the 'Remote AFIZ' concept rather than inserting 'Towers' in some of their more 'remote' busy aerodromes.
It was cheaper than ATC providing a 'Tower' service.
"Remote AFIZ' being where the Zone is serviced by a FSO (or Canadian equivalent) from a Centre location, many miles away in a Capital City somewhere providing the 'AFIZ' service....Just like when we in WA operated 'Broome' as a "Remote AFIZ', initially from Derby, then later, operated all Remote AFIZ's from Perth FSC, almost 'pretending' if you like, that we were in the location.
Callsign was 'Perth'.
However, to be honest, I cannot justify the claim with numbers or names of Canadian aerodromes concerned.
It was reportedly seen as an 'economic' solution that worked - just like 'ours' did.
Just 'for info'.....
Cheers...
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 26th Mar 2018 at 12:35.
Originally Posted by Ledsled
Bloggsie,
You love "Yes/No" answers, as if that was the full and only answer, don't you, being incapable of comprehending that there might be matters of judgement involved.
Last time I had a close look (and I am not going to spend time actually cutting and pasting a section) the phrasing was to the meaning that a controller can issue a landing clearance to an aircraft if they have a reasonable belief that the landing runway will be clear for the aircraft in receipt of the landing clearance when the aircraft is to use said runway.
The second part is specifically when visual approaches are in progress. At EGLL I have received a landing clearance when all involved fully understood that the aircraft No.1 ahead was still airborne, much less having cleared or being close to clearing the runway. This leaves it up to the PIC of the following aircraft to decide to land or go around.
As I recall, working this way at EGLL can gain up to four (4) movements an hour in visual conditions, but also acknowledges a likely increase in missed approaches.
The controllers in London are quite smart enough to exercise their discretion, knowing which airlines are notorious for being slow to clear the runway.
What happens in US is a combination of the above, and the specific conditions for a visual approach in the US, see the AIM.
In the Australian case, you do know what your clearance limit is, if you are " --- cleared for approach"??
It is quite some time ago now, but we came to the conclusion that a controller in Australia had the same basic framework, had the same discretion, to issue a clearance, when you look at the totality of "the rools", not just tables of separation.
Tootle pip!!
You love "Yes/No" answers, as if that was the full and only answer, don't you, being incapable of comprehending that there might be matters of judgement involved.
Last time I had a close look (and I am not going to spend time actually cutting and pasting a section) the phrasing was to the meaning that a controller can issue a landing clearance to an aircraft if they have a reasonable belief that the landing runway will be clear for the aircraft in receipt of the landing clearance when the aircraft is to use said runway.
The second part is specifically when visual approaches are in progress. At EGLL I have received a landing clearance when all involved fully understood that the aircraft No.1 ahead was still airborne, much less having cleared or being close to clearing the runway. This leaves it up to the PIC of the following aircraft to decide to land or go around.
As I recall, working this way at EGLL can gain up to four (4) movements an hour in visual conditions, but also acknowledges a likely increase in missed approaches.
The controllers in London are quite smart enough to exercise their discretion, knowing which airlines are notorious for being slow to clear the runway.
What happens in US is a combination of the above, and the specific conditions for a visual approach in the US, see the AIM.
In the Australian case, you do know what your clearance limit is, if you are " --- cleared for approach"??
It is quite some time ago now, but we came to the conclusion that a controller in Australia had the same basic framework, had the same discretion, to issue a clearance, when you look at the totality of "the rools", not just tables of separation.
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Tankengine
At Heathrow you may be cleared to line up “after Brittania 767”, when you look for Brittania they are number four on the other side of the runway while you are number five on this side!
Yes, Leddie, I must admit I have no idea
At least you got that much right, I am hardly surprised that, in you black and white (or yes/no) mind, "shades of grey" do not compute.
I think you would blow a fuffle valve if you were exposed, on a day to day basis, to operations that the rest of the civilised aviation world finds quite normal and acceptable, and the resultant PIC decision making thereby involved.
Or, put another way, every time there is a major inquiry, funnily enough simplistic Yes/No answers to rules, practices and procedures dissolve into shades of grey.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Speaking of being No.8. Sitting in the lineup at Paris Orly one afternoon, well down the list, suddenly an Air France Caravelle "broke ranks " behind us, taxied past all of us, across the grass to the threshold of RW 26, lined up and shot through. You didn't need to speak French to know the tower controller was somewhat unimpressed, but you have to admit it was a rather innovative, indeed startling, way of handling dwindling fuel reserves during long summer delays. Vive La France!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Mar 2018 at 06:03.
If you fly into KLAX as a passenger, you can amuse yourself for the last ten minutes by looking out the window and counting the aircraft you can see, some parallel, some crossing, all altitudes, everything from C150's to B747's. All merrily about their way to a multiplicity of local airports. LA is so big and congested that its often quicker to fly from one side to the other.
My opinion is that the Yanks are doing something right but that situation wouldgive Australian ATC AsA and CASA fits because it looks so "unsafe" to the Antipodean eye.
My opinion is that the Yanks are doing something right but that situation wouldgive Australian ATC AsA and CASA fits because it looks so "unsafe" to the Antipodean eye.
Bloggsie,
The facts are there, I guess it's that you just don't accept them.
That there is not the black and white Yes/No answer you want, because the legal framework around a controller issuing a clearance, and a PIC accepting a clearance (even in Australia) is not black and white, even if a good many Australian pilots and controller have been brought up to believe it is black and white.
The misconception usually meets a brutal end, at the hands of a QC/SC, the first time they are involved in a judicial inquiry or similar formal legal proceedings.
Tootle pip!!
PS: This got so silly, a while back, that one provision in the Draft Part 91 made it a criminal offense for a pilot to not "comply with an order of air traffic control"
"Order of air traffic control" ????
The facts are there, I guess it's that you just don't accept them.
That there is not the black and white Yes/No answer you want, because the legal framework around a controller issuing a clearance, and a PIC accepting a clearance (even in Australia) is not black and white, even if a good many Australian pilots and controller have been brought up to believe it is black and white.
The misconception usually meets a brutal end, at the hands of a QC/SC, the first time they are involved in a judicial inquiry or similar formal legal proceedings.
Tootle pip!!
PS: This got so silly, a while back, that one provision in the Draft Part 91 made it a criminal offense for a pilot to not "comply with an order of air traffic control"
"Order of air traffic control" ????
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: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
word is about that CASA are going to lay an egg on this matter sometime very soon...?
Popcorn at the ready...
Thread Starter
Triadic and others. I will offer a free jar of Ozemite and eternal fame to the ppruner who predicts on this thread what the CASA position will be.
Come on. Have a guess. Huge 40 mile CTAFs? Huge below 5000’ multicoms with ginormous fines?
Whatever it will be -I bet it will be uniquely Australian.
Minds still set in concrete. Don’t even ask what happens in leading Aviation countries.
Come on. Have a guess. Huge 40 mile CTAFs? Huge below 5000’ multicoms with ginormous fines?
Whatever it will be -I bet it will be uniquely Australian.
Minds still set in concrete. Don’t even ask what happens in leading Aviation countries.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Apr 2018 at 07:44.