Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ��.
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 ��.
[MULTICOM] would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own 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.
In this thread: Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision? I asked the questions:
De_flieger’s answer was:
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?
What broadcasts, precisely, should be made on ‘Multicom’, by whom and when, precisely, that are not part of a CTAF procedure?
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.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
on top of all those airborne fire fighting and other emergency services assets that will apparently be using the frequency.
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
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?
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
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.
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.
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: 2,967
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
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.
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!
