The most ridiculous and incompetent CASA CTAF proposal ever
Thread Starter
The most ridiculous and incompetent CASA CTAF proposal ever
I have started a new thread on this because the complexity of the latest proposal seems to have covered up a most extraordinary situation.
By the look of it, those at CASA who have been involved in this most extraordinary stuff-up, and wasted the hundreds of thousands of dollars of CASA (and therefore, industry) money, still don’t seem to able to get their act together. I point out this following statement in the document:
This clearly means that there are going to be times when aircraft in the same circuit area could be on different frequencies – one who has decided by airmanship that the ATC frequency is the correct one to be on, and the other who has decided by airmanship to be on the MULTICOM 126.7.
It is as if the people in CASA (can someone give me some names?) are just not game enough to harmonise on a proven system.
Giving calls in the circuit area on the area frequency goes back to the 1950s (and before I made the AMATS changes in 1991) where there were no CTAFs and calls at aerodromes were given on the area flight service frequency, with flight service monitoring in many cases. That wasn’t a great problem because flight service just gave advisories.
Now we are going to have people transmitting calls which will go straight into the cockpit of a Qantas 787 overflying, say, the Gulargambone area, and potentially blocking out an important air traffic control instruction. Of course the controller won’t be able to hear the circuit area or taxi call, so will be none the wiser.
It is interesting – I am finding that more and more RAPACs are now happy with the idea of harmonising with the far simpler US system.
By the look of it, those at CASA who have been involved in this most extraordinary stuff-up, and wasted the hundreds of thousands of dollars of CASA (and therefore, industry) money, still don’t seem to able to get their act together. I point out this following statement in the document:
“The use of 126.7 MHz for uncharted aerodromes will only be a recommendation and single-user aerodromes/ALAs may still use the area VHF frequency where airmanship dictates this is appropriate.”
It is as if the people in CASA (can someone give me some names?) are just not game enough to harmonise on a proven system.
Giving calls in the circuit area on the area frequency goes back to the 1950s (and before I made the AMATS changes in 1991) where there were no CTAFs and calls at aerodromes were given on the area flight service frequency, with flight service monitoring in many cases. That wasn’t a great problem because flight service just gave advisories.
Now we are going to have people transmitting calls which will go straight into the cockpit of a Qantas 787 overflying, say, the Gulargambone area, and potentially blocking out an important air traffic control instruction. Of course the controller won’t be able to hear the circuit area or taxi call, so will be none the wiser.
It is interesting – I am finding that more and more RAPACs are now happy with the idea of harmonising with the far simpler US system.
The reality is that no one would know the name of these uncharted airfields anyway so any broadcasts made on the area frequency would be pointless as no one would know which location is being referred to anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I operate from a single user airstrip. For various reasons, no one else uses it.
It is located under a very busy preferred route which is shown on the VTC. I don't normally make any broadcasts but if I did, it would have to be on the area frequency because that is the frequency being monitored by the conflicting traffic. It would be silly to call on 126.7.
Although my airstrip is fairly hard to see and hardly anyone knows about it, I can easily describe its position, if necessary.
It is located under a very busy preferred route which is shown on the VTC. I don't normally make any broadcasts but if I did, it would have to be on the area frequency because that is the frequency being monitored by the conflicting traffic. It would be silly to call on 126.7.
Although my airstrip is fairly hard to see and hardly anyone knows about it, I can easily describe its position, if necessary.
Thread Starter
Kaz. I think you stated on a previous post
“So no-one will mind that I'm listening to Area still with the hope that some kind soul on Radar will tell me if I'm going to kill myself in a midair?”
I regularly fly in the Sydney area and monitor 124.55. Sometimes this frequency is silent for minutes at a time yet I have never once had ATC call me with a warning that I am close to another VFR. I have had close encounters many times and I remain as vigilant as possible.
Yet you tell me you are waiting for a “ kind soul ” to warn you.
Are you suggesting the 124.55 ATCs are not kind?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th May 2018 at 10:53.
Folks,
Why am I not the least bit surprised at this latest CASA attempt at avoiding the obvious, 126.7 or a nominated "UNICOM" frequency where provided due traffic, for all low level operations in G in the "vicinity" of airfields.
And, CASA, can you please understand that "CTAF" is a set of recommended procedures, not a volume of airspace, it is NOT a poor man's "control zone" for "do-it-yourself" ATC.
Tootle pip!!
Why am I not the least bit surprised at this latest CASA attempt at avoiding the obvious, 126.7 or a nominated "UNICOM" frequency where provided due traffic, for all low level operations in G in the "vicinity" of airfields.
And, CASA, can you please understand that "CTAF" is a set of recommended procedures, not a volume of airspace, it is NOT a poor man's "control zone" for "do-it-yourself" ATC.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick is correct. This latest proposal from CASA is encouraging frequency separation which is what the MULTICOM is designed to overcome. It will have to be amended yet again as this and other aspects of the latest proposal are just unacceptable and besides it wont work.
CASA seem not to understand this.
And, CASA, can you please understand that "CTAF" is a set of recommended procedures, not a volume of airspace, it is NOT a poor man's "control zone" for "do-it-yourself" ATC.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons that 126.7 can be cluttered is that many pilots just talk too much. Making 6 or 8 calls around the circuit is a waste of breath for no good reason and as for making calls on the area frequency, it seems that those that promote this practice have little or no idea on what happens in the outside world and what the risks or unintended consequences might be!
Thread Starter
Now I see why CASA states in some cases a pilot should make the circuit calls on the ATC frequency.
Its to keep the 126.7 Multicom so there is not too much traffic.
Great idea. Good on ya CASA!
Quite often the ATC frequency is not that busy so it is fair that the calls are spread out!
i am going to recommend the idea to my FAA friends.
Its to keep the 126.7 Multicom so there is not too much traffic.
Great idea. Good on ya CASA!
Quite often the ATC frequency is not that busy so it is fair that the calls are spread out!
i am going to recommend the idea to my FAA friends.
One of the reasons that 126.7 can be cluttered is that many pilots just talk too much. Making 6 or 8 calls around the circuit is a waste of breath for no good reason and as for making calls on the area frequency, it seems that those that promote this practice have little or no idea on what happens in the outside world and what the risks or unintended consequences might be!
In the Sydney area, and probably elsewhere in Australia, you can ultimately lay this at CASA's door, as well.
It come about because of the "pingya" system of training and checking, where students and biennial review candidates are instructed that they must make "all the suggested calls" all of the time, regardless of actual traffic, so "they can't pingya".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaz. I think you stated on a previous post
“So no-one will mind that I'm listening to Area still with the hope that some kind soul on Radar will tell me if I'm going to kill myself in a midair?”
I regularly fly in the Sydney area and monitor 124.55. Sometimes this frequency is silent for minutes at a time yet I have never once had ATC call me with a warning that I am close to another VFR. I have had close encounters many times and I remain as vigilant as possible.
Yet you tell me you are waiting for a “ kind soul ” to warn you.
Are you suggesting the 124.55 ATCs are not kind?
But I’d have thought 125.8 SYDNEY Radar might have been more handy for your peregrinations in the basin.
kaz
kaz
thatWith all the changes over the years, I remain terminally confused. I thought that there were Brisbane and Melbourne Centres but not Sydney?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Triadic
Making 6 or 8 calls around the circuit is a waste of breath for no good reason and as for making calls on the area frequency, it seems that those that promote this practice have little or no idea on what happens in the outside world and what the risks or unintended consequences might be!
Thread Starter
Bloggs.
You could possibly be implying it could be me!
Not so. I have supported the US style non mandatory and non prescriptive recommended calls in the circuit area.
Others have over complicated the issue. So typical. Never ever copy a proven simpler system !
You could possibly be implying it could be me!
Not so. I have supported the US style non mandatory and non prescriptive recommended calls in the circuit area.
Others have over complicated the issue. So typical. Never ever copy a proven simpler system !
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blogsie: No! It was the effect of a group hug by some individuals that did not operate much in Class G! And they were able to spruke their idea to some that did not know better
Last edited by triadic; 7th May 2018 at 07:28.