$5,000 fine for not monitoring the radio
Thread Starter
$5,000 fine for not monitoring the radio
Today I have sent the following communication to Shane Carmody, the head of CASA.
I note that the prescriptive fine for not monitoring the radio at all times is $5,240. Surely the system would be a lot safer if the fine was something like $50,000 or $100,000. I understand in the USA there is not even a fine in similar situations. No wonder flying in the US is so dangerous.
I note that the prescriptive fine for not monitoring the radio at all times is $5,240. Surely the system would be a lot safer if the fine was something like $50,000 or $100,000. I understand in the USA there is not even a fine in similar situations. No wonder flying in the US is so dangerous.
Dear Mr Carmody
In relation to the “Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace” discussion, I’m not sure if you understand a very important fact.
When the mandate was originally implemented for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace to monitor and announce if in potential conflict, it was also mandatory for IFR aircraft to give full position reports – even in surveillance coverage.
This was because there was a demarcation issue between flight service officers and air traffic controllers. Pilots flying in uncontrolled airspace were forced to monitor and announce on a flight service frequency, however the flight service officers were in a different room to the air traffic controllers and did not have a radar/surveillance screen.
If we move forward to the present time, in virtually all of the airspace with high traffic density in the J-curve, IFR aircraft are not required to give position reports as they are under surveillance coverage (either radar or ADS-B) and are therefore “identified”. Position reports are not required and in practice they are not given.
Note that AIP ENR 1.1 states:
Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 243 also states:
We now have a situation where it is mandated for a VFR pilot to monitor and announce if they are traffic for an IFR aircraft, whereas the IFR aircraft is not giving a position report in the first place, meaning their location is not known to VFR pilots.
Do you see the anomaly?
I am sure you also understand that there is no mandate for a transponder for VFR aircraft in Class G uncontrolled airspace, so in many cases the VFR aircraft will be completely transparent to the system.
To put it simply, it is ridiculous to legally require pilots of VFR aircraft to monitor and announce when in potential conflict when the location of IFR aircraft is not known because their pilots do not provide position reports. It is clear that it is impossible to operate a “half wound-back” system effectively.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
In relation to the “Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace” discussion, I’m not sure if you understand a very important fact.
When the mandate was originally implemented for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace to monitor and announce if in potential conflict, it was also mandatory for IFR aircraft to give full position reports – even in surveillance coverage.
This was because there was a demarcation issue between flight service officers and air traffic controllers. Pilots flying in uncontrolled airspace were forced to monitor and announce on a flight service frequency, however the flight service officers were in a different room to the air traffic controllers and did not have a radar/surveillance screen.
If we move forward to the present time, in virtually all of the airspace with high traffic density in the J-curve, IFR aircraft are not required to give position reports as they are under surveillance coverage (either radar or ADS-B) and are therefore “identified”. Position reports are not required and in practice they are not given.
Note that AIP ENR 1.1 states:
“10.5.1 Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF frequency and announce if in potential conflict. Pilots intercepting broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge by transmitting own callsign and, as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions.
10.5.1.1 The appropriate VHF frequency stated in para 10.5.1 is:
a. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete CTAF shown (including Broadcast Area CTAF), or otherwise;
b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the MULTICOM 126.7; or
c. In all other cases, Area VHF".
10.5.1.1 The appropriate VHF frequency stated in para 10.5.1 is:
a. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete CTAF shown (including Broadcast Area CTAF), or otherwise;
b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the MULTICOM 126.7; or
c. In all other cases, Area VHF".
“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” (Currently $5,240)
Penalty: 25 penalty units” (Currently $5,240)
Do you see the anomaly?
I am sure you also understand that there is no mandate for a transponder for VFR aircraft in Class G uncontrolled airspace, so in many cases the VFR aircraft will be completely transparent to the system.
To put it simply, it is ridiculous to legally require pilots of VFR aircraft to monitor and announce when in potential conflict when the location of IFR aircraft is not known because their pilots do not provide position reports. It is clear that it is impossible to operate a “half wound-back” system effectively.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
whereas the IFR aircraft is not giving a position report in the first place, meaning their location is not known to VFR pilots.
The only thing that will happen here, Dick, is that VFR will also have to call climbing and descending, which doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Be careful what you wish for.
I am sure you also understand that there is no mandate for a transponder for VFR aircraft in Class G uncontrolled airspace
I'm sorry did the OP say that "flying in the US is so dangerous". Compared to who? I would love to be corrected buy I am pretty sure the Australian accident rate per hundred thousand hours flow is higher than the USA.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My primary concern is that many (most?) VFR aircraft have at most one VHF radio fitted. It's absolutely normal to have a situation where monitoring two frequencies would be good (eg. approaching or departing a non-controlled airport where you probably want to hear both the CTAF and area frequency). Are we now going to see a situation where someone departing from (for example) Cootamundra immediately switches to the area frequency to announce (as legally required) their intended climb through IFR flight levels, and therefore fails to (as legally required) monitor the Cootamundra CTAF? Or how about somewhere like Goulburn, where on takeoff you probably want to announce on the CTAF, Canberra Approach, and both of the relevant Melbourne Centre frequencies (as YGLB is on a boundary)? Do you pick one and pick up a $15K fine for not monitoring the other three simultaneously?
Stay on the Coota CTAF until departed, then make an Area call with climbing details. If you're not already known-about by inbound IFR monitoring your CTAF calls, they'll pick you up on your Area call.
Goulburn: CBR approach is a red herring. CTA is above 8500ft! Area freq boundary? Which way are you going? Call on the Area freq for the airspace you are going into.
All done on one radio. Or are you taking the p155?
Goulburn: CBR approach is a red herring. CTA is above 8500ft! Area freq boundary? Which way are you going? Call on the Area freq for the airspace you are going into.
All done on one radio. Or are you taking the p155?
Thread Starter
What is the CASA fine for a VFR pilot that does not give a departure full position report on the ATC area frequency leaving an un controlled airport?
I hope it is ginormous!
Safety is always the most important consideration at CASA. Not credibility!
I hope it is ginormous!
Safety is always the most important consideration at CASA. Not credibility!
I'm sorry did the OP say that "flying in the US is so dangerous". Compared to who?
All you aviators will have observed of course that due to the use, mis-use, non -use, wrong frequency, etc, of radio by dopey and unsafe Australian pilots, Australia is littered with aircraft wreckage from the daily occurrence of mid air collisions due to the above.
5K $ or so for a 'not listening ' pffft ! chicken feed.
All this bureaucratic chicannery is all about keeping the Fort fully? occupied. What can we think up this week to fcuk the industry....even further.
Another recent CAsA stupidity was a claim they were going to get tough on pax the smoke in toilets...fine increased to $800. ! By the time the paperwork is process, the prep even found...and having probably left the country, can wave goodbye with 2 fingers to the penalty which is unrecoverable.
And the penalty now for forgetting to fill some lines in yr log book..10K plus !!
Yes folks the loonies really are in charge of the Furzer st asylum.
5K $ or so for a 'not listening ' pffft ! chicken feed.
All this bureaucratic chicannery is all about keeping the Fort fully? occupied. What can we think up this week to fcuk the industry....even further.
Another recent CAsA stupidity was a claim they were going to get tough on pax the smoke in toilets...fine increased to $800. ! By the time the paperwork is process, the prep even found...and having probably left the country, can wave goodbye with 2 fingers to the penalty which is unrecoverable.
And the penalty now for forgetting to fill some lines in yr log book..10K plus !!
Yes folks the loonies really are in charge of the Furzer st asylum.
Originally Posted by The AIP
10.7 Descent from Controlled Airspace
10.7.1 Before descending from controlled into Class G airspace and before separation with any aircraft operating near the base of controlled airspace can be compromised, the pilot in command of an IFR flight must report position, level, intentions and estimate for next position/destination to the ATS unit providing services in Class G airspace. If the report is made using HF radio, a broadcast must be made on the appropriate area VHF frequency.
10.7.1 Before descending from controlled into Class G airspace and before separation with any aircraft operating near the base of controlled airspace can be compromised, the pilot in command of an IFR flight must report position, level, intentions and estimate for next position/destination to the ATS unit providing services in Class G airspace. If the report is made using HF radio, a broadcast must be made on the appropriate area VHF frequency.
................I’m not sure if you understand a very important fact.
When the mandate was originally implemented for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace to monitor and announce if in potential conflict, it was also mandatory for IFR aircraft to give full position reports – even in surveillance coverage.
This was because there was a demarcation issue between flight service officers and air traffic controllers. Pilots flying in uncontrolled airspace were forced to monitor and announce on a flight service frequency, however the flight service officers were in a different room to the air traffic controllers and did not have a radar/surveillance screen.
When the mandate was originally implemented for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace to monitor and announce if in potential conflict, it was also mandatory for IFR aircraft to give full position reports – even in surveillance coverage.
This was because there was a demarcation issue between flight service officers and air traffic controllers. Pilots flying in uncontrolled airspace were forced to monitor and announce on a flight service frequency, however the flight service officers were in a different room to the air traffic controllers and did not have a radar/surveillance screen.
I think you are getting your Air Traffic Services set up pre and post alphabet airspace implementation mixed up. There was no demarcation issue. You seem to forget what uncontrolled airspace was, and why it was called uncontrolled. And it still is.
I honestly don't see what your problem is with all this. If the IFR is under surveillance by ATC in G, the ATC will assess the observed VFR traffic and advise the IFR accordingly if a conflict is determined to be likely. Then dialogue between aircraft can commence. Of course the VFR will be maintaining a listening watch and can now respond. If the IFR is outside ATC surveillance, it will be making the appropriate position reports and the VFR who is of course maintaining a listening watch can announce if there is a potential conflict. It is the same result, except one is determined by a third party, and results in less frequency congestion, which is a good outcome.
Pilots intercepting broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge
I say bring it on. Come down to my local and start fining all the clowns who mindlessly broadcast but seem unable to listen and respond. Can we have a fine for the running circuit commentary too?
It’s ironic that in a country with ever-growing aviation ‘safety’ rules, the schools aren’t teaching the rules.
I don't think there is a mandatory final call, just a joining the circuit call. From my observation the folk who call every leg are the least likely to respond to any call directed at them, they simply keep reading out their position which is an easy thing to teach from a school perspective I guess 
Heard the other day: "Jabbything this is Qlink, is this circuit for a touch and go or a full stop?"
Jabbything: Jabbything downwind 24
Qlink: "Can you confirm it for a full stop or a touch and go?"
Jabbything: "Jabbything turning base runway 24"
Some decent education is badly needed.
Heard the other day: "Jabbything this is Qlink, is this circuit for a touch and go or a full stop?"
Jabbything: Jabbything downwind 24
Qlink: "Can you confirm it for a full stop or a touch and go?"
Jabbything: "Jabbything turning base runway 24"
Some decent education is badly needed.
Part of this exercise is teaching situational awareness. Having that mental picture of your environment and where the other players are and how they may or may not effect you. Having some knowledge of other aircraft performance is part of the deal. You don’t need to know what the other pilot had for breakfast if your ETA’s are 10 min apart and the speeds are 100kts difference and your tracks are split!!