The frequency to be used in the vicinity of uncharted aerodromes farce continues
Thread Starter
I agree. I suspect that if there were 3 drivers in the room there would be 5 opinions as to the ‘appropriate’ speed limit on a particular stretch of road.
That’s why these kinds of decisions should be made on the basis of data and risk and logic, rather than the weight of opinion. That’s why my favourite person in the history of aircraft maintenance is Conrad Hal Waddington.
That’s why these kinds of decisions should be made on the basis of data and risk and logic, rather than the weight of opinion. That’s why my favourite person in the history of aircraft maintenance is Conrad Hal Waddington.
Blame me. I came up with the 126.7 frequency at the time of AMATS. Before then all non tower aerodromes were on the area frequency.
126.7 was and is the multicom used in Canada on the way to the North Pole.
126.7 was and is the multicom used in Canada on the way to the North Pole.
I agree. I suspect that if there were 3 drivers in the room there would be 5 opinions as to the ‘appropriate’ speed limit on a particular stretch of road.
That’s why these kinds of decisions should be made on the basis of data and risk and logic, rather than the weight of opinion. That’s why my favourite person in the history of aircraft maintenance is Conrad Hal Waddington.
That’s why these kinds of decisions should be made on the basis of data and risk and logic, rather than the weight of opinion. That’s why my favourite person in the history of aircraft maintenance is Conrad Hal Waddington.
Data, risk and logic are not characteristics of the GA community debates. After spending a working life using that approach I have concluded that many in the GA community leave them "outside the hangar" when discussing aviation. Emotion and blaming someone else seem to be the preferred approach. Never let facts get in the way of a good whine!
Thread Starter
When you say that: “Consultation with the GA community is like arguing with 4 year old people.”, to whom are you referring? Does your “GA community” include or exclude the following:
You’d understand that it would be helpful to know whom you consider to be behaving like 4 year old people.
In any event, it appears to me that you do not understand the paradigm problem: In the case of the subject matters like the subject of this thread, there should be no “debate”. Waddington didn’t have a “debate” or “consult” with people. He analysed the data and came to the logical conclusion. It wasn’t about trying to find a “consensus” among individuals with personal opinions based on intuition. That was precisely the cause of the problem which Waddington fixed.
“Reviews” of Part 67 and Avmed’s role in aviation safety should be run the same way, by the modern day equivalent of a Waddington and not by a medical industry (and RAAus) echo chamber. A cold hard analysis of the data shows that, in the 21st century in Australia, Avmed is doing more damage than it prevents. But as with the ‘received wisdom’ about the RAAF’s bombers in WWII, based on the intuitive belief that more ‘preventive’ maintenance must produce a more reliable aircraft, there persists the intuitive belief that, but for Avmed, the skies would be full of dangerously unfit pilots. However, the experiment has been run and the data are in.
I get it that it must be very frustrating to go to all the expense and effort of protracted consultation processes. It’s equally frustrating for us 4 year olds to see how much of our money is flushed down the dunny in these processes. It’s especially frustrating when the output of this particular process is the objectively worst alternative: Leave it to pilot discretion (and then publish an AC that is not consistent with the provision in AIP).
Remember what’s necessary to achieve the required safety outcome? “Ensure broadcasts are made on a frequency that other aircraft in the vicinity will be monitoring.”
A Waddington would have come to the correct conclusion by simply analysing the prevailing frequency arrangements. In fact, a Waddington did precisely that. That’s why the original Area frequency mandate was implemented.
- Flying schools
- Aerial ag operators
- Fire fighting operators
- The various state and territory RFDSs
- EMS and SAR operators
- Helicopter operators
- Maintenance organisations for aircraft below 5,700kg MTOW
- Aircraft and pilots operating under the auspices of the various sports aviation self-administration organisations.
You’d understand that it would be helpful to know whom you consider to be behaving like 4 year old people.
In any event, it appears to me that you do not understand the paradigm problem: In the case of the subject matters like the subject of this thread, there should be no “debate”. Waddington didn’t have a “debate” or “consult” with people. He analysed the data and came to the logical conclusion. It wasn’t about trying to find a “consensus” among individuals with personal opinions based on intuition. That was precisely the cause of the problem which Waddington fixed.
“Reviews” of Part 67 and Avmed’s role in aviation safety should be run the same way, by the modern day equivalent of a Waddington and not by a medical industry (and RAAus) echo chamber. A cold hard analysis of the data shows that, in the 21st century in Australia, Avmed is doing more damage than it prevents. But as with the ‘received wisdom’ about the RAAF’s bombers in WWII, based on the intuitive belief that more ‘preventive’ maintenance must produce a more reliable aircraft, there persists the intuitive belief that, but for Avmed, the skies would be full of dangerously unfit pilots. However, the experiment has been run and the data are in.
I get it that it must be very frustrating to go to all the expense and effort of protracted consultation processes. It’s equally frustrating for us 4 year olds to see how much of our money is flushed down the dunny in these processes. It’s especially frustrating when the output of this particular process is the objectively worst alternative: Leave it to pilot discretion (and then publish an AC that is not consistent with the provision in AIP).
Remember what’s necessary to achieve the required safety outcome? “Ensure broadcasts are made on a frequency that other aircraft in the vicinity will be monitoring.”
A Waddington would have come to the correct conclusion by simply analysing the prevailing frequency arrangements. In fact, a Waddington did precisely that. That’s why the original Area frequency mandate was implemented.
Clinton is right, however until CASA realise what the problem is and make some logical decisions the present mess will continue. CASA have a responsibility for training and standardisation but it seems they are unable to manage either. CASA do not appear to provide any oversight or standardisation on radio procedures etc., and the result is that we now have different flying schools teaching radio procedures differently. I know one airfield where there are two flying schools that teach for example circuit procedures and radio calls differently. What hope do we have unless CASA start to provide some oversight and address standardisation. Part of the problem now is that the CASA flying inspectors (or whatever they are called now) have themselves many different ideas on how it should be done. (Due lack of experience perhaps?) Best CASA sort themselves out first…… until that happens we will not see any change (until perhaps there is a big hold in the ground..)
Thread Starter
Welcome to the kindergarten class, cogwheel. Us children are the problem.
Is it up to CASA to say to industry 'shut ya hole and look out the window'
Industry has to take a bit of a lead on this, including ATC's. I've heard one tower say to a pilot, 'readback of only these items are required....................'
When you tell a student to listen to live ATC, you tell them to listen only to the RPT aircraft because the rest is absolute rubbish.
Industry has to take a bit of a lead on this, including ATC's. I've heard one tower say to a pilot, 'readback of only these items are required....................'
When you tell a student to listen to live ATC, you tell them to listen only to the RPT aircraft because the rest is absolute rubbish.
