MBZ's
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ's
I think I just read on the ASFA site that a proposal has been made to make MBZ's into CTAF's(?)
Have I got this right?
If I have, I suppose it just means there will be the odd non radio aircraft flying in what was an MBZ. However, I suppose if you don't want to use a radio, you definitely will have nothing to do with a transponder. I wonder how TCAS equipped RPT guys feel about that?
Any thoughts on mandatory use of radio generally?
Have I got this right?
If I have, I suppose it just means there will be the odd non radio aircraft flying in what was an MBZ. However, I suppose if you don't want to use a radio, you definitely will have nothing to do with a transponder. I wonder how TCAS equipped RPT guys feel about that?
Any thoughts on mandatory use of radio generally?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love mbz's, but am not a fan of ctafs
installing a radio to fly into busy enough places doesn't seem all that unreasonable...
its not like it would force 172s to install CPDLC gear!
installing a radio to fly into busy enough places doesn't seem all that unreasonable...
its not like it would force 172s to install CPDLC gear!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I've got a comment.
I fly two very different aeroplanes. One has all the belss and whistles and is used to transport people. It needs the B&W.
The other has nothing. No electrics, no radio, no transponder. Nothing.
Now why should I not be able to fly aeroplane #2 into an airport just because twice a day, for ten minutes, someone is operating an RPT???
I do not subscribe to RPT priority either. Airspace belongs to all of us and RPT have it pretty much to themselves above 10,000. Down low, share!
Now I do carry a handheld and battery intercom, but if I'm compelled to use it all the time it will go flat. So I don't want to be compelled to use it. If you come barelling along and report at 15 miles while I'm in the air in the CTAF I usually operate, I will ****** off. Stay way out of the way. I will be able to hear you because my battery won't be flat from mandatory chatter.
If there is potential conflict looming, then I will talk. You wont see me though, I'll be low, camoflaged and not transponder equipped. So again, I will ****** off to resolve the conflict and will tell you that I'm gonna do that.
Unless my battery is flat from mandatory chatter.
So no, I don't want mandatory radio.
Chuck.
I fly two very different aeroplanes. One has all the belss and whistles and is used to transport people. It needs the B&W.
The other has nothing. No electrics, no radio, no transponder. Nothing.
Now why should I not be able to fly aeroplane #2 into an airport just because twice a day, for ten minutes, someone is operating an RPT???
I do not subscribe to RPT priority either. Airspace belongs to all of us and RPT have it pretty much to themselves above 10,000. Down low, share!
Now I do carry a handheld and battery intercom, but if I'm compelled to use it all the time it will go flat. So I don't want to be compelled to use it. If you come barelling along and report at 15 miles while I'm in the air in the CTAF I usually operate, I will ****** off. Stay way out of the way. I will be able to hear you because my battery won't be flat from mandatory chatter.
If there is potential conflict looming, then I will talk. You wont see me though, I'll be low, camoflaged and not transponder equipped. So again, I will ****** off to resolve the conflict and will tell you that I'm gonna do that.
Unless my battery is flat from mandatory chatter.
So no, I don't want mandatory radio.
Chuck.
MBZ's
Ulm, I agree with your line of thinking.
I do much the same, except my toy has a radio and a transponder. I just hate all that chat for the sake of it. Is it really necessary? I don't believe so.
At the end of the day, when MBZs turn into CTAFs I bet most of us will operate just the same as we do now. But with the knowledge that there may be a noradio aircraft about. Thats a chance you take now in an MBZ right now.
Keep it simple, cut the cr@p, all the excess chat and I am sure it will be just as safe.
I do much the same, except my toy has a radio and a transponder. I just hate all that chat for the sake of it. Is it really necessary? I don't believe so.
At the end of the day, when MBZs turn into CTAFs I bet most of us will operate just the same as we do now. But with the knowledge that there may be a noradio aircraft about. Thats a chance you take now in an MBZ right now.
Keep it simple, cut the cr@p, all the excess chat and I am sure it will be just as safe.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giving way to RPT
Does this mean we will no longer be forced to extend our circuit due to the RPT landing on the contrary circuit with a 15 knot tailwind so as to expediate his bris to bundaberg leg followed by a straight in approach. Gee and I though with all that flash equipment you would know which way the wind was blowing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DMck
Please be aware of the following:-
1) Knowing the wind direction is a prerequisite to making a straight in approach.
2) Multi-crew RPT can make straight in approaches at CTAF's.
3) Contrary to what your instructor tells you, down wind landings are quite safe, and are an acceptable way of shaving time off a sector.
4) Lets just say that some operators chose to ignore that other "minor" stuff about giving way to traffic already in the circuit etc.
So yes you will still have to extend your downwind, until you have the balls and knowledge to backchat a crusty old Dash Capt who is bullying his way into the circuit.
Your old mate Spinner.
1) Knowing the wind direction is a prerequisite to making a straight in approach.
2) Multi-crew RPT can make straight in approaches at CTAF's.
3) Contrary to what your instructor tells you, down wind landings are quite safe, and are an acceptable way of shaving time off a sector.
4) Lets just say that some operators chose to ignore that other "minor" stuff about giving way to traffic already in the circuit etc.
So yes you will still have to extend your downwind, until you have the balls and knowledge to backchat a crusty old Dash Capt who is bullying his way into the circuit.
Your old mate Spinner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See and avoid is great when you do - but if you don't ...
Let's face it, it is just not reliable. Using radio etc is not either but surely it must help the risk factor a little?
I am really pleased to hear you stay out of the way ulm, when you hear others whom you decline to talk to. Great airmanship - but dare I suggest there are some possibly not from the GA fraternity, who don't seem to want to know one end of a radio from the other.
Take one CTAF near Sydney, where Lancairs mix it with Quicksilvers, the slope means it is almost always necessary to take off in one direction and land in the other, the full view of the circuit from the ground is badly obscured by trees - and then half of them don't even know it is a CTAF, let alone the frequency and you have a pretty tricky situation at times. Radio in those situations really is a pretty important safety enhancement!
Let's face it, it is just not reliable. Using radio etc is not either but surely it must help the risk factor a little?
I am really pleased to hear you stay out of the way ulm, when you hear others whom you decline to talk to. Great airmanship - but dare I suggest there are some possibly not from the GA fraternity, who don't seem to want to know one end of a radio from the other.
Take one CTAF near Sydney, where Lancairs mix it with Quicksilvers, the slope means it is almost always necessary to take off in one direction and land in the other, the full view of the circuit from the ground is badly obscured by trees - and then half of them don't even know it is a CTAF, let alone the frequency and you have a pretty tricky situation at times. Radio in those situations really is a pretty important safety enhancement!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinnhead
oh contrae to your belief you may not make a straight in approach to a CTAF but still have to fly three legs of the circuit, you may how ever make a straight in approach at a MBZ. And as far as having balls, how about showing consideration to fellow operaters, I'm sure CRUSTY would before me to be considerate rather than flashing my balls at him while turning final and carving him up.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DMcK,
AIP, ENR 1.1, 61.4.2
RPT A/C CAN make straight in approaches in CTAF's provided;
The aircraft must be crewed by Two pilots, VHF Equipped and able to transmit on CTAF and the PIC must be able to determine wind direction from the air.
I love MBZs but I'm wary of CTAFs, the idea of popping out of IMC following an approach, in the circuit area at or below the standard circuit ht then dodging non radio equipped or not monitering traffic (read Ultralight), does'nt turn me on, but each to their own.
AIP, ENR 1.1, 61.4.2
RPT A/C CAN make straight in approaches in CTAF's provided;
The aircraft must be crewed by Two pilots, VHF Equipped and able to transmit on CTAF and the PIC must be able to determine wind direction from the air.
I love MBZs but I'm wary of CTAFs, the idea of popping out of IMC following an approach, in the circuit area at or below the standard circuit ht then dodging non radio equipped or not monitering traffic (read Ultralight), does'nt turn me on, but each to their own.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many pilots overuse the radio when operating MBZ to the point of frustration. Just four calls are mandatory:
Taxiing, Entering runway for takeoff, inbound/transiting and joining the circuit. The only addition is when a report from an IFR aircraft is made to FS on HF, a broadcast on the appropriate MBZ/CTAF frequency is also required. Other calls need only be made at the discretion of the pilot to separate from traffic within the MBZ.
The right-of-way issue involving straight-in approaches at MBZ/CTAF aerodromes is even less understood.
The pilot on such an approach is obliged to give way to any aircraft established on base or final, but he/she…must not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway direction is being used by aircraft already established in the aerodrome traffic pattern. (Jepps AU-715 para 5.6.4.3 b.)
Taxiing, Entering runway for takeoff, inbound/transiting and joining the circuit. The only addition is when a report from an IFR aircraft is made to FS on HF, a broadcast on the appropriate MBZ/CTAF frequency is also required. Other calls need only be made at the discretion of the pilot to separate from traffic within the MBZ.
The right-of-way issue involving straight-in approaches at MBZ/CTAF aerodromes is even less understood.
The pilot on such an approach is obliged to give way to any aircraft established on base or final, but he/she…must not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway direction is being used by aircraft already established in the aerodrome traffic pattern. (Jepps AU-715 para 5.6.4.3 b.)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Knowing the wind direction is a prerequisite to making a straight in approach.
Does this mean you can or can't make a downwind landing? i think it makes no difference
2) Multi-crew RPT can make straight in approaches at CTAF's.
There are more aircraft flying then RPT, MBZs make life safer for everyone, not just the RPT guys. YBAF has little RPT traffic but will be a CTAF after tower hours (where yes it is still busy! i know of a near miss in mbz hous very recently as a result of one aircraft not using his radio!) Then again YLIS would become a CTAF at all hours, which is probobly okay as their isn't much traffic there. However, somewhere like YTWB will be a CTAF full time, which is all good and well except that from one end of the runway you can't see if theres anyone at the other end lining up to take off into you...
3) Contrary to what your instructor tells you, down wind landings are quite safe, and are an acceptable way of shaving time off a sector.
Yes, but contrary to shaving 1-2 minutes off a flight, in a 15 kt wind your looking at a 30kt difference in ground speed! if your a non radio equipt a/c i'd say your not really time critical and will land the safe way. In fact in my training it is quite routine to learn that straight in and out is the way to go because thats what happens in a commercial situation, regardless of if its RPT. Fine and dandy in an MBZ where you know whats going on even if you can't see it
4) Lets just say that some operators chose to ignore that other "minor" stuff about giving way to traffic already in the circuit etc.
Yep, which happens in MBZs and CTAFs, but in MBZs at least you know everyone knows your barreling in and can a) get out of the way, b) point out regulations and tell the RPT guy to get stuffed or c) not run into the 65yr old in his glider who won't be there because it so hard to get a radio... pfft
Okay maybe i'm a little harsh...
why not get rid of the transpoder requirement for CTA? in fact get rid of all transponders, after all there still a few primary radar covered spots around, and Warning areas (read the NAS if you don't know what they are) can be monitered by AWACS... no wait thats just silly
A few things to consider:
There will be Class E airspace down to 700ft agl at some current MBZs. There will be at some point, IFR aircraft poping out of cloud into an area where there could be anything, but ATC won't know because not only will these a/c not show up on radar because they are not transponder equipt, and they have said nothing so ATC won't know they are in the area. the NAS makes no distinction in this area between primary and secondary surveilance radar, so its not like we can assume that atc will have a blip of some sort.
RPT will be expected to provide a unicom operater for these ctafs when rpt traffic is expected. thats great i spose, for the RPT guys who can afford it. how doest hat help the non RPT guys stay safe the rest of the time? so now to ensure safe seperation of airccraft the cost will be to the travelling public, not the glider, ultralight and private guys who are causing this risk in the first place. Your saying RPT guys are causing safety issues too? well yes but these guys have radios, transponders, often TCAS and a second set of eyes... i think thats plenty of safety gear.
The fact of the matter is, the safety analysis used for the NAS is ridiculous. A mix of the US and canadian systems is compared to the 2 systems as seperate enteties despite the melding of the 2 resulting in something different to both. Add to that, the vast differnces in radar coverage and traffic levels between AUS and the US. I don't look foward to the airspace charges this thing will need...
ah well, i should add there are good points in the NAS, but getting rid of MBZs is not one of them. As good as standardisation is, should we abolish MBZs so it takes 5 minutes less for an overseas pilot to be familiar with low level airspace which international flights will never be near, while at the same time reducing safety levels at airports with justifiable levels of traffic?
Does this mean you can or can't make a downwind landing? i think it makes no difference
2) Multi-crew RPT can make straight in approaches at CTAF's.
There are more aircraft flying then RPT, MBZs make life safer for everyone, not just the RPT guys. YBAF has little RPT traffic but will be a CTAF after tower hours (where yes it is still busy! i know of a near miss in mbz hous very recently as a result of one aircraft not using his radio!) Then again YLIS would become a CTAF at all hours, which is probobly okay as their isn't much traffic there. However, somewhere like YTWB will be a CTAF full time, which is all good and well except that from one end of the runway you can't see if theres anyone at the other end lining up to take off into you...
3) Contrary to what your instructor tells you, down wind landings are quite safe, and are an acceptable way of shaving time off a sector.
Yes, but contrary to shaving 1-2 minutes off a flight, in a 15 kt wind your looking at a 30kt difference in ground speed! if your a non radio equipt a/c i'd say your not really time critical and will land the safe way. In fact in my training it is quite routine to learn that straight in and out is the way to go because thats what happens in a commercial situation, regardless of if its RPT. Fine and dandy in an MBZ where you know whats going on even if you can't see it
4) Lets just say that some operators chose to ignore that other "minor" stuff about giving way to traffic already in the circuit etc.
Yep, which happens in MBZs and CTAFs, but in MBZs at least you know everyone knows your barreling in and can a) get out of the way, b) point out regulations and tell the RPT guy to get stuffed or c) not run into the 65yr old in his glider who won't be there because it so hard to get a radio... pfft
Okay maybe i'm a little harsh...
why not get rid of the transpoder requirement for CTA? in fact get rid of all transponders, after all there still a few primary radar covered spots around, and Warning areas (read the NAS if you don't know what they are) can be monitered by AWACS... no wait thats just silly
A few things to consider:
There will be Class E airspace down to 700ft agl at some current MBZs. There will be at some point, IFR aircraft poping out of cloud into an area where there could be anything, but ATC won't know because not only will these a/c not show up on radar because they are not transponder equipt, and they have said nothing so ATC won't know they are in the area. the NAS makes no distinction in this area between primary and secondary surveilance radar, so its not like we can assume that atc will have a blip of some sort.
RPT will be expected to provide a unicom operater for these ctafs when rpt traffic is expected. thats great i spose, for the RPT guys who can afford it. how doest hat help the non RPT guys stay safe the rest of the time? so now to ensure safe seperation of airccraft the cost will be to the travelling public, not the glider, ultralight and private guys who are causing this risk in the first place. Your saying RPT guys are causing safety issues too? well yes but these guys have radios, transponders, often TCAS and a second set of eyes... i think thats plenty of safety gear.
The fact of the matter is, the safety analysis used for the NAS is ridiculous. A mix of the US and canadian systems is compared to the 2 systems as seperate enteties despite the melding of the 2 resulting in something different to both. Add to that, the vast differnces in radar coverage and traffic levels between AUS and the US. I don't look foward to the airspace charges this thing will need...
ah well, i should add there are good points in the NAS, but getting rid of MBZs is not one of them. As good as standardisation is, should we abolish MBZs so it takes 5 minutes less for an overseas pilot to be familiar with low level airspace which international flights will never be near, while at the same time reducing safety levels at airports with justifiable levels of traffic?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern would be if people aren't talking - what if they miss my radio call inbound because they were chatting with a mate in the cockpit or something. Pop out visual off an ILS into a cessna doing circuits. Just a concern. I at least enjoy the regular calls because you can tune in 50 miles out and get an idea of who's where. How about no compulsory radio calls but must have transponder on?? RPT happy with TCAS at least . Although I suspect a transponder is more expensive than a VHF set (or a spare set of batteries as the case may be!)
PAF
PAF
Landing with 15kt downwind is acceptable?
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 166
Operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome
(1)
The pilot in command of an aircraft which is being operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(a)
observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;
(b)
conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
(e)
land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;
Landing with a 15kt tailwind to maintain a schedule is contrary to para (e) in my way of thinking, whether you are RPT or not.
- REG 166
Operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome
(1)
The pilot in command of an aircraft which is being operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(a)
observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;
(b)
conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
(e)
land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;
Landing with a 15kt tailwind to maintain a schedule is contrary to para (e) in my way of thinking, whether you are RPT or not.
Last edited by RENURPP; 1st Oct 2002 at 11:11.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You probably don't care about what is published in ADF Flight Info Handbook regarding non-controlled aerodromes but here goes :
61.2 The runway to be used for landing must be:
a. the most into-wind runway;
b. when operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction provided the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing or take-off traffic using the most intowind runway....
61.6 Aircraft conducting a straight-in approach at a non-controlled aerodrome ... must observe the following procedure: ...
b. The aircraft captain must not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway direction is being used by aircraft already established in the aerodrome traffic pattern.
anyway.. that's from one side of the coin.
PAF.
61.2 The runway to be used for landing must be:
a. the most into-wind runway;
b. when operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction provided the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing or take-off traffic using the most intowind runway....
61.6 Aircraft conducting a straight-in approach at a non-controlled aerodrome ... must observe the following procedure: ...
b. The aircraft captain must not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway direction is being used by aircraft already established in the aerodrome traffic pattern.
anyway.. that's from one side of the coin.
PAF.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-a-frozo,
I don’t think too many military pilots care what is written in the ADF Flight Info Handbook either.
On descent into YBUD in a Citation, I contacted a Caribou crew operating in the circuit RWY 32. The wind was a northerly at about fifteen knots, viz around 6 km and base about 700 feet. Advised the cream of our aviation fraternity (???) that I would call approaching the minima or established straight-in for 32. This was duly acknowledged. At five miles I reported final 32 and requested their position to be advised they were left base RWY 14 for a stop and go (!!!???). I had no alternative but to manoeuvre right for a left base for 14 and accept some ten knots of down-wind. They advised me they were practising for an air show. I thanked them for their fine display of airmanship but guess the emphasis was lost.
I don’t think too many military pilots care what is written in the ADF Flight Info Handbook either.
On descent into YBUD in a Citation, I contacted a Caribou crew operating in the circuit RWY 32. The wind was a northerly at about fifteen knots, viz around 6 km and base about 700 feet. Advised the cream of our aviation fraternity (???) that I would call approaching the minima or established straight-in for 32. This was duly acknowledged. At five miles I reported final 32 and requested their position to be advised they were left base RWY 14 for a stop and go (!!!???). I had no alternative but to manoeuvre right for a left base for 14 and accept some ten knots of down-wind. They advised me they were practising for an air show. I thanked them for their fine display of airmanship but guess the emphasis was lost.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I wouldn't exactly agree that we don't care what is written in ADF FIH, as they are the rules we must follow.
I think it's a bit harsh to taint the entire fraternity of military pilots with the same brush after a bad experience you had with one operator. I'm sure you wouldn't like military pilots to think all civilian pilots are like the worst that we've come across. I'm not going to start a slinging much by going through examples . Needless to say my point is we're all in the same sky.
I'll ignore the cream of ... comment.
PAF
I think it's a bit harsh to taint the entire fraternity of military pilots with the same brush after a bad experience you had with one operator. I'm sure you wouldn't like military pilots to think all civilian pilots are like the worst that we've come across. I'm not going to start a slinging much by going through examples . Needless to say my point is we're all in the same sky.
I'll ignore the cream of ... comment.
PAF