Dick

You're off with the fairies. I don't know what's prompted this particular foray into fairyland, but believe me: there are important things to worry about, and this isn't one of them.

Majorca. You say rubbish. Do you think the controller was fibbing? Are you stating that VFR position reports and radio arranged separation on ATC frequencies does not effect controller workload. ?

How are you qualified to say this. Do other controllers agree?

Yes, but there aren't too many airliners and 747's flying in low level E airspace, which at best in the J curve only goes up to FL180 (FL125 in some areas).

Captain. It looks as if you will say anything to justify this unique system

RPT aircraft have to be separated by ATC from other IFR aircraft up to fl180.

While other VFR aircraft are supposed to be making circuit calls on the same frequency. Obviously only works if hardly any VFR pilots comply.

Clinton. How about some answers to my genuine questions? Re duty of care and mandatory CTAF calls?

I see your point Dick.

All those hundreds of landings taking place every day at strips that aren't marked on the charts are going to generate so many calls on the area frequency that air traffic control will descend into chaos. It will be raining RPT aluminium.

Can you see any pixies where you are? Walk towards the light: That's the direction of the top of the garden and back to reality.

So what did you ask the question for then Dick? My guess is there are none, your guess is there are some, it appears that neither of us can be bothered with the rule book.

Can anyone quote legislation?

I am bothered by the rule book but it's all too complicated for a simple car radio installer. That's why I ask advice. Hope this can be answered in a genuine way.

Creampuff. It is a lot more serious than you make out.

My point is that the requirement is likely to have been introduced on the tactic understanding that most pilots will not comply. I am sure you will agree that if this is so it is not a prudent way to regulate!

Do AsA ATCs have any responsibility to VFR aircraft that are mandatory on their ATC frequency and clearly close together on radar in G airspace ? I am told this is the reason other countries such as the USA do not publish the ATC class E sector frequency boundaries?

What's your expert view on this as a legal expert!

My view is that everyone should worry.

Worry lots.

In fact, best if everyone panics.

Only in Australia can a clear statement of a rule that has been in place for over a decade generate this amount of silliness.

In the absence of a competent agency delivering effective industry education, nearly everyone will continue to muddle along with folklore-based procedures anyway. So calm your farm, Dick!

Creampuff. I was involved in the introduction of CTAFs. Up until then there was no such thing in Aus - all calls were on a frequency monitored by the government employed FSO.

If the rule has been in for a decade as you claim it came about from someone who had no idea of the plan for reform and in my view is an error.

That's why I would like to know who is driving it so I can find out the reason.

Over 50% of US airports are below radar coverage yet they can somehow get away with a system that does not require circuit traffic to report on Government monitored ATC control frequencies.

If this requirement was actually complied with by all pilots the area frequencies would be seriously disrupted and I believe safety for fare paying passengers reduced. If a traffic information service is required on VFR there is an ICAO airspace that covers this. It is called class D !

Or go back to the FS system that was in place before AMATS.

Did I read the article correctly. That is the Victorian RAPAC supports this CASA ruling where aircraft at these strips must give calls on the AsA control frequency - not the multicom procedure that was introduced at my time.

Are the members obsessed with radio? Would they support moving back to the old system where all calls were on the government provided frequency and CTAFs did not exist?

Would they pay the tens of millions this cost?

Or do they believe this proposal will work and cost nothing?

I'm looking forward to hearing all those departure and arrival broadcasts from aircraft operating at unmarked airstrips. It can sometimes get extraordinarily quiet and lonely on the area frequency.

I'd always thought that the almost complete absence of broadcasts on area was due to the tiny number of movements in and out of unmarked airstrips, but I live and learn.

From an instructor's point of view I teach my students when on navexes to use the frequency that will give them the best situational awareness of other aircraft in their vicinity.

When you are bimbling along VFR at 3500 I don't see how listening to ATC giving IFR clearances to RPT at flight levels is going to achieve this.

The only time that Centre (are they called Area now?) frequency is of any use to us is if we have a flight plan/SARtime amendment or a mayday. Trying to get their attention can sometimes take up to ten minutes if they are busy doing their real job.

Where is the safety improvement if Farmer Joe departs Woop Woop Station talking on Melbourne Centre and we are on 126.7 in the vicinity? How is him knowing that Qantas are at FL350 going to improve safety?

Personally I think Centre should be used for IFR and if we VFR need to talk to someone for assistance, relevant CTAF for everything else.

IN real life though the chances of it actually making a difference to safety are very small. It also shows that the CAAPs have limited or no legal status (Am I right Creampuff?) and you must always refer to the AIP.

Clare prop. Good on you. All commonsense . However not what CASA is now telling everyone .

And I reckon the monitoring and calls are not advisory. Mandatory and prescriptive I would reckon. Surly someone can give us a definitive answer on this- Creamy clearly doesn't know!

Surly gave up worrying about this kind of first world bull**** long ago.....

So Clare, you must be one of the instructors who's teaching the pilots that I hear Centre trying, unsuccessfully, to contact, to warn them of a pending penetration of an active Romeo or controlled airspace. Or to try to get them to squawk ident to confirm location and then altitude, for the safety of other nearby, IFR, traffic. Or to try to confirm the location of an aircraft that's past its SARTIME.

Astonishing.

Absolutely astonishing. :ugh:

Me too Monkey, a broadcast on area frequency from the outer whoop whoop grass paddock is pretty much a pointless thing.

By the way Creamie, there are a few ALA's in my area, not on the charts that occasionally get busy with fly ins. The last one I recall had over 40 aircraft present. If the clubbies elect to use 126.7 are they now breaking the law?

CAR 166C is the bit - only mandatory calls are those required to avoid a collision!

Why does Civil Air. , the ATC Union accept this?

They must know that CASA will step away and blame the ATC if a mid air occurs because attention is taken away by self announcements by VFR pilots on ATC frequencies.

The ATCs were given a proportion of the blame for the Bankstown mid air even though the airspace at the time required pilot separation.

In many cases the ATCs will not be able to hear taxiing calls from aircraft but the calls could block out separation instructions.

Then again. As Creamy points out, it hasn't happened yet - so let's not worry!

Fascinating. No one is game to say who is pushing this at CASA and whether the calls are mandatory.

Sorry. My edit. We do have a sort of an answer from Triton- thanks

What should happen, and what used to happen when aviation was regulated competently and pilots were trained to a standard, was that the organisers of the fly in would arrange for the promulgation of a thing called a 'NOTAM' that pilots used to 'read' and 'comprehend' as part of their 'pre-flight planning' and 'operational decision-making', in which NOTAM the location of and discrete frequency for the activity could be specified.

Just do whatever Dick says is common sense. Nothing could possibly go wrong. :ok:

Creamy. We had better gave a cuppa next time I come to Canberra. You seem to be getting old and cranky.

Yes yes. I know. The old days when we were with the regulator were far better!