Planned Media Release re CASA Misinformation
 

Unless some sensible advice can be given to the contrary, I plan to send out the following Media Release next Thursday, 30 October.

The reason for this is that after Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager of the Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division at CASA, told me the decision in relation to radio calls at non-CTAF marked aerodromes was not his but the people in Operations, I realised that CASA was becoming more dysfunctional every day.

I have had numerous communications backwards-and-forwards on this issue – and also with the ATS-B. It looks to me as if the people making up the advice have minds which are set in concrete. They have never bothered to ask advice or see how airspace works in other countries around the world.

Their advice for aircraft to monitor and announce on air traffic control frequencies when in the circuit area of non-CTAF marked aerodromes may help reduce the almost infinitesimal chance of a mid-air at such locations, however at the same time it adds a serious safety implication; that is, the obvious chance of blocking out air traffic controller instructions.

The problem is that some of these ill-informed, but no doubt genuine, people at CASA and the ATSB are attempting to put the old Flightservice “radio range separation techniques” where IFR and VFR flew at the same quadrant levels into a halfway-stage NAS.

I have stated many times that we need to go back to the pre-1991 AMATS system and the quadrantial rule and for full position reporting with separate ATC/Flightservice frequency sectors – or we need to continue to the proven NAS airspace.

I have been informed that the Government policy on NAS is no longer accepted by CASA. In that case, then what is the policy? It is clear that no-one knows.

Unless there is sound, rational advice on why I should not send out this Media Release, it will be issued next Thursday.

Nice work Dick. Every Jabiru, Ultralight and c152 broadcasting taxi or circuit calls on area frequency would be a bloody nightmare. It's hard enough to get some people of the air as it is.

Yes. It's pretty clear this latest CASA requirement only works if virtually no-one complies.

And that seems to be happening.

Then again you only need one call to block out an important ATC clearance or instruction .

Remember it's unlikely the controller will hear a taxiing call as ground to ground VHF communication is limited in range.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but is it saying any Strip not marked on a WAC should, instead of calling on 126.7, use the Area Frequency?

What now happens if you have a Strip that is not marked on a WAC but is close to another Strip which is? You could quite potentially have a busy marked strip making calls on 126.7 as normal and another nearby un-marked strip making calls on the Area Frequency?!

Can you get Airservices to stop using the term "Metro D" when referring to Class D Airspace. I can't find Metro D airspace in the AIP.

I support you on this one, Dick.

Caught a cockroach the other day, put it on the table and yelled: “Walk!” It walked.

I recaptured the cockroach, pulled its legs off, put it on the table again, and again yelled: “Walk!” It didn’t walk.

That proves cockroaches hear through their legs.

“There are literally thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips.” Wow!

How many movements are there each day at these places? To the closest million.

How many of those movements involve aircraft that are required to have a serviceable VHF? To the closest hundred thousand.

Of course, the almost complete silence I hear on area and 126.7 as I fly over these thousands of small agricultural and private dirt and grass strips couldn’t possibly be attributed to the fact that there’s three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all happening there. Nor could it possibly be attributed to the fact that to the extent that anything’s happening at all at these places, much of it involves aircraft that are not required to carry serviceable VHF.

It’s instead because all those thousands of aircraft engaged in all those millions of movements are not complying with the CASA requirement.

Don’t worry Dick: Everyone will continue to do what you do and just make sh*t up, untroubled by conflicting messages.

(DB: That’s why you have “Metro D”. It’s code for ... sssshhhhhh ... GAAP. That’s why the procedures for flying in and out of e.g. YSBK today are almost identical to the procedures for flying in and out of YSBK around 30 years ago. Only difference is that 2FC is now 2RN, no more Westmead Hospital approach point and there’s less than half the traffic. Those naughty ATCers finally got their way on taxi clearances at GAAP though, but that’s effectively just a timing thing.)

Ixix it is extremely complicated according to CASA . In some cases you would use the nearest CTAF frequency- in other cases you would not!

The FAA has no problems with this as there are no area frequencies . Outrageous I here you shout. Yes they know little about aviation there. They only built the 747 and we built the Nomad.

Creamy. You are of course correct. Hardly any calls as hardly anyone flying.

However it may take only one call for the holes in the cheese to line up and cause an ATC related accident. That's why Pilots are not permitted to make annoucements on ATC separation frequencies in other countries.

There is a solution...no radio calls required:E

I thought that we had resolved this on another thread.
When operating out of a strip which is not marked on maps, the pilot wants to be on the same frequency as anyone else who might be in the area. That's normally not 126.7.
There is a prominent ATC on here who keeps telling us that there is no frequency congestion because of this. I believe him.
Also, an ATC who lets a critical situation develop such that any call from someone else will result in disaster, needs retraining. It doesn't have to be an OCTA lightie making an untimely call, it could be any one of the other fifteen aircraft being separated by that controller.

Another thought. In the USA, how does an overflying pilot know when to change to 126.7 if there is no way of him knowing that he is about to fly through the circuit of a strip?

Ixixly

FWIW WACs are only updated every few years. VTC VNC ERC are updated twice a year and so are far more up to date.

AIP is straightforward.

• If the aerodrome/strip is marked on a chart and has a discrete CTAF: use that;
• If the aerodrome/strip is marked on a chart and doesn't have a discrete CTAF: use 126.7;
• if the aerodrome/strip isn't marked on a chart: use the FIA frequency.

In the scenario you mention i.e. a strip not marked on a chart in close proximity to another that is, common sense applies:

• make a broadcast on 126.7 as well as the FIA.

If the strip not marked on a chart is in close proximity to one that is which has a discrete CTAF:

• make a broadcast on that discrete CTAF as well as the FIA.

CASA has longstanding procedures in place if chatter becomes a problem on an FIA frequency from traffic at an aerodrome/strip not marked on a chart. Amongst other options:

• direct that it be published on charts, then 126.7 will apply.

ATC are indeed the ones who know whether or not chatter is a problem on FIA frequencies. Suffice to say if chatter were to become a problem somewhere, ATC would not hesitate to kick up a fuss :)

Ok CaptainMidnight, sure that makes sense when explained like that but it seems like a fairly over complicated system which increases the risk of 2 aircraft not being on the right frequency. I haven't been back in Aus for a few years but when I was outback it was simple, unless an aerodrome had it's own frequency you use 126.7, simple, I just don't see what possible issue this solves?

I operated around Arnhemland and on a busy day you could have 6 relatively close airstrips all with someone coming, going or both and very rarely did we ever have any particular problems, I can imagine an area like Arnhemland becoming exceptionally confusing now.

So if there is a problem they will direct it be published and that takes how long for it to be published and even then everyone is using slightly different charts for a while so therefore if there is a problem Strip that needs to be published on all relevant charts that problem is left un-fixed for perhaps up to a year whilst the relevant red tape is sorted, the maps finally get printed and everyone updates their maps.

It just seems very silly and all for no particular reason.

A recent personal event that showed monitoring Area Freq to be a good idea.


An IFR Bonanza climbing out of Mudgee was advised by Centre that there was an unidentified aircraft where we were. We called Centre to tell them that we were a VFR Bonanza at 9500' abeam Orange en route Katoomba on a QNH of 1023. Centre told us that their area QNH was 1022 so we adjusted our altimeters and cruise height. Centre gave us a squawk code and we identified. Centre confirmed that we were the aircraft in question. The IFR Bonanza confirmed that he had a TCAS RA and afterwards that he had us sighted. All safe and stress free for everyone. And MEL Cen even thanked us for the call!


And I didn't hear of any heavy metal crashing that day, Dick...

Ixixly

Could you please, please (please) nominate which of those strips are not marked on any chart?

Please.

Creampuff. There are many in the mittagong to goulburn area- even with windsocks- but not marked on the charts.

Captain. It's not chatter that is the problem- it's just the one transmission that blocks an ATC call that may be needed to prevent a mid air!

Gerry - and if you were not monitoring the area frequency the IFR aircraft would have been given a traffic information service on you and it would have used alerted see and avoid to keep clear!

I doubt it was stress free for the IFR Bonanza if he got an RA off you. I had an RA about 6000hrs ago and I still remember it quite clearly :eek:

Gerry. Sounds like the most amateurish and complicated way of keeping aircraft apart.

In the USA the IFR aircraft would have been in class E and could have simply requested a vector away from the VFR aircraft.

Of course not possible in Aus as both aircraft were in un- controlled airspace.

As I said - amateurish - but CASA will resist any update to class E as per the Government NAS policy - because we have always had class G ! Minds set in concrete.

In UK we have "safetycom" (135.475) for operating at locations with no allocated frequency of their own. In many cases it's pointless calling, because even if another pilot hears the call from an aircraft lifting from an unmarked strip (or helicopter landing place), it may mean nothing to him. If the place in question isn't on aviation charts he might well not recognise the name or the relevance. He may also hear irrelevant and distracting calls from other aircraft operating many miles away. We usually have other more relevant (or mandatory) frequencies to monitor.

Personally I think the risk to jet traffic is virtually nil, so the proposed media release has the feel of crying wolf to me. If blocked transmissions is really a problem then combining frequencies and competing with new IFR students making reports etc. is a much bigger issue.

I see it as an occasional annoyance for ATC than a serious risk, and if it becomes a problem they have the ability to deal with it.

The risk of collision between someone using such a strip and passing traffic is also miniscule.

The only real risk of collision is between aircraft trying to use the same strip (or in some cases strips in close proximity). This means that the only people who really need to hear the transmissions are those people - but people using the same strip DO need to be on the same frequency. A dedicated frequency makes perfect sense for this - the area frequency does not.

The real risk from the change is that many (I suspect most) will keep using 126.7, and will be on a different frequency from anyone following the CASA rule.

I know that there are a lot of unmarked strips in the area where I fly. I have spoken to a few people who fly out of them. My conclusion is that:

• Many make no calls because it is their own private strip and nobody else is likely to be using it
• Some make calls on 126.7
• Some I suspect used to make calls on 126.7 but now will make no calls
• Nobody makes calls on area

Most of the people with unmarked strips don't want them marked or the location generally known. Apparently there are some ATOs who view a private strip as an ideal place to test precautionary search procedures, but the owners are less than enthusiastic about 50' passes over their backyards. I couldn't tell you whether the ATO/student announced their intentions on the area frequency...

The real questions are how many aircraft are using them and how many of your "at risk" RPT's are sharing the same airspace below 10000' in the run between Mittagong and within 10 NM north-east of Towrang?

Your own post to Gerry 111 seems to answer that because ATC will surely have provided advice long before a collision is imminent and both aircraft, being on the same frequency, should hear it.

In your scenario, 2 VFR pilots on a collision course will get no assistance from ATC at all because they will both be on another frequency un available to the Controller (presumably 126.7). I heard an urgent warning call from Melbourne Radar on 135.7 while stooging around the Pheasant Creek area under the VFR a few years ago and climbed rapidly while turning east to avoid another aircraft that sailed though a few hundred feet underneath my port rear quarter from the south-east. He wasn't in my vision and he certainly hadn't seen me. There is an unmarked private strip in the area but I'm glad I was on area and not 126.7. I'm also very grateful for the diligence of MR giving me the heads up before I got more than just a fright.

Kaz

Kazakh. Could I suggest you remain vigilant and look out at all times. The service you got was a once only fluke. Rely on that system and you are likely to die.

Luckily my radio lets me listen to area and ctaf. Have to listen to a lot of crap though!

Two points Dick, there's nothing stopping an aircraft requesting headings to avoid - the pilot is responsible for terrain avoidance as we'll be saying "suggest heading". What makes you think vectoring is a good solution? It's not when you have absolutely no idea what the mystery aircraft is doing. Levels is far safer - aircraft routinely make sharp turns but don't tend to change level abruptly.

Don't listen and you may get unlucky - I've been thanked a few times by pilots for saving their necks. It's an extra tool in the arsenal to avoid each other.

I try really hard Dick and I appreciate your concern.

Problem was this one was coming from my rear and climbing underneath me. Perhaps he had his head in his chart, or perhaps he was partially dazzled by the sun, but it's clear he didn't see me and he didn't answer the somewhat exasperated calls from MR either.

Similarly, I have heard JR and his colleagues trying to contact errant pilots to no avail in the vicinity of Nagambie when a jump was pending...goodness knows what frequency they are on, possibly Mangalore or possibly Wahring, but the calls go unanswered.

I certainly haven't heard RPT calls being drowned out by VFR calls from relatively low levels anywhere in my travels around Oz.

Kaz

Gerry111 in your event it seems like you got damned lucky, a Bonanza with TCAS? What is the likelihood of that occurring? I'm willing to bet there aren't a lot of GA aircraft getting around out there with TCAS. Plus no one is debating the positives of monitoring Area frequency, it's a good idea to monitor whatever you can, it's the idea of splitting now between 126.7 and Area for no particular reason. Personally I don't agree with the argument about clogging up ATC on area, I'm more worried about people not listening in on the right frequency around the many MANY Airstrips used regularly that aren't on WACs.

Creampuff, here's a few we used that weren't on the WACs:
Mammadewere, Gudjektbinj, Marlwan, Gummaringbang, Mumeka, Nonni, Gamagarwan, Marlgowa, all of those are the ones I could find quickly when I looked at my digital map, there were quite a few more on my actual map and all are within a 20nm area and all were heavily used out there by 4 different companies, so now you have aircraft coming in and out of them, you'll have aircraft overflying them as well going back towards Darwin as they were covering a lot of the area that Aircraft going to and from Darwin around the Top End were travelling around some airstrips that ARE on the WAC such as Oenpelli, Jabiru and Maningrida plus a host of other smaller ones which are on the WAC.

As such on a bad day you could have approximately 8 Aircraft operating in and out of those Aerodromes, a few more overflying and all operating between 126.7 and the Area Frequency, sometimes monitoring company frequencies as well, a lot of newbies out there too. I don't know about you but this just sounds like a bad idea to me.

OH and just for funsies, let's imagine that above scenario now also being played out during the Wet Season with everyone stuck at the same 500ft level, that corridor to the East of Darwin is filled with even more strips that aren't on WACs being used regularly and there are a LOT more aircraft around there on a bad day trying to get around. So these ones would now have to monitor 126.7, Darwin ATC, Area Frequency and possibly Company as well... Yup, this sounds like a GREAT idea.

Kaz, I haven't heard RPT calls being drowned out by VFR calls from relatively low levels either but that's probably because no one is following the rules that CASA have brought in. They are either on 126.7 or not making calls.

My 2 cents...if you are flying under the VFR and not monitoring the appropriate area frequency, you are being negligent and constitute a safety risk.

VFR safety alerts occur in the low level airspace i work numerous times every week. Controllers are trained to scan for and monitor VFR aircraft, and potential conflicts with other VFR aircraft. I hate nothing worse than seeing 2 VFR paints in unsafe proximity, issuing a safety alert, and getting no answer.

Relying on 'See and avoid' and 126.7 is just asking for, at best, a very near miss.

And only in Australia will you as an ATC be given a substantial part of the respondsibilty and guilt if two VFR 's hit in your airspace.

That's because they are on your frequency and you have a duty of care.

In other leading aviation countries there is no way VFR pilots can know the frequency boundaries so ATC's are clearly not responsible unless giving an agreed RIS.

They are treating you as suckers.

And Tyler - giving a traffic service to all VFR is ICAO class D.

Tyler, you're forgetting that the real at risk areas as I presented in my last post don't have any radar coverage whatsoever so monitoring Area is next to useless. It's still a good idea to do it when you can but yeah, next to useless.

Dick is correct!

Sadly the education on this aspect of NAS was drowned by many of the other changes back, 12 years or so, when introduced. It is sad that there are some in the industry and even in CASA do not have much of an understanding of what it is all about and how the system is meant to work.

Our friends in ATC do a great job, however they are not always in the best position (due to terrain or aerial position) to hear low level broadcasts. Not the same in Flight Level country tho'.

CASA asking for comments on any resulting frequency congestion is not going to work for the reason/s already mentioned and if indeed the new procedure was accepted, it would be some time, maybe 2 years or more before we might see an effect. And the charts would be covered in airfield/aerodrome symbols that would take clutter to a new level...

Standardisation and simplicity are two of the keys to having good procedures that work and are safe. CASA seems to have forgotten that!

Seems to me that this proposal is for aircraft inbound and outbound from a private strip which is not marked on maps. That makes sense to me but I am unable to understand how an overflying aircraft would know when to call on 126.7 if he has no way of knowing that there is a strip there.
That's a deal buster AFAIAC.

kaz3g wrote:


"I certainly haven't heard RPT calls drowned out by VFR calls from relatively low levels anywhere in my travels around Oz."


Same experience for me, over about 30 years too, Kaz!


I'm not sure where Dick is going with all of this.

He's going nowhere. The assumptions are wrong and there are unanswered questions.

If I succeed in buying a country place this weekend and put an aircraft on it as I hope to do, there is no effing way I will make broadcast calls on the Area Frequency.

1. No one will know where the strip is and there is no way I can tell them short of reading the Lat. and Lon.

2. I can guarantee that no IFR traffic will ever get near it since the LSAT at this point is over 2500 ft.

3. I can guarantee that no VFR traffic can get near it unless its the bloke with the helicopter over the creek.

What I will do is check with the other private strips in the area (at least Four), and most probably end up broadcasting on the frequency of the only strip in the locality in ERSA - 126.7. Which is what everyone else apparently does.

Who cares about NAS that's histoy, need to move forward and look at the practical aspects of this. Has there been a risk based assesment done on the concept of the possibility of two heavies crashing as a result of frequency congestion? Doubt it!

Adopt the U.S. system? Could be considered. Maybe we should also adopt the system that the FAA use to regulate the charity service flights........

In this case, as an alternative to publishing them on charts, one action CASA could take is declare a Broadcast Area capturing all those strips on the one frequency, and publish that area on charts. They have done that in many areas (some refer to these BAs as "large CTAFs".

Clinton, I'm honestly a bit confused now between the pair of you as to whom was in which Bonanza and obviously the story isn't quite straight but nonetheless the situation described isn't really what has me worried anywho, it's one I described where you have no radar coverage and now have Pilots splitting their attention between more frequencies leaving an increased chance of 2 aircraft not hearing each other.

As I said there are more than a few areas out there with a fair amount of traffic that don't have radar coverage and will now possible have up to a dozen different aerodromes within close proximity operating on either 126.7 or Area Frequency, the situation becomes worse if you happen to be on the boundary of 2 Area Frequencies as well, I just don't see what was wrong with the old system of using 126.7 unless otherwise specified.

Mitigating factors to remember as well is that often there will be Aircraft operating on Company Frequencies as well. VHF Comms break, if you're in a remote area it probably won't be fixed till next 100hrly which could leave a lot of flight hours where you maybe only have 1 but would have to most likely be monitoring multiple frequencies now to maintain your SA.

I don't particularly agree with Dicks assertion of the congestion of Area Frequency causing a Mid-Air due to missed ATC instructions but I do foresee the issue I've raised where Pilots are now having to monitor too many frequencies and it may not always be clear as to whom is meant to be monitoring what especially outside Radar range where you don't have ATC to back you up. I'm sure a lot of us have been in the situation where a busy Aerodrome has been allocated its own discrete frequency and we all know that causes problems for a few months afterwards where everyone has to be extra vigilant of people possibly using the wrong frequency, imagine that happening on a much larger scale at multiple Aerodromes and strips which is what I imagine happening with this new rule.

I think CASA in this situation would be better doing an educational/awareness campaign to get people to make sure they have at least 2 VHFs and remain vigilant on both 126.7, Area Frequency plus any other nearby relevant frequencies AND that they are making mandatory calls as required rather than this new rule.

Yeah, I thought about that Captain Midnight, but now you'll have either:
A. An aerodrome with a discrete frequency which you use
B. An aerodrome which is marked which doesn't have a discrete frequency so you use 126.7
C. An aerodrome which isn't marked so you use Area Frequency
D. An aerodrome which isn't marked but is within an area prescribed as one you always use 126.7

And this all relies on areas being first identified as being a hazard (Which usually requires time, effort or an accident) Maps being updated and such which can take time not to mention then you need people to all have those correct maps (Which I know we should all have but we are all well aware this isn't always the case) as opposed to the current system where it's either a Discrete Frequency or 126.7, I just don't see what was so difficult or wrong with the current system that this new convoluted one has to be put in place?

le Pingouin - as an air traffic controller you appear to support the unique Australian system that has a VFR aircraft mandatory on ATC radar frequencies. You point out,

Why, then, isn’t the service given when it is really necessary? That is, to VFR aircraft in the training area west of Bankstown or in the light aircraft lane.

On many occasions I have flown close to aircraft in both of these locations but never in the fifteen or so years since the airspace was given to a radar controller have I heard a controller say, “aircraft near Hornsby, there’s another aircraft nearby – watch out!”. Your controller colleagues don’t do this because it would be ridiculous. There is simply so much traffic so close to each other that where the service is really needed it isn’t given.

I have been flying out near Cowra at 7,500 feet and been called up as a VFR aircraft and given traffic on someone who was flying at 6,500 feet. I just wonder what false sense of security these random calls give to pilots – as we know, pilots should remain vigilant to see and avoid. Then again, if you think you may be called by air traffic control I suppose you can sit around chatting in the cockpit looking at each other, which many do.

I also find it fascinating that on about 80% of the occasions I hear air traffic control call a VFR pilot for a traffic information service – normally in very low traffic density airspace where the risks are low – that no pilot answers, presumably because they are on the wrong frequency or they have the volume turned down.

What the people at CASA are trying to copy is the pre-AMATS system before 1991 where any aircraft above 5,000 was compulsorily giving full position reports and being given a directed traffic information service by over 700 Flightservice officers. This directed traffic service included a directed traffic service across frequency boundaries as co-ordination was done by the Flight officers. That doesn’t happen now, but I see there are those in CASA desperately trying to keep the old system with the half-way new NAS. It is impossible.

As I have said many times before, go back to the old dual Flightservice/ATC system or move forward to the proven NAS. The halfway point will simply end up with an accident – most likely because a call is blocked out (no, not by frequency congestion) but simply because the holes in the cheese have lined up.

And instead of concentrating on IFR airline traffic with many passengers you must be taking your attention away to look at VFR traffic. Not good!

Ixixly, you state,

Quote:

---

I don't particularly agree with Dicks assertion of the congestion of Area Frequency causing a Mid-Air due to missed ATC instructions

---

Ixixly, I have never mentioned that it is a congestion problem – it is just a probability problem. That is, one important call is blocked out some time in the next five or ten years resulting in an horrendous accident.

Just why air traffic controllers would want VFR aircraft taxiing and in the circuit area of aerodromes giving non-directed calls on air traffic control frequencies that are used for separation is beyond me.

I will say it again – no, not congestion, just simply one call at the wrong time. That is how accidents are caused.