Full Industry Defies CASA CTAF Ruling
 

Despite meetings with the various RAPACs and with AOPA, it appears that the CASA ”Iron Ring” is still maintaining that pilots operating at aerodromes not marked on maps must give calls – including taxiing calls – on the air traffic control area frequency which is also used to separate traffic.

Since CASA issued the NOTAM I have carefully monitored area frequencies when I fly and I have not heard one pilot comply with the CASA ruling. I have also checked with an air traffic controller who monitors over seven frequencies – he, once again, has not heard one pilot complying.

Notwithstanding this, it is clear that CASA will not change the ruling. It is obviously impossible for CASA to admit to making an error. I wonder how many other CASA regulations are simply ignored by the industry?

Can someone please post what the current position is in relation to negotiations on this issue between RAPAC, AOPA and CASA. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?

It is understood that the subject it is still on the table at some of the RAPACs. The OAR, last year, rejected the subject for discussion at most RAPACs but seem to be relenting a bit of late. They say it is not a matter for the RAPACs ! Blimey, the RAPACs have always discussed Procedures which includes what you say on the R/T. I hear that recent letters from CASA have not engaged further and it seems have pulled the shutter down. Like you say Dick, it seems they cannot ever admit they are wrong. Someone in the Iron Ring maybe ?

Yes, it's a dumb decision and there seems to be very little compliance ?

Just have to wait for an incident where Comms between a high flyer and centre is jammed.

I love it! Yes I heard that one . RAPACs were told that discussion of this issue was not permitted by CASA management.


The organisation is disfunctional. It will be fascinating to see how this ends up.

Just don't get involved in an accident after your non-compliance. It wont sit well with the judge.

Biggish sky theory at work
 

CTAF radio procedures have always been a ugly compromise anyway - unless operating/monitoring with 2 radios - one on area and one on CTAF.


1 aircraft just inside CTAF on CTAF freq & 1 aircraft just outside CTAF on area can be broadcasting correctly just not talking to each other and heading straight for each other.


Jandakot- Rottnest is a classic. Luckily Perth Centre has radar to advise the area frequency aircraft of the other aircraft. And Rottnest is marked on maps...

You have it wrong... It will be your compliance that might contribute to an incident ( or worse..)

The irony of this issue is the fact that the only way to get this rule repealed would be if everyone actually complied with it.

That is simply called VFR in a CTAF. See and avoid, it's what your eyes and windscreen are for! No different to class D really unless your friendly controllers are bored and bother to give you updates for traffic outside the zone.


Dick - I've heard the occasional call on centre from a lowly non marked CTAF and I would assume on most occasions that centre can't hear the transmission at all due to the remoteness so I'd be surprised if any complaints would come from ATC. I have a 5 watt VHF with Comant 121 antenna and I struggle to get area freq on the ground even 30 miles from a station.

The guys over the top would be affected but they could literally talk over the top of the ground station and Centre would be none the wiser.

I would agree that compliance is low, but not non-existent.

triadic, you are preaching to the converted with me, it's the CASA lawyers that you'll need to convince..

Stay safe out there.

Good on ya Hempy, yes and the legals certainly don't now much about the subject matter. Part of the iron ring no doubt...?

Correct!!

S7700, yes, see and avoid is the prime method of collision avoidance at the lower levels, not putting your head down to change frequencies. There are often many a/c about that are not using radio, let alone the CTAF of MULTICOM.

A classic example of Iron Ring speak:

From the CASA minutes of the Regional Aviation Safety Forum (RASF) meeting held 7Oct2014. (from their web page)

This shows that those in that level of management have very little idea of what goes on in the real world, and it seems they don't really care.

If this matter is not for the RAPACs then what world are these people on?

It seems also that the various divisions within are not talking to one another either, otherwise they might have put forward the change to the RAPACs for discussion. But from the above seems the OAR did not like or want that.

So what are they afraid of? True and open consultation maybe ????

The irony is spot on
 

Could not agree more with that quote.

There are three unintended consequences that CASA claim they are not concerned about (I have their letter stating this).

The most serious issue is unintentional jamming of ATS transmissions by aircraft in the weeds. This occurs because there is no area frequency coverage down to lower levels in vast areas of G airspace Australia wide. Consequently traffic in the weeds do not know when ATS is transmitting.

The lack of coverage is not an issue for the original use of the area VHF frequency but it is a serious issue for the May 2013 changes.

So we have now have a unique situation where an expert consultative group is worried about a safety issue but the regulator is not.

It will be an interesting time if there is a serious event because of this.

I recently heard a highly experienced GA Instructor and former Charter/RPT pilot say that as far as he was concerned, the sole intention of CASA now appears to be to totally destroy General Aviation in Australia.

I now know that he is correct!:(

Can they be stopped from doing so, and if so, how?:confused:

from what i have seen over the last few decades working and living this industry, is that CASA is not out to intentionally ruin or destroy anything. you have to think of CASA as a bureaucracy in that every department is made up entirely of cats. (not fat cats, the 4 legged furry kind) as in, every single one has its own agenda, ideas, attitudes, refuses to talk to any other cats, or anyone for that matter, and goes off totally autonomously at its own leisure following its own rules, that only it made up and understands. put all this into one organisation, and you have a perfect model of CASA.

Out in the real world, where pilots can recognise a stupid rule from a sensible one - there is absolutely bugga all compliance. Mark Skidmores' standing with industry is going to rise, or fall, with his response to his underlings' incompetence. Let's hope he has the bottle to 'retire' or 'retrain' a few of these fools. happy days,

Agree with what Dick says here. It reminds me similarly, CASA ignores/fails to implement findings and recommendations from Coroners Courts as well.

At least they are consistent!:ugh:

Tipsy:E

Iron Ring Speak - Another Example
 

Here is a response to a request to discuss the issue at the Sep. 2014 AACF. Note the name: Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum.

In other words, in spite of our name we are ducking the issue. I did eventually attend as an observer however. It was a CASA talking at the industry all day with no sign at all of any consultation. A total waste of time.

I'd say pilots are ignoring the procedure because they don't know about it, not because of defiance.

I'm pretty sure it's a cultural thing within CASA.

Every time a senior position opens up, people apply. When interviewed they are asked 'what can you bring to CASA? How can you make things better?'.

This encourages 'change'. The issue is that, in reality, there are only a handfull of possible solutions for any given scenario, therefore the wheel keeps being reinvented.

In one or two iterations of DAS at CASA, we'll be back to a great, wonderful new system of MBZ's...

The suggestion that presently unmarked airfield/s should be marked on charts is a dream that won't work. What charts? The lead time for most charts is a year or more and for the WACs it can be 4 or more years. Maybe this might change with EFBs, but don't hold your breath. Many such strips would disappear whilst waiting to be marked.

One might recall the NAS procedures introduced over a decade ago, the MULTICOM (126.7) was the catch all at airfields that did not have a designated CTAF frequency. Seems the regulator has forgotten that over the years.

Yet again, they are trying to fix something that was not broke, with no risk assessment/analysis or education to promote the change.

It is far safer to have a single frequency for use at low levels (below 3000ft AGL) than to have a choice of two or three. Besides see and avoid should be the prime collision avoidance procedure at low levels, not the radio. Most pilots, one would hope, would practice same.

Clinton has it spot on!

My mate's property could be an ALA, therefore I should be on 126.7.

Old mate tootling along at 1000 feet legally is now traffic to me on a different frequency!

DB

From what I have seen a lot are not saying anything at all unless going to a major airport. They then use somebody else's callsign to get around radio billed landing fees!:mad:

I've given up on trying to understand the rules. The only lot who will hear departure calls from my valley strip will be Qantas and Virgin high overhead.

This old chestnut raised again?

Done to death over 15 months ago after 22 pages:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#post8299600

Move along now - nothing to see here.

CASA bashing is just clouding the matter.

Midnight,
Raised again, because CASA has got it wrong!! To the potential detriment of air safety outcomes.

The CASA attitude is that they are the only soldier in the battalion marching in step.

If we go back before all the recent sodding around with CAR 166, the policy intent (backed by an ICAO compliant safety case) was to keep low level local traffic off ATC (by whatever name) frequencies.

It was never the policy intent that traffic on uncharted strips should use the overlaying ATC frequency.

As to "charting" all the uncharted strips, this is a practical impossibility, even without consideration of map cycles etc.

Tootle pip!!

As you well know, there are no such things as "ATC frequencies", but for the education of others:

There are frequencies used by Air Traffic Controllers to provide services, including Class G FIA (Flight Information Area) frequencies (otherwise known as "Area" frequencies). These are not "control" frequencies, where separation services are provided. It is entirely appropriate - and required in AIP - to use FIA frequencies for their intended purpose.

To not use or monitor FIA frequencies when appropriate and required could cause a nasty situation, given the wrong circumstances.

Whether an FIA frequency is retransmitted onto other frequencies by Airservices is irrelevant to pilots, and not a reason to not use it or ignore the rules.

AIP ENR 1.1 para 44.1:

These procedures have been in place for many (the last 10+?) years. For CASA to try and undo them now would in itself present a safety issue.

I'm not aware of any formal intention to publish all currently uncharted aerodromes on aviation charts, which would clearly be impractical.

If there are such aerodromes that have a significant level of traffic then they probably should be published on charts, in the interests of safety of both the users and itinerant traffic, who would be unaware of the aerodrome. In these cases, when published on aeronautical charts, Multicom 126.7 would apply.

It's not rocket science.

If the level of chatter from an unpublished aerodrome or group of aerodromes causes congestion on an Area frequency, then any one of a number of existing measures would be taken to address that (publish the aerodrome on charts, declare a Broadcast Area, etc.).

Say what???!! How often do you fly IFR? Been into Class E or A airspace recently? Tried changing levels up there without a clearance have you?

Separation services (at least for some aircraft) are most definitely provided on area frequencies!

Tipsy
 

....except for one recommendation - that Charter and RPT be treated the same by the regulator to minimise the exposeure to the general public.

As the changes slowly become effective and are implemented, it is aparrent that the only reason the general public will be "safer" is because there will be no GA sector left to expose them to :ugh:

Take a look at a (say) VNC chart legend.

What we are talking about are the wide green lines, which are Class G FIA ("Area") frequency boundaries. Within those volumes from the surface up to the base of CTA a Flight Information Service is provided, not a separation service.

Wide dashed brown lines are Class E airspace boundaries, on which a separation service is provided to IFR aircraft.

In some instances the frequency used is the same, but the service in the volumes is in accordance with the airspace classification.

See AIP definitions for "Area VHF" and "FIA".

Thanks to Captain Midnight we have the answer!:p
You only need to "listen out" and only talk if you hear a "potential conflict":ok:

So : no calls required in or out of your small unmarked private strip!:ok::E

Some of you guys really need to visit an ATC Centre and see how things operate tbh

Some of you guys really need to visit a brickworks and see how camels swim.

What's your point, Hempy?

Horatio,

That is NOT what the Seaview Royal Commission recommended, what you have quoted is a CASA perversion of the findings just for the purposes of imposing additional unjustified restrictions on "charter".

Specifically, he DID NOT recommend that Charter operate to the same standard as RPT.

As per usual, few in the industry ever bother to check the sources, but just accept the CASA spin. Find yourself a copy and see what Staunton actually said.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Midnight, I did say " ---- (by whatever name)" to avoid exactly the picking of nits that has happened. Perhaps I should have said: " inappropriate CNS/ATM frequencies" to be technically accurate.

Creampuff, my point is in response to

ATC sectors are generally split according to service provision. They are, however, generally combined so that an ATC controlling CTA (remember that one?) also has the Class G frequencies merged. In a headset, there is no differentiation. If you think your calls on the Class G area frequency don't potentially affect comms in CTA you are wrong.

Got it. I knew that.

Let me fix one of Captain Midnight's posts for him:Name the places so that the problem can be addressed using any one of the existing measures designed to address the problem.

:ok:

And Hempy, I am very aware of how the system works :)

I'd really like to see a CASA representative tag along on a C208 operating a 11+ sector mail-run, in and out of marked and unmarked strips operating under the IFR single pilot RPT. And how the new rules makes their workload easier and job safer. ;)

It is understood that the NQld RAPAC have a proposal in for a Broadcast Area, south of Cairns, however it seems the introduction is the best part of a year away, which is far from satisfactory for the current problem there.

A problem that the MULTICOM addressed successfully over the past decade or so. This did not become a problem until the recent change re uncharted airfields.

You'd certainly think that blanket 126.7 (overlap aside) would be a better option.

Captain Midnight, if you do admit that:

I think it was a bit disingenuous to say:

Especially given that in a lot of cases (and perhaps particularly in the more regional regions relevant to the discussion) the frequencies indeed ARE the same!