Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
 

I am not sure if this has been covered before but I understand a fly in at an unmarked airfield south of Sheffield in Tasmania where all CTAF calls were on the CASA mandated ATC area frequency resulted in a major safety issue .

It appears ATC could not cope with the calls and had to instruct IFR aircraft in the Devonport area to go to another frequency.

I wonder how long the military mentality in CASA of protecting those who have made a mistake will last?

Dick

This has been a festering sore created by CAsA bloody mindedness and a lack of corporate historical knowledge with regard to Multicom.

Tipsy

Tipsy. The problem is that the Governments decision to go to the North American airspace system with some minor Aussie changes was halted and now it is half wound back to our previous pre AMATS 1990s system.

In attempting to get that to work CASA people have come up with the decision that North American CTAFs won't work in Aus at un marked aerodromes.

This has been driven by the wind back decision to put the frequency boundaries back on the charts. If you remember the NAS document said on page 8


"" A major change is that some area frequencies and ALL FREQUECY BOUNDARY INFORMATION has been removed from the charts""

Once that's wind back happened we really needed to put back the separate Flight Service system with its 700 staff so VFR calls were not on frequencies that are also used for ATC separation purposes.

The cost would be staggering and do even further damage to GA.

CASA simply ignore the RAPACs and I must admit that there is still some RAPAC members who want to keep the half wound back system. As there is zero leadership at CASA re Airspace they try and appease some where they can.

If this Sheffield incident occurred does anyone know if the ATC involved lodged a safety incident report?

Or is it going to be left until fatalities result from this ridiculous CASA CTAF requirement?

No other country in the world that I know of allows VFR self announcements on ATC frequencies that are, at the same time , being used for separation purposes.

For obvious reasons that have little to do with frequency overloading- only one call is needed to block an important control instruction.

A modern internationally harmonised airspace system. I bit like our international road system. I drove around the world a few years ago and had no probs complying with the rules. Didn't get booked once.

I want the Australian NAS as approved by federal cabinet to be finalised. The first part was shown in the blue 52 page reference guide. Published by CASA for use on 27 Nov 2003

The final part was never published in educational material because by then the reversals to the 1930s were taking place. Because of ignorance and resistance to change to copying the best from anywhere else in the world.

How could an international pilot flying here VFR work out our unique requirements re frequency monitoring when en route and at aerodromes not marked on some maps. Nothing like it anywhere else in the world .

Then again Goana air safaris and others have closed down so probably little likelihood of overseas pilots coming here and spending money that will assist our industry.

The above frequency congestion was 'well flagged' before what were then 'FS' freqs / transmitters / receivers being 'taken over' and re-allocated to ATC freqs as / when FS was 'wound down'.

There was 'no fat' left in the system for future contingencies.

In WA, there were just 3 VHF freqs 'surplus to requirements', so these were allocated to 'Flightwatch'....2 in the Kimberley and 1 at Parkerville in the hills just east of Perth if I remember correctly.

That is, in WA, there were NO freqs left other than ATC ones for GA to call on, or to talk to each other, - initial call - except for these 3.....
'Tis a looong waaay from the Kimberley to Perth in a GA aircraft.

So, what was GA to do?

In announcing 'intentions' approaching a country aerodromes, not in a CTAF, they had, by necessity, to be on the local VHF so that other aircraft in the vicinity could hear the call.
Hence, the request to re-insert the VHF freq areas on the charts, or at least, insert the location and freq of the VHF outlet so that pilots could see which one they might be closest to...

Sure, when in the CTAF, they were on the discrete freq., but descending into and climbing out of the CTAF, these calls were on...ATC freqs.

Nobody in the airspace design team took any notice.
They just 'ploughed on'.

And lo and behold...it came to pass....

The 'solution' of course, is to install new VHF equipment / outlets in areas selected by traffic volumes for GA to use, say at or below Alt 10,000ft, and leave the ATC freqs for use for those aircraft that fly in the Flight Levels above 10,000ft.

But, this would cost, and is Airservices willing to spend...??

Whaddya rekon....??

No Cheers:=

p.s. That may have been 1 in the Kimberley at Argyle, I think, and 1 at Hedland, on reflection.... I think.....my 'electrons' are fad i n g ....

Dick, all you say about the Vale is correct, an application was lodged to get this ala on the charts a long time ago and it still has not happened. The "incorrect" frequency has also been used for a long time. The slowness and difficulty in putting this long time strip on the map is inexcusable

AsA could probably afford to spend a 'cuppla quid' without having to 'pass it on'.
Whether they would or not......another question.....

A look at the last financial year's report will indicate how much profit was passed back to the Fed Govt, and to AsA, and to 'the industry'....

There are others much more attuned to this than I am.

Rotsa Ruck

Cheers:ok:

Sunny. Yes the proven system that is based on the one being used in North America with 30 times the amount of traffic in about the same land area. Yes. Thirty times.

I love the plan. Resist change in every way you can and then say it's now so long delayed we need to design a new system. That will take years and then you resist that.

Go flying in North America including the huge areas of Canada with no surveillance and " free in G" IFR flying at no cost with never an accident.

And multicoms that work even at airports that are not marked on charts. And not a frequency boundary marked on a chart.

The NAS is still the best in the world. But keep resisting copying the best while you destroy our aviation industry. Keep your mind closed. Let's get the people at CASA who have been re writing the regs for 20 years to do the new airspace plan- now that will stop any change.

Ah yes, Flightwatch VHF frequencies....

I will admit that it was now just over 11 years ago when I last flew a certain mail run as second pilot (with a great bunch of Blokes and one great Sheila!:ok:) and the number of times we attempted to contact Flightwatch on the published VHF frequency when we were in range, were numerous.

Not once did we ever get a reply! Always had to go back to HF.:hmm:


Cheers Griffo.

Griffo. You say " the above frequency congestion was well flagged"

Only by people like you who would not accept that there was no need for VFR aircraft to make announcements on ATC frequencies.

You are obviously one of the people behind the scenes driving the present CASA requirement that is opposed by every RAPAC.

For a start Mark Skidmore has said there is no frequency congestion . So the Sheffield deal may not have happened.

And if the NAS was followed all of these unmarked airports would operate on the multicom of 126.7 and there would not be a problem.

Remember the man in charge of airspace at CASA , mr Peter Cromarty is ex British CAA , which has undoubtedly the worst airspace allocation in the world .

Imagine. A decision is made to go to the NAS which is closely based on the North American system so they put someone on from the UK and can't work out why nothing happens!

Well Griffo, you just demonstrated that you never understood the 2003 NAS procedures.
Listen on the local CTAF's and/or 126.7 while enroute.
I always found that I had much better situational awareness of important things that I might need or like to know that way.
It wasn't difficult but many just COULD NOT get their minds around no area frequencies for VFR.
Then in the first month or so after the 2003 intro, the ATC people managed to create 2 "incidents" that weren't, out of whole cloth.
However do those silly cowboy Americans ever manage to fly cross country with their system?

Please don't say radar coverage as most of the VFR traffic isn't even required to have a transponder, even in Class E, below 10,000 feet.

G'day Pinky,

I can't say 'for sure' why that was the case, but can only guess that you were actually on an ATC freq addressing the call to 'Flightwatch', in which case, the ATCer (or 'es) would have answered your FW request 'when workload permits'.....

More important 'core business' first, and we all understand that.

The call on HF was, at that time, a dedicated 'FW' HF function at a separate console, I would imagine.

I am not 'current' on what it is these days.....
Perhaps one of our 'usual suspects' can answer that.

Cheers:ok:
PUT THAT 'RED' DOWN....YOU Don't know where its been.....
:p

Most importantly. The FAA has installed over 600 ADSB ground stations with coverage down to 1000 agl over 90% of the land area .

When their very reasonable ADSB mandate comes in in 2020 are they going to have to change the NAS?

No. Because it's designed to work with modern survailance .

How can it possibly work without any ATC frequency boundaries marked on the charts so pilots at non mapped airports know which ATC frequency to jam when they are giving circuit and taxiing calls? It's all very mysterious!

But we certainly would not want to copy or even ask how it works. Remember we designed the Nomad. They designed the 747 and the Space Shuttle

Sounds like the logic AVMED uses to discriminate against pilots with CVD. Everything is twisted so as to support the foregone conclusion.

Amazing the amount of international travel Dick has done without being caught for breaking the local rules of which he wasn't aware, or caught for causing an accident. I suppose we should construe that as meaning other countries don't have effective compliance and enforcement systems? One wonders how the rest of the planet survives. :rolleyes:

Hi Dick,

Re "Only by people like you who would not accept that there was no need for VFR aircraft to make announcements on ATC frequencies."

Nope! Not me your honour...

And I ain't working 'behind the scenes' either.

I used to be on the WA RAPAC, but not since the year 2000.

(Redundo....TA!)

But, the situation remains, that IF a pilot requires 'assistance', weather, or some other Flight Info, then besides the ATC freq., what else?

Cheers

And, as an aside..... Re "You are obviously one of the people behind the scenes driving the present CASA requirement that is opposed by every RAPAC."
HA HA HA HA HA

Thanks again for the redundo.......

The only time I have ever found an issue (I operate multi engine IFR turboprop into CTAFs daily) is when people use the CTAF as a chat frequency, or when people stupidly give inaccurate position information.

Yet more Dick Headlines, hooray.

A fly-in would imply quite a few aircraft turning up. If the airfield wasn't marked on charts, and the organisers of the fly-in knew that, then it was irresponsible of them not to foresee that there would be a lot of calls on the area frequency and to arrange alternative procedures. Immediate thoughts that spring to mind:

a) Be smart enough to inform those attending to use either 126.7 or the numbers so as to avoid such a debacle, or

b) if there was any confusion about what should be done and fear of recriminations about being on 'unauthorised frequencies', get onto CASA or Airservices and ask them what they'd like done! Or is that too much like rocket science?

Jeez, that's a surprise, a heap of unexpected traffic because of a fly-in whose organisers didn't think to make provisions for getting them on a more appropriate frequency, who'd have thought?

Clearly a military issue - if I was you, I'd start up a campaign to stop young people joining the services. This is continuing brilliant stuff from you, Dick, do keep it coming.

Arm. It's not smart for organisers to advise pilots not to comply with a CASA wind back requirement that was actually sent out in a special notam.

They would most likely end up with a prosecution.

You are suggesting this could be solved by lots of discussion/ approvals from CASA.

Why not support that we go back to the Aus NAS requirement of using the multicom at these un mapped airports.

Then that would require the leadership at CASA to say an error had been made.

AOTW, you are merely guessing. In fact the organisers had a great handle on the event. A NOTAM was applied for to list the ALA and fly in. It was requested that the NOTAM nominate 126.7. The NOTAM was raised but CASA refused to list 126.7 as the preferred frequency on the NOTAM or agree that its use would be prudent.

While it was tempting for the organisers to use 120.7 and thus block ATC transmissions at YDPO and further afield all day , it was decided to use 126.7 regardless which was technically illegal and contrary to what CASA suggested. Unfortunately this lead to aircraft arriving on both frequencies because it was impossible to anticipate just who was coming and get the news to everybody. If there had been an incident, I am sure some awkward questions would have been asked

If you call that a satisfactory outcome, I would tend to disagree with you.

BTW around 50 aircraft flew in and the organisation was impeccable.