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.

Why wouldn't they call the local CASA FOI and say "We're having a fly-in, expect a lot of aircraft, should be a fair bit of congestion on the area freq so how about we use an alternative frequency, we suggest 126.7."

That would have been smart, and to not do so is either showing lack of foresight, or an intention to deliberately overload the frequency in order to highlight the issue. You wouldn't have had anything to do with it I suppose?

Edit: Sorry Aussie Bob, I replied about half a second after you did. If CASA refused to be sensible about it, well fair enough, they're in the wrong.

AOTW I can assure you a huge effort was made to make 126.7 the frequency and it fell on deaf ears. The request was both verbally and in writing, made in plenty of time prior to the event.

In fact, overloading the system was what CASA seemed to think was correct.

Yep, understood - that's just a crazy decision by whoever at CASA responded to the request.

Dick


I had 13 years in the military, and I have now had 20 years experience outside the military. I have had a FRIGGIN GUTFUL of you bashing the military every time you post here. What has a fly in in Tassie got to do with the Military???????? Nufn. But you shove in a military bash anyway.


The RAAF was the most professional and competent unit with the best and most dedicated people I have ever been associated with.


I have been BOTH a military and civvie aviator. You have not.


Next time you bash the military on here with useless, childish and irrelevant rubbish, I'm gunna come round and punch you in the head. I am sick of your offensiveness.


Trevor the fighter

Trevor. Why after 30 years can't the military copy the best from around the world and put in some tower airspace at Willy and allow their controllers to use proper skills as they do in North America.

I happen to believe our Aussie military controllers are as capable as those overseas. it's just the pathetic leadership that can't make any changes at all.

Why can't they use D airspace when there is no military traffic? They simply can't make any change decisions at all. They sent those five to their deaths and it will happen again unless I and others can get in some change.

Notice how not one named military Controllor is ever a spokesman- it's because the system is designed to make sure no one is ever held accountable.

I will get more and more major media coverage on this. Now talking to 60 Minutes.

I see similarities with Cardinal Pell. Always protect the system if you are in charge. Never ever do what is ethical.

Seems to me that someone is hankering for a seat in one of the parliaments.

Dick

The current frequency arrangements for aerodromes that are not marked on charts have nothing to do with the preferences of ex-military personnel. You really do need to get that through your head, because alienating and angering a bunch of ex-military people is not doing your cause any good.

Your blaming the military is like your spelling of "rediculous": Patently wrong.

AOTW

Many of your genuinely well-meaning posts demonstrate how cut off you are from the way the system works for the mere private citizen. You'd think that getting a strip marked on a chart would be easy - after all, that is, apparently, why people have a legal obligation to have (and pay for) the current charts, and why there is a bureaucracy set up to produce those charts. You'd also think that getting a NOTAM published with a discrete frequency for a fly-in activity would be easy. And you'd think if such a NOTAM were published you could rely on most people to read, understand and comply with it.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works for the plebs who presume to believe that they are entitled to a service in return for their income tax, fuel excise and GST, among other costs. The system is now so broken and confusing that most people just use the Mike Sierra Uniform procedure. A wonderful consequence of over 20 years and over 200 million of 'reform' down the gurgler.

All in the name of 'safety' of course. :ugh:

Well Biggles, I wouldn't necessarily see that as a bad thing M'self.:ooh:

Purely, for what I consider a self evident reason; Aussie Airspace and GA in general are f:mad:d and in desperate need of decent and sensible reform.:ugh:

The current Administration of this have shown themselves time and time again, incapable of carrying out this reform.:yuk:

Whether this is due to pure incompetence, ignorance, arrogance or malicious intent is for others far more educated in the subject than I to decide.:confused:

All I know is that Aussie Aviation, especially GA, need a voice somewhere in the halls of power that can be heard by even the most deaf of those in Government.:=

Currently, we do not have that voice.

LB, I'm far from cut off from the system - I fly in CTAFs and G every work day in GA aircraft and have also been on both sides of the dreaded military / civil fence for years each side, so I'm just speaking from my own point of view.

Dick's flagrantly provocative anti-military stance is becoming more and more annoying and just serves to piss people like me off! Aussie Bob explained the situation clearly, and I'm well on side with the idea that what happened wasn't right.

I never mentioned the difficulty or otherwise of getting an airstrip published on charts, never tried to do it, but if model aircraft flying fields and hang gliding areas can crack a mention on VTCs and the like I'm stuffed if I know why they would refuse to put a well-used airfield on.

Dick,

Isn't it time you turned on your spell checker?
survailance, rediculous, Cardinel.

All safety has to be affordable, Sunny. That's why the response to the Germanwings tragedy wasn't a requirement for a third pilot with duty time in every cockpit to cover when the PIC or copilot go to the toilet, or an AD requiring that cockpit doors be moved backwards so that the toilet is secure to the crew.

An easily foreseeable risk - another 150 or so dead people - yet the obvious mitigators of those risks have not been implemented. The reason is simple and stark: It's not a cost that's justified by the risk. In short, it's not "affordable".

Those who feed off the mystique of aviation need to realise that the only way to achieve perfect aviation safety is to ban it. At that point you're going to have to find some other fear to feed off.

Fuji. Thanks. I think I fixed a few of the spelln arrows !
At least I can spell the airspace categories A to G !

QED.

You should try it some time. They won't "refuse". They just won't respond in a practicable way. It is, after all, "user pays", and private citizens don't pay income tax, fuel excise, GST or anything else for the "privilege" of flying.

One of the more bizarre interactions I've recently witnessed was the 'safety'-based refusal to establish a permanent broadcast frequency for the Lake Eyre region and all ERSA entries for airfields in that region, eventually and strangely followed by the establishment of a permanent broadcast frequency for the Lake Eyre region and a corresponding amendment to all ERSA entries for airfields in that region.

It just 'happened'. No acknowledgement that, upon reflection, the regulator and the ANSP realised they were just being mule stupid.

Mr Smith,

I usually have some sympathy for what you say in that there is generally, in my opinion of course, some truth in what you say; however, you get too much collateral damage (oops a military term!).

You had TWO opportunities to fix this when you were in charge of CASA and its predecessor.

How did you go? Oh, I know, you blew up Flight Service in the name of NAS but somehow forgot that Flight Service that we used to have in OZ is exactly what you get in the US today.

Your rear guard attempt to rewrite your OWN history in this sorry mess is sad, sad, sad.

And I will say, I am ex-military and I firmly believe that you have NO IDEA what military flying requires: no idea, zilch, zero, nada.

You are right though, 'Sixty Minutes', that august source of nothing they do not spin for ratings or run with due to the 'celebrity' status of the source (not with everything but certainly in issues such as 'airspace' which the average punter could not give a toss about) is the way to 'fix' things.

Money does not equate to status in the aviation world. Unless of course you have to pay AsA their outrageous costs.

There we go; bring back Flight Service, that you removed, and use all your unquestionable influence and ability to get something into the press or onto TV about AsA and the 'user pays' model they seem to be welded to and do some good.

Stop knocking the military; otherwise they actually might take you seriously.

Dick was never in charge. He was duchessed into believing he was in charge, in the interests of political expediency.

5 minutes of research into the powers of the Chairman of the CASA Board is instructive. :ok:

Er, I think a look at Hansard may be enlightening.
I am talking about the CAA when Mr Smith was VERY involved; no?
THEN we have the CASA Board but that was the second time around when the current ACT was not the then ACT.
Dick,
Please enlighten us if you disagree with me.

I go away flying for a day (bossing about GA in a CTAF, Leddie, you would have had an apoplexy!!) and come back to this!! Needless to say, Dick, you're still full of it. :) :}

Once again, the insulting innuendo with no basis in fact. As I said on the other thread, the PIC had choices and didn't exercise them.

Your use of the word 'sent' is deliberate - I know that, and I know that it's for PR purposes. Nonetheless, IMHO, it's dishonest, and implies to the unwashed that the RAAF 'controlled' and, therefore, 'directed' the aircraft over the Barrington Tops; rather than the PIC making that decision. The words 'sneaky,' 'underhanded,' 'manipulative,' 'disingenuous,' 'opportunistic,' 'manic,' and 'possessed' all come to mind; along with a long list of other synonyms. But that's just my opinion.

Good luck with that one. 60 Minutes these days has about as much credibility as those breakfast shows that are fluff. In any event, your potential bogan audience will probably prefer be tuned in to some reality TV show on cooking, surviving in the jungle, or seeing what the Kardashians are up to.

You still have potential for good, Dick. But you just continually screw it with emotive scare campaigns!

Hey Dick,

I just 'HAD' to go and post a 'p.s.' to post #20....
A bit (LOT) 'presumptious' of ya mate, I s'pose I should appreciate the 'compliment'.
And, after trying a glass or two of red - just like someone else I know - I just thought I should thank you.

But, alas, I canna claim na fame for recent RAPAC etc etc

I gotta good laugh however......

Cheers:ok:

Mr Smith,
You have done some amazing things yourself as a pilot and I am the first to congratulate you on your ability to continue through what must have been some very 'puckering' moments.

However, if your 'day' job is teaching people how to do high angle, dive bombing at night from the back seat of a fighter, then you can get that 'pucker' factor without any fanfare at all.

RAAF ATCs come to the fore when there are MULTIPLE aircraft, most of which have no gas, all trying to land ASAP; something that I know civilian ATCs can handle (many of those boys and girls are ex military anyway) but they are not called on to do it often if at all. They have other challenges which I guess are equally demanding at times.

The 'management' in the military is not the problem. It is 'attitude', the approach to getting the job done with the minimum of fuss, which most probably is the same in the civilian world, and an understanding of a 'duty of care'.
So, go ahead with knocking ATC/Military/lack of short cuts in Willy's airspace but leave the people out of it: including senior management of the RAAF.

Bloggs,
How do you think any 'lead' would go on a dark night at Saltash or the shooting world?

In the civilian realm, most probably only AG pilots, particularly those who do night spraying on cotton or some such, would know how 'exciting' a day to day job can be.

No elitism intended here; aviation is tricky from the air and from the ground (ATC). We all do our best.

Get that on 'sixty minutes'.