ATSB were simply quoting the claim of the ATC in relation to a VFR pilot constantly announcing on an ATC frequency.

Surely the same excuse will be offered if a similar problem exists in the future. It sounds a reasonable explanation to me . It's why other regulators do not allow VFR to make announcements on ATC separation control frequencies.

Hey Mr Fokker,

You must have a BIG Fokker and a BIG wallet to put all of that into your Fokker.....

I've only got a 'little fokker' and a little fokking wallet to finance my little fokker....

No Cheers....cain't afford it.....:eek:

Is Australia a ICAO member?

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...%20-%20rev.pdf




5. ICAO requires that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times in areas where ELTs must be carried (which includes the whole of Australia).

6. ICAO recommends that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times to the extent possible.


CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under Annexes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Chicago Convention

OK, so it was only one incident, 20 years ago, not many more as you inferred :rolleyes: and there were other more serious causal factors than communicating with a VFR aircraft who was being provided with a RAS.

Given the ATC vertical resectorisation since then, the likelihood has been reduced.

I know if I was a professional ATC doing Sydney departures I wouldn't want aircraft in the light aircraft lane yakking on my frequency.

There are plenty of frequencies available for VFR to do that !

But you have a different view.

Getting back to the original post.

So you are Autorotating from 1000agl in your R22 after the engine/drive belts/clutch shaft fails. Which hand do you use to activate the ELT/PLB? The one that is preserving your life by holding the collective lever down? or The one that is preserving your life by guiding you to a place of landing and ensuring you have adequate airspeed to pull off the landing? Which hand do you use to change radio frequencies for that matter?

The truth is, if you are concentrating on anything other than landing the machine at the best available or only spot....you aren't going to make it!

So the answer is, you put out your Mayday call on which ever frequency you have selected at the time. Once safely on the ground....worry about the rest.

If in a fixed wing and you have a little more time it makes sense to use 121.5. You may not be in radio range of anyone on local LOW area frequency and any jet traffic will be on a HIGH area frequency.

Forget about groping around trying to find/turn on your ELT/PLB... what bloody nonsense! From 1000' you should be concentrating only on flying the aircraft.

Furthermore... It is almost a guarantee that jet traffic somewhere will hear you on 121.5, unless of course there is a bloody ELT squawking its head off.

In a chopper you still need to aviate, navigate communicate and if you were just in communication with someone you could make a call possibly or you could have 121.5 selected for transmitting and switch to Area when a call is required.


switching on your PLB prior to impact is great if possible but it has a 60 second delay before transmitting so must survive the impact to help at low levels.


It is up to the pilot to determine the best frequency to make a emergency call on based on best chance of being heard.


If as is required all aircraft monitor 121.5, then unless you are currently chatting with someone on a frequency obviously the best emergency frequency based on chance of being heard would be 121.5. Simply I think, many have found that boring and prefer some other channel that is not in the interest of safety.

What other channel? You get the ABC on the ADF, not a comms radio. You can listen to the ABC on ADF or you iPhone via Bluetooth and still have a listening watch on 121.5. Anyone cruising above 3,000 ft AGL who doesn't have the second radio tuned to 121.5 is guilty of poor airmanship.

Anyone cruising below 3,000ft is in a J3 cub and having a blast with the radio turned off.

Re ICAO - we are a sovereign country and only have to notify a difference. So I am not so sure about "requires"

However as I and others have said in most cases 121,5 is the best frequency to have pre selected for a mayday call.

AMSA should correct their information.

Band a Lot and yr right seem to share a common characteristic of selective stupidity. Must be very debilitating to be unable to post anything but incoherent drivel one day, yet be able to structure coherent sentences and arguments the next. It must be fantastic to be able occasionally to cite ICAO recommendations with crystal clarity despite the disability. Whatever the medicine is, keep it up!

Don't conflate the 'obligation' (or ICAO recommendation) to monitor 121.5 with the frequency on which a voice communication is most likely to result in timely assistance.

Who said this: As I've said before, if you want to put all your MAYDAY eggs in the 121.5 basket, go for it. Broadcast long and loud on 121.5. There are lots of people monitoring 121.5.

Others can choose to activate their ELT or PLB (or in my case, both) to take advantage of all those people monitoring 121.5, and the satellites listening to 406, as well as broadcast a MAYDAY on Area.

But I'm stupid. :ok:

"Re ICAO - we are a sovereign country and only have to notify a difference."


That after much searching I can not find. But as above it is CASA to implement Annex 6. That includes this "ICAO requires that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times in areas where ELTs must be carried (which includes the whole of Australia)."


"CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under Annexes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Chicago Convention"


source -https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/chapter_1.2.aspx

Lead as you are making your call on Area and the other good folk are all monitoring 121.5 as well as maybe Area.


Your call will be very much interrupted with a dam awful repeating serein like noise that will grab all others attention, but not your actual call.

PLBs/ETLs should have pre-recorded message in mp3 format on a SD stick.

I have dodgy football team theme song cards that can do better.

Band a Lot:

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...national/icao/

OK Buzzbox the same department says this.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...apter_1.2.aspx


"CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under Annexes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Chicago Convention"


Annex 6 being the key.




As a side note - a call on 121.5 is not only more likely to be heard, but also by aircraft that will record any important information said on a CVR. It alone may be a thing to save a few lives.

Band a Lot:

Yes, CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under the various Annexes of the Chicago Convention. Nevertheless, if a State finds it "impracticable" to comply with ICAO SARPS, it only has to notify a "difference" to ICAO. Without getting into the 121.5 argument, Australia has filed 100s of differences with ICAO - they are published as a supplement to the AIP. The current supplement is available on the Airservices website:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...p/s15-h104.pdf

In 10 years on the console, I heard 4 Mayday calls, one on area, the other three on HF (it was a Designated Remote Area). All were answered either by me or another ground station. One of the HF ones was a relay (maybe), and was from another pilot who witnessed the crash, (the victim had no time to transmit, we had VHF in the CCT there and he said nothing on VHF while airborne). It would be interesting to know how many are actually relayed in by other aircraft, be they high flyers hearing something on 121.5, or otherwise. This whole argument may in fact be pointless.

Traffic etc...

Thanks for a post with something objective.

A year or so, I had a gear issue in the circuit in Bourke and had trouble on Area.

I've also had to relay calls to airlines that were not reachable on area (Merimbula)

And I regularly fly through the blackspot near Nhill.

My memory is hazy, but I reckon once I had a call relayed to me from an airline on 121.5 - or vice versa. But I can't recall the circumstance. A faulty Comm1 may have been involved.

So, while I hear your comments, I still mistrust Australia's VHF network and I think its getting worse, not better with technology. So, I'd rather have comm2 on 121.5 rather than sitting fat dumb & happy with it on some irrelevant CTAF frequency from miles behind.

**sigh**

Who said don't monitor 121.5?

Who said leave your spare VHF on an operationally irrelevant frequency?

:ugh:

From CASA today.....

"Radio frequency discussion paper
A discussion paper is to be released to canvass issues relating to radio frequency use by pilots operating by the visual flight rules in uncontrolled airspace. This follows a teleconference between CASA and Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee conveners in April 2016. The meeting was called by CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore after continued debate in the aviation community about the most appropriate frequency to choose when operating outside controlled airspace at or near aerodromes not marked on aeronautical charts. CASA has previously advised that the most appropriate frequency to use in class G airspace at or near unmarked aerodromes is the VHF area frequency. However, some pilots are still using the multicom frequency 126.7 which may be causing some confusion. The discussion paper will be released during 2016 and CASA will be looking for everyone from sports pilots to regular public transport operators to comment on the issues. CASA will carefully consider all viewpoints before reaching a final position on the most appropriate frequency use in class G airspace. Until the consultation process is finalised CASA urges all pilots to follow the current advice on frequency choice in class G airspace which is to use the VHF area frequency.

Find the advisory information on operations at non-controlled aerodromes."

So there......

Cheers:D

I don't think it can be fairer than that.

Bravo!!!!!

CASA are meant to implement Annex 6,


Industry is on 123.45


CASA advises use Area.


Yep ops normal.

IN the 'industry', when 'committing aviation' and you heard a colleague 'on air', the usual inviting transmission was - 'See U on the Numbers' - and the response was simply a 'click click' on the button.....

The 'numbers' being 123.4....And one went there to exchange the 'local goss'.... UNTIL they became a 'frequency' somewhere....

In WA, the Newman Area Freq became 123.4, so that stopped that, unless the guys and gals (In WA) KNEW that, and they were far enuf away so as not to....interfere?

119.1 was an 'Aero Club' freq. in the 'ole days' and used similarly....

Don't know about ICAO being consulted though....

Cheers:ok:

The 'numbers' are now 123.45.

Eavesdropped on a group of aircraft doing an Anzac Day fly-over at Condobolin on Monday morning coordinating their activities on it. :ok:

I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency.

Maybe some common sense will come out of this at last.
Multi com 126.7 for all ops B050 for all landing places OCTA except where a specific CTAF frequency is allocated. IFR aircraft usually with two Comms would then have to listen out/broadcast on the multicom passing 5000' on descent as appropriate. Problem solved and no unnecessary transmissions on area ATS frequencies.

123.45 has been the unofficial "gossip" frequency for 30 years or more. We had another unofficial frequency for aerobatic training as well.

119.1 used to be the accepted default airport frequency until CASA needed to re-organise to give the appearance of progress, so it became 126.7

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And by the way, frequency congestion never seemed to be a problem in the 70's & 80's when there was a) more GA traffic and b) we were all on full reporting with calls at every waypoint and c) we got full flight service on area frequency, with weather, etc on request.

CASA?? You mean Dick Smith...

Quote-
" I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency."


Most craft I know have 2 VHF and maybe a HF. 1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5 as a HF can not.

If you have 3 VHF that is great, but to monitor Area and gossip channel I personally think is not the safest way to get vital info out in a emergency.

123.45 is not monitored for a emergency use but uses more transmitting time than most Area frequencies.

You don't need 3 VHFs to monitor 3 VHF frequencies.

There have been VHF RX/TX products available for quite some time that have the function of monitoring a different frequency to the active frequency. E.g.: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t.../prod6440.html. I note this from the link:2 of those products on board and you can listen to 4 VHF frequencies!

Depends the type of radio Lead,


2 of those products on board and you can listen to 4 VHF frequencies!

A deeply insightful statement of the bleeding obvious. :ok:

My 2 cents FWIW:

• Com 1: FIA, Class E or whatever frequency communicating with/listening to ATC on;
• Com 2: switched between CTAFs approaching or in the vicinity thereof, other times sits on 126.7

Thus theoretically the "whole" traffic picture is obtained.

Yair Bandalot . Definitely VFR should be monitoring and answering four frequencies in our Australian system. Only way to achieve a successful safety outcome .

Those stupid Americans with 30 times the amount of traffic are ICAO compliant and don't even have a radio requirement for VFR in E and G.

Four frequencies against none. No wonder we are a leader in the world in red tape , complexity and bureaucracy.

And it's generally those in the industry who want and support this additional complexity . No understanding of copying the most proven system in the world.

I note that most of the members of RAPAC who want the simple US type CTAF system for the frequency of non mapped airports still want the 1950s ATC frequency boundaries on the charts here in an attempt to keep the extra complexity and resist any change to the system they were taught on.

What is the point of broadcasting your location on area, when it's more than likely no-one knows where the location of your position actually is? "All stations,,, all stations, can you hear me?? ABC is, arghh, 7 miles west of Fred's house, 1000 feet , tracking to join the circuit on a left crosswind, runway, arghh, 24" It's absolutely pointless doing that. You're better getting off the primary frequency and onto a specific one ie 126.7. When the traffic levels are sufficiently high, the aerodrome gets a dedicated frequency.

Shouldn't the discussion paper actually be HAZID workshops? Attended by a cross section of the aviation industry? Where hazards are identified etc etc???

It would be "absolutely pointless" to make that broadcast on any frequency. If the standards of training and airmanship deteriorate to the point at which a pilot would consider otherwise, the industry will have far bigger problems to deal with.

And Dick: I was only making the point that you don't need 2 VHFs to be able to monitor 2 VHF frequencies. Even if you are successful in getting VHF removed as a requirement for VFR aircraft in ForG and E in Australia, people can still choose to have VHF. And I thought it was you advocating the benefits of monitoring and broadcasting MAYDAY on 121.5 in an emergency. Bit difficult to broadcast a MAYDAY on 121.5 if you don't have a VHF. (Of course, an ELT and PLB that comply with the required standards will transmit on 121.5 as well as 406 ..:ok:..)

Dick, I caught out AsA blatantly lying to RAPAC on Navaids in the Melbourne basin. I think CASA / AsA treats RAPAC with disdain and uses them just when they need to say they have had industry consultation.

One of the great unanswered questions is what provision AsA is making for navaid training / currency in the major training hubs around Australia.

Periodically, I go through the RAPAC minutes. I'd encourage everyone to do that and see how much their scope is limited. Try reading the November 2015 Victorian minutes regarding CTAF frequencies.

The guys on RAPAC I know are smart guys with good intent. But the information flow to RAPAC and the agenda is controlled by CASA / AsA.

I think one of the problems with our system is that we essentially have 5 levels of users, each with their own rules / protocols and each of these groups have very little understanding of how the others operate.

My 5 levels / groups are:
1. Airline / upper FL traffic
2. IFR / higher level / long distance VFR
3. VFR VH
4. RA Aus
5. Gliders

Some of this has been evident in this tread. Clearly the guys advocating jumping from one CTAF frequency to another don't cruise at my levels - let alone jet / pressurised levels. Its not often that a LSALT will allow me to cruise at a level that would have conflicting traffic - even if I wanted to. At my normal 8,000ft - 10,000ft cruise I have no benefit from monitoring CTAF frequencies with traffic that is below 3,000ft.

The much, much, much higher rates of pilots who are IFR rated in the US (aside from enhancing safety) mean that more people understand the broader system. CASA's discouraging of people gaining IFR ratings (via overly complex training, ADS-B, aircraft inspection regimes) is scandalous.

I don't know how the US deals with LSA. But my observation is that few RA Aus pilots have any idea of the normal VFR protocols and treat the radio like a car CB.

Recently, I was at a regional Victorian airfield listening to 2 aircraft from a prominent Moorabbin school on the CTAF frequency. They were over 20nm apart, but had long detailed discussions about what levels they should be flying to be clear of each other.

Something is very wrong with our system and / or discipline. But read the Nov Victorian RAPAC minutes, the the NSW ones and you'd despair that CASA will ever get their hands dirty and engage with the real issues of pilots.

Old Akro, yes, something is very wrong with our system. From my experience, there is no specific training provided in the PPL, let alone RAA, regarding avoiding air to air incidents. We are taught "the rules of the road" and circuit joining and departure procedures, standard radio calls, etc,but not how to put all that together into a coherent set of behaviors consistent with good airmanship - that is not part of the syllabus! So much for competence based training!

My experiences therefore include: trying to land in the wrong direction at Maree because the Lake Eyre NOTAM confused me about appropriate broadcast frequencies in the vicinity of the circuit; learning that "oblique downwind" really means edging into downwind with your eyes over your left shoulder (sorry to the Twin driver), getting forcibly reminded that the join is at 1500 ft for good reason and numerous attempts to communicate with students of a Melbourne flying school West of that city who are too scared to say anything at all, even when it looks like they are heading for the same waypoint and will pass within 100 meters.

My "airmanship" now equates to something like orbiting immediately I get a garbled transmission that indicates another aircraft may be nearby unless I can establish Two way comms with the other pilot. If I hear an RPT aircraft heading for the circuit my initial reaction is to run and hide until it's clear. Frankly, I have no faith in anyone's ability these days and my airmanship "training" has been from scaring myself or being growled at by other pilots.

And a pet peeve of mine: experienced pilots who seem to follow the old (Military - artillery) habit of confusing professionalism with speaking as fast as they can as one word: "traffiswunhillcesntwoohsixtenmilsouondescentforwunsevtraffi swunhi" and expect that the rest of us to understand and comprehend.