Uh oh, that sounds like the G Demo.

No, I'm not, I'm just saying I like having the frequency boundaries marked on the charts so I know that if someone isn't on a CTAF, they will probably be on the same frequency as me, and also what frequency I should get best contact with centre on should I need to talk to them. I think that's good, not bad.

And could you please leave off about this half wound back thing, you sound like a bloody politician who thinks we all love sound bites!

That was exactly the problem on day one of one of the previous changes.

I think it was when CTAFs were introduced, and they were all on 126.7. Requests were made immediately for various locations to have a discrete frequency allocated to get around the problem of excessive comms, confusion re RWY vs. location etc. etc. and that has continued ever since.

Some people seem to think that there are simple solutions to problems, not realising the complexity.

Don't forget 126.7 AND the verbal diahorrea of calling EVERY corner of a circuit.

CTAFs are being promulgated on discrete frequencies to reduce congestion (e.g. recently Innisfail / Tully / Dallachy onto 132.9), and while the 'call on all circuit legs' concept was ridiculous, that's been altered now in the relevant CAAP to an as required thing, which for most sensible people I'd suggest would be rolling and base calls if doing continuous circuits.

I don't think the problems are really that complex when it boils down to it, Captain Midnight.

Arm,
Agreed!
But. sadly, in the part of Australia where I reside, the "pingya" system of instruction all too often prevails --- "Make every call, then they can't pingya", and all too often that is the "standard" required in a flight review ---- which the same schools are now describing as a "license renewal".
I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the presentation of the "competencies" to be demonstrated does not encourage that uncommon commodity, common sense.
Tootle pip!!

PS: The overwhelming number of those I talk to support the use of multicom (and not ATC frequencies) for local operations at any airfield that does not have a designated frequency. The exceptions are the "pingya" brigade, who also seen to be dedicated to the "acoustic lift" theory, if you stop talking the aeroplane stops flying.

Dick

Let's say you are going to fly from The Oaks to Leeton, 'low level'. You have 1 VHF. In the system you are advocating, what frequency (if any) do you monitor and broadcast on, at what positions, during that flight?

Specifics, please.

How low?

If the MULTICOM comes in then if operating below 2000 or 3000 ft agl you would monitor 126.7...except when operating within the vicinity of a CTAF or BA using another frequency.

Above that, it is your choice. If the boundaries stay, then the applicable ATS area frequency would be recommended. If the boundaries go, the the nearest ATS frequency as marked in the biscuit for that area.

Good airmanship would dictate what calls, if any, are made along the way.

My apologies for not making the implications of my question clear.

On that route I overfly Temora. Also, Leeton has a CTAF that is not 126.7.

Since (I assume) I am going to have to switch to the CTAF for Temora and Leeton when in their vicinity - my having only 1 VHF - I'm trying to understand the advantages and disadvanges of monitoring 126.7 rather than the FIA frequency when I happen to be 'low level'.

The statement was...when 126.7 was introduced. I attended a NASdebate meeting and challenged the American expert on exactly this point..his answer was every call every point ALL the time..no exceptions.

Uhhhmm, gerry, I think you know what frequency I mean't to type :cool:

Do we have a problem here?
 

Dick Smith
Dick are you arguing that if the frequency boundaries weren't on the charts then ATC wouldn't have a duty of care?

Leady, I have amended my response - failed to consult map!!

I think he's saying if the frequencies aren't on the charts VFR's wouldn't listen on area frequencies, ATC wouldn't be able to raise them, they could concentrate on the controlled airspace, they'd be released from the ridiculous liabilities placed on them, the workload would be more appropriate, it would cost industry less. I reckon there's probably another 10 or so points.

Not sure that would pass the pub test. We might need to re-visit what ATCs are taught about duty of care.

Regarding area frequencies
 

If I am taxiing at an ALA intending to cruise at A035, there is no need for QF1 to hear about it from FL340. Likewise, I don't need to hear about QF1.

It really is very simple.

Congratulations on your first post! (Although "It really is very simple" does sound vaguely familiar...)

I'd love to hear QF1 on the Area frequency, but haven't had much luck in the last few decades. Have the crew of QF1 and other RPT aircraft been complaining about your transmissions on Area?

If the Area frequency at 'low level' around your ALA is the same frequency as being used by QF1 at FL340, there's not much traffic around.

I once broadcast a traffic advisory to two VHF opposite direction at the same level. Two effects: 1. The VFR at the non-standard level went to a standard level in one screen update :8 2. I got a hug from the impressively female passenger, (who recognised my voice), at an airshow a month later and met a Mustang pilot.:D

Point is I fly a lot less that Dick has indicated he does, but he must not be listening properly because I hear useful stuff all the time: I've heard MLJ broadcasts and changed my level. I've heard weather broadcasts that made me investigate further, (on the ipad, bugger talking to ATC). I've visually acquired IFR traffic from intercepting their calls to ATC. I heard a safety alert passed to somebody on a city orbit in Melbourne, looked wildly around for a bit and saw a C150 opposite direction. More mundane, I've updated my QNH when it is passed to other flights. Don't think I needed green lines on a map to achieve any of these things, even Dick's 'cloudy biscuits' way back seemed useful, but the ipad is better.

Near Tocumwal and Deniliquin where the 'area VHF' 118.6, (which is based near Griffith), provides less coverage than the closer and higher Mt. Macedon based 126.8. There are probably many examples of this in areas with which I am less familiar.

Without admitting anything to CASA goons with their stupid 'interpretation' of the rules, I feel a strong disincentive to make ANY broadcasts on the ATC frequency. I would not say I have omitted any required calls, but any time I am out of range of ATC ground sites, (like when landing at most airports), I am very mindful that ATC may be saying something terribly important to another pilot, and I may block the call with, "Traffic Butthole, turning base, blah, blether, coff."

When I hear such reports on the console, (thankfully not on the sectors I now work), I take the time to look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen and say, "Thanks, f*&^wit."

I think the IFR pilot's mindset of setting up an amateur approach zone around any airport they are heading to is the symptom CASA is pandering too. Weird, seeing that such airspace was so unacceptable to them when they harpooned LLAMP :ugh:

My ideal world? Just make the frikken calls. On the CTAF, or the Multicom.

Yes I heard them just the other day.

In the area I operate there is plenty of traffic around. Most of it is low level, and everyone uses 126.7, and it works well.

I have no rusted-on opinions. Seems to me that people use 126.7 because it works. If it didn't they'd be doing something else.

How very professional of you.

Pilots trying to comply with the rules that CASA has imposed are f*&^wits.

BTW: How is that you can look at the aerodrome concerned on the screen, when the aerodrome is not marked on the charts?