20nm CTAF Dumped
 

Folks,
The Glass House is more like a leaky barrel??

The latest rumour is that the 20nm radius CTAF has been dumped!! Exit stage right the 40nm mile blots on the landscape.

As the story goes, it was only ever supported by the four blokes who proposed it, even other involved CASA staff didn't agree. Plus a couple of industry misfits who are always for more restrictions.

I wonder how much was spent on this piece of nonsense, a proposal unique in the aviation world, with not a shred of analysis or data to justify it?? It is only with great self control that I refrain from saying what I really think, in somewhat more blunt terms.

So what happens now, will the proponents all be promoted for their earnest devotion and sterling efforts towards "safety is our first priority".

Tootle pip!!

Go on Leady, say it. I imagine it would be something along the lines of, "The inmates are running the funny farm" and badly at that.

CC

Part of me is disappointed. It would have been quite entertaining watching (and hearing) the resulting clusterf*ck arising from all those overlapping 20nm radius circles.

I wonder what experience the supporters of this in CASA have had.

Bear in mind, though, if 126.7 is implemented as the ‘low level’ area frequency and default CTAF, there’s still going to be some ‘entertainment’.

Its an indictment on the management and governance of CASA that a flawed proposal that does not have full internal support could make it through to the stage of public promulgation.

Maybe the guy in Hawaii who didn't pay attention in the meeting when they said "This is a practice drill" has a relative who works at CASA?

A mate of mine recently returned from learning to fly in the USA.

He can't believe some of the weird **** that goes on here.

But, you know, the air is different in Australia. What would the yanks know?

What do you expect from a mob who cannot tell the difference between temperature and density altitude:ugh:

Yes, all the comms problems have now gone away...not. The irony in all the bluster is that we will still have aeroplanes coming over the top of an airfield landing at the one further on (Lead Balloon's doomsday scenario). The comm issue is still there; it is NOT going to go away. We'll be right though, we'll just rely on pilots to be on the "right" frequency eh?

There will always be a risk of incorrect frequency selection whether it be multicom, specific CTAF or area. Hence looking out the window for see and avoid outside of controlled airspace is critical. Risk management in the absence of complete risk avoidance is surely the name of the game.
Some risk mitigators such as AFRU and other helpful aviators who detect and correct wrong frequency selection and use of transponders and TCAS where appropriate all help.

Of course they haven’t gone away, Bloggsie.

There is no causal link between the radius of the area in which CTAF procedures apply and “the comms issue” as you put it. If someone’s going to be on the wrong frequency, they’ll be just as wrong at 20 as they’ll be at 10. And in the absence of mandatory calls, pilots on the correct CTAF will still make a judgment call as to where and when calls are necessary. And given all the LCDs out there, who knows how bad their judgment could be.

It’s one of the inevitable risks of the Class G that you like so much.

Ahh, alas, you understand so little...

How's that CBA on "E for all" coming along?

Folks,
Sadly, that was my experience almost 60 years ago, except I started in UK, and had a few hundred hours in UK, Western Europe and USA, before I came home.
Things have changed in Australia, they have got immeasurably worse. Flying in US and UK is still really good fun.
Big Brother is watching you!!
There is nobody in the FAA or the UK CAA who has the time to be watching FlightAware in real time trying to "ping" whoever happens to be flying, for anything and everything.
Tootle pip!!

Recently, while I was departing Kalgoorlie, a Qantas 737 called (CTAF) inbound at 60 miles. My initial thought was, wow, haven't heard that before. But a Bonanza was in his way and there was plenty of time to sort things out - as well as with me, who heard the call taxying ( and departing opposite direction ).
What distance do you call at Bloggsie?

Well, well, if true, this comes as no surprise to those of us that have been out there doing it for a decade or two, or longer. We established that the size of the CTAF was not the issue, but how it was used by pilots, depending on their aircraft performance (read: speed). Many moons ago, (before the OAR) it was suggested that the inbound call should be time based, but this idea although accepted by industry at the time was trashed by CASA with no explanation.

The 20nm CTAF idea included in the NPRM came out of left field with NO consultation and was obviously driven by folk in CASA that had no idea of what they were proposing and obviously no corporate history, or access thereto. (Is there ANY corporate history in CASA?) Maybe they were only trying to justify their position and poor decision making (in 2013) and/or to justify their position/s and ultra ego? Something the DAS might like to review, given this ultra stuff-up.

As has been said in this and other threads on the subject, if there is a need for greater protection for RPT or others in Class G then there are other options available. Based of course on a risk analysis and ATSB incident data.

Education and target specific training is part of the road forward as it is clear from comments on this matter, both on these pages and out in G-land, that there is a lack of understanding on how things should work in G. Part of the problem is that it seems very few CASA officers understand it either! This shows up as an extreme lack of standardisation across ALL of the industry. Maybe CASA can now put some effort into fixing that, with industry assistance/input of course.

I think you mean measurably worse. If it was immeasurable then there would be no way of determining how bad it has become.:ok:

You know this for a fact do you that this occurs in Australia, or is it just more classic LS hyperbole?

^^^This^^^

Well said, cogwheel.

Lookleft,
Yes!!, I do and No!!, it's not.

This first came tto my attention in the context of whether a pilot under test has completed the test schedule, or whether the ATO had ticked a few boxes, knowing that the pilot was well up to speed.

Personally, I would dispute that FlightAware is "fine grained" enough to determine that the necessary steep turn, stall and recovery or recovery from unusual attitudes etc.,have been demonstrated to a satisfactory standard, and that the duration of the test was long enough to complete the test schedule to the satisfaction of CASA.

But at least one CASA regional office have got the locals convinced/bluffed that they can monitor whatever they choose in real time.

I have long been aware of the use for "monitoring" logged records, and claimed breaches of CAO 48, including matters that have reached the AAT over "deemed" versus logged taxi times to determine air time and block time, and including for the purposes of various hours related airworthiness limitations, such as engine overhaul times.

I can only conclude you work for CASA, given you inability to "believe" what happens in the real world.

Sorry, folks, a bit of threat drift, but the allegation had to be answered.

Tootle pip!!

Hyperbole may also be used for instances of such exaggerations for emphasis or effect.

hearsay definition: The definition of hearsay is something heard, but not known to be a fact. (noun)

Definition of conspiracy theory in US English - a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

:D

30nm (we lsten from 80+) The FOs sometimes make them further out in which case I lookleft and roll my eyes.

Not from me, and I am surprised that an ex-RPT driver was pushing it. 10nm (5 minutes) for a lighty is way too close for me in my superjet to find out about him. Distances are the only way, IMO. In my view, anybody going into an RPT CTAF is a fool if they call at less than 20nm. And NO, I had no input into the 20nm CTAF proposal.

There sure is: G+, G++, G+++ and then Class D. :rolleyes:

Bloggsie, the time suggested back then was seven (7) minutes, although 8 was also discussed. For those doing up to 250 kts it still worked out at ~30nm for the first call, although most operators have the CTAF tuned & monitored from at least ToD. The company call would have to completed prior to that.
The 20nm CTAF has been tried before and we know it does not work. Like I said training & education is the answer with heaps of standardisation applied. You only have to observe QL & REX to see there is little standardisation at CP/C&T level! That is CASA’s job, but one has to ask, do they know how to do it?

So what’s the G+++ CTAF radius, Bloggsie? You’ve dismissed the concept of a time-based broadcast rather than a hard distance. (The fact that the broadcasts are, in any event, not mandatory, seems to be of no concern to you...)

Would you be able to encourage at least one of your professional colleagues to come on to PPRuNe and express support for your views? Just one?