|
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10096364)
The “topic” covers the misconceptions of experienced Australian air traffic controllers (even retired ones like you) and commercial pilots (like Bloggs). It is those misconceptions that result in the gross over-exaggeration of risks and Galapagos ideas like CTAF (or maybe MBZ or AFIZ?) procedures within a 20nm radius and 5,000’ above aerodromes in G.
|
Only two insults in one day? If you have any opinion about anything and express it on PPRuNe, you should have a higher score than that.
Good to see that you don’t support 20nm radius CTAF procedures. I reckon we’re being softened up for a return to 15nm AFIZs. |
Approaching which, (AFIZ) you were obliged to 'call' at 30nm....
So that you would usually have 'everything' prior to actually entering. However, I betcha most GA pilots would tell you, with fingers crossed, that the ole' AFIZ was a 30 nm dimension...... And who can say they are 'rong'..? Cheeerrrss....:rolleyes: (Tks again Dick for.......) |
A most interesting thread, I think. May one who started learning to fly back in '82 make an observation or two..
I had a RPPL in early '83, the UPPL in early '84 and the CPL in mid '85. And a MECIR in early '88. Back then, there was Controlled airspace, where a prior clearance to enter was required. Most of everywhere else was Uncontrolled airspace. So you were either 'In' or OCTA and you were on the radio frequency as shown on the chart which had boundaries showing where to change frequency. There were MBZ's and AFIZ's (I think that's what they were called) There was Flight Service, which was funded by a 2 cent/litre levy on Avgas. You had a real voice from that end to assist as required with Wx information, Nav help etc etc. It was considered 'poor airmanship' to fly NOSAR No details. Full reporting flightplans were the desired norm but SARTIME was acceptable. As far as I'm concerned, all this was safe, simple and sensible. Do I think what we have now is safe simple and sensible? No! And I suspect that I'm not alone in such a view. |
WELL SAID 'PINKY'.....
ONYA !! Cheeerrrsss...;) |
No! And I suspect that I'm not alone in such a view. Sadly, the accident record does not support the notion that Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step, that Australia has got it right, the rest of the civilised world has got it wrong. Tootle pip!! |
However, I betcha most GA pilots would tell you, with fingers crossed, that the ole' AFIZ was a 30 nm dimension..... |
I’m all-a-quiver in anticipation of what genius idea CASA is going to implement.
Is it gonna be a mega AFIZs with an AFIS at each? Is it gonna be MBZ 2.0? Just imagine how many Swan River Mallard, Essendon Kingair, Mount Gambier Angel Flight, Cessna 441 Renmark and Cessna 210 mid-air break-up tragedies would have been avoided as a consequence of the re-establishment of AFIZs or MBZs! The old AFIZ system “worked” alright. Worked a treat. But what 21st century risk is it that an AFIZ system will mitigate, and why is that risk a higher priority than what’s actually killing people? MBZs “worked”. But they only worked “as planned” when everyone in the MBZ had a serviceable radio that was tuned to the correct frequency and the volume turned up, and broadcasts were mandatory. MBZ is the Latin acronym for “blissful ignorance”. Make them 20nm radius and it’s still blissful ignorance. We need Towers in Class C. Everywhere. |
G'day Topdrop,
You are correct Sir. My reference has to be read in conjunction with 'LB's post above. He correctly calls it as '15nm AFIZ'. Then insert my bit about the 30nm call, and all should be 'clear'. However, I stand by my point that most GA drivers of the time will recall the 30nm 'Call', and define the AFIZ as that.... For consideration... Not that it really matters 'these days'.... But, you are correct in that 'it did work very well'. Cheers :ok: |
My recollection is the same as others’: The call before entering an AFIZ was supposed to be at 30nms, even though the dimensions of the zone itself were only 15nms.
BTW: I think the Kiwis still have AFIZs/AFISs. Is Port Hedland the only current example of the resuscitated concept in Australia? |
Hi 'LB', I dunno what the current situation is at Hedland - honestly, I couldn't be bothered to look it up.
The last I heard (some time ago now) was that one of our ex Perth FSO's was still 'having fun' as the 'CAGRO'. I used to fly out of PD 'many moons' ago - it was a 'dump' then and is more of a 'dump' now...IMHO of course.... For example, 'Derbs' was 'GREAT' in comparison.... Now, that should tell you something.... I remained in 'Derbs' for the better part of 3 years - by choice. Many 'moons ago' whilst still in Perth FSC, I heard that Canada had adopted the 'AFIZ' and the 'Remote AFIZ' concept rather than inserting 'Towers' in some of their more 'remote' busy aerodromes. It was cheaper than ATC providing a 'Tower' service. "Remote AFIZ' being where the Zone is serviced by a FSO (or Canadian equivalent) from a Centre location, many miles away in a Capital City somewhere providing the 'AFIZ' service....Just like when we in WA operated 'Broome' as a "Remote AFIZ', initially from Derby, then later, operated all Remote AFIZ's from Perth FSC, almost 'pretending' if you like, that we were in the location. Callsign was 'Perth'. However, to be honest, I cannot justify the claim with numbers or names of Canadian aerodromes concerned. It was reportedly seen as an 'economic' solution that worked - just like 'ours' did. Just 'for info'..... Cheers... :ok: |
Originally Posted by Ledsled
Bloggsie,
You love "Yes/No" answers, as if that was the full and only answer, don't you, being incapable of comprehending that there might be matters of judgement involved. Last time I had a close look (and I am not going to spend time actually cutting and pasting a section) the phrasing was to the meaning that a controller can issue a landing clearance to an aircraft if they have a reasonable belief that the landing runway will be clear for the aircraft in receipt of the landing clearance when the aircraft is to use said runway. The second part is specifically when visual approaches are in progress. At EGLL I have received a landing clearance when all involved fully understood that the aircraft No.1 ahead was still airborne, much less having cleared or being close to clearing the runway. This leaves it up to the PIC of the following aircraft to decide to land or go around. As I recall, working this way at EGLL can gain up to four (4) movements an hour in visual conditions, but also acknowledges a likely increase in missed approaches. The controllers in London are quite smart enough to exercise their discretion, knowing which airlines are notorious for being slow to clear the runway. What happens in US is a combination of the above, and the specific conditions for a visual approach in the US, see the AIM. In the Australian case, you do know what your clearance limit is, if you are " --- cleared for approach"?? It is quite some time ago now, but we came to the conclusion that a controller in Australia had the same basic framework, had the same discretion, to issue a clearance, when you look at the totality of "the rools", not just tables of separation. Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Tankengine
At Heathrow you may be cleared to line up “after Brittania 767”, when you look for Brittania they are number four on the other side of the runway while you are number five on this side!
|
Yes, Leddie, I must admit I have no idea At least you got that much right, I am hardly surprised that, in you black and white (or yes/no) mind, "shades of grey" do not compute. I think you would blow a fuffle valve if you were exposed, on a day to day basis, to operations that the rest of the civilised aviation world finds quite normal and acceptable, and the resultant PIC decision making thereby involved. Or, put another way, every time there is a major inquiry, funnily enough simplistic Yes/No answers to rules, practices and procedures dissolve into shades of grey. Tootle pip!! PS: Speaking of being No.8. Sitting in the lineup at Paris Orly one afternoon, well down the list, suddenly an Air France Caravelle "broke ranks " behind us, taxied past all of us, across the grass to the threshold of RW 26, lined up and shot through. You didn't need to speak French to know the tower controller was somewhat unimpressed, but you have to admit it was a rather innovative, indeed startling, way of handling dwindling fuel reserves during long summer delays. Vive La France!! |
As expected, personal vitriol and warries, but no facts. Stick to your newly-acquired expert status on ATR damage, Leddie. :rolleyes:
|
If you fly into KLAX as a passenger, you can amuse yourself for the last ten minutes by looking out the window and counting the aircraft you can see, some parallel, some crossing, all altitudes, everything from C150's to B747's. All merrily about their way to a multiplicity of local airports. LA is so big and congested that its often quicker to fly from one side to the other.
My opinion is that the Yanks are doing something right but that situation wouldgive Australian ATC AsA and CASA fits because it looks so "unsafe" to the Antipodean eye. |
Bloggsie,
The facts are there, I guess it's that you just don't accept them. That there is not the black and white Yes/No answer you want, because the legal framework around a controller issuing a clearance, and a PIC accepting a clearance (even in Australia) is not black and white, even if a good many Australian pilots and controller have been brought up to believe it is black and white. The misconception usually meets a brutal end, at the hands of a QC/SC, the first time they are involved in a judicial inquiry or similar formal legal proceedings. Tootle pip!! PS: This got so silly, a while back, that one provision in the Draft Part 91 made it a criminal offense for a pilot to not "comply with an order of air traffic control" "Order of air traffic control" ???? |
Bringing this back to the top as word is about that CASA are going to lay an egg on this matter sometime very soon...?
|
word is about that CASA are going to lay an egg on this matter sometime very soon...? |
Popcorn at the ready...
|
Triadic and others. I will offer a free jar of Ozemite and eternal fame to the ppruner who predicts on this thread what the CASA position will be.
Come on. Have a guess. Huge 40 mile CTAFs? Huge below 5000’ multicoms with ginormous fines? Whatever it will be -I bet it will be uniquely Australian. Minds still set in concrete. Don’t even ask what happens in leading Aviation countries. |
MBZ 2.0.
It combines a buzzword - “two point zero” - with a clue as to its dimensions - two zero miles radius. Or maybe MBZ “20.5”? |
Ok. Surely there must be some ideas. This is a rumour network!
I will add a jar of Ozenuts. |
They are getting some flak on this, but are they listening?. Maybe. Maybe not.
I posit the following compromise, for those that reckon 20 nm too big, and those that reckon 10nm too small. 1 The CTAF radius will be 15 nm 2 the lid will be 4500' 3 the strict liability penalties will be calculated on the basis of your height and your distance from the 'drome when you made a 'faulty' /non standard radio call/ their allegation,(either unsubstantiated or untrue) and you can spend a bundle contesting that or spend a bundle paying the CAsA's claims. Your call. Probably best that your radio 'fail' 22 miles out and just keep a good look out and listen carefully. Safer and MUCH cheaper. 2c |
See the following link:
https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...up/nprm1712as/ |
Sad at a number of levels.
I was looking forward to the entertainment. One can only imagine how much this journey in circles cost the industry. |
One one level, they appeared to have listened..that's good isn't it?
|
At one level, yes.
But they didn’t need to create and shouldn’t have invited the noise that needed to be listened to in the first place. This is what happens when you pay people six figure salaries to come up with bright new ideas about what someone else should do at their cost and risk. |
I reckon REX's response scared 'em off?
It was rather Sharp.:E |
I'm surprised that 42.8% supported the proposal. This suggests there are many who didn't understand or appreciate the implications.
Also spotted this gem: “Multicom makes good sense for flights B050. ATC/Flight Service etc MUST monitor this frequency in case of PAN/mayday calls.” |
I'm surprised that 42.8% supported the proposal. This suggests there are many who didn't understand or appreciate the implications. |
Multicom makes good sense for flights B050. ATC/Flight Service etc MUST monitor this frequency in case of PAN/mayday calls. In the interests of promoting timely assistance to those in distress: ATC/Flight Service do not monitor 126.7 or 121.5 and I can’t see that happening any time soon. The Area frequency is helpful if you need assistance. Set off your PLB or ELT too and it will make noises on 121.5. |
So who at CASA will be held accountable for the cost of this stuff up?
Who drove this? Surely someone has a name? And Rex has been ignored. Great way to treat Airline Pilots. They voted about 90% for the big CTAFs on safety grounds. No doubt they will undermine CASA on this. |
And Rex has been ignored. Great way to treat Airline Pilots. They voted about 90% for the big CTAFs on safety grounds. No doubt they will undermine CASA on this. AFAP ??? Tootle pip!! |
Neither RAPAC nor the numbers flyers got what they wanted, either..
Kaz |
I have a suggestion from left field.
Why don’t we follow the simple recommended procedures as used in Canada and the USA? I forgot. Could never work here. So little traffic we need far more onerous procedures preferably with HUGE fines for non compliance. No wonder CASA has a $180 m budget. This disaster would have cost a lot. Imagine. Designing airspace procedures by vote. Could design the next Nomad this way. |
CASA backs down on unpopular move to expand common frequencies
CASA backs down on unpopular move to expand common frequencies
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...efb6ca284a0ff3 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is set to issue a new proposal on radio frequencies used by light aircraft at some small airstrips after backing down on the controversial plan to expand the common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas near non-towered aerodromes. After a backlash, CASA has abandoned its proposal to increase the radius for the common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas that pilots use to announce their position and intentions at non-controlled airfields. But CASA has broad support for another key part of the proposal: to tell light aircraft pilots at some small airstrips to use the 126.7Mhz “multicom” frequency. The safety authority is expected to release a “new option” soon that will then be the subject of further consultation. CASA chief executive and director of aviation safety Shane Carmody said the agency was looking at “whether there is another way”. This could include effectively returning to the practice before contentious changes in 2013. Before those changes, pilots used the multicom when near unchartered aerodromes that did not have a discrete frequency. “There’s no one-size-fits-all here,” Mr Carmody told The Australian yesterday. “How do we get the mix right and make it simple for people who are flying in the same sky being able to talk to one another?” The backdown by CASA is significant as the issue of radio frequency use at low levels in uncontrolled airspace was an area that Mr Carmody had previously said was being pushed towards a resolution. Critics of the CTAF proposal included aviator Dick Smith, the Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee and Recreational Aviation Australia. This week, CASA revealed that of the 1064 survey responses to its consultation on the proposal, it was rejected by 57.2 per cent of *respondents. While most favoured the use of multicom, a “substantial” number did not want the CTAF expanded from 10 nautical miles to 20. Concerns included the prospect of overlapping CTAFs, causing confusion about which frequency to use, and congestion. According to a summary of consultation released this week, there were fears that multicom could be misused as a “chat *channel”. Also, paragliders and hang gliders had been worried they would have to carry a radio or monitor two frequencies. Mr Smith said that North America, Europe and the UK had a simpler system, without prescriptive giant CTAFs. The chairman of Recreational Aviation Australia, Michael Monck, said his group wanted a true solution that “doesn’t compromise safety of the frequency users of airfields in favour of the odd RPT (regular public transport) aircraft”. |
The "new option" was supposed to be the only potential change being canvassed from the start.
The rest was typical regulatory adventurism. |
So CASA is now going to introduce a new option. Could I suggest that new option is the Cabinet approved NAS?
It provides exactly what the regional airline pilots want in a very simple and non-prescriptive way because it follows the proven systems from overseas. Have a look at page 27 from the document Reference Guide – How to operate in the National Airspace System effective from 17 November 2003. Yes, that is over 15 years ago. Under ‘Appropriate frequency’ it says: “Tower/MBZ/CTAF Yes, there was an outcry from people who resisted change. They stated they wanted to have the frequency boundaries from the 1950s full position system put back on the charts. Without the approval of CASA, Airservices printed a chart with the frequency boundaries and sent it out to every pilot in Australia. No education program was put in place on how this “wound-back” system would work. On page 8 of the same Reference Guide it states: “A major change is that …all frequency boundary information has been removed from the charts.” “The important point is that when en route, if flying through the airspace used for approaching and departing traffic at an aerodrome, the frequency of that aerodrome should be monitored. This will provide the best situational awareness of traffic in your area. A pilot should give more emphasis to monitoring CTAF…Multicom where the collision risk is many times higher. Constantly monitoring an ATC frequency, where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness for alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area.” Also on page 27 of the Reference Guide, under ‘Appropriate frequency’, it mentions: “ATC I ask everyone to have an open mind and consider whether we could return to the non-prescriptive, international National Airspace System (NAS) as introduced in November 2003. When I say “return”, well it was in for three months! It is non-prescriptive based on common sense and good airmanship. Yes, I know there are those in CASA who believe you should write a regulation for everything so common sense and good airmanship is not required, but that will obviously never work. I note in talking to people, especially younger pilots, there is less pressure to keep the 1950s frequency boundaries on the charts. One day we will have to move forward and copy the best. Why not now? |
I note in talking to people, especially younger pilots, If there was a push from AOPA (or RAPAC) to have them deleted, they've lost me. In fact it's a pity the FIA boundaries aren't on the WACs along with other airspace to make them more VNC-like, but I appreciate the WAC publication cycle is different. |
Industry reps via all the state RAPACs were the ones who pushed for the boundaries to be put back on the charts, and so far as I am aware, there has been no proposal to have them deleted again.
And FWIW, back then CASA was represented at those RAPACs. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.