|
Mini MBZ rather than Mega MBZ? As we keep trying to tell them, CTAF dimensions mean nothing unless there are mandatory distance-based calls. That concept is an “MBZ”. |
So what was wrong with "in the vicinity"? Everyone has a different definition of circuit area.... why are we going back in time? As above, the inbound call should be time based. Many moons ago it was suggested to CASA that 7 mins was about right, but they did not take it up (or understand). And still don't it seems!
On top of that they don't seem to understand that the MULTICOM was designed to have a common frequency at low levels. By suggesting it is OK to be on the Area Frequency they are in fact undermining the role of the MULTICOM. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10116715)
Have any of you ever wondered why other countries don’t put the frequency boundaries on charts?
Imagine you are in charge of Aviation safety in the UK, France , Germany ,Sweden,Norway,Canada or the USA. The cost of putting frequency boundaries on charts would be negligible- a little ink. Why wouldn’t you do it if it could improve safety? Either these countries are really dumb compared to Australia or perhaps safety would not be improved by the extra complexity. You decide. Australia encompasses the same area as the whole of Europe so there is no comparison. kaz |
Originally Posted by outnabout
(Post 10132230)
And the latest news is...CTAF of 3nm and 1500 feet high. head on over to CASA website to have your say on this latest piece of genius. This solution doesn’t upset ATC, primarily restricts communication to the immediate vicinity because of the low level for the broadcast, and gives those flying in or out a chance to broadcast their intentions. next step would be to allocate different frequencies to those marked CTAFs using 126,7. Jobs done! kaz |
next step would be to allocate different frequencies to those marked CTAFs using 126,7. Just when I thought things couldn’t get weirder... |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10132443)
Wow.
Just when I thought things couldn’t get weirder... |
Originally Posted by gerry111
(Post 10132614)
I reckon that kaz3g may have meant that all the unmarked airfields should use 126.7 and all the marked airfields have their own CTAF's other than 126.7?
That was my reading as well. My point is that at each twist and turn in this expensive journey - remember, there are people on 6 figures in CASA feeding off never-ending change and increasing complexity - we come up with yet another Galapogos concept. The genesis of this process was - I thought - a controversy about one question and one question alone: Should the 'default' frequency for use in the vicinity of an airfield that is not marked on the charts be the FIA frequency or 126.7. Full stop. Nothing about CTAF 'dimensions'; nothing about the frequency for use at marked aerodromes. But obviously a bunch of people with bright ideas and strong opinions about how to make us even 'safer' decided to use the process as a vehicle to promote those bright ideas. Given that the last proposal by CASA seems to have been decided on the basis of numbers 'for' and 'against', the way in which to raise and determine questions in future seems obvious: A vote by ARN holders. Anyone can come up with an idea, that idea is expressed as a 'yes' or 'no' question - e.g. 'Should there be mandatory distance-based broadcasts by aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome?" - this goes into some portal software run by CASA - there must be some expensive software involved - and ARN holders log in and vote. Another Galapogos development that's sure to provide (costly) entertainment. |
So true. Another Galapagos invention. But more like the tortoise. Slow and lumbering and unique.. The ignorance is incredible. Kax. Canada is huge and no frequency boundaries. It’s the country I copied the 126.7 frequency from. But don’t tell anyone! |
But you should explain the whole Canadian system to which you refer, Dick. In vast areas of Canada the 'low level area' frequency is 126.7 and the 'default' CTAF is a different frequency.
|
Does CASA even understand the MULTICOM concept?
Back to topic.
By stating that the use of Area Frequency is ok at low levels in Class G they are defeating the whole purpose of having the MULTICOM by promoting frequency separation, which the MULTICOM is designed to help solve. Seems this is not understood within Fort Fumble? A practical answer to this mess has been proposed, however as usual they are not listening to those with practical experience in Class G. (Is the iron ring still running the show?) |
I would have thought that the content of the posts preceding your post was centrally relevant to the topic. But, in any event... Do you have any experience in flying IFR in ‘real’ G? E.g. the Canadian G that Dick wants to replicate? What services are provided to IFR aircraft in Canadian G? Don’t get me wrong: I reckon ‘real’ G would be very character building and instructive for Australian aviation. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10132443)
Wow. Just when I thought things couldn’t get weirder... Renmark, Waikerie and Loxton are all on 126,7. You can’t hear yourself think in the circuit at Renmark when the gliding championships are on at Waikerie. Kaz |
Originally Posted by kaz3g
(Post 10133160)
Nothing weird about giving busy airfields such as Renmark a discrete frequency rather than leaving them on 126,7. Renmark, Waikerie and Loxton are all on 126,7. You can’t hear yourself think in the circuit at Renmark when the gliding championships are on at Waikerie. Kaz Education and standardisation is the key to solving some of these issues and I understand CASA are working on addressing this. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10133134)
I would have thought that the content of the posts preceding your post was centrally relevant to the topic. But, in any event... Do you have any experience in flying IFR in ‘real’ G? E.g. the Canadian G that Dick wants to replicate? What services are provided to IFR aircraft in Canadian G? Don’t get me wrong: I reckon ‘real’ G would be very character building and instructive for Australian aviation. In relation to Canada:
Australia Class G: This airspace is uncontrolled. Both IFR and VFR aircraft are permitted and neither require ATC clearance. In Australia, all airspace that is not promulgated as class A, C, D, E or restricted is Class G, and is open for flight up to, but not including, 10 000 feet amsl to all holders of a valid Pilot Licence/Certificate flying any RA-Aus/HGFA/ASRA registered aircraft. Flight at or above 5000 feet requires VHF radio. Class G extends over most of Australia from surface level to the overlying CTA base at 8500 feet amsl, FL125 or FL180. The total volume of Class G airspace included between the average land mass elevation of 1100 feet and 10 000 feet is some 20 million cubic kilometres. USA Class G (uncontrolled) airspace is mostly used for a small layer of airspace near the ground, but there are larger areas of Class G airspace in remote regions. One significant difference in Oz Class G is the provision of traffic information and flight following to IFR ops. We have learnt to live with that and it is now very much part of our expectations in Class G. Whilst using the experience of other countries in viewing how we manage Class G we will always come up with some differences, so I suggest there is no 'real G' or perhaps 'unreal G'. It is a pity that the theory experts in CASA seem to have little or no practical understanding of how Oz Class G has worked since FS was closed. |
But you do realise (and admit) that the MULTICOM frequency of 126.7 and the ‘default’ CTAF frequency are different in Canada, do you not? Yes or no. |
Triadic, don't waste your breath.
|
Originally Posted by kaz3g
(Post 10133160)
Nothing weird about giving busy airfields such as Renmark a discrete frequency rather than leaving them on 126,7. Renmark, Waikerie and Loxton are all on 126,7. You can’t hear yourself think in the circuit at Renmark when the gliding championships are on at Waikerie. Kaz |
From Transport Canada’s AIM RAC, here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents...18-1-E-RAC.pdf 8.10 CLASS G AIRSPACE—RECOMMENDED OPERATING PROCEDURES—EN-ROUTE When aircraft are manoeuvring in the vicinity of uncontrolled aerodromes or cruising in Class G airspace, the lack of information on the movements of other aircraft operating in close proximity may occasion a potential hazard to all concerned. To alleviate this situation, all pilots are advised that: (a) when operating in Class G airspace, they should continuously monitor frequency 126.7 MHz whenever practicable; (b) position reports should be made over all NAVAIDs along the route of flight to the nearest station having air-ground communications capability. These reports should be made on frequency 126.7 MHz whenever practicable. If it is necessary to use another frequency to establish communications with the ground station, the report should also be broadcast on 126.7 MHz for information of other aircraft in the area. The report should contain present position, track, altitude, altimeter setting in use, next position and ETA; (c) immediately before changing altitude, commencing an instrument approach or departing IFR, pilots should broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz whenever practicable. Such broadcasts should contain adequate information to enable other pilots to be fully aware of the position and intentions so that they can determine if there will be any conflict with their flight paths; (d) at aerodromes where an MF has been designated, arriving pilots shall first broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Pilots departing IFR should broadcast their intentions on 126.7 MHz, in addition to the MF, prior to takeoff; and (e) the preceding reporting requirements are considered as the minimum necessary. Pilots are encouraged to make additional reports whenever the possibility of conflicting IFR traffic is suspected. An example would be reporting prior to overflying a facility where cross traffic is probable or where there is a published instrument approach procedure. 4.5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS— UNCONTROLLED AERODROMES 4.5.4 Mandatory Frequency Transport Canada has designated a Mandatory Frequency (MF) for use at selected uncontrolled aerodromes, or aerodromes that are uncontrolled between certain hours. Aircraft operating within the area in which the MF is applicable (MF area), on the ground or in the air, shall be equipped with a functioning radio capable of maintaining two-way communication. Reporting procedures shall be followed, as specified in CARs 602.97 to 602.103 inclusive. 4.5.5 Aerodrome Traffic Frequency An Aerodrome Traffic Frequency (ATF) is normally designated for active uncontrolled aerodromes that do not meet the criteria listed in RAC 4.6.4 for an MF. The ATF is established to ensure that all radio-equipped aircraft operating on the ground or within the area are listening on a common frequency and following common reporting procedures. The ATF will normally be the frequency of the UNICOM where one exists or 123.2 MHz where a UNICOM does not exist. ... |
Leady, that info is interesting, it’s nice to know, but in the Australian context it is irrelevant. Whatever the frequency the procedures with the MULTICOM need wherever possible to avoid or minimise frequency separation which CASA seems not to understand unlike our Canadian friends. |
I was merely responding to Dick’s point, at #336: “Canada is huge with no frequency boundaries. Its the country I copied the frequency 126.7 from.” I was merely pointing out that Canada’s Class G doesn’t work quite the way Dick seems to think it does, and that is precisely why ‘cherry picking’ one facet of it is irrelevant. If Australia is going to “copy” Canadian Class G, it has to copy the lot, in which case - yes - frequency boundaries slicing and dicing G are meaningless. |
An alternative
It is disappointing that CASA don't seem to have much knowledge on what happens in Class G and keep trying to put forward suggested solutions that we out in G land know will have significant issues.
A few industry groups have come up with suggestions but sadly they have not reached first base within Fort Fumble. Their latest proposal in fact suggests that it is ok to operate on both the MULTICOM and Area Frequency at low levels in Class G. This suggestion in fact destroys the aim of having a common frequency (the MULTICOM) at low levels in G. How dumb! What we need now is some support from industry including the RAPACs to come up with something that will work in a practical sense and is easy to understand and put into practice. There is support for making the recommended upper limit of the MULTICOM at 3000ft agl. This would help ensure that low level ops would know the primary recommended frequency in that airspace. It would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own frequency. Further, by bringing 'circuit area' into the discussion they have created yet another distraction and I suggest that 'in the vicinity' is a better description and better caters for aircraft with different performance and allows pilots to make an appropriate judgement on when to make an inbound call. We need to wrap this up and by standing up to the dumb ideas so far tabled we are more likely to obtain a workable result suitable to the majority. |
There is support for making the recommended upper limit of the MULTICOM at 3000ft agl. This would help ensure that low level ops would know the primary recommended frequency in that airspace. It would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own frequency. I suggest that 'in the vicinity' is a better description and better caters for aircraft with different performance and allows pilots to make an appropriate judgement on when to make an inbound call. I can see 126.7 becoming far busier though, so many ADs that currently use CTAF 126.7 will no doubt apply to CASA to consider allocation of a discrete frequency. |
Captain and Triadic - yes multicom 126.7 below 3000 would definitely work for me. Maybe combined with mandatory taxiing and inbound (in the vicinity of) calls only at airfields marked on charts or in ERSA and an education programme to counter the many unnecessary and superfluous calls now. Still leaves it open for anyone who requires ATS to communicate on the suitable ATC frequency as needed. All the above would keep the heavy metal reasonably happy also ��. |
[MULTICOM] would cover by default all airfields in G that are not covered by a BA or a CTAF with its own frequency. I know you (triadic) argue that the problem is caused by unnecessary radio calls, and I agree with you in part. But that is not the only cause. That’s why I keep highlighting the Canadian frequency arrangements in G. Although I have no idea what I’m talking about, the Canucks do. |
LB from my experience in SA fire fighting aircraft use a discrete VHF different to 126.7 on a fire ground. |
In this thread: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...l#post10003193 I asked the questions: So what is the ‘Multicom’ to be used for, precisely? What broadcasts, precisely, should be made on ‘Multicom’, by whom and when, precisely, that are not part of a CTAF procedure? aircraft operating below say 5000 ft that may need to communicate or coordinate with other aircraft in the area, not specifically associated with a CTAF. Examples include but are not limited to aircraft operating from unmarked airstrips, survey aircraft operating at lower levels, search and rescue or firefighting aircraft - any of these may be in conflict with other VFR aircraft operating OCTA. Broadcasts - those necessary to coordinate with other aircraft or avoid collisions. |
Leady, I concede that having individual frequencies for marked airfields might be a nice to have but in practice it does not meet the need to keep the system simple. The whole idea of the MULTICOM in Oz is to (a) have low level traffic on the same frequency, and (b) having procedures that are simple and easy to understand/teach/use. Fort Fumble have a knack of making something simple almost impossible to understand or work - not only in airspace!
I can see 126.7 becoming far busier though, so many ADs that currently use CTAF 126.7 will no doubt apply to CASA to consider allocation of a discrete frequency. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10134791)
I reckon a MULTICOM of 126.7 with an upper limit of 3,000’ AGL will only work as a matter of practicality if the ‘default’ CTAF - at least for marked aerodromes - is something other than 126.7. Otherwise 126.7 will be an even more garbled, screechy blabfest anywhere within cooee of a few aerodromes in G with a bit of traffic The default CTAF could be changed to something other than 126.7, but CASA would have to do a safety assessment and a thorough education campaign to avoid further "frequency separation". Or they could defer to what is the case now, when chatter from other ADs or 126.7 reaches the problem level a discrete frequency can be sought. on top of all those airborne fire fighting and other emergency services assets that will apparently be using the frequency. |
What’s so complicated about having a ‘low level’ MULTICOM of 126.7 and a ‘default’ CTAF for marked airfields of e.g. 123.2? That way we could at least finally get peace in relation to the tiny number of fringe activities that occur at strips that aren’t marked on charts. PS: Above posted before I saw CM’s. CM: All of which shows why all of these proposed changes are unnecessary! |
We used to have a system that areas of a manageable size for the volume of chatter had a discrete frequency. Everybody that was flying in what is now Class G was on the same frequency, you didn't have to guess what the most appropriate one was.
To further enhance safety, the frequency was monitored and useful operational information (traffic, estimated crossing times, WX etc) was passed on. Those that monitored the frequency even told you when to change to the next frequency and accepted position reports and SARTIME details from VFR aircraft. Given the lack of radar coverage it was a great system. Now ADSB provides an opportunity to provide similar services at lower cost (if Australia had adopted the US standard). In summery, draw some lines on a Class G map, give the box a frequency and everybody in the box monitor it and broadcast when required. Simple. |
I love all these incredibly complex ways of solving a simple issue. Why not copy the simpler FAA system? It clearly works with over 15 times the amount of traffic in a similar land area. I know. We want a Nomad. |
with over 15 times the amount of traffic in a similar land area. |
Originally Posted by gerry111
(Post 10133308)
That brings back memories of the mid 1970's in S.A. when a (then) modern sailplane may have had an 'Alpha Genave' two channel radio with only 122.7 and 122.9 MHz available. No FLARM and the odd MAC then..
kaz |
Originally Posted by kaz3g
(Post 10135124)
i was flying gliders in the mid 70s and they had no radio at all...but neither did many powered aircraft. We just had to look harder then! kaz |
I reckon the LAX basin does have a far greater density of aviation than the equivalent areas in Australia. Look at the number of airports. Same in the New York area. Traffic seems to to be dropping here all the time. And even if the same density what would be wrong with copying a simpler system? |
The real issue here is to put something on the table that will be simple and work. It is all very nice to say let’s copy what others do, but the entrenched Australian culture both in industry and the regulator make that very difficult and time consuming. Industry need to put forward a simple procedure that does not involve a lot of change, which is more likely to be accepted by all involved. There is more to aviation politics than the MULTICOM so this needs to be put to bed yesterday, it has dragged on far too long. Some of the suggestions in this thread are valid and need to be considered by all to achieve that result. |
Dick,Act and FAR rewrite...your goal! Stop sidetracking on to something that you have been arguing about for nearly thirty years. If you left it alone, it would have evolved into something you would have been proud of. You wanted limited interaction with ATC and no FS...ADS-B coupled with TAAATS would have provided everything you ever wished for...no AMATS,no AIRSPACE 2000 no class G trials, no MBZ/CTAF(R)/CTAF/MULTICOM, all you needed to do was wait for the technology. FS could have been absorbed within the ATS as an enroute position providing DTI for VFR and full service to IFR. VFR submit plan, activate with a departure call and then monitor area frequency. Report any changes to plan if required. Inside SSR/ADS-B coverage track is monitored and reported as traffic to IFR. Outside coverage, rely on virtual track and position reports from IFR. If VFR hears they are traffic by callsign, then keep vigilant. Circuit area traffic only minimum of calls..inbound call, joining circuit, base with intentions. Circuits, line up call with intention, base call with intention. Deparing, line up call with intention, departing circuit with intention and then call ATS with departure report to activate plan....all on area frequency for all airspace BLW CTA.
|
That brings back memories of the mid 1970's in S.A. when a (then) modern sailplane may have had an 'Alpha Genave' two channel radio with only 122.7 and 122.9 MHz available. And UL was the only BVGC Glider to have a radio IIRC. I was flying gliders in the mid 70s and they had no radio at all...but neither did many powered aircraft. We just had to look harder then! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.