PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/606731-latest-information-casa-giant-40nm-5-000-foot-ctafs.html)

Dick Smith 19th Mar 2018 05:17

Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
 
Some are claiming that the CASA proposals put forward in the NPRM 1712AS “Frequency use at Low Level in Class G airspace” have now been dropped. However I have other information that CASA is just going ahead and will be introducing the 40 nautical mile diameter, 5,000 CTAFs – in a similar way that many people warned about the enormous costs of Part 61, but CASA went ahead anyway.

Everyone has to understand this is quite a dysfunctional organisation. It appears to have no one in charge with any substantive aviation knowledge – especially of international aviation procedures.

For some reason the organisation must encourage those who are responsible for decision making to be completely anonymous. They never actually put their name to anything.

Readers of this site may remember that the CASA Risk Assessment Brief (Annex A to the original Discussion Paper) had the names of those CASA personal involved in that safety study actually blacked out – or as they would say in ASIO papers, “redacted.” They had so little confidence in their decision making that they insisted that their names not be shown.

Below is a chart prepared by the Southern QLD RAPAC showing how the 40 nm CTAFs will overlap. Remember this chart just shows the airports that have a discrete frequency allocated. If you put in the 126.7 MULTICOM airports it would become even more of a nightmare.

http://rosiereunion.com/file/RAPAC%2...ane%20area.jpg

The whole CASA proposal is simply ridiculous.

Under the Federal Cabinet approved NAS, we were to go to the North American system which is utter simplicity. Aircraft flying enroute in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome are recommended to monitor the aerodrome CTAF. No dimensions are given for obvious reasons. In some cases, where there are conflicting approach paths, the pilot would actually have to use good judgment and common sense to decide which frequency was the most appropriate to be on.

The CASA personnel did not propose this system in the NPRM because it is clear they simply did not understand how it worked, and possibly don’t even want to know.

The reason I am putting this post on is that you will probably find at any moment there will be an announcement that CASA has decided to go ahead with the 40 mile, 5,000 foot CTAFs – as I mentioned before, just as they did with Part 61.

Then no doubt, hundreds of dispensations will be given to airports where it won’t work.

Once again, an almighty great stuff-up, and no one will be linked to it. Of course, we won’t be able to blame the CASA DAS, Shane Carmody, because he will rightly say that he has no knowledge of such aviation issues. He is from the Army and then the bureaucracy, he has never been a pilot, an air traffic controller, or advised in aviation in an operational way – how could he possibly be blamed?

LeadSled 19th Mar 2018 06:04

Folks,
And just to remind everybody, the Australian NAS based on the North American/FAA model, for airspace design and management, plus:

mandatory risk analysis of any airspace proposal, plus;
mandatory benefit/cost justification for any proposal to proceed, and;
the statutory duty of Airservices ( and indirectly CASA in matters airspace) to "foster and promote" aviation in Australia


was all built into the original Airspace Act 2006. Go look it up, anybody who doesn't believe me.

But CASA and Airservices both hated the idea, and soon as a compliant Minister with dud non-aviation aviation advisers appeared, the Airspace Act 2006 was amended, all that is there now, instead of hard targets and mandated policies, are anodyne "motherhood" statements with nil/zero/zilch performance requirements.

Just the shot to produce the blithering nonsense of 40 nm CTAFs.

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish 19th Mar 2018 06:21

..this, followed by a simple change to require radios mandatory in CTAF's and the lightest of ultralights, powered parachutes, etc.with no possibility of radio communications, are banished from the skies. We cant have aircraft bumbling unannounced through CTAFs can we? Think of the risk to air safety! Better yet, lets require mandatory ADS-B for all aircraft!

Then of course there is the "make work" factor. Considerable staff will be required to adjudicate exemptions. The workload in doing so will be horrendous. Then consider that exemptions usually only last two years, so the cycle starts again in 2020!

To put that another way, this change is probably is going to require a "CTAF Management Section" to be created and staffed.

Yes, I know. Never attribute a conspiracy when the actions can be explained by stupidity.

Lead Balloon 19th Mar 2018 06:33

To quote Spodman once again:

May Jesus pee in a bucket, what are these useless wombats on???
Let the entertainment begin!

kaz3g 19th Mar 2018 07:53

People will one day recall how easy it was to just monitor the CTAF inside 10NM and otherwise Area.

Kaz

On eyre 19th Mar 2018 07:59

Stop it Sunfish you are giving them ideas.
To be fair there is no proposal to mandate radios in CTAF's - it is only mandatory at present for certified, registered and military airports I believe (stand to be corrected though) and that is fair enough in my view.

Lead Balloon 19th Mar 2018 08:46


Originally Posted by On eyre (Post 10088857)
Stop it Sunfish you are giving them ideas.
To be fair there is no proposal to mandate radios in CTAF's - it is only mandatory at present for certified, registered and military airports I believe (stand to be corrected though) and that is fair enough in my view.

But will the mandate apply to anyone within 20nms of a CTAF that is “certified, registered or military”?

Aussie Bob 19th Mar 2018 10:52

Bring it on! Aussie Bob, not a care in the world will still bumble around, radio turned down, eyes out the window, enjoying himself as usual, talking when considered necessary, caring not one iota what the legislation states and continuing to have fun.

Squawk7700 19th Mar 2018 11:09


radios mandatory in CTAF's and the lightest of ultralights, powered parachutes, etc.with no possibility of radio communications, are banished from the skies.
I had no issues operating a VHF airband radio from my ultralight powered parachute for years, so I can't see an issue with mandating radios if it enhances safety, which I and many others believe it would do. I know many ultralighters with single seaters that have radios as well as a friend with a para-motor and they all work well.

De_flieger 19th Mar 2018 11:35

Dick, I think you'd have more luck with an up-to-date map that accurately depicts the problems as what you've presented has issues that detract from the validity or otherwise of your points, and will give people grounds to discount your arguments. Looking at some of your overlapping circles that you say indicate a problem, there are a few issues that I can see.

Saying that Redcliffe will overlap Brisbane with a 20nm ctaf is misleading, as Brisbane is CTA 24-7, isn't a CTAF, and outside of extreme emergency situations won't be for the forseeable future. Likewise Lismore and Ballina won't have a problem with overlapping CTAF frequencies because they already share a common overlapping CTAF frequency due to their proximity. They're 16 miles apart, so even if you decided that 10NM (as per current rules, CAR166 and at an altitude likely to conflict with aerodrome operations) was a suitable radius, there would still be an overlap where either aircraft were on the same common CTAF, or they would be on different frequencies with the potential for problems. The same applies to Caloundra and Caboolture, 18NM apart, they already have a common CTAF frequency to deal with the overlapping areas, and using 10NM radius would also still have an overlap.

Boonah and Kooralbyn both are uncertified unregistered civilian aerodromes with no requirement to carry, monitor or even be anywhere near a radio as best I can tell, so they wouldn't be affected without other changes to the rules to mandate radio carriage.

Toowoomba West Wellcamp, or whatever it is called this week, has been operating for a couple of years now with RPT, freight and other operations and isn't even on your map! That region around the Toowoomba area also has a broadcast area that covers a few of the aerodromes in it, precisely because of their proximity and traffic mix, and that wouldnt be changed by going to a 10 NM requirement, or a 20NM requirement, or any other practical or otherwise distance requirement given Oakey is 8NM from Wellcamp, which is 6NM from Toowoomba, which has a training area that extends south
toward Wellcamp and with a few other scattered strips marked on the maps within a few miles for good measure.

North of the Gold Coast there are a couple of circled airfields, it appears that they are Southport and maybe Heck Field or Couran Cove Resort helipad? Either way, those circled airports are 9 and 6 NM apart respectively with overlying controlled airspace at 3500 feet, and all already on the same CTAF again, as makes sense for airfields so close together, and going from an unspecified radius to a 10 or 20NM radius wouldn't change operations between those fields.

Jetman346 19th Mar 2018 12:02

Dick

that is totally absurd lol

wayne

kaz3g 19th Mar 2018 19:41

Boonah and Kooralbyn both are uncertified unregistered civilian aerodromes with no requirement to carry, monitor or even be anywhere near a radio as best I can tell, so they wouldn't be affected without other changes to the rules to mandate radio carriage.

BUT! If you carry a radio within 10 miles (20?) you MUST make a call if there is risk of collision.

Kaz

Lead Balloon 19th Mar 2018 19:52


Originally Posted by De_flieger (Post 10089035)
Dick, I think you'd have more luck with an up-to-date map that accurately depicts the problems as what you've presented has issues that detract from the validity or otherwise of your points, and will give people grounds to discount your arguments. Looking at some of your overlapping circles that you say indicate a problem, there are a few issues that I can see.

Saying that Redcliffe will overlap Brisbane with a 20nm ctaf is misleading, as Brisbane is CTA 24-7, isn't a CTAF, and outside of extreme emergency situations won't be for the forseeable future. Likewise Lismore and Ballina won't have a problem with overlapping CTAF frequencies because they already share a common overlapping CTAF frequency due to their proximity. They're 16 miles apart, so even if you decided that 10NM (as per current rules, CAR166 and at an altitude likely to conflict with aerodrome operations) was a suitable radius, there would still be an overlap where either aircraft were on the same common CTAF, or they would be on different frequencies with the potential for problems. The same applies to Caloundra and Caboolture, 18NM apart, they already have a common CTAF frequency to deal with the overlapping areas, and using 10NM radius would also still have an overlap.

Boonah and Kooralbyn both are uncertified unregistered civilian aerodromes with no requirement to carry, monitor or even be anywhere near a radio as best I can tell, so they wouldn't be affected without other changes to the rules to mandate radio carriage.

Toowoomba West Wellcamp, or whatever it is called this week, has been operating for a couple of years now with RPT, freight and other operations and isn't even on your map! That region around the Toowoomba area also has a broadcast area that covers a few of the aerodromes in it, precisely because of their proximity and traffic mix, and that wouldnt be changed by going to a 10 NM requirement, or a 20NM requirement, or any other practical or otherwise distance requirement given Oakey is 8NM from Wellcamp, which is 6NM from Toowoomba, which has a training area that extends south
toward Wellcamp and with a few other scattered strips marked on the maps within a few miles for good measure.

North of the Gold Coast there are a couple of circled airfields, it appears that they are Southport and maybe Heck Field or Couran Cove Resort helipad? Either way, those circled airports are 9 and 6 NM apart respectively with overlying controlled airspace at 3500 feet, and all already on the same CTAF again, as makes sense for airfields so close together, and going from an unspecified radius to a 10 or 20NM radius wouldn't change operations between those fields.

Wouldn’t happen to work for CASA, De_f?

Such splendid isolation from reality makes for such creative thinking in this aviation Galapagos.

Aussie Bob will not be alone.

Wombats.

Dick Smith 19th Mar 2018 20:06

Del flieger. That is not my “map”

It is the chart produced by the Southern Queensland RAPAC.

In fact there are far worse areas of conflict in other parts of Australia.

It is just an example of how the giant CTAF proposal is a croc.

Why not copy the best?

Lead Balloon 19th Mar 2018 20:57

The only way in which this could make any practical difference is if mandatory calls - either time or distance based - are (re)introduced. Otherwise pilots will continue to use their discretion as to what calls are necessary, and where. And that assumes they’re radio-equipped in the first place.

Let’s reintroduce mandatory calls and name these mega-CTAFs ..... hmmmm.... MMBZs - Mega Mandatory Broadcast Zones.

Or maybe CTAF(RCCR)s - Radio Carriage and Calls Required.

Or we could use the latest cliche: MBZ 2.0.

I imagine some creative genius in CASA will come up with a Galapagos name.

Ascend Charlie 19th Mar 2018 22:11

Why not create something caled "Flight Service", where a government man talks to all aircraft on an area frequency. He could be the one to update your VFR flight plans when you are more than 2 minutes out on your ETA, receive and answer all your mandatory position reports, and...and...what do you mean, it has already been done? And it didn't work?? Hmmm...

Jetman346 19th Mar 2018 23:39

Its not a far stretch to say those making the decisions in casa have no idea what they are doing, totally making unnecessary and costly changes that offer no real benefit to aviation or even safety. I am also of the opinion if you are in the air it should be mandatory to have a radio period. If you cant afford that dont fly. There should definently be more consultation with experienced GA and aviation operators before making useless changes, pity dick is not in there as a voice, problem is beating your way past all the BS politics that get in the way of making educated and correct decisions

Lead Balloon 20th Mar 2018 00:24


... and declared that calls were mandatory for CTAFs at registered and certified aerodromes.
What calls are “mandatory” at registered and certified aerodromes?

Ex FSO GRIFFO 20th Mar 2018 00:34

"educated and correct decisions"..........

Its been a LOOONG time since we had ANY of those......IMHO!

No cheers 'ere.......Nope. None at all.... :ugh:

(Tks again for......)

Lead Balloon 20th Mar 2018 01:34

You’re mistaking “should” for “mandatory”.

(Para 6.1.16.1 is actually misleading. If an aircraft has a serviceable radio, the law says that the appropriate frequency must be monitored. In any event, those references in AIP don’t mandate anything.)


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.