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?

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!!

..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.

To quote Spodman once again:Let the entertainment begin!

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

Kaz

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”?

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.

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.

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.

Dick

that is totally absurd lol

wayne

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

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

What calls are “mandatory” at registered and certified aerodromes?

"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......)

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.)

What? No, I don't work for CASA, never have, and don't automatically agree with their proposals. You might also have noticed that my post didn't take a position either way as to whether a 20NM radius CTAF is good or bad. My point, which you don't seem to have understood, is that if you are trying to argue against a CASA proposal, you should at least have up-to-date documentation and try and accurately critique the situation rather than putting out claims that can be disregarded because they appear as misleading by the people you are arguing against. Case in point - Lismore and Ballina - claiming they will have overlapping CTAF areas under the proposed change is misleading because they already have a common shared CTAF frequency for operations in the vicinity of either aerodrome. Likewise Toowoomba, Oakey and West Wellcamp, they already have the Darling Downs broadcast area, overlapping all three aerodromes.

Dick - as it's not your map, then the South Queensland RAPAC doesn't do themselves any favours by presenting a chart years out of date.

Do you want mandatory radio carriage and use? Because that's how you get mandatory carriage and use...

Yes really. And I’m actually a pilot with a few decades in the logbook. But I’m dangerous, because I take the view that more blabbing doesn’t necessarily result in more safety.

Question to De_f and mr f.

Assume 20nm radius/5,000’ AGL(?) CTAFs are introduced.

I’m going to fly, VFR, from Bathurst to Wagga at 4,500’. What calls do you say I should (for you mr f, must) make along that route, noting that I’ll pass abeam Cowra (16nms), Young (13nms) and Cootamundra (4nms).

Oh FFS Lead Balloon - let's not start all that over again.
It was all done to death on another thread (and speaking of death the corpse aka the CASA NPRM has not yet decided whether it is dead or alive, to rise again or be reincarnated) - let us pray !!

Mr flappy. So if I pass 18 miles north of one of these airports at 500 or 1000 agl I would have to make an announcement?

At 18 miles wouldn’t an rpt aircraft be about 5500 agl on approach and even higher on departure? What would the use of the mandatory calls be ?

LB,
My dear chap, you obviously don't accept the CASA preferred explanation for the miracle of flight.

I refer, of course, to the acoustic lift theory, where continued flight is dependent of flapping your gums, as soon as you stop talking the aeroplane quits flying. Also sometimes called fly by mouth.

Remember, the three golden rules of "safe" aviation in Australia, in order: Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Tootle pip!!

PS: With apologies to the authors of the original acoustic lift theory.

Gosh, another one living in splendid isolation from reality.

Anything more precise? Where/when? What terminology. You are, after all, the expert on the AIP and the mandatory calls.

What about the next leg: Wagga to Hilston, abeam Narrandera (15nms) and Griffith (12nms), each of which has a different CTAF?

Non Regulation??????? Safety??????
 

This is non regulation designed to absolve CASA and government from any responsibility for safety outcomes.

The kicker is the use of the words "reasonably necessary". Well if you hit anyone with or without a broadcast its the pilots fault. Either you didn't broadcast when you should have, or the other guy didn't listen or one or both of you botched the avoidance manoeuvre. Whoever survives can be prosecuted.

Since you have no way of knowing what is "reasonably necessary" when transiting a CTAF - since no radio noise does ot mean aircraft arent present, the nly solution is to talk loud and long at every CTAF border.

Good one Sunny, we already have people doing this everywhere and it is painful and useless. The only solution is to keep chatter to a very minimum, keep a good lookout and say nothing but what is required and listen to others very very carefully. If I shared your paranoia of regulations I would probably give up flying.

Mr Flappy, how many jets travel VFR?

As an IFR machine, they will have traffic on other IFR passed to them. Each one will be heard on the control frequency, even on taxying.

I am not talking about the VFR aircraft approaching or departing an aerodrome. I am talking about a VFR that is flying past at low level
And at all times at least 18 miles from the airport.

So what exactly is the point of the proposed 20nm radius, when a CTAF is merely a frequency to be used for broadcasts that a pilot has discretion to make, rather than a volume of airspace within or by the boundaries of which a pilot must make broadcasts?

LB... correct. A CTAF is a procedure, not a block of airspace, something that some in CASA don’t seem to realise or uderstand.

Just to clarify..... as described above.....

C - Common
T - Traffic
A - Advisory
F - Frequency

'Tis just a 'frequency', no mention of 'real estate' dimensions at all....

The 'When' do we use it should contain a bit of 'common' sense.
Yeah. I know.......

Cheers :ugh:

(Tks again Dick....)

My bunion is itching.

I can feel an MMBZ or MBZ 2.0 announcement coming on....

Why was the MBZ abolished anyway?:confused:

C’mon Pinky. You know the answer to the question: Safety!

That’s why there’s an RFFS but no tower at Ballina. Safety!

Blame me for that Pinky!

Abolished because they were a unique Australian invention and for some strange reason I thought we should harmonise with simpler proven overseas procedures.

We however have wound back to a 1950s AFIZ at Port Headland so we can probably wind back to MBZs.

Where would you like them ?

Wild guesses: Mildura, Wagga, Dubbo...

The good news is that MBZ 2.0 will be even safer, because it’s bigger!