The most ridiculous and incompetent CASA CTAF proposal ever
 

I have started a new thread on this because the complexity of the latest proposal seems to have covered up a most extraordinary situation.

By the look of it, those at CASA who have been involved in this most extraordinary stuff-up, and wasted the hundreds of thousands of dollars of CASA (and therefore, industry) money, still don’t seem to able to get their act together. I point out this following statement in the document:This clearly means that there are going to be times when aircraft in the same circuit area could be on different frequencies – one who has decided by airmanship that the ATC frequency is the correct one to be on, and the other who has decided by airmanship to be on the MULTICOM 126.7.

It is as if the people in CASA (can someone give me some names?) are just not game enough to harmonise on a proven system.

Giving calls in the circuit area on the area frequency goes back to the 1950s (and before I made the AMATS changes in 1991) where there were no CTAFs and calls at aerodromes were given on the area flight service frequency, with flight service monitoring in many cases. That wasn’t a great problem because flight service just gave advisories.

Now we are going to have people transmitting calls which will go straight into the cockpit of a Qantas 787 overflying, say, the Gulargambone area, and potentially blocking out an important air traffic control instruction. Of course the controller won’t be able to hear the circuit area or taxi call, so will be none the wiser.

It is interesting – I am finding that more and more RAPACs are now happy with the idea of harmonising with the far simpler US system.

It is quite obvious that airmanship will almost never dictate that one transmit on the area frequency rather than 126.7

The reality is that no one would know the name of these uncharted airfields anyway so any broadcasts made on the area frequency would be pointless as no one would know which location is being referred to anyway.

In some areas 126.7 can be as cluttered as a 27 Mhz CB radio. Is CASA really saying we should be clogging centre frequencies with that crap?

I operate from a single user airstrip. For various reasons, no one else uses it.
It is located under a very busy preferred route which is shown on the VTC. I don't normally make any broadcasts but if I did, it would have to be on the area frequency because that is the frequency being monitored by the conflicting traffic. It would be silly to call on 126.7.
Although my airstrip is fairly hard to see and hardly anyone knows about it, I can easily describe its position, if necessary.

Folks,
Why am I not the least bit surprised at this latest CASA attempt at avoiding the obvious, 126.7 or a nominated "UNICOM" frequency where provided due traffic, for all low level operations in G in the "vicinity" of airfields.
And, CASA, can you please understand that "CTAF" is a set of recommended procedures, not a volume of airspace, it is NOT a poor man's "control zone" for "do-it-yourself" ATC.
Tootle pip!!

Dick is correct. This latest proposal from CASA is encouraging frequency separation which is what the MULTICOM is designed to overcome. It will have to be amended yet again as this and other aspects of the latest proposal are just unacceptable and besides it wont work.

CASA seem not to understand this.

Keep changing! Soon enough we will be back where we started...with much fanfare, bon homme, a job well done...yehright!!

One of the reasons that 126.7 can be cluttered is that many pilots just talk too much. Making 6 or 8 calls around the circuit is a waste of breath for no good reason and as for making calls on the area frequency, it seems that those that promote this practice have little or no idea on what happens in the outside world and what the risks or unintended consequences might be!

Triadic,
In the Sydney area, and probably elsewhere in Australia, you can ultimately lay this at CASA's door, as well.
It come about because of the "pingya" system of training and checking, where students and biennial review candidates are instructed that they must make "all the suggested calls" all of the time, regardless of actual traffic, so "they can't pingya".
Tootle pip!!

thatWith all the changes over the years, I remain terminally confused. I thought that there were Brisbane and Melbourne Centres but not Sydney?

And we all know which individual was responsible for that, don't we?!

Blogsie: No! It was the effect of a group hug by some individuals that did not operate much in Class G! And they were able to spruke their idea to some that did not know better