New ERSA

[Guest JRMobile]

Just recieved my new ERSA (thanks Ian) ready for the 2nd June change over.

 

While filcking through it I noticed one of our local strips no longer has a requirement for mandatory broadcast.

 

According to the new rules, radio carriage is mandatory at all CERT,REG, MIL aerodromes

 

Radio carriage is not mandatory at UNCR.

 

The strip in question is Casino (YCAS) and its new designation is UNCR. This strip was an old MBZ then became a CTAF®. What has changed?

 

The 10 nM between Lismore and Casino overlaps, so use of the radio is still very important for us.

 

What am I missing, any thoughts ???

 

Cheers John

 

PS Air services has a site to report incorrect or missing info, I wanted to check before I put my hand up! ;)

 

 

[GraemeK]

Suspect we'll see a few of these anomalies now that CTAF® is gone. YCAS under the new regs doesn't require radio carriage.

 

Seems like maybe the CASA bureaucrats should have done their homework before rushing into this - and declared some of the old CTAF® fields as mandatory radio carriage (as the new regs allow). Instead, they took the cop-out of publicly saying the old CTAF® list was way out of date anyway and they really didn't have the time or inclination to fix it.

 

Meantime, the ERSA entry for YCAS is inconsistent - it specifically requires pilots to broadcast their intentions before operating on the runway and yet you can operate legally without a radio.

 

Rush into things, you're just asking for trouble .....

 

 

[Guest JRMobile]

Meantime, the ERSA entry for YCAS is inconsistent - it specifically requires pilots to broadcast their intentions before operating on the runway and yet you can operate legally without a radio.

Good spotting Graeme! :thumb_up:

 

I hope you are incorrect when you say "Rush into things, you're just asking for trouble ....."

 

These people are highly paid professionals who have been working on this project for quite some time.:devil:

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

AFAIK its still entirely legitimate for an airfield to have local requirements (published in ERSA) such as no low-level circuits, no straight-in approaches, avoid overflying XXX etc. There is no reason these couldn't include mandatory radio broadcast even at a UNCR airfield

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[GraemeK]

True Crezzi, that's pretty much the point of ERSA, to provide location specific requirements such as circuit direction etc - but then I would have expected ERSA to say "radio carriage mandatory", as provided for in the regs. As it stands, radio carriage is not mandatory there - but particular broadcasts are.

 

My point however was no so much the contradictions but that CASA was being slack in not investing the time to work out which fields should have mandatory radio and which should not - they basically said "it's all too hard, so we'll ignore it" in their discussion document. Strange attitude for a regulator, methinks ....

 

 

[Mazda]

I can see it now. All the Casino operators will be rushing to their LAMEs to pay to have their radios removed because they are no longer required.

 

 

[Guest JRMobile]

Mazda I dont know that the locals will change there habits or radio's but we do get a lot of GA training aircraft out of Brisbane doing their Navex's. A quick look at Ersa will confirm for them that no radio call is required.

 

My gut feeling is that it is a typo by Air Services.

 

Cheers John

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Sorry but I don't think its a typo as YCAS was UNCR prior to June 3 AFAIK. So the airfield classification hasn't been changed in the latest ERSA.

 

John

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Sorry, understand most of all that except the acronym AFAIK.. Can some one please translate?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

AFAIK - Definition by AcronymFinder

[Tomo]

Sorry, understand most of all that except the acronym AFAIK.. Can some one please translate?

As Far As I Know

 

 

[BigPete]

As Far As I Know......

 

regards

 

 

[BigPete]

Gazumped by Tomo.....

 

regards

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

 

[Guest JRMobile]

Sorry but I don't think its a typo as YCAS was UNCR prior to June 3 AFAIK. So the airfield classification hasn't been changed in the latest ERSA. John

Crezzi You are correct in that Casino was unlicensed and is now UNCR. If you check your old ERSA you will see it was a CTAF ® on 124.4 . Or check VTC - Coolangatta you will see that Casino fall within the Ballina - Lismore - Casino CTAF®

 

Cheers John

 

PS DTAA

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

Death to all acronym!

 

 

[Mazda]

Sorry JR, I meant all the aircraft flying on navexs from Archerfield will have their radios removed so they can fly to Casino!

 

There is only one mandatory call from 3 June anyway!

 

 

[Guest JRMobile]

When operating at, or in the vicinity of, a non-towered (non-controlled) aerodrome, it is expected that all pilots would make the following minimum positional broadcasts:</paragraph></p>

 

• Taxiing </point>
   
   
  
• Entering runway </point>
   
   
  
• Inbound 10 NM or earlier </point>
   
   
  
• Joining the circuit </point>
   
   
  
• Carrying out a straight-in approach </point>
   
   
  
• Joining base </point>
   
   
  
• In the vicinity of the aerodrome. </point>
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Guest JRMobile]

Mazda, my sense of humor deserts me at one in the morning after night shift I may have sounded a bit short!

 

You are spot on, :thumb_up: "There is only one mandatory call from 3 June anyway!" according to the CASA elearning site -

 

CAR 166 C mandates that a pilot must make a radio broadcast whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft when operating on the manoeuvring area or in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome.

 

But they do cover themselves with this little gem at the beginning: :clown:

 

Disclaimer

 

</paragraph></p> The information contained in this eLearning tutorial was correct at the time of publishing, and is subject to change without notice. CASA makes no representation as to its accuracy.

 

I will bring up the Casino case at the CASA seminar here in Lismore on the 2nd June, and get clarification from the people who produce and write our laws.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[GraemeK]

Here's another one. The old GAAP Approach Points are gone, right? And the new VFR Approach Points are recommended, not mandatory, right?

 

Because the tutorial tells me so:

 

VFR Approach Points have become recommended rather than mandatory.

 

WRONG! At least at YMMB, ERSA tells us that we must request clearance at a VFR Approach Point!

 

I understand that ERSA can impose extra limitations, and that's OK - but for CASA educational materials to be dangerously misleading is another thing altogether.

 

No wonder they've got the disclaimer JR!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Does anyone feel that there could be some dangerous near misses or a hit due to confusion with this?

 

 

[Guest magcheck]

Here's another one. The old GAAP Approach Points are gone, right? And the new VFR Approach Points are recommended, not mandatory, right?Because the tutorial tells me so:

 

VFR Approach Points have become recommended rather than mandatory.

 

WRONG! At least at YMMB, ERSA tells us that we must request clearance at a VFR Approach Point!

 

I understand that ERSA can impose extra limitations, and that's OK - but for CASA educational materials to be dangerously misleading is another thing altogether.

 

No wonder they've got the disclaimer JR!

VFR Approach points have always existed . They are not mandatory but are recommended for use to assist with traffic. You dont have to use them. They also make easy points to nominate when you lodge a plan.

 

The June 3 ERSA says "contact at the reporting point" , whats wrong with having local procedures, they help maintain flow and deal with local issues. Its no different to having right hand circuits ect

 

Its far from being "dangerously misleading"

 

..

 

 

[GraemeK]

Sorry mate, you seem to have missed the point.

 

GAAP Approach Points were mandatory.

 

VFR Approach Points are new (at least as far as the old GAAP fields are concerned, we've always had them elsewhere), and are not mandatory, except where ERSA says so.

 

ERSA says VFR AP's are mandatory at YMMB and YSBK at least (maybe others) .

 

No problems there, exactly what I said!!

 

My issue is with the tutorials, which should not say VFR AP's are not mandatory - rather they should say "check the ERSA".

 

I'm afraid it is misleading, maybe not dangerously so - but sorting it out in the air creates a risk that would not be there if the regulator's tutorials were correct.

 

 

[Guest magcheck]

Sorry mate, you seem to have missed the point.GAAP Approach Points were mandatory.

 

VFR Approach Points are new, and are not mandatory, except where ERSA says so.

GAAP had mandatory reporting points - Yes, but GAAP is going. VFR Approach points currently exist, already.

 

The change is that the GAAPS are changing to Class D, which brings VFR Approach Points. New for those strips, not new in airspace

 

issue is with the tutorials, which should not say VFR AP's are not mandatory - rather they should say "check the ERSA".

The disclaimer at the start of the tutorials and all the guides do say:

 

Plan your route thoroughly, and carry current charts and documents. Always check ERSA, NOTAMs, and the weather, BEFORE you fly

 

The statement that VFR AP's are not mandatory is completely correct.

 

.

 

 

[Guest magcheck]

Just a quick follow up, the June 2010 edition of ‘From the Tower’, Bankstown Airport’s Air Traffic Control news circular, has explanations and examples of how things will change on June 3

 

Regarding the VFR approach points:

 

ERSA advises aircraft to report at a VFR approach point for clearance inbound to the Class D Control Zone. This is the preferred method as it provides segregation from the outbound tracks, but however is no longer mandatory. If able, ATC will accommodate a request for clearance inbound from a point other than a VFR approach point. However, ATC still have the authority to deny a clearance from any point and suggest an alternative option.

[bushpilot]

"When operating at, or in the vicinity of, a non-towered (non-controlled) aerodrome, it is expected that all pilots would make the following minimum positional broadcasts:</PARAGRAPH>

 

• Taxiing </POINT>
   
   
  
• Entering runway </POINT>
   
   
  
• Inbound 10 NM or earlier </POINT>
   
   
  
• Joining the circuit </POINT>
   
   
  
• Carrying out a straight-in approach </POINT>
   
   
  
• Joining base </POINT>
   
   
  
• In the vicinity of the aerodrome. "
   
   
  

 

How about 'rolling on runway xx' and 'clear of all runways'?? You'd think they would be fundamental to good airmanship..

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

How about 'rolling on runway xx' and 'clear of all runways'?? You'd think they would be fundamental to good airmanship..Chris

Sorry Chris but I disagree. Good airmanship is about making radio calls that have some benefit.

 

In most scenarios "Rolling ..." is superfluous because it should be no different to "Entering..". Where that isn't the case (Eg backtracking) if theres no other circuit traffic "Rolling..." is obviously not required. Even if there is other circuit traffic (& you surely wouldn't have backtracked if it caused a conflict) they are in the best position to see that you are taking off hence the call still isn't needed.

 

Same with the "Clear" call - the only people who care are other traffic in the circuit who will generally be able to see where you are.

 

If either call is necessary to "avoid a collision or risk of a collision" then you must of course make it but generally I don't believe they are & personally I'm pleased they are no longer recommended.

 

Cheers

 

John