New ERSA

[bushpilot]

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

I guess it's a case of what's appropriate for the circumstances. On our main strip one end is not visible from the other - and aircraft landing or rolling cannot see an aircraft entering (or exiting) the runway.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[ahlocks]

Chris,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAR 166C requires a pilot to make a broadcast whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft. If you think making a call is necessary, make the call. You're not going to be penalised for doing so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

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 3Regarding the VFR approach points:

Your reference complies with the information provided at the local CASA seminar which I attended.

 

The reasoning for not making arrival at approach points mandatory was that at busy aerodromes having a lot of aircraft converging on the same spot in the sky was potentially risky.

 

Not being globally mandatory does not prevent local procedures from making it mandatory (ie. ERSA) or ATC qualifying their clearance such that you must enter from the approach point and re-request clearance on a call by call basis. See the "Abbreviated Clearance Procedures" in which the ATC response may optionally have restrictions or instructions.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I guess it's a case of what's appropriate for the circumstances.

Exactly :thumb_up: We have a CTAF shared between 3 airfields & theres a LOT of frequency congestion caused by completely pointless calls for crossing runways, clearing runways, rolling etc. Some of these weren't even required under the old regime ! Worse still they seemed to be contagious - other pilots hear them & think they should do the same calls.

 

Hopefully pilots will now think before they talk & free up the frequencies for those calls which do add value.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[ahlocks]

Hopefully pilots will now think before they talk & free up the frequencies for those calls which do add value.

And that is what I believe the changes are all about. If I'm of a mood to go and do some circuits, I don't have to mandatorily call every corner of every lap if there isn't a risk of collision.

 

The biggest problem I see are the ones who have interpreted the changes to mean they don't have to make any calls what so ever. Be they landing fee dodgers or just can't comprehend written instructions, they'll be the ones to be wary of.

 

 

[Yenn]

The old system with its multiplicity of calls was a pain in the butt. I see the new system as a better way to go, giving us the rights to make decisions. The only snag is CASA can still get at someone they don't like by saying they should have given a call for safety's sake.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

yeah a bit like if you screw up as a ships master.

 

if you did do it why and if you didn't do it then why not.

 

dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

 

 

[flying dog]

Ok, quickie for ya all to ponder:

 

(I don't have the latest ERSA handy so please extend a bit of latitude.)

 

YMND - Maitland. I'm guessing it is radio required.

 

3-ish nm west is LUSKINTYRE. Private strip.

 

They fly tigers. Some do and some don't have radios.

 

What happens?

 

 

[flying dog]

One thought about Casino.

 

Though in a CTAF-R...

 

Maybe "they" thought planes flying at Casino circuits: No radio needed.

 

Planes flying INTO or OUT OF Casino, they do need a radio.

 

A kind of CTAF-R reversal.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

YMND - Maitland. I'm guessing it is radio required.3-ish nm west is LUSKINTYRE. Private strip.

 

They fly tigers. Some do and some don't have radios.

 

What happens?

As you suspect YMND is Registered so radio is now mandatory. If the flying at Luskintyre is at a height which "could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome" then they would need to be radio equipped also. You could perhaps argue that doing 500' circuits at Luskintyre wouldn't meet this definition & hence could be done non-radio.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yes being in this area and drawing circles around maitland and cessnock seems i may be caught in amongst them. really getting to the stage where i may just have a garden ornanment. just not worth having a bunch of add ons that cost more than my aircraft. not being able to comfortably interpret the regs is starting to freak me out a bit as well. This is not fun any more.

 

 

[flying dog]

Ozzie,

 

My understanding is you need a radio *IF* you are going to LAND there, or are within what YOU call a reasonable distance.

 

So: If you are flying out of YOUR airport/strip and staying away from the two mentioned places, there shouldn't be any problems.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

As you suspect YMND is Registered so radio is now mandatory. If the flying at Luskintyre is at a height which "could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome" then they would need to be radio equipped also. You could perhaps argue that doing 500' circuits at Luskintyre wouldn't meet this definition & hence could be done non-radio. Cheers

 

John

So it would possibly come down to whose barrister can argue better.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Ozzie,My understanding is you need a radio *IF* you are going to LAND there, or are within what YOU call a reasonable distance.

 

So: If you are flying out of YOUR airport/strip and staying away from the two mentioned places, there shouldn't be any problems.

"In the Vicinity" to an AD is defined as 10nm in CAAP 166-1. To fly within this distance of a CERT, REG or Military or specific listed AD without a radio, you need a specific dispensation from CASA

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

To be pedantic, "in the vicinity of" is defined as within:

 

(a) airspace other than controlled airspace; and

 

(b) 10 miles from the aerodrome; and

 

© a height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.

 

Note (my) emphasis - all the conditions need to be met for radio to mandatory. Personally I think its a bit of a stretch to claim that, for example, doing circuits at a private strip 10nm from an certified airfield could result in a conflict. Its a PIC decision but, as Ozzie points out, you might ultimately have to justify your decision in court.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Yenn]

I brought thisup at a semunar run by CASA in Gladstone and was told that you could be within the 10nm. and legal without a radio, due to not being in conflict.

 

The presenter Andrew said that the 10 nm had to be read in conjunction with the other requirements which followed. So it was 10nm "and" those others. Not 10nm or any of those others. Sorry I can't quote the actual wording now.

 

It will probably be brought up at Monto tomorrow, when Andrew will be giving a presentation.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ok so something along the lines of 'It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission'

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

<flack jacket>

 

Seems to me that some people are looking for loopholes that will avoid the necessity of fitting and using a radio.

 

Perhaps there should be some thought along the lines of risk management. After all isn't that what a lot of the checks and procedures are about?

 

Flying isn't risk free, just as crossing the road isn't risk free. I wouldn't close my eyes to cross the road on the basis that I'll hear anything approaching. Using both eyes and ears, just lowers the risk.

 

Even if you don't feel the need to make a call, the fact that you are monitoring the local CTAF may make you aware of potential conflicts before that would otherwise occur. That is of course if everyone doesn't just fly around listening and not calling!

 

</flack jacket>

 

 

[Yenn]

It seems to me that the new radio requirements are working. There was an obvious reduction in the amount of radio traffic at the weekend. With the old requirements it would have been full om chatter at Monto, but I found it much better and situational awareness was possibly even better.

 

 

[flying dog]

Ok, people are flying faster planes these days, and possibily RPT services too.

 

But indluge me the question:

 

How did it used to work BEFORE the rules?

 

I'm not advocating taking risks, but would only like to talk about what was and what is.

 

In the past when there were planes flying around without radios.

 

Ok, there have been "risk assessments" etc etc etc etc done, but REALLY: What has changed?

 

Before the new rules, the tigers flew at Luskintyre and there were no conflicts.

 

Now that the rules are in and it "makes it mandatory to use radios within 10 Nm of Maitland" won't suddenly make it dangerous to fly at Luskintyre without a radio.

 

The only thing which COULD make it dangerous is people thinking "That is the rule, so the other planes MUST have a radio, so I can fly where I want making all the radio calls (and clogging up the CTAF frequency with their endless broadcasts) and if there is an accident, it isn't my fault."

 

That is a bad way of thinking.

 

In reality people need to look out. See and avoid.

 

It is good however that the radio calls have been wound back to the important ones and not how they were a while ago.