Updated CAAP 166-1(3) - Operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes August 2014

[coljones]

CAAP 166-1(3) - Operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes August 2014

 

CASA wishes to advise that CAAP 166-1(3): Operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes has been revised and published. Please refer to the 'Status of this CAAP' to see these changes.

 

A full list of Civil Aviation Advisory Publications can be found on the CASA website:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/caap

 

The revisions are in parts 7.3 and 7.4 and relate to the use of radios and frequencies used.

 

 

[Yenn]

It seems to be just about the same as the older version. Pity they don't mark what has been changed. Maybe it was the bit about using area frequency rather than 126.7 for strips not shown on the charts. That would not please the ATC people as it would tend to clog up the airwaves.

 

 

[pylon500]

Interesting to note the section dealing with reporting to RAPAC (section 7.3.2) about congested radio areas.

 

Here in Taree, we are on the same frequency as Port Macquarie (118.1), and sometimes it's hard to get a word in edgeways.

 

But it turns out the alternative is to have two different frequencies, and then have Northbound traffic (usually heading for Port, and beyond) blindly fly through Taree's area, busily announcing their imminent arrival to the Port CTAF.

 

We just learn to live with it....

 

We did get a small break recently with a Port school about to take on a stack of Chinese students but then decided to do most of their work out of Kempsy, which changed from our frequency a couple of years back (118.9)

 

Anyway, reading through the CAAP, I spotted the bit about 'go-rounds', and have to question the safety of pulling to the 'inside' of the circuit (towards oncoming traffic) when confronted with an aircraft taking off during your approach...?

 

 

Doing this, the overtaking pilot loses sight of the aircraft taking off, and is counter to the normal rules of overtaking?

 

Having said that, I have always had a concern with the diagram in the VFG, having a similar concept of avoidance, where the aircraft with a pilot in a poor position to observe another aircraft (on his right) is supposed to be the one to maintain separation?

 

 

As a side point to the above diagram, it could be concluded that the black aircraft is navigating by road (IFR:duck for cover:)?

 

I've never found anything relevant, but the 'unwritten' rule is to track to the right of navigation features, thereby avoiding people navigating the same feature in the opposite direction...

 

Comments?

 

 

[DWF]

Doing this, the overtaking pilot loses sight of the aircraft taking off, and is counter to the normal rules of overtaking?

Normal practice is to move to the "dead" side of the runway - far enough to be able to see any traffic on the runway below: left circuit - move to the right; right circuit - move to the left --- except where obstacles may be a problem or where there are parallel runways such as at GAAP airports.

 

As always, the pilot in command is responsible for taking action to ensure the safety of his/her aircraft.

 

DWF

 

 

[poteroo]

Attended CASA Safety Meeting yesterday and CAAP 166-1(3) was mentioned. They seem determined to have people on area rather than 126.7 so it's going to be interesting! Rationale' seems to be that there are no busy strips which are not 'depicted' on maps - which I'm sure they are about to learn is untrue! So much for consultation with industry!

 

happy days,

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Attended CASA Safety Meeting yesterday and CAAP 166-1(3) was mentioned. They seem determined to have people on area rather than 126.7 so it's going to be interesting! Rationale' seems to be that there are no busy strips which are not 'depicted' on maps - which I'm sure they are about to learn is untrue! So much for consultation with industry!happy days,

It's a good way to get those busy strips depicted on maps, I'm sure the controllers will get tired of listening to circuit calls all day.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Hate to tell ya Pylon, but they are based in Port and will remain in Port. Kempsey is going to be used by "some" not all... All the staff are based in Port , they have a lot more infrastructure and planes here ....but yes they are moving some to Kempsey for ab init.

 

I have heard from a very reliable person that Port is now the number 1 priority for a tower and that its already being planned and designed and that Coffs Harbour tower is going to be axed to allow the budget for Port Tower.... stuffs me why they dont just put Port on its own CTAf and discard the need for a tower altogether.. We all cope now except for the fact irrelevant Taree and Oldbar traffic is stomping all over us because of the hills between, when there is 4 or 5 in the circuit area here....

 

Seems the dumbasses at CASA would rather put in towers then separate a CTAF

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I'm not sure about Coffs Harbour tower getting axed, wouldn't make sense since the numbers just warranted the building of an Aviation Fire Station. Is the "Port" you refer to Port Hedland or somewhere else? The Port Hedland tower idea has been cancelled due to decreasing traffic numbers, although I believe AFIS is going to stay.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Port Macquarie

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Seems the join on base option has been downgraded to the status of undesirability or worse than a straight in approach. McCormick introduced it not long after he joined CASA. Never a good idea.

 

 

[pylon500]

We all cope now except for the fact irrelevant Taree and Oldbar traffic is stomping all over us

Being part of the 'Irrelevant' traffic at Taree, I usually find I can't get a word in edgeways with all the traffic wandering and yakking around Port, what with the QantasLink and Virgin RPT's going into panic mode wondering where the IFR Barons, the huge circuit ultralights, the jump plane, the jet fighter doing aero's, the seaplane coming and going, the private planes doing circuits calling every turn and change of power setting, and soon more trainees using English as a second language....

I think I might have to start using Very Lights to announce my circuits.

 

join on base option

Often works well at Taree when tracking back in from Old Bar, pretty much straight on to base for 22.

Obviously better if I can track straight in onto 30 grass, pull up in front of my place and taxi up to the hangar:cheezy grin:

 

Unfortunately the grass seems to be closed more than it's open (four months so far this year, two more to go due to works elsewhere on the field )

 

 

[kaz3g]

If you are flying across unfamiliar country and there are unmarked airstrips in your path, how do do you know to make a call? How do you know to switch from Area to Multicom if that were the promulgated procedure?

 

It makes more sense to me to listen to Area and for people using those unmarked strips to likewise use Area UNLESS the owners of those strips are encouraged to have them marked on the charts and allocated a frequency.

 

Just to satisfy my curiosity, who would like to tell me if EUROA airstrip is north or south of the Hume Highway?

 

Kaz

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Euroa strip is north west of the town and has parachutes. The southern strip has been closed for quite a while but still shown on charts.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The WAC shows Euroa (Leo Wignell's strip) to be south of the town and Euroa Soaring Centre (where I used to glide) north of the highway. Wignell's was mown and marked when I flew past it a couple of months back.

 

But the VNC makes no reference to Wiggy's strip at all and labels the ESC strip as Euroa instead.

 

A lot of traffic, including army helos, follow the iron compass from Wodonga to Seymour and their flight path takes them right between the two Euroas. The two strips are 4.4 NM apart and I would have thought the confusion to be something worth clearing up.

 

ASA didn't seem to agree when I reported it.

 

Kaz

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Thats interesting, I couldnt find the southern strip and was told it was closed. Definitely needs clearing up.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

YEUA about 3 NM NW of Euroa.

 

 

[kaz3g]

YEUA about 3 NM NW of Euroa.

Yes Don and that is the issue...

 

YEUA is marked on the VNC and called "Euroa" at the old soaring centre site north of the highway. There is nothing shown on the VNC south of the highway near the township.

 

But if you look at the WAC, the private strip put in by Leo Wignell south of the town is labelled "Euroa" and the strip north of the highway is labelled "Euroa Soaring Centre".

 

Worse, YEUA has no discrete frequency so one would use 126.7 if following the CAAP. But it is less than 10 NM from both Longwood and Locksley which operate on the Mangalore CTAF, 121.1 and Locksley would generally have more traffic than "Euroa".

 

There is regular traffic following the iron compass north and south between Benalla and Seymour, including military helicopters.

 

So the question of which frequency to be on is still moot, although I would be on 122.4 and rely on the red-headed controller. To keep me safe.

 

Kaz

 

 

[AVOCET]

Area freq. doesnt come in till 2000 ft agl , so every one , ( 5 airstrips within aprox 20 miles from Hawker )

 

All use 126.7 .

 

Only 3 airstrips are ALA

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I prefer to join downwind especially if I know the airport.

 

Joining crosswind at Narromine (Ausfly), I had a fast aircraft coming in on downwind - no problem (thanks Unicom) - but potential for conflict and even a "mid-air passenger exchange".

 

 

[kaz3g]

Area freq. doesnt come in till 2000 ft agl , so every one , ( 5 airstrips within aprox 20 miles from Hawker )All use 126.7 .

Only 3 airstrips are ALA

Is the 2000' thing because of range/interference in your neck of the woods?

 

Kaz

 

 

[AVOCET]

Thats right , interference from the Flinders ,although we'r 1400 AMSL .st Maries peaks 3831 ft

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Sounds to me as though one should not overfly at less than 2000 ft AGL (3000 ft for a gliding strip that uses a winch); and have the area frequency selected as the "active" frequency, with 126.7 as the standby - and activate "dual watch" (if your VHF COM has that function) so both frequencies are monitored. I normally use overhead join on any field I'm not familiar with - and even on ones that I am familiar with if they are at all busy; I find it much easier to locate the traffic and slot in with it that way. You're also much easier for other traffic at circuit height to spot; that's a consideration in a slow aircraft.

 

It's something of a dilemma with a powered glider whether one should land it with power on - in which case you fly a "power" circuit, using dive brakes against the engine, since a 2-stroke should not be operated at idle in flight; or whether to shut the engine down and land in pure glider mode, making a 500 ft circuit. That choice would depend on the circumstances; at a gliding field, I prefer the "glider mode" option; at somewhere like Bundaberg or Hervey Bay, it would be more appropriate to use the "power" option.

 

Anybody care to comment?

 

 

[kaz3g]

...It's something of a dilemma with a powered glider whether one should land it with power on -

 

Anybody care to comment?

Decisions, decisions...

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

The achiles heel in the see and be seen policy which CASA introduced a few years ago is that in a low wing powered aircraft you can't see someone on final below you if you've missed them in the circuit and gliders are notorious for bad radios, so a five hundred foot circuit these days is a very brace decision. Years ago the radio calls would have placed both the powered aircraft and the glider in the circuit with some certainty, but these days I wouldn't trust a circuit which gave a chance of missing a visual of the other aircraft.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes, well, there's a bit of a campaign to improve glider radios; the old days of exclusive gliding frequencies and 2 watt hand-helds are passing, and about time, too - tho some gliding fields still use 122.7 or 122.9 if they are well away from a CTAF zone. "Touring" motor-gliders - which are the ones normally likely to land at non-gliding fields - have a bit more electrical power available, so they are likely to have similar radios to most other recreational aircraft. The pilots will either have a PPL or will have undergone training in that sort of operation, so their radio calls should conform to normal practice. The see and be seen bit is often a question of who is above the horizon and who is below it; the safest way to approach a gliding field in a powered aircraft is sometimes argued to be at low level, provided you do not get anywhere near a winch wire, because that way you will be able to see the gliders much more readily. A pure glider has right of way once committed to a landing, over powered aircraft, so there's your "Duty of care" again, Turbs.

 

Similarly, gliders have a very good field of view, so there's an argument for the 500 ft circuit, turning final at around 250 ft close-in, because the power traffic will be above you and therefore highly visible; obviously a glider pilot would be unwise to turn final under the nose of a powered aircraft that is on final further out; having right-of-way is all very well, but the powered aircraft may have right-of-weight. Gliders normally increase speed from mid-downwind, and fly at 50 ~ 55 knots, so the speed differential is typically around 15 to 20 knots, and because they use dive brakes, the final leg is short and steep. The less time they are on final, the better; it's seldom more than about 30 seconds. Combined Ops fields usually separate the glider and power landing strips, and in that situation, the 500 ft circuit makes more sense. It doesn't if everybody has to use the same runway.

 

If I had to "mix it" with other power traffic on the same runway, I'd choose to fly a standard "power" circuit, because that means the other pilots do not need to think about anything unusual.