RAA Altitude limitations

[Yenn]

I fly from a strip that is not on the charts, therefore I must use the area frequency. I am 15 nm from Gladstone which uses 118.8 frequency. I am close to Agnes Waters which uses 126.7.

 

Legally I have to take off on area frequency and if going towards gladstone quickly change to Gladstone frequency. Going anywhere else stay on area.

 

I hear Qantas talking to centre or centre telling Qantas that I am near them, so I identify myself to centre, they tell me to talk to qantas on gladstone frequency. That is OK but what a stuff up.

 

If I go to Agnes Waters I will not hear any incoming traffic from the other side of the airport, because area frequency changes at Agnes.

 

My solution would be for landing and taking off traffic to use 126.7 or whatever designated frequency is used when less than 1500' above GL.

 

I suppose CASA will ot move until there is an incident caused by their stupid ruling.

 

 

[Garfly]

Regarding position reporting to Centre, I've often wondered how many of "unidentified VFR traffic" targets that Centre refers to are 1200 xponder paints and how many might be showing up on primary radar.

 

And when ATC warns a VFR UFO that it's approaching R-space or CTA, is it usually 1200 codes they're seeing, or even, is it just the ones they're flight following?

 

I know - from discussions we've had here before - that even ultralights do paint, usually, but it's interesting to hear that it's far from always the case. It seems a good reason to listen up on Centre and then pipe-up if necessary.

 

Most RAAus pilots, on FIA, it appears, prefer to err on the side of modest silence.

 

 

[facthunter]

I wouldn't like a rule like that to be more than a recommendation, Yenn. Pilots individually should make decisions like that based on local knowledge and practice and traffic density. The circuit where I'm going unless remote and private, gets a lot of attention from me by about 10 miles. If you have feeder airline/charter ops, I'd like to know where they are also. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

Yenn, I can't quote the regs but from memory I think you are supposed to be using the nearest strip frequency if within 10 nm. I am 8 nm from an airport and fly out of a paddock and monitor its frequency. If I was 15 nm I would still moniter it.

 

 

[Camel]

Yenn, I can't quote the regs but from memory I think you are supposed to be using the nearest strip frequency if within 10 nm. I am 8 nm from an airport and fly out of a paddock and monitor its frequency. If I was 15 nm I would still moniter it.

Caap 166

 

7.3 Positional broadcasts

 

7.3.1 When departing or arriving at non-controlled aerodromes, pilots should monitor their radios and broadcast their intentions in accordance with the following and paragraph 7.3.4:

 

•  When at or near a non-controlled aerodrome or in a Broadcast Area with a CTAF, including those assigned Multicom 126.7, listen and broadcast as necessary on the published frequency.
   
   
   
   
  
•  When at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes marked on charts that have not been assigned a discrete frequency, use Multicom 126.7.
   
   
   
   
  
•  When operating at aerodromes not depicted on aeronautical charts, pilots should monitor and broadcast their intentions on the relevant Area VHF.
   
   
   
  

 

 

Note 1:

 

Note 2:

 

The intent is to ensure broadcasts are made on a frequency that other aircraft in the vicinity will be monitoring. A broadcast made only on Multicom 126.7 at an aerodrome whose existence is only known through local knowledge is misguided, as transiting aircraft relying on aeronautical charts for aerodrome location information will be monitoring area frequency.

 

Nonetheless, pilots should study all authorised aeronautical charts relevant to their flight route and category, in accordance with CAR 233 (1)(h). This is because some details may be omitted from charts of different scales even though they cover the same area (usually to avoid clutter).4

 

 

[kaz3g]

Why? ...Because it is an Order it is an EXEMPTION to the Regs so they write it that way because that's the way exemptions have always been drafted

Hi kasper

 

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00228

 

I agree that breaching any of the conditions, including not complying with Operations and Technical Manuals, renders an RAA pilot liable to charges for breaching a number of the CASRs

 

3 Exemptions under regulation 11.160

 

 

 

3.1 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988:

 

 

 

(a) Parts 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D;

 

 

 

(b) regulation 37;

 

 

 

© subregulations 83 (1) and (2) in respect of VHF equipment;

 

 

 

(d) regulations 133, 139 and 157;

 

 

 

(e) regulations 207 and 208;

 

(f) regulation 230;

 

 

 

(g) subregulation 242 (2);

 

 

 

(h) regulation 252;

 

 

 

(i) regulation 258.

 

But the point I was making is that the exemption is contained in CAO 3.1 and in general terms, the rest of the Order is written as a series of proscriptions just like the CASR's or "conditions" followed by a series of exceptions (not exemptions).

 

Whether or not this is how it's always been done is a moot point; it's whether it provides readers with the clearest understanding of the content and intent that's important. And it very clearly doesn't in my view.

 

The old CARs were written in relatively plain English and each generally dealt with all aspects of a particular issue therein. It ought not be unreasonable to expect the same in the CASR and the CAO's (putting aside the fact that our new regs are incredibly verbose, punitive and many times more voluminous than those in either USA or NZ).

 

Although this latest version of the CAO is a significant improvement on the 2011 version and The DAS should be commended for it, we still deserve a whole lot better. Of greatest concern is the catch-all nature of the exemption clause and the way it renders a pilot potentially liable for a number of ancillary offences entirely unrelated to the substantive offence. The use of strict liability provisions in conjunction with this I think severely offends the basic right to a presumption of innocence and the argument that mens rea should not be an element of a defence in matters of public safety shouldn't extend to this situation.

 

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this last contention.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kasper]

Hi kasper

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00228

 

I agree that breaching any of the conditions, including not complying with Operations and Technical Manuals, renders an RAA pilot liable to charges for breaching a number of the CASRs

 

3 Exemptions under regulation 11.160

 

 

 

3.1 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988:

 

 

 

(a) Parts 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D;

 

 

 

(b) regulation 37;

 

 

 

© subregulations 83 (1) and (2) in respect of VHF equipment;

 

 

 

(d) regulations 133, 139 and 157;

 

 

 

(e) regulations 207 and 208;

 

(f) regulation 230;

 

 

 

(g) subregulation 242 (2);

 

 

 

(h) regulation 252;

 

 

 

(i) regulation 258.

 

But the point I was making is that the exemption is contained in CAO 3.1 and in general terms, the rest of the Order is written as a series of proscriptions just like the CASR's or "conditions" followed by a series of exceptions (not exemptions).

 

Whether or not this is how it's always been done is a moot point; it's whether it provides readers with the clearest understanding of the content and intent that's important. And it very clearly doesn't in my view.

 

The old CARs were written in relatively plain English and each generally dealt with all aspects of a particular issue therein. It ought not be unreasonable to expect the same in the CASR and the CAO's (putting aside the fact that our new regs are incredibly verbose, punitive and many times more voluminous than those in either USA or NZ).

 

Although this latest version of the CAO is a significant improvement on the 2011 version and The DAS should be commended for it, we still deserve a whole lot better. Of greatest concern is the catch-all nature of the exemption clause and the way it renders a pilot potentially liable for a number of ancillary offences entirely unrelated to the substantive offence. The use of strict liability provisions in conjunction with this I think severely offends the basic right to a presumption of innocence and the argument that mens rea should not be an element of a defence in matters of public safety shouldn't extend to this situation.

 

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this last contention.

 

Kaz

Well you can argue till the cows come home about the general fairness and/or validity of strict liability versus intentional liability laws.

The fact is that the entirety of CAO95.55, 95.10 and 95.32 are exemptions and are strict liability - no mens rea (guilty mind) require. Failing to meet the requirements of the exemption renders you outside the exemption and all the bits of the CARs apply to you.

 

Then you have to look into the CARs and the individual 'offenses' that you are open to now that you are no longer exempt from operation of parts of the CARs and work out if that CAR is strict liability of requires intent ... and even then you still have to look on a case by case basis at HOW CASA have chosen to prosecute because it may be that a strict liability breach has been prosecuted under a separate power that requires intent.

 

And even if there is strict liability for finding fault and even of there is strict liability on penalty you can sometimes look to sentencing powers available to the magistrate/judge to ameliorate the impact of the penalty due to the lack of intent ...

 

Yes the law is a complex place and solicitors keep jokingly getting it in the neck for the complexity of the system and the fact that there are tortuous option within the end-to-end system BUT to be fair if you reduce the law to absolute strict liability its brutality of impact without regard for individual circumstances would be horrendous to the population and if its no strict liability and entirely subjective you end up with a system that favors those with \resources to 'beat' the system and a series of laws that are principles only that are near on impossible to explain to the population who live under them.

 

A mid point of strict definition of rules to allow explanation to the population coupled to intention and/or individual assessment of penalty is what is usually aimed for.

 

Hows that for an answer?

 

 

[facthunter]

Cop it because . er well because we can get away with it, because we are the authority and you can go see a taxidermist. If you annoy us we will make an example of you . Count on it. We have deeper pockets than you because it's your taxes we are spending . The system stinks. If you don't believe me dig up some previous cases. Talk to AOPA. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I know what the rules stipulate, but there is a lot of room for improvement. I should be on area when I take off, but it would be better to be on Gladstone 118.8 and I suppose I could be on 126.7 which I could argue was the airstrip on the chatrs at Miriam Vale, where there hasn't been a strip for twenty years, but it is on the charts.

 

What I really do is keep a good lookout, listen to area and if neccesary speak, or if I have heard incoming to Gladstone then change to gladstone.

 

As far as radar goes, I am seen when flying the RV, but the Corby seems to be invisible as it has no transponder.

 

 

[facthunter]

And it's made of wood mostly. I'm sure the pilot has a lot of mettle. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

Perhaps if pilots instead of lawyers could understand the rules, they might be worth the paper they are written on

 

 

[frank marriott]

I find it amazing that a simple question by deadstick which was answered in the first 2 replies can go off at a tangent with 61 posts and growing. Maybe it's just the nature of the Internet but still amazing.

 

 

[Garfly]

It's not only the internet.

 

In the real world conversations wander too.

 

I think it'd be amazing if they didn't.

 

 

[frank marriott]

It's not only the internet.In the real world conversations wander too.

I think it'd be amazing if they didn't.

OK I'll shut up

 

 

[nathan_c]

Regarding position reporting to Centre, I've often wondered how many of "unidentified VFR traffic" targets that Centre refers to are 1200 xponder paints and how many might be showing up on primary radar. And when ATC warns a VFR UFO that it's approaching R-space or CTA, is it usually 1200 codes they're seeing, or even, is it just the ones they're flight following?

I know - from discussions we've had here before - that even ultralights do paint, usually, but it's interesting to hear that it's far from always the case. It seems a good reason to listen up on Centre and then pipe-up if necessary.

 

Most RAAus pilots, on FIA, it appears, prefer to err on the side of modest silence.

Usually its only quite close in to major cities that have approach services (think BN, SY, CS, ML etc) that have a primary radar so I cant speak for them, but if I see a 1200 paint (or any transponder paint for that matter) that is about to bust a RA (for me this can either be R639 west of Amberley or R737 west of Townsville), I will be making broadcasts to the aircraft to try and alert them. Its pretty rare but it does happen and it doesnt matter if they are receiving flight following or not, its still a requirement for me to try and stop it happening if we see the radar paint. If I cant contact the aircraft and it continues towards the RA, thats when I have to be calling up AMB or TL and informing them about the lighty thats about to mix it with the fighter jets and thats not much fun!

 

As for the comments about listening on area, its always appreciated on our end when we can contact and confirm the vfr paints have the traffic, because it can be uncomfortable when no one responds and they are heading straight at another aircraft. We also give traffic info on other vfr paints in the area if you are getting close to them and are listening out, which usually just results in confirmation that everyone is already aware of each other, but its nice to know for sure!

 

 

[Garfly]

Thanks, Nathan, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

 

And Frank, please don't go quiet on us. Indeed, it was your saying on this thread that

 

"An understanding of what IFR traffic is doing is imperative at these levels, at least IMO, especially when visibility is limited" that got me thinking ... and then asking about radar and about radio use. I've learned a lot already and I was hoping some of the ATC people here might also contribute.

 

So, Nathan, is there a procedural form of words for when - out of the blue - you just want to identify yourself on the FIA freq. with position and intentions because you suspect a conflict with an IFR flight - or some other VFR flight - you hear about. And does it make a difference if you have a transponder or not - as to how you announce yourself? It's not exactly a "Request". But would you that format to initiate contact? But then if the controller you're talking to doesn't have primary radar, then all nil-transponder aircraft are totally invisible so there's not much you can do with the information anyway, other than pass it on, as reported. So, maybe, as some have suggested, the call should be to "All aircraft in the XXX area ... " ? I'm not sure if my naive questions make much sense but this is the kind of stuff that's hard to find in books.

 

gary.

 

 

[nathan_c]

If you want to know the information about some traffic then it is indeed a request, so feel free to give us a call with "centre skyranger xxxx request" or something like that. I'm not sure what's in there as far as vfr traffic is concerned but you can always have a look at the AIP for official phraseologies. Its also easier for us if you contact us like that first and not just launch straight into lots of info because that way we can be ready to copy down info.

 

As for whether it makes a difference on how you announce yourself, its probably best just to assume that we cant see you. If you are going to give us a call let us know your position (e.g aircraft type, 20 miles south of emerald, estimating 'position' at 'time', maintaining 5500 ft. Request traffic details on callsign x) It helps if you give us a more known location rather than a random dirt strip or town as we will be able to identify your location quicker (Our location knowledge is generally pretty good, but we dont know every little obscure place out there). Even if we cant see you, we can give you an exact report of the other identified aircrafts location, or worst case pass on there reported position as you said. If after all that it turns out we can see you on radar, well that's just icing on the cake and allows us to give even more accurate position information.

 

Never be afraid to give us a yell and ask us about something, we don't bite and if we hear you we will help you out whatever way we can. Especially if we are giving your position as traffic to other aircraft, its way better for us to know who you are and what your intentions are because we can make a much better assessment of if you will be in conflict, rather than having no idea what way you will track or what level you may change too. Also don't be too concerned about messing up a call or not using exact phraseologies etc, while obviously we prefer it and it makes it more efficient, I cant think of a controller that will bite your head off just because you messed up a call. I mean you should hear some of the IFR guys ramble on sometimes, and for that matter ATC's too ;)

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

[Stoney]

Usually its only quite close in to major cities that have approach services (think BN, SY, CS, ML etc) that have a primary radar so I cant speak for them, but if I see a 1200 paint (or any transponder paint for that matter) that is about to bust a RA (for me this can either be R639 west of Amberley or R737 west of Townsville), I will be making broadcasts to the aircraft to try and alert them. Its pretty rare but it does happen and it doesnt matter if they are receiving flight following or not, its still a requirement for me to try and stop it happening if we see the radar paint. If I cant contact the aircraft and it continues towards the RA, thats when I have to be calling up AMB or TL and informing them about the lighty thats about to mix it with the fighter jets and thats not much fun!As for the comments about listening on area, its always appreciated on our end when we can contact and confirm the vfr paints have the traffic, because it can be uncomfortable when no one responds and they are heading straight at another aircraft. We also give traffic info on other vfr paints in the area if you are getting close to them and are listening out, which usually just results in confirmation that everyone is already aware of each other, but its nice to know for sure!

Thanks Nathan, I have contacted Melbourne Centre on my last two flights.

 

Firstly when flying towards Tailem Bend (which is often used for radio beacon navigation exercises). Melbourne Centre advised an IFR training flight of my position and noted "unknown intentions". I always feel better when I know the intentions of aircraft in my vicinity, so I called Centre and advised my position and intentions, and that I had the other aircraft in sight. I think all involved are then happier and more comfortable that we all have situational awareness, and even though VFR, I am on the correct channel and actively monitoring.

 

A few days ago, I was flying from Sherlock to Brooklands Airpark (YBAK) which is just inside the edge of the Langhorne Creek parachuting zone. I had heard the drop plane giving intentions, but did not respond as I did not intend to fly through the area, but only I knew that. Melbourne Centre then called something like "VFR aircraft, flying at 2,500', 6 miles SE of Tailem Bend. You are about to enter a parachute drop zone." I called Centre and confirmed my position and advised that I was aware of the drop zone and would remain clear and stay East of the river. Both ATC and the drop plane acknowledged, and we all got on with what we were doing.

 

We have radios for communication for good reason. Area frequency, is not usually that congested that we can't make a quick call where there is potential conflict, even if only to put other peoples mind at ease.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I certainly agree that area frequency is helpful and I have also spoken up (albeit not always with the perfect response!) when area has identified me to others and will continue to try and do that. I do still think there is room for improvement though in regards to flying from strips not on the charts. Our little aero club often flys to farm strips not on the charts that are more than the ten mile limit from a ctaf, IMO if you had a dozen or more planes telling centre they were joining midfield crosswind at joe blogs farm it would create havoc and in a lot of cases any traffic that was flying 500-2000agl through those areas wouldn't be listening to area frequency anyway. I am lucky inasmuch as I can monitor dual frequencies easily but I know there are quite a few who can't and when flying below 5000 they tend to be always on a ctaf either on the one they have departed from or set up on the one they are heading towards.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Nathan

 

Thankyou for that very informative post. I will certainly take heed of it and will now make more of a effort in that area to be heard and so I can be "seen".

 

 

[coljones]

I certainly agree that area frequency is helpful and I have also spoken up (albeit not always with the perfect response!) when area has identified me to others and will continue to try and do that. I do still think there is room for improvement though in regards to flying from strips not on the charts. Our little aero club often flys to farm strips not on the charts that are more than the ten mile limit from a ctaf, IMO if you had a dozen or more planes telling centre they were joining midfield crosswind at joe blogs farm it would create havoc and in a lot of cases any traffic that was flying 500-2000agl through those areas wouldn't be listening to area frequency anyway. I am lucky inasmuch as I can monitor dual frequencies easily but I know there are quite a few who can't and when flying below 5000 they tend to be always on a ctaf either on the one they have departed from or set up on the one they are heading towards.

I spend a lot of time in the sydney basin on 124.55 and I wouldn't say that it is particularly heavily used. The point of using Area Frequency outside a CTAF is that you have to start somewhere. If one were to use a "secret" frequency at a private, secret strip then there is a high degree of likely hood that someone cruising by at 500 feet (as one can do over not over inhabited spaces) will not have a clue that others are there doing whatever one does at unmapped strips and be in and become part of a dangerous encounter with no warning.

124.55 has much less radio congestion than, say, YSBK. On a recent trip to YGLB and Nowra the radio beyond Mittagong was almost silent for over an hour, nowhere near congested and it would have been a relief to hear a bit of chatter to break the silence.

 

Maybe 126.7 below 5000 would work but it is another rule you have to remember and there is potential conflict at the boundary.

 

IMMHO

 

 

[DrZoos]

Just make a call to say leaving area frequency to land at XYZ. Then make circuit calls on 126.7

 

When taking off make one call on 126.7 and one on Area..once airborne make a call on area with location and intentions...

 

I dont want to hear your taxi entering etc on Area frequency

 

Thats'just my 2 cents worth

 

 

[Garfly]

The near miss of two Bonanza's over the Hunter a few years back is instructive:

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-121.aspx

 

Seems the 'big sky' theory ain't all that dependable.