Radio frequencies

[djpacro]

Comments close tomorrow so I guess that they will wait until after that before deciding.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Comments close tomorrow so I guess that they will wait until after that before deciding.

Well there you go, I was of the belief that V4 release was the result.

Maybe somebody jumped the gun with the release???

 

 

[Yenn]

i have just scanned through the CAAP and it doesn't seem to change anything.

 

I am of the opinion that the radio usage required by CASA is better than using multicom 126.7 for all the un marked airstrips that we use. I know a lot of people would prefer to use 126.7, but there are disadvantages and I have put my 2 bobs worth in to CASA.

 

As it stands at the moment there are pilots who refuse to comply with CASAs directive to use area frequency, because they think it is bad policy. They are only making it unsafe for all as we have no idea which frequency they will be using. I consider it appallingly bad airmanship to insist on using the wrong frequency, because they consider they know better than CASA. I am not saying CASA knows best, but I am saying it is safer to stick to what is legally required and if CASA find that the area frequency becomes clogged they will have to make a further change. Time will tell what the result of the discussion paper is and until then I will stick with the legally required procedure.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I am saying it is safer to stick to what is legally required and if CASA

Keep in mind that other then Reg & Cert airports radio is not required "legally". So what is best practice comes down to opinions, I accept that, but if submissions are ignored (and maybe most submissions were in accordance with your opinion) remember a CAAP is only advisory not a CAR or CASR.

 

I find interesting V4 is released, as DJ pointed out, before the submission expirery date.

 

Reminds of something else, but better left unsaid.

 

 

[djpacro]

Note in the CAAP explains the reason for that amendment and what was changed, just one paragraph.

 

 

[apm]

Just attended a CASA avsafety meeting, this issue was discused where they pointed out that still 1 day for submissions and asked for those who have not made a submission to do so, said it will take at least a couple of months to go through the results. this latest CAAP is just reiterating current law.

 

Keep in mind that other then Reg & Cert airports radio is not required "legally".

true. But if you have a radio it is supposed to be working and monitoring the published frequency.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I see the closing date for comments has been extended to the 5th May.

 

 

[derekliston]

I fly fro Warwick which has its own frequency but if I head for Clifton, Stanthorpe etc there are a multitude of stations transmitting on 126.7 and often it is difficult to make out, for a variety of reasons, from whence they are calling. Not sure what the answer is but I'm not fond of 126.7 and I'm not sure area would be any better!

 

 

[kaz3g]

A good first step would be getting some of the more frequently used but still uncharted strips added to the WAC. Most of us are using OzRunways and I expect the majority also have the added airfield information from the AOPA country Airstrips Guide. Put them on the WAC and be done with it.

 

A second would be to allocate different discrete frequencies to some of those already on the chart that currently use 126.7 to reduce congestion on this frequency.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Yenn]

Could also get some of the charted strips that are not used taken off the charts, I sould use 126.7at Miriam Vale, but not at Rods bay. A landing at miriam Vale would be interesting as it was planted to forestry many years ago, although you would survive as the trees are just about big enough to make matchsticks.

 

Frank are you saying that the CAAP is not legal and we could legally ignore it and use 126.7 wherever we feel like it?P

 

 

[frank marriott]

Frank are you saying that the CAAP is not legal and we could legally ignore it and use 126.7 wherever we feel like it?P

Not suggesting anything, only pointing to the fact some things are law and others are advisory. Read both and make up your own mind.

 

 

[derekliston]

I think it would be helpful if pilots spoke more slowly and very distinctly pronounced their field location. It is, as I said before, sometimes difficult to tell where they are since 126.7 covers a plethora of airstrips. As an example, yesterday I heard someone calling what I thought was Brisbane traffic and couldn't work out why they were on 126.7. I eventually realised they were calling Clifton traffic!

 

 

[M61A1]

I think it would be helpful if pilots spoke more slowly and very distinctly pronounced their field location. It is, as I said before, sometimes difficult to tell where they are since 126.7 covers a plethora of airstrips. As an example, yesterday I heard someone calling what I thought was Brisbane traffic and couldn't work out why they were on 126.7. I eventually realised they were calling Clifton traffic!

Was that a low mumbly voice that waffles a lot? (not me, but I was getting annoyed by them the other day,)

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Yep Wal, that's another problem that is of CASAs making - the actual content of the radio call - but that's probably worthy of another thread itself. Personally putting "location" then "traffic" is stupid to the n-th degree. Many pilots start to speak then after they start chop the mike button having cut off the actual location or part of it. And even if they do co-ordinate the button press the first another pilot hears is "crackle-muffle-something Traffic" and then by the time your attention is grabbed the important information ie the location is lost. And many people don't state the location again at the end. That bit would all be solved by reversing the order so it was "Traffic" ( grabs your attention and allows for the button press) then "location".

 

The discussion here so far is that it has highlighted several sub-areas of the discussion but still doesn't address some others.

 

But a major problem is the rule which which separates airfields according to their being published on a map. Problem is that many airfields appear on some maps and not others. So under the current rules you may not even be aware that some map somewhere shows an airfield and so redefines what frequency you should be on - whether it's a good idea or not.

 

Then there's the principle about which frequencies are more sensible for particular airfields. Making a blanket rule has failed and can not be made to work. There are so many variables about airfields.

 

 

[derekliston]

Often I hear a pilot spitting out their details as rapidly as possible mainly cause they do it repetitively same comments same place same scenario, but unless you are really switched on, know the area well most of it gets jumbled up & mostly missed by passing traffic. When I do a GNSS arrival into some CTAF drome I always give my location & Intention in very plain language at a readable rate, gives the poor farmer guy in his C150 a chance to take it all in.

That's what I need! Yesterday whilst tracking from Warwick to Pittsworth I was hearing radio traffic from Clifton, McCaffery? (gliding field near Dalby?) Stanthorpe. some place I think they said Wee Waa (Is that how you spell it?) and several that I could not tell you from whence they came.

 

 

[derekliston]

Yep Wal, that's another problem that is of CASAs making - the actual content of the radio call - but that's probably worthy of another thread itself. Personally putting "location" then "traffic" is stupid to the n-th degree. Many pilots start to speak then after they start chop the mike button having cut off the actual location or part of it. And even if they do co-ordinate the button press the first another pilot hears is "crackle-muffle-something Traffic" and then by the time your attention is grabbed the important information ie the location is lost. And many people don't state the location again at the end. That bit would all be solved by reversing the order so it was "Traffic" ( grabs your attention and allows for the button press) then "location". The discussion here so far is that it has highlighted several sub-areas of the discussion but still doesn't address some others.

 

But a major problem is the rule which which separates airfields according to their being published on a map. Problem is that many airfields appear on some maps and not others. So under the current rules you may not even be aware that some map somewhere shows an airfield and so redefines what frequency you should be on - whether it's a good idea or not.

 

Then there's the principle about which frequencies are more sensible for particular airfields. Making a blanket rule has failed and can not be made to work. There are so many variables about airfields.

With you on that one. Often only hear "traffic" no location. I plead guilty to sometimes forget ing to repeat location at end of message but I'm getting better. Another problem, which can happen on any frequency, is commencing a call and having someone transmit over the top of you!

 

 

[Yenn]

If you have something sensible to say send it to CASA. They have extended the debate by a week and no matter what you say here it will only make a difference if you go through the CASA .

 

 

[Oscar]

With you on that one. Often only hear "traffic" no location. I plead guilty to sometimes forget ing to repeat location at end of message but I'm getting better. Another problem, which can happen on any frequency, is commencing a call and having someone transmit over the top of you!

I commend a read of the attached submission from the DDSAA:

 

If you agree, then make the effort to report that to the CASA submission procedure.

 

CASA Submission for Frequency use at lower levels -Multicon March 2017-1.doc

 

CASA Submission for Frequency use at lower levels -Multicon March 2017-1.doc

 

CASA Submission for Frequency use at lower levels -Multicon March 2017-1.doc

[Yenn]

Trevor Banges submission looks good, but there are a couple of discrepancies in his wordy submission.

 

There should be no doubt as to which fields are on the charts. It is only Airservices charts and they are the ones that I see when I use Avplan, I assume Ozrunways would be he same as they both have to be approved.

 

There is no 2 yearly re validation of airstrips on the charts. YMIM has not been an airstrip for 20 years and I would be surprised if someone has revalidated it every 2 years.

 

My personal preference is to go with CASA, that way I get alerting to RPT traffic and IFR traffic that could be near me. The only problem I see is that the airwaves could be clogged, especially if we all gave all the calls that could be considered required. Maybe those who really want 126.7 everywhere should give all the calls and that could influence CASA.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Could also get some of the charted strips that are not used taken off the charts...

Government cutbacks must have gutted Airservices; It took them a few years to correct an error In the charts that I reported several times. Unfortunately, instead of correcting all maps which contained the error, they have changed only the Hybrid VFR.

 

There doesn't seem to be much room in the brave new modern streamlined government service sector for pride in workmanship and dedication to accuracy.

 

 

[Yenn]

It seems that there is still lack of knowledge about what frequency we should be using. Yesterday talking to pilot friend of mine, he told me he was using 126.7 at our local field which is not on any charts. He knew I was using area frequency 119.55 and we were both flying at the same time. Now I reckon I was flying within the legal requirements, but my friend told me that his father in law worked for CASA and had advised him that 126.7 was the correct frequency. He also said that 126.7 was the obvious frequency to use as it would stop area being clogged up with chatter.

 

It would be good to get the final say so from CASA as to what is the law and also why.

 

 

[nathan_c]

Your friend is wrong. If the field is not listed on any chart, it is the area frequency you should be on, not 126.7. Your friends uncles brothers wifes long lost lover could be the CEO of CASA and it wouldnt matter what they said, it matters what the rules say.

 

AIP ENR 1.1 - 79, para 7.5.1 states:

 

7.5.1 Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF frequency and announce if in potential conflict. Pilots intercepting broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge by transmitting own callsign and, as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions.

 

7.5.1.1 The appropriate VHF frequency stated in para 7.5.1 is:

 

a. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete CTAF shown (including Broadcast Area CTAF), or otherwise;

 

b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the MULTICOM 126.7; or

 

c. In all other cases, Area VHF

 

That is the final say so from CASA, that is the law, straight out of AIP. Until the current discussion paper is finalised and changes made to AIP, thats what you should be doing, its black and white.

 

 

[poteroo]

that is the law, straight out of AIP

the law is an ass, and this 'law' is an asses posterior

 

 

[nathan_c]

the law is an ass, and this 'law' is an asses posterior

Maybe so but whether we agree with it or not does not change whether we have to comply.

 

 

[ian00798]

I feel like this topic has been covered a lot, and casa has actually issued a lot of guidance on it. As per what Nathan put up, the law is very clear, and it's a bit concerning how many so called pilots seem incapable of finding the information on their own. You have a pilots licence, it is your job to keep up with the regulations. And no, my friends father in law is a lawyer doesn't count, find the rules yourself.

 

the law is an ass, and this 'law' is an asses posterior

Doesn't matter whether you like the rules or not, other pilots are relying on you following them so damn well do it, if you disagree with the rule then put your input into the submission.