Radio frequencies

[scre80]

Hopefully will be resolved soon for the better. Last time I spoke on area freq for a private airfield, was told I was on wrong freq.

 

 

[facthunter]

If the system can be interpreted many ways It's up to the regulator to make matters more clear to the people who use the system. It's a serious safety issue. Confusion and Aviation are a bad mix. No one can understand a lawyers letter but another lawyer. Even CASA people can't work out the meaning of some of this stuff. They each come out with their own version of it. Nev

 

 

[nathan_c]

But thats the thing, there should not be any confusion about this.... It is listed in black and white in the AIP what we are supposed to be doing. If people read the documents we wouldnt have an issue.

 

The reason there is confusion and the reason we have people doing and suggesting other methods, is because they either havnt read the documentation so they dont know the rules in the first place (which is a serious safety issue) or they think they know better or think it should be how it used to be etc (which is another serious safety issue.)

 

If someone thinks their way is better then good for them, but it doesnt give them the right to operate in contradiction to the clearly defined rules (and they are indeed clearly defined as I posted them above.) If someone wants how its done changed then they need to submit that to the regulator (and funnily enough thats why there has been a recent muchly discussed discussion paper on this exact issue) and if the regulator deems there to be a need to change, they will change it, update AIP and then we all follow the new standard. Simple as that.

 

Until such time as AIP is changed or not changed depending on the outcome of the discussion paper (and for all those that feel so strongly that the current method is wrong, did you put in your input on it?), anyone who is suggesting anything other than what is listed as the rules in AIP needs to firstly be educated as to what the rules actually are and why operating in contradiction to them is dangerous, and if they choose to continue with the incorrect practices then I hope they arent flying anywhere near me because I will not be on the same frequency as them clearly, I'll be talking to all the other pilots doing the right thing.

 

 

[facthunter]

The rules only work if they are capable of working and everybody complies with them. Legally you must comply. there's no doubt about that, but the rules have been foolish and ignored before. Is the CASA trusted in this area? Nev

 

 

[nathan_c]

So what you are saying is that because some don't comply no one should? And that because some consider the rules foolish then we should not be trusting CASA, and doing it our way anyway?

 

Thats the exact 'We know better so we will do it our way anyway" attitude that is causing problems in the first place. The rules as they are now are capable of working but you are correct, they are only good if everyone complies. It's the people not complying that are endangering everyone because they are the 5% of pilots that cause others to second guess what everyone else could be doing.

 

Right or wrong and whether you trust them or not, CASA has set out the regulations. If you want to fly in Australia, you follow what they say. If you think they are wrong, question it, put in a request for change, but don't break them because you feel it could be done better because then you are the odd one out, not the other pilots doing the right thing.

 

You might think one rule is foolish so we should be doing it your way, but I might think your way is foolish for my own reasons and there begins a cycle of no one doing the same thing because no one wanted to follow the rules in the first place.

 

 

[ian00798]

This is one of the few casa rules that is crystal clear and they have actually gone out of their way to clarify, how hard is it to just follow it until the law is changed???

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm NOT suggesting anything, except realise the situation. We should make the system perform better by insisting on better rules where they are not good enough, if that is the situation. In the meantime it's the law. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

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.

 

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.

if you disagree with the rule then put your input into the submission.

I have certainly done that via an individual submission, via AOPA as well, and via taking CASA to task at local Safety Seminar.

 

Our regulator should be corrected whenever they decide to change rules away from what is practical and commonsense.

 

Lighten up - where CASA is concerned, the 'ass' joke becomes a statement of fact,something aviators such as Nev and myself have been dealing with for over 50 years.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I have used both126.7 and area as have run into other aircraft on the wrong numbers inbound. I actually got answered on both on numerous occasions. Both from GA and RAA pilots.

 

My rule of thumb these days is to use area then go to 126.7 and see who is around. And yes I have been on the wrong frequency now and again ( my mistake). But again consider some fly with NO radio, which of course is legal or those who just don't answer when they should.

 

 

[facthunter]

Radio is considered an aid to separation together with see and be seen. If you are on a frequency that others aren't on you and they are out of the information loop. Interference, congestion poor installation (interference and noise) and poor technique render the radio far less effective than it should and could be. Some don't have radio but that doesn't come into the frequency question does it? Talking about the system we have, not one we might have in different circumstances.. I could write pages about this. Suffice to say we haven't got far in more years than I want to think about. Do you ever hear someone doing a radio check? It would be rare so how do you know it's working? Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I guess the special phonetics and standardized phrases were more important back when we used crackly HF and often no headsets, just the overhead speaker.

 

 

[apm]

I guess the special phonetics and standardized phrases were more important back when we used crackly HF and often no headsets, just the overhead speaker.

Yeah, but some have gone too far in lowering the clarity of transmissions.

 

 

[Yenn]

All jokes aside I feel that anyone who disregards the rules because they say they are foolish, is showing a complete lack of airmanship. that lowers them in my eyes and means they cannot be trusted to do the right thing in any situation.

 

Non compliance with the rules can land you in trouble, even if it was just a simple mistake such as inadvertently programming in the incorrect frequency and I daresay most of us have done that at one time or another, but to blatantly disregard the rules is just not on.

 

 

[ian00798]

All jokes aside I feel that anyone who disregards the rules because they say they are foolish, is showing a complete lack of airmanship. that lowers them in my eyes and means they cannot be trusted to do the right thing in any situation.Non compliance with the rules can land you in trouble, even if it was just a simple mistake such as inadvertently programming in the incorrect frequency and I daresay most of us have done that at one time or another, but to blatantly disregard the rules is just not on.

Probably the most intelligent comment on this thread yet

 

 

[Love to fly]

Kind of an obvious statement. But if the majority are not using area, but using 126.7 for unmarked aerodromes then anyone trying to genuinely gauge the effects and annoyances of using area for this type of chatter will have a skewed view. Maybe if people did follow the rules then any need for change, or not, would be easily gauged. Just a thought.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

All jokes aside I feel that anyone who disregards the rules because they say they are foolish, is showing a complete lack of airmanship. that lowers them in my eyes and means they cannot be trusted to do the right thing in any situation.Non compliance with the rules can land you in trouble, even if it was just a simple mistake such as inadvertently programming in the incorrect frequency and I daresay most of us have done that at one time or another, but to blatantly disregard the rules is just not on.

Yen, do you make your inbound, circuit and taxiing calls on area frequency and has centre ever said anything to you?

 

 

[normfox]

Kind of an obvious statement. But if the majority are not using area, but using 126.7 for unmarked aerodromes then anyone trying to genuinely gauge the effects and annoyances of using area for this type of chatter will have a skewed view. Maybe if people did follow the rules then any need for change, or not, would be easily gauged. Just a thought.

My local airfield, St Leonards, has an attached Danger Area which is used for testing of unmanned aircraft. It is charted and is assigned 126.7 but it seems hardly any itinerant pilots use it.

They don't seem to use the area frequency either, They all go for Barwon Heads/Torquay. Probably not a good move when they trundle through on a day when the drones are in the air!

 

In my opinion, part of the problem is CASA's inability to communicate to us clearly. The recent discussion paper is a wonderful example of CASA ineptitude. Seven or eight pages in and they were still rabbiting on about definitions and abbreviations, including abbreviations that did not otherwise appear in the paper. (Might be a bit harsh there - perhaps they did get used but I might have drifted off.)

 

When /if they make a rule on this issue I reckon it should be handed to professional communicators to write it up and publish it in a concise and unambiguous manner.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Radio is considered an aid to separation together with see and be seen. If you are on a frequency that others aren't on you and they are out of the information loop. Interference, congestion poor installation (interference and noise) and poor technique render the radio far less effective than it should and could be. Some don't have radio but that doesn't come into the frequency question does it? Talking about the system we have, not one we might have in different circumstances.. I could write pages about this. Suffice to say we haven't got far in more years than I want to think about. Do you ever hear someone doing a radio check? It would be rare so how do you know it's working? Nev

I'm surprised to hear that pilots don't check RT before moving anywhere, even at quiet country airfields Nev. Then again, I have not flown in Australia since mid 1982. At most small airfields in the UK, even when there is no Air / Ground radio base at the sites, it has been customary to make a radio check call, calling intentions blind where no reply is forthcoming. Non 'Controlled' airfields, ie those with only Flight Information service units, still require 'Radio check and airfield information' before you go anywhere.

 

Whilst flying OCTA in Aus,. . I seem to recall that unless there was a published frequency for an airfield, or 'Place having an apparent runway' we called on 119.1 prefacing the call with the station name. I used the CFA HF 'SmokeNet' freq. occasionally in remotish areas, . . . there was always someone on there to have a chat to. . .!

 

I've been reading similar comments concerning RT in Australia since joining this forum. Seems like it's all still in a bit of ongoing flummox.

 

 

[Yenn]

I only give a call if I think there could be other traffic. I have very good vision from my plane, but if I was flying a Jab or Cessna I would be giving more calls, due to restricted vision. I have been in the circuit with another aircraft on the incorrect frequency, so the radio was of little use.

 

Centre only talks to me when I contact them and that is usually when they are telling someone else of unidentified VFR traffic because they have seen my transponder. I usually identify myself and all is sweet. Unsurprisingly the pilot who insists on using the wrong frequency, also insists on flying with his transponder switched off. maybe he is worried about wearing it out.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I only give a call if I think there could be other traffic. I have very good vision from my plane, but if I was flying a Jab or Cessna I would be giving more calls, due to restricted vision. I have been in the circuit with another aircraft on the incorrect frequency, so the radio was of little use.Centre only talks to me when I contact them and that is usually when they are telling someone else of unidentified VFR traffic because they have seen my transponder. I usually identify myself and all is sweet. Unsurprisingly the pilot who insists on using the wrong frequency, also insists on flying with his transponder switched off. maybe he is worried about wearing it out.

Yenn, you castigate others for not following the rule about which frequency to use but say you don't talk on that frequency unless you think there could be other traffic. Isn't the idea of radio to alert others to your presence, not only those you can see or think might be there? There is little point on being on the correct frequency if you don't use it. Could it be you don't want to clog up the area frequency?

 

 

[Love to fly]

I only give a call if I think there could be other traffic. I have very good vision from my plane, but if I was flying a Jab or Cessna I would be giving more calls, due to restricted vision. I have been in the circuit with another aircraft on the incorrect frequency, so the radio was of little use.Centre only talks to me when I contact them and that is usually when they are telling someone else of unidentified VFR traffic because they have seen my transponder. I usually identify myself and all is sweet. Unsurprisingly the pilot who insists on using the wrong frequency, also insists on flying with his transponder switched off. maybe he is worried about wearing it out.

Kind of nice if you're approaching in a faster aircraft to hear calls and know what's up ahead. Not always easy to see planes at different altitudes etc.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Well, when those agitating for the Unicom frequency for isolated and unknown airstrips everywhere get their way they'll all still have to use area to cancel their SAR arrangements, won't they?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Well, when those agitating for the Unicom frequency for isolated and unknown airstrips everywhere get their way they'll all still have to use area to cancel their SAR arrangements, won't they?Kaz

You'd be right there, so no change. How many pilot do you reckon arriving at this type of strip would have a formal sartime to cancel? I'd say most would have none and may just ring a mate and let them know they have arrived.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I still don't understand how your ordinary average Josephine in a C172 (or a Technam) is going to have any idea where these unknown, isolated strips are even if she hears the call.

 

I think we need to see more of the supposedly busy ones on the charts, so,we all know they are there. Then they can all have 126.7 or preferably a discrete frequency. The rest obviously have so little going on they don't need more than see and avoid, anyway.

 

There is a difference between the needs of those "flying in" and those flying past and this difference doesn't get much consideration in most of the discussions.

 

Re SAR with a mate...How many of the Unknown, isolated airstrips have phone coverage on the ground?

 

Kaz

 

 

[ian00798]

How many of them do you think have VHF coverage with centre on the ground......