CASA discussion paper for low level frequency use in class G airspace

[DrZoos]

In my view, the deficiency with only speaking up when they report an unidentified aircraft is , if you have two VFR aircraft without flight plans, ATC will never make that announcement. They will only report it if one is IFR or has flight following (perhaps an ATC staffer can correct me if that is wrong)

 

In terms of chances of mid air, twice flying from Port Macquarie to Scone I have had close encounters, not near misses, but close encounters, as the cloud on the ranges often forces aircraft to fly at variable altitudes. I have only flown that route about 6 times.

 

In one case ATC advise me as I had flight following , they advised about 10 seconds before we passed, and I had not spotted them. About 100ft in altitude below me and 200ft to my left. In the other case we had no idea, I had made a position report with altitude around 10min earlier on correct area frequency. This one was about50 feet above me and to y right 200-300 feet. Both these I was at 8500 feet heading west on a corrected AREA QNH. In both cases all aircraft had limited options with altitude due to a lot of localised cloud.

 

 

[Neil_S]

I have a radio where I can listen on a second frequency, so usually have it on Area and I have twice had ATC advise of "two aircaft in the vicinity of xxx at altitude yyy on a potential collision course" - one of which was me. I responded to one of the calls saying I was altering course and altitude, but ATC did not communicate further - I guess they were either busy, or just felt the initial advice was all that was necessary, especially as I was altering course. I also have a Mode S transponder, so they would have been able to see me.

 

I went with a bunch of other pilots to a talk given by ATC at Melbourne airport, and basically they said they do not want to hear from us in the normal course of events, although obviously in an emergency they would respond. I am pretty happy if they continue to just broadcast if they see two VFR aircraft in the same area and altitude on a potential collision course as obviously that adds to our situational awareness, and makes us look around rather more in an appropriate direction.

 

Neil

 

 

[Nobody]

On thing to think about is more people using flight following. In the USA I used it a lot and have used it over here. Usually ATC are very happy to help and will give it to you. It actually makes their life easier as they know your intentions. Why don't people here in Australia seem as keen to use it?

 

 

[Yenn]

I can only monitor one frequency.

 

I have also listened to ATC giving safety advice to conflicting VFR aircraft. Of course they are not going to advise us of anything not glaringly dangerous and they don't want us clogging the airways. This whole thread is only about radio use in the vicinity of airstrips not shown on the charts. Not about chatter on cross countries.

 

 

[dsam]

......This whole thread is only about radio use in the vicinity of airstrips not shown on the charts. Not about chatter on cross countries.

Agreed

 

I think everyone here should follow the link from post #24 (thanks, djpacro), read the background info to inform themselves, then make a submission to CASA as they see fit. Comments here won't get to the CASA!

 

 

[ben87r]

IFR aircraft in IMC don't give 15min position reports....

 

The quoted references on the previous page state that aircraft should broadcast when required (if you read the CAR it states when required to avoid a collision) not when the pilot feels like. Centre is already full of useless information I have to listen to (and they're required to give me so not a go at the controller) the last thing we need is every VFR Tom Dick and Harriet giving position reports on centre and the effect would be a decrease in the level of safety due frequency congestion and less diligent monitoring of area.

 

Most definitely monitor frequency which is a requirement anyways if equipped and fly hemispheric, if unsure of a situation broadcast but don't come up with a 'rule' of your own that keeps you warm and fuzzy with a reduced safety level.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

What is flight following , nobody? Is it a sort of gang notification?

 

 

[DrZoos]

IFR aircraft in IMC don't give 15min position reports....The quoted references on the previous page state that aircraft should broadcast when required (if you read the CAR it states when required to avoid a collision) not when the pilot feels like. Centre is already full of useless information I have to listen to (and they're required to give me so not a go at the controller) the last thing we need is every VFR Tom Dick and Harriet giving position reports on centre and the effect would be a decrease in the level of safety due frequency congestion and less diligent monitoring of area.

 

Most definitely monitor frequency which is a requirement anyways if equipped and fly hemispheric, if unsure of a situation broadcast but don't come up with a 'rule' of your own that keeps you warm and fuzzy with a reduced safety level.

So when is it required to avoid a collision? Only when you hear something? And is that only when someone is gibbering on unnecessarily? And if thats the case doesn't that make the gibbering pilot the safe one, since people hear and respond?

If as you may be implying extremely rarely, then why does CASA promote alerted see and avoid so much?

 

Im not saying your wrong, Im interested in some facts on how you believe safety can be improved above alerted see and avoid which relies on transmission and listening, not just listening... its theoretically and practically impossible to have alerted see and avoid unless people are reporting positions.

 

 

[ben87r]

Zoos I don't believe what I described is different to alerted see and avoid. I wouldn't suggest anything more that what the regulators have already written 'when required', it's too variable a situation.

 

 

[Yenn]

I will use the radio when I see activity at a strip I am coming in to, but then only if I consider a radio call will alert someone to my presence. I don't see any need to call up if I see aircraft in the circuit and can see no danger from joining in using the correct procedure.

 

 

[pluessy]

I think we need to take a step back and look at what we need to achieve:

 

- VFR aircraft in class G airspace operating in the same vicinity on the same frequency, regardless of altitude or strip marked on map or not.

 

- a means of communicating with ATC (or them with us) if required (emergency, traffic alert, SIGMET etc)

 

- allocate local area frequencies if traffic volumes require it (to remove some congestion)

 

Neither the current nor the proposed system is really addressing that. I have lasted about 5 minutes on area frequency and then got sick of listening to the jet-jockeys talking at twice the speed of sound from 100 miles away.

 

What we need is an area frequency surface to top of class G, replacing the current CTAF. Then local CTAF frequencies in a geographical area (eg Whitsundays) or 10 or 25nm radius from regional airports with frequent RPT or flight training (eg Emerald, Gladstone, Bundaberg).

 

This would create a single area frequency and avoid the congestion by removing high-use areas by allocating them a discreet frequency, again from SFC to top of class G. Separating IFR (any other than class G) from class G is required if the recreational pilots are to use it.

 

I'm not holding my breathe that we get something workable:no:

 

Cheers, Thomas

 

 

[DingerPPC]

The problem with over use is created by pilots using 126.7 as a chatter channel AND giving1. Initial Inbound call

2. What they had for breakfast

 

3. General obversations

 

4. 3nm inbound

 

5. Joining circuit area

 

6. Joining downwind

 

7. Joining base

 

8. Joining final

 

9. Reporting clear of runway

 

Etc. when there is no other aircraft "near" their area of operation at the time causing traffic at near airports with circuit traffic communication difficulties.

 

Remember "potential for traffic conflict" when deciding on what calls are relevant.

 

Also over use of the radio does nothing for separation with potential "non radio" aircraft.

 

Short, precise, and relevant is what is best.

 

More is better, as promoted by some, is not the answer.

You have to remember some get a chubby showing off their radio speak.

 

 

[Yenn]

In the non charted airstrip scenario I see no need to announce you are inbound, unless you have heard someone else at the strip and you also consider there would be a safety problem. There could well be non radio flyers about so see and avoid is paramount.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

For the record, I reckon it would be terrible to outlaw dsam's gear without evidence from real tests.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Looks like CASA are listening at last.

 

Proposed rules - Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Citizen Space

 

 

[Downunder]

I would probably prefer the "126.7" under 10 000, but I'll take the 5000....

 

 

[scre80]

I would probably prefer the "126.7" under 10 000, but I'll take the 5000....

5000 is better than the 4000 I heard somewhere, most raaus aircraft where I am fly 3500 or 4500, so good to cover that.