Multicom

[Yenn]

CASA have produced their notice of proposed rule making for multicom frequencies.

 

They are proposing Multicom for up to but not including 5000'. Plus increasing the size oc CTAFs to 20 nm.

 

Their reasoning is that that is what 80% of respondents to their survey wanted.

 

It looks to me that CASA are listening to us all, but in this case I don't think it is the best decision. I know I will be in the minority with that statement and admit that I was against their original requirement to use area frequency for airstrips, not on the charts

 

I have used area frequency as required and found that it seems to work well and in my opinion it is safer.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I think that CASA have listened for once and I agree with the proposal and have taken the trouble to tell them so in the survey. Apparently they have expanded the CTAF area to 20 miles to cover IFR approaches. Now we just have to make the calls on 126.7 more professional and not have Bill, Bob and Mary discuss personal issues on that frequency. Generally if I've got a bit of distance to cover I go high and listen on area anyway.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I always monitor area (and multicom or relevant CTAF) immaterial to my altitude.

 

I support the change from the current CAAP 166. Low level ops at unidentified ALAs should not be on area, as least IMO.

 

 

[pgpete]

I agree with the Multicom frequency but not the increasing CTAFs to 20NM - there are many hang gliding, paragliding and microlighting operations happening just outside CTAFs with no airband radio. - do you really want this traffic on the multicom frequency?

 

 

 

[frank marriott]

with no airband radio

I guess without a radio they would not be on the frequency anyway.

 

 

[Downunder]

All ctaf's require radio?

 

An expansion from 10 to 20 miles means those previously flying without one, outside the 10 mile limit, may now need to purchase and use one.....

 

 

[SDQDI]

Since when do all ctaf's require radio?

 

News to me.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

All ctaf's require radio?An expansion from 10 to 20 miles means those previously flying without one, outside the 10 mile limit, may now need to purchase and use one.....

Only certified, registered and military aerodromes need a radio, not every CTAF. As far as I know if you don't need to now you won't need one when this is in.

 

 

[GraemeK]

I reckon I'll still monitor Area.

 

Out and about today I heard Centre warn two converging aircraft over Carrum, both at 1500 - and it has happened to me a few times. Listening on multicom doesn't help in these circumstances.

 

So for me, 126.7 or CTAF on one radio, Area on t'other. Not much good if you only have one though.

 

 

[ben87r]

If you have dual comms the change is only which frequency you broadcast on not what you monitor.

 

 

[Kiwi]

Only certified, registered and military aerodromes need a radio, not every CTAF. As far as I know if you don't need to now you won't need one when this is in.

What concerns me is increasing the certified (and non certified) CTAF's to 20nm, there are a lot of airfields within 20nm of Toowoomba, and if you MUST have a radio to operate in Toowoomba CTAF, then do all aircraft within 20nm have to carry a radio. ie: Helidon, Wyreema, Cambooya etc.....

 

 

 

[Downunder]

Only certified, registered and military aerodromes need a radio, not every CTAF. As far as I know if you don't need to now you won't need one when this is in.

Yes, and no....

 

 

 

[cscotthendry]

All ctaf's require radio?An expansion from 10 to 20 miles means those previously flying without one, outside the 10 mile limit, may now need to purchase and use one.....

Or conversely, the ruling will keep non radio traffic at least 20nm away from CTAF airfields, keeping that swarm of paras that pgpete posted well out of harm's way.

On the other hand, 126.7 is already so congested (particularly here in SE Qld) that at times all there is, is a constant squeal on the radio as someone on the ground at Tyagarah keys up their mic at the same time someone at Gympie is announcing turning base etc. The person on the ground at Tyagarah can't hear the person at Gympie, but if I'm in the air over Kilcoy, my radio just about blows my headset off with the transmission collision. And it's not just an occasional occurrence on 126.7.

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

Or conversely, the ruling will keep non radio traffic at least 20nm away from CTAF airfields, keeping that swarm of paras that pgpete posted well out of harm's way.On the other hand, 126.7 is already so congested (particularly here in SE Qld) that at times all there is, is a constant squeal on the radio as someone on the ground at Tyagarah keys up their mic at the same time someone at Gympie is announcing turning base etc. The person on the ground at Tyagarah can't hear the person at Gympie, but if I'm in the air over Kilcoy, my radio just about blows my headset off with the transmission collision. And it's not just an occasional occurrence on 126.7.

Have you tried backing off the Squelch a bit.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Have you tried backing off the Squelch a bit.

The squelch doesn't stop the transmission collisions and the squeal that results from that. But in any case, my radio has a squelch that can either be automatic or manual. If I put it in manual, I have to set the level. I'm not sure how to do that so I reliably hear only local signals.

With the automatic squelch, when I'm flying around the Sunshine Coast, I can pick up transmissions from Rockhampton to Ballina, and about that equivalent inland.

 

It really sucks when I have to monitor 126.7. The radio traffic is almost constant and very often collision squeals from 2 or more simultaneous transmissions. It seems to me that expanding its usage will just make things worse.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Maybe more CTAF freqs would be the answer for heavy traffic areas rather then pushing unnecessary traffic onto area.

 

 

[ben87r]

Or, less radio calls ;).

 

 

[Downunder]

Maybe more CTAF freqs would be the answer for heavy traffic areas rather then pushing unnecessary traffic onto area.

At a CASA safety meeting last week, the CASA rep said more frequencies will be opened up on a "case by case" basis.

 

They are aware the CTAF expansion (distance and altitude) won't be perfect in all circumstances and will deal with problems as they arise.

 

Anyone seeing a conflict or potential conflict/problem should contact their state rep I guess.

 

Aviation Safety Advisors (ASA) | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

Maybe the earlier, the better....

 

 

[SDQDI]

Increasing CTAF distance from 10-20nm while not a perfect solution I think that in itself will help reduce some of the congestion. For example in our local area there are a couple of strips that we have used where we will now be able to use our ctaf rather than area (or 126.7)

 

However I don't really like the idea of taking more sky away from those not equipped with a radio around cert strips, I guess it would be too complicated to amend rules so that radio was only required in the inner 10nm of those strips?

 

 

[Downunder]

Increasing CTAF distance from 10-20nm while not a perfect solution I think that in itself will help reduce some of the congestion. For example in our local area there are a couple of strips that we have used where we will now be able to use our ctaf rather than area (or 126.7)However I don't really like the idea of taking more sky away from those not equipped with a radio around cert strips, I guess it would be too complicated to amend rules so that radio was only required in the inner 10nm of those strips?

I think alot of the push for 20NM comes from faster aircraft, IFR, and rpt getting on the CTAF earlier and giving more warning.

 

Something fast "inbound on descent" can be in the circuit frighteningly quick....

 

 

[kaz3g]

If this comes to pass, I strongly suggest those CTAF's currently using 126.7 need to be allocated a different frequency or I can see important circuit calls at busy aerodromes being over transmitted by pilots whose activities at Unknown locations (unmarked aerodromes) is of secondary importance.

 

I've flown over most of Australia and spend quite a lot of time in the air each year. I listen out on Area and I have NEVER heard a call from some pissant ALA, let alone one that interfered with ATC. I have heard a number of very timely warnings from ATC to VFR pilots in close proximity.

 

I also don't like the proposed reversion to 20 NM CTAFs or, once again, there will be significant over transmissions in busy areas involving aerodromes up to 40 NM apart.

 

Kaz

 

 

[coljones]

Midweek quite a few small airstrips are unused and the CTAF is non monitored so if you are flying along below 5000 feet and you get into strife calling mayday or pan pan on 126.7 or an unused CTAF (these should be the main and standby on the radio) won't get you noticed. I would much prefer that the 2 frequencies are CTAF (or 126.7) or Area. This would make it much easier to aviate, navigate AND communicate. Life would really be much easier if the secret ALAs were on the map (and using 126.7) then we would know they were there as we cruise along at 1000 feet AGL. Increasing CTAFs to 20 miles would just produce a bigger radio dead zone during the week.

 

 

[ben87r]

This is a non event, it’s just going back to what everyone has been doing anyways. No one is suggesting you don’t transmit in centre in a critical situation. This is mandating exactly how it was before the previous change and how everyone has been operating already. It’s ops normal.

 

 

[coljones]

This is a non event, it’s just going back to what everyone has been doing anyways. No one is suggesting you don’t transmit in centre in a critical situation. This is mandating exactly how it was before the previous change and how everyone has been operating already. It’s ops normal.

Getting out the map to work out what area frequency is is usually the last thing one remembers. Just because something is done in the calm doesn't mean that it is a good idea when one is desperate.

 

 

[nathan_c]

My suggestion would be if you are on a Nav, you should always be aware of what the centre frequency is because you should be keeping track of your position on the map as you go. If you are in your local area well then you don’t really have an excuse for not knowing the area frequency either...

 

If you only have one radio, best practice I would think would be area on secondary, and then either CTAF or 126.7 on primary depending on what aerodromes you are near. If you are on a discrete CTAF there is a slim chance someone may be flying at an unmarked ALA on 126.7, but you would be unlucky and the CTAF is probably the more appropriate choice.

 

An inclusion I would like to see is if an unmarked ALA is within the CTAF then pilots should operate on the ctaf freq not 126.7. Would put everyone on the same frequency as much as possible.