Multicom

[Yenn]

Safety worth $5000, was that for the radio plus the transponder. Then is your safety worth a bit more for a ballistic recovery system, or how about fitting an angle of attack instrument, or a fire suppression system in the engine bay, or even airbags for pilot protection.

 

Might fit them all in my plane and then it would have just about tripled in cost.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Safety worth $5000, was that for the radio plus the transponder. Then is your safety worth a bit more for a ballistic recovery system, or how about fitting an angle of attack instrument, or a fire suppression system in the engine bay, or even airbags for pilot protection.Might fit them all in my plane and then it would have just about tripled in cost.

While you're going to the extremes, why not add an extra engine or two? Or better yet, why not just stop flying if you're so cost averse?

Did you ever stop to think that not only is that $5,000 helping to ensure chocolate's safety, but it might also ensure yours also someday? Or better yet, mine?

 

 

[Garfly]

More interesting discussion of Transponders over on this thread:

 

ADSB for VFR

 

 

[kaz3g]

More interesting discussion of Transponders over on this thread:ADSB for VFR

I think the comments Hitch published today ring very true:

 

The Last Minute Hitch: 15 December 2017 - Australian Flying

 

And

 

Alerted See and Avoid: a True Story - Australian Flying

 

Sent from my iPad

 

Kaz

 

 

[coljones]

I think the comments Hitch published today ring very true:

The Last Minute Hitch: 15 December 2017 - Australian Flying

 

And

 

Alerted See and Avoid: a True Story - Australian Flying

 

Sent from my iPad

 

Kaz

Dear Steve Hitchens,. If a strip is uncharted there is the distinct possibility that someone won't know it is there and may sail through at 1000 AGL on area frequency because he wants to know what the other traffic is up to and what ATC is doing about conflicts. Pretty hopeless being on Multicom with a single frequency radio in this situation.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Dear Steve Hitchens,. If a strip is uncharted there is the distinct possibility that someone won't know it is there and may sail through at 1000 AGL on area frequency because he wants to know what the other traffic is up to and what ATC is doing about conflicts. Pretty hopeless being on Multicom with a single frequency radio in this situation.

If it's uncharted it probably has a low traffic level...see and avoid just as is the case where any two aircraft are operating VFR outside of a CTAF and are in close proximity of one another. Personally, I don't generally rock around areas I don't know at 1000'!

 

If it has a higher traffic level then it ought be on the charts and 126.7 becomes the mandated frequency.

 

And Australia is a big place with not that many GA aircraft so what's the chance of overflying an uncharted strip at low altitude when an aircraft is operating there and not seeing it, anyway?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Yenn]

Good chance Kaz.

 

I have several times had aircraft fly across Rods Bay airstrip at less than 1000'. They can't see the strip from that height and traffic on the strip won't see them if they are at right angles to the strip, because of trees.

 

If CASA goes ahead with the changes to radio procedures we will have to monitor YGLA which is 15 miles away and will have no idea of what is happening on area frequency. I don't think it will be better than the current requirements.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The following is quoted from the RAAus December Newsletter......

 

Quote:

 

CASA survey action required by 12 January 2018 - MULTICOM

 

Members are advised CASA have issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) MULTICOM frequency use after the recent consultation process in which the majority of respondents indicated the MULTICOM frequency was their preferred option below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). We are requesting all members complete the survey and provide a response to CASA on this important topic.

 

The NPRM is worded poorly, making two recommendations in one response. As one of these recommendations was not part of the original consultation process we advise members that RAAus fully supports only one part of this proposal.

 

CASA have proposed MULTICOM frequency 126.7 is monitored and used in uncontrolled airspace below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) where there is no discrete frequency or broadcast area. Above 5000’ AMSL the area frequency would be monitored. This proposal is completely acceptable to RAAus.

 

The other proposal is to increase the size of a CTAF from the current recommended 10 nm to 20 nm. This is unacceptable to RAAus and its members for a variety of reasons, including the quadrupling of area requiring the CTAF frequency to be used, significantly increasing the risk of radio frequency congestion, the unavoidable inclusion of private airstrips or fields which were previously outside the CTAF, which would require aircraft to now carry radio. Further the CAAP recommends inbound traffic make relevant situationally required radio calls relative to the speed and type of operation of the aircraft. Inbound Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft routinely make calls 30-40 nm outside the CTAF, which should be continued. Accordingly, RAAus strongly objects to the portion of the NPRM to increase the size of CTAFs.

 

RAAus members are strongly encouraged to complete this survey, however members need to consider the difficulty presented by the NPRM combining these two questions into one response. This requires the respondent to answer no to the MULTICOM part of the proposal to avoid the increase in CTAF component. RAAus therefore recommends the following course of action by all RAAus members.

 

1. Follow this link CASA MULTICOM NPRM

 

2. Answer the identification questions as you believe appropriate

 

3. For the next question you will be asked if you prefer the MULTICOM and CTAF increase. Your initial answer should be “Proposal is NOT acceptable” and in the additional information box below, you should add words to the effect “I only accept the MULTICOM Proposal below 5000 feet AMSL”

 

4. You will be prompted during the next question to provide your answer as to why the CTAF size increase is not acceptable. RAAus recommend you provide words to the effect “There has been no safety case or risk assessment regarding the proposal to expand a CTAF size to 20 nm. This was not part of the original MULTICOM consultation process. CAAP 166 provides guidance for pilots to make appropriate calls relevant to the aircraft type and speed of operation. Expanding CTAFs to 20 nm will enlarge the potential area requiring calls by a factor of 4, potentially leading to additional congestion in CTAFs.”

 

5. Complete the remainder of the questions as relevant to your aircraft type and submit

 

RAAus has raised our concerns about the combination of the two distinct and separate questions with CASA and will continue to inform members about further progress related to MULTICOM changes in the New Year.

 

 

[kaz3g]

My overall comments on the draft RAPAC submission I have seen are that it is too long, suffers from repetition, and does not clearly articulate the issues in terms that a Minister might understand.

 

I also think RAPAC, RAAus and many others whose contributions I have read have been blindsided by what appears to be two clear cut choices, rather than taking a wider view.

 

That said, I support absolutely the concerns expressed about the proposed doubling of the radius of CTAF's. I also give conditional support to a limited change in frequencies but continue to hold grave doubts about 126.7 as the ultimate in choices for the following reasons:

 

1. The unmarked airfield bogey

 

The stated prime issue has been the decision to nominate Area frequency for those aviating at unmarked airfields outside of existing CTAF boundaries. Surely, if there is so much traffic associated with unmarked airfields the first step to improve safety is to mark more of them so pilots know they are there? Why hasn't RAPAC mentioned this?

 

Step 2 is to nominate 126.7 as the frequency for all ALA's that don't have a discrete other frequency, including those that are marked. There is hardly a VFR pilot flying now that doesn't have OzRunways or similar so responding to the presence of all marked strips will be routine. Licensed aerodromes are already well covered except some need to move from 126.7 to a new assigned frequency to reduce the prospect of over-transmissions. There will be few strips remaining of any substance that are not identified on the charts.

 

2. The best frequency Outside CTAF boundaries

 

My view remains that Area is the most appropriate prime frequency for VFR outside the boundaries of CTAFs, both existing and new. The reduction in unmarked fields should leave our concerns with only the least active; those that continue to be unmarked.

 

Radar assisted conflict avoidance on Area is available to VFR and I have had the benefit of it on at least a couple of occasions. If someone is departing their unmarked ALA at some obscure location, how the heck will the passing pilot know if it is relevant to her? Does the departing pilot tie up the frequency (126.7 now being used by all and sundry) with a detailed description of their location....GPS coords, distance and bearing from, plan including height and track and the state of the nation? That's not helpful to the myriad of other people "listening" to the frequency. I suggest many will just switch off, either mentally or literally.

 

3. No radio VFR and single listening watch

 

The issue of no radio flights isn't resolved by this change but it may very well lead to mandated radio which would be difficult for a number of old aircraft (and pilots?). It certainly would affect the light end of RAAus. Perhaps that would suit CASA's aspirations?

 

A lot of us are flying with radios that do not have dual watch. I'm one of those at the present time and I know my strong preference is to fly with Area away from CTAF's. I will upgrade when I can but Area will continue to be my first choice.

 

4. Area boundaries marked

 

The stuff circulating about this is beyond belief. I happily change frequencies moving across boundaries whether Area or CTAF and so is just about everyone else. And I certainly don't want to see an increase in the amount of E at the expense of G which is getting heaps of lobbying support from the biggies even though I run a Tx mode C.

 

5. Increased CTAF volume and definition.

 

Ridiculous! Totally unworkable as even next door's donkey would tell them.

 

Leave the bloody thing alone...change just increases the hazards of non-compliance due confusion, anyway.

 

Personally, I prefer the 10 NM distance with an ETA circuit rather than a specified time to circuit. The Kingair arriving at 200 knots knows exactly where I am, anyway.

 

Kaz

 

 

[M61A1]

I read Hitchen's comments and thought he's too busy arguing and not really looking at the issue.

 

Take CTAFs like Oakey, Toowoomba and Wellcamp for example, the frequency boundary to the west is 5NM.

 

There are aircraft every weekend practicing ILS approaches at Oakey and transmitting on CTAF 127.65 (common for the three) while out over Brymaroo where the start of the approach is, about 14NM away(and often has gliders). It is common to hear RPT for Wellcamp having to transmit everything twice once on 126.7 as they pass Dalby and Mcaffrey and on 127.65 for Wellcamp and Oakey. Even if the frequncy boundary was 10nm, the traffic beginning ILS approaches would be outside the area.

 

I don't imagine that this is isolated only to this area.

 

I thought extending the CTAF out to 20NM was a great idea, as it keeps IF traffic on the same frequency as other traffic in the area.

 

There are also a number of fields on the charts that are a little more than 10NM apart, increasing the boundary simply means staying on one frequency, instead of having to swap between area and multicom every few minutes.

 

 

[kasper]

Lovely. 20mm CTAF = my paddock in the CTAF for Armidale by around 300m.

 

And at 3300ft AMSL I’m in for fun - CTAF for taxi and take off - multicom if I’m to the south of the farm and area if I go above the circuit.

 

 

[ben87r]

Kaz Im assuming the you fly VFR? If so could I ask what you reservation to E being lowered is? Genuinely interested.

 

The main reason I support it is for approach separation in IMC

 

 

[ben87r]

I think CASA have missed an opportunity here to extend the CTAF broadcast area project that has been used elsewhere with good results. Multi to busy then set a broadcast area to break it up.

 

 

[kasper]

Kaz Im assuming the you fly VFR? If so could I ask what you reservation to E being lowered is? Genuinely interested.The main reason I support it is for approach separation in IMC

If it’s me you’re asking consider

1 Vfr with no electrical system and no instruments - I have 1 switch to turn the engine on/off.

 

2 altimeter strapped on left wrist

 

3 hand held radio strapped to left leg

 

4 it’s weight shift so both hands in gloves and are on the bar at take off and throughout landing.

 

5 changing frequency is a right royal pain in the ar$e

 

6 the RPT into Armidale is nowhere near me poitling around the top of the mountains.

 

I’m familiar with flying in very busy and conjested airspace around London and SE England -France and the airspace being reserved and gobbled up “in the name of safety” is in my opinion excessive for need.

 

Demonstrate the current need for this without using bigger is better as a philosophy and I’d be interested.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I read Hitchen's comments and thought he's too busy arguing and not really looking at the issue.Take CTAFs like Oakey, Toowoomba and Wellcamp for example, the frequency boundary to the west is 5NM.

There are aircraft every weekend practicing ILS approaches at Oakey and transmitting on CTAF 127.65 (common for the three) while out over Brymaroo where the start of the approach is, about 14NM away(and often has gliders). It is common to hear RPT for Wellcamp having to transmit everything twice once on 126.7 as they pass Dalby and Mcaffrey and on 127.65 for Wellcamp and Oakey. Even if the frequncy boundary was 10nm, the traffic beginning ILS approaches would be outside the area.

 

I don't imagine that this is isolated only to this area.

 

I thought extending the CTAF out to 20NM was a great idea, as it keeps IF traffic on the same frequency as other traffic in the area.

 

There are also a number of fields on the charts that are a little more than 10NM apart, increasing the boundary simply means staying on one frequency, instead of having to swap between area and multicom every few minutes.

RPT have two pilots...one to twiddle knobs...so I doubt it causes great difficulty for them. Having the gliders and lighties operating outside the current AFRU, and the RPT and military and all the other traffic within it on one frequency seems to me to compounding a problem, not resolving it.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

If it’s me you’re asking ......I’m familiar with flying in very busy and conjested airspace around London and SE England -France and the airspace being reserved and gobbled up “in the name of safety” is in my opinion excessive for need.

 

Demonstrate the current need for this without using bigger is better as a philosophy and I’d be interested.

Yes Ben...the thin edge of the wedge. Lower Class E and mandate ADSB for VFR using it.

 

Have a look at the discussion paper out now and consider the exclusions already decided regarding equipment options. Remember right back,at the beginning how the extraordinary savings to ASA were to be used to subsidise the cost of implementation. Think about the political clout of "safety" no matter how irrational and you might then understand why those of us who fly for fun might be worried.

 

Kaz

 

 

[M61A1]

RPT have two pilots...one to twiddle knobs...so I doubt it causes great difficulty for them. Having the gliders and lighties operating outside the current AFRU, and the RPT and military and all the other traffic within it on one frequency seems to me to compounding a problem, not resolving it.Kaz

And what of the single pilot helis with their hands full, doing ILS approaches? Makes sense that IF holding patterns and approaches should be inside the CTAF, putting them on the same frequency as those around them. Seems to work when the airspace is active, as it's a 20NM boundary then. Military is deactivated almost all weekends, and at certain times of day.

 

 

[ben87r]

If it’s me you’re asking consider1 Vfr with no electrical system and no instruments - I have 1 switch to turn the engine on/off.

2 altimeter strapped on left wrist

 

3 hand held radio strapped to left leg

 

4 it’s weight shift so both hands in gloves and are on the bar at take off and throughout landing.

 

5 changing frequency is a right royal pain in the ar$e

 

6 the RPT into Armidale is nowhere near me poitling around the top of the mountains.

 

I’m familiar with flying in very busy and conjested airspace around London and SE England -France and the airspace being reserved and gobbled up “in the name of safety” is in my opinion excessive for need.

 

Demonstrate the current need for this without using bigger is better as a philosophy and I’d be interested.

That does sound like a royal pain but from my side I’m just trying not to fly a passenger aircraft into another in IMC :). Spend a bit of time at the ‘busy’ FNQ CTAF on a bad WX day and you’ll see what I mean.

 

Also if they were to do it correctly with descent steps at you altitudes outside of the CTAF you would be OCTA.

 

RPT have two pilots...one to twiddle knobs...so I doubt it causes great difficulty for them. Having the gliders and lighties operating outside the current AFRU, and the RPT and military and all the other traffic within it on one frequency seems to me to compounding a problem, not resolving it.Kaz

RPT doesn’t have 2 pilots, above 5700 does. There’s a lot of single pilot RPT going around. Not that it changes a lot, we’re usually capable of monitoring two frequencies.

 

Yes Ben...the thin edge of the wedge. Lower Class E and mandate ADSB for VFR using it.Have a look at the discussion paper out now and consider the exclusions already decided regarding equipment options. Remember right back,at the beginning how the extraordinary savings to ASA were to be used to subsidise the cost of implementation. Think about the political clout of "safety" no matter how irrational and you might then understand why those of us who fly for fun might be worried.

 

Kaz

I don’t want to see any equipment changes from the current but class E surrounding the RNAV approaches at the busier ‘joints’ would be appropriate.

 

 

[Yenn]

We had everyone up in arms when CASA mandated the use of area for strips not on the charts. I was one who thought it was not a good idea and I did raise questions about it. I also talked to CASA and responded to their questionairre. After using CASAs required frequencies I was happy with the system and the only gripe I had was that a lot of pilots refused to comply, which meant that I was on area and they were on 126.7.

 

I have responded to CASAs latest proposed rule making, saying amongst other things that it appeared that they were just pandering to the people who made the loudest noise.

 

Funny thing is that now that those noisy people have had their way, they are still not happy.

 

It would be nice for pilots to take a good long look at proposals, think through the outcomes and make a good decision. Not just assume they know everything and make a lot of noise.

 

Last weekend I was abused by one of those pilots because I was operating on area frequency, not 126.7 at our un marked strip. He went on to say that he had been talking to CASA who told him I was on the incorrect frequency. It would be good if he has dobbed me in to them.

 

 

[kaz3g]

There’s a lot of single pilot RPT going around. Not that it changes a lot, we’re usually capable of monitoring two frequencies.

Ben...RPT or Charter?

 

Yenn

 

If your fellow pilot is confused now, how will he be with more changes and. 20 NM radius CTAF?

 

Kaz

 

 

[ben87r]

There’s a lot of single pilot RPT going around. Not that it changes a lot, we’re usually capable of monitoring two frequencies.

Ben...RPT or Charter?

 

Yenn

 

If your fellow pilot is confused now, how will he be with more changes and. 20 NM radius CTAF?

 

Kaz

 

RPT

 

 

[M61A1]

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about monitoring two frequencies, but having to transmit everything twice, on two different frequencies, I'm guessing also, that this may be a busy part of the flight as well. Just more holes in the cheese to line up.

 

 

[Yenn]

Some pilots will always be confused. There seem to be a growing number of pilots, who want to disregard the correct way of doing things. That includes those who think CASA has got it wrong and will not comply.

 

 

[M61A1]

As far as confusion goes, in the maintenance world, I have seen many times where people will interpret differently, what I thought was a clearly written and concise maintenance instruction. Don't see why that wouldn't happen in the flying part.

 

 

[facthunter]

A bit more effort in making rules that are UNAMBIGUOUS will help.. I know that it's said but it's true. Radio procedures are not done well.. Radios don't always work let alone be readable. Talk slower and more clearly. Use standard phrases and be concise. Know where you are and tell others. Specially if they request it . Saying you are north of a place when you are southwest of it is more dangerous than saying nothing. Nev