Consultation: proposal for radio frequency procedures

[Admin]

27 April 2018

 

CASA is inviting all pilots to review and comment on a new proposal for radio frequency use at low level in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace.

 

The new proposal would maintain the current radio procedures but allow MULTICOM (126.7 MHz), instead of Area VHF, to be used in the circuit area of an aerodrome not published on an aeronautical chart.

 

Changes to the relevant guidance would clarify:

 

• 126.7 MHz would be able to be used ‘in the circuit’ at the aerodrome, rather than ‘in the vicinity’
   
   
   
  
• the ‘circuit area’ would be within a 3 nm radius of the aerodrome and 1,500 feet above ground level.
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

This solution takes into account the preferences and issues highlighted through previous consultation and the outcomes of a risk assessment.

 

You can view the proposal and have your say in CASA’s Consultation Hub. Consultation closes 14 May 2018.

 

 

[Yenn]

we have been through all this before and CASA were roundly criticised for enforcing area as the correct frequency.

 

When they brought out the first proposal I had come to the conclusion that area was the safest way to go. 126.7 would not be monitored by aircraft overflying unmarked strips, so they would have no radio advice. Using area frequency we can listen in to ATC and IFR traffic to give us an idea of what is going on around us. We can also hear when ATC advises IFR traffic that there is un identified VFR traffic and if it is us we can advise ATC easily. They may ask us to squawk ident, or as has happened to me, they asked me to contact a Qantas flight direct on a nearby CTAF frequency. That makes for safer flying in my opinion. The only downside is that the airwaves can get busy at times, but it has never been a real problem to me.

 

The planes I fly have very good visibility, but if I was flying a Cessna I would be even more wanting to hear what was going on around me rather than being on 126.7

 

My personal opinion is that CASA got it right when they started all this kerfuffle, even though I don't have a high opinion of CASA.

 

 

[frank marriott]

My personal opinion is that CASA got it right when they started all this kerfuffle

 

Some people agree with you, but from my conversations I think it might be a minority view but I have no access to the majority of views, only the people I speak to (and what I read here).

 

 

[kaz3g]

I actually think this latest proposal,solves most problems.

 

ATC won’t be upset, the aircraft flying in or out of the unmarked airstrip will be able to communicate with the ground or another aircraft in the circuit (within 3 NM and below 1500AGL), the transmissions won’t be heard very far away because of the low height so less interference between the many locations using 126,7. That’s pretty good!

 

All that they need to do now is allocate discrete frequencies other than 126,6 for the many marked busy airstrips currently using it such as Yarrawonga and Renmark.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Yenn]

I have just looked at some of the responses CASA received and were allowed to be published by the respondees.

 

I am now worried about sharing the airspace with some of them. One allowed them to publish, but all he filled in was his name. At least RAAus seems to be happy. Some of them appeared to be written while under the influence and I don't mean the influence of common sense.

 

CASA seems happy to allow the majority to rule here. It might be good if that applied to all their other rulings.

 

 

[coljones]

You are flying along (singing a cowboy song) at 1000' ago.  How do you know you are in the circuit area of an unpublished airstrip? In the Sydney Basin the vast majority of radio traffic is on YSBK, YSCN or YSSY. The other allocated CTAF is YWBN but you wouldn't want to do a Mayday on that frequency because it is very quiet, especially on weekdays.  There are a number of unmarked private strips but I wouldn't have a clue where they are.  This proposal means that, for safety, one shouldn't fly below 1500' AGL since you will never, ever, know what is lurking below.

 

 

[Yenn]

coljones you may be right, but CASA looks as if it is going with the majority, so that is what you will get. Not the safest in my opinion, but I think the majority would always try to do the opposite of what CASA recommends, plus be so vocal about it that in the end they get their own way.