Lets KILL the mandatory radio idea forever

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Link to the NPRM -http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nprm/0814os_preamble.pdf

Its probably worth pointing out that it hasn't been implemented yet AFAIK ?

 

Cheers

 

John

Nice work Crezzi, very infomative, thanks.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Crezzi - I had previously taken the words of my Instructors, the various Training Manuals, and even proprietory CD's on radio procedure to be the requirements.

 

Now what is a Student Pilot to be told? "You can please yourself whether you call turns, but the other stuff which was also voluntary is about to become mandatory?"

 

Cloudsuck, I'd say you may have investigated a road accident syndrome some people refer to as the "dance of death" where an incident becomes an accident because of uncertainty.

 

It's the uncertainty I'd like to remove, and I'm stunned at the way CASA moves at times.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

you reckon you're stunned. The dept of name change are a bunch of boofheads an i can base this on over 30 years of continous confusion. sad thing is they keep getting away with it.

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Cloudsuck, I'd say you may have investigated a road accident syndrome some people refer to as the "dance of death" where an incident becomes an accident because of uncertainty.It's the uncertainty I'd like to remove, and I'm stunned at the way CASA moves at times.

Too true Turbo, while over regulation is something we all resist, a set of clear rules which are consistently taught and enforced are what is need in this situation.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Crezzi - I had previously taken the words of my Instructors, the various Training Manuals, and even proprietory CD's on radio procedure to be the requirements.Now what is a Student Pilot to be told? "You can please yourself whether you call turns, but the other stuff which was also voluntary is about to become mandatory?"

Perhaps your training material was aimed at students flying from GAAP or CTAF-R but at a CTAF airfield the calls are "recommended" (& I've not seen any material to the contrary).

 

"Recommended" doesn't mean you can please your self whether to make the call. It means that you SHOULD make the call but you aren't breaking the law if for some reason you can't. If it were "mandatory" you MUST make the call.

 

The difference is both intentional and important. If, for example, the base leg call was mandatory, you would have to extend downwind until you could make the call when the frequency was congested.

 

Hope that helps

 

John

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was trained at a CTAF, and we make the calls turning downwind, base and final. Cloudsuck calls base and final. What about others? Is there consistency or do we have a situation where some in the circuit will not have radios, some will not use them, some will make some calls, some will make all calls?

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

It never occurred ot me to question what I was taught.

 

For a CTAF®, on the way in, straight in.

 

10 Nm

 

3 Nm

 

Final

 

Clear of runways

 

On the way out/crct

 

Taxiing/entering and backtracking (or separately as appropriate)

 

rolling

 

departed crct area, or

 

turning downwind

 

turning base

 

turning final

 

Clear of runways

 

For CTA I make a position intention call and request clearance and then do what I am told.

 

If any of this is wrong and there is an instructor to correct me, please tell me.

 

cheers

 

 

[Mazda]

Thanks Merv, they'll realise I'm just a big girl one day.

 

You can forget about that NPRM, it isn't relevant any more.

 

For those who don't know the history of that NPRM, here it is. Going back a bit further, way way back, CASA introduced an airspace system with implementation dates. The system was presented to Federal Cabinet and approved, and it was written into the Australian Airspace Policy Statement that we were heading towards that plan, which basically aligned Australia with worlds best practice.

 

The reason is that other countries have more aircraft and a better safety record, so it was decided by the Government (not by us) that we should follow their practices.

 

Back to that NPRM. Initially that was issued as a NFRM. Yes, a Notice of FINAL Rulemaking, not an NPRM, because some in CASA thought there wasn't enough of a change to go to NPRM. There was some dispute about how it could go directly to a notice of final rule making without wider consultation, so it was issued as a NPRM and went out to industry.

 

The industry people were appalled. Remember the plan is to harmonise with international practice. The reason the safety record is better in their Class G is because it is simple, everyone knows the rules because they are simple, and compliance is much higher. Procedures in other countries are often recommended, not mandated.

 

The USA, UK etc does not mandate radio for CTAFS or in Class G enroute. They don't have a squillion mandatory calls. They have recommended calls, depending on the situation and assessed by the pilot. The US doesn't even have a VFR enroute frequency. They can join the circuit on base leg, or on final (they don't have to do that 5 miles out) - and they can do that without radio.

 

So why don't they run into each other as much as we do? Good question. Maybe with no area frequency, they don't accidentally leave the radio on that frequency, maybe they don't try to monitor two frequencies at once. Maybe there are so many unicom operators at little airfields that when they don't hear a reply, they check the frequency again, and maybe that unicom operator says there is a non-radio tiger moth doing circuits, look out for it. Maybe they just look out better. Maybe they are not wasting brain space thinking "what was that latest change again? Do I make a call on downwind or don't I?" I don't know, but the truth is it works.

 

Sorry, thread drift. Anyway, the NPRM said things like if you have one working radio you make an inbound call at 10 miles, and if you have more than one radio you must make the call at 8 minutes. And you had to make a call on frequency within 10 miles of any private grass strip. If you think about it, there are so many overlapping 10 mile areas where you'd legally have to be on several different frequencies at once (by law) it was ridiculous.

 

So, the proposed changes to CAR166 in that NPRM have been scrapped by CASA.

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

I was trained at a CTAF, and we make the calls turning downwind, base and final. Cloudsuck calls base and final. What about others? Is there consistency or do we have a situation where some in the circuit will not have radios, some will not use them, some will make some calls, some will make all calls?

At our CTAF, as Kiwi suggests, it is very busy and we have no consistency either in radio procedure of circuit procedure. I usually join down wind so call joining downwind, turning base and final etc.

 

We also share the field with a very large glider club. Some gliders call, some don't, some fly the wrong way along downwind chasing a thermal, some termal on the live side at CCT height. Some turn inside you on base without calling etc.

 

Some of our own club pilots don't join crosswind where they should, some pull the power on the start of downwind so they can do a real tight CCT (because doing the smallest CCT is a big deal and makes you the best pilot on the field) and thereby don't maintain CCT height on downwind.

 

While all this is happening, the students at the school are calling every leg of the CCT and while this is annoying in my headset, I always can spot them and know exactly where they are and have never had any trouble getting a call in.

 

Still seems to me that the best airmanship comes from the RAA students who are all doing the same thing.

 

There is a very strong arguement for consistency, all we need are consistant rules and a change of attitude toward compliance.

 

 

[perthjay85]

I was informed by my instructor at Jandakot to make your downwind call and thats it while doing circuits. And then repeat calls from tower (clear touch and go, clear full stop etc)

 

or coming in from the training area report 6 miles out, then 3 miles out and repeat instructions on how to join. Which are all procedures stated in the Jandakot visual pilot guide. and thats all the calls for arrivals i make

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

There is a very strong arguement for consistency, all we need are consistant rules and a change of attitude toward compliance.

Regarding the consistent rules part - these docs were distributed as part of the education process for the most recent (Nov 2005) airspace changes (as explained by Mazda). Every pilot at that time should've received a copy.

 

Operations at non-controlled aerodromes

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/40pp.pdf

 

Supplemental guidance material

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/6pp.pdf

 

Hope that helps

 

John

 

 

[turboplanner]

Jandakot would be a step or two above what we are talking about, and with a tower to control things, where we have to work out where the other AC are and what they are and what they are about to do, so in some respects, once you get into the rhythm, your life is probably easier.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I was informed by my instructor at Jandakot to make your downwind call and thats it while doing circuits. And then repeat calls from tower (clear touch and go, clear full stop etc) or coming in from the training area report 6 miles out, then 3 miles out and repeat instructions on how to join. Which are all procedures stated in the Jandakot visual pilot guide. and thats all the calls for arrivals i make

Just in case anyone isn't aware Jandakot is a GAAP aerodrome and has different procedures. The document links I just posted refer to non-controlled airfields (Ie CTAF and CTAF-R) - this seems to be where there is confusion for some posters

 

John

 

 

[Yenn]

I must have been hiding under a rock for the last few years. I was under the impression that there were mandated calls for CTAF and CTAF®.

 

My personal opinion was that there were too many required, but I go along with the system. My preference for calls in the circuit is that the call for downwind and base are the most useful, anything else seems to me to be excessive.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The Final call is handy if you are coming straight in and missed the guy low down on the base leg who forgot to call base, or of you are ahead of someone who has overshot the base turn and is now out there nervous and somewhere behind you. When there are five or more in the circuit it's also going into your subconscious, positioning each aircraft and whether their timing pattern has suddenly changed etc.

 

 

[Kiwi]

Kiwi, Bro, have a re read of your own link. It says, At a minimum, radio calls will be required:

Sorry Bro. I only think at 50 kts.

 

What I getting at is, If someone is on final and I call up blah blah blah turning base 04 at Boonah, number 2 to the yellow drifter on final. Why do they need to make a call telling me that they are on final ! (students exempted)

 

I always make the appropriate call to assist other traffic but you try making all of the “allowable” calls next time you are at NATFLY, We are told by our opp Manager only to make, 10 nm Inbound, circuit joining position and I cant remember the other one (still thinking at 50 kts).

 

Good Airmanship will make flying safer, not mandating radios. (Seatbelts in cars are mandatory, but people still get booked for not wearing them, don’t they)

 

Kiwi

 

ps I take 110 litres of fuel to Inglewood ! (88 nm)

[turboplanner]

If they were following procedure they would have called as they TURNED final, so you would have received warning that the event was about to happen, and seen the top of their wings as they became much more visible.

 

A couple of people have mentioned busy airports as a means of getting out of making calls, and I would always recommend to those people to get up into the tower of a City Airport and pick up the rhythm of the traffic - difficult, I know for a country flyer, but don't knock something just because you haven't learnt how to do it.

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Kiwi, Bro, have a re read of your own link. It says, At a minimum, radio calls will be required:

Sorry Bro. I only think at 50 kts.

 

What I getting at is, If someone is on final and I call up blah blah blah turning base 04 at Boonah, number 2 to the yellow drifter on final. Why do they need to make a call telling me that they are on final ! (students exempted)

 

I always make the appropriate call to assist other traffic but you try making all of the “allowable” calls next time you are at NATFLY, We are told by our opp Manager only to make, 10 nm Inbound, circuit joining position and I cant remember the other one (still thinking at 50 kts).

 

Good Airmanship will make flying safer, not mandating radios. (Seatbelts in cars are mandatory, but people still get booked for not wearing them, don’t they)

 

Kiwi

 

ps I take 110 litres of fuel to Inglewood ! (88 nm)

I hear what you are saying my friend from accross the dutch... I think final calls are good and the reason I make them is to let a. Joe Student or b. Glider tug pilot know I'm on final just incase he missed it when his instructor was talking to him (student) or don't launch yet (tug). Stops them pulling out in front of me as I'm coming over the fence.

 

If anything, we could easily get rid of the taxing call from our strip. I don't use it.

 

Yes to make mandating work, you need compliance. It is mandatory not to murder people but it doesn't stop them from doing it.

 

[turboplanner]

and you were right on with the line that making regulations simple means a lot more compliance.

 

 

[skydog]

CASA publication

 

FYI, CASA has just posted an "urgent" publication to GA pilots in a bright red cover I guess in response to investigations of increasing mid air collisions over the past few years and last year especially.

 

It`s essence really talks about situational awareness asking pilots to practise and adhere to strict circuit and radio procedures as a way to reduce collisions including visual lookout.

 

Surely they are saying doing all of that may help decrease collisions. Doing only part of it may not be as effective.

 

On another point could it be argued "he says tongue in cheek" that eyesight may not be as effective in some pilots as in others or between different classes of pilots?

 

I refer to the fact that if you are relying on eyesight and no radio that maybe a PP can see better than RA pilots because they have a biannual eyesight check and RA pilots dont.

 

Could your deteriorating eyesight be a threat to other pilots? Is a drivers license enough?:devil:

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA's probably been reading this thread.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

so with a breakdown of the figures who is mainly involved in the incidents and accidents. PPL's, Rec or commercial?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well it's significant that the red covered documentwent to GA pilots (unless ours has been lost in the mail).

 

I take it no statistics were provided, which is a pity because we all could have learned something other that the obvious motherhood statement.

 

The ability to see a mouse digging its burrow from 1000 feet, I would suggest is less important than using a good scanning technique - I've seen the side of a lot of pilots' heads as they were taxying towards me.

 

It's a bit mischievous talking about an urgent GA notification, then pointing at the eyesight of RA Pilots.

 

I object to the GA bi-annual medical because you have to travel to a remote doctor's location, and pay an exhorbitant fee for an examination which your own doctor is probably qualified to do, and is he up to Optician standard?

 

I'd suggest virtually all RA pilots would be regularly having their eyes tested by better qualified people at a lower cost and disruption to their lives.

 

 

[GraemeK]

Well it's significant that the red covered documentwent to GA pilots (unless ours has been lost in the mail).I take it no statistics were provided, which is a pity because we all could have learned something other that the obvious motherhood statement.

Wouldn't worry too much - all motherhood stuff and smacks of ass covering to me! :mulie:

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, there were a few problems.

 

I'm not referring to any airport or any time frame here, but a sad case I recall was a student who had just reached solo status and was doing circuits.

 

His approach went wrong so he decided on a go round, and was tracking on runway heading, flustered from his mistake and desperately trying to remember what he'd been told about go round procedure, when the tower called him into an early crosswind.

 

Now he had lost his normal 500' and 1000' turn reference points, and the stress would have been up several hundred percent.

 

He had to make a decision on where to turn downwind without ever having done it, but a downwind aircraft hit him first and he was killed.

 

That situation could happen to any student, so you'd think if the document warranted a red cover, they could have given some examples.