----- Original Message -----
From: "opsworx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Re: NAS2c circuit calls
> Peter,
> a number of people in ASA may object to you attributing NAS educcation to
> them.
>
> It was done by DOTARS and finally .............
>
>
> There are no mandatory calls! GET OVER IT.
>
> Peter Heath
>
I wish I could Peter but what are your credentials for writing the above?
See what the National RAPAC reps are writing below, and I presume you are
another Peter Heath, the Peter Heath that I know is the National RAPAC
Convenor.
PeterS
Peter C. Stephenson
RAPAC Qld. South Convenor
Gliding Qld. RAPAC (Qld.South)
07 3886 6889 Fax: 07 3886 6129
Dick,
Concur, but you have forgotten the bitey bit: any pilot who fails to
make the required radio calls on the CTAF is guilty of a criminal
offence of strict liability.
In our area there are hundreds of aerodromes (any place suitable for the
landing and taking off of aircraft) not marked on the WAC or listed in
ERSA. Under strict liability not knowing the aerodrome is there is not
a defence - the prosecution simply has to prove that you were there and
did not make a call.
What our politicians and regulators conveniently forget is that anyone
who has operated in the USA knows that they are big on rules but even
bigger on giving them lip service if they do not suit.
I support a review . If all complied in the Whitsundays we would be
back to 'no radio' as you could not get a word in. While on that point
can someone with contacts in the mainlines point out that transmitting
at 30 nm and fl150 does not alert the traffic at the non-towered
aerodrome. The pilots that they need to inform are still compiling
their manifests or drinking coffee. The only effect is to take out the
frequency for several hundred square miles.
Peter Ware
Dick,
Most of the time there is no time to make calls because other people are
busy talking. It becomes a real mess at times. I tell students what they
should do, and tell them what to do when the frequency is busy.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Gower
To: Ron Lawford ; Peter Stephenson ; Heath, Peter (NAPAC Conv) ; Swiggs,
David (RAPAC TAS) ; Hill, Graham ; Hogan, John (RAPAC ACT) ; Hollitt,
Brenton ; Lauder, Graeme (RAPAC WA) ; Stephenson, Peter (RAPAC QLD) ; Ware,
Peter (RAPAC NQ) ; Welch, Bob
Cc: Dunne, Kathleen (RAPAC)
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: CTAF Confusion - Post NAS 2C
Yes Ron but where does that leave the poor bloody instructor?
If we teach commonsense we might be blamed, if there is a tangle, for not
teaching everybody to make all of the calls.
Regards,
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Lawford
To: Peter Stephenson ; Dick Gower ; Heath, Peter (NAPAC Conv) ; Swiggs,
David (RAPAC TAS) ; Hill, Graham ; Hogan, John (RAPAC ACT) ; Hollitt,
Brenton ; Lauder, Graeme (RAPAC WA) ; Stephenson, Peter (RAPAC QLD) ; Ware,
Peter (RAPAC NQ) ; Welch, Bob
Cc: Dunne, Kathleen (RAPAC)
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: CTAF Confusion - Post NAS 2C
FYI,
In the NT pilots are scaling down the number of transmits in the
interest of safety (and, of course, common sense).
Ron Lawford
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Stephenson
To: Dick Gower ; Heath, Peter (NAPAC Conv) ; Swiggs, David (RAPAC TAS)
; Lawford, Ronald E ; Hill, Graham ; Hogan, John (RAPAC ACT) ; Hollitt,
Brenton ; Lauder, Graeme (RAPAC WA) ; Stephenson, Peter (RAPAC QLD) ; Ware,
Peter (RAPAC NQ) ; Welch, Bob
Cc: Dunne, Kathleen (RAPAC)
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: CTAF Confusion - Post NAS 2C
There may however be a brighter side to this debacle: the NAS 2c
message does is not appear to be getting through to the non-towered
community and pilots are apparently not making the myriad of new radio calls
required. This is indeed fortunate since, if they did, many of the radio
frequencies would be unusable due to congestion. Perhaps, as in the USA,
pilots recognise that such verbosity runs contra to the interests of safety
and are making only the broadcasts they believe are appropriate.
I think that is the key paragraph. I have found that in my area of
three busy airfields Caboolture-Caloundra-Redcliffe people "forget" or are
unable to do all the calls.
May I forward this email to the Soaring Australia Discussion list as
you have mentioned the gliding field of Locksley?
PeterS
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Gower
To: Heath, Peter (NAPAC Conv) ; Swiggs, David (RAPAC TAS) ; Lawford,
Ronald E ; Hill, Graham ; Hogan, John (RAPAC ACT) ; Hollitt, Brenton ;
Lauder, Graeme (RAPAC WA) ; Stephenson, Peter (RAPAC QLD) ; Ware, Peter
(RAPAC NQ) ; Welch, Bob
Cc: Dunne, Kathleen (RAPAC)
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: CTAF Confusion - Post NAS 2C
Gentlemen,
Attached is yet another futile attempt to get the Minister's
attention on the NAS issues.
The problems of the lack of AIP information are behind us now but I
would like to draw the attention of the RAPACs to the final question in the
letter namely the fact that, as a result of NAS2C, we now have a conflict
between the requirements of ERSA and the requirements of the AIPs as to
which frequency to use at many non-towered airports.
To explain:
CAR 166 defines "in the vicinity of" as (simplified) within 10NM
from a given aerodrome. So does AIP GEN 2.2-12.
AIP ENR 1.1-75 para. 56.4 requires pilots to operate on the CTAF
(meaning the frequency) by 10NM of a non-towered aerodrome (being "in the
vicinity" ).
When we apply this to the real world, we find that there are many
situations where AIP ERSA is dictating one CTAF for a given airport and
CAR166 and AIP ENR1.1 are dictating a different frequency.
To use a local example in VIC:
Mangalore has a CTAF of 121.1. Locksley is 9NM to the NE of
Mangalore so Locksley should use 121.1 (as per the ERSA actually) not the
Multicom 126.7.
However, Longwood (5NM from Locksley) and Euroa (9NM from Locksley)
which have no ERSA entry so traditionally used the Multicom as per the VNC
are now "in the vicinity of" Locksley so must use 121.1.
Since the Violet Town strip is 10NM from Euroa it must also use
121.1 because it is "in the vicinity of" Eurora. So must Nagambie at 10NM
from Mangalore.
If we applied this 10NM rule to all of the other aerodromes that are
not on the map we would probably find that half of the state should be
operating on 121.1.
There are many other examples to be found such as Bacchus Marsh on
118.8 but Melton 10NM away on 124.2 with Penfield 9NM from Melton on 126.7.
Apparently there is to be a post implementation review of the 24
November changes (not a roll-back of course!) and, if so, it could fall to
the RAPACSs to clean up the mess. I can not see how any other agency would
have the local knowledge required for the job.
All feedback welcome.
Regards,
Dick
MSG : 11154RG
Girraween,
72 Boundary Road,
Gruyere, VIC 3770
16 March, 2006
The Hon. Warren Truss MP,
Minister for Transport & Regional Services,
Parliament House,
Canberra
Dear Sir,
NAS 2C
Although the NAS 2c airspace changes were introduced on 24 November,
only today, with the effectivity of AIP amendment #46, does the aviation
community have a single authoritative document incorporating the changes
made three months ago.
This is because, unbelievably, the NAS 2C changes, introduced on 25
November, were not incorporated in the AIP amendment of that same date. Thus
the industry has been treated to the ridiculous and wasteful spectacle of an
AIP amendment (#45) which was superseded the moment it became effective.
As a result, for the past three months, the only authoritative
document detailing the NAS2c changes has been a 52 page AIP Supplement
(H51/05) which details some 139 hand amendments which were required to bring
the AIP to bring up to date. Surely such an important change warrants
something better and safer than this.
There may however be a brighter side to this debacle: the NAS 2c
message does is not appear to be getting through to the non-towered
community and pilots are apparently not making the myriad of new radio calls
required. This is indeed fortunate since, if they did, many of the radio
frequencies would be unusable due to congestion. Perhaps, as in the USA,
pilots recognise that such verbosity runs contra to the interests of safety
and are making only the broadcasts they believe are appropriate.
And now an apparently unforeseen issue has emerged. NAS 2c requires
operation on the CTAF within 10NM however, there are many groups of
aerodromes less than 10NM apart, which have been allocated different CTAFs.
In such circumstances we therefore have conflicting frequency requirements,
the safety implications of which are obvious.
Surely a post-implementation review of NAS 2C is now warranted.
My plea is that it be done by a group who, unlike the NAS
implementation team, properly understand the consequences of their actions.
R. A. Gower
(Past Industry Convener,
Vic. RAPAC)
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
