Radio in potential emergency

[Philthy]

At the risk of muddying the waters, in some parts of the world ATC does monitor 121.5. The UK, for example, has a comprehensive Distress and Diversion organisation that operates on this frequency and has coverage over a fair bit of the country.

 

But NOT here...

 

If you want help and you're in the air, call on the Area Frequency.

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Slarti,Tell me something I don't know. The fact is that there are many pilots who only ever operate in G, who don't even know what ERSA is, let alone carry one that is current, plus any NOTAM changes since the date of issue.

In fact, that has not really cause a lot of problems for the guys who don't go to far, and only went to local CTAFs, and CTAF® never, but the new CARs 166 clearly changes all that.

 

Regards,

Bill,

 

I don't see the world changing for me or the vast majority of RAAus pilots at all after CAR 166 changes. I have never come across a RAAus pilot who doesn't know what ERSA is, doesn't have a serviceable VHF and doesn't use it to make at least the mandatory calls irrespective of whether they are going into a CTAF, CTAF®.

 

After the new rules come in, it won't matter if I'm going into a CTAF, certified or registered aerodrome, makes little difference to me. I don't care what they call it in ERSA. I certainly won't be going looking at ERSA to see if I need a radio and what calls I need to make. I will do what I always do which is a 10 mile inbound call, joining call and whatever else is required in the circumstances.

 

Of more interest to me is the GAAP to Class D (FAA) changes. Will be great to get rid of Class D (ICAO) procedures.

 

BTW, are you the Bill Hamilton from Australian Warbirds?

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

I have never come across a RAAus pilot who doesn't know what ERSA is, doesn't have a serviceable VHF and doesn't use it to make at least the mandatory calls irrespective of whether they are going into a CTAF, CTAF®.

Folks,

 

My comments are NOT directed at RAOz pilots, but pilots in general, starting with self described "professional" pilots. You might be quite surprised what turns up from time to time. You would be quite surprised at the gaps in the documents that should be carried in any aircraft, and what is actually carried in practice.

 

The details of some CASA ramp checks make interesting reading.

 

Please note that new CARs 166 have a selection of "recommended calls", in this sense, "mandatory" does not have the predominance as previously, which is a good thing.

 

That most pilots are conscientious in discharging their responsibilities as pilot in command re. communications is not questioned (as formal surveys/studies have shown, most recently, PCR and Ambidjii reports refer) ----- but then there is the rest.

 

Where deliberate non-compliance has been identified (as opposed to inadvertent non-compliance, as in digital disfunction, aka finger trouble) the culprits is overwhelmingly a "professional pilot".

 

Having said all that, there is a different "philosophy" behind the new "rules", compared to the long standing approach to "radio procedures". The new approach will, hopefully, move us from "procedures" to "communications".

 

It has been a long time coming, it is going to be interesting to see how long time instructors/CFIs adapt.

 

At present, in GA training, the "culture" is usually to comply with the "pingya protocol", make every call in the book, regardless of circumstances: So "They Can't Ping Ya". Whoever "they" might be.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest sirius]

CS;

 

Of more interest to me is the GAAP to Class D (FAA) changes. Will be great to get rid of Class D (ICAO) procedures.

Can you elaborate on this statement please? I wasn't aware the Class D arrangements were being rolled back. Have you been reading the "wishful thinking" forum?

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Thanks Bill, I now understand exactly where you are coming from and you are on the money.

 

 

G'day Sirius, it is on the CASA website. They have announced that the GAAP procedures will become Class D (FAA). To my thinking, it would make much more sense to make all Class D FAA instead of ICAO at existing Class D.

 

Could you imagine the confusion at a GAAP when everybody is making those stupid departure calls under the ICAO system. The tower would hardly get a word in.

 

The down side is that we will now require a taxi clearance but that is not too bad.

 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Updated GAAP Changes

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

G'day CFI, I think that that post is for me... I don't really care about them going Class D. I already operate RAA into Class C, D, GAAP, CTAF whatever like a lot of RAA pilots on here. I guess all I'm saying is that I prefer Class D (FAA) procedures to ICAO. Either way, it's just airspace.

 

 

[skeptic36]

.. maintaining listening watch on appropriate area frequencies

Hi all,

 

I understand the value of knowing the frequency and using ATC if you require them, the thing I don't get is how you can possibly maintain a listening watch on two frequencies (ATC and CTAF) unless you have a radio capable of doing it simultaneously as Dexter has (I believe there is a Vertex model which can do it as well). I'm pretty sure most of us don't.

 

I have tried this before when flying with other aircraft and trying to be on the CTAF and 123.45 at the same time - all that happened was I missed everything, so gave it away as a bad idea.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Only real way to cover two freqs is dual comms.

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Hi all,I understand the value of knowing the frequency and using ATC if you require them, the thing I don't get is how you can possibly maintain a listening watch on two frequencies (ATC and CTAF) unless you have a radio capable of doing it simultaneously as Dexter has (I believe there is a Vertex model which can do it as well). I'm pretty sure most of us don't.

I have tried this before when flying with other aircraft and trying to be on the CTAF and 123.45 at the same time - all that happened was I missed everything, so gave it away as a bad idea.

 

Regards Bill

It's easy Bill, when within 10 nm of a CTAF, you monitor the CTAF freq. When outside 10 nm of a CTAF, you monitor the area freq. It is that simple.

 

 

[Tracktop]

I mostly monitor 2 frequencies with my Microair set to dual monitor and it seems to work fine. Sometimes a 3rd would even be nice.