nathan_c

So what you are saying is that because some don't comply no one should? And that because some consider the rules foolish then we should not be trusting CASA, and doing it our way anyway? Thats the exact 'We know better so we will do it our way anyway" attitude that is causing problems in the first place. The rules as they are now are capable of working but you are correct, they are only good if everyone complies. It's the people not complying that are endangering everyone because they are the 5% of pilots that cause others to second guess what everyone else could be doing. Right or wrong and whether you trust them or not, CASA has set out the regulations. If you want to fly in Australia, you follow what they say. If you think they are wrong, question it, put in a request for change, but don't break them because you feel it could be done better because then you are the odd one out, not the other pilots doing the right thing. You might think one rule is foolish so we should be doing it your way, but I might think your way is foolish for my own reasons and there begins a cycle of no one doing the same thing because no one wanted to follow the rules in the first place.

But thats the thing, there should not be any confusion about this.... It is listed in black and white in the AIP what we are supposed to be doing. If people read the documents we wouldnt have an issue. The reason there is confusion and the reason we have people doing and suggesting other methods, is because they either havnt read the documentation so they dont know the rules in the first place (which is a serious safety issue) or they think they know better or think it should be how it used to be etc (which is another serious safety issue.) If someone thinks their way is better then good for them, but it doesnt give them the right to operate in contradiction to the clearly defined rules (and they are indeed clearly defined as I posted them above.) If someone wants how its done changed then they need to submit that to the regulator (and funnily enough thats why there has been a recent muchly discussed discussion paper on this exact issue) and if the regulator deems there to be a need to change, they will change it, update AIP and then we all follow the new standard. Simple as that. Until such time as AIP is changed or not changed depending on the outcome of the discussion paper (and for all those that feel so strongly that the current method is wrong, did you put in your input on it?), anyone who is suggesting anything other than what is listed as the rules in AIP needs to firstly be educated as to what the rules actually are and why operating in contradiction to them is dangerous, and if they choose to continue with the incorrect practices then I hope they arent flying anywhere near me because I will not be on the same frequency as them clearly, I'll be talking to all the other pilots doing the right thing.

Maybe so but whether we agree with it or not does not change whether we have to comply.

Your friend is wrong. If the field is not listed on any chart, it is the area frequency you should be on, not 126.7. Your friends uncles brothers wifes long lost lover could be the CEO of CASA and it wouldnt matter what they said, it matters what the rules say. AIP ENR 1.1 - 79, para 7.5.1 states: 7.5.1 Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF frequency and announce if in potential conflict. Pilots intercepting broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge by transmitting own callsign and, as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions. 7.5.1.1 The appropriate VHF frequency stated in para 7.5.1 is: a. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with a discrete frequency, the discrete CTAF shown (including Broadcast Area CTAF), or otherwise; b. In the vicinity of an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts, with no discrete frequency shown, the MULTICOM 126.7; or c. In all other cases, Area VHF That is the final say so from CASA, that is the law, straight out of AIP. Until the current discussion paper is finalised and changes made to AIP, thats what you should be doing, its black and white.

This answer is based on what I can remember from the past and a quick 5 min FAA regulations search. I don't believe you can use your pilot certificate for a conversion, or for recognition of hours in the U.S. As the pilot certificate is not an icao recognised licence/certificate it basically amounts to squat outside of Australia and I don't believe they will recognise it at all unfortunately. This is from there regulation 14 CFR Part 61, Section 61.75 (which is referenced on the FAA foreign licence conversion web page). I'm § 61.75 Private pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license. (a)General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratingsif the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section. To me that reads you need a PPL or higher (which is recognised by ICAO) to do the conversion. There might be some other exemption buried somewhere but it wasn't immediately forthcoming in the time I had to look, but I doubt it.

I strongly recommend getting yourself a good ANR headset. Not only is it more comfortable and makes flying way more enjoyable, I would argue it is better for your hearing in the long run too. I bought a second hand set of lightspeed zulu, which are great. If I had the money at the time I probably would have considered a new set of Bose A20's but they would have been almost double what I paid for my lightspeeds. New or second hand is up to you, but either will be fine and you'll never go back to non ANR. I tried flying the other day with some cheap DC's and it was awful comparatively. An Ipad with Ozrunways is absolutely a fantastic investment, but I wouldnt bother until you have finished your PPL training. You will need to learn on paper maps anyway (and rightly so), so just concentrate on that and once you get your PPL then purchase ozrunways to supplement your flying from then on. Hope that helps

Hi Ben I asked my friend from that sector for you. Usually feeder fix times are given for transition points like lakes, Zantey, Bulock etc, but if you arent tracking via those then 20 codie is given because that way it remains the responsibility of 123.8's sector to make sure you meet that feeder fix time. If you are given a codie time then that sector can give you the time, but then it becomes CS approaches responsibility to make sure you meet it, and if you havnt met the time by codie its too late anyway and its much easier for the previous sector to fix that than it is for approach. Hope that makes sense.

At the risk of diverging from the Class D environment topic being discussed here, C stands for control for a reason. We strive to be accepting of sub standard phraseology(gotta learn somehow) but your flight isnt the only aircraft in the sky, and sometimes pilots need reminding of that. The service you may be receiving might be minimal but we simultaneously could be controlling 20 + other aircraft on frequency which do require seperation to avoid collisions. Its a big picture environment, we have to provide a service to everyone not just the one aircraft at a time.

You should do your calls just as if we weren't listening, I.e as if you were in a ctaf. Just keep it short and concise because the last thing we want is a long rambling non standard call as that's when you will tie up a frequency, not with a short sharp circuit call.

At the risk of dragging this back up, Flew a C182 into orchard today and it was fantastic. Rang in the morning and was told the strip was mowed a few days ago, and when we got there the strip was in great condition and was an absolute joy to use. Obviously conditions dependant but definitely a landing to the south and take off to the north would be the preference due to the trees at the southern end, and the approach is pretty easy to set up inbound from the north. Definitely wouldn't hesitate to use it again and am really glad that it is maintained for public use because it was a great way to spend a day and drop in for a drink and a pie at the shop there. Cheers, Nathan

That paragraph isn't telling you at all that you shouldn't be grouping your numbers, as far as I am reading it anyway. All it is saying is that RA aus call signs include an aircraft type and a group of numbers, as opposed to ga aircraft which are letters, or airline/mil callsigns which will be different again. Continue not grouping if you wish, that's your choice, but don't be fooled into thinking that's what that caap is advising you to do.

Apologies, I was referring to casa when you convert the licence. The flight review does do it yes

You don't actually need any simulated instrument time for converting to an RPL without Nav, they never asked me for it.

Yes I have, didn't take long after sending my form into casa (I also handed in my asic form at the same time so they had to wait for that.). Took no longer than 4 weeks I think it was. It took me an hour of airwork in the training area and half an hour of circuits and then I was sent solo in the 172 (could take longer depending on how long it takes for you to get used to the bigger aicraft), and then a flight review after which is the sign off to be able to utilise your RPL. You will also have to get 2 hours instrument time in there somewhere if you are converting over your Nav endorsement as well. Hope that helps Edit: Beaten to the punch haha! As stated they will need an english test from you as well, unless you can provide evidence of already having one.

You're missing the bigger picture issue here though, which is the willing diversion from the mandated rules. As has been mentioned already I believe, if someone is willing to deviate on this matter, what else are they ignoring? That's what concerns me. Professional pilot, recreational pilot, CTA user or not, as far as I'm concerned you should be trying to show a basic level of professionalism and airmanship, and deviations from the rules fits neither of those categories. You can argue all you want that your way is better if you wish, but rules are rules and you should be following them.

People are going to disagree with me here, but my pet peeve is pilots modifying the way transmissions are made because they think they have a better reason and way to do things. This is why we end up with inconsistent phraseology and bad radio calls. In this case it's the order of saying things, but this isn't the only slack part of radio transmissions I hear day in and day out from recreational and ga pilots alike. CASA says it's "location traffic, xxxx, location", so that's what should be taught and followed in my opinion. Its ultimately a minor thing in the grand scheme of things I admit, but minor things are often the stepping stones to normalisation of deviance (which funnily enough is a topic in the booklet I received from RA Aus the other day). I'd also like to say this is in no way a slight on people making errors in radio calls (we all started at the same point, and even as an ATC I still make errors), it's about the people that intentionally go outside the norm.

Yep as above is what I meant about procedural flight plans, thanks Rhys. As for the security question, it's more the security level our complex is in at the time, more than your asic or etc. In past times when security was at a lower level of alertness it was easier for pilots/ friends of ATC etc etc to be organised a visit into the centre to have a look. Current levels make this a lot harder to get clearance to get people in outside pilot nights etc. (not impossible, just harder)

Okay this is where this could get tricky. I'll answer with what I can tell you now but if your happy for us to get back to you with an official answer that's probably best as I think shags was looking into this already. For Adsb to couple to your plan it needs to be the same in theory as your flight planned flight Id. Problem is some Adsb units are only codeable on the ground or in maintenance so you may not be able to change it if it's already set to something (some can be changed but not all). We can manually couple you if needed but this is not preferred as there is room for error if you don't positively identify and couple the correct paint. Coupling can happen a few ways, which includes the flight id and the code, which you should be able to enter under the code/ section of your flight plan. Let us get back to you on this though as it's still not something we have had time to flesh out because as said, the amount of ra Aus with Adsb is very minimal ATM.

A discrete code is allocated to your plan yes. It might be easier to describe the process we have to go through. Imagine you are flying along towards CTA. You do not want to bust airspace so you call ATC at say 10-15nm to run from the CTA boundary to request clearance. That controller (unless they are working both the uncontrolled and controlled airspace) most likely wont have your plan sitting in their window, so they will look you up (which is simple if you have a plan in, if not expect a bunch of questions so we can make one). Once they look you up, a discrete code will already have been allocated to your plan (in the background without us touching it), and thats what we will then give you. At this point, we still have to manually activate your plan so the system knows you are flying,so then we will have a uncoupled procedural flight plan track displayed on our screen flying along. Once you squawk your assigned code, it will automatically link your plan to your radar paint and at that point we can identify you. Once this is completed, we can than hand you off to the next sector who owns the CTA, and they can give you the clearance. If you called the CTA sector directly (which there isnt anything wrong with by the way), they would have to do the same process, except they may save 15 seconds because they will already have your plan ready, but every thing else will remain the same. The difference is if they are busy, they may not have time to do it immediately and you could get stuck waiting outside the CTA for a clearance until they can. So from your side it is as simple as putting in a code we give you, but from our side we do a bunch of background processes to get your plan up and running on our screens and identify you to allow you to be processed into CTA. As Ian said reference the diversion, we need the exact details of where you are so we can put in your plan so they know exactly where to start looking in the event something goes wrong. If you can manage it (depending on security levels at the time), its well worth going for a visit to the ATC centre and getting a first hand look at how we process the traffic. The pilot info nights are worth it too. It will open your eyes and increased understanding from both sides is a great thing.

You have read it slightly wrong I fear. If you plan through CTA than the relative sector will receive your plan and be able to organise and plan you through the controlled airspace, but sectors your plan transits that don't have CTA won't (I.e if you call the previous freq to get a code before you enter the CTA then we will have to search the plan up, but that's a 20 second job usually if it's been submitted via Naips). I don't have a copy of aip on me, could you elaborate on the new procedure is? What you have said sounds perfectly okay to me and not confusing at all, so I'm not 100% sure what the other phraseology is. Only thing I'd suggest adding to the transmission is "no change to sartime" or the relevant change if there is, because we will have to ask you that anyway.

Woops. I wrote last night just after getting into bed so clearly I was half asleep. Let me clarify what I meant because I got things slightly wrong there myself. What I meant by a flight notification was actually just a plain SARTIME, which if you write in your route segments etc we will not actually see (but SARTIMES will). A flight plan (which is actually called a flight notification in NAIPS now that I look at it which is probably where the confusion came from for me last night) is the one you put all your speeds/levels/routes etc in detail. Now even if you submit one of these, unless you have planned through CTA, then ATC doesn't actually directly get sent a copy of the plan as 9/10 times we don't need it. It is however easily findable for us usually so we can drag it up if you give us a call (but best if you do this with a bit of time to run not right on the CTA boundary.) Same applies for flight following, we will be able to find it easily enough usually. As for the NAIPS or phone question from flying kiwi, preference is via NAIPS because its easier than taking details via phone but you can do both if needed. Sorry for that confusion, hopefully that clears it up a little. I'll edit my post above to reflect the incorrect info. Edit: Apparently I cant change that post, so hopefully people read far enough this post.

I'll leave shags to get the regulatory answer however from my point of view: I won't see your flight notification, but sartimes will. If you ring up with a flight plan amendment and what you mean is a notification then I have to pass it to sartimes as I don't have visibility or capability to change it. If you want access to CTA you should do a plan, a notification isn't enough and we will have to make one out of the blue if you haven't filed one and just call up = delays. Flight following also requires a plan not a notification (usually, we can put a temporary tag on but usually we would make a plan up so it sticks to your code). Planning as the last four digits is good, trust me when I say we won't find your plan if you file it as 241234, 191234, R1234 or jab1234 for example(unless you spell it out). 99% of controllers wouldn't know the difference between a foxbat or a jabiru, let alone that regos start with 19 or 24. Last couple of weeks I have given flight following to a jabiru and he planned as 4473(or numbers to that effect.) Operationally no one could care less honestly if you use grouped numbers or say each number separately. As per AIP grouped is preferred but we have bigger fish to fry than someone that refuses to group numbers (we speak in grouped numbers all day every day, it's no less safe or harder to understand then individual numbers trust me.)

Looks awesome. Any idea what they are going to charge per hour for it and whether its staying GA rego or being converted to RA? (Self admitting I havnt looked up the MTOW of a chief so dont even know if it can be RA). Old aeroplanes are cool :)

I suppose I could go ;)

Hey Aldo, sorry for the late reply, thanks for that info sounds good! Spacesailor, I'll be there for a week at the end of August/start of September. I think we leave on the 28th or thereabouts. Heading up with a few mates for a fishing trip.