Radio use.

[skippydiesel]

 

"The "problem" at the moment is that aircraft using the same airspace can be on one of 5  frequencies - all legitimate. There is also a sixth legal option - no radio at all (crazy for congested airspace)"

 

I have come up with a proposed solution to the above insanity ;

 

One frequency for ALL VFR aircraft operating, below the CTR steps, outside the current Controlled GA fields of Bankstown & Camden, above (Circ alt +500ft) & away from (3-5 Nm) the non controlled Circuits  of The Oaks, Mittagong, Wedderburn and may be  Shell Harbour. The outer boundaries would have to be decided on.

 

The existing frequencies would remain BUT only be used within the Circuit area and for 10 Nm Inbound calls.

 

In my mind this is a simplification that reduces risk by having all (non Circuit)  aircraft on the one operational frequency.

 

The requirement to maintain a listening/monitoring watch on Area frequency, would also remain, allowing ATC to  make contact with the PIC (& visa versa) and for the PIC to maintain situational awareness of any IFR operations. 

 

Remember, I also think, that as a minimum standard, ALL aircraft, within this operational boundary should be fitted with a dual channel transceiver and SE2 (or similar) ADSB In/Out.

 

What do you suggest???

 

😈

[Moneybox]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

 

"The "problem" at the moment is that aircraft using the same airspace can be on one of 5  frequencies - all legitimate. There is also a sixth legal option - no radio at all (crazy for congested airspace)"

 

I have come up with a proposed solution to the above insanity ;

 

One frequency for ALL VFR aircraft operating, below the CTR steps, outside the current Controlled GA fields of Bankstown & Camden, above (Circ alt +500ft) & away from (3-5 Nm) the non controlled Circuits  of The Oaks, Mittagong, Wedderburn and may be  Shell Harbour. The outer boundaries would have to be decided on.

 

The existing frequencies would remain BUT only be used within the Circuit area and for 10 Nm Inbound calls.

 

In my mind this is a simplification that reduces risk by having all (non Circuit)  aircraft on the one operational frequency.

 

The requirement to maintain a listening/monitoring watch on Area frequency, would also remain, allowing ATC to  make contact with the PIC (& visa versa) and for the PIC to maintain situational awareness of any IFR operations. 

 

Remember, I also think, that as a minimum standard, ALL aircraft, within this operational boundary should be fitted with a dual channel transceiver and SE2 (or similar) ADSB In/Out.

 

What do you suggest???

 

😈

Fortunately I don’t have your problem but your suggestion makes sense to me. It’s hard enough to be swapping frequencies when you cross boundaries but if you can be on the correct frequency and be different to the aircraft around you then there will never be clear lines of communication. 

[BurnieM]

I do not have a suggestion for the Sydney metro airspace due to the complexity of the current airspace, number of frequencies currently  and procedures currently in use for both Mascot and Bankstown. I expect this to get worst when Western Sydney becomes more active.

 

All of the aircraft I have flown have radio receivers capable of monitoring 2 frequencies.

I agree in/out ADS-B transponders for all aircraft are a very good idea.

CASA has already said you need a minimum of a mode C transponder to enter controlled airspace.

ie more than a SE2 is required for this airspace.

 

You have offered a suggestion.

I have suggested that this will make the current bad situation even worse.

We obviously do not agree.

 

[turboplanner]

If it's any help, the 2026 Visual Flight Rules Guide, in Chapter 5, Page 349 has 74 pages which include:                                                                  Communication Rules                                                                                    Standard Templates                                                                                        Equipment Requirement.                     

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

8 hours ago, BurnieM said:

I do not have a suggestion for the Sydney metro airspace due to the complexity of the current airspace, number of frequencies currently  and procedures currently in use for both Mascot and Bankstown. I expect this to get worst when Western Sydney becomes more active.

 

All of the aircraft I have flown have radio receivers capable of monitoring 2 frequencies.

I agree in/out ADS-B transponders for all aircraft are a very good idea.

CASA has already said you need a minimum of a mode C transponder to enter controlled airspace.

ie more than a SE2 is required for this airspace.

 

You have offered a suggestion.

I have suggested that this will make the current bad situation even worse.

We obviously do not agree.

 

Its absolute fine that we disagree.

Unfortunatly your rational for doing so is wanting, in that you continue to bring Controlled Airspace into the debate, when its clearly not part of my concern.

The aircraft using the two major airports, Sydney & Badgerys Creek ("metro"?), are usually above 10,000 ft, in the area I am addressing ie no issue.

Bankstown & Camden are also Controlled, both of these facilities host very active training operations and large GA fleets. How these aircraft communicate when approaching/in their Controlled Circuit area, is also not of my concern (they use their discreet radio frequencies).

I am concerned with the communication of aircraft that currently use the Uncontrolled Airspace. in the area directly to the south of Greater Sydney. Its always been congested. With the changes to the CTR boundaries, to facilitate Badgerys Creek, its got worse.

The aircraft, using this area, are are predominantly flying to/ from Bankstown, Camden, The Oaks /Mittagong (same CTAF), Wedderburn & I presume Shell Harbour.

It would seem that the PIC/Student remains on or switches to, their airfield frequency while in the congested area. 

 

"The "problem" at the moment is that aircraft using the same airspace can be on one of 5  frequencies - all legitimate. There is also a sixth legal option - no radio at all (crazy for congested airspace)"

 

This means that the aircraft PIC can not communicate with other aircraft that are in very close proximity.
 

The solution would seem to be, get them all on the same frequency, once outside their Circuit area.

 

😈

 

 

 

[BrendAn]

14 hours ago, BurnieM said:

I thought the problem you were trying to fix was The Oaks/Camden communication omissions ?

 

Since Western Sydney went live we also have a Bankstown training aircraft/Wedderburn problem.

 

Creating another frequency (low level area) on top of CTAFs and area freqs creates another level of confusion likely leading to even more communication omissions.

 

what a busy area to operate in.   wouldn't suprise me if casa kick all rec pilots out of the sydney area eventually.  they don't like us to start with.

[Garfly]

7 hours ago, turboplanner said:

If it's any help, the 2026 Visual Flight Rules Guide, in Chapter 5, Page 349 has 74 pages which include:   

Communication Rules     Standard Templates    Equipment Requirement.                     

Turbs, it's no surprise that you tend to see the solution to all problems as a recourse to Rules. That is, that rules rule.

And though most of us do love the VFG and accept that aviation rules are written in blood, your suggestion really is not of any help.

After all, Skippy's whole premise here is that certain Rules as they exist, in a changed world, risk actually drawing blood if not challenged and changed: 

 

'the "problem" at the moment is that aircraft using the same airspace can be on one of 5  frequencies - all legitimate. There is also a sixth legal option - no radio at all (crazy for congested airspace)'

 

So you may disagree but I think not on the dodgy premise that 'rules rule, okay!?'

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Garfly

[turboplanner]

19 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Turbs, it's no surprise that you tend to see the solution to all problems as a recourse to Rules. That is, that rules rule.

And though most of us do love the VFG and accept that aviation rules are written in blood, your suggestion really is not of any help.

After all, Skippy's whole premise here is that certain Rules as they exist, in a changed world, risk actually drawing blood if not challenged and changed: 

 

'the "problem" at the moment is that aircraft using the same airspace can be on one of 5  frequencies - all legitimate. There is also a sixth legal option - no radio at all (crazy for congested airspace)'

 

So you may disagree but I think not on the dodgy premise that 'rules rule, okay!?'

 

 

 

I take it you don't fly because everyone knows the what the VFRG is for.                                                                                                                Skippy can contact Airservices, who may already have a solution; there are plenty of complications in other cities like this with two major Airports in Melbourne against against each other plus a Light Aircraft Lane. They may revert everyone to Controlled Airspace and manage all aircraft, or they may Control two and leave three to work with each other. Or some of the five may be making unnecessary calls. Airservices will sort it out.                

[facthunter]

 Some radios Permit the selection of the Next frequency. A good thing is to leave the Previous one still there till you establish contact on the Next one. Confusion on frequencies is dangerous an distracting and increases Workload.  Prepare and Plan the flight with frequencies listed alongside  waypoints. Be as organised as Possible . P.P.P.P.P.P, Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance..  Nev

[Thruster88]

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Its absolute fine that we disagree.

Unfortunatly your rational for doing so is wanting, in that you continue to bring Controlled Airspace into the debate, when its clearly not part of my concern.

The aircraft using the two major airports, Sydney & Badgerys Creek ("metro"?), are usually above 10,000 ft, in the area I am addressing ie no issue.

Bankstown & Camden are also Controlled, both of these facilities host very active training operations and large GA fleets. How these aircraft communicate when approaching/in their Controlled Circuit area, is also not of my concern (they use their discreet radio frequencies).

I am concerned with the communication of aircraft that currently use the Uncontrolled Airspace. in the area directly to the south of Greater Sydney. Its always been congested. With the changes to the CTR boundaries, to facilitate Badgerys Creek, its got worse.

The aircraft, using this area, are are predominantly flying to/ from Bankstown, Camden, The Oaks /Mittagong (same CTAF), Wedderburn & I presume Shell Harbour.

It would seem that the PIC/Student remains on or switches to, their airfield frequency while in the congested area. 

 

"The "problem" at the moment is that aircraft using the same airspace can be on one of 5  frequencies - all legitimate. There is also a sixth legal option - no radio at all (crazy for congested airspace)"

 

This means that the aircraft PIC can not communicate with other aircraft that are in very close proximity.
 

The solution would seem to be, get them all on the same frequency, once outside their Circuit area.

 

😈

 

 

 

Not sure how effective your one area frequency idea for aircraft in the greater Sydney basin not involved in airport ops would be.

 

In the CTAF or controlled airspace we have (hopefully)  standard phrasing, Oaks traffic cessna XYZ mid down wind runway 36 oaks. We instantly know where this aircraft is within about a mile and what it's intention is. This works very well.

 

Away from the circuit it can be a circus. I have listened on a few occasions to two company aircraft in my local ctaf try and organise separation while away from the circuit. Back and forth for a minute while I watch them on my traffic screen. Very hard to tell another aircraft exactly where you are in the GAFA. Congestion would be a problem. 

 

You may be overly concerned about a mid air collision when away from the airport. AI provided this list of mid air's not involving circuit ops, it may have missed some, I added the Thruster/Drifter, don't remember all the details. 

 

Mangalore 2020, two IFR training twins, both given traffic info

Mount Anderson,  two R22 company helos mustering ops.

Port Philip Bay, two ex military jets in formation.

Brockley 1940, two military trainers in formation, worth looking this one up.

Thruster and Drifter, loose formation i think. 

 

I am sure there are others however the risk compared to all the other ways of crashing seem small. I think we tend to focus on it because we cannot control it. I would be in favour of all aircraft having ADS-B then we can be our own air traffic controller. 

[Moneybox]

I received a message this afternoon from RAAus asking me to call the operations manager at Jandakot. I called and they were concerned that I’d landed on the wrong airstrip. I explained the situation, I don’t think I’ll hear any more about it.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

Not sure how effective your one area frequency idea for aircraft in the greater Sydney basin not involved in airport ops would be.

ing this one up.

...........................................................

I am sure there are others however the risk compared to all the other ways of crashing seem small. I think we tend to focus on it because we cannot control it. I would be in favour of all aircraft having ADS-B then we can be our own air traffic controller. 

".....in favour of all aircraft having ADS-B"

As you know I am an advocate for ADSB which can be as cheap/simple as a Sky Echo 2 , linked with OzRunways, on an iPad.

Some snaer at the low power/cost SE2 but when you consider it has a 40 Nm radius of the aircraft (depends on placement), it has a real ability to help the PIC in situational awareness of other aircraft in his area & visa versa.

SE2 is not compliant with entry to Controlled Airspace, in some ways this makes it even more valuable to the VFR pilot who has no intention of entering CTA, so does not want to invest in an installed, high cost ADSB In/Out but wants enhanced safety for himself & the other pilots, when flying in non controlled, high traffic areas, like the Sydney Basin (south).

 

"......the risk compared to all the other ways of crashing seem small"

I think you are  statistical correct, however this seems to have similarities with the "big  sky" concept of safety, that I feel should not be applied to heavily trafficked areas, like the Sydney Basin (south).

Way to many "legal" frequencies, operating within a, relativly small geographic area, has negative impact on the big sky safety cushion.

Being on a Common Area Frequency (CAF) would at least give pilots the opportunity to"... be our own air traffic controller". 

 

I doubt that there is a perfect solution however feel that being on a CAF combined with ADSB In/Out (at least an SE2) goes along way to helping the PIC not only know where aircraft are but can also give him some confidence, if he makes a call, it will be heard (no guarantee in my area).

 

😈