Biggest CTAF in the world in the Kimberley - the size of Tasmania
Readers will note that the planning for airspace reform has come to a standstill. Rather than plan international airspace, (which is necessary for the TAAATS automation to work correctly) pilots will note that we are bringing in ad-hoc changes in an attempt to solve problems that would have been obvious to people with commonsense and leadership skills.
For example, look at the new gigantic CTAFs in the Kimberleys. The new North Kimberley CTAF has an area of over 122,000 square kilometres. That is as big as the size of Tasmania, or the USA states of Ohio or New York.
What is the reason for these CTAFs?
Firstly I should mention that I have never seen such large CTAFs anywhere in the world. The reason for these huge CTAFs in Australia is simple. It is the obsession of some pilots in Australia to have verbal diarrhoea and never stop yakking.
Radio alerted see and avoid for aircraft in VMC is important, however it is only effective when the area of alerting is small – ie CTAFs in Canada are normally 5 nautical miles, in the UK the equivalent is 3.5 nautical miles radius, and in Australia the normal size is 5 nautical miles radius.
The reason they must be small is that for alerted see and avoid to work properly all aircraft must be participating, their location must be easily and quickly identifiable and all calls must be relevant to a participating aircraft (ie XYZ is late downwind for runway 22 Bankstown). Obviously in a CTAF of 122,000 square kilometres most of the calls received by a pilot will not be relevant.
The reason these CTAFs have been established is to reduce frequency congestion. AIP Supplement H39/00 says it clearly.
“Airspace management in the north of the Australia have resulted in periods when Flight Information Area (FIA) frequencies are heavily congested and communications are difficult. The congestion results from a combination of a high number of VFR calls. . .
. . . in response to industry requests to reduce FIA Frequency congestion . . .”
Most rational and professionally competent people exposed to such a situation would ask themselves a question “Obviously there is far higher traffic densities in other places in the world – how do they solve this problem?”
The answer is simple. In other leading aviation countries they discourage VFR aircraft from making position reports on ATC frequencies when flying enroute and they allocate small CTAF areas where high density traffic is present (such as approach and departure to airports, scenic features etc.) In other countries, if aircraft wish to use full position reporting they plan IFR.
Readers may be interested in the fact that you can fly VFR across the USA – from one coast to the other – and not have constant radio chatter in your headphones. In fact there is not even a recommended, let alone mandatory frequency for VFR aircraft to give calls when en-route to the USA.
I’m sure it has been proven in these high traffic density countries that constant VFR position reports and chatter in enroute airspace does not add to safety. It actually prevents correct outside scanning, as pilots tend to look in the direction of aircraft which are reporting. The pilot’s head is also quite often down - looking at a map to find the Geographical location from which an aircraft is reporting - when eyes should be outside the cockpit, scanning carefully.
If a person drives through the Kimberleys in a 4WD, they don’t have to have a CB radio blaring in their ears during the trip. Under Australian rules, if you fly in the same area in an aircraft you must listen to all of this chatter. No wonder general aviation is in the doldrums.
I can understand that young commercial pilots are impressed with the talking and see it as a necessity – just as commercial taxi drivers do. However, many people share the skies and there are numerous pilots who simply wish to fly at a 500’ VFR hemispherical level, listen to their stereo, keep a good look out and enjoy the scenery.
Does anyone agree with this or are there other opinions?
