CFZ network, Option 3: Your feedback

24 April 2013 / by the GAA team / Consultation, Governance, Safety

Option 3 is: Keep FISCOM as it is, do away with CFZs, thus eliminating radio “clutter” to encourage pilots to remain more vigilant with their lookouts rather than becoming complacent and relying on a radio call in a CFZ to disclose other traffic.

Comments:

I have not read the proposals and don’t intend to. I am sick of the endless changes and procedures to make an unforgiving activity safe. If you can’t accept the risk, try golf.

Any procedure will fail if you don’t spend 98% of your flight time LOOKING for other aircraft and no amount of new procedures will alter that.

Changes to procedures locally almost got me killed. The use of different frequencies between local traffic resulted in a pilot not changing to the correct frequency and therefore not hearing my calls. He was relying on his TCAS to warn him of other traffic while programming his GPS for a autopilot-coupled approach into West Melton on a CAVOK day. He overtook me from behind about three feet higher than me and I had to wait for his wing to go past and roll /dive away with my wing passing between his wing and elevator.

My point: if he had been looking out the window, he would have seen me! How do new procedures help in situations like that?

The use of radios: When I get airborne from West Melton tracking via the Waimak climbing under the TMA for the gorge, I don’t want six aircraft in the New Brighton training area to all reply at once with half of them in a foreign language.
My point: If we are 60 miles apart and travelling in opposite directions, I don’t want to know.

When an aircraft transmits its position and intentions, EVERY aircraft on that frequency calls up. If I am heading in a certain direction, I only want to hear from aircraft that can possibly cause a conflict, NOT every aircraft airborne.

Transmit only if required. Of course, that would require a pilot to think and picture the relative positions, decide and transmit if required. Rather than the trained monkey response, instead of clattering up the airways with useless calls, for which I blame the local instructors.

So for dummies like me, it amounts to maintaining a lookout, sensible use of the radio and flying mag track/ altitudes (when did a local pilot think of that last?)

Bugger, that’s the procedure now. WHY are we changing?

Murray

I probably do as much GA flying as anyone in NZ. I have never heard more inappropriate radio practice than over recent years since the advent of foreign student training. (This is not just limited to overseas students, as some local training organisations seem as bad at over-reporting their position).

The over-use of the radio to make almost continual running reports is the main problem NZ-wide. I do not want to have more rules, frequencies or operational procedures imposed and I believe the existing system works perfectly well if people make the minimum required reports. I don’t want to hear some LSA report over Oxford heading Burkes Pass then five minutes later report over Springfield, then Methven etc, etc on 119.1.

Instructors need to be reminded and trained how to correctly use the existing system. I am opposed to further enforced procedures whilst the existing system is being corrupted with incorrect reporting procedures.

I applaud your initiative and management of GAA and thank you for giving GA a voice and a proactive advocacy group.
With consideration of my above-mentioned comments, I am very happy to add my name to your presentation to CAA.

Dave Horsburgh