The NTSB has released an Aviation Investigation Report (AIR-22-03) urging the FAA to address safety issues relating to common traffic advisory frequencies (CTAF) in Alaska.
The recommendations come after an NTSB investigation into a midair collision involving a deHavilland DHC-2 and a Piper PA-12 that occurred on July 31, 2020, near Soldotna, Alaska. The pilot and five passengers on the DHC-2 were killed in the collision, as was the pilot on the PA-12.
What You Should Know
The PA-12’s departure location did not have an air traffic control tower. As a result, communication among aircraft departing Soldotna Airport (SXQ) and aircraft transitioning the area was via the CTAF of 122.5 MHz, which was published on the visual flight rules sectional chart and FAA chart supplement for the area.
Because both airplanes were operating in uncontrolled airspace, it was the responsibility of both pilots to see-and-avoid any aircraft flying in their vicinity and maintain separation from them.
NTSB investigators said they “concluded that, without a requirement that pilots report their positions on the designated CTAF frequency when operating in CTAF areas, pilots may remain unaware of the presence of other airplanes even though a method of communications exists.”
This means, officials say, that the benefits of establishing CTAF areas “are not fully recognized.”
The NTSB recommended that the FAA require all pilots to monitor and communicate their positions on the designated CTAF when entering and exiting dedicated CTAF areas throughout Alaska, as well as near established reporting points and airport traffic patterns within the CTAF area, unless already communicating with air traffic control.
NTSB officials also asked the FAA to establish additional CTAF areas in locations throughout Alaska at a high risk of midair collisions, designate one frequency that is associated with all non-towered airports within the geographical boundaries of these CTAF areas, and define mandatory position reporting locations and reporting requirements within these areas.
The prevention of midair collisions, especially in Alaska, has been a focus for the NTSB and the aviation industry for many years. Between 2005 to 2020, 14 midair collisions occurred in Alaska, 12 of which occurred in uncontrolled airspace. These midair collisions resulted in 35 fatalities and 15 serious injuries.
You can read the full Aviation Investigation Report at NTSB.gov.
Establishing additional CTAF frequencies or putting all nearby airports on one specific frequency is fine and dandy but all the pilots who think they have to do a doctoral dissertation when they push the PTT button is then a big problem, too. There are no easy answers beyond ‘See and Avoid’ in Alaska. And then there are the Yahoo’s who persist in saying, “Any traffic at ___, please advise.” is another. I don’t know where THAT got started. In the end, look out the window and stop doing other things when down low and in the vicinity of an airport … where the “Big Sky” theory doesn’t apply.
It would seem to me there is very little time for see and avoid, radio communications, or ADSB identification given the volume and congestion of climbing and descending aircraft. To much happening to quickly.
Perhaps a more rational approach would be standardized VFR approach and departure lanes for each airport to allow orientation time and so as not to overlap.
If the multiple frequencies at these 12 airports within a 15-mile radius are already congested, how is forcing everyone onto a common frequency going to solve any problem? If there is this much traffic in such a small space with both controlled and uncontrolled fields involved, why not establish a TRSA (yea, I know I’m dating myself). Even if there are no towers operating, a TRSA could provide traffic alerts and separation. It doesn’t sound like pilots in the area are refusing to use radios, just too many uncoordinated frequencies in a high traffic area.
In my area there are many airports using the same CTAF frequency and the frequencies are overcrowded. Many transmissions at the same time block each other, or transmissions from airports 30-40 miles away crowd the airwaves and make it hard to speak, or distracting and hard to tell what airplane is where. I think the number of unicom frequencies should be expanded so that airports within 50 miles of each other do not have to share a frequency. With 720 channel receivers sufficient frequencies should be available to do this. This would in effect give each non-towered airport a discrete frequency not disturbed by other airports nearby. The rule could be change to the next frequency when you are at least 10 miles from an airport, or midway between airports if they are closer than that.
Requiring the use of navigation and anti-collision lights at all times would be the most useful thing.
One problem in many areas in both Alaska and the lower 48 is that there are multiple airports in close proximity using different frequencies. There is no clearly defined place to switch frequencies. In this accident area there are a dozen airports within 15 miles of the site using several discrete CTAF frequencies. Moreover, these frequencies are very congested and many transmissions are blocked.
Another factor in Alaska is that apart from the Anchorage Class C there is no requirement to even have a transponder, much less ADS-B. Attempting to solve a complex problem with a simple solution such as the NTSB proposes is rarely effective.
Effective visual scanning remains the best collision avoidance tool at this time.
“The NTSB recommended that the FAA require all pilots to monitor and communicate their positions on the designated CTAF when entering and exiting dedicated CTAF areas throughout Alaska…”
I absolutely support the NTSB’s recommendation. “Requiring” it…in Alaska…good luck.
I have always been in favor of requiring the use of radios on the ctaf within 5-10 nm, for certain, busy non-tower airports, as Canada does.
If the FAA does make use of the ctaf mandatory in Alaska, it might eventually be required in the lower 48.
For the no-electrics aircraft, a handheld radio and headset adapter are inexpensive, so it’s not a major expense.