Contact 1 ahead etc

[DFC]

Are UK instructors teaching pilots to make calls like;

"G-ABCD downwind contact 1 ahead"; or

"G-ABCD final contact 1 on"; or

"G-ABCD overhead contact 1 overhead 2 passing by one downwind ...yak yak yak.?

Is this some form of statement that "hey I am number x and don't try to push me back down the order"?

Or is this something that has slipped into useage from some other source and to be discouraged by instructors?

The reason why I ask is that it is getting more and more common at typical GA airfields and we very often hear the call "G-xx downwind 1 ahead" when we are on base with 2 ahead!

Isn't this just a waste of R/T time? After all why tell me that you can see me ahead............you surely are not mad enough to fly into me when you can see me?

Regards,

DFC

[Johe02]

I think it's just a spin off from the 'supersafe' attitude that seems to be guiding everyones thoughts in the UK these days.

Or it could be an attempt to save ATC from saying, 'do you have contact with the one ahead?'

Either way there's no real argument against it. .

I never teach it but I'm not fixed-wing.

[2Donkeys]

DFC

In the real world, there tends to be a choice.

Choice 1

G-ABCD: "G-CD is Final, runway nn"

ATC: "G-CD, Continue approach, one ahead to land/make a touch and go/etc"


Choice 2

G-ABCD: "G-CD is Final, runway nn, contact 1 ahead"

ATC: "G-CD, Roger Continue approach"


I don't know that one is better than the other. I would imagine that pilots who adopt Choice 2 are attempting to demonstrate to ATC that they are looking out of the window and have some understanding of the traffic situation.

2D

[Genghis the Engineer]

"Contact 2 ahead" = "I can see two aircraft ahead of me, so am not going to fly into them. ATC, if you think there are three or more aircraft ahead of me on finals, you'd best keep an eye and see if you should be offering somebody some advice; if you think I'm No.2 however there's probably something you should know about".

Common practice at pretty much every GA field in the UK. Glancing at CAP 413 it mentions the phraseology only in for use by a ground controller / A/G / FISO. However, it doesn't prohibit the practice nor, I'd suggest, should it, where aircraft are concerned.

G

[hugh flung_dung]

If I've just called downwind or final and then hear someone else make the same call I get slightly twitchy, if they call "downwind, one ahead" or "final, one ahead" I tend to twitch less.
In the interests of smooth flying I prefer not to twitch.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Actually, I think it's a good thing. It allows everyone to knbow that you have seen and identified the other a/c around you. It seems to help situational awareness and can help cut down on controller work and R/T workload.

[DFC]

Actually, I think it's a good thing. It allows everyone to knbow that you have seen and identified the other a/c around you. It seems to help situational awareness and can help cut down on controller work and R/T workload

Of course, it is up to ATC to decide the landing order so I was making the point regarding this practice at airfields where only Air/Ground is in operation.

The above quote seems to be the consensus i.e. as one pilot said it makes them twitch less.

Perhaps everyone should considder the posibility that they may have seen an aircraft other than yours and that in fact they are staring at it while closing into your 8 O'Clock without seeing you.

I heard this call "downwind 1 ahead" when I was number 3. That made me twitch quite a bit because I was expecting this pilot to cut in between me and the number 1 aircraft and in the process collide with the number 2.

What if I am downwind and I hear another guy call downwind - is this guy thinking he has nothing ahead or is this pilot using standard phraseology and maintaining a good lookout?

Are we going to have;

G'CD downwind 1 ahead

G'EF downwind with 2 ahead do you see me G'CD I think you are behind me

G'CD which aircraft are you G'EF

I am the third cessna G'EF

But I can only see two is one of them you G'EF, G'CD

G'YZ downwind which one are you G'EF.......................

You may think it is a joke but sadly it can R/T can degenerate to that level quite quickly when standard R/T is ignored and/or the radio is seen as some crutch used to prop up poor lookout.

Another example is the G'AB final contact 1 on.

Does that mean that "I am simply confirming that I am a law abiding pilot and I am on final on a VFR flight at an uncontrolled aerodrome and I will not land on top of you"

If that is the case do I have to worrk about the pilot who simply uses the standard "G'ZX final" cause they might land on top of me?

When it is busy, I think that this non-standard R/T is a waste of valuable R/T time and acheives nothing other than confusion and confusion in aviation can only be described as unsafe.

I would be interested in anyone who can put forward a safety case for changing CAP413 to include this practice.

Should we have CAP413 amended or teach pilots standard phraseology?

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

The example you use does sometimes happen and is very annoying, not to mention unnecessary.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a catch all phraseology for A/G ops.

As always, things can go to rats when under qualified people start making things up, for example people in the circuit acting as if they were air traffic.

Hopefully everyone should keep their awareness to a level where they know where everyone else is all the time and how they fit into that traffic, but as we know that is not often the case.

Limited phrases such as 'contact one ahead' can be useful, but going too far as you mention DFC is a complete pain.

No matter what CAP413 mentions, people will always make it up as they go along sometimes.

[Captain101]

I think there is no hard and fast rules of when such phrases should be said - It should be up to ones judgment.

There is nothing in those phrases to suggest which number in line you are, only how many you have visual so I can't see how this can in anyway be trying to become your own ATC.

I only use these phrases pre-emptivley when I know I am about to be asked or know it will be usefull to ATC or other traffic.

e.g

I've used contact one ahead after being cleared for a touch and go with one (identical aircraft) landing ahead of me! (aswell as rejecting the clearance)

Flying a fast aircraft you might need to overtake in the circuit, put contact x ahead in your call and this will save ATC asking you.

Contact one on helps if your expecting and can accept a land after.

Also handy at any busy a/d with only a/g radio.

Pilots can use their discression as to weather the RT traffic is to busy to merit these calls or not. I've frequently hear much more useless watses of airtime.

i.e as mentioned earlier in this post

G-ABCD: "G-CD is Final, runway nn"

try;- G-CD Final nn.

(IS - why??? Runway - What else are you planning on landing on??)

I'll encourage it's timley use in the interest of saftey.

Any ATCO's with an opinion???

[DubTrub]

Other airtime wasting:

"G-AB turning final"
"G-AB on final" (can be confused with "long final")
"G-AB rolling"

etc etc

[BigEndBob]

Some of this waffling is generated by AFIS. Then i think pilots copy thinking its the done thing.

Fellow cfi's and myself had meeting with aerodrome operator to change calls.
We got fed up of being told to "report downwind" after deadside call and "report final" after every downwind call. Each interchange requires three transmissions.
"G-XX deadside descending"
"Roger G-XX report downwind"
"Report downwind G-XX"
became
"G-XX deadside descending"
"Roger G-XX"
Downwind and final are standard calls, pilots don't need reminding to call unless its something none standard like call before turning base.

[Whopity]

"Fellow cfi's and myself had meeting with aerodrome operator to change calls."

All calls should be in accordance with the published CAP!

In the case of A/G thats CAP452 The Aeronautical Radio Station Operator's Guide.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP452.PDF

In the case of AFIS calls should be in accordance with CAP510

Most of the calls contained in these documents are als reprinted in the CAP413 so that pilot's dont have to find the other documenrts.

If you are flyinf in a circuit with A/G or AFIS the following calls are legally required:

a. Obtain traffic information prior to entering ATZ

b. Report entering and leaving ATZ

Thereafter, all calls are advisory, report where you are e.g. Deadside Descending (this meets the legal requirement to report entering the ATZ) Downwind; Final; Going Arround etc. To clutter the frequency with garbage about your intentions, positions of other aircraft is just RT indiscipline. You are flying VFR, LOOKOUT, if you can\'t see the other traffic that you must have been told about (thats why you report entering and leaving the ATZ) then ask for its position if not, SHUT UP and LOOKOUT.

[BigEndBob]

CAP413 2.2.6 " A FISO may request pilots to make position reports eg, downwind, final, etc"

So the call downwind and final is optional as far as a FISO is concerned, which it shouldn't be, all pilots are taught to call downwind and final. These calls are made for the benefit of not only FISO, but other aircraft in circuit or about to join circuit.

[2604]

Captain101

At some airfield we do sometimes land and take off on taxiway.

[Flik Roll]

I think it also stems from calling blind - e.g after hours or where no air taffice service is available.

[stick&rudder]

Is anyone else a little concerned that it seems that many people rely so heavily on calls as a way of ascertaining the traffic situation in the circuit? Some of us don't have radios in our ickle aircraft!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not at all. The radio is the primary way for getting information about other a/c, especially in a busy environment like a circuit at a training aerodrome.
It helps situational awareness no end and with relatively few machines now that don't have some form of radio, it isn't really much of a problem.

Anyone who thinks that traffic seperation purely on the basis of lookout is perfect, is having a laugh. There are times, when you simply don't see traffic even if you know roughly where it is having been alerted by a call or even by TCAS, what chance do you have without any help at all?

Lookout can never be described as a be all and end all solution no matter how dilligent you are.

[DFC]

stick&rudder,

I absolutely agree. Lookout is failing because people are relying on the radio and the GPS to tell them where they are and where the other traffic is. How often do we hear - "G-xxxx 2 point 3 miles north joining base leg is there any local traffic?"

-----------

Say again slowly,

I am laughing my socks off here!

For more years than I care to remember we have avoided collisions even at the most busy airfields with no radio in the aircraft.

Now often when I fly an aircraft with no radio, I don't make many calls when operating at some A/G fields.

Why?- because it is hard to get a word in with all the yak yak yak.

As far as I am aware, A/G frequencies are only available for communication between aircraft and the A/G radio station. It is not legal to use an A/G frequency for Aircraft to Aircraft communication.

Perhaps the CAA needs to send out more copies of the "Cut the Chat" posters.

Regards,

DFC

[stick&rudder]

SaS,
of course I agree that radio is invaluable for keeping track of the situation and i certainly don't believe that we would all be safer if no aircraft had them and solely relied on lookout. My point is that if people start stating where they are (or rather, where they THINK they are) in the sequence then others may act/base their decisions on this information. Thus it is possible that some aircraft (non radio or otherwise) are missed.
Also, some aircraft (small types) may fly tighter circuits, so someone flying a larger circuit may not be looking in the 'right' place to see other traffic which is in fact ahead of them.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Here we go again!

Yes non-radio did used to be the norm, but then again so were bi-planes.

Things have moved on a bit and the radio is a great aid to ALL. There is too much chat on freq's most of the time and it is very frustrating, but I for one wouldn't be without a radio if I had the option.

DFC, there always have been and always will be mid-airs especially in a busy environment. There is no way on earth that flying non-radio will cut the risk. It will almost certainly increase it.

If you tell me that you can see every aircraft around you when you are flying, then you are lying through your teeth. The radio makes life an awful lot simpler and safer and certainly helps my awareness of others.

There is no legal need to have a radio alot of the time and often it can be a pain, but to intimate that it is not a useful tool is daft. Listening out as well as looking out. Not difficult really is it...

stick, many airfields have a prescribed circuit pattern, especially if they have pain in the a*se neighbours, by that score a position report should let you know where they are. At the very least it can help your lookout by alerting you of another machine.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you'd not noticed, there are still quite a lot of non-radio airfields and pilots in the UK, not to mention far more pilots who miss (or make at the wrong point) circuit calls. Lookout is everything !! Radio is firmly secondary.

G

[PPRuNe Radar]

Now often when I fly an aircraft with no radio, I don't make many calls when operating at some A/G fields. Why?- because it is hard to get a word in with all the yak yak yak.

Is it not a heck of a lot harder because you have NO radio ?? :} :confused: :confused:

[DFC]

Ah, the all seeing radar has spotted it! I should of course have said with radio!!. :)

SAS,

If you tell me that you can see every aircraft around you when you are flying, then you are lying through your teeth

When flying in the circuit I do see every aircraft with the exception of those behind me.........that is how we avoid collisions.

There is no legal need to have a radio alot of the time and often it can be a pain, but to intimate that it is not a useful tool is daft. Listening out as well as looking out. Not difficult really is it...

Never said that radio is not a useful tool. In fact it is a very useful tool when properly used and as you say, Listening Out for appropriate position reports is an excellent way of improving one's situational awareness.

there always have been and always will be mid-airs especially in a busy environment. There is no way on earth that flying non-radio will cut the risk. It will almost certainly increase it

If the probability of mid-air collision increased with lack of radio then would it not be wise to say that the minimum visibility for operating non-radio should be more than the minimum visibility when one has a radio.........simlar to the fact that the risk of collision is greather above 140Kt than below and consequently the minimum visibility in class G changes?

I however would say that having a radio has absolutely no effect on the probability of collisions. All the radio does is to provide information that must be digested, understood, interpreted and if necessary acted upon along with all other aspects of situational awareness so that collisions are avoided.

The danger is that improper use of the radio can provide false information to the unwary thus disturbing their situational awareness and could possibly lead to a collision.
An example I believe being when one aircraft transmits "G-xx downwind one ahead"........and the aircraft following looks out expecting to see 2 aircraft and having spotted two aircraft assumes that all the traffic is in sight.

------------

Thanks to everyone for the comments - guess we won't be changing our procedures just yet and will continue to guide pilots on training flights that they should not try to announce how many they think are ahead.

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

The major risk in the circuit is not usually the traffic who is already there, but the traffic that is joining, that is when radio calls and standard routes come in useful. If they aren't following these and are non radio, what warning do you get then? That will obviously increase your chances of not noticing the traffic.

Whilst in the open FIR the helpfulness of the radio diminishes, so changing the viz limits wouldn't be of a huge amount of use, in that case shouldn't we have higher limits for areas of potential traffic congestion? Not very sensible really.

The scenario you mention about seeing 2 a/c is a valid one, but I was told a story today about a problem caused by an idiot instructor in a radio equipped a/c conflicting with a solo student in a non radio microlight. Was this down to a lack of awareness? yes it was and it goes down to stick&rudders point that some do place too much reliance on the radio, but I think we all agree that the radio is an important tool for traffic awareness.
Put it this way, would the London TMA operate safely on a see and avoid principle? Even on a perfectly clear day? How about getting rid of TCAS?

Standard calls and using your loaf are ideal, especially since some pilots do tend to flap if another a/c comes within 50 miles of them, a quick call to reassure them that you can see them or to say exactly where you are can help relax a fractious mind, but if the circuit is busy and there is lots of 'normal' calls, then that is neither the time or the place.

[Irish Steve]

"Fox Tango, Left hand down wind for 23"

"Fox Tango, roger, number 6, but we both know that's going to change, continue and call turning final"

Regular exchange. Happened every time we were training in the circuit, in that the other 5 were all 152's or similar, and we were operating at close to 120 Kts, reducing to 90 on very short final, as the VMCA on the aircraft was 105 Kts, so we had to keep at least 105 until certain of a landing.

The exchanges meant we knew how many to look out for, and the other 6 knew that the order of approaches was going to change, as there was a much faster aircraft operating in the circuit.

Made things a little easier for me, and also for the other aircraft in the circuit.

Got interesting on occasions though, we'd pass outside one of them as we turned final, touch a few seconds literally after the previous one had rotated off, and be looking for him and passing him before we turned cross wind.

[DFC]

Irish Steve,

You are talking about ATC. We are talking about uncontrolled airfields - A/G or FISO. Totally different situation.

SAS,

in that case shouldn't we have higher limits for areas of potential traffic congestion? Not very sensible really

We do and it is very sensible..........the 1500m visibility minima can only be used when flights are operating at speeds that will give adequate oportunity of observe other traffic or obstacles in time to avoid collision or in circumstanceswhen the probability of encounters with other traffic is low.

When the probability of encountering other traffic is increased or the speed is increased such as in controlled airspace then the visibility requirements increase also.

Helicopters can be permitted to operate VFR in less than 1500m because they can fly so slow.

a quick call to reassure them that you can see them or to say exactly where you are can help relax a fractious mind

Since A/G, Safetycom and FISO frequencies are not for air to air communication, how do you legally transmit from one aircraft to another in flight? Or do you simply break the law so as to give some (unnecessary) comfort and of course report the infringement when you land???? ;)

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

Ahh but a position report is just that. You are just making a general broadcast for the benefit of all, you aren't communicating directly with the other a/c.

The heli's as you say operate "at a speed commensurate to the visibility in sight of the surface." It's nice to also have the option of stopping completely if you really must.

[Irish Steve]

You are talking about ATC. We are talking about uncontrolled airfields - A/G or FISO. Totally different situation

Sorry, I thought the original couple of messages were A/C, ATC.

Did quite a bit of flying from non controlled airfields, and they tended to be much as described here, depending on how busy it was, it helped the awareness. Made for problems when it was busy, especially when there were low time students flying solo who were perhaps struggling to fly and deal with the R/T, but that's maybe not such a bad thing, it's for sure better than having someone operate to an airfield that needs radio for the first time, and not really be aware of what's happening.

Key thing for me is brevity.

Fox Tango, left hand downwind for 23

followed later by

Fox Tango final to roll

works, but

Fox Tango is now just becoming downwind for an approach to runway 23 and planning to execute a touch and go.

Fox Tango has turned final and descending for runway 23 and planning to perform a touch and go.

doesn't work at all, I don't need that much bandwidth.

I need the information, not the life history, which some people are only too keen to give at every opportunity.

Cheers

[DFC]

SAS,

Ahh but a position report is just that

Sorry, I thought that you were saying you would make a call to the other aircraft.

Seems we agree that appropriate position reports are very good for assisting pilots maintain situational awareness. In this respect I have no problem with pilots adding in say a "base" call provided there is a good reason for that call eg aircraft calls joining base and you are laready on base then making a position report would assist the pilot joining.

Regards,

DFC