New use for Guard?

[sidtheesexist]

This may be an old topic - if so, apologies for going over the same old ground. My company's policy (along with everybody else I would suppose) is to monitor 121.5 on box two - esp when flying in French airspace. Anyway, the other day we were going to or from Lis when to my surprise, I heard on guard, two UK a/c from the same company, talking to one another - one was passing on reqd fuel uplift figures for the other to relay - no doubt due to range. I am not suggesting that the exchange lasted that long - maybe a minute at most, but it is the misuse of the frequency which I find distasteful from a professional and safety viewpoint. The operator's name genuinely escapes me but I remember remarking to myself that I wouldn't have expected such a malpractice from those guys. I am I over-reacting or are there others out there who share my view????

[ukatco_535]

Sidtheesexist


I personally would have filed a report if I had been in your shoes. It is a discreet emergency frequency, not a chat frequency!!

[Jerricho]

Been covered before, but chit-chat like that on guard really gives me the sh*ts.

Our sectors here have 121.5 monitored at every position and can be selected if required. Makes me smile when a situation like the one Sid mentions begin and somebody comes on with a very terse "YOU ARE TRANSMITTING ON GUARD. GO TO YOU COMPANY FREQUENCY!!!".

[M609]

In Norway, Victor guard is often called "Wideroe company". Not because they use it as such, but often call ATC on it by mistake. (Reading back instructions etc)

[tired]

Agree, using guard for company messages is unprofessional, with the possible exception of a brief call to establish contact and tell the other guy to "go company".

But what REALLY gives me the sh*ts is these bloody "practice pan" calls in the UK. I'm know they're useful to all concerned - both student and D&D - but they'll be just as useful if made on a dedicated "practice pan" frequency. They don't bloody well belong on 121.5. Any suggestions as to how we can get the Belgrano to take some action on this - or do we have to wait for the inevtiable cock-up and possibly some lost lives before they do........??

Rant over!

[chevvron]

Good idea tired. There is one on UHF so why not a VHF one too?

[ShyTorque]

"They don't bloody well belong on 121.5."

Er, Yes they do! Practice Pans and Training fixes are prefectly legitimate uses.

Unless they are blocking more urgent airline pilot chit-chat about toilet emptying requests and rationing for the next sector, etc, of course. :rolleyes:

And yes, our company policy IS to listen out on 121.5. Our radio has a volume control though. Turn it left if required, legitimate use (or airline mistakes) get quieter, turn it right when it's all complete, no problem.

[tired]

"And yes, our company policy IS to listen out on 121.5. Our radio has a volume control though. Turn it left if required, legitimate use (or airline mistakes) get quieter, turn it right when it's all complete, no problem."
Exactly the same in my company, and our radios work the same as yours :)
Three points I would like to make though, M'lud -
1)Twice in the last few months I've experienced a call from ATC on box1 being blocked by a "practice pan" on box 2. Result - "say again " to ATC, (while turning the vol knob on box 2 to the left, as per your suggestion ;) ). Certainly, by the law of averages, this will happen occassionally with a real emergency, and so be it, these things do happen. But IMHO it's unacceptable for it to ever happen for a practice emergency.
2)Turning that vol knob on box2 to the right again when it's all complete - yes, you just have to remember to do it! The 2nd time mentioned above we went all the way to Shannon before I remembered to do that - my mistake I know, but an easy one to make and it meant we weren't guarding 121.5 for nearly an hour. Again - if that happens due to a real emergency, then so be it, but for it to happen for a non-essential training scenario that could easily take place on another frequency is not acceptable.
3) If it hasn't happened already, Murphy dictates that one day an aeroplane with a real emergency will not be able to get a transmission in due to a "practice pan". Again, do you think that that's acceptable?
I'm not for a moment suggesting that practice pans be scrapped from the syllabus, all I'm suggesting is that they take place on another frequency. How about 131.5, to keep it as near realistic as possible? Simple enough for the CAA to Notam, and no training value lost.

[onedaymaybe?]

Unfortunatly as part of the syllabus for the radio licence issue was a demonstration of the guard channel and a "practice pan".
I instructed before going onto an airline , so have seen both arguements and feel that on both sides there has been wrong.
Yes the use of guard to do a "practice pan" can at times seem irritating, but I feel that my time as an instructor has made my mind set more tolerant to those coming along in the training side. And I can as just easily turn down the volume if I do not desire it overriding my box 1.
What I feel is equally irritating is pilots of larger aircraft feeling that 121.5 is airline domain, and ..guard it religiously as if it were for them alone..with calls of "On Guard" at the slightest whisper.
While doing some light aircraft Instruction recently on my days off, I overheard a Private Pilot get into bad weather and need the assistance of "Guard" to help him navigate to a safe area. but the transmission from D&D was stepped on by an Airline pilot deciding to give the Controller and the PPL a short telling off for talking "on Guard".

[whowhenwhy]

Exactly right. The most un-professional use of Guard is the en-route guys whining to D&D about someone carrying out a practise PAN. The simple fact is that at the moment conducting practices on 121.5MHz is perfectly legal and is encouraged by CAA, D&D and a huge majority of the GA community. However, a Practise Emergency Training Frequency (PETF) for VHF is an excellent idea and would solve a lot of problems. Yes there are issues with pilots forgetting the actual Guard frequency when they're flapping in an emergency, but that is a training issue and should be easily addressed. It works fine on UHF, so why not? As I've mentioned before though, nothing will happen until the en-route guys and the GA community start putting pressue on the CAA to provide the frequency. Bare in mind as well that the frequency will have to be mated up with the kit in the D&D cells which will require a lot more investment.

[ShyTorque]

"And yes, our company policy IS to listen out on 121.5. Our radio has a volume control though. Turn it left if required, legitimate use (or airline mistakes) get quieter, turn it right when it's all complete, no problem."
Exactly the same in my company, and our radios work the same as yours :)
Three points I would like to make though, M'lud -
1)Twice in the last few months I've experienced a call from ATC on box1 being blocked by a "practice pan" on box 2. Result - "say again " to ATC, (while turning the vol knob on box 2 to the left, as per your suggestion ;) ). Certainly, by the law of averages, this will happen occassionally with a real emergency, and so be it, these things do happen. But IMHO it's unacceptable for it to ever happen for a practice emergency.
2)Turning that vol knob on box2 to the right again when it's all complete - yes, you just have to remember to do it! The 2nd time mentioned above we went all the way to Shannon before I remembered to do that - my mistake I know, but an easy one to make and it meant we weren't guarding 121.5 for nearly an hour. Again - if that happens due to a real emergency, then so be it, but for it to happen for a non-essential training scenario that could easily take place on another frequency is not acceptable.
3) If it hasn't happened already, Murphy dictates that one day an aeroplane with a real emergency will not be able to get a transmission in due to a "practice pan". Again, do you think that that's acceptable?
I'm not for a moment suggesting that practice pans be scrapped from the syllabus, all I'm suggesting is that they take place on another frequency. How about 131.5, to keep it as near realistic as possible? Simple enough for the CAA to Notam, and no training value lost.

Well, I've been in this game for just about 30 years, flown single pilot and multi crew. Practice Pans etc have always been part of the game on 121.5 (243.0 for me in my middle years). Somehow, I and thousands of others have always coped by careful use of the volume controls (don't turn it off completely, just down to an acceptable level so it becomes "second priority"). In my experience, more so recently, most interruputions on 121.5 are actually caused by careless use of the radios by airline pilots; i.e. having the wrong transmit button keyed when calling an agency. This results in two or three transmissions from the transgressor, followed by other calls from other pilots telling them they are guard. That won't change by putting practice calls across to another frequency.

[YourFriendlyATCO!]

Practice Pans are also good practice for D&D. Invaluable experience to training pilots to use the service too.

[sidtheesexist]

Some interesting posts guys and gals. I too used to instruct and regularly got students onto 121.5 to do the practice pan routine - personally, I thought it was invaluable experience for the student bearing in mind how tentative most were on the RT and ultimately, a call to 121.5 could save their bacon (CFIT) or avoid a CTR/CTA infringement. Clearly this training process needs to continue but a discreet frequency sounds like an obvious solution.

[BDiONU]

However, a Practise Emergency Training Frequency (PETF) for VHF is an excellent idea and would solve a lot of problems. As I've mentioned before though, nothing will happen until the en-route guys and the GA community start putting pressue on the CAA to provide the frequency. Bare in mind as well that the frequency will have to be mated up with the kit in the D&D cells which will require a lot more investment.
Right, so are the en-route guys and the GA community going to put up the cash to pay for the infrastructure? Frequency would be relatively simple (how about the general chat freq 123.45, although DAP consider it to be an assigned frequency its used as chat) but who will bear all the costs of putting in the transmitters and receivers, the bits of wire in between, the ongoing maintenance and fault monitoring?

BD

[chevvron]

123.45 is assigned to station(s) in France and hence must NOT be used in this country due to interference problems; if you really must request a frequency to use ask DAP first.
Military used to have 243.8 for a practice frequency (may have changed) so how about something else starting 121.xxx for the practice one?
There are several frequencies assigned to research agencies fror 'trials' use which are rarely used eg 118.75; 126.4, so frequencies must be available; there are also several frequencies in the 'air' band assigned to VHF TV transmissions, but these may be on different modulations.

[BDiONU]

so frequencies must be available; there are also several frequencies in the 'air' band assigned to VHF TV transmissions,
Frequency isn't really the issue, its who is going to pay for it. NATS is a private company so they'll be looking to be paid to provide the service but there is no funding mechanism in place.

BD

[chevvron]

I was assuming the present D & D setup would operate it. It would seem sensible to keep it all under one roof after all. On the other hand, if NATS were to introduce a setup like this, I'm sure there would be 'shortly retiring' people like TDM and myself who would volunteer to sit there and do nothing on murky winters days!

[BDiONU]

I was assuming the present D & D setup would operate it. It would seem sensible to keep it all under one roof after all. On the other hand, if NATS were to introduce a setup like this, I'm sure there would be 'shortly retiring' people like TDM and myself who would volunteer to sit there and do nothing on murky winters days!
I also had an emergency endorsement in the dim and distant past :D Yes the RAF would take on the task in A&FC (new name!) but I'm talking about the additional aerials and wiring and maintenance. Thats what I meant by providing the service, as opposed to operating it. Sorry I wasn't clear in my previous post.

BD

[PPRuNe Radar]

I'm sure NATS would provide the engineering support ... if the MoD paid for it in their contract ;)

[London Mil]

I'm sure NATS would provide the engineering support ... if the MoD paid for it in their contract

Ahhh, the Beloved Contract. Lots of talk but seems to have been overshadowed by the wavy lines. I understand that someone is going to do a roadshow sometimes soon.

Anyway, a source has told me that D&D (don't know whther A&FC will ever catch on even after LMARS/PC) did a wee survey for the Regulator a few months back. Allegedly, the amount of air-to-air "chat" transmissions on 121.5 far outweighed the practice pans. :ooh: :ooh:

Even better, a rather irate Germanic chap, thinking he was anonymous, started to let-off on 121.5 using some rather choice languague - I guess he doesn't realise how auto-traingulation works.:eek: :eek:

[BDiONU]

I'm sure NATS would provide the engineering support ... if the MoD paid for it in their contract ;)
But why would the MoD want to pay for a service to the GA community for which they receive no recompense? ;)

BD

[BDiONU]

Ahhh, the Beloved Contract. Lots of talk but seems to have been overshadowed by the wavy lines. I understand that someone is going to do a roadshow sometimes soon.
Indeed, the MoD contract manager and the 3Gp IPT contact are doing one at LACC this Friday 7th and more at an area centre near you SOON! ;)

BD

[London Mil]

I suspect the comment was 'tongue in cheek'. However, there is an interesting slant to the argument. I reckon that the RAF couldn't give two hoots about VHF fixing. It certainly provides training value but their core task remains with 243.0. I think the argument is far more interesting from the NATS perspective. On the one hand, NATS react to their customers' demands. If the airlines bleat enough about something it is only right for NATS to respond. Conversely, it is in NATS' interest to keep VHF auto-triangulation as it probably contributes towards the 'safety net', especially in reducing airspace infringements. This issue is particularly high on their agenda and, correct me if I'm wrong, I suspect that NATS would prefer to keep the capability.

[BDiONU]

On the one hand, NATS react to their customers' demands. If the airlines bleat enough about something it is only right for NATS to respond. Conversely, it is in NATS' interest to keep VHF auto-triangulation as it probably contributes towards the 'safety net', especially in reducing airspace infringements. This issue is particularly high on their agenda and, correct me if I'm wrong, I suspect that NATS would prefer to keep the capability.
The capability already exists and there is no intention to do away with it. If anything NATS would prefer to see additional 121.5 coverage to enhance the service. What is being proposed is yet another frequency with the cost involved in setting it up and maintaining it. There is a big 'discussion' which could be had about the 'safety net' of auto-triang to prevent or assist in the reduction of airspace infringements. A&FC can only help when the pilot realises that they're lost and call on 121.5. They can (and do) blunder about in CAS etc. quite unknowingly.

BD

[rab-k]

These days it seems that 121.5 gets used all too often for PLOC (Prolonged Loss Of Comms) cases where ATC has to get other crews, with whom they have 2-way, to chase up the guys with the ear wax/wrong freq on their behalf.

If crews stop listening on the #2 box then more instances of PLOC will result in frantic gestures/flashing of lights from fighter jocks that pop up alongside unsuspecting Boeing/Airbus drivers!

Like most of these things, apply a modicum of common sense and what's the problem?

[BDiONU]

Ahhh, the Beloved Contract. Lots of talk but seems to have been overshadowed by the wavy lines. I understand that someone is going to do a roadshow sometimes soon.

Heres the full list:

Date Time Location Room

April 7 10.00 – 11.00 Swanwick Presentation Room
April 21 10.00 – 11.00 Prestwick Room 1.01
May 2 10.00 – 11.00 CTC CTC Restaurant
May 4 10.00 – 12.00 West Drayton Centre Place, Conference Room 1


HTH
BD

[PPRuNe Radar]

But why would the MoD want to pay for a service to the GA community for which they receive no recompense?

Does that mean NATS pays for 121.5 and the D&D service to civil aircraft at the moment ? (refuse to use the new name ;) ) I haven't the faintest idea about that.

[BDiONU]

Does that mean NATS pays for 121.5 and the D&D service to civil aircraft at the moment ? (refuse to use the new name ;) ) I haven't the faintest idea about that.
I'm not certain about what the funding arrangements are, so feel free to shoot me down in flames :) D&D is provided by the RAF primarily for military emergencies but they also do civil as a part of the joint and integrated ATC in the UK. 121.5 is supported by NATS as a licensing requirement.

BD

[whowhenwhy]

Absolutely correct, I think. CAA have the international legal obligation to monitor 121.5, which they gave to NATS. NATS supplied the military with the kit to monitor 121.5 because they were already looking after 243.0. Who pays for that element of the service provision? Sorry, you'd have to ask someone a lot cleverer than I.

As to who would have to pay for the kit? Don't know. It wouldn't be NATS as they're not obligated to provide a practise VHF. We provide a practise UHF (245.1) for flt safety reasons. We wouldn't provide funding for a practise VHF because we're already doing NATS a favour looking after 121.5-although this works in our favour in a number of ways that have already been mentioned. Central government through the DoT?

[A I]

All ACC's have to monitor 121.5MHz as it is an ICAO requirement. For both London and Scottish FIR's this is done on NATS behalf by London and Scottish Mil. Both civil centres have the capability to select 121.5 MHz when required.

The position fixing bit is a requirement of the CAA in the licence issued to NERL. It has to be on VHF (not necessarily 121.5MHz) and again is delegated to the Military operation. Although I don't know for certain it seems likely that both of these services are covered in the NATS/MoD contract.

A I

[BDiONU]

All ACC's have to monitor 121.5MHz as it is an ICAO requirement. For both London and Scottish FIR's this is done on NATS behalf by London and Scottish Mil. Both civil centres have the capability to select 121.5 MHz when required.
The position fixing bit is a requirement of the CAA in the licence issued to NERL. It has to be on VHF (not necessarily 121.5MHz) and again is delegated to the Military operation. Although I don't know for certain it seems likely that both of these services are covered in the NATS/MoD contract.
A I
Found the exact wording at last. Under the NATS Operating Licence from the CAA, a Memorandum of Agreement between MoD and CAA and under contractual arrangements between NATS and MoD, MoD Controllers provide an Alerting and Fixing Service to aircraft which declare an emergency using NATS and MoD owned ground based radio and radar assets.

Under the Air Traffic Services Licence for NATS (En Route) plc (1-Nov-03), Condition 3 controls modification of Specified Services, defined in Schedule 4 to include “Emergency Fixing Facility”, which is “The making available of radio-communications facilities to enable the identification of the position within the Licensed Areas of aircraft communicating on very high frequency.”

BD

[FCS Explorer]

if you transmit on guard for 15 sec or longer you trigger a sattelite tracking for SAR purposes. there are about 300 "false alarms" of this kind every day. pretty unnecessary. u wanna chat, go to your company freq or 123.45...

[10W]

All ACC's have to monitor 121.5MHz as it is an ICAO requirement. For both London and Scottish FIR's this is done on NATS behalf by London and Scottish Mil. Both civil centres have the capability to select 121.5 MHz when required.


Can't speak for Swanwick (or Manchester or TC), but there is no capability to select 121.5 in the civil part of Scottish ACC, except in the engineering domain.

[chevvron]

FCS as I've said before, the use of 123.45 as a chat frequency in the UK is STRICTLY PROHIBITED!

[BDiONU]

FCS as I've said before, the use of 123.45 as a chat frequency in the UK is STRICTLY PROHIBITED!
LOL!! Doesn't matter how loudly you shout it, in my experience its commonly used as chat, especially over the ocean.

BD

[chevvron]

I dare say it is, but what the users don't realise is it's monitored by the authorities (in the UK) and they will trace anyone they can identify and have words with them!

[PPRuNe Radar]

In the Oceanic case, that's because it's what it's actually there for :ok:

UK AIP ENR 2-2-4-9

Air-to-Air — 123.450 MHz H24 Air-to-Air interpilot frequency.

[A I]

Thanks for the correction 10W. At Swanwick the VCS can select 121.5MHz. Do you mean that at ScATCC the engineers can patch the frequency through or can only the military use it?

A I