Pilot standards decreasing?

[CrankyATC]

OK so this is more a whinge than anything, but its also indicative of the decreasing standards or airmanship of pilots in general.

I work in a tower in Australia. Over the last 12 months, I am appalled at the level of airmanship displayed by lighty pilots (although RPT operators are far from exempt).

I cannot count the amount of times that someone has called for taxi with an obscure destination, and when being asked what track that is, the usual reply is "standby, the GPS isn't up yet"!

Or even worse, get airborne, spearing off at 90 degrees (or greater) than the expected track, when questioned where they were going and given the appropriate track, reply " GPS must be wrong"!:ugh::ugh::ugh: Makes me wonder what would happen without intervention..

(See Dick, thats why we get departure reports)

Is not basic navigation still being taught? You know, compass/clock/landmarks?

How the hell do you jump into an aircraft and have NO idea on your heading? This to me indicates that maybe the fuel planning is not appropriate either... :confused:

Are licences too easy to get these days? I know it wasn't when i got mine. And i know i don't get into an aircraft without having worked out a full flight plan...

And don't even get me started on the problem of not knowing if they are south west or south east of a position..

Anyone else finding the same issues?

[VH-FTS]

I thought it was a requirement on the flight notification submission that the destination be recorded as either a lat/long or a bearing distance. If the notification isn't being submitted, then don't issue a clearance. If the notification is incomplete, then what are Flightwatch doing when the plan comes through full of gaps? Or don't they care because it's VFR?

Chances are the drongos you've been talking about have been flying for years. Some of the worst pilots I've flown with have been doing it for a long time and become complacent. The newer guys are likely to still be excited about flying and soak up everything they can about it. It may be more of a question of their airmanship (and ability to function as a human being) rather than standards dropping overall. Chances are though that some things are not being emphasized during training any more due to time pressures, lack of instructor experience, or other 'priorities' such as TEM training and stabilised approaches.

If old mate in his 182 screws up a departure, nothing happens - no one is there to check or train. If ATC or an RPT pilot screw up, their job is potentially gone or systems are in place to try to solve the mistake.

[CrankyATC]

thought it was a requirement on the flight notification submission

That's one issue, most of them don't submit flight plans. In fact, all the ones i've had major issues with, haven't. Therein lies the problem, they are not thinking about it before getting to the holding point.....

And it's unfortunately not a requirement to submit a plan.. (Not a class C tower here). How they handle their own SAR is up to them.

[Jabawocky]

Bugger.....what have I done this time? :sad:




Seriously, I do not think there has been a time where I have departed a towered aerodrome and not made a tiny small error, such as take up a heading of 90 degrees out of TL, and while changing frequencies you roar through a change in wind and while the continued turn plus the result of bouncing through a bunch of turbulence you look back at the heading and its like 120 :eek:, in less than a blink of an eye. The resultant track was probably what the ATC wanted, but you quickly realise how you could have performed better.

Or the other day, cleared to leave CTA on descent and soon to be but not quite into G I decide to TELL ATC I am tracking to the Echo Charlie waypoint........rather than request it :=, naughty Jaba getting ahead of himself:sad:.

So I do not think there is a day where any of us could not improve our game. As to the blatent ones you refer to.......well we seem to be keeping these folk in the gene pool too long.

[MACH082]

ATC are far from exempt.

They give us all sorts of instructions which cause no end of grief on the flight deck.

Most of the time when there is a stuff up, it's because the STARs been cancelled, the runway has been changed and we are high and fast, or we are slowed down, sped up, held, vectored, twisted, turned.

ATC are usually the major threat, this results in most of the errors I have witnessed in terminal areas.

In fact going into class G ports without ATC interference, while organizing your own separation results in more movements and less stress. The more people you deal with, the longer everything takes.

[morno]

Maybe it's time for a bit of check and training Jaba, :E. I can give it to you later this month.

In all seriousness though, I agree hugely with what CrankyATC is saying. I see and hear a big lack of airmanship every time I go flying. What scares me the most though, is some of the private pilots you hear getting around IFR. I've always been of the opinion that if you hold an instrument rating of any sort, then you should at least be of the same level of competency as a CPL holder. Yet some of the one's I hear, makes you wonder if they even know what they're doing! That said, sometimes you hear CPL holders who sound more like student pilots....

Ultimately, I think it comes down to 3 things. The level of experience of your instructors, increasing complacency with pilots who have been flying for years, undergo no formal check and training and think they are fine, and over reliance on technology.

morno

[VH-XXX]

Simple laziness.

Treat them to a stern request for further information; make them wait for the clearance, be direct, stick to procedures and insist on the correct information being provided. They just need a wake-up call and some minor embarrassment.

Times are a changing though and I'd expect more of this as GPS's become more affordable for the masses. You get a lot more info when you are using a modern GPS, but you know far less about other things that are important to others. Just thinking about that, I can tell you I'm over a mountain range in cloud, crossing a river, my TAS and groundspeed, but I can't easily tell you how many miles I am from my departure point! (without measuring on the screen)

[NIK320]

That depends on how far out you are.
If you have just departed you can flick to the nearest page and get the distance from that.

[Captain Sand Dune]

......or you could pick up a map.

Sounds like more and more people are forgetting that a GPS is a navaid, and that it is the pilot in command who navigates.

[Ultralights]

Must obviously be all those RAAus pilots... :}

[Jabawocky]

Maybe it's time for a bit of check and training Jaba, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif. I can give it to you later this month.

Probably fail :{.........I hear you are a tough bastard! :uhoh:

[morno]

Can be, but I'm also easily bribed with a beer later on, :ok:.

[PA39]

Gets back to training.......airmanship and protocol should be drummed in ! :mad:

[Wally Mk2]

.........I wouldn't want to be an ATC'er for all the tea in China!!!! That job yr welcome to guys/gals:) Trying to make EVERYBODY happy coming in & out of a drome would be the hardest thing known to mankind, we pilots are a soft lot at times:E You know what they say, flying is essentially boredom interrupted by a few scary moments taking off & ldg:)

As for poor airmanship? it simply doesn't exist these days, or at best it's a rarity. Ya can't 'teach' Airmanship really it's acquired as experience is gained.

Simply put it's my belief that getting a pilots license is too easy, money buys almost anything! It's more the checking of a license holder that is lacking.Airline pilots are the most checked/regulated lot out there but they still use the same sky as a pvt pilot does who rarely flies from one BFR to another.
Where damn lucky that Oz is a BIG SKY place & few fly over it compared to Europe for Eg....phew !!!!


Wmk2


P.S............'Jabadabadoo' there's no hope for you just stay out there way outback where you can do no harm to others:E:E

[Arm out the window]

......or you could pick up a map.

Sounds like more and more people are forgetting that a GPS is a navaid, and that it is the pilot in command who navigates.

Next you'll be saying a watch, contact-covered WAC, set of naviders, a protractor and a chinagraph pencil (with a spare so you can carry out the immediate actions of 'select standby chinagraph') is all you need.

Bloody hell mate, radical stuff!!:ok:

[VH-XXX]

You won't need a pencil from now on. They have put a scratch-pad into the latest version of OZRunways.

[jas24zzk]

WHAT!!!!!! no pencil to lose?

how the hell am I going to keep my pax busy looking for the one i 'dropped' and keep them from touching things. :ouch:

[Jabawocky]

P.S............'Jabadabadoo' there's no hope for you just stay out there way outback where you can do no harm to others:E:E

Wally.........with all the sh1t you talk, occassionally you do come out with sound advice :sad:

J:E

[Stationair8]

Bit like the CTAF(R) call, all stations XYZ inbound.

The RPT call's up and ask's XYZ which direction he is inbound from , level and estimate for the field.

XYZ replies ah, ah um ah inbound and is now 67 gps.

XYZ that's 6.7 gps ah ah um inbound.

RPT now lined up ask's XYZ to confirm the direction they are inbound from, level and eta.

Minutes go by.

RPT asks again for XYZ'S postion relative the field, level and estimate.

A few more minutes tick by.

RPT asks again for the postion of XYZ.

XYZ replies 40 gps now to Timbuktoo.

RPT asks if they are still inbound to this location?

XYZ replies standby, ah ah ah um we are maintaining ah ah um um below 5500 and now 38 gps to run to Timbucktoo.

RPT replies you are now overflying this location and maintaining 5500 and tracking to Timbuktoo, confirm?

Minutes go by.

XYZ replies standby, ah ah um um say again?

RPT ask's XYZ are you North or South of aerodrome X?

XYZ replies ah um

RPT ask's if XYZ is maintaining 5500 still?

XYZ replies ah ah um standby.

XYZ is cruising at 3500 and is now overhead the field and tracking north.

RPT now departs into the wild blue yonder.

Pilot of XYZ thinks to himself what a pack of wankers them RPT pilots are!!

Looks like you live a sheltered life CrankyATC, come and spend some time octa.

[VH-XXX]

Taxi via Bravo and then at Golf cross Runway 26 left then turn right and at Hotel 6 cross runway 26 right and then taxi to the southern apron.

That happened to me at Brisbane International. I asked for a clarification / repeat of the instruction and he responded, "follow the 737 taxiing out at your 2 o'clock." Worked for me!

[CrankyATC]

Stationair8Looks like you live a sheltered life CrankyATC, come and spend some time octa.
I've done that, its not much fun. Sounds like you have the same problems we do at work. :sad:

Wally MK2.Simply put it's my belief that getting a pilots license is too easy
Thought as much Wally.. sad but true.

Capt Sand DuneSounds like more and more people are forgetting that a GPS is a navaid, and that it is the pilot in command who navigates.
Give that man a cigar :D, unfortunately i think the "Modern" pilot (read newly minted gen Y'er who thinks technology is the bee's knee's) would think otherwise.

Mach082ATC are far from exempt.
Agreed, however this thread is about pilots. I know i'm not perfect, but i have the professional courtesy and motivation to learn and always try to do better. I know i've stuffed sequences, but rest assured that i've learnt from that. I cannot say the same for some private pilots however. How many times must you tell someone what a departure report is??:mad:

Does anyone else think the issue is because people want to appear "Cool" by having a pilots licence? This whole argument for TAF's to be in plain english. I mean really, is it that hard to learn a few abbreviations? If you don't know them there in the AIP which you can get for free for christ sake.

Speaking of AIP, there's lots of useful tidbits in there private pilots. Please take a read sometime. Free for all, www.airservicesaustralia.com (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com).:ok:

Gee i really am cranky today. LOL....

[jas24zzk]

Cranky,
whilst I agree with you, the muppetry exists at all licence levels not just PPL's, your freshly minted ones probably are the most professional people you will deal with all day....or failing that will at least reveal they could use a little assistance. Even experienced guys can get the simplest task wrong. e.g. I did a flight a few years back, where i had a plan into the system to get into YMEN, but didn't include the leg to get back out for the final leg and home to YCEM. I had actually planned this to be the case so I could practice the procedure of getting out of there without a formal plan in the system. I even got a briefing from the instructor who suggested i attempt it. I still muffed it!!!!
The controller handled it beatifully, but i am sure there were 30 pilots on freq rolling around in thier seats.

(tx) SGE, Details (insert them all)
(tx) EN Tower, SGE thanx for that, let me get a pencil and we'll try again
(no tx) DOH!!!!!!!! i'm SURE i heard the laughter over the sound of the donk.

bugger made me wait 10 mins before coming back to me, despite i learnt the lesson the moment he replied.


Seriously, BOT, i don't think the skills being trained are declining, quite the opposite, but i certainly think that complacency is setting in as experience is gained, and some pilots are not recognising times they should put in the extra effort to be professional.

[mcgrath50]

The guys and gals in EN tower are great, probably the nicest bunch I have had the pleasure of talking to and always ready to laugh when you make a balls of it!

[Jabawocky]

but i have the professional courtesy and motivation to learn and always try to do better.

Precisely.... if only we all did that.

And as for ATC they are usually more than understanding when you have a "blonde moment"......... jaba cleared direct WC and to leave on descent no reprted IFR traffic, in a tone of you ding dong but thats Ok I am covering your a$$. :ok:

[Captain Sand Dune]

Ya can't 'teach' Airmanship really it's acquired as experience is gained.

While I agree that airmanship is a subject that is (or should be!) continually learnt as one gains experience, I reckon there is scope for teaching it.

During the pre-flight briefing of every sortie taught in ADF flying schools, airmanship is discussed, i.e. airmanship points pertinant to that sortie. The idea is to get the student thinking about airmanship every time he/she goes flying.

So can airmanship be "taught"? Yes, but to a limited extent. It is the duty of the instructor to get the student on the right path to learning about airmanship. The rest is up to them.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Next you'll be saying a watch, contact-covered WAC, set of naviders, a protractor and a chinagraph pencil (with a spare so you can carry out the immediate actions of 'select standby chinagraph') is all you need.

Bloody hell mate, radical stuff!!

A bit like lookout. A dying skill with the advent of TCAD/S.:(

[Jack Ranga]

Or the pilot of a corporate jet observed 3000ft into controlled airspace without a clearance or a departure report. 'Sorry, I thought the base was F180' (A085)

Or the pilot of a certain king air operator climbing into controlled airspace without a clearance (short staffed and working like a cut cat). This certain king air operator used to have the most professional pilots I've dealt with on staff but lowered the conditions which saw all this experience walk.

Or the pilot of a Mooney (yeah, I know) helping himself to diversions left and right of track without a heads-up or clearance to do so.

Or the pilot of a B738 giving a position report overhead a position when 20nm west of it because he thought he wasn't on radar yet.

Or the pilot of......................

[Wally Mk2]

'Capt Sand Dune' Yr talking about the ADF re Airmanship, diff story there compared to the world of GA I reckon. I'd like to think that my tax $$$ are being used to produce exceptional airman via the ADF inc teaching Airmanship, something that doesn't get much of a mention in GA due costs.
In GA a freshly minted PVT driver is taught the rules & regs of the air hopefully by the book to get them started on the road to really learning but once out there in the real world where the rule book can't cover it all a pilot has to often think laterally & be courteous , the two main things that make up Airmanship.


"JR" I hear ya buddy re the King Air scenario you mentioned, cost cutting, it's all about $$$$ these days, Govt's simply don't have a clue!:ugh:

You can make 10 airframes identical but despite all the hairy fairy Human Performances/factors, CRM crap etc etc you can't make 10 pilots the same, there in lies the real challenge for instructors, humans, if it's wreck-able then we'll find a way!.

Wmk2

[Captain Sand Dune]

WMk2,

I hear ya, and I know where you're coming from. However including "airmanship" as a pre-flight briefing topic should not be the sole preserve of the ADF. I have not instructed in the civvy world, so maybe some (hopefully lots!) of civvy instructors do spend the few minutes (and that's all it is, mostly) talking about the relevant airmanship points during each pre-flight briefings. Surely this would not adversly impact cost.

but once out there in the real world . This is where adequate supervision should take over. But I'll leave that one for now!

"Courtesy"....now there's a concept that seems to be in short supply!:hmm:

[Awol57]

Back when I was instructing a few years back we certainly discussed airmanship. Hopefully that is still the case.

Courtesy is lacking generally in society and we see it carry over into our little corner of the world sadly.

[superdimona]

This whole argument for TAF's to be in plain english. I mean really, is it that hard to learn a few abbreviations? If you don't know them there in the AIP which you can get for free for christ sake.

Because not having a plain English option is nuts - it has no drawbacks but can help people (if your English ain't great, stick to the TAFs). Sure TAFs aren't rocket science but why make things harder then they have to be? If there was a legal requirement to do the Mexican Hat Dance before each walkaround, would you insist it remain a requirement because it's easy to learn?

Suppose the situation was reversed, and we'd always had both a plain English option as well as the anachronistic WW2 telegraph-era TAFs. What grounds would you have for removing the English option?

[VH-FTS]

Back when I was instructing a few years back we certainly discussed airmanship. Hopefully that is still the case.

You can't call it that anymore, CASA want it defined as TEM.

[jas24zzk]

TEM????

WTF!! just another TLA for the NES to learn, hence we should leave TAF's the way they are, as they are loaded with TLA's.

Its called maintaining commonality :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Cheers
Jas

[OverFienD]

Dunno what your talking all talking about...

Getting my PPL was the best day of my life:

- No more pesky flight planning
- No more Weight and Balance & fuel calcs

and most importantly...

I'll never have to look at another map again! ;) :ugh:

In all seriousness, I think that there are a couple of factors that are negatively affecting the amount of flying that new PPL's are doing, which is directly affecting the amount of airmanship they are learning from their experiences, with the main one being the prohibitive cost of aviation. Not an excuse, just a reason!

[jas24zzk]

Not sure I agree there OerFeinD.

Most ppl's upon completion have the money to continue flying regularily, advancing and consolidating their skills. It's what happens down the track that makes the difference.

I'll use myself as an example.
Finished GFPT.
while waiting for a PPL theory course, added CSU/Retract (arrow)
finished PPL.
did a few hours
Added Twin ticket. Tavelair/baron
did a heap more hours.
added MENVFR.

By adding ratings, i was able to avoid Flight reviews.
My last couple of flight reviews have been challenges to decide what we would do, as I had been covering everything in my general flying. I might have dissapeared for some long range navs (trips) and then come home and flown the next week and done some general airwork(just to go flying), always refining my skills.

At one point I was even spending (a lot) time imparting my theoretical knowledge to others.

On an average, I was chalking up about 150 hrs a year as a ppl, mostly in high performance a/c. Even building my night hours, although the frequency was almost annual. I'd goto the local field with lights, and do some refresher training, then waffle up to YSHT for the annual pilgrimage and do a night nav out of there.

It is the pilots a little bit later on that seem to get into trouble, they get complacent, which gets compounded by a lower lack of funding to maintain the hours per year they had been doiing, and then the things they get away with in their general OCTA jaunts, when the pressure comes on in CTA they fail...but they are signed off to do it. I guess we really rely on the guys doing their BFR's to identify this stuff. I guess a good pilot will use the same instructor (yes i have that luxury) to do their BFR's so at least that instructor can review what was done last time

I am one of those pilots that is probably in a 'danger zone'. Driving the bus comes naturally to me, but my recent logged hours are low. And this part is all airmanship, I recognise it and respect the fact. I'm due for a BFR, and if i got signed off tomorrow, there is no way I would head the YBDV without a GPS like i have done in the past.

Even tho in the last 2-3 years my logged hours have been low, I have been able to maintain many of my skills, because of the aeroclub environment I live in. I've assisted the PIC by doing all the nav/flight planning tasks. Flown with guys as an observer pilot, discussing with them their decisions, radio calls etc, attempting to keep my knowledge drain to a minimum.

Airmanship starts with attitude!

For the first time ever, I have been able to identify something I am not comfortable with and tell my BFR guy, i think we need to do this, rather than have him decide.

Crux of the story is, not all pilots are forward thinking, and yelling at the rest over the radio won't help


Cheers
Jas

[YPJT]

Bit like the CTAF(R) call, all stations XYZ inbound.

Don't think the CTAF(R) has existed for more than a year now. Airservices stealthly withdrew all reference to it from AIP and charts.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but just as we all got used to preceding a broadcast with "traffic bullamakanka", the AIP has reverted to "All Stations"? :ugh: No wonder so many people have trouble getting it right.

As to the original question, a very wise CFI explained to me recently that there is a new breed of PPL trainees coming through the system. "I give you lots of cash - you give me PPL". Try instilling airmanship into a mindset like that.:mad:

[jas24zzk]

dead f*cking easy!!

you give me more cash or learn airmanship

at the end of the day, no amount of cash will get you ppl unless you cede defeat

[in-cog-nito]

a very wise CFI explained to me recently that there is a new breed of PPL trainees coming through the system.
Try instilling airmanship into a mindset like that.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

It's what I like to call 'the Macdonald's mentally in society'. They think it's just order what they want and it appears in 2 minutes. "I what a CPL and MECIR, FIR and I want to do it all in 6 months....oh, and chocolate thickshake". And it's not just in aviation.

I reckon there are 2 types of students. Those who want a licence and those who want to learn to fly. I had break from instructing between 2002 to 2004. When I returned in '04, most of the students were only interested in doing the bare minimum for whatever training they were doing.

Used to get asked all the time, "what's the minimum I gotta do for....". Everything from PPL through to MECIR.

Don't get me started on the LAZY, LYING, CHEATING, MINIMUM EFFORT international students. Just before I finished in aviation earlier this year, one of them was leaving us to go to the Florida. Why? Because he said it was easier to get a licence over there and that we were asking for too higher standard. That's what you end up teaching.

Pilot's need to take a bit more pride in their work.
A lot of recent generation of instructors are just bad. Especially the sausage factory products with their cookie cutter production line degrees. "I have the (minimum)hours for my grade 2/1, can you sign my test form?" or "Can Ol'mate and I do half ICUS half PIC in Seminole for the META 50 hours PIC. The test form say we can." Why only the minimum, why not a higher standard!

Like ol' mate Cranky, I know i'm not perfect, but i have the professional motivation to learn and always do things better.

Aim for higher standards, not just the :mad: MINIMUM!
Actually learn the stuff correctly. Ask why is it done this way, not just "because I was told to do it that way" or "because that's what we did GFS/Oxford".
Landing on centreline - it's OK the paint is :mad: dry, you wont' wreck it!

Radio calls - Get it right from the black and white. Not once have I seen written anywhere "TURNS base, TURNS final.:ugh:

It use to frustrate the :mad: out of me with full time students whose currency should'nt be a problem at this stage, see there standards drop down to barely that of a pre-solo PPL student. Like VH-XXX said - LAZINESS.

Those who fly for a hobby. I understand, family comes first with your time and dollars, so recency can be an issue. Try take advantage of the Airservices info nights. Some aeroclub's have right hand seat night to help keep your knowledge up to speed as well. Each flight you do, have an objective of a standard you want to improve. Be it circuits or DR nav.

I was a career instructor. I was very passionate about teaching people to fly and helping them succeed in their choosen hobby or career. The Macdonald's mentally in society attitude took it's toll on my enthusiasm. Maybe having a stroke was blessing in disguise. Now that I am out of the industry, I'm much more relaxed these days.

For the rest of still in aviation....

Good luck, and don't :mad: it up!
In-cog-nito, signing off.

P.S. Yeah I know what you think. All sounds like B.S. I used to get that a lot:rolleyes:

[morno]

Bravo that man!

[T28D]

Standard phraseology is the MINIMUM to create understanding, if it aids the situational awareness of other aircraft then additional information is valid provided it is concise and limited to the operational situation.

Airmanship requires all to "look out" for others and this doesn't mean with just your eyes.

[Captain Sand Dune]

"TURNS base, TURNS final.
And my all-time favourites:
"Traffic Tamworth, QLink 2008 the Dash, 30 DME on the 200 radial...."
and
"Traffic Dubbo, ABC departed 01, tracking 180, climbing to flight levels.
Bunch of Breitling wearing w@ankers....:yuk:

[Arm out the window]

They only say that because they've forgotten what flight level they're climbing to...

Maybe you can just set 1013 all the time and say you're climbing to "flight level zero-three-fife" ... maybe throw in a bit of a Darth Vader style oxy mask noise? You know you want to!:)

[YPJT]

A certain 717 RPT operator has some of the worse offenders.

"Turns", "enters", "back tracks" - "walks the dog":E
Trouble is a lot of impressionable GA boys and girls hear this garbage and think to themselves that sounds cool, I'll start doing it too. So the rot just goes on.

[jas24zzk]

The best one we hear from pundits in the yarra valley is..

ABC ready rwy 18.............. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[DBTW]

Is this thread about pilot standards or R/T?

Of course pilot standards are decreasing. Maybe if people were taught how to fly by real instructors with real experience, and instructors who weren't half paralysed by fear themselves (due lack of experience), other poorly trained (and thus scared pilots themselves) wouldn't be quite so bothered by minor issues like R/T?

And maybe if pseudo "professionals" weren't so damnably up themselves about trivial issues then the poor amateurs might be allowed to show a bit more confidence when actually flying, thus allowing them the capacity to speak up when needed instead of worrying about who is listening and who will judge them badly for any minor irrelevant infringement of precious procedure.

[YPJT]

Is this thread about pilot standards or R/T?
I don't know about you but in my humble opinion correct use of R/T procedure is clearly an indication, in part, of pilot standards.

[LeadSled]

DBTW,

I'm with you.

Australia has "radio procedures", the rest of the world communicates.

It is instructive to see how short and sweet is the ICAO list of standard phrases, for all the other things you might want to say, in the act of communication, the rest of the world expects you to use your brains --- not rote repetition of stock phrases.

It always amuses me to hear some instructor say to the student (why are they doing it in the hearing of others?) "Your radio work needs improvement" ---- work??? Since when is simple communications work??

If a pilot is taught proper R/T communication, instead of a lot of pedantic phrases, where none are needed (and a very few are), maybe we would see more effective communication, and less mindless "procedures".

A good place to start is with the NZ regs. and advisory material, the UK CAAP for R/T and if your are really keen, the relevant bit of ICAO Annex 10, Vol.2. You will find an amazing similarity between those three, and a very distinct difference to Australian practice.

The nasty practice of self confessed xsperts ( X= an unknown quantity, spert is a drip under pressure) "correcting" other pilots over the radio is unknown outside Australia. I always have a chuckle when the xspert is (as is often the case) is wrong.

Tootle pip!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Use of the collective “ALL STATIONS” must precede a general information broadcast.


This is a general information (read as wide area, not specific location) broadcast. The format for a CTAF remains as;

ENR 21.1.12
a. {Location} Traffic
b. {Aircraft Type}
c. {Callsign}
d. {Position/intentions}
e. {Location}

Please note, everyone, you should be making every call on CTAF utilising type, followed by call sign.

Point 1
This is reversed to the CTA/CTR initial contact. To a controller, it is more important to know who they are talking to.
In a CTAF, the more important factor is what type of aircraft are you looking for?
Point 2
Every call in a CTAF should have type and call sign prefixed (Chieftain, Romeo Kilo Delta). If you make a taxi call, then start circuits (for example) using call sign only, is the aircraft arriving 10 mins later going to hear RKD make a circuit call, assuming the Cessna they can see turning base is RKD? Are they then going to delay their join until they see the other aircraft they should have known to be looking for?
Point 3 (unrelated)
Assume when you make a departing broadcast on a CTAF that an incoming pilot may not be from the area and may not know where "Mulligan's Grandmother's Cat's Graveyard" is. Give a compass quadrant to help their situational awareness.:ok:

Not once have I seen written anywhere "TURNS base, TURNS final.

Nor me. But it’s very widespread practice. I always say ‘entering’, ‘backtracking’, ‘rolling’, ‘turning’ and ‘joining’ etc, but I’m in a very small minority.

AIP GEN 3.4 5.14.8
3. Departure Call
DepartED (Only thing past tense, otherwise....)
TrackING
PassING
ClimbING to.......

Pattern here?

My favourite...
"With You......"
That DEFINITELY is not in AIP and why the flock would you want to sound like a Seppo intentionally????:mad::ugh::rolleyes:

[YPJT]

Leadsled,
Must admit, I've never heard anyone correcting another's R/T over the radio. More likely just cringing whilst someone waffles on incessently rather than use standard phraseology, even if not absolutely 100% as per AIP, that would result in a concise and clear message.

"With You......" I believe that phrase is common in the UK?

[DBTW]

I don't know about you but in my humble opinion correct use of R/T procedure is clearly an indication, in part, of pilot standards.

Thanks for your opinion YPJT. In my experience, correct use of R/T procedure tells nothing about the pilot other than his ability to reproduce words in a parrot like fashion. There is much evidence, both real and anecdotal (especially in this fine forum), that not everybody who talks the talk can actually walk the walk.

How agist you are, Cynical Pilot. I didn't mention youth at all. My point is more to do with the way pilots are now instructed by people who clearly carry much anxiety into the air. Read the threads around this site and think like a cynical pilot. You can see people feel challenged enough on a daily basis to say all kinds of things about all kinds of topics which clearly indicate they do not enjoy their flying at all. In a training environment, the level of discontent would be interpreted as people trying to convince themselves not to fly because it is too dangerous or threatening, so what are these people doing out there in the airspace!

A fear of flying is a completely rational response to quite an unnatural domain.

Somewhere in the last several decades, the training method seems to have shifted from explanation, demonstration, monitoring and coaching, to one where we want everyone to have anxiety problems. IE: "if you don't limit yourself to exactly what I tell you, you will die."

The topic of this thread is an indication of my point. Clear concise R/T is the aim so that people can build situational awareness. This has been interpreted into "if you don't say exactly what I want you to say, you are unprofessional and dangerous." Well that's simply not a correct interpretation. It speaks more about the anxiety level of the receiver of flawed information! They obviously feel their life is threatened by another whose only anxiety might be about keying the mic!

I defy any professional pilot anywhere in the world to claim that they have never keyed the mic only to have compete bollox burst forth over the airwaves. You can choose to be embarrassed by that or not. The true measure of professionalism is to carry on and get the job done. Work to the best of your ability with the tools you have to hand to achieve the mission. Part of the burden a true professional must carry in Australia is that you are expected to know a myriad of rules and procedures that do not accurately reflect how well you sit in the cockpit. Another burden is that these rules allow other people to share the airspace, and their priority may not be the same as yours. That latter burden doesn't make their position any less justified than yours.

[RENURPP]

I don't know about you but in my humble opinion correct use of R/T procedure is clearly an indication, in part, of pilot standards

Absolutely, 100% correct!
Point is, don't blame the instructors. Being young is not an impediment to teaching. Would you seriously pull your child out of a school because his/her English teacher is under 30 and hasn't written fifteen best selling novels and won the Man Booker Prize? If the teacher had zero interest, then quite possibly. But when the teacher is supervised and checked as often as Grade 3 instructor? Surely no

Bloody oath I would.

Were not speaking age by itself here, it's age/experience and motivation.

Here's a more appropriate comparison.

Your child learns to ride a bike. Is just proficient enough to make it around the block without falling off.
Next week your kid opens a bike riding school to teach every one else.

You could easily replace bike with Car, horse or any other skill.

Teaching is not "owned" by "older" people, however having some real life experience is a huge advantage.
A young person maybe a fantastic communicator, howeverif they haven't yet experience what they want to communicate it can be all hypothetical non sense.

Experience and the ability to communicate are both essential.

It's not limited to instructors, it continues into airlines. The wrong people are training people for the wrong reasons in many cases.
The best training pilots should be training the new starts. Your initial training is the building block for the rest of your life, that's from dayone of your Initial training to your first jet job.
By the time you are ready to move from the right seat to the left you really should just need some simple coaching, yet companies, from flying schools to airlines use their longer term, not necessarily best, trainers to train advanced training.

Next week your kid is running the class and teac

[Wally Mk2]

'DBTW' well said:D
R/T proc's are just part of airmanship. Our rule books are an introductory offer, a 'guide' so to speak, get out there in the real world & use the one thing that lacks a LOT...common sense!


Wmk2

[mcgrath50]

Just to clarify, is the issue people have with "turns" is it should be turning?

If you want to give your call while in the turn onto base why wouldn't you say turning base rwy 36 etc. This gives the other traffic somewhere to look as everyone should be turning in just about the same place.

[MACH082]

It would have been in about 2005 that CASA recommended the turning calls.

Got quite hectic when everyone up "norf" tried it for a couple of weeks and gave up. The amount of clutter clogging area was insane.

I think it persisted for a couple of years, but you rarely hear it now.

I must admit the enters, backtracks, lines up, rolls, departs, joins, turns, maintains drives me nuts.

Whatever happened to our friend 'ing'?

It's a like a cancer too. One person in an area starts doing it and the habit catches on until it becomes "the way we do it". Soon all the local Pilots in an area are doing it.

[LeadSled]

Communication procedures must be concise and precise to save time. Only essential messages should be transmitted. Standard phrases, procedural words, and methods of pronunciation have been developed to conserve air time. Clinton,

You know, as well as I do, that I know that, and so does any properly educated pilot.

The core of the Australian problem is that we have to take it to extremes ---- just compare the number and extent of the ICAO recommended phrases and the Australian AIP, the difference is stark.
The US notifies just three minor variation to ICAO SARPs in this area, all to do with descent clearances, Australia list page after page after page.

Unless, of course, many of you think Australia is the only soldier in the battalion marching in step.

And at the most basic level, I continually hear discussions about: "Do you put the callsign first or last", or words to that meaning.

As an instructor, that is a problem I can sort in 15 minutes max --- without reference to any list of "radio procedures" ---- but the fact that the question is even asked ( and I have never heard it asked outside Australia) reveals the most basic lack of understanding.

And all to often reveals a pilot whose basic (lack of) training was done in Australia. All to often position reports given by Australian pilots are painful to the ear ---- and take up far too much air time.

What you should be doing, and it is all so easy to comprehend, if you have access to UK CAA CAP 413, Radiotelephony Manual, or ICAO Annex 10, Vol.2, also in ICAO PANS/RAC Doc. 4444, or the NZ AIP and related advisory material, is read and comprehend. Both the UK and NZ publication properly reflect the ICAO basic procedures, which have not changes in essence (because they don't need to) since we were communicating via a morse key, not a microphone --- when you had to really keep it brief.

The result, all to often, is noise parrot fashion, that has little to do with effective communications ---- I hear it all to often.

I am reminded of the definition of education: "A process whereby the information in the notes of the teacher passes to the notes of the student, without passing through the minds of either".

The conduct of "radio procedures" here in Australia, as opposed to effective communications, is all to often accompanies by the same deficit of mental consideration as immediately above.

As I have written in a number of different forums, we are wedded to the "pingya" system of instruction in the use of radio,( and much else) such as the "recommendation" of a rather too well known instructor in the Sydney area: "Read everything back so they (whoever they are) can't pingya".

In other word, driven by "compliance", not common sense (aka airmanship) communications.

Tootle pip!!

PS 1: DPTW, spot on again.

PS 2: I have just been reminded of the proposal from within CASA ( it got as far as a draft DP) to make all "non-compliance" with "radio procedures" strict liability offenses ---- only in Australia would such a lunatic proposal even be considered, let alone committed to paper.

[YPJT]

I always have a smile when I hear "this time" and expect someone with a sarcastic sense of humour to pipe up and ask "so what did you do last time" :E

[Jabawocky]

Or next time... :confused:

[thorn bird]

Geez Leady,
tell me its not true!! strict liability for getting a word wrong!!
Oh good grief, as if we are not enough of a laughing stock around the world
as it is!! thanks to Clint (no relation to Eastwood, dirty he may be, but Harry he aint) and his bottom feeding legal mates and the other ClusterF...Ks in CASA (All the rest of the world is wrong and WE are right brigade), so are they now going to "BUST" foreign pilots flying into OZ for not conforming???
Inspector Plod "it is alleged that on or about the 20th Sept you used an unaproved word when transmitting to Brisbane Centre..a crime of strict liability"....Captain Mohamed.."So stick it up your nose you son of a Camel Fa...t"...Inspector Plod.."Aha!!!I thought so...so you admit your guilt of contravention of Australia's Totally unique, Totally out of touch, Totally Bu...sh..T regulations"...Captain mohamed "Stick it up your nose.....etc"
Oh dear, where did common sense go??
When I was taught to fly we used to look to the tower for light signals..short concise and to the point instructions..today that particular aerodrome would be at a minimum Class D. worked fine..now we have polliwaffle

[Kharon]

Now, I learn' t me situational awareness at the tit, (don't stick your finger in the dogs arse), Grandpa's stable, (don't stand behind Bessie, she kicks); at school (don't piss off the Deputy Head, he will whack you) ; as a youth in the mountains (watch the overhang, the rocks are loose) as a young man on big boats (watch the water and hang onto the boat). Etc. etc.

I'd learned me good manners by the grand old age of seven, give up a seat, open a door; etc.

Now, 'learning me trade' I found that good manners and situational awareness (taught as a child) served me well, further developed by first class instructors provided a peaceful attitude towards all men and machines in the airspace surrounding me.

I've long lost count of the amount of 'good drivers' who have moved aside to allow a faster RPT to 'go first'; I probably owe a few beers on that one.

I've long lost count of the amount of times I have 'eased' the arrival of a 'neophyte' getting beaten up by the weather, navigational 'uncertainties' or plain old fear; I'm probably owed a few beers on this one.

In all, provided all parties are 'aware', attempt to communicate and show a modicum of understanding of the 'other' blokes situation, then for my money; the 'pedantic' legally constipated “professionals” can go and join the lunatics in the asylum.

Must own up to a big grin (or groan) when I hear “Jabiru 123 ROLLING runway whatever. Cracks me up – Rolling FCS, gim'me a break. :D

Good “Pro's” just get the job done and find a good seat at the bar.

Selah.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And just to 'back you up'....

One of the 'last' 'in flight' emerg. calls we had in Perth FSC, prior to our closing, was a 'pilot' who had departed a station in the NW, his GPS 'fell over', And....

- He wasn't sure about his departure time - like - 'well, how long have you been in the air'..?? Er, approximately then..??

- He wasn't sure about how much fuel he had on board - like - what is, or might, be your endurance..??

- He was in a valley and his vis. was reduced due to smoke...

- He was heading 'sort of SW'... in the late afternoon in the Pilbara....

- And.... he had NO charts....

So, after getting him to climb to an alt. where he could increase his 'circle of vision' and see above the valley rims, and to alter his heading to (eventually) the NW direction so that EVENTUALLY he would (Hopefully) intersect the Railway line into Paraburdoo, then turn S and FOLLOW the said line to its terminal at the mine site,....and the airport should be just over there......
I have to say, it was like pulling teeth - like - just to get the info.

I can understand the guy being 'embarrassed' about his having to make the call...BUT AT LEAST he had the fortitide to make it!

We got him located and in proximity to the airport, 'as the sun was slowly sinking in the west', and the 'Pilbara haze' was developing.

I did ask him to ring the FSC, but he didn't want to just then.
( I simply wanted to ask him about his flight 'preparation'......we were not there to admonish him)
He did the next morning, so I was informed.
And was 'grateful'.....Good result in the end......

But ...:hmm::(:eek:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

S vs ing....

Actually, this isn't a bad way to work out if you need to pay extra attention to an inbound aircraft. If their radio sounds like crap, fair chance the rest of their flying and procedures aren't too far behind.
It's easy to pick the difference between someone who knows what they're doing and otherwise.
The main thing is the message gets across clearly and concisely.

Thought for the day....
"Entering and backtracking 23 for 12"

You just read out five numbers in a row.

23412

Wha? Was that an RA rego?

[superdimona]

If you're at an airfield with runways 23 and 12, you'd have to be mildly retarded to assume it was an RAA rego. From the context a rego in that place doesn't even make sense. If it's a call from another airfield (where you don't know the runway numbers) then you shouldn't worry anyway.

[SW3]

Procedures, standard phrases and airmanship. Follow the phrases laid down in the AIP/Jepps as closely as possible and make life easier for all so we know what we're expecting to hear. Gross error checks so you're heading in the right direction with enough fuel. Think before you speak, hard to think and talk at the same time on the radio! At the end of the day the people who wrote the procedures are smarter than us and often came about at the expense of other's lives! Yes the standard does appear to be slipping. As from Top Gun a sentence going something like, "A good pilot is compelled to evaluate what has happened so he can apply what he's learnt." Take pride in your profession/sport/hobby.

[Stan van de Wiel]

The importance of R/T particularly in circuit situations is to make your posn known to other traffic. (not to oblige CASA or the local fee collection agency)

Often due frequency congestion it is not possible to report prior to turning or even in the turn. Calling in the turn helps others/twr identify your aircraft as the one turning which may help with adequate spacing especially if you have used aircraft type (performance). If turn completed you are (begin) Downwind etc.
In non-towered situations give yourself a sequence number turning Base, to avoid fatalities like the YMMB (2003) Short-final midair at night.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Super d

Sorry, forgot no-one's radio transmits or gets received on anything but 5's these days.:rolleyes:

And as Griffo pointed out, not everyone carries the required documentation. At least if they haven't got a clue, don't use their radio etc., you can help their sit. awareness by making your calls with minimal chance of confusion.
Make sense of is that retarded logic as well?

Aiglet
I'd be very careful about numbering yourself in a non-towered scenario.
I've seen occurrences where pilots calling themselves stopped looking for other traffic in the pattern with an airprox result. I'd rather leave sequencing to a tower.
Just a thought for consideration.

The other benefit of the "Turning" call is that a banked aircraft is much easier to spot to another aircraft in the circuit than one that is wings level.:ok:

[multime]

Think we all have bad days. Too many outside inflences.?
Example - A controller 3 kids and a cranky wife, of course he/she is feeling the pressure even before arrival at his/her job.
Pilot - Pressured. GET THE JOB DONE (or there won,t be another)
Personally don,t think our standards are decreasing. Life is though.
M:ok:

[SW3]

Outside influences have to be kept manageable so as not to bring your baggage to the cockpit. We've all flown on days when maybe we shouldn't and will most likely again however if you're day is that bad, leave the plane in the hangar or don't come to work because if your day can get worse it will. That's when you'll get an engine failure etc, not on a blue sky day. GAcan be cut throat yes but nothing will get you fired quicker or stunt your career than an accident.

[DBTW]

We still seem to be stuck with a misconception that R/T tells us much about the pilot flying another aircraft, something more than whatever it is he/she says and whatever language he/she uses. Remember people are flying safely all over the world in a variety of languages and none are using standard R/T in the Australian regulatory sense.

Airline pilots generally have set procedures and highly practiced R/T because it is demanded of them, and I suppose it's also because they never know who they'll be flying with, so standardisation helps in the cockpit. Nevertheless, it is not safe to automatically assume a professional or adept pilot is in command of an airliner (or any aircraft) even when their R/T is perfect. In my experience, perfect R/T is often an indication that the crew are following a set, rote learned procedure and are not looking out. Anything out of the ordinary may well throw them and thus create a danger to both themselves and other airspace users. There is plenty of evidence floating about the industry at present to suggest there is every chance that such pilots are the kind who don't want to disengage the auto-pilot because they believe it flies better than they can. That's an anxiety problem, and it relates to poor training. Even if it is true that the auto-pilot is better, no professional pilot should be afraid of taking control themselves. And no pilot should allow themselves to be flustered by other people's standards of R/T.

[VH-FTS]

In non-towered situations give yourself a sequence number turning Base, to avoid fatalities like the YMMB (2003) Short-final midair at night.

So now we're making up radio procedures...? Sounds like something some bright spark at a YMMB flying school came up with to help students who wouldn't look out the window.

It may sound like a good idea, but there's nothing stopping a pilot thinking "that plane on the runway must be the aircraft I was following, therefore I must be number one now!" followed by cutting in front of someone. Or the increased brain power going in to working out what number you are going to use for your next call instead of just looking left, right, up and down.

It's a shame because the rest of your post was full of good advice.

[SW3]

There's no harm in reverting to plain language R/T if the need arises and should be encouraged of it effectively gets the message across. However the majority of calls should be routine, made at the same time in the same place in the same format. Why would one taxi call or inbound call be any different to another? It's the same info, so say it as published so everyone knows what to expect. Elaborate if the circumstances dictate however quite often people either don't say enough or waffle on making unnecessary calls with useless information. Stick to the published phrases as much as possible, why else were they written??!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

FTS,
Point Cook, actually.

Pre-language proficiency.....

"Oshkaa Wiki Dewta, tunning bashe, runway wun sevun, numba too"

"Hey, I thought I was number two?"

"GOWING AWOUND! GOWING AWOUND!":}

[LeadSled]

------perfect R/T is often an indication that the crew are following a set, rote learned procedure and are not looking out.DBTW,
Spot on again, and exactly my experience over the last 20 or so years in AU.

SW3,
Why don't you look up the Jepp. WW text, where it has the ICAO recommended phrases, and compare that to the AU AIP ----- and notice the huge difference.

Tootle pip!!

[SW3]

LeadSled if I could get away without having to look at the Australian set of Jepp ATC section at least every six months I'd ponder your suggestion, however since it must be read and adhered to and we are in Australia and what it says (Which comes from AIP) is binding, that will do for me.

[OverFienD]

^ two words: Hobby Horse!! Both work.

Also, I would have thought that the call:

"XXX is tracking out XXX, climbing to flight levels", would be because we're probably talking a kero-eater who would be well out of the CTAF before they've finished climbing, and may not immediately get their planned FL in any case once identified and cleared?

I can't think of a situation where this call would cause a safety issue... but perhaps others can. :)

[Jack Ranga]

Personally don,t think our standards are decreasing. Life is though.

They are decreasing, been listening to it & watching it for 20 years.

Whether you like it or not, you can tell a lot about the front left seat from what comes out of its mouth.

[outnabout]

Forget the rubbish of turns vs turning - Yes, standards are decreasing.

There are those who forget that a GPS is a navaid - not the sole source of navigation. These are occasionally the same ones who have to land at an Outback airstrip, and walk across to the pub to ask where they are when the GPS decides not to play the game.

There are those who fly without a watch - or any timepiece. On a flight test. And the instructor didn't abort the flight, but continued.

There are those who fly without current WACs/weather/ERSA or having read NOTAMs.

There are those can't "read" a windsock and land downwind. Usually followed by a take-off with a tailwind.

There are those who take-off with a cross-wind, and then turn right to turn into wind. Despite the circuit being a left hand circuit.

There are those who cannot decide which aerodrome they are at, and provide taxi/entering/rolling/departure calls from four different runways at two separate (30 min apart) aerodromes.

There are those who try and revive a rusty NVFR, blowing a tyre on landing, with the result that a RPT Saab had to return to the capital city (28 pax in, and another 20 on the flight out who had their plans disrupted). Oh, and airport staff had to put out emergency flares on the dirt runway for the RFDS Priority One medivac which was behind the Saab because that was quicker than moving the plane from the lit strip due to Mr NVFR's dramatics over his damaged aircraft.

There are those who try and revive a rusty NVFR, landing on the very end of the runway, and breaking runway lights.

There are those who don't make any radio calls. At all. At a certified aerodrome, where the carriage of radios is mandatory.

There are those who announce on the MBZ that they taxi for one runway, enter the reciprocal runway, backtrack the original runway, and then turn and get bogged off an entirely different runway - confusing all those in the vicinity who are trying to use any runway.

There are those who land on strips NOTAMed as unuseable, and marked with crosses.

There are those who taxi around/over the cones which close off a taxiway.

All levels - PPL, CPL, ATPL.

I put the blame at all levels - to the young instructors who have little experience and so can only teach from the book and their limited experience, to the testing officers who think "it'll be right" rather than handing out a Fail, to the BFR instructor who still signs off instead of saying "oi!"; to the chief pilots who give up, give someone the sack, and then call "next" in the hope that the next one will be better.

Most of all, I blame the pilots, who if/when pulled up on any of this stuff, have 50 good reasons why it wasn't their fault - it was the GPS, it was mean n nasty ATC, it was the weather, it was lack of computer access to download NOTAMs, it was the closure of the pilot shop so they couldn't get a current WAC, it was the lack of coin to keep the NVFR current, it was.....it was....but it was never them.

Rant over....

[Stan van de Wiel]

VH FTS It may sound like a good idea, but there's nothing stopping a pilot thinking "that plane on the runway must be the aircraft I was following, therefore I must be number one now!" followed by cutting in front of someone. Or the increased brain power going in to working out what number you are going to use for your next call instead of just looking left, right, up and down.
you miss the point, it not only relates to [my] Situational Awareness but more importantly to the leading or following aircraft who thought they were #2 or #3.

It's a shame because the rest of your post was full of good advice.
Thanks, unusual to get positive response on PPrune.

This topic started off as "declining Pilot Standards" - R/T is certainly not a great measure of standards! but the decline in AIRMANSHIP says it all. In unison with a redefining of Morals and Ethics in society especially in Big Business, Politics, Banking and Law, so is this AIRMANSHIP becoming extinct. Gen X and Y are even building up an immunity to reality with everything around them being simulation - disasters you can walk away from or simply repeat at the press of a button. Not yet so in aviation?

VH FTS So now we're making up radio procedures...? Sounds like something some bright spark at a YMMB flying school came up with to help students who wouldn't look out the window.

This bright spark introduced it years ago flying in Europe - ATC in Aus have used it for years and I only emphasised the fact after a "near miss" on Final one night with an unlit PA 28 in front of my aircraft PA 31. If Vale Holly Smith had used it those 11 months later, she might still be alive! I believe her school wrote it into their Ops Man. Unfortunately the ATSB had insufficient funding! and CASA were busy looking for an angle to prosecute someone/anyone!

[VH-FTS]

You obviously haven't been in a circuit full of foreign students at night, so concerned about what number they are for their radio call that they start stuffing other things up. Similar situations have involved pilots getting their number wrong, and a large amount of panic and increased chatter over the radio when it would be easier just to look for the offending/preceding aircraft.

There's nothing wrong about knowing how many aircraft are in front of you, and ticking them off. However, providing a sequence number is an ATC procedure, not a pilot responsibility. They have the ability, and hopefully visibility, to keep track of where you are within the landing sequence, without things like Piper-low/Cessna-high wings getting in the way.

MakeItHappenCaptain's spot on with his concern as well.

BTW, I'm referring to avoiding it in situations like "*** traffic, Cessna ABC, turning downwind, number 4, ***", rather than "*** turning base, number two to the Navajo on long final". There's a difference between using it as an airmanship tool to assist situational awareness, and simply adding it for the sake of it circuit after circuit after circuit. But maybe that's what you meant :ok:


We still seem to be stuck with a misconception that R/T tells us much about the pilot flying another aircraft, something more than whatever it is he/she says and whatever language he/she uses.


We all have days when we get it wrong or put out a crap call in an unusual situation. However, it does show a lack of professionalism when a pilot cannot even get a simple departure report done properly. The inability to learn the call or get your ducks lined up before pressing the transmit button demonstrates to me the attitude of the pilot. It's not hard, shouldn't matter whether you're a PPL flying a 182, charter pilot, QLink cadet or 777 captain.

[LeadSled]

SW3,
Avoiding the issue I raised, I see.

What I am suggesting is you seriously consider the altogether excessive use of "standard phrases" in Australia, at the expense of common sense communications and, ultimately, air safety.

Who is getting it right, AU v. Rest of the Worlds.

Given our rather ordinary safety record in AU, maybe the yanks, for one, are doing something right.

I am not suggesting that "radio procedures" are the sole cause of our lousy record, what I am saying is that attempted adherence to "procedures" --- largely invented, at the expense of using the brains the God of our choice gave us, is a very major contribution to our poor record, compared to the US.

At all levels, attempting to "enforce safety" by "compliance" with ever increasingly complex enforceable "procedures" is a fools errand, and the failure of the system is there for all to see.

Perhaps the ever increasing complexity of GA Operations manuals is one example of a fools errand.

Create a manual so dense and complex nobody can use, and nobody will use it.

Create regulations so complex, apparently contradictory and confusing, and they will be ignored.

Have a look at what is "examined" in air law examinations in AU, compared with how other countries do it, the differences are stark ---
producing a AU "culture" of enforced rote compliance (so "they can't pingya") instead of a "culture" of voluntary compliance with common sense rules and regulations, because that is what comes out of a common sense training system.

A saying , along the lines of: "Having lost sight of our objective, we have redoubled our efforts" does come to mind.

Tootle pip!

[Stan van de Wiel]

There's nothing wrong about knowing how many aircraft are in front of you, and ticking them off. However, providing a sequence number is an ATC procedure, not a pilot responsibility. They have the ability, and hopefully visibility, to keep track of where you are within the landing sequence, without things like Piper-low/Cessna-high wings getting in the way.

FTS you miss the point. R/T procedures should have logical not just prescribed features. Anything that assists pilots' S.A. (outside the cockpit) should be utilised especially in a night environment with a lot of back lighting. The point of making the assumed sequence call at BASE turn is because it is far more difficult to spot the descending aircraft preceding you. This was the case at YMMB when the then #2 was doing a B747 circuit (turning a looong final for 17) when #3 identified the then #1 aircraft on mid final. In this case "blind spots" played a major role, so no amount of look-out could have assisted once the aircraft were on a collision course.

You obviously haven't been in a circuit full of foreign students at night, so concerned about what number they are for their radio call that they start stuffing other things up. Similar situations have involved pilots getting their number wrong, and a large amount of panic and increased chatter over the radio when it would be easier just to look for the offending/preceding aircraft.

This gets back to "declining standards" Even though G.A. badly needs these foreign students, the fact that you need to mention their struggling indicates that they are not ready to be flying at night! If they get their #..s wrong, assuming that this is not mathematical but purely insufficient look-out at least it gives the others a chance to come back on Radio to correct the situation as per example the Go AROUND.

[SW3]

Leadsled not avoiding your point at all, raising my own. Our procedures aren't too onerous at all, particularly in CTA. However I do agree our OCTA provedures leave much to be desired with far too many 'recommended' calls. Even so they are recommendations and common sense must prevail here. Nothing worse than the guy calling at every turn in the circuit. Situational awareness ties in with airmanship. Despite this, CTA calls are practical and simple.

[Stan van de Wiel]

LeadSled if I could get away without having to look at the Australian set of Jepp ATC section at least every six months I'd ponder your suggestion, however since it must be read and adhered to and we are in Australia and what it says (Which comes from AIP) is binding, that will do for me.

Isn't that the PRESCRIPTION Leadsled is talking about. Understand that that is what the AUS CASA require, but that doesn't make it correct. (Just go to the latest ICAO Audit of CASA to see what was wrong or missing) Yes for recurrent testing you must comply??? "DO AS I SAY NOT DO AS I DO"

SW3,
Avoiding the issue I raised, I see.

The issue is that there is no or very little input (opportunity) from Industry, hence there is little change. the "she'll be right mate" attitude reigns, also known as "apathy" What other country would allow 23 years of non legislative re-write without some form of revolt. But then it only cost $140million +-.

Create a manual so dense and complex nobody can use, and nobody will use it.

Create regulations so complex, apparently contradictory and confusing, and they will be ignored.

Leadsled - without complexity the lawyers would have no work. This has nothing to do with SAFETY - My first AOC took 14 days and had an 18 page approved Ops manual?

[aroa]

A good aviator friend...his AOC took 14 months, thousands of dollars and more like 18,00 pages.!

And as for all that pap about a business plan..( wtf would a bureaucrat know about business.!)...by the time he did get his AOC, he was broke..!

And a few things ... apart from the time, contributed to that.
Like the CASA guy not turning up for the flight test, TWICE.! :mad: :mad:

So you wouldnt know whether CASA were just protecting a mate's business,
have dedcided they dont want any more operators locally... but cant/dont say so,....or just plain incompetant.

And as for the "regs".. written by psuedo-lawyers and para(site)legals, with absolutely no interest in the downstream practical effects of those bits of convoluted gobbledegook....all strict liability of course.

They've said themselves: Written by "lawyers"(sic) for Lawyers..whats it matter if the pilot plebs cant understand it.! :eek:

[Aussie Bob]

Interesting comments, all of them but I can't help but think, there is no industry quite like aviation to heap critisism on its own. Some of you I am sure, are convinced your own dung don't ever stink.

In 25 odd years of flying I confess I have done most of the things mentioned on this thread and it has made me a better pilot and one who is tolerant of all kinds of "poor" airmanship.

I say to the more pedantic of you, including you Mr Cranky ATC, perhaps it is time to seek your vocations elswhere.

[Jabawocky]

Going to make a semi useful contribution despite my cheeky ones so far. :suspect:

Thread was about pilot standards. I suppose that could include R/T standards as well, but lets leave that for a minute.

My thoughts are far too many folk are being pumped our of aeroclubs and schools by instructors that have barely learned themselves. Old point but a critical one. They have learned by rote, including many bad teachings and they pass it on verbatim. Look at the OWT training exposed in the engine management threads.

Now I am no "rocket scientist pilot" or whatever that funny phrase was recently but I did enjoy the benefit of being taught by really experienced pilots all the way through. And during each phase I had just the one instructor and not several who had no real idea where the last one left me. This being the second problem. It is no wonder some folk take forever to do their first solo :ugh:.

As for R/T.....simple rules not taught or displayed, Who You Are, Where You Are, What Your Intentions Are. Sure there may be some additional info you might like to add like offering a better route away from some MIL CTR work so you do not hold up them or others using the ILS above when you can go around. Simple airmanship by being acutely aware of what is around you and how your actions or intentions affect others.

Departure calls from a CTAF.....I thought....and jump on me if I am wrong here, but I thought they went the way of the Dodo. Its just another clogging of the frequency and everyone who was in the airspace around you has already heard your intentions when you taxied to the runway. I still hear these being drummed into students coming from a famous aeroclub with a new CTAF not far north of YBBN :rolleyes:......I have a feeling they may even be taught at YCAB too :ugh:.

Of course if they are back in vogue.....I am doing it all wrong :}

[Trent 972]

Jaba, AIP (2 Jun 11) GEN 3.4 5.14.8 (page 57)
Departure Reports departing a Non-Towered Aerodrome. (Unique to Australia)

[Jabawocky]

Ya kidding me..........I thought that was scrubbed in one of the NAS 1,2a,2b,2c or the CTAF R or one other such great improvements:ugh:


Hang on a minute........ are we talking about IFR departure reports here? Or VFR.

I made the comment about no clogging the CTAF

Generally I find more success with my IFR departure reports on the BNE/MEL CEN frequency.....on the CTAF you get laughed at :E.

Maybe I was not clear enough .....or are they still required when in G from a CTAF and bugging off VFR in G, Surely not?

[Trent 972]

No - vfr as well, although strictly speaking you are not wrong.
I assumed you would refer to the 'Summary of Broadcast - All aircraft at Non Towered Aerodromes' AIP ENR, and you are quite correct although that summary gives the 'minimum' calls to be made. Additional calls recommended if it assists with traffic situation, as per CAR166 C.

edit
I still hear these being drummed into students coming from a famous aeroclub with a new CTAF not far north of YBBN
Carriage of radio is not mandatory at R........!
Just turn it off, (if you're brave enough). :oh: I'm not!

[Jabawocky]

hahahha so you have been around here lately :E

Well Some days you are better off NOCOMS......and keeping a good lookout :ok:

As for departure reports in a CTAF...........most folk making them are not adding anything to theirs or others safety, and I figure you can work out why. :}

[Trent 972]

Too true, but I figure it's mostly a 'training' aerodrome and don't expect the same standards as Heathrow etc.

[VH-FTS]

No - vfr as well, although strictly speaking you are not wrong.


I assumed you would refer to the 'Summary of Broadcast - All aircraft at Non Towered Aerodromes' AIP ENR, and you are quite correct although that summary gives the 'minimum' calls to be made.


Read elsewhere in your Jepps/AIPs and you'll discover Departure Reports are an IFR procedure for communicating with ATC. They are not a CTAF procedure. I don't have the AIP ref, but my Jepps AU-903/4 confirm this.

Unfortunately many instructors think this applies to them when flying VFR and force departure calls upon students. A departure call on the CTAF can be a good thing for helping inbound aircraft (back to the debate about airmanship), but you must learn what the true intention of the format is. No one care what your estimate for Gympie is when you're departing Redcliffe/Caboolture. However, ATC do care because it aids your IFR tracking until you are identified. Aiding ATC and their subsequent assistance traffic management is the point behind a departure REPORT.

Nothing in all of the changed CTAF procedures from CASA etc a while ago made any mention to giving a departure report. Nothing in the non-towered section mentions it either. Use it when appropriate, but get your understanding of its intentions correct.


FTS you miss the point. R/T procedures should have logical not just prescribed features. Anything that assists pilots' S.A. (outside the cockpit) should be utilised especially in a night environment with a lot of back lighting. The point of making the assumed sequence call at BASE turn is because it is far more difficult to spot the descending aircraft preceding you. This was the case at YMMB when the then #2 was doing a B747 circuit (turning a looong final for 17) when #3 identified the then #1 aircraft on mid final. In this case "blind spots" played a major role, so no amount of look-out could have assisted once the aircraft were on a collision course.


But you, or perhaps the organisational who altered their SOPs, are applying a prescribed feature by mandating the sequence number into radio calls. Stating your number in the sequence can be error-prone, and if wrong affects the judgement of those following you in the circuit.


This gets back to "declining standards" Even though G.A. badly needs these foreign students, the fact that you need to mention their struggling indicates that they are not ready to be flying at night! If they get their #..s wrong, assuming that this is not mathematical but purely insufficient look-out at least it gives the others a chance to come back on Radio to correct the situation as per example the Go AROUND.


Obviously you've never flown with someone who has english as a second language? We're talking about 50-100 hour pilots here, who most are flying to a good standard. But they still have to translate what they heard into their own language, comprehend it, translate to a response then say it. Starts to become very easy for inexperienced pilots, no matter their standard, to get it wrong. And not just foreign pilots either! If you want airmanship, get them to focus on getting their spacing and lookout right and you won't have to create your own procedures.

[Trent 972]

Read elsewhere in your Jepps/AIPs and you'll discover Departure Reports are an IFR procedure for communicating with ATC.
Oh dear, I don't know how to answer that one, except to ask another question. What do you say/do when departing VFR from a non radar, tower controlled aerodrome? Just slink away?
They are not a CTAF procedure.
I agree
A departure call on the CTAF can be a good thing for helping inbound aircraft (back to the debate about airmanship), but you must learn what the true intention of the format is.
I agree
I don't have the AIP ref
I do.

Phraseologies contained in this section are generic and, although primarily reflecting a controlled airspace environment, pilots operating in Class G airspace should use these generic phrases unless specific Class G phrases are shown.


Departure Report - Procedural when notifying departure report to a control tower
a.* DEPARTED (time) TRACKING (track being flown) (FROM (reference aid used to establish track ) or VIA SID identifier)) CLIMBING TO (level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)

or
contacting procedural unit other than departure aerodrome

b. * DEPARTED (location) (time in minutes) TRACKING [TO INTERCEPT] (track) CLIMBING TO (level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)

[Jabawocky]

Ahhhhhh But!!! :O

Departure Report - Procedural when notifying departure report to a control towerSo when departing a non towered CTAF like Roma for Charleville VFR OCTA? Taxi with intentions, Enter/backtrack, and lastly Roma traffic Trent 972 rolling rwy36 departure west for Charleville. :ok: and keep eyes peeled :sad:

Anyone arriving from a non conflicting direction can all but ignore you, anyone tracking west to east may want to talk to you, anyone arriving thinking there may be a conflict will talk to you, so who needs another "departure call"? Save if for the IFR ops on CEN.

Am I doing anything wrong?


Are you suggesting departure reports should be made by VFR aircraft departing non-towered aerodromes in G? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
I hope not........or someone will be locking me up for a long time :suspect:

[mcgrath50]

If I've been doing Circuits at a CTAF then departing I will give a quick "departing off downwind for the south west" for example, just to give people a heads up. Similarly if I am departing overhead (ie; climbing over the field) or if there are guys inbound from a similar direction I might add a 'departure call in' to give them a heads up.

As said above, who cares what your estimate for a place 1,000 miles away is. On the other hand, if you are tracking to a major point it for example the start of a VFR lane a few miles away (thinking sugar loaf reservoir and lillydale here) it can narrow down the way you are tracking.

[LeadSled]

Carriage of radio is not mandatory at R........!
Just turn it off, (if you're brave enough). :oh: I'm not!

Trent 972,
Said tongue firmly in cheek, I hope.
Lest anybody be influenced by the suggestion, please read CAR 166 carefully.
In short, maybe carriage of radio is not mandatory, but if ya gottit, ya gotta use it.
Tootle pip!!

[Trent 972]

Yes yes leadsled, you are totally correct, please excuse the 'tongue in cheek' banter with Jaba. If you've got it, you have to use it.
What I should have said, to be more correct is.
If flying around R........, and your radio is giving you the sh!ts, stick your boot through the bloody thing. (More than likely to be unserviceable then). Continue nocom.
Is that more betterer? :ok:
My, how my standards are falling as I get older and crankier!

[LeadSled]

Trent 972,
Fell better now?
Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Leadie old chap............You walked into that one, not that we set a trap for anyone.

Trent972 and I seem to have a very good understanding of the realities of life in a certain coatal strip.......chances are we even know each other!:eek:

............if only my boot can get through a GTX327 /SL40 and a GNS530W all at once :ouch:

Ok not a good idea.........c'mon Trent, you are a smart bugger, any better ideas?:E

[mcgrath50]

I was always taught, if a circuit breaker pops twice in a row, to leave it popped as that's a sign something is wrong and it's not just a fluke. So I assume, if you pull out the circuit breaker once, push it back in and pull it back out again, the same principle would apply.

Write it up in the maintenance release "Circuit breaker found out, reset, popped again". Sorted. :ok:

[VH-FTS]

Trent, I think we're in agreement (this would be easier if we were sitting at the bar!).

Back to your post on the last page, you've proved my point that departure 'reports' are for ATC. This can involve IFR or VFR to the tower (i.e. Class D, excluding former GAAPs*) or IFR departing a non-towered aerodrome. There is no requirement for VFR to make that full blown departure report on the CTAF (reports are for ATC, broadcasts are for everyone). As I've said though, there is a time an place for them, just be aware of the intent of the AIPs/Jepps.

Reason I get wound up about it is I used to hear the CTAF calls coming out of a larger school. The instructors had no idea and were teaching students the IFR departure report format, even if just overflying. I'm not saying don't call, but it means nothing to the CTAF traffic when you give an estimate for an aerodrome 100nm away!

* ex-GAAPs don't require a departure report - so much for trying to standardize procedures! No wonder we are all in disagreement!

P.s. Just name the place you are all complaining about that clogs the radios - Redcliffe Aero Club. They teach their pilots to make a call everytime they scratch their balls.

[outnabout]

Aussie Bob says "In 25 odd years of flying I confess I have done most of the things mentioned on this thread and it has made me a better pilot and one who is tolerant of all kinds of "poor" airmanship."

I haven't been flying for nearly as long as you, Aussie Bob, and I'm sure I don't have your wealth of experience. I agree that my past mistakes have made me a better pilot. I am tolerant of poor airmanship right up to the point where poor airmanship threatens the safe operation of the aircraft, or poor airmanship means a closed runway (or similar) which forces me to hold or divert, and costs my employer money.

Puketapu9er - your comment shows the first part of your pseudonym is correct. PUKE!! :yuk: I'm sure some women & Asians find your sexist, racist, redneck, attitude equally appalling.

[Jabawocky]

FTS

* ex-GAAPs don't require a departure report - so much for trying to standardize procedures! No wonder we are all in disagreement!

Yes it has become confusing hasn't it, :E the ex GAAP's or Class D do not require a departure report if departing into G at or below 1500AGL (i hope:confused:) and if above or into CTA they do.

[NIK320]

Just name the place you are all complaining about that clogs the radios - Redcliffe Aero Club. They teach their pilots to make a call everytime they scratch their balls.

I think that has rubbed off on the RA school at Redcliffe to. Flew in on Saturday, there was an RA tecnam doing circuits with the announce everything technique.
Apart from myself he was the only one I heard on frequency from when I switched over 15 north till the avionics got turned off at the hanger. :ugh:

Not sure who he thought needed to know exactly where he was the entire time. I could see him out the window so I'm guessing it wasn't all for me :8

[Trent 972]

Not wishing to be seen as a critic of R........ .
In a training environment, instuctors are often 'simulating' places and times other than their current situation to value add to the students' experience levels.
Adding extra departure/position/superfluous radio calls, carrying out unnecessary go-arounds, flying overly large/low/slow/crooked/flapless/glide circuits etc. are all about training, exposing student pilots to situations they have yet to experience or master.
I am, and I would hope others would be, willing to cut them a little extra slack for that.
Besides the R....... CTAF is only 5 backyards big in area.
Outside the training environment, well that's a different matter.

[VH-FTS]

Yes it has become confusing hasn't it, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif the ex GAAP's or Class D do not require a departure report if departing into G at or below 1500AGL (i hopehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif) and if above or into CTA they do.


Spot on - pitty it wasn't communicated very well when the Class D roll out happened. CASA didn't mention it as part of their 'practical' roadshow.

[Jabawocky]

CASA didn't mention it as part of their 'practical' roadshow.

Nail on Head :ok:


NIK320.......that would be "R......fe Tower" :ok::E

[Awol57]

I believe that if you are departing a D CTR into Class G no departure report is required. If you are departing a D CTA into anything then you do need a departure report. I searched AIP for a reference of that but buggered if I can find it. Up here out CTR is 2500' so at or below 1000' which is where the first CTA step occurs at 9 DME (ie more or less nothing) can go without a departure report.

[Trent 972]

AIP (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/aip.asp?pg=20&vdate=25-Aug-2011&ver=1) ENR 1.1 (General Rules) page 45. (1.79MB)

[Awol57]

Cheers I knew it was in there somewhere!

[Centaurus]

In a training environment, instuctors are often 'simulating' places and times other than their current situation to value add to the students' experience levels.
Adding extra departure/position/superfluous radio calls, carrying out unnecessary go-arounds, flying overly large/low/slow/crooked/flapless/glide circuits etc. are all about training, exposing student pilots to situations they have yet to experience or master

For one moment I thought you were serious but I realise now that surely you must be joking. All the above highlights a rip off in a grand scale if it actually is occurring. These so called 'instructors" must be laughing all the way to the bank..:mad:

[LeadSled]

I was always taught, if a circuit breaker pops twice in a row, to leave it popped as that's a sign something is wrong and it's not just a fluke

McGrath,

You might like to re-think that one ??

A CB popping by a fluke is extremely rare, a CB popping because its doing its job, and is telling you something.

If it was the CB for a submerged fuel pump, or any fuel pump, would you really want to chance resetting it??

You should apply the same logic to any tripped circuit breaker ---- unless the system is vital to the successful completion of the flight, leave the experiments until after you are on the ground.

Some manufacturers recommendations have changed greatly over the years, to the degree that many aircraft now have circuit breakers that do not reset until the aircraft is powered down ---- thereby eliminating any nasty results from ill advised pilot actions.

Tootle pip!!

[OverFienD]

If it was the CB for a submerged fuel pump, or any fuel pump, would you really want to chance resetting it??


Why not? If it pops again, you know you have a problem. Unless the pump is sucking air/fuel vapor, it's not going to ignite even if there is a significant spark. Wouldn't the electrics of a fuel pump be isolated from the 'wet' tank in anycase? :)

[43Inches]

Wouldn't the electrics of a fuel pump be isolated from the 'wet' tank in anycase?

Located close to the under-side of the tank usually near the wing root, a nice place to start an electrical bonfire. The manufacturers manuals will probly tell you not to reset those ones anyway.

[jas24zzk]

Trying to think of a system that would be critical enough to encourage me to attempt a reset in flight. :(

Under carriage system.....hmm, electric or electrical/hydraulic. Nup, too big a power requirement for me to really get excited about it. Manual extension is easy enough because I am familiar with the type.

Fuel pumps. Hmm do I really need that particular pump? probably not, although there is a risk of the mechanical pump failing its not highly likely, but we can plan for that can't we :)

As Jaba says, know your aeroplane!

Resetting in flight as advised by your 18 FI, has ants on it.

[Trent 972]

CASA AWB 00-7 Issue 1 - Circuit breaker resetting procedures (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90614)
(Fuel Systems at bottom of page).

[OverFienD]

Trying to think of a system that would be critical enough to encourage me to attempt a reset in flight. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

I dunno.. it'd be situation dependant but possibly:

Nav/Comms? Especially CTA

Lights? (Flying NVFR or IFR)

But again, you'd have to weigh up any potential risk.

As Jaba says, know your aeroplane!


Good advice! :)

[gcpilot]

just out of curiosity, why are people in here mentioning that it is inappropriate to make all CTAF calls when you are the only one in the circuit. or say with one inbound aircraft that is aware of your intentions?

[LeadSled]

Trent972,
Well done!!
And what we have seen here is a wonderful example of what somebody first learned years ago, never being updated.
I hope those of you in the habit of re-setting CBs in flight now have a serious re-think, and if you are still acquainted with the instructor that fed you such rubbish, take him/her/it around the back of the hangar and re-organize their thoughts --- sort of manual update.
Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Circuit breakers rarely trip due to an internal fault.

Their purpose is to protect the wiring only.

As for instructors and standards, after seeing some of the most significant crap I can remember on pprune over in the instructor forum, we should all be concerned.

Of course 80% of pilots think they are in the top 20% :sad:

[Arm out the window]

A number of types I've flown have had various checklists along these lines in the emergency procedures section:

'check circuit breaker, if popped, attempt (usually) 1 reset.
If successful, do (a); if unsuccessful, do not attempt further reset and do (b)'

Things like electric wet fuel pumps don't fall into the category, but there are legitimate reasons why attempting one reset (or more if the checklist calls for it) on some systems might be quite OK, and advisable.

Naturally common sense still applies; if you don't think it's a good idea don't do it, but if it's in the manual it's been put there for a reason.

Sometimes they can pop for no apparent reason - vibration, high temperature or whatever, and the engineers will write them up as no fault found and release them back into service. I think we're all probably familiar with that scenario.

If your aircraft has procedures in the manual recommending you attempt resets, and you need the system, it isn't a verboten no-no.

If you don't need the system, don't do it.

[Jabawocky]

high temperature

Yes ....that is exactly how they work!

If a CB pops and there is "no fault found" in my opinion you have not found the fault. It is still there. It may be the breaker and at around $28 each....change it. (except those Beech ones subject to an AD)

It tripped for a good reason, either internally or externally. You need to be sure why.

[NIK320]

just out of curiosity, why are people in here mentioning that it is inappropriate to make all CTAF calls when you are the only one in the circuit. or say with one inbound aircraft that is aware of your intentions?

AIP doesn't tell us to make a call every time we turn downwind, base, final and scratch ourselves.

Imagine how well it will work if each aircraft makes 3-4 calls per circuit, 3 aerodromes on frequency and about 20 aircraft doing circuits with another dozen making inbound, overflight calls etc.

Next thing you know the radio is so congested it sounds more like you have tuned an FM radio station.
I have experienced this where you have your finger hovering over the transmit button and any hesitation results in someone else jumping in.

[Jabawocky]

NONE....if you don't have a radio :E

[Arm out the window]

AIP doesn't tell us to make a call every time we turn downwind, base, final and scratch ourselves.

True, but wasn't it only a year or two ago Airservices came out with recommendations that we do just that, and publicised it widely?

That's one of the reasons people get confused and don't get it right - too many seemingly arbitrary changes to rules, regs and advisory publications.

Surely the regulators must weigh up the upheaval to current practices against the predicted benefits gained by making a change? You'd think so, but sometimes that doesn't seem to happen - they introduce something that everyone says is stupid, it doesn't work, and after a while it gets changed back to something like the way it was (though different enough that operators still have to learn something new).

I'm not advocating a 'no-changes' policy, just a 'changes where they are really needed and won't be rescinded in a couple of years when someone else gets into the job' policy.

It reminds me of government departments changing their bloody names every few years - new broom, seen to be doing something, etc etc - change for its own sake can be extremely counter-productive.

Anyway, the bottom line for a good operator is, read the AIP and CAAPs, keep yourself up to date, but don't be afraid to apply a bit of common sense when it's obviously needed.

[NIK320]

Not sure on the exact AIP reference. Should be in ENR 1.1 somewhere.

Based on what I have in jepp's -- ATC - Comm 1.2 (Page AU904)
The only mandatory call is "Whenever it is reasonably necessary to avoid a collision, or risk of collision with another aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome."

Then we have the following recommended broadcasts or mandatory at certified aerodromes.
*Immediately before, or during taxiing for departure from the aerodrome
*Immediately before entering a runway. (I have been interpreting that to include final approach, could be wrong tho)

Recommended at all non-towered aerodromes
*Inbound 10nm from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an ETA
*Immediately before joining the circuit
*Straight in approach at not less than 3nm from the threshold
*When the aircraft enters the vicinity of the aerodrome. Vicinity is defined as 10nm and height which could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.
*IFR aircraft departing the FAF or established on final approach segment. Terminating the instrument approach, commencing a missed approach.


There is no mention at all of downwind or base in the circuit in any of those paragraphs. Based on that the only call an aircraft doing circuits is recommended to make is on final.

[rijobe]

CASA came out with a booklet about a year ago for procedures at non towered aerodromes - here is the link for the pdf

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Non-towered aerodromes (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100058)

it states you have to carry and use radios for all cert/reg/mil non towered aerodromes but doesnt mention non reg/cert/mil unless specified via NOTAM or ERSA

times calls must be made are :

For minimum compliance, you should broadcast your intentions:
before or during taxiing
immediately before entering a runway, whether
active or not
inbound 10nm or earlier from the aerodrome
immediately before joining the circuit
on a straight-in approach, on final, by 3nm from
the threshold
on a base-join approach, before joining on base
when flying near, but not intending to land at, a
non-towered aerodrome, where the pilot intends to
fly through the vicinity but not land.
But use your radio more often if needed.

and also says
As needed, make other broadcasts such
as:
turning: downwind base and final
clear of runway.

...so I guess the last part comes down to ones own interpretation of "as needed"

[NIK320]

As needed would come back to point 1...

Whenever it is reasonably necessary to avoid a collision, or risk of collision with another aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome

[Arm out the window]

Yeah, but not long before that (2 to 3 years ago, unless my Alzheimer's has set in too badly) they were calling for crosswind, downwind, base, plus all the departing and rejoining calls - or something along those lines.

I'll try to dig up the reference if I can find it.

[sheppey]

ey were calling for crosswind, downwind, base, plus all the departing and rejoining calls - or something along those lines.


As well as reporting position in relation to others in front such as Base No 3, Final No. 4. Or maybe all that comes from certain airline training schools and everyone else thinks that's cool and copies...

[rijobe]

yes I remember that AOTW. doing my CPL and was originally taught to make calls downwind, base and final then they brought the changes out. Now If I am doing circuits at a NTA I will just make a downwind call with my intentions (downwind, runway 12, touch and go,) or a call when joining the circuit.

[jas24zzk]

Thats a pretty unsafe attitude rijobe.


How about, i will make my calls as I deem appropriate? lets you exercise your rights/responsibilities as PIC, but also opens the door to making extra calls if required.

A closed mind is not going to keep you safe chum.

[AerobaticArcher]

CAAP 166-1 is the one to read, and gives guidance regarding CAR 166A-E (requirements for operating at non-towered aerodromes).

Paragraph 6.3 states the MINIMUM calls to be made.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/166-1.pdf

[LeadSled]

----- but wasn't it only a year or two ago Airservices came out with recommendations that we do just that, and publicised it widely?

No, it wasn't, this is CASA's job, although Airservices print the AIP, they are not responsible for this part of the content.

All the recent educational material about changes associated with changes to CAR 166 have come from CASA.

It seems that many still cannot distinguish between the CASA and Airservices.

Tootle pip!!

[Arm out the window]

Well, OK, but it's beside the point, which is that change for change's sake isn't good a lot of the time.

The creation of CASA and Airservices as the inbred love children of DOA or DOTARS supposedly provides some kind of effective separation of roles in 'running' aviation in Australia - let's call them all 'the regulator' if it makes you happy.

[rijobe]

@ jas

I am a little bit confused about how you were able to read my post and conclude from that snippet of information that I have both an unsafe attitude,and that I am closed minded, for I like to think that I am neither.

I posted just before that what the min requirements are, and above those requirements I stated I would just make a downwind call doing circuits, but I did mean at a deserted strip, perhaps I should have expanded a lot more on that.

unless I am wrong in my thinking, the whole point of the exercise is communication. Pilots at a non towered aerodrome need to communicate in order that everyone knows who everyone else is, where they are, and what there intentions are. Enough so that everyone knows what is happening but not too much that there is a radio jam. The point of this communication is so that the pilots can keep things organised and orderly in order to have the best chance of achieving a safe outcome. Again, unless my thinking is wrong, this is exactly what a tower does, but with no tower the pilots have to do the job themselves

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

AIP Enr 1.1 para 21
for summary of broadcasts.

[T28D]

Aerobatic Archer, you are right on the money

Paragraph 6.3 states the MINIMUM calls to be made.

Aviate, Navigate,Communicate

[Shrike135]

Leadsled, therein lies 70% of the casual pilot's problems. Time to let go of the update based on ring binder manuals and enter the computer age with searchable updates, keyword indexes etc. I still hear phrases from the days of DCA.

[LeadSled]

Arm,
Why not just call them CASA and Airservices, and understand the functions of each.

Wouldn't want people to think you mean the big clock on a railway station when you say "regulator", or the US bookshop, or a piece of software. <http://theregulator.net/>

And, by the way, don't forget (like most pilots, if they ever knew) what the Department of Infrastructure, Transport etc does ----- administers the Air Navigation Act and a whole host of other Acts that impinge on aviation.

The changes to CAR 166 were most certainly not change for change sake, and the shift from mandatory to advisory calls, and giving the PIC the ability to use his/her/its brains was a fundamental change to the way we do business in Australia ---- moving us just a little bit towards what the rest of the world regards as normal communications, as opposed to procedures.

Tootle pip!!

[Shrike135]

Had one of those "normal" calls recently, possibly from an "it"

"---, overflying the airfield to the left"

No location, No airfield ID, no track, no destination, just punching a hole in the sky somewhere quite close.