You Calll Yourselves Pilots

[Jack Ranga]

You're more like children that have to be babied & molly coddled. And you've got the hide to whinge about a 2 hour AFR :ugh:

I watched 2 aircraft have an airprox today, several radio calls were made to both aircraft with a traffic alert issued. Neither of them listening on Centre. One of them then flew through a drop zone, guess what? No call on the CTAF. Unprofessional, zero airmanship. Joke. Thing is, happens every single shift. IFR aircraft departing aerodromes squawking 1200, Air Ambulance aircraft in taxi calls requesting traffic & code, no mention of runway or POB.

If I did any of that when I was learning to fly or god forbid, in an AFR.......FAIL. The standards are pathetic. No longer will I advocate for a decent award, you're only worth what you are getting paid, in some cases, nothing.

[tmpffisch]

It's a joke really. Perhaps, just perhaps the pilot that did the AFR actually needed 2 hours to complete it before being considered as competent. And they'd be the most likely to whinge about it, rather than cop it on the chin. :ugh:

[Hempy]

Mate, I tell all my trainees 'Pilots are stupid'...and thats from 19 years in this business. You can't account for it, you just have to expect it.

[Jack Ranga]

Dumb as dogsh!t. And that's being generous.

[dubbleyew eight]

just maybe if we had a simple set of rules like there was back in the 70's without the total embuggerance of a casa creating a quicksand of rules changes, an air services rebroadcasting everything on one frequency, then maybe it'd be different.

[Aussie Bob]

I really have no idea what this whole thing is about. I did an AFR last week and it took 0.6, the pilot left happy and I was satisfied that I had done the right thing. Today I signed out another AFR and it was the completion of three sorties over three weeks of 1.1, 1.0. And 0.7. The pilot left happy and I was satisfied i had done the right thing.

Somewhere between the two I did another of about 1.3 and the pilot was over the moon with what she learnt and requested a bit more dual at a later date.

A while back I did another AFR and informed the pilot that some dual instruction would be needed before i would consider another AFR request. He left unhappy and I never saw him again. Can't please everyone i guess but I was also satisfied.

[deadcut]

Mate, as if the guys earning the bare award are the ones out here bitching about things.

[VH-XXX]

.6 ? Doesn't the CAAP say 1.0 ?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Old gripe, but once instructors are actually paid what it is worth to keep someone with a bit of dedication to the task, we might be able to keep some experience in this side of the trade and see some standards improving.:D

At the moment, bare minimum CPL's with no more intent than to get the minimum hours needed to apply for Jetstar are out there are still teaching circuits that incorporate 3 mile final legs, radio calls on every leg of the circuit, no thought to what's behind them on runups...:ugh::mad:

No problems with developing someone who wants to learn the trade, after all, we all had to start somewhere, but once again, if you aren't going to put 100% effort into where you're doing, don't bother!:yuk:

[VH-XXX]

Was one of these aircraft a major Aussie airline by any chance Jack?

[Jack Ranga]

Nup, low level.

[fujii]

Was it near Euroa?

[djpil]

You take good care of us, Jack. I was amongst one of those traffic alerts about 18 months ago between Bendigo and Lethbridge and I was the only one of four who responded on the radio. The other day "you" gave traffic info with guessed intent to the drop zone at Euroa nearby - I was the traffic so confirmed my intent.
On the other hand, with the (small, I hope) number of mistakes that I make from time to time then others might say that I was dumb or incompetent at the time, hopefully I get it right next time or at least make different errors.

[megle2]

XXX .6 was probably vdo log book 1.0 to comply

[Hempy]

just maybe if we had a simple set of rules like there was back in the 70's without the total embuggerance of a casa creating a quicksand of rules changes, an air services rebroadcasting everything on one frequency, then maybe it'd be different.

I rest my case. If it is too hard for your simple brain to comprehend, stay on the ground.

[Capn Bloggs]

Don't worry Jack, I'm still calling "maintaining" on transfer...

Agree with Hempy, this stuff isn't hard boys.

[Jack Ranga]

G'day dj, I'm only asking that VFR listen out on the area frequency! That's all it takes to avoid these situations. It's not much fun watching radar paints point at each other, merge..........and wait for them to come out the other side. Neither of them monitoring, really, how hard is it to look at a map?

The 'mistakes' that you speak of are not mistakes, they're good airmanship to speak up :D (if I was half the pilot you are, I'd be a happy man :ok:) The real mistakes are to just not give a crap, press 'direct to' and blunder through CTAF's without any regard for others.

We are there to deliver a service, makes it difficult if folk don't give a rats. Haven't even got the brains to turn the transponder off if they're going to behave in that fashion. Then again they probably don't know how to turn it off.

[Jack Ranga]

Bloggs, do you hear the 'request traffic & code' calls in WA?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Go ahead

Copied no traffic

Standing by

"Time 26":ugh:

[Jack Ranga]

Pending clearance

[le Pingouin]

And guys, if I'm mentioning you're squawking a code other 1200 when broadcasting traffic info it's not because I'm cranky about it. I couldn't care less. It's to get your attention so you'll know it's you who is about to have a bloody big bird strike from the 1200 code coming the other way at the same level!

It's not pleasant watching a pair of returns merge at the same level.

[Capn Bloggs]

do you hear the 'request traffic & code' calls in WA?
Yep. And the PC above.

The pilots ordering "IFR taxis" are rife, as well... I thought they were in a 'plane; why would they want a taxi? :}

[dubbleyew eight]

um, if it happened would it hurt if I pointed out that you wouldn't be the first air traffic controllers in australia who were retired due to medical psychiatric problems.

don't let the job send you nuts guys. :E

[fujii]

G'day dj, I'm only asking that VFR listen out on the area frequency! That's all it takes to avoid these situations. It's not much fun watching radar paints point at each other, merge..........and wait for them to come out the other side. Neither of them monitoring, really, how hard is it to look at a map?


How do you propose we do this and meet the requirement to be on CTAF within 10 miles of the airfield with only one radio?

[Jack Ranga]

Fujii, the non-skydive aircraft was NOT on CTAF. There were 2 PJE aircraft operating one of them was a couple of minutes away from drop. I asked him if the VFR was contactable on CTAF? Negative.

[CB Hunter]

You have hit the nail on the head. The standards are disgusting. I have recently flown with guys with a thousands hours of bad habits.... And it's getting worse.

Radio calls are lacking professionalism, and even worse not even getting the correct information across, causing unnecessary calls to clarify information, blocking an already busy center controller.

Where did "pending clearance" come from?? Of course your pending clearance - you're not exactly going to blast off into controlled airspace without a clearance.
Just report your intended cruising level and await clearance OCTA. Someone made up a cool phrase, and now they are all using it.
:ugh:

[Homesick-Angel]

The standards continue to drop because the good instructors leave the trade just as they become effective.

The bad ones stay in the game cos they can't get a job elsewhere, and there are a multitude of grade threes who are on a road to the big'n'shinys who don't give a ****.

Comes back to bite them when they're dodging around muppetts playing around in the flight levels without an xponder or clearance or even a listen out.. Perhaps then they wonder if it woulda helped if they'd done a better job.

Nah probably not...

[VH-XXX]

Yesterday I watched a Victa Airtourer fly into Tooradin from Lilydale presumably with instructor and student on board. They did two circuits and then climbed out on downwind for 22 and departed overhead to the north.

The ERSA entry clearly says to not overfly to the north of the runway and specifically mentions PJE to the north.

I wonder if they didn't read this in ERSA or whether they did this departure anyway because they figured that the jumpship was on the ground. The ERSA entry makes no mention of being cleared to overfly to the north when parachuting is not in progress.

[Howard Hughes]

Air Ambulance aircraft in taxi calls requesting traffic & code, no mention of runway or POB.
My first instructor always stressed "if you don't give em the runway, they won't know where to look for you if something goes wrong"!

Of course this was back in the full reporting days! ;)

[43Inches]

The IFR taxi call OCTA on area should be treated as a broadcast to local traffic as well as a report to ATS. Especially if you don't have ATS on the ground it's even more important to broadcast in case any inbound traffic is in close proximity it will alert them to your presence. Omitting things such as location, runway in use and destination/basic direction of departure just leads to confusion and extra radio traffic to clear it up. Asking for traffic and codes is a waste of breath and serves no purpose, as much as saying pending clearance.

How much effort does it take to wait and listen one or two seconds before transmitting to avoid frequency blocking.

[Wally Mk2]

I hope none of you guys go fly in the States where phraseology is made up mainly of common sense, something that isn't practiced often here in 'worlds best practice' country & I use that term loosely!.
There wouldn't be a pilot out there whom does it perfectly every time, not even me:E
People break the rules everyday on our roads, in the air & in society in general, regs & rules are there to have a base in which to work from, nobody knows them all & nobody practices them ALL the time ATC included!
We are human, we make mistakes for all sorts of reasons.
Going by the book guarantees nothing it might give you the best chance but that's about all.
SOP's are designed so everyone is working from the same slate, trouble is it's humans doing the working so SOP's are more "Sample Operating Procedures". Learning is the key word.

I feel for you 'JR' but don't let it get to you like that, most of us do our best & that's all you can hope for:ok:


Wmk2

[poonpossum]

ATC made up "standby one"

[Jack Ranga]

Wal, I'm not:

angry
upset
anxious
losing the plot mentally :E

In the end it's not my arse on the line (although it is when I go flying!)

There is a time and place for standard & non standard speak :ok:

[porch monkey]

Good to see we taught you something of use on those nights down to Tassie, Jack..........

[Jack Ranga]

lol porch! They are one of the better operators mate! Good learning curve that one :ok:

[Derfred]

I agree with you Jack.

But while we're on it, can you ask your tower mates to stop asking me if I'm "ready immediate" after I've called "ready"? If I've called "ready" I'm ready!

Meanwhile I'll ask my mates to stop saying "ready in turn"... :8

[Creampuff]

Perhaps their only VHF was tuned to the ‘low level area frequency’ of 126.7, having been chased off Area by grumpy ATCers and skygods …

Or perhaps they weren't obliged to carry and use VHF ...

[Jack Ranga]

Derfred, I don't know anything about tower :E they've probably been burnt by aircraft saying they are ready then sitting on the runway while they twiddle knobs, 15 seconds is a loooong time in ATC land!

Creampuff, I work the low level sectors, the frequency they should have been on. So where would the no radio requirement be that specifies they have a transponder (it was sqwarking)

[Creampuff]

Just because they have a transponder and switch it on does not mean they were obliged to have a serviceable VHF. Were they below 5,000', outside A, C, D and E, and away from a towered aerodrome?

What do you do about all the gliders with no transponder or VHF on Area?

[glekichi]

Got to say there was a while there where I used the old 'pending clearance' because if I didn't the controller kept coming back to me to tell me to remain octa (no sht, Sherlock) and I'd have to then reply to it - a lot of unnecessary banter.
Recently though, a departure call stating I'm climbing to a flight level in cta doesn't seem to panic the controllers as much as it used to. :E

[Hempy]

Got to say there was a while there where I used the old 'pending clearance' because if I didn't the controller kept coming back to me to tell me to remain octa (no sht, Sherlock) and I'd have to then reply to it - a lot of unnecessary banter.
Recently though, a departure call stating I'm climbing to a flight level in cta doesn't seem to panic the controllers as much as it used to. :E

The difference being 'pending clearance' isn't in any books I've ever read, however "Remain OCTA" and "'INTENDED' Cruising Level" is....AIP in fact. Elementary Dear Watson

[Creampuff]

It’s funny how on PPRuNe a pilot can be criticised in one thread for being on Area rather than 126.7, and in another thread a pilot can be criticised for being on 126.7 rather than Area.

It’s also funny that it’s OK for e.g. gliders and ultralights to punt around without transponders and without saying boo on Area or CTAF at a non-towered aerodrome, but if someone’s punting around with a transponder on it’s the end of the world if Centre can’t speak to her.

Jack: How do you know the pilot wasn’t using her single VHF to talk on 126.7 due to the vicinity of aerodromes? How do you know the aircraft’s VHF wasn’t U/S and the pilot carrying out a perfectly legal flight during which a VHF was not required to be carried?

[Jack Ranga]

Creampuff, personally I don't think it's funny that ANYTHING flying at whatever level in the j curve doesn't have a transponder or radio. It's stupidity of the highest order.

Secondly, there were 2 aircraft involved in this airprox, neither of them on area OR CTAF. I only needed to speak to one of them, no cigar. One of the aircraft then flew within 1nm of a drop zone, it's published on maps. If you haven't got a radio wouldn't you think the operator would have the brains to give the drop zone a wide berth? Obviously not. No radio, no map, no common sense.

It may just be the end of the world for one or both of them next time.

[Wally Mk2]

JR have you never turned down the wrong street buddy? Being a pilot doesn't mean that it will never happen my good friend on the other end of the mickeyphone:ok:
OH BTW tell yr HB TWR buddy to relax, I mean you would think I came to his house raped his wife & drank all his bear, the latter an unmentionable act:E


Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

Go to Launy Wal, very friendly there :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

Yr right there 'JR' they don't seem to have the complications after the Op that 'Hobartions' do:E


Wmk2

[RatsoreA]

What really s#!t$ me is around an airport, YSBK, for example, and it's busy, nobody thinks when they are listening to the radio, eg, that controller just asked that guy a question, and is expecting an answer, so I'll wait before making my call... No no... As soon as someone stops transmitting, I'll just transmit, everyone else can go f&@k themselves, or, over transmit, cos I have no idea and no situational awareness.

Returning to couch for a nap...

:*

[Ultralights]

i have noticed recently at Bankstown, the number of IFR aircraft requesting taxi on arrival. cant you just wait and get your taxi clearance after you exit the runway like everyone else?

[Capn Bloggs]

drank all his bear, the latter an unmentionable act
The DAWG would not be impressed...

as for this:

I hope none of you guys go fly in the States where phraseology is made up mainly of common sense, something that isn't practiced often here in 'worlds best practice' country & I use that term loosely!.
There wouldn't be a pilot out there whom does it perfectly every time, not even me
People break the rules everyday on our roads, in the air & in society in general, regs & rules are there to have a base in which to work from, nobody knows them all & nobody practices them ALL the time ATC included!
We are human, we make mistakes for all sorts of reasons.
Going by the book guarantees nothing it might give you the best chance but that's about all.
SOP's are designed so everyone is working from the same slate, trouble is it's humans doing the working so SOP's are more "Sample Operating Procedures". Learning is the key word.
Codswallop! :)

[tail wheel]

Dumb as dogsh!t. And that's being generous.

Type of comment I expect from a very small minority of unprofessional pilots, unable to express a valid, accurate opinion without resorting to unnecessary and crass expletives.

By any measure, Australia has a very significant majority of professional, competent, capable pilots in it's aviation work force, able to debate professionally and in an appropriate manner.

[Hempy]

Tailwheel, it's not the 'professional' pilots Jack is giving a razz to, it's the ever increasing number (and believe me, from this side of the table the number IS increasing...although that may not be as obvious from confined sterile environment of a cockpit..) of irresponsible pilots who either can't, or even worse wont, conform to the rules governing the privilege of flight in this country.

Yes regs change, yes CASA continue to make a balls-up of just about everything; yes, it is very different to how it was 30 years ago. So fkn what? When I was a kid we used to all bail around on long trips in the back of a station wagon, no seat belts, no restraints whatsoever. And it was legal. Do I do it now just because I could do it then and I don't agree with the change in law? I could, I suppose, but then I would just be a law unto myself, thumbing my nose at the authorities because I think I know better and 'it can't happen to me'

There are some pilots on here who seem to think that the rules are optional, or can be applied depending on personal preference. Go for it, I just pray that it ends only in a 'single aircraft' accident.

[VH-XXX]

In a welcome change, nobody has blamed RA-Aus yet :ok:

[Creampuff]

To a hammer, every problem is a nail …

Jack, you seem to have quite a bit of experience. Haven’t you been to busy aerodromes at and in the vicinity of which the carriage of VHF is not compulsory, and there are ultralights buzzing around, parachutists dropping in, a tourist charter operator flogging in and out the occasional RFDS aircraft passing through? Continuous ‘AIRPROX’ is SOP, yet the sky hasn’t fallen in.

During those tedious AFRs the ATOs tend to emphasise the fact that pilots must keep a lookout, because although alerted see and avoid is much more effective than un-alerted see and avoid, there are lots of people flying around, perfectly legally, without radio, and they have been for decades.

If you want VHF carriage and use mandated for any aircraft operating anywhere in the ‘J’ curve, go your hardest. But it would have to be all or nothing: gliders; ultralights; balloons; anything in the air with a human on board. No ‘favours’ for sectional interests.

And can we get one fact clear: Were these terribly irresponsible pilots operating in an area in which the carriage and use of VHF is compulsory? Yes or no.

Not your opinion on whether it’s a good or bad idea; just a yes or no. :ok:

[Ixixly]

Creampuff, too many people take advantage of the fact that something isn't "Compulsory", sticking to the bare minimum gives you the bare minimum of safety as well.

Gliders and Ultralights, they might not necessarily REQUIRE one but for $200 or so you can buy yourself a handheld VHF and at least listen in, buy a map for a few quid as well so you know what to listen in on. Just because you don't HAVE TO, doesn't mean it isn't a bloody good idea. Problem is it seems to require that little bit of extra effort people can't be bothered putting in.

If you're in something larger then you really should have a VHF radio installed, 2 preferably or one that allows you to monitor a standby frequency as well, it's not difficult, it is a little expensive, but personally if it can save my life and possibly the lives of those around me I'll probably forego a few nights out and set aside a little extra for some extra equipment.

Of course there are limits to this argument, obviously we're not all going to be able to afford to install a couple of top notch GPS, Weather Radar, EGPWS, TAWS etc...etc... but just a few simple items like a handhelp GPS and a VHF radio shouldn't be too far out of reach for most people.

[Jack Ranga]

G'day Tailwheel, I'm a bit of a knockabout bloke, I express myself a little differently to your more favoured clientele. You have a group of people (some would call them dobbers) that would like this forum conducted in some sort of queens English, RAAF etiquette, book club manner. They don't own this forum. And I don't recall reading this as a condition of membership of this site?

I conduct myself at work with the professionalism that is required from me, I haven't ever had a complaint in 25 years on the 50 contextual reports that have been done on me. I've received several letters thanking me for the service I've provided. I conduct myself differently at the pub, when I'm camping, when I'm in formal situations or when I'm lying around in my jocks at home.

Any judgement of me that you or your mates make, I couldn't give a rats toss bag ;) honestly. I don't sweat or have panic attacks hoping that people like me.

So if you or your silent brotherhood want to ban me permanently go for it :ok: and I promise I won't register in a new identity :ok: your forum used to be a non PC, knockabout kind of place to discuss real issues, real pilots, now? Whatever, your train set, do with it what you like. Most of the people can see the humour in my posts, you & your secret etiquette police obviously don't :cool:

[Jack Ranga]

Creamy, I'm 25 years ATC, about 28 years pilot, ME-CIR, Turbine, Instructor etc. I've been about the traps a bit. I fly a turbine as a drop pilot on some days off. I've had a fair bit of experience from BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. I can see most points of view. I'm one of the few people who doesn't 'not like a person because they have a contrary point of view'

I don't know whether one of the aircraft concerned were required to have a radio or not, one was required to, he was un contactable.

My point stands though, if you're not required to have a radio wouldn't you think this aircraft would have the brains to remain clear of a drop zone by a few miles? Dumb as dogsh!t (not at work, personal opinion only)

[Jabawocky]

In a welcome change, nobody has blamed RA-Aus yet

xxx

It is a collective group problem.

I could tell the story of how a good mate was almost killed 3 miles from touchdown in IMC conditions (BKN 0100) on the ILS to Willy town, to be confunted by a drifter(or similar) surfing around in the gaps between the CU and such, and not listening to the CTAF obviously.

The fact that his F/O saw it, and the 170 punters in the back had no idea how close they came, nor the folk on the ground who could have had a 737 drop in .....

Had this idiot not been about 3 seconds later, he would have caused a tragic mess.

Ballina is a classic case. The operators of B737 and most likely A320's into there love it when the weather is down to the minima......less likely to hit a big bug. :uhoh:

Creamie, sadly there are vastly varying standards around the country. One airfield that you know, and sounds similar to your description has few problems, because the air prox definition is life in the CTAF area. They are mostly well behaved and courteous. Other places are not so good.

[Creampuff]

All good stuff that leads back to the same point: If you want VHF carriage and use mandated for any aircraft operating anywhere in the ‘J’ curve, go your hardest. But it would have to be all or nothing: gliders; ultralights; balloons; anything in the air with a human on board.

No ‘favours’ for sectional interests.

[Wally Mk2]

"JR" don't let the Mods get to you buddy responding to them like that only feeds them it's a power trip for them, you know people with some low level of authority as we know so we still luvs ya:ok::ok:
There's always gunna be a lot of personal attacks on an individual here as some really are nasty angry PPruners:-0)


Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

Wally, we've really got to catch up :ok: then you can give pprune land a status report, I ain't angry, upset, worked up, p!ssed off etc :E they don't get to me at all mate, lol

[Aussie Bob]

Creampuff, personally I don't think it's funny that ANYTHING flying at whatever level in the j curve doesn't have a transponder or radio. It's stupidity of the highest order.Jack, I have been pondering this all day and think it is plain wrong thinking. Correct me if I am wrong but up until about 5 years ago you could not see these events happening, did they happen then? In all likelihood, 5 years ago we had more aircraft in the skies than we do now. Pilots have been missing other pilots since the dawn of aviation. Hits are a rare event.

I clearly remember a recent trip up north when a controller was becoming increasingly concerned about a possible airprox which turned out to be me and another unidentified. The problem was, the description of where it was going to happen made no sense to me because the locations were not on my plan. It was very tempting to get out the map and study the location but I kept looking outside, saw the traffic, avoided them and flew on. No doubt the poor controller had a nervous moment.

Had I got out the map, or even replied to ATC, my lookout would have been impaired. Where the transmissions beneficial? In this instance not at all.

Advocating that we all need transponders and radios in an area as vast and unpopulated as Australia will get the attention of some nodwell, increase further the cost of flying and further diminish the number of aircraft in the sky. There is no substitute for a good lookout.

[Jack Ranga]

Bob,

Mine is an opinion only. Did it happen in the past when I couldn't see, most probably, I guess ignorance is bliss is what that situation is all about. Most of the non-radio aircraft we talk of are experimental. It is extremely cheap nowadays to install a radio, especially when you can do it yourself, handheld even. Transponders, fair enough but still cheap for experimental.

I'm not talking about mandatory radios & transponders in the GAFA.

I've had several occasions where crews of medium capacity RPT aircraft have had near hits, you can hear it in their voices, it shakes them up. One particular occasion I had a VFR identified and tracking opposite direction to a SAAB, I gave him traffic and he decided to stop his decent a thousand foot above the identified level of the VFR he never got the VFR on TCAS. The SAAB pilot was adamant he would have hit the aircraft if he hadn't had traffic issued.

I can only put my opinion forward based on my 25 years here & what I've seen. I've got an advantage in that I sit on the other side of the fence as well. ATC's are the last ones consulted whenever change that affect the industry occur. In fact, we are rarely consulted on anything. We just deal with the garbage that happens, such is life eh?

I'm also not a fan of cheap aviation, i.e. I can't afford this part, the plane will fly without it, so stuff it, I'll fly anyway. If you can't 'afford' an AFR, you shouldn't be flying etc.

How's that Tailwheel?

[Aussie Bob]

Thanks Jack

How's that Tailwheel?

:confused: I didn't think d as ds was out of place, almost a professional description for some in the industry!

[Tankengine]

It would be interesting to know the science that could compare safety outcomes per different electronic gadgets, ie: radio and transponder (as championed by Jack) on to TCAS and Flarm. :confused:

In my experience radio is next to useless, maybe 10% effective. ( for those who champion it, just think of 50-150 gliders on area telling you all where they are!)
Transponders perhaps 15%, they need ATC to interpret.
TCAS perhaps 75%, but not many aircraft have it, ( or can have it).
Flarm used in gliders 75-80% , but almost no powered aircraft other than tugs have it.:ooh:

Looking out the window in the right direction still works pretty well too!:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Most of our opinions are based on our experiences. In the end, the chance of a random mid-air are extremely remote, extremely. What complicates this is that MOST VFR aircraft are using some form of GPS, they are tracking via published IFR routes (the SAAB V's the VFR I mentioned previous) I watch it EVERY day, it's NOT random anymore. It would still be rare for a mid-air but LESS rare. If you're happy with that, fair enough. I'm not entirely comfortable with it when I'm flying BASED ON WHAT I SEE EVERY DAY (not yelling).

Tank, what you state is entirely valid,they all work to some degree.........

[Jack Ranga]

And thanks for all the PM's :ok: I will get back to you all :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Most of the non radio experimental? Or do you mean RAAus?

I can't think f any VH-Experimental not radio equipped.

Just for clarity......yeah I know yours has a GTN750 :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Oops! Yep, that's what I meant!

The GTN750 is an absolute work of art :D

[kaz3g]

After many years of the absence of organised gliding from Euroa, I see it is still named as "Euroa Soaring Centre" on the WAC. Gliding clubs mainly use 122.5 or 122.7.

The VNC just calls it "Euroa" and has a PJT against it. Never seems to be much activity going on when I pass by now. Not like when I was gliding there 30 years ago.

Violet Town up the road to the east gets a mention but no info at all.

Locksley is just 9 NM west of Euroa, and Mangalore another 9 NM further on. Both Locksley and Mangalore are on 122.1. So an aircraft fitted with one radio like mine and following that track (but not actually overflying or invading the Euroa drop zone would be on what frequency:

122.5 or maybe 122.7 because it is marked for gliding;
126.7 because there is no dedicated frequency;
122.1 because within 10 NM of a CTAF with. A dedicated frequency; or
122.4 because the CAAP says that is what should be used and the CASA head just reinforced it in his monthly media blurb?

Perhaps people are so busy twisting dials they miss hearing and seeing the essentials?

Me? I'll be calling quickly on 122.1 because of the training stuff coming out of Mangalore then getting back onto Area so a nice ATC can brighten my day if needs be.

And I do have a transponder :-)

Kaz

[Jack Ranga]

Kaz, 122.4 with your transponder on, I'll let you know what's going on at all of those places. Be situationally aware, when I call you, you'll know I'm talking to you. When you are going to transit a CTAF, switch to the CTAF & broadcast. The PJE aircraft will be monitoring & will call you :ok:

There is one VFR aircraft whose track takes him within close proximity to YEUA, he is a regular, he calls every time and asks if there are skydive operations at YEUA. I keep an eye on him, I know who he is if I need to talk to him, if I call him he answers, Smart man :ok:

[VH-XXX]

Me? I'll be calling quickly on 122.1 because of the training stuff coming out of Mangalore then getting back onto Area so a nice ATC can brighten my day if needs be.

Perhaps your problem is attention to detail....

Why on earth would you be on 122.1 ?

Surely it's not a typo as you've written it 3 times in your post :cool:

[Creampuff]

Just typos.

I agree with the points made by Kaz, Tank and Bob.Perhaps people are so busy twisting dials they miss hearing and seeing the essentials?:D It would be interesting to know the science that could compare safety outcomes per different electronic gadgets. … Looking out the window in the right direction still works pretty well too!Beware folks: There's always some electronic gadget that will save us all.Had I got out the map, or even replied to ATC, my lookout would have been impaired. Where the transmissions beneficial? In this instance not at all.:D

[Hempy]

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

It would seem that only one or two from the above list carry any meaning anymore (and thats being generous!)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Had I got out the map, or even replied to ATC, my lookout would have been impaired. Where the transmissions beneficial? In this instance not at all.

Surely replying to ATC saying, "I think you may be referring to me, I'm around that height and this is my estimated position", and finding that ellusive ident button on the transponder when asked to wouldn't have been that difficult?

If you were looking for that traffic as a result of the ATC concerns, then I would suggest the transmissions were indeed beneficial. Sounds like there was an airprox (correct me if I'm wrong), but were you responding to their actions or does your normal routine prevent you from using any other equipment in the aircraft (including maps or your radio)?:confused:

[Howard Hughes]

I think some of you are missing the point, the idea is to have a number of defences (layers), with eyes (see and avoid) being the last line of defence. I would prefer not to be relying on my ageing eyes as the only defence, it is much easier to spot someone whom you have spoken to, been advised by ATC, or seen on TCAS. ;)

Tankengine, as someone who has never glided, can you tell me more about FLARM?

[Old Akro]

I'd suggest that most VH registered experimental aircraft haw newer / better avionics than equivalent VH aircraft because its cheaper because it avoids the whole CASA certification / installation rort. If CASA reduced the regulatory burden of fitting avioincs there would be an immediate improvement in safety.

As a start if CASA allowed LAME's to sign out minor modifications (as occurs in the US) it would reduce the cost of many avioinics installations by $1,000 by eliminating engineering orders for minor hardware fitment issues.

I'd also suggest that the modern practice of VFR aircraft being actively discouraged to make any radio calls is detrimental to safety. For a while after we were discouraged to make position calls, most pilots would request local QNH as a mechanism of a) confirming that we were on the correct area frequency and b) effectively providing a traffic alert for other aircraft. But that to has become actively discouraged.

When the radio boundary map was discontinued the transition to showing frequencies on the ERC charts was bungled and even now it can be difficult to find on a map - especially in flight. It would be my observation that a large number of VFR pilots do not understand (and many do not carry) ERC charts, yet that is where the area frequencies are. The frequencies are available on GPS units, but how many VFR pilots subscribe to an update service?

There is also a developing (even if misguided) culture of not using the radio to remain unseen by CASA because of the fear of punitive action by CASA.

In the old days of DED reckoning navigation, you spent nearly all of the time looking outside and we weren't as accurate at following a track. So, the chance of being in conflict with another aircraft's track was much less and the chances of seeing another aircraft were higher and our skills at changing track to avoid other aircraft were a bit better.

So, I think there has been a reduction of skill associated with the implementation of new technology. But I think CASA / ASA have also contributed by a) discouraging / making it harder to make position calls and b) only implementing the parts of GPS / transponder technology that make life easier for them. Why don't we have the same access to traffic information through GPS systems that they do in the US?

Around airports, the traffic that worries me most is RA(Aus). The radio discipline of this segment is (in my opinion) completely inadequate. As an IFR pilot, descending from high altitude at relatively high speed into an airport with local RA(Aus) traffic scares me. I think few RA(Aus) pilots understand the speed differential and big percentage don't effectively monitor the radio at all.

[Jabawocky]

Agreed with AKRO :ok: 99%

The other 1% is that the cost of a GTN750 to me or you is the same, and they both need installing. My hourly rate is more than the shop, but it gets done right the first time :ok:

As for Mr H. Hughes, that about sums it up. Recently I have been advised by ATC of several threats, some of which I and another pilot on board have never seen, even with regular updates on where to look.

The worst was almost two weeks ago, departing IFR with more than SCT at 2000 to the west of the coast. BNE CEN gives me traffic in a urgent tone of voice on a VFR climbing right through my path, and when I played this back later later and did the maths, this was almost certain to be RV confetti all over Morayfield....well the acreage parts at least. :eek:

The funny :mad:NOT part despite not being able to spot any directed traffic before or since, this one I had not a chance of hell in seeing until we either hit or came that damned close to hitting we would have seen each others eyeballs....through the mist of the cloud!!!! :mad::mad:

I will concede one small option, there was as I broke through later a small ravine along that track, which may have been considered clear of cloud below 3000, but FFS in a busy area this is akin to flying along a sewer pipe with nowhere to go.

Clearly not able to take avoiding action, nor listening out as BNE CEN tried to verify, it was my decision to bug out and do an orbit, which thankfully I did. Reminds me I must track that ATC down and thank him. Mind you he saved a Jaba mid-air thread, maybe not everyone is glad to hear that. :ouch:

My thoughts are see and avoid is the least effective when it is not directed, and even then it is a 20% chance.

Be careful up there!

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/ScreenShot2014-02-26at74437AM_zps990f099e.png

[andrewr]

So an aircraft fitted with one radio like mine and following that track (but not actually overflying or invading the Euroa drop zone would be on what frequency:

122.5 or maybe 122.7 because it is marked for gliding;
126.7 because there is no dedicated frequency;
122.1 because within 10 NM of a CTAF with. A dedicated frequency; or
122.4 because the CAAP says that is what should be used and the CASA head just reinforced it in his monthly media blurb?

I don't think there is a perfect answer.

If flying towards Locksley I would tend to be on Locksley CTAF 121.1 before 10NM (probably 12-15), to have some awareness before making a call at 10NM. So before Euroa if travelling south.

Flying away, I would probably switch to area before 10NM if there was no traffic on CTAF. However, if someone called then called inbound at 10NM and saw me going in the opposite direction they would probably want to know why I wasn't on CTAF.

What frequency is used at Euroa? Being within the 10NM Locksley CTAF the reasonable assumption would be the same frequency, but some comments imply that is not the case.

Incidentally, Euroa illustrates a problem with the idea that the frequency is based on whether the airstrip is shown on the map. The strip to the south of the highway is shown on the WAC, but not the VNC. So should users be on 126.7 or area (or, perhaps, 121.1)?

Jack Ranga:
Kaz, 122.4 with your transponder on, I'll let you know what's going on at all of those places.

Presumably, only traffic also with a transponder. Would you suggest requesting flight following?

In the area I fly, I hear very little useful traffic information on area. Usually, any traffic information is given relative to an already identified aircraft - so I have no idea if they might be referring to me, without knowing where the other aircraft is. I generally go with the odds and assume it isn't.

[MikeTangoEcho]

FLARM is flight alarm (I believe?!). It's effectively a simple TCAS sans resolution advisories.

[Trent 972]

Hi Jaba,The worst was almost two weeks ago, departing IFR with more than SCT at 2000 to the west of the coast. BNE CEN gives me traffic in a urgent tone of voice on a VFR climbing right through my path...
A question for you if I may be so bold.
If you were at 1,700 feet and the other aircraft was at 2470 feet, who was climbing through who's path? :E

[VH-XXX]

As for Mr H. Hughes, that about sums it up. Recently I have been advised by ATC of several threats, some of which I and another pilot on board have never seen, even with regular updates on where to look.

So you were listening this time Jabba? :cool: Once upon a time back in about 2011, 3 pilots in an RV10 didn't hear ATC warning that there was an oncoming Bell 412 Med 1 chopper. 'twas a little embarrasing for us :ouch: My excuse was that I am a Mexican and didn't know where we were.

[Creampuff]

Recently I have been advised by ATC of several threats, some of which I and another pilot on board have never seen, even with regular updates on where to look.This is why I find this to be a surreal discussion.

Knowledge produced no different outcome than blissful ignorance.

Although I realise that ATC determines potential conflicts by reference to objective criteria and procedures, and although I realise those dots and lines on RADAR screens may look awfully close, and although I realise that ATC is there to help (for which help I’m eternally thankful), I’m sometimes bemused at the traffic ATC considers others should know about and, in some cases, spot. It’s difficult enough spotting a 737, against a background of urban sprawl, on an ILS approach to the threshold of a runway that can be seen; Retard Vehicle 4 miles away and low? Yeah right…

And when are wedge-tailed eagles and pelicans going to be fitted with transponders for flights in controlled and E airspace?

When the RPT climbs out of Upper Kumbukta West, it must be very comforting for them to be alerted to and therefore be able to watch out for the aircraft 15 miles away on the same track squawking 1200 and an unverified level of 7,500’, also on the TCAS. The two gliders that are closer but just tiny specks on the windscreen? Blissful ignorance deals with those threats.

Knowing that there is a potential threat may result in concentration on that threat to the exclusion of other, potentially bigger threats.

The published studies about where mid-airs occur, and the factors that contribute to them, are instructive.

Alerted see and avoid is better than un-alerted see and avoid, only if the alert is to all threats, the relative risk of each threat is comprehended, and all those threats are seen or properly positioned in the pilot’s mind’s eye.

(Mexicans who don't know where they are: QED!)

[Jabawocky]

Trent, he was climbing, and so was I, the shot you see there is when I have pushed the nose forward and asked for more info, then did the orbit. Play it back if you wish. See what you think.

My GS and VS is far greater than the other aircraft. Had it been higher workload for the ATC I may not have been so lucky.





XXX :E yeah and the young Airline pilot was not any help either, and it was his backyard! But we did hear the call eventually......sadly it might have been the thrid attempt :ouch: And we were in VMC and at the correct level.

[Trent 972]

Hi Jaba, I have watched the full replay and it seems the system worked as designed. But
At no stage prior to you passing behind the other aircraft were you ever above him, therefore you were climbing through his level whether he was on climb or not.
Assuming the reason you wanted to gain height quickly was because of the rising terrain on your outbound track, and as you know, the responsibility of terrain clearance until reaching LSALT/MEA/MORA for an IFR flight, remains with the PIC, with see and avoid still being applicable to an IFR flight when not in cloud.
I can't see the other aircraft did anything incorrectly assuming he was 'clear of cloud'
As you alluded to, I think it would be a good idea to send a carton of 'coldies' to BNE ATC with a thank-you note attached.
(Thankfully you weren't on approach to Pa Kettle's paddock on a frequency different from 'Area'). :E
I'd miss you around here.
regards.

[Jabawocky]

Trent, that is all well and good and I agree I was climbing and crossing his path, however, he was in IMC and had no right to be there. This is the point you have missed. Had the ATC been dealing with other matters and I was not alerted we would have collided or been damned lucky not to.

You are correct about rising ground. I am and was fully aware of where I was and my surroundings so I stayed down and visual, and orbited. By rights I should have been safe to climb in cloud with no reported IFR traffic.

This clown was not IFR and was not in VMC conditions as required by the VFR. And he was not on the CTAF or Area frequency.

[Trent 972]

Jaba, in your post #78 you did say
I will concede one small option, there was as I broke through later a small ravine along that track, which may have been considered clear of cloud below 3000
Now you say he was in IMC.
However as you rightly said "At or below 3,000 ft AMSL or 1,000ft AGL" and clear of cloud, is VMC, and the other aircraft is depicted as below 3,000ft.

No excuse for not being on the proper Area Frequency though, and hence my quip about Pa Kettle's strip relating to the very important thread that Creampuff is leading the charge on. I rate that discussion as one of the most important on this board ATM.

Be assured that i'm not missing your point at all, but are you missing the point that you assumed it to be IFR conditions when (edit)there may have been legitimate VFR and even 'No Radio' aircraft abouts, and blasting unknowingly into the murk OCTA is fraught with danger.

Thank whichever God you pray to that the ATC'er had your back.

[kaz3g]

Apologies XXX, it should read 121.1 and it was simply a typo that got carried over as an error as should have been evident from the rest of the post.

Why, because of Locksley and then Mangalore being in close proximity with the increased likelihood of conflicting traffic.

But Area is the one to focus on, in my view...especially when the visibility is pretty crappy like it was Sunday afternoon.

Kaz

[Jack Ranga]

I think some of you are missing the point, the idea is to have a number of defences (layers), with eyes (see and avoid) being the last line of defence. I would prefer not to be relying on my ageing eyes as the only defence, it is much easier to spot someone whom you have spoken to, been advised by ATC, or seen on TCAS.


HH, yep, agree. It has been proven in many studies that alerted see and avoid works. Un-alerted, good luck with that :cool:

I've only had one instance where I passed about 200 ft directly above a crossing aircraft in the GAFA. Didn't see it till it flashed out the other side, scared the ****e out of me. I don't have a problem with people advocating no radio, no transponders............in the appropriate areas.

[Jabawocky]

I get your sticking point, I concede there may have been one option, but I am not confident that is where he was and it was by looking at his track a rather straight track......., yeah......I was trying to give too much benefit of doubt, and to be perfectly blunt, that tiny tub to the NW did not exist in the SE where he came from in front of me. Remember I had a good look at it in disbelief from under it all and when I climbed through it, and broke out around 5000'.

So I am 99.9% sure it was a IMC sneaky.

Enough ranting, I believe there is a bunch that do this around YSBK as well. So it is not as rare as we hope.

[Jack Ranga]

Surely replying to ATC saying, "I think you may be referring to me, I'm around that height and this is my estimated position", and finding that ellusive ident button on the transponder when asked to wouldn't have been that difficult?

Good idea but try:

'Centre ABC, with Ident, that may be me'

The frequencies get very congested with all the skydive calls plus the regular traffic. The controller that's looking after that airspace if they're on combine could be handling PJE at:

GLB
MRY
COR
NGB
EUA

irregularly you can add MER, AY & LTV.

If you were looking for that traffic as a result of the ATC concerns, then I would suggest the transmissions were indeed beneficial. Sounds like there was an airprox (correct me if I'm wrong), but were you responding to their actions or does your normal routine prevent you from using any other equipment in the aircraft (including maps or your radio)?

Seriously, you hear a controller trying to call you but you ignore them? Why?? Press the ident button and respond with your callsign only if you're worried about workload or attention.

[kaz3g]

Thank you Jack, your guardianship is much appreciated.

I'm just a few days off 70. I'm the same age as my Auster, and they call it an antique! :rolleyes:

I hope to keep flying for a long while yet and I appreciate all the help I can get to do this.

Kaz

[JustJoinedToSearch]

JR any AIP etc guidance for this?

I vaguely seem to remember something, somewhere about not using ident unless specifically asked to by ATC?

[Captahab]

Biggest issues I see are the attitudes of Y and ease of DTO.

[Jack Ranga]

Jack Ranga:

Presumably, only traffic also with a transponder. Would you suggest requesting flight following?

Andrew, I've never knocked back a flight following request, try it. It can only be given if you are on radar, if you drop off radar the controller will terminate the service. Radar coverage in that area is pretty good.

In the area I fly, I hear very little useful traffic information on area. Usually, any traffic information is given relative to an already identified aircraft - so I have no idea if they might be referring to me, without knowing where the other aircraft is. I generally go with the odds and assume it isn't.

A VFR aircraft sqwarking 1200 is not 'identified' by the controller unless the Controller 'positively' identifies it. If it's not 'positively identified' it doesn't stop the Controller passing traffic on it, to others. If a Controller sees a situation developing on radar they are obliged, by law, to do something about it. That's why being ignored can be a tad annoying :cool:

[Jack Ranga]

Thank you Jack, your guardianship is much appreciated.

It's a pleasure kaz :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

I vaguely seem to remember something, somewhere about not using ident unless specifically asked to by ATC?

JJTS,

You are probably correct! I get caught up in commonsense sometimes!

[Jack Ranga]

I believe there is a bunch that do this around YSBK as well. So it is not as rare as we hope.

They do it everywhere Jaba, I've given traffic to IFR on VFR........pause. The IFR responds with 'we're not going to see that traffic, we're in IMC, request a heading'

[andrewr]

A VFR aircraft sqwarking 1200 is not 'identified' by the controller unless the Controller 'positively' identifies it. If it's not 'positively identified' it doesn't stop the Controller passing traffic on it, to others.That's what I meant... I hear a controller say to a (probably IFR) aircraft something like: "VFR traffic in your 11 o'clock at 5 miles 5500 feet unverified" and I think I'm at 5500 feet, could it be me? Should I speak up? I have no idea where the aircraft referred to is. Usually it turns out they're 50, 100 miles away or more. I have no problem ignoring it now, but the first few times I was unsure because of the rule that VFR traffic are supposed to listen and announce if they may be in conflict.

I've never knocked back a flight following request, try it.Maybe I will. How does it work in the case given, when you also need to switch to/from CTAFs and only have one radio?

Controller sees a situation developing on radar they are obliged, by law, to do something about it.

Out of interest, what separation is considered "a situation developing"? VFR, most would probably consider 1 mile is nothing to worry about, but I'm not sure what it looks like on radar.

[Creampuff]

Good questions, andrew. :ok: I'm keen to understand the controller's perspective and rules in those scenarios as well.

[Jack Ranga]

That's what I meant... I hear a controller say to a (probably IFR) aircraft something like: "VFR traffic in your 11 o'clock at 5 miles 5500 feet unverified" and I think I'm at 5500 feet, could it be me?

Was the traffic being passed to the IFR on his departure report? If so, it should have had a location and outbound track in the report. If you monitor the frequency you will hear all this information, you can then make an assessment of whether you are that traffic. If it's a random traffic report and you hear it:

'Centre, ABC, VFR, 10 miles south of xxx tracking east, A055'

'ABC, Centre, sqwark ident'


Should I speak up?

Why not? Remember, it wasn't ASA or ATC that encouraged VFR's to shut up and say nothing. I'll get banned (again) if I say who's bright idea that was.

I have no idea where the aircraft referred to is. Usually it turns out they're 50, 100 miles away or more.

'ABC, Centre, thanks, no observed traffic, area QNH 1013, have a good day'

I have no problem ignoring it now, but the first few times I was unsure because of the rule that VFR traffic are supposed to listen and announce if they may be in conflict.

That's entirely up to you and your judgement. Your risk assessment in other words I suppose.

[Jack Ranga]

Maybe I will. How does it work in the case given, when you also need to switch to/from CTAFs and only have one radio?

'Centre, ABC switching xxx CTAF 126.7, call again by time xx'

Now, I don't know if that's how its written in AIP but if I was to use the service I'd read up on it and know how it works first. :ok:

Controller sees a situation developing on radar they are obliged, by law, to do something about it.Out of interest, what separation is considered "a situation developing"? VFR, most would probably consider 1 mile is nothing to worry about, but I'm not sure what it looks like on radar.

Depending on the range the controller has set it can look heaps or it can look horrible. It all depends on the tracks of the aircraft, are they diverging or converging, opposite direction? Are they maintaining levels, climbing, descending? Depends. How long's a piece of string? It's judgement. Just because I measure 1 mile between the paints on radar it doesn't mean that there's 1 mile between them. There are tolerances built into separation standards, that's why my minimum radar standard is 5nm.

The situation that prompted this thread was very close, 2 aircraft pointing at each other, one maintaining, the other below and climbing through the other's level. One of them at least, I know was required to carry a radio but was un-contactable through several sources.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re " if I say who's bright idea that was."

Go on.....dare ya..!! :p

p.s. (Thanks for the redundo dick....)
:}

[dubbleyew eight]

Surely replying to ATC saying, "I think you may be referring to me, I'm around that height and this is my estimated position"

you don't enter into a conversation in that situation.

what you do is make a terse position report and let the controller work out if your report matches what he sees.

the other day "aircraft in the vicinity blah heading north at 5,000' contact me.

I was close to blah going the same way but not at the height so
'Alpha bravo charlie, blah, 2000ft heading north'.
turned out the controller wasnt aware of me.

[andrewr]

Was the traffic being passed to the IFR on his departure report? If so, it should have had a location and outbound track in the report. If you monitor the frequency you will hear all this information, you can then make an assessment of whether you are that traffic. If it's a random traffic report and you hear it:

'Centre, ABC, VFR, 10 miles south of xxx tracking east, A055'

'ABC, Centre, sqwark ident'

I have no idea if it was a departure report, but I didn't hear it. I suspect I hear only the ATC side of the conversation, i.e. the aircraft is too far away to hear. I also have no idea what area ATC is covering with combined frequencies. Do ATC want a reply from every VFR aircraft at 5500 within their coverage area? My assumption is no, but I'm happy to be corrected.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I suspect I hear only the ATC side of the conversation, i.e. the aircraft is too far away to hear

Pretty good chance that its not you in conflict then! The secret (I find) is to have enough situational awareness (listening to the radio) to at least be aware of who started the exchange.

If it's Centre and they call a rego and start talking about unidentified traffic then it's usually hard to figure out where they're talking because if it's directed at an IFR aircraft, they don't normally identify the area, only the range of the VFR. From a 'risk management/judgement' perspective, unless either side gives a clue then using big sky theory it's far less likely to be you.

If it's an IFR departure report then at least listen for the departure airfield and then decide if you need to keep paying attention and/or call in. If it's a departure report and you don't hear the transmitting a/c at all (they should make 2-3 calls as part of a standard IFR departure) then you're pretty safe.

[andrewr]

'Centre, ABC switching xxx CTAF 126.7, call again by time xx'

Now, I don't know if that's how its written in AIP but if I was to use the service I'd read up on it and know how it works first.

The references I have seen say that you must maintain a continuous listening watch on the ATC frequency, and advise ATC prior to leaving the frequency. The implication is that flight following ends when you can no longer maintain a listening watch, and you would have to request it again when returning to the frequency.

I haven't found the procedure for leaving the frequency without terminating flight following, but I'm looking. All I can find is
"CHANGING TO ... CTAF"
"IDENTIFICATION TERMINATED, FREQUENCY CHANGE APPROVED"

Is "switching xxx CTAF 126.7, call again by time xx" or similar documented at all as part of flight following in AIP (or somewhere else)? I understand it is a helpful procedure, but if it's not there I can't read up on it.

[andrewr]

Maybe it was a departure report I didn't hear, or I think it could equally be an aircraft that transferred to the frequency on descent for the airport 20 miles away, or one 100 miles away.

If it's Centre and they call a rego and start talking about unidentified traffic then it's usually hard to figure out where they're talking because if it's directed at an IFR aircraft, they don't normally identify the area, only the range of the VFR. From a 'risk management/judgement' perspective, unless either side gives a clue then using big sky theory it's far less likely to be you.

That's exactly the circumstance I'm talking about. Without a location that suggests that it might be me, I figure that the best thing to do is ignore it. Even if it is me, ATC can see me and the other aircraft knows where I am relative to them, so the easiest thing for everyone is to maintain course and altitude so I'm easy to avoid.

[Jack Ranga]

Andrew, the controller may terminate the service when you go CTAF. No bother, the controller may keep the ident and when you call on exiting the CTAF re-establish the flight following.

[Nautilus Blue]

Even if it is me, ATC can see me and the other aircraft knows where I am relative to them, so the easiest thing for everyone is to maintain course and altitude so I'm easy to avoid.
Agreed. If I pass traffic to a IFR on an unidentified VFR, the position will be relative to the IFR. If the IFR wants to talk to the VFR, they will call the VFR, giving an absolute position. As often as not they don't because they have them on TCAS, or because they are not concerned. As mentioned, our idea of close on our screen is often a lot different to a pilots looking to the window.

VFR to VFR is different. It's as much about covering my behind as providing a service. I am quite aware that two symbols can merge on my screen while the actual aircraft are a safe distance apart, so I'm quite happy for you to reply or not.

[Jack Ranga]

I've had heaps of PM's asking questions about how things work :ok: I hope I'm answering your questions well. If you'd rather PM I'm more than happy to answer your questions there. It indicates to me that there should be a 'help line' set up by ASA where pilots can lodge an enquiry. Sort of like a live chat that some websites have. The problem with that may be that it will be run by PR or a non-ATC department, i.e. not the 'coalface' controller. Anyways, keep the question coming :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Top idea JR and I have a plan for you and the Hoodyman:ok:

[mcgrath50]

Hey JR,

Any chance you can post some of the questions here, maybe with the authors names detached if they wanted it to be private?

I have learnt a lot from this thread to questions I didn't even know I had!

[Jack Ranga]

mcgrath50, I'll get onto it, give me a bit of time ;)

[tyler_durden_80]

A valuable thread, well done JR...my 2 cents....

If giving an IFR traffic on an unknown VFR, of course the VFR will have little to no idea who I am referring to, so after passing traffic to the IFR aircraft, I'd make a broadcast like...'Centre broadcast for VFR traffic, ____ miles north of ____, tracking south at A055, IFR traffic is _____, [IFR intentions/tracking], close proximity in ____.'

Alternatively, giving traffic to 2 unidentified VFR A/C can be more tricky...my standard broadcast is along the lines of...'VFR traffic alert, centre broadcast for 2 VFR aircraft S/W of ____, one tracking north at A055, one tracking southwest at A055, close proximity 90 seconds...' Or along those lines. Finding an appropriate common point can be tricky. And if neither if the 2 A/C are listening on my area freq, all I've do so is cover my own arse for the pending investigation.

Cheers
TD80

[Jack Ranga]

td :ok:

10 characters

[bodybag]

Hey Jack Ranga,
This is a bit rich coming from an Airservices Air Traffic Controller don't you think?
You guys have had some terribly unprofessional incidents in recent times and don't get me started on your inefficiencies!
Australian ATC have rightly earned their place as second rate operators!
(the stereotyping is intentional)

[Howard Hughes]

Second rate trolling right there!

Doesn't really matter who starts the conversation, any conversation about standards is good! :ok:

[Homesick-Angel]

Bodybag

29 posts since Jan 2008.
Seems like a second mantle for someone.

With Jacks sense of humor, its probably him trolling himself.

Great thread by the way.:ok:

[bodybag]

Give me a break!
Of course any conversation about standards is a good conversation.. but..
have a read of Jacks first post. He's being pretentious! He's stereotyping all pilots as having 'pathetic' standards, HE'S not going to be advocating a pay rise for us (which is a pity because I'm sure he's very influential!) and he implies that he's a much better pilot. READ HIS POST!
I'm highlighting that ATC are far from perfect. I hear them making careless mistakes everyday! I'm regularly frustrated by their inefficiencies. And I'm down right frightened by some of the incidents over the last few years!
Jack, pull your head in.. get stuff sorted at your end first, then you can discipline us!

[Jabawocky]

I am sure JR will have an answer, but often in a terminal area the surrounding OCTA area is handled by one ATC, and in BN at time the old BN RAD, now BN CEN is also handling BN APP, so any OCTA VFR is dealt with on a "when available" service level.

Fortunately a busy BN CEN radar guy found the time to offer me (IFR and OCTA) this service as I may well have hit a VFR in IM recently.

I need to track that guy down and buy him a beer!

[Jack Ranga]

bodybag, whatev's mate :ok: make your concerns known to the appropriate authorities and they'll be dealt with.

Jab, do you reckon I'm pretentious? :E :E

[Jack Ranga]

The rookie, the first one? Where did it happen? Were you on radar? The second one, different controllers use different techniques, it's up to the controller to judge traffic alerts/broadcasts. The traffic I deal with can be in very concentrated areas. A broadcast may be the quickest warning the controller can get out there.

[bodybag]

Yeah.. Whatevs
1st skygod I've ever come across that sits in an office all day. Good luck to ya

[Awol57]

Bodybag, you're welcome to come along and show us how to do it, within the existing rules of course.

[mcgrath50]

Hey JR, I've given you a few days, when are you going to post those PM questions? After all we all work in aviation so we are over paid and underworked, surely you have had time by now ;) :E

[le Pingouin]

rookie, it very much depends on us noticing. My primary task is separating aircraft, something I'm doing on a screen that's somewhere between 180 and 320NM across (depending on the sectors I'm controlling). On a nice day the screen is also covered in 1200 SSR returns, many in close proximity with overlapping labels. Seriously it looks like a fly screen covered in blowies. No disrespect intended but 1200 symbols are black, have "wings" and can be bloody distracting.

The system gives us no assistance (if nothing else because we'd be overwhelmed by spurious alarms) so we just have to be as vigilant as we can and call it as we see it. My attention will always be focussed on separating traffic, so if I have plenty to occupy me there then trying to spot two random VFR paints converging will come a poor second.

[Fantome]

that your primary aim is to keep those dots apart is really pleasing to know

for those of us who are keeping the old mark one eyeballs forever on the job
or stooging about in the murk , fingers crossed

truly . . I take my hat off to you . .. .. a particularly specialist job . . as oft has been said

back on thread . . . is Jack pretentious?

balls! the dry humour is a dead give away

is there anybody with strong opinions who expresses them articulately and often who does not get up the nose of another of a similar disposition . . . now and again?

long long ago I learned to live with all sorts of derogatory remarks and later to just ignore them .. . . . silly to rise to the bait

"YOU FOOL!!!" . . . . "coming from you, I'm comfortable with that"

yours sincerely

PLP (presumptuous little prick)


(On the BBC show frankly I haven't a clue . .. .pretentious was once defined as - camping under the stars. And dyslexia as--
inability to load a dishwasher)

[Jack Ranga]

bodybag, they're 7 to 8 hour shifts, starting from 6am so it's generally a bit over half a day sitting in the office :ok: depending on daylight savings of course ;)

[Jack Ranga]

1- Out of MB to the south do you want level passing and level planned, some say no. I say yes because of identification purposes

When the tower is present, you will have gotten your sqwark code from them on completion of your runups. If the tower is not there you would have gotten your sqwark code from ML Centre on your taxy call. The radar coverage in the MB area is virtually to the ground.

ML Centre will do what's called co-ordinating your flight plan when you give your taxy call. the flight strip will sit doormant waiting for you to depart. At this stage the timer will be set for 10 mins, an alarm will go off on the controllers screen if you haven't reported and they will then chase you up.

As soon as you depart the TAAATS system will see you on the code and attach a label to the secondary radar return. The controller will pretty much see you straight away.

'ML Centre, ABC departed MB, tracking to intercept outbound track xxx, passing 1200' on climb A070'


So yes, report your level passing because you will be on radar and it saves the controller asking you to verify level. This ATC can be quite busy, succinct radio calls make their life a stack easeir.

2- getting hand balled to 35.7 going to MB again upon 'hello' do you want level passing and in flight conditions?

Level: If you are already identified no, just the level you are on descent to or have been assigned.

Inflight Conditions: Yes, it tells the controller whether you need to continue an instrument approach or can get into the zone in VMC. The ML Centre ATC will know whether instrument approaches are required as MB will be updating them.

3- why over the stait, Camus, fliki and Audra are we sometimes identified at 9k and other times not. Are you selective and sometime just can't be bothered?

It can be atmospheric, coverage may vary and you may be on the edge of it. Your transponder may be blinking indicating that your transponder is being interrogated by the radar but it doesn't necessarily mean you are identified. If you are on radar they will identify you, if you drop off they will terminate your identification.

4- are you annoyed by to 'cya' upon frequency change.

I'm not, can't speak for others, personally I always say g'day :E I've got quite a few mates on the other side of the radio!!

5- what sort of lateral tolerance off track OCTA and in CTA will you allow before you say
"LCE where the fk are you going"

We will not wait till the alarm goes off to tell you. This sort of thing happens all the time with GA, not so much with the RPT. Personally I'll tell you when it gets to a mile or so, I'll also tell you if there's convergence/divergence, I'm not chipping you when I do this, I'm just letting you know so that 1. You're aware that whatever you're navigating with may be erroneous (obviously you have to take into account the limitations of the aid). 2. You can correct it.

Note: I'm talking OCTA here. If you are in controlled airspace, the controller may be twitchy! The could be other traffic around and the ATC's separation standard relies on you being on track.

6- Deleted due boy talk :E

Sorry about the number 6 but I thought I had to ask!

[the_rookie]

Thanks pinguin for clearing that up. Must be one big headache

[Jabawocky]

JR.....thats a big word.

I think bodybag knows little of where he treads. Because you have very little experience as an ATC, very little experience in S/E piston, and very little experience in multi engine commercial ops, and for that matter what would you know about turbines either?

Mate.....It is lucky my experience in aviation amounts to about what you have forgotten, otherwise I would be in trouble next ;)

Great thread and I am sure lots of folk are learning something.:ok:

[mcgrath50]

Thanks JR and the other ATC contributing here. :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

I've got more there, I'll keep posting them :ok:

[AvEnthusiast]

Oh thank God you are not in Afghanistan! They all call themselves pilots, but they are really babies even outside flying hours as well.

[Jack Ranga]

I've just moved onto IFR twins, previously VFR mustering so radio calls weren't used much, When I'm coming in let's say from xxx where I'm based to Townsville, Would it be prudent to advise the controller that I'm at TOD (Brisbane control CUY is approaching TOD for Townsville, request descent)..? Assuming I was tracking for an ILS. Or would it be unnecessary? Every pilot I've asked has differing opinions on this but thought you might have the definitive answer.

I know I should have it under my belt but that one phase has me stumped atm.


After clarifying what this dood mean't, he's asking how he should phrase the clearance request when his TOD of descent is OCTA.

Warning: Townsville is RAAF, I'm not sure how they process this or what CO-ORD takes place between BN sectors & Townsville.

This is how I process this with a Procedural tower in my airspace:

* Your estimate is given to the Tower by me, depending on the sector boundaries this can take place before you are on my frequency.

Just say the base of CTA is A085 and you are at A090, your TOD is 35nm but the Tower Control Zone boundary is 15nm (Ground to A045). Your descent profile will take you OCTA then back into CTR.

* I will co-ordinate your TOD with the tower in subsequent co-ord.
* The tower will issue me with a level to issue to you.
* This level will NOT be below track LSALT or Grid LSALT unless you have reported visual & the tower knows you will stay visual.

My phraseology to you will be somewhere along the lines of:

'CUY, cleared to leave and re-enter controlled airspace on descent to A050, no reported IFR traffic OCTA'

Just say the base of CTA is A090 and you are at A070, your TOD of descent is 25nm but the Tower Control Zone boundary is 15nm (Ground to A045). Your TOD is OCTA and you will be on descent entering CTR.

* The tower will have your estimate and cruise level. If I'm pro-active (I try to be :E) I will have asked you for your TOD and I would co-ordinate it with the Tower.
* The Tower will either issue me a level to issue to you and I will issue a clearance to you on their behalf OR they will tell me to tell you to expect a clearance on descent to A050 (The same descent rules apply).

If it's my clearance on behalf of the Tower:

'CUY clearance, enter control area on descent to A050, tracking xxx to xxx, no reported IFR traffic OCTA'

If it's the Tower's clearance:

'CUY, expect a clearance on descent to A050, no reported IFR traffic OCTA, contact xx Tower on 123.45, hoo-roo'

In this case I will transfer you well before TOD.

AIP tells you to give a 2 min prior to TOD call, one of the reasons for this is to give me 2 mins to assess traffic (if I haven't already, but probably have) It also allows me to co-ordinate with the Tower (if I haven't been proactive or I've been busy :E)

Other units may process the above differently