"Caution wake turbulence"

[muffman]

Have heard the phrase "caution wake turbulence" used on CTAFs by medium category turboprops a number of times recently. It is usually directed at light aircraft (LSAs etc)

I'm undecided whether it falls into the category of good airmanship or if it's in the same basket as "pending clearance," "this time" and "copied no traffic."

Thoughts?

[Username here]

In another life I used to fly a medium category helicopter.

At the start of my career - as a lowly PPL I would never have thought a chopper would generate that amount of wake turb.

I used give lighties following me in the circuit a heads up.

Better I take up 2 seconds of CTAF time rather than have to start up again and medivac some punters out of their busted up sportstar or Jabiru....Three words - much more efficient.

[Ascend Charlie]

I once heard an aircraft on the CTAF give an advisory that there were snakes on the runway, and some wag says:

"Caution, snake turbulence."

[RENURPP]

Have heard the phrase "caution wake turbulence" used on CTAFs by medium category turboprops a number of times recently. It is usually directed at light aircraft (LSAs etc)

I'm undecided whether it falls into the category of good airmanship or if it's in the same basket as "pending clearance," "this time" and "copied no traffic."

Thoughts?
Completely unnecessary. A bit of hand on dick syndrome I suspect.
If there is an issue it should be dealt with by training not by a "medium category turboprop" driver. Definitely in the in the same basket as "pending clearance," "this time" and "copied no traffic."

[ACMS]

Oh I don't know, I imagine a C150 following a Q400 close behind might be in for some wake turbulence......

It would be very wise for the professional in the Q400 to warn the C150 behind.

Good airmanship I would think and just plain old common courtesy from one Pilot to another.

[RENURPP]

OK so the new rule is- if your flying a heavier category aircraft than the following when you depart you make sure you advise the following aircraft "caution wake turbulence". F$%%^K my brown dog!
e.g "Tiger 123 rolling runway 25 GAFFA QLink 234 beware wake turbulence"

Nanny state gone mad.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Good airmanship I would think
What happened to basic aeronautical knowledge? I would think that good airmanship would mean one is aware that all aircraft aircraft produce wake turbulence, and the bigger the aircraft the more severe the wake turbulence. Or has 'good airmanship' been re-defined to mean more quack on the radio?
As RENURPP said; intercourse with my brown canine!

[currawong]

This is, after all, where people come to ask what they should use to write on a Maintenance Release...

[ACMS]

I didn't say that I would advise the Aircraft behind, I never operate anything bigger than a PA 28 into Un controlled Airports so it's not something I thought of.

However if someone wants to warn a Pilot behind them in some circumstances then I don't have a problem with that.

[Damien1989]

I was told this in a light twin once lining up behind a departing q400. I just assumed it was some sort of company policy they were adhering to.:confused:

[Ixixly]

Captain Sand Dune, you're right, what a wank, especially that ATC lot who seem to have to say it all the time...I mean everyone should automatically know better.

I'm with the other camp, I think it's not a bad idea, definitely not a "Wank" or "Big Noting" probably a few guys who have seen a couple of lighties line up behind them not thinking about the ramifications of what they're doing, but only if there is actually someone else behind you about to line up and/or land otherwise why bother?

[Aussie Bob]

I am thinking it is the typical Aussie policy of catering to the lowest common denominator. Frankly I am sick of it and would welcome some suggestions of some "smart" comebacks.

Good airmanship is keeping radio calls inline with what's written in the AIP.

[FGD135]

A bit of hand on dick syndrome I suspect.
Seconded.


The really annoying thing about these "brilliant ideas" is that they tend to get copied and propagated by so many.

[Fuel-Off]

I've told a few lighties in the past who are insistent on following very closely behind me in the Q400 'just be aware, we give out a lot of wake'. But only when, as mentioned in previous posts that the light plane driver isn't really taking the wake stuff into consideration. I don't think guys say it as a wank thing on purpose - it's that missing thing in aviation...what is it again? Oh yeah - AIRMANSHIP!

Ask the Rex cadets at Wagga how much wake the Q400 provides. You'll find the answers pretty entertaining.

Fuel-Off :ok:

[maverick22]

OK so the new rule is- if your flying a heavier category aircraft than the following when you depart you make sure you advise the following aircraft "caution wake turbulence". F$%%^K my brown dog!
e.g "Tiger 123 rolling runway 25 GAFFA QLink 234 beware wake turbulence"

Careful, they're both in the same wake turbulence category :}

[jas24zzk]

Good airmanship, involves thinking of others.

Wake isn't something most lighties are used to considering, and it won't become second nature, until they have a wake incident.

They are that frightening!....and I was in the aircraft generating the wake...never gave it another thought outside of exams...until that 10 seconds!

A reminder to think cannot possibly be negative...can it??

[Captain Sand Dune]

.never gave it another thought outside of exams
I rest my case.

[RatsoreA]

What, are we paying by the word for the use of the radio these days?

In the grand scheme of things, the 2 seconds to utter a small phrase costs almost nothing to f#%k all, and may provide a substantial benefit (was it a Mooney at Wagga that got tipped up by a C-130 some years ago?) to someone. Really though, I get the impression that this whole thing is like 2 bald guys arguing over a comb...

[RENURPP]

Careful, they're both in the same wake turbulence category
if we are going down this track then so what. I have taken off behind jets in same category same weight and got a good ride from their wake so why not tell everybody? better safe then sorry, doesn't cost anything to say it.

Caution wake turbulence, caution I experienced light turbulence through 300 feet, blah blah blah its all free :* Hands on dicks!

[Oktas8]

Caution - wake turbulence.

Caution - low speed can lead to stalling.

Caution - maintain a lookout.

Caution - clouds in the sky.

Caution - you might be stupid, and it's my job to protect you from yourself.



This is why CASA is like it is. Many Australian pilots seem to want to protect us all from ourselves in the unlikely event that we are terminally stupid. :(

O8 - dash 8 driver.

[RENURPP]

To be a little serious, where does it stop.
I have over 20,000hrs, I fly a C150 every now and then, I don't need a dash 8 or any other medium turbo prop driver (or jet) advising me on wake turbulence.
Why do they advise light aircraft and not a jet?
Simply because they believe they have more experience, knowledge expertise. Well thats often not true (especially these days). Bigger aircraft does not mean more experience, more knowledge or a bigger dick.
If the people that make these calls really believe they are necessary I would be interested to hear how many reports have been submitted in a serious attempt at addressing the issue.
Wake turbulence is only one area that could be commented on. The best way to deal with these issues is to submit reports to the ATSB and allow them to do their duty. After careful consideration they can move in a direction of their choosing.
It really irritates me when people decide whats best for all of us.
My advise is fly your own aircraft as best you can, learn the rules as best you can. Encourage others to do likewise. Report any unsafe acts to the ATSB so they can do their job as best they can. Leave the nanny state stuff to politicians.

[ACMS]

Wow some of you guys are precious!!

For gods sake you could save someone's life one day by uttering 2 seconds extra....


:mad:

[maverick22]

Renurpp,

I can see what your saying, but I think the phrase could be valid in some scenarios. I'm a pilot, not an ATCer but a lot of the ports we fly into (in a medium category turboprop) have ab-intio ultralight training taking place. I'm not going to caution everyone about wake turbulence, but if I see a situation where I think its warranted, then I'll say it. Just like I'll warn proceeding traffic of the flock of pelicans I see on final. Pick your audience I guess.:ok:

[Aussie Bob]

I guess with the standard of radio calls at CTAF's descending into an unprofessional quagmire, a bit of grandstanding from a propjet jockey will fit in well.

Just don't say it to me, or I will join the quagmire, forget my own standards and tell you exactly what I think.

But, I can't say I have heard it myself so obviously it's not yet widespread. Can any of you giving the thumbs up to this nonsense actually say that there has been an issue in the past that would have been prevented by said bigmouth jockey? Or do you just support pandering to the lowest common denominator and CTAF standards declining even further?

[maverick22]

Gees Bob,

Hope your feelings don't get too hurt when you're flying in controlled airspace and the controller says that phrase to you :rolleyes:

Personally I have never used the phrase, but like I said if there was a situation where I thought it was warranted then I'll have no qualms using it. Some people really do need all the help they can get. I once remarked to another medium category turboprop that we would need to back-track the runway from the full length after landing. Said turboprop acknowledged this, but continued flying their normal approach. When the penny finally dropped that we would still be on the runway when they planned to touchdown, they were at 400'. They then decided to do an orbit at that altitude on final :eek:

[ACMS]

Get off your high horse Bob, not every lighty driver has your expertise it seems.

"Don't you know who I am? I'm Bob don't tell me what to do"

[Super Cecil]

To be really proffeshunal "Caution wake turbulence, this time" :8

[Fuel-Off]

RENNURPP, Bob et al,

If you were at a holding point at a CTAF, and saw the preceding aircraft take off and had visible flame coming out the exhaust, would you point that out to them on frequency? Or by your logic of 'I've got a licence therefore I don't need your help' you wouldn't bother because you'd think they'd know by their engine instruments and/or fire alert systems? I'll echo the birds on final statement made before. I'd dare say you've thanked a preceding aircraft for giving you a heads up of the bird activity on short final rather than biting their heads off because 'I know better'.

Like I and others have said before it's just a friendly 'just be aware' statement. No way are we implying that when we hear a take off roll call preceding a bigger aircraft's departure within 2 minutes and we jump on the horn and say 'tisk tisk! you should know better Mr Cessna'.

My company issued a memo to crew a while ago, outlining the considerations we need to look at re. wake turbulence at smaller aerodromes with light aircraft about. Apparently other smaller operators had made specific mention of how much the wake the Q400 produces and took that to the company. So that's just our way of mitigating an incident like this one:

Investigation: 199401475 - Turbulence/windshear/microburst involving a Mooney Aircraft Corp M20J, VH-LOB, Wagga Wagga, NSW on 6 June 1994 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1994/aair/199401475.aspx)

I would hazard a guess that other regional airlines would have received the same flack.

Fuel-Off :ok:

[Shagpile]

I agree with all the people who are saying 'stop being so precious'.

It takes two seconds and no this isn't something people are used to.

A few years ago a P3 got caught in the wake of a C17 on final (I think Hawaii?) and required full aileron lock to maintain level. That's between two big aircraft with ATC services. A Cessna would probably be a hole in the ground.

I don't see it as dick waving. A lot of people genuinely don't consider that as they don't fly behind big aircraft regularly if it all. Not to mention a whole bunch of helicopters being in Medium/Heavy (Chinook by memory) that people are unaware of.

If operating a big aircraft and there's a chance a little guy behind me is potentially unaware and going to takeoff or land into it I'll say it. And I won't be upset if somebody reminds me when I'm flying little aircraft too. In fact I think next time I'll say thanks.

[Aussie Bob]

OK guys, I will climb down off my high horse. I do concede that there are possible situations where it may be warranted. An RAA toy waiting to do an intersection departure right where prop jockey is going to rotate may be one.

Given that I have never heard it and the original poster may have only heard it once, (or even not at all) it may also never/rarely even occur. The thread could also be a windup, I don't know. What I do know is even if I say it here, I would bit my tongue in real life, rather then use a CTAF frequency to vent my spleen.

[Oktas8]

There's some missing of the point here.

If I see someone actually doing something dangerous, of course I would speak up. I hope we all would. Examples include Fuel-off's "seeing the preceding aircraft take off and had visible flame coming out the exhaust".

I don't speak up for something that may or may not result in a dangerous activity. For example, Shagpile's "there's a chance a little guy behind me is potentially unaware and going to takeoff or land into it". (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, it only takes two two seconds. So does every little comment, about every topic under the sun. Shall we each transmit our pet hobby horses at every CTAF?

If you see something actually wrong, say something. If you see something that might perhaps become wrong if the other guy is ignorant, forgetful or just careless, think twice. Maybe he is just as competent as you... Maybe that lighty is going to fly down a four degree profile and land long, because he's been sharing a circuit with turboprops for years now...

[maverick22]

If you see something actually wrong, say something. If you see something that might perhaps become wrong if the other guy is ignorant, forgetful or just careless, think twice. Maybe he is just as competent as you... Maybe that lighty is going to fly down a four degree profile and land long, because he's been sharing a circuit with turboprops for years now

Umm ok, righto champ :hmm:

[jas24zzk]

There-in lies the problem Oktas...you DO not know the experience level of the other guy. A simple heads up costs nothing, and if the guy is truly in-experienced, the call might be enough to stop journo's getting the story wrong with half a dozen people's names spelt incorrectly.



Wake turb is so disregarded in this industry its not funny...as I said in my previous post, its not until you have an incident that you begin to comprehend the danger.

The Q400 has been used as a benchmark in this thread....the damage it's wake can do to a lightie is large....many people seem to think that another Q400 could tolerate that wake....VERY wrong!

An aircrafts wake is dangerous to any following aircraft.
Just look at the seperation standards in AIP.
Heavy following Heavy
Medium Following Heavy
Heavy Following medium.

The last in the list is the proof...there is a requirement.

Guys at lightie level OCTA, are not current with the requirements, and MOST would need a heads up to think about what is going on in that regard.

I think i'd rather the condescending 'think about it' call than wander into turb.

[Aussie Bob]

Aussie Bob is just upset that he is on the receiving end. If he flew something that actually managed to generate a wake turb worth talking about he wouldn't sound so bitter. How very true, good on ya! :ok:

Fact is I flunked instrument school too.

[Shagpile]

Wake turb is extremely dangerous. I can't believe there is even a discussion about what is really a comment "Be careful behind me bro, you may end up dead" when the captain of a heavy aircraft thinks it may be warranted.


https://41.media.tumblr.com/28f744a07ef2bdfee61d381f773814b8/tumblr_n4r51047CD1sinkq1o1_500.jpg

[Aussie Bob]

Well so many folk have pulled me up for my opinion that I have changed my tune. If I ever hear it I will give the captain a :ok:

But as someone eloquently put it a few posts ago, where does it all end? Weather is the biggest killer of pilots, perhaps we should call "checked the wx"? People run out of gas, should we include "checked your fuel"?

Whatever, I will just grin and dawdle along in my lightie, dreaming of the bigger planes I don't fly.

[Oktas8]

I can't believe there is even a discussion about what is really a comment "Be careful behind me bro, you may end up dead" when the captain of a heavy aircraft thinks it may be warranted.

That's a fair comment where the captain knows that the other pilot is incompetent in this subject area, or where the the captain can see there is something obviously wrong.

Otherwise, to be quite consistent, the captain really ought to broadcast warnings about cloud and engine failures, because those factors kill more people than wake turbulence encounters.

jas24zzk Where please does it specify a wake turbulence separation standard for a heavy following a medium? I think you're making stuff up! (Insert joke emoticon here.)

There-in lies the problem Oktas...you DO not know the experience level of the other guy.
Neither do you. Any assimption made is just an assumption, unless backed up by evidence. That is, evidence that the guy is a newbie student, or evidence that he really is actually turning base too close to the preceding traffic.

Or, evidence that wake turbulence encounters are actually a statistically evident problem in GA in this country. Otherwise, it's all about assumptions and non-evidence-backed willy waving.

[Nautilus Blue]

jas24zzk Where please does it specify a wake turbulence separation standard for a heavy following a medium?

The only thing I can think of is a heavy following a medium that counts as a heavy when it is in front e.g. B757 or Chinook.

[RENURPP]

when the captain of a heavy aircraft thinks it may be warranted.
Shagpile,
I think the wake behind a 747 a heavy as depicted and a Dash 8 (point of this topic) may differ slightly

[Shagpile]

I think the wake behind a 747 a heavy as depicted and a Dash 8 (point of this topic) may differ slightly

Yeah that's fair enough -- it was the only cool picture I could find!

Saying it every call in a dash8 - yeah that's unnecessary.

Scenario where it is absolutely warranted: you land straight-in approach in a medium wake aircraft. Still air and unlikely your wake will blow away quickly. An ultralight late downwind turns right in behind you and their radio call gives you the impression they may not be aware of wake turbulence. You give them a quick reminder of a non-standard consideration.

Of course reminding everybody "Be careful mate your engine might fail" is stupid -- that's a standard consideration drummed in from first flights and standard for every flight. Wake turbulence is a non-standard environmental consideration that many people will never see. It is absolutely different than reminding people about normal aviation hazards.

[Shagpile]

Thread drift but still relevant: if you saw a Kangaroo on the runway, would you tell other people in the circuit? By the same logic, their training should be to scan the runway before landing and avoid.

Of course you would tell people to be careful. It's a unique hazard and may save aircraft from being damaged, plus it's just good airmanship to help each other out. Just don't "blah blah" too long about it on the radio.

Same logic for wake turbulence in my opinion.

[RENURPP]

I see it a bit different. I agree with this Saying it every call in a dash8 - yeah that's unnecessary. and this sounds sensible as well you land straight-in approach in a medium wake aircraft. Still air and unlikely your wake will blow away quickly. An ultralight late downwind turns right in behind you and their radio call gives you the impression they may not be aware of wake turbulence. You give them a quick reminder of a non-standard consideration.
Yes I would advise other aircraft if I saw a Kangaroo on the day, bit, I wouldn't tell them everyday that I saw a Kangaroo once upon a time.
Likewise with the flames from the exhaust comment earlier on, yes I would advise some one if I saw it, BUT I wouldn't advise every piston aircraft I saw from then on "caution possible fire in the exhaust" which is the direction some of the earlier posts were heading.

[Captain Sand Dune]

So consider a hypothetical case where the ultralight in RENURPP's post does indeed turn base close behind a medium category wake turbulence aircraft and the crew of the medium wake turbulence aircraft does not include 'caution, wake turbulence' with the ever-increasing R/T blurb that is required these days. The ultralight loses control on late final and crashes.
Would the crew of the medium wake turbulence category aircraft be found to be at fault for not warning the pilot of the ultralight?

[Square Bear]

Are we now having a spate of crashes that are attributable to "uneducated and dumb" GA pilots not understanding wake turbulence?

Don't know how I survived for all those years when I was one of them!

(hopefully you understand sarcasm!!!)

[RENURPP]

So consider a hypothetical case where the ultralight in RENURPP's post does indeed turn base close behind a medium category wake turbulence aircraft and the crew of the medium wake turbulence aircraft does not include 'caution, wake turbulence' with the ever-increasing R/T blurb that is required these days. The ultralight loses control on late final and crashes.
Would the crew of the medium wake turbulence category aircraft be found to be at fault for not warning the pilot of the ultralight?
No.

If it becomes the norm or a requirement to caution people then that may well change.

[Keg]

I can only imagine it would feel pretty bad to find out that your wake killed someone else because you didn't warn them.

Is our training system that bad that wake turbulence and being cautious behind someone bigger than you is no longer part of the syllabi?

[RENURPP]

Is our training system that bad that wake turbulence and being cautious behind someone bigger than you is no longer part of the syllabi?
That is the real question isn't it.
I can't answer it, however if people believe it is an issue it should be addressed with training, not more verbal diarrhoea.

To take the ultra light discussion to another level, if you call him and he doesn't respond, (not listening or simply doesn't have a VHF) what are you going to do then, taxi off the runway and allow him (and any other lighty) to depart first in the interest of safety?
It's either safety critical or its not.

[The Green Goblin]

I like to advise other aircraft of my jet wash before I taxi as well. Just to let them know I'm piloting a big jet.

Pretty hazardous you know. I also let them know when my big powerful radar is going live. You don't want some whipper snapper in front getting radiated. Helps with traffic flow though. They get out the way pretty quick.

I also like to remind other pilots of correct radio procedure. There is nothing more annoying than someone who doesn't use correct phraseology. I'll always add an 'ing' onto their transmissions. I just find it polite and curtious to help out.

Rolls.........ING!


GG

[Super Cecil]

Your a professhunal GG, we need more of your calibre.

[Username here]

Blackhawk Vortices Flip Cirrus - YouTube


Topical accident...

[Square Bear]

Funny how the rest of the world don't make these calls, but some self appointed "nannies" in Australia see a necessity for it.

Unbelievable to read this this sh*t.

[The Green Goblin]

Awwww shucks super Cecil.

I put the P is Pruffisional bro.

[walesregent]

Hands up anyone who's actually had a wake turbulence incident in a lightie. They are a real eye opener (to use whatever the opposite of hyperbole is). Not everyone is lucky enough to have had one of those 500 hours in 20 second events, so a timely warning if you suspect someone isn't quite fully aware of the situation is hardly the worst transgression. And if you're wrong and you inadvertently bruise someone's mighty ego then that's probably not the worst thing either.

[Captain Sand Dune]

So now can we expect to hear something like:
"Upperkumbuktta traffic, QF1234, the dash (cool airline talk for 'dash 8'), lines up and rolls runway 36 for Oonagallaby North, climbing to flight levels (my favourite! Oooh look – I can climb above 10,000ft!), caution wake turbulence (because you've obviously forgotten what you were taught your basic aeronautical knowledge)".:ugh::yuk:

Is airmanship in Australia now defined by being able to regurgitate obscure CASRs at the drop of a hat, letting the autopilot fly the aircraft and bullsh*t radio calls?

[Pontius]

No, you're missing some vital parts of the call. It should be:

"Upperkumbuktta traffic, QF1234, the IFR dash, lines up and rolls runway 36 for Oonagallaby North at time 0653 Zulu, climbs to flight levels at 16 GPS DME, caution wake turbulence"

This procedure can also be used by a 172 to warn the RAA Tecnam behind him and, obviously, the RAA Tecnam to warn the weight-shift ultralight following him :)

[Captain Sand Dune]

Got it, thanks.:E

[maverick22]

climbing to flight levels (my favourite! Oooh look – I can climb above 10,000ft!),

So you would prefer the flight planned level to be included in the call? What if we climb to an amended flight level (because Of ATC separation)? Or we have to remain OCTA initially? Not sure the 5 jabirus in the circuit really care. Or are you condoning the use of everyone's favourite "pending clearance"?

This thread has run its course :ugh:

[Pontius]

Huh? this is used because if you are below 10,000ft you don't care how much higher they are climbing

Do Dash 8s cruise below 10000'? If not, using your logic, they needn't make any transmission about climbing as we can all assume (a)they are going to climb and (b)they will climb above 10000'. If you're going to bother transmitting then make it professional and say to which flight level you're climbing otherwise you do, in my opinion, sound like an ego-stroking prat.

Meaningless calls, such as those, just engenders poor practise and leads in turn to such crass calls as the Kingair that I recently heard; "......descends from flight levels....". WTF! A complete tosser letting us know he's been above 10000' and that he's now descending. How on earth is that meant to help anybody? That's the sort of crap that results in people making up their own ways of doing things, rather than sticking to the scripted way of announcing level changes etc.

I have to say I am ambivalent about the wake turbulence call. It doesn't take up significant air time and I do agree it would be useful but so long as it was used when warranted. If a Dash 8 wants to give the 'heads up' to a light aircraft following him in the pattern then I think that is sensible but you know how it will develop; every driver of anything larger than a 172 will be 'cautioning' every other aircraft and there will even be the Dash driver saying it on every single transmission. Targeted calls are okay but ego-strokers, like the 'up to flight levels' brigade really need to get their heads out their arses and realise that not all 172 drivers are inexperienced numpties.

[gassed budgie]

Hands up anyone who's actually had a wake turbulence incident in a lightie. They are a real eye opener

Was following a Singapore A330 into YPAD about twelve months ago in the 172 and it got very exciting very quickly at a height of about 50'. Mrs.GB didn't appreciate the ride.

[maverick22]

Dash 8's do cruise below A100 on some short sectors. If this is the case, it is usually OCTA and I consider it relevant to include the planned altitude in the call on the CTAF.

For those of you who are so against the use of "climbing to flight levels", then complain to the airline. It's been in the manual for as long as I've known, but some of you out there seem to know better.

At least the Qlink guys and gals use the radio. Trying to get a call out of some of the lighties is like getting blood out of stone. It's almost as if they are offended if their position and intentions are requested. We are not mind readers people :rolleyes:

[ol-mate]

I highly doubt that people are trying to assert their dominance at random CTAFs with the radio calls they make, I imagine it's more to do with that magical thing called "Airmanship".

Those that are taking offence to targeted use of "caution wake turbulence" or any other phrase that might illicit the "I know boats" reaction, really need to sort their own insecurities out.

FWIW our company uses and currently teaches "climbing to Flight Levels" as standard terminology. Does old mate Jabiru driver really care which exact FL? If anyone can find the AIP reference that deals with this, I'm all eyes..

[Two_dogs]

Safest place to be = Transition Layer :}
Just me there

[Pontius]

Nice idea if the CEO will let me play :)

Now, let's see, full reverse, max auto-brake and stopping shouldn't be a snag at light weights but might have to look into the take-off numbers. Yellow sticky on the yoke to remember to caution the Dash 8s about wake turbulence and no worthwhile information to be broadcast on the wireless. Okay, sorted.

(Now THAT is unadulterated, unnecessary and childish willy-waving and should not be tolerated :} I will now write out 100 times before bedtime, "I'm an arse and a wind-up merchant")

[RENURPP]

Huh? this is used because if you are below 10,000ft you don't care how much higher they are climbing, and if you are above 10,000ft you are playing in controlled airspace and will find out where you stand from ATC.

here we go again. King of the kids.

I use the same airspace as other pressurised aircraft and I want to know what level they are climbing to. "Flight levels" doesn't cut it. If i'm descending from 370 and some one is climbing to "flight levels" and G airspace starts/finishes at 180 then flight levels may require more transmissions with some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.

[Derfred]

Correct.

"Flight levels" is as made up as "ready in turn", and may be omitting information useful to a listening party you are not aware of.

[The Green Goblin]

If you get them to omit climbing to flight levels they'll probably start the next furphy. 'Climbing to FLXXX, pending clearance, caution wake turbulance, caution cadet flying in right seat, caution cadet flying in right seat logging ICUS'

Anyway it's only words. We are a little anal retentive in this part of the world. Go fly internationally. It's a big world with plenty of different ideas which are more than likely superior to our own.

[RENURPP]

We are a little anal retentive in this part of the world. Go fly internationally. It's a big world with plenty of different ideas which are more than likely superior to our own.
True, but thats what we have to work with here, and its simply not that hard to get it mostly right. Some of these guys go out of their way to screw it up and talk ****.

[JCJ]

but ego-strokers, like the 'up to flight levels' brigade really need to get their heads out their arses and realise that not all 172 drivers are inexperienced numpties.

If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with QLink management. Our FAM explicitly prescribes our departure call, and yes it says "Climbing to flight levels".

I am all for professional RT, and strive to achieve it, but don't put down those of us who operate as per company requirements.:=

[maverick22]

I use the same airspace as other pressurised aircraft and I want to know what level they are climbing to. "Flight levels" doesn't cut it. If i'm descending from 370 and some one is climbing to "flight levels" and G airspace starts/finishes at 180 then flight levels may require more transmissions with some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.

You are forgetting this is a CTAF call we are talking about. And we are operating under the IFR. So when a departure report is made on the area frequency, the intended level is included with this call. Then, when you request descent from FL370, centre will clear you to leave CTA on descent, and give you traffic information on 'the dash' including its flight level climbing to. Remember how it works now?

[RENURPP]

Thanks
I listen on CTAF from top of descent pretty much so my previous comments stand.

[Car RAMROD]

We have gone off track here by several miles, so I'll continue with that diversion....

Climbing flight levels is a bull**** call. If you are going to say that, you may as well just state your intended level. Pisses me off when I have to call them and ask what level they are going to (and they know I'm there as traffic as centre told them) - if they stated their level I'd know if they were going to be climbing through mine or not. Sometimes centre can't pass all the info, and sometimes they depart before getting on to centre. You can't rely on centre calls to tell you what level they are going to when their only communication has been on the ctaf.
Next time I go flying below 10,000 and there's a big thing flying round that is a flight level machine, I'm telling them I'm "climbing altitudes", afterall it's the same logic isn't it, just in reverse?

And now a return to track with no further diversions required. Caution wake turbulence? Bit of a weird one in my books but if there's someone behind you who sounds like they have no clue (can pick them sometimes), well, a three second transmission isn't going to hurt. There are bigger things to worry about.

[blueys]

At night AMAY ASSY F27 fl180 passed BIK advised by atc ''you are going to be overflowen by singapore ;;;; 1000 above.''The 747 duly passed overhead and was given a descent clr a couple of minutes later which was initiated,couple minutes later we got his wake turb, very interesting,slow roll to the right until almost vertical.

Some years later again at night BKK KUL A300 on decent to KUL atc advised ''you will be overflying slower traffic'' sighted and passed the traffic got descent clr and descended, some mins later monortered a radio transmission about aircraft upset.turned out to be the traffic we had overflown a F50 of Palageny Air? Waited to speak to the crew in KL .They said they got our wake and like the F27 rolled vertical

[maverick22]

You blokes really are getting your knickers knotted over nothing here. The "climbing to flight levels" phrase is used on the CTAF in the departure call. A departure call is not even a requirement these days as per CAR 166. Our company requires us to make a departure call when making a turn contrary to circuit direction. I make one in any case.

We also do not depart until we established comms with ATC. This is either through VHF or HF. When HF is used, we still (well I did anyway when I was an FO) make an all stations broadcast on the AREA centre frequency. This means Mr Renurpp et al, that at no stage will you ever encounter a QLINK dash 8 unannounced in your travels. Centre will always pass us on as traffic to you because we have established comms prior to departure. So the fact you are getting a departure call on the CTAF is icing on the cake.

Now here is a question for you guys. When do you stop listening to the CTAF on departure, when there is no overlying airspace? Because by Renurpp assumptions, we'll be chatting to him all the way up to the 'flight levels' on CTAF, because he won't take Centre's word on what level we are climbing to!

[Pontius]

You blokes really are getting your knickers knotted over nothing here. The "climbing to flight levels" phrase is used on the CTAF in the departure call.

Not really getting my knickers knotted; I'm just wondering why the intended flight level is such a big secret with the Oz TP 'heavies', as you never hear such transmissions from all types of aircraft around the rest of the planet.

"Climbing to flight levels" versus "Climbing flight level 180". Can you really time the difference in transmission length? Can you not see how one call gives useful, accurate information whereas the other just says you're climbing above 10 000'? If you're going to say anything then at least take the same amount of time to say something useful.

If it's written in a company manual then I can understand why you would comply with that (although it would be interesting to see if "caution wake turbulence" is in the same manual), however, just because someone has written it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to reflect decent, 'normal' RT procedures, rather than something the writer heard and thought it would be 'cool' to include in the company manuals.

[maverick22]

I'm going to agree to disagree with you here. 9 times out 10 it's irrelevant anyway. The lighties in the circuit don't care, and any other inbound IFR traffic will know about us because of the service provided by ATC. The only exception of course is when Renurpp is inbound from FL370. If we need to arrange separation then we'll talk it through on the CTAF or the Friendly ATCers might step in prior to us getting a clearance with a heading to fly etc.

Why I'm even explaining this I don't know :rolleyes:

Simply put, it's in the manual. No one has ever challenged it, because it's never been an issue apart from a select few on Pprune. Like I said, if it annoys you that much, use your democratic right to complain to Qlink management.

As for the "caution wake turbulence" being in the manual, NO it's not. I personally have never used it, nor have I heard it used either. But I would not hesitate to use it if I thought it was warranted just like others have already said.

[Di_Vosh]

Personally, I think "Caution wake turbulence" is a good idea and if used appropriately can be very good info for lighties in the circuit. (I'm a Qlink driver and have NEVER heard it used, btw).

As other posters have said, you can often get a feel for the other traffic in the circuit and can get a handle on their experience.

e.g. At Mildura there is a flying school. They are used to operating in the circuit with Dash-8 arrivals and departures, and they appear to have high standards. I wouldn't consider such a call necessary to one of them. But... Mildura is one of the airports that an Adelaide based flying school (that uses Tobagos) use on their Navexes. Some of the standards these guys display can be "somewhat less than desirable". I would definitely consider giving such a call if one of these were behind me in the circuit.

But sadly threads like this degenerate.

It's gone from "Caution wake turbulence" to all the other bull**** that people with too much time on their hands just love to get wrapped around the axles about and come on here and have a go:

Finals
Taxis
Flight levels
This time
*EDIT: and comments about how "poor radio calls" means "poor everything else about their airmanship" (Thanks DERFRED)

Re: Flight levels:

Funny thing is, it's pretty common to hear Centre advising other IFR traffic about a Qlink Dash-8 "climbing to Flight levels". Interesting, as Centre will know what FL the Dash is going to request (if they haven't already).

Does this mean that the centre controller is vicariously trying to be some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship. or otherwise trying to bignote him/herself? :E :E :E

DIVOSH!

[noclue]

Shouldn't have to be explaining to other pilots what their responsibilities are :ugh:


PLEASE READ CAAP 166 (and AIP, and CAR, and ERSA, and NOTAMS, ect etc).
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/166-1.pdf

5.4 Wake turbulence and windshear

5.4.1 Wake turbulence is produced by all aircraft and can be extremely hazardous. Smaller aircraft should be aware that large aircraft produce strong/severe wake turbulence, with large jet aircraft producing extreme wake turbulence.

[RENURPP]

As for "caution wake turbulence" I think its been pretty much agreed that on the very rare occasion it may be sensible. Re: Flight levels:

Funny thing is, it's pretty common to hear Centre advising other IFR traffic about a Qlink Dash-8 "climbing to Flight levels". Interesting, as Centre will know what FL the Dash is going to request (if they haven't already).

Does this mean that the centre controller is vicariously trying to be
Quote:
some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.
or otherwise trying to bignote him/herself?

DIVOSH!
Big difference.
The ATC'er knows relevant IFR traffic and their level. the Dash 8 pilot doesn't necessarily on CTAF. If he is passed a Dash 8 onto me prior to my descent and said "climbing to flight levels" it would be completely inappropriate and require more discussion.

[Di_Vosh]

RENURPP

My reply was tongue in cheek to other respondents.


The ATC'er knows relevant IFR traffic and their level. the Dash 8 pilot doesn't necessarily on CTAF. If he is passed a Dash 8 onto me prior to my descent and said "climbing to flight levels" it would be completely inappropriate and require more discussion.

I think it was a few years ago (on a depressingly similiar thread to this one) now that I was debating that very scenario with one of your colleagues.

If you're opposite direction traffic to someone in and out of a CTAF it is almost always going to require further discussion with that pilot regardless of whether that pilot is climbing to 5000' or FL210 or "flight levels". So it really doesn't matter if the said pilot (or ATC'er) says FL180 or "flight levels". If you're in G space, you're going to be having a detailed and repeated conversation with that pilot on distance, height, etc, so that you can arrange separation until you're satisfied that you're "well clear".

DIVOSH!

[Derfred]

It might sound anally retentive but often the ones with the sloppy radio calls are also the ones that turn up 5 minutes late, dirty shoes, unironed shirt, sloppy SOPs, poor checklist knowledge, more interested in flying fast than efficiently, and constantly complaining about management.

I know who I'd rather have up front when the turd hits the fan.

However back on topic "Caution wake turbulence" in a well-considered situation sounds to me like good airmanship.

[Di_Vosh]

It might sound anally retentive but often the ones with the sloppy radio calls are also the ones that turn up 5 minutes late, dirty shoes, unironed shirt, sloppy SOPs, poor checklist knowledge, more interested in flying fast than efficiently, and constantly complaining about management.


Oops.

I knew I'd forget something. I'll just include the above drivel in my previous post.

DIVOSH

[Derfred]

Haha happy to help... :)

[In the Soup]

If we're all professional pirates then why can't Mr Lightie exercise a degree of airmanship when following a medium?

And when you hear the wake turbulence advice from ATC, that's their obligation as per their procedures. And if we all read the AIP then we would all have a fair idea of what is Light / Medium / Heavy. I fly a medium category and as Airmanship guides me, I know to give myself space behind a heavy.

Therefor at your local CTAF you won't hear a "caution I'm a massive medium pole smoker...." Because that's your problem if you haven't already taken care in my wake