Merged: Pending clearance??

[FGD135]

On the idiotic usage of “request traffic”:

Request Traffic: AIP GEN page 3.4 – 33, down the bottom shows the phrase “request traffic” is an “approved” phrase.

Yes, that is the phrase you would use if you were VFR and wished to obtain traffic information.

But, if you are IFR, you will NEVER NEED TO USE THIS PHRASE AS CENTRE WILL GIVE YOU TRAFFIC AUTOMATICALLY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO ASK FOR IT.

Notify them that you are about to change level or track and they will give you traffic – automatically – without you having to ask for it!

It is a requirement that they give you traffic. They are not doing it because you have requested it!

Speaking of requirements - IFR pilots - did you know it was a requirement that you advise ATS when about to climb, descend, change level or change track?

From hearing my fellow IFR pilots on the radio – those that insist on “requesting traffic” - it would appear that 90% of them do not quite understand or appreciate this requirement.

To them, perhaps, they think the requirement is on them to obtain traffic.

No, the requirement is for you to advise ATS. They can then assess the traffic situation and then make traffic advisories to you and other aircraft.

When you “request traffic for descent” you are not, strictly speaking, notifying them that you are about to descend – or when, for that matter. All you are doing is “hinting” that you are about to descend.

Sloppy, unprofessional and ill-disciplined.

A possible excuse that you may have is that there is no documented phraseology in the AIP for these situations.

There used to be. Before CASA threw out the Australian phraseology section and replaced it with the ICAO one, there was this phrase for level changes:

Centre, VH-ABC, climbing/descending to (level) in (minutes) minutes.

And there was a similar phrase for descent for landing.