Blogs,
I am in no way advocating against people using common sense and airmanship to dictate wether they should cut off two way communications with centre and advise Centre that they are switching when entering a busy terminal environment, I have and agree with the use of this judgment call.
What I do disagree with is the assertion that can 'All' aircraft entering a CTAF advise centre that they are switching (or monitoring?), as this is contrary to the AIP. Maybe this is something of use to ATC and if so, it should be arranged and communicated through the proper channels for all to follow, ie the AIP. Airlaw by rumour is counterproductive.
As to aircraft having to reply to ATC when maintaining two way communications, this applies in all airspace and as always is subject to airmanship and task prioritisation. Good airmanship dictates a reply to ATS as soon as workload permits. As for the declaring by ATS of INCERFA and ALERFA the AIP states no time limits other than failure to make a report, or in the controllers judgment doubt or apprehension exists, I don't know how this issue is dealt with in the MATS and would be interested to find out (Rotor?) but if there is a 15min time limit set on replying to ATS traffic information then I dare say that in all but the most extreme circumstances a reply would be able to be given, and in those extreme circumstances ALERFA is probably a good thing!
Mr Flappy,
Please refer to the first two paragraphs of this post.
Again, whilst I realise this may be unpopular, I am only advocating sticking by the books for the policy and using airmanship and good judgment elsewhere.
Kind Regards,
MHA