Gripe about the latest flight safety mag.

[GA Driver]

I know some are gonna think I have too much time but...

Opened up the latest edition of flight safety to be confronted by some gruff looking ATC guy from Brisbane glaring at me with his arms folded! Reading into it, there is a caption saying they don't want unneccesary calls. :(:(

Personally I couldn't give two hoots whether or not I got a QNH from ATC, flightwatch, AWIB or wherever.

Just a bit of a gripe about the fact that I think we are (If not already) heading towards the dreaded 'affordable safety' for poor old VFR and it really isn't just with QNH's. I heard a student the other day stupidly prefixed a general broadcast with 'Melbourne Centre' the other day to be told "That call was NOT required, IN FUTURE please use all stations" and in the next breath they cleared me to an IFR waypoint!!:suspect:
Come on guys, does it need to be like that??

The caption involved (which I don't have on hand) states that by calling for a QNH we could be missing someone else's distress calls!?!? Well how long have we had ATC and how many have they missed? Seriously?

When I got taught to fly I was told it 'was a good idea' to get your callsign on the tapes every now and again in case you went down somewhere, as it may just help give them an indication of where you were.

Anyone from the 'room' give any constructive thoughts??

Cheers
GA Driver:ok:

[ugly]

When I got taught to fly I was told it 'was a good idea' to get your callsign on the tapes every now and again in case you went down somewhere, as it may just help give them an indication of where you were.

When I attended the Sydney CASA Flight Safety forum, this came up during the talk from the bloke from ATSB, and he dismissed this idea, as the time it takes to review these tapes on the off chance you might have made a call would be much better spent elsewhere. Carry an EPIRB instead

[Moo 2]

Have to agree with you on this one. Some big tough over bearing ATC honcho telling you not to bother them with your unimportant requests sends a pretty poor message about airSERVICES not wanting to provide a service just cos they cant charge any money for it. As for missing someone elses distress calls....its in the same league of excuses as 'the dog ate my homework'...pathetic!

[OpsNormal]

I've always found the (especially), ML CEN guys and girls especially helpful on the radio. Always cheery, and quite good at handling large radio tfc. Especially the gent who uses the "XXX, go right ahead". I cannot help but to smile when I hear that, as to me that is a human being first, and an educated and professional controller next.

I was in a position not long ago transitting the airspace west of TN in very ordinary Wx, and the BN CEN controller was fantastic and went well above and beyond to help me out. A thank-you phone call followed, and I was assured it was all part of the service.

Radio is a tool that is part of the big picture, especially for persons operating along busy corridors and routes. The fact that Airservices management have decided to co-share frequencies on many VHF channels is something that is Airservices managements problem to overcome, not the operating aircrew's problem.

That said, the controller is the meat stuck in the middle of the sandwich, and is only trying to do the best they can with what they have. They certainly have my respect for their virtually thankless job.

Well done, guys and girls.

Missing a distress call? Another reason the federal gov should pull their finger out of their date and upgrade the VHF coverage so that every square inch of this country can get VHF on the ground. I shudder to thing how many calls get 'double miked' because the VHF coverage isn't good enough to allow and aircraft departing an a/d to hear anyone else on the radio until they get above 6-7 (in many instances higher flight levels)thousand feet.

[GA Driver]

OpsNormal I have to agree with the ATC's doing the best they can with what they have and although my original post commented on some phraseology, I have no trouble with the service being provided by the individuals.:)

My point lies with the flight safety article, it seems the attitude is all wrong. I'm all for education and we all have to accept change sooner or later (ie. no service for VFR) I just think the way it has been depicted is the wrong way of doing it.

Well, rant over.

Cheers all :ok:
GA Driver

[dogcharlietree]

Ah! Remember the good old days of "Flight SERVICE".
These guys were worth their weight. Nothing was a bother.
Progress..........it's a wonderful thing (I think not).

[SM4 Pirate]

I haven't seen said document; is it even a real ATC pictured?

From my perspective; keep the calls coming; if my bosses think I'll miss a mayday call because someone was asking for QNH etc. then they need to get real.

We are having more and more pressure on staffing; rosters being consolidated and sectors being run on combine even when we need to split because 'normally' we only open that amount of consoles, so now we only staff for that many...

Keep the calls coming, it keeps me employed, and I'll be happy to help.

Bottle of Rum

[sedgie]

ops normal

The Capt and I were only talking about him yesterday. We use 120.30 and always enjoy talking to him.

[MoFo]

The guy with the folded arms in the magazine is named.
Must be great for you poor atcos who work for him.

Is he the same rocket scientist who recently banned tracking direct in that area?

[tobzalp]

Work for him? Only time i have ever seen him is when he is parking his car in the no parking area that we mere mortals are not allowed to park in....

[OpsNormal]

That's him, sedgie!

[Towering Q]

I have always found the ML CNTR people to be professional and courteous. Don't know about BRIS, haven't been far enough away from home yet.

I realise that the 'affordable safety' thing can sometimes go too far, however asking VFR drivers to stop requesting QNH on the area frequency is not unreasonable. Especially on a short flight within the one ARFOR. Is it really going to differ significantly from the departure point? Traversing tropical cyclones excluded. :ooh:

On occassions it does seem that certain individuals out there request the area QNH because they like the sound of their own voice and want to feel important. :yuk:

[the wizard of auz]

Or some of us dont have the facilities to get the QNH before we depart on our short flight, and being in a high density traffic area, we would like to be using the same altimiter as the guy in the metro on his way down from FL250 and is gunna be in the same bit of air us in the next few mins.

[Towering Q]

Couldn't you just dial up the aerodrome elevation on your altimeter before you blast off? What's a couple of feet between Daisy and a Metro?:}

[the wizard of auz]

the differance between my getting dobbed in for an incident that wasnt anywhere as close as reported maybe......... gotta be carefull these days, ya never know whos watching.:mad: ;)

[Spodman]

Worry not Wiz, it is legal. Perhaps you should worry more about missing the Metro's call coz you were doing unneccessary stuff on the FIA freq? If all else fails, TCAS is not using what you dial up on the sub-scale.

AIP ENR 1.7 2.1.2

For all operations at or below the Transition Altitude (in the Altimeter Setting region), the altimeter reference setting will be:

a. the current Local QNH of a station along the route within 100NM of the aircraft; or

b. the current Area Forecast QNH if the current Local QNH is not
known.

2.3.1

Local QNH, whether provided by ATS, AWS or Aerodrome Forecast
(TAF) or by using the altimeter subscale to indicate airfield elevation AMSL, is used as shown at Figure 1 (http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/aip/aip/enr/175.pdf) .

I have noticed a huge decrease in these intensely annoying & time-wasting calls in western Victoria and eastern South Australia since these NAS changes came in. Those requests that remain I now happily respond to, I assume I am being asked because other alternatives are not available and they no longer interfere in more interesting tasks.

Perhaps this culture has not sunk into Roger's customers? He does look a bit fierce in the photo.

[Dale Harris]

Someone is always watching you wiz.

[the wizard of auz]

I've always suspected that Dale:}

after wizzing around for a few hours chasing stock in the MBZ(because its a big one) and having to work right up to the strip at some mines, its nice to have the QNH every now and then, as we know, it changes. and being a good bloke, I am monitering the MBZ freq as required, so I dont get to overhear the QNH on area.

[Boomerang]

Wiz, as per Spodmans post, coming in IFR we are given Area QNH from Centre, which we do not use (IF we have a valid TAF that is)

By giving us an area QNH when we report TOD, are they saving time by us not having to ask for it if we were going to an ADR with NO TAF, or are they wasting time by providing it when it is not needed? That's one to ponder ;)

[karrank]

Sorry Boomerang, it's really a bottom tin-plating exercise. We have an instruction in the ATC bible (MATS) that requires us to pass the area QNH to aircraft on descent to flight levels. Most people appreciate this is a waste of air if the QNH is available from TAF or AWIB. Some take that further and don't pass the area QNH in this instance. Possible problems with this:

:oh: An AMD TAF would not be assessed by most controllers as a hazard alert if just the QNH had changed.

:oh: A hazard alert TAF you recieve would not usually include the QNH, even if it had changed.

:oh: If you have not updated your TAF in the last hour it may have been amended and assessed a hazard, but you are outside the profile of those who would get it so wouldn't.

The tin-plating comes in when the Area QNH is 1003 and an aircraft hits the ground with 1013 on the sub-scale. We then have to stand before the coroner and explain why we didn't comply with a clear instruction in the bible in the absence of any advice from the pilot that he knew the QNH was low:ouch:

[Boomerang]

No problems Karrank, I figured as much :)

[Fission]

What gets me is that when I'm on descent into Karratha, and trying to organise my profile with multiple other IFR aircraft is that I hear other aircraft into Kalgoorlie and other faraway locations, and we're all stomping over each other as things are getting tight. Re-transmit may well save money, but it makes for a *HAZARD*.

"Somebody will eventually pay for these savings with their life"

"Make the boat smaller for the same load and eventually it will sink rapidly."

how many other great sayings would you like ?

________________________
Free Beer - tonight - my place

[Boomerang]

Fission that's why they gave you a 30nm MBZ up to 10 grand, if it hasn't changed again ;) But yeah it is annoying at times.

[Fission]

Of course, switching to the MBZ is an alternative - and has to be used on occasions. However, not ideal situation when you're at FL 160 and concerned about making sure that people in the area know what's going on too.

Add into this mix the airspace reform package and I think that things will get a little warmer :sad:


________________
Who spilt ma pint ?