Practice Pan

[Navrad]

This is genuine!
Flying my little taildragger just before Christmas, southern end of Morcambe Bay, changed to 121.5 and called "London, Practice Pan" etc. After second call, London said "call back in quarter of an hour" - Honest! Dutifully called back some 18 mins. later, no reply, called again, when answered by Scottish, who asked me to stand by. ! minute late London asked me to go ahead with the Practice Pan. Are Tea-breaks at LATCC being rationed since I rertired?

[spanky's caddy]

Navrad, Have you thought that they might have been busy on another matter? Have you been to D&D for a visit to see and hear about what thay actually do? BTW what was your altitude when you called and were you in their coverage? This isn't a whinge at you but they can be very busy even if Guard is quiet.

Give them a call some other time,the practice call is good training for them as well as you!

[Mr Chips]

Navrad i was in D&D this morning and asked them about this. D&D will only ask you to call back for a practice if they have an emergency on (remember that they are monitoring two frequencies, 121.5 and 243.0) or if the controllr was unavailable for any reason... including i guess calls of nature!

D&D do have visits - usually arranged (I understand) through "Flier".. and I know that they read PPRuNe!!!!

Mr Chips

[Navrad]

Yes I have visited D&D. Yes I have had real emergencies with them (RAF & Civilian.) Yes I do know about 243, No. I have never been asked to call back without a reason being given. Perhaps all has changed since I was a Crew Chief.

[Nogbad the Bad]

A LOT has changed since you were a Crew Chief Navrad ;)

[Emergencies R Us]

Navrad, I am in D&D and while much has probably changed, the way that the job is done hasn't changed that much. As has been mentioned a lot can be going on without anyone needing to be speaking on any of the guard frequencies! Saying that however, I would appreciate it if you could contact us either via email or the phone so that we can talk things through. Try d&[email protected] or (01895) 426471

We're always keen to accept practise PAN calls, questions or visits to help people out. It costs nothing and one day it could make a difference! :ok:

[Ops and Mops]

The following is taken from the RAF Flight Information Handbook which not everyone may have access to:

PRACTICE URGENCY CALLS - UK

Para 6 - RT Procedure - Practice Urgency Calls are initiated using the following procedure.

a. The pilot should transmit: "Practice PAN" 3 times, "This is <Callsign>" then break transmission, and listen out for the reply from the D & D controller.

b. The D 7 D controller will respond with either:
(1) "Aircraft Callsign this is London/Scottish Centre. Your position is.......continue Practice PAN" OR
(2) "Aircraft Callsign, this is London/Scottish Centre. Your position is.......negative Practice PAN, SAROPS ON/EMERGENCY ON"

c. If a negative reply is received, change frequency and wait at least 10 mins before checking if the restriction still applies. If permission is given the pilot should broadcast "Practice PAN" once and "This is Aircraft Callsign" (once), then as much of the emergency message as is relevant.

Navrad

My guess is that you were given a "non-standard" negative response probably, as has been said above, because D&D were busy with an incident working another agency or on 243MHz. At least they said to you to call back!

At the end of the day, Practice Urgency Calls are at the discretion of the controller so I'm not too sure why you feel put out on this occasion!
:confused:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Can we please get rid of practice pans on 121.5?

I know this has been done to death but - really - they are nothing but a damn nuisance.

Usually somewhere about mid-France I find myself reaching to deselect Guard as Golf Charlie Foxtrot Bog Jumper drones into his turgid practice pan speal. As often as not followed by some foreign voice yelling "you're on Guard!" .

Some nice weekends its IMPOSSIBLE to operate a commercial flight in UK airspace AND monitor Guard. Contrary to various SOPS and requirements and recommendations.

Its pointless, it could be simulated, it could be on a slightly different frequency, it could only be allowed for an hour a day or something. Anything would be better than having the worlds most cluttered 121.5 freq.

I used to do loads of them as a PPL instructor and can see their use as they did in reality bring back not a few of my solo student navexs. Nevertheless...

Cheers

WWW

[Ops and Mops]

Good point WWW!

Maybe worth DAP considering a VHF Practice Emergency Training Frequency (PETF) similar to that on UHF?

[spanky's caddy]

Hey WWW if you can get the funding and another VHF frequency I think that is the way the guys in D&D would like it to be.
The old addage of practice makes perfect springs to mind but, as a student, who would you rather replied to your practic pan call, the Instructor in the seat next to you or a guy trained to do the best for ALL the aviators in distress/lost/overdue. They manage to do a fine job with limited resources and a can do attitude.:}

[30W]

WWW I fully agree!!

I too call for a complete ban of practice PAN's in the UK. It's a sad reflection of modern times, but modern times I'm afraid they are!

I fully monitor 121.5 across the world, and I can truly say, the UK is the ONLY country where I find 121.5 being used by GA as part of training exercises.

Commercial traffic are supposed to monitor 121.5 these days, but within or near the UK this becomes all too often a task that gets the volume turned down because of the frequency beong used for non-emergency traffic.

In a busy IFR environment where the RT loading is busy, then it is purely unacceptable to have this chatter going on in your ears in addition. The result - many commercial pilots NOT monitoring 121.5 near/within UK airspace.

Sadly, time for a change!

Emergencies R Us I would appreciate a view from D&D........why do we persist with this when other countries no longer do??

Regards
30W

[Ops and Mops]

They manage to do a fine job with limited resources and a can do attitude.

I don't think WWW (or anyone else) was disputing that, merely pointing out the difficulties of the use of the same frequency by adjoining FIR's! :ok:

As for funding, I am sure as the Practice PAN is a valuable training aid and in the interests of safety, the CAA Safety Regulation Group could fund a VHF PETF from the proceeds of their huge exam/licence fees! :}

[LXGB]

I couldn't agree more! A VHF PETF would hopefully make for a quieter 121.5 that more people would actually monitor.

LXGB

[Emergencies R Us]

Guys I'm sorry but I'm not really in a position to get dragged into a conversation about the rights and the wrongs. However, do I think training is worthwhile? Definately! It's good for us as emergency controllers and it's good for the aircrew, mil and civil, so that they are familiar with their actions in an actual and know what D&D can offer.

As I said this morning and the offer still stands. Call, mail or visit. As for the positive comments from everyone, many thanks! :ok:

[Navrad]

Well, that stirred the mud a bit.
I omitted to mention that I had with me an embryo pilot to whom I had been extolling the virtues of British ATC and D&D in particular. OOPS!
Seriously though, I have found that a lot of puddle jumper pilots are terrified of ATC and the idea of a call on 121.5 scares the pants off them, when it could literally be a life saver.
I appreciate that Long Haul jocks have to monitor guard but just as they have to share runways and airspace with tyros, why should sharing 121.5 be different? To use a different frequency to practice on would only be the equivalent of a classroom exercise.
Everyone has to learn and the more thorough the learning the safer for everyone.

[duncanindevon]

ATCO in small tower in SW England. We have a scanner receiver in the tower so we can keep an unofficial ear on traffic in adjacent airspace on quieter days. One of the scan channels set is 121.5 which I was taught (not that long ago) was the International Distress Frequency. All I seem to hear on it is (and forgive me if this is unrepresentative!) US military flights and French/Spanish sched flights calling each other 'On Guard' and often as not, in French or Spanish.

What is 'On Guard' and why is the distress frequency used like this? Must drive the D&D people mad!

Cheers,
DinD.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Hi Duncan,

All big jets are equipped with a thing a bit like 'Battleships', which enables us to play a game based on the old habit of sword-fighting or fencing, which all of us learnt in our childhoods, when we were growing up in our Daddies' Castles!

Now, when we call 'En guard', we are simply setting up a game between aircraft! Great fun for all the family! How we laughed on the way to the Burns Unit!

Seriously though, I would hope that any private flyer, learning that 121.5 has become the de facto loss of comms frequency for public transport, would make the sensible decision to quit the habit of practice panning. It gets in the way, and is unnecessary.

[duncanindevon]

Suppose I was asking for that! What is this 'Guard' though - is it a habit pilots have picked up from somewhere or is it an actual procedure? And why the distress frequency?

(Sorry to seem a bit dim if this is a well known pilot thing, but I ain't a pilot :p )

D.

[tired]

Agree 110% with WWW - practice pans have no place on 121.5. I fully appreciate their usefulness and thing they are a very good thing, but absolutely not on the "live" distress freq. Like WWW I often find myself having to deselect 121.5 for long periods (and then forgetting to reselect it later, the joys of old age :( ) - it's an air safety hazard in my opinion.

[whowhenwhy]

Duncan, On guard means just that. They're saying that the other pilot talking is on guard (guard being another name for the distress frequencies) and they would like him to get off.

Kit D'Rection: Practise gets in the way does it? Then why pray does everyone have to practise their reaction to emergencies in the sim or otherwise? It's so that they react perfectly every time!

As others have said, including the man at the coal face, emergency practise is important for everyone. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only a step away from having a problem. Yes there should be a practise VHF emergency frequency to stop guard getting cluttered, but nothing will happen until enough pilots and only pilots complain about it. You can't ban it entirely because, I believe, it's a syllabus requirement (?).

Having spoken to the guys in D&D you'll find that all the airliner mates chatting to each other on guard and manging to forget which frequency that they're supposed to be on is annoying. Not the guys who actually want to practise their emergency reactions in order that they know what to do in a real one.

NavRad, one thing for you. Have you seen how far outside the promulgated cover for the 121.5 MHz system you are in Morecambe Bay? You might be surprised! :ok:

[Kit d'Rection KG]

whowhenwhy...

I don't believe that your analogy is appropriate, I'm afraid.

Yes, we use the sim to rehearse all sorts of drills, in an environment where our actions don't impinge on the safety of real passengers and aircraft. Sometimes, we train in empty aircraft, but in a careful and measured manner.

We don't, of course, simulate emergencies on scheduled sectors with passengers aboard - and as 121.5 is a real, not simulated, distress channel, I believe that it should not be clogged up with pleasure pilots doing their training.

Lost comms have a new and horrible connotation since the WTC attack, and the fall-back process of contact on 121.5 mitigates against someone mis-percieving a simple loss of comms event as something a very great deal more sinister, and even more horribly, starting to take action.

There are two principle problems with training use of 121.5: First, that the 'chatter' will cause professional crews to de-select 121.5, and then leave a crew in a lost comms situation from which there is no short-term escape (often, lost comms goes un-noticed and un-known by one party for a considerable length of time). Second, that a crew monitoring 121.5 might be sufficiently distracted by chatter to commit an error.

I don't condone the use of 121.5 for airline chat either, though it's worth considering that, in using box 2 or 3 for 121.5, one no llonger has the 'company' frequency available.

[DFC]

121.5 is called "Guard" because it is the frequency that we all Guard............i.e. we listen out on the frequency for any urgent or distress calls.

The reason why pilots call other pilots "on guard" is because if we hear our callsign and the words "on guard" we know that whoever is calling us is on the radio tuned to 121.5 and not the other two we may be listening to at the same time.

The UK is the only country that I am aware of using 121.50 for non-emergency traffic.

Few if any aerodromes within the UK monitor 121.50. Thus coverage on 121.5 can be severly limited in certain areas despite an ATC unit being close at hand (Carlisle and the Lake District being an example).

Outside the UK as far as I am aware most Aerodrome ATC units listen out on 121.50 at all times.

To make matters worse, I have come across instructors sending off solo students with the message - if you get lost call 121.50 and ask for a training fix.

Perhaps the pilots could stop using 121.50 and start using 999 on their telephones just for the practice. What would the response be then?

What the UK CAA should considder is not simply the efect on crews monitoring 121.50 but just as importantly - adjacent FIRs............it can only be a matter of time before some practice eh er eh er on 121.50 over the Southern UK interferes with a genuine emergency over Northern France.

An aircraft at 3000ft over the South UK coast making a practice call on 121.50 can interfere with an emergency flightalso at 3000ft on 121.50 who is almost 100nm away (Near Paris) or a flight at FL350 some 250nm away (well South of Paris). Thus simply having the UK D+D say continue practice pan ( because they can't hear anything) is simply not good enough.......before permitting such a practice, the London D+D should be required to contact all adjacent FIR/ACCs and get permission to block their 121.50 with non-essential transmissions. I can guarantee that if they ask they will be told no because safety dictates that 121.5 is kept as clear as possible!

If the CAA is going to permit this practice then I believe that they are required to ensure that such use of 121.50 does not extend beyond the FIR boundary and since aircraft can make such calls up to FL244 then the posibility of interfeering with adjacent FIRs use of 121.50 needs serious consideration for safety sake.

Regards,

DFC

[tired]

DFC - very well said, my thoughts exactly. (Only, I'm too lazy to try and express them as eruditely as DFC has!)

[30W]

Well put DFC. I agree entirely, as does every other pilot I know of with whom it's been discussed at work recently.

Ppactice Pans on 121.5 simply result in most turning the volume down completely or simply deselecting the monitoring of 121.5

Quite simply, a practice pan DOES interfere with good monitoring of a busy ATC frequency. Commercial aircraft are now required by the CAA to monitor 121.5 when at all possible, and so to that end using it for PPL practices is no longer sadly justified.

As an ex PPL instructor I fully understand the usefulness of a practice pan, but times have changed :-(

I fully support the case for another frequency to be allocated for practice use, one that the rest of us don't get distracted by.........

30W

[SwanFIS]

It would be interesting to hear the views of the D&D guys and gals themselves, I know some of them read these pages.

At the moment they are still actively encouraging practise Pans and training fixes. One has to ask if is this is now out of step with the changing requirements of aviation as a whole. What is the priority and correct use of 121.5 these days a PPL training for an emergency in the future or a channel of communication for ATC to contact airways traffic in a PLOC situation?

If there is a D&D reply to this - when is the London Mil website starting?

regards

Swan

[ShyTorque]

How about nominating 121.4, or 121.6 for practice pan calls? Are these frequencies in use elsewhere?

[vintage ATCO]

121.6 is the universal RFFS-acft on the ground frequency.

Didn't 121.4 use to be Leavesden Radar? Showing my age now. :p It shows as Shannon and Beauvais now.

[Jerricho]

Outside the UK as far as I am aware most Aerodrome ATC units listen out on 121.50 at all times.

Not 100% sure about the other Canadian centres, but Winnipeg ACC certainly has 121.5 selected at every console at all times, with the volume turned down, but still audible.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

At the risk of reopening a long-dead thread, I would like to express a slightly alternative opinion to the majority of posters.

I don't think the the use of 121.5 to allow "practice pans" in the UK is a hazard to safety nor do I think that it should cease. The CAA recommends the monitoring of 121.5 by en-route traffic to enable contact to be re-established quickly if an aircraft flies out of range of the ground station, misses a change of frequency or suffers a sleaping receiver etc. Now, the majority of people find they have to deselect 121.5 because they struggle to listen to 2 active frequencies at the same time - ergo they have not suffered a radio failure!

It might be argued that once it has been deselected crews might forget to reselect 121.5 when the "practice pan" has finished. This is indeed a valid argument, but I think that most UK controllers would try a relay before going to the hassle of calling the D&D cell to get them to transmit to the offending flight.

If a crew has deselected 121.5 then suffered a sleeping receiver on box 1 then it isn't their day, but they should still spot something is wrong because for the most part of the day the UK frequencies are very busy and I would not expect to go more than 5 minutes without hearing a transmission.

DFC does raise a good point about operations on 121.5 in the UK interfering with adjacent FIRs. Surely this could be party avoided if guidance was given on where not to try "practice pans" (ie. not on the FIR boundary at FL235).

I personally believe that the large number of (seemingly spurious) ELTs which seem to transmit incessantly over 121.5 in some of the quieter parts of Europe are actually more of a hazard than a few "practice pans" in the UK. But that is only my personal view.

G W-H

[Scott Voigt]

Just to throw a log on the fire <G>, our center doesn't even have 121.5 available....

regards

Scott

[DFC]

Giles,

One does not have to be near the boundary to interfere with an adjacent FIR. An aircraft at 2000ft near Birmingham will be picked up by an aircraft well into the Paris FIR at FL350 and the Shannon FIR at much lower levels.

If you want to work out where a practice can be made without being received by aircraft in an adjacent ACC's airspace try the following;

On the basis that except for a very few mostly UHF equipped aircraft, the highest cruise in current use is FL500ish (50000ft)

The reception range at 50,000ft is about 270 miles when the transmitter is at sea level.

Get out your chart and draw an area that is at least 270 miles from all FIRs adjacent to the UK..........At a guess it might leave you with sone airspace in Scotland where you can go and practice without interfering with other countries emergency traffic............and we are dealing with a transmitter at sea level where D+D won't even pick up the call. :sad:

Regards,

DFC

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

I do take your point about interferance with operations in other FIRs. Since the majority of "practice pans" are carried out at low level, I don't think this is much of a problem. If you are at FL350 in the Paris FIR in an emergency, I would suggest that 121.5 is probably not the most appropriate frequency.

121.5 is monitored by D&D cells at Scottish and London Centres both with autotriangulation equipment. Does anyone know whether similar triangulation is used by other countries? Just interested to know.

G W-H

[DFC]

Giles,

When I am at FL350 just in the Paris FIR, I may be receiving an emergency call from a low level GA flight out of range of ground stations when your practice pan blocks out their call!!!

Using 121.50 for practice is just the same as using 999 for practice. I would hate to be the one that blocks the emergency frequency causing some pilot unnecessary dificulty.

I feel that this all comes down to money!

NATS piggyback their responsibilities for monitoring 121.50 onto the military system. To reduce the requirement for simulator training with the D+D staff, they get people to use the real frequency for training purposes. What a shame that the 243 coverage is far better than 121.50 despite both being provided by the same people!!!

Regards,

DFC

[whowhenwhy]

DFC you are wrong. D&D do not get people do practise on 121.5 to reduce their requirement for simulator training and any comment along those lines shows your ignorance as to what happens. Private pilots and their instructors throughout the London FIR call practise PANs on 121.5. I believe that this is because it is written in the syllabus. It's also good for the trainee to know what service is available. D&D only encourage people to train because it enables people who perhaps do not have the airmanship skills of other airspace users, to practise.

One further point. What are you trying to achieve by your statement that the UHF system has better coverage than the VHF system? Do you think that that has any effect on the way that the guys in D&D go about their task? Because if that is the case then I suggest you might want to consider a retraction. Otherwise, please simply explain.

[DFC]

Who when why,

There is no requirement in the JAA sylabus for actual use of 121.5 during training. If one was to try that then every other JAA country except the UK would object.

The difference in coverage between the UHF and the VHF systems shows that one system has had more investment and comittment to providing the maximum possible coverage than the other.

Questions -

If D+D are dealing with UHF emergency traffic, are extra staff brought in to retain the coverage of 121.50 to the same extent as prior to the emergency call or seat alarm on 243?

Not unusual for an aircraft captain monitoring 121.50 to request that pilots stop transmitting on guard (if it is not emergenct traffic). What would D+D do if pilots monitoring 121.50 told D+D or the aircraft practising to stop transmitting non esstential transmissions on 121.50?

The CAA and D+D encourage pilots to use 121.50 for to Quote OIC D+D "We encourage training because it enables us to practice our procedures".

Does the Coast Guard operate training on the Marine Guard frequencies?

Regards,

DFC

[Ops and Mops]

Does the Coast Guard operate training on the Marine Guard frequencies?

In fact yes they do. The prime method of contact between MRCC's, Coastguard aircraft, lifeboats and subject vessels for either exercise or emergency is Channel 16 - The Distress and Calling Channel. (Lifeboats do however use channel 0 for their own purposes.)

Having personal expreiences of all sides of the argument (military, aircrew, ATCO) I think this argument can only be settled by change, ideally a VHF PETF.

What a shame that the 243 coverage is far better than 121.50 despite both being provided by the same people!!!

Interesting concept. The 243 and 121.5 transmitters are all at the same locations and it is just the terrain that affects low level coverage. VHF has better range over UHF in terrain anyway so I'm unsure what you base your theory on. Maybe you are mixing up the differences in Auto triangulation provision with RTF coverage?

[whowhenwhy]

I believe Emergencies R Us said that it enables everyone to practise and yes that includes D&D. Not much use having a bunch of emergency controllers who the first time that they respond to an emergency it is a real one.

I think everyone agrees that a VHF PETF is required. The only way for that to happen is, rather than talking about it on Prune, talking officially to the CAA, NATS, SRG etc. There is no doubt that there is a negative impact upon flight safety through the use of 121.5 to practise on. The military realized that sometime ago and lo and behold, once enough pilots had complained, pointing out the flight safety implications of what was happening, PETF was born.

DFC, I think that your rather bald statement that the military system has had more investment is a bit off the mark. The UHF system was initially devized, using a lot of existing transmitter and receiver sites, to provide coverage across the UK, specifically over the North Sea to enable D&D to find Lightning pilots who kept ejecting from their aircraft. The civil system has only ever been about keeping light aircraft pilots outside the London TMA specifically and CAS generally. It was never supposed to mirror the military system and shouldn't be seen in that light. I think that the guys up in D&D might also raise issue with the level of investment that's been made in the system itself, when you look at the kit that they work with!

[Scott Voigt]

Not to mention that doing practice on a guard frequency ties up that freq and makes everyone who is in earshot of that freq, turn it off so as to not over ride regular traffic. We in the US have another issue too, if you start broadcasting on guard for any length of time, the SAR sat is going to pick it up and start reporting it... Thus getting search and rescue asking questions.

regards

Scott

[DFC]

Indeed Scott,

I forgot that effect - a bla bla bla student practice pan call in the UK could cause probelms for the satelite and perhaps affect it's ability to pick up an ELT or SARBE nearby (in satelite terms!)

Can anyone remember how many passes it can take for the satelite to give a decent fix and how much longer it would take if there was another transmission within say 50nm at the same time as the pass was being made?

Of course, the satelite based system is moving away from 121.50 and that will be a partial fix once everyone's SARBE and ELTS are changed.

Perhaps we should simply leave it up to the pilots - if you want to risk causing someone harm by interfering unnecessarily with an emergency transmission then practice on the emergency frequency - if you would prefer not to risk blocking an emergency frequency then don't................does anyone believe that would reduce nuisance calls...........I doubt it!

Regards,

DFC