New Radio Calls!!

[pall]

Whilst doing circuits I tried the new Radio Calls as part of the latest AIRSPACE reform. Seems to me to be excessive.

We have three AD's within our CTAF on the same frequency. If you have 3 aircraft in each circuit and each is giving a TURNING: Downwind, Base, Final call which includes a the full aircraft type it will be hard to get a call in.

What do other ppruners think about this?

[triadic]

Read the other threads on this subject...

.... all the calls RECOMMENDED - not mandatory.


See the NAS book, page 32, para 4.


Basic rule: do what you do now and exercise good airmanship and situational awareness.


Please don't talk for the sake of it. Make it worthwhile every time you push the PTT.


:ok:

[Arm out the window]

Lining up and base calls would be heaps for continuous circuits, and extras when joining and departing. The more things change, the more they stay the same, as someone said.

[Inka Dinka]

I agree with the Arm, but you should use common sense.

Eg, If I was joining straight in and made a five mile final call, I would like to hear, for example, a downwind call if you were the only other aircraft at the aerodrome (as CASA calls it :8)

Otherwise, if you are the only one doing circuits, a base call every circuit would be adequate for the arrivals who dial up the freq at 10-15 nm.

ID

[Lead Balloon]

I don't know what ya'll are whining about.

Here in Arizona, which has some of the most dynamic GA business and traffic in the states, it doesn't seem to challenge anybody at a class D or G airport to call their position.

It actually works extremely well.

Even with the level of traffic at every airport here, there is not too much clutter on the airwaves.

Number one question - why don't you want to do it?

[AerocatS2A]

Lead Balloon, is each aircraft making three calls on each circuit?

[Desert Flower]

Seems to me to be excessive.

I'd say better excessive that not at all, like one clown I know who refuses to give radio calls at all so he can dodge landing fees. :mad:

DF.

[Lead Balloon]

3 is normal.

When you are 3-5 miles from entering circuit you state position and altitude, when in circuit

Downwind - or Entering Downwind
Base or Turning Base
Final or Turning Final... based on what you are doing.

Its not done 100% of the time, but because all of the GA airports are so busy it's considered courtesy to advise other pilots of your position - especially when there are different TPAs for different machines, and because you can make straight in approaches, or enter the circuit at different points.

I haven't found it to increase my workload at all, and it does help you to slot into the pattern nicley.

[Creampuff]

Oi Lead: when are you back in town?

Re the radio calls: it’s a bit hard to take Dick seriously on this one. He’s spent years trying to get vfr to use the radio less, now he’s trying to bulldoze in a system that requires vfr to use the radio more. He makes the point that more but shorter calls does not necessarily mean more talk overall. Right message; wrong messenger.

[Lead Balloon]

Creampuff. I'm looking forward to you showing me the ropes of the antiquated antipodes, and de-learning all of the US stuff.

My God! What do you mean I won't have Continental Flight Following and In-Flight On-Line weather services tied to my in-dash Garmin GPS in my $100/hr 1 year old 172, with a choice of 15 GA airports and 7 schools in a thirty mile radius.

Back to the stone-age.

I guess I'll just have to look out the window and use the trusty slide rule instead. And fight for the use of the 1967 Cutlass @ $250/hr at the local Snowy owned airport.

Are we going to buy a Glassair or what! These tractor like Cessnas are a bit like your old Laverda...

[CaptainToBe]

Recently saw an airspace presentation by Mike Smith. Everything he said was very reasonable and had merit. A few of the people at the presentation brought up a few good points, but the general idea I think is that its up to the pilot to use his/her head as to what the situation warrants (ie, radio calls, manouvers etc).

The major concern was that people are talking too much on the radio, and its true. We all hear quite a few people talk on the radio trying to organise their own separation when there is no separation conflict at all. Mind you, there are absolutely times when that is required, but not very often.

My 2 cents

[pall]

Helpful posts here. I agree that common sense should prevail.

On Sat I was flying circuits and it must have been clear that I was, as I was making Touch and Go calls each base.

AC coming in made a 10 mile call. I didn't see the need to acknowlege as his intentions, position and type (read speed) were clear. He then called directly to me and repeated his intentions. I respoded "Roger that..." and continued on.

I can see that if we all use the system there should be less need to talk back and forth to organise separation that will occur anyway by virtue of our situation.

[Desert Flower]

I respoded "Roger that..." and continued on.
I have been involved in radio communications of one sort or another for the past 18 years, & it's only recently that I keep hearing the reply "roger that". It infuriates me! Whatever happened to just plain "roger"?

DF.

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff, try to be accurate with your comments. Yes, I have spent years trying to prevent (successfully it appears) VFR aircraft from making announcements on control frequencies when in enroute airspace. We hardly ever hear them now and this will mean that Airservices will be able to re-sector and save the industry millions of dollars per year.

I have, however, consistently pushed (for over 15 years) the US system where there are more calls in the circuit area and less “dialogue”. I have consistently said that good disciplined circuit procedures (as they use in the USA) are the best way of reducing the very high number of unalerted see and avoid incidents we get in our MBZs and CTAFs.

Once two aircraft start using radio arranged separation in the circuit area (as they were doing a few weeks ago at Mildura in CAVOK conditions) the whole frequency is blocked for anyone else. The US system showed that you could have up to 7 or 8 aircraft giving announcements and as long as no one starts answering and using “dialogue” it all works very well.

Creampuff, I have put my beliefs in writing for over 15 years. You will find I have been consistent on this because it is all just good commonsense and fits in with the advice that I have received from professionals around the world.

[Creampuff]

And therein lies the difference between the 2 countries, Leaddie. In the USA, there are hundreds of cities spread across the countryside "with a choice of 15 GA airports … in a thirty mile radius" of each of them. In Australia, there might be two – Sydney and Melbourne – that fit that description, notwithstanding the similar land mass of the 2 countries.

Dick seems not to be able to comprehend that the US needs and can afford its system, because its got ten times the people using and paying for it.

BTW Dick: I said "right message".

[pall]

I agree that extensive conversation on the radio should be unecessasry with the new system. If everyone uses the correct calls then we should all know exactly whats going on.

As long as common sense can prevail. It is surely excessive if you have 3-4 AC in the circuit for everybody to be making 3 calls per circuit including aircraft type.

[pakeha-boy]

Radio position calls in the circuit are like lights on an airplane.....use them all!!!!..see and be seen,talk and be heard.Ditto on the comments concerning the excessive chinwaggle for sure,but the exercise here is to also be aware of "others" positons,sort of important when operating in high density traffic areas,when listening up will pay dividends :cool: ngati polilua

[Capt. On Heat]

Long live NORDO. Eyes are still part of the medical requirement.

[triadic]

pakeha-boy

surely you can't be serious ! If you are, then you really have no idea - try getting an update from your instructor.

what you suggest is not the way to do it.


and not all aircraft have lights either and then you only see them by day when they are pointed at you!

:(

[pakeha-boy]

triadic...it is you who needs a little instruction.I flew in Alaska for 10 yrs(something you would only dream of),most of it uncontrolled airspace.The only thing that saved our arses on many occasions was/is the use of lights and radio.It may be a surprise to you,but some aircraft dont even have radios,so the use of lights(if they had them)was better than nothing.Whether the practice be mandatory or courtesy I find your(lack of) reasoning quite odd. I fly the A320 for living,my company plus the FAA make it mandatory that I make required radio calls and have my lights on in certain phases of flight.I use wing lights when crossing runways,I use my taxi light during the day on occassion,what is so wrong with these practices that make others aware.I have a CF11/MEI,PM me and I would be more than happy to give you some free instruction,if not ,Beelow me!!!

[triadic]

pakeah-boy

Sorry I touched a nerve there old boy. I too have much experience as an airline pilot and aircraft owner doing all the usual things that you point out. That my friend, although desired and classed as good airmanship is not always possible, like if you don't have any lights and perhaps no radio?? Maybe I saw you at Lake Hood some time back?

However this discussion is about the change in Oz procedures, which if implemented as first described in the very poor training book sent out, would clog up the airwaves almost overnight if GA pilots take it at face value.

Thankfully I understand there are some further amendments to the incitement to a talkfest which hopefully will bring some sanity to the table. Sadly in the Oz case the training and education has and still is a total failure and many just don't know any better.

Your suggestion to talk at every corner of the circuit, so to speak, is not even what is practiced in the US or Canada. Transmissions for the sake of them should be considered before pressing the PTT and procedures that suggest this should be the norm are flawed in more ways than one.

Sure, use your lights and radio as tools in the circuit of non-towered airports, but to blindly follow what you 'believe' the procedures to be without some thought as to the consequences is not good airmanship!! To keep a good lookout etc is far more important that getting some radio call out – what do they say: aviate, navigate, communicate. All part of good airmanship. Trouble is that it is taught much any more.

:cool:

[pakeha-boy]

Triadic...appreciate the reply,and did understand the orignial post.I flew for "RUSTS" on Lake Hood for several seasons,so that makes you well aware of some of the situatuions we are talking about.I would argue that those radio practices are practiced in the USA/Canada,but in saying that, your remarks regarding there use is totally justified.I should have clarified,as you point out that these practices are not being taught ,and is directed at those with limited experience.By making those with limited time more aware of their situation,they would in the future "figure it out".I have a C-206 parked at Merrill Field,I find that I make more radio calls in the GA environment than in the Commercial environment,ie two totally different situations,and I realize that to be obvious.The fact still remains whether it be in OZ,kiwi,US,I know of no AIM that prohibits basic radio calls,a big difference to those who like the sound of their own voices.Thanks for the input.....utanga