IFR transponder code question

[PlankBlender]

Couldn't really find anything specific in AIP ENR 1.6.7, so here it goes for the IFR gurus out there:

You've been assigned a transponder code for the first segment of your IFR flight, and you're landing say in BLT where there is no ATC radio contact on the ground.

The plan is to give your departure report after take-off before getting into IMC.

Would you, when you start up again in BLT for the second sector

a) keep the assigned Squawk code from the first sector
b) set 2000 as per AIP ENR 1.6.7.1.4.b
c) do something else

Cheers for your help! :ok:
PB

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

b) set 2000 as per AIP ENR 1.6.7.1.4.b

Dr :8

[PlankBlender]

Cheers, Dr, I thought so, as the AIP talks about code assignments for sectors, not flights..

On a recent IFR training flight, I left the code of the first segment on for the second leg out of Class G, and ATC didn't flinch..

I'll revert back to 2000 next time and see what happens, whether they give me back the old code or a different one..

[Cap'n Arrr]

I'm pretty sure I've heard aircraft, when giving their descent call into an airport where it is known there is no radio contact on the ground, being given the code for the next sector by ATC.

eg" XXX no reported IFR traffic, your code for your sector B to C is ....."

not sure if it's a legitimate procedure though:confused:

[topdrop]

As the Dr said, squawk 2000.
On a flight from A to B to C, your flight data record (flight plan) is allocated a code 45 mins prior to ETD. If cancellation of your FPL for first leg is more than 45 mins prior to ETD of next leg, it is possible to be given the same code, but unlikely as they are just allocated in order from a bin of codes. Less than 45mins you will definitely get a different code.

[Spodman]

On a recent IFR training flight, I left the code of the first segment on for the second leg out of Class G, and ATC didn't flinch..I saw somebody do this out of YBLT last week, as I was recieving the departure I see somebody squawking 4226 (from memory) heading in the same direction. If it wasn't you then it was somebody else doing the same thing.

That code would probably have been reassigned to another flight, and if they were taxying or flying, and their flight plan not yet coupled up to a radar return due to being out of range of radar, and if you were within 8nm of their flight planned track, their label would attach to your aircraft. Not good.

My options when seeing such:

:} have a good bleat to the pilot about code 2000.

:} minimise the chance of incorrect coupling by getting the aircraft on the right code soonest.

I was having a bad day, and had just grumped at a VFR who was telling me a bunch of stuff I did not need to hear, so considered I had hit my grumping quota for the hour. If I get an incorrect coupling in these circumstances I'm required to submit an incident report, what CASA does about it I have no idea.

When in doubt, do what the AIP says:8your code for your sector B to C is ....."

not sure if it's a legitimate procedure thoughSure is. Isn't documented anywhere, but isn't documented not to do it either:8. I'll do it if the pilot requests it, but would not initiate it. Pissable potfall, erm, possible pitfall is if the pilot submits a DLA message the code will detach from the flight plan, and next time it hits that 45 minute parameter it would probably not get reassigned the same code.

[Sue Ridgepipe]

your code for your sector B to C is ....."

not sure if it's a legitimate procedure though

I used to do that sometimes going into and out of YWOL. A clearance was required not long after takeoff, and HF on the ground was a bit unreliable at times, so getting the code for the next sector when inbound saved levelling off OCTA on departure whilst messing around getting a code and waiting for radar ident.

[Capt Wally]

:8Dr says code 2000, good enough for me:ok:. I often ask for the return code prior to ldg where comms on the ground is marginal. I do this to reduce the workload (IE: dep report plus any special requirments like Med1) after T/off when you enter IMC at night in rough wx as a SP. Sometimes you can expect possible unknown traffic passed on by ATC as well as an airways clearance amended sometimes (so it's diff to what yr expecting) & a code (if not already pre-recieved), of which most has to be repeated.Anything that makes flying safer I'm all for & this tiny thing helps.

CW

[Howard Hughes]

If I get an incorrect coupling in these circumstances I'm required to submit an incident report, what CASA does about it I have no idea.
Nothing!:ooh:

We all have finger trouble, it would be like me putting in a report everytime ATC calls me by the wrong flight number!;)

But I digress, another vote here for 2000 and under no circumstances use the code from the previous sector...:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The plan is to give your departure report after take-off before getting into IMC

Why? Your original post suggests that you may think this is a requirement. Not so!

1) Squawk 2000 on your transponder
2) Give a "traffic" call on CTAF freq.
3) Give an "all stations" call on area freq.
4) Blast off into the wild grey yonder - maintaining appropriate terrain clearance on climb to LSA or above (you could, for example, enter IMC at 300' AGL in a light twin)
5) Give departure call to Centre
6) Get clearance before entering controlled airspace - which will likely require you to squawk a discreet transponder code

Dr :8

[PlankBlender]

Quote:
The plan is to give your departure report after take-off before getting into IMC

Why? Your original post suggests that you may think this is a requirement. Not so!

Good pick-up, Dr, I was under the impression indeed from my training.. thanks for the advice! :ok:

[PlankBlender]

Actually, Dr, I just asked several IFR instructors at my school, plus the CFI and an ATO who happened to be floating around, and the absolute consensus was that you must not under any circumstances go into IMC without having traffic information, i.e. an "all stations" call will not do the trick.

The closest I could find in the regs to satisfy my anally retentive self :} was in the AIP, ENR 1.4 pages 8-9 (currently on those pages, table has no paragraph number, follows point 4.2.8) specifies as radio COM requirements for Class G IFR "Continuous two-way". This would imply you either have to contact them on the ground via HF (or mobile phone), or relay the traffic call through airborne traffic.

Also, ENR 1.1.56.1. Note refers to CAR163A (see and avoid), which is not possible in IMC without traffic information or a fully fledged TCAS, which us lighties don't have of course..

Apart from the fact that going into IMC without ATC information/control would be a scary thing to do and probably best avoided (through a simple phone call to the controller who can give you traffic just before take-off), I'm curious if anyone has found a more direct reflection of this rule in the regs..

[CAR256]

Hey there Plank bender...

Regarding not getting traffic from ATC. I agree that you should try your utmost to talk to ATC to get traffic info, but you do not have to remain on the ground until you are successfull.

Ref: Jepp ATC 6.1 Pg AU717 ( i don't know about the ref for AIP) States: The pilot of an IFR aircraft operating from a non-towered aerodrome must attempt to contact ATS on VHF or HF when taxiing. If the pilot is unable to establish contact, the flight may proceed on a Broadcast basis provided contact is established ASAP after take off, and:
a/ in the case of RPT, CHTR or AWK flight, the pilot is assured of radio contact with his or her operator, or a representative of his/her operator who has immediate access to a telephone, until in contact with ATS; or
b/ for flights other than RPT, a SARTIME for departure has been established with a maximum of 30 minutes from ETD.
NOTE: Pilots are reminded of their obligations to see and avoid other aircraft (CAR163A)

my bolding

I hope that this clarifies for you. I agree fully with the Dr...:p


P.S.
A Mobile phone is not regarded as constant communication.:=

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I agree fully with the Dr...http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Phew! That was close!

Can't remember the last time I was wrong! :E

Dr :8

PS: Come to think of it, the only time I have taken off into a 300' cloudbase was YTWB, where I was in contact with ATC on the ground.

Ahhhhhhh........... Oh dear, no its not! I have done it a number of times at YATN - then called CS Appr on climb (in IMC).

[PlankBlender]

CAR256, "Jepp ATC 6.1 Pg AU717" = "AIP ENR 1.1.56.1.". If that's the most concrete statement in the regs, the note to "see and avoid" could easily be interpreted to the disadvantage of a pilot in case they caused an incident in such a situation, and subsequently find themselves exposed to a legal or other challenge..

I think you could easily argue, however, that continuous communication as per AIP ENR 1.4 Airspace Requirements was maintained if you got traffic via your mobile phone immediately before take-off, did all proper CTAF calls (which anyone doing an approach locally should hear) plus statement of intentions after take-off, and then called ATS for traffic updated once in the air.

I'm not convinced either way as per what the law is, although my ATO & CFI are sort of right by definition at the moment :8 Funny though that all instructors I queries in my school (who are from various backgrounds and include some senior IFR pilots with serious commercial experience under their belts) were unanimous and adamant in their "no way" responses..

Anyone from CASA listening who could give a definite answer? This discussion could be a case of new regs / old habits, wouldn't be the first time..

[gettin' there]

The reference CAR256 refers to is AIP ENR 1.1 56.1.

Im asking from a completely ignorant point of view here as i have no IFR experience but have just done the IREX and so am interested to see what happens in the real world.

In the above situation situation if you couldn't conact centre on the ground and therefore couldn't get traffic information wouldn't you in theory be able to communicate with anyone of concern on the CTAF frequency? If they were low enough to be a concern for you immediately after take off shouldn't they be on the CTAF? I imagine that you would usually be able to contact ATS shortly after take off (circuit height or so) in most places? In which case any conflicting traffic should be on the CTAF?


Again these are posed as QUESTIONS so im merely ASKING

[PlankBlender]

Gettin' there, you're right, in most instances you would be able to get anyone who's near you on the CTAF. And if you can hail someone, he'd probably be able to relay a call to ATS for you, so there wouldn't be an issue.

HOWEVER, it only needs one guy who's flying an approach and who thinks he's monitoring CTAF but has dialled up the wrong frequency or has some other malfunction, or is simply too preoccupied with flying the approach (which is all too easy for low time IFR pilots), thus missing your call, and you could fly straight into him as you go into cloud. :eek:

The likely scenario we're talking about here is a low cloud cover at a CTAF with no ATS comms on the ground. You wouldn't really want to go up there and visually circle under a low cloud base near terrain (e.g. YBLT), not knowing who may be popping out of cloud just in front or above you :ooh:

[gettin' there]

I see your point PLANKBLENDER

Doesn't sound like the best idea but at least from waht i can pick up reading the regs not wrong.

What really gets me is how there can be two COMPLETELY OPPOSITE opinions from people who i assume have plenty of IFR experince.

Seems to be the case with a lot of questions posed on here that two people can be 100% convinced that they are right but both have differing opinions. It particularly seems to be the case with IFR stuff. There was a thread on here not long ago about alternate requirements due to updated WX forecasts en route (cant be bothered finding and posting the link, sorry) and again there was more than two opions on what was right.
Shouldnt there only be ONE right answer when it comes to the regs?

Seems that there are alot of "grey" areas or at least diferent interpretations when it comes to flying under the IFR.

Seems a bit scary that there are all these guys blasting around in the soup doing different things.

Not so much a comment but an observation/question?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

HOWEVER, it only needs one guy who's flying an approach and who thinks he's monitoring CTAF but has dialled up the wrong frequency or has some other malfunction, or is simply too preoccupied with flying the approach (which is all too easy for low time IFR pilots), thus missing your call, and you could fly straight into him as you go into cloud. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

So explain to me how you are so much better off after Centre tells you about 'Old Mate' who has switched to CTAF - but has dialed the wrong freq.

Dr :8

[PlankBlender]

So explain to me how you are so much better off after Centre tells you about 'Old Mate' who has switched to CTAF - but has dialed the wrong freq.

Easy, I'm on the ground, can't hear him make any calls coming in, which is suspicious to start with, plus he doesn't respond to my CTAF call to arrange separation, hence I stay on the ground and sit it out rather than running into him at 1000 feet!!

At least I know about him and can take action, rather than having to quickly bend down and kiss my a$s goodbye, wondering what hit me two minutes after taking what turns out to me my final du#p :\

[Capt Wally]

What concerns me more here about not getting traffic prior to going into the soup as stated from 'PB" is the fact that he asked a CFI & an ATO !who both gave 'sus' answers!
What's that old adgae? Aviate Navigate Communicate, the last one obviously has the least 'impact' on aviation safety.

Hey :8Dr you get to have at least 300' agl, try rotating straight into the soup at night, just watch the dials & turn down the radio if you don't like something you hear:ok:



CW

[Flying Binghi]

This is not another of those ADS-B 'sale' threads, eh ? :hmm:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

OK, so you sit on the ground adding to your carbon footprint until you eventually learn from Centre that Old Mate "missed" and has diverted to his Alternate.

Off you go into the wild grey yonder!

You arrive at your destination and fly the GPSRNAV Appr, breaking out right at the minima.

BLAM!!!!

You run straight into Farmer Brown in his VFR 1962 C182 who is stooging into town from his duck farm 30 nm away - at 600 ft, just below the cloud base.

Oh, he did make a CTAF call - just got one digit wrong when dialing up the freq!!!!

Its OK PB, you never knew what hit you!

Dr :8

PS: Not having a go at you mate - just pointing out the realities of life in Ozzie Class G airspace! Taking off into IMC without "known IFR traffic" is the least of your worries!

[Flying Binghi]

From my reading - the majority of the recent Oz mid-airs have an instructer on board :ooh: ...apparently farmers dont rate a mention :cool:

[Capt Wally]

geeez :8Dr don't scare me like that mate:)

Yr story is the essence of good airmanship & proper R/T procedures but we are dealing with varying types of skills ALL in the same airspace.






CW

[PlankBlender]

Guys, you crack me up :)

I guess we could call this edutainment, laugh and learn :}

:ok:

[K-941]

aluminium and meat confetti is real funny! :rolleyes:

[PlankBlender]

Actually, you couldn't be more right if you tried, good Doc :}

On that charity tour around the country I did in May, we had a couple of well-meaning farmers with their Jabiru's as part of the contingent, and their antics made me soil my pants on more than one occasion :eek:

Now I'm not having a go at the chaps in question, they are bloody nice, very generous and all that, and the experiences I am sharing here are more than anything a reflection of their standards of training, which we should all know about to be able to factor them into our planning :suspect:

Firstly, the radio calls were what you would expect of a five hour PPL student, if that. I don't think I'd exaggerate if I said they probably simply wouldn't make any calls whatsoever going in and out of the rural strips they normally use. I guess most of the time they don't really need to as they're by themselves in the great outback, but they really couldn't make a call to save their lives, literally :sad:
By the end of the tour, I am happy to report, they could actually navigate controlled airspace with some degree of confidence, so we've saved at least a few souls :ok:

More worringly, they didn't have the foggiest clue about even the simplest circuit procedures, let alone other things every pilot should know: We had guys barreling down the wrong direction runway with traffic coming down final the other end, taxiing down cross-runways thinking they were taxiways after they made calls for the runway they didn't land on, taxiing down the active runway making calls for a backtrack on the inactive one, they'd be going round the circuit the wrong way, and these are just a few instances where I made a sharp turn and got the hell outta there..

Now, we'll probably be pushing this thread majorly off topic, but I would seriously question the training and testing standards of the RAA in some cases. According to their own publications, this is a known problem they're trying to address, but I am questioning why, in this over-regulated country of ours, these guys are sharing the majority of airfields with IFR traffic, often even RPT?! :=

Rant over :{

[PlankBlender]

K-941, get over yourself, a story well told will stick, right?

[K-941]

:suspect: I'm agreeing with you! :ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

On that charity tour around the country I did in May, we had a couple of well-meaning farmers with their Jabiru's as part of the contingent, and their antics made me soil my pants on more than one occasion ...........

Was'nt Jabawoky eh ? :E

PlankBlender, put your 'ultralight' post in a stand alone thread.....I'm off to buy a six pack and kick back and watch ;)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

PlankBlender, put your 'ultralight' post in a stand alone thread.....I'm off to buy a six pack and kick back and watch http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Ooooooooh yeah! While your at it, post a copy in that Recreational Aviation site - I'd pay money to see that!

Unfortunately, I can't see anything in RA, cause I'm banned in there. That site has some issues with reality.

Dr :8

PS: Pass me a coldy Binghi!

[PlankBlender]

Done! Enjoy everyone, should be an interesting discussion, I'm gonna pour myself a single malt and get the popcorn out :)

K-whatever, personal affronts are generally frowned upon here, I'm sure we can keep it civilised if we try.. if you have some grief issues because of a tragegy, I am sorry if I have offended you with my posting, but as I've said in another thread, the more people learn from the stories here, the more lives might actually be saved. There's a lot of good experience here that people are willing to share :D, and sometimes the form needs to be excused..

[Jabawocky]

NOT This Jaba FB:ok:

My trip around the top end was with some ex Airline Captains and GA instructors etc that have been doing this for 30+ years.

Sorry to spoil your gag!:}

But my post on the other thread might tell some truths and Plankie might find supportive of his article.

And yes any of you who know the RF site at all will know that FTDK and myself are banned due our speeking the truth and it hurting sensitive and often guilty ears!:ooh:

J:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

And yes any of you who know the RF site at all will know that FTDK and myself are banned due our speeking the truth and it hurting sensitive and often guilty ears!

Do tell.....

[Jabawocky]

If you really want to know, PM me and I will give you my phone number...... but I am not printing a thing here.:suspect:

J:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

Your not doing a 'membership drive' for that other site are you Jaba ? :E

.....Yep, into me third beer.

[Jabawocky]

not a chance mate, would encourage you not to even search for it....... ask Forkie!

J:ok:

[Capt Wally]

oh you bad boys:E What's RAA mean anyway? Really Average Aviators?:E



CW:ok:

[Capt Wally]

oh you bad boys:E What does RAA mean anyway? Really Average Aviators?:E
Where's a good Mod whan ya need one:)

CW

[VH-XXX]

That "Recreational" site is interesting because for every post on here flaming ultralights, it has 2 posts slagging GA in return. When you read it you realise how many 1 eyed half blind mentally deficient one legged heart diseased diabetic pilots there are in RA!

PS: Love 'em or hate 'em however they are a bee's dick from getting Controlled Airspace and approval to operate above 5,000ft for non-opearational reasons.

[Capt Wally]

'XXX' oh that's so cruel, but true perhaps:D
I guess it's 'them & us'

CW

[Flying Binghi]

Where's a good Mod whan ya need onehttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif


I wonder what Internet Brands inc think of the free advertising ? :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

My read of establishing COMS is purely a SAR function.

[NOtimTAMs]

It's a common scenario at many ALA's.

I try to cover the SAR and inbound traffic situations by having my NextG mobile phone connected to my headset via a Pilot Avionics 86A adapter (about $150). So say as in last Monday at Mudgee (FIA cct only) with BKN 006 and layers above (PVT SE SP IFR - don't bite my head off Capt W!), taxi call on the CTAF, mobile phone (in the ACFT) to ATC for Taxi, traffic and TXP Code, off and up circling to MDA then departure call to ATC once at MDA (or an airborne call if I'm taking my time to get to MDA and want to avoid triggering SAR).

It would also be a good idea to have an indication of whether ATC was contactable on ground, CCT or at a specified altitude ON THE APPROACH PLATES rather than just in the ERSA - less fluffing around to find the info.