RPT Radio Calls into CTAF - Jet* Today at Ballina

[NOtimTAMs]

Today at Ballina, Jetstar inbound in severely clear weather gave their call on the CTAF(R): "Traffic Ballina, JetStar xxx 4500 feet approaching waypoint Whiskey Echo for runway 06 Ballina". That was pretty much it.

There are a lot of VFR pilots in the Northern Rivers and a lot of VFR pilots transiting - some of the locals may know the waypoints, after the clubs have gone to the effort of briefing members on the instrument approaches used by RPT. But even the IFR qualified pilots would not have memorised all the approach plates.....or have them to hand for reference when flying in severe clear. Basically it was a useless call that gave no situational awareness to other aircraft in the area and could potentially have come to grief, especially with non-transponder aircraft that do not light up the TCAS. This type of call is happening time and again (and Jet* are not the only guilty parties, I'll concede).

It is in the interest of the travelling public (and I might be one of them from time to time) to communicate clearly and unambiguously to other aircraft that may be sharing uncontrolled airspace near an airfield. It is in the interest of the RPT company to make their operation as safe as practicable. It is in the interest of other aircraft in the area (and that is frequently me) not to get too close to the big kero burners - luckily I've got a few CIR renewals under the belt and have some idea.

For goodness sake guys and gals, how difficult would it have been today to say your current location (direction/bearing + distance) and that you're manoeuvering for a 14 mile final for a straight in approach for runway 06? THAT would have been understandable to all listening.

Does anyone know a contact number for Jet* operations or training to raise the issue (i.e. when flying into airfields OCTA do not describe your position/approach solely by terminology known only to those with an open DAPs/Jepps beside them)? .....VB might need a serve, too.

[mohikan]

This thread will no doubt be locked soon because you have dared to critisise Jetstar.

[mostlytossas]

I agree it is a common occurance all over OZ and it stinks IMHO.
What you do in a situation like that is reply to the RPT aircraft with something along the lines of " J*... inbound to Ballina there a number of VFR aircraft in the area and unless you wish to wear one please state from what quadrant you are tracking from and ETA" or words to that effect. Amazing how they get interested if they think they may hit something.

[QF2]

Yes, obviously if he had've provided bearing and distance information, it would've provided better situational awareness for everyone on the CTAF.

All the same, in general i think it would be good for all the VFR guys not familiar with an RNAV approach to have it explained to them. Although not ideal, if they were given a situation like you have mentioned where the aircraft is approaching waypoint Whiskey Echo, they would know immediately that the aircraft is roughly to the west of the aerodrome roughly 15 miles out, and they can then determine the potential for conflict.

I don't think there is any excuse for IFR pilots, particularly in VMC, to not be giving position information that can be readily understood by everyone on the CTAF, but if all pilots had a rough idea of how an RNAV approach is created, it would be safer for everyone.

[mostlytossas]

While I don't disagree with you QF2 that is all well and good if at your home airport. If at an unfamiliar airport is it unreasonable to expect a VFR pilot to have any idea where these waypoints etc are. After all you have to buy the charts, plates etc and why would you if you don't use them?

[QF2]

Sorry, I just meant that for instance if you were at waypoint WE, your approach would be roughly from the west, if you were at waypoint SB, your approach would be roughly from the south and so on. So you'd have a rough idea of where the aircraft would be no matter what airport you were at. Likewise for the distances of the initial approach fixes, they will be roughly 15 miles out, the intermediate at roughly 10 miles out etc. Although far from exact, it would mean you could work out very roughly where the inbound aircraft is without having to have an approach chart in front of you. Besides, there isn't likely to be a lot of conflict out at 15miles or so, by about 10 miles the aircraft are usually pretty much straight in for the landing runway, so you'd have a pretty good idea of where they are if they said they were at waypoint SI for runway 34 for instance.

Just my 2 cents worth, I had no idea about any of this when i used to bash round VFR, so it probably wouldn't hurt if VFR pilots were taught this somewhere along the way.

[mppgf]

If you don't understand where an aircraft, VFR or IFR is after it gives an inbound call to a Ctaf R and you are in the area USE YOUR RADIO and ask them to explain where that position might be.I'm sure they will be happy to give you a bearing and distance.:ok:

[NOtimTAMs]

If anyone has the above number/s, could you please PM me.

All J* have out there is their bookings number and collection of call centre staff who have NO IDEA how to handle a call regarding operational safety matters....Shows J*'s committment to safety and openness to safety-related feedback.:ugh::ugh::ugh:


(BTW the J* flt in question was asked to explain their position by another pilot in the area but declined to do so.....)

[VH-XXX]

The scary thing is that most RA-Aus registered aircraft with their Garmin 196 and 296 GPS's would know exactly where the J* aircraft was, but your average PPL in a crappy old 172 without studying the map in detail would have little clue!

[Under Dog]

Ballina almost has an argument to be controlled these days with the amount of traffic operating in an out of there.(forgive me if this has been suggested before)
I'd be interested to know the figures compared to what operates in and out of Coffs for instance which is controlled.

Regards The Dog

[framer]

Righto TimTam,
That was pretty much it. wasn't pretty much it then, a significant part of the story was left out.
If it was the case that J* declined to elaborate on their position report when asked then they either didn't hear and the question should have been posed again , or they are out of line.
If it's true then file on them.
I would bet a weeks pay that it's not true. I can't imagine any professional crew being asked to elaborate on their position report and coming back with " ahhh negative, we won't be doing that" or similar.

[Wally Mk2]

This topic has popped up a few times over time here in other threads. Simply put as another has if yr a VFR pilot who doesn't really know where the certain waypoint is then ask tho inbound A/C. If that's not practicable due a busy time then YOU give or re-broadcast yr calls the usual way IE dist & bearing FM the AD keeping a sharp look-out for them (they are easier to spot than you in yr toy plane)& the so called profesional crew will figure out whether you are a threat to them. You will be surprised at how a 2 crew jet will soon start doing something about a possible conflict when they are not getting their own way. Another slight thing to remember here also is that in recent imes there has been a huge hiring of pilots meaning that a good proportion of the newbies in these jets came straighht from GA so it's very well possible that they (newbies) are playing the 'role' by impressing their masters & saying it the big Co's IFR way forgetting their GA IFR roots. Just an opinion but plausable I reckon in some cases.
Either way takes little by the jet crew to say the inbound tracking details in plain language for all to understand.

Wmk2

[Spodman]

I first heard something like this in Meekatharra in 1987:

"SHP this is JSW, 25 DME on the 186 radial left 6,000 FT, request your position?"

"Aaaaaaah, SHP, we're over the Bellelle wool shed, mate..."

There was a pregnant silence as both parties tried to digest this information, then I stepped in and interpreted for them. Nice to see the 'advances' of the last 20 years are now being overcome with some 'interpreters' on the ground again:D

[m-dot]

NOtimTAMs et al.

If you arent sure where an aircraft has called/used as a reference point - you ought to clarify it. Your responsibility to do so despite what any other aircraft has transmitted (RPT, King Air, the space shuttle or otherwise).

I bet you the RPT boys would clarify the position of an aircraft who gave "5nm S of Billicabella waterhole inbound to XXXX".

[triadic]

I have always believed that it is quite inappropriate to use other than compass quadrants when making b'casts in the vicinity of Class G aerodromes. There are still far too many VFR pilots (and IFR from time to time) that get it wrong when using bearings or radials and I have found it quite common on asking further to find out they are in fact 180 deg out....!

Re-reading the AIP on the matter, it is not specific, however I recall the matter being raised at a few RAPACs some time ago and CASA indicated use of quadrants would be pushed in the education package of the day. Might be time for CASA to revisit this one.

Quadrants are easy to understand, not likely to be confused and both IFR and VFR can use know what it means.... and if they had been used by the aircraft in question, then perhaps we may not have been having this discussion!!
:cool:

[j3pipercub]

Hi there

IMHO,

The ENITRE set of DAPs are available to download FREE from the airservices website (All you need is an airservices login which is free). So Why not have them for your local aiport and any you intend to visit...It's not that hard people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Furthermore, why not give the guys a call up and clarify their position if you are too lazy to find out where the waypoints are....once again not that hard!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also concur that there is no concievable way an IFR aicraft would decline to clarify their position if asked to concisely.

It is not nor should it be the IFR pilot's perogative to give bearings and distances as part of a call whilst doing an RNAV, severe clear or soup. I am IFR yet not RNAV endorsed, I face a similar problem, no worries, get out the plate and have a look, see if we're going to conflict!!! And if you're too lazy to download the plate, or give a call requesting clarification, then you shouldn't be in the aeroplane.

Good luck trying to ring an airline Flight Ops Department with a complaint. you would be laughed at and rightly so!!!!!! But give it a try anyway. Can you record the conversation and post it? It'd be hilarious!

You're not from Barwon Heads by any chance?

j3

[neville_nobody]

The quadrant theory isn't going to work in this day and age because in many places the jet arrivals don't track straight to the airport. Often they come inbound from one direction only to track via an arc or another waypoint. For example while they are initially inbound from the south they will actually be inbound from the south tracking north east then inbound from the east. WA is a good case in point now with all the new routes in place. Bearing and distance is really the only safe way of negotiating all this at the end of the day, and that means the VFR guys have to learn bearing and distance then that's life. By using bearing distance you can update your position as to move around, and it is not as convoluted as quadrants.

[Arnold E]

I would have to ask the following question, "Is it a good idea, after having downloaded the appropriate (FREE ) plate, that I have my head down trying to work out a position on a plate that I am not familiar with, whilst barrelling along quite quickly in my single seat high performance aircraft?" I think that making a call asking for more specific information and keeping my head up and a sharp lookout is a much better idea. If the rpt aircraft does not give more position information then they can hardly call themselves proffesional:rolleyes: and as such file a CAIR.:ok:
Cheers
Arnie

[j3pipercub]

mig3 (by the way, they are one of the most beautiful aircraft i have ever seen. Something about the size and shape of the wing)

If the VFR aircraft is unsure of the position, then asking will get an affirmative bearing/distance/quadrant. However I do not think that the IFR aircraft making the broadcast should have to say 'tracking for WE for the RNAV 06 Ballina, which is 15 NM to the SE of Ballina. That would be an excessively long call and then there'd be another thread on here having a whinge about RPT/IFR making calls that are too long amd cloggin up the CTAF. If the VFR aircraft in the area aren't sure where the position is, then ask!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do think that it is unreasonable for a Jet crew to have to give quadrant bearing distance info cos some of the singles in the area haven't made it their interest to find out about the Instrument Approaches.

Your point about the transition is an intersting one however.

Arnold E

I will answer your question with a question "Is it a good idea to arrive at an airfield that you know to be a busy uncontrolled airport with RPT and IFR aircraft without familiarising yourself BEFORE FLIGHT as to the location of the Instrument Approaches".

If you don't ask the RPT aircraft for a position if you aren't sure if you are conflicting or not then you are an amatuer and dangerous...

I wasn't suggesting that you should have your head down, I was suggesting get to know the airport, or ask if you are unsure!

The RPT aircraft do give position reports. RNAV waypoints are positions.

j3

[mig3]

Likewise, I have a model J3 as a matter of fact!

I still disagree with you though. If the IFR aircraft gives a concise call initially, rather than using IFR terminology, it saves Mr. VFR from having to speak up (which is hard enough for some people) ask where the hell "Whiskey Echo" is and it saves the IFR aircraft from replying, when they are possibly busy with their approach.

The initial call doesn't have to be long either! Like I said before all it takes is "approximately 15nm to the west, passing 4500' tracking for a 10 mile final runway 06" There is no need to mention the RNAV at all, for if it's CAVOK the J* is probably just using it for track guidance and not actually shooting the approach.

Unfortunately you can't assume that all the traffic in the area would be as scrupulous as yourself and had checked the approaches for that aerodrome!

[bushy]

Then the RNAV positions should be marked on the visual charts.

[triadic]

Nev.... the quadrant system does work, provided it is used with plain and simple language that lets everyone in earshot what needs to be known. What is so hard at reporting at 30miles South and tracking for a 10m final 29?

Suggesting that the VFR should have a pile of paper available in the off chance that he might conflict with a Jet using IFR lingo, is neither practical or possible.

The answer is for the IFR/Jet to make calls appropriate to the circumstances and also to ensure that the words used are understood by the pilot with the least experience in the area. Saying that it is ok to question if you don't understand etc is fine, but it does jam up the frequency when an appropriate call in the first place would avoid that.

They used to call it Airmanship, but then they don't seem to teach that any more do they??
:ugh::ugh:

(another Cub fan...)

[Wally Mk2]

'j3' there is something about the size & shape of the Cub wing too:) There wouln't be too many places that a Cub wing hasn't casted a shadow over the entire planet!
I think yr statement although technically correct about an RNAV approach point being a 'position' is drawing a looooooong bow in this instance. Such postions/points to basic VFR drivers whom I might add have the same rights to be in the airspace as everyone else might as well be positioned on the moon.
I fly into a zillion basic AD's day in day out in all WX & I always give where I believe it's required the appropriate tracking details for both IFR & VFR drivers that might be listening, obviously IFR ought to know anyway. Takes but a few seconds to say it & is worth possibly several million dollars not to mention lives.
As I said in a previous post the RPT guys will certaintly ask or say something if there is a conflict looming, they have the training, the equipment not to mention X2 IFR drivers:-)


Wnk2

[Jet_A_Knight]

You're right about an NPA waypoint as a pos report. It's not restricted to one airline or another, either.

It's a busy time for jets and TP's going out of CTA into OCTA, CTAF, configuration changes, callouts, checklists, head swivelling lookout etc etc

Most RPT drivers will give a distance/bearing/quadrant. I will offer that the guy who made the call was busy at the time - it happens.

HOWEVER:

The same can be said for VFR aircraft calling 'over Old Bessies Homestead' or 'over Bull**** Creek not above 3500 feet' , or overflying the field in a position that is right through the go-around path of a jet.:{

If you're VFR (or IFR) for that matter, and you don't know where the position from where an aircraft calls is - then bloody well ask for clarification.:ugh:

Do something about it at the time - don't sit there mute and miffed about the call - communicate and clarify.

Don't get on here after the fact and cry everyone a river :(


Here endeth the sermon

[j3pipercub]

mig3. Yes, I know that I can't assume that others would check the approaches. In my limited experince, some VFR lighties can't even understand a quadrant / distance, rather over Bob's place at 1700' and maintaining.

I am of the view that the Jet/IFR crew is quite busy approaching the RNAV flyover/IAF, whether VMC or IMC and the extra broadcasts are adding to the workload anyway. I believe that the VFR crews are under a little less workload and as a result could ensure that if they think they are conflicting traffic to vacate the area or ask for clarification.

We have two rather separate opinions, but it seems that we are both agree about the communication but the difference lies in where it originates. Ah well.

Merry Christmas

j3

[Disco Stu]

triadic was correct when he remembered the matter of inbound calls being discussed at various RAPAC meetings. I recall it being discussed about 1995 or 1996.

At the time there was considerable chest beating from the IFR fraternity at the requirement to actually look outside the windows when in VMC. You should have heard the bleating and moaning.

Communication is all about clear and concise information, the less opportunity for misinterpretation, the less opportunity for error.

It matters not whether it is quadrant/distance or relative to a known geograhic point, just as long as everyone knows and understands your intentions.

I prefer Guides m'self:oh:

Disco

[morno]

J3, I have to completely disagree with you there (coming from a professional IFR driver).

It is NOT up to VFR pilots to learn all about instrument approaches, or study every possible approach to any aerodrome they may visit.

It is however, up to IFR pilots, to use one method that everyone can understand. The "KISS" principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) comes in here.

morno

[multi_engined]

I agree with j3piperclub on this,

I regulary fly within a CTAF in Australia that has around 20 RPT arrivals and departures per day... Although I am only a VFR pilot I always make sure I know precisely where these guys are tracking to or from and whenever I have been unsure of the approach or departure they were conducting where always professional in R/T to advise of their intentions.

I also make the point that it would be in their own interest and passengers to make sure that all those in the CTAF that would be conflicting to know what was going on. I find it extremely difficult to imagine an RPT driver declining to expand on their approach... this is just completely stupid. and have never heard of such rubbish.

[NOtimTAMs]

J3 - the RPT did not clarify position when asked. I was listening on the frequency and know what I heard. An FAF broadcast was also not heard. They then went missed and flew a circuit instead! As for downloading and carrying for carrying the approach plates for each airfield one *might* pass if flying VFR.....you can't be serious, Shirley. A VFR flight from Brisbane to Melbourne would have carry almost the complete DAPS East to cover route and alternates!!! I might be flying IFR most of the time myself, but I'm at least not so arrogant as to expect everyone to do that.

Whether or not some (and only some) VFR drivers give less than adequate calls is not the point - I expect the professional aircrew to behave in a manner that mitigates risk and I expect their training department to train them in mitigating risk. Communicating position in a clear manner that is intelligible to all in the CTAF is a risk mitigator.

Again - does anyone have the J* ops number? Please PM me. It's a pity this thread was moved from reporting points, as it really is an airline issue, not a GA issue.

[framer]

J3 - the RPT did not clarify position when asked. I was listening on the frequency and know what I heard
If thats the case then you'd have to think that they were busy at the time,(checklist being read, calling for flap, ops chatting away to them on the other radio, ) and they missed the request, it happens, human factors etc. Obvious thing to do is ask them again....if they still don't reply I would start thinking that there is a coms failure somewhere...(finger trouble, wrong box etc etc.)...
You know what you heard so let us in on it, did the station making the request for position clarification request again when they got no reply?
If not why not?
Did you pipe up and get a clarification seeing as you were obviously listening ?
If not why not?
If the J* simply refused to answer then why are you moaning on this forum instead of filing on them?
I still don't believe that the J* crew simply refused to clarify. Any professional pilot would not assume an attitude problem being the cause of radio silence.

[Wally Mk2]

'morno' spot on........."It is NOT up to VFR pilots to learn all about instrument approaches, or study every possible approach to any aerodrome they may visit.

It is however, up to IFR pilots, to use one method that everyone can understand. The "KISS" principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) comes in here".

IFR drivers have been thru the VFR school of training so out got know better, VFR are not expected to know anythig about IFR rules or regs, although it is in their best interest to perhaps improve their knowledge of such things.
Remember at the end of the day ALL pilots flying the IFR should allow for the lowest std of VFR pilots abilities & hence need to act/talk/decison make accordingly when in places where these as mentioned conditions can exist. Rules are fine but it can be those very same rules than can kill us!


Wmk2

[puff]

I just did a renewal and the school I did it with that operates in a large and busy CTAF has since changed its call from saying outbound on the NDB approach to saying now outbound on the NDB approach to the NORTH of the field, same as turning I/B not to just announce I/B on the NDB but to say I/B then a GPS distance to the North.

Reason given again was just for situational awareness, funny enough some posters here seem to believe its up to VFR a/c to be aware of the IFR procedures, yet any text book says it the other way around, include info for IFR and give some indication of where that location is for VFR traffic.

Having said that ALL other RPT traffic I dealt with during my renewal in said CTAF all gave IFR location and a VFR discription of where that was.

[NOtimTAMs]

Framer - I do not think there was any "attitude" - just a lack of SOPs that get the RPT crew to communicate appropriately in the first instance. Why was no clarification given? Who knows? May be for all the reasons you say - but it is pretty undesirable if the RPT crew (two of them) are unable to maintain a continuous listening watch on the CTAF frequency between them. Why did the other pilot not call back? Who knows? Perhaps didn't have the temerity to do so. Wouldn't have been necessary if the appropriate call is made in the first instance. As for leaping and clarifying someone else's calls - give me a break. As for filing on them - well, I'd rather have achat with Ops to clarify things, but if one has to reach for the reporting paper, or even chug off a few lines to the the local rag, I'm sure it will be done.....

[Howard Hughes]

When conducting an RNAV approach, simply say "tracking for a 15 mile final runway two niner"!:ok:

If making a visual approach, I will give a compass quadrant. The problem is, all too often when given a compass quadrant by others, it's 180 degrees out!:eek:

[neville_nobody]

Anyone here care to show me where in the AIP it says you should give to positions as quadrants?? Can only find reference to radials/bearings and distance!! However I can't see how this would be mandatory as you could fly VFR in a Tiger Moth with no instruments into a CTAF.

[framer]

TimTam I actually agree with you about first calls. When I'm operating into a CTAF (about once a week) I make calls pretty much exactly like HH said above.
but it is pretty undesirable if the RPT crew (two of them) are unable to maintain a continuous listening watch on the CTAF frequency between them. Why did the other pilot not call back?

It does happen. Normally when the crew are involved in a two-way conversation/checklist etc or if there was "two-in". I think that maybe the flightdeck of a two crew jet is busier than some people imagine. It can be continual operational banter sometimes.

As for filing on them - well, I'd rather have achat with Ops to clarify things,
Fair enough but it won't work. There are channels for these things and the only way to have the subject brought up in weekly meetings/training captain meetings etc is through these channels. If you rang ops they would say "did you file a report?" If not then who cares? Nobody.

As for leaping and clarifying someone else's calls - give me a break.
Again fair enough, I wouldn't do it unless I thought safety was at risk but if the previous transmission had gone unanswered I might ask for my own clarification of their position especially if I thought the other caller was to shy to ask twice.

[Flyer517]

J3 to say that the RPT crew has a higher workload isn't exactly accurate. Remember the VFR pilot is single crew more than likely and can't offload tasks to anyone else on the aircraft.

Frankly I can't see the issue here. Everyone complains about frequency congestion and then thinks there should be clarifying calls for those that aren't familiar with IFR terminology when it is used.

Why would anyone argue against one concise call which EVERYBODY on frequency has been trained to interpret so there is no need for any further calls.

Aiming at the lowest common denominator (ie; student pilot on their first solo) should be the goal so nobody is in any doubt as to what is happening.

Makes complete sense I would have thought.

[triadic]

21.1.12 The standard broadcast format is;
a. {Location} Traffic
b. {Aircraft type}
c. {Callsign}
d. {Position/intentions}
e. {Location}


There are numerous other references to using bearing/distance/quadrant. Such as:

(distance) MILES [DME]
[RADIAL (VOR radial) or
(compass quadrant from
aerodrome, eg: SOUTH /
SOUTH EAST, etc)] followed
as necessary by:
(i) MAINTAINING (or
DESCENDING) TO (level)


Obviously it is the pilots choice, however I would suggest the one that keeps the least experienced pilot in the loop would be the only way to go.....

[NOtimTAMs]

I've just had a look at the definitions of an "incident" - and I don't think the narrow definition of reportable incident as defined by the ATSB would include this type of situation until there is an actual breakdown of separation/near miss/collision. A colleague's past experience with the ATSB on reporting a similar issue outside their strict definitions was dismissal of same....just a phone call received asking if there was any actual breakdown of separation etc. and once it was clear that there wasn't, was told that it probably won't be looked into any further. Reactive safety responses, I'm afraid, not proactive.

Surely it would be better to have a sensible chat with a sensible person who could see the issue and respond accordingly....it really shouldn't be left up to GA pilots to push airline safety.

Flyer517 - agree with you completely.

[framer]

Ok here's the solution;
All IFR RPT pilots make a point of using common sense when using the radios in CTAF's and all VFR pilots double check that they know the difference between a bearing and a radial......no wait, that'l never work 'cause it involves common sense.

[j3pipercub]

morno,

I appreciate your view as a 'professional IFR driver'. As a fellow 'professional IFR driver (i prefer the term dirty ole motor plane driver in the soup)'. I accept your position, However I will KISS when asked (that sounds rather suspect) But I will not take it to the lowest common denominator every broadcast as my calls would have to be twice as long is respect to the speed ot the delivery and detail, if we are taking the first solo student

Flyer,

If we were aiming at the lowest common denominator then our calls would be twice as long (as mentioned above). A single pilot VFR single having a greater workload than IFR? Ummmmm NO. I have been in both positions (VFR + IFR) No way in the coldest part of hell does a VFR pilot have a greater workload than an IFR pilot, single or mulit crew (exception skydiving). That just simply does not happen, unless the VFR bloke is out in wx he/she should not be.

Tim Tam,

I am not asking you to carry the plates for every single airport between ballina and melbourne. I am asking you to download and study/print the plates for the airports you intend to stop at, assuming you aren't asking an IFR/RPT crew to clarify thier position.

Ok, assuming that your call went unheard. Why did you not repeat it? Running checklists or a call from centre could have been over the top of you. If you aren't going to continue to request clarification until you are answered, then that is as much your downfall as theirs. On occassions it has taken me up to 3 attempts to raise Sunstate/VB/RFDS aircraft. Did I stop at one or two and throw my hands up and want the organisations number? NO!!! I kept trying until I established contact with the crew.

Whether or not some (and only some) VFR drivers give less than adequate calls is not the point - I expect the professional aircrew to behave in a manner that mitigates risk and I expect their training department to train them in mitigating risk. Communicating position in a clear manner that is intelligible to all in the CTAF is a risk mitigator.

So you're happy for amatuers to be amatuers then hey???? Awful high pedestal you're standing on there, make sure you've got a firm footing, it's a looooong way down.

And finally, before you are super positively sure of what you heard, talk to the caretaker, pull the tapes or the CTAF, get a copy and have a really close listen to them, it's amazing what you miss when you're stressed, not being condescending, just have been in a similar situation (or so I thought).

BUT at the end of the day, it comes down to communication, if you're not happy with separation, GET ON THE RADIO. If you don't know where the RNAV is then GET ON THE RADIO. AND STAY ON THE RADIO UNTIL YOU GET A RESPONSE YOU ARE HAPPY WITH.

j3

[Capt Wally]

testing 123

[Jabawocky]

And who said the ADSB+Mode C idea as was proposed was a bad idea...........:=

If it flies it should have Mode C as a minimum. Especially if it flies anywhere near a CTAF R. No excuses!

Then the RPT folk can see you on TCAS if you happen to be a threat.

J

[Zed]

Look I work for said company and I will admitt some of the guys I work with have bad radio skills generally. But so do other parts of aviation.

If you don't understand a call, ask the question.

Merry Christmas

[NOtimTAMs]

J3P

Read my posts carefully. I did not make the querying call and I was not stressed or distracted - I was on frequency, nearby but not in the way (124.2 covers Casino, Lismore, Ballina & Evans Head BTW). I admit I must only be an "amateur" with just over 1000 hours and a CIR maintained current "only" since 2001, but a set of DAPs is by my side when flying IFR - with the enroute plates already pulled and on my kneeboard....I do not expect other folks flying VFR X country to do the same, however.

You will be interested to know that ASA will not be updating DAPs online in the near future (or I believe making them available on line, so I also do not expect that VFR drivers to go and buy a set ....

Zed - the call may not be queried if the receiving individual does not realise that there may be a possible conflict if the initial call is incorrect. I also cannot accept that procedural matters such as these are not covered in check and training, either.

If I was a passenger on J* (and I am sometimes) I would be VERY concerned that communications OCTA and in CTAFs are not conducted routinely in a manner that reduces risk, no matter who may be listening (from other RPT to itinerant VFR RA-Aus). I would also be very concerned to find that this is not emphasised for ops OCTA. J* is not the only one concerned here, I'll admit, but the problem is unfortunately common enough for concern. That is the point of the thread.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Im sure there are experienced pilots that have less of a workload flying in extreme weather than a VFR pilot in Vmc

That has to be the sickest joke I have ever heard.:hmm:

You were trying to make a joke, weren't you?:ooh:

[Wally Mk2]

now now 'Jet_A' I can see where 'brns2' is coming from here. Could be that a VFR pilot is in a plane that he's not too experienced (we've all been there) on in a situation that to him/her appears to be very busy might feel as though that's as tough as an IFR driver in the soup making a genuine NBD App at night. Horses for courses. You can't compare IFR with VFR as far as the workload goes re weather etc (ulness the VFR driver has foud himself in the soup) but you can compare it re experience levels. Remember `ALL IFR pilots where once green as a blade of grass both VFR & IFR.
Balanced thoughts, we can all have 'em:ok:

Wmk2

[GaryGnu]

If the weather was "severely clear" should RPT crews be conducting instrument approaches?

Have a look at CAR 166 (2)(d):

The pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated in the vicinity of a non‑controlled aerodrome must:
......

unless subregulation (3) or (4) applies — when approaching the aerodrome to land, join the circuit pattern for the direction in which landing is to be undertaken on the upwind, crosswind or downwind leg;

and CAR 166 (5)

Paragraphs (2) (d) and (3) (b), (c) and (d) do not apply if:

(a) the pilot is conducting an instrument approach in I.M.C.; and

(b) the instrument approach procedure positions the aircraft to join the circuit other than on the upwind, cross‑wind or down‑wind leg of the circuit pattern.


Also refer to AIP ENR 1.1 64.2

An aircraft approaching a non-towered aerodrome for a landing
should join the circuit in accordance with para 64.5 unless it is:
a. following an instrument approach procedure in IMC;

The bolding is mine. The regs and AIP do explicilty allow the 5 mile final straight in procedure as well but the quotes were too large.

My question is do pilots have the discretion to carry out an RNAV GNSS approach at a non-towered aerodrome in VMC? One reading of the regs says no they do not.

I understand that this may be a case of inapropriate regulation but it would avoid the concerns of the originator of this thread.

NOtimTAMs, if it really is a concern to you submit a REPCON (http://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary/repcon.aspx) report

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I have been in both positions (VFR + IFR) No way in the coldest part of hell does a VFR pilot have a greater workload than an IFR pilot, single or mulit crew (exception skydiving)

You can't compare IFR with VFR as far as the workload goes re weather etc (ulness the VFR driver has foud himself in the soup)

You guys need to move north. Having spent 35 years flying a mix of VFR and IFR in singles and twins, mostly single pilot, I gotta say that IMHO, 98% of the time, IFR is way less stressful (easier?) than VFR.

The other 2% is made up of the days when it is socked in to the deck for hundreds of miles around and the rain is hitting the aeroplane so hard that you think its gonna knock you out of the sky; and the days when you are dodging thunderstorms. Radar and/or Stormscope would help with the latter but I have rarely had that luxury.

Fortunately icing is not a common issue in the north, but does cause me some angst if I head down Mexico way. Ice was par for the course when flying in NZ, although it seemed easier to get away from it over there.

Mostly I just TO and climb out like the man says, sit up there in the cruise changing frequency when instructed, let down vis the GPS arrival. Occassionally I fly a GPS RNAV or ILS for real, but have yet to "miss".

Certainly, flying into and out of Archerfield (YBAF) is way easier IFR than it is VFR, ya just gotta remember to not say the magic word "visual" until you have it all pretty well sussed! My first departure from YBAF for almost 20 years was into an 800' overcast in a C210. Program the GPS - punch on the AP - do as the man says - too easy!

Wally, the last NDB I have flown in anger was YKID (Kidston) in a C310 on 5 July 1989. I broke out right at the minima and flew VFR to Carpentaria Downs to collect my pax.

Listening to the jet peddlers in my part of the world, they don't sound to stressed either - although I am sure there are times when the pucker factor goes up - such as getting into Brisbane when the CBs are rolling in from the west.

Dr :8

PS: I regularly mix with, listen to, and observe RPT and the likes of the many "Foxtrot Deltas" going in to places like Longreach, Cloncurry, Mt Isa, Roma, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. I gotta say that I think they do a very professional job of advising their position and intentions to the other traffic, and arranging separation where necessary.

[frothy]

Firstly, all the best to you mob for 2009.
I started a thread on a similar subject months ago with Gladstone in mind. Since that thread you can see the difference with Rpt,Local and transiting traffic giving positions and altitudes. Not hard:)
The word must be widespread through Pprunne.As I stated previously, the transiting traffic and some locals are not familiar with the Rnav appr. As someone stated if pos/alt was given it would make it unnecessary for verification calls. Haven't we got more than enough calls now:ugh:
What disappoints me in this thread is the "us" and them" inferences.
ForF8#ksake we are all Aviators and all started with our first flight be it yesterday or forty years ago.
Have a good and safe New Year yo'all

Frothy

[BMW-Z4]

Here's a thought - back to basics:

COMMON TRAFFIC advisory frequency calls:

An inadequate call should not be the starting point for an on-air debate or a trigger for a whole bunch of see and be seen aircraft to start doing some head-down in-flight research or review. Why not get it as good as possible at the first announcement. That first call is not a tick in the box; it is a prime opportunity to tell everyone interested what you are, where you are and where you are going. A pause for thought before 'transmit' may help.

[framer]

Occassionally I fly a GPS RNAV or ILS for real, but have yet to "miss".
Thats amazing that you've never had to miss Doc. Mind you, I flew with a 737 Captain who told me he had never missed due weather. I find that so incredible that its hard to believe but I think he was serious! I had already missed three times that winter!

[Lookleft]

If the J* crew stated that they were carrying out an RNAV approach for runway 06 surely all you have to do is look to the west for the big jet with its landing lights on? The CTAF procedures were developed by a consultant in DOTARS who had never flown anything bigger than a piston twin. The procedures are inadequate when it comes to RPT jets. If crews fly straight in via the RNAV approach then that is a predictable flight path that everyone can be aware of. As has been mentioned, if you are unsure of where the traffic is, speak up.

[ANCIENT]

Didn't anyone read the original education material that came out with the new CTAF calls . The education material asked all IFR pilots to give position information as beraing and distance with intentions. It also clearly stated that VFR pilots are not expected to be familiar with IFR procedures.
Mike Smith was the man responsible for the education material.
The professional pilots should be upholding the standards but sadly on many fronts they are not.
At the field where I instruct, the young IFR pilots seem to think it cool to let everyone know they are making an IFR approach by stating the type of approach they are conducting and nothing else.

[RENURPP]

I have to say any jet crew that believe they are too busy to use quadrants in a radio call and then expand if necessary the detail of extra tracking such as DME arcs etc probably should NOT be up front.

It really is simple. rememeber some of these pilots of smaller aircraft possibly only have a few hours, maybe 1 or 2 solo. They will need consideration and will be hesitant about radio's.

Its utter garbage and I find it hard to imagine any one really believes that VFR pilots should be studying IFR charts.

Lets turn the tables, how many IFR guys do carry WAC charts or any topographical charts for all their destinations? I can tell you not many of the guys I fly with do.

I regularly drag my old WAC ouit going into Gove when the Airvan calls inbound, taxiing, departing for a place I cant pronounce let alone find on the map. That is equally as stupid as the IFR guy using weighpoints on a instrument approach.

The one thing every one seems to agree on is if wome dimwit pilot makes a call that is not clear then we should ask!

Another suggestion is to submit a report, CAIR or not. The individual pilot will most likely not even hear about it, its the system at fault and the system that needs changing. Enough reports and that MAY happen.

[frothy]

ANCIENT
Your right, and also page 127 of the VFG


CLIMB AND CRUISE PROCEDURES
Pilots of radio-equipped VFR aircraft must listen out on the appropriate VHF
frequency (CAR 243) and announce if in potential conflict. Pilots intercepting
broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential
conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge by transmitting own callsign
and, as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions.
ARRIVAL INFORMATION
When approaching an aerodrome and in the vicinity, all radio-equipped aircraft
must broadcast on the CTAF:
• callsign and aircraft type;
• position (reported as distance with either the radial bearing, or quadrant
from the aerodrome);
• level; and
• intentions.
“Bundaberg Traffic, Zulu Foxtrot Romeo, Cessna 172, One Five miles West, Two
Thousand Five hundred, Inbound, Circuit area Bundaberg at time Zero Two”

A no brainer really, and it comes back to Wally 2's point on "Airmanship". What about we all sing from the one song sheet. It'll save a lot of angst as well as possible grief.

Frothy

[Murray Cod]

Go easy with the exclamation marks and bold lettering J3 it's christmas.
MC

[AerocatS2A]

FTDK, I don't think it's so much that being IFR is busier than VFR, rather that being two pilot into a busy CTAF at 250 knots can be busier than being single pilot into the same CTAF at 180 knots. I think it stems from a couple of things. One, the procedural way the crew work make it more difficult to put things on hold while radio calls are dealt with. Two, there can be a lot more chatter involved between the pilots when establishing their situational awareness. When I'm single pilot I can very quickly disregard or listen to radio calls as I see fit and I get my situational awareness from what I hear, I can also easily massage my cockpit approach sequence to fit into what's happening around me, I don't need to explain to someone else what I am doing and keep them in the loop, and I don't need to discuss things with them in case their situational picture differs from mine. Of course there are many benefits of multi-crew operations, e.g., if my situational picture is wrong and I'm single pilot I don't have someone else to put it right, but multi-crew can get a bit cumbersome in busy CTAF radio environments.

[Ultralights]

so where does that airmanship thread fit in here? i remember a saying, Keep it simple/ Keep it safe. now considering the situation, VFR pilots in the area, likelyhood of them NOT knowing IFR waypoints? = Very High, refering back to the KISS principle, and a little mix of airmanship, then reporting position with a IFR waypoint is probably not a good idea, especially when in reality, it possible not 1 of the VFR pilots there knew where the IFR waypoint was...

or how about this saying, when in IMC, then talk IFR, when VMC, talk VFR. what do ya think?

[Wally Mk2]

Aviate navigate & communicate, funny how the spoken word is considered the last in the 3 major things to priorities. But when it comes to a busy time in a CTAF etc. I'm not so sure the above order shouldn't be reassessed.You don't all of a sudden loose control of the A/C (all things being equal), you don't all of a sudden loose yr way (nav wise) but you can all of a sudden become overwhelmed with what's happening around you in a busy CTAF App point just like the one we are talking about here.
So unless yr spiralling out of control the eyes & ears are yr best defence to stay alive at any GAAP.
The word "Busy" is explained as one EG..........'cluttered with detail to the point of being distracting'.........Both VFR & IFR can be 'busy', no contest there I believe.


Wmk2

[waren9]

If you want your audience to understand your message, make sure you speak it in a language you know they will understand.

Works in all facets of life.

Simple really.

[Super Cecil]

A good one you hear often is "All traffic XXX, YYY an IFR important jobby is doing a sector three entry for a 27 NDB" or "YYY is in the 34 NDB holding patern", no other details given. This is normally on blue sky days, it's crap. Even IFR blokes without the relevent plate would'nt know where captain important is.

[Mach E Avelli]

Wot's this 'at TIME two zero' stuff? How's about '(place) at two zero'.

Not that insertion of the extra word is all that important as long as the message is clear, but I suggest we all refrain from putting our own spin on what should be said and just go back to the AIP for guidance, bearing in mind that it is a guidance document and does not claim to cover every situation. When the situation warrants, use plain language in as few words as possible. One of the many of my pet R/T hates is 'climbing to Flight Levels'. Another is ' an IFR Boeing 737 jet'. In the first case, totally useless information - in the second, an excess of useless information. If told it's a Boeing or an A320 or whatever, surely that's enough to tell even farmer Brown in his little Cessna that it's big, it's fast, the crew probably isn't looking out the window, they think they are more important anyway, and whether he agrees or not about the importance bit, he needs to keep clear.

[framer]

an IFR Boeing 737 jet'
ha ha I've never ever heard that but if I did I'd be tempted to transmit "whoop de dooo" in response :)

[grrowler]

A good one you hear often is "All traffic XXX, YYY an IFR important jobby is doing a sector three entry for a 27 NDB" Not sure where you would hear this "often", airline schedules don't allow for pilots to tool around for the hell of it. Do it often and expect a call into the office. More likely from an IFR important jobby 310 doing an IR.

Has it been ascertained whether an earlier, perhaps 30nm call was made on CTAF that perhaps wasn't heard (it is a large and busy CTAF)?

Was the request for position clarification from an aircraft that clearly was not a conflict (eg in the circuit at Lismore)?

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

In the middle of my home office tidying exercise today I stumbled across some material that would have been sent to all pilots about 5 years ago.

I quote these words of wisdom to VFR pilots:

"VFR aircraft should avoid Aerodromes, Navaids, Instrument Approaches and Holding patterns".

VFR aircraft should avoid aerodromes? Now there's a novel approach!

"Assure that you are aware of the IFR Instrument and GPS approach paths and remain clear as far as you can .... charts are available on the Airservices Website".

So there you go! I guess that pretty much clears it all up, huh? The onus would appear to be on VFR pilots to keep the **** outta the way!

GG :E

[frothy]

GG
Does this mean you only clear your desk every 5 Years. A clear desk is the sign of a sick mind:O
Good exercise going from CNS to MB, imagine the paperwork for aids/approaches and patterns. Mum would have to go by train, probably not a bad thing:}. The weight of the paperwork would put me outside the envolope.
This morning at GLA 2240 local Dash inbound called Whisky Alpha/Bravo/ echo and every other letter of the alphabet with a final call for a 2 mile final.
To top it off a helo in the circuit then giving their positions abeam the whisky waypoints
Got to say the helo operator has just started. GLA is quite often used as a refuelling stop for all levels of operators, so wouldn't it be easier and safer to given positions relative to the Airport. As I've said before I know where the waypoints are, but possibly the 182 that dropped in just after, didn't:ok:

Frothy

[Swanie]

"My question is do pilots have the discretion to carry out an RNAV GNSS approach at a non-towered aerodrome in VMC? One reading of the regs says no they do not."

Thats just one way to establish yourself on a 5 mile final.

[Lookleft]

GG the material you quote from was written by the same bloke who dreamt up the procedures. He had absolutely no idea about RPT operations. Its not surprising that there are many variations on the radio calls. If you are VFR and you hear an RPT jet give an inbound call via a GPS waypoint for a particular runway, just look for the landing lights on the approach path. My personal view is that all RPT traffic should approach any CTAF(R) for a straight in approach via a GPS approach point. This would allow for a 10 mile final, both pilots looking forward and the automatics can be used for longer.

[NOtimTAMs]

LL - the "look for landing lights" advice is not always helpful for quite a few reasons:


the GNSS RNAV APCH may have been started from one of the initial "dog leg" positions ofthe APCH and thus not "straight in" from the time of the call;
the IFR ACFT (RPT in this discussion) may be descending through IMC into VMC below and thus not visible;
the conflicting VFR ACFT may be below or to the side and thus not be able to see the landing lights;
the rising/setting sun +/- haze may still be within limits to legally fly VFR but doesn't give great long distance viz.


GG - "Assure that you are aware of the IFR Instrument and GPS approach paths and remain clear as far as you can .... charts are available on the Airservices Website". Not from the near future, I believe.... who are the idiots who "coordinate" the advice and educational materials?:rolleyes:

[Wally Mk2]

Interesting how this debate is still going after several pages. It's obvious by the amount if interest that there is a problem or at the very least some concern about safety whilst arriving at a CTAF both under the VFR & the IFR. So far the best way around this that I can see is to be a little smarter when you fly into an unknown airport with all it's associated approach avenues. By that I mean employ that saying........"chance favours the prepared mind", be prepared.........Obviously arriving at a famil AD will usually mean you are aware of such IFR inbound routes but many basic VFR drivers get about on an irregular basis & so they should too, it's a free country & we can fly pretty much anywhere within, just that being a free country doesn't mean we (as in both VFR & IFR) can be complacent & hope the 'other' guy will stay out of yr way:ok:.

I see/hear some pretty professional VFR pvt pilots when I am out & about & some not so professional professionals too.



Wmk2

[megle2]

And its all about to change again.
Casa busy formulating the latest change as we speak!

[waren9]

Whats that? No more RPT jets into uncontrolled aerodromes? Finally, are we catching up with the REST OF THE WORLD?

Surely Not! We already use worlds best practice.:yuk:

[9v-SKA]

I had the opportunity to tag along on some of the training flights that my instructor did with his CPL students.

He always stresses on keeping it simple so that the VFR pilots will understand his transmissions.:ok:

[Mr.Buzzy]

Quadrant and distance!
Everyone should know it, amazing how many don't.

I'm sick to death of flying into places and hearing locals broadcast "all stations abc just coming up on fred's creek." "yep jim I'm over malcom's homestead now"
Only to hear the IFR traffic have to clutter the frequency with "can you guys give me a quadrant and distance please?" (Usually followed by silence)



bbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzz

[GaryGnu]

Thats just one way to establish yourself on a 5 mile final.

That is true but in that case one's location should be described in generic terms, not by using IFR approach waypoints names.

[Wally Mk2]

Ok here's what a typical inbound call we use in our Co. to a CTAF & or R

XXX traffic XXX IFR B200 25 miles to the SW (sometimes via a radial if an omni is being used) passing 5500 ' manovering for a 5 mile final rwy 27, circuit 15, traffic XXX for Eg. That's if the App is in VMC if not then I add minimal info to enhance the above for the benifit of IFR pilot/s inbound although we ought to know about each other via ATC. Now I believe that's enough info at first for anyone else inbound that maybe coming from a SW or W direction, further mental picture forming can take place for all if there is a belief that a possible conflict exists. Yr eyes & yr ears are yr best defence. I'm not a huge fan of straight in Appr's but when it's of an urgent nature I weigh up the added risks on an individual basis & conduct one as I see fit.

Remember, nothing is ever that urgent in aviation & there are no dumb questions when it comes to aviation, this I have learnt over the years.



Wmk2