Report Changing to CTAF, please

[rotorblades]

Hi All,
I've been asked by other controllers (& I concur) to highlight this (politely) to, mainly, RPT flights into CTAF/CTAF(R) airports. Please can you advise ATC when you are changing to, or in comms on, the CTAF frequency. If you dont tell ATC we (ATC) are still responsible for passing on traffic information, hazard alerts, SPECIs/ATAFs etc. Which we DONT mind, but when we dont get an answer after 2 or 3 calls it is frustrating. We understand you are probably broadcasting or talking on the CTAF frequency or on final phase checks but unless you tell us we are not psychics. And on several occasions I've had pilots shout, moan & generally get stroppy when asked after they landed whether they had received any previous transmissions, that they couldnt answer because in a busy portion of their flight & also on the CTAF.
Tell us and then we dont have to worry you are going to hit the aircraft taxiing out for an opposite end departure.
If you dont answer us we (theoretically) have to start the process on SAR action. Most controllers (me included) mostly assume you are on the CTAF, but if your not and something happens, its everyones bum on the hotplate.
Thanks
Alex

[Capn Bloggs]

Fair call. :ok:

[Chadzat]

fair call, but i thought this was only a requirement when you were no longer monitoring the appropriate ML/BN centre frequency, ie if with your 2 comms, 1 is on CTAF and the other used for company comms or activating PAL etc?

Are you saying that even under a continuous monitoring of the centre frequency we have to let you know when we are also monitoring ctaf?

[rotorblades]

Hi Chadzat,
ERSA ENR 21.1.7
reports of changing to CTAF frequency are required by pilots of IFR flights inbound to to non-towered aerodrome when the ATC Frequency will not, or cannot, be monitored.

So technically you are right, you dont have to. But I would say if you are unable to acknowledge a call, even with just callsign, it could fall under the cannot be monitored factor. As the another part of ERSA enroute says IFR in class-G airspace have to be in contiuous two-way communication with ATC.

Its more of a courtesy. If we know you are in comms with the CTAF we have a plausable reason not to be too concerned if you dont answer a call & more importantly if we pass traffic on an unknown aircraft climbing out towards you we arent *as* concerned if we know you are probably speaking to the aircraft on the CTAF.
Subject to what the legal requirements say, even if you just tell us something like on CTAF Comm 2 maintaining listening watch with you on Comm1. Or if you can think of something nicer than that.
I'm trying to think of a way of wording this eloquently and concisely but I dont think its gonna happen...here goes
If we transmit to a pilot and get no response its classed (in airservices) as a sked call (scheduled call) missed and we have to enter the com check phase, i.e. multiple transmissions to aircraft, relay via another aircraft (normally means getting an overflyer to switch to the CTAF to attempt to get two-way)etc. IF after 15 mins after our initial call no response or confirmation that the aircraft is on CTAF (or whatever the circumstance - on the ground etc) we have to initiate an ALERFA (Alert Phase) and then thats when it raises a notch, CENSAR is alerted. Its the same principle if you ( I mean pilots not you personally if you know what I mean) take more than 10mins from taxi call to dep or airborne call and ATC SAR alert timer goes off, or forgetting to cancel Sarwatch for arrival.

[rotorblades]

I thought I'd give an example (all identifying features taken out), I think there is more than one moral in this story. And ATC arent beyond learning, so I hope we can get some feedback from RPT flights to help us understand whats going on in the aircraft.

I had an inbound RPT Jet to a CTAF(R) airfield, I cleared it to leave CAS on descent ,etc etc "No Reported IFR Traffic". There wasnt at that time!
Anyway, The jet didnt advise it was changing to the CTAF or equivalent. It was observed on radar joining downwind for runway 09 descending through 2500' (from memory). Then a non-RPT four engine prop called taxiing out for a runway 27 departure. (knowing the operator of this non-RPT I know it can get from taxi to airborne in the time it takes to make the taxiing call, and also not the greatest at listening on the CTAF frequency), and realising it was gonna launch opposite direction and on planned route turn towards the downwind traffic, I made a traffic info broadcast to the jet.
Obviously, no response from the jet after 2-3calls. (we would be happy if you just transmitted your callsign as response). Anyway the Prop duly gets airborn off 27 with the jet turning finals for 09. They pass safely as the prop made an early(?) turn.

I was a little bit rattled by this and my tone was prbably harsher than I intended, but when the jet called up to cancel SAR for arrival. I enquired as to whether he had heard any of my traffic calls. He got a bit stroppy and said yes but was too busy on approach checks & CTAF to respond to my call, and I quote "Obviously I was aware of XYZ234".

This could have been resolved with a simple call from the jet when he was going to CTAF on com2, or just using the call to me of "ABC123 Roger"

I hope Im not sounding too preachy, I'm just trying to get a better understanding for pilots of ATC tasks and also for ATC of pilot tasks. Its definately a two-way learning curve (management buzz-word alert:ooh:)

[Experimental]

Hi Rotorblades

nice to get your comments and it clears up some of the mystery behind the scenes! On another matter, weather deviations - whilst I realise "Left/Right of Route" is listed as standard phraseology (only seems to be in this part of the world") instead of "Left/Right of Track" it can lead to some confusion up here in the northern parts, Route and Groote sound very similar on the wireless and it's prompted a few conversations on the flightdeck as to "what did they say". eg, "cleared 10 miles left of route when clear direct to Groote"
Food for thought.... cheers

[MaxHelixAngle]

Rotorblades,

I acknowledge that the jet in your example should have replied with his call sign in response to your directed traffic information, however, with respect, ENR 21.1.7 is clear, a switching call is only required if Centre will not or cannot be monitored. The suggestion that expected workload presents a situation where it cannot be monitored is a bit of a stretch as this could occur at any stage of flight in any airspace.

The reason I post, Airlaw by rumour on PPRuNe does nothing for the professional standards in this industry, particularly in the multi crew environment. The assertion that "I heard from ATC that they like a switching call" or "ATC don't really care if you give that met report" or "my mate in ATC told me that the SID speed restriction is only a traffic based requirement" can only be negative in the modern airliner CRM environment and presents significant threats to the operation through confusion and disagreement.

By the book and always by the book, If there is a problem with ENR21.1.7 may I suggest that you use the appropriate channels to initiate change.

With the utmost respect for your profession,
MHA

[Ixixly]

Interesting point I might bring up. When I did my MECIR just over a year ago, I was taught to make sure I reported when changing to the CTAF and that it was courtesy just to let them know I'd continue to monitor Centre/Radar as well and it always made sense to me. As my instructor at the time pointed out to me, I have 3 comms, most IFR aircraft have at least 2 some that can even monitor 2 frequencies at the same time so why not just keep it on in the background incase something important comes up and let the controller know that in a real emergency he would be able to get ahold of you?

Yes its not by the books, makes it "Non-standard" but as I was also taught, sometimes its easy just to use plain english and get the message across clearly than trying to always be by the book and not get your message across?

[Capn Bloggs]

Experimental,
A simple fix would be to say ROUTE like the Yanks do: ROUT. :} That may not work though if you're next waypoint is GROUT.:E

Max Heli Angle,
Rotorblades is right, and the rules are crystal clear. If you do not call changing, then you are obliged to respond to ATC if they call you, just as you are if on Centre or App and they call you. If you do not do so because of a busy CTAF, that is not ATC's problem and they are quite within their rights to declare incerfas or whatever. It's up to you to manage the comms and not leave others in the lurch. If the CTAF is super busy, I generally get rid of Centre. I have seen more stuffups because of people trying to run two comms at the same time than I like.

Going into a CAGRS, there is no reason not to call changing (or for that matter to call cancel SAR to ATC). The CAGRO knows all the traffic and further ATC input is simply not required.

And I agree with Ixy; even though you have told Centre you're changing, I still monitor the centre freq for taxiing calls from aircraft taxiing.

[Bula]

The AIP is clear, and with good reason. As an RPT jet pilot operating into CTAF aerodromes I find it important that I can gather as big a picture of the traffic situation at all times. In the forementioned case, other then the fact that we will respond when appropriate, I generally treat ATC as if they were the breakout frequency on a PRM approach. I'll respond, when I feel all bases are covered, and not before. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

I know it can be a little annoying to not have a reply, but I think you must understand that humans are single channel processors and a little bit of patience is required from ATC, especially when they know we are in the CTAF, and one of the operators above may only be single VHF equipped.

[makespeed250kt]

Bula, I suggest you have another read of Capn Blogg's post. He is spot on the money!

IFR maintain two way comms. If u can't, report changing to CTAF :ugh:

[Bula]

I wish I had two mouths...... but alas... :rolleyes:

[peuce]

Well, it appears to me that everyone is correct ... to some degree. However, the law, in this case, appears to be an ass.

As MaxHelixAngle says "a switching call is only required if Centre will not or cannot be monitored"

As Rotorblades says "As another part of ERSA enroute says IFR in class-G airspace have to be in contiuous two-way communication with ATC."

As Bula says "I'll respond, when I feel all bases are covered, and not before. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate."

The trouble is that the rule is setting everyone up for failure. The rule might need to be changed. Perhaps a specific ATC initiated frequency change to CTAF at x distance or x level. The ATC's responsibilities should then end. The the Pilot can also monitor centre, if he wishes, for extra SA... as he can also monitor CTAF earlier, if he wishes.

[KRUSTY 34]

I always tell ATC when changing to the CTAF. In fact on the Northern rivers sector of NSW, ATC virtually always request it!

I was flying with a new hire the other day, and he politely pointed out to me that it wasn't a requirement. I told him I knew that and he looked at me like I had two heads!!!

You see rotorblades, the world has gone mad, and this is simply a subtle example of it. I very nearly collided with a non transponder VFR lighty in a CTAF (no radar coverage) recently. We were departing with a left turn after take off. We had no comms during our engine starts, and as such we heard nothing from him. On taxi we made all the broadcasts. This guy (the lighty) heard all our calls, but didn't respond because as he put it "I made the required broadcasts". :rolleyes: First we new of him was when we were turning into him as he called joining downwind! I kept my cool (just) and asked if he heard any of our calls, to which he responded "yep, all of em'". When I asked him if he thought it would have been a good idea to say something, I was met with silence. This is how poeple are now trained!!!

As far as the company I work for is concerned, there are certain elements in the Check and Training department that are almost pathalogically opposed to anything other than "standard" calls, ATC comms included. A recent check item included "word perfect" A/C - ATC comms. That's all well and good, but it seems to me that this "dumbing down" of the game has extended far and wide.

The term "Pending clearence" however, now that's another story. I still cringe when I hear that nonsence!

[MaxHelixAngle]

Blogs,

I am in no way advocating against people using common sense and airmanship to dictate wether they should cut off two way communications with centre and advise Centre that they are switching when entering a busy terminal environment, I have and agree with the use of this judgment call.

What I do disagree with is the assertion that can 'All' aircraft entering a CTAF advise centre that they are switching (or monitoring?), as this is contrary to the AIP. Maybe this is something of use to ATC and if so, it should be arranged and communicated through the proper channels for all to follow, ie the AIP. Airlaw by rumour is counterproductive.

As to aircraft having to reply to ATC when maintaining two way communications, this applies in all airspace and as always is subject to airmanship and task prioritisation. Good airmanship dictates a reply to ATS as soon as workload permits. As for the declaring by ATS of INCERFA and ALERFA the AIP states no time limits other than failure to make a report, or in the controllers judgment doubt or apprehension exists, I don't know how this issue is dealt with in the MATS and would be interested to find out (Rotor?) but if there is a 15min time limit set on replying to ATS traffic information then I dare say that in all but the most extreme circumstances a reply would be able to be given, and in those extreme circumstances ALERFA is probably a good thing!

Mr Flappy,
Please refer to the first two paragraphs of this post.

Again, whilst I realise this may be unpopular, I am only advocating sticking by the books for the policy and using airmanship and good judgment elsewhere.

Kind Regards,
MHA

[rotorblades]

Okay, boys and girls
Let me make a couple of things a little clearer.
I am at no stage advocating going against rules & regs nor ATC by Rumour.
I was in NO way advocating pilots terminate two-way with the ATC center to go to the CTAF, can I make that any clearer. :ugh:

Thats why I said it would be a courtesy, a nicety if you like, not a requirement (my thread title may have been misleading). How much trouble is it for a pilot just to say we are monitoring the CTAF or something like that if it makes life easier for everyone.

As for the time limits before alerfa/incerfa initiated Airservices has a list of times for various scenarios. Say sartime for arrival, you have 10mins to cancel sarwatch with ATC before we enter the comcheck phase (as mentioned inearlire post) and 5 mins after that it becomes an INCERFA (assuming no contact has been established or confirmation the aircraft has landed). Other scenarios follow the same sort of procedure. sked call I covered earlier (and includes ATC call, Ops Normal time, position reports).

As for not answering ATC, next time I'm in work Im going to ignore aircraft for 13mins and then answer, see what happens?. I wonder how long before the pilots get frustrated?
Because believe it or not we are doing other things than just waiting for calls - drawing up SIGMET maps, attending to telephone coordination, flightplan amendments, documentation, conflict resolution. We regularly have 3-4 frequencies in use with multiple calls on each.

And lets take another couple of examples, who here (pilot wise) likes direct tracking? And guessing most do, under Airservices policy ATC are not to give direct tracking under any circumstances unless to avoid a confliction. So as we give quite a lot of direct tracking do you want me to stop MHA?
And, secondly common sense does have to prevail sometimes over following exactly to the line what the books say (assuming safety is not compromised in anyway) If you guys have an emergency or an issue we theoretically have a list of about 50 questions we should ask pilots. We dont normally go through the whole list, only the ones pertinent to the situation. But next time you have a pan call you want me to spend half an hour eliciting info I will.

[MaxHelixAngle]

Rotorblades,

Wow, I didn't expect that post. We are on the same team mate, just my views on the issue you have posted on a discussion forum.

Regards,
MHA

[rotorblades]

I am trying to reply to anyones posts that need answering/commenting on, I think I owe it to tou as you've bothered to post...

BULA
As you said in post

patience is required from ATC, especially when they know we are in the CTAF, and one of the operators above may only be single VHF equipped

Unless you tell us we dont know you are on the CTAF, we know when you are in the CTAF area (assuming we have radar or ADSB), but we dont know you;ve switched your radio over (it also happens that pilots select the wrong frequency by accident and may think they are on the CTAF when they arent).
If we know you are in contact with the CTAF we dont have to be concerned if you dont answer a call straight away.

If you are single VHF how can you be in continuous two-way comms with ATC and also monitor/be on CTAF frequency? Surely only one or the other.

[rotorblades]

Hi MHA:O
I was just trying to get across the extremes that 'by the book' can be taken to. It wasnt anything personal, more me playing devil's advocate to get a point across. And it was probably wrong of me, I apologise.
We do understand that pilot workload is high during certain phases of flight. we are not all heartless bast@@ds, despite what pilots think:rolleyes:

I haev a slightly different outlook to most where I work, mainly because I have a much different ATC background. I spent 7 years working Heathrow Approach, SVFR & Thames Radar before joining the Macquarie Sectors down here.

There is enough ill-will inside Airservices, so trying to keep relations with airlines/pilots/GA etc good is hard work. Pilots may not be aware just how short of staff we are. Regularly one controller is covering from surface to FL600 in airspace stretching from Sydney to Coffs Harbour. We have to work an 8-9 hour shift with just one or two 10min breaks(upto 10days straight and only 8-10hours between shifts), and from 7pm until 5am there is normally only one rated controller on-site for the sectors. When we are combined we have 6 frequencies covering g,e,c&a airspace and also military C with fastjets causing havoc. And we will be 5 controller shorter come the end of the year on our sectors alone. This is why we get scratchy sometimes - we are knackered

[rotorblades]

Owen,
Chances may be very slim but does happen. Big sky theory works until an aircraft comes the other way with TCAS not working. Just take Uberlingen, a lot of little things add up to one big one.

You can say as many times as you like "it can never happen here", but thats just a self-assuring placitude. The day you start believing that is the day it can happen.

Im praying it doesnt, but even I can say it could happen to me. I've only had one breakdown of separation and I still kick myself for not seeing it sooner. (radar separation dropped to 4.5nm instead of required 5). Believe it or not a Jetsream41 overtook (or tried before I gave avoiding action) an A320. Once again there was multiple factors, I couldnt get lower for the Airbus so it had to level off relatively high and quite close to the aerodrome, The jetstream was on descent through the level, RT was really busy (Airbus couldnt get her call in), AIrbus threw everything out to slow down (every controller who saw the reply was amazed at how quickly the speed scrubbed off the jet), I didnt see the closing speed, I didnt stop the Jetstream off sooner. It was my fault nobody elses, before airbus operator thinks I am blaming them, but just shows more than one factor has a play in any circumstance.

[Icarus2001]

rotorblades, erm, I think you may need to re read Owens post. The sarcasm button was on.

Hear what you are saying. I fly two crew RPT/Charter ops in a jet and I am always amazed at the variation in knowledge of the pilots I fly with as to what happens on your side of the radio transmission. The more both sides understand the easier and safer all our jobs are. CASA has a great deal to answer for by burying radio calls in obscure places in the AIP. There should be a small section of example standard calls for each phase of flight. Hopefully omitting "pending clearance".:rolleyes:

The classic lately seems to be "ABC traffic is XYZ, at FL 260 14 miles ahead you will be in a step descent with that aircraft". Unless the other pilot knows what "step descent" means in practice, the ATCO has to keep asking XYZ for level passing. As the upper aircraft approaches their assigned level and calls so, the lower aircraft calls left FLXXX, which allows the ATCO to assign ABC a lower level of some amount and so on. Something like that;)

When it works well it is poetry, when one pilot is NFI it is painful to listen to.

It requires a common understanding of the procedure and requirements.

[Kelly Slater]

"Changing to CTAF" gives up one level of protection. ATC are no longer required to pass on traffic once an aircraft has made that call. Perhaps the only warning of the 4 engine prop about to blast off contra to circuit direction was the call from ATC. Why give up that protection when operating in such airspace, especially as the system of radio calls, required or otherwise, is so in dispute, misunderstood, ignored etc. The system is rubbish. The more people adapt with little variences, the longer the rubbish system will be seen to work and remain with us.

[Howard Hughes]

Great thread by the way!:ok:

I will normally only report "switching to CTAF", if either of the frequncies that I am monitoring becomes to busy. Unless of course the controller specifically asks "report switching to CTAF", in which case I will report even when I am still monitoring centre.

[KeepItRolling]

Iron Bar,

The reason that ML, CB and even little EN are banging on about holding points is that our Check and Standards shop is banging on about it to us!

There is something of a Jihad about this at the minute and I can assure you that there are ATCs who feel like you seem to do!:ugh:

Just another day in the Funny Farm.

[rotorblades]

Hi kelly,
I'm not suggesting anyone should give up the protection from ATC to go to the CTAF. I have no issues with providing a service for as long as pilot needs it. I will never force a pilot to leave the frequency for a CTAF, but if the pilot lets us know he is also on the CTAF, I dont have to be concerned if he doesnt respond to the traffic. Otherwise I dont know whether the traffic has been heard (either from my dirceted info or on the CTAF)

[Che cows with guns]

Now after reading all these posts I understand why you never see old Air Traffic Controllers. I wanted to be one once but was not good enough and became a Pilot.
They do a great job - very un-rewarding and frustrating - constantly juggling and massaging pilot Egos. I have the utmost respect for ATC in this constantly changing over regulated environment. Good on this fella for being brave and putting up a disscussion point. I have personally gained a lot from this post.
Thanks
CHEers

[rotorblades]

Wow Che,
you almost made me blush!
I echo the statement about learning a lot, I have too.

I have one disadvantage on the RT though, pilots can recognise my voice too well (being a pom) although a Qantas did accuse me of being a canadian once.:oh:
Anyone who flies through the stretch of airspace from 45N of Sy to Coffs harbor will probably know me from some of my quirky turns of phrases, things like when an aircraft cancels sar for arrival and I know they are coming back out its normally "speak to you on the way out/way home".

Feel free to say hello (beware there are two poms on the sector). Come to think of it there are more 'foreigners' than Aussies in our aisle I think. There are at least 5 Brits, an Austrian (tall, blonde, stunning voice, cant miss her), 2 yanks, a swede & an Afrikaaner to name but a few.

[Ted D Bear]

... in that case, can I suggest Airservices undertakes a recruitment drive in Austria :ok:. This has the potential to address multiple problems simultaneously - not least, improving Contoller morale (for some at least) ;)

I'm 100% with Rotorblades on the courtesy of letting ATC know where you're likely to be listening ... And if things get busy on the CTAF, I usually tell 'em I'm changing even if I'm still monitoring area because if area gets distracting when there's lots of talking on CTAF I wanna be able to turn the volume down on area until it's sorted.

Ted

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A courtesy and an operational benefit:ok: Easy to comply with.

EDIT- ENR 63.2 says the same so its an operational requirment.

[Nose wheel first]

Rotorblades, with a line-up like that it sounds like a visit to BN Centre is in order :}:}

As has already been mentioned on here, i am surprised by how many pilots I fly with who have differing views and opinions of what radio calls are necessary and what should be said and when.

I think back to my training days and even more recently to training pilots/captains I have flown with and everyone seems to have pet radio calls which they think makes it easier for controllers/other pilots etc to understand or indeed reduces the number of calls they need to make. They then insist that you conform to their way of doing it and before long you are just as guilty as them for adding to the non-conformity of radio calls.

The problem as I see it is that so many of us have our own ideas/opinions of what should be and what shouldn't be said, or what is and what isn't necessary, that those who don't have a very clear understanding of the AIP's end up being just as confused and confusing as everyone else.

[peuce]

Rotoblades,

I understand that what you are trying to achive is with the best of intentions, however, I don't think you have or will resolve anything. Have a think about it:

but if the pilot lets us know he is also on the CTAF, I dont have to be concerned if he doesnt respond to the traffic. Otherwise I dont know whether the traffic has been heard (either from my dirceted info or on the CTAF)

You're still not off the hook. You HAVE to be concerned if he doesn't respond. That's the regulations. It would be a brave Rotorblades that took no action on an un answered call to an RPT, that had advised going to the CTAF.

But, your honour ... he said he went to the CTAF ... so he must have heard the traffic on that frequency ... or, Your Honour, he went to the CTAF ... so I was not worried when he didn't reply to me.

Pedantic, I know .... but thems is the rules.

[Howard Hughes]

Peuce, I would go with "I tried several times to contact him with no response, your Honour"...

[peuce]

That's fine ... as long as you don't leave it at that.

I would expect the full monty if I was un-contactable ...that is, if it goes to a SAR Phase, so be it. I don't want the Controller not proceeding to the end because ... oh, he was probably alright!

So, I guess what I'm saying is that Rotoblades hasn't really solved anything ... if I don't answer, no matter whether I've "gone to the CTAF", he still has to follow the processes'.

[disturbedone]

peuce, ATCs don't have to be concerned once they are aware you transfer to CTAF, because ATCs are not required to pass mutual traffic when both are on the CTAF.

Further to the issue is that ATCs are required to continue to provide a flight information service until the pilot reports on the CTAF, in the circuit area, or after landing even if SAR has been cancelled prior to this.

[rotorblades]

BN centre ( and am sure others are the same) would be only too happy to have visitors from behind the stick

[rotorblades]

If a pilot says "changing to the CTAF" that is termination of comms with the controller. No more broadcasts will normally be made to that aircraft, be it new traffic or changes in weather.
If you are telling us you are monitoring CTAF, or equivalent, we still have the responsibility for traffic.
AIP/ERSA ENR4.2.4
"The responisiblity for collision avoidance.....lies solely with the pilot in command"

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/aip/enr/1_4_1-18.pdf

So the point Im trying to make Peuce, is if you report changing to a CTAF you will not be contacted by ATC again. So you wouldnt not answer a call we would not be making. Thats why in radar airspace you will get the repsonse 'Identification Terminated'. We are ceasing to provide a radar service and as far as we are concerned you are no longer on/listening to our frequency. its no different to being told to call the next sector, we are terminating the coms with ourselves and they are re-established with the next sector with call on frequency.

I'm trying my best to get across the major difference between 'changing to..' & 'Monitoring CTAF on Com2', but I think I'm failing.

I may not solve anything but at least I'm trying, and Im raising awareness of various 'holes in the cheese'.

And I would say 99.95% of controllers when, if a plane is WITHIN the CTAF area & has NOT reported changing to or monitoring CTAF, and doesnt respond to a traffic call does anything else about it. I generally make 2 calls at most. Its sad but true, there are too many other aircraft out there that require traffic information & controlling & sequencing & separating.

And as howard says "I tried several times to contact him with no response", thats all we legally have to do for an unresponded call until 15mins has elapsed, by which time it may be all over, one way or the other.

[Capn Bloggs]

The problem as I see it is that so many of us have our own ideas/opinions of what should be and what shouldn't be said, or what is and what isn't necessary, that those who don't have a very clear understanding of the AIP's end up being just as confused and confusing as everyone else.
The real problem, at least with commercial operators, is that the C and T system is either too gutless to demand conformity with the book, or doesn't know the rules itself.

[Icarus2001]

I agree to a point Bloggs. The thing is the book is very arcane in its giving of wisdom.

As I said above there should be clear examples given in a radio phraseology section. What is there at present is disgraceful with the (info) not to be confused with the [info].

Tell me, PDC aside, do you include your transponder code in your taxi call to ATC at say, maybe, Perth?

[boree3]

Feel free to say hello (beware there are two poms on the sector). Come to think of it there are more 'foreigners' than Aussies in our aisle I think. There are at least 5 Brits, an Austrian (tall, blonde, stunning voice, cant miss her), 2 yanks, a swede & an Afrikaaner to name but a few.

Is the Afrikaaner from Zim by any chance?

What about wun tree tree from the Ireland?

Who is de Svede?

Concur re ze Austrian.....:ok:

[Howard Hughes]

The real problem, at least with commercial operators, is that the C and T system is either too gutless to demand conformity with the book, or doesn't know the rules itself.
Hear Hear!:D

[peuce]

Rotoblades,

Okay, I see ... I was confused by the terminology.

So, if I declare that I am "Changing to CTAF":


I will no longer be provided with traffic information
You will not call me
I'm no longer required to maintain 2 way comms with ATC
You will continue to hold sar on my arrival only


If I've got all that correct then, yes, I can see how my "Changing to CTAF" will reduce your workload/responsibilities.

[rotorblades]

Hey Boree,
the afrikaaner & Swede I was thinking of is actually on aisle 1, came over same time as me.
But I forget the Zimbabwean

[rotorblades]

Hi Peuce,
Thats correct.
I will say though, that if you are on CTAF and another aircraft calls taxiing we still tell that aircraft about you inbound (if he hasnt advised he has traffic on you already).
Other than that you should not expect anything further from ATC apart from the SAR for arrival.

As I said in a previous post, I am not saying everyone should terminate comms with ATC and go to the CTAF all the time - we dont have any issue with providing service as long as you need us, but if you are also on CTAF it is a nicety to tell us.

If you havent terminated comms with us we are still repsonsible for all the required dirceted information, and will duly provide it.

I hope this clarifies

[Capn Bloggs]

Ic,
Tell me, PDC aside, do you include your transponder code in your taxi call to ATC at say, maybe, Perth?
Absolutely not. :ok:

I agree the book could be better written, but it's not bad.

[Icarus2001]

Yes it is bad.

So you don't give your code. Strange many operators do and if they forget, guess what, SMC ask for it, now explain that one.:ugh:

ATC AU-931

Taxi call for departure at a controlled aerodrome:

1.[flight number][aircraft type][wake turbulence category if "super or heavy][POB] RECEIVED (ATIS identification)[SQUAWK (SSR code)][aircraft location][flight rules][TO(aerodrome of destination)] REQUEST TAXI [intentions]

Words in parentheses"()" indicate that specific information, such as a level, a place a time etc., must be inserted to complete the phrase, or alternatively, that optional phrases may be used. Words in brackets "[ ]" indicate optional additional words or information that may be necessary in specific instances.

Now where does a foreign pilot new to Aus find these "specific instances"?

Well if you think that is "not bad" you are very kind or much smarter than me, or both. I think it is terrible. As a book of information on what to say it is astonishingly bad. Has been for years.

[Bula]

I was more suggesting the other IFR traffic in the CTAF having single VHF. As a courtesy I believe most people will report in contact with traffic to reduce blocked transmissions and frequency congestion.

If people are on the wrong CTAF, isn't that a valid point as to the reason why an ATC listening watch should be maintained? Though I have to admit seeing RPT aircraft require an active AFRU and charts stipulate whether an AFRU is available, I hope everyone would be on the same frequency re RPT ops.

[Capn Bloggs]

Ic,

[] is optional. Why would you give squawk, aircraft location, flight rules and Destination when ATC already know this, as they have already given you the clearance and pushback approval so they know where you are? (Fairly) logical to me.

Back on thread now...

[Kelly Slater]

I am not about to give up a level of protection in CTAF until I am safely on the ground. Until I have cancelled sarwatch, ATC can continue to do what they are paid to do and pass me any information that will enhance the safety of my flight.

[willadvise]

I would like to add my 2cents to this one. The "monitoring CTAF" call is irritating to ATC as technically we are still required to pass traffic etc after this call. From an ATC perpective we couldn't care less what you are monitoring and it creates doubt that you have "changed to the CTAF" when in fact you still want a traffic service. If you want to continue to recieve traffic, say nothing and respond when called. If you don't want to be hassled when in a workload intensive part of your flight, report changing.
I would like to add that when aircraft are operating into destinations where the is no VHF on the ground the problem of aircraft not reporting changing to the CTAF is compounded and creates high workload and frequency congestion of flightwatch HF. For example, ABC is inbound to YXXX estimating there at 30. They didn't report changing to the CTAF. At time 28 DEF taxys YXXX on HF and advises they have copied ABC. Flightwatch relays this to ATC ,they tell flightwatch no additional traffic and then attempt to call ABC on VHF. No response, probably out of range. ATC call FW and ask them to pass traffic DEF to ABC. FW is mad busy with all the calls going on, they have 4 aircraft standing by to give taxy or arrival reports, and try a few times to call ABC. No response from ABC. FW call ATC and advise them no contact with ABC traffic not passed. The whole process probably wasted 2-3 mins of time which could have been avoided if ABC reported changing to the CTAF.

[rotorblades]

Bula & Kelly,
I WAS NOT advocating that thou must report changing and leave the service. I have said in multiple posts, most of us are happy to provide the service until you get on the ground. And Kelly I hope you werent suggesting we attempting to do a half-arsed job with your remark on "doing what they get paid to do" because that is just insulting.

Willadvise,
It is obvious not everyone is going to agree on both sides of the fence or when on the same side of the fence either. I know plenty of controllers who dont find it irritating, and if they are unsure of whats been said they confirm it with the pilot.

Owen,
I realised the sarcasm after the act of replying. Obviously my sarcasm button was turned off when I first read it. Blame Vista :)

[Icarus2001]

Bloggs you have helped me make my point. What is (Fairly) logical to me. with your training and experience is not perhaps logical to others and more importantly then the AIP should be clear and concise.

Now where the AIP says...

6.6.2 A pilot of an IFR flight must report when changing to the CTAF when the ATS frequency will not or cannot be monitored. ...this is black and white and logical but we now have three pages of posts on here discussing the significance of it. Indeed it is an ATCO who raised it.

[Kelly Slater]

It seems to me that this thread is encouraging pilots to give up a service. Many on this thread are already convinced and they will convince others to make the call "Changing to CTAF" and this will result in aircraft no longer receiving notification of traffic. I believe that this is undesirable. An aircraft may not respond to traffic because he is too busy but the most likely reason for not getting a response is because the call requiring a response was not heard and so it needs to be repeated. Someone has decided that it is possible to monitor both CTAF and Centre at the same time and this allows me to keep the services of Centre for a little longer, effectively an extra set of ears and sometimes eyes to help keep me out of harms way. I have no intention of giving up this extra layer of protection.

If all pilots reported "changing to CTAF" the bean counters would see that centre was making significantly less radio calls and give them another sector or two to deal with.

[rotorblades]

Geeeeez Kelly,
I am unsure how many times I have to say this (about a million perhaps, your not my ex are you??)

I AM NOT ENCOURAGING NOR ASKING ANYONE TO GIVE UP THE ATC SERVICE
:ugh:
If you want to stay on ATC frequency its fine by me and everyone else in ATC, but dont get ratty & surprised when we get pissed off with not being answered after the 3rd or 4th call, Us chasing you up for comms can take away from other important tasks - another aircraft with a problem, other RPTs missing arrival sequencing time because we are too busy chasing YOU around the airwaves, other aircraft inconvenienced in having to be switched over to the CTAF to see if you are OK and havent suffered a radio fail. When it happens hundreds of times a day.

As Willadvise says, If you want the service and the calls from ATC then you have to answer. Its basic respect, if I call you to highlight a safety issue (say traffic information), the least you can is repond with your callsign, how long does that take? about a second..

I think this thread has run its course now, i might be wrong:(

[peuce]

Rotoblades,

As I said, I think you started this thread with the best of intentions.:ok:

However, in hindsight, it may not be the best "forum" for, what can appear to be, seeking changes in pilot procedures.

Just my thoughts.

[rotorblades]

Oh well,
Status Quo.

I'll leave this thread up for a short time and then condemn it to the annals of history.

Thanks to all those who have positively contributed to the thread:D

[Capn Bloggs]

Ic,
Now where the AIP says...

Quote:
6.6.2 A pilot of an IFR flight must report when changing to the CTAF when the ATS frequency will not or cannot be monitored.

...this is black and white and logical but we now have three pages of posts on here discussing the significance of it. Indeed it is an ATCO who raised it.
That is because pilots don't use their brains any more (and too many do not even know what AIP says...).:cool:

Fair enough some of the other calls in AIP might leave some scratching their heads, but this one?

Let's face it, the only call that is likely to be helpful when I've already changed to the CTAF is a taxiing IFR. But, even though already I've called "changing", I'm still monitoring Centre and so will hear first, the aircraft taxiing call and second, Centre replying to him. I just won't be hassled by Centre passing him as traffic to me. That is an acceptable risk and a better situation than having to communicate with Centre when I'm busy segregating on the CTAF.

In the case of an aircraft inbound that Centre has only just found out about and wants to tell me, I will hear his CTAF inbound call and any calls he makes to Centre. It's all risk management - given the system, when I'm on the CTAF, I'd rather just monitor Centre than actively communicate with them. As I have said before, I have seen too many stuffups resulting from the two pilots listening and talking on two separate frequencies (CTAF and Centre).

If the CTAF/Centre monitoring gets too hard, then it's time for a CAGRO, and when that gets too hard, it's time for a Tower (with C above :ugh:)

[Kelly Slater]

Regardless of intentions, there are now going to be a number of pilots who will report "Changing to CTAF", thereby giving up a service that they don't have to. The original intention may only have been a dig at pilots who fail to respond to radio calls and if so, I have mis comprehended but so have a lot of others.

[rotorblades]

Kelly,
Do you just hate ATC? or is it an inferiority complex?

If you'd read the thread from the start with an open mind and balanced thoughts you would tell it wasnt a dig at pilots. And both sides of the argument have been put across well and with positives by a good cross-section of people.

You've managed to just be negative in all your posts and say the same thing 3 or 4 times without adding anything new to the discussion.

Plenty of RPTs already report changing to the CTAF, so by your definition they are un-safe (or less safe) than your holy self.

[Icarus2001]

However, in hindsight, it may not be the best "forum" for, what can appear to be I actually think rotor has shone a torch in to a darkly lit corner so that is a good thing.

If twenty pilots now think a little more about whether to give the "changing" call or not and what it can mean then IT HAS BEEN WORTHWHILE. I think the marketing tools, sorry, professionals, call it organic marketing. This may spread and pilots will talk, all good.

It could have been much worse, Dick could have told us what we should be doing.:p Just kidding Dick.

[triadic]

One operator I am familiar with used to slightly amend the call and say: "monitoring CTAF". Two comms were in use and center would be monitored as well as the CTAF - once that call was made it was very rare for Center to call.

This is really a matter of pilots and controllers having an understanding of what the other does (and why) and what the workload may be at certain times. Unfortunately the AIP or MATS does not cover this subject in a way that seems to get the real message thru to either party!

The standard calls are a guide, nothing more......

Once upon a time there were jump seat rides for controllers and pilots were even rostered to visit ATS facilities. Security changes and accountants that run airlines don't seem to understand the value in this and it does not happen any more. Not many these days seem to want to do it in their own time..... We even had briefing offices where the value of the education provided was significant and we did not appreciate that until they were closed!!!

And they say society is advancing!! yeah!!

[Kelly Slater]

If you give up the services of ATC unnecessarily, then, in my opinion, you are less safe. To say otherwise suggests that ATC are irrelevant.

If the post had started out by asking that pilots either make the changing call or else comply with proper radio procedures and respond to calls from Centre, I wouldn't have even waded in. I now know that this is what was meant and that I misinterpreted the original post but as the thread has now taken another direction, I will continue to express my opinion, don't give up a service that you don't have to give up. Centre might just pass on traffic that you missed.

[rotorblades]

The whole issue could be solved by airports that want RPT flights providing an ATC tower service. I fonly for the times the aircraft are due.

In the UK this is the case, I believe (without knowing the full criterion) if they want RPT flights or charters over a certain number of seats they have to provide ATC service. And a lot of smaller airports, airfields really, that have never had an RPT have full ATC.
take Wycombe Air Park (Booker) as an example, one short tarmac rw & one grass, 2 based flying clubs (rarely anything bigger than a Cessna 3 series twin), but still has full ATC Tower service during the day

[triadic]

UK Towers! Don't go there if you want aviation to die due costs and associated red tape/crap.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Icarus2001]

As to user pays, yes we are approaching worlds best practice

The problem is that we have USER OVERPAYS. The government requires AsA to deliver a multi million dollar dividend to general revenue EVERY year. So that means we are not only paying for the service we are paying a tax to the government on it. As well as GST!

This is akin to state governments trying to make money out of roads. Aviation is vital infrastructure and ATC is a natural monopoly so for the government to require a PROFIT is a disgrace.:yuk:

[spirax]

I think you will also find that the controllers anywhere else in the world are far more respected than Australia also.

Pilots as well?

Anywhere else in the world you are treated as a professional until you prove yourself an idiot... In Aust you are treated as an idiot until you prove otherwise. Just do a ferry (or operate a non RPT aircraft) and see how it changes when you enter Oz airspace!

It's the culture!

[Capn Bloggs]

Kelly,
Regardless of intentions, there are now going to be a number of pilots who will report "Changing to CTAF", thereby giving up a service that they don't have to.
That's because, as I mentioned earlier, some pilots don't have brains (or are not trained) and can't work it out for themselves. There's nothing wrong with the system or rules.

[rotorblades]

Can I just say to everyone who has contributed, thanks very much:D
I think this has been enlightening to everyone, be it pilot (RPT & Private) & ATC as a whole. And I think most people can see the bigger picture of this thread, rather than homing in on one aspect or reading more between the lines than there actually is.

As for triadic comment about aviation dieing due to costs. There still is a thriving aviation community in the UK. GA & airlines. Basically if you want the service & protection pay for it. Many of the aerodromes down here dont need an H24 Tower, just cover the times an RPT is due to arrive & depart - they've normally come & gone in 30mins. (no sordid comment please!)

[Old Akro]

This should have been a good thread. I am grateful to rotorblades for raising it. However, I'd like to make 2 observations. Firstly, its a bit disappointing that we have to use pprune as a forum for these discussions. Wouldn't it be good if there was a way of exchanging suggestions / protocol outside of rules. If CASA had a fundamental interest in safety rather than bureaucracy, they would promote such discussions. At the end of the day everyone is safer & happier when pilots & ATC play together well. As a slight digression, recently I rang the local ATC centre to clarify an issue and had a fantastic discussion with a controller which deepened my understanding.

Secondly, I cringe when sections of the AIP, etc are quoted. Adhering to rules does not improve safety when they are slavishly adhered to without insight into them. Whether or not rotorblades comments are covered in regulations, they made sense and I think most of us are better for having now thought about the subject.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

theres no such thing as affordable safety just corner cutting to make more profit

:ok:rotorblades.

EDIT-methinks not in keeping with thread:eek:

[rotorblades]

Hi Old Akro

Good sentiments. It is unfortunate that pprune is the best place for these, but at the moment it is the best outlet. But if it works maybe more threads of interest can come from both sides with questions or comments or concerns.

I'd be happy to try and answer/help anyway I can.

My only other suggestion would be to try and arrange a get together or exchange program (i.e. one day where a pilot from each operator/group that wants to come along & an ATCO & vice versa)for information sharing, But I feel that ASA wouldnt go for this, officially(not without their big managers getting their sticky fingers into it - and they dont know anything about ATC or piloting!), CASA arent interested in anything to do with aviation(or so it seems). I'm not sure how the airlines would react?

the way we did things in the UK was whenever we had an IFER (emergency) training day (lots of them all throughout the year - each controller had to do a mandatory one day IFER training every year, here in oz its just computer based questions, gives no insight into actual problems being faced) we had an airline provide some pilots who would come in and sit with us while we did the simulated emergencies and be a point of reference so we could ask them, "What do you want from us in this situation", "What is workload in the cockpit like" " How could I have done it better" and the like, and when they said dont do that or thats pointless & we took it onboard, we never took umbrage if the pilots told us we'd cocked up (aslong as they told us where we went wrong - constructive criticism). And afterwards there would be a big debrief where everyone went through there emergencies in an open forum. In return the airlines would provides days on their simulators for us, so we could go in and see what it is like in the cockpit - with regard to checklists, what it takes to aviate in ane emergency situation & priorities etc, i.e. when a B747-200 loses an engine on take-off roll - I managed to wipe out the cargo area at Heathrow on the British Aws simulator :=
Most of the players were involved - B.A., Virgin, BMi, Thomas Cook, Thomson, Easyjet
But it was highly valued by both sides. The feedback we got from the airlines with regard to how we dealt with emergencies was priceless and I feel
assisted NATs & controllers in providing a hugely improved service to all.

If anyone does want to come into BN Centre please feel free to pvt msg me and I'll do my best to sort it out (wont be a problem).

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

If anyone does want to come into BN Centre please feel free to pvt msg me and I'll do my best to sort it out (wont be a problem)

Only if you can arrange for the Swedish chick with the sexy voice to show me around! :E

Dr :8

[le Pingouin]

Definately the pin-up of the aisle.:ok:Not difficult given most of us aren't hired for our looks :E

[disturbedone]

Not difficult given most of us aren't hired for our looksFull body shots weren't a part of your interview?? I feel so dirty.

[rotorblades]

I thinks we are diverging radically from the thread, time to rein it back in, and Im as much to blame!

As this is a fairly serious discussion, we'll end the Lisa etc discussion now.

back to the CTAF.....

sorry should say " Changing to CTAF":E

[glekichi]

Rotorblades,

I can see where you are coming from with your suggestion.

Personally I usually stay on centre whilst in the CTAF and know exactly what you are talking about, but I think a consensus needs to be reached amongst ALL controllers before you start asking us to make a new call.

For example, will every second controller from Melbourne Centre ask me to say again due to the unfamiliar call (Im all for plain English in certain cases and certainly not a standard phraseology Nazi), or will some of them mistake the call for me having changed to CTAF?

[rotorblades]

Hi Glekichi,
Its a fair point raised. not All controllers will ever agree. I think from whats been said on this thread, pilots are the same.
May there be some confusion, yes, but if its clear english that monitoring CTAF on com2 there shouldnt be too much. If it appears ATC have taken it you've changed to CTAF, just clarify maintaining two-way with you on com1.

In the end ATC should be listening to whats been said, and if they mishear should ask for clarification.

As someone has said, if you can adequately maintain two-way with ATC and answer any calls (even if with just your callsign), I applaud a JST472 on monday morning who managed it when in, what looked like, an interesting and high workload circuit join. :D Its not such a big problem if you dont if we know you are monitoring/on CTAF.

Its a risk assessment sort of thing with ATC. If we know you are monitoring/on CTAF and new traffic appears, if you dont answer ATC there is a greater chance of you knwoing about that traffic from its CTAF calls than if we dont know you are on/monitoring CTAF. I hope that makes sense?

[boree3]

Its a risk assessment sort of thing with ATC. If we know you are monitoring/on CTAF and new traffic appears, if you dont answer ATC there is a greater chance of you knwoing about that traffic from its CTAF calls than if we dont know you are on/monitoring CTAF. I hope that makes sense?

Rotor,a case of too many nightshifts? Apart from the obvious speeling mistake i`ve had to read the post several times and i`m stilll not sure of what it is your trying to say.:confused:

[Naughty S]

Kelly
Only just this morning I departed a CTAF with an Ag aircraft spraying 1Nm from the runway who did not reply to one call. I find it hard to understand that you are solely relying on CN when it's VMC a lookout for VFR traffic on descent arrival is the priority.

Rotors Good post mate, you have been a great help to me when operating Single pilot IFR in your part of the woods.

I had a discusison with a colleague today about this subject & was quite surprised to hear his ideas on this too :ugh:

Cheers

[rotorblades]

Hi Boree,
Dyslexics of the world untie, we rule KO.:}
way too many nightshifts, trying to type quickly so I wasnt late for work. and was trying to reply to the post after about an hours sleep in 30. speaking of which off for another doggo tonight:{

What I was basically saying was, for example

If we call traffic to an inbound IFR on new traffic taxiing, If it doesnt answer but has told us previously that it is monitoring the CTAF, there is an increased chance that they have received each other on CTAF and therefore we dont have to worry as much as if:

The inbound hasnt reported monitoring the CTAF and still doesnt answer, we have no indications that the two pilots may know about each other.

And Ive just found a smilie that looks like me! :8

[Kelly Slater]

Nauty S, at what point did I say I was relying solely on Centre. I use all available means to ascertain traffic including Centre, CTAF and my eyes. I simply have no intention of giving up any of these methods unless I have to.

I was ready to forget this thread but once again, it is disturbing me.
The call "Changing to CTAF 126.7" means that you are either no longer able or no longer desire to remain in contact with Centre. Once made, Centre will not pass on traffic and will not call you again unless you fail to cancel SAR within the appropriate time.

The call "Monitoring CTAF" means nothing. If you are in the CTAF for arrival in the CTAF then you had better be monitoring the CTAF. The only response such a call should get is a cringe. Centre should ask for clarification to see whether the said aircraft is in fact changing to CTAF or not.

[willadvise]

Totally agree KS. Sorry Rotorblades but I think the "monitoring CTAF" call adds no value what so ever. It is not in AIP, it creates frequency congestion, it creates doubt as to what the pilot really wants ie does he mean he is changing to the CTAF but he has heard some others use this call it thinks it sounds cool. I am still going to pass traffic after the call and I am certainly not reassured that if a pilot does not respond to a call advising traffic that he probably got it on CTAF anyway so I won't bother. From what I have got out of this thread the reason the pilots don't change is that they want that extra level of safety and not passing traffic defeats the purpose. I stick to my orginal advice If you want to continue to recieve traffic, say nothing and respond when called. If you don't want to be hassled when in a workload intensive part of your flight, report changing.

[rotorblades]

Hi KS/Will

Fair enough, but then we would appreciate an answer to our directed calls to you. It shows little or no respect to ATC & the extra workload that has been produced due to non-answering of the call(s). Lets face it, if everytime you called ATC you had to make 2,3 or more transmissions before ATC responded you'd get frustrated too.

Without sounding like I'm having a dig or being beligerent, Im not, there are more than just you flying in the airspace and needing attention. Dont kee thinking you are ina little bubble and nothing else exists. We would love o be able to have the time to constantly monitor your flights until arrival. But with the way it is, we can't monitor you until touchdown at an uncontrolled airfield. Due to more than a few rreasons The airspace encompasses a large area, many uncontrolled airfields, lots of tricky airspace (bits of e & c dotted around, military units), there is an extraordinarily large amount of telephone co-ord that has to be done, more than just your aircraft with requests, flight plan amends., sartime amends., incerfa's on failure to cancel sartime (happens A LOT).

You may not hear most of this going on in the background (well you cant hear telephone calls or calls from other aircraft on un-grouped frequencies).

[disturbedone]

we would appreciate an answer to our directed calls to you.I think this is the main issue to come out of this thread. Some pilots are happy to relinquish that extra level of service once in the circuit area to focus more on the circuit and arrival. Others are not. I have no problem with either, provided ATC know what you are doing.
If you want to continue to recieve traffic, say nothing and respond when called.Absolutely! "ABC is in the circuit area, will call again after landing" means nothing as far as ATC are concerned.

[peuce]

Rotorblades,

I have tried to be diplomatic in my previous posts and have tried to drop some subtle hints ... but I've failed. So, here is my black and white thoughts:

Fair enough, but then we would appreciate an answer to our directed calls to you. It shows little or no respect to ATC & the extra workload that has been produced due to non-answering of the call(s).

Wrong attitude.

If you have an unanswered call, your responsibility is to follow it up through the correct procedures. A pilot's responsibility is to Aviate, Navigate & (finally) Communicate. The PIC will assess the correct priority in any particular circumstance.

Yes, you may have extra workload, yes, Flightwatch might have to make extra calls, yes, other tasks may be delayed ... but that, unfortunately, is your job.

If the unanswered call gets to a SAR Phase ... the subsequent investigation will determine the PIC's adherence to rules, "respect" and decision making processes ... in the particular circumstances. If he or she has erred ... he or she will get a jolly good rogering.

No Professional pilot will intentionally NOT answer you.... for a lark.

He or she would have made that decision, based on all the circumstances at that time ... and you, once again, unfortunately, have to accept and deal with that.

OR, get the rules changed.

[Jabawocky]

Thread drift again........but its not just the BNE girls...MEL Centre has some sweet sounding voices as well I have discovered. And no doubt better looking that Owen Stanley! :E

[le Pingouin]

"ABC is in the circuit area, will call again after landing" means nothing as far as ATC are concerned.Except that it allows us to enter an accurate time into the system for holding SAR on & if you do go missing we know where to look.....

[max1]

Peuce,

If the unanswered call gets to a SAR Phase ... the subsequent investigation will determine the PIC's adherence to rules, "respect" and decision making processes ... in the particular circumstances. If he or she has erred ... he or she will get a jolly good rogering.

And if it goes further than that? If there is an incident, MAC or another Benalla , the controller may at worst be on the stand at Coroners Court being asked with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight by highly paid legal types to justify why he/she didn't make the non-answering of that aircraft their ultimate priority. At the least, it's tea and biccies with the boss and an incident report on your record.
Welcome to our world.
Which would you do first? Here's just a couple of everyday examples.
1.Vector the jet and turbo props back onto course, or out of the hold, to make their landing time in Sydney and keep your sequence, and not stuff up the Sydney arrivals.
2. Continue to make traffic calls to aircraft you are reasonably certain are on the CTAF and too busy to answer you.
3. Advise the aircraft that has left CTA, and radar services are terminated, that the radar is now showing them diverging off their planned track.
4. Co-ordinating with another controller that an aircraft under your control is diverting due weather and will be infringing that controllers airspace.
5. Get the foreign pilot to readback his clearance correctly.
6. Monitor that every aircraft will meet the requirement that you gave them and they have read back correctly.

N.B. It doesn't matter what order you put them in, the controller will be held answerable, in some way, for all them if it goes pear shaped.

What rotorblades was trying to put nicely and informally, was that if you are monitoring the CTAF as a courtesy would you let us know, as we can then re-prioritise what we are doing. You will still get the traffic call, but we won't be having kittens if you don't answer. Yes, it is not ' in the books' but neither is direct tracking, cancel speed restrictions, can you ring the refueler and let him know our ETA, or we're pushing the curfew in Sydney later on and anything you can do for us now would be a big help. All things that we try to help you out with if we can.
We ( most anyway)know we are here for you, not the other way around. We appreciate that there are times that due to cockpit workload you yourself will be prioritisng what is most important and talking to us will not be in your top two. However separation is our main priority.

[rotorblades]

Max1, thanks:ok:

Peuce, I know where you are coming from, but if you dont answer, and if we've started taking SAR action (which will not be until 15mins after the missed calls, as per Airservices Rules) it may be too late.
If we pass you traffic when you are in the general vicinity of the CTAF and you dont answer by the time an INCERFA has been declared you could have already crashed into it. Lets face it you are less than 15mins from arrival or the traffic (normally) when in the CTAF area.

So, basically its gonna be both are arses if anything happens and you have not answered ATC. Because it could be a whole multitude of issues, including:

1. You heard us and too busy to respond
2. You Didnt hear the traffic
3. Inadequate visual look-out
4. poor airmanship

plus Im sure there's many more I cant think of whilst on a night shift!
And it'll be no-win for either of us when the lawyers are about. they'll just roll out the AIP and end up with both of us singing for our dinner.

But to clear up any doubt, or gray area, of did he/didnt he get the traffic just respond with the callsign, takes about a second. I know what you are saying about aviate, navigate, communicate. But equally we have priotities too.

[goldeneagle]

Rotorblades, excellent thread. Great to hear something constructive.
max1, thanks for a very succinct summary and reiteration of the extras which you guys manage for us.
To summarise:
the proposed 'monitoring' call alerts ATCOs that ABC, whilst monitoring both Centre and CTAF (ie. has not 'changed to CTAF'), may not give an instant response to a traffic advisory or similar. Given that a traffic separation dialogue on CTAF may take two or three calls in total, that may preclude ABC from getting back to Centre immediately. If you know we're on both comms, this extra 10-15 seconds of time to finish on CTAF, then switch and acknowledge, gives a little breathing space for all before starting INCERFA etc.
Correct me if I've misread the last 5 pages.
For a few who've posted without thinking from the other side of the PTT: think how quickly we readback 'cancel star track direct to xxx'. Hey, could have been talking on company or 6PY: guess we'd like the rotorblades of the world to try giving the shortening again in case on another comm...

[peuce]

Max1, Rotorblades & Goldeneagle,

Yes, yes and yes. I also see where you are coming from. My observations are thus:


I'm a by-the-book, standardisation type of guy and others, like you, have a more flexible approach ... and I guess, that's the way we are and it dictates how we view the world.
From what Max1 is saying, I get the feeling that ATC multi-tasking could be, or could become, a bit of an issue. Once upon a time, ATS was divided into 2 quite seperate groups ( in my opinion, for very good reasons). But now, as you might be cancelling SAR at Ballina and sequencing jits into Brisbane at the same time... you are forced into a "flexible" regime. Is it good or is it bad? My opinion ... bad. But that's the way it is.

[positivegee]

rotorblades, as far as I am aware, any aircraft entering a CTAF(R) must monitor the frequency regardless, a call to ATS to advise "monitoring" would just be a waste of time and further clutter up the radio with more wasted calls just like "at time", "we are" etc..

KS is correct when he questions giving up a level of protection. Why would any RPT want to reduce its traffic info. in the CTAF? Not me, and I am sure that my company would not support it. And I don't think the magistrate would agree with a decision to reduce your traffic info. when inquiring into an incident that was traffic related.

Pilots don't usually ignore ATS calls on purpose, but sometimes high workloads in the CTAF will place a reply to ATS as a lower priority.

If an aircraft does not respond to ATS within the time limit then ATS must assume a problem has occured and start the SAR procedure.

+G

[rotorblades]

Hi positivegee
I have said several times Im not encouraging/advocating pilots to give up the level of protection but if maintaining two-way comms with ATC, it is two-way comms. Challenge & Response.
Not answering us has other safety implications beyond your flight.

Why we are chasing you up with multiple calls or getting other aircraft to chase you up other aircraft could be affected, i.e. A Med1 maybe delayed, another aircraft emergency doesnt get *full* attention. just for a couple of examples.

We are also not just sitting there reading the paper, when you guys call we can be coordinating on the phone, assessing SIGMETs/SPECIs/ATAFs, drawing up screen maps for the previous (& restricted airspace), making Flight Plan amendments, Assesing conflictions, Speaking to FDC/Censar for cancellations/amendments to sartimes, chasing up other failure to answers, sequencing to a capital city etc. Yet if we cant speak to you straight away we normally say at least your callsign & "standby".

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Perhaps there's a human-factors issue here ?
ATCOs have (and need) highly developed multasking abilities that are the result of ability and training.
I certainly could not multitask to that same extent, which means that in my high stress times, (busy ALA or landing) I tend to concentrate on a few items and monitoring (as distinct from speaking on) radio has a lower priority.

[Erin Brockovich]

The issue is simply a lack of man power. In my opinion ASA should never have been privatised. Affordable safety is something industry has thought up.

I am still perplexed by the government’s apathy towards our aviation industry. Look at the disruption in the EU from grounded aeroplanes – and they can still use road and rail networks. Our nation relies on aviation more than most, yet the industry is funded and governed like superfluous expense.

The definition of ‘unsafe workload’ is a foreign crew deciphering TIBA procedures negotiating our ‘first world’ airspace. Not a situation that should happen here.

As for pilots and ATCs talking it out; well we both can only gain from gleaning a better understanding of each others roles, priorities and limitations.

We just need to get along and make the most of the situation since we’re the ones that have to work, or work in the airspace. From my end, Aviate, Navigate and Communicate is fine, actually second nature - but so should be staying in front of the aeroplane, anticipating high workload times and planning accordingly.

ATCs seem to have a thankless job, but so do pilots; and especially captains. You rarely get a job well done for performing small miracles daily to keep the show on the road (although to the casual observer we’re just overpaid bus drivers). But make a small administrative mistake and you receive a please explain. Make a big mistake and thanks for the memories!
I think we are more in the same boat than we would like to admit.

Rotor, although you probably still like warm beer I won’t hold that against you ;)
Good on you for starting this thread and hope of more to come.

[rotorblades]

Hi Erin,

Thanks for your comments:ok:

Yes I still like warm beer, but only beer in its one and only true sense - real ale (which is supposed to be served at room temperature, not chilled - albeit at UK room temps not Brisbane room temps!);)

I am also hoping for some more threads to add to exchange of ideas, thoughts and unerstanding between ATC & pilots

Al

[bythenumbers]

I guess the problem is where does non standard stuff stop? How many unorthodox calls have cropped up over the years... "pending clearance" (BTW we wont bust CTA today for your info...:ugh:), "IFR Taxi" (Just butt in... how do you get a clearance of ACD?), "ABC rolling rwy 12 - ABC rolls rwy 12" (Is the guy making the call even in the aircraft?)

I am absolutely sick of doing a sim or a route check and hearing "Well its not in the book but this is how I like this to be done..."

FFS, put it in the goddamn book or STFU... (This anger is not directed at you Rotor.... Just the numb nuts at work)

Personal preferences have no place in rules and regulations. What works best and keeps things safest does.

[rotorblades]

Hi bythenumbers,

I take no offence

I agree, to some extent, about being in the book. But unfortunately cant have every thing in the book to cover every possible circumstance.

To play devils advocate:
What if doing something thats not in the book increases safety?
Do you not do it and be less safe.

I know what you are saying about unorthodox calls, but what has to be asked is - Do they aid situational awareness (pilot, ATC & other aircraft), are they overly verbose, are they confusing, are they pointless.

As for Rules & Regs, nobody should decrease safety by adding personal preferences. But with regard to phraseology, sometimes plain english is better than the verbal diatribe they put in the books.
As for trying to get it changed - almost impossible (at least in one controllers lifetime)

[scavenger]

Positivegee makes a very valid point. If an aeroplane is equipped with a radio, the pilots are required to monitor the CTAF (whether or not its CTAF(R)) and make the prescribed broadcasts.

What's the point of telling ATS that you are monitoring the CTAF? How many RPT aeroplanes land at a non-towered aerodromes without monitoring CTAF?:ugh:

The 'monitoring' call is garbage and the fact that it is not standard will make it harder for those wise pilots and ATSers who did not read these last five pages:E

[peuce]

Hi Rotorblades,

I'll certainly have to give you points for tenacity.
However, I'm with bythenumbers again.

There is no room for personal preference ...

Say, I decide that conducting a figure 8 circuit at Ballina is much safer, taking into account geography, weather, visability etc, ...is that OK? Safety is increased (according to me). Trouble is, no one else knows that I'm doing it and no one else is expecting it .... till they suddenly come across me in a nasty part of the circuit.


More so, changing mandated calls. They are in the book for a reason. When you hear a certain phrase, you know exactly what is meant by it (if you read the books). That is their reason for being. If I hear a plain english call ... ok, now he knows exactly what he means, but do I? Hell no. I'm only guessing what he means.

Please let's not take the US lead ... "fancy pants 216 is on the drop to 6, see y'all in 5"

Exagerated examples, I know, but the problem you will run into is ... where do you draw the line? Who's idea of a safer un-documented procedure is better than my idea of a safer un-documented procedure?

Can of worms comes to mind!

I say, don't go there:=

P.S. If you think I've missed your point, please provide some real examples, so I can see what you have in mind.

[rotorblades]

Peuce,

just to pick the first point apart about the figure 8 at Ballina - you say no-one else knows what you are doing - arent you on the CTAF then and transmitting your approach instructions. If not its no different to ploughing through the overhead to do a teardrop approach to the other end, or a myriad of other approaches Ive seen pilots make.
What about an A320 I saw going into an uncontrolled A/d (e-w runway) the other day, from the south flew through the circuit south to north, turned left downwind, then base leg for the easterley but then carried on back to the southern side circuit and flew downwind the other way and landed on the westerly. First time Ive ever seen that!

Okay, as per the book it will be, be advised this means:
No Direct Tracking.
Full paperwork for all missed calls, then it can be officially sourced as to why two-way comms arent being maintained.
I expect no more departures from a certain aerodrome to call up on frequency with "climbing to FLxxx expecting direct to ABC"

Plus many other things ATC do beyond the books to try and make your lives easier, like getting you your preferred runway, preferred cruise level, unrestricted climbs, hi-speed climbs/descents/arrivals.

Devils advocate,again , but you get my drift....

[peuce]

Rotorblades,

Okay, as per the book it will be, be advised this means:
No Direct Tracking.
Full paperwork for all missed calls, then it can be officially sourced as to why two-way comms arent being maintained.
I expect no more departures from a certain aerodrome to call up on frequency with "climbing to FLxxx expecting direct to ABC"

Don't take your bat and ball and go home yet ...:)

In essence, what you say above is the correct response. Why would you break the rules? Why wouldn't you do the correct paperwork etc?

However, in practice, in Controlled Airspace, asking for preferred treatment (using correct phraseology) I would think is quite kosher and normal. You don't have to provide it, if not available, or not permitted.

But using home made procedures or phraseology OCTA ... is quite another matter ... as safe operations OCTA depend on understanding what the other bloke is, or is intending to do.

[rotorblades]

Dont worry Peuce, I havent gone home yet. though most of you probably wish I would!
In the quote you missed out the bit at the end Devils advocate
I was just playing the literal card on the table for those who may no know the constrictions placed on ATCers.

My point about ATC going beyond with getting preferred treatment was that we did a lot without the requests first, i.e. direct to the feeder fix, swapping runways (to the one closer to the terminal) etc.

Homemade procedures - I'm not talking about changing procedures, no that way anyway.
Homemade phraseology - In an ideal world everything will be in the book, one way & easily understandable. But it isnt, maybe that needs looking at?

What I'm basically getting at is 'clear & concise'. Which the book isnt always, otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussion!:)
The book in itself seems to contradict itself with in one sentence saying must tell ATC if not at least monitoring the frequency and in another saying two-way comms must be maintained.

But this pales into insignifance when on another thread Dick is encouraging IFR flights to bust into E without a clearance if in VMC!

When I rule the world all airports with RPT flights will have ATC & a control zone with easy access to CTA/Airways sytem.

IN SUMMARY
I think everyone needs to bare in mind the safety implications of anything they intend to do. Not just to themselves but to other aircraft in the system. It only takes a second for attention to be distracted by one thing (be that a pilot trying to transmit/monitor on CTAF & Area or ATC distracted by an unanswered call and something go wrong in his/her airspace 150nm to the north) for safety to be compromised.

I can assure everyone I have read & taken onboard all comments, suggestions, points of view. Its a learning process for everyone. And as I said in an earlier post, If you think there's nothing new to learn or you know everything - its time to quit.

I hope we can have a few more threads, similar to this one, in which everyone can post constructive discussions without just trying to slag everyone else down. We may not have actually 'solved' anything but I think we've come away with better understanding & respect (most of us, anyway)

Thanks again to all who have added to the discussion with their points & views:D:D:D

[bythenumbers]

Rotor,

Yes I have and will again do things outside the realms of rules and regs if I think that it will lead to a safer outcome, as I am sure you have/would... Yes; not every situation can be accounted for in a manual, it is for this reason that both ATC and Pilots go through some pretty intense training. But training can really only equip one with the ability to gain experience.

I think it entirely depends on the time of day, traffic, airfield, weather, crew, moon phase etc... A little bit of commonsense is needed.

I feel for you ATC guys and am in two minds as to the issue.

I will now return to my rightful spot on the fence.

Good thread!:ok:

[rotorblades]

hi bythenumbers,

I concur. As for being in two minds, I cant really help you there. Its something everyone has to weigh up pros & cons, and safety implications before they decide which way to fall.

I will still continue to provide my best service to anyone, be them changing, not changing or monitoring, to the best of abilities.
which if you ask some (who have messaged me off thread) is poor(to take the swearwords & racism out):{