Ridiculous radio calls [Archive]

Squawk7700

15th May 2016, 10:53

Class D.

I've had my head in a bucket since YMMB and others became class D from GAAP.

Who on earth was responsible for facilitating this mess?

Call I heard today (call-sign is not accurate and wording is not perfect, but you get the idea).

Aircraft - Ground, Foxbat 1234 request taxi clearance for runway 31L for the training area, received information Sierra.

Tower - Foxbat 1234, cleared to taxi for departure runway three one left, enter taxiway bravo at alpha two, cleared to cross runway three five left, three five right and runway two two and hold at holding point bravo three for three one left.

Aircraft - Foxbat 1234, cleared for three one left via taxiway bravo
for three one left holding point bravo three.

Tower - Foxbat 1234, you need to read back all of the runways to confirm your clearance to taxi.

Aircraft - Foxbat 1234, taxi to holding point bravo three for three one left and cleared to cross runway three five left, three five right and runway two two.

To whoever is responsible for this level of complexity.... flying is supposed to be fun :ugh:

Ixixly

15th May 2016, 11:06

I believe they put it in there to actually make the critical things less confusing Squawk7700. At Archerfield people wouldn't always realise when they did and/or did not need clearance to cross the Dirt Strips (AKA, not realising they're active and needed a clearance), so to make things easier they just make it that you ALWAYS need a clearance, yes the calls and readbacks are a little more confusing and long winded BUT at least it helps stop people from crossing Runways they shouldn't. Method in the madness?

fujii

15th May 2016, 11:08

Wording is definitely not accurate. Cleared, clearance, clear are not used for taxiing. The only time a "clear" word is used is for takeoff or landing clearance.

Squawk7700

15th May 2016, 11:20

Fuji, refer to disclaimer. Exact wording is not the point.

In GAAP days, it would be "taxi to runway three one left via bravo" and possibly no mention of bravo three.

Ixixly

15th May 2016, 11:37

Squawk7700, with your version of what it would have been in the GAAP days there are many many options that Foxbat could have taken to get to that exact same point when I look at YMMB, isn't it the job of SMC to guide the Aircraft in which way to go so they don't have Aircraft taxiing all over the place? It's not like there is only 1 option for getting to Bravo 3 at 31L, there are also runways to be crossed and that requires clearance as well, sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Squawk7700

15th May 2016, 12:39

there are also runways to be crossed and that requires clearance as well, sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

In GAAP days, you weren't crossing a runway as it wasn't active at all times, it was just a piece of taxiway. If you were taxiing for 31 you just zoomed straight over 35 without giving it another thought, no clearance required other than to advise you were on ground frequency by mentioning your call sign.

It's a lot of added complexity, particularly when 17/35 is not in use.

Judging by the number of pilots that weren't getting their radio work right, it's either overly complex, poorly taught or they were all visiting.

fujii

15th May 2016, 13:10

As it was MB on a Sunday you could expect a number of incorrect calls. How can one assume that 17/35 was not in use? It may not have been on the ATIS but there may have been a one off arrival. That's why all runways are now considered as "active."

Sunfish

15th May 2016, 21:12

squawk, you don't use YMMB much do you? the end of 35L extends past the taxi way (before the taxiway was modified) and that intersection is the classic place for runway infringements which are a perennial problem for newbies at YMMB with its Five runways and multiple methods of getting just about anywhere. If 31 is in use then you will be crossing 35 L&R & 22 somewhere.

the startup request was brought in because the circuit limit is about eight and things can get quite busy some days.

rjtjrt

15th May 2016, 22:28

Is the new class d proceedure solving an actual "problem" (that caused any accident or near miss) that occurred under GAAP, or just a new and unnecessary complication?
Simple is usually better - a motto CASA and Airservices live by!

Tarq57

15th May 2016, 22:43

Man, that's a lot of potentially safety-critical items in one clearance.

I think the generally accepted number of clearance items (or instruction items) per transmission is no more than three.

Sunfish

15th May 2016, 23:26

YMMB is known for runway infringements, period. Yes, you do need clearances all the time.

Squawk7700

16th May 2016, 00:16

triton140

16th May 2016, 01:00

The readback ain't all that difficult with a bit of planning - from the southern runup bay you would be expecting Bravo to Bravo 3 (especially if other traffic had been given the same instruction), hence expecting the clearances to cross the three runways - so you'd be prepared pencil at the ready to copy down a fairly long taxi instruction (or maybe even have it already written down to tick off).

Squawk7700

16th May 2016, 04:09

I fear that if you tried to write it down you'd be hassled for your read back before you'd finished !

Admittedly not an issue depending on which runway is in use.

airspace alpha

16th May 2016, 04:43

How often would everyone be operating on 31 all day and a Citation or bigger needs to come in on 35; does that ever happen? (Keeping in mind that they are only on 31 in the first place due to the strong crosswind on 35)

It only seems to have the high number of runway incisions surely because you have to be cleared to cross every one now days? Or is it that a clearance is required because they need to be in 2-way comms with everyone? Seems like it fixes one problem but causes many more.

Exactly this situation occurred yesterday (Sunday). Operations on 31 and Citation with a suspect engine surge was asking for crosswind component on 35 in case they wanted to try it. As it happened they landed on 31R anyway. Class D does assume every runway is active or potentially active and this is why. Its only the fact YMMB has so many runways (gee aren't we lucky) that it becomes so complex.

fujii

16th May 2016, 04:45

If ground is speaking too quickly to write it down, just ask them to speak slower. AIP GEN 3.4 - 19

IFEZ

16th May 2016, 05:30

I'm with Squawk7700 on this one. Depending on which runway(s) they are using, especially 31/13, the instructions and read backs required are far too long and complex, especially for student pilots (or more mature ones like me with a short memory span!). It jams things up with constant corrections turning one call into 3 by the time they get it right.

As far as I'm concerned, it worked fine the way it was when it was a GAAP and even prior to that. Even with the new system, there are still runway incursions happening. Just because the read back is correct doesn't seem to stop people getting distracted or unsure of where they are when they finally do get to cross the 3rd runway via the 4th taxiway in the readback, and stuff it up!

I don't have any figures to back up what I'm about to say, but 10 or 15 years ago there was a lot more traffic using MB than there is now, or at least that's the way it seemed when I was waiting in the queue behind at least 5 others at the holding point trying to get away. There were no long winded radio calls required back then, and the system worked fine.

fujii

16th May 2016, 05:45

That's what happened when GAAP was reclassified to Class D.

cogwheel

16th May 2016, 09:07

Once upon a time AMMB (pre YMMB) was an all over field. I recall taking off and landing on 27 Grass towards the old tower.... Yes the runways were there, but no cones or gable markers. Once the runway lights went in, it all started to change. Back then just one frequency meant that calls were minimal on ground and in the air. Some change is good but one does have to ask if it could not be made more simple??? But then the procedures are now dictated by ICAO, so that is the way it is (sadly). Training is an issue with this also.

Ixixly

16th May 2016, 09:15

In all honesty I think people make it far more difficult for themselves than it needs to be. Personally I don't remember the actual clearance given, what I do is watch the chart as they're giving me a clearance and mentally follow along that path and then read back the path, if there is a runway and I haven't been given clearance then I'm imagining myself getting to that runway and stopping and thusly my readback will be that, also means that I've given the actual route some thought as opposed to a bunch of numbers and letters that have been given to me.

thorn bird

16th May 2016, 10:04

Is there enough traffic at MBB to warrant all this communication these days? Where the hell is CASA, there's altogether too much aviation occurring at MBB!!! shut someone down!!

jas24zzk

16th May 2016, 10:08

YCEM have laminated A4 colour maps of the place. very handy! esp if you draw it on during clearance, similar to Ixixly's method

Squawk7700

16th May 2016, 10:08

Where the hell is CASA?

They moved their office out of Moorabbin airport years ago and into the Melbourne CBD.

FO Cokebottle

16th May 2016, 13:53

YMMB.

The previous GAAP Procedures were uniquely Australian.

The current Procedures are ICAO and used at all "controlled" airports. Start Clearance, Taxi Clearance (including runway crossing and/or hold short clearances) and then over to TWR for line up and take off clearances.

As per AIP, there are certain "read back" requirements.

This is how it is gentlemen.

So please......

gerry111

16th May 2016, 14:32

If only Squawk had named his thread:"Rediculous radio calls" we might have had some input from Dick..

Back Pressure

17th May 2016, 07:16

At YMMB I hear lots of clearances acknowledged not with a readback, but just call-sign, eg.
ATC: EOK, cleared touch-and-go
EOK: EOK

It's got to the point now that I am mildly surprised when I hear a correct response from a pilot. How come instructors don't seem to be pulling up students on this ? I hear it multiple times from the same aircraft in the circuit so no-one is being corrected.

Used to be that the controllers would tell people off for this, but now they don't seem to bother. Guess when it becomes so damn frequent they lose the will to complain...

kaz3g

17th May 2016, 11:23

Just to be sure we all have it right, the Visual Pilot Guide for Moorabbin states that:

departures
You require start approval for the following:
1. All circuit operations.
2. Aircraft departing for airwork in the Melbourne Terminal Area.
3. Aircraft intending to land at Melbourne.
4. Aircraft intending to climb into class C airspace for a landing at Essendon.
5. If notified on the ATIS

Little old pilots undertaking private flights back out to the wilds of uncontrolableness from whence they arrived do not generally need a Start clearance.

I thank God that she has arranged for the Tower to spare me the torture of trying to remember a Taxi clearance that would fill enough pages to make a small book because I'm the same age as my aircraft and they call it an Antique.

Kaz

Lead Balloon

17th May 2016, 12:43

Alas, Kaz, not requiring a start clearance is not the same as not requiring a taxi clearance. You'll still need to request, copy (probably literally) and regurgitate a taxi clearance even if you're departing into G. :(

Hempy

17th May 2016, 12:55

P0egiUWLO8Y

Dick Smith

17th May 2016, 22:08

Hempy. I can't agree with your last post. It is redik you less!

Tarq57

18th May 2016, 01:22

Hempy. I can't agree with your last post. It is redik you less!
Why? Looks like a runway incursion to me.

KRviator

18th May 2016, 01:41

airspace alpha

18th May 2016, 06:41

The ATSB is investigating a collision on the ground involving Cessna 172,VH-EWZ (EWZ), and Cessna 172, VH-SYH (SYH), at Moorabbin Airport, Victoria, on13 May 2016.
During a touch and go landing, the pilot of EWZ lost control of theaircraft. EWZ veered off the runway and collided with SYH, which was stationaryon a taxiway. Both aircraft sustained substantial damage and there were noinjuries.

This one flew beneath the radar- and on Friday 13th as well! It happened a couple of years ago when a Warrior took out another Oxford aircraft- looks like this time the situation is reversed

Sunfish

18th May 2016, 08:23

Me at YMMB in a busy circuit:

ATC: "XYZ cleared to land, no need to acknowledge."

XYZ: "cleared to land, no need to acknowledge". ;P

Capn Bloggs

18th May 2016, 10:31

Since the thread has taken a lighter turn... Am I seeing things? Is this a post from Dick that has (shock, horror) a sense of humour??!! Lampooning his own inability to spell rediculous, no less...:D :ok:

Hempy. I can't agree with your last post. It is redik you less!

kaz3g

18th May 2016, 10:40

The current Procedures are ICAO and used at all "controlled" airports. Start Clearance, Taxi Clearance (including runway crossing and/or hold short clearances) and then over to TWR for line up and take off clearances.

I was just pointing out that Start clearances aren't needed by all of us all of the time in Class D.

gerry111

18th May 2016, 10:44

"..his own inability to spell rediculous.."

But that's what he's good at! ;)

MakeItHappenCaptain

21st May 2016, 14:56

It's got to the point now that I am mildly surprised when I hear a correct response from a pilot. How come instructors don't seem to be pulling up students on this ? I hear it multiple times from the same aircraft in the circuit so no-one is being corrected.

Because most of the instructors are parroting back what they were incorrectly taught without any incentive to read what is the correct standard in the AIP. Professionalism.

(One of) my personal favourite(s) has to be "turns finals".
Really?
Do you also "turns bases"?
Ps. TurnING final (Singular)

iPahlot

21st May 2016, 21:42

While the radio call cited by 7700 is a lengthy one I'm kind of baffled as to why this is an issue? I know that it used to be easier in the days of the GAAP, but as professional pilots reading back a clearance should not be hard...

Writing down 31L B@A2 X 35L/R 22 HLD B3 does not take long long to write down. Just work out your own version of shorthand (i.e. adding something to X if it means cross vs. Xray) and if the controller gets shirty tell them to standby or tell them to repeat instructions more slowly.

If you're airborne and get a lengthy clearance to transit controlled airspace do you just turn back and go home, or respond "Nah, I just want to go to XXX so I'll just track direct, I know how to get there"?

Biggles78

22nd May 2016, 11:50

but as professional pilots reading back a clearance should not be hard...

I agree but YMMB has a lot of non professional pilots flying there. How do you think a student on his first time to start and taxi without an Instructor would fare? With that sort of clearance, not too good me thinks.

Ixixly

22nd May 2016, 11:51

In which case Biggles perhaps he wasn't ready for a first solo? Or should ask the SMC to say again?

Ixixly

22nd May 2016, 20:57

You would at Archerfield clearedtoreenter! I think it really depends on the circumstances, if there was only one aircraft or no potential conflict whether the aircraft did a touch and go or a full stop maybe they made the decision not to bother getting back on the radio again, perhaps there was something more urgent to attend to? It really depends on the situation I would think.

MakeItHappenCaptain

23rd May 2016, 08:25

You would at Archerfield clearedtoreenter!

Might want to re-think that comment.
Sure George would take exception to your statement.

Ixixly

23rd May 2016, 08:56

Good point MakeItHappenCaptain, I in no way meant that negatively towards the Tower Folk at Archy, or any other location for that matter.

I know I've made some fairly stupid radio calls at Archerfield during and after my training, it's in no small part thanks to the very talented folks in Archy Tower being able to decipher what I said and know what I meant and/or call me up on it when appropriate that has stopped those mistakes from bringing myself and others to grief :P

Lead Balloon

23rd May 2016, 09:56

But the underlying point remains valid. Each GAAP - sorry, I meant metropolitan D or whatever the current fake descriptor for GAAP happens to be - has its own 'endearing' differences from the others, that seem to be driven by local 'personalities' rather than compliance with some objective, external standard.