A plea for brevity - CTAF Broadcasts

[Clinton McKenzie]

Colleagues. When we’re enlightening others to our presence and intentions while in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G:

We don’t need to say “nautical” miles. Everyone will assume that any miles we state in broadcasts are nautical.

We don’t need to say “of the field” when stating the direction from the location we’ve announced, if the location is the aerodrome. When we say “Traffic Springfield, Alpha Bravo Charlie is one two miles south”, everyone will assume that we’re twelve nautical miles south of the Springfield aerodrome.

We don’t need to say “estimating” or “time” when broadcasting our estimated arrival time overhead or joining the circuit at an aerodrome. When we say “overhead” or “circuit area” “fife niner”, everyone will assume that “fife niner” is our estimated time in minutes past the hour for arrival at the stated position. By definition, a time you give of an event in the future is an estimate.

We don’t need to say “feet” when stating our altitude. When we say “three thousand five hundred”, everyone will assume that “three thousand five hundred” is an altitude expressed in feet.

Compare the following:

Traffic Springfield
VFR Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie is one two miles south
Inbound tree thousand fife hundred
Circuit area fife niner
Springfield

Traffic Springfield
This is VFR Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie
I’m twelve nautical miles south of the field
I’m inbound to the field at three thousand five hundred feet
I’m estimating the circuit area of the field at time five nine
Springfield

Each conveys the same information. However, the latter takes about 50% more time than the former to broadcast.

Whilst there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, provided the information is effectively conveyed, 126.7 can get very busy.

Instructors please note, too. Somebody must be training or tolerating what I consider to be unnecessary verbosity. However, I’m happy to stand corrected.

Recently I listened to pilots of just 2 aircraft effectively jam 126.7 with various updates and checks of their respective locations and intentions, while the pilot of another aircraft couldn’t get an important message across edgewise. While one of the talkative pilots was on long final for a runway, the third pilot took off in the opposite direction i.e. ‘head to head’. Fortunately the pilot of the third aircraft could see and hear what was going on, and tracked clear of the opposite direction short final flight path after take off. I watched and listed to it all while orbiting over the aerodrome.

Remember: There can be traffic out there that you haven’t heard from, either because they don’t have a radio or do have a radio but haven’t tuned the correct frequency, or have a radio tuned to the correct frequency but can’t get a word in edgewise.

One other tip, for what it is worth: Get into the habit of asking yourself whether you’re still on the Area frequency before you PTT on a CTAF broadcast. (If I had a dime...)

Yours in safe flying.

[Dick Smith]

And most importantly keep a good lookout when conditions allow. As stated above never rely on radio alone.

[Ixixly]

I'd highly disagree with leaving out "of the field", that's a dangerous assumption IMHO, what if you've simply not registered the fact that they're giving a different key location or the radio dropped for a second whilst saying it? Also don't drop the feet part, once again this is for clarity, if you're hearing someone with a choppy radio how do I know you're talking about feet of altitude and weren't mentioning a distance in meters like visibility or something? There are good reasons we use feet for altitude and meters for visibility and saying Feet or Meters means that even with a garbled transmission I still know what that 3,500 was referring to.

Also I just timed myself saying both of these at the same cadence, 10 seconds for top and 12 seconds for bottom, I'll gladly listen to a couple of extra seconds for the sake of clarity over brevity.

The problem you're really describing though isn't brevity of transmissions but superfluous transmissions which I agree Pilots need to be mindful of but ultimately I think it can be dangerous as well to tell Pilots they talk too much as they may over compensate the opposite direction too. The biggest issue in what you're describing here isn't even the 2 talkative Pilots or lack of brevity, it was the third that decided to take off knowing that there was inbound traffic on long final that was head to head with them that didn't know what they were intending to do, that's rushing and impatience that could have lead to an accident.

[IFEZ]

And while we're on the subject, it seems to have become standard procedure to broadcast EVERY leg of the circuit. Is this really necessary..? Seems to be one of those things where people believe the more radio calls they make the safer it will be, but if you get multiple aircraft in the circuit it makes it hard for anyone inbound to get a call in..!

Also, while I'm having a whinge, to all the 'mumblers' out there, here's a suggestion - speak CLEARLY & CONCISELY and to all those who think it's impressive to rattle off a call at high speed, slow it down a bit so we can actually UNDERSTAND what you are saying.

Rant Off.

[alphacentauri]

Extrapolating the same issue to airways clearance requests from an aerial work (survey flying) point of view.....

a) will get you an airways clearance.....b) will not

Less is more

Alpha

[Lapon]

I couldn't really care less as long as the person gets thier message across. I would rather someone deliver too many words than too few.

Most of the excessive wafflers are once in a blue moon recreational pilots so I'm just happy they are getting thier point across. I assume they have more important things on thier mind than getting worked up over a few extra words as do I (such as what Im having for dinner that night).

In all honestly the AIP is pretty vague on this stuff anyway (last time I actually looked), and there are more important things to worry about.
Disc: I havnt operated on 126.7 if forever.

[Squawk7700]

This is a good guide, rather than making stuff up as every airport and traffic flow vary so much.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/radio-procedures-in-non-controlled-airspace.pdf

Note page 5 “calls when there is other traffic”

This explains how extra broadcasts are recommended when other aircraft are in the vicinity.

[Desert Flower]

And while we're on the subject, it seems to have become standard procedure to broadcast EVERY leg of the circuit. Is this really necessary..? Seems to be one of those things where people believe the more radio calls they make the safer it will be, but if you get multiple aircraft in the circuit it makes it hard for anyone inbound to get a call in..!

Also, while I'm having a whinge, to all the 'mumblers' out there, here's a suggestion - speak CLEARLY & CONCISELY and to all those who think it's impressive to rattle off a call at high speed, slow it down a bit so we can actually UNDERSTAND what you are saying.

Rant Off.

Those broadcasts of EVERY leg of the circuit really tick me off! I feel like yelling "just shut up & do it already!"

Also, what's with calling "inbound" to an aerodrome when you're actually not landing but overflying for somewhere else? Never been able to figure that one out!

DF.

[Stationair8]

Don't forget to broadcast that you are taxing to the fuel bowser or to the runup bay, it helps with traffic seperation for the IFR pilots.
Also it helps on a busy CTAF, to ask Jack if he is going to Bob's BBQ next week and how the crops are going, or is shearing going ok and have they had much rain lately!

[Capt Fathom]

This could get very entertaining! :)

[L'aviateur]

I love flying in Australia, however CTAF is one of the few pet hates...

[Occy]

And not that it’s been an issue for a year or so, but listening to some of the muppet-like word for word read backs on busy ATC frequencies (e.g. Sydney ground) kills me. I can cut internationals some slack, but locals should should know read back requirements better. You don’t have to verbatim read back EVERY SINGLE WORD THE CONTROLLER SAYS. :ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Those broadcasts of EVERY leg of the circuit really tick me off! I feel like yelling "just shut up & do it already!"
You might like to ask the author of post #2 why people do that! :)

but locals should should know read back requirements better. You don’t have to verbatim read back EVERY SINGLE WORD THE CONTROLLER SAYS.
"Copied no traffic". :{

[PoppaJo]

There is a G Aerodrome on the downwind leg of a major port I fly into, steps are also very close together, when the weather is ****, which is often,
it’s quite helpful knowing where these people are.

Try flying into a G Port, full circuit, in a 70T machine with nobody talking. Might grind the gears of other GA pilots broadcasting each leg, sure makes my life easier though.

[machtuk]

Whilst it would be comforting to fly in a world where it's all lovely & sweet in reality we don't and it's not worth getting yr tits in a knot over a few superfluous words. I'd rather a bit of waffling than incorrect info or no info at all!
If the ludicrous lowering of class G down to weed level ever gets up then it could get very interesting!

[Icarus2001]

If the ludicrous lowering of class G down to weed level ever gets up then it could get very interesting!

Now I am confused. Do you want to buy a vowel?

[McLimit]

Do you want to buy a vowel?

That was pretty good :}

But none of the dip****s that feel the need to transmit every radio call they've heard in the past and think is pretty damn cool, cool like wearing your asic and wanka bars into DFO, will understand the humour.

[Runaway Gun]

Thats a rather verbose way of telling us to keep radio time to a minimum.

[roundsounds]

This is gold, the RT drivel at CTAFs has progressively increased over the last 20 years. Instructors are guilty of teaching more is better, which is crap. Stick to the recommended broadcasts, pretty simple.

[triadic]

When I learnt to fly there were only I think 5 items that required a readback. In about 1997 it changed to align with ICAO however it turned into a bit of a mess as the CASA chap driving the change was not very practical. It seems to be that those that don't know what to readback, just read EVERYTHING back, which of course is not required. At busy airports, this is a real pain!

In regard to reporting every leg of the circuit, I believe some schools actually teach that!

[Capn Bloggs]

Try flying into a G Port, full circuit, in a 70T machine with nobody talking. Might grind the gears of other GA pilots broadcasting each leg, sure makes my life easier though.
So you need everybody in a "full" circuit to broadcast every position so you can slot in. Let me think about that.

[Dora-9]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, for those who insist on broadcasting their position on every leg of the circuit (even if there's no-one else there), is it necessary to prefix EVERY call with "Springfield traffic..."?

[Clinton McKenzie]

I”m glad the response has not been general yawns.

Runaway G: touché.

Unnecessary calls are a related but different issue.

This intrigues me, Ix: I'd highly disagree with leaving out "of the field", that's a dangerous assumption IMHO, what if you've simply not registered the fact that they're giving a different key location or the radio dropped for a second whilst saying it? Also don't drop the feet part, once again this is for clarity, if you're hearing someone with a choppy radio how do I know you're talking about feet of altitude and weren't mentioning a distance in meters like visibility or something? There are good reasons we use feet for altitude and meters for visibility and saying Feet or Meters means that even with a garbled transmission I still know what that 3,500 was referring to.Why is it “dangerous” to assume, when someone reports inbound to/overflying a named location, that the location is the aerodrome/airfield of that name? It seems to me that the ‘key location’ is the aerodrome/airfield.

Can you provide an example of where there’s a safety benefit of broadcasting, on a CTAF, a position by reference to a place other than an aerodrome/airfield?

Why would someone be transmitting visibility data in a CTAF broadcast? I can’t recall ever having done so in the last few decades, but my experience may be narrow. If it were ever necessary/useful, I reckon I would just make that clear in the broadcast. Can you provide a common example of important distance information, other than nms, included in CTAF broadcasts?

[737pnf]

Just do what the book says, FFS

(The "book" is the AIP. And if you're not 100% sure you're phrasing your transmissions in the manner the "book" says, go and read it again)

It's pretty simple really.

(Cannot believe there's PPRuNe's in here discussing the matter. "I recorded the brief version and it took 10 seconds...then I recorded the longwinded version and it took 12 seconds" - find ANOTHER interest! (Irony noted))

[ExSp33db1rd]

......and to all those who think it's impressive to rattle off a call at high speed, slow it down a bit so we can actually UNDERSTAND what you are saying.

Our local NZ airfield has a Sky Dive operator whose pilots think it is Smart and Professional to rattle off their many position reports and " Two minutes to drop" reports as fast as they can. Over the years I have learned to recognise what they are trying to say, but visiting pilots haven't the faintest idea. I once responded with " If you fly as fast as you talk, I'm getting outta here"

Not only students, some New York ATC operators were speed merchants, and after listening to many ":Please repeat" " say all after " etc. I once heard a Southern accented American Airlines pilot say " Say, Kennedy Tower, d'y'all hear how slow ah talk ? Waal - that's how slow ah think, say again, slowly."

One of our co-pilots departing New York once had difficulty copying then then long and complicated clearance, this was before the invention of SID's and STAR's and again after many please repeats and say all afters, the controller said " OK, listen everybody, we have a Limey here, so I'm goin' to say it again REAL slow."

[Sunfish]

I first heard the "High speed call" phenomenon when dealing with artillery. It is tempting for young players to confuse speed of delivery with efficiency and professionalism and that was what was happening. I hear it sometimes when flying, almost always on CTAF frequencies. I don't think I've ever heard this behaviour on area frequencies the jet pilots are certainly brief, but never hurried to the point of unintelligibility. In fact its good education to listen on Area for a while.

It's important to think about speed of comprehension, not speed of delivery.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Great story ExSp33db1rd.

Less is more but some lessons are forgotten quickly. Tenerife is a good example of an accident which forced the introduction of standard phraseology, clear, concise instructions and more importantly, correct read back.

Anyway, this thread is about brevity in the CTAF and whilst too chatter much might be painful to some not enough R/T is likely dangerous. Not everyone has the same situational awareness. The CASA R/T guide (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/radio-procedures-in-non-controlled-airspace.pdf) is pretty close to the money.

[McLimit]

" Say, Kennedy Tower, d'y'all hear how slow ah talk ? Waal - that's how slow ah think, say again, slowly."

I'll bet you didn't hear that, I'll bet you read it in an aviation mag like the rest of us.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Just do what the book says, FFS

(The "book" is the AIP. And if you're not 100% sure you're phrasing your transmissions in the manner the "book" says, go and read it again)

It's pretty simple really.

(Cannot believe there's PPRuNe's in here discussing the matter. "I recorded the brief version and it took 10 seconds...then I recorded the longwinded version and it took 12 seconds" - find ANOTHER interest! (Irony noted))
A rather dogmatic post there, 737pnf.

Are you able to quote the precise bits of the AIP to which you refer? So far as I can tell - happy to stand corrected - all AIP says authoritatively on the subject of the content of broadcasts in the vicinity of aerodromes in G is:The standard broadcast format is:

a. {Location} Traffic [I got this wrong above. “Traffic Richmond” is wrong. “Richmond Traffic” is correct.]

b. {Aircraft type}

c. {Callsign}

d. {Position/level/intentions}

e. {Location}

Para (d) is where all the ‘creative licence’ is taken.

[Checkboard]

How long ago did they change from “All stations Richmond...” to “Richmond traffic...”?

[Dora-9]

Our local NZ airfield has a Sky Dive operator whose pilots think it is Smart and Professional to rattle off their many position reports and " Two minutes to drop" reports as fast as they can.

Not just NZ - the guys operating at Caloundra have taken the speed-transmitting course too.

[Squawk7700]

How long ago did they change from “All stations Richmond...” to “Richmond traffic...”?

Probably nearing 10 years!

[McLimit]

Not just NZ - the guys operating at Caloundra have taken the speed-transmitting course too.

You sorta have to there, it's like Chicago Ground on that frequency. You learn good lookout in that training area!

[Bosi72]

I think some pilots in ctaf are following
aip gen 3.3-11 (taxi to the fuel bowser, etc..) instead of recommendations in
aip enr 1.1-70.

​​​​Ultimately, 10.1.16 is the key paragraph which is open for interpretation.

​

[Clinton McKenzie]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, for those who insist on broadcasting their position on every leg of the circuit (even if there's no-one else there), is it necessary to prefix EVERY call with "Springfield traffic..."?If there appears to be no one in the circuit after I've done the 'joining' call, I'll do just one more: short final, just in case someone's started up after my 'joining' call. I do say ABC short final 'Springfield'.

The reason I still include the location on that short final call is that in the region in which I do most of my flying, you can often simultaneously hear all of the traffic at 4 or 5 locations that use 126.7. On a nice sunny Sunday like today, YTMU will be abuzz, as will YCWR. Then add the occasional traffic at YWWL and YYNG and YCTM. (Mercifully, YTEM has a different CTAF.) Hence my plea for brevity!

[JabiruFoxbat]

Not just NZ - the guys operating at Caloundra have taken the speed-transmitting course too.

unfortunately the local ra-aus school keeps pushing the “more and faster is better” regime.

[LostWanderer]

cool like wearing your asic and wanka bars into DFO.

BuT hOw ElSe WiLl ThEY KnOw I’m A pILoT!?!$!?

:}

[poteroo]

In regard to reporting every leg of the circuit, I believe some schools actually teach that!


They certainly do, and it defies the logic of judicious radio alerted avoidance. They also teach students to begin their CTAF calls at 25 nm, and from there, at 5 mile intervals into the circuit. Less - is - More for me.
happy days,

[triadic]

It was said some years back that the recommended time to call inbound should be 7 minutes. CASA could not cope with that so it never happened. But think about it. No matter if your a jet or a C150, 7 minutes is a good time to call. Saying it should be a distance does not allow for speed.

[mustafagander]

The way I see it is that I give an inbound broadcast about 6 minutes out so there is time to sort separation. I also give a call joining downwind, maybe mid downwind if I join over the top, and a call turning base. This one is the biggie coz potential conflicts get serious now. Also coz I'm turning, the aircraft is as easy to spot as it will ever be.
You don't need to say much on these calls, just place & position with ETA as well for the inbound.

[andrewr]

I don't find the 10 mile/6 minute call very useful because a lot happens in the circuit in 6 minutes - no-one can really know where they will be when you arrive. The one thing it does is give students a few extra minutes to worry about the other aircraft that also called at 10 miles, which they can't see because there is still many miles between them. Cue several minutes of "ABC, what is your current position" calls back and forth. The old 5 mile call was probably better.

The turning base call with intentions is very useful because it gives following aircraft the opportunity to adjust their base turn for spacing if you are doing a full stop.

A turning downwind call is useful for aircraft joining the circuit that need to fit in with aircraft on downwind. It's particularly useful when you have twins flying 3 miles on upwind doing whatever twins do, then coming back downwind at 160kt.

Joining the circuit is obviously an important call.

It's one of those difficult problems - if there is no-one in the circuit you don't need the calls but there is no radio congestion. If there are multiple aircraft in the circuit the radio is more congested, but e.g. turning downwind calls are more useful.

[awqward]

In the US it is normal to call when turning base and final... the idea being that 1) a banked aircraft is easier to spot, and 2) it narrows the location for looking.... also the CTAF by definition, is a shared frequency with potentially several airports within radio range... hence starting the call with Springfield Traffic as well as ending the call with Springfield eliminates that ambiguity...

[Dora-9]

You sorta have to there, it's like Chicago Ground on that frequency

That's rubbish. What's the point of talking so fast that nobody understands you? Or does it make the speed-talker feel so good about himself, but meanwhile he's incomprehensible to all others?

Mind you, you could ask which genius left Caloundra and Caboolture (with the same runway direction) on a common frequency, whilst removing Redcliffe to their own frequency.

[ExSp33db1rd]

McLimit I'll bet you didn't hear that, I'll bet you read it in an aviation mag like the rest of us.

Probably, having heard, read, and been told many such tales over the years they're all just one big blob now, but don't let facts spoil a good story.

Somewhat off thread, but one I definitely heard .......... Flying from Los Angeles to London, tracking over the North Western USA for a Polar route across the N.Atl.. dark,quiet night, i.e. " Radar indentified, omit position reports etc. etc. " suddenly the peace was shattered with .... ABC control this is XYZ etc. etc. and eventually.. XYZ is cleared as filed, omit position reports and at time 123 call YYY control on frequency 456, goodnight. Acknowledged. Soon after .... XYZ, you still with me ? Yep. You a 10 ( meaning a DC-10 ) Yep. Didn't know your outfit flew 10's. Do now. You bound for Vegas ? Yep. Waal, I guess your passengers need a 10 to take home all their winnings ? Nope, our passengers can take home their winnings in a Cessna 152.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I don't find the 10 mile/6 minute call very useful because a lot happens in the circuit in 6 minutes - no-one can really know where they will be when you arrive. The one thing it does is give students a few extra minutes to worry about the other aircraft that also called at 10 miles, which they can't see because there is still many miles between them. Cue several minutes of "ABC, what is your current position" calls back and forth. The old 5 mile call was probably better.

If everyone had ADSB - in/out, (and associated display) there would be less R/T required and the whole exercise would be far safer. Perhaps in 50 years time.

[Capn Bloggs]

Saying it should be a distance does not allow for speed.
Distance is a simpler method of determining a conflict. I suspect that is why CASA didn't change.

[McLimit]

That's rubbish. What's the point of talking so fast that nobody understands you? Or does it make the speed-talker feel so good about himself, but meanwhile he's incomprehensible to all others?

It was a quip Dora :cool: I don't get many of the calls, my eyes are like dinner plates when I fly around up there.

[roundsounds]

If everyone had ADSB - in/out, (and associated display) there would be less R/T required and the whole exercise would be far safer. Perhaps in 50 years time.

More eyes inside the cockpit, what could possibly go wrong?
why not simply mandate ACAS in all aircraft by 2070?

[roundsounds]

Interesting to see all of the differing views as to when and what to say. This is a reflection of what’s happening in the real world, non standard broadcasts requires great brain space to comprehend the information. If people would stick with the published recommendations life would be easier and safer.

[Clinton McKenzie]

What's the point of knowing someone else's speed, if we have a distance/direction and an estimated time overhead/joining the circuit?

"VFR Jizzler ABC is one two miles west, inbound at two thousand fife hundred, circuit area two one."

As soon as I hear that, I picture where the aircraft is and compare my estimate at the same position.

These simple concepts seemed to be just that, when I was taught to fly. Why complicate it?

Spot on, roundsounds: Let's spend our flying lives staring at screens....

[Squawk7700]

Not sure about Avplan but I’ve noticed OZRunways are showing the speed in their latest version when using ADSB-in which is quite handy.

I tell you what, if you don’t have a Skyecho or compatible adsb-in for your EFB, you really are missing out. So many aircraft on there that you never know were right near you! I see aircraft, their altitude and speed, long before I hear any radio calls.

[Chronic Snoozer]

More eyes inside the cockpit, what could possibly go wrong?
why not simply mandate ACAS in all aircraft by 2070?

Why would you deny yourself technology that gives you potential conflicting traffic without touching a button or uttering a word on the radio?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Spot on, roundsounds: Let's spend our flying lives staring at screens....

Have you used a display with ADSB feed?

[Clinton McKenzie]

CS: No.

You also asked: Why would you deny yourself technology that gives you potential conflicting traffic without touching a button or uttering a word on the radio?

The answer is: For similar reasons for it now being an offence to touch your phone while driving a car in most places. Best to keep your eyes focussed outside the windscreen to see what's going on in real time in the real world, when operating VFR in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G. That's until ADSB Corporation guarantees performance and indemnity for liability when performance fails.

[Squawk7700]

Instead of glancing at your map or GPS to safely navigate your aircraft, you glance at the electronic map and notice a blob on there that indicates another aircraft nearby. You may or may not wish to press on that blob and find out more information about it.

You can see registration, speed, position and altitude at a glance. A great supplement to a vague radio call or none at all!

[Dora-9]

It was a quip Dora

Sorry McLimit, I should have seen the joke.

[Chronic Snoozer]

CS: No.

You also asked: Why would you deny yourself technology that gives you potential conflicting traffic without touching a button or uttering a word on the radio?

The answer is: For similar reasons for it now being an offence to touch your phone while driving a car in most places. Best to keep your eyes focussed outside the windscreen to see what's going on in real time in the real world, when operating VFR in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G. That's until ADSB Corporation guarantees performance and indemnity for liability when performance fails.

I’m not advocating using an iPad or similar for this - I was alluding to a proper installation. (I understand $$$). Visually acquiring traffic isn’t without its challenges and quite fallible. ADS B IN greatly enhances SA and aids see and avoid practices, I’m not suggesting it should replace them.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Understood. Fair point.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Here’s what my EFB is showing at the moment. Is there one or more aircraft? At what position/altitude is/are it/they??


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/b43b1031_034c_421a_8550_17fc12b6cb9e_6badc80d20a4eef85135e59 fa2cb8204fcc54017.jpeg

[Bosi72]

Here’s what my EFB is showing at the moment. Is there one or more aircraft? At what position/altitude is/are it/they??


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/b43b1031_034c_421a_8550_17fc12b6cb9e_6badc80d20a4eef85135e59 fa2cb8204fcc54017.jpeg


At least it's good to know someone is there :)
If you have skyecho look for green icons as they are from your receiver. Blue ones are from the ground(internet).

Regardless keep the eyes outside looking for traffic. Vfr is vfr - full stop.

[Lookleft]

I had the CAGRO,Unicom whatever its called at Ballina try to assure me that the traffic I was trying to contact was in the training area to the north and "that there would be no conflict", for my departure. So you have some ex-ATC now trying to "assure separation" based on Flight Radar 24! On behalf of my 185 passengers and crew I thanked him and contacted Centre to ask where the traffic was on their radar. The CAGRO/Unicom whatever bloke seemed quite miffed and had just clagged up the CTAF frequency with superfluous radio chatter.

[Capn Bloggs]

I was trying to contact was in the training area to the north and "that there would be no conflict", for my departure. So you have some ex-ATC now trying to "assure separation" based on Flight Radar 24!
Please explain? Perhaps the CAGRO was advised by training aircraft where it was. Did the CAGRO say he gave you the info based on FR24?

[Lookleft]

No and yes

[Capn Bloggs]

Well that was a bit naughty wasn't it! :ouch:

[McLimit]

And a legal nightmare, let alone dangerous, negligent on several fronts.

[Lookleft]

I have the greatest respect for ATC and will complement a job well done but all I ask is that you stay out of my flight deck and let me do the piloty thing.

[jonkster]

re ADSB and Ozrunways etc alerts of traffic... Last year I had a tower controller give me an urgent collision alert telling me to immediately go around when on mid final, (in class D, with lots of traffic doing circuits). I immediately did as told but was very confused, I had been sure sure my preceding traffic was already on upwind but assumed I must have misidentified it and my actual preceding was still on final and I had closed the gap, ie seriously stuffed up my SA.

Tower asked me to call after I landed. I assumed I had badly stuffed up.

I rang and the controller thanked me for calling saying he just wanted to apologise and explain - he said had glanced at his screen just before clearing us, (this D tower gets a feed from the radar centre), and there was another aircraft slightly lower than us, on final about 100m in front and although he could only eyeball our aircraft from the cab he thought had stuffed up his sequencing and immediately acted to separate us from the other aircraft. As we went round, that aircraft then disappeared from the screen. Turned out it was a ghost.

I asked him if this was something that had ever happened before and he said every now and again they do get spurious aircraft that suddenly appear on their display. Normally he said it is obvious it is not legit but in this case with the busy circuit he thought he had made a mistake and stuffed up the sequence so acted to try and avoid a collision.

I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.

Use standard radio procedures and eyeballs (and, if available and suitable, backed up by other help) but eyes (and fingers) on screens in cockpits in busy GA terminal space is *not* what I want more of.

In defence of bad R/T procedures in CTAFs - I am sure a lot of the calls are made by students who are not confident and proficient (and often quite nervous) on the radio and by pilots who are similarly a bit frightened of talking on the radio. I would assume a large swag (perhaps most) of GA traffic at least along the east coast will be training flights with novice pilots.

That doesn't make bad R/T right but in most cases I am willing to cut people some slack. They are learning or at least trying to do the right thing. At Outerwoopwoop where there might be 2 aircraft in the CTAF and someone stumbles and adds extra words or umms and ahs, at least they are talking to each other.

Admittedly in a busy CTAF it is far from ideal but I know I have made (and will no doubt again make) some embarrassing radio calls. No excuse but human factors means humans make mistakes. Telling them to not mistakes doesn't seem to work that well. Setting good examples help. Encouraging people to look at the standard phraseology helps.

Calling people out just makes people nervous, the 3 fundamentals of instructing, sarcasm, intimidation and ridicule somehow don't seem to make most people that confident on the radio, particularly when those 3 fundamentals are expressed via the tone of voice or even the choice of words, on the radio in response to a poor call, as sometimes happens (not saying anyone here does that but I have heard it).

Certainly important to teach people to do the right thing but when students (and weekend warriors) get scared of talking at all in case they make a fool of themselves because they are not 100% of the right protocol or making a goose of themselves, that is worse.

my 2c

[Checkboard]

I had the CAGRO,Unicom whatever its called at Ballina try to assure me that the traffic I was trying to contact was in the training area to the north and "that there would be no conflict",

So, where was the traffic? :)

[le Pingouin]

I rang and the controller thanked me for calling saying he just wanted to apologise and explain - he said had glanced at his screen just before clearing us, (this D tower gets a feed from the radar centre), and there was another aircraft slightly lower than us, on final about 100m in front and although he could only eyeball our aircraft from the cab he thought had stuffed up his sequencing and immediately acted to separate us from the other aircraft. As we went round, that aircraft then disappeared from the screen. Turned out it was a ghost.

I asked him if this was something that had ever happened before and he said every now and again they do get spurious aircraft that suddenly appear on their display. Normally he said it is obvious it is not legit but in this case with the busy circuit he thought he had made a mistake and stuffed up the sequence so acted to try and avoid a collision.

I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.

Rather than being an additional spurious aircraft they were likely to both have been you - one your SSR return and the other your ADS-B. For a coupled track (as in a surveillance return linked to a flight data record) we usually see just one track - the computer combines both returns into one but if one drops out briefly it might be an update or two before the tracks are recombined, so we'll see two tracks in close proximity.

For uncoupled tracks (your typical VFR squawking 1200) we see both SSR and ADS-B, usually very close together but not always, particularly during sharp turns as ADS-B is your GPS derived position while SSR use track smoothing to estimate where you are - great for when you're moving more or less in a straight line but not so hot in a tight turn.

[Lookleft]

So, where was the traffic?
Where the Centre controller told me he was on his radar. He was able to provide me with a bearing and more importantly, an accurate distance.

[Metro36]

In Australia we stick to the absolute pilot/ATC clearances etc. We don't want to say anything extra. ATC are busy enough.
From the American movies you guys always love the "hey chicago its souw-west three thirty severn outa 5 and climbing to 8 any chance of 11.."
Just wondering how this works over there..

[havick]

In Australia we stick to the absolute pilot/ATC clearances etc. We don't want to say anything extra. ATC are busy enough.
From the American movies you guys always love the "hey chicago its souw-west three thirty severn outa 5 and climbing to 8 any chance of 11.."
Just wondering how this works over there..

RT isn’t perfect in the USA but it seems to work pretty well in some of the busiest airspace in the world, Ie flying into LGA, JFK, ORD etc

[Clinton McKenzie]

I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.

Use standard radio procedures and eyeballs (and, if available and suitable, backed up by other help) but eyes (and fingers) on screens in cockpits in busy GA terminal space is *not* what I want more of.^^^This^^^
In defence of bad R/T procedures in CTAFs - I am sure a lot of the calls are made by students who are not confident and proficient (and often quite nervous) on the radio and by pilots who are similarly a bit frightened of talking on the radio. I would assume a large swag (perhaps most) of GA traffic at least along the east coast will be training flights with novice pilots.

That doesn't make bad R/T right but in most cases I am willing to cut people some slack. They are learning or at least trying to do the right thing. At Outerwoopwoop where there might be 2 aircraft in the CTAF and someone stumbles and adds extra words or umms and ahs, at least they are talking to each other.Would that that were the bulk of the problem.

It seems to me that the unnecessary verbosity is being actively trained.

(Remember when this was a report? "Alpha Alpha Alpha Grong Grong two two five five zero zero Wagga Wagga four four.")

[Aussie Bob]

It seems to me that the unnecessary verbosity is being actively trained.


Indeed Clinton, that is my experience. Calls when taxiing for fuel and the run ups then blow by blow descriptions of every move regardless of traffic are taught and encouraged by the three local schools around here. They are all RAA. Any attempt to discuss this leads to either ridicule or trotting out "the safety cow". I frequently note calls being over transmitted by needless chatter at an adjacent airfield where the babbling goons are totally ignorant of what they are doing.

My several attempts at education failed dismally, now I just observe :-)

[Clinton McKenzie]

That is disturbing, AB.

In my opinion, the RAA organisations concerned are dangerously misguided.

[On eyre]

That is disturbing, AB.

In my opinion, the RAA organisations concerned are dangerously misguided.

What he said absolutely 👍

[Pinky the pilot]

That is disturbing, AB.

In my opinion, the RAA organisations concerned are dangerously misguided.

Seconded.:ok:

[Aussie Bob]

There was once a rumour that CASA was going to discuss this very issue at safety seminars. Never happened to my knowledge and possibly never will but perhaps the issue could be raised with them. I certainly will next time they visit.

On another note, I observe that the chatterbox's are the most difficult to engage and the least likely to hear others broadcasts.. Old mate who speed reads his arrival with great brevity is usually the exact opposite and will hear and note everything.

[Capn Bloggs]

Bring it up at RAPAC. Oh, wait...

[Clinton McKenzie]

Is anyone able to describe the problem/s solved by the replacement of the RAPACs with AvSEF?

[triadic]

Re RAPAC to AVSEF
CASA said that it was to engage a wider audience, however many believe that it was to save $$ and to have more say in what is discussed or what resolutions made etc