Practice Pan
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whowhenwhy...
I don't believe that your analogy is appropriate, I'm afraid.
Yes, we use the sim to rehearse all sorts of drills, in an environment where our actions don't impinge on the safety of real passengers and aircraft. Sometimes, we train in empty aircraft, but in a careful and measured manner.
We don't, of course, simulate emergencies on scheduled sectors with passengers aboard - and as 121.5 is a real, not simulated, distress channel, I believe that it should not be clogged up with pleasure pilots doing their training.
Lost comms have a new and horrible connotation since the WTC attack, and the fall-back process of contact on 121.5 mitigates against someone mis-percieving a simple loss of comms event as something a very great deal more sinister, and even more horribly, starting to take action.
There are two principle problems with training use of 121.5: First, that the 'chatter' will cause professional crews to de-select 121.5, and then leave a crew in a lost comms situation from which there is no short-term escape (often, lost comms goes un-noticed and un-known by one party for a considerable length of time). Second, that a crew monitoring 121.5 might be sufficiently distracted by chatter to commit an error.
I don't condone the use of 121.5 for airline chat either, though it's worth considering that, in using box 2 or 3 for 121.5, one no llonger has the 'company' frequency available.
I don't believe that your analogy is appropriate, I'm afraid.
Yes, we use the sim to rehearse all sorts of drills, in an environment where our actions don't impinge on the safety of real passengers and aircraft. Sometimes, we train in empty aircraft, but in a careful and measured manner.
We don't, of course, simulate emergencies on scheduled sectors with passengers aboard - and as 121.5 is a real, not simulated, distress channel, I believe that it should not be clogged up with pleasure pilots doing their training.
Lost comms have a new and horrible connotation since the WTC attack, and the fall-back process of contact on 121.5 mitigates against someone mis-percieving a simple loss of comms event as something a very great deal more sinister, and even more horribly, starting to take action.
There are two principle problems with training use of 121.5: First, that the 'chatter' will cause professional crews to de-select 121.5, and then leave a crew in a lost comms situation from which there is no short-term escape (often, lost comms goes un-noticed and un-known by one party for a considerable length of time). Second, that a crew monitoring 121.5 might be sufficiently distracted by chatter to commit an error.
I don't condone the use of 121.5 for airline chat either, though it's worth considering that, in using box 2 or 3 for 121.5, one no llonger has the 'company' frequency available.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
121.5 is called "Guard" because it is the frequency that we all Guard............i.e. we listen out on the frequency for any urgent or distress calls.
The reason why pilots call other pilots "on guard" is because if we hear our callsign and the words "on guard" we know that whoever is calling us is on the radio tuned to 121.5 and not the other two we may be listening to at the same time.
The UK is the only country that I am aware of using 121.50 for non-emergency traffic.
Few if any aerodromes within the UK monitor 121.50. Thus coverage on 121.5 can be severly limited in certain areas despite an ATC unit being close at hand (Carlisle and the Lake District being an example).
Outside the UK as far as I am aware most Aerodrome ATC units listen out on 121.50 at all times.
To make matters worse, I have come across instructors sending off solo students with the message - if you get lost call 121.50 and ask for a training fix.
Perhaps the pilots could stop using 121.50 and start using 999 on their telephones just for the practice. What would the response be then?
What the UK CAA should considder is not simply the efect on crews monitoring 121.50 but just as importantly - adjacent FIRs............it can only be a matter of time before some practice eh er eh er on 121.50 over the Southern UK interferes with a genuine emergency over Northern France.
An aircraft at 3000ft over the South UK coast making a practice call on 121.50 can interfere with an emergency flightalso at 3000ft on 121.50 who is almost 100nm away (Near Paris) or a flight at FL350 some 250nm away (well South of Paris). Thus simply having the UK D+D say continue practice pan ( because they can't hear anything) is simply not good enough.......before permitting such a practice, the London D+D should be required to contact all adjacent FIR/ACCs and get permission to block their 121.50 with non-essential transmissions. I can guarantee that if they ask they will be told no because safety dictates that 121.5 is kept as clear as possible!
If the CAA is going to permit this practice then I believe that they are required to ensure that such use of 121.50 does not extend beyond the FIR boundary and since aircraft can make such calls up to FL244 then the posibility of interfeering with adjacent FIRs use of 121.50 needs serious consideration for safety sake.
Regards,
DFC
The reason why pilots call other pilots "on guard" is because if we hear our callsign and the words "on guard" we know that whoever is calling us is on the radio tuned to 121.5 and not the other two we may be listening to at the same time.
The UK is the only country that I am aware of using 121.50 for non-emergency traffic.
Few if any aerodromes within the UK monitor 121.50. Thus coverage on 121.5 can be severly limited in certain areas despite an ATC unit being close at hand (Carlisle and the Lake District being an example).
Outside the UK as far as I am aware most Aerodrome ATC units listen out on 121.50 at all times.
To make matters worse, I have come across instructors sending off solo students with the message - if you get lost call 121.50 and ask for a training fix.
Perhaps the pilots could stop using 121.50 and start using 999 on their telephones just for the practice. What would the response be then?
What the UK CAA should considder is not simply the efect on crews monitoring 121.50 but just as importantly - adjacent FIRs............it can only be a matter of time before some practice eh er eh er on 121.50 over the Southern UK interferes with a genuine emergency over Northern France.
An aircraft at 3000ft over the South UK coast making a practice call on 121.50 can interfere with an emergency flightalso at 3000ft on 121.50 who is almost 100nm away (Near Paris) or a flight at FL350 some 250nm away (well South of Paris). Thus simply having the UK D+D say continue practice pan ( because they can't hear anything) is simply not good enough.......before permitting such a practice, the London D+D should be required to contact all adjacent FIR/ACCs and get permission to block their 121.50 with non-essential transmissions. I can guarantee that if they ask they will be told no because safety dictates that 121.5 is kept as clear as possible!
If the CAA is going to permit this practice then I believe that they are required to ensure that such use of 121.50 does not extend beyond the FIR boundary and since aircraft can make such calls up to FL244 then the posibility of interfeering with adjacent FIRs use of 121.50 needs serious consideration for safety sake.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put DFC. I agree entirely, as does every other pilot I know of with whom it's been discussed at work recently.
Ppactice Pans on 121.5 simply result in most turning the volume down completely or simply deselecting the monitoring of 121.5
Quite simply, a practice pan DOES interfere with good monitoring of a busy ATC frequency. Commercial aircraft are now required by the CAA to monitor 121.5 when at all possible, and so to that end using it for PPL practices is no longer sadly justified.
As an ex PPL instructor I fully understand the usefulness of a practice pan, but times have changed :-(
I fully support the case for another frequency to be allocated for practice use, one that the rest of us don't get distracted by.........
30W
Ppactice Pans on 121.5 simply result in most turning the volume down completely or simply deselecting the monitoring of 121.5
Quite simply, a practice pan DOES interfere with good monitoring of a busy ATC frequency. Commercial aircraft are now required by the CAA to monitor 121.5 when at all possible, and so to that end using it for PPL practices is no longer sadly justified.
As an ex PPL instructor I fully understand the usefulness of a practice pan, but times have changed :-(
I fully support the case for another frequency to be allocated for practice use, one that the rest of us don't get distracted by.........
30W
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bisley
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to hear the views of the D&D guys and gals themselves, I know some of them read these pages.
At the moment they are still actively encouraging practise Pans and training fixes. One has to ask if is this is now out of step with the changing requirements of aviation as a whole. What is the priority and correct use of 121.5 these days a PPL training for an emergency in the future or a channel of communication for ATC to contact airways traffic in a PLOC situation?
If there is a D&D reply to this - when is the London Mil website starting?
regards
Swan
At the moment they are still actively encouraging practise Pans and training fixes. One has to ask if is this is now out of step with the changing requirements of aviation as a whole. What is the priority and correct use of 121.5 these days a PPL training for an emergency in the future or a channel of communication for ATC to contact airways traffic in a PLOC situation?
If there is a D&D reply to this - when is the London Mil website starting?
regards
Swan
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
How about nominating 121.4, or 121.6 for practice pan calls? Are these frequencies in use elsewhere?
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
121.6 is the universal RFFS-acft on the ground frequency.
Didn't 121.4 use to be Leavesden Radar? Showing my age now.
It shows as Shannon and Beauvais now.
Didn't 121.4 use to be Leavesden Radar? Showing my age now.
It shows as Shannon and Beauvais now.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outside the UK as far as I am aware most Aerodrome ATC units listen out on 121.50 at all times.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of reopening a long-dead thread, I would like to express a slightly alternative opinion to the majority of posters.
I don't think the the use of 121.5 to allow "practice pans" in the UK is a hazard to safety nor do I think that it should cease. The CAA recommends the monitoring of 121.5 by en-route traffic to enable contact to be re-established quickly if an aircraft flies out of range of the ground station, misses a change of frequency or suffers a sleaping receiver etc. Now, the majority of people find they have to deselect 121.5 because they struggle to listen to 2 active frequencies at the same time - ergo they have not suffered a radio failure!
It might be argued that once it has been deselected crews might forget to reselect 121.5 when the "practice pan" has finished. This is indeed a valid argument, but I think that most UK controllers would try a relay before going to the hassle of calling the D&D cell to get them to transmit to the offending flight.
If a crew has deselected 121.5 then suffered a sleeping receiver on box 1 then it isn't their day, but they should still spot something is wrong because for the most part of the day the UK frequencies are very busy and I would not expect to go more than 5 minutes without hearing a transmission.
DFC does raise a good point about operations on 121.5 in the UK interfering with adjacent FIRs. Surely this could be party avoided if guidance was given on where not to try "practice pans" (ie. not on the FIR boundary at FL235).
I personally believe that the large number of (seemingly spurious) ELTs which seem to transmit incessantly over 121.5 in some of the quieter parts of Europe are actually more of a hazard than a few "practice pans" in the UK. But that is only my personal view.
G W-H
I don't think the the use of 121.5 to allow "practice pans" in the UK is a hazard to safety nor do I think that it should cease. The CAA recommends the monitoring of 121.5 by en-route traffic to enable contact to be re-established quickly if an aircraft flies out of range of the ground station, misses a change of frequency or suffers a sleaping receiver etc. Now, the majority of people find they have to deselect 121.5 because they struggle to listen to 2 active frequencies at the same time - ergo they have not suffered a radio failure!
It might be argued that once it has been deselected crews might forget to reselect 121.5 when the "practice pan" has finished. This is indeed a valid argument, but I think that most UK controllers would try a relay before going to the hassle of calling the D&D cell to get them to transmit to the offending flight.
If a crew has deselected 121.5 then suffered a sleeping receiver on box 1 then it isn't their day, but they should still spot something is wrong because for the most part of the day the UK frequencies are very busy and I would not expect to go more than 5 minutes without hearing a transmission.
DFC does raise a good point about operations on 121.5 in the UK interfering with adjacent FIRs. Surely this could be party avoided if guidance was given on where not to try "practice pans" (ie. not on the FIR boundary at FL235).
I personally believe that the large number of (seemingly spurious) ELTs which seem to transmit incessantly over 121.5 in some of the quieter parts of Europe are actually more of a hazard than a few "practice pans" in the UK. But that is only my personal view.
G W-H
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giles,
One does not have to be near the boundary to interfere with an adjacent FIR. An aircraft at 2000ft near Birmingham will be picked up by an aircraft well into the Paris FIR at FL350 and the Shannon FIR at much lower levels.
If you want to work out where a practice can be made without being received by aircraft in an adjacent ACC's airspace try the following;
On the basis that except for a very few mostly UHF equipped aircraft, the highest cruise in current use is FL500ish (50000ft)
The reception range at 50,000ft is about 270 miles when the transmitter is at sea level.
Get out your chart and draw an area that is at least 270 miles from all FIRs adjacent to the UK..........At a guess it might leave you with sone airspace in Scotland where you can go and practice without interfering with other countries emergency traffic............and we are dealing with a transmitter at sea level where D+D won't even pick up the call.
Regards,
DFC
One does not have to be near the boundary to interfere with an adjacent FIR. An aircraft at 2000ft near Birmingham will be picked up by an aircraft well into the Paris FIR at FL350 and the Shannon FIR at much lower levels.
If you want to work out where a practice can be made without being received by aircraft in an adjacent ACC's airspace try the following;
On the basis that except for a very few mostly UHF equipped aircraft, the highest cruise in current use is FL500ish (50000ft)
The reception range at 50,000ft is about 270 miles when the transmitter is at sea level.
Get out your chart and draw an area that is at least 270 miles from all FIRs adjacent to the UK..........At a guess it might leave you with sone airspace in Scotland where you can go and practice without interfering with other countries emergency traffic............and we are dealing with a transmitter at sea level where D+D won't even pick up the call.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do take your point about interferance with operations in other FIRs. Since the majority of "practice pans" are carried out at low level, I don't think this is much of a problem. If you are at FL350 in the Paris FIR in an emergency, I would suggest that 121.5 is probably not the most appropriate frequency.
121.5 is monitored by D&D cells at Scottish and London Centres both with autotriangulation equipment. Does anyone know whether similar triangulation is used by other countries? Just interested to know.
G W-H
121.5 is monitored by D&D cells at Scottish and London Centres both with autotriangulation equipment. Does anyone know whether similar triangulation is used by other countries? Just interested to know.
G W-H
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giles,
When I am at FL350 just in the Paris FIR, I may be receiving an emergency call from a low level GA flight out of range of ground stations when your practice pan blocks out their call!!!
Using 121.50 for practice is just the same as using 999 for practice. I would hate to be the one that blocks the emergency frequency causing some pilot unnecessary dificulty.
I feel that this all comes down to money!
NATS piggyback their responsibilities for monitoring 121.50 onto the military system. To reduce the requirement for simulator training with the D+D staff, they get people to use the real frequency for training purposes. What a shame that the 243 coverage is far better than 121.50 despite both being provided by the same people!!!
Regards,
DFC
When I am at FL350 just in the Paris FIR, I may be receiving an emergency call from a low level GA flight out of range of ground stations when your practice pan blocks out their call!!!
Using 121.50 for practice is just the same as using 999 for practice. I would hate to be the one that blocks the emergency frequency causing some pilot unnecessary dificulty.
I feel that this all comes down to money!
NATS piggyback their responsibilities for monitoring 121.50 onto the military system. To reduce the requirement for simulator training with the D+D staff, they get people to use the real frequency for training purposes. What a shame that the 243 coverage is far better than 121.50 despite both being provided by the same people!!!
Regards,
DFC
DFC you are wrong. D&D do not get people do practise on 121.5 to reduce their requirement for simulator training and any comment along those lines shows your ignorance as to what happens. Private pilots and their instructors throughout the London FIR call practise PANs on 121.5. I believe that this is because it is written in the syllabus. It's also good for the trainee to know what service is available. D&D only encourage people to train because it enables people who perhaps do not have the airmanship skills of other airspace users, to practise.
One further point. What are you trying to achieve by your statement that the UHF system has better coverage than the VHF system? Do you think that that has any effect on the way that the guys in D&D go about their task? Because if that is the case then I suggest you might want to consider a retraction. Otherwise, please simply explain.
One further point. What are you trying to achieve by your statement that the UHF system has better coverage than the VHF system? Do you think that that has any effect on the way that the guys in D&D go about their task? Because if that is the case then I suggest you might want to consider a retraction. Otherwise, please simply explain.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who when why,
There is no requirement in the JAA sylabus for actual use of 121.5 during training. If one was to try that then every other JAA country except the UK would object.
The difference in coverage between the UHF and the VHF systems shows that one system has had more investment and comittment to providing the maximum possible coverage than the other.
Questions -
If D+D are dealing with UHF emergency traffic, are extra staff brought in to retain the coverage of 121.50 to the same extent as prior to the emergency call or seat alarm on 243?
Not unusual for an aircraft captain monitoring 121.50 to request that pilots stop transmitting on guard (if it is not emergenct traffic). What would D+D do if pilots monitoring 121.50 told D+D or the aircraft practising to stop transmitting non esstential transmissions on 121.50?
The CAA and D+D encourage pilots to use 121.50 for to Quote OIC D+D "We encourage training because it enables us to practice our procedures".
Does the Coast Guard operate training on the Marine Guard frequencies?
Regards,
DFC
There is no requirement in the JAA sylabus for actual use of 121.5 during training. If one was to try that then every other JAA country except the UK would object.
The difference in coverage between the UHF and the VHF systems shows that one system has had more investment and comittment to providing the maximum possible coverage than the other.
Questions -
If D+D are dealing with UHF emergency traffic, are extra staff brought in to retain the coverage of 121.50 to the same extent as prior to the emergency call or seat alarm on 243?
Not unusual for an aircraft captain monitoring 121.50 to request that pilots stop transmitting on guard (if it is not emergenct traffic). What would D+D do if pilots monitoring 121.50 told D+D or the aircraft practising to stop transmitting non esstential transmissions on 121.50?
The CAA and D+D encourage pilots to use 121.50 for to Quote OIC D+D "We encourage training because it enables us to practice our procedures".
Does the Coast Guard operate training on the Marine Guard frequencies?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the Coast Guard operate training on the Marine Guard frequencies?
Having personal expreiences of all sides of the argument (military, aircrew, ATCO) I think this argument can only be settled by change, ideally a VHF PETF.
What a shame that the 243 coverage is far better than 121.50 despite both being provided by the same people!!!
I believe Emergencies R Us said that it enables everyone to practise and yes that includes D&D. Not much use having a bunch of emergency controllers who the first time that they respond to an emergency it is a real one.
I think everyone agrees that a VHF PETF is required. The only way for that to happen is, rather than talking about it on Prune, talking officially to the CAA, NATS, SRG etc. There is no doubt that there is a negative impact upon flight safety through the use of 121.5 to practise on. The military realized that sometime ago and lo and behold, once enough pilots had complained, pointing out the flight safety implications of what was happening, PETF was born.
DFC, I think that your rather bald statement that the military system has had more investment is a bit off the mark. The UHF system was initially devized, using a lot of existing transmitter and receiver sites, to provide coverage across the UK, specifically over the North Sea to enable D&D to find Lightning pilots who kept ejecting from their aircraft. The civil system has only ever been about keeping light aircraft pilots outside the London TMA specifically and CAS generally. It was never supposed to mirror the military system and shouldn't be seen in that light. I think that the guys up in D&D might also raise issue with the level of investment that's been made in the system itself, when you look at the kit that they work with!
I think everyone agrees that a VHF PETF is required. The only way for that to happen is, rather than talking about it on Prune, talking officially to the CAA, NATS, SRG etc. There is no doubt that there is a negative impact upon flight safety through the use of 121.5 to practise on. The military realized that sometime ago and lo and behold, once enough pilots had complained, pointing out the flight safety implications of what was happening, PETF was born.
DFC, I think that your rather bald statement that the military system has had more investment is a bit off the mark. The UHF system was initially devized, using a lot of existing transmitter and receiver sites, to provide coverage across the UK, specifically over the North Sea to enable D&D to find Lightning pilots who kept ejecting from their aircraft. The civil system has only ever been about keeping light aircraft pilots outside the London TMA specifically and CAS generally. It was never supposed to mirror the military system and shouldn't be seen in that light. I think that the guys up in D&D might also raise issue with the level of investment that's been made in the system itself, when you look at the kit that they work with!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention that doing practice on a guard frequency ties up that freq and makes everyone who is in earshot of that freq, turn it off so as to not over ride regular traffic. We in the US have another issue too, if you start broadcasting on guard for any length of time, the SAR sat is going to pick it up and start reporting it... Thus getting search and rescue asking questions.
regards
Scott
regards
Scott
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed Scott,
I forgot that effect - a bla bla bla student practice pan call in the UK could cause probelms for the satelite and perhaps affect it's ability to pick up an ELT or SARBE nearby (in satelite terms!)
Can anyone remember how many passes it can take for the satelite to give a decent fix and how much longer it would take if there was another transmission within say 50nm at the same time as the pass was being made?
Of course, the satelite based system is moving away from 121.50 and that will be a partial fix once everyone's SARBE and ELTS are changed.
Perhaps we should simply leave it up to the pilots - if you want to risk causing someone harm by interfering unnecessarily with an emergency transmission then practice on the emergency frequency - if you would prefer not to risk blocking an emergency frequency then don't................does anyone believe that would reduce nuisance calls...........I doubt it!
Regards,
DFC
I forgot that effect - a bla bla bla student practice pan call in the UK could cause probelms for the satelite and perhaps affect it's ability to pick up an ELT or SARBE nearby (in satelite terms!)
Can anyone remember how many passes it can take for the satelite to give a decent fix and how much longer it would take if there was another transmission within say 50nm at the same time as the pass was being made?
Of course, the satelite based system is moving away from 121.50 and that will be a partial fix once everyone's SARBE and ELTS are changed.
Perhaps we should simply leave it up to the pilots - if you want to risk causing someone harm by interfering unnecessarily with an emergency transmission then practice on the emergency frequency - if you would prefer not to risk blocking an emergency frequency then don't................does anyone believe that would reduce nuisance calls...........I doubt it!
Regards,
DFC
