What should be said
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kazakhstan
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should be said
What's the appropriate pilot RTF in the following circumstance?
Scenario:
Speaking to a non-radar, IFR , approach ATSU.
Aircraft is inbound for an instrument approach and the inbound track is such that on reaching the terminal/approach navaid/holding-fix a 'reversal' (parallel or off-set entry to the hold procedure) manoeuvre is required to return back over the navaid to either enter the hold or connect with the localizer and continue 'straight-in'.
Obviously there are two transmissions required. The first when first over the navaid to inform ATC of that and that the aircraft is manoeuvring /turning back, the second that the aircraft has completed the manoeuvre, is back over the navaid and is either established in the hold (turning outbound), or "beacon inbound" (if having been cleared for the instrument approach.
I have had the following suggested to me:-
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), COMMENCING REVERSAL TURN"; or,
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), TURNING OUTBOUND"; or,
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), COMMENCING ENTRY PROCEDURE"
then subsequently - having completed the manoeuvre and back over the navaid:-
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), BEACON INBOUND"; or,
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), ESTABLISHED IN THE HOLD (plus perhaps) TURNING OUTBOUND"
I would appreciate any reference to any document in which I can find such RTF modelled as I am not aware of any.
Thanking folk in adavance, etc.......
Scenario:
Speaking to a non-radar, IFR , approach ATSU.
Aircraft is inbound for an instrument approach and the inbound track is such that on reaching the terminal/approach navaid/holding-fix a 'reversal' (parallel or off-set entry to the hold procedure) manoeuvre is required to return back over the navaid to either enter the hold or connect with the localizer and continue 'straight-in'.
Obviously there are two transmissions required. The first when first over the navaid to inform ATC of that and that the aircraft is manoeuvring /turning back, the second that the aircraft has completed the manoeuvre, is back over the navaid and is either established in the hold (turning outbound), or "beacon inbound" (if having been cleared for the instrument approach.
I have had the following suggested to me:-
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), COMMENCING REVERSAL TURN"; or,
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), TURNING OUTBOUND"; or,
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), COMMENCING ENTRY PROCEDURE"
then subsequently - having completed the manoeuvre and back over the navaid:-
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), BEACON INBOUND"; or,
"(name of navaid) TIME (xx), ESTABLISHED IN THE HOLD (plus perhaps) TURNING OUTBOUND"
I would appreciate any reference to any document in which I can find such RTF modelled as I am not aware of any.
Thanking folk in adavance, etc.......
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a long time since my APP course, but I'll have a stab at it.
If the aircraft has been instructed to hold at the beacon, I think it should report "overhead XXX taking up the hold" irrespective of whether it has to do an entry procedure.
If it has been cleared for the APP procedure, it should report "overhead" when it is there, and after the entry procedure should report "beacon outbound" and subsequently "established inbound/ on ILS" or "procedure/base turn complete" or "beacon inbound" dependant of the type of navaids in use.
If the aircraft has been instructed to hold at the beacon, I think it should report "overhead XXX taking up the hold" irrespective of whether it has to do an entry procedure.
If it has been cleared for the APP procedure, it should report "overhead" when it is there, and after the entry procedure should report "beacon outbound" and subsequently "established inbound/ on ILS" or "procedure/base turn complete" or "beacon inbound" dependant of the type of navaids in use.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fat Controller is correct, or at least as a procedural controller I would understand his reports.
I would suggest that you replace the overhead report with commencing entry procedure if that is what you are doing.
What you need to remember is that the procedural controller is trusting your reports as a pilot and using them to provide some form of seperation.
The more accurate you are the quicker they can work and therefore reduce delays if there are people waiting in the hold and there is less chance of them miss-understanding you.
I remember loosing seperation between aircraft while working without radar because a pilot reported "beacon outbound from the overhead for the procedure" when in actual fact he was carrying out an entry procedure before commencing an NDB approach.
This put him on the wrong side of the beacon and I'd dropped another aircraft to his level in what should have been a deemed seperated hold if he'd been where he said he was.
I would suggest that you replace the overhead report with commencing entry procedure if that is what you are doing.
What you need to remember is that the procedural controller is trusting your reports as a pilot and using them to provide some form of seperation.
The more accurate you are the quicker they can work and therefore reduce delays if there are people waiting in the hold and there is less chance of them miss-understanding you.
I remember loosing seperation between aircraft while working without radar because a pilot reported "beacon outbound from the overhead for the procedure" when in actual fact he was carrying out an entry procedure before commencing an NDB approach.
This put him on the wrong side of the beacon and I'd dropped another aircraft to his level in what should have been a deemed seperated hold if he'd been where he said he was.
