Not responding on 121.5
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't talk about it....do something; because if you don't, everyone on here will know just how very very wrong you are.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After spending a pleasant time on leave I have returned. Rogue Trooper, give up the bun fight, it seems you are itching for a punch-up, let it go. Fact is 121.5 SHOULD only be used for emergencies, but, it is not. Practice pans are a waste of time unless you are a D&D controller with nothing else to do and are desperate for a practice pan/pan to break up the monotomy of your day. Been there, seen it, done it. Real Air Traffic Controllers do not need practice pans and if they did, they should be in the simulator with the trainees. As said before, check out the real emergencies on other websites and you will learn way more than you will on 121.5.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rogue Trooper5,
There is a military saying I am thinking of.
Heels together.
About turn
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
Some of us don't need to tell the world who we are. This a forum for debate not a celebrity contest.
I have asked a question relevant to the debate. Feel free to answer it at your leisure.
Here it is again;
Am I wrong to say that the vast majority of the traffic that could conflict with SAR ops at 2000ft ASFC or below in class G airspace do not monitor 121.5?
Why not finish your shift and take your time.
There is a military saying I am thinking of.
Heels together.
About turn
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
left right
Some of us don't need to tell the world who we are. This a forum for debate not a celebrity contest.
I have asked a question relevant to the debate. Feel free to answer it at your leisure.
Here it is again;
Am I wrong to say that the vast majority of the traffic that could conflict with SAR ops at 2000ft ASFC or below in class G airspace do not monitor 121.5?
Why not finish your shift and take your time.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, Rogue Trooper,
Tell us all (to improve our knowledge) what typical civil flights below 2000ft ASFC reguluarly monitor 121.5? You can include all airspace classes in your answer.
The problem is that in order to describe a person as a fraud you would have know that to be the case. You don't know me. Therefore since you have no way of knowing it to be the case (and of course it is not) you are making a defamatory statement. Perhaps you are following in the footsteps of Mad Jock a bit too closely. I will ignore it this time but ask mad Jock what happens to defamatory posts
I have no problem (in fact I have requested) that PPRUNE be limited to people who can provide an appropriate licence and this should be the basis of their profile (personal data removed). That would remove the unlicensed element from trashing regular debates. I have a professional pilot licence. You don't have an ATC licence do you? Do you have a professional pilot licence? A Private Pilot licence? Any form of civil aviation experience?
Some of use would prefer to debate the topic and not have to filter out all the claims of "I must be correct because after all I have .......(insert some random number) years of experience.
Anyway, enough grunting. back to the topic.
Tell us all (to improve our knowledge) what typical civil flights below 2000ft ASFC reguluarly monitor 121.5? You can include all airspace classes in your answer.
The problem is that in order to describe a person as a fraud you would have know that to be the case. You don't know me. Therefore since you have no way of knowing it to be the case (and of course it is not) you are making a defamatory statement. Perhaps you are following in the footsteps of Mad Jock a bit too closely. I will ignore it this time but ask mad Jock what happens to defamatory posts
I have no problem (in fact I have requested) that PPRUNE be limited to people who can provide an appropriate licence and this should be the basis of their profile (personal data removed). That would remove the unlicensed element from trashing regular debates. I have a professional pilot licence. You don't have an ATC licence do you? Do you have a professional pilot licence? A Private Pilot licence? Any form of civil aviation experience?
Some of use would prefer to debate the topic and not have to filter out all the claims of "I must be correct because after all I have .......(insert some random number) years of experience.
Anyway, enough grunting. back to the topic.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM
In my view and I hold a professional licence.
CRM is what makes our world a safer place.
That means from the smallest job driving the honey wagon through our operational jobs in the flightdeck and in the towers and control rooms of the world.
We all work together.
But DFC in your last post, CRM has gone for burton.
You may, and I do not know the answer, be right in saying that RT5 does not hold a licence to operate as an ATCO.
This thread is in the ATC issues section of Pprune.
So DFC are you saying that the ATC section should not have contributions from the very people in the know about that subject. Or might be able to answer a question from the other side of the screen or radio.
I disagree with you but to be honest can't be bothered arguing against you.
But here is a question for D&D.
When you transmit about SAR ops, would local ground stations be able to pick up those transmissions. To a point DFC is right about light aircraft not monitoring 121.5. They should and as an instructor I always advocated that they did if a spare box was fitted.
But if the local ATC units pick up on the SAR ops call they can then relay it to any known aircraft?
CRM is what makes our world a safer place.
That means from the smallest job driving the honey wagon through our operational jobs in the flightdeck and in the towers and control rooms of the world.
We all work together.
But DFC in your last post, CRM has gone for burton.
You may, and I do not know the answer, be right in saying that RT5 does not hold a licence to operate as an ATCO.
This thread is in the ATC issues section of Pprune.
So DFC are you saying that the ATC section should not have contributions from the very people in the know about that subject. Or might be able to answer a question from the other side of the screen or radio.
I disagree with you but to be honest can't be bothered arguing against you.
But here is a question for D&D.
When you transmit about SAR ops, would local ground stations be able to pick up those transmissions. To a point DFC is right about light aircraft not monitoring 121.5. They should and as an instructor I always advocated that they did if a spare box was fitted.
But if the local ATC units pick up on the SAR ops call they can then relay it to any known aircraft?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Mags On,
CRM went out the window with the invitation to go down the squash courts without the need to any sports equipment!!
The "step outside" attitude which was picked up on by at least one other poster was amplified in a personal message.
I was simply trying to reflect back some of the attitude I received but without the violent bits.
However, it is nice to hear that the RAF has started issuing licenses to serving controllers. That will save them having to complete the full civil ATC training course from scratch when they leave.
--------
As for ground units receiving 121.5. One has to remember the unique set-up in the UK.
121.5 is not reguluarly monitored by most civil units (towers and acc sectors). There are a few exceptions - Carlisle I think is one for an obvious reason!!
So even if say Bournemouth, Southampton and Shoreham all have direct line of sight to the transmitter at Ventnor Isle of Wight they will never hear any transmissions on 121.5
Furthermore if you are flying at FL350 over say Birmingham and have an emergency and (for some reason) call on 121.5 then none of the controllers who are working the traffic in any of the london sectors nor any of the aerodromes below you are going to hear that call.
The call is going to be heard by military personnel who also are providing the same service to the military on 243 and the controller working the traffic near you will not know of your call until they receive a phone call from the military people in D+D.
So if you decide to divert to Birmingham with a very expeditions descent then they will not have a clue until they receive a phone call and may not be able to pass you anything on 121.5 eg weather approach etc etc. Which is a bit of a pain to say the least.
Strange thing is that D+D has automatic executive control of every emergency in the UK and if you read the wording of the SOPs at the ACC carefully you will find that;
a) Civil ATCO's are required to inform D+D if you have an emergency in their sector
b) D+D immediately has executive control
c) D+D can (usually do) permit the civil unti to continue handling the emergency.
If we look at one of the legitimate calls on 121.5 as an example:
Milano ABC123 10nm North west of TOP FL330 can you confirm the frequency we should be on.
ABC 123 call me on 134.525 (made up frequency)
or
London Centre ABC123 10nm North West of HON can you confirm the frequency we should be on.
ABC123 standby
telephone conversation later
ABC 123 call 134.525 (made up frequency)
So quite a different situation. Some pro's and some con's to both cases but one should be aware of what is available if one calls.
----
Rogue,
I have been to D+D several times. Very nice people.
CRM went out the window with the invitation to go down the squash courts without the need to any sports equipment!!
The "step outside" attitude which was picked up on by at least one other poster was amplified in a personal message.
I was simply trying to reflect back some of the attitude I received but without the violent bits.
However, it is nice to hear that the RAF has started issuing licenses to serving controllers. That will save them having to complete the full civil ATC training course from scratch when they leave.
--------
As for ground units receiving 121.5. One has to remember the unique set-up in the UK.
121.5 is not reguluarly monitored by most civil units (towers and acc sectors). There are a few exceptions - Carlisle I think is one for an obvious reason!!
So even if say Bournemouth, Southampton and Shoreham all have direct line of sight to the transmitter at Ventnor Isle of Wight they will never hear any transmissions on 121.5
Furthermore if you are flying at FL350 over say Birmingham and have an emergency and (for some reason) call on 121.5 then none of the controllers who are working the traffic in any of the london sectors nor any of the aerodromes below you are going to hear that call.
The call is going to be heard by military personnel who also are providing the same service to the military on 243 and the controller working the traffic near you will not know of your call until they receive a phone call from the military people in D+D.
So if you decide to divert to Birmingham with a very expeditions descent then they will not have a clue until they receive a phone call and may not be able to pass you anything on 121.5 eg weather approach etc etc. Which is a bit of a pain to say the least.
Strange thing is that D+D has automatic executive control of every emergency in the UK and if you read the wording of the SOPs at the ACC carefully you will find that;
a) Civil ATCO's are required to inform D+D if you have an emergency in their sector
b) D+D immediately has executive control
c) D+D can (usually do) permit the civil unti to continue handling the emergency.
If we look at one of the legitimate calls on 121.5 as an example:
Milano ABC123 10nm North west of TOP FL330 can you confirm the frequency we should be on.
ABC 123 call me on 134.525 (made up frequency)
or
London Centre ABC123 10nm North West of HON can you confirm the frequency we should be on.
ABC123 standby
telephone conversation later
ABC 123 call 134.525 (made up frequency)
So quite a different situation. Some pro's and some con's to both cases but one should be aware of what is available if one calls.
----
Rogue,
I have been to D+D several times. Very nice people.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice that my comments about his claiming to be a test pilot has been removed?
If the mods would like to check DFC's deleted posts you will find his post where he claimed to be one along with a PPL examiner.
If the mods would like to check DFC's deleted posts you will find his post where he claimed to be one along with a PPL examiner.
I don't publicise my qualifications and I don't feel the need to just to add weight to what I say.
If you think that it is rubbish then everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Debate the topic and not the person. This is not a celebrity cat fight!
---------
Rogue,
I have broken a habit of years and sent you a PM which I hope you will learn from
