Report Changing to CTAF, please
Rotoblades,
Okay, I see ... I was confused by the terminology.
So, if I declare that I am "Changing to CTAF":
If I've got all that correct then, yes, I can see how my "Changing to CTAF" will reduce your workload/responsibilities.
Okay, I see ... I was confused by the terminology.
So, if I declare that I am "Changing to CTAF":
- I will no longer be provided with traffic information
- You will not call me
- I'm no longer required to maintain 2 way comms with ATC
- You will continue to hold sar on my arrival only
If I've got all that correct then, yes, I can see how my "Changing to CTAF" will reduce your workload/responsibilities.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Peuce,
Thats correct.
I will say though, that if you are on CTAF and another aircraft calls taxiing we still tell that aircraft about you inbound (if he hasnt advised he has traffic on you already).
Other than that you should not expect anything further from ATC apart from the SAR for arrival.
As I said in a previous post, I am not saying everyone should terminate comms with ATC and go to the CTAF all the time - we dont have any issue with providing service as long as you need us, but if you are also on CTAF it is a nicety to tell us.
If you havent terminated comms with us we are still repsonsible for all the required dirceted information, and will duly provide it.
I hope this clarifies
Thats correct.
I will say though, that if you are on CTAF and another aircraft calls taxiing we still tell that aircraft about you inbound (if he hasnt advised he has traffic on you already).
Other than that you should not expect anything further from ATC apart from the SAR for arrival.
As I said in a previous post, I am not saying everyone should terminate comms with ATC and go to the CTAF all the time - we dont have any issue with providing service as long as you need us, but if you are also on CTAF it is a nicety to tell us.
If you havent terminated comms with us we are still repsonsible for all the required dirceted information, and will duly provide it.
I hope this clarifies
Ic,
Absolutely not. 
I agree the book could be better written, but it's not bad.
Tell me, PDC aside, do you include your transponder code in your taxi call to ATC at say, maybe, Perth?
I agree the book could be better written, but it's not bad.
Yes it is bad.
So you don't give your code. Strange many operators do and if they forget, guess what, SMC ask for it, now explain that one.
Now where does a foreign pilot new to Aus find these "specific instances"?
Well if you think that is "not bad" you are very kind or much smarter than me, or both. I think it is terrible. As a book of information on what to say it is astonishingly bad. Has been for years.
So you don't give your code. Strange many operators do and if they forget, guess what, SMC ask for it, now explain that one.
ATC AU-931
Taxi call for departure at a controlled aerodrome:
1.[flight number][aircraft type][wake turbulence category if "super or heavy][POB] RECEIVED (ATIS identification)[SQUAWK (SSR code)][aircraft location][flight rules][TO(aerodrome of destination)] REQUEST TAXI [intentions]
Taxi call for departure at a controlled aerodrome:
1.[flight number][aircraft type][wake turbulence category if "super or heavy][POB] RECEIVED (ATIS identification)[SQUAWK (SSR code)][aircraft location][flight rules][TO(aerodrome of destination)] REQUEST TAXI [intentions]
Words in parentheses"()" indicate that specific information, such as a level, a place a time etc., must be inserted to complete the phrase, or alternatively, that optional phrases may be used. Words in brackets "[ ]" indicate optional additional words or information that may be necessary in specific instances.
Well if you think that is "not bad" you are very kind or much smarter than me, or both. I think it is terrible. As a book of information on what to say it is astonishingly bad. Has been for years.
Last edited by Icarus2001; 10th Apr 2010 at 15:34.
I was more suggesting the other IFR traffic in the CTAF having single VHF. As a courtesy I believe most people will report in contact with traffic to reduce blocked transmissions and frequency congestion.
If people are on the wrong CTAF, isn't that a valid point as to the reason why an ATC listening watch should be maintained? Though I have to admit seeing RPT aircraft require an active AFRU and charts stipulate whether an AFRU is available, I hope everyone would be on the same frequency re RPT ops.
If people are on the wrong CTAF, isn't that a valid point as to the reason why an ATC listening watch should be maintained? Though I have to admit seeing RPT aircraft require an active AFRU and charts stipulate whether an AFRU is available, I hope everyone would be on the same frequency re RPT ops.
Ic,
[] is optional. Why would you give squawk, aircraft location, flight rules and Destination when ATC already know this, as they have already given you the clearance and pushback approval so they know where you are? (Fairly) logical to me.
Back on thread now...
[] is optional. Why would you give squawk, aircraft location, flight rules and Destination when ATC already know this, as they have already given you the clearance and pushback approval so they know where you are? (Fairly) logical to me.
Back on thread now...
I am not about to give up a level of protection in CTAF until I am safely on the ground. Until I have cancelled sarwatch, ATC can continue to do what they are paid to do and pass me any information that will enhance the safety of my flight.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to add my 2cents to this one. The "monitoring CTAF" call is irritating to ATC as technically we are still required to pass traffic etc after this call. From an ATC perpective we couldn't care less what you are monitoring and it creates doubt that you have "changed to the CTAF" when in fact you still want a traffic service. If you want to continue to recieve traffic, say nothing and respond when called. If you don't want to be hassled when in a workload intensive part of your flight, report changing.
I would like to add that when aircraft are operating into destinations where the is no VHF on the ground the problem of aircraft not reporting changing to the CTAF is compounded and creates high workload and frequency congestion of flightwatch HF. For example, ABC is inbound to YXXX estimating there at 30. They didn't report changing to the CTAF. At time 28 DEF taxys YXXX on HF and advises they have copied ABC. Flightwatch relays this to ATC ,they tell flightwatch no additional traffic and then attempt to call ABC on VHF. No response, probably out of range. ATC call FW and ask them to pass traffic DEF to ABC. FW is mad busy with all the calls going on, they have 4 aircraft standing by to give taxy or arrival reports, and try a few times to call ABC. No response from ABC. FW call ATC and advise them no contact with ABC traffic not passed. The whole process probably wasted 2-3 mins of time which could have been avoided if ABC reported changing to the CTAF.
I would like to add that when aircraft are operating into destinations where the is no VHF on the ground the problem of aircraft not reporting changing to the CTAF is compounded and creates high workload and frequency congestion of flightwatch HF. For example, ABC is inbound to YXXX estimating there at 30. They didn't report changing to the CTAF. At time 28 DEF taxys YXXX on HF and advises they have copied ABC. Flightwatch relays this to ATC ,they tell flightwatch no additional traffic and then attempt to call ABC on VHF. No response, probably out of range. ATC call FW and ask them to pass traffic DEF to ABC. FW is mad busy with all the calls going on, they have 4 aircraft standing by to give taxy or arrival reports, and try a few times to call ABC. No response from ABC. FW call ATC and advise them no contact with ABC traffic not passed. The whole process probably wasted 2-3 mins of time which could have been avoided if ABC reported changing to the CTAF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bula & Kelly,
I WAS NOT advocating that thou must report changing and leave the service. I have said in multiple posts, most of us are happy to provide the service until you get on the ground. And Kelly I hope you werent suggesting we attempting to do a half-arsed job with your remark on "doing what they get paid to do" because that is just insulting.
Willadvise,
It is obvious not everyone is going to agree on both sides of the fence or when on the same side of the fence either. I know plenty of controllers who dont find it irritating, and if they are unsure of whats been said they confirm it with the pilot.
Owen,
I realised the sarcasm after the act of replying. Obviously my sarcasm button was turned off when I first read it. Blame Vista
I WAS NOT advocating that thou must report changing and leave the service. I have said in multiple posts, most of us are happy to provide the service until you get on the ground. And Kelly I hope you werent suggesting we attempting to do a half-arsed job with your remark on "doing what they get paid to do" because that is just insulting.
Willadvise,
It is obvious not everyone is going to agree on both sides of the fence or when on the same side of the fence either. I know plenty of controllers who dont find it irritating, and if they are unsure of whats been said they confirm it with the pilot.
Owen,
I realised the sarcasm after the act of replying. Obviously my sarcasm button was turned off when I first read it. Blame Vista
Bloggs you have helped me make my point. What is
with your training and experience is not perhaps logical to others and more importantly then the AIP should be clear and concise.
Now where the AIP says...
...this is black and white and logical but we now have three pages of posts on here discussing the significance of it. Indeed it is an ATCO who raised it.
(Fairly) logical to me.
Now where the AIP says...
6.6.2 A pilot of an IFR flight must report when changing to the CTAF when the ATS frequency will not or cannot be monitored.
It seems to me that this thread is encouraging pilots to give up a service. Many on this thread are already convinced and they will convince others to make the call "Changing to CTAF" and this will result in aircraft no longer receiving notification of traffic. I believe that this is undesirable. An aircraft may not respond to traffic because he is too busy but the most likely reason for not getting a response is because the call requiring a response was not heard and so it needs to be repeated. Someone has decided that it is possible to monitor both CTAF and Centre at the same time and this allows me to keep the services of Centre for a little longer, effectively an extra set of ears and sometimes eyes to help keep me out of harms way. I have no intention of giving up this extra layer of protection.
If all pilots reported "changing to CTAF" the bean counters would see that centre was making significantly less radio calls and give them another sector or two to deal with.
If all pilots reported "changing to CTAF" the bean counters would see that centre was making significantly less radio calls and give them another sector or two to deal with.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geeeeez Kelly,
I am unsure how many times I have to say this (about a million perhaps, your not my ex are you??)
I AM NOT ENCOURAGING NOR ASKING ANYONE TO GIVE UP THE ATC SERVICE
If you want to stay on ATC frequency its fine by me and everyone else in ATC, but dont get ratty & surprised when we get pissed off with not being answered after the 3rd or 4th call, Us chasing you up for comms can take away from other important tasks - another aircraft with a problem, other RPTs missing arrival sequencing time because we are too busy chasing YOU around the airwaves, other aircraft inconvenienced in having to be switched over to the CTAF to see if you are OK and havent suffered a radio fail. When it happens hundreds of times a day.
As Willadvise says, If you want the service and the calls from ATC then you have to answer. Its basic respect, if I call you to highlight a safety issue (say traffic information), the least you can is repond with your callsign, how long does that take? about a second..
I think this thread has run its course now, i might be wrong
I am unsure how many times I have to say this (about a million perhaps, your not my ex are you??)
I AM NOT ENCOURAGING NOR ASKING ANYONE TO GIVE UP THE ATC SERVICE
If you want to stay on ATC frequency its fine by me and everyone else in ATC, but dont get ratty & surprised when we get pissed off with not being answered after the 3rd or 4th call, Us chasing you up for comms can take away from other important tasks - another aircraft with a problem, other RPTs missing arrival sequencing time because we are too busy chasing YOU around the airwaves, other aircraft inconvenienced in having to be switched over to the CTAF to see if you are OK and havent suffered a radio fail. When it happens hundreds of times a day.
As Willadvise says, If you want the service and the calls from ATC then you have to answer. Its basic respect, if I call you to highlight a safety issue (say traffic information), the least you can is repond with your callsign, how long does that take? about a second..
I think this thread has run its course now, i might be wrong
Rotoblades,
As I said, I think you started this thread with the best of intentions.
However, in hindsight, it may not be the best "forum" for, what can appear to be, seeking changes in pilot procedures.
Just my thoughts.
As I said, I think you started this thread with the best of intentions.
However, in hindsight, it may not be the best "forum" for, what can appear to be, seeking changes in pilot procedures.
Just my thoughts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well,
Status Quo.
I'll leave this thread up for a short time and then condemn it to the annals of history.
Thanks to all those who have positively contributed to the thread
Status Quo.
I'll leave this thread up for a short time and then condemn it to the annals of history.
Thanks to all those who have positively contributed to the thread
Ic,
That is because pilots don't use their brains any more (and too many do not even know what AIP says...).
Fair enough some of the other calls in AIP might leave some scratching their heads, but this one?
Let's face it, the only call that is likely to be helpful when I've already changed to the CTAF is a taxiing IFR. But, even though already I've called "changing", I'm still monitoring Centre and so will hear first, the aircraft taxiing call and second, Centre replying to him. I just won't be hassled by Centre passing him as traffic to me. That is an acceptable risk and a better situation than having to communicate with Centre when I'm busy segregating on the CTAF.
In the case of an aircraft inbound that Centre has only just found out about and wants to tell me, I will hear his CTAF inbound call and any calls he makes to Centre. It's all risk management - given the system, when I'm on the CTAF, I'd rather just monitor Centre than actively communicate with them. As I have said before, I have seen too many stuffups resulting from the two pilots listening and talking on two separate frequencies (CTAF and Centre).
If the CTAF/Centre monitoring gets too hard, then it's time for a CAGRO, and when that gets too hard, it's time for a Tower (with C above)
Now where the AIP says...
Quote:
6.6.2 A pilot of an IFR flight must report when changing to the CTAF when the ATS frequency will not or cannot be monitored.
...this is black and white and logical but we now have three pages of posts on here discussing the significance of it. Indeed it is an ATCO who raised it.
Quote:
6.6.2 A pilot of an IFR flight must report when changing to the CTAF when the ATS frequency will not or cannot be monitored.
...this is black and white and logical but we now have three pages of posts on here discussing the significance of it. Indeed it is an ATCO who raised it.
Fair enough some of the other calls in AIP might leave some scratching their heads, but this one?
Let's face it, the only call that is likely to be helpful when I've already changed to the CTAF is a taxiing IFR. But, even though already I've called "changing", I'm still monitoring Centre and so will hear first, the aircraft taxiing call and second, Centre replying to him. I just won't be hassled by Centre passing him as traffic to me. That is an acceptable risk and a better situation than having to communicate with Centre when I'm busy segregating on the CTAF.
In the case of an aircraft inbound that Centre has only just found out about and wants to tell me, I will hear his CTAF inbound call and any calls he makes to Centre. It's all risk management - given the system, when I'm on the CTAF, I'd rather just monitor Centre than actively communicate with them. As I have said before, I have seen too many stuffups resulting from the two pilots listening and talking on two separate frequencies (CTAF and Centre).
If the CTAF/Centre monitoring gets too hard, then it's time for a CAGRO, and when that gets too hard, it's time for a Tower (with C above
)
Regardless of intentions, there are now going to be a number of pilots who will report "Changing to CTAF", thereby giving up a service that they don't have to. The original intention may only have been a dig at pilots who fail to respond to radio calls and if so, I have mis comprehended but so have a lot of others.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelly,
Do you just hate ATC? or is it an inferiority complex?
If you'd read the thread from the start with an open mind and balanced thoughts you would tell it wasnt a dig at pilots. And both sides of the argument have been put across well and with positives by a good cross-section of people.
You've managed to just be negative in all your posts and say the same thing 3 or 4 times without adding anything new to the discussion.
Plenty of RPTs already report changing to the CTAF, so by your definition they are un-safe (or less safe) than your holy self.
Do you just hate ATC? or is it an inferiority complex?
If you'd read the thread from the start with an open mind and balanced thoughts you would tell it wasnt a dig at pilots. And both sides of the argument have been put across well and with positives by a good cross-section of people.
You've managed to just be negative in all your posts and say the same thing 3 or 4 times without adding anything new to the discussion.
Plenty of RPTs already report changing to the CTAF, so by your definition they are un-safe (or less safe) than your holy self.
However, in hindsight, it may not be the best "forum" for, what can appear to be
If twenty pilots now think a little more about whether to give the "changing" call or not and what it can mean then IT HAS BEEN WORTHWHILE. I think the marketing tools, sorry, professionals, call it organic marketing. This may spread and pilots will talk, all good.
It could have been much worse, Dick could have told us what we should be doing.
Just kidding Dick.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"monitoring"
One operator I am familiar with used to slightly amend the call and say: "monitoring CTAF". Two comms were in use and center would be monitored as well as the CTAF - once that call was made it was very rare for Center to call.
This is really a matter of pilots and controllers having an understanding of what the other does (and why) and what the workload may be at certain times. Unfortunately the AIP or MATS does not cover this subject in a way that seems to get the real message thru to either party!
The standard calls are a guide, nothing more......
Once upon a time there were jump seat rides for controllers and pilots were even rostered to visit ATS facilities. Security changes and accountants that run airlines don't seem to understand the value in this and it does not happen any more. Not many these days seem to want to do it in their own time..... We even had briefing offices where the value of the education provided was significant and we did not appreciate that until they were closed!!!
And they say society is advancing!! yeah!!
This is really a matter of pilots and controllers having an understanding of what the other does (and why) and what the workload may be at certain times. Unfortunately the AIP or MATS does not cover this subject in a way that seems to get the real message thru to either party!
The standard calls are a guide, nothing more......
Once upon a time there were jump seat rides for controllers and pilots were even rostered to visit ATS facilities. Security changes and accountants that run airlines don't seem to understand the value in this and it does not happen any more. Not many these days seem to want to do it in their own time..... We even had briefing offices where the value of the education provided was significant and we did not appreciate that until they were closed!!!
And they say society is advancing!! yeah!!