Report Changing to CTAF, please
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree KS. Sorry Rotorblades but I think the "monitoring CTAF" call adds no value what so ever. It is not in AIP, it creates frequency congestion, it creates doubt as to what the pilot really wants ie does he mean he is changing to the CTAF but he has heard some others use this call it thinks it sounds cool. I am still going to pass traffic after the call and I am certainly not reassured that if a pilot does not respond to a call advising traffic that he probably got it on CTAF anyway so I won't bother. From what I have got out of this thread the reason the pilots don't change is that they want that extra level of safety and not passing traffic defeats the purpose. I stick to my orginal advice
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi KS/Will
Fair enough, but then we would appreciate an answer to our directed calls to you. It shows little or no respect to ATC & the extra workload that has been produced due to non-answering of the call(s). Lets face it, if everytime you called ATC you had to make 2,3 or more transmissions before ATC responded you'd get frustrated too.
Without sounding like I'm having a dig or being beligerent, Im not, there are more than just you flying in the airspace and needing attention. Dont kee thinking you are ina little bubble and nothing else exists. We would love o be able to have the time to constantly monitor your flights until arrival. But with the way it is, we can't monitor you until touchdown at an uncontrolled airfield. Due to more than a few rreasons The airspace encompasses a large area, many uncontrolled airfields, lots of tricky airspace (bits of e & c dotted around, military units), there is an extraordinarily large amount of telephone co-ord that has to be done, more than just your aircraft with requests, flight plan amends., sartime amends., incerfa's on failure to cancel sartime (happens A LOT).
You may not hear most of this going on in the background (well you cant hear telephone calls or calls from other aircraft on un-grouped frequencies).
Fair enough, but then we would appreciate an answer to our directed calls to you. It shows little or no respect to ATC & the extra workload that has been produced due to non-answering of the call(s). Lets face it, if everytime you called ATC you had to make 2,3 or more transmissions before ATC responded you'd get frustrated too.
Without sounding like I'm having a dig or being beligerent, Im not, there are more than just you flying in the airspace and needing attention. Dont kee thinking you are ina little bubble and nothing else exists. We would love o be able to have the time to constantly monitor your flights until arrival. But with the way it is, we can't monitor you until touchdown at an uncontrolled airfield. Due to more than a few rreasons The airspace encompasses a large area, many uncontrolled airfields, lots of tricky airspace (bits of e & c dotted around, military units), there is an extraordinarily large amount of telephone co-ord that has to be done, more than just your aircraft with requests, flight plan amends., sartime amends., incerfa's on failure to cancel sartime (happens A LOT).
You may not hear most of this going on in the background (well you cant hear telephone calls or calls from other aircraft on un-grouped frequencies).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Middle of the Road
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we would appreciate an answer to our directed calls to you.
If you want to continue to recieve traffic, say nothing and respond when called.
Rotorblades,
I have tried to be diplomatic in my previous posts and have tried to drop some subtle hints ... but I've failed. So, here is my black and white thoughts:
Wrong attitude.
If you have an unanswered call, your responsibility is to follow it up through the correct procedures. A pilot's responsibility is to Aviate, Navigate & (finally) Communicate. The PIC will assess the correct priority in any particular circumstance.
Yes, you may have extra workload, yes, Flightwatch might have to make extra calls, yes, other tasks may be delayed ... but that, unfortunately, is your job.
If the unanswered call gets to a SAR Phase ... the subsequent investigation will determine the PIC's adherence to rules, "respect" and decision making processes ... in the particular circumstances. If he or she has erred ... he or she will get a jolly good rogering.
No Professional pilot will intentionally NOT answer you.... for a lark.
He or she would have made that decision, based on all the circumstances at that time ... and you, once again, unfortunately, have to accept and deal with that.
OR, get the rules changed.
I have tried to be diplomatic in my previous posts and have tried to drop some subtle hints ... but I've failed. So, here is my black and white thoughts:
Fair enough, but then we would appreciate an answer to our directed calls to you. It shows little or no respect to ATC & the extra workload that has been produced due to non-answering of the call(s).
If you have an unanswered call, your responsibility is to follow it up through the correct procedures. A pilot's responsibility is to Aviate, Navigate & (finally) Communicate. The PIC will assess the correct priority in any particular circumstance.
Yes, you may have extra workload, yes, Flightwatch might have to make extra calls, yes, other tasks may be delayed ... but that, unfortunately, is your job.
If the unanswered call gets to a SAR Phase ... the subsequent investigation will determine the PIC's adherence to rules, "respect" and decision making processes ... in the particular circumstances. If he or she has erred ... he or she will get a jolly good rogering.
No Professional pilot will intentionally NOT answer you.... for a lark.
He or she would have made that decision, based on all the circumstances at that time ... and you, once again, unfortunately, have to accept and deal with that.
OR, get the rules changed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thread drift again........but its not just the BNE girls...MEL Centre has some sweet sounding voices as well I have discovered. And no doubt better looking that Owen Stanley! 
"ABC is in the circuit area, will call again after landing" means nothing as far as ATC are concerned.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce,
And if it goes further than that? If there is an incident, MAC or another Benalla , the controller may at worst be on the stand at Coroners Court being asked with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight by highly paid legal types to justify why he/she didn't make the non-answering of that aircraft their ultimate priority. At the least, it's tea and biccies with the boss and an incident report on your record.
Welcome to our world.
Which would you do first? Here's just a couple of everyday examples.
1.Vector the jet and turbo props back onto course, or out of the hold, to make their landing time in Sydney and keep your sequence, and not stuff up the Sydney arrivals.
2. Continue to make traffic calls to aircraft you are reasonably certain are on the CTAF and too busy to answer you.
3. Advise the aircraft that has left CTA, and radar services are terminated, that the radar is now showing them diverging off their planned track.
4. Co-ordinating with another controller that an aircraft under your control is diverting due weather and will be infringing that controllers airspace.
5. Get the foreign pilot to readback his clearance correctly.
6. Monitor that every aircraft will meet the requirement that you gave them and they have read back correctly.
N.B. It doesn't matter what order you put them in, the controller will be held answerable, in some way, for all them if it goes pear shaped.
What rotorblades was trying to put nicely and informally, was that if you are monitoring the CTAF as a courtesy would you let us know, as we can then re-prioritise what we are doing. You will still get the traffic call, but we won't be having kittens if you don't answer. Yes, it is not ' in the books' but neither is direct tracking, cancel speed restrictions, can you ring the refueler and let him know our ETA, or we're pushing the curfew in Sydney later on and anything you can do for us now would be a big help. All things that we try to help you out with if we can.
We ( most anyway)know we are here for you, not the other way around. We appreciate that there are times that due to cockpit workload you yourself will be prioritisng what is most important and talking to us will not be in your top two. However separation is our main priority.
If the unanswered call gets to a SAR Phase ... the subsequent investigation will determine the PIC's adherence to rules, "respect" and decision making processes ... in the particular circumstances. If he or she has erred ... he or she will get a jolly good rogering.
Welcome to our world.
Which would you do first? Here's just a couple of everyday examples.
1.Vector the jet and turbo props back onto course, or out of the hold, to make their landing time in Sydney and keep your sequence, and not stuff up the Sydney arrivals.
2. Continue to make traffic calls to aircraft you are reasonably certain are on the CTAF and too busy to answer you.
3. Advise the aircraft that has left CTA, and radar services are terminated, that the radar is now showing them diverging off their planned track.
4. Co-ordinating with another controller that an aircraft under your control is diverting due weather and will be infringing that controllers airspace.
5. Get the foreign pilot to readback his clearance correctly.
6. Monitor that every aircraft will meet the requirement that you gave them and they have read back correctly.
N.B. It doesn't matter what order you put them in, the controller will be held answerable, in some way, for all them if it goes pear shaped.
What rotorblades was trying to put nicely and informally, was that if you are monitoring the CTAF as a courtesy would you let us know, as we can then re-prioritise what we are doing. You will still get the traffic call, but we won't be having kittens if you don't answer. Yes, it is not ' in the books' but neither is direct tracking, cancel speed restrictions, can you ring the refueler and let him know our ETA, or we're pushing the curfew in Sydney later on and anything you can do for us now would be a big help. All things that we try to help you out with if we can.
We ( most anyway)know we are here for you, not the other way around. We appreciate that there are times that due to cockpit workload you yourself will be prioritisng what is most important and talking to us will not be in your top two. However separation is our main priority.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max1, thanks
Peuce, I know where you are coming from, but if you dont answer, and if we've started taking SAR action (which will not be until 15mins after the missed calls, as per Airservices Rules) it may be too late.
If we pass you traffic when you are in the general vicinity of the CTAF and you dont answer by the time an INCERFA has been declared you could have already crashed into it. Lets face it you are less than 15mins from arrival or the traffic (normally) when in the CTAF area.
So, basically its gonna be both are arses if anything happens and you have not answered ATC. Because it could be a whole multitude of issues, including:
1. You heard us and too busy to respond
2. You Didnt hear the traffic
3. Inadequate visual look-out
4. poor airmanship
plus Im sure there's many more I cant think of whilst on a night shift!
And it'll be no-win for either of us when the lawyers are about. they'll just roll out the AIP and end up with both of us singing for our dinner.
But to clear up any doubt, or gray area, of did he/didnt he get the traffic just respond with the callsign, takes about a second. I know what you are saying about aviate, navigate, communicate. But equally we have priotities too.
Peuce, I know where you are coming from, but if you dont answer, and if we've started taking SAR action (which will not be until 15mins after the missed calls, as per Airservices Rules) it may be too late.
If we pass you traffic when you are in the general vicinity of the CTAF and you dont answer by the time an INCERFA has been declared you could have already crashed into it. Lets face it you are less than 15mins from arrival or the traffic (normally) when in the CTAF area.
So, basically its gonna be both are arses if anything happens and you have not answered ATC. Because it could be a whole multitude of issues, including:
1. You heard us and too busy to respond
2. You Didnt hear the traffic
3. Inadequate visual look-out
4. poor airmanship
plus Im sure there's many more I cant think of whilst on a night shift!
And it'll be no-win for either of us when the lawyers are about. they'll just roll out the AIP and end up with both of us singing for our dinner.
But to clear up any doubt, or gray area, of did he/didnt he get the traffic just respond with the callsign, takes about a second. I know what you are saying about aviate, navigate, communicate. But equally we have priotities too.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorblades, excellent thread. Great to hear something constructive.
max1, thanks for a very succinct summary and reiteration of the extras which you guys manage for us.
To summarise:
the proposed 'monitoring' call alerts ATCOs that ABC, whilst monitoring both Centre and CTAF (ie. has not 'changed to CTAF'), may not give an instant response to a traffic advisory or similar. Given that a traffic separation dialogue on CTAF may take two or three calls in total, that may preclude ABC from getting back to Centre immediately. If you know we're on both comms, this extra 10-15 seconds of time to finish on CTAF, then switch and acknowledge, gives a little breathing space for all before starting INCERFA etc.
Correct me if I've misread the last 5 pages.
For a few who've posted without thinking from the other side of the PTT: think how quickly we readback 'cancel star track direct to xxx'. Hey, could have been talking on company or 6PY: guess we'd like the rotorblades of the world to try giving the shortening again in case on another comm...
max1, thanks for a very succinct summary and reiteration of the extras which you guys manage for us.
To summarise:
the proposed 'monitoring' call alerts ATCOs that ABC, whilst monitoring both Centre and CTAF (ie. has not 'changed to CTAF'), may not give an instant response to a traffic advisory or similar. Given that a traffic separation dialogue on CTAF may take two or three calls in total, that may preclude ABC from getting back to Centre immediately. If you know we're on both comms, this extra 10-15 seconds of time to finish on CTAF, then switch and acknowledge, gives a little breathing space for all before starting INCERFA etc.
Correct me if I've misread the last 5 pages.
For a few who've posted without thinking from the other side of the PTT: think how quickly we readback 'cancel star track direct to xxx'. Hey, could have been talking on company or 6PY: guess we'd like the rotorblades of the world to try giving the shortening again in case on another comm...
Max1, Rotorblades & Goldeneagle,
Yes, yes and yes. I also see where you are coming from. My observations are thus:
Yes, yes and yes. I also see where you are coming from. My observations are thus:
- I'm a by-the-book, standardisation type of guy and others, like you, have a more flexible approach ... and I guess, that's the way we are and it dictates how we view the world.
- From what Max1 is saying, I get the feeling that ATC multi-tasking could be, or could become, a bit of an issue. Once upon a time, ATS was divided into 2 quite seperate groups ( in my opinion, for very good reasons). But now, as you might be cancelling SAR at Ballina and sequencing jits into Brisbane at the same time... you are forced into a "flexible" regime. Is it good or is it bad? My opinion ... bad. But that's the way it is.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In command
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotorblades, as far as I am aware, any aircraft entering a CTAF(R) must monitor the frequency regardless, a call to ATS to advise "monitoring" would just be a waste of time and further clutter up the radio with more wasted calls just like "at time", "we are" etc..
KS is correct when he questions giving up a level of protection. Why would any RPT want to reduce its traffic info. in the CTAF? Not me, and I am sure that my company would not support it. And I don't think the magistrate would agree with a decision to reduce your traffic info. when inquiring into an incident that was traffic related.
Pilots don't usually ignore ATS calls on purpose, but sometimes high workloads in the CTAF will place a reply to ATS as a lower priority.
If an aircraft does not respond to ATS within the time limit then ATS must assume a problem has occured and start the SAR procedure.
+G
KS is correct when he questions giving up a level of protection. Why would any RPT want to reduce its traffic info. in the CTAF? Not me, and I am sure that my company would not support it. And I don't think the magistrate would agree with a decision to reduce your traffic info. when inquiring into an incident that was traffic related.
Pilots don't usually ignore ATS calls on purpose, but sometimes high workloads in the CTAF will place a reply to ATS as a lower priority.
If an aircraft does not respond to ATS within the time limit then ATS must assume a problem has occured and start the SAR procedure.
+G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi positivegee
I have said several times Im not encouraging/advocating pilots to give up the level of protection but if maintaining two-way comms with ATC, it is two-way comms. Challenge & Response.
Not answering us has other safety implications beyond your flight.
Why we are chasing you up with multiple calls or getting other aircraft to chase you up other aircraft could be affected, i.e. A Med1 maybe delayed, another aircraft emergency doesnt get *full* attention. just for a couple of examples.
We are also not just sitting there reading the paper, when you guys call we can be coordinating on the phone, assessing SIGMETs/SPECIs/ATAFs, drawing up screen maps for the previous (& restricted airspace), making Flight Plan amendments, Assesing conflictions, Speaking to FDC/Censar for cancellations/amendments to sartimes, chasing up other failure to answers, sequencing to a capital city etc. Yet if we cant speak to you straight away we normally say at least your callsign & "standby".
I have said several times Im not encouraging/advocating pilots to give up the level of protection but if maintaining two-way comms with ATC, it is two-way comms. Challenge & Response.
Not answering us has other safety implications beyond your flight.
Why we are chasing you up with multiple calls or getting other aircraft to chase you up other aircraft could be affected, i.e. A Med1 maybe delayed, another aircraft emergency doesnt get *full* attention. just for a couple of examples.
We are also not just sitting there reading the paper, when you guys call we can be coordinating on the phone, assessing SIGMETs/SPECIs/ATAFs, drawing up screen maps for the previous (& restricted airspace), making Flight Plan amendments, Assesing conflictions, Speaking to FDC/Censar for cancellations/amendments to sartimes, chasing up other failure to answers, sequencing to a capital city etc. Yet if we cant speak to you straight away we normally say at least your callsign & "standby".
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps there's a human-factors issue here ?
ATCOs have (and need) highly developed multasking abilities that are the result of ability and training.
I certainly could not multitask to that same extent, which means that in my high stress times, (busy ALA or landing) I tend to concentrate on a few items and monitoring (as distinct from speaking on) radio has a lower priority.
ATCOs have (and need) highly developed multasking abilities that are the result of ability and training.
I certainly could not multitask to that same extent, which means that in my high stress times, (busy ALA or landing) I tend to concentrate on a few items and monitoring (as distinct from speaking on) radio has a lower priority.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is simply a lack of man power. In my opinion ASA should never have been privatised. Affordable safety is something industry has thought up.
I am still perplexed by the government’s apathy towards our aviation industry. Look at the disruption in the EU from grounded aeroplanes – and they can still use road and rail networks. Our nation relies on aviation more than most, yet the industry is funded and governed like superfluous expense.
The definition of ‘unsafe workload’ is a foreign crew deciphering TIBA procedures negotiating our ‘first world’ airspace. Not a situation that should happen here.
As for pilots and ATCs talking it out; well we both can only gain from gleaning a better understanding of each others roles, priorities and limitations.
We just need to get along and make the most of the situation since we’re the ones that have to work, or work in the airspace. From my end, Aviate, Navigate and Communicate is fine, actually second nature - but so should be staying in front of the aeroplane, anticipating high workload times and planning accordingly.
ATCs seem to have a thankless job, but so do pilots; and especially captains. You rarely get a job well done for performing small miracles daily to keep the show on the road (although to the casual observer we’re just overpaid bus drivers). But make a small administrative mistake and you receive a please explain. Make a big mistake and thanks for the memories!
I think we are more in the same boat than we would like to admit.
Rotor, although you probably still like warm beer I won’t hold that against you
Good on you for starting this thread and hope of more to come.
I am still perplexed by the government’s apathy towards our aviation industry. Look at the disruption in the EU from grounded aeroplanes – and they can still use road and rail networks. Our nation relies on aviation more than most, yet the industry is funded and governed like superfluous expense.
The definition of ‘unsafe workload’ is a foreign crew deciphering TIBA procedures negotiating our ‘first world’ airspace. Not a situation that should happen here.
As for pilots and ATCs talking it out; well we both can only gain from gleaning a better understanding of each others roles, priorities and limitations.
We just need to get along and make the most of the situation since we’re the ones that have to work, or work in the airspace. From my end, Aviate, Navigate and Communicate is fine, actually second nature - but so should be staying in front of the aeroplane, anticipating high workload times and planning accordingly.
ATCs seem to have a thankless job, but so do pilots; and especially captains. You rarely get a job well done for performing small miracles daily to keep the show on the road (although to the casual observer we’re just overpaid bus drivers). But make a small administrative mistake and you receive a please explain. Make a big mistake and thanks for the memories!
I think we are more in the same boat than we would like to admit.
Rotor, although you probably still like warm beer I won’t hold that against you
Good on you for starting this thread and hope of more to come.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Erin,
Thanks for your comments
Yes I still like warm beer, but only beer in its one and only true sense - real ale (which is supposed to be served at room temperature, not chilled - albeit at UK room temps not Brisbane room temps!)
I am also hoping for some more threads to add to exchange of ideas, thoughts and unerstanding between ATC & pilots
Al
Thanks for your comments
Yes I still like warm beer, but only beer in its one and only true sense - real ale (which is supposed to be served at room temperature, not chilled - albeit at UK room temps not Brisbane room temps!)
I am also hoping for some more threads to add to exchange of ideas, thoughts and unerstanding between ATC & pilots
Al
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the problem is where does non standard stuff stop? How many unorthodox calls have cropped up over the years... "pending clearance" (BTW we wont bust CTA today for your info...
), "IFR Taxi" (Just butt in... how do you get a clearance of ACD?), "ABC rolling rwy 12 - ABC rolls rwy 12" (Is the guy making the call even in the aircraft?)
I am absolutely sick of doing a sim or a route check and hearing "Well its not in the book but this is how I like this to be done..."
FFS, put it in the goddamn book or STFU... (This anger is not directed at you Rotor.... Just the numb nuts at work)
Personal preferences have no place in rules and regulations. What works best and keeps things safest does.
), "IFR Taxi" (Just butt in... how do you get a clearance of ACD?), "ABC rolling rwy 12 - ABC rolls rwy 12" (Is the guy making the call even in the aircraft?)I am absolutely sick of doing a sim or a route check and hearing "Well its not in the book but this is how I like this to be done..."
FFS, put it in the goddamn book or STFU... (This anger is not directed at you Rotor.... Just the numb nuts at work)
Personal preferences have no place in rules and regulations. What works best and keeps things safest does.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi bythenumbers,
I take no offence
I agree, to some extent, about being in the book. But unfortunately cant have every thing in the book to cover every possible circumstance.
To play devils advocate:
What if doing something thats not in the book increases safety?
Do you not do it and be less safe.
I know what you are saying about unorthodox calls, but what has to be asked is - Do they aid situational awareness (pilot, ATC & other aircraft), are they overly verbose, are they confusing, are they pointless.
As for Rules & Regs, nobody should decrease safety by adding personal preferences. But with regard to phraseology, sometimes plain english is better than the verbal diatribe they put in the books.
As for trying to get it changed - almost impossible (at least in one controllers lifetime)
I take no offence
I agree, to some extent, about being in the book. But unfortunately cant have every thing in the book to cover every possible circumstance.
To play devils advocate:
What if doing something thats not in the book increases safety?
Do you not do it and be less safe.
I know what you are saying about unorthodox calls, but what has to be asked is - Do they aid situational awareness (pilot, ATC & other aircraft), are they overly verbose, are they confusing, are they pointless.
As for Rules & Regs, nobody should decrease safety by adding personal preferences. But with regard to phraseology, sometimes plain english is better than the verbal diatribe they put in the books.
As for trying to get it changed - almost impossible (at least in one controllers lifetime)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Positivegee makes a very valid point. If an aeroplane is equipped with a radio, the pilots are required to monitor the CTAF (whether or not its CTAF(R)) and make the prescribed broadcasts.
What's the point of telling ATS that you are monitoring the CTAF? How many RPT aeroplanes land at a non-towered aerodromes without monitoring CTAF?
The 'monitoring' call is garbage and the fact that it is not standard will make it harder for those wise pilots and ATSers who did not read these last five pages
What's the point of telling ATS that you are monitoring the CTAF? How many RPT aeroplanes land at a non-towered aerodromes without monitoring CTAF?
The 'monitoring' call is garbage and the fact that it is not standard will make it harder for those wise pilots and ATSers who did not read these last five pages
Hi Rotorblades,
I'll certainly have to give you points for tenacity.
However, I'm with bythenumbers again.
There is no room for personal preference ...
Say, I decide that conducting a figure 8 circuit at Ballina is much safer, taking into account geography, weather, visability etc, ...is that OK? Safety is increased (according to me). Trouble is, no one else knows that I'm doing it and no one else is expecting it .... till they suddenly come across me in a nasty part of the circuit.
More so, changing mandated calls. They are in the book for a reason. When you hear a certain phrase, you know exactly what is meant by it (if you read the books). That is their reason for being. If I hear a plain english call ... ok, now he knows exactly what he means, but do I? Hell no. I'm only guessing what he means.
Please let's not take the US lead ... "fancy pants 216 is on the drop to 6, see y'all in 5"
Exagerated examples, I know, but the problem you will run into is ... where do you draw the line? Who's idea of a safer un-documented procedure is better than my idea of a safer un-documented procedure?
Can of worms comes to mind!
I say, don't go there
P.S. If you think I've missed your point, please provide some real examples, so I can see what you have in mind.
I'll certainly have to give you points for tenacity.
However, I'm with bythenumbers again.
There is no room for personal preference ...
Say, I decide that conducting a figure 8 circuit at Ballina is much safer, taking into account geography, weather, visability etc, ...is that OK? Safety is increased (according to me). Trouble is, no one else knows that I'm doing it and no one else is expecting it .... till they suddenly come across me in a nasty part of the circuit.
More so, changing mandated calls. They are in the book for a reason. When you hear a certain phrase, you know exactly what is meant by it (if you read the books). That is their reason for being. If I hear a plain english call ... ok, now he knows exactly what he means, but do I? Hell no. I'm only guessing what he means.
Please let's not take the US lead ... "fancy pants 216 is on the drop to 6, see y'all in 5"
Exagerated examples, I know, but the problem you will run into is ... where do you draw the line? Who's idea of a safer un-documented procedure is better than my idea of a safer un-documented procedure?
Can of worms comes to mind!
I say, don't go there
P.S. If you think I've missed your point, please provide some real examples, so I can see what you have in mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce,
just to pick the first point apart about the figure 8 at Ballina - you say no-one else knows what you are doing - arent you on the CTAF then and transmitting your approach instructions. If not its no different to ploughing through the overhead to do a teardrop approach to the other end, or a myriad of other approaches Ive seen pilots make.
What about an A320 I saw going into an uncontrolled A/d (e-w runway) the other day, from the south flew through the circuit south to north, turned left downwind, then base leg for the easterley but then carried on back to the southern side circuit and flew downwind the other way and landed on the westerly. First time Ive ever seen that!
Okay, as per the book it will be, be advised this means:
No Direct Tracking.
Full paperwork for all missed calls, then it can be officially sourced as to why two-way comms arent being maintained.
I expect no more departures from a certain aerodrome to call up on frequency with "climbing to FLxxx expecting direct to ABC"
Plus many other things ATC do beyond the books to try and make your lives easier, like getting you your preferred runway, preferred cruise level, unrestricted climbs, hi-speed climbs/descents/arrivals.
Devils advocate,again , but you get my drift....
just to pick the first point apart about the figure 8 at Ballina - you say no-one else knows what you are doing - arent you on the CTAF then and transmitting your approach instructions. If not its no different to ploughing through the overhead to do a teardrop approach to the other end, or a myriad of other approaches Ive seen pilots make.
What about an A320 I saw going into an uncontrolled A/d (e-w runway) the other day, from the south flew through the circuit south to north, turned left downwind, then base leg for the easterley but then carried on back to the southern side circuit and flew downwind the other way and landed on the westerly. First time Ive ever seen that!
Okay, as per the book it will be, be advised this means:
No Direct Tracking.
Full paperwork for all missed calls, then it can be officially sourced as to why two-way comms arent being maintained.
I expect no more departures from a certain aerodrome to call up on frequency with "climbing to FLxxx expecting direct to ABC"
Plus many other things ATC do beyond the books to try and make your lives easier, like getting you your preferred runway, preferred cruise level, unrestricted climbs, hi-speed climbs/descents/arrivals.
Devils advocate,again , but you get my drift....