...............This time wankers
Worse Sunfish this afternoon.. Gives his CTAF call (119.00) Barwon Heads, on 119.90 (freudian slip) and is reminded that this is YMMB ground freq
Damn those digits! Stupidity and inexperience= 1, professionalism= 0)
Oh to sound like a skygod(assuming factual information).
Damn those digits! Stupidity and inexperience= 1, professionalism= 0)
Oh to sound like a skygod(assuming factual information).
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told off during my IR flight test (by the ATO) for saying on the CTAF "......outbound to the north for the NDB approach on descent to XXXX......".
He said all that was needed was " XXX outbound for the NDB will call again inbound."
Why is it so bad to deviate (even slightly) from the procedures to ensure that a less competent pilot knows what you're doing?
It seems from these threads that many of you want RT procs straight from the book which is fair enough- but good airmanship often requires you to "make your own AIPs" to cater for different circumstances- specifically in GA.
Many ab-initio pilots don't know what an NDB approach is and the vast majority of non- instrument rated pilots won't be familiar with the tracks of an approach at a particular airport- especially if they're from other parts.
When common sense is pitted against the AIP's I'll take common sense thank you very much
BTW It would be great to hear some more opinions / advice from ATC if available.....
He said all that was needed was " XXX outbound for the NDB will call again inbound."
Why is it so bad to deviate (even slightly) from the procedures to ensure that a less competent pilot knows what you're doing?
It seems from these threads that many of you want RT procs straight from the book which is fair enough- but good airmanship often requires you to "make your own AIPs" to cater for different circumstances- specifically in GA.
Many ab-initio pilots don't know what an NDB approach is and the vast majority of non- instrument rated pilots won't be familiar with the tracks of an approach at a particular airport- especially if they're from other parts.
When common sense is pitted against the AIP's I'll take common sense thank you very much
BTW It would be great to hear some more opinions / advice from ATC if available.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxgrad
Thanks for your valuable information. I do know these things, as I have been doing it for 30 odd years. The Point is that many pilots in Australia do not fly often, and the system is unneccesarily complicated, often stupid and ambiguous. The Ayers Rock example is one case. The aerodrome near Ayers Rock was called Yulara, and that worked fine. Then they changed it. Both Ayers Rock, and the aerodrome which is ten nm away were called Ayers rock. This led to at least one incident where there was confusion, and an aeroplane flew across the track of another. And it will happen again. Ayers Rock, is now to be called "The Rock" even though the earthlings, and all the maps (including the WAC charts) say it is Ayers Rock. The Connellan aerodrome, ten miles away near Yulara village, is to be called Ayers Rock.?????? This is illogical, unnecessary, and unsafe.
Unnecessary confusion.
Our system too often relies on having pilots rote learning and memorising masses in olligical information, instead of using common sense and fact.
I'm not talking about places having two names. I am talking about two different olaces having the same name, and this problem generated by our friendly regulator/service provider.
Thanks for your valuable information. I do know these things, as I have been doing it for 30 odd years. The Point is that many pilots in Australia do not fly often, and the system is unneccesarily complicated, often stupid and ambiguous. The Ayers Rock example is one case. The aerodrome near Ayers Rock was called Yulara, and that worked fine. Then they changed it. Both Ayers Rock, and the aerodrome which is ten nm away were called Ayers rock. This led to at least one incident where there was confusion, and an aeroplane flew across the track of another. And it will happen again. Ayers Rock, is now to be called "The Rock" even though the earthlings, and all the maps (including the WAC charts) say it is Ayers Rock. The Connellan aerodrome, ten miles away near Yulara village, is to be called Ayers Rock.?????? This is illogical, unnecessary, and unsafe.
Unnecessary confusion.
Our system too often relies on having pilots rote learning and memorising masses in olligical information, instead of using common sense and fact.
I'm not talking about places having two names. I am talking about two different olaces having the same name, and this problem generated by our friendly regulator/service provider.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planet Express:
Generally, I'm in agreement with you on this subject, however one needs to consider the impact that the widespread use of non-standard phraseology may have on air safety.
Many of the world's regulatory agencies, investigation bureaux, airlines and ATS providers (as well as ICAO) have identified breakdowns in communications (usually as a result of the use of non-standard phraseology) between ATC and pilots, and between pilots, as being a significant contributory factor in a number of aircraft incidents and accidents throughout the world. Where pilots do not have English as their first language this contributory factor is exacerbated. Therefore, it is in everyone's safety interest to ensure that we stick to standard phraseology wherever possible to minimise the chances of a misunderstanding.
However, I believe pilots (and ATC) should have the flexibility to vary the phraseology to make it appropriate to the current operational situation if they believe safety is enhanced. From my dim memory (which may be wrong), I seem to recall that the old AIP used to have some clause encouraging pilots to adapt the standard phraseology to enhance communication if the circumstances warranted it.
Having said that, when I'm conducting an instrument approach I tend to use a phraseology that is similar to yours eg:
This is not strictly standard but I'm satisfied that it meets the information requirements for all other IFR or VFR users.
If anybody else has any suggestions for appropriate phraseology in this instance, I'm all ears.
Why is it so bad to deviate (even slightly) from the procedures to ensure that a less competent pilot knows what you're doing?
Many of the world's regulatory agencies, investigation bureaux, airlines and ATS providers (as well as ICAO) have identified breakdowns in communications (usually as a result of the use of non-standard phraseology) between ATC and pilots, and between pilots, as being a significant contributory factor in a number of aircraft incidents and accidents throughout the world. Where pilots do not have English as their first language this contributory factor is exacerbated. Therefore, it is in everyone's safety interest to ensure that we stick to standard phraseology wherever possible to minimise the chances of a misunderstanding.
However, I believe pilots (and ATC) should have the flexibility to vary the phraseology to make it appropriate to the current operational situation if they believe safety is enhanced. From my dim memory (which may be wrong), I seem to recall that the old AIP used to have some clause encouraging pilots to adapt the standard phraseology to enhance communication if the circumstances warranted it.
Having said that, when I'm conducting an instrument approach I tend to use a phraseology that is similar to yours eg:
"All stations (place) (callsign) overhead the NDB (altitude) descending to (MDA) tracking outbound to the (direction), will call turning inbound (place)"
If anybody else has any suggestions for appropriate phraseology in this instance, I'm all ears.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy,
May have misinterpreted you somewhat.
A number of poster's have stated the word(act?) common sense. Although many use this in the real world some may not, skill level, experience or just not available. The authority I believe falls into that last category,"just not available"
The AYE example sounds very much like pollitics, people with no brains and their head stuck up .............. I think you get the idea. Two places with same name as in your e.g is just an accident waiting to happen.
I have been to AYE any number of times and, apart from the occasional cessna or piper tour gaggle have found that all use common sense and sufficient calls to get the job done. Many of these calls may not be from the book but they do get their piont across.
My way of handling the fantastic system we have is to use the correct forms when and where required but make a call that gets my piont/intention/position/request across. If that means not using standard phrasology at times, so be it.
May have misinterpreted you somewhat.
A number of poster's have stated the word(act?) common sense. Although many use this in the real world some may not, skill level, experience or just not available. The authority I believe falls into that last category,"just not available"
The AYE example sounds very much like pollitics, people with no brains and their head stuck up .............. I think you get the idea. Two places with same name as in your e.g is just an accident waiting to happen.
I have been to AYE any number of times and, apart from the occasional cessna or piper tour gaggle have found that all use common sense and sufficient calls to get the job done. Many of these calls may not be from the book but they do get their piont across.
My way of handling the fantastic system we have is to use the correct forms when and where required but make a call that gets my piont/intention/position/request across. If that means not using standard phrasology at times, so be it.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gotta life boys & girls ....unfortunately its owned by the National Aust Bank, and as for 206, two zero six or two ohhhhh six i don't get to say it at all cause i'm to broke to afford one. oh well at least you can't confuddle anyone with 172 (slowly gettin' there chaps... stand by) 
