Position reports?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Position reports?
Just wondering when an aircraft gives a poistion report such as "QF765 was flake 49er maintaining FL370, fagin at 23, fillet next. Is the "next"part of the call to confirm the route being flown or because VHF coverage will be lost until Fillet for example?
Cheers.
Cheers.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "next" bit is to confirm the route. The AIP/Jepp/Aerad covers the precise words, as no doubt does the re-introduced VFG [?].
If The Messiah is having a go at the phraseology, fair enuff, but when you spend your life traversing FIR's like some folks change their socks, it's much easier if you say the same thing all the time and allow local variations to take their course.
G'day
If The Messiah is having a go at the phraseology, fair enuff, but when you spend your life traversing FIR's like some folks change their socks, it's much easier if you say the same thing all the time and allow local variations to take their course.
G'day
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the above is correct, also, Boeing specifically state in their CBT for FMC training, to send the position report exactly as laid out on the Position Report page of the FMC (Progress Page 2).
Now, Boeing is not the regulatory authority, but the format described by vneandbeyond is exactly as displayed on the FMC.
The "NEXT" first appeared in the Australian AIP in 1986. I've been absent most of the time since then,so it may have disappeared and made a comeback.
Aerad = Jeppesen Manual = AIP.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Now, Boeing is not the regulatory authority, but the format described by vneandbeyond is exactly as displayed on the FMC.
The "NEXT" first appeared in the Australian AIP in 1986. I've been absent most of the time since then,so it may have disappeared and made a comeback.
Aerad = Jeppesen Manual = AIP.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I am referring to the phraseology. 'Next' is not usually required when reporting position on VHF with 2 number positions eg Dadok 23 while HF it is for airway verification and uses 4 number positions eg Dadok at 1823, Dadin next.
Aerad is an information source that I expect would be sitting right there on one of those shelves in every Qantas aircraft although not flying for Qantas I am only assuming. No need to know it back to front, just the bits you use everyday. They may use Jepessen or something else similar.
Changing FIR's like changing your socks would be even more reason to get it right wouldn't you think?
I'll have to remember on my next line check to use the excuse that, 'it is easier', when I am picked up on incorrect R/T.
Aerad is an information source that I expect would be sitting right there on one of those shelves in every Qantas aircraft although not flying for Qantas I am only assuming. No need to know it back to front, just the bits you use everyday. They may use Jepessen or something else similar.
Changing FIR's like changing your socks would be even more reason to get it right wouldn't you think?
I'll have to remember on my next line check to use the excuse that, 'it is easier', when I am picked up on incorrect R/T.
Last edited by The Messiah; 25th Apr 2005 at 00:51.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next
Kelly Slater,
You are 110% correct, any body who has a gfpt or above should have every document that has been produced and applies to commercial aviation since Orville took that giant leap. Not only that, they should know it back to front. Right?
You will always find the answer in the myriad of regulations, law, guides, orders, subscriptions etc? Right?
If you can't find the answer to something, ask a question on a forum that is perused by supposed 'professionals' Right?
Wrong!!! Some supposed 'professionals' will try and deride you with:
'All the answers to these sorts of things are in the aerad guide but no-one seems to read them'
BUT, will answer the question in the next post
vneandbeyond,
I reckon most of the posters on here are pretty helpfull rather than playing the juvenile games of some. Keep asking the questions and remember:
There's no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid person
You are 110% correct, any body who has a gfpt or above should have every document that has been produced and applies to commercial aviation since Orville took that giant leap. Not only that, they should know it back to front. Right?
You will always find the answer in the myriad of regulations, law, guides, orders, subscriptions etc? Right?
If you can't find the answer to something, ask a question on a forum that is perused by supposed 'professionals' Right?
Wrong!!! Some supposed 'professionals' will try and deride you with:
'All the answers to these sorts of things are in the aerad guide but no-one seems to read them'
BUT, will answer the question in the next post
vneandbeyond,
I reckon most of the posters on here are pretty helpfull rather than playing the juvenile games of some. Keep asking the questions and remember:
There's no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid person
Nunc est bibendum
I'm with Feather. I use the 'next' bizzo when my next position is a route intersection. A number of times in Australia on VHF I've had controllers start to confirm and query estimates and routings when we've given the 'next' info. By the same token, if the 'next' position is on the same route or not after an intersection than it's even MORE obvious that it IS the 'next' and so I don't bother! 
AIP GEN 3.4-104
"FOLLOWING POINT" - to be included when requested by ATC and, at other times, when the pilot considers it necessary to confirm to ATS the route being followed.
"FOLLOWING POINT" - to be included when requested by ATC and, at other times, when the pilot considers it necessary to confirm to ATS the route being followed.
"FOLLOWING POINT" - to be included when requested by ATC and, at other times, when the pilot considers it necessary to confirm to ATS the route being followed.
Example given was:
"QF765 was flake 49er maintaining FL370, fagin at 23, filet next"
The syntax used here is also incorrect. FAGIN is the "Next Position" - for which the "Next Position" may be omitted - and FILET is the "Following Point" for which, in the example given, the term "next" was used.
ie. an International flight should say "Next Position FAGIN at 23" while a domestic flight may drop the "Next Position". The bit that is not required is the "Following Point FILET", which everyone, myself included, incorrectly says as "FILET next".
"QF765 was flake 49er maintaining FL370, fagin at 23, filet next"
The syntax used here is also incorrect. FAGIN is the "Next Position" - for which the "Next Position" may be omitted - and FILET is the "Following Point" for which, in the example given, the term "next" was used.
ie. an International flight should say "Next Position FAGIN at 23" while a domestic flight may drop the "Next Position". The bit that is not required is the "Following Point FILET", which everyone, myself included, incorrectly says as "FILET next".
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Brunei
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of the "Next" position is non standard.
A CASA / FAA / CAA approved position report would be
"Fastair 123, SEKSY 47, FL320, NIPIL 59"
But of course you now run into the realm of what is correct, and what actually works.
We are always told to keep our R/T short and concise to avoid cluttering up the airwaves, but if you make the position report as described above, and then get asked your next position, you end up taking up more R/T time than you would if you were non standard in the first place.
My advice would be to use the officially correct R/T in your sim checks, and use what really works when you are on line.
By the way, SEKSY and NIPIL were real reporting points in the Manila F.I.R. until recently.
Cheers
A CASA / FAA / CAA approved position report would be
"Fastair 123, SEKSY 47, FL320, NIPIL 59"
But of course you now run into the realm of what is correct, and what actually works.
We are always told to keep our R/T short and concise to avoid cluttering up the airwaves, but if you make the position report as described above, and then get asked your next position, you end up taking up more R/T time than you would if you were non standard in the first place.
My advice would be to use the officially correct R/T in your sim checks, and use what really works when you are on line.
By the way, SEKSY and NIPIL were real reporting points in the Manila F.I.R. until recently.
Cheers
It's quite logical, "NOT", that the format of the position report would be found in the MET section of the Jepp's!
It's on page AU-39. I think that should answer the question. What is written is not what is always said.
It's on page AU-39. I think that should answer the question. What is written is not what is always said.
Wings, the Aus AIP seems to indicate differently and explicitly includes "next position" for international flights and gives the option to omit if for domestic flights:
AIP Full Position Report Format
(Needs Acrobat Viewer)
See Section 1, Item number 5
AIP Full Position Report Format
(Needs Acrobat Viewer)
See Section 1, Item number 5
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole thing is a total joke. Why is it that something as simple as saying where you are and where you are going can be so complicated?
What is a "domestic flight" anyway? One that originates and finishes in Aus? Or one in Aus airspace? Does this sound a silly question? Well, the Qantas "Bible" - the RMS - says that aircraft in "Aus airspace" can omit things like OVER and NEXT POSITION. Yet frankly, after re-reading AIP for the thousandth time, and considering the latest amendments, I reckon QF399 needs to say all the above words and QF400 doesn't. Anyone got a good reason as to why? And international flights need to say "five thousand FEET" and domestic don't. The QF "Bible" also reckons you don't have to say the word "AT", as in [place] "AT" [time]. Well that's wrong according to AIP. And then step outside of Aus airspace and everything's different again. No wonder QF pilots don't get it 100% perfect.....
What a crock. Do what works out there guys and minimise the waffle. One day someone might actually might commit to paper precise, unambiguous phrases that don't change every month. But don't hold your breath!
What is a "domestic flight" anyway? One that originates and finishes in Aus? Or one in Aus airspace? Does this sound a silly question? Well, the Qantas "Bible" - the RMS - says that aircraft in "Aus airspace" can omit things like OVER and NEXT POSITION. Yet frankly, after re-reading AIP for the thousandth time, and considering the latest amendments, I reckon QF399 needs to say all the above words and QF400 doesn't. Anyone got a good reason as to why? And international flights need to say "five thousand FEET" and domestic don't. The QF "Bible" also reckons you don't have to say the word "AT", as in [place] "AT" [time]. Well that's wrong according to AIP. And then step outside of Aus airspace and everything's different again. No wonder QF pilots don't get it 100% perfect.....
What a crock. Do what works out there guys and minimise the waffle. One day someone might actually might commit to paper precise, unambiguous phrases that don't change every month. But don't hold your breath!
