"...taxying Blonkity for Wonkity, request traffic and transponder code"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One minute to TOPD?
Mr. Gaspo, I thought your taxi call was sufficient to get you IFR traffic for departure. Failing that, "Airborne Uppercumbuktawest" was for if you couldn't establish comms on the ground. From memory that got you 5 mins to complete manoeuvring and get a departure call out.
Mr. Gaspo, I thought your taxi call was sufficient to get you IFR traffic for departure. Failing that, "Airborne Uppercumbuktawest" was for if you couldn't establish comms on the ground. From memory that got you 5 mins to complete manoeuvring and get a departure call out.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and that other gem:
"Warrior blah blah over the top, this time......."
GOD that sh!ts me.
And thanks to Dickless So-and-So, we now get to listen to it all day long up in the flight levels of CTA. Fc*king priceless.....
"Warrior blah blah over the top, this time......."
GOD that sh!ts me.
And thanks to Dickless So-and-So, we now get to listen to it all day long up in the flight levels of CTA. Fc*king priceless.....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All true, but is it any wonder nobody knows what to say or readback these days, with the contonuous torrent of (often unexplained) changes that sneak in 13 times a year. Much of it to do with the continually buggering around with the airspace and CTAF's for god knows what reason.
A fair smattering of ATC's are in the same boat as pilots where they just don't know what the latest change is either - it's called change fatigue, and it is accellerating.
Many of the wunderkinden who come up with this bull**** don't appreciate they are making things less safe by always tinkering with it.
A fair smattering of ATC's are in the same boat as pilots where they just don't know what the latest change is either - it's called change fatigue, and it is accellerating.
Many of the wunderkinden who come up with this bull**** don't appreciate they are making things less safe by always tinkering with it.
Mostly Harmless
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Scuse me, but aren't you supposed to provide 2 minutes notice of an intended level change OCTA?
"In turn contact..."
Back to my whinge, I don't think I could bring myself to give online counselling to pilots when they do the "request traffic" thing. Still hate it but.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mariner Trench
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr K, whilst there is an ATCer in the house, can you answer me this? When I arrive at aerodrome with VHF on the ground and say "...landed Blah Blah cancel SAR" and you say "Blah Blah SARWATCH cancelled" am I supposed to reply with "ABC" (or whatever the callsign may be)?
I seem to remember reading somewhere, possibly JEPPS when I last opened them
that you're not supposed to but I always do as: a) it seems like the polite thing to do, and b) it lets centre know that you heard them.
Your thoughts?
I seem to remember reading somewhere, possibly JEPPS when I last opened them
that you're not supposed to but I always do as: a) it seems like the polite thing to do, and b) it lets centre know that you heard them.Your thoughts?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThoughtCrime
How about
"passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"
on CTAF's!!!!
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! Nobody cares otherwise.
TC
"passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"
on CTAF's!!!!
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC!
Nobody cares otherwise.TC
This topic is of huge interest to me - not only do I request traffic for descent XXXX, I was of the distinct impression that those who didn't request traffic prior to 'leaving' were causing the enroute controller all sorts of grief by making him drop everything to find you traffic before you hit something.
Learn something every day!
Originally Posted by Best Speed
Comon' how about? "Centre IFR Taxi!!"
.I actually thought this was a requirement, but I can't find it. At any rate, it is far preferable to launching in to "Melbourne Centre, ABC C182 2 POB IFR taxiing Learmonth Port Hedland runway 36" only to recieve the reply, "ABC, you were in with a ground station, say again".
It is certainly a requirement to contact ATS 2 minutes prior to TOD (or any other level change) so they can pass traffic. The best way I've heard this carried out is,
"ABC 2 minutes top of descent"
"ABC, traffic is bla bla bla"
<<2 minutes later>>
"Centre and all stations Broome area, ABC 30 miles SW of Broome, leaving FL130 on descent, Broome at 32"
You get your traffic in good time, you then make the leaving call as well as alerting any VFR traffic in the area of where you are and what you are doing.
My interpretation
leave out the landed and no need to respond after he has responded with the cancelation.
"...landed Blah Blah cancel SAR" and you say "Blah Blah SARWATCH cancelled" am I supposed to reply with "ABC" (or whatever the callsign may be)?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change fatigue is at full throttle !
Problem has always been training. Not only instructors at the flying schools but the training captains with the airlines. Very few know what is correct so they make it up along the way.
Once upon a time this change process was floated past the RAPACs for input and comment, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Many of these changes are from CASA who on past experience knee jerk to incidents where they think alternative words would be more appropriate. It would be good to know why some of these changes are implemented (other than "it's ICAO"). If you go back in time you will find changes that got scrubbed and are now back again! What about changes that are just short term (eg when TAAATS was introduced).. we still have them as there has been no review. Just where is the corporate history these days???
An old one, but there has NEVER been a requirement to acknowledge and acknowledgement. What ATS say to you in response is their acknowledgement, so there is NO, requirement to acknowledge further unless of course you like the sound of your own voice!
Not really dumb. Not only is the requirement to advise PRIOR to descent to enable ATS to review any known traffic, but to let the VFR chap 500 ft below you that you are about to start down! Another reason why you should say your position with the same call. ATS know where you are (usually) but the VFR below do not.
Nothing worse than: "ABC top of descent in 2 min" [top of descent where??]
If you want ATS to know you are in the air and contact was not possible on the ground then an airborne call is an option. As soon as ATS get that call they will start putting you in the system. Saying "standby for departure" is pointless... just what else are they going to do??
What about "Code 1234"
The use of the word "code" is not required at any time by either ATS or pilots. If you go back in time it was a misprint in the AIP when transponders first came in. In the bit where it said code there should have been [brackets] around the word code to indicate the insertion of other text - ie 1234, but the brackets were left out, hence it became an Oz practice for many years until audited against o/s practice.
Just who is responsible for the training?? CASA of course, but then they don't have much/any corporate history to be across this themselves and it is left up to those that have been around for some years to try and get the message across.... a bit like swimming upstream!! difficult to get anywhere!
Problem has always been training. Not only instructors at the flying schools but the training captains with the airlines. Very few know what is correct so they make it up along the way.
Once upon a time this change process was floated past the RAPACs for input and comment, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Many of these changes are from CASA who on past experience knee jerk to incidents where they think alternative words would be more appropriate. It would be good to know why some of these changes are implemented (other than "it's ICAO"). If you go back in time you will find changes that got scrubbed and are now back again! What about changes that are just short term (eg when TAAATS was introduced).. we still have them as there has been no review. Just where is the corporate history these days???
Mr K, whilst there is an ATCer in the house, can you answer me this? When I arrive at aerodrome with VHF on the ground and say "...landed Blah Blah cancel SAR" and you say "Blah Blah SARWATCH cancelled" am I supposed to reply with "ABC" (or whatever the callsign may be)?
like just telling me that you will be on descent in 2 minutes. Dumb rule though.
Nothing worse than: "ABC top of descent in 2 min" [top of descent where??]
I thought your taxi call was sufficient to get you IFR traffic for departure. Failing that, "Airborne Uppercumbuktawest" was for if you couldn't establish comms on the ground. From memory that got you 5 mins to complete manoeuvring and get a departure call out.
What about "Code 1234"
The use of the word "code" is not required at any time by either ATS or pilots. If you go back in time it was a misprint in the AIP when transponders first came in. In the bit where it said code there should have been [brackets] around the word code to indicate the insertion of other text - ie 1234, but the brackets were left out, hence it became an Oz practice for many years until audited against o/s practice.
Just who is responsible for the training?? CASA of course, but then they don't have much/any corporate history to be across this themselves and it is left up to those that have been around for some years to try and get the message across.... a bit like swimming upstream!! difficult to get anywhere!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only is the requirement to advise PRIOR to descent to enable ATS to review any known traffic, but to let the VFR chap 500 ft below you that you are about to start down! Another reason why you should say your position with the same call. ATS know where you are (usually) but the VFR below do not.
ATS should know where the guy is. Location was never a part of the call as far as I was aware (way back then in my GA daze....) but what did I know???
Originally Posted by triadic
Nothing worse than: "ABC top of descent in 2 min" [top of descent where??]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
It is certainly a requirement to contact ATS 2 minutes prior to TOD (or any other level change) so they can pass traffic. The best way I've heard this carried out is,
"ABC 2 minutes top of descent"
"ABC, traffic is bla bla bla"
<<2 minutes later>>
"Centre and all stations Broome area, ABC 30 miles SW of Broome, leaving FL130 on descent, Broome at 32"
You get your traffic in good time, you then make the leaving call as well as alerting any VFR traffic in the area of where you are and what you are doing.
"ABC 2 minutes top of descent"
"ABC, traffic is bla bla bla"
<<2 minutes later>>
"Centre and all stations Broome area, ABC 30 miles SW of Broome, leaving FL130 on descent, Broome at 32"
You get your traffic in good time, you then make the leaving call as well as alerting any VFR traffic in the area of where you are and what you are doing.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AerocatS2A
Yes, I agree with you, and that is the way I have always done it.
Including the place name is, I believe, a good thing in the first call, as it helps with the situational awareness of others and even helps ATC as they know exactly where to look (especially in these days of huge sectors).
Trouble is not that many follow up with the second call !
It all goes back to training and an understanding of how the system works (or should work!)
The training and examination on airspace participation is just not good enough and there is certainly no standardisation of those that do the training!
Airmanship comes in this discussion as well... pity they don't teach that any more!!
Yes, I agree with you, and that is the way I have always done it.
Including the place name is, I believe, a good thing in the first call, as it helps with the situational awareness of others and even helps ATC as they know exactly where to look (especially in these days of huge sectors).
Trouble is not that many follow up with the second call !
It all goes back to training and an understanding of how the system works (or should work!)
The training and examination on airspace participation is just not good enough and there is certainly no standardisation of those that do the training!
Airmanship comes in this discussion as well... pity they don't teach that any more!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'll be 
ed: they did scrub it from AIP while I wasn't looking...
AIP ENR 1.1 - 79
60.2 The pilot in command of an IFR flight must notify the intention to amend route, deviate from track or change level in sufficient time for ATS to advise traffic.
Having said that, the one that gets my goat is "Monitoring CTAF". Well, what am I supposed to do with that? Tell me you're changing to CTAF or don't say anything at all!
ed: they did scrub it from AIP while I wasn't looking...AIP ENR 1.1 - 79
60.2 The pilot in command of an IFR flight must notify the intention to amend route, deviate from track or change level in sufficient time for ATS to advise traffic.
Having said that, the one that gets my goat is "Monitoring CTAF". Well, what am I supposed to do with that? Tell me you're changing to CTAF or don't say anything at all!