Merged: Pending clearance??
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'departed xxx at..., estimating yyy at..., request FL..
Of course you have your assigned altitude indicator set at the highest standard level for your direction of flight - not the CTA base (unless it is the same) - and certainly not the base of Class E if it is a VFR level eg;FL125
By the way, the requirement to provide an ETA for the first waypoint came in with TAAATS as a temporary procedure whilst the controllers got used to the new system. ATC boss of the day said it would only be in for a year or so.... Funny how temporary procedures last so long!!
I recall that the "climbing flightlevels" statement came in way back when CTAFs and MBZs came in and was initially used only within the CTAF/MBZ etc for the benefit of aircraft in that area that did not need to know the detail. Seems to have stuck and now used by folk that don't know why!!!
The QantasLink (in fact before QL - SSA/EAA/SAA) (and others) introduced the all stations call at or about TOD to advise VFRs in the area that they were about to pass thru that airspace. This followed a number of incidents (close calls) when the published calls did not provide sufficient info on the area frequency, especially below A100.
and while we are at it.... I continue to be amazed that many pilots do not include the place name when advising TOD... How in the world is the VFR 500 ft below you (if in G) meant to know where you are when all that is said is:
Center ABC top of descent in 2 minutes (or similar). Center knows where you are and says no traffic etc., but nobody else has a clue. Would be good if center included the place name in the response but that is rare!!
And then of course he gives no broadcast!!This will never end, especially now that many of the trainers and instructors don't know the reasons behind many of the procedures and then try to make up their own!! (and force it on those that they teach...)
Don't get me started on readback!! Another day!!
The wheel has been re-invented many times in this discussion - one just needs to ask the older amongst us a lot of "why" questions....
Triadic, the two problems I have with stating that you are climbing to a level in CTA and for which you don't have a clearance is firstly - it often triggers the whole 'remain clear of CTA' spiel and secondly - if comms are subsequently lost and the clearance has NOT come through, it may raise other doubts. Will ATC assume that because you said you were climbing to FL 240 you fully intend to do that? Whereas 'request FL..' tells them what you want but also that you don't intend going there until advised that you can do so.
But yes, I do know what the AIP says. I just wonder whether it was originally written for bugsmashers that are not climbing into CTA but more likely to reach it when level and approaching a terminal area?
Another pet hate is a B737 or A320 having to state it is 'IFR' on initial taxi in CTAF. What else would it be? If anyone hears 'Qantas 10 taxying Karratha' and doesn't realise that it is IFR, that person must be thick as a brick. Whereas a Baron could likely be either IFR or VFR; therefore it would appear that the AIP was originally written more for the G.A. case than the airline RPT case. And spare me the 'Fokker 100 IFR jet' ! Makes me want to counter with the 'Beech Aircraft Company Baron 58 with the big back door, unpressurized, normally aspirated piston propeller twin.'
Although the AIP tries, to make one size fit all results in too many words on the radio at times. But, for the AIP to cover all possible scenarios would make for too many written words in that document. That would be my worst nightmare, as I hate studying for an I.R. renewal as it is.
Concise, clear and plain English works well enough. So can we be allowed to use common sense in what we say on the wireless without the R/T police getting on our case?
But yes, I do know what the AIP says. I just wonder whether it was originally written for bugsmashers that are not climbing into CTA but more likely to reach it when level and approaching a terminal area?
Another pet hate is a B737 or A320 having to state it is 'IFR' on initial taxi in CTAF. What else would it be? If anyone hears 'Qantas 10 taxying Karratha' and doesn't realise that it is IFR, that person must be thick as a brick. Whereas a Baron could likely be either IFR or VFR; therefore it would appear that the AIP was originally written more for the G.A. case than the airline RPT case. And spare me the 'Fokker 100 IFR jet' ! Makes me want to counter with the 'Beech Aircraft Company Baron 58 with the big back door, unpressurized, normally aspirated piston propeller twin.'
Although the AIP tries, to make one size fit all results in too many words on the radio at times. But, for the AIP to cover all possible scenarios would make for too many written words in that document. That would be my worst nightmare, as I hate studying for an I.R. renewal as it is.
Concise, clear and plain English works well enough. So can we be allowed to use common sense in what we say on the wireless without the R/T police getting on our case?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach; I believe we are on common ground with all of this.... however over a decade of saying the planned level on departure it has never caused a problem that I am aware of. If ATC cant give you a CNCE then I understand they are obliged to give you the "remain outside etc' verbage (to cover the bot so to speak!)
You are correct in that many of the procedures were "composed" with a particular sector of the industry in mind - we hump the results! (either way)
My main beef is that very few pilots actually "understand" the ATC/ATS/Airways system and how it works, or is meant to work. If they did, then I suggest that much of this discussion would not take place!! Why is this so?? Well my guess is that they are not taught it by someone that knows. Experience shows that instructors and training captains are not the ones to teach this. Problem is that CASA thinks they are!!
Who teaches the teachers?? Formally I don't believe anyone does, hence most of the problems/issues in this thread. Have you ever tried to correct the teaching of a senior training captain or a CFI?? The bow wave they create is just too large to influence without help from the regulator - but then they are mostly former training captains and instructors !! and so the circle goes round.... blah!!
Another red required.... g'nite
You are correct in that many of the procedures were "composed" with a particular sector of the industry in mind - we hump the results! (either way)
My main beef is that very few pilots actually "understand" the ATC/ATS/Airways system and how it works, or is meant to work. If they did, then I suggest that much of this discussion would not take place!! Why is this so?? Well my guess is that they are not taught it by someone that knows. Experience shows that instructors and training captains are not the ones to teach this. Problem is that CASA thinks they are!!
Who teaches the teachers?? Formally I don't believe anyone does, hence most of the problems/issues in this thread. Have you ever tried to correct the teaching of a senior training captain or a CFI?? The bow wave they create is just too large to influence without help from the regulator - but then they are mostly former training captains and instructors !! and so the circle goes round.... blah!!
Another red required.... g'nite
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ask my boss!
Age: 49
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a controller can answer this. We all know what is said but let us examine the initial call to Approach when already assigned a lower level.
You’re maintaining FL200, assigned 7000’ and identified:-
AU 705. JEPPS 1.9.1.6 b
1. Report assigned level - 7000
2. In flight conditions, if appropriate – probably appropriate & helpful for Approach if VFR, IFR call “VISUAL” if PIC can conform to a Vis App AU 706, JEPP 1.9.5 (& actually desires a visual app – AU 707, JEPP 1.9.5.7) - Already hammered in earlier posts!
3. Receipt of ATIS
So the call for an IFR aircraft not yet able to conduct a Vis App could be : Melb App, ABC, cleared 7000 received CHARLIE.
Now JEPP AU-705 1.9.1.4 says ANY frequency change say level maintaining and the example is ML CENTRE, JEPP AU-704 1.6.4.3 refers to AREA CONTROL and we ONLY say our callsign when changing to TWR frequency.
Do we really have to say “maintaining FL200” to Melb App?
Melb App knows we are maintaining FL200 and can see us on radar. And we’ll report leaving!
Any comments?
You’re maintaining FL200, assigned 7000’ and identified:-
AU 705. JEPPS 1.9.1.6 b
1. Report assigned level - 7000
2. In flight conditions, if appropriate – probably appropriate & helpful for Approach if VFR, IFR call “VISUAL” if PIC can conform to a Vis App AU 706, JEPP 1.9.5 (& actually desires a visual app – AU 707, JEPP 1.9.5.7) - Already hammered in earlier posts!
3. Receipt of ATIS
So the call for an IFR aircraft not yet able to conduct a Vis App could be : Melb App, ABC, cleared 7000 received CHARLIE.
Now JEPP AU-705 1.9.1.4 says ANY frequency change say level maintaining and the example is ML CENTRE, JEPP AU-704 1.6.4.3 refers to AREA CONTROL and we ONLY say our callsign when changing to TWR frequency.
Do we really have to say “maintaining FL200” to Melb App?
Melb App knows we are maintaining FL200 and can see us on radar. And we’ll report leaving!
Any comments?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While on the subject of pet hates, what is it with "Traffic 126.7 ABC joining downwind runway 28 Traffic 126.7"
That's lovely that you're broadcasting on 126.7, but I already knew that, because that's the frequency I'm tuned in to... I'd much rather know which Runway 28 you've joined downwind on?!
Still it gives me a chuckle, when they broadcast Traffic 126.7 and they're not on 126.7 themselves.
That's lovely that you're broadcasting on 126.7, but I already knew that, because that's the frequency I'm tuned in to... I'd much rather know which Runway 28 you've joined downwind on?!
Still it gives me a chuckle, when they broadcast Traffic 126.7 and they're not on 126.7 themselves.
aviexp, I'm not an approach controller but I'd say you still need to report the level maintaining. If nothing else it confirms that your transponder is correct. Aircraft do occasionally "prop" at intermediate levels without saying anything - adjusting profile I guess.
Technically approach doesn't know you're maintaining F200 unless you tell them because they have no knowledge of what your previously assigned level was.
I suspect the example quoted when calling approach is really only catering for aircraft already on descent.
Technically approach doesn't know you're maintaining F200 unless you tell them because they have no knowledge of what your previously assigned level was.
I suspect the example quoted when calling approach is really only catering for aircraft already on descent.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: out there
Age: 43
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift here, but I think the whole standard of radio/airmanship has slipped.
Example this morning in a CTAF.
"Traffic XXXX, ABC an IFR (type) taxi's RWY 09 for YYYY, now on the runway back tracking"
Forgive and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of the taxi call to notify aircraft in the area that you are now intending to commence operations. A pause allows any inbound aircraft to notify the taxying aircraft of intentions so seperation can be organised.
Also, what is the point of making an entering and back tracking call in the same radio call when you are already on the runway?
Whilst I understand everyones frustration at slighly wrong, or inappropriate phraseology on the radio, at least if the calls are helping the pilot increase situational awareness then that can surely be accepted. Examples of the above are heard all to frequently at busy CTAFS and CTAF(R)'s and is a massive safety issue when the first you know of an aircraft when you are inbound/in the circuit is when it makes it's first broadcast half way down the runway.
Example this morning in a CTAF.
"Traffic XXXX, ABC an IFR (type) taxi's RWY 09 for YYYY, now on the runway back tracking"
Forgive and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of the taxi call to notify aircraft in the area that you are now intending to commence operations. A pause allows any inbound aircraft to notify the taxying aircraft of intentions so seperation can be organised.
Also, what is the point of making an entering and back tracking call in the same radio call when you are already on the runway?
Whilst I understand everyones frustration at slighly wrong, or inappropriate phraseology on the radio, at least if the calls are helping the pilot increase situational awareness then that can surely be accepted. Examples of the above are heard all to frequently at busy CTAFS and CTAF(R)'s and is a massive safety issue when the first you know of an aircraft when you are inbound/in the circuit is when it makes it's first broadcast half way down the runway.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ask my boss!
Age: 49
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'the air up there'
I agree with standards (but there were problems 20 years as well) and this thread is good as pruners are now diving into their books and having their 2c worth.
I seem to recall that the taxi call (CTAF) had to be made prior to the aircraft moving forward under its own power. Even just to reposition to a fuel bowser. Don't know if this is still true but an early call definitely can help you & others taxiing in your blind spot or choking up a taxiway / holding point.
'le Pingouin'
- look, I just thru that out there. I always say the maintaining alt. But wouldn't Approach know your assigned alt, any speed restrictions, waypoint time requirements etc? Doesn't all this stuff get forwarded down the line?
............And the aircraft has (most of the time) been 'identified' on radar!
I agree with standards (but there were problems 20 years as well) and this thread is good as pruners are now diving into their books and having their 2c worth.
I seem to recall that the taxi call (CTAF) had to be made prior to the aircraft moving forward under its own power. Even just to reposition to a fuel bowser. Don't know if this is still true but an early call definitely can help you & others taxiing in your blind spot or choking up a taxiway / holding point.
'le Pingouin'
- look, I just thru that out there. I always say the maintaining alt. But wouldn't Approach know your assigned alt, any speed restrictions, waypoint time requirements etc? Doesn't all this stuff get forwarded down the line?
............And the aircraft has (most of the time) been 'identified' on radar!
But wouldn't Approach know your assigned alt, any speed restrictions, waypoint time requirements etc? Doesn't all this stuff get forwarded down the line?
............And the aircraft has (most of the time) been 'identified' on radar!
............And the aircraft has (most of the time) been 'identified' on radar!
For a controller to know you're maintaining a level solely by looking at the mode C readout it needs to be referenced to an assigned level. Approach doesn't know you were assigned F200 so unless you tell them the mode C can't officially be used to say so. Pedantic perhaps but them's the rules: within +/- 200ft of the assigned level.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen that one is a winner..
everyday you hear "aaa landed timbuktoo cancel sarwatch, request code for departure"
really.. squawk 2000 or other as appropriate and get on with it... you will get code when needed..
everyday you hear "aaa landed timbuktoo cancel sarwatch, request code for departure"
really.. squawk 2000 or other as appropriate and get on with it... you will get code when needed..
Bottums Up
It's got me tossed why so many feel that they have to have a TXPDR code. Won't the bloody plane fly without it? 
If ATS don't give a code on taxi, then use 3000 (or appropriate for ops). You'll get it eventually but there is no need of it close to AYQ, GOV, ASP and much of the rest of the continent.
If in a radar environment, and the code hasn't been assigned, I could understand asking.
If ATS don't give a code on taxi, then use 3000 (or appropriate for ops). You'll get it eventually but there is no need of it close to AYQ, GOV, ASP and much of the rest of the continent.
If in a radar environment, and the code hasn't been assigned, I could understand asking.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R/T Question for ATCers
I have 2 queries from this thread.
1. When departing YBAS it is not uncommon to be instructed to "contact ML CEN passing 5000ft" with the Take-Off clearance. In such a scenario does the tower controller still require a Departure Report (assume non-radar) and if not, why does the procedural unit (in this case ML CEN) require a different departure report? Why is the tracking information with reference to the navigation aid/SID not needed by Centre? (Refer AIP AIP GEN 3.4 - 5.14.8 Section 3)
2. My operator recently published something that said "HEAVY/SUPER" must be added to all initial transmissions to SMC, TWR and APP/DEP. I beleive that is not an unreasonable interpreatation of AIP. I can understand the need for most, but why SMC on Taxi/pushback and why TWR on arrival. Doesn't somebody else do the wake turbulence separation?
1. When departing YBAS it is not uncommon to be instructed to "contact ML CEN passing 5000ft" with the Take-Off clearance. In such a scenario does the tower controller still require a Departure Report (assume non-radar) and if not, why does the procedural unit (in this case ML CEN) require a different departure report? Why is the tracking information with reference to the navigation aid/SID not needed by Centre? (Refer AIP AIP GEN 3.4 - 5.14.8 Section 3)
2. My operator recently published something that said "HEAVY/SUPER" must be added to all initial transmissions to SMC, TWR and APP/DEP. I beleive that is not an unreasonable interpreatation of AIP. I can understand the need for most, but why SMC on Taxi/pushback and why TWR on arrival. Doesn't somebody else do the wake turbulence separation?
Last edited by GaryGnu; 30th Nov 2009 at 10:18. Reason: Correct AIP ref
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. When departing YBAS it is not uncommon to be instructed to "contact ML CEN passing 5000ft" with the Take-Off clearance. In such a scenario does the tower controller still require a Departure Report (assume non-radar) and if not, why does the procedural unit (in this case ML CEN) require a different departure report?
Why is the tracking information with reference to the navigation aid/SID not needed by Centre? (Refer AIP AIP GEN 3.4 - 5.14.8 Section 3)
2. My operator recently published something that said "HEAVY/SUPER" must be added to all initial transmissions to SMC, TWR and APP/DEP. I beleive that is not an unreasonable interpreatation of AIP. I can understand the need for most, but why SMC on Taxi/pushback and why TWR on arrival. Doesn't somebody else do the wake turbulence separation?
Bottums Up
Originally Posted by GaryGnu
"contact ML CEN passing 5000ft" with the Take-Off clearance. In such a scenario does the tower controller still require a Departure Report (assume non-radar) and if not, why does the procedural unit (in this case ML CEN) require a different departure report?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Qld
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altimeters,
Not too familar with SY so this is just a stab, but it's possible the ATIS called for an ILS PRM approach then independent visual approach.
The visual call would end atc's responsibility to monitor localizer tracking to PRM standards, so maybe the director controller was instructing aircraft to report visual, and visual reference was obtained after transfer to TWR.
Not too familar with SY so this is just a stab, but it's possible the ATIS called for an ILS PRM approach then independent visual approach.
The visual call would end atc's responsibility to monitor localizer tracking to PRM standards, so maybe the director controller was instructing aircraft to report visual, and visual reference was obtained after transfer to TWR.
