RPT's operating into the CTAF
By DBTW:
In the grand scheme of things, the pvt bods outnumber you by several magnitudes
In the grand scheme of things, the pvt bods outnumber you by several magnitudes
Das. Granted some can be pretty bad from time to time. The only thing you haven't let on in your post was what was the duty runway at the time? I've had an interesting local training identity at PMQ berate me for joining a 5nm final while he was turning downwind, so I conducted an orbit (one turned into two) to allow him and his ego room while he flew a circuit out over the coast for RWY 21.... It has to be give and take on all sides.
Education is the key from what I understand. Do many low time students doing their night circuits understand that an IFR aircraft can be rather confined in its manoeuvring ability due to circling area constraints and may not be able to follow them while they fly a short navex of a circuit sometimes (eg: CFS)?
Radio calls are one thing if there is no such thing as airmanship on display. Again, it works both ways.
Regards,
OpsN.
"das' I agree there are at times poor airmanship displyed even at RPT level but to some degree now that we have seen a rapid expansion in RPT hiring (with some of the lowest exp levels this country has ever seen being accepted) there are newbies at that level who are still 'green' & stuff it up, I lay some of the blame for the PIC.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies for sounding nasty. That was not my intention. I know we get quite a bit of thread creep, but here is how this one started:
OpsN,
thanks on the spelling. Good spot now fixed. On your other points, as you can see, this thread started off with a simple query from a fellow in Broome. Happy to agree with you on some CTAFs during the week. Please allow me two comments in reply. Firstly, on aircraft numbers, check out the register to see how many aircraft are owned by RPT operators versus those privately owned, and remember regs and procedures in Australia are already slanted by CASA to protect RPT (because there are fair paying passengers involved).
With that in mind and as my second point, the comment from CW I quoted was as follows:
Without wanting to sound frivolous, CW is clearly talking about farmers using CTAFs on the week end, not mid week east coast of NSW Monday to Friday. My interpretation is that CW somehow thinks having an RPT job makes him a better, more professional pilot. I hope to stand corrected on this point. Indeed, his later posting does seem to introduce a worry that RPT pilot standards have dropped of late, and some of his other comments make me wonder whether we are actually having a heated agreement?
CW
On your comments, thanks for allowing me the opportunity. NB: I will not comment on your spelling. I would simply like to explain I am also a professional pilot. My main point would have to be that we professionals in general, and you RPT pilots in particular, are not the only entitled airspace users and you need to manage your anxiety levels a bit better. Safety is indeed everybody's business and RPT pilots do not necessarily have the majority shareholding. Simply crying safety when you feel challenged doesn't mean your life, or the lives of your passengers, is really threatened.
The truth: In Australia, the risk of collision is very low. People put a lot of worry into something that is not really very likely. This is especially true of RPT, and I am certain you believe this worry is well placed. I do not necessarily wish you to change your procedures or to suggest RPT adopt unsafe practices, however I would like RPT pilots to think seriously about what the risks actually are. Your IMC fears are not the norm in Australia. Face it, we pride ourselves on the great weather we enjoy and even though many of your approaches may start IMC in the FLs, by the time you get close to the airfield you are usually visual/VMC.
I agree that everybody does need to work together. Points being made about circuit training (size) at PMQ and lack of training/lowering levels of airmanship may all be valid. If standards really have dropped, we professionals need to be more careful, but talking down other airspace users doesn't help. By inference you obviously agree some of those "Farmer Bobs" will be RPT pilots very soon. We all need to work with them. They are probably trying really hard to do the right thing, and given time they will be fine. The likelihood of any of them colliding with you is thankfully extremely low, and this is at least as much due to their procedures/training as yours. Most likely, they are just like you were when you were inexperienced. A bad R/T call does not in itself constitute a collision risk, and if you are IMC and not happy with the picture you have building in your head, don't go there until you are happy. That would be good airmanship...
Just a quick question about RPTs. In Broome these guys (well QF, Virgin and skywest) call at 150nm, then get updated traffic at 30nm and then make a 10 mile call then a 5nm and 3nm final call... and occassionally a one mile final.
My question is when these guys are operating into a CTAF where there is no traffic service when do these guys call? obviously 10nm would be way to close seeing as these guys are doing nearly 3 miles a minute?..
My question is when these guys are operating into a CTAF where there is no traffic service when do these guys call? obviously 10nm would be way to close seeing as these guys are doing nearly 3 miles a minute?..
thanks on the spelling. Good spot now fixed. On your other points, as you can see, this thread started off with a simple query from a fellow in Broome. Happy to agree with you on some CTAFs during the week. Please allow me two comments in reply. Firstly, on aircraft numbers, check out the register to see how many aircraft are owned by RPT operators versus those privately owned, and remember regs and procedures in Australia are already slanted by CASA to protect RPT (because there are fair paying passengers involved).
With that in mind and as my second point, the comment from CW I quoted was as follows:
I'm fortunate that I have alert crew onboard & they know how dangerous a CTAF can be especially on W/E's with at times numerous
'Farmer Browns" about.
'Farmer Browns" about.
CW
On your comments, thanks for allowing me the opportunity. NB: I will not comment on your spelling. I would simply like to explain I am also a professional pilot. My main point would have to be that we professionals in general, and you RPT pilots in particular, are not the only entitled airspace users and you need to manage your anxiety levels a bit better. Safety is indeed everybody's business and RPT pilots do not necessarily have the majority shareholding. Simply crying safety when you feel challenged doesn't mean your life, or the lives of your passengers, is really threatened.
The truth: In Australia, the risk of collision is very low. People put a lot of worry into something that is not really very likely. This is especially true of RPT, and I am certain you believe this worry is well placed. I do not necessarily wish you to change your procedures or to suggest RPT adopt unsafe practices, however I would like RPT pilots to think seriously about what the risks actually are. Your IMC fears are not the norm in Australia. Face it, we pride ourselves on the great weather we enjoy and even though many of your approaches may start IMC in the FLs, by the time you get close to the airfield you are usually visual/VMC.
I agree that everybody does need to work together. Points being made about circuit training (size) at PMQ and lack of training/lowering levels of airmanship may all be valid. If standards really have dropped, we professionals need to be more careful, but talking down other airspace users doesn't help. By inference you obviously agree some of those "Farmer Bobs" will be RPT pilots very soon. We all need to work with them. They are probably trying really hard to do the right thing, and given time they will be fine. The likelihood of any of them colliding with you is thankfully extremely low, and this is at least as much due to their procedures/training as yours. Most likely, they are just like you were when you were inexperienced. A bad R/T call does not in itself constitute a collision risk, and if you are IMC and not happy with the picture you have building in your head, don't go there until you are happy. That would be good airmanship
...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety starts with YOU, ME & everyone else in the sky, but it's difficult enough to achieve that when I read very troublesome comments like this from another contributor ........... and not get pushy etc and quibble if thier ETA is inaccurate or the radial is wrong... " To think that when I'm in IMC inbound tryig to form an accurate picture of who's where also inbound etc I am expected to believe the above is acceptable, maybe to some pvt pilots but it's not to me! 
An ESTIMATE is just that... one that comes from an FMS or advanced GPS with XXXXX approach set up will be accurate to the minute....
if you are "farmer brown" inbound from some station in the middle of no-where in a 172 with no GPS or DME etc and just your watch to go by then you cannot expect the same accuracy...
So "farmer brown" hears all you guys
"inbound on the XXX radial tracking via waypoint XXX for the runway XX RNAV approach estimate waypoint XX at time XX"
He does his best to speak your language and gives a bearing when it should be a radial etc and gets hung for it !!
These guys should be encouraged to speak ENGLISH and say "inbound from timbuktoo maintaining XXX estimate XXX"
If YOU dont know where that is ask...
in general the VFR guy is going to feel a bit intimidated to pipe up and say "mate I have no idea what an RNAV approach is, can you explain where you are "... especially with attitudes like
"Anyway believe what you want I'm not bagging all PVT pilots, on the contrary as I said you can tell the ones that know/care simply by their R/T procedures (their the ones that will give way) it's the 'farmer brown's out there that I/we need eyes in the back of our heads for!
If i ever delevelop a stutter or other speech impediment I will at least remember to give way ok.....!!
An ESTIMATE is just that... one that comes from an FMS or advanced GPS with XXXXX approach set up will be accurate to the minute....
if you are "farmer brown" inbound from some station in the middle of no-where in a 172 with no GPS or DME etc and just your watch to go by then you cannot expect the same accuracy...
So "farmer brown" hears all you guys
"inbound on the XXX radial tracking via waypoint XXX for the runway XX RNAV approach estimate waypoint XX at time XX"
He does his best to speak your language and gives a bearing when it should be a radial etc and gets hung for it !!
These guys should be encouraged to speak ENGLISH and say "inbound from timbuktoo maintaining XXX estimate XXX"
If YOU dont know where that is ask...
in general the VFR guy is going to feel a bit intimidated to pipe up and say "mate I have no idea what an RNAV approach is, can you explain where you are "... especially with attitudes like
"Anyway believe what you want I'm not bagging all PVT pilots, on the contrary as I said you can tell the ones that know/care simply by their R/T procedures (their the ones that will give way) it's the 'farmer brown's out there that I/we need eyes in the back of our heads for!
If i ever delevelop a stutter or other speech impediment I will at least remember to give way ok.....!!
Last edited by xxgoldxx; 16th Nov 2008 at 12:17.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn:
I support your objective for more CTAF radio discipline but I can't agree that a jet simply giving a CAGRO an estimate for the circuit area when he's at 150nm fits into the category of poor radio discipline.
If the QF 737 leaves his call until 30nm Broome, that only gives the CAGRO some 5-6 minutes to write up the strip, develop his SA and then pass the relevant traffic before the aircraft hits the circuit area. In Ayers Rock's case, the CAGRO only has some 3-4 minutes to do this (20nm inbound call requirement not 30nm like Broome).
The 150nm call is only provided by jets. Turboprop performance offers CAGROs more time at the CTAF boundaries, so the 150nm call is not required by them IN THE INTERESTS OF MINIMISING CTAF FREQUENCY CONGESTION.
If it's perceived by the Skygods and the CAGROs (and CASA?) to be necessary, why aren't the rest of the High Cap community doing it as well? Are their pax less important?
If the QF 737 leaves his call until 30nm Broome, that only gives the CAGRO some 5-6 minutes to write up the strip, develop his SA and then pass the relevant traffic before the aircraft hits the circuit area. In Ayers Rock's case, the CAGRO only has some 3-4 minutes to do this (20nm inbound call requirement not 30nm like Broome).
The 150nm call is only provided by jets. Turboprop performance offers CAGROs more time at the CTAF boundaries, so the 150nm call is not required by them IN THE INTERESTS OF MINIMISING CTAF FREQUENCY CONGESTION.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nise day out thier tooday
I'm not going to let this become a personal slanging match some just don't get it but that's fine & can't educate via this medium, it's one dimensional & open to too much intereptation (but one can hope I guess!). I expect us ALL to be doing it right but the word 'expectation' is much like the word 'assume', both you can never rely on in aviation!
CW
p.s "DBTW" CW is not a RPT driver, ohhh ahhhhh perish the thought
I'm not going to let this become a personal slanging match some just don't get it but that's fine & can't educate via this medium, it's one dimensional & open to too much intereptation (but one can hope I guess!). I expect us ALL to be doing it right but the word 'expectation' is much like the word 'assume', both you can never rely on in aviation!
CW
p.s "DBTW" CW is not a RPT driver, ohhh ahhhhh perish the thought
I know Dick Smith's sense of smell is as keen as a great white shark's ... so I'll say this very quitely ....
I think discipline, both radio and airmanship, was much better in the days of Flight Service. With everyone on a FS frequency of some sort (OCTA) you had to watch your Ps, Qs and Estimates. It was considered a real buzz to show your professionalism ... whether you were doing a training cross country or driving the Fokker. I guess, for some, the present system of anonymous CTAFs isn't condusive to real discipline.
I think discipline, both radio and airmanship, was much better in the days of Flight Service. With everyone on a FS frequency of some sort (OCTA) you had to watch your Ps, Qs and Estimates. It was considered a real buzz to show your professionalism ... whether you were doing a training cross country or driving the Fokker. I guess, for some, the present system of anonymous CTAFs isn't condusive to real discipline.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not wanting to breathe life into what appears to be a circular argument... but could somebody please provide definitions of CAGRO, CA/GRS and CA/GRO (I'm assuming they're all related at some level...)
thanks
thanks
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CW,
I unreservedly apologise for assuming you were an RPT pilot!
You are absolutely correct. "Assume" and "expectation" carry no reliability in aviation. Hope you can forgive me?
I unreservedly apologise for assuming you were an RPT pilot!
You are absolutely correct. "Assume" and "expectation" carry no reliability in aviation. Hope you can forgive me?
