RPT's operating into the CTAF
Now I'm getting wound up...
"Broome Radio, Qantas 678, 150nm south south west inbound!"
"Qantas 678, Broome Radio. Traffic is, well, I dunno, as you won't be here for another 20-odd minutes, whatever is in the circuit will be long gone by the time you get here, there may be other traffic by then but I'll tell you about it later on as soon as I find out about it. In the meantime, as I'm also listening to Centre and know you're coming, I'll give anybody that needs to know a headsup on your later arrival. Centre will gice you traffic on any departures in your direction. You know what the airfield weather and preferred runway is, as I have had the ATIS running for the last well, since I've been on duty, and the AWIS before that. Now can I get off the CTAF so I don't annoy anybody any more?"
"Err, thanks, Broome Radio, we'll give you another call a bit later on. Qantas 678."
Thye CAGRO is not a tower. He knows you're coming, you know the ATIS, and you can/should be listening to the CTAF to start building a traffic picture as soon as you get a handoff to the Area Low freq (if it's not doubled up). There is no need to call at 150nm. IMO a poor SOP that has seems to have infected some others. I can't think of any info that I got at 150nm into a CAGRO CTAF that I cannot get comfortably later on (or at the time via the ATIS). All conversing with the CAGRO at that distance does is clog up the CTAF.
I hope not. AIP requires a call to be made BEFORE FL180 (in the Broome case). The idea is to warn the VFR people (or IFR not able to get a clearance...) cruising at FL180 you're coming, not as you hit them. 
For goodness sake include that with the 15nm call and stop clogging up the airwaves! How long does it take you to go from 15nm to 10nm?
How about this for an SOP: "When advising intentions on the airport frequency, it is preferable to describe any instrument approach procedure in plain language eg at 25nm, tracking to intercept the 8nm arc for an 8nm final onto runway 08." 
"Broome Radio, Qantas 678, 150nm south south west inbound!"
"Qantas 678, Broome Radio. Traffic is, well, I dunno, as you won't be here for another 20-odd minutes, whatever is in the circuit will be long gone by the time you get here, there may be other traffic by then but I'll tell you about it later on as soon as I find out about it. In the meantime, as I'm also listening to Centre and know you're coming, I'll give anybody that needs to know a headsup on your later arrival. Centre will gice you traffic on any departures in your direction. You know what the airfield weather and preferred runway is, as I have had the ATIS running for the last well, since I've been on duty, and the AWIS before that. Now can I get off the CTAF so I don't annoy anybody any more?"
"Err, thanks, Broome Radio, we'll give you another call a bit later on. Qantas 678."
Thye CAGRO is not a tower. He knows you're coming, you know the ATIS, and you can/should be listening to the CTAF to start building a traffic picture as soon as you get a handoff to the Area Low freq (if it's not doubled up). There is no need to call at 150nm. IMO a poor SOP that has seems to have infected some others. I can't think of any info that I got at 150nm into a CAGRO CTAF that I cannot get comfortably later on (or at the time via the ATIS). All conversing with the CAGRO at that distance does is clog up the CTAF.
It is then often a request from ATC for the aircraft to call leaving CTA (say FL180) or around 80nm. I know we do an all stations on area (traffic XYZ and ABC Centre) and kill two birds with one stone,
the 10nm call is to advise changing track from the 200 inbound radial to join for a 5 mile final.
One thing I reckon is worth passing on to the RPT guys and gals is to not include IFR approach points in your radio calls.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CW
Sadly the facts disprove the theory and you are perhaps exposing yourself to risk in the belief.
From memory the Armidale audit cited 4 ATSB incidents - three certainly IFR/IFR. Williamtown certainly cited IFR/IFR (RPT) head to head.
More recent audits identify which a/c as a risk - the one off the CTAF frequency talking to CEN.
It's your belief - good luck with it
Sadly the facts disprove the theory and you are perhaps exposing yourself to risk in the belief.
From memory the Armidale audit cited 4 ATSB incidents - three certainly IFR/IFR. Williamtown certainly cited IFR/IFR (RPT) head to head.
More recent audits identify which a/c as a risk - the one off the CTAF frequency talking to CEN.
It's your belief - good luck with it
Bottums Up
In the meantime, as I'm also listening to Centre and know you're coming, I'll give anybody that needs to know a headsup on your later arrival.
Obviously the CAGRO wasn't listening to Centre.
I hope not. AIP requires a call to be made BEFORE FL180 (in the Broome case [and other places too]).
And while on my hobby horse, "Traffic AYQ ABC tracking for 5 mile final RWY 31". Great, but where from?
While we're on this topic, one of the radio calls which frustrate me greatly are the ones on CTAF of "ABC is established in the XYZ hold, will be outbound in 1 min." What does a VFR driver in the same area get out of that call???
You haven't told me your altitude, and I'm sure when you go outbound you'll only say "is outbound," no mention of On Descent, or altitude leaving/going to! All I know is that somewhere near XYZ navaid, someone is doing some sort of flying at an unknown altitude
Usually the perpetrators are BE76s or similar doing IFR training.
But how about instead of "entering the hold" say something along the lines of a standard 10 nm/8min inbound call, then when you're overhead the aid say "Holding over XYZ VOR at ___ feet", and instead of outbound/inbound say something along the lines of "Tracking to the South East on descent, will then be tracking inbound from 5nm, descending to ____ feet"
Now I know where you are, and I don't need to approach plate to know what you're going to do. And I don't have a heart attack when you blast into the circuit at the minimas. Remember not everone on CTAF is an IFR aircraft.
You haven't told me your altitude, and I'm sure when you go outbound you'll only say "is outbound," no mention of On Descent, or altitude leaving/going to! All I know is that somewhere near XYZ navaid, someone is doing some sort of flying at an unknown altitude
Usually the perpetrators are BE76s or similar doing IFR training.
But how about instead of "entering the hold" say something along the lines of a standard 10 nm/8min inbound call, then when you're overhead the aid say "Holding over XYZ VOR at ___ feet", and instead of outbound/inbound say something along the lines of "Tracking to the South East on descent, will then be tracking inbound from 5nm, descending to ____ feet"
Now I know where you are, and I don't need to approach plate to know what you're going to do. And I don't have a heart attack when you blast into the circuit at the minimas. Remember not everone on CTAF is an IFR aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points to consider here:
1. CA/GRS Units do not receive any flight plans, nor do they receive handoff coordination from Centre on IFR flights. They have to build the traffic picture from the first radio contact with the pilot and then determine who gets what traffic and when. From a safety perspective, it is obvious that the earlier this contact occurs the better the situational awareness the CA/GRO will have.
2. CA/GROs are not always in a position to monitor the Centre VHF frequency, nor is their a requirement to do so. Some CA/GROs do and some don't. Sometimes the CTAF radio traffic is so busy that the CA/GRO has to turn the Centre frequency down. Therefore, It cannot be assumed that the CA/GRO has the latest information on any particular flight.
3. My understanding is the 150nm calls are being made under agreement between Qantas and the CA/GRS Units in order to improve the CA/GROs situational awareness as discussed under point 1.
4. In my experience, all QF pilots make this call. I can't comment on the other airlines.
1. CA/GRS Units do not receive any flight plans, nor do they receive handoff coordination from Centre on IFR flights. They have to build the traffic picture from the first radio contact with the pilot and then determine who gets what traffic and when. From a safety perspective, it is obvious that the earlier this contact occurs the better the situational awareness the CA/GRO will have.
2. CA/GROs are not always in a position to monitor the Centre VHF frequency, nor is their a requirement to do so. Some CA/GROs do and some don't. Sometimes the CTAF radio traffic is so busy that the CA/GRO has to turn the Centre frequency down. Therefore, It cannot be assumed that the CA/GRO has the latest information on any particular flight.
3. My understanding is the 150nm calls are being made under agreement between Qantas and the CA/GRS Units in order to improve the CA/GROs situational awareness as discussed under point 1.
4. In my experience, all QF pilots make this call. I can't comment on the other airlines.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thnxs 'jaba' I am tired I think I'll take that rest now
"JM" yr right with one word you mention, 'risk', flying is all about risks, calculated risks & my beliefs have kept me from 'buying the farm' for many years & hopefully shall continue to do so
I stay alert as much as I physically can when entering a CTAF, mostly the pvt pilots within have enough brains to slot in around me due to our line of work. 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. But plz to those pvt pilots out there how about giving an arrival time in real time, not minutes to run. I have in my mind a specific time of arrival it adds to the work load when someone says 4 mins for Eg before arrival with no distance & I might have missed his A/C type (or it wasn't even given). Little things like that mean we can all "read from the same book"
CW
"JM" yr right with one word you mention, 'risk', flying is all about risks, calculated risks & my beliefs have kept me from 'buying the farm' for many years & hopefully shall continue to do so
I stay alert as much as I physically can when entering a CTAF, mostly the pvt pilots within have enough brains to slot in around me due to our line of work. 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. But plz to those pvt pilots out there how about giving an arrival time in real time, not minutes to run. I have in my mind a specific time of arrival it adds to the work load when someone says 4 mins for Eg before arrival with no distance & I might have missed his A/C type (or it wasn't even given). Little things like that mean we can all "read from the same book"
CW
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Queensland
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap'n AAAArrrrr
Totally agree, for quite a while up here at Gladstone we had the IFR inbounds reporting calling tracking Whisky Alpha, Whisky Bravo etc. on the Rnav App. I'm local and know these positions for the Approaches, but other Locals and Transitting Pilots don't.
I bought this Subject up on here and some positive discussion followed. Now up here regular inbounds are or seem to be singing from the one book(plagerised from Capt Wally).
Example yesterday RFDS called Inbound with position, Jab inbound due round the same time, RFDS still in cloud, conversation between RFDS and Jab.
Jab extended and Beech did straight in. No problem. Both parties happy. The Jab was not a local either. Both were clear and concise. Not hard is it ?
CW, don't know about you , but back in the dim dark ages of my Nav Training the call was the ETA not ETI. THat set the practise for me for the last 40 years
Am I really that Old, the time goes quicker each year, don't it ???
Frothy
Totally agree, for quite a while up here at Gladstone we had the IFR inbounds reporting calling tracking Whisky Alpha, Whisky Bravo etc. on the Rnav App. I'm local and know these positions for the Approaches, but other Locals and Transitting Pilots don't.
I bought this Subject up on here and some positive discussion followed. Now up here regular inbounds are or seem to be singing from the one book(plagerised from Capt Wally).
Example yesterday RFDS called Inbound with position, Jab inbound due round the same time, RFDS still in cloud, conversation between RFDS and Jab.
Jab extended and Beech did straight in. No problem. Both parties happy. The Jab was not a local either. Both were clear and concise. Not hard is it ?
CW, don't know about you , but back in the dim dark ages of my Nav Training the call was the ETA not ETI. THat set the practise for me for the last 40 years
Am I really that Old, the time goes quicker each year, don't it ???Frothy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The aussie part of pprune
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wanderin dave
One thing I reckon is worth passing on to the RPT guys and gals is to not include IFR approach points in your radio calls
Could not agree more with this... Very frustrating... Even for the VFR pilots in Broome. Since when would a new pilot know where Kilo Romeo is?.. LoL
One thing I reckon is worth passing on to the RPT guys and gals is to not include IFR approach points in your radio calls
Could not agree more with this... Very frustrating... Even for the VFR pilots in Broome. Since when would a new pilot know where Kilo Romeo is?.. LoL
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries 'james' I look fwd to anything that promotes a healthy debate about safety Not into spiders though mate!
'frothy' good to hear those outcomes & you are indeed getting old
As far as I know it's always been & still is an ETA not a time to run in minutes. For some being a PVT pilot ( & I said some) means that being professional doesn't apply!
CW
Not into spiders though mate!'frothy' good to hear those outcomes & you are indeed getting old
As far as I know it's always been & still is an ETA not a time to run in minutes. For some being a PVT pilot ( & I said some) means that being professional doesn't apply!CW
My understanding is the 150nm calls are being made under agreement between Qantas and the CA/GRS Units in order to improve the CA/GROs situational awareness as discussed under point 1.
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?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CW
An eye problem (after some severe dental work yesterday) means I'll beg off on the pretty pix stats until a day or so but this below is from the most recent survey:
3.5.3 Broadcasts General
Notwithstanding the commentary regarding the entry and circuit broadcasts stipulated in Table 4 above, other survey observations and stakeholder comments regarding broadcasts were made. These include:
Cultural resistance to change among many operators was still evident through inputs from RPT/IFR (generally older pilots) and VFR/RA-Aus (generally lower time pilots). In many cases the old procedures (pre NAS2c) are still being used as the basis of instruction and, it would appear, not being captured during flight review processes.
A significant number of stakeholders reported that many RPT and charter crews were very lax on radio calls.
Straight-In approaches (SIAs): 5nm broadcasts are most commonly given by crews conducting SIAs. This coincides with the FAF on GPS RNAV approaches. Very few 3nm/1nm calls were made by RPT/IFR aircraft (generally higher performing aircraft). VFR GA/RA-Aus aircraft were more compliant with 3nm/1nm broadcasts when conducting SIAs.
Many aircraft are not monitoring or broadcasting until reaching 10nm from the non-controlled aerodrome, particularly IFR aircraft that have to report departure to Centre within 5nm.
Conclusion - don't be fooled into thinking that because the a/c carries an RPT flag they are "at least more professional at their R/T procedures than others". Many are, some are not.
Part of the problem is different rules, procedures, commercial pressures, etc - but bad habits affect ALL sectors of the pilot population. A professional voice on the radio does not guarantee your safety - and remember truck drivers and taxi drivers can also claim to be "professionals"
An eye problem (after some severe dental work yesterday) means I'll beg off on the pretty pix stats until a day or so but this below is from the most recent survey:
3.5.3 Broadcasts General
Notwithstanding the commentary regarding the entry and circuit broadcasts stipulated in Table 4 above, other survey observations and stakeholder comments regarding broadcasts were made. These include:
Cultural resistance to change among many operators was still evident through inputs from RPT/IFR (generally older pilots) and VFR/RA-Aus (generally lower time pilots). In many cases the old procedures (pre NAS2c) are still being used as the basis of instruction and, it would appear, not being captured during flight review processes.
A significant number of stakeholders reported that many RPT and charter crews were very lax on radio calls.
Straight-In approaches (SIAs): 5nm broadcasts are most commonly given by crews conducting SIAs. This coincides with the FAF on GPS RNAV approaches. Very few 3nm/1nm calls were made by RPT/IFR aircraft (generally higher performing aircraft). VFR GA/RA-Aus aircraft were more compliant with 3nm/1nm broadcasts when conducting SIAs.
Many aircraft are not monitoring or broadcasting until reaching 10nm from the non-controlled aerodrome, particularly IFR aircraft that have to report departure to Centre within 5nm.
Conclusion - don't be fooled into thinking that because the a/c carries an RPT flag they are "at least more professional at their R/T procedures than others". Many are, some are not.
Part of the problem is different rules, procedures, commercial pressures, etc - but bad habits affect ALL sectors of the pilot population. A professional voice on the radio does not guarantee your safety - and remember truck drivers and taxi drivers can also claim to be "professionals"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very few 3nm/1nm calls were made by RPT/IFR aircraft
Besides, shouldn't we be concentrating on flying the aeroplane at this stage?? 
If only pilots used common sense ... which isn't so common
I think it is all about airmanship, which again seems to be in short supply
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faaark. The radio calls make life complicated enough but why is it so difficult just to join the circuit correctly? I would rather call joining a 5 mile final than not and then having to make a 3 mile and 1 mile call for example.
I would much rather things reverted back to the way they were previously. At least it was understandable.
I doubt these morons in Canberra that made up some of these procedures have ever actually flown an aircraft. Do they really think we can chuck around a 737 with 170 pax onboard the same as a C172 in the circuit?
I would much rather things reverted back to the way they were previously. At least it was understandable.
I doubt these morons in Canberra that made up some of these procedures have ever actually flown an aircraft. Do they really think we can chuck around a 737 with 170 pax onboard the same as a C172 in the circuit?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jet is onto it !!
in the case of Broome it sounds like (and this is an assumption..!) that QF and possibly others have mandated 150 nm or similar calls on the CTAF to "improve situational awareness" and this is all rosy..
However if we were to mandated that ALL aircraft within 150nm (or lesser distance but equivalent eti..)of Broome broadcast thier postion and intentions on centre frequency then surely this would have the same effect of improved SA and cause less frequency congestion on the CTAF when it might be really important...!! (wind up but true..)
RPT aircraft have (generally) 2 experienced pilots,TCAS, known IFR traffic (and in radar area observed VFR depending on workload)..so are at least 3-4 steps ahead of the VFR gang...
surely the RPT/AEROMED etc crew should do everything they can to assist the semi current, low experience, but every right to be there, private pilot and not get pushy etc and quibble if thier ETA is inaccurate or the radial is wrong... "mate confirm you are inbound and say your current heading" should fix any confusion...they are only trying to speak "airline" cause you did...
and if i remember correctly 98% if the VFR traffic is 035 to 095 or so any way.. so a 206 on the " 245 radial at 30 mile" has gotta raise the awareness levels right ??
in the case of Broome it sounds like (and this is an assumption..!) that QF and possibly others have mandated 150 nm or similar calls on the CTAF to "improve situational awareness" and this is all rosy..
However if we were to mandated that ALL aircraft within 150nm (or lesser distance but equivalent eti..)of Broome broadcast thier postion and intentions on centre frequency then surely this would have the same effect of improved SA and cause less frequency congestion on the CTAF when it might be really important...!! (wind up but true..)
RPT aircraft have (generally) 2 experienced pilots,TCAS, known IFR traffic (and in radar area observed VFR depending on workload)..so are at least 3-4 steps ahead of the VFR gang...
surely the RPT/AEROMED etc crew should do everything they can to assist the semi current, low experience, but every right to be there, private pilot and not get pushy etc and quibble if thier ETA is inaccurate or the radial is wrong... "mate confirm you are inbound and say your current heading" should fix any confusion...they are only trying to speak "airline" cause you did...
and if i remember correctly 98% if the VFR traffic is 035 to 095 or so any way.. so a 206 on the " 245 radial at 30 mile" has gotta raise the awareness levels right ??
Last edited by xxgoldxx; 15th Nov 2008 at 11:56.
I doubt these morons in Canberra that made up some of these procedures have ever actually flown an aircraft.
You'll be interested to know that the "morons in Canberra" have taken a hatchet to the current calls. Watch this space (and the other Prune thread on the very subject).
A professional voice on the radio does not guarantee your safety
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
I think we agree, particularly if I emphasise part of your comment:
I would be quite happy dealing with a professional voice on the radio that made the correct calls.
Plenty of reasons are put - CB bureaucrats, cockpit workload, NAS is a crock, etc.
The same can be said of speed cameras in Victoria - and that they create accidents due to speedo workload.
However, the law is the law. Professionals either abide by it or get it changed then abide by the new law.
From memory the high risk flight hours for an error of judgement are 300 then 3000, and I'd have to check the next level. But, what that says statistically is that "professional" is not a magic wand to safety.
This next is from the latest survey. Like all data it should be examined in context - but it is indicative. It's all about compliance with procedure - and I have thrown in several IFR examples. If I wanted to argue the (minor) VFR deviation one needs to recognise that the NAS literature had some variations from AIP and the VFR are following slightly different rules to the "professionals". But, I don't intend to argue that as I believe the data demonstrate both 'camps' are about equally conformant.
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/q...COMPLIANCE.jpg
In the Airservices Armidale Aeronautical Study (NOT the one in the link) there were 4 ATSB reports over 2 years. Note the first two cases - professional or not? Three involved aircraft (Metro/Navajo, Saab 340/Super Kingair, and Dash 8 vs unknown [but known to the Dash 8]) that is, in two of the four cases, professional crews, radio equipped, using radio and still having a safety problem.
In summary, what I am proposing is that an elitist opinion of the professional fraternity that they are superior to the weekend warriors - is not conducive to solving the problems. It is only by recognising the causal factors and coming to mutual agreement to pursue education as needed and law change as needed that we achieve a safer outcome. The past 'industry fragmented' approach has has allowed the regulators to continue the shambles.
There has been a lot of work at industry association level, particularly as regards regionals operations, in seeking united solutions. It's not helped by a professional/private "schism".
Ends Sunday sermon
I think we agree, particularly if I emphasise part of your comment:
I would be quite happy dealing with a professional voice on the radio that made the correct calls.
Plenty of reasons are put - CB bureaucrats, cockpit workload, NAS is a crock, etc.
The same can be said of speed cameras in Victoria - and that they create accidents due to speedo workload.
However, the law is the law. Professionals either abide by it or get it changed then abide by the new law.
From memory the high risk flight hours for an error of judgement are 300 then 3000, and I'd have to check the next level. But, what that says statistically is that "professional" is not a magic wand to safety.
This next is from the latest survey. Like all data it should be examined in context - but it is indicative. It's all about compliance with procedure - and I have thrown in several IFR examples. If I wanted to argue the (minor) VFR deviation one needs to recognise that the NAS literature had some variations from AIP and the VFR are following slightly different rules to the "professionals". But, I don't intend to argue that as I believe the data demonstrate both 'camps' are about equally conformant.
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/q...COMPLIANCE.jpg
In the Airservices Armidale Aeronautical Study (NOT the one in the link) there were 4 ATSB reports over 2 years. Note the first two cases - professional or not? Three involved aircraft (Metro/Navajo, Saab 340/Super Kingair, and Dash 8 vs unknown [but known to the Dash 8]) that is, in two of the four cases, professional crews, radio equipped, using radio and still having a safety problem.
In summary, what I am proposing is that an elitist opinion of the professional fraternity that they are superior to the weekend warriors - is not conducive to solving the problems. It is only by recognising the causal factors and coming to mutual agreement to pursue education as needed and law change as needed that we achieve a safer outcome. The past 'industry fragmented' approach has has allowed the regulators to continue the shambles.
There has been a lot of work at industry association level, particularly as regards regionals operations, in seeking united solutions. It's not helped by a professional/private "schism".
Ends Sunday sermon
Where there are rules they will be either broken or modified, human nature to do so.
Give me an RPT A/C inbound to a CTAF any day, at least they are more professional at their R/T procedures than others. Some pvt pilots are very switched on without a doubt, you can tell instantly you first hear them either inbound or upon taxiing, sadly a lot make it up they go despite being 'licensed' pilots.
CW
Give me an RPT A/C inbound to a CTAF any day, at least they are more professional at their R/T procedures than others. Some pvt pilots are very switched on without a doubt, you can tell instantly you first hear them either inbound or upon taxiing, sadly a lot make it up they go despite being 'licensed' pilots.
CW
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple thread from a young bloke in Broome cops him loads of gip from some pseudo professionals driving around in bigger aeroplanes at someone else's expense.
CW
How sanctimonious! Whilst I am sure you are proud of what you do, and maybe you are quite the professional, please don't harp on about flying being dangerous just because other people do it as well.
Big open sky and predominatly good weather are mostly what keeps you safe, not talking down to pvt pilots on PPRUNE (or on the radio for that matter). Exactly how many mid air collisions actually happen out there in those "dangerous 'Farmer Brown" infested CTAFs?
In keeping the figure low, all you are doing is playing your part...nothing more. In the grand scheme of things, the pvt bods outnumber you by several magnitudes, their input on keeping things safe is probably more important than yours. You freely admit they usually "give way" to you in the CTAF, maybe it's time you treated them a little better because, by the regs, they probably don't have to.
It really is irrelevant who makes the best or most informative radio calls provided the message gets across, and on that theme you make some good points.
Having said that, seeing or hearing another aeroplane doesn't constitute a dangerous situation so please don't overplay the safety card. In my extensive professional experience, there is plenty of "RPT generated long winded R/T" around in CTAFs which creates at least as much of a hazard as no R/T at all. Maybe everybody should dwell less on their personal anxieties and crack on more with trying to get it right.
CW
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.
Big open sky and predominatly good weather are mostly what keeps you safe, not talking down to pvt pilots on PPRUNE (or on the radio for that matter). Exactly how many mid air collisions actually happen out there in those "dangerous 'Farmer Brown" infested CTAFs?
In keeping the figure low, all you are doing is playing your part...nothing more. In the grand scheme of things, the pvt bods outnumber you by several magnitudes, their input on keeping things safe is probably more important than yours. You freely admit they usually "give way" to you in the CTAF, maybe it's time you treated them a little better because, by the regs, they probably don't have to.It really is irrelevant who makes the best or most informative radio calls provided the message gets across, and on that theme you make some good points.
Having said that, seeing or hearing another aeroplane doesn't constitute a dangerous situation so please don't overplay the safety card. In my extensive professional experience, there is plenty of "RPT generated long winded R/T" around in CTAFs which creates at least as much of a hazard as no R/T at all. Maybe everybody should dwell less on their personal anxieties and crack on more with trying to get it right.
Last edited by DBTW; 16th Nov 2008 at 07:19.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"DBTW" 
Well put together from a nasty persons point of view. That's fine like everyone else in here yr welcome to express yr opinion. I & other professional pilots have to deal with yr types beliefs almost day in day out in & around the traps. 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!
Mid-airs don't happen because of the ones that do it right, do it for those that don't do it right by making allowances & do it in a professional manor, pvt & commercial.
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!
I blame a lot on training, airmanship is a lost art with some.
"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.
CW
Well put together from a nasty persons point of view. That's fine like everyone else in here yr welcome to express yr opinion. I & other professional pilots have to deal with yr types beliefs almost day in day out in & around the traps. 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! Mid-airs don't happen because of the ones that do it right, do it for those that don't do it right by making allowances & do it in a professional manor, pvt & commercial.
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!
I blame a lot on training, airmanship is a lost art with some
."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.
CW