Std Phraseology in NZ
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having access to it
Whilst POB may be "available" it certainly isn't updated onto your flightstrip or into your flightplan automatically.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are clearly unaware of policy decisions surrounding this as a result of some shenanigans by the various operators on the WN-WB route. It is well-known in ATC circles.
Clearly that is the case perhaps you might enlighten us all as to what is well known in ATC circles.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
is an interesting concept... similar to the notice Earthlings had before the earth was destroyed by Vogons to make way for a hyperspatial express route??
Whilst POB may be "available" it certainly isn't updated onto your flightstrip or into your flightplan automatically.
Whilst POB may be "available" it certainly isn't updated onto your flightstrip or into your flightplan automatically.
If what you say is true..then its high time IMHO that airways invest all those mullions they make into a bit of software to fix the problem!
And what expressway? the Vogons have already scheduled it? I think we should be told...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: DOWNUNDER
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Remoak you old wind up artist. Where have you been hiding?
On which page in the Link manuals does this policy exist. I cannot find any reference to not stating the POB over the wireless. You have me worried mate because I always do. In fact I sometimes give the wrong number which usually gets a response to confirm I have not chucked one off.
Therefore my question is. If you already know the POB Mr Controller why do I have to state it?
As for you guys on the Jetstar chat frequency (121.5) don't you know this channel is only for hassling mere mortal pilots who mistakenly forget to select the right frequency.
On which page in the Link manuals does this policy exist. I cannot find any reference to not stating the POB over the wireless. You have me worried mate because I always do. In fact I sometimes give the wrong number which usually gets a response to confirm I have not chucked one off.
Therefore my question is. If you already know the POB Mr Controller why do I have to state it?
As for you guys on the Jetstar chat frequency (121.5) don't you know this channel is only for hassling mere mortal pilots who mistakenly forget to select the right frequency.
Originally Posted by Bongo Bus Driver
Therefore my question is. If you already know the POB Mr Controller why do I have to state it?
If the POB has been electronically entered into the database by the controller at the departure aerodrome, it will be presented on our electronic strips/be present on the electronic flight plan.
Since there isn't actually a requirement for it to be electronically entered by the departure aerodrome controller, it isn't always there. Maybe half - 2/3 the time.
Personally, I think that should be changed. If we are going to have a POB-passed-to-towers rule at all, it should only be passed on startup or taxi out. Once that's done, the controller is required to put it in the database, no further action required. No requirement to pass POB at the arrival end. (We would already have it.)
(This was actually how it was in one sensible incarnation of the rules, many years ago. Sensible, I thought.)
It is interesting that on the plans where the POB is entered on departure just how often that figure seems to change enroute. You guys must be either running some natal clinic aloft, or killing off far too many pax.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: DOWNUNDER
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you must know if a passenger fails the exam after flighties safety brief they are made to walk the plank! As for additions.......well it gets cold and every thing happens faster at altitude.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In Transit
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a GA perspective (because we actually enter our own flight plans) I almost never enter the POB into the IFIS flight plan, preferring to go with the TBN option. The flight plan must be entered 30mins before EOBT... between then and actual departure the number of pax could change (as i've had happen a number of times). It's easier to confirm POB over the airways once loaded up.
We don't all have fangled electronic devices that talk to towers.
Perhaps pass that one on to the powers that be. If this thread is anything to go by, that suggestion would be a welcome addition to the Airways service.
I almost never enter the POB into the IFIS flight plan, preferring to go with the TBN option. The flight plan must be entered 30mins before EOBT... between then and actual departure the number of pax could change (as i've had happen a number of times). It's easier to confirm POB over the airways once loaded up.We don't all have fangled electronic devices that talk to towers.
If we are going to have a POB-passed-to-towers rule at all, it should only be passed on startup or taxi out. Once that's done, the controller is required to put it in the database, no further action required.
I passed that one on ages ago. Nobody seemed very interested.
Actually, I don't think anyone has. Unless you're talking about a cellphone...
We don't all have fangled electronic devices that talk to towers.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the accident investigators quite rightly pointed out that it was a source of potential confusion, and made a recommendation that it be passed by the PIC to the tower on first contact for every flight. Apart from a period in the nineties (IIRC) when the requirement was not promulgated, it has been ever since.
MATS used to say "Pilots of departing aircraft shall advise POB to ATS before taxiing, and arriving aircraft when establishing RTF communication with aerodrome control or AFIS."
However, objections were raised to this for the reasons Remoak stated, so the text was changed to:
"Pilots of departing aircraft should advise POB to ATS before taxiing, and arriving aircraft when establishing RTF communication with aerodrome control or AFIS."
In other words, it isn't mandatory anyway. MATS 4-21 refers. In ATC-speak, "shall" is used when application of the procedure is mandatory, and "should" is used when application of the procedure is recommended.
It may not appear in Link manuals any more, but it was certainly policy at one time, probably still is in an informal way at places like WB.
Surprised you didn't know about that, Tarq57.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In Transit
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I don't think anyone has
Nobody seemed very interested
Option B. push it harder... Where I live, the local Airways boys & girls are very vocal with ways to improve their service, I have much respect and appreciation for them. Let's just get stuff done eh.
Continue Approach
Come fly in Asia and you will hear some real crackers;
ATC; Japanair 13 continue approach
JAL; Japanair 13 continue approach
WTF? did they have a choice-maybe they should just hold position at 9.4 DME by setting the park brake...
and
Asiana: (position report on HF blah blah blah) followed by "go ahead"
Where do they get it from?
and
ANA; (requesting clearance) Nippon 76 proposing FL340
And my favourite;
ATC; Singcargo, 24 standby
SQ; Singcargo 24 standingby
They should just shut the f... up when someone says standby
ATC; Japanair 13 continue approach
JAL; Japanair 13 continue approach
WTF? did they have a choice-maybe they should just hold position at 9.4 DME by setting the park brake...
and
Asiana: (position report on HF blah blah blah) followed by "go ahead"
Where do they get it from?
and
ANA; (requesting clearance) Nippon 76 proposing FL340
And my favourite;
ATC; Singcargo, 24 standby
SQ; Singcargo 24 standingby
They should just shut the f... up when someone says standby
Originally Posted by MOR
"Pilots of departing aircraft should advise POB to ATS before taxiing, and arriving aircraft when establishing RTF communication with aerodrome control or AFIS."
In other words, it isn't mandatory anyway. MATS 4-21 refers. In ATC-speak, "shall" is used when application of the procedure is mandatory, and "should" is used when application of the procedure is recommended.
It may not appear in Link manuals any more, but it was certainly policy at one time, probably still is in an informal way at places like WB.
Surprised you didn't know about that, Tarq57.
In other words, it isn't mandatory anyway. MATS 4-21 refers. In ATC-speak, "shall" is used when application of the procedure is mandatory, and "should" is used when application of the procedure is recommended.
It may not appear in Link manuals any more, but it was certainly policy at one time, probably still is in an informal way at places like WB.
Surprised you didn't know about that, Tarq57.
Originally Posted by BurntheBlue
Option B. push it harder... Where I live, the local Airways boys & girls are very vocal with ways to improve their service, I have much respect and appreciation for them. Let's just get stuff done eh.
Plus, as outlined in above posts, I don't actually find it a distraction/bother.
Airways are more likely to respond to requests made by the customer (airlines) than the staff, in any case, unless it's a money or safety issue.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK... std phraseology.... from where I'm sitting....
"We regret to inform you that Jetstar flight XXX to ZZZZ has been delayed. A boarding call may be made sometime in the very distant future"
It's only been 3 hours so far!
"We regret to inform you that Jetstar flight XXX to ZZZZ has been delayed. A boarding call may be made sometime in the very distant future"
It's only been 3 hours so far!
