The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

"Caution wake turbulence"

Old 4th Feb 2015, 11:12
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 24
I highly doubt that people are trying to assert their dominance at random CTAFs with the radio calls they make, I imagine it's more to do with that magical thing called "Airmanship".

Those that are taking offence to targeted use of "caution wake turbulence" or any other phrase that might illicit the "I know boats" reaction, really need to sort their own insecurities out.

FWIW our company uses and currently teaches "climbing to Flight Levels" as standard terminology. Does old mate Jabiru driver really care which exact FL? If anyone can find the AIP reference that deals with this, I'm all eyes..
ol-mate is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 11:17
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 355
Safest place to be = Transition Layer
Just me there
Two_dogs is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 13:54
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 742
Nice idea if the CEO will let me play

Now, let's see, full reverse, max auto-brake and stopping shouldn't be a snag at light weights but might have to look into the take-off numbers. Yellow sticky on the yoke to remember to caution the Dash 8s about wake turbulence and no worthwhile information to be broadcast on the wireless. Okay, sorted.

(Now THAT is unadulterated, unnecessary and childish willy-waving and should not be tolerated I will now write out 100 times before bedtime, "I'm an arse and a wind-up merchant")
Pontius is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 22:48
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
Huh? this is used because if you are below 10,000ft you don't care how much higher they are climbing, and if you are above 10,000ft you are playing in controlled airspace and will find out where you stand from ATC.
here we go again. King of the kids.

I use the same airspace as other pressurised aircraft and I want to know what level they are climbing to. "Flight levels" doesn't cut it. If i'm descending from 370 and some one is climbing to "flight levels" and G airspace starts/finishes at 180 then flight levels may require more transmissions with some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 23:25
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
Correct.

"Flight levels" is as made up as "ready in turn", and may be omitting information useful to a listening party you are not aware of.
Derfred is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 00:46
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,897
If you get them to omit climbing to flight levels they'll probably start the next furphy. 'Climbing to FLXXX, pending clearance, caution wake turbulance, caution cadet flying in right seat, caution cadet flying in right seat logging ICUS'

Anyway it's only words. We are a little anal retentive in this part of the world. Go fly internationally. It's a big world with plenty of different ideas which are more than likely superior to our own.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 01:07
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
We are a little anal retentive in this part of the world. Go fly internationally. It's a big world with plenty of different ideas which are more than likely superior to our own.
True, but thats what we have to work with here, and its simply not that hard to get it mostly right. Some of these guys go out of their way to screw it up and talk shit.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 01:22
  #68 (permalink)  
JCJ
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On track
Age: 49
Posts: 45

but ego-strokers, like the 'up to flight levels' brigade really need to get their heads out their arses and realise that not all 172 drivers are inexperienced numpties.
If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with QLink management. Our FAM explicitly prescribes our departure call, and yes it says "Climbing to flight levels".

I am all for professional RT, and strive to achieve it, but don't put down those of us who operate as per company requirements.
JCJ is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 01:33
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 232
I use the same airspace as other pressurised aircraft and I want to know what level they are climbing to. "Flight levels" doesn't cut it. If i'm descending from 370 and some one is climbing to "flight levels" and G airspace starts/finishes at 180 then flight levels may require more transmissions with some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.
You are forgetting this is a CTAF call we are talking about. And we are operating under the IFR. So when a departure report is made on the area frequency, the intended level is included with this call. Then, when you request descent from FL370, centre will clear you to leave CTA on descent, and give you traffic information on 'the dash' including its flight level climbing to. Remember how it works now?
maverick22 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 02:49
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
Thanks
I listen on CTAF from top of descent pretty much so my previous comments stand.

Last edited by RENURPP; 5th Feb 2015 at 03:11.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 02:54
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 485
We have gone off track here by several miles, so I'll continue with that diversion....

Climbing flight levels is a bullshit call. If you are going to say that, you may as well just state your intended level. Pisses me off when I have to call them and ask what level they are going to (and they know I'm there as traffic as centre told them) - if they stated their level I'd know if they were going to be climbing through mine or not. Sometimes centre can't pass all the info, and sometimes they depart before getting on to centre. You can't rely on centre calls to tell you what level they are going to when their only communication has been on the ctaf.
Next time I go flying below 10,000 and there's a big thing flying round that is a flight level machine, I'm telling them I'm "climbing altitudes", afterall it's the same logic isn't it, just in reverse?

And now a return to track with no further diversions required. Caution wake turbulence? Bit of a weird one in my books but if there's someone behind you who sounds like they have no clue (can pick them sometimes), well, a three second transmission isn't going to hurt. There are bigger things to worry about.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 03:12
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 21
receiving and giving

At night AMAY ASSY F27 fl180 passed BIK advised by atc ''you are going to be overflowen by singapore ;;;; 1000 above.''The 747 duly passed overhead and was given a descent clr a couple of minutes later which was initiated,couple minutes later we got his wake turb, very interesting,slow roll to the right until almost vertical.

Some years later again at night BKK KUL A300 on decent to KUL atc advised ''you will be overflying slower traffic'' sighted and passed the traffic got descent clr and descended, some mins later monortered a radio transmission about aircraft upset.turned out to be the traffic we had overflown a F50 of Palageny Air? Waited to speak to the crew in KL .They said they got our wake and like the F27 rolled vertical
blueys is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 03:36
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 232
You blokes really are getting your knickers knotted over nothing here. The "climbing to flight levels" phrase is used on the CTAF in the departure call. A departure call is not even a requirement these days as per CAR 166. Our company requires us to make a departure call when making a turn contrary to circuit direction. I make one in any case.

We also do not depart until we established comms with ATC. This is either through VHF or HF. When HF is used, we still (well I did anyway when I was an FO) make an all stations broadcast on the AREA centre frequency. This means Mr Renurpp et al, that at no stage will you ever encounter a QLINK dash 8 unannounced in your travels. Centre will always pass us on as traffic to you because we have established comms prior to departure. So the fact you are getting a departure call on the CTAF is icing on the cake.

Now here is a question for you guys. When do you stop listening to the CTAF on departure, when there is no overlying airspace? Because by Renurpp assumptions, we'll be chatting to him all the way up to the 'flight levels' on CTAF, because he won't take Centre's word on what level we are climbing to!
maverick22 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 08:15
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 742
You blokes really are getting your knickers knotted over nothing here. The "climbing to flight levels" phrase is used on the CTAF in the departure call.
Not really getting my knickers knotted; I'm just wondering why the intended flight level is such a big secret with the Oz TP 'heavies', as you never hear such transmissions from all types of aircraft around the rest of the planet.

"Climbing to flight levels" versus "Climbing flight level 180". Can you really time the difference in transmission length? Can you not see how one call gives useful, accurate information whereas the other just says you're climbing above 10 000'? If you're going to say anything then at least take the same amount of time to say something useful.

If it's written in a company manual then I can understand why you would comply with that (although it would be interesting to see if "caution wake turbulence" is in the same manual), however, just because someone has written it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to reflect decent, 'normal' RT procedures, rather than something the writer heard and thought it would be 'cool' to include in the company manuals.
Pontius is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 09:08
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 232
I'm going to agree to disagree with you here. 9 times out 10 it's irrelevant anyway. The lighties in the circuit don't care, and any other inbound IFR traffic will know about us because of the service provided by ATC. The only exception of course is when Renurpp is inbound from FL370. If we need to arrange separation then we'll talk it through on the CTAF or the Friendly ATCers might step in prior to us getting a clearance with a heading to fly etc.

Why I'm even explaining this I don't know

Simply put, it's in the manual. No one has ever challenged it, because it's never been an issue apart from a select few on PPRuNe. Like I said, if it annoys you that much, use your democratic right to complain to Qlink management.

As for the "caution wake turbulence" being in the manual, NO it's not. I personally have never used it, nor have I heard it used either. But I would not hesitate to use it if I thought it was warranted just like others have already said.
maverick22 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 21:37
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 952
Love it!

Personally, I think "Caution wake turbulence" is a good idea and if used appropriately can be very good info for lighties in the circuit. (I'm a Qlink driver and have NEVER heard it used, btw).

As other posters have said, you can often get a feel for the other traffic in the circuit and can get a handle on their experience.

e.g. At Mildura there is a flying school. They are used to operating in the circuit with Dash-8 arrivals and departures, and they appear to have high standards. I wouldn't consider such a call necessary to one of them. But... Mildura is one of the airports that an Adelaide based flying school (that uses Tobagos) use on their Navexes. Some of the standards these guys display can be "somewhat less than desirable". I would definitely consider giving such a call if one of these were behind me in the circuit.

But sadly threads like this degenerate.

It's gone from "Caution wake turbulence" to all the other bullshit that people with too much time on their hands just love to get wrapped around the axles about and come on here and have a go:

Finals
Taxis
Flight levels
This time
*EDIT: and comments about how "poor radio calls" means "poor everything else about their airmanship" (Thanks DERFRED)

Re: Flight levels:

Funny thing is, it's pretty common to hear Centre advising other IFR traffic about a Qlink Dash-8 "climbing to Flight levels". Interesting, as Centre will know what FL the Dash is going to request (if they haven't already).

Does this mean that the centre controller is vicariously trying to be
some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.
or otherwise trying to bignote him/herself?

DIVOSH!

Last edited by Di_Vosh; 6th Feb 2015 at 02:26.
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 22:24
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 10'S 100'E
Age: 43
Posts: 114
Shouldn't have to be explaining to other pilots what their responsibilities are


PLEASE READ CAAP 166 (and AIP, and CAR, and ERSA, and NOTAMS, ect etc).
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/166-1.pdf

5.4 Wake turbulence and windshear

5.4.1 Wake turbulence is produced by all aircraft and can be extremely hazardous. Smaller aircraft should be aware that large aircraft produce strong/severe wake turbulence, with large jet aircraft producing extreme wake turbulence.
noclue is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2015, 01:45
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
As for "caution wake turbulence" I think its been pretty much agreed that on the very rare occasion it may be sensible.
Re: Flight levels:

Funny thing is, it's pretty common to hear Centre advising other IFR traffic about a Qlink Dash-8 "climbing to Flight levels". Interesting, as Centre will know what FL the Dash is going to request (if they haven't already).

Does this mean that the centre controller is vicariously trying to be
Quote:
some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.
or otherwise trying to bignote him/herself?

DIVOSH!
Big difference.
The ATC'er knows relevant IFR traffic and their level. the Dash 8 pilot doesn't necessarily on CTAF. If he is passed a Dash 8 onto me prior to my descent and said "climbing to flight levels" it would be completely inappropriate and require more discussion.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2015, 02:04
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 952
RENURPP

My reply was tongue in cheek to other respondents.

The ATC'er knows relevant IFR traffic and their level. the Dash 8 pilot doesn't necessarily on CTAF. If he is passed a Dash 8 onto me prior to my descent and said "climbing to flight levels" it would be completely inappropriate and require more discussion.
I think it was a few years ago (on a depressingly similiar thread to this one) now that I was debating that very scenario with one of your colleagues.

If you're opposite direction traffic to someone in and out of a CTAF it is almost always going to require further discussion with that pilot regardless of whether that pilot is climbing to 5000' or FL210 or "flight levels". So it really doesn't matter if the said pilot (or ATC'er) says FL180 or "flight levels". If you're in G space, you're going to be having a detailed and repeated conversation with that pilot on distance, height, etc, so that you can arrange separation until you're satisfied that you're "well clear".

DIVOSH!
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2015, 02:11
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
It might sound anally retentive but often the ones with the sloppy radio calls are also the ones that turn up 5 minutes late, dirty shoes, unironed shirt, sloppy SOPs, poor checklist knowledge, more interested in flying fast than efficiently, and constantly complaining about management.

I know who I'd rather have up front when the turd hits the fan.

However back on topic "Caution wake turbulence" in a well-considered situation sounds to me like good airmanship.
Derfred is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.