Reporting Distance as DME/GNSS
Originally Posted by Radix
- GNSS is assumed these days
Originally Posted by Radix
Use Nothing.
If you insist on not saying "miles" then at least say "Thirty One"...
Technically it is not, but normally, for the purposes of CTAF calls, it doesn't matter. To illustrate the difference, in case you really don't know, at 6000' AGL and directly above the DME, a DME will display 1NM while the GNSS with the DME as the reference waypoint will display 0NM.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's an IFR aircraft they now have to have a GPS so it's use in a radio call at a bush CTAF with no DME is superfluous. Keep the call only as long as it needs to be.
And whether the estimated times are in local or zulu!
Safety, people.
Safety.
Safety, people.
Safety.
I think we can simplify the CTAF inbound broadcast requirement to:
Traffic [aerodrome] ABC is [state number] [nautical miles / statute miles / kilometres / other distance units], measured by [GNSS / DME / DR / WAG], [state direction referenced to aerodrome] measured by [DG / Mag Compass / DR / WAG], inbound on descent from [cruising altitude] with altimeter set to [QNH setting] and calibrated to [VFR / IFR] standards, estimating circuit area, by which I mean [overflying / joining crosswind / joining downwind / joining base / joining straight in approach] [nominate runway], at [nominate time] [local / UTC] by [wristwatch / GPS / WAG].
Simple.
Traffic [aerodrome] ABC is [state number] [nautical miles / statute miles / kilometres / other distance units], measured by [GNSS / DME / DR / WAG], [state direction referenced to aerodrome] measured by [DG / Mag Compass / DR / WAG], inbound on descent from [cruising altitude] with altimeter set to [QNH setting] and calibrated to [VFR / IFR] standards, estimating circuit area, by which I mean [overflying / joining crosswind / joining downwind / joining base / joining straight in approach] [nominate runway], at [nominate time] [local / UTC] by [wristwatch / GPS / WAG].
Simple.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: au
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder about this sometimes,
Is it possible that in OCTA "gnss" is just a hangover from Reporting "GNSS" in CTA so that ATC can provide DME based Separation??
that and It sounds really cool
Is it possible that in OCTA "gnss" is just a hangover from Reporting "GNSS" in CTA so that ATC can provide DME based Separation??
that and It sounds really cool
Last edited by Bluemeaway; 18th Feb 2016 at 02:45. Reason: typo
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a stranger from another land poking his head in, but up here in Canada we have the same feeling - who cares. By the time I finish the transmission I'll be 5 miles closer.
However, we are told by Ottawa that there is indeed specific phraseology. Should we be reporting distance based on DME we shall use the phrase "30 DME from Sumspot VOR." If, however, the distance is based from GNSS we shall use the phrase "30 miles from Sumspot VOR" (Ref TC AIM COM 3.14.8).
That clears it up without having to say GNSS. I've not ever come across a pilot who uses statue in radio transmissions, so I'm sorry to hear some of you down under may have to deal with that.
Not sure if a bit of different perspective helps.
However, we are told by Ottawa that there is indeed specific phraseology. Should we be reporting distance based on DME we shall use the phrase "30 DME from Sumspot VOR." If, however, the distance is based from GNSS we shall use the phrase "30 miles from Sumspot VOR" (Ref TC AIM COM 3.14.8).
That clears it up without having to say GNSS. I've not ever come across a pilot who uses statue in radio transmissions, so I'm sorry to hear some of you down under may have to deal with that.
Not sure if a bit of different perspective helps.
What are the abnormal circumstances in which it matters? 
It seems the advent of GNSS as the acronym for satellite nav rather than GPS has made it seem a bit sillier than usual.
We used to say '35 DME' or '35 GPS' (which I guess could make a bit of a difference if you're talking to centre who are then giving IFR traffic on you to someone, if the GPS reference point is the ARP and the DME is, well, the DME). In reality though, as has been aptly pointed out, it makes bugger all difference in the grand scheme of things.
We used to say '35 DME' or '35 GPS' (which I guess could make a bit of a difference if you're talking to centre who are then giving IFR traffic on you to someone, if the GPS reference point is the ARP and the DME is, well, the DME). In reality though, as has been aptly pointed out, it makes bugger all difference in the grand scheme of things.
In case anyone's interested in reality...
If someone makes a position report relative to an aerodrome, I'll assume:
- the position information is probably accurate, irrespective of what reference is being used,
- the position information might be 180 degrees wrong, and
- there is other traffic that's either not fitted with VHF, not using it, or on the wrong frequency.
If someone makes a position report relative to an aerodrome, I'll assume:
- the position information is probably accurate, irrespective of what reference is being used,
- the position information might be 180 degrees wrong, and
- there is other traffic that's either not fitted with VHF, not using it, or on the wrong frequency.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,970
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Reading the posts on this thread really makes me wonder.....
Fellow Aussie Ppruners; Just what is the problem here that takes so many posts on what is a simple procedure?
When you are inbound to wherever; If it has a DME, you are 'Three zero miles (or three zero DME) DME inbound from..."direction and intentions".'
If you are using a GPS; You are ....'Three zero miles GPS inbound from..etc.'
If it is an airfield with no navaid and you are not using a GPS you are
'Three zero miles inbound from...etc.'
Someone on this forum once posted, I thought at the time somewhat unkindly, that only Aussies could get 'so anal' over trivial bits of procedure. I now can see just what that poster was alluding to.
If my post offends anyone....Tough!
Fellow Aussie Ppruners; Just what is the problem here that takes so many posts on what is a simple procedure?
When you are inbound to wherever; If it has a DME, you are 'Three zero miles (or three zero DME) DME inbound from..."direction and intentions".'
If you are using a GPS; You are ....'Three zero miles GPS inbound from..etc.'
If it is an airfield with no navaid and you are not using a GPS you are
'Three zero miles inbound from...etc.'
Someone on this forum once posted, I thought at the time somewhat unkindly, that only Aussies could get 'so anal' over trivial bits of procedure. I now can see just what that poster was alluding to.
If my post offends anyone....Tough!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kennel dweller...mostly
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what do all you experts do, when approaching a CTAF 'drome in South Australia?
"wun seven miles North, four thousand, on descent, estimate circuit LOCAL time zero three"
OR
"wun seven miles North, four thousand, on descent, estimate circuit ZULU time three three
"wun seven miles North, four thousand, on descent, estimate circuit LOCAL time zero three"
OR
"wun seven miles North, four thousand, on descent, estimate circuit ZULU time three three