What is happening with the MULTICOM?
STFU and look out the window? That's crazy talk.
Originally Posted by Kaz
There are no minimum (mandated) required calls in the circuit at non-controlled aerodromes.
There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem. I just don't get why there is so much angst. As is the case with other aspects of the regs themselves, 166 is just a copout to hang some poor bugger, like the "you must lookout" stuff.
If anything, the yabberers are only complying with CAR 166, because they are announcing their position to a potentially unknown aircraft "anywhere" in the sky.
There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem.
And I should note that, even though I'm a dangerous LCD, I always make at least an inbound and joining call, and a taxiing and lining up/rolling call, as well as monitor Area, the nearest CTAF and 121.5 at all times. And I assume there will be no-radio or wrong-frequency aircraft in the vicinity.
If you could suspend your personal animosity to me for a moment, you would realise that part of the problem is the constant change and confusing piecemeal amendments to AIP. The "midfield" join issue highlighted above is a perfect example. When you look at the depiction of arrival paths for non-controlled aerodromes at AIP ENR 1.1-84, it still shows the crosswind arrival path over the upwind 'piano keys'.
When the people in CASA have a 'thought bubble' like: "Let's get everyone who's joining crosswind to do so somewhere between halfway down the runway and the upwind end of the runway", there's no holistic review of every relevant provision and depiction in AIP, CAAP and other reference material to make sure that all the depictions and texts are consistently amended so that there is no confusion about what is intended by the thought bubble. And there's never an adequate education campaign to highlight and reinforce the intent.
Your interpretation of CAR 166 is quite reasonable. It's one of the many regulations that create a paradox. The phrase "the risk of a collision" means everything and nothing. That's why some - including you - interpret it as mandating every call because none of us knows what we don't know.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 3rd Nov 2018 at 22:38.
There is always some risk of collision unless you know you are the only aircraft in the sky (and that is not possible). There has to be a “reasonable test” when assessing the need to make a call.
Cloudee, think about it. How are you going to find out if you are the only one in the sky? By looking around? Of course not. You establish the presence of others by making the 4 AIP calls (2 inbound, 2 outbound) and getting responses. That's it. Then, if a conflict exists, you make extra calls to resolve that conflict. That's it. This isn't hard.
Leadbalon, you're on my Ignore list, remember?
Leadbalon, you're on my Ignore list, remember?
Cloudee, think about it. How are you going to find out if you are the only one in the sky? By looking around? Of course not. You establish the presence of others by making the 4 AIP calls (2 inbound, 2 outbound) and getting responses. That's it. Then, if a conflict exists, you make extra calls to resolve that conflict. That's it. This isn't hard.
Leadbalon, you're on my Ignore list, remember?
Leadbalon, you're on my Ignore list, remember?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA advises pilots to self-announce (even when operating VFR) position regularly "when operating in VFR practice areas, VFR routes established for air tour operations, and high-volume traffic environments". Source: Advisory Circular AC 90-48D, 4.6.6
It also mentions that there were 42 mid air collisions in the USA in the 5 years 2009-2014.
It also mentions that there were 42 mid air collisions in the USA in the 5 years 2009-2014.
when operating in VFR practice areas, VFR routes established for air tour operations, and high-volume traffic environments
I’d merely observe that when it is prudent to make a call, it would be better (and safer) if it were concise and standard. I’ve made this plea before: Please note everyone stooging around VFR that you are allowed to say this:
“Kickatinalong traffic, Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie is one two miles South, inbound at three thousand five hundred, circuit area at one seven, Kickatinalong.”
..instead of this:
“Kickatinalong traffic this is Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie. I’m currently one two nautical miles South of the field, inbound at three thousand five hundred feet and estimating the circuit area at seventeen minutes past the hour, Kickatinalong traffic.”
The first version conveys exactly the same information as the second, without clogging up the airwaves for as long.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or even:
“Kickatinalong traffic, Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlieis one two miles South, inbound at three thousand five hundred, circuit area at one seven, Kickatinalong.”
About a decade ago, the use of link words was discussed at length, but the entrenched culture and pilot speak likes to include same. They add nothing to the equation
Keep it simple and minimal and the the point.
Remember back in 1997 they increased the read-backs significantly - Link words were discouraged in that change, but never surfaced in the education.
“Kickatinalong traffic, Jizzler Alpha Bravo Charlie
About a decade ago, the use of link words was discussed at length, but the entrenched culture and pilot speak likes to include same. They add nothing to the equation
Keep it simple and minimal and the the point.
Remember back in 1997 they increased the read-backs significantly - Link words were discouraged in that change, but never surfaced in the education.
Even better!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we please move away from this ridiculous nonsense about mandatory/recommended/not in AIP/I'm not saying a word/you talk too much bla bla bla
There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem. I just don't get why there is so much angst. As is the case with other aspects of the regs themselves, 166 is just a copout to hang some poor bugger, like the "you must lookout" stuff.
If anything, the yabberers are only complying with CAR 166, because they are announcing their position to a potentially unknown aircraft "anywhere" in the sky.
There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem. I just don't get why there is so much angst. As is the case with other aspects of the regs themselves, 166 is just a copout to hang some poor bugger, like the "you must lookout" stuff.
If anything, the yabberers are only complying with CAR 166, because they are announcing their position to a potentially unknown aircraft "anywhere" in the sky.
No Bloggs. What is ridiculous is the ongoing confusion over what calls are required at non-towered aerodromes and where and when they should be made. It’s not helped by people perpetuating myths.
Omitting calls likely to add to safety is just as bad as making too many of them. CASA’s CAR 166 is a cop out, especially when pilots are in the vicinity of Reg and Cert aerodromes with attendant high traffic. They need to bite the bullet and require a minimum number of calls rather than making suggestions which is all the AIP and CAAP do.
As my RAPAC rep says...”it’s a bit of an anomaly”....Isn’t it?
kaz
CASA wishes to have its cake and eat it too. Hence the refusal to make hard and fast rules about calls and the inclusion of the word “reasonably” in the CAR, that is obvious. it preserves CASAS right to prosecute if they feel like it in the event of an incident and the pilot doesn’t have a defence of making a set of mandatory calls. ahence the only rational response by a pilot fearful of becoming a felon is to make all possible calls.
the classic setup for such a prosecution would be a near miss between a turboprop RPT aircraft and a C172 at broken hill.
the classic setup for such a prosecution would be a near miss between a turboprop RPT aircraft and a C172 at broken hill.
So the current requirements provide some flexibility with reliance on common sense, but instead the requirements should be black & white covering all specific scenarios?
Kaz
CM will soon point out - correctly - that the current CAR 166 and AIP provisions do not mandate broadcasts for VFR aircraft in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes in G, precisely to enable individual pilots to make their own judgment as to when and where to broadcast what. That outcome is not a coincidence. It is the result of concerted lobbying.
The best way to achieve improvement is education, not more regulation.
The self-serving, incompetent bureaucracies that are CASA and Airservices aren’t going to achieve anything coherent or useful in the near future. Best for folks in the real world to do their best to educate.
CM will soon point out - correctly - that the current CAR 166 and AIP provisions do not mandate broadcasts for VFR aircraft in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes in G, precisely to enable individual pilots to make their own judgment as to when and where to broadcast what. That outcome is not a coincidence. It is the result of concerted lobbying.
The best way to achieve improvement is education, not more regulation.
The self-serving, incompetent bureaucracies that are CASA and Airservices aren’t going to achieve anything coherent or useful in the near future. Best for folks in the real world to do their best to educate.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 5th Nov 2018 at 08:22.
Best for folks in the real world to do their best to educate.
Speaking as a PPL, you can go and get (censored).
Giving the running circuit commentary absolves folk who are not practiced with the radio and are totally engrossed with aviating from listening. Instead of listening, they continuously broadcast. In fact, apart from hogging bandwidth this works reasonably well. My guess is it is here to stay and who am I to argue. I have tried and lost. The two RAA schools in my vicinity teach running commentaries from scratch thus making a habit that is all but impossible to change by the time the student gets a certificate.
The battle is lost, circuit commentary is here to stay.
Well, while we are on the logging of the airways, its not just the PPL and RAA guys who are at fault.
At YSHT we regularly have IFR training pilots conducting NDB training who announce that they are tracking on the inbound radial, will conduct a missed approach and climb to XXX feet on the outbound radial. Makes no sense to the lowly PPL RAA guys. Does it convey much to the trainees and newbees in the circuit?? Not much.
Most PPL/RAA types don't carry plates with them, and wouldn't know how to read them anyway.
Its talking because thats what they are supposed to say.
Mick
At YSHT we regularly have IFR training pilots conducting NDB training who announce that they are tracking on the inbound radial, will conduct a missed approach and climb to XXX feet on the outbound radial. Makes no sense to the lowly PPL RAA guys. Does it convey much to the trainees and newbees in the circuit?? Not much.
Most PPL/RAA types don't carry plates with them, and wouldn't know how to read them anyway.
Its talking because thats what they are supposed to say.
Mick
Mull: Trainees and newbies in the circuit may not be the only people in the vicinity. The fact that you may not hear anyone respond to the IFR broadcasts does not mean nobody’s benefitting from them.
Aussie: That’s truly sad. Be that as it may, I do not think a return to mandated calls is a step in the right direction. Every poorly thought out and poorly educated change in recent times has usually produced more diversity in understandings and operational approaches. The ‘running commentary’ crowd will just keep on commentating and others will start making calls that they otherwise would have judged unnecessary in particular circumstances.
Aussie: That’s truly sad. Be that as it may, I do not think a return to mandated calls is a step in the right direction. Every poorly thought out and poorly educated change in recent times has usually produced more diversity in understandings and operational approaches. The ‘running commentary’ crowd will just keep on commentating and others will start making calls that they otherwise would have judged unnecessary in particular circumstances.
This whole debate begs the question of the lack of leadership by CASA in safety critical regulation. CAR 166 is a wishy washy rule designed to allow CASA to prosecute and insure a pilot has no defence - that is the purpose of the “reasonably’ BS. Either make certain calls mandatory and leave the rest as voluntary (with no possibility of penalties) or make all calls voluntary - again no penalties.
The current system requires verbal diarrhoea as well as responses to prove you were listening as required by law.
The current system requires verbal diarrhoea as well as responses to prove you were listening as required by law.
At YSHT we regularly have IFR training pilots conducting NDB training who announce that they are tracking on the inbound radial, will conduct a missed approach and climb to XXX feet on the outbound radial. Makes no sense to the lowly PPL RAA guys. Does it convey much to the trainees and newbees in the circuit?? Not much.
Most PPL/RAA types don't carry plates with them, and wouldn't know how to read them anyway..
Mick
Most PPL/RAA types don't carry plates with them, and wouldn't know how to read them anyway..
Mick
That is, provide their students with a basic overview of what the approaches are about, and in particular which direction the aircraft will appear from and head to on a missed approach etc. Those students will of course be mixing it with other aircraft including RPT at other fields in the future, including some doing instrument approaches, so the education would be worthwhile.