A plea for brevity - CTAF Broadcasts
I had the CAGRO,Unicom whatever its called at Ballina try to assure me that the traffic I was trying to contact was in the training area to the north and "that there would be no conflict", for my departure. So you have some ex-ATC now trying to "assure separation" based on Flight Radar 24! On behalf of my 185 passengers and crew I thanked him and contacted Centre to ask where the traffic was on their radar. The CAGRO/Unicom whatever bloke seemed quite miffed and had just clagged up the CTAF frequency with superfluous radio chatter.
Originally Posted by Lookleft
I was trying to contact was in the training area to the north and "that there would be no conflict", for my departure. So you have some ex-ATC now trying to "assure separation" based on Flight Radar 24!
re ADSB and Ozrunways etc alerts of traffic... Last year I had a tower controller give me an urgent collision alert telling me to immediately go around when on mid final, (in class D, with lots of traffic doing circuits). I immediately did as told but was very confused, I had been sure sure my preceding traffic was already on upwind but assumed I must have misidentified it and my actual preceding was still on final and I had closed the gap, ie seriously stuffed up my SA.
Tower asked me to call after I landed. I assumed I had badly stuffed up.
I rang and the controller thanked me for calling saying he just wanted to apologise and explain - he said had glanced at his screen just before clearing us, (this D tower gets a feed from the radar centre), and there was another aircraft slightly lower than us, on final about 100m in front and although he could only eyeball our aircraft from the cab he thought had stuffed up his sequencing and immediately acted to separate us from the other aircraft. As we went round, that aircraft then disappeared from the screen. Turned out it was a ghost.
I asked him if this was something that had ever happened before and he said every now and again they do get spurious aircraft that suddenly appear on their display. Normally he said it is obvious it is not legit but in this case with the busy circuit he thought he had made a mistake and stuffed up the sequence so acted to try and avoid a collision.
I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.
Use standard radio procedures and eyeballs (and, if available and suitable, backed up by other help) but eyes (and fingers) on screens in cockpits in busy GA terminal space is *not* what I want more of.
In defence of bad R/T procedures in CTAFs - I am sure a lot of the calls are made by students who are not confident and proficient (and often quite nervous) on the radio and by pilots who are similarly a bit frightened of talking on the radio. I would assume a large swag (perhaps most) of GA traffic at least along the east coast will be training flights with novice pilots.
That doesn't make bad R/T right but in most cases I am willing to cut people some slack. They are learning or at least trying to do the right thing. At Outerwoopwoop where there might be 2 aircraft in the CTAF and someone stumbles and adds extra words or umms and ahs, at least they are talking to each other.
Admittedly in a busy CTAF it is far from ideal but I know I have made (and will no doubt again make) some embarrassing radio calls. No excuse but human factors means humans make mistakes. Telling them to not mistakes doesn't seem to work that well. Setting good examples help. Encouraging people to look at the standard phraseology helps.
Calling people out just makes people nervous, the 3 fundamentals of instructing, sarcasm, intimidation and ridicule somehow don't seem to make most people that confident on the radio, particularly when those 3 fundamentals are expressed via the tone of voice or even the choice of words, on the radio in response to a poor call, as sometimes happens (not saying anyone here does that but I have heard it).
Certainly important to teach people to do the right thing but when students (and weekend warriors) get scared of talking at all in case they make a fool of themselves because they are not 100% of the right protocol or making a goose of themselves, that is worse.
my 2c
Tower asked me to call after I landed. I assumed I had badly stuffed up.
I rang and the controller thanked me for calling saying he just wanted to apologise and explain - he said had glanced at his screen just before clearing us, (this D tower gets a feed from the radar centre), and there was another aircraft slightly lower than us, on final about 100m in front and although he could only eyeball our aircraft from the cab he thought had stuffed up his sequencing and immediately acted to separate us from the other aircraft. As we went round, that aircraft then disappeared from the screen. Turned out it was a ghost.
I asked him if this was something that had ever happened before and he said every now and again they do get spurious aircraft that suddenly appear on their display. Normally he said it is obvious it is not legit but in this case with the busy circuit he thought he had made a mistake and stuffed up the sequence so acted to try and avoid a collision.
I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.
Use standard radio procedures and eyeballs (and, if available and suitable, backed up by other help) but eyes (and fingers) on screens in cockpits in busy GA terminal space is *not* what I want more of.
In defence of bad R/T procedures in CTAFs - I am sure a lot of the calls are made by students who are not confident and proficient (and often quite nervous) on the radio and by pilots who are similarly a bit frightened of talking on the radio. I would assume a large swag (perhaps most) of GA traffic at least along the east coast will be training flights with novice pilots.
That doesn't make bad R/T right but in most cases I am willing to cut people some slack. They are learning or at least trying to do the right thing. At Outerwoopwoop where there might be 2 aircraft in the CTAF and someone stumbles and adds extra words or umms and ahs, at least they are talking to each other.
Admittedly in a busy CTAF it is far from ideal but I know I have made (and will no doubt again make) some embarrassing radio calls. No excuse but human factors means humans make mistakes. Telling them to not mistakes doesn't seem to work that well. Setting good examples help. Encouraging people to look at the standard phraseology helps.
Calling people out just makes people nervous, the 3 fundamentals of instructing, sarcasm, intimidation and ridicule somehow don't seem to make most people that confident on the radio, particularly when those 3 fundamentals are expressed via the tone of voice or even the choice of words, on the radio in response to a poor call, as sometimes happens (not saying anyone here does that but I have heard it).
Certainly important to teach people to do the right thing but when students (and weekend warriors) get scared of talking at all in case they make a fool of themselves because they are not 100% of the right protocol or making a goose of themselves, that is worse.
my 2c
I had the CAGRO,Unicom whatever its called at Ballina try to assure me that the traffic I was trying to contact was in the training area to the north and "that there would be no conflict",
I rang and the controller thanked me for calling saying he just wanted to apologise and explain - he said had glanced at his screen just before clearing us, (this D tower gets a feed from the radar centre), and there was another aircraft slightly lower than us, on final about 100m in front and although he could only eyeball our aircraft from the cab he thought had stuffed up his sequencing and immediately acted to separate us from the other aircraft. As we went round, that aircraft then disappeared from the screen. Turned out it was a ghost.
I asked him if this was something that had ever happened before and he said every now and again they do get spurious aircraft that suddenly appear on their display. Normally he said it is obvious it is not legit but in this case with the busy circuit he thought he had made a mistake and stuffed up the sequence so acted to try and avoid a collision.
I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.
I asked him if this was something that had ever happened before and he said every now and again they do get spurious aircraft that suddenly appear on their display. Normally he said it is obvious it is not legit but in this case with the busy circuit he thought he had made a mistake and stuffed up the sequence so acted to try and avoid a collision.
I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.
For uncoupled tracks (your typical VFR squawking 1200) we see both SSR and ADS-B, usually very close together but not always, particularly during sharp turns as ADS-B is your GPS derived position while SSR use track smoothing to estimate where you are - great for when you're moving more or less in a straight line but not so hot in a tight turn.
So, where was the traffic?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oz
Age: 55
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTAF CALLS
In Australia we stick to the absolute pilot/ATC clearances etc. We don't want to say anything extra. ATC are busy enough.
From the American movies you guys always love the "hey chicago its souw-west three thirty severn outa 5 and climbing to 8 any chance of 11.."
Just wondering how this works over there..
From the American movies you guys always love the "hey chicago its souw-west three thirty severn outa 5 and climbing to 8 any chance of 11.."
Just wondering how this works over there..
In Australia we stick to the absolute pilot/ATC clearances etc. We don't want to say anything extra. ATC are busy enough.
From the American movies you guys always love the "hey chicago its souw-west three thirty severn outa 5 and climbing to 8 any chance of 11.."
Just wondering how this works over there..
From the American movies you guys always love the "hey chicago its souw-west three thirty severn outa 5 and climbing to 8 any chance of 11.."
Just wondering how this works over there..
Thread Starter
I have no problem with technology but if it can falsely add aircraft, I suspect it can also falsely remove them. If we rely on the new gizmos do be our eyeballs and common sense we will stop being pilots and just be video game operators and trust the machine rather than focusing outside on the real world.
Use standard radio procedures and eyeballs (and, if available and suitable, backed up by other help) but eyes (and fingers) on screens in cockpits in busy GA terminal space is *not* what I want more of.
Use standard radio procedures and eyeballs (and, if available and suitable, backed up by other help) but eyes (and fingers) on screens in cockpits in busy GA terminal space is *not* what I want more of.
In defence of bad R/T procedures in CTAFs - I am sure a lot of the calls are made by students who are not confident and proficient (and often quite nervous) on the radio and by pilots who are similarly a bit frightened of talking on the radio. I would assume a large swag (perhaps most) of GA traffic at least along the east coast will be training flights with novice pilots.
That doesn't make bad R/T right but in most cases I am willing to cut people some slack. They are learning or at least trying to do the right thing. At Outerwoopwoop where there might be 2 aircraft in the CTAF and someone stumbles and adds extra words or umms and ahs, at least they are talking to each other.
That doesn't make bad R/T right but in most cases I am willing to cut people some slack. They are learning or at least trying to do the right thing. At Outerwoopwoop where there might be 2 aircraft in the CTAF and someone stumbles and adds extra words or umms and ahs, at least they are talking to each other.
It seems to me that the unnecessary verbosity is being actively trained.
(Remember when this was a report? "Alpha Alpha Alpha Grong Grong two two five five zero zero Wagga Wagga four four.")
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 9th Feb 2021 at 20:22.
It seems to me that the unnecessary verbosity is being actively trained.
My several attempts at education failed dismally, now I just observe :-)
Thread Starter
That is disturbing, AB.
In my opinion, the RAA organisations concerned are dangerously misguided.
In my opinion, the RAA organisations concerned are dangerously misguided.
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: 2,965
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
That is disturbing, AB.
In my opinion, the RAA organisations concerned are dangerously misguided.
In my opinion, the RAA organisations concerned are dangerously misguided.
There was once a rumour that CASA was going to discuss this very issue at safety seminars. Never happened to my knowledge and possibly never will but perhaps the issue could be raised with them. I certainly will next time they visit.
On another note, I observe that the chatterbox's are the most difficult to engage and the least likely to hear others broadcasts.. Old mate who speed reads his arrival with great brevity is usually the exact opposite and will hear and note everything.
On another note, I observe that the chatterbox's are the most difficult to engage and the least likely to hear others broadcasts.. Old mate who speed reads his arrival with great brevity is usually the exact opposite and will hear and note everything.
Thread Starter
Is anyone able to describe the problem/s solved by the replacement of the RAPACs with AvSEF?
