Rule changes to radio procedures - Multicom & QNH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rule changes to radio procedures - Multicom & QNH
Just received some AIP Supplements (the yellow ones) in yesterday's mail and it sure looks like a few changes going on. They seem to want to stop pilots from asking QNH all the time and broadcasting circuit entry on the area frequency.
Here's my interpretation: (standard disclaimer applies - don't trust me!)
H51/02:
At all aerodromes that don't have a CTAF or MBZ frequency, now use 126.7Mhz rather than the area frequency for terminal-related transmissions (circuit entry/position/taxi etc.)
This frequency is known as the Multicom.
All aerodromes effectively turn into a CTAF with respect to radio
transmissions
Rules take effect 28 November 2002
H52/02:
Use an aerodrome QNH somewhere nearby you (with 100NM) if you can get a TAF rather than asking on the area frequency for it.
If you can't get a TAF, use the current area forecast QNH
If you must have it, ask Flightwatch (if you are within range of a Flight Watch antenna)
(IFR unaffected as they give it to you anyway)
Rules take effect 28 November 2002
Cheers,
Richard, Perth WA
www.flightclub.com.au
Here's my interpretation: (standard disclaimer applies - don't trust me!)
H51/02:
At all aerodromes that don't have a CTAF or MBZ frequency, now use 126.7Mhz rather than the area frequency for terminal-related transmissions (circuit entry/position/taxi etc.)
This frequency is known as the Multicom.
All aerodromes effectively turn into a CTAF with respect to radio
transmissions
Rules take effect 28 November 2002
H52/02:
Use an aerodrome QNH somewhere nearby you (with 100NM) if you can get a TAF rather than asking on the area frequency for it.
If you can't get a TAF, use the current area forecast QNH
If you must have it, ask Flightwatch (if you are within range of a Flight Watch antenna)
(IFR unaffected as they give it to you anyway)
Rules take effect 28 November 2002
Cheers,
Richard, Perth WA
www.flightclub.com.au
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a thought!!
We've got automatic en-route weather broadcasts from Ginini, Canobolas, Point Lookout etc.
Why couldn't Airservices include area QNH information on the same broadcast?
Sounds simple enough to me.........
Why couldn't Airservices include area QNH information on the same broadcast?
Sounds simple enough to me.........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will be just great up north during the cyclone season.
Example: Two ports within 200 miles of each other. One pilot departs A on 1015Hp and flys along to B with 990Hp. The other pilot going the other way and opposite direction departs on 990Hp. Coupled with VFR altimeters, they could hit each other in the middle.
When in cruise we should all be on AREA Qnh if you ask me!
Even with normal pressure gradients, it is conceivable that a westbound VFR at 8,500' on Local Qnh with opposite direction IFR at 9,000' on Area Qnh may pass very close to each other.
The radio wont be cluttered with pilots asking for area Qnh any more, they'll be asking each other what altimeter setting they're using.
Weird!!!
Example: Two ports within 200 miles of each other. One pilot departs A on 1015Hp and flys along to B with 990Hp. The other pilot going the other way and opposite direction departs on 990Hp. Coupled with VFR altimeters, they could hit each other in the middle.
When in cruise we should all be on AREA Qnh if you ask me!
Even with normal pressure gradients, it is conceivable that a westbound VFR at 8,500' on Local Qnh with opposite direction IFR at 9,000' on Area Qnh may pass very close to each other.
The radio wont be cluttered with pilots asking for area Qnh any more, they'll be asking each other what altimeter setting they're using.
Weird!!!
Well the official answer to that twodogs would be that in VMC the pilot's of both aircraft are required to see and avoid. If one is VFR at 8500' then the aircraft must be in VMC right?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See and Avoid one of my favourite topics (hence my user name).
Lets see now. Two light twins (C310, BE58, etc) one at 8500' the other at 9000'. Each doing 180kts = about 185m/s closing speed. So say they are flying on different QNHs, plus the IFR one just happens to be at 8900 and the other at 8600. We are getting close here. Now do we spend every second looking out the front window? Never looking down for paperwork, changing tanks, or whatever? Oh, and during the dry, we all know that vis is unlimited, don't we?!
Not to mention that there are a few machines up here that do well over 180kts.
See and Avoid, the last means of not running into each other, and shouldn't be used as primary means. Use the radio, I do, and will continue to do so. A lot if need be.
Lets see now. Two light twins (C310, BE58, etc) one at 8500' the other at 9000'. Each doing 180kts = about 185m/s closing speed. So say they are flying on different QNHs, plus the IFR one just happens to be at 8900 and the other at 8600. We are getting close here. Now do we spend every second looking out the front window? Never looking down for paperwork, changing tanks, or whatever? Oh, and during the dry, we all know that vis is unlimited, don't we?!
Not to mention that there are a few machines up here that do well over 180kts.See and Avoid, the last means of not running into each other, and shouldn't be used as primary means. Use the radio, I do, and will continue to do so. A lot if need be.
Sure thing, that is what departure calls and inbound calls are for.
However don't think that because no one is talking they are not out there. I have cruised past hang-gliders at 8000', They have a radio, a UHF CB. Gliders? They prefer the glider frequency. So the risk is already there. Look at the accident statistics, this is not what is killing people. For a senseless waste of life look at the Newman C310 accident at http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=370
Rest assured when the scenario you paint occurs, as it must eventually, the ducking for cover will be of Olympic standard.
However don't think that because no one is talking they are not out there. I have cruised past hang-gliders at 8000', They have a radio, a UHF CB. Gliders? They prefer the glider frequency. So the risk is already there. Look at the accident statistics, this is not what is killing people. For a senseless waste of life look at the Newman C310 accident at http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=370
Rest assured when the scenario you paint occurs, as it must eventually, the ducking for cover will be of Olympic standard.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a VERY big sky.
Given the traffic density in Australian class G airspace, even if aircraft flew at random altitudes the chances of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so close to an asymptotic zero that it is not worth worrying about.
If this latest raft of changes mean that the constant waffle, like :
“Alpha Bravo Charlie, departed XXX for YYY, three-thousand five-hundred.....REQUEST AREA Q.N.H?”
is to cease then I think that’s a good thing.
The risk of a mid-air collision is concentrated in the terminal area, where all aircraft should be using aerodrome QNH. If you have just departed from a non-controlled aerodrome then you should have been able to set the altimeter to aerodrome elevation (or threshold elevation) before take-off. So where is the problem?
All this talk-on-the-radio non-sense achieves is a warm fuzzy feeling for the person doing the talking. As Icarus2001 points out, just because no one is talking does not mean that there is no one out there.
In fact, the more the “request area QNH” w@nkers cock-on with their constant drivel on the radio the more inclined I am to turn the silly thing off and turn up the CD player. I’d much rather listen to the semi-controlled screaming of a working class man than the irrelevant verbal-diarrhoea of hapless pilots seeking instructions on how to twiddle their knobs.
Let’s at least keep radio transmissions meaningful.
Given the traffic density in Australian class G airspace, even if aircraft flew at random altitudes the chances of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so close to an asymptotic zero that it is not worth worrying about.
If this latest raft of changes mean that the constant waffle, like :
“Alpha Bravo Charlie, departed XXX for YYY, three-thousand five-hundred.....REQUEST AREA Q.N.H?”
is to cease then I think that’s a good thing.
The risk of a mid-air collision is concentrated in the terminal area, where all aircraft should be using aerodrome QNH. If you have just departed from a non-controlled aerodrome then you should have been able to set the altimeter to aerodrome elevation (or threshold elevation) before take-off. So where is the problem?
All this talk-on-the-radio non-sense achieves is a warm fuzzy feeling for the person doing the talking. As Icarus2001 points out, just because no one is talking does not mean that there is no one out there.
In fact, the more the “request area QNH” w@nkers cock-on with their constant drivel on the radio the more inclined I am to turn the silly thing off and turn up the CD player. I’d much rather listen to the semi-controlled screaming of a working class man than the irrelevant verbal-diarrhoea of hapless pilots seeking instructions on how to twiddle their knobs.
Let’s at least keep radio transmissions meaningful.
I obtain the area QNH from the area forecast I receive in preflight. Admitedly, this is not always possible as it changes over and should I obtain a briefing before an 0900 (local) departure for example, the area QNH on the forecast will be out of date by the time I get airborne.
I cannot stress enough however, should the area QNH ON THE AREA FORECAST be valid for your flight (ie: you are flying between 01 and 04 and the area forecast states a QNH between 01 and 04):
It is not put there to add more impressive looking numbers to an already outstanding looking piece of paper, it is valid and should be used!
If not listed or not valid for your flight, monitoring of local departing IFR flights should soon reveal the magic number, and if I get really scared I can always dial up Flightwatch on HF, which if CHTR you should be carrying.
I know that many operators HF's are next to useless, but all too often it is simply the case of bored pilots wanting to hear their own voices when they know that there in nobody within COOEE of their outback airstrip!
There is nothing quite as useless as a meaningless maxim.
I cannot stress enough however, should the area QNH ON THE AREA FORECAST be valid for your flight (ie: you are flying between 01 and 04 and the area forecast states a QNH between 01 and 04):
It is not put there to add more impressive looking numbers to an already outstanding looking piece of paper, it is valid and should be used!
If not listed or not valid for your flight, monitoring of local departing IFR flights should soon reveal the magic number, and if I get really scared I can always dial up Flightwatch on HF, which if CHTR you should be carrying.
I know that many operators HF's are next to useless, but all too often it is simply the case of bored pilots wanting to hear their own voices when they know that there in nobody within COOEE of their outback airstrip!
There is nothing quite as useless as a meaningless maxim.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are quite correct. People should make more use of Flightwatch (on VHF where available and on HF) and also to get the info from your area forecasts. It's just the issue of people using the same numbers.
I just thought that there may be a reason why aircraft use a datum of 1013 above FL110. Is it to aid separation or to reduce radio transmissions?
Icurus 2001, inbound and departure calls will now mostly be done on 126.7 so if you weren't aware of the particular field you're passing nearby you won't even know of their movements in the first place. Or are we to all have our #2 comm on 126.7 whilst we juggle HF third party traffic info, CTAF/MBZ, area and high level frequencies.
I think this all stems from there being not enough controllers, with huge areas of re-transmitted radio and no-one can get a word in!
I just thought that there may be a reason why aircraft use a datum of 1013 above FL110. Is it to aid separation or to reduce radio transmissions?
Icurus 2001, inbound and departure calls will now mostly be done on 126.7 so if you weren't aware of the particular field you're passing nearby you won't even know of their movements in the first place. Or are we to all have our #2 comm on 126.7 whilst we juggle HF third party traffic info, CTAF/MBZ, area and high level frequencies.
I think this all stems from there being not enough controllers, with huge areas of re-transmitted radio and no-one can get a word in!
Toodogs, I teach my students to give inbound/departure calls on CTAF/MBZ frequency and on the appropriate area freq. If they did not they would be potentially missing traffic close to the boundary that have not yet or have just changed freq.
I may review this as the new improved, safer airspace system evolves.
I may review this as the new improved, safer airspace system evolves.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK_116.8:
Are you saying that a VFR pilot departing from an aerodrome or about to leave a level inbound and giving time, track, altitude, distance and the like are only acheiving a warm fuzzy feeling? Because if you are, I think that I'd prefer you stayed in you bedroom and listened to your CDs. I fly IFR 100% of the time with my company and without this extra info (read proper formatted calls) from VFR pilots, important traffic information would be missed. Sure, area qnh can be sources elsewhere, but if it's not possible, I can put up with the odd request.
Icarus 2001:
So with the new 126.7 frequency at other than CTAF/MBZ fields you will be giving two departure calls in lieu of only one on Area. Personally, flying VFR privately, I give taxi, surface movement and inbound calls on CTAF/MBZ and a taxi plus one departure call (IFR format) on area frequency. "Position" calls and frequency boundary calls are also useful for those interested in ALERTED see and avoid.
Keeping things simple and practical is what it's all about.
Are you saying that a VFR pilot departing from an aerodrome or about to leave a level inbound and giving time, track, altitude, distance and the like are only acheiving a warm fuzzy feeling? Because if you are, I think that I'd prefer you stayed in you bedroom and listened to your CDs. I fly IFR 100% of the time with my company and without this extra info (read proper formatted calls) from VFR pilots, important traffic information would be missed. Sure, area qnh can be sources elsewhere, but if it's not possible, I can put up with the odd request.
Icarus 2001:
So with the new 126.7 frequency at other than CTAF/MBZ fields you will be giving two departure calls in lieu of only one on Area. Personally, flying VFR privately, I give taxi, surface movement and inbound calls on CTAF/MBZ and a taxi plus one departure call (IFR format) on area frequency. "Position" calls and frequency boundary calls are also useful for those interested in ALERTED see and avoid.
Keeping things simple and practical is what it's all about.
The problem is Twodogs that many VFR pilots just don't know when to say what and were. So they do a balance in what they are taught (which I suggest is not much) and what they hear other pilots saying from time to time. Many don't appreciate the difference in procedures for IFR and copy those because they sound good, but all those IFR type calls from VFR ops just clug up the frequency. Many in fact just make calls and have really no idea why they are making them. To me it would be far greater benefit to teach these pilots correctly in the first place. The problem then rolls on as these PPLs become instructors and then go further up the line and still don't know the why's of what they say on the R/T.
It has got to the stage now were even some schools and CFIs are in fact teaching use of radio based on their own lack of training. Tell me where this is in any syllabus and where it is examined... it is not there, and it is not examined. So I therefore suggest with respect that what is taught is not necessarily correct. Even many airline pilots get it wrong, and perhaps don't even know it. Of course Johnnie PPL hears all this from the airlines/regionals/RAAF etc and thinks it must be right… and there we go again.
The Multicom should improve things insofar as frequency congestion is concerned on the area frequency. The plot that NAS is following is that VFRs should not talk (en-route) at all, but just speak up when 'they' perceive a conflict. Sorry twodogs but this includes departure calls on the area frequency. Much as I share your concerns, the system does not want to hear them!
Disagree with you on this one… they are of little or no use. The high risk area is in the terminal area, NOT en-route. Make the calls/use the radio where the risk is, not where it is not.
As an IFR pilot do you make a broadcast on the area frequency prior to descent, even tho' ATC has said no (IFR) traffic. Do you include the place name in that call? I know many IFR pilots that don't and on the more busy routes that excludes the VFR 500ft below of knowing about you and what your intentions are. Do you teach/use compass quadrants, and not radials in all calls? – especially in the terminal areas of CTAF/MBZs.
I2001… nothing wrong with what you suggest re calls on area but (see above) so long as they don't then get engaged in a protracted exchange with someone else when it should be occurring on the CTAF/MBZ. A simple b'cast might be fine, but don't include Centre. They just don't want to know and are busy with other things most of the time anyway.
I believe the training in radio usage is very poor and has been so for some years. With each generation of instructors something gets changed or someone's bright idea is inserted and we develop our own set of standards. Nobody, but nobody seems to want to address this mess and as the years go by, it only gets worse. Readbacks is a good example!! Just maybe with NAS there might be an opportunity to correct this with appropriate education, but those responsible have to recognize there is a problem first! And that is the problem.
It has got to the stage now were even some schools and CFIs are in fact teaching use of radio based on their own lack of training. Tell me where this is in any syllabus and where it is examined... it is not there, and it is not examined. So I therefore suggest with respect that what is taught is not necessarily correct. Even many airline pilots get it wrong, and perhaps don't even know it. Of course Johnnie PPL hears all this from the airlines/regionals/RAAF etc and thinks it must be right… and there we go again.
The Multicom should improve things insofar as frequency congestion is concerned on the area frequency. The plot that NAS is following is that VFRs should not talk (en-route) at all, but just speak up when 'they' perceive a conflict. Sorry twodogs but this includes departure calls on the area frequency. Much as I share your concerns, the system does not want to hear them!
"Position" calls and frequency boundary calls are also useful for those interested in ALERTED see and avoid.
As an IFR pilot do you make a broadcast on the area frequency prior to descent, even tho' ATC has said no (IFR) traffic. Do you include the place name in that call? I know many IFR pilots that don't and on the more busy routes that excludes the VFR 500ft below of knowing about you and what your intentions are. Do you teach/use compass quadrants, and not radials in all calls? – especially in the terminal areas of CTAF/MBZs.
I2001… nothing wrong with what you suggest re calls on area but (see above) so long as they don't then get engaged in a protracted exchange with someone else when it should be occurring on the CTAF/MBZ. A simple b'cast might be fine, but don't include Centre. They just don't want to know and are busy with other things most of the time anyway.
I believe the training in radio usage is very poor and has been so for some years. With each generation of instructors something gets changed or someone's bright idea is inserted and we develop our own set of standards. Nobody, but nobody seems to want to address this mess and as the years go by, it only gets worse. Readbacks is a good example!! Just maybe with NAS there might be an opportunity to correct this with appropriate education, but those responsible have to recognize there is a problem first! And that is the problem.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toodogs,
I don’t have a Warren
(bedroom) in the aeroplane – but I do have a CD player.
I would concur with triadic about the use of the radio and which frequency should be used for what. Make all the calls you want on CTAF / MBZ / multi-com or whatever it is called this week. Fill yer boots!
For a day-time VFR flight in Australia’s class G airspace, WHO CARES what the bloody QNH is? Once enroute, away from the terminal area, the sky is sufficiently large that even if you flew at RANDOM altitudes you would still not run into anyone, and surely see and avoid is adequate for terrain clearance? So what’s it matter whether you are at 5,500 feet or 6,500 feet? Why can't you set aerodrome (or threshold) elevation prior to departure?
If a VFR pilot is really worried about a mid-air collision, rather than talking their way to bankruptcy over the radio (the more the VFR guys keep talking the more AsA will put up the price for the IFR guys) why not switch your transponder (that you have already paid for) on to ALT so that you become visible to TCAS equipped aircraft? Even better, why not get a TCAS or TCAD yourself?
It’s a VERY big sky.
I don’t have a Warren
(bedroom) in the aeroplane – but I do have a CD player.I would concur with triadic about the use of the radio and which frequency should be used for what. Make all the calls you want on CTAF / MBZ / multi-com or whatever it is called this week. Fill yer boots!
For a day-time VFR flight in Australia’s class G airspace, WHO CARES what the bloody QNH is? Once enroute, away from the terminal area, the sky is sufficiently large that even if you flew at RANDOM altitudes you would still not run into anyone, and surely see and avoid is adequate for terrain clearance? So what’s it matter whether you are at 5,500 feet or 6,500 feet? Why can't you set aerodrome (or threshold) elevation prior to departure?
If a VFR pilot is really worried about a mid-air collision, rather than talking their way to bankruptcy over the radio (the more the VFR guys keep talking the more AsA will put up the price for the IFR guys) why not switch your transponder (that you have already paid for) on to ALT so that you become visible to TCAS equipped aircraft? Even better, why not get a TCAS or TCAD yourself?
It’s a VERY big sky.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The premise that:
Given the traffic density in Australian class G airspace, even if aircraft flew at random altitudes the chances of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so close to an asymptotic zero that it is not worth worrying about. ,
may give BIK_116.80 a warm and fuzzy feeling but does not give me the same feeling of invincibility.
In the region that I spend part of my flying all the routes are two way routes and in the region of 250 - 450 odd nm in distance. They are used by both VFR and IFR aircraft as there are no other possible routes to use.
As the majority of aircraft use GPS for enroute navigation you are more often than not going to pass directly over/underneath an aircraft coming from the opposite direction on two way RNAV routes.
As such it is quite common to pass directly over/under VFR aircraft with only 500 feet of separation ( that is if both aircraft are on the same QNH!!) and at a closing speeds, depending on type, at between 6 - 10 nm per minute. See and avoid? Well if lucky might see but I"d prefer to know that we are both on the same QNH and even better if better to have heard a radio call.
Now some of you posters seem to classs all VFR pilots as weekend warriors but this is not always the case. In the area I refer, most are IFR qualified flying IFR capable aircraft under the VFR solely in order to save on IFR related costs.
In my case I sometimes operate under VFR for operational freedom, therefore I"m one of those VFR pilots waffling “Alpha Bravo Charlie, departed XXX for YYY, three-thousand five-hundred.....REQUEST AREA Q.N.H?” Not much different to my IFR role really except that I now have to ask for the QNH.
I’m sure in the interests of Affordable Safety the Controller saying 4 little numbers is not going to bankrupt the nation.
The recommendation that If a VFR pilot is really worried about a mid-air collision he should switch the transponder on is laughable. How many IFR aircraft out there have TCAS to see the return from the VFR aircraft.
BIK_116.80 you are correct in saying that it is a very big sky but what might be or not be a problem in your bit of it does not necessarily apply to mine. Sometimes the one size fits all just doesn't cut it.
As for the 126.7 issue. I think that one is a good idea as I could never understand why some places were CTAF’s and others not. It now takes away some of the confusion as to what is and whats not.
Given the traffic density in Australian class G airspace, even if aircraft flew at random altitudes the chances of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so close to an asymptotic zero that it is not worth worrying about. ,
may give BIK_116.80 a warm and fuzzy feeling but does not give me the same feeling of invincibility.
In the region that I spend part of my flying all the routes are two way routes and in the region of 250 - 450 odd nm in distance. They are used by both VFR and IFR aircraft as there are no other possible routes to use.
As the majority of aircraft use GPS for enroute navigation you are more often than not going to pass directly over/underneath an aircraft coming from the opposite direction on two way RNAV routes.
As such it is quite common to pass directly over/under VFR aircraft with only 500 feet of separation ( that is if both aircraft are on the same QNH!!) and at a closing speeds, depending on type, at between 6 - 10 nm per minute. See and avoid? Well if lucky might see but I"d prefer to know that we are both on the same QNH and even better if better to have heard a radio call.
Now some of you posters seem to classs all VFR pilots as weekend warriors but this is not always the case. In the area I refer, most are IFR qualified flying IFR capable aircraft under the VFR solely in order to save on IFR related costs.
In my case I sometimes operate under VFR for operational freedom, therefore I"m one of those VFR pilots waffling “Alpha Bravo Charlie, departed XXX for YYY, three-thousand five-hundred.....REQUEST AREA Q.N.H?” Not much different to my IFR role really except that I now have to ask for the QNH.
I’m sure in the interests of Affordable Safety the Controller saying 4 little numbers is not going to bankrupt the nation.
The recommendation that If a VFR pilot is really worried about a mid-air collision he should switch the transponder on is laughable. How many IFR aircraft out there have TCAS to see the return from the VFR aircraft.
BIK_116.80 you are correct in saying that it is a very big sky but what might be or not be a problem in your bit of it does not necessarily apply to mine. Sometimes the one size fits all just doesn't cut it.
As for the 126.7 issue. I think that one is a good idea as I could never understand why some places were CTAF’s and others not. It now takes away some of the confusion as to what is and whats not.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Square Bear,
Are you using GPS to navigate directly from your departure point to the destination, or are you using GPS to navigate from one ground-based radio navigation aid to the next? If you are not going direct to the destination, then why are you not? Direct tracking not only reduces the track-mileage, it also reduces the chance of a mid-air collision because of the more random nature of your track.
I am a bit confused when you say “there are no other possible routes to use”. If you are talking about class G airspace (my comment was specifically in relation to class G) then how is it that there are no other possible routes? Do you mean that there are no other pre-printed lines on your map? If so, do you have a ruler and a pencil?
If you are flying on direct GPS tracks and are worried about other traffic on the same route, then have you put a random right offset into your GPS? If not, why not? As a suggestion, why not try the day of the month of your date of birth, divided by 10 eg if you were born on the 22nd day of the month then program an offset of 2.2 nm to the right of track. I have never seen an aircraft with a wing-span of more than 0.1 miles, so if everyone used a simple random right offset it would reduce your chances of a mid-air collision with another aircraft on the same route by at least 98%.
If you have not got TCAS or at least a TCAD then that’s a shame. But the question must be why not?
Are you using GPS to navigate directly from your departure point to the destination, or are you using GPS to navigate from one ground-based radio navigation aid to the next? If you are not going direct to the destination, then why are you not? Direct tracking not only reduces the track-mileage, it also reduces the chance of a mid-air collision because of the more random nature of your track.
I am a bit confused when you say “there are no other possible routes to use”. If you are talking about class G airspace (my comment was specifically in relation to class G) then how is it that there are no other possible routes? Do you mean that there are no other pre-printed lines on your map? If so, do you have a ruler and a pencil?
If you are flying on direct GPS tracks and are worried about other traffic on the same route, then have you put a random right offset into your GPS? If not, why not? As a suggestion, why not try the day of the month of your date of birth, divided by 10 eg if you were born on the 22nd day of the month then program an offset of 2.2 nm to the right of track. I have never seen an aircraft with a wing-span of more than 0.1 miles, so if everyone used a simple random right offset it would reduce your chances of a mid-air collision with another aircraft on the same route by at least 98%.
If you have not got TCAS or at least a TCAD then that’s a shame. But the question must be why not?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK,
Most GA operators can't afford TCAS "or even TCAD" You sound like a certain pilot (who can afford such luxuries) who has a strip (more like runway) near Bindook. Are your initials DS by chance?
Most GA operators can't afford TCAS "or even TCAD" You sound like a certain pilot (who can afford such luxuries) who has a strip (more like runway) near Bindook. Are your initials DS by chance?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,
Well, I agree with all that you say. Yes, I do give a general broadcast prior to descent even if I've already received traffic info or I combine the two. Saying "Centre, ABC 2 minutes top of decent" achieves nothing in my book.
I only give quadrants in lieu of radial/bearings. That is unless someone wants to get specific. It's too confusing, it seems otherwise.
If people were properly instructed and kept themselves informed of what is the correct format and what is required of them, we wouldn't have such a problem with radio congestion.
BIK_116.8
The idea of an offset track for VFR pilots was issued via an AIC a few years ago and is a very good idea and should be used. Tracking straight down a published route with GPS and even moreso with it coupled to a Nav mode on the autopilot is so accurate that being within a wingspan is quite conceivable.
A lot of people choose to track via published routes as they are able to use the enroute aids to varify their GPS info.
Well, I agree with all that you say. Yes, I do give a general broadcast prior to descent even if I've already received traffic info or I combine the two. Saying "Centre, ABC 2 minutes top of decent" achieves nothing in my book.
I only give quadrants in lieu of radial/bearings. That is unless someone wants to get specific. It's too confusing, it seems otherwise.
If people were properly instructed and kept themselves informed of what is the correct format and what is required of them, we wouldn't have such a problem with radio congestion.
BIK_116.8
The idea of an offset track for VFR pilots was issued via an AIC a few years ago and is a very good idea and should be used. Tracking straight down a published route with GPS and even moreso with it coupled to a Nav mode on the autopilot is so accurate that being within a wingspan is quite conceivable.
A lot of people choose to track via published routes as they are able to use the enroute aids to varify their GPS info.
Last edited by Toodogs; 6th Nov 2002 at 04:27.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK ... using your idea, my right offset would be 0.1NM, whether I use the day or the month. Hardly seems worth it. And if I was to take the year... well, I don't want to EVER be THAT far off track! 
Yeah, I'm just taking the p!ss because someone is bound to do it anyway!
My real concern here is probably a bit more basic. I'll preface this by saying that it's been a VERY long time since I conducted a BFR (as it used to be called) in Oz. What I found was that there was a significant number of pilots around who used the radio to avoid the need to look around.
That is, they'd broadcast their position, level and intentions whenever they heard another voice on the frequency. They would then forget about it. That works fine when the "big sky" principle is working for you but it came home to roost for one of my BFR candidates ... the other voice on the frequency belonged to an IFR flight, in the cloud above him, that was descending.
As the IFR aircraft in question had already commenced descent, there was little separation between us. But "my candidate" just sat there, fat dumb and happy - until I forcefully wrested the controls from him and wrenched the aeroplane around very tightly.
Why had the IFR guy delayed his call so long? I have absolutely no idea. All I know was that a Baron came galloping out of the cloud in near enough the position where we WOULD have been, had I not intervened. The "big sky" principle wasn't working on that occasion and from I can see, based on what I've read in this thread, such situations are bound to become more frequent.
I just hope that somebody did all the necessary "homework" before implementing this change.
Yeah, I'm just taking the p!ss because someone is bound to do it anyway!My real concern here is probably a bit more basic. I'll preface this by saying that it's been a VERY long time since I conducted a BFR (as it used to be called) in Oz. What I found was that there was a significant number of pilots around who used the radio to avoid the need to look around.
That is, they'd broadcast their position, level and intentions whenever they heard another voice on the frequency. They would then forget about it. That works fine when the "big sky" principle is working for you but it came home to roost for one of my BFR candidates ... the other voice on the frequency belonged to an IFR flight, in the cloud above him, that was descending.
As the IFR aircraft in question had already commenced descent, there was little separation between us. But "my candidate" just sat there, fat dumb and happy - until I forcefully wrested the controls from him and wrenched the aeroplane around very tightly.
Why had the IFR guy delayed his call so long? I have absolutely no idea. All I know was that a Baron came galloping out of the cloud in near enough the position where we WOULD have been, had I not intervened. The "big sky" principle wasn't working on that occasion and from I can see, based on what I've read in this thread, such situations are bound to become more frequent.
I just hope that somebody did all the necessary "homework" before implementing this change.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read this thread with amazed interest, as I will be flying in Australia while home for the holidays over the New Year break.
Is there not a VFR RT handbook document equivalent to say the UK's CAP413 which makes it clear what should be said where, when and to whom? If not, I guess I will just do whatever the guy giving me the checkride tells me to do... but its a bit disconcerting from the sound of things!
Is there not a VFR RT handbook document equivalent to say the UK's CAP413 which makes it clear what should be said where, when and to whom? If not, I guess I will just do whatever the guy giving me the checkride tells me to do... but its a bit disconcerting from the sound of things!
Aussie Andy you have hit the nail on the head. Before the 1991 AMATS "improvement" the calls were more or less spelt out.
VFR pilot's had the VFG, which WAS amended and IFR pilot's had the AIP. Then the VFG went, although they re-appear occasionally with sheepish looking pilot's wanting a BFR.
There is a new "guide" which is NOT amended. It is well written but has limitations.
A look through our current two volume AIP shows that it was designed to be difficult to use and to access information. Look at the bloody page numbering and paragraph system!!!!!! The message is VFR guys we do not want you in the system. Who publishes the documents? AirServices. Who supplies the ATC system? Who is required to supply a profit to their shareholder?
AsA do not want anyone in the system if they have to provide a service to them but cannot charge for it. In other words VFR aircraft. I can remember back to the early 90's when students giving flight plan amendment calls were told by the ATCO that they were not required for VFR when they clearly are required by the AIP. Management were actively discouraging VFR participation in the system. Word has it that they could not remove the requirement to pass amended flight details for obvious SAR reasons, though they would have dearly liked to.
So Aussie Andy the upshot is, my school has printed sheets with "standard" format VFR calls on them. As you say, this is CASA & AsA role. Then there is the problem of the ATCOs who try to help by ignoring incorrect calls, granted they are too busy to waste time on this. Or tower ATCo's that require VFR aircraft to report POB which contradicts the AIP.
VFR pilot's had the VFG, which WAS amended and IFR pilot's had the AIP. Then the VFG went, although they re-appear occasionally with sheepish looking pilot's wanting a BFR.
There is a new "guide" which is NOT amended. It is well written but has limitations.
A look through our current two volume AIP shows that it was designed to be difficult to use and to access information. Look at the bloody page numbering and paragraph system!!!!!! The message is VFR guys we do not want you in the system. Who publishes the documents? AirServices. Who supplies the ATC system? Who is required to supply a profit to their shareholder?
AsA do not want anyone in the system if they have to provide a service to them but cannot charge for it. In other words VFR aircraft. I can remember back to the early 90's when students giving flight plan amendment calls were told by the ATCO that they were not required for VFR when they clearly are required by the AIP. Management were actively discouraging VFR participation in the system. Word has it that they could not remove the requirement to pass amended flight details for obvious SAR reasons, though they would have dearly liked to.
So Aussie Andy the upshot is, my school has printed sheets with "standard" format VFR calls on them. As you say, this is CASA & AsA role. Then there is the problem of the ATCOs who try to help by ignoring incorrect calls, granted they are too busy to waste time on this. Or tower ATCo's that require VFR aircraft to report POB which contradicts the AIP.