Yup! spam that would make you a parasite's parasite:D

Now I feel a whole lot better about chatting on the MBZ:ok:

Radios are not meant for billing purposes. They are there for safety reasons.

Bevan666 and spam - this reminds me of one particular Private Pilot with his own plane who used to come into a particular CTAF and make his callsign _MS - standing for __________ Munipal Council. :mad: :mad:
He saved a fortune in landing fees over some period of time, I believe.

I feel sorry for the poor bu99er who really had the _MS callsign though!!! "Gee I can't remember landing at _________"

Has someone inadvertantly shown their hand?
 

From RabidNuts
posted 16th August 2004 13:44

From JSM
posted 17th August 2004 07:49

From JSM
posted 17th August 2004 11:20

Did JSM / RabidNuts make a booboo here and forget which ID he/she was using???
Take particular note of the sign off used in each post, then look at the last one. Or is my mind too suspicious??? :} :oh: :}

More out of curiosity than anything, I would be interested in knowing how many pilots make broadcasts when overflying aerodromes outside standard dimensions, ie:

CTAFs above 3000ft AGL / 5NM
MBZs above 5000ft AGL / 15NM

AS

Atlas,

I was taught to call overflying at any height back in 96, I have since learnt from experience that this was not required. I do however listen out on the CTAF/MBZ for traffic awareness. This is what I teach my students now. Not sure why I was taught that way?

Hornet

Rn happened to be over and i was signed on at the time, thats all

JSM

I would have thought, absent radio traffic congestion, that the smart thing to do is to adopt the precautionary prinicipal and sing out when it might be relevent.

I'd rather be a live clown with a big mouth talking too much then a dead "professional" (with the greatest of respect) who gave the minimum responses. You can hear my miserable efforts as I try to get it short sweet concise and procedurally correct occasionaly at YMMB.

My main concern is to be understood and ensure that my communications are not ambiguous. Correct voice procedure is an aid to both these objectives, but if I can't get the procedure right (Vector Victor) I'll settle for getting the intentions and instructions understood.

One of these days I'll get it completely right.

The 2 worst examples i have seen of poor R/T and airmanship were:

1) a Kingair of unknown callsign using the callsign TQM (couple of years ago when QANTAS using rego) in the Rottnest Island area. When asked if he was a QF Dash-8 (the rego was a QF Dash-8 back then) he replied "no mate, but i am not going to pay for landing charges here if i don't have to".

2) a bunch of ultralights at a Western NSW airfield (about 40 aircraft or so) all took off at the same time. RPT inbound and couldn't get a word in edge ways. RPT had to hold for 20 minutes as the ultralights were chatting "oooh mike, look down there, i can see some cows".

Whilst excessive radio calls are definitely undesirable, the art of listenout shouldn't be neglected either in a 'broadcast' environment. Most pilots will make the necessary calls and presume that they're being heard and comprehended, but that is part of airmanship that IS hard to teach because its linked to spare mental capacity. Not everyone airborne is just drilling holes in the sky, pilots' workloads (and capacity to handle that workload) vary and so too their situational awareness.

You might think common sense would prevail here.


If in doubt speak out

The use of communication to enhance safety is the thing here

A million calls in the cct or CTAF/MBZ is not communication, it is the exact opposite.

Again...COMMON SENSE needs to prevail