Then the RNAV positions should be marked on the visual charts.

Nev.... the quadrant system does work, provided it is used with plain and simple language that lets everyone in earshot what needs to be known. What is so hard at reporting at 30miles South and tracking for a 10m final 29?

Suggesting that the VFR should have a pile of paper available in the off chance that he might conflict with a Jet using IFR lingo, is neither practical or possible.

The answer is for the IFR/Jet to make calls appropriate to the circumstances and also to ensure that the words used are understood by the pilot with the least experience in the area. Saying that it is ok to question if you don't understand etc is fine, but it does jam up the frequency when an appropriate call in the first place would avoid that.

They used to call it Airmanship, but then they don't seem to teach that any more do they??
:ugh::ugh:

(another Cub fan...)

'j3' there is something about the size & shape of the Cub wing too:) There wouln't be too many places that a Cub wing hasn't casted a shadow over the entire planet!
I think yr statement although technically correct about an RNAV approach point being a 'position' is drawing a looooooong bow in this instance. Such postions/points to basic VFR drivers whom I might add have the same rights to be in the airspace as everyone else might as well be positioned on the moon.
I fly into a zillion basic AD's day in day out in all WX & I always give where I believe it's required the appropriate tracking details for both IFR & VFR drivers that might be listening, obviously IFR ought to know anyway. Takes but a few seconds to say it & is worth possibly several million dollars not to mention lives.
As I said in a previous post the RPT guys will certaintly ask or say something if there is a conflict looming, they have the training, the equipment not to mention X2 IFR drivers:-)


Wnk2

You're right about an NPA waypoint as a pos report. It's not restricted to one airline or another, either.

It's a busy time for jets and TP's going out of CTA into OCTA, CTAF, configuration changes, callouts, checklists, head swivelling lookout etc etc

Most RPT drivers will give a distance/bearing/quadrant. I will offer that the guy who made the call was busy at the time - it happens.

HOWEVER:

The same can be said for VFR aircraft calling 'over Old Bessies Homestead' or 'over Bull**** Creek not above 3500 feet' , or overflying the field in a position that is right through the go-around path of a jet.:{

If you're VFR (or IFR) for that matter, and you don't know where the position from where an aircraft calls is - then bloody well ask for clarification.:ugh:

Do something about it at the time - don't sit there mute and miffed about the call - communicate and clarify.

Don't get on here after the fact and cry everyone a river :(


Here endeth the sermon

mig3. Yes, I know that I can't assume that others would check the approaches. In my limited experince, some VFR lighties can't even understand a quadrant / distance, rather over Bob's place at 1700' and maintaining.

I am of the view that the Jet/IFR crew is quite busy approaching the RNAV flyover/IAF, whether VMC or IMC and the extra broadcasts are adding to the workload anyway. I believe that the VFR crews are under a little less workload and as a result could ensure that if they think they are conflicting traffic to vacate the area or ask for clarification.

We have two rather separate opinions, but it seems that we are both agree about the communication but the difference lies in where it originates. Ah well.

Merry Christmas

j3

triadic was correct when he remembered the matter of inbound calls being discussed at various RAPAC meetings. I recall it being discussed about 1995 or 1996.

At the time there was considerable chest beating from the IFR fraternity at the requirement to actually look outside the windows when in VMC. You should have heard the bleating and moaning.

Communication is all about clear and concise information, the less opportunity for misinterpretation, the less opportunity for error.

It matters not whether it is quadrant/distance or relative to a known geograhic point, just as long as everyone knows and understands your intentions.

I prefer Guides m'self:oh:

Disco

J3, I have to completely disagree with you there (coming from a professional IFR driver).

It is NOT up to VFR pilots to learn all about instrument approaches, or study every possible approach to any aerodrome they may visit.

It is however, up to IFR pilots, to use one method that everyone can understand. The "KISS" principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) comes in here.

morno

I agree with j3piperclub on this,

I regulary fly within a CTAF in Australia that has around 20 RPT arrivals and departures per day... Although I am only a VFR pilot I always make sure I know precisely where these guys are tracking to or from and whenever I have been unsure of the approach or departure they were conducting where always professional in R/T to advise of their intentions.

I also make the point that it would be in their own interest and passengers to make sure that all those in the CTAF that would be conflicting to know what was going on. I find it extremely difficult to imagine an RPT driver declining to expand on their approach... this is just completely stupid. and have never heard of such rubbish.

J3 - the RPT did not clarify position when asked. I was listening on the frequency and know what I heard. An FAF broadcast was also not heard. They then went missed and flew a circuit instead! As for downloading and carrying for carrying the approach plates for each airfield one *might* pass if flying VFR.....you can't be serious, Shirley. A VFR flight from Brisbane to Melbourne would have carry almost the complete DAPS East to cover route and alternates!!! I might be flying IFR most of the time myself, but I'm at least not so arrogant as to expect everyone to do that.

Whether or not some (and only some) VFR drivers give less than adequate calls is not the point - I expect the professional aircrew to behave in a manner that mitigates risk and I expect their training department to train them in mitigating risk. Communicating position in a clear manner that is intelligible to all in the CTAF is a risk mitigator.

Again - does anyone have the J* ops number? Please PM me. It's a pity this thread was moved from reporting points, as it really is an airline issue, not a GA issue.

If thats the case then you'd have to think that they were busy at the time,(checklist being read, calling for flap, ops chatting away to them on the other radio, ) and they missed the request, it happens, human factors etc. Obvious thing to do is ask them again....if they still don't reply I would start thinking that there is a coms failure somewhere...(finger trouble, wrong box etc etc.)...
You know what you heard so let us in on it, did the station making the request for position clarification request again when they got no reply?
If not why not?
Did you pipe up and get a clarification seeing as you were obviously listening ?
If not why not?
If the J* simply refused to answer then why are you moaning on this forum instead of filing on them?
I still don't believe that the J* crew simply refused to clarify. Any professional pilot would not assume an attitude problem being the cause of radio silence.

'morno' spot on........."It is NOT up to VFR pilots to learn all about instrument approaches, or study every possible approach to any aerodrome they may visit.

It is however, up to IFR pilots, to use one method that everyone can understand. The "KISS" principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) comes in here".

IFR drivers have been thru the VFR school of training so out got know better, VFR are not expected to know anythig about IFR rules or regs, although it is in their best interest to perhaps improve their knowledge of such things.
Remember at the end of the day ALL pilots flying the IFR should allow for the lowest std of VFR pilots abilities & hence need to act/talk/decison make accordingly when in places where these as mentioned conditions can exist. Rules are fine but it can be those very same rules than can kill us!


Wmk2

I just did a renewal and the school I did it with that operates in a large and busy CTAF has since changed its call from saying outbound on the NDB approach to saying now outbound on the NDB approach to the NORTH of the field, same as turning I/B not to just announce I/B on the NDB but to say I/B then a GPS distance to the North.

Reason given again was just for situational awareness, funny enough some posters here seem to believe its up to VFR a/c to be aware of the IFR procedures, yet any text book says it the other way around, include info for IFR and give some indication of where that location is for VFR traffic.

Having said that ALL other RPT traffic I dealt with during my renewal in said CTAF all gave IFR location and a VFR discription of where that was.

Framer - I do not think there was any "attitude" - just a lack of SOPs that get the RPT crew to communicate appropriately in the first instance. Why was no clarification given? Who knows? May be for all the reasons you say - but it is pretty undesirable if the RPT crew (two of them) are unable to maintain a continuous listening watch on the CTAF frequency between them. Why did the other pilot not call back? Who knows? Perhaps didn't have the temerity to do so. Wouldn't have been necessary if the appropriate call is made in the first instance. As for leaping and clarifying someone else's calls - give me a break. As for filing on them - well, I'd rather have achat with Ops to clarify things, but if one has to reach for the reporting paper, or even chug off a few lines to the the local rag, I'm sure it will be done.....

IFR to VFR translator
 

When conducting an RNAV approach, simply say "tracking for a 15 mile final runway two niner"!:ok:

If making a visual approach, I will give a compass quadrant. The problem is, all too often when given a compass quadrant by others, it's 180 degrees out!:eek:

Anyone here care to show me where in the AIP it says you should give to positions as quadrants?? Can only find reference to radials/bearings and distance!! However I can't see how this would be mandatory as you could fly VFR in a Tiger Moth with no instruments into a CTAF.

TimTam I actually agree with you about first calls. When I'm operating into a CTAF (about once a week) I make calls pretty much exactly like HH said above.
It does happen. Normally when the crew are involved in a two-way conversation/checklist etc or if there was "two-in". I think that maybe the flightdeck of a two crew jet is busier than some people imagine. It can be continual operational banter sometimes.

Fair enough but it won't work. There are channels for these things and the only way to have the subject brought up in weekly meetings/training captain meetings etc is through these channels. If you rang ops they would say "did you file a report?" If not then who cares? Nobody.

Again fair enough, I wouldn't do it unless I thought safety was at risk but if the previous transmission had gone unanswered I might ask for my own clarification of their position especially if I thought the other caller was to shy to ask twice.

J3 to say that the RPT crew has a higher workload isn't exactly accurate. Remember the VFR pilot is single crew more than likely and can't offload tasks to anyone else on the aircraft.

Frankly I can't see the issue here. Everyone complains about frequency congestion and then thinks there should be clarifying calls for those that aren't familiar with IFR terminology when it is used.

Why would anyone argue against one concise call which EVERYBODY on frequency has been trained to interpret so there is no need for any further calls.

Aiming at the lowest common denominator (ie; student pilot on their first solo) should be the goal so nobody is in any doubt as to what is happening.

Makes complete sense I would have thought.

There are numerous other references to using bearing/distance/quadrant. Such as:
Obviously it is the pilots choice, however I would suggest the one that keeps the least experienced pilot in the loop would be the only way to go.....

I've just had a look at the definitions of an "incident" - and I don't think the narrow definition of reportable incident as defined by the ATSB would include this type of situation until there is an actual breakdown of separation/near miss/collision. A colleague's past experience with the ATSB on reporting a similar issue outside their strict definitions was dismissal of same....just a phone call received asking if there was any actual breakdown of separation etc. and once it was clear that there wasn't, was told that it probably won't be looked into any further. Reactive safety responses, I'm afraid, not proactive.

Surely it would be better to have a sensible chat with a sensible person who could see the issue and respond accordingly....it really shouldn't be left up to GA pilots to push airline safety.

Flyer517 - agree with you completely.

Ok here's the solution;
All IFR RPT pilots make a point of using common sense when using the radios in CTAF's and all VFR pilots double check that they know the difference between a bearing and a radial......no wait, that'l never work 'cause it involves common sense.