S vs ing....

Actually, this isn't a bad way to work out if you need to pay extra attention to an inbound aircraft. If their radio sounds like crap, fair chance the rest of their flying and procedures aren't too far behind.
It's easy to pick the difference between someone who knows what they're doing and otherwise.
The main thing is the message gets across clearly and concisely.

Thought for the day....
"Entering and backtracking 23 for 12"

You just read out five numbers in a row.

23412

Wha? Was that an RA rego?

If you're at an airfield with runways 23 and 12, you'd have to be mildly retarded to assume it was an RAA rego. From the context a rego in that place doesn't even make sense. If it's a call from another airfield (where you don't know the runway numbers) then you shouldn't worry anyway.

Procedures, standard phrases and airmanship. Follow the phrases laid down in the AIP/Jepps as closely as possible and make life easier for all so we know what we're expecting to hear. Gross error checks so you're heading in the right direction with enough fuel. Think before you speak, hard to think and talk at the same time on the radio! At the end of the day the people who wrote the procedures are smarter than us and often came about at the expense of other's lives! Yes the standard does appear to be slipping. As from Top Gun a sentence going something like, "A good pilot is compelled to evaluate what has happened so he can apply what he's learnt." Take pride in your profession/sport/hobby.

The importance of R/T particularly in circuit situations is to make your posn known to other traffic. (not to oblige CASA or the local fee collection agency)

Often due frequency congestion it is not possible to report prior to turning or even in the turn. Calling in the turn helps others/twr identify your aircraft as the one turning which may help with adequate spacing especially if you have used aircraft type (performance). If turn completed you are (begin) Downwind etc.
In non-towered situations give yourself a sequence number turning Base, to avoid fatalities like the YMMB (2003) Short-final midair at night.

Super d

Sorry, forgot no-one's radio transmits or gets received on anything but 5's these days.:rolleyes:

And as Griffo pointed out, not everyone carries the required documentation. At least if they haven't got a clue, don't use their radio etc., you can help their sit. awareness by making your calls with minimal chance of confusion.
Make sense of is that retarded logic as well?

Aiglet
I'd be very careful about numbering yourself in a non-towered scenario.
I've seen occurrences where pilots calling themselves stopped looking for other traffic in the pattern with an airprox result. I'd rather leave sequencing to a tower.
Just a thought for consideration.

The other benefit of the "Turning" call is that a banked aircraft is much easier to spot to another aircraft in the circuit than one that is wings level.:ok:

Think we all have bad days. Too many outside inflences.?
Example - A controller 3 kids and a cranky wife, of course he/she is feeling the pressure even before arrival at his/her job.
Pilot - Pressured. GET THE JOB DONE (or there won,t be another)
Personally don,t think our standards are decreasing. Life is though.
M:ok:

Outside influences have to be kept manageable so as not to bring your baggage to the cockpit. We've all flown on days when maybe we shouldn't and will most likely again however if you're day is that bad, leave the plane in the hangar or don't come to work because if your day can get worse it will. That's when you'll get an engine failure etc, not on a blue sky day. GAcan be cut throat yes but nothing will get you fired quicker or stunt your career than an accident.

Still on R/T?
 

We still seem to be stuck with a misconception that R/T tells us much about the pilot flying another aircraft, something more than whatever it is he/she says and whatever language he/she uses. Remember people are flying safely all over the world in a variety of languages and none are using standard R/T in the Australian regulatory sense.

Airline pilots generally have set procedures and highly practiced R/T because it is demanded of them, and I suppose it's also because they never know who they'll be flying with, so standardisation helps in the cockpit. Nevertheless, it is not safe to automatically assume a professional or adept pilot is in command of an airliner (or any aircraft) even when their R/T is perfect. In my experience, perfect R/T is often an indication that the crew are following a set, rote learned procedure and are not looking out. Anything out of the ordinary may well throw them and thus create a danger to both themselves and other airspace users. There is plenty of evidence floating about the industry at present to suggest there is every chance that such pilots are the kind who don't want to disengage the auto-pilot because they believe it flies better than they can. That's an anxiety problem, and it relates to poor training. Even if it is true that the auto-pilot is better, no professional pilot should be afraid of taking control themselves. And no pilot should allow themselves to be flustered by other people's standards of R/T.

So now we're making up radio procedures...? Sounds like something some bright spark at a YMMB flying school came up with to help students who wouldn't look out the window.

It may sound like a good idea, but there's nothing stopping a pilot thinking "that plane on the runway must be the aircraft I was following, therefore I must be number one now!" followed by cutting in front of someone. Or the increased brain power going in to working out what number you are going to use for your next call instead of just looking left, right, up and down.

It's a shame because the rest of your post was full of good advice.

There's no harm in reverting to plain language R/T if the need arises and should be encouraged of it effectively gets the message across. However the majority of calls should be routine, made at the same time in the same place in the same format. Why would one taxi call or inbound call be any different to another? It's the same info, so say it as published so everyone knows what to expect. Elaborate if the circumstances dictate however quite often people either don't say enough or waffle on making unnecessary calls with useless information. Stick to the published phrases as much as possible, why else were they written??!!

FTS,
Point Cook, actually.

Pre-language proficiency.....

"Oshkaa Wiki Dewta, tunning bashe, runway wun sevun, numba too"

"Hey, I thought I was number two?"

"GOWING AWOUND! GOWING AWOUND!":}

DBTW,
Spot on again, and exactly my experience over the last 20 or so years in AU.

SW3,
Why don't you look up the Jepp. WW text, where it has the ICAO recommended phrases, and compare that to the AU AIP ----- and notice the huge difference.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled if I could get away without having to look at the Australian set of Jepp ATC section at least every six months I'd ponder your suggestion, however since it must be read and adhered to and we are in Australia and what it says (Which comes from AIP) is binding, that will do for me.

's' vs 'ing' & 'climbing to flight levels'
 

^ two words: Hobby Horse!! Both work.

Also, I would have thought that the call:

"XXX is tracking out XXX, climbing to flight levels", would be because we're probably talking a kero-eater who would be well out of the CTAF before they've finished climbing, and may not immediately get their planned FL in any case once identified and cleared?

I can't think of a situation where this call would cause a safety issue... but perhaps others can. :)

They are decreasing, been listening to it & watching it for 20 years.

Whether you like it or not, you can tell a lot about the front left seat from what comes out of its mouth.

Forget the rubbish of turns vs turning - Yes, standards are decreasing.

There are those who forget that a GPS is a navaid - not the sole source of navigation. These are occasionally the same ones who have to land at an Outback airstrip, and walk across to the pub to ask where they are when the GPS decides not to play the game.

There are those who fly without a watch - or any timepiece. On a flight test. And the instructor didn't abort the flight, but continued.

There are those who fly without current WACs/weather/ERSA or having read NOTAMs.

There are those can't "read" a windsock and land downwind. Usually followed by a take-off with a tailwind.

There are those who take-off with a cross-wind, and then turn right to turn into wind. Despite the circuit being a left hand circuit.

There are those who cannot decide which aerodrome they are at, and provide taxi/entering/rolling/departure calls from four different runways at two separate (30 min apart) aerodromes.

There are those who try and revive a rusty NVFR, blowing a tyre on landing, with the result that a RPT Saab had to return to the capital city (28 pax in, and another 20 on the flight out who had their plans disrupted). Oh, and airport staff had to put out emergency flares on the dirt runway for the RFDS Priority One medivac which was behind the Saab because that was quicker than moving the plane from the lit strip due to Mr NVFR's dramatics over his damaged aircraft.

There are those who try and revive a rusty NVFR, landing on the very end of the runway, and breaking runway lights.

There are those who don't make any radio calls. At all. At a certified aerodrome, where the carriage of radios is mandatory.

There are those who announce on the MBZ that they taxi for one runway, enter the reciprocal runway, backtrack the original runway, and then turn and get bogged off an entirely different runway - confusing all those in the vicinity who are trying to use any runway.

There are those who land on strips NOTAMed as unuseable, and marked with crosses.

There are those who taxi around/over the cones which close off a taxiway.

All levels - PPL, CPL, ATPL.

I put the blame at all levels - to the young instructors who have little experience and so can only teach from the book and their limited experience, to the testing officers who think "it'll be right" rather than handing out a Fail, to the BFR instructor who still signs off instead of saying "oi!"; to the chief pilots who give up, give someone the sack, and then call "next" in the hope that the next one will be better.

Most of all, I blame the pilots, who if/when pulled up on any of this stuff, have 50 good reasons why it wasn't their fault - it was the GPS, it was mean n nasty ATC, it was the weather, it was lack of computer access to download NOTAMs, it was the closure of the pilot shop so they couldn't get a current WAC, it was the lack of coin to keep the NVFR current, it was.....it was....but it was never them.

Rant over....

you miss the point, it not only relates to [my] Situational Awareness but more importantly to the leading or following aircraft who thought they were #2 or #3.

Thanks, unusual to get positive response on PPrune.

This topic started off as "declining Pilot Standards" - R/T is certainly not a great measure of standards! but the decline in AIRMANSHIP says it all. In unison with a redefining of Morals and Ethics in society especially in Big Business, Politics, Banking and Law, so is this AIRMANSHIP becoming extinct. Gen X and Y are even building up an immunity to reality with everything around them being simulation - disasters you can walk away from or simply repeat at the press of a button. Not yet so in aviation?

This bright spark introduced it years ago flying in Europe - ATC in Aus have used it for years and I only emphasised the fact after a "near miss" on Final one night with an unlit PA 28 in front of my aircraft PA 31. If Vale Holly Smith had used it those 11 months later, she might still be alive! I believe her school wrote it into their Ops Man. Unfortunately the ATSB had insufficient funding! and CASA were busy looking for an angle to prosecute someone/anyone!

You obviously haven't been in a circuit full of foreign students at night, so concerned about what number they are for their radio call that they start stuffing other things up. Similar situations have involved pilots getting their number wrong, and a large amount of panic and increased chatter over the radio when it would be easier just to look for the offending/preceding aircraft.

There's nothing wrong about knowing how many aircraft are in front of you, and ticking them off. However, providing a sequence number is an ATC procedure, not a pilot responsibility. They have the ability, and hopefully visibility, to keep track of where you are within the landing sequence, without things like Piper-low/Cessna-high wings getting in the way.

MakeItHappenCaptain's spot on with his concern as well.

BTW, I'm referring to avoiding it in situations like "*** traffic, Cessna ABC, turning downwind, number 4, ***", rather than "*** turning base, number two to the Navajo on long final". There's a difference between using it as an airmanship tool to assist situational awareness, and simply adding it for the sake of it circuit after circuit after circuit. But maybe that's what you meant :ok:

We all have days when we get it wrong or put out a crap call in an unusual situation. However, it does show a lack of professionalism when a pilot cannot even get a simple departure report done properly. The inability to learn the call or get your ducks lined up before pressing the transmit button demonstrates to me the attitude of the pilot. It's not hard, shouldn't matter whether you're a PPL flying a 182, charter pilot, QLink cadet or 777 captain.

SW3,
Avoiding the issue I raised, I see.

What I am suggesting is you seriously consider the altogether excessive use of "standard phrases" in Australia, at the expense of common sense communications and, ultimately, air safety.

Who is getting it right, AU v. Rest of the Worlds.

Given our rather ordinary safety record in AU, maybe the yanks, for one, are doing something right.

I am not suggesting that "radio procedures" are the sole cause of our lousy record, what I am saying is that attempted adherence to "procedures" --- largely invented, at the expense of using the brains the God of our choice gave us, is a very major contribution to our poor record, compared to the US.

At all levels, attempting to "enforce safety" by "compliance" with ever increasingly complex enforceable "procedures" is a fools errand, and the failure of the system is there for all to see.

Perhaps the ever increasing complexity of GA Operations manuals is one example of a fools errand.

Create a manual so dense and complex nobody can use, and nobody will use it.

Create regulations so complex, apparently contradictory and confusing, and they will be ignored.

Have a look at what is "examined" in air law examinations in AU, compared with how other countries do it, the differences are stark ---
producing a AU "culture" of enforced rote compliance (so "they can't pingya") instead of a "culture" of voluntary compliance with common sense rules and regulations, because that is what comes out of a common sense training system.

A saying , along the lines of: "Having lost sight of our objective, we have redoubled our efforts" does come to mind.

Tootle pip!

FTS you miss the point. R/T procedures should have logical not just prescribed features. Anything that assists pilots' S.A. (outside the cockpit) should be utilised especially in a night environment with a lot of back lighting. The point of making the assumed sequence call at BASE turn is because it is far more difficult to spot the descending aircraft preceding you. This was the case at YMMB when the then #2 was doing a B747 circuit (turning a looong final for 17) when #3 identified the then #1 aircraft on mid final. In this case "blind spots" played a major role, so no amount of look-out could have assisted once the aircraft were on a collision course.

This gets back to "declining standards" Even though G.A. badly needs these foreign students, the fact that you need to mention their struggling indicates that they are not ready to be flying at night! If they get their #..s wrong, assuming that this is not mathematical but purely insufficient look-out at least it gives the others a chance to come back on Radio to correct the situation as per example the Go AROUND.