Thread drift but still relevant: if you saw a Kangaroo on the runway, would you tell other people in the circuit? By the same logic, their training should be to scan the runway before landing and avoid.

Of course you would tell people to be careful. It's a unique hazard and may save aircraft from being damaged, plus it's just good airmanship to help each other out. Just don't "blah blah" too long about it on the radio.

Same logic for wake turbulence in my opinion.

I see it a bit different. I agree with this and this sounds sensible as well Yes I would advise other aircraft if I saw a Kangaroo on the day, bit, I wouldn't tell them everyday that I saw a Kangaroo once upon a time.
Likewise with the flames from the exhaust comment earlier on, yes I would advise some one if I saw it, BUT I wouldn't advise every piston aircraft I saw from then on "caution possible fire in the exhaust" which is the direction some of the earlier posts were heading.

So consider a hypothetical case where the ultralight in RENURPP's post does indeed turn base close behind a medium category wake turbulence aircraft and the crew of the medium wake turbulence aircraft does not include 'caution, wake turbulence' with the ever-increasing R/T blurb that is required these days. The ultralight loses control on late final and crashes.
Would the crew of the medium wake turbulence category aircraft be found to be at fault for not warning the pilot of the ultralight?

Are we now having a spate of crashes that are attributable to "uneducated and dumb" GA pilots not understanding wake turbulence?

Don't know how I survived for all those years when I was one of them!

(hopefully you understand sarcasm!!!)

No.

If it becomes the norm or a requirement to caution people then that may well change.

Is our training system that bad that wake turbulence and being cautious behind someone bigger than you is no longer part of the syllabi?

That is the real question isn't it.
I can't answer it, however if people believe it is an issue it should be addressed with training, not more verbal diarrhoea.

To take the ultra light discussion to another level, if you call him and he doesn't respond, (not listening or simply doesn't have a VHF) what are you going to do then, taxi off the runway and allow him (and any other lighty) to depart first in the interest of safety?
It's either safety critical or its not.

I like to advise other aircraft of my jet wash before I taxi as well. Just to let them know I'm piloting a big jet.

Pretty hazardous you know. I also let them know when my big powerful radar is going live. You don't want some whipper snapper in front getting radiated. Helps with traffic flow though. They get out the way pretty quick.

I also like to remind other pilots of correct radio procedure. There is nothing more annoying than someone who doesn't use correct phraseology. I'll always add an 'ing' onto their transmissions. I just find it polite and curtious to help out.

Rolls.........ING!


GG

Your a professhunal GG, we need more of your calibre.

Funny how the rest of the world don't make these calls, but some self appointed "nannies" in Australia see a necessity for it.

Unbelievable to read this this sh*t.

Awwww shucks super Cecil.

I put the P is Pruffisional bro.

Hands up anyone who's actually had a wake turbulence incident in a lightie. They are a real eye opener (to use whatever the opposite of hyperbole is). Not everyone is lucky enough to have had one of those 500 hours in 20 second events, so a timely warning if you suspect someone isn't quite fully aware of the situation is hardly the worst transgression. And if you're wrong and you inadvertently bruise someone's mighty ego then that's probably not the worst thing either.

So now can we expect to hear something like:
"Upperkumbuktta traffic, QF1234, the dash (cool airline talk for 'dash 8'), lines up and rolls runway 36 for Oonagallaby North, climbing to flight levels (my favourite! Oooh look – I can climb above 10,000ft!), caution wake turbulence (because you've obviously forgotten what you were taught your basic aeronautical knowledge)".:ugh::yuk:

Is airmanship in Australia now defined by being able to regurgitate obscure CASRs at the drop of a hat, letting the autopilot fly the aircraft and bullsh*t radio calls?

No, you're missing some vital parts of the call. It should be:

"Upperkumbuktta traffic, QF1234, the IFR dash, lines up and rolls runway 36 for Oonagallaby North at time 0653 Zulu, climbs to flight levels at 16 GPS DME, caution wake turbulence"

This procedure can also be used by a 172 to warn the RAA Tecnam behind him and, obviously, the RAA Tecnam to warn the weight-shift ultralight following him :)

Got it, thanks.:E

So you would prefer the flight planned level to be included in the call? What if we climb to an amended flight level (because Of ATC separation)? Or we have to remain OCTA initially? Not sure the 5 jabirus in the circuit really care. Or are you condoning the use of everyone's favourite "pending clearance"?

This thread has run its course :ugh:

Do Dash 8s cruise below 10000'? If not, using your logic, they needn't make any transmission about climbing as we can all assume (a)they are going to climb and (b)they will climb above 10000'. If you're going to bother transmitting then make it professional and say to which flight level you're climbing otherwise you do, in my opinion, sound like an ego-stroking prat.

Meaningless calls, such as those, just engenders poor practise and leads in turn to such crass calls as the Kingair that I recently heard; "......descends from flight levels....". WTF! A complete tosser letting us know he's been above 10000' and that he's now descending. How on earth is that meant to help anybody? That's the sort of crap that results in people making up their own ways of doing things, rather than sticking to the scripted way of announcing level changes etc.

I have to say I am ambivalent about the wake turbulence call. It doesn't take up significant air time and I do agree it would be useful but so long as it was used when warranted. If a Dash 8 wants to give the 'heads up' to a light aircraft following him in the pattern then I think that is sensible but you know how it will develop; every driver of anything larger than a 172 will be 'cautioning' every other aircraft and there will even be the Dash driver saying it on every single transmission. Targeted calls are okay but ego-strokers, like the 'up to flight levels' brigade really need to get their heads out their arses and realise that not all 172 drivers are inexperienced numpties.

Was following a Singapore A330 into YPAD about twelve months ago in the 172 and it got very exciting very quickly at a height of about 50'. Mrs.GB didn't appreciate the ride.

Dash 8's do cruise below A100 on some short sectors. If this is the case, it is usually OCTA and I consider it relevant to include the planned altitude in the call on the CTAF.

For those of you who are so against the use of "climbing to flight levels", then complain to the airline. It's been in the manual for as long as I've known, but some of you out there seem to know better.

At least the Qlink guys and gals use the radio. Trying to get a call out of some of the lighties is like getting blood out of stone. It's almost as if they are offended if their position and intentions are requested. We are not mind readers people :rolleyes:

I highly doubt that people are trying to assert their dominance at random CTAFs with the radio calls they make, I imagine it's more to do with that magical thing called "Airmanship".

Those that are taking offence to targeted use of "caution wake turbulence" or any other phrase that might illicit the "I know boats" reaction, really need to sort their own insecurities out.

FWIW our company uses and currently teaches "climbing to Flight Levels" as standard terminology. Does old mate Jabiru driver really care which exact FL? If anyone can find the AIP reference that deals with this, I'm all eyes..

Safest place to be = Transition Layer :}
Just me there

Nice idea if the CEO will let me play :)

Now, let's see, full reverse, max auto-brake and stopping shouldn't be a snag at light weights but might have to look into the take-off numbers. Yellow sticky on the yoke to remember to caution the Dash 8s about wake turbulence and no worthwhile information to be broadcast on the wireless. Okay, sorted.

(Now THAT is unadulterated, unnecessary and childish willy-waving and should not be tolerated :} I will now write out 100 times before bedtime, "I'm an arse and a wind-up merchant")

here we go again. King of the kids.

I use the same airspace as other pressurised aircraft and I want to know what level they are climbing to. "Flight levels" doesn't cut it. If i'm descending from 370 and some one is climbing to "flight levels" and G airspace starts/finishes at 180 then flight levels may require more transmissions with some cool sounding wally with fantastic airmanship.

Correct.

"Flight levels" is as made up as "ready in turn", and may be omitting information useful to a listening party you are not aware of.

If you get them to omit climbing to flight levels they'll probably start the next furphy. 'Climbing to FLXXX, pending clearance, caution wake turbulance, caution cadet flying in right seat, caution cadet flying in right seat logging ICUS'

Anyway it's only words. We are a little anal retentive in this part of the world. Go fly internationally. It's a big world with plenty of different ideas which are more than likely superior to our own.

True, but thats what we have to work with here, and its simply not that hard to get it mostly right. Some of these guys go out of their way to screw it up and talk ****.

If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with QLink management. Our FAM explicitly prescribes our departure call, and yes it says "Climbing to flight levels".

I am all for professional RT, and strive to achieve it, but don't put down those of us who operate as per company requirements.:=

You are forgetting this is a CTAF call we are talking about. And we are operating under the IFR. So when a departure report is made on the area frequency, the intended level is included with this call. Then, when you request descent from FL370, centre will clear you to leave CTA on descent, and give you traffic information on 'the dash' including its flight level climbing to. Remember how it works now?

Thanks
I listen on CTAF from top of descent pretty much so my previous comments stand.

We have gone off track here by several miles, so I'll continue with that diversion....

Climbing flight levels is a bull**** call. If you are going to say that, you may as well just state your intended level. Pisses me off when I have to call them and ask what level they are going to (and they know I'm there as traffic as centre told them) - if they stated their level I'd know if they were going to be climbing through mine or not. Sometimes centre can't pass all the info, and sometimes they depart before getting on to centre. You can't rely on centre calls to tell you what level they are going to when their only communication has been on the ctaf.
Next time I go flying below 10,000 and there's a big thing flying round that is a flight level machine, I'm telling them I'm "climbing altitudes", afterall it's the same logic isn't it, just in reverse?

And now a return to track with no further diversions required. Caution wake turbulence? Bit of a weird one in my books but if there's someone behind you who sounds like they have no clue (can pick them sometimes), well, a three second transmission isn't going to hurt. There are bigger things to worry about.

receiving and giving
 

At night AMAY ASSY F27 fl180 passed BIK advised by atc ''you are going to be overflowen by singapore ;;;; 1000 above.''The 747 duly passed overhead and was given a descent clr a couple of minutes later which was initiated,couple minutes later we got his wake turb, very interesting,slow roll to the right until almost vertical.

Some years later again at night BKK KUL A300 on decent to KUL atc advised ''you will be overflying slower traffic'' sighted and passed the traffic got descent clr and descended, some mins later monortered a radio transmission about aircraft upset.turned out to be the traffic we had overflown a F50 of Palageny Air? Waited to speak to the crew in KL .They said they got our wake and like the F27 rolled vertical

You blokes really are getting your knickers knotted over nothing here. The "climbing to flight levels" phrase is used on the CTAF in the departure call. A departure call is not even a requirement these days as per CAR 166. Our company requires us to make a departure call when making a turn contrary to circuit direction. I make one in any case.

We also do not depart until we established comms with ATC. This is either through VHF or HF. When HF is used, we still (well I did anyway when I was an FO) make an all stations broadcast on the AREA centre frequency. This means Mr Renurpp et al, that at no stage will you ever encounter a QLINK dash 8 unannounced in your travels. Centre will always pass us on as traffic to you because we have established comms prior to departure. So the fact you are getting a departure call on the CTAF is icing on the cake.

Now here is a question for you guys. When do you stop listening to the CTAF on departure, when there is no overlying airspace? Because by Renurpp assumptions, we'll be chatting to him all the way up to the 'flight levels' on CTAF, because he won't take Centre's word on what level we are climbing to!

Not really getting my knickers knotted; I'm just wondering why the intended flight level is such a big secret with the Oz TP 'heavies', as you never hear such transmissions from all types of aircraft around the rest of the planet.

"Climbing to flight levels" versus "Climbing flight level 180". Can you really time the difference in transmission length? Can you not see how one call gives useful, accurate information whereas the other just says you're climbing above 10 000'? If you're going to say anything then at least take the same amount of time to say something useful.

If it's written in a company manual then I can understand why you would comply with that (although it would be interesting to see if "caution wake turbulence" is in the same manual), however, just because someone has written it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to reflect decent, 'normal' RT procedures, rather than something the writer heard and thought it would be 'cool' to include in the company manuals.

I'm going to agree to disagree with you here. 9 times out 10 it's irrelevant anyway. The lighties in the circuit don't care, and any other inbound IFR traffic will know about us because of the service provided by ATC. The only exception of course is when Renurpp is inbound from FL370. If we need to arrange separation then we'll talk it through on the CTAF or the Friendly ATCers might step in prior to us getting a clearance with a heading to fly etc.

Why I'm even explaining this I don't know :rolleyes:

Simply put, it's in the manual. No one has ever challenged it, because it's never been an issue apart from a select few on Pprune. Like I said, if it annoys you that much, use your democratic right to complain to Qlink management.

As for the "caution wake turbulence" being in the manual, NO it's not. I personally have never used it, nor have I heard it used either. But I would not hesitate to use it if I thought it was warranted just like others have already said.

Love it!
 

Personally, I think "Caution wake turbulence" is a good idea and if used appropriately can be very good info for lighties in the circuit. (I'm a Qlink driver and have NEVER heard it used, btw).

As other posters have said, you can often get a feel for the other traffic in the circuit and can get a handle on their experience.

e.g. At Mildura there is a flying school. They are used to operating in the circuit with Dash-8 arrivals and departures, and they appear to have high standards. I wouldn't consider such a call necessary to one of them. But... Mildura is one of the airports that an Adelaide based flying school (that uses Tobagos) use on their Navexes. Some of the standards these guys display can be "somewhat less than desirable". I would definitely consider giving such a call if one of these were behind me in the circuit.

But sadly threads like this degenerate.

It's gone from "Caution wake turbulence" to all the other bull**** that people with too much time on their hands just love to get wrapped around the axles about and come on here and have a go:

Finals
Taxis
Flight levels
This time
*EDIT: and comments about how "poor radio calls" means "poor everything else about their airmanship" (Thanks DERFRED)

Re: Flight levels:

Funny thing is, it's pretty common to hear Centre advising other IFR traffic about a Qlink Dash-8 "climbing to Flight levels". Interesting, as Centre will know what FL the Dash is going to request (if they haven't already).

Does this mean that the centre controller is vicariously trying to be or otherwise trying to bignote him/herself? :E :E :E

DIVOSH!

Shouldn't have to be explaining to other pilots what their responsibilities are :ugh:


PLEASE READ CAAP 166 (and AIP, and CAR, and ERSA, and NOTAMS, ect etc).
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/166-1.pdf

5.4 Wake turbulence and windshear

5.4.1 Wake turbulence is produced by all aircraft and can be extremely hazardous. Smaller aircraft should be aware that large aircraft produce strong/severe wake turbulence, with large jet aircraft producing extreme wake turbulence.

As for "caution wake turbulence" I think its been pretty much agreed that on the very rare occasion it may be sensible. Big difference.
The ATC'er knows relevant IFR traffic and their level. the Dash 8 pilot doesn't necessarily on CTAF. If he is passed a Dash 8 onto me prior to my descent and said "climbing to flight levels" it would be completely inappropriate and require more discussion.

RENURPP

My reply was tongue in cheek to other respondents.

I think it was a few years ago (on a depressingly similiar thread to this one) now that I was debating that very scenario with one of your colleagues.

If you're opposite direction traffic to someone in and out of a CTAF it is almost always going to require further discussion with that pilot regardless of whether that pilot is climbing to 5000' or FL210 or "flight levels". So it really doesn't matter if the said pilot (or ATC'er) says FL180 or "flight levels". If you're in G space, you're going to be having a detailed and repeated conversation with that pilot on distance, height, etc, so that you can arrange separation until you're satisfied that you're "well clear".

DIVOSH!

It might sound anally retentive but often the ones with the sloppy radio calls are also the ones that turn up 5 minutes late, dirty shoes, unironed shirt, sloppy SOPs, poor checklist knowledge, more interested in flying fast than efficiently, and constantly complaining about management.

I know who I'd rather have up front when the turd hits the fan.

However back on topic "Caution wake turbulence" in a well-considered situation sounds to me like good airmanship.