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: