RT standards? Am I paranoid
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But many A/G operators do not have the experience to be able to do this, and we also have a duty to "educate" those unfamiliar (read: the commercial folk) with A/G limits.
In my opinion, however, I think the standard of RT has improved amongst the PPL community.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like to clarify that I consider it imperative that all pilots know the difference between asking for information and instructions and where they can get each from i.e. A/G or controlled zone. I believe that one or two of you may have misunderstood me.
I must also applaued Dubtrub at advicating my use of common sense in establishing a dialogue where the A/G can help a pilot who is new to an airfield. It is my opinion that A/G controllers should be able to assist in such matters as parking and although no instructions can be given a little helping hand here or there through information or suggestions is a warm welcome to a pilot who has just landed - maybe after a high workload at the controls due to the airfield being so busy on a nice hot summers day!!!! I am sure we have all experienced that.
I knew a little common sense came into this arguement somewhere.
I must also applaued Dubtrub at advicating my use of common sense in establishing a dialogue where the A/G can help a pilot who is new to an airfield. It is my opinion that A/G controllers should be able to assist in such matters as parking and although no instructions can be given a little helping hand here or there through information or suggestions is a warm welcome to a pilot who has just landed - maybe after a high workload at the controls due to the airfield being so busy on a nice hot summers day!!!! I am sure we have all experienced that.
I knew a little common sense came into this arguement somewhere.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBA
I think we can all agree that common sense is important.
However the original topic relates to RT standards. To maintain standards users must conform to a set standard.
Unnecessary changes to RT Phraseology diverge from that standard.
Use of "Radar" heading as a description of the type of heading does nothing to change the type of the message.
Use of "Request Taxi Instructions" during an Air/Ground interaction changes the type of message.
However I agree that Air/Ground operators help with parking should be encouraged; however the debate is the use of the RT to get that information not the information.
Regards,
Jonathan
I think we can all agree that common sense is important.
However the original topic relates to RT standards. To maintain standards users must conform to a set standard.
Unnecessary changes to RT Phraseology diverge from that standard.
Use of "Radar" heading as a description of the type of heading does nothing to change the type of the message.
Use of "Request Taxi Instructions" during an Air/Ground interaction changes the type of message.
However I agree that Air/Ground operators help with parking should be encouraged; however the debate is the use of the RT to get that information not the information.
Regards,
Jonathan
DubTrub wrote:
Are we talking about the written exam or the practical test?
Yes, some of the questions are quite frankly CRAP, that are asked in the written exam. Just like every single other PPL and may I add ATPL written exams.
On the practical side of things, where is a request for an airways clearance needed?
I think the practical test great. If you do not live near enough MATZ, have never had to relay any messages, have never had to contend with a SVFR, have never tried using DF etc etc, then at least you get a feel for it and are less likely to be apprehensive about asking for one if needed.
All students (mine, so far) have felt more confident, are less worried, use more correct procedure after the RT practical. So they have more time to concentrate on flying and navigating. I personally believe that the RT practical is an invaluable test, and long may it continue to be done
As a post script, I might add that the new RT licensing requirements for new PPL's is above and beyond the realms of reason. A PPL Student HAS to do ATPL radio license things, like airways calls etc. How silly is that?
Yes, some of the questions are quite frankly CRAP, that are asked in the written exam. Just like every single other PPL and may I add ATPL written exams.
On the practical side of things, where is a request for an airways clearance needed?
I think the practical test great. If you do not live near enough MATZ, have never had to relay any messages, have never had to contend with a SVFR, have never tried using DF etc etc, then at least you get a feel for it and are less likely to be apprehensive about asking for one if needed.
All students (mine, so far) have felt more confident, are less worried, use more correct procedure after the RT practical. So they have more time to concentrate on flying and navigating. I personally believe that the RT practical is an invaluable test, and long may it continue to be done
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scuba, I think the rules have changed recently, but new PPL trainees are required to do an examined simulated excercise on the ground, and it's during this test for sure.
A pilot in the UK has to do no further radio exams from the PPL all the way through to driving an airliner across the skies, which is of course fine for the prospective ATPL...but surely a bit of an unnecessary onus upon the humble PPL who only wants to potter around in the Cessna of a summer's evening?
Anyway, it's the rules.
Charley
Indeed I have, but it doesn't make it right.
On an equally wider note, it's ironic that a fully qualified, trained and probably paid AFISO can do very little more than an experienced volunteer A/G operator can, when it comes to providing a useful information service at the smaller fields in a GA scenario. I might even extend that comment to include some full ATC fields, but then I'd have to name them, and I daren't do that.
A pilot in the UK has to do no further radio exams from the PPL all the way through to driving an airliner across the skies, which is of course fine for the prospective ATPL...but surely a bit of an unnecessary onus upon the humble PPL who only wants to potter around in the Cessna of a summer's evening?
Anyway, it's the rules.
Charley
you might have had heard it used during your own travels
On an equally wider note, it's ironic that a fully qualified, trained and probably paid AFISO can do very little more than an experienced volunteer A/G operator can, when it comes to providing a useful information service at the smaller fields in a GA scenario. I might even extend that comment to include some full ATC fields, but then I'd have to name them, and I daren't do that.
Dubtrub I am an RT examiner, and I personally believe that the RT practical exam is invaluable, and all my students have had more confidence and use more correct procedure as a result.
Dubtrub wrote
Really, I remember having to take two written (well multi guess) exams out of the fourteen ATPL exams.
Maybe we sould have a pole, to see who thinks the RT practical helped or hindered them?
Dubtrub wrote
A pilot in the UK has to do no further radio exams from the PPL all the way through to driving an airliner across the skies
Maybe we sould have a pole, to see who thinks the RT practical helped or hindered them?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Charley,
Copy is in CAP 413, albeit not in the context to which you refer. One thing to bare in mind, is that you may not have heard the whole conversation. I have definately noticed a much quieter or even silent radio when the the fin is blanking the line of sight to the ground station.
Scuawasp,
I agree. I found the RT practical useful. Especially so as it exposed a complete misunderstanding of FIS that may not have come to light until after my skills test!
Copy is in CAP 413, albeit not in the context to which you refer. One thing to bare in mind, is that you may not have heard the whole conversation. I have definately noticed a much quieter or even silent radio when the the fin is blanking the line of sight to the ground station.
Scuawasp,
I agree. I found the RT practical useful. Especially so as it exposed a complete misunderstanding of FIS that may not have come to light until after my skills test!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What this thred highlights is that poor R/T procedures can often be a result of poor attention in other areas.
People have asked....what about landing at an airfield and not knowing where to park or how to get there, or what about on start-up being warned about rutted areas or areas that should not be taxied over etc.
I do not know of any airfield with A/G which is not PPR. Why can't pilots ask the long winded questions at the same time as asking for PPR on the telephone and thus be prepared in advance.....and arrive with some idea of where one is going to park etc.
As for the R/T exam...........because the UK issues a stand alone R/T licence which is issued with only one restriction - VHF only, then the UK must ensure that every R/T licence holder can safely exercise the licence privileges and those incluse doing the radio on a B747 enroute to the other side of the world!!!!
Thus the applicant for such a licence can not grumble if they are asked to make calls for an Airways join.
More importantly, there are places in the UK where the VFR PPL can effectively join and airway (Class D) as well as abroad - Class B, C and D. Consequently the calls and procedures are very appropriate for any JAA PPL.
Regards,
DFC
People have asked....what about landing at an airfield and not knowing where to park or how to get there, or what about on start-up being warned about rutted areas or areas that should not be taxied over etc.
I do not know of any airfield with A/G which is not PPR. Why can't pilots ask the long winded questions at the same time as asking for PPR on the telephone and thus be prepared in advance.....and arrive with some idea of where one is going to park etc.
As for the R/T exam...........because the UK issues a stand alone R/T licence which is issued with only one restriction - VHF only, then the UK must ensure that every R/T licence holder can safely exercise the licence privileges and those incluse doing the radio on a B747 enroute to the other side of the world!!!!
Thus the applicant for such a licence can not grumble if they are asked to make calls for an Airways join.
More importantly, there are places in the UK where the VFR PPL can effectively join and airway (Class D) as well as abroad - Class B, C and D. Consequently the calls and procedures are very appropriate for any JAA PPL.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC - I agree with you so far as things stand with the one licence.
Whilst it is slightly off topic I disagree about obtaining parking area information etc from your PPR call.
Firstly there was a previous topic about PPR and what it really means with the possibility that PPR can be filed air borne.
Secondly and more importantly I for one am very opposed to reducing what little spontaneity is left to us pilots. I still reckon one of the pleasures on a good day is a potter to X with the possibility of stopping once or twice en route. If the "field" in question is happy to accept you, there is little alternative but to ask for some of this information when you arrive. Also in my experience on a busy day A/G operators are struggling to deal with lengthy telephone calls more than being on the radio.
Whilst it is slightly off topic I disagree about obtaining parking area information etc from your PPR call.
Firstly there was a previous topic about PPR and what it really means with the possibility that PPR can be filed air borne.
Secondly and more importantly I for one am very opposed to reducing what little spontaneity is left to us pilots. I still reckon one of the pleasures on a good day is a potter to X with the possibility of stopping once or twice en route. If the "field" in question is happy to accept you, there is little alternative but to ask for some of this information when you arrive. Also in my experience on a busy day A/G operators are struggling to deal with lengthy telephone calls more than being on the radio.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
PPR means obtaining all the information required to operate the flight safely and efficiently. Any airfield no PPR has all that info in the AIP!
Pilot's such "spontaneity" is the most common cause of noise complaints, poor circuit procedures, taking up R/T time with briefings that are better done on the phone and so forth, Airprox incidents while working out if the aircraft can still land in a runway that is 200m shorter than expected or and I have to laugh at this one - having to get a bus home because the destination had run out of fuel and there was not enough in the aircraft to get home.
Why not allow max spontaneity - force every airfield to publish in the AIP and get rid of PPR!
While some airfields accept PPR over the radio - where does one go if the radio fails before PPR is obtained?
As to A/G operators having to deal withy a busy telephone......where is the problem.......A/G operators (and pilots) need to remember that A/G is only an added extra and the signal square proivides all the info that a pilot requires without radio.
The procedures for A/G remind pilots that A/G operators have many other duties and not to expect a reply to all R/T calls and not to expect A/G to have a view of the airfield.
Regards,
DFC
PPR means obtaining all the information required to operate the flight safely and efficiently. Any airfield no PPR has all that info in the AIP!
Pilot's such "spontaneity" is the most common cause of noise complaints, poor circuit procedures, taking up R/T time with briefings that are better done on the phone and so forth, Airprox incidents while working out if the aircraft can still land in a runway that is 200m shorter than expected or and I have to laugh at this one - having to get a bus home because the destination had run out of fuel and there was not enough in the aircraft to get home.
Why not allow max spontaneity - force every airfield to publish in the AIP and get rid of PPR!
While some airfields accept PPR over the radio - where does one go if the radio fails before PPR is obtained?
As to A/G operators having to deal withy a busy telephone......where is the problem.......A/G operators (and pilots) need to remember that A/G is only an added extra and the signal square proivides all the info that a pilot requires without radio.
The procedures for A/G remind pilots that A/G operators have many other duties and not to expect a reply to all R/T calls and not to expect A/G to have a view of the airfield.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC - Without wishing to get back to the PPR discussion, and to state the obvious, PPR simply means prior permission required - nowhere does that mean prior to the flight by telephone. I can think of numerous airfields that publish they are PPR that are very happy to receive an airborne radio call, indeed having asked they prefer it that way. IMHO that works just fine, and with that knowledge if I pitch up and don’t like something they have to tell me about the airfield conditions I can simply return to base or even go somewhere else. In fact I can only think of one occasion that has happened when I was unhappy with the crosswind.
Now I am not suggesting turning up somewhere oblivious to local procedures - that is just plane daft, never mind irresponsible. However I suspect there are many favourite haunts we each have, where we are very familiar with the procedures, but the airfield is never the less strictly PPR.
One example, there is a route I quite often fly from my home field to another airport. En route I overfly a terrific and usually very popular grass field - they love and welcome visitors - and yes they are PPR. The landing is free if you buy fuel and doubtless the fuel helps pay for the strip. If I find I have a bit of time without any pre planning I will often try and call in for some fuel - I for one would be very very sad to see that go. They are happy to tell me about any soggy parking areas when I arrive and that’s just fine with me. The R/T works fine.
I also do not agree with your observation about the signal squares etc. The fact of the matter is A/G operators at popular fields are often very busy on the radio - why, partly because we make it so with poor or incorrect R/T and partly because they can and do pass very usual information. For example I would far rather the A/G operator tell me the parachute plane has just dropped. My own experience having watched A/G operators on busy days is they do a brilliant job just keeping up with the radio calls and while they also handle the 'phone calls equally as well, it is a really pain for them having to operate the 'phone with one hand and the radio with the other.
In short I am advocating know your PPR field well and if (and only if) they are happy to see you without a 'phone call and happy to give you any information relevant to that particular day then cherish the right to pitch up if the sun is shining and you fancy an en route coffee! Change that and in my opinion we may as well just haul passengers on pre ordained routes and give up GA.
Now I am not suggesting turning up somewhere oblivious to local procedures - that is just plane daft, never mind irresponsible. However I suspect there are many favourite haunts we each have, where we are very familiar with the procedures, but the airfield is never the less strictly PPR.
One example, there is a route I quite often fly from my home field to another airport. En route I overfly a terrific and usually very popular grass field - they love and welcome visitors - and yes they are PPR. The landing is free if you buy fuel and doubtless the fuel helps pay for the strip. If I find I have a bit of time without any pre planning I will often try and call in for some fuel - I for one would be very very sad to see that go. They are happy to tell me about any soggy parking areas when I arrive and that’s just fine with me. The R/T works fine.
I also do not agree with your observation about the signal squares etc. The fact of the matter is A/G operators at popular fields are often very busy on the radio - why, partly because we make it so with poor or incorrect R/T and partly because they can and do pass very usual information. For example I would far rather the A/G operator tell me the parachute plane has just dropped. My own experience having watched A/G operators on busy days is they do a brilliant job just keeping up with the radio calls and while they also handle the 'phone calls equally as well, it is a really pain for them having to operate the 'phone with one hand and the radio with the other.
In short I am advocating know your PPR field well and if (and only if) they are happy to see you without a 'phone call and happy to give you any information relevant to that particular day then cherish the right to pitch up if the sun is shining and you fancy an en route coffee! Change that and in my opinion we may as well just haul passengers on pre ordained routes and give up GA.
Guest
Posts: n/a
and the signal square proivides all the info that a pilot requires without radio
DFC The principles of PPR are rooted in the "an Englishman's Castle is his Home" theory, and although many fields (including the one I am based at) are willing (and indeed keen) to accept PPR over the radio, they do need the opportunity to refuse radio PPR if necessary. Having said that, very few places I have flown in to have argued the matter to an unnecessary extent.
As to the "radio failure" scenario, I doubt too many fields would kick up a fuss in the circumstances you describe, as long as the pilot explained the situation.
force every airfield to publish in the AIP and get rid of PPR!
There are of course "public" or "government" airfields, which in most countries in the world, are generally available for all. But in the UK?...
and not to expect A/G to have a view of the airfield
Fuji, your "spontaneity" subject meets with whole-hearted approval from me, but perhaps not with the owners of the places I elect to spontaneously land at!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dub - I for one missed the change where signal squares were no longer required. Having said that I have seen so many that "told lies" I would not rely on them, better to use other observed indicators as well and then make a judgement. RT procedure at or near an airfield in my view is the most problematical. WHY oh WHY cannot pilots give proper position reports so that we may all gain a "map" of where everyone is?
Last year I obtained PPR from Old Warden to fly in on one of their display days. I was given an arrival slot and advised of the restrictions in place... Which included a mandatory overhead join.
Come the day I planned a timed leg from a siginificant landmark, adjusting my speed to arrive at the landmark on time, thus ensuring I would arrive at Old Warden spot on my pre-briefed time. All went fine and I advised I was 'joining'.... A few seconds later, one of those "Err, Golf Alfa Good.....err Morning, Sir, we errr, are errr visual Sir with your err, field Sir and will be joining downwind" idiots came up on frequency. He was told that there was "One joining ahead". "Er, negative, errr contact err at this time, over. Sir....err, there's one above me...errr, which, err... seems to be, errr...going away from you, Sir"
"THAT is a STANDARD OVERHEAD JOIN" replied the operator.
By then I was descending on the deadside, but was unable to turn downwind from the normal point due to this ignorant idiot barging in downwind. "Positioning number two to the a/c joining downwind", I called. But then this jerk went MILES out to the east to set up his idiotic 3 deg approach. I couldn't go around from where I was as it would have meant overflying a noise sensitive area, so much against my wishes had to extend downwind... Which meant that the Lysander waiting to join was going to be even more inconvenienced. However, being a professional, he realised what had caused the problem and agreed to orbit clear of the circuit. "Golf Alfa Good Morning, is err, final number one for err, runway err" droned on the pratt ahead. On landing he then had no idea where to park, despite the clear arrival instructions which all visitors are required to read....
I asked the folk in the tower who he was - and asked them to remind him of the MANDATORY PPR arrival requirements. Such totally amateur performance ruins flying for the rest of us; I would agree that those with poor RT probably have poor general flying standards as well!
Come the day I planned a timed leg from a siginificant landmark, adjusting my speed to arrive at the landmark on time, thus ensuring I would arrive at Old Warden spot on my pre-briefed time. All went fine and I advised I was 'joining'.... A few seconds later, one of those "Err, Golf Alfa Good.....err Morning, Sir, we errr, are errr visual Sir with your err, field Sir and will be joining downwind" idiots came up on frequency. He was told that there was "One joining ahead". "Er, negative, errr contact err at this time, over. Sir....err, there's one above me...errr, which, err... seems to be, errr...going away from you, Sir"
"THAT is a STANDARD OVERHEAD JOIN" replied the operator.
By then I was descending on the deadside, but was unable to turn downwind from the normal point due to this ignorant idiot barging in downwind. "Positioning number two to the a/c joining downwind", I called. But then this jerk went MILES out to the east to set up his idiotic 3 deg approach. I couldn't go around from where I was as it would have meant overflying a noise sensitive area, so much against my wishes had to extend downwind... Which meant that the Lysander waiting to join was going to be even more inconvenienced. However, being a professional, he realised what had caused the problem and agreed to orbit clear of the circuit. "Golf Alfa Good Morning, is err, final number one for err, runway err" droned on the pratt ahead. On landing he then had no idea where to park, despite the clear arrival instructions which all visitors are required to read....
I asked the folk in the tower who he was - and asked them to remind him of the MANDATORY PPR arrival requirements. Such totally amateur performance ruins flying for the rest of us; I would agree that those with poor RT probably have poor general flying standards as well!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signal fields are also no longer required in Germany since all (!) aircraft are equipt with radios and also there is someone on the ground with a radio. Many pilots are attempting to get rid of the guy on the ground, which could mean the re-birth of signal fields? 
hopefully not.. they are never set properly anyway!
It used to be here that anyone wanting to even touch a radio had to have a licence, including balloon chasers! That has been changed to exempt chasers of balloons and gliders plus glider pilots, balloonists and ultraleicht aircraft that remain outside of airspaces D, C, and B. We have 3 categories of licences: one for English and German (BZF I), one for German only (BZF II; restricted to Germany) and one for IFR (AZF; English only). Without one of those 3 you cannot optain a PPL.
And PPR is ok. You can fly there, try your luck on giving them a radio call, but if they don't want you, tough luck!
Westy
hopefully not.. they are never set properly anyway!It used to be here that anyone wanting to even touch a radio had to have a licence, including balloon chasers! That has been changed to exempt chasers of balloons and gliders plus glider pilots, balloonists and ultraleicht aircraft that remain outside of airspaces D, C, and B. We have 3 categories of licences: one for English and German (BZF I), one for German only (BZF II; restricted to Germany) and one for IFR (AZF; English only). Without one of those 3 you cannot optain a PPL.
And PPR is ok. You can fly there, try your luck on giving them a radio call, but if they don't want you, tough luck!
Westy
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fuji, your "spontaneity" subject meets with whole-hearted approval from me, but perhaps not with the owners of the places I elect to spontaneously land at!"
I just want to make my position clear.
I would never advocate turning up at any PPR airfield with which I was not familiar if I had not 'phoned first - my point is their are many PPR fields that seem very happy to welcome aircraft with just a radio call. That works fine for me and also apparently for them.
As someone else says, and not that it has happened yet, I am always prepared to bugger of somewhere else
.
Beagle ""Err, Golf Alfa Good.....err Morning, Sir, we errr, are errr visual Sir with your err, field Sir and will be joining downwind" idiots came up on frequency. He was told that there was "One joining ahead". "Er, negative, errr contact err at this time, over. Sir....err, there's one above me...errr, which, err... seems to be, errr...going away from you, Sir"
Exactly my point - it is calls like this that are all too common. Moreover this type of call takes a surprising amount of radio time during which no one else can get a word in. That must be a safety issue.
I just want to make my position clear.
I would never advocate turning up at any PPR airfield with which I was not familiar if I had not 'phoned first - my point is their are many PPR fields that seem very happy to welcome aircraft with just a radio call. That works fine for me and also apparently for them.
As someone else says, and not that it has happened yet, I am always prepared to bugger of somewhere else
.Beagle ""Err, Golf Alfa Good.....err Morning, Sir, we errr, are errr visual Sir with your err, field Sir and will be joining downwind" idiots came up on frequency. He was told that there was "One joining ahead". "Er, negative, errr contact err at this time, over. Sir....err, there's one above me...errr, which, err... seems to be, errr...going away from you, Sir"
Exactly my point - it is calls like this that are all too common. Moreover this type of call takes a surprising amount of radio time during which no one else can get a word in. That must be a safety issue.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't comment on wether standards of RT are declining because I have only been flyin for two and a half years but I do have a some observations.
If standards are droping then perhaps its to do with the standard of training.
I did my PPL at a class D aerodrome with full ATC.
During the whole training period I never visited an aerodrome with either A/G or FISO. Even my QXC was to other ATC aerodromes. I therefore had absolutely no idea of what to say to an A/G station.
The RT I was told to use by my instructor whilst in class D was virtually all non standard and could certainly not be found in CAP413 in many cases it was conversational in charecter and very "relaxed", even a number of the RT script sheets I was given did not comply even approximately with CAP413.
I wasnt even told of the need for an RT licence untill I was ready to do my QXC so by then a number of bad habits were deeply engrained.
I did my RT course and exams all in the day and that was the only time I came across any A/G RT during my whole ppl training.
Needless to say when I passed my ppl I was woefully ill equiped to fly anywhere other than my home base.
Since then I have gone to considerable lengths to teach myself what I should have been taught , I have now writen myself a comprehensive set of RT scripts based on cap413 which I always use. When I plan a flight I also fill in as much of the RT as I can so when the time comes I know exactly what to say and in what order. It is interesting to note the difference in service that I get from lars units when I approach them with standard cap413 phreseology compared to what happened when I was learning.
it is possible to feel the difference in thier attitude when they think they are dealing with someone who knows what they are about, they will very often contact the next lars unit with your details and hand you over rather than the previous "squawk 7000 and freecall....."
I now fly from an A/G aerodrome and had a couple of lessons there to get used to the procedures and RT even there a fair proportion of the RT I was shown was not cap 413
I really do feel that the instructors need to get to grips with the whole RT thing and set a good example, I have learned for myself but only because I find the RT interesting and challenging. I think it is very easy for a pilot who isnt interested in that side of flying to skip it and continue for ever, virtually unchecked, with the sloppy and careless RT that they observed during training.
If standards are droping then perhaps its to do with the standard of training.
I did my PPL at a class D aerodrome with full ATC.
During the whole training period I never visited an aerodrome with either A/G or FISO. Even my QXC was to other ATC aerodromes. I therefore had absolutely no idea of what to say to an A/G station.
The RT I was told to use by my instructor whilst in class D was virtually all non standard and could certainly not be found in CAP413 in many cases it was conversational in charecter and very "relaxed", even a number of the RT script sheets I was given did not comply even approximately with CAP413.
I wasnt even told of the need for an RT licence untill I was ready to do my QXC so by then a number of bad habits were deeply engrained.
I did my RT course and exams all in the day and that was the only time I came across any A/G RT during my whole ppl training.
Needless to say when I passed my ppl I was woefully ill equiped to fly anywhere other than my home base.
Since then I have gone to considerable lengths to teach myself what I should have been taught , I have now writen myself a comprehensive set of RT scripts based on cap413 which I always use. When I plan a flight I also fill in as much of the RT as I can so when the time comes I know exactly what to say and in what order. It is interesting to note the difference in service that I get from lars units when I approach them with standard cap413 phreseology compared to what happened when I was learning.
it is possible to feel the difference in thier attitude when they think they are dealing with someone who knows what they are about, they will very often contact the next lars unit with your details and hand you over rather than the previous "squawk 7000 and freecall....."
I now fly from an A/G aerodrome and had a couple of lessons there to get used to the procedures and RT even there a fair proportion of the RT I was shown was not cap 413
I really do feel that the instructors need to get to grips with the whole RT thing and set a good example, I have learned for myself but only because I find the RT interesting and challenging. I think it is very easy for a pilot who isnt interested in that side of flying to skip it and continue for ever, virtually unchecked, with the sloppy and careless RT that they observed during training.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slim they have a very detailed arrival/departure NOTAM, with fixed circuit (pattern) procedures, and the folks in the tower giving instructions to arriving traffic.
The occasions I've flown in, it's amazing how they mix the show VFR arrivals and normal day-to-day IFR traffic together!
The occasions I've flown in, it's amazing how they mix the show VFR arrivals and normal day-to-day IFR traffic together!
