Training fixes
Guest
Posts: n/a
IO540,
The understanding that GPS is not "authorised" for all VFR and most IFR primary nav stems from the wording in this AIC: http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P041.PDF
The understanding that GPS is not "authorised" for all VFR and most IFR primary nav stems from the wording in this AIC: http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P041.PDF
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
WWW, I think you have missed the point.
I agree that 121.5 DOES get over used and I am certainly NOT suggesting that every student pilot should be routinely calling D&D for training fixes.
However, the amount of air time occupied by a properly executed training fix call and reply is usually a lot shorter than a PAN call and the subsequent run of questions and answers, which can really clog up the frequency for some time. In my opinion, if a student becomes concerned about his navigation / position, it is surely better to call for assistance early rather than leave it until he is definitely completely lost and he has continued into regulated airspace, a parachute zone or a danger area. Prevention is better than cure, a stitch in time saves nine, etc. A “training fix” consists of a quick two way exchange, all done and the frequency cleared asap. Student has now confirmed his position, safely on his way, end of story. This is nothing new BTW, again, it IS in the CAP!
On the other hand, a lost PPL blundering about, not talking to anyone whilst possibly looking inside at a "£100 GPS" which he can't interpret properly causes chaos on more frequencies than just 121.5 - ask Luton Radar, or Brize Zone, who seem to have suffered more than their fair share of airspace busts this summer.
If a pilot deselects or turns down the volume of guard frequency to an inaudible level and doesn't turn it back up again, it is a CRM and cockpit procedural issue.
The most common “nuisance” calls heard on 121.5 (almost every day in UK over the last few years) seem to originate from commercial aircraft. Some pilots on scheduled IFR flights, having misdialled their next frequency and not having the sense to go back to the original one result in London Centre or other ATC agencies being obliged to attempt contact on "Guard".
I wonder what is going on in those cockpits but it may well be because the NHP never wrote down his previous frequency and can't remember it once he has twirled the dials. That’s a CRM and training issue coupled with poor airmanship.
Another source of misuse of the frequency is when the wrong transmitter box is selected. On 121.5 we hear the initial call, no reply, repeat of the initial call, followed by someone replying "You're on Guard". This can be repeated a couple of times where the same errant pilot has turned down his 121.5 receiver volume and can't hear any reply. This mistake is often made by commercial crews (some airlines seem to be heard more often than others, but that's a separate argument). I hold my hand up (and my head down in shame) and admit I have done this too, but only once of course (due to unfamiliarity with a transmitter head; we weren't using our regular aircraft). I apologise to all of you who listened and possibly turned down your box 2 volume in disgust. I hope you remembered to turn the volume back up again.
A hapless GA pilot in a remote area outside range of D&D? Is there evidence of this being a real problem rather than supposition? Where are these remote areas of UK? A hapless GA pilot in a remote area with a problem, i.e. uncertain of his position is highly likely to turn UP the volume of 121.5, not turn it down, or at least should do if he has been trained properly.
Fighters being scrambled against airliners? Once or twice in recent times in UK, as a result of an increase in the nation's security state. Exciting stuff, but in the big picture this has happened very infrequently indeed and cannot seriously be blamed on a student pilot calling for a training fix!
Without wanting to be disrespecful, and without using bad language to you, especially as you are now a moderator
it appears that you have jumped on a pedestal over what you see as a student "honesty" issue. You are the only instructor I have ever heard of to routinely get on the phone to try and "trap" his students away on solo navexes. Did your RAF QFI do that to you? I never did, it certainly wasn’t the normal thing to do during my time instructing on a UAS (admittedly some time before you became a member of UWAS, so it might have changed). Don't you trust your students to debrief you honestly? I always did.
Good discussion but best to listening to the other side of the argument without getting angry.
I agree that 121.5 DOES get over used and I am certainly NOT suggesting that every student pilot should be routinely calling D&D for training fixes.
However, the amount of air time occupied by a properly executed training fix call and reply is usually a lot shorter than a PAN call and the subsequent run of questions and answers, which can really clog up the frequency for some time. In my opinion, if a student becomes concerned about his navigation / position, it is surely better to call for assistance early rather than leave it until he is definitely completely lost and he has continued into regulated airspace, a parachute zone or a danger area. Prevention is better than cure, a stitch in time saves nine, etc. A “training fix” consists of a quick two way exchange, all done and the frequency cleared asap. Student has now confirmed his position, safely on his way, end of story. This is nothing new BTW, again, it IS in the CAP!
On the other hand, a lost PPL blundering about, not talking to anyone whilst possibly looking inside at a "£100 GPS" which he can't interpret properly causes chaos on more frequencies than just 121.5 - ask Luton Radar, or Brize Zone, who seem to have suffered more than their fair share of airspace busts this summer.
If a pilot deselects or turns down the volume of guard frequency to an inaudible level and doesn't turn it back up again, it is a CRM and cockpit procedural issue.
The most common “nuisance” calls heard on 121.5 (almost every day in UK over the last few years) seem to originate from commercial aircraft. Some pilots on scheduled IFR flights, having misdialled their next frequency and not having the sense to go back to the original one result in London Centre or other ATC agencies being obliged to attempt contact on "Guard".
I wonder what is going on in those cockpits but it may well be because the NHP never wrote down his previous frequency and can't remember it once he has twirled the dials. That’s a CRM and training issue coupled with poor airmanship.
Another source of misuse of the frequency is when the wrong transmitter box is selected. On 121.5 we hear the initial call, no reply, repeat of the initial call, followed by someone replying "You're on Guard". This can be repeated a couple of times where the same errant pilot has turned down his 121.5 receiver volume and can't hear any reply. This mistake is often made by commercial crews (some airlines seem to be heard more often than others, but that's a separate argument). I hold my hand up (and my head down in shame) and admit I have done this too, but only once of course (due to unfamiliarity with a transmitter head; we weren't using our regular aircraft). I apologise to all of you who listened and possibly turned down your box 2 volume in disgust. I hope you remembered to turn the volume back up again.
A hapless GA pilot in a remote area outside range of D&D? Is there evidence of this being a real problem rather than supposition? Where are these remote areas of UK? A hapless GA pilot in a remote area with a problem, i.e. uncertain of his position is highly likely to turn UP the volume of 121.5, not turn it down, or at least should do if he has been trained properly.
Fighters being scrambled against airliners? Once or twice in recent times in UK, as a result of an increase in the nation's security state. Exciting stuff, but in the big picture this has happened very infrequently indeed and cannot seriously be blamed on a student pilot calling for a training fix!
Without wanting to be disrespecful, and without using bad language to you, especially as you are now a moderator
it appears that you have jumped on a pedestal over what you see as a student "honesty" issue. You are the only instructor I have ever heard of to routinely get on the phone to try and "trap" his students away on solo navexes. Did your RAF QFI do that to you? I never did, it certainly wasn’t the normal thing to do during my time instructing on a UAS (admittedly some time before you became a member of UWAS, so it might have changed). Don't you trust your students to debrief you honestly? I always did.Good discussion but best to listening to the other side of the argument without getting angry.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a pilot deselects or turns down the volume of guard frequency to an inaudible level and doesn't turn it back up again, it is a CRM and cockpit procedural issue.
not only that, but it's been claimed it's a safety issue, and yet they still do it!
not only that, but it's been claimed it's a safety issue, and yet they still do it!
As I said - inasvertant transmission on Gaurd is just that and can't be solved.
I agree Training Fix is in the CAP, the book needs changing.
On a hazy summer Saturday there is a call on D&D once every 90 secs so the 121.5 monitoring gets turned down and stays down as you have your own r/t to perform plus checklists plus flying the jet. Yes it should get turned back up but REALITY is that it often doesn't for quite some time. The knack that some people seem to have to make a call to D&D *just* at the very second you are getting a much needed descent clearance from a manically busy London controller is unbelievable. In that respect use of 121.5 pollutes the rest of the airwaves.
As for being outside of range of D&D well that happens all the time below 3000ft in many parts of Wales, Scotland and the Lake District.
Fighters are being scambled every week for years now in the UK and the surrounding European states. An airliner turning down the infernal racket on 121.5 as they pass over London has overflown, Belgium, France, Holland and Germany in the next 30 minutes maybe... A LOT of people stop monitoring Guard over the UK because we are famous for the high level of its use.
Didn't do many landaways in the Bulldog. But yes I did make a quick call to the tower when supervising PPL student solo navexs. 95% of the time the tower guy would say "yeah they got here fine, r/t was good/bad/indifferent". But sometimes it would be "actually they were terrible on the radio and did some weird join straight onto downwind then bounced like a kangaroo on touchdown - I had my finger on the crash button". Its good to know for the sake of a 20p phone call. Nothing sinister - just thorough.
Cheers
WWW
I agree Training Fix is in the CAP, the book needs changing.
On a hazy summer Saturday there is a call on D&D once every 90 secs so the 121.5 monitoring gets turned down and stays down as you have your own r/t to perform plus checklists plus flying the jet. Yes it should get turned back up but REALITY is that it often doesn't for quite some time. The knack that some people seem to have to make a call to D&D *just* at the very second you are getting a much needed descent clearance from a manically busy London controller is unbelievable. In that respect use of 121.5 pollutes the rest of the airwaves.
As for being outside of range of D&D well that happens all the time below 3000ft in many parts of Wales, Scotland and the Lake District.
Fighters are being scambled every week for years now in the UK and the surrounding European states. An airliner turning down the infernal racket on 121.5 as they pass over London has overflown, Belgium, France, Holland and Germany in the next 30 minutes maybe... A LOT of people stop monitoring Guard over the UK because we are famous for the high level of its use.
Didn't do many landaways in the Bulldog. But yes I did make a quick call to the tower when supervising PPL student solo navexs. 95% of the time the tower guy would say "yeah they got here fine, r/t was good/bad/indifferent". But sometimes it would be "actually they were terrible on the radio and did some weird join straight onto downwind then bounced like a kangaroo on touchdown - I had my finger on the crash button". Its good to know for the sake of a 20p phone call. Nothing sinister - just thorough.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW - so we are all clear
"On a hazy summer Saturday there is a call on D&D once every 90 secs so the 121.5"
are you suggesting the vast majority of these are genuine training fixes, or pilots a "bit" uncertain of their position, or pilots totally lost?
I ask because something doesnt add up - I just cant imagine their are these huge numbers of pilots getting a kick out of making a genuine training fix.
"On a hazy summer Saturday there is a call on D&D once every 90 secs so the 121.5"
are you suggesting the vast majority of these are genuine training fixes, or pilots a "bit" uncertain of their position, or pilots totally lost?
I ask because something doesnt add up - I just cant imagine their are these huge numbers of pilots getting a kick out of making a genuine training fix.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I don't agree that the book needs changing, you are still missing the point I was trying to make.
You said that a solo student pilot should NOT call under the guise of a training fix because it is dishonest / not allowed. It's not really dishonest and it IS a legitimate use of the Emergency frequency, in accordance with national procedures.
But it is fine for a student to make the same call as long as he makes it a "PAN" call and he is more lost than he was before?
This takes up MORE air time on 121.5 and by perhaps leaving the call for a position fix until he was REALLY lost, he may cause mayhem, especially if an airspace bust has taken place in the vicinity of arrivals or departures (ask Luton Radar). I can't follow the logic of the argument.
Perhaps a separate emergency channel for solo student pilots might be the answer. Perhaps your airline might like to fund it, or cease trading on a Saturday?
You said that a solo student pilot should NOT call under the guise of a training fix because it is dishonest / not allowed. It's not really dishonest and it IS a legitimate use of the Emergency frequency, in accordance with national procedures.
But it is fine for a student to make the same call as long as he makes it a "PAN" call and he is more lost than he was before?
This takes up MORE air time on 121.5 and by perhaps leaving the call for a position fix until he was REALLY lost, he may cause mayhem, especially if an airspace bust has taken place in the vicinity of arrivals or departures (ask Luton Radar). I can't follow the logic of the argument.
Perhaps a separate emergency channel for solo student pilots might be the answer. Perhaps your airline might like to fund it, or cease trading on a Saturday?
Guys, for starters I think that the D&D sections in CAP413 and the CAA D&D poster were both produced by D&D and then sent to the CAA. If you want to blame someone for the mix up, not that I think that there is one, blame D&D.
As far as the guys like E R Us are concerned, if you call for a training fix, it's just that, for trg. You know where you are and are just demonstrating the procedure to a student, or perhaps are a student. However, as E R Us confirmed, unfortunately sometimes people call a training fix, but are obviously actually lost. Is this down to wilful lying or is it down to the fact that they were trained to call for a training fix, rather than a PAN? I don't know.
WWW, while I can see the reason why you're suggesting the change to D&D procedure, it would actually make things more long-winded than they need to be. As someone else has already stated, it should be a simple rapid process. You request a fix and straight away you're given it and asked whether you need anything else. I'm sure that the guys wouldn't want it to be any more complicated. Especially when the reason for the complication would be just to try to catch someone out. The D&D guys aren't there to act as the air police. They're there to help people out with no hidden agenda!
As far as the guys like E R Us are concerned, if you call for a training fix, it's just that, for trg. You know where you are and are just demonstrating the procedure to a student, or perhaps are a student. However, as E R Us confirmed, unfortunately sometimes people call a training fix, but are obviously actually lost. Is this down to wilful lying or is it down to the fact that they were trained to call for a training fix, rather than a PAN? I don't know.
WWW, while I can see the reason why you're suggesting the change to D&D procedure, it would actually make things more long-winded than they need to be. As someone else has already stated, it should be a simple rapid process. You request a fix and straight away you're given it and asked whether you need anything else. I'm sure that the guys wouldn't want it to be any more complicated. Especially when the reason for the complication would be just to try to catch someone out. The D&D guys aren't there to act as the air police. They're there to help people out with no hidden agenda!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HWD
Ah yes that 2002 leaflet from the CAA.
Firstly, this is not LAW. The bit which applies to OCAS is advisory.
Most of that leaflet is concerning IFR navigation in CAS. The bit about BRNAV is correct, AFAIK, and it's funny to note that in the GA context (no INS available) a BRNAV GPS is the only way one can fly in the airways.
Also, some of it doesn't make sense, e.g. 3.1.3.1 which assumes that when IFR OCAS one is always within the DOC of a navaid, which isn't the case.
3.2.1 is the one which anti-GPS people clutch at, I think. What does "operations shall be predicated on" mean? This is vague rubbish. What does "supplemental aid" mean? Does it mean that you are supposed to map read and ignore the GPS until lost? No, it doesn't mean anything really.
3.2.2 likewise.
How does one navigate IFR OCAS, without a radar service? Map reading isn't practical, nor is it practical at 3km vis which a PPL can fly at "VFR".
Ah yes that 2002 leaflet from the CAA.
Firstly, this is not LAW. The bit which applies to OCAS is advisory.
Most of that leaflet is concerning IFR navigation in CAS. The bit about BRNAV is correct, AFAIK, and it's funny to note that in the GA context (no INS available) a BRNAV GPS is the only way one can fly in the airways.
Also, some of it doesn't make sense, e.g. 3.1.3.1 which assumes that when IFR OCAS one is always within the DOC of a navaid, which isn't the case.
3.2.1 is the one which anti-GPS people clutch at, I think. What does "operations shall be predicated on" mean? This is vague rubbish. What does "supplemental aid" mean? Does it mean that you are supposed to map read and ignore the GPS until lost? No, it doesn't mean anything really.
3.2.2 likewise.
How does one navigate IFR OCAS, without a radar service? Map reading isn't practical, nor is it practical at 3km vis which a PPL can fly at "VFR".
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bisley
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
121.5 is a dedicated frequency for dealing with actual and perceived may-days, pans and situations where a/c are lost or temporarily unsure of their position. It is staffed by highly trained RAF officers who have the equipment and knowledge to assist in these situations and the means to stop a problem turning into an emergency.
GA pilots may well misuse this service at times but I have not heard D&D staff calling for radical changes and restrictions in its everyday use as an emergency channel of communication as a result.
These days a PLOC is taken very seriously and a call on 121.5 will be made before further action is taken against a silent airliner. The guard frequency was not designed for this but now it is being suggested that the procedures for its use, real and training, are changed to accommodate the recalcitrant airliner crew not listening on their assigned frequency.
Would it not make more sense to leave what is a very important national safety asset alone and look into other frequencies, procedures or channels of communication when dealing with PLOCs?
GA pilots may well misuse this service at times but I have not heard D&D staff calling for radical changes and restrictions in its everyday use as an emergency channel of communication as a result.
These days a PLOC is taken very seriously and a call on 121.5 will be made before further action is taken against a silent airliner. The guard frequency was not designed for this but now it is being suggested that the procedures for its use, real and training, are changed to accommodate the recalcitrant airliner crew not listening on their assigned frequency.
Would it not make more sense to leave what is a very important national safety asset alone and look into other frequencies, procedures or channels of communication when dealing with PLOCs?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phew! Thanks, SWANFIS, I was beginning to lose the will to live.
Several contrary opinions have been repeated several times, with attached insults. Not a lot has been achieved towards a consensus here, so I can guess what the authorities will do.
I don't monitor 121.5 as much as WWW does, and I certainly haven't made thousands of calls on there. But I have to say that I've heard many more airliners who'd goofed up their frequency selection than I've heard PPLs who were "sort-of lost". Maybe I was flying at the wrong times.
I asked the folks at D&D about this on a visit a few years ago, and their response was that they were always there and always pleased to have a call. It's an excellent service they provide - I've not come across a similar one anywhere else (although US Flight Following is impressive).
Why can't we take the advice of the good people at West Drayton and Swanwick, and leave it at that?
Several contrary opinions have been repeated several times, with attached insults. Not a lot has been achieved towards a consensus here, so I can guess what the authorities will do.
I don't monitor 121.5 as much as WWW does, and I certainly haven't made thousands of calls on there. But I have to say that I've heard many more airliners who'd goofed up their frequency selection than I've heard PPLs who were "sort-of lost". Maybe I was flying at the wrong times.
I asked the folks at D&D about this on a visit a few years ago, and their response was that they were always there and always pleased to have a call. It's an excellent service they provide - I've not come across a similar one anywhere else (although US Flight Following is impressive).
Why can't we take the advice of the good people at West Drayton and Swanwick, and leave it at that?
Guest
Posts: n/a
IO540,
Apologies for subjecting yet another thread to the Drifter(tm) brand of tangentialization.
Reading the ANO, those wonderful people at the CAA effectively state that DR in IMC is favourable to non FM Immune VOR tracking. Just more of the same?
Apologies for subjecting yet another thread to the Drifter(tm) brand of tangentialization.
How does one navigate IFR OCAS, without a radar service? Map reading isn't practical, nor is it practical at 3km vis which a PPL can fly at "VFR".
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you really mean is that mean tracking a VOR which is too far away for official reception, using non-FM-immune equipment, is OK.
Puts quite an interesting slant on these "AICs" emanating from the CAA, doesn't it?
The people that write some of this stuff evidently aren't aware of the flight rules OCAS.
Sadly, these bizzare "pink" leaflets, drafted on the back of a fag packet over a pint or two, get read by a lot of people who take them as gospel, because they look "official".
Puts quite an interesting slant on these "AICs" emanating from the CAA, doesn't it?
The people that write some of this stuff evidently aren't aware of the flight rules OCAS.
Sadly, these bizzare "pink" leaflets, drafted on the back of a fag packet over a pint or two, get read by a lot of people who take them as gospel, because they look "official".
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G,
If someone is pretty sure of where they are, but wants confirmation, may I suggest learning to read a map a bit better!
D&D are not there as a nav aid, they are there to try and get you out of the cr*p.
It doesn't seem as if there will be any consensus over this topic, but it is an interesting debate.
People stuff up every day and when it comes to radio boxes it can be a mine field. In your average airliner the boxes are tucked away out of your direct line of sight, unlike in most G/A types. Add this to the fact that you are often working both boxes at the same time (along with PA's etc.) it is no wonder there are a lot of mistakes made. This doesn't justify it, but with the much greater amount of commercial traffic around compared to G/A it is hardly surprising that most of the incorrect calls come from that sector.
I'll make my point again for the last time. D&D is there as an aid to flight safety, if you abuse it by pretending you aren't lost when you really are, then you cheapen the value of this service and in my eyes make yourself look like a d*ckhead.
Use it when you need to, but don't abuse this service just because you aren't man (or woman) enough to admit to being lost and asking for help when you really need it.
However, if you wish to CONFIRM POSITION and my interpretation of this is that it would be a very infrequent event for each pilot, the training fix process allows this and is promulgated as such. It seems to me that it breaks a link in a potential accident chain and if used with respect, then is an excellent facility.
D&D are not there as a nav aid, they are there to try and get you out of the cr*p.
It doesn't seem as if there will be any consensus over this topic, but it is an interesting debate.
People stuff up every day and when it comes to radio boxes it can be a mine field. In your average airliner the boxes are tucked away out of your direct line of sight, unlike in most G/A types. Add this to the fact that you are often working both boxes at the same time (along with PA's etc.) it is no wonder there are a lot of mistakes made. This doesn't justify it, but with the much greater amount of commercial traffic around compared to G/A it is hardly surprising that most of the incorrect calls come from that sector.
I'll make my point again for the last time. D&D is there as an aid to flight safety, if you abuse it by pretending you aren't lost when you really are, then you cheapen the value of this service and in my eyes make yourself look like a d*ckhead.
Use it when you need to, but don't abuse this service just because you aren't man (or woman) enough to admit to being lost and asking for help when you really need it.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 11th Sep 2005 at 01:35.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SAS
There is a clear consensus on this thread, that if lost, a PPL should contact D&D, inform them clearly of the situation and do not abuse the training fix to do that.
A minority of posters, including an airline pilot who appears to be better at telling than listening and an over representation from the FI community appear to have a problem with pilots following the guidelines set by D&D and CAP413 for the use of the training fix scheme.
If the airline pilot stopped to consider that life is not fair, he might be a little less uptight. For example, his employers do not pay VAT on fuel and private pilots do, but we don't whinge about how unfair that is and make a safety case that "because avgas is so expensive, we don't carry suitable reserves and its Gordon Brown's fault if we crash through fuel starvation." That level of thinking should have been dealt with by the fifth form debating society.
As for the FIs, you really appear to have jumped on a bandwagon, assuming (on data that is not declared) that there are many PPLs out there who lie frequently.
Until you have solid data to justify that line of thinking, I regard it as unsound and a matter of regret from people who should be paragons of judgement, in aviation matters at least.
There is a clear consensus on this thread, that if lost, a PPL should contact D&D, inform them clearly of the situation and do not abuse the training fix to do that.
A minority of posters, including an airline pilot who appears to be better at telling than listening and an over representation from the FI community appear to have a problem with pilots following the guidelines set by D&D and CAP413 for the use of the training fix scheme.
If the airline pilot stopped to consider that life is not fair, he might be a little less uptight. For example, his employers do not pay VAT on fuel and private pilots do, but we don't whinge about how unfair that is and make a safety case that "because avgas is so expensive, we don't carry suitable reserves and its Gordon Brown's fault if we crash through fuel starvation." That level of thinking should have been dealt with by the fifth form debating society.
As for the FIs, you really appear to have jumped on a bandwagon, assuming (on data that is not declared) that there are many PPLs out there who lie frequently.
Until you have solid data to justify that line of thinking, I regard it as unsound and a matter of regret from people who should be paragons of judgement, in aviation matters at least.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 11th Sep 2005 at 05:51.
Its self evident because you hear no training fixes on a gin clear day then 10 in an hour on a hazy one. Training fixes are being used by many to help them get un-lost and I think that's wrong.
Quote the CAP all you like. I'm making the case to get the CAP changed. The UK's out of line with other JAA states that simply don't have the level of noise pollution on 121.5 that we do.
If you want VAT free fuel then buy a diesel diamond or a turbine single. But lets not forget that what I do at work is provide PUBLIC transport just like a bus or train or ferry driver. I typically do about 12 domestic sectors a week with an 85% load factor so thats 1524 people moving domestically. You want them all in their cars clogging up the road and having fatal accidents then fine.
Cheers
WWW
Quote the CAP all you like. I'm making the case to get the CAP changed. The UK's out of line with other JAA states that simply don't have the level of noise pollution on 121.5 that we do.
If you want VAT free fuel then buy a diesel diamond or a turbine single. But lets not forget that what I do at work is provide PUBLIC transport just like a bus or train or ferry driver. I typically do about 12 domestic sectors a week with an 85% load factor so thats 1524 people moving domestically. You want them all in their cars clogging up the road and having fatal accidents then fine.
Cheers
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Its self evident because you hear no training fixes on a gin clear day then 10 in an hour on a hazy one. Training fixes are being used by many to help them get un-lost and I think that's wrong.
If you want VAT free fuel then buy a diesel diamond or a turbine single. But lets not forget that what I do at work is provide PUBLIC transport just like a bus or train or ferry driver. I typically do about 12 domestic sectors a week with an 85% load factor so thats 1524 people moving domestically. You want them all in their cars clogging up the road and having fatal accidents then fine.
Also you seem to fail to realise that bus and train companies pay VAT on fuel, so you obviously couldn't even be bothered to do some basic research before making your statement.
Anyway, that is beside the point, since I was making an ironic point that seems to have gone straight over your head. I think that you should just accept that you have a great job that many would love to do, learn to put up with the frustrations that go with it and be thankful that you do not have to fly in the US, say in the NYC area, where you would probably become very vexed with the ways things are done.
Its self evident because you hear no training fixes on a gin clear day then 10 in an hour on a hazy one. Training fixes are being used by many to help them get un-lost and I think that's wrong.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
WWW,
Oh dear. You must have your foggles on over this!
Would you rather have ten "PAN" calls instead?
The noise pollution that you suffer occurs because in UK we have D&D; in other states they don't have this facility!
Changing the procedures WON'T stop PPL students keeping themselves out of trouble by calling for assistance (or extricating themselves from it in retrospect if they leave it too late) and it will STILL be on 121.5, whatever the prefix of the call. They are perfectly entitiled to do this and long may they continue to be allowed to do it.
You will STILL get the same problem. Sorry, but your logic is flawed, old chap.
Oh dear. You must have your foggles on over this!
Would you rather have ten "PAN" calls instead?
The noise pollution that you suffer occurs because in UK we have D&D; in other states they don't have this facility!
Changing the procedures WON'T stop PPL students keeping themselves out of trouble by calling for assistance (or extricating themselves from it in retrospect if they leave it too late) and it will STILL be on 121.5, whatever the prefix of the call. They are perfectly entitiled to do this and long may they continue to be allowed to do it.
You will STILL get the same problem. Sorry, but your logic is flawed, old chap.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yesterday was pretty hazy, but VFR-able. I had 121.5 on in the background for several hours. I heard ZERO calls from PPLs, despite being within earshot of Elstree, Denham, Heathrow and City zones etc. I heard 4 airliners - 3 calls on the wrong frequency and 1 who couldn't get a response from what he thought was the right frequency.