Safetycom etc
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cusco, I read your post as berrating those who did not identify the field at all in the transmission - as highlighted in your post. Sorry, I missed the point about adding it at the end also.
Nonetheless, I too have heard undisciplined and unidentified broadcasts which far from helping the situation can do more to confuse - adding the airfield name would undoubtedly help!
I'm puzzled though that you think that CAP 413 suggests addind 'traffic' to the airfield name - I read it as a procedure that is applied if one chooses to use Safetycom.
And as for the pilot who refuses to use Safetycom, the procedures in CAP 413 clearly make it a facility that is available rather than one that is mandatory - he/she is quite within their rights, if unhelpful and potentially foolhardy.
Nonetheless, I too have heard undisciplined and unidentified broadcasts which far from helping the situation can do more to confuse - adding the airfield name would undoubtedly help!
I'm puzzled though that you think that CAP 413 suggests addind 'traffic' to the airfield name - I read it as a procedure that is applied if one chooses to use Safetycom.
And as for the pilot who refuses to use Safetycom, the procedures in CAP 413 clearly make it a facility that is available rather than one that is mandatory - he/she is quite within their rights, if unhelpful and potentially foolhardy.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“And as for the pilot who refuses to use Safetycom, the procedures in CAP 413 clearly make it a facility that is available rather than one that is mandatory - he/she is quite within their rights, if unhelpful and potentially foolhardy.”
Most strips, even very informal ones, have rules. If it is a Strip rule that you use Safetycom or find another place to fly from then most people will comply.
Rod1
Most strips, even very informal ones, have rules. If it is a Strip rule that you use Safetycom or find another place to fly from then most people will comply.
Rod1
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as for the pilot who refuses to use Safetycom, the procedures in CAP 413 clearly make it a facility that is available rather than one that is mandatory - he/she is quite within their rights, if unhelpful and potentially foolhardy.
The original point was that we suggest using the name of the airfield at the beginning and the end of a radio call as sometimes it can be missed at the beginning. This is not outlined in CAP413 but maybe should be.
I'm not 100% sure, but believe it is the proceedure when using unicom in the US
ZA
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point of order ZA, the strip is actually well outside Lakenheath's MATZ:
It is however inside the MLD/LKH/HON CMATZ, but the Honington bit is only (rarely) activated by Notam.
Rod 1
We have guidelines rather than rules at our strip: we are still clinging by our fingernails to the 'Gentlemanly' approach.
i am trying to introduce formal agreements to our users right now:
Getting formal agreements at airstrips can be like herding cats: everyone tries to go off at a tangent and reaching a consensus when after all we're only trying to formalise the status quo can be a nightmare.
One has to ask why there is a fear of formal agreements...........
Oh, and I have given up on the party who refuses to use safetycom.........
Cusco.
It is however inside the MLD/LKH/HON CMATZ, but the Honington bit is only (rarely) activated by Notam.
Rod 1
We have guidelines rather than rules at our strip: we are still clinging by our fingernails to the 'Gentlemanly' approach.
i am trying to introduce formal agreements to our users right now:
Getting formal agreements at airstrips can be like herding cats: everyone tries to go off at a tangent and reaching a consensus when after all we're only trying to formalise the status quo can be a nightmare.
One has to ask why there is a fear of formal agreements...........
Oh, and I have given up on the party who refuses to use safetycom.........
Cusco.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm puzzled though that you think that CAP 413 suggests addind 'traffic' to the airfield name - I read it as a procedure that is applied if one chooses to use Safetycom.
The suffix 'traffic' is used when at an aerodrome which normally has Radio but it might not be operational at that specific time: unmanned due to no staff, gone for a pee etc).
In these circumstances safetycom must not be used, rather '(station name) traffic'.
It follows therefore that at a field which has no dedicated radio the term '(airfield name) traffic' if used at the beginning and the end of the transmission on Safetycom (and within the altitude and distance ranges given in the official Safetycom document) IMHO would maximise situational awareness of other traffic in exactly the same way as traffic awareness is brought to normally manned but temp unmanned airfields with their own dedicated frequency: the addition of 'traffic' highlights that a response from the ground is unlikely.
Cusco
Last edited by Cusco; 31st Oct 2008 at 12:41.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cusco, the text in the earlier post was a cut 'n paste from CAP 413...so I'll decline to accept all responsibility for the words! Maybe I should have made it clear where the words came from.
But I still don't see it as a suggestion - to me it reads as a reminder of the need to include the airfield indentification in broadcasts. But I can see the alternative interpretation now that you point it out.
But I still don't see it as a suggestion - to me it reads as a reminder of the need to include the airfield indentification in broadcasts. But I can see the alternative interpretation now that you point it out.
