....and reel them in.......

;)

What WWW is objecting to - and I agree - is lying about it.


Why dont we read what is written.

www said no training fixes without a fi aboard in response to which their was universal dissent. No one supports lieing when seriously lost.

www is a fi and yet argues an important safety procedure should not be routinely rehersed in spite of the caps. In my book that is the real worry. We should perhaps question the training of fis :confused: :O

Christ on a bike how hard is it to dial 121.5 and say the words "Pan Pan Pan I am lost"?!?!

You DON'T need to practice that! Its only speaking out loud!

What you are doing by cluttering up 121.5 is making hundreds of airliner pilots who can hear you from 250 mile radius reach down and deselect Guard. It can then be some time, if ever, before they return to monitor the frequency. Which can and does result in armed fighters being scrambled at the speed of heat into controlled and busy airspace.

I've no obejection to GA on 121.5 if they are Lost. You are not slightly unsure of your position, you are not confirming where you think you are. You are in fact unable to tell me with 100% confidence that that town is Bishops Stortford and that your aircraft is exactly here on the map. You are therefore LOST.

Its no shameful thing - heck I've been more lost and more scared about it than any of you on this thread. I've used 121.5 thousands of times for training and for really real. I've made two Pan calls in the last 10 weeks.

But I object to it being abused and cluttered up by people who are in fact lying. Get a LARS, learn to use the navaids or buy a GPS.

Cheers

WWW

ps I'm quite cheerful really :-)

Gives you something to do then;)

WWW

I wasn't going to post again, but cannot resist pointing out a couple of major defects in your thinking. In case you haven't noticed, the UK rules provide for training fix, airlines who wish to operate in UK airspace must accept the rules in the same way that UK airlines operating abroad must comply locally. Sorry, but that is the way it is and part of being a professional in any field is working around constraints.

Secondly, what is the extra impact of a training fix versus a practice pan or a pan? All three occupy the frequency. What you are implying is that you and your fellow sky gods should judge the appropriateness of RT use in the UK and not the CAA. That's egotistical and unbalanced thinking.

And finally, please explain how one can see Bishops Stortford at 14KM when the vis in haze is 8km - I did mention the masking effect of weather in my earlier post, or did you not read it properly? If one can't see it, one can't visually identify it and one therefore can't confirm one's position against it - what is your problem understanding this concept? Over the featureless terrain near STN, haze can be problematic and there is a history of zone busts that the CAA considers may be due, at least in part, to the lack of surface features.

That doesn't mean I am lost, it means that every 30 seconds takes me nearly 1NM nearer to the STN zone and there are no local features to take a fix from to update my vfr log. Is it good airmanship to plough on and risk busting the zone and committing a crimninal offence as well as possibly affecting safety?

So I call 121.5, say "G-XXXX training fix, training fix, training fix" and they say "G-XXXX you are XX miles XXX of Bishops Stortford." We must have occupied the 121.5 frequency for all of 10-15 seconds. If I had done a PAN PAN PAN, I would have had to pass a lot more details, taking more time and possibly getting nearer to a zone bust, as well as cluttering the frequency for longer.

If D&D had said "no can do training fix", I would have orbited and then made a "PAN" call, since I would then have lost confidence in my ability to maintain positional awareness, i.e. the risk of becoming lost would have just escalated significantly.

I find that I am within 1/2 a mile of where my vfr chart/flight log says, well outside the zone, restart my stopwatch correct my WCA and proceed on course, legally, safely and with the minimum of fuss.

The guys at D&D said it was a good use of the training fix scheme, so what precisely is your problem with a pilot doing this ONCE in 11 years?

For your information -

- there was no LARS available in 1994 in that area
- the aircraft was a club hack with no navaids, not even an ADF and navaids were not on the PPL syllabus
- GPS was not widely available in 1994, I did not have one

Now tell me again HOW I was LYING in using a training fix?

WWW

I don't think a LARS unit is very happy with a pilot who is unable to navigate on his own. Sure they will help if asked though. But they tend to be busy enough.

Navaids are a bit of a problem. One can fly anywhere in Class G, and anywhere below Class A (VFR) with a clearance. One is outside the useful reception of a navaid, never mind within its DOC, over most of the UK surface, especially if pottering about at the low levels where many VFR pilots fly.

Yet, a PPL is legal to fly down to 3000m vis.

One can't really reconcile this, other than the usual "a PPL is only a licence to learn" statement.

The best thing the CAA could do for all this would be to make a decent size panel mounted GPS mandatory, and incorporate the training into the PPL. Not a lot of schools would like to pay for it though...

Who said it was ok to lie?

Emergencies R Us, in his excellent post, said call him whenever you feel the need, and even if you don't think you need. As I always consider the people on the ground 'own' the frequency that is good enough for me. No doubt there is some recent rule which says airline pilots should monitor 121.5 at all times, and not when it suits them.

“Christ on a bike how hard is it to dial 121.5 and say the words "Pan Pan Pan I am lost"?!?!”

On an aircraft I fly, with a new Narco box, if you select 121.5 they can hear you fine, but you cannot hear them. The same problem arises with Gatwick. I gather the reason is that D and D as Gatwick use multiple aerials and their frequency is not as tightly controlled as Narco would like! Pulling out the volume control to prevent the frequency clipping on transmission solves the problem. Now whilst that particular problem might be unusual it equally might only come to light on a practice fix.

Also it is surprising how many pilots have never done a training fix. As you well know D and D if asked and can accommodate you will go on to give you a series of steers. In my opinion it is worth refreshing yourself on the whole procedure again from time to time, maybe in poor viz and with a safety pilot to see how a non instrument rated pilots gets on. After all that is exactly the circumstances in which you might want to use the service in earnest. It is no good saying that is the sort of thing you should only be doing with a FI because there are a lot of very good groups out there where the pilots do continuation training together and it works very well.

I also agree it is one thing to be seriously lost (which hopefully very rarely happens!) And to not be as certain of your position as you would like particularly when navigating tightly controlled airspace. As others have said surely it is better to make use of the service without declaring a Pan.

My real point earlier though was why an earth propose yet another regulation as if pilots call for training fixes with the sole intention of making a nuisance of themselves. I can not imagine that very many do. Surely it is far better to educate pilots in the correct use of both training fixes and “I am lost” than expand yet further the law book as if it was a panacea for every perceived evil.

Finally it really concerns me when these sort of suggestions are put forward when it would seem they appear to have been so ill thought through. Before I wrote suggesting a change in the legislation I would want to have some idea what D and D actually thought of the proposal and whether they REALLY find all these calls a nuisance, how many so called training fixes do they get from pilots really lost, how many airline captains are complaining about all the chatter on 121.5 etc etc. I don’t know any of the answers but I would want to find out before posting that I am writing to ask the ANO be changed!

Legislative impact assessments - poppy cock - we will sort out the mess latter!

It is true that there should be no place for ego on the flight deck, but that ignores reality. The reality is that people care about what other people think about them. Society and social pressures have a great impact on us in all aspects of our lives and to single out one specific situation and say that on the flight deck it doesn’t matter what others think is unrealistic. There are many examples of this in the accident reports ranging from low-hours PPLs doing low-level aerobatics to impress their friends to high-hour airline co-pilots who would rather keep quiet and risk death rather than saying something to the captain – the 1977 Tenerife disaster with the greatest aviation loss of life is an example of this.

There are also different degrees of ‘being lost’. Just because you don’t know where you are doesn’t mean you’re lost. I don’t know where my car-keys are at the moment – they could be in one of several places, but it would be wrong to say that I’ve lost them. Pilotage and dead-reckoning involves position fixes about every 10 minutes with a period of uncertainty between these fixes. It would be wrong to say you were ‘lost’ between these fixes even though you might not know precisely where you are.

Put these two aspects together. Consider a young low-hours PPL who’s just got his license and is taking his new girlfriend out for her first flight. Everything was going well until a few minutes ago when he couldn’t make that last position fix – which was 10 minutes after his previous position fix. So he’s feeling a little uneasy because that means it’s now 15 minutes ago when he knew where he was. Uneasy, but he doesn’t feel that one missed position fix means he’s lost. One thing he really doesn’t want to do is get onto Distress and Diversion and say ‘I’m lost’! This is the first time he’s taken his girlfriend out flying and what will she think! She’s nervous enough as it is and she’ll never go flying with him again if that happened! Those dreams of flying holidays to France go right down the pan with that one press of the PTT button.

How much easier is it for him to get onto D+D and get a training fix? Confirming your position is a perfectly proper use of the service and that’s all he really wants because he’s not lost – he just couldn’t find that last position fix. It’s even easier for him to do if he’s asked for a training fix in the past when he knew exactly where he was and so has some experience of talking to London Centre. It may be that the position fix will not confirm his position, but confirm that he’s lost and he’ll be able to inform D+D of this and ask for further assistance, but at least he’ll know and know earlier than if he’d kept quiet.

I’ve only ever spoken to London Centre once. One lazy evening when I was just to the north of the Severn estuary with no-one in particular to talk to, I thought about this Training Fix advice and I thought I’d give it a go – and the chaps at London Centre were great! It was so easy, so un-stressed and I won’t hesitate to talk to them again if required.

My reasoning was that I’ve never spoken to D+D so I gave them a call and ask for a Training Fix. That way I’ve spoken to them once and in the future if the chips are down and I do have a real problem at least it’ll be one less thing I’m doing for the first time. Yet again it’s a perfectly proper use of the service and I’m sure one Training Fix once in a flying career won’t cause too many missed clearances for the airlines (besides they’re the main uses of 121.5. Sometimes it sounds like a fencing competition the number of people who are on there saying ‘on guard’!)

Also in future I will ask for a training fix if I am a little uncertain and I want confirmation of my position – and I’ll do it early rather than waiting until I am lost. I doubt it will ever happen because my GPS, nav-aids and my general navigation skill means that I nearly always know where I am, but it’s nice to know it’s there if needed.

Romeo RomeoI wish I had used your elegant simple words ;)

The first link in the chain of an horrendous accident killing hundreds could well be that 50 minutes earlier Commander Boeing deselected 121.5 due to the incessant clamour of training fix requests (it was a hazy summer Saturday in the UK).

On Gin clear days you hear few Training Fix calls. On Hazy days you get loads and the reason is obviously NOT that everyone just decides to 'practice' talking to D&D - its because dozens of PPL's are Lost or Temporarily Unsure of Position or whatever euphenism you want to use. Rather than 'fess up they try to imply they are not actually unsure of anything but merely wish to practice an r/t procedure.

A GPS is now under £100 and would allow you to stop blocking what is a very important communication channel. I know you might only use it for 30 seconds and it sound quiet when you tune in. But honestly some days its an almost torrent of Practice Pans and Training Fixes. You Can't put up with it interfering with you actual r/t and so 121.5 gets deselected.

I wish for the CAA to conduct enquiries about how common this is and then I expect they will tackle the level of 121.5 useage in the UK FIR. You don't get it in other countries airspace. We are a little unusual in that respect.

Cheers

WWW

WWW

Horse****? I think (especially as) as a moderator you have rather gone over the top on this one. If I berated yourself using such language I could expect to be at least moderated or even banned.

Firstly, without doubt, the most common cause of clutter on 121.5 these days is caused by "professional" airline pilots calling on the distress frequency instead of the frequency they should be on. This is compounded by other (often same company) pilots telling them they are on 121.5. Both are inappropriate use of the frequency, highly unprofessional, because neither are entitled to use 121.5 in this manner.

Secondly, a student pilot (or any other) asking for a training fix gets a position fix, full stop from D&D. A pilot making a "Pan" call and declaring himself lost (he might not be lost, just a little uncertain of a couple of position fixes) by definition gets much more D&D assistance, which actually ties up much far more air time.

A call made in good time, by a student pilot uncertain of position, using a training fix prefix (he would be perfectly entitled, the CAP reference has been quoted already) could well prevent a much more serious situation from developing. I think NO-ONE is condoning "lying"on the R/T, as per your accusation.

Please consider moderating your own post and language in this respect.

As for your last post "The first link in the chain of an horrendous accident killing hundreds could well be that 50 minutes earlier Commander Boeing deselected 121.5 due to the incessant clamour of training fix requests (it was a hazy summer Saturday in the Uk"

You cannot be serious. What evidence of this is there? Rather like an inexperienced car driver making an incorrect indicator selection at a roundabout and being accused of causing a motorway pileup 50 minutes later?

BTW, GPS is not authorised for primary navigation by the CAA in UK. To condone its use for primary navigation in an emergency, in preference to the official D&D service is surely incorrect.

Inadvertent transmission on 121.5 is just that and there is no solution to it.

A student pilot shouldn't be making a Training Fix call to 'verify' his position he should be making a Pan Lost call. This is the cancer that so annoys me. TRAINING fix - what does that imply to you? It implies to me that you know exactly where you are and wish to practice an r/t procedure. Unless a student is specifically instructed on his pre-solo brief to conduct such a practice then he or she should not be doing so. Frankly.

The evidence of the dangers of airliners not monitoring guard are numerous and self evident. God help the hapless GA pilot in a remote area outside range of D&D who COULD have been helped or relayed by an airliner above IF ONLY the pilot had not deselected 121.5 half an hour ago because some lying PPL was 'unsure of his postion' WHATEVER THE HECK THAT MEANS?!

Do you think scrambling fighters into congested airways poses no risk to flight safety? Do you think the masses of r/t and ATC Officer time consumed by an airliner going off frequency and NOT monitoring guard is anything other than to the detriment of flight safety. Its happening every day of every week and the reason is that 121.5 in the UK is grossly overused and ABUSED by the PPL community.

Frankly I think most PPLs think it interesting and stimulating to make a call to D&D. I know I used to get a kick out of it when I was a PPL and an Instrutor. But its really not necessary half the time and the other half its someone lost who is trying to disguise the fact with the bogus use of the words Training Fix.

An effective solution would be to change D&D procedure and make their intial response to a Training Fix call to be "Roger triangulation in process please state your position". In the case of a genuine Training Fix being required the student, PPL or instructor would respond "Position approx 2 miles North of Gloucester". D&D would then confirm that "your fix position indicated 4 miles North North West of Gloucester".

Either that or there would be an embarassed silence followed by a Pan call...

You don't get banned for saying horse**** - its a mild expletive that doesn't even generate asterisks and it accurately reflects my contempt of the defence of the ever increasing abuse of the Training Fix.

This is a flight safety issue.

Cheers

WWW

I cannot see any justifiable reason for a 'Training Fix' on the D&D frequency to be made by anyone except either an instructor demonstrating the use of D&D or a trainee practising it under the supervision of the instructor.

If there really is a plethora of 'Training Fix' requests being made then a survey of a day's 121.5 calls would perhaps be useful?

As stated earlier, from CAP413:-

Also from the CAA D+D poster:-

Perhaps you can question the advice and maybe seek to get it changed, but berating pilots for following this official advice is perhaps unfair.

The current ANO is here

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm

I'd be grateful if you would locate a reference for the above statement.

This disinformation has been around for as long as GPS. Please don't spread it further.

Improper use of 121.5 cannot be condoned. It does not belong to D&D, it is an international distress frequency.

A Training Fix is useful for both flight instructional and D&D training purposes - it is emphatically NOT a supplementary navigational technique for the inept.

If you are lost, admit it to yourself. Then, unless you're already working another unit, get onto 121.5 and admit it! It might cause some airliner-driver to have to turn down the second radio for a few minutes between waypoint watching, but better to disturb his hugely demanding day by calling 121.5 than to disturb it by blundering unannounced, uninvited and unwelcome into the approach path of the airport he's trying to land at.

D&D will be able to identify you and, if you need it, hand you off to another unit to give you any necessary navigational asistance.

Old-fashioned 'lost procedure' is increasingly becoming irrelevant in south central and south east UK due to the airspace complexity. So don't faff, call if you need to and don't pretend that you are only practising when in fact you need real assistance.

In the UK, GPS should be considered a supplementary VFR navigation aid unless the aircraft is fitted with an IFR-approved system. Even then it is an area navigation aid only and under no circumstances an approach aid. Yet......

BEagle

If LOST, yes, absolutely tell D&D immediately and make it clear. Any other action is foolhardy and threatening flight safety.

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.

With the very greatest of respect, 121.5 may be an internationally recognised frequency, but in UK jurisdiction, UK agencies decide the proper use of the radio frequencies.

That's plenty enough uncertainty to get you into serious trouble given that ... The only time I've ever reported "uncertain of position" (not on 121.5) I knew where I was to within three or four miles, but I also knew that controlled airspace was not very far away.

CAP413 is quite clear. Pilots who Dead reckoning - flying a heading and time in uncertain winds will by its definition result in an uncertain position, but this uncertainty does not mean you are lost. Pilotage is used to confirm your position at frequent intervals and so keep this uncertainty manageable. CAP413 quite clearly states that Training Fixes can also be used to confirm position.

I don't think anyone is advocating using a Training Fix often or when lost or lying on the radio but I don't think it is right to criticise pilots for using a facility as sanctioned in official documents.

If there is a problem then criticism should be directed at these official documents, not at those following them.

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

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. :O

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.

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!

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

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.

Publish the data source to justify this please. Also the breakdown of the types of call, including those mentioned by ShyTorque.

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? :E :ok:

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!

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".

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?

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?

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?

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".

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.

Its not devious to ask for a training fix when lost ,its just aircrafty.:p

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.

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

So what is it, 1 every 6 minutes or 1 every 90 seconds? What methodology did you use to capture this information, what was the size of your sample, what was the range of the data population and what standard deviation did you encounter?
Again you demonstrate your complete inability to understand the other point of view.

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.

Proof please, not assumptions.

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.

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.