RTFM
 

Read The 'effin Manual ;)

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.

“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

The strip concerned is within Lakenheaths MATZ. The other pilot (not me)feels it is safer to stay on their frequency rather than using Safetycom. So this boils down to which proceedure individuals feel is best but it is probably not 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

Agreed. But it's still not mandatory in the CAA sense. And as I mentioned earlier, it's pilots that use Safetycom, not aerodromes.

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.

RTFM
 

Mariner,thank you.
I can understand that now.
Lister;)

If you look at your post of 22.06hrs yesterday you will see that it was you who made this suggestion................

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

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.