Use of 121.5mhz (Merged)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
Thank God that the other 1000s of controllers in hundreds of FIRs throughout the world can be relied upon to go for months without an emergency and then be 100% trusted to help get someone out of the poo.
D+D need to get themselves a PC sim and some imaginative instructors who can simulate various scenarios more realistically than some C150 doing a practice pan that will only be brief and will only be done in VDF or radar coverage. Do you do practice pans with aircraft outside VDF and radar coverage?
Your point seems to say that lost of practice in fixing positions of light aircraft operating VFR is required. Heavy types with 400 pax and complicated emergencies and in need of special handling do not require any practice at all?
Regards,
DFC
The other 1000s of controllers you refer to dont work in London Centre. I believe the set up in the UK is unique, no other country has as far as I am aware a unit dedicated to monitoring 121.5 & 243.0 .Thats primarily the only controlling we do whilst in D&D. The other controllers you refer to are controllers routinely handling traffic day in day out thus keeping their hand in. Controlling is a profession that like flying is reliant on maintaining currency, we soon go rusty & get behind drag curves if skills are not practised.
We would benefit enormously from having PP calls that are as challenging as the real stuff we deal with but we dont try to elict those sort of calls on 121.5 as it is understood by all D&D staff that there is a repercussion to the CAT flyers and they would invariably lead to longer calls.
Yes we do practice PP calls when ac are outside radar coverage (they often are in reality due to low altitude for wx) Invariably to the tune of CAT moaning about it.
No we dont have the oppurtunity to practice with airliners as we recognise the difficulties that would cause for you therefore we dont ask.
Yes we do understand the principles of radio waves & that you can hear PP calls hundreds of miles away as we hear CAT ac every few minutes during the day on 121.5. Incidentally one of the CAT guys made an excellent job a week or so ago of stuck tx on 121.5 for about 20 mins making it impossible for anyone to tx on 121.5 from the midlands south.
I dont mean to point my finger at CAT but its attitudes like those displayed by DFC that pi$$ me right off. Telling me as an ATCO what my unit should be doing & berating anyone who dares to make use of 121.5 for practice just isnt on. WE ALL KNOW THAT ANOTHER FREQ IS NEEDED! Why wear out your heartbeats moaning at those who are legitimately operating within the system as is ???? Do something about the present system or stop moaning AT us. All that you are doing from my own personal perspectrive is making your profession (one I currently hold in high esteem) look not quite so professional.
Diddley Dee
Last edited by Diddley Dee; 27th May 2006 at 22:28.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah but no but yeah but.
As has just been stated - Us commercial pilots have to 'manage' the flight. My management head says "Busy airspace, over land, constant R/t on primary frequency - more chance of danger by screwing up a clearance, autopilot changes required due level/heading changes due busy airspace - THEREFORE - Turn off box two with 121.500 and leave it to D&D to monitor or any other less busy crew member flying and use box two ONLY when absolutely necessary"
Isn't this Risk Management?
As has just been stated - Us commercial pilots have to 'manage' the flight. My management head says "Busy airspace, over land, constant R/t on primary frequency - more chance of danger by screwing up a clearance, autopilot changes required due level/heading changes due busy airspace - THEREFORE - Turn off box two with 121.500 and leave it to D&D to monitor or any other less busy crew member flying and use box two ONLY when absolutely necessary"
Isn't this Risk Management?
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh nooooooooooo!
Looks like this thread is heading straight back to where it started.....deep breath....but I would like to advise that if the notice was not written by ATC/CAA, it is not official. Suggest 121.5 is the way to go on a Mayday call, after transmitting on one's current in-use freq. But practice Pans? Well, read all the preceding stuff, mine included, and decide for yourself.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You only have to read the official view as posted by Diddley Dee. He works at D & D and has made his views very clear. I really do not understand why confusion and doubt is once again sowed. Sorry to say this once again, but can't you read?
Quote: (From CAP 413)
1.8 Training Fix
Pilots who do not wish to carry out a practice emergency but only wish to confirm their position may request a ‘Training Fix’ on 121.5 MHz. This ‘Training Fix’ is secondary in importance to actual emergency calls but takes precedence over practice emergency calls in the event of simultaneous incidents. Unquote.
1.8 Training Fix
Pilots who do not wish to carry out a practice emergency but only wish to confirm their position may request a ‘Training Fix’ on 121.5 MHz. This ‘Training Fix’ is secondary in importance to actual emergency calls but takes precedence over practice emergency calls in the event of simultaneous incidents. Unquote.
To everyone quoting D&D missives, CAP documents and other sources:
Practically no one said that practise PAN's are illegal in the UK.
We are however discussing the potential implications of this practice in today's busy post ATC environment.
So please stop quoting D&D and CAP-rules. It's irrelevant in this.
Practically no one said that practise PAN's are illegal in the UK.
We are however discussing the potential implications of this practice in today's busy post ATC environment.
So please stop quoting D&D and CAP-rules. It's irrelevant in this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PENKO
The potential implications seem to be that it saves lives, but dont listen to me, look a't Wide Body's post, he's qualified to talk about both perspectives, I'm not.
I would be the first to agree that a discrete frequency for GA use would be ideal, but it seems unlikely to happen.
So perhaps just bear a thought for us GA boys, down in the long grass, with a potential glide time that may be measured seconds following an SEP engine failure, when a CAT jock inadvertently transmits on 121.5, stopping us having access for up to a minute or two.
It's our problem, as well as yours.
Edited to say that I understand your problem too, not being aggressive!
The potential implications seem to be that it saves lives, but dont listen to me, look a't Wide Body's post, he's qualified to talk about both perspectives, I'm not.
I would be the first to agree that a discrete frequency for GA use would be ideal, but it seems unlikely to happen.
So perhaps just bear a thought for us GA boys, down in the long grass, with a potential glide time that may be measured seconds following an SEP engine failure, when a CAT jock inadvertently transmits on 121.5, stopping us having access for up to a minute or two.
It's our problem, as well as yours.
Edited to say that I understand your problem too, not being aggressive!
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 1st Jun 2006 at 14:06.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penko - You are quite right that rules depicting what we do doesn't always make it right either. However, we have an issue here that clearly upsets some busy pilots feeling the need to monitor 121.500 and quote that during a busy ATC environment find it difficult. If ATC is that busy it must imply that you are less likely to suffer a loss of comms etc. And when you do, you will be very quick to realise as a busy ATC environment normal means lots of frequency changes along a route - you will suss something is up.
So in my view the only need to listen to 121.500 is for distress of other aircraft in the area. Well if you are that busy, concentrate on your own task and worry about others when you have time - big deal? It is frowned upon within the operation that I fly to listen to two frequencies at once. You either have box one or box two - not both. This is because it is recognised that assessment of risk suggests that if we do not concentrate on the task in hand - a busy ATC environment - a potentially more disastrous incident will happen over any incident we may be able to "capture" by listening to 121.500.
So a practice pan is annoying and distracting. Is it the case that as London give you a very demanding clearance that requires immediate action you will ignore this cos some poor sod has called a mayday? Surely you will get your house in order first by prioritising on your safety before others...Or are you just going to be a saint and ignore London to be the Helping Hand as you crash into the other airliner......hmmm. Dramatic I know but some people are being rather dramatic about a rather easily minimised facet of todays ATC environement which is not wholly the cause of the puddle jumpers.
We can all help the issue as it clearly is apparent that many incidents are avoided by puddle jumpers being more forthright with the use of 121.500. There are most definately two sides to this little gem.
So in my view the only need to listen to 121.500 is for distress of other aircraft in the area. Well if you are that busy, concentrate on your own task and worry about others when you have time - big deal? It is frowned upon within the operation that I fly to listen to two frequencies at once. You either have box one or box two - not both. This is because it is recognised that assessment of risk suggests that if we do not concentrate on the task in hand - a busy ATC environment - a potentially more disastrous incident will happen over any incident we may be able to "capture" by listening to 121.500.
So a practice pan is annoying and distracting. Is it the case that as London give you a very demanding clearance that requires immediate action you will ignore this cos some poor sod has called a mayday? Surely you will get your house in order first by prioritising on your safety before others...Or are you just going to be a saint and ignore London to be the Helping Hand as you crash into the other airliner......hmmm. Dramatic I know but some people are being rather dramatic about a rather easily minimised facet of todays ATC environement which is not wholly the cause of the puddle jumpers.
We can all help the issue as it clearly is apparent that many incidents are avoided by puddle jumpers being more forthright with the use of 121.500. There are most definately two sides to this little gem.
Originally Posted by PENKO
To everyone quoting D&D missives, CAP documents and other sources:
Practically no one said that practise PAN's are illegal in the UK.
We are however discussing the potential implications of this practice in today's busy post ATC environment.
So please stop quoting D&D and CAP-rules. It's irrelevant in this.
Practically no one said that practise PAN's are illegal in the UK.
We are however discussing the potential implications of this practice in today's busy post ATC environment.
So please stop quoting D&D and CAP-rules. It's irrelevant in this.
However, it's mainly a CRM and procedural issue. If you can't cope, change your SOPs. Or use the volume control - that's what it's there for.
Don't know whether they're already in use somewhere, but it would seem to me that a VHF frequency close to 121.5 could be allocated for practice emergencies eg 121.475 or 121.525. It would require international agreement of course, as the frequency could potentially be used anywhere within UK airspace, but it would seem sensible to put an upper limit on its use eg FL100 in order to avoid interference with other users in neighbouring FIR's.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
The abuse of 121.50 in he UK as a general training frequency needs to stop.
Do people have to make an actual call just to see that the system works?
No.
DFC
Do people have to make an actual call just to see that the system works?
No.
DFC
I am a 34 hour UK PPL who is now very happy to talk to anyone on the radio - very different to when I was at 10 hours who was asked to contact 121.5 for a practice pan. After just talking to AFIS and A/G, actually talking to a "real" controller was quite a scary thought
A couple of practice Pans later, I was at ease and would use the frequency if I was in any sort of trouble. Without the practice pan calls, I can quite imagine trying to talk myself out of calling them.
RK
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geometry...
Well we live and learn!
It is funny to see a triangulation thread going in circles.
I have said my piece before but maybe I'm square!
Maybe we should all toe the line, if you get my angle...
And please - no more going off at a tangent!
FC.
It is funny to see a triangulation thread going in circles.
I have said my piece before but maybe I'm square!
Maybe we should all toe the line, if you get my angle...
And please - no more going off at a tangent!
FC.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: by the fire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was instructing full-time 6 years ago, I was told by one of the D+D controllers that they wanted practice pans for training some of their junior controllers.
Recently monitoring 121.5 on box 2 in MAN area. listened to GA aircraft genuinely lost. Poor guy couldn't see his airfield despite being vectored virtually overhead and sounded v unsure of himself. I wonder how he felt to hear the occasional voice say "You're on Guard" (US accents mainly). It was annoying to hear so-called professional pilots not actually listen to the transmissions and keep their gobs shut. It's filed as a difference by the UK and published as such. If operating to HAJ or DUS (and probably plenty of other German airfields) the plates say there is uncontrolled VFR traffic up to FL100. That's not ideal either but you read the relevant notes and take heed.
Regards
Recently monitoring 121.5 on box 2 in MAN area. listened to GA aircraft genuinely lost. Poor guy couldn't see his airfield despite being vectored virtually overhead and sounded v unsure of himself. I wonder how he felt to hear the occasional voice say "You're on Guard" (US accents mainly). It was annoying to hear so-called professional pilots not actually listen to the transmissions and keep their gobs shut. It's filed as a difference by the UK and published as such. If operating to HAJ or DUS (and probably plenty of other German airfields) the plates say there is uncontrolled VFR traffic up to FL100. That's not ideal either but you read the relevant notes and take heed.
Regards
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diddley Dee,
You can shake your head all you want. Let me simply say that even if you did cycle between radar and D+D in the MASOR, you would be simply shaking your head at a max of 3 tracks.
There is a frequency where you can get all the practice you want - using RAF aircraft and not affecting either the civil or military distress frequencies.
There is also some very expensive sims available to you but under used I think.
What everyone who says this is necessary and one can turn off 121.50 if it is busy fails to see is that nearby ATC units can not turn off 121.50 and while the pilot can turn it off to avoid the distraction, the ATC unit can not and a distracted controller is just as bad as a distracted pilot during a busy period.
There is also the issue that pilots operating in quiet areas of the Brest FIR heading out over the pond should not have to turn off 121.50 because the frequency is being abused hundreds of miles away.
The D+D controller allows the practice pan to continue based on there being no emergencies in progress with them. Do they ask Scottish or all the other adjacent units first? - They should.
They should check with everyone likely to be affected and that would include the B747 miles away who has just started to pick up a real signal.
-------
MrBitsy,
Why not travel a bit and talk to various ATC units enroute for a service. The experience you gain would be more benificial than drilling holes in the sky within 10nm of base chatting "with real controllers" on 121.50.
I never train students to call 121.50 unless in a real emergency and no help available on the current frequency. That works for the 99.9% of pilots so why not the 0.1% that think practice pans are necessary.
If practice pans are such a good thing, and so necessary and every British PPL needs to do one can anyone explain why they can not be done in the Channel Islands?
Not available over the majority of the FIR and not permitted in other parts of airspace. Sounds like a "necessary only in certain areas" type of necessary to me!
Regards,
DFC
You can shake your head all you want. Let me simply say that even if you did cycle between radar and D+D in the MASOR, you would be simply shaking your head at a max of 3 tracks.
There is a frequency where you can get all the practice you want - using RAF aircraft and not affecting either the civil or military distress frequencies.
There is also some very expensive sims available to you but under used I think.
What everyone who says this is necessary and one can turn off 121.50 if it is busy fails to see is that nearby ATC units can not turn off 121.50 and while the pilot can turn it off to avoid the distraction, the ATC unit can not and a distracted controller is just as bad as a distracted pilot during a busy period.
There is also the issue that pilots operating in quiet areas of the Brest FIR heading out over the pond should not have to turn off 121.50 because the frequency is being abused hundreds of miles away.
The D+D controller allows the practice pan to continue based on there being no emergencies in progress with them. Do they ask Scottish or all the other adjacent units first? - They should.
They should check with everyone likely to be affected and that would include the B747 miles away who has just started to pick up a real signal.
-------
MrBitsy,
Why not travel a bit and talk to various ATC units enroute for a service. The experience you gain would be more benificial than drilling holes in the sky within 10nm of base chatting "with real controllers" on 121.50.
I never train students to call 121.50 unless in a real emergency and no help available on the current frequency. That works for the 99.9% of pilots so why not the 0.1% that think practice pans are necessary.
If practice pans are such a good thing, and so necessary and every British PPL needs to do one can anyone explain why they can not be done in the Channel Islands?
Not available over the majority of the FIR and not permitted in other parts of airspace. Sounds like a "necessary only in certain areas" type of necessary to me!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
MrBitsy,
Why not travel a bit and talk to various ATC units enroute for a service. The experience you gain would be more benificial than drilling holes in the sky within 10nm of base chatting "with real controllers" on 121.50.
DFC
Why not travel a bit and talk to various ATC units enroute for a service. The experience you gain would be more benificial than drilling holes in the sky within 10nm of base chatting "with real controllers" on 121.50.
DFC
RK.
DFC: as far as I'm aware, very few civil ATC units have 121.5 installed, hence they can't turn it down or off; oh they may have an ICOM to dial it up, but it's certainly not on their main radio installations.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad to see that the UK CAA still maintains it's hypocritical attitude to all with such arrogance.
Last year they issued a circular warning aircraft operators and pilots not to use 123.45 for air to air comms within range of UK airspace. So, even if you were outside UK airspace, these effers were trying to tell you what to do.
A few years ago the UK CAA issued a notam stating that the UK MoD were engaged in GPS jamming trials. These trials actually interfered with GPS signal reception in areas beyond the UK. So it's ok for the Brits to interfere with aircraft operations outside of the UK whilst they don't want interference from outsiders to their operations.
Arrogant sheites.
Last year they issued a circular warning aircraft operators and pilots not to use 123.45 for air to air comms within range of UK airspace. So, even if you were outside UK airspace, these effers were trying to tell you what to do.
A few years ago the UK CAA issued a notam stating that the UK MoD were engaged in GPS jamming trials. These trials actually interfered with GPS signal reception in areas beyond the UK. So it's ok for the Brits to interfere with aircraft operations outside of the UK whilst they don't want interference from outsiders to their operations.
Arrogant sheites.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it's out of character for me to defend the CAA, it seems necessary to do so in the light of the misinformation quoted.
No they didn't. They specifically mentioned that the information was to clarify the situation regarding use of 123.450 within the UK FIR. Not within range of, not outside, but within. It also did not tell pilots to not use the frequency. It merely pointed out it's correct function in UK airspace, the problems it could cause if misused, and then left it to the pilot to make the correct decision (i.e. ''Attention is brought to the fact that the resulting interference from unauthorised use of this channel is potentially detremental to flight safety.'')
Nothing to do with the CAA being arrogant. GPS is, and always has been, primarily a Military system. Civil use piggy backs it through the generosity of the US Department of Defence (or Defense [sic]). Military authorities worldwide have a legitimate right to either experiment against signals, or conduct training in system degradation and jamming. It's how people train for war or build defensive systems for their own purposes. The UK is a close ally of the US, both are in NATO. Co-ordination of activities and exchange of experience is useful to both sides.
Now, if the constellation was a civil funded system with operators paying for it, you could have a whinge about it. But until the 'still looking for a purpose' Gallileo system comes along, freeloaders will just have to put up with the fact that they have no say over the availability of GPS, especially if the inconvenience is being caused by military users.
I'm glad to see that the UK CAA still maintains it's hypocritical attitude to all with such arrogance.
Last year they issued a circular warning aircraft operators and pilots not to use 123.45 for air to air comms within range of UK airspace. So, even if you were outside UK airspace, these effers were trying to tell you what to do.
Last year they issued a circular warning aircraft operators and pilots not to use 123.45 for air to air comms within range of UK airspace. So, even if you were outside UK airspace, these effers were trying to tell you what to do.
A few years ago the UK CAA issued a notam stating that the UK MoD were engaged in GPS jamming trials. These trials actually interfered with GPS signal reception in areas beyond the UK. So it's ok for the Brits to interfere with aircraft operations outside of the UK whilst they don't want interference from outsiders to their operations.
Now, if the constellation was a civil funded system with operators paying for it, you could have a whinge about it. But until the 'still looking for a purpose' Gallileo system comes along, freeloaders will just have to put up with the fact that they have no say over the availability of GPS, especially if the inconvenience is being caused by military users.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
Diddley Dee,
You can shake your head all you want. Let me simply say that even if you did cycle between radar and D+D in the MASOR, you would be simply shaking your head at a max of 3 tracks.
There is a frequency where you can get all the practice you want - using RAF aircraft and not affecting either the civil or military distress frequencies.
There is also some very expensive sims available to you but under used I think.
What everyone who says this is necessary and one can turn off 121.50 if it is busy fails to see is that nearby ATC units can not turn off 121.50 and while the pilot can turn it off to avoid the distraction, the ATC unit can not and a distracted controller is just as bad as a distracted pilot during a busy period.
There is also the issue that pilots operating in quiet areas of the Brest FIR heading out over the pond should not have to turn off 121.50 because the frequency is being abused hundreds of miles away.
The D+D controller allows the practice pan to continue based on there being no emergencies in progress with them. Do they ask Scottish or all the other adjacent units first? - They should.
They should check with everyone likely to be affected and that would include the B747 miles away who has just started to pick up a real signal.
Regards,
DFC
You can shake your head all you want. Let me simply say that even if you did cycle between radar and D+D in the MASOR, you would be simply shaking your head at a max of 3 tracks.
There is a frequency where you can get all the practice you want - using RAF aircraft and not affecting either the civil or military distress frequencies.
There is also some very expensive sims available to you but under used I think.
What everyone who says this is necessary and one can turn off 121.50 if it is busy fails to see is that nearby ATC units can not turn off 121.50 and while the pilot can turn it off to avoid the distraction, the ATC unit can not and a distracted controller is just as bad as a distracted pilot during a busy period.
There is also the issue that pilots operating in quiet areas of the Brest FIR heading out over the pond should not have to turn off 121.50 because the frequency is being abused hundreds of miles away.
The D+D controller allows the practice pan to continue based on there being no emergencies in progress with them. Do they ask Scottish or all the other adjacent units first? - They should.
They should check with everyone likely to be affected and that would include the B747 miles away who has just started to pick up a real signal.
Regards,
DFC
1. Max of three tracks. Usually yes but certainly not a max, and for a very good reason, ever tried three FJs in different areas of the the country all wanting different things under Radar Control & trying to route around CAT?Maybe you have I dont know. Three tracks, ever controlled a busy tanker slot with multiple chicks often handed over at V short notice. "oh cant take those two I've already got three ahead"..... Dont think so!
2. The sims are there to train new arrivals before going live as trainees on console.To suggest they could be used to maintain currency on is laughable, we have neither the staff or the time.
3. A frequency we can get all the practice we want on? Oh that will be the Mil PETF will it? The calls we get from GA are totally different to those from Mil ac. Handling Mil emergencies does not keep you up to speed on dealing with some guy who is lost, has no transponder & you cant see him on radar. Or maybe you are suggesting that GA ac fit UHF to their ac & use PETF?
4. Frequency being abused hundreds of miles away.... Where???? PP & TF calls are legitimate use of 121.5 as mandated by the CAA. Now if you are talking of ther abuse on 121.5 made by CAT talking on it....Then yeah okay I see your point.
5. Yes ( yawn ) we do liase with SCATCC
6. Check with B747 before Tx on 121.5. So, let me get this right.... you are now suggesting that we perhaps go out on 121.5 first & say "excuse me does anyone object if we do a PP for a couple of minutes on 121.5..."
In which order do you forsee them replying, alphabetically perhaps?
We are I assume, sitting on opposite sides of the same problem, I dont understand why you feel the solution is to bang on at D&D & the pilots who use 121.5 for practice. If you feel that strongly about it why dont you either ....
A. Adapt like so many of the other CAT guys on here do
B. Lobby to get things changed from within your work environment.
Regards
Diddley Dee
Last edited by Diddley Dee; 5th Jun 2006 at 12:50.