radio calls

[Ben Longden]

I was just in the backyard lying in the sun - on my day off, recovering from one hell of a cold that has laid me up in bed for nearly a week- and was listening, as you do, to the local Echuca CTAF and area frequency.

 

Anyway, there was a discussion a little while ago of what is the correct radio calls, and I thought the following would be of interest.

 

There was a Jabiru tootling around doing a string of circuits on 17, with a flawless radio technique - calls being done by the book.

 

Then a Seneca comes in and states; "Echuca traffic, Seneca *#% joining midfield downwind for runway 35" No inbound call or anything.

 

Then the Jab drivers voice gets a bit different and he says he is on base for 17.

 

This could be interesting, I thought. Might get the cameras ready..

 

But they worked it out with the Seneca coming in behind the Jab on 35

 

I wonder was it a bit of complacency on the Senecas' part, especially as he did a textbook departure call later on.

 

BUT it begs a few questions I guess.

 

On another note, and a good one, there has been lots of comment about foreign nationals not even trying to speak English (Chinglish?) when making radio calls (or even answering them) but top marks to the driver of VH-EPB from General Flying Services of Melbourne doing a solo nav. His radio calls were top class and whats more, I could understand what he was saying.. right from his inbound call to the departure after a string of T&G's.

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I've been thinking about this a bit in the last week or so. I'm kind of coming around the view that a capacity to manage complexity, which has as a key element situational awareness, is the key competency in the circuit.

 

I'll give you an example: Last week at Shepparton (virtually nil wind) we had a Tecnam doing circuits, a trike inbound, a Beech B200 doing firstly an NDB approach then low level circuits - complete with full stops and a couple of runway reversals and then finally a Tecnam inbound from a first dual nav.

 

The trike landed on 27 (not keen on a little wake turbulence from the B200 I suspect), the Tecnam was doing t&gs on 18 and the B200 was on 18 or 36 depending on his feelings at the time. Now this wasn't a busy circuit but it required a pilot to keep her head about her in the circuit and in-bound.

 

Bigger aircraft will land downwind, they will take the "nearest" runway and they do move fast.

 

The radio in this case was brisk but informative and nobody got their knickers in a twist about anything.

 

A further issue of course is the case of non-radio aircraft in this sort of situation. There was a very interesting conversation on another forum about "see and be seen" the evidence appears to be that it is a flawed concept - basically you are quite likely to miss seeing other aircraft until it's too late. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try of course! For me this is where following a standard circuit helps - aircraft are where other pilots are/should be looking.

 

The lesson for me though is that the circumstances I described created a challenge, particularly for new pilots.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Thats one of the things Tristo would say to me.. situational awareness is vital; knowing where you are in the circuit as well as where other aircraft are very important.

 

One of the best things about flying at Shepparton is the greater than average traffic. Its nothing unusual for six aircraft to be in the circuit at any one time, and situations like that certainlly make you aware of where things are, and where they need to be...

 

Ben

 

 

[Mazda]

We need to push for UNICOMs!

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Yes this issue has come up several times hasn't it? The problem we have often at The Oaks is opposite direction overflying our field circuit height. I don't think half of them know what state they are in let alone what frequency they should be on! I like to give inbound calls 10 mile, 5 mile, joining crosswind, downwind, turning base and on final. I also, once on the ground, like to give a call vacating the active runway. When taking off too and departing the area I like to call "Oaks traffic, Jabiru xxx leaving the circuit for departure to the north at xxx feet". They then know I am out of the picture. Call it too many radio calls but less of a chance of collision (providing they are listening). Hear hear Ben about the Engwish barrier. You should hear some of the aircraft at Sydney Airport calling in/out for APEC. There are certainly some exotic countries visiting us and accents to go with them

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

We need to push for UNICOMs!

Why please? I do not understand the proposed value of this nor the resourcing of it.

 

This is something that Dick Smith has been pushing for. I fail to see the benefit. Shepparton has a Unicom (ERSA refers) and it is of no earthly use in this or any other similar circumstance.

 

On the other hand a service (CA/GRS??) such as is provided at Narromine is very useful. However the resource requirement for the delivery of such a service limits it to a constrained time period during special events.

 

I'd be interested to understand the benefits and cost models that the proponents of UNICOMS see for them.

 

BTW the situation at YSHT that I referred to was not the least troubling or worrisome for any of the participants are far as I could make out.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Mazda]

Mike I can't understand how you could possibly fail to see the benefit. Let me think of the options.

 

Option 1. Nothing, which is what we have now in most places. All the problems above - people using incorrect runways, people on the wrong frequency or not knowing if the radio mic/transmit is selected correctly, flying in without having a clue really about any traffic that is at the airport, the wind direction, runway in use, without knowing that the weather may be clear in a certain direction, and without even really knowing if your own radio is working.

 

Option 2. CAGRO. The original plan was for this to be a UNICOM operator, with some basic training - say a CFI at the local school. Well that didn't happen and they now need a full ATC or flight service licence ... which means if there isn't someone local, an ex-ATCer has to be relocated and paid enough money to make that worthwhile. So this isn't going to happen at every local airport, leaving most airports back at Option 1. Nothing.

 

Option 3. UNICOM. This can be someone on the field so you don't have to move an ex-ATCer. It could be a groundsman, airline rep, flight instructor, etc. It doesn't take much training for someone to say "The wind is from the south" or "there are 2 aircraft in the circuit using runway 12" or "there's low cloud to the north" or "a Rex aircraft just departed to the west" or "there's an aircraft in the circuit not making any radio calls" or "I can't see your landing gear". If you make the call and no one answers, you'd check your frequency, volume etc, and realise that perhaps no one knows you are coming in because your radio may have failed.

 

Now under the current AIP, UNICOM operators are not supposed to give traffic, but it was never supposed to be this way, and under the next stage of NAS they CAN give traffic. If people stopped trying to oppose the airspace changes we would already have UNICOM operators giving basic traffic. They can't give clearances or provide separation (but even GAAP controllers are not responsible for separation in the air anyway).

 

UNICOM operators give advice which you can take or leave, but it is advice I'd rather have.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

There are several good points in both statements and I'm not a huge fan of Mr Smith but...I think the quick solution is to make the proper radio calls always and study maps properly and find out what freq you should be listening out on at any one point in time. I think radio procedure needs a little more concentration in training syllabus as many students have absolutely no idea on the radio. Some have zero confidence.

 

 

[Mazda]

Darren the big problem is that as much as people study the frequency, even airline crews get that wrong at times, and on aircraft with multiple radios & switches it is very easy to transmit or receive on the wrong radio. If there's no third party to talk to, the pilot may not even know. That's one way that an UNICOM operator can help.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Mazda, I agree. I never disagreed with any of you guys. There are good points in both posts. Look, no matter how one is trained in anything to do with flight, driving, diving whatever, there will always be errors. You could operate a UNICOM and pilots may not even know the UNICOM freq. I am sure that has happened too but I really do think that more effort needs to be put into radio procedure in the initial training stages. It's so important.

 

 

[vk3auu]

If you switch to the CTAF (or whatever it is currently called) frequency at 10 miles and give an inbound call and then listen, you should have a pretty good idea of what is going on by the time you get to the circuit. If there are other aircraft in the circuit, you can always ask what they believe is the active runway if the wind is light and/or variable.

 

With regard to the language problem, it pays to give those airports (such as Tocumwal) a wide berth if you are going past.

 

David

 

 

[Mazda]

Darren, one advantage is if someone doesn't know the frequency, the UNICOM operator could at least advise other aircraft coming in that an aircraft has flown in with no radio.

 

David, if you make an inbound call and get no response, there may be no one there, there may be someone there with no radio, or your radio may not be working. So again, a UNICOM operator could help!

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I'm now utterly convinced that a UNICOM is a WAFTAM. Consider the following:

 

1. I am inbound to said airfield with a UNICOM in place. I am confident of the safety provided by the UNICOM but alas the groundsman who usually mans the UNICOM is having a crap...
    
    
   
2. I'm inbound to said UNICOM airfield and I call inbound but I've stuffed it and I'm on the wrong frequency. But because there is no AFRU on the UNICOM I decide that the lack of response is caused by scenario 1 above. But it's not of course and as I'm on the wrong frequency the other traffic in the circuit hasn't heard me...
    
    
   
3. I'm inbound and the UNICOM operator tells me to use RWY 23...so I do and I have a crash with an aircraft landing on the reciprocal rwy. I'm the PIC and therefore it's down to me. But I decide that I'll sue the groundsman anyway....
    
   

 

What the supporters of UNICOMs want is Flight Service. People who know what they are doing, on frequency telling me what's going on. But we decided that we couldn't afford the service so we ditched it.

 

Bluntly I'm a big supporter of CTAFs: I'm responsible and I know I'm responsible and I'm not under any misapprehensions about anyone else being responsible. AFRU units are a great way of determining whether you are on frequency.

 

Please let's not kid ourselves that a UNICOM will solve anything. It delivers nothing that a CTAF with an AFRU doesn't. Let the groundsman mow the grass.

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Mike, I'm with you on this. At Narromine for the RAA flyin there is a Unicom service provided but the lack of one wouldn't mean those that want to fly stay on the gnd and those that want to land circle endlessly, we all know its purpose is to gain efficiencies, when that can be done safely, by batching arrivals and departures.

 

Perhaps the only thing I dislike about 126.7 is that its common and as such you get to hear whats happening in the 100nms around you, perhaps at 5-10 airfields that arent relevant. In busy locations that can be annoying, but then given that most airfield where 126.7 is used are generally unlicensed and as such no common way of safely allocating a frequency and communicating that freq exists.

 

If a unicom service was a guaranteed service then it may be useful, though expensive, the fact that it therefore cant be guaranteed makes it next to useless as a response, or lack of response allows you to conclude nothing more than what you had before you called. Even if a UNICOM response is given to your call , it may be that he has returned from scenario 1. in the post above, and as such no longer has the full situational awareness that we seek. everything said would have to be treated by the PIC as potentially only being part of the total story.

 

Andy

 

 

[Mazda]

Mike, so you'd prefer to fly blindly into an airfield with absolutely no service, than to have someone on the ground? :confused: No radio confirmation. No wind information. No actual local weather. No basic traffic. No one to call services if there's an accident. That's absolutely crazy.

 

Let's be realistic. You will not get a CAGRO at many airports. Now THAT is expensive. AFRUS are good but they have many limitations and they are not at every field.

 

So, to your questions.

 

1. The UNICOM operator is on the toilet. I've been cleared to land from the toilet of a GAAP tower in the past, so what's the difference? Just say that he/she can't see the runway and is not available. So the aircraft returns to the normal CTAF that you love so much. I'm sure the AFRU would be on if there is one at the field. So why not have the extra safety of the UNICOM operator when they ARE available? Say when RPT flights are coming in?

 

2. You stuff up. You have just as much chance stuffing up when flying into a normal CTAF when you think you are on frequency and no one can hear you. The difference now is that other airport users can be told about you coming in without making calls.

 

3. The UNICOM operator cannot "tell" you to do anything. All they can do is to say there are aircraft using a certain runway, or the wind is from a certain direction. The runway choice is entirely yours. It's the same as if you make an inbound call and someone says they are using runway 23, but they are actually using the reciprocal (it happens). Personally, I'd tend to take the word of a resident like a UNICOM operator than an itinerant pilot. Of course they can make a mistake, just like ATC (who also get runway numbers wrong from time to time). Surely you don't blindly follow ATC instructions that are clearly wrong? Of course not. And good luck sueing the groundsman. It doesn't even happen in the USA.

 

All you have to do is look at the huge number of incident reports in CTAFS. Like the one at Olympic Dam where a Metro and an Fokker F50 nearly ran into each other. The result of that is that the airport operator has closed the airport around the times when RPT operate.

 

Why do you think a UNICOM operator would be expensive? It would be a local person, perhaps someone already based on the field - not like getting an air traffic controller from interstate as is done for Narromine. From your own point of view as a pilot, do you think you could look out and say there is an aircraft doing circuits on runway 23? Well, you could be a UNICOM operator at the field. It isn't rocket science.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Mazda,

 

I think that the Olympic Dam incident is a classic case of simple human failure. The holes in the swiss cheese so very nearly all lined up!!

 

Let's be clear on this: I think that CTAFs give us a good level of safety up to and including "light" RPT usage - whether they be a plain CTAF or a CTAF ®. The only time I'm really interested in a CA/GRO is for the days over Easter at Narromine or a flying weekend at Temora. Other than that they are non supportable.

 

As far as wind and weather goes I can dial up the AWIS on my Nav radio or in default of that I can dial up the AWIS on that newfangled device the mobile phone. It works I do it.

 

As for UNICOMs I simply don't think they advance the cause of safety one jot...except that for cases like OD the operator may run a UNICOM for the 30 minutes either side of an RPT scheduled departure. What that amounts to is a situation that existed for years at places like Taree: The inbound a/c calls up company and says "G'day mate we've got 30 PAX for you and we need 3 AVIS and one Budget and 4 taxis, what's it like there? Oh look it's OK wind from the south at 3 knots. I've got 13 for you - 3 for Port and the rest for Sydney. What time do you reckon? Oh we'll be there at 13".

 

That's it - I used to hear it regularly. The guy on the ground didn't give traffic because the company wouldn't let him. Even if he did it wouldn't help anyone else except for the few minutes around the RPT traffic and in any event he wouldn't speak to anyone but the company a/c...because it wasn't his job and he didn't want any liability. When the aircraft left he went off to town to his real job as the local travel agent who just happened to be the company's handling agent in that neck of the woods.

 

As for your point 2 above...the UNICOM operator is not going to know I'm there. He/she hasn't heard me call because I'm not on frequency. He/she is NOT going to be out scanning the skies - it just doesn't happen. And even if he/she was they still wouldn't see me probably until I was late final on my straight in approach and so it's all to no avail. And as I understand it that is just where the OD incident took place - late final for the inbound.

 

In order to deliver the purported benefits of UNICOM it needs to be expectable and reliable and the information complete. That equals full-time staffing of a competent person providing UNICOM and only UNICOM. That means a trained person available every day during UNICOM hours - whatever they may be. That means in effect more than one person so trained because of sickness, holiday...It means somewhere warm and dry to sit and it means a reliable radio system housed somewhere. All of that amounts to the same investment as Flight Service. That isn't ever going to happen. So UNICOM cannot deliver the purported benefits. But if its supporters have their way we'll end up with pilots thinking there is a decent safety mechanism there when there isn't and councils wondering how fast they can sell their airstrip. I would prefer to be clearly aware of, and for every other user to be clearly aware of, the limitations of the services or lack of them. Then everyone can apply due care. UNICOMs represent a falsehood that is likely to reduce rather than enhance safety.

 

My issue is that UNICOM is being trumpeted by Dick and others as some fantastic contribution to air safety. It's not, it never will be and I think we should all understand that.

 

Furthermore the operators of many of the strips we use are local councils. Any suggestion that their employees might have to staff a UNICOM will have one response: "let's sell the place even more quickly than we intended to anyway." UNICOMS are a no-win game which risk having more downsides than up, especially if anyone decides to mandate them.

 

Grump, grump, grump....;-)

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

In this thread we've also jumped direct to a purported "solution" to a problem that I'm not even sure we really have.

 

However let's assume that we do have the "problem". In that case the "solution" is much more likely to be forward looking than rushing into the future with our eyes glued to the rear vision mirror.

 

Across the world governments have made decisions about how much they are prepared to pay for safety. Dick Smith was a key mover in this activity for air safety in Australia. That's OK but now we've got to where we are let's not try and bluff our way back into the past. 30 years ago (as a very young person ;-)) my home airstrip had a Flight Service Centre. It worked well, great service, laid back staff...we've decided we can't afford that.

 

So let's go back to Echuca and the origin of this thread. Let's put a UNICOM there and let's put it there in a way that I reckon will actually deliver on the purported safety benefits:

 

• 1.4 staff members F/T @ $50k salary each = $75k pa;
   
   
  
• On-costs at .5 salary = $37.5k pa;
   
   
  
• Premises capital cost of $150K amortised over 10 years = $15K pa;
   
   
  
• Radio and ancillary equipment = $5k pa.
   
  

 

Now note I haven't paid these people much and I probably can't get who I need at that price. However I end up with an annual cost of $132,500.

 

Now let's say that Echuca has 15 movements a day of all sorts and that the cost is to be spread evenly. That's 5475 movements a year and a LANDING FEE OF $24.20. Now I doubt that Echuca averages 15 movements a day. But it doesn't currently have a landing fee. If the council were made to put in a UNICOM it would have a landing fee and whilst they were at it I'm sure that they would add up all the other costs of running the airport and add them in to the landing fee. All of a sudden you have a landing fee well over thirty dollars.

 

Not happy Jan, not happy at all.

 

That's the 1970s answer to safety.

 

A more effective way of getting traffic in this year of our lord 2007 is by ADS-B. If everyone has ADS-B OUT then all traffic info is available. For those with ADS-B IN they have a traffic display of everyone in the air within squitter range.

 

Yes there's a capital cost. But we have a safe, reliable system that delivers on its promise. Pilots know what it does and doesn't do and they don't have to rely on others.

 

I think we should look forward not backwards in trying to solve whatever problems there might be. In my view the problem doesn't really exist at places like Echuca and Shepparton and the hundreds of other strips like them around Australia.

 

Let's not do what we've done with security where we've turned places like Victoria River Downs into a security controlled airport and pushed costs up well beyond any reasonable level...and all for a completely false sense of security.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[sain]

Not to be difficult, but in reality your salary for those workers should really be doubled (when costing), to cover things like ongoing training (including transport to and from + accomodation), liability insurance, super contributions, general resource usage etc.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

No wind information

How about looking down when joining cross wind? As all good pilots should be doing. Always a sure indication from the sock then ;) Mike hear hear with the ADSB. I'll be playing around with it very shortly and hope to bring some of the experience to these forums. Now in regards to this CASA want it compulsory for all RPT/Commercial transport/International Airlines visiting our shores to have this system. Apparently they will have within the next few years. Kaz might be able to tell you more but every single day I see more and more traffic appearing on the ADSB screens. So given time it may become compulsory for GA and Recreational.

 

 

[Mazda]

Chris is absolutely right on ADS-B. ADS-B is great for enroute, but realistically here in Oz there is very little enroute risk. In the circuit area ADS-B is completely useless because it does NOT have an audio read out like TCAS, meaning that a single pilot in the circuit will have to look down at the screen - and of course that's when you need to be looking out of the window. |Then of course there is still no resolution about which ADS-B system is going to be used around the world. It's like beta and VHS. I hope we don't end up with beta.

 

The costings you have for UNICOM operators are unrealistic. Have you considered the world model? UNICOM operators are firies or baggage handlers, and it is part of their job. It is NOT ATC and I can't see why you say if they are not there every second of the day it is not a worthwhile service. Even towered airports have no service at times - does that mean we should close down all towers if they don't operate 24 hours per day?

 

What "ongoing training"? You are acting as though a UNICOM operator is a highly trained ATC. They are not! They need to know north from south, cloud from sun. Sain, if you were at your home airfield do you think you'd be able to tell a pilot coming in that the weather looked bad to the east? It's not hard.

 

Have you ever flown to country strips with the farm manager on the radio? "G'day. There's a rut on the cross strip so use the main, and there's no wind." That obviously takes a lot of ongoing training and I doubt that he's paid a cent extra.

 

As I said in a previous post, at present UNICOM operators cannot provide traffic, but in the next stage of NAS they can give basic information.

 

You are absolutely right about the Swiss cheese theory with Olympic Dam. And that is why a UNICOM operator can help. The Metro's calls were not heard, so a UNICOM operator would only have to tell the Fokker about the existence of the Metro.

 

Consider the rest of the world. UNICOM operators are very common. In the USA airline aircraft cannot operate to places without a UNICOM, so obviously they believe it is worthwhile. They really must think we are country hicks over here.

 

There are known risks at CTAFs which have been identified way back in BASI days. Not long ago I had some turkey calling "entering and rolling" when I was on short final. I called, but just say I'd put the radio on the wrong frequency or it wasn't working. Personally I would have loved a UNICOM operator there that day.

 

 

[blueshed]

How Interesting

 

Hi Guy's

 

would you feel it is a really good idea to look out the front window, as, after all we are flying VFR (Visual Flight Rules). In the book I learnt from we were taught to look out all windows of the aircraft, for the majority of information required to fly the machine.

 

Hence the radio is secondary to all! AVIATE, NAVIGATE and then COMMUNICATE.

 

What was everyone else taught?

 

Don't get me wrong Radio is a great asset, however we must never assume they will or always are working.

 

Would it be possible to have an legend attached to these posts for those of us not up to speed with the latest or for those people who are just learning, so we can all understand what the different bunches of leter's stuck together actually represent!

 

Cheers Guy

 

 

[Mazda]

Yes Blueshed, you are absolutely right! UNICOMs are just there for a bit of extra advice - think of it as a safety net.

 

UNICOM = Universal Communications. An operator is just someone on the ground talking on the aerodrome frequency.

 

CAGRO - Certified Air/Ground Operator. Similar to a UNICOM operator but the person must have an air traffic control licence. So the person is a trained controller, but if there is no local controller available the airport has to pay to get someone to go there.

 

AFRU - Aerodrome Frequency Response Unit. Equipment on the airport frequency which says the name of the airport (if there has been no aircraft there within a certain period of time) when you make your inbound or taxi call, and just gives a beeping sound if there has been a call on the frequency recently. It confirms that you are on frequency. ERSA shows airports which have one.

 

CTAF = Common Traffic Advisory Frequency.

 

NAS - National Airspace System.

 

ADS-B - Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast. Equipment consisting of a transponder type box which shows the aircraft location/height (with call sign) to ATC, any aircraft with an ADS-B display, and anyone with monitoring equipment on the ground.

 

TCAS - Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System. A box in aircraft with a screen showing transponder equipped aircraft on the screen and giving an aural warning to the pilot telling them what they need to do to avoid the other aircraft (climb, descent, turn left or right). It doesn't need the other aircraft to have ADS-B, just a normal transponder.