Speaking on the radio

[ian00798]

At some runways the other end may not be visible from the departure end, so it may be worth giving a vacating call so the guy waiting to roll up the other end knows your clear. Toowoomba is a good example of this one, and ersa recommends giving a vacating call as well. Otherwise you are right, it's an unnecessary call cluttering up the radio. Frankly so is a taxi call at an uncontrolled aerodrome.

 

 

[ian00798]

Even in places like the USA where you can be cleared to land at a controlled airport with the runway still occupied by a preceding aircraft,

You can be in Australia too, sometimes with as little as 600m separation depending on the weights of the aircraft involved.

 

 

[SDQDI]

As long as you DON"T use CB radio wanker words. I have heard a few 'ten-fours' and 'come-back' used by newbies in the past.

Not just a newbie thing, radio procedure can be found lacking in plenty of high hour pilots out in the sticks.

As for the "traffic location" and "location traffic" thingy I have to say that I agree more with Old K. If hearing "traffic" first is a bad thing then I would have to say that a huge percentage of calls I hear are bad, just because that first word is getting cut off for whatever reason.

 

It is most frustrating when on 126.7 and you are say near Narrabri and get

 

".... Traffic 10 miles to the southeast at 3500 inbound expect circuit one two Mudgee traffic"

 

Which means you concentrate on a whole transmission (increasing mental workload) which you could've ignored from the start if they had worded it around the other way. So I don't really agree with the logic that hearing "traffic" first will desensitise the word as it is already the word heard first on a lot of transmissions albeit unintentionally so.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Why not just comply like most people?...

Because this is not a Stalininst state. We still have the freedom to innovate...and it's safer to to put the less important word at the start, in case it's missed.

 

There are some people who want to fly RA on CTA...

I'm not one of them

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...The thing I'm not as comfortable with is your decision to unilaterally change an accepted procedure...

But Ian I'm not; other pilots use this form of words, including at least one of my instructors.

 

...If you feel as strongly as I believe you do about this, then I recommend going through the correct channels and having the procedure changed, until then please respect your fellow pilots, and the professional image of the entire organisation, and comply with the rules.

I just don't get what all this fuss is about! I've heard an awful lot of non-standard radio talk, including from commercial pilots. Seriously, are you blokes concerned that one person chooses, for improved safety, to put the word "traffic" before the location?

 

 

[Butch]

We still have the freedom to innovate

We also have the ability to kill someone or cause an accident.

 

Seriously, are you blokes concerned that one person chooses, for improved safety, to put the word "traffic" before the location?

God help us if all aviators decide to go by there own safety rules and to hell with the real ones.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Note in the link below:

 

CAAP 166C clause 7.2.1 says:

 

"Effective radio communication requires the pilot to use standard aviation phraseology as detailed in the CASA Flight Radiotelephone Operator Licence Syllabus of Training and in the AIP. Positional and other broadcasts necessary to minimise traffic conflict should be made, for example: ‘joining circuit’, ‘turning base’ and ‘clear of all runways’. Effective communication and increased traffic awareness will help prevent a collision or an Airprox event. In addition, avoid the use of local terminology in position reports, for example use ‘Bundaberg’ instead of ‘Bundy’."

 

If there is a lawsuit or you are charged as a result of an accident, remember this word "requires", and its aviation meaning (which is the same as "must".)

 

How many people involved in these radio discussions have been through the Syllabus of Training and actuall have a Flight Radiotelephone Operator Licence?

 

The Positional reports have changed several times over the last forty years, but it would appear from the CAAP, that just the three are considered necessary and you go upwards of that if there is a potential collision issue.

 

That also clears up the discussion about the "clear all runways" call.

 

If you're in the circuit for a while, "base" is plenty to tell you where the other aircraft are in the pecking order, "clear all runways" tells you when someone is going out of the circuit and you don't have to worry about him being on your tail etc. and "joining circuit" tells you to be aware that someone may push in front of you or come up behind you.

 

For the OP, who was asking about none of this, I've always had the same problem, and found two ways to fix it were:

 

1. Type the location/events line by line on a spreadsheet, with the phrase on each following line. That way you create the element of surprise.

 

2. Record the locations/events on a CD with the answers a convenient period behind, leaving a big gap at first, then reducing the gap gradually to real time; you really want the standard phrases to be coming out of your subconscious rather than the coupole of seconds it takes to think. Just be tatient becaise that will take quite some time.

 

requires; my emphasis

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/166-1.pdf

 

 

[turboplanner]

But Ian I'm not; other pilots use this form of words, including at least one of my instructors.I just don't get what all this fuss is about! I've heard an awful lot of non-standard radio talk, including from commercial pilots. Seriously, are you blokes concerned that one person chooses, for improved safety, to put the word "traffic" before the location?

This is an issue that RAA has, and ELAA in its present form will have.

 

Safety really only works with an effective Compliance and Enforcement system; the flowery safety messages of the 20th century just didn't do it. You have to have people on the ground in geographical districts doing audits, and the only way be able to afford to do that in recreational aviation is through a volunteer network.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Regarding "Traffic xxxxxx" or "xxxxx traffic" I like the standard way. Opening the transmission with the location gives me an immediate heads-up that it's directly relevant and cues my attention. If you wanted to say it "non standard" thats up to you but I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to mount a safety case for it (ie that it's any safer than the standard way).

 

You might argue that the first word could be clipped or whatever but then I'd argue you're not using your radio properly!

 

 

[ian00798]

including at least one of my instructors.

This is the post that concerns me more than any so far. That means their is an instructor who is willingly and knowingly teaching students phraseology contrary to the regulations because they think they know better. Making up your own rules is not the role of the instructor, they are the keeper of standards in the organisation and have an obligation to teach students to the regulations. It leaves me wondering what other rules these instructors think are optional, or they know better.

 

 

[dutchroll]

That also clears up the discussion about the "clear all runways" call.If you're in the circuit for a while, "base" is plenty to tell you where the other aircraft are in the pecking order, "clear all runways" tells you when someone is going out of the circuit and you don't have to worry about him being on your tail etc. and "joining circuit" tells you to be aware that someone may push in front of you or come up behind you.

It's really the intent of the "base, touch and go" call to tell you whether someone is staying in the circuit or not.

 

 

[Nightmare]

This discussion, to me, also highlights the importance of remembering to hold that transmit button in for that little bit longer before saying your message. That way you can comply with the regs and operate safely. Besides, that pause helps you to deliver that message with confidence forcing you to not rush it.

 

 

[Nightmare]

It's really the intent of the "base, touch and go" call to tell you whether someone is staying in the circuit or not.

I have made it a habit of mine to announce that I'm clear of runway xxx .... It doesn't tie up the radio long.

[Chocolate]

Shouldn't that be runway vacated? Rather than clear of.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The reason the phrase is "Clear of all runways" is it's unambiguous. There could be an inbound aircraft unfamiliar with the field and it's runways. He may have looked up the details in ERSA but not everyone has a phtographic memory. Also, as we know, some people don't use the duty runway, or even know what it is.

 

 

[Chocolate]

I comply with the standard calls as much as I can and practice them driving as I have messed them up going into unfamiliar places due workload. As a low hour pilot I know it's about practice. If there was any change I would Prefer to hear the "place traffic" repeated twice as the alert to others to get over the clipping problem.

 

Mostly radio is treated like its a telephone...it's not! Talk slightly louder, not quieter, and talk slower.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I have made it a habit of mine to announce that I'm clear of runway xxx .... It doesn't tie up the radio long.

There's nothing prohibiting you doing it if you think it'll help. However I'd hate to see a "runway vacated" or "clear of runway" call become a substitute for situational awareness of other circuit traffic and what they're doing - especially the one in front of you.

Incidentally I've had a guy in the circuit several months back call "clear of runway", followed by an aircraft (RAAus) at the holding point taxying out and lining up right in front of me while I was at about 100' on final approach. I couldn't quite believe my eyes, but that's how it happened (my bright orange biplane must blend into the sky pretty well). Simultaneously another aircraft on the ground called out "mate there's a biplane on short final!!" and I did a go-around.

 

I found out later that this guy is a repeat offender, but the bottom line is that it didn't matter that the plane preceding me called "clear". The runway still wasn't.

 

 

[Chocolate]

The reason the phrase is "Clear of all runways" is it's unambiguous. There could be an inbound aircraft unfamiliar with the field and it's runways. He may have looked up the details in ERSA but not everyone has a phtographic memory. Also, as we know, some people don't use the duty runway, or even know what it is.

Thanks...made me go look up the aip. You make a good point there. I will say " all runways vacated" in future. Gen 3.4-51.

 

 

[ian00798]

It's for that reason ATC try and avoid using the phrase "go ahead", as there is to big a chance it could be misinterpreted and somebody misconstrue it as a clearance. There is a very very good reason for using standard phraseology as much as you possibly can, that way everyone is on the same page. It is also a sign of your professionalism and the attention to detail you have toward your flying in general. Remember passengers judge you by your landings, other pilots judge you by your radio calls.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Regarding "Traffic xxxxxx" or "xxxxx traffic" I like the standard way. Opening the transmission with the location gives me an immediate heads-up that it's directly relevant and cues my attention...You might argue that the first word could be clipped or whatever but then I'd argue you're not using your radio properly!

I respect that Dutch, but as I've pointed out above, there are any number of reasons for the first word can be missed; my not using the radio correctly is only one of those.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

We also have the ability to kill someone or cause an accident.God help us if all aviators decide to go by there own safety rules and to hell with the real ones.

I agree Butch, but is that what is happening here? I'm simply reversing the order of two words. Surely being heard clearly is the object of the transmission.

 

 

[ian00798]

Can I suggest then that instead of reversing the order of you are that worried about it maybe say the location name twice? E.g. Gympie gympie traffic? That is allowed within the scope of AIP GEN 3.4 when you believe it is necessary, and that way your not creating your own unauthorized unapproved procedure?

 

 

[nathan_c]

You're missing the bigger picture issue here though, which is the willing diversion from the mandated rules.

 

As has been mentioned already I believe, if someone is willing to deviate on this matter, what else are they ignoring? That's what concerns me.

 

Professional pilot, recreational pilot, CTA user or not, as far as I'm concerned you should be trying to show a basic level of professionalism and airmanship, and deviations from the rules fits neither of those categories. You can argue all you want that your way is better if you wish, but rules are rules and you should be following them.

 

 

[Butch]

I agree Butch, but is that what is happening here? I'm simply reversing the order of two words. Surely being heard clearly is the object of the transmission.

I agree being clearly heard is the object. Being a low hours pilot I think its easier for all pilots to follow the same procedures, causing less confusion.

I also have no objection to more radio calls than less (as long as they do not clog up the frequency) as it helps me keep a mental picture of where all aircraft are in the circuit and on the ground.

 

I have 20/20 sight and last Saturday doing my BFR with a CFI we entered the circuit mid field with a twin engine air ambulance and a Jabiru in and about to join the circuit and neither myself or the CFI could get a visual on either of the aircraft.

 

Radio calls were the only way to establish a picture of the aircrafts position. On turning final we realized the twin ambulance was catching us fast so out of courtesy I did a go around to let him land as we were doing a touch and go.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Thanks...made me go look up the aip. You make a good point there. I will say " all runways vacated" in future. Gen 3.4-51.

It's not an AIP requirement to make that call. The references in AIP GEN 3.4-51 and 3.4-52 to "runway vacated" are for controlled airports where ATC instructs you report vacating the runway.

If you want to do it at all uncontrolled airports go ahead - there's nothing to say you shouldn't, but it's not a requirement. The exception to this would be where something naturally prevents aircraft lining up from seeing where you are exiting then it becomes an airmanship thing as per the CAAP, and as previously mentioned by Ian on this thread, there might be certain airfields where it's recommended in their procedures.

 

So yeah it may help an aircraft lining up for takeoff in some circumstances if he can't see where you taxied off, but how we got into discussing the possibility that it helps a landing aircraft, I'm not quite sure. Nothing......absolutely nothing......absolves the PIC of the aircraft on approach from ensuring that the runway actually is clear before he lands.