UNICOM - Worse than useless?

[Guest pelorus32]

I've been deliberately provocative with the title of this thread because I feel that there is a need for a very solid debate about UNICOM.

 

Many propose UNICOM as the universal specific for "traffic management" problems in proximity to uncontrolled airfields. By that I mean the whole raft of see and be seen issues, radios on wrong frequency, information required etc.

 

There is an alternate view however that UNICOM is simply worse than useless. This view holds that if you are going to lull people into a sense of security by telling them that there is a UNICOM then there had better be a UNICOM that does what it says it does. If you were to create a UNICOM that does what the proponents say it will then it would need to be full time staffed and the staff would need substantial training. Those staff had better be doing what they are supposed to be doing all the time - in other words you have a substantial cost burden in supplying the service because it's not a part time job but a full time job.

 

Let's for a start take the oft mooted situation of an a/c in the circuit but on the wrong frequency. Another a/c calls inbound, a C210 (call her NA) and asks our UNICOM for information. The aircraft in the circuit on the wrong frequency (call him WF) is a Rotax powered Tecnam and it's a windy day and he has just joined the circuit from the training area. The UNICOM operator is sitting in his office talking on the radio. The office has a great view of the carpark.

 

So UNICOM says to NA: The ATIS is....there were a flock of galahs in the circuit a little while ago, no known traffic.

 

NA on that basis elects for a straight in approach, there's no other traffic, the wind's straight down the strip and who wants to be dicing with galahs in the circuit?

 

Late on final NA flies into the top of WF and they are both killed.

 

The UNICOM operator never heard the Rotax powered Tecnam - either on the radio or the sound of its engine. He didn't have a commanding view of the circuit like somebody at a GAAP in the tower does, in fact he didn't have a view of anything except the carpark. Nobody required him to jump up and look outside every time someone asked for assistance. In any case his day job was running a busy flying school. He'd done his best.

 

The last thing that went through NA's mind as she tumbled earthward was "I shouldn't have believed that UNICOM". The last thing that went through WF's mind was the prop on NA's aircraft.

 

UNICOMS?

 

Go for your life guys and gals.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Ultralights]

i dont see how the UNICOM would have made any difference in that situation, NA inbound would have been listening to the radio approaching the field, and heard no other traffic on the radio, just as the UNICOM operator didnt, and hearing of no other traffic, could have still elected to conduct a straight in approach, resulting in the same outcome.

 

 

[BigPete]

OK here we go...

 

When flying around your own airport there should be no problem with having the right radio frequency - if you can't get that right then stop flying and do something else. ;)

 

Everyone must carry and use a radio (flak jacket on) :big_grin:

 

Fit every airport (licensed) with AFRU (couldn't cost that much surely) ;)

 

If you provide a Unicom service - it must have clear view of all runways and final approaches. (I would have thought that most aero clubs could provide a voluntary weekend service on the busier airports)

 

Double check all frequencies for airports you are flying to in your current ERSA and have them noted in your flight plan. :;)3:

 

Maybe we need to enforce the importance of better radio proceedures and use during intial training and x country training. :;)4:

 

thats a start.....

 

regards

 

 

[Guest Redair]

Maybe

 

i dont see how the UNICOM would have made any difference in that situation, NA inbound would have been listening to the radio approaching the field, and heard no other traffic on the radio, just as the UNICOM operator didnt, and hearing of no other traffic, could have still elected to conduct a straight in approach, resulting in the same outcome.

But without anyone on the ground telling NA that all was clear, surely he/she would have had to revert to the standard procedure for a normal joining, circuit and general good lookout both on the ground AND in the air. The Galah problem would also not have been known about, until flying into them possibly, and how do we know that the Galahs were not on an outbound flightpath straight out on NA's straight in approach? Surely a lack of Unicom would result in the pilot being exactly that... a pilot, and doing everything a good pilot should be doing? A straight in approach without ground input, would require full attention and the knowledge that other aircraft could be out there somewhere.

 

Trust no one, check everything for yourself.

 

Redair.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

To me a unicom is of value in only the following circumstances:-

 

1) I know the unicom operator has been trained and tested to a known standard, and then is tested on a annual or biannual review basis.

 

2) I know the unicom hrs of operation, and by that I mean 100%, to the point that if I ask and dont recieve a response them I can be sure that it is my equipment

 

3) that the unicom equipment is redundant and fault tolerant. So far all discussions around radios have presumed that only the Aircraft radio will fail. Why is that?

 

4) That I can be sure that everything the Unicom operator says and does can be relied on 100% to be the whole truth because lets face it, the unicom operator isnt talking about what he's doing ( which would be 100% accurate) rather he's talking about what others are doing (which will be less than 100% accurate)

 

When the above is not the case its yet another bunch of information athat I must assimilate in to the normal information coming in as a result of being a pilot. While some peole can add the additional info and not let it degrade the big picture Im not sure that I can. Some will then argue if that is your approach, why have radio at all?

 

My answer then would be that the pilots / radio operators are trained (or under training) must be licensed to use the radio, are supposed to expect that being an electronic device it can fail and generally only comment about their own activities and in such a way that a recieving party knows it may only be part of a bigger picture which the PIC must discern.

 

Bottom line for me is that it AFRU's or UNICOMS were put in place and I dont have to pay for it and it rows somebody elses boat then so be it. Having been around a while I cant see that it will be done for no cost to me and I'm damn sure I understand that it wont be a panacea.

 

Of course the counter view is that it may reduce incidents, but it may also increase them.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

P.S Havent we already had this debate once before?

 

 

[Guest RogerRammedJet]

I have experience of Unicom at two locations, Broome and Ayers Rock. Worked well at The Rock - but we were the only aeroplane in the area at the time??? Complete waste of time and somewhat confusing at Broome which was very busy at the time. I wished the guy would just shut up!

 

Roger

 

 

[Guest browng]

In my opinion a straight in approach to an un-towered airfield, while now legal, is still unwise. Why would you execute one with minimal information, when a simple circuit will greatly increase your situational awareness and therefore safety? Also in my opinion, Unicom stations should not be seen as giving definitive traffic information under ANY circumstances. Unicom can be useful for providing wind and duty runway information, but even this should be clearly seen as 'information' NOT advice. Ultimately it is the pilot in command's responsibility to 'see and avoid', from engine start to closing the hangar doors, on ANY and ALL VFR flights. That is what the "Visual" in 'Visual Flight Rules' is there for, if you want to pass that responsibility to someone else get a Command Instrument Rating and go fly Airways, otherwise keep your attention outside the aircraft at all times.

 

VFR flight should rely on a disciplined 'scan' as much as IFR flight, but most of that scan is outside the cockpit, going to the panel only frequently enough to establish that your are still aviating safely. Personally I believe that for pilots with an RAAus level of training, and many barely current PPL's, we are getting to the point where sophisticated electronics and glass panels are introducing a potential threat, not a benefit.............but then I am a a crusty old ancient who flys an antique with four instruments in total, and frankly I could do without two of those.

 

 

[Mazda]

Typical air traffic controllers' view. ATC or nothing. What a load of rubbish.

 

CRM is about using all available assistance - whether that is another pilot in the cockpit, a controller or a UNICOM operator.

 

UNICOMs are purely advisory in nature. They can't tell you what to do, they do not provide separation. They provide advice, which you can take or leave as you are the pilot in command.

 

If you are talking to a UNICOM operator you are obviously on frequency. Without any third party confirmation in the circuit area you would never know if you were on frequency. So you now know you are on the correct frequency.

 

The UNICOM operator can say there is better weather in a certain direction and give basic traffic. It is ALWAYS up to the PIC to look out - even in ATC. However a UNICOM operator is another pair of eyes. If your radio fails and you don't know it, a UNICOM operator can advise others on the field.

 

What happens if the UNICOM operator has to go to the bathroom or leave station for a while? It's pretty obvious that the airport reverts to a plain ordinary CTAF, just like it would be now, so you'd look out for traffic as normal. But why not use the advice and extra pair of eyes when available?

 

I don't understand why people think that if someone can't be there 24 hours per day that there should be no service at all. What happens at Class C airports when their towers close? That's right, they go to Class G and become CTAFs, just like any local GA field. (So does that mean we should just make places like Canberra a CTAF all the time because there is not a 24 hour service?)

 

Please use CRM! Use all the available information available to you, but remain PIC of the aircraft.

 

 

[Mazda]

Roger the services at Broome and Ayers Rock are not Unicoms, they are Certified Air/Ground Operators. It's a much more complex "controlled" type of format than a normal Unicom.

 

 

[youngmic]

Crickey,

 

The tears are welling up and I'm getting all nostalgic.

 

I can hear it coming, you all want to go back to the good old days of AFIZ's

 

Imagine that, fully govt. funded (free?) professional ATC guys and gals at your local airport, compulsory radio reporting within 15nm to 5000' how good would that be.

 

Must admit I find it odd that there is a pro contingent within the RAAus ranks.

 

Evolution at work I guess.

 

 

[Mazda]

Andy do you want an air traffic controller or a UNICOM operator? ATC is great. The problem is we have to pay for it! If people want to pay for that service they can fly from places like Canberra.

 

If you want to fly from somewhere like The Oaks there is no way people there could afford to build and staff a tower, but they could operate a Unicom.

 

Remember it is basic information, and I'm sure any pilot could do it. Is there anyone on here who wouldn't be able to say, "There's an aircraft taking off on runway 10 and an airline aircraft inbound from the north."? There is no separation, no direction, just pure information.

 

The more complex the requirement becomes, the less the chance that we will actually get Unicoms at lots of small fields. If it has to be someone with ATC training, what are the chances there will be someone local to do it? If it requires extensive ongoing training, would any of us spare the time to do it?

 

Any pair of eyes who can see traffic and give really basic weather could be enough to save lives.

 

 

[Mazda]

It's not an AFIZ, it could be one of us, who happens to not be flying at that point in time. Nothing is compulsory, it is just an advisory service. Think of it as helping out your flying mates! Imagine flying in to your home airfield and a friend giving you some advice. It's that simple!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I don't understand why people think that if someone can't be there 24 hours per day that there should be no service at all. What happens at Class C airports when their towers close? That's right, they go to Class G and become CTAFs, just like any local GA field. (So does that mean we should just make places like Canberra a CTAF all the time because there is not a 24 hour service?)

I think the difference here (for this specific argument) is that there is a published document, ERSA, that says, for example, what times the airfield transition from local tower control to CTAF-R and back again and as such I know if I expect to hear someone or not.

 

BTW, for others to comment on, how often have you dialled in the wrong frequency and not known it? I ask in that most fields I fly in to are 126.7 and thats a programmed channel on my radio, as are unique airfield frequencies that I fly into. I ask in that I have yet to use the wrong freq (at least that I knew of) and wonder if we are fixing a problem that is way down on the list of problems to fix. That said I haven't yet been landed on or haven't yet landed on anyone else, however based on yesterday and a number of times before its not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

It also seems to me that before looking to make unicoms prevalent it would be more useful to make radios more prevalent. With real costs of radios and batteries decreasing, and battery technology improving by the year I really cant understand why its now not mandatory to require a radio to commit aviation.

 

I'm always astounded at how many radio installations are poor. At my field many of the glider radios achieve nothing more than distorted carrier. In any event if I hear the distorted message, even being 100% unintelligible, I know someone is somewhere around the field (being a discrete freq and not 126.7) and redouble the V part in VFR.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy do you want an air traffic controller or a UNICOM operator? .........."There's an aircraft taking off on runway 10 and an airline aircraft inbound from the north."? There is no separation, no direction, just pure information.

Mazda

 

To specifically answer the Q, If it costs me nothing I'll take the ATC option with all of the confidence that it brings. If I'm not getting it for nothing then I'm happy with the way things are. At the end of the day it doesn't get me more info than that which I should be getting as PIC. Being an inherently lazy sod, I'd be always fighting the urge to accept what is being said by the unicom as gospel when it isn't. in effect my argument bottoms out as the cost vs the benefit(info) vs the risk (wrong or no info) doesn't compel.

 

I also accept that it isn't a perfect world and there is some value in the approach you want. Neither you nor me are 100% correct we are merely arguing the greyness of grey.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

I agree Mike.

 

A lot of people think that UNICOM does much the same thing as CAGRO. It doesn’t. CAGRO is structured and has trained operators who use standard communication protocols, UNICOM isn’t and doesn’t. UNICOM could only contribute to safety if it improved situation awareness in the cockpit. How is it going to do that without structure? You could speculate, but that’s all it would be.

 

At least with CTAF procedures pilots are supposed to be flying and communicating to a standard format. What you hear on UNICOM can end up like Rafferty’s rules.

 

Without structure UNICOM is just as likely to decrease situation awareness in the cockpit, and increase miss-communication and misunderstanding.

 

To have pilots making operational decisions with potentially life and death consequences on the basis of an anonymous, untrained and unaccountable voice over the radio is madness.

 

Which brings me to the underlying issue here, which is mid-air collision risk.

 

This is not a personal attack on anyone, but as a safety practitioner and accident investigator I feel compelled to address a few opinions expressed here that are contrary to scientific understanding in terms of human factors and risk management.

 

Myth: The "mark 1 eyeball" is the best form of traffic avoidance.

 

The concept of “see and avoid†is a fragile and unreliable way to control the risk of mid-air collision because it relies on humans. One of the most fundamental precepts of contemporary safety science is that humans are the least reliable way to control a risk, and the science that underpins this understanding is not in dispute. There are so many factors conspiring against a pilot seeing an aircraft that is on a collision course that I couldn’t fit them all in here.

 

I’m not talking about the routine process of arranging your own separation in the circuit. We’ve all seen and avoided, even in cruise. That does not prove that it’s a reliable risk control. What I’m talking about is the one you don’t see.

 

Issues of airmanship and negligence are almost irrelevant here because the insidiousness of the circumstances that give rise to mid-air collision mean that you could be diligently looking out and even talking to the other pilot and still have a collision.

 

I'm not for one minute suggesting that pilots shouldn't keep a good lookout. If you've seen my video you'll have seen that my head is constantly on a swivel. What I am saying is don’t claim, or even believe, that “see and avoid†is the best way to prevent a mid air collision. It might be all you have in some aircraft, but it’s not the best, and it’s not even good.

 

This issue is one of the biggest holes in the Swiss cheese that Mike referred to and certainly my own greatest cause for concern when I fly. Even with four pairs of trained eyes looking out I don’t feel any safer.

 

I could be disappointed and even frightened at the unrealistic level of confidence some pilots here seem to have in their ability to look out for other traffic. But frankly I don’t believe them. I think that what they’re really saying is that they’re so wound up about ADSB that they’re exaggerating.

 

Please, if you're afraid of the cost of ADSB, then deal with it head-on. If we continue to advance unsustainable arguments which try and deny the risk, and we keep proposing unreliable alternative risk controls, the bureaucrats, who do know what the science says about the risk, will only see us as a bunch of rednecks who need to be saved from ourselves.

 

We don’t want that. What we do want is to have our views carry weight in Canberra. To achieve that we need to be well informed and up to date about risk management and our arguments need to be grounded on science rather than opinion.

 

Pass me your flak jacket Pete.

 

Mal

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

How-ever do VFR pilots manage to fly into Oshkosh - Thousands of aircraft flying into the one airshow. must be hundreds of prangs a day.

 

Flyer40, Do you think ADSB will work in the circuit area ?

 

HPD

 

 

[Yenn]

I still believe that see and avoid is the mainstay of collision avoidance, helped by radio and possibly helped by ADSB.

 

Radio is not compulsory for all airfields and even where it is compulsory, you would be mad to think that silence means empty airspace. Radios can and will fail and even at the most inconvenient times. I had a failure years ago while engaged in a search, luckily a nearby pilot heard me where Rocky ATC could not and acted as relay. I found the missing boat in 20 mins where motor boats had been searching for 5 hours.

 

Relying on Controllers would certainly help safety wise, but think how slow it would be and ultra lights would be bottom of the pecking order.

 

ADSB seems to me to be a good tool, but affordability balanced against safety enhancement does not stack up for those of us who fly below 5000' I would be happy to see it brought in for Class E and above airspace but see no need to bring it into the lower trafficked areas. I also doubt that it would have worked in the most recent midair collision, so where is it expected to work?

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

I presume you’re talking about Oshkosh during Air Venture, not Oshkosh every other day of the year. You probably should explain what that has to do with anything?

 

I hope you’re not suggesting that the UNICOM found in regional Australia is in any way comparable to where up to 120 aircraft can be in the air at the same time?

 

Why don't you search the NTSB database and check how many prangs they have, then come back and tell us why they don’t have hundreds?

 

Oshkosh works because it is structured. This is precisely my point about how mid-air collisions are avoided.

 

Oshkosh is under the command of an Air Boss, who has several segment Air Bosses reporting to him, who have two FAA controllers watching over them. Display pilots are briefed by the Air Bosses every day and visiting pilots don’t just show up.

 

But the big difference is that unlike your local UNICOM where the operator does little more than tell you the wind, at Oshkosh the Air Bosses give orders. No one moves unless they say so.

 

Thanks for providing an example to demonstrate my point.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Flyer40,

 

Oshkosh airshow, by default, involves many nearby local airports and water ways (floatplanes etc) The air traffic is far higher in the local area then you would think just by looking at the circuit of one airport.

 

I made no mention of Unicoms - They are something I have no opinion on.

 

I did ask you about something you bought up in your post - ADSB, and how you think it may work around airports.

 

I'll ask another question - will we need LORAN as a ADSB back up for when GPS has problems ?

 

HPD

 

 

[Guest browng]

I could be disappointed and even frightened at the unrealistic level of confidence some pilots here seem to have in their ability to look out for other traffic. But frankly I don’t believe them. I think that what they’re really saying is that they’re so wound up about ADSB that they’re exaggerating.

I apologize in advance for what I am about to say, but that is an absolute crock. ADSB is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned, but since you mention it, I will only say that compulsory ADSB out only is going to do nothing for anybody flying 'our' type of aircraft, absolutely nothing at all. In fact it may even further erode the lookout of those who are equipped with ADSB in, and consequently increase our risk.

 

There are of course aids available to us to minimize the risk of collision, radar is one, radio is another in all its forms including UNICOM. Quadrantal cruising levels, circuit procedures etc are all there to be used to advantage, but ultimately whether you like it or not, lookout is the PRIMARY method for VFR operations, and the Law makes that abundantly clear in describing the responsibilities of the PIC in visual operations. In any VFR approach accident where one aircraft descends onto another, the investigation will yield the same ultimate conclusion, pilot error on behalf of the higher aircraft. There may be numerous contributing factors that brought the two aircraft into proximity, but there is no legal excuse for the PIC of the higher aircraft not seeing the lower one, its like rear-ending the car in front, your fault always, end of story. Any argument that subjugates the primacy of see and avoid in VFR ops is plain bloody dangerous.

 

 

[facthunter]

Results.

 

Didn't an aircraft land on top of another at Moorabbin not that long ago? (Towered airport? Just putting things into some perspective). This thread while it contains much wisdom and age old truths, seems more like something off Pprune than what I'm used to here. Science is not what someone believes in strongly. It is a declaration that can be supported by facts which have validity, and can be tested to the full & proven. The more the examination, the better. Assertions & beliefs are simply that. We all want a result, the right one is a little harder.

 

Note browng posted just ahead of me. I am in absolute agreement with him. Why is it that years ago, when there was less traffic we were told to clear the nose of the aircraft frequently. I have to constantly remind pilots of the need to do this. I don't fly with them all, and I don't know what the ones that I do fly with do when I'm not with them either. Nev..

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

[snip] This thread while it contains much wisdom and age old truths, seems more like something off Pprune than what I'm used to here. Science is not what someone believes in strongly. It is a declaration that can be supported by facts which have validity, and can be tested to the full & proven. The more the examination, the better. Assertions & beliefs are simply that. We all want a result, the right one is a little harder. [snip] Nev..

Nev,

 

Forgive me if something that I started feels like something off Pprune. That wasn't the intention.

 

I am concerned, as I said in the intro, that UNICOM is presented as a universal solution to many of our safety issues in the circuit area. I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to support that.

 

I am interested in a good safety outcome rather than aviation implementing the next fad be it UNICOM, ADS-B or whatever.

 

I also believe that there is evidence that whilst "see and be seen" may be the best defence layer that we have, it is very imperfect.

 

Let's have a solid debate about this.

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

 

PS: as for the word "believe" that litters my post. One day we should have a conversation about the nature of science and the role of personal belief in science.

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Mike, some other forums are laughable don't know why one bothers with them. We were just talking about this at The Oaks today. Good and bad points were raised. I guess this will happen with any sort of debate. I think that have the potential to work within limits. By that I mean rely on the unicom and unicom only then you simply be a fatal accident waiting to happen. Use them as well as you can, take into account what the unicom operator may be telling you and still, 100% keep your own skills/eyesight at hand-in all cases. Everyday, even in commercial ops, there are commercial pilots questioning controllers about traffic they believe is conflicting. They are smart enough to be using their own skills as pilots. Surely we know if something may be 'wrong out the windscreen' by using those two things in our heads most of us were born with. What really, truly irritates me is Richard Heads not being on the right frequency and not looking at their maps and overflying opposite direction at our circuit height. Happened three times today at The Oaks. Use your heads Richards, look out the windscreen, realise by looking at your map it is an ultralight field (marked conveniently with the UL symbol), get on the right frequency and make some sort of call. Just a little bit of courtesy may save one of us getting killed. I don't think I'm going to survive being hit by a twin when in the Jabiru or Drifter even. Food for thought, you know how many times a day one can hear on the airband in the Sydney area a pilot that does not know if he is flying North from South. Very scary indeed.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Further, I would not take this as a 'slanging match'. Just do what Ian intends and learn from this. For one new to this side of the aviation fence, reading through this should bear some great tips.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Flyer40, Do you think ADSB will work in the circuit area ?

I'm not going to get into the whole is or isn't ADSB a good thing. However Ive seen the "will it work in a busy area" Q a few times and the inference (my perception) is always that it wont, and technically I think that is wrong.

 

As I understand ADSB it works like this (warning long explanation follows) :-

 

1) Standard transponder functionality is provided. an SSR interrogator (or IFF for Military folk) transmits a trigger or interrogation request to which a transponder responds to in a very known way. A request for interrogation can also come from a military aircraft or an aircraft fitted with a collision avoidance system that works with 1090mhz transponders.

 

2) Transponders historically worked like all radio ranging by sending a response after a very specific and accurate delay. The time at the receiver from transmitting the interrogation pulse to the time the response was heard provided the range. the interrogation beam, like the primary radar it is attached to has a very narrow azimuth beam and as such the bearing can also be determined. With mode C we encoded altitude information and so we now have the 3 things required to fix a position in space... but as you get further from the transmitting site the accuracy degrades, not so much in ranging but bearing. Altitude has always depended on client aircraft accuracy.

 

3) ADSB seeks to address those shortcomings by making use of some extra real estate in the standard transponder analogue waveform response. Theres is an area in the pulse waveform where additional digital information can be added (technically within the squitter part of the waveform) if we insert information from a GPS such as, location, speed heading etc and the GPS time that the information was relevant at then suddenly the accuracy of the whole system is bound on the GPS system.

 

4) So as to the circuit question, technically an ADSB-in system will, within the accuracy limitations ofGPS understand where every possible aircraft that is flying, or that is on the gnd that has its transponder on and it GPS locked onto the satellites and with the computing power available to us now should be able to track 100's of aircraft and only alert when a midair is imminent.

 

5) Not having played with one yet I presume that the amount of warning an ADSB-in set could give will be controllable by the PIC. As you cruise between Broken Hill and Alice, it might be nice to know when any aircraft is within 10kms of you (just so you know its working) within a busy circuit you may only want to know when an aircraft will come within 100m or you.

 

Andy