Uncontrolled airports. Which call to make in circuits if you’re only going to make one call?

[facthunter]

Talk slow and Put your brain in gear first.. . Plenty of times my request for the other aircraft's position is a Loud silence. ( Distance and bearing). Could everyone here do it?  Nev

[Garfly]

 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

. . Plenty of times my request for the other aircraft's position is a Loud silence. ( Distance and bearing). Could everyone here do it?  Nev

 

Well, Nev, there's no excuse for anyone here with an EFB being unable to do it.

A quick tap and glance gives instant distance and bearing from ALL nearby points.

 

In this example: "32.4 NM on the 201 radial (or SSW) from YPMQ." would be the quick reply.

(Or, the displayed position from any other place on the list.)

 

 

 

 

[Roundsounds]

58 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

 

Well, Nev, there's no excuse for anyone here with an EFB being unable to do it.

A quick tap and glance gives instant distance and bearing from ALL nearby points.

 

In this example: "32.4 NM on the 201 radial (or SSW) from YPMQ." would be the quick reply.

(Or, the displayed position from any other place on the list.)

 

 

 

 

SSW is the correct description, 201 is based on the aerodrome reference point, to be a radial it would need to be based on the VOR. 
Maintaining effective situational awareness shouldn’t require “A quick tap” on anything. 

Edited Monday at 10:05 AM by Roundsounds

[Garfly]

Yes, in its Closest Points page OzRunways shows BRG (from) any waypoint (not only airports/VORs) as R-XXX degrees

which needs to be translated to the nearest quarter quadrant for CTAF comms. Anyway, for that precision, a glance at the Map Page is enough to show distance/bearing from the runway.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

Maintaining effective situational awareness shouldn’t require “A quick tap” on anything. 

 

Oh, yeah? That's not what the ATSB Mangalore report suggests; concluding that the use of even basic traffic display devices (had they been available) could have provided the situational awareness needed to save the day (after all traditional methods had failed).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWt57chwc8U

 

 

[Mike Gearon]

I’m constantly surprised by resistance to ADSB technology. “You’ll spend your whole time looking at a screen”  ‘I’m also surprised when hearing the Mangalore incident may NOT have been avoided by ADSB in/ out. 
 

 

[Garfly]

2 minutes ago, Mike Gearon said:

I’m constantly surprised by resistance to ADSB technology. “You’ll spend your whole time looking at a screen”  ‘I’m also surprised when hearing the Mangalore incident may NOT have been avoided by ADSB in/ out. 

Where did you hear that, Mike?

[BurnieM]

My impression was both aircraft had ADSB out and one had ADSB in on a tablet (but no audio alerts?).

Cannot remember the source.

[Thruster88]

19 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

My impression was both aircraft had ADSB out and one had ADSB in on a tablet (but no audio alerts?).

Cannot remember the source.

Just checked the report. Neither aircraft had any type of adsb receiver. One pilot had avplan, this was said to be unreliable in that area at that altitude. 

 

In a two pilot situation it would not be onerous for the pilot monitoring to keep an eye on traffic using an adsb receiver and tablet.

[skippydiesel]

As an illustration of how separation, at an uncontrolled airfield, can/should work;

 

Last Sunday I was inbound to The Oaks, from, the West.

 

I announced at 5 miles (having not gone further from the airfield) 2500ft, inbound, remaining at 2500 ft, call again over the field, 3 minutes.

 

I immediately received a call from a pilot, to the East of the field, inbound at the same altitude, also about 3 minutes out.

 

The bad -

• We were on a potentially collision course.

The good -

• We both knew exactly where the other aircraft was (not sighted at the start).
• Established verbal contact.
• Moments later he had me sighted/called - I was slightly slower. Visual contact made!
• Visual & verbal contact made, we were able to smoothly, without risk, avoid each other, descend to circuit height and land.

At about the same time as this aerial exchange took place, there was a third aircarft, doing circuits - never heard a transmission.

 

We talked about the incident - he very concerned/apologetic that he had made excessive calls. I assured him he had done very well, made just enough timely calls/information for both of use to continue with our planned safe arrival.

 

Seems to me, that the first rule must be  "Use Your Radio" even if you haven't heard any other traffic. Too many think that once in the circuit (including  taxying) everyone knows where you are & what you are doing - no need for a call or (if need be) respond to a caller

 

There is no comparison between the pilot having a social chat/cluttering up the frequency and a pilot doing his/her best to maintain separation.😈

 

 

[BurnieM]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

Just checked the report. Neither aircraft had any type of adsb receiver. One pilot had avplan, this was said to be unreliable in that area at that altitude. 

 

In a two pilot situation it would not be onerous for the pilot monitoring to keep an eye on traffic using an adsb receiver and tablet.

 

Disappointing that they both had ADS-B out to help themselves and each other but no ADS-B in display which would have literally saved all 4 lives.

 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-012

 

"The aircraft was certified for IFR and charter operations and was equipped with dual controls for the student and instructor. The aircraft was also equipped with a Garmin GNS530 radio communication and GNSS navigation system, together with a second communication radio. The aircraft was also fitted with a Garmin GTX335 ADS-B OUT transponder. AEM did not have any ADS-B receiving equipment."

 

JGF;

"The aircraft was certified for IFR and private/airwork operations. It was equipped with dual controls for the student and instructor. The aircraft was also equipped with a Garmin GNS430 radio communication and GNSS navigation system and a second communication radio. The aircraft was fitted with an Appaero Stratus Mode-S transponder unit, which had ADS-B OUT transmit capability only."

 

Edited 16 hours ago by BurnieM

[BurnieM]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-012

 

"The student pilot in AEM was using ‘AvPlan’ electronic flight bag (EFB) software installed on an iPad."

 

"The iPad in AEM was fitted with a SIM card capable of providing the required data connection to AvPlan live, but was not fitted with an external ADS-B receiver."

 

"Due to the damage to the tablet sustained in the impact, it was not possible to recover data from the iPad to determine whether the traffic information overlay display was selected at the time of the collision."

 

[Jabiru7252]

If I were to make ONE call while in the circuit, it would be joining downwind because anybody listening  would (should) know when I'm about to turn base and final. 

[Mike Gearon]

14 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

23 hours ago, Garfly said:

Where did you hear that, Mike?

I’m not naming names or locations. That’s definitely going to cause problems. Put it this way, it wasn’t recently. It was in Australia.

[Mike Gearon]

14 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

In a two pilot situation it would not be onerous for the pilot monitoring to keep an eye on traffic using an adsb receiver and tablet.

Yes, and it’s important to keep in mind that for single pilot aircraft  it’s a glance for situational awareness at the screen. 
 

Add it to radio calls received and it’s kind of nice to think you heard say GUF then “glance” at the screen and confirm call sign, altitude, speed, position and direction of travel. 
 

When you look at that huge data dump for a screen glance one can wonder…..Why isn’t it mandatory for school aircraft and why there isn’t a closing window on compulsory ADASB out? 
 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Mike Gearon

[facthunter]

Single Pilot IFR isa very high workload.   Nev

[Garfly]

Mike, when you said, a few posts up, that:  "I’m not naming names or locations etc."

 

I think something went awry in the forum's Quote feature such that it looks like Thruster is replying to my question to you.

 

In any case, on that issue, I don't see a problem, per se, with the opinion (that  is, that a cockpit traffic display would NOT likely have prevented Mangalore).  For all I know the argument might have made a point - or turned up something - we could've learned from.

   

When all's said and done, we're all of the same safety-first faith (just as, I guess, we'd all doggedly claim NOT to be dogmatic  ;- )