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 October 14 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 October 15 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 October 15 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 with 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 something up - 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 claim to be doggedly anti-dogma  ;- ) 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16 by Garfly

[skippydiesel]

I checked out the Mangalore incident video.

 

One of the points that I took from it was how hard it is to see another aircraft in flight.

 

Over time I have been amazed at the emphasis/reliance on "See & Avoid" as a reliable technique for maintaining separation. 

 

I have always felt that human eyesight is just not up to the task. We need whatever technological help we can get to see another aircraft.

 

Radio communication is currently still THE best technological help we can get BUT is dependent on the human in the cockpit actually using it appropriately.

 

Appropriately in this context, means making calls that contain easily understood location and intention information. Listening & responding, when appropriate, to incoming calls.

 

Far too many pilots are inhibited by concerns about cluttering up the frequency and not using proscribed language. It is better to be a little verbose, use everyday language, than not make what might be your last call.

 

Not saying this would have helped in the Mangalore incident just remarking on see & avoid and what I see as the importance of & under use, of radio communication..

[facthunter]

Poor radio procedures by many limit the part they can/should play..   Nev

[Garfly]

 

52 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I checked out the Mangalore incident video. // One of the points that I took from it was how hard it is to see another aircraft in flight.

 

Another thing I took away was just how much time there was - a good 5 mins - between Centre's first traffic advisory and the collision.

 

Time enough for all the 'taps and glances' needed to track on a moving map the icon of a pre-alerted threat.

 

 

 

(But then, there must have been some pretty full-on instruction going on at the time, in both cockpits.)

 

 

[facthunter]

I keep thinking why approach this matter LIMITING it to one call?. It's the WRONG way to view it. YOU adjust to the particular circumstances. THAT's AIRMANSHIP.  . You may not even be transmitting. A stuck PTT switch will mute all other transmissions in the vicinity. Nev

[kgwilson]

I don't give a rats which aerodrome I am visiting or my own local, I never just give one call, EVER. First there is my 10 mile call, next there is my overhead & joining call, then there is my established circuit call. If nothing is heard or seen that may be the last call. These are the minimums. If I have not been further than 10 miles (never happens but it could) I'd give a 3 mile joining call & the rest follows. If there are other aircraft seen or broadcasting, then it is establishing radio communication & visual. If that can't be done & it has happened then I'll stay at 1500 & watch till visual is established. My SE2 is useful but at circuit distances virtually useless.

 

Once on the ground after any situation I'll always approach the other pilot to get their comments. Once I was cut off by a C172 & after the later discussion we found his radio was not working. Initially I wanted to yell and chastise him but that never gets any resolution.

[Mike Gearon]

On 16/10/2024 at 9:24 PM, kgwilson said:

Once on the ground after any situation I'll always approach the other pilot to get their comments.

I used to go and see other pilots. Now not so much.  
 

What happens in the air stays in the air.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Mike Gearon said:

I used to go and see other pilots. Now not so much.  
 

What happens in the air stays in the air.

Hmmmm!

 

I can't say I have ever had occasion to approach a pilot, after an airborne "incident" BUT how are you/other pilot going to learn (always two sides to a story) if a discussion doesn't take place.

 

There should be no debate /discussion in the air.

[facthunter]

XYZ "Say again" or "Confirm so and so" is OK.   Nev