skippydiesel Posted June 29 Posted June 29 Turbs me old mate, you either Dont understand the English language or are deliberatly mist to make a very doubtful argument. You invent your own single transmission in the circuit, a collision occurs - where do you stand? To whom/what are you referring? I have no recollection of anyone or myself "inventing" communication - this is BS The word RECOMMENDED places no obligator on the pilot (or anyone else who is receiving a recommendation) to accept, take the advice offered. The use of the word ALL , in conjunction with the word recommendation, just means the advice stands for multiple situations, therefore need no be heeded multiple times. Non aviation example- You go to the Doctor, She recommends you cease smoking all tobacco related products. Good advice. You chose not to take any notice & continue to smoke cigarettes, a pipe &, cigars. Result - you live to 100 OR you die at 45 from a smoking related illness - The choice/risk, my friend, is yours - the ramifications of all your choice may be nil or serious. The impact on others may be nil or serious. "When there is other traffic" The document is clear enough; you can thell there's other traffic by seeing it or hearing it transmit on radio. A superman!! - My apologies I didnt realise that you would have the power to see/hear an aircraft from the cockpit of your aircraft, without the benefit of a transmission or two from that aircraft. Nor did I understand that your twin would be in the other aircraft and know instinctively that you are about the taxi across the runway, even though you made no call to that effect. It must be wonderful to have such power😈 A Corporate lawyer is employed by the company; in this case she outlined roughly what I've been saying and answered the questions as a qualified lawyer would. You would be advised to seek a second opinion, from an independent (not employed by you/your company ) lawyers and or sack the one you have - she clear has little grasp of the English language 3
danny_galaga Posted June 29 Posted June 29 (edited) I think it is right for flight schools to have students make all calls. You should be practiced in all of them before you can be omitting some. I still think it's better to call for entering, downwind and base- if there's no traffic, what's the harm? If there's lots of traffic, yes there is a lot more radio talk, but when there's lots of traffic that's EXACTLY when you do need more clarification. So long as old mate isn't having a chat about his kitchen renovations when it's busy. I also always announce clear runway and backtracking when applicable Edited June 29 by danny_galaga 1 2
spacesailor Posted June 29 Posted June 29 And, the ten mile , & five mile call. In my area there is a call at Prospect, for ' SBNK ' Bankstown. NOT on the area frequency. spacesailor 2
turboplanner Posted June 29 Posted June 29 10 hours ago, skippydiesel said: A Corporate lawyer is employed by the company; in this case she outlined roughly what I've been saying and answered the questions as a qualified lawyer would. You would be advised to seek a second opinion, from an independent (not employed by you/your company ) lawyers and or sack the one you have - she clear has little grasp of the English language The Corporate lawyer was proved right, someone screwed up, a bulletin was issued to all Dealer Principals and so far there have been no more incidents, but you don't need to know that. As I've mentioned before, in the self administration era the matter will always be between you and the injured party.
Thruster88 Posted June 29 Posted June 29 I flew into Caloundra last month. Fortunately it was not to busy and I got my 3 calls in, just. There was almost continuous chat from another airport 18nm to the south. Bit of a silly arrangement I think. Lots of local place names used, not helpful for someone from another state. 3 2
skippydiesel Posted June 29 Posted June 29 34 minutes ago, Thruster88 said: I flew into Caloundra last month. Fortunately it was not to busy and I got my 3 calls in, just. There was almost continuous chat from another airport 18nm to the south. Bit of a silly arrangement I think. Lots of local place names used, not helpful for someone from another state. We have the same problem at The Oaks sharing a frequency (126.7) with Mittagong. On occasion we will even hear from Rylstone (the other side of the GD Range) also on the same frequency. 1
BrendAn Posted June 30 Posted June 30 7 hours ago, turboplanner said: The Corporate lawyer was proved right, someone screwed up, a bulletin was issued to all Dealer Principals and so far there have been no more incidents, but you don't need to know that. As I've mentioned before, in the self administration era the matter will always be between you and the injured party. The never ending story 😁
skippydiesel Posted June 30 Posted June 30 4 hours ago, BrendAn said: The never ending story 😁 Yeah! Fascinating that this (quasi legal) argument would seem to be attempting to legitimise or explain away, a poor approach (by CASA) to giving more precise guidance, when it comes to communication around uncontrolled airfields. 1
jackc Posted June 30 Posted June 30 6 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: Yeah! Fascinating that this (quasi legal) argument would seem to be attempting to legitimise or explain away, a poor approach (by CASA) to giving more precise guidance, when it comes to communication around uncontrolled airfields. At the end of the day, the contents of this and whatever interpretation of it becomes what we need to consider. Don't like it? Write letters to CASA with suggested alternatives? Would they listen? Who knows…… 1
skippydiesel Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, jackc said: At the end of the day, the contents of this and whatever interpretation of it becomes what we need to consider. Don't like it? Write letters to CASA with suggested alternatives? Would they listen? Who knows…… I doubt much of a hearing from CASA -their approach is pretty much in sink with Governments general retreat from quality service, that has been going on since at least the mid 1980's 1
turboplanner Posted June 30 Posted June 30 40 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: Yeah! Fascinating that this (quasi legal) argument would seem to be attempting to legitimise or explain away, a poor approach (by CASA) to giving more precise guidance, when it comes to communication around uncontrolled airfields. BS. CASA and its predecessors going all the way back to the Department of civil Aviation had developed what the Australian Government claimed was the highest standard of flying in the world. That was under a prescriptive system where the government would prescribe or proscribe and action with suitable penalties if people disobeyed the rules. In the mid 1980s the State and Federal Governments dismantled the prescriptive system, not CASA and that led to the self administration you are flying under today. Where, prior to 1985 inspectors used to visit factories to inspect and ticket factory equipment like chains and cranes etc. that was shut down. Where governments administered high risk activities they closed down their operations with the exception of a few activities like motor vehicles, roads etc which have remained a prescriptive system. The onus was on the activity to set its own rules and take responsibility for its own actions. We started to hear a lot about things like Occupational Health and Safety standards being developed by Companies. Where accidents occur and people suffer loss they take action against other parties in the civic courts around Australia. Our courts have been using the precedent of Donaghue v Stevenson 1932 which you can Google, and all the principles will start to make sense.
skippydiesel Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Something else that fascinates me about this particular topic (communication)- There seems to me (small?) vocal group against, what I would see as common courtesy, caring for not only your own wellbeing but also for your fellow aviators. Manifested by argument against, even a minimum (voluntary) number of calls as part of departure/arrival, seem so self defeating/illogical it beggars belief. 2 1
facthunter Posted June 30 Posted June 30 They think?? accidents only happen to other people. Careful people are scaredy cats according to that lot. Too TOUGH to care. They move among us. IF you aren't SURE check it again. Nev
RFguy Posted June 30 Posted June 30 CTAFs being too common. gahhhh. When you are in circuit at Cowra, you share CTAF with Parkes, Forbes, Young, Cootamundra.. and others. If i need to make a call 'now' and there is someone talking on the radio 50-100nm away , I just transmit over the top ......... I dont wait. The locals over there 50-100nm away will here that aircraft , and locals where I am , will hear me. I've made my complaints that Cowra is in the centre of 5 other CTAFs and needs to move. Turbs, I liked what you said, "Another way of saying this is: "If you're aware of traffic in the area it might be safer to add additional traffic-specific communication." and I will preach to others- you've come up with a good way to describe the variation . Given that I never join on base, my joining calls are always downwind (with approx position, like "Early downwind"), or, joining midfield Xwind. And if I have to overfly the circuit on the hot side into the cold side to do a steep descending 180deg turn (on the dead side) then join midfield Xwind, I'll make sure everyone knows my intentions and position with an additional call-- just in case someone else is climbing on the downwind after TO , or also joining midfield xwind from the other side.... Lot's of potential conflicts ! 3
Mike Gearon Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 My local club (Tyabb) has an excellent newsletter. They linked the YouTube below this week. I’m quite impressed with the CASA people discussing radio calls and admitting to their own difficult situations. At the 15 minute mark one presenter mentions part 91 and mandatory calls as opposed to recommended. Only 2 situations involve mandatory calls. Conflict with another aircraft or potential conflict requires a call. This comes back to my own potential conflicts that have happened way too many times. Flying into airfields where base call only is generally made and I’m arriving downwind or base and the circuit aircraft is not then making their downwind call. I’d not realised these aircraft are then missing a mandated call. It’s both dangerous and illegal! That’s a very good safety brief. I must admit I’d have been a bit thrown by a helicopter making a standard circuit. Confirmation bias may have had me hearing the call and still deciding they’d do a helicopter circuit. Particularly if it was really busy and a lot going on. The young guy had two good comments. One is ADSB in as addition to situational awareness. The other is writing a diagram and tail numbers. Maybe on this one… when I was training IFR in the states I’d certainly be writing a lot down. A little different because your head doesn’t come up and swivel. It’s already looking at the dash and surrounding area and stays down until decision time. Local school circuit calls……….. I was in Qld this week at Caboolture. Considering buying a hangar there if Peter the real estate agent ever calls back. They make BASE only call in the circuit. My local
onetrack Posted July 4 Posted July 4 I think it would be useful to study up on the number of aircraft crashes where radio calls featured large in the accident scenario. In particular, radio calls that were missed, and radio transmissions were were talked over by the other crash party making a call at the exact same time. The most disastrous aircraft accident in history (Tenerife) was largely caused by an incoming call being talked over. Then there's the lack of understanding of what was said, and what was meant. Thus we have standardised radio procedures and phraseology. The conclusion would have to be, that more calls, not less calls, is a big safety factor - especially where there's an ongoing lack of certainty in aircraft positions and intentions. 1 1 1
facthunter Posted July 4 Posted July 4 That's a fully controlled aerodrome where the "In a Hurry" Captain didn't get a clearance for take off. or heed his First Officer's concerns.. Nev 1 1
Mike Gearon Posted July 11 Author Posted July 11 I’m hoping to chat with a CASA representative at Tyabb tonight. We have a meeting starting at 6pm with new Head of Operations Ermin and others giving talks. Also, a talk from the CASA guy. He gave a great talk I heard at an SAAA meeting. (I’ll know his name later today) I have a question for very experienced pilots such as Turbo, Facthunter and others as relates to different performance aircraft. I’ve flown maybe 15 different aircraft in my 5 flying years. Float planes, gliders etc up to the fastest being my current workhorse the RV6. I’m not familiar with pattern locations for circuit aircraft that are going to be much higher performance than a 172 except the RV6 and in circuit you climb out VY and circuit at a speed and turning points same as the school 172’s. I have info below on a twin as relates to performance. So, the question relates to where the higher or different performance aircraft (base being the 172) turn for CROSSWIND and DOWNWIND. Reason is in my heated discussion with a former HOO (at a random airfield) the main reason given for making BASE balls was that different performance aircraft will be at different spots calling DOWNWIND. I have a few problems with this. Note…. I don’t think my “heated discussion” friend would be reading this. However, in the interests of balance and fairness I did have a good discussion with that person a few days later. I have huge respect for their skills and after a good chat with them and another senior instructor I adjusted some of my flying inbound. Items such as getting to circuit height a bit earlier with speed scrubbed off. Regarding aircraft location for DOWNWIND or BASE call. 1. Why does it matter if they are further upwind and further crosswind and making a DOWNWIND call? It’s still going to alert inbound CROSSWIND, DOWNWIND and BASE join aircraft of their presence. 2. Why are they so far out of the standard circuit for the DOWNWIND then somehow at expected CROSSWIND position for the turn call. I get that the aircraft could be wide and otherwise at the expected turn position. Same then holds more or less for the downwind position. 3. Almost all the time the circuit circulating aircraft at a school airport are going to be training aircraft weekdays and a mix on the weekend. The mix will also be almost all standard performance aircraft turning at the same or similar downwind location. This renders the argument for not making the DOWNWIND call irrelevant. Why make it BASE for the rare occurrence of an aircraft turning DOWNWIND at a different spot? So, it still holds in my humble opinion that DOWNWIND should be the call at not BASE for a single call as being taught by the schools and practiced by the student and solo pilots. I have softened my opinion on CASA making this a mandated call. Reading here and listening to experienced pilots I believe CASA should make DOWNWIND a recommended call. This would formalize training throughout Australia. Right now it’s a hodge podge of different schools with different calls. The impact is felt with BASE only or BASE and FINAL when student pilots solo. They don’t bring in the downwind call for incoming aircraft. They don’t have the situational awareness. If they were taught DOWNWIND this weakness would disappear. I was doing my BFR last week and returning from French Island practice area. Made the incoming call and told the instructor I bet the circulating school aircraft doesn’t call their DOWNWIND. I’d have made money on that bet. They didn’t. Two sets of eyes helped and the instructor spotted the downwind aircraft just before I did. (I’ll call and ask if I don’t spot them) I’ve also adjusted my downwind to an early downwind at circuit height and reduced speed and no more oblique downwind entries. This is a big help for both sides of the SEE and AVOID. 1
pmccarthy Posted July 11 Posted July 11 After 53 years of flying, I cannot think of any reason not to make a joining or turning downwind call. 2
facthunter Posted July 12 Posted July 12 CASA have made the Point that calling in the turn presents a more visible aircraft, because the wings are banked. The way I read the latest attitude to this is leave it to the pilot rather than prescribe. I don't think. I've ever gone into a circuit with a SPECIFIC number of radio calls in my mind. You accommodate to the circumstances with the aim of knowing where any conflicting aircraft is and not transmit any longer than absolutely necessary, and don't give any erroneous calls. ALLOW for faster aircraft making a straight in approach .Nev 2 1 1
turboplanner Posted July 12 Posted July 12 4 hours ago, Mike Gearon said: I’m hoping to chat with a CASA representative at Tyabb tonight. We have a meeting starting at 6pm with new Head of Operations Ermin and others giving talks. Also, a talk from the CASA guy. He gave a great talk I heard at an SAAA meeting. (I’ll know his name later today) I have a question for very experienced pilots such as Turbo, Facthunter and others as relates to different performance aircraft. I’ve flown maybe 15 different aircraft in my 5 flying years. Float planes, gliders etc up to the fastest being my current workhorse the RV6. I’m not familiar with pattern locations for circuit aircraft that are going to be much higher performance than a 172 except the RV6 and in circuit you climb out VY and circuit at a speed and turning points same as the school 172’s. I have info below on a twin as relates to performance. So, the question relates to where the higher or different performance aircraft (base being the 172) turn for CROSSWIND and DOWNWIND. I wouldn't rate myself as being experienced unless it was experienced at making mistakes every flight. Two of our members had near-collisions in the circuit last year, so I did some analysis. In answer to your question, the positions are reasonably easy to calculate and draw to scale. If you are in the Class for the 1000' ciruit, your Crosswind turn is when you reach 500' That decided the distance out from the end of the runway. Your Downwind turn is when you reach 1000' and that decides how far out from the runway you will be. If you fly a Jabiru J230 only after a while you'l notice in still conditions you'll pretty much turn at the same landmarks every time. Some pilots get into the habit of using these landmarks, then they fly out to a BBQ and have no idea how to judge the landing in the circuit. So best not to fall for that trap. In one of the near collisions a pilot was criticised for being in the wrong position, but in fact both pilots scaled out pretty much over where the perdormance of the aircraft would have them. After talking to the pilots I realised we should spend more time studying the likely aircraft to visit the airfield so we know were to look for them, as against looking down our own track, where most will not be. In July and August I collected performance data and scaled a few out, then did a rough scale layout. I don't think anyone is going to memorise the theoretical track of every aircraft because our eye scan capacity is probably wide enough to cover low performance - medium - high. I then picked an airport with no landmarks and suggested people experiment with a route for a 3 State cross country and a diversion around a thunderstorm so the approach to the airport was from a new direction. As far as i know, no one tried it out, or if they did and screwed up, told us. Better to screw up on paper. So in answer to the question, pick an aircraft and I'll pull the calulated distance and that will be close, but in reality just knowing how the spin drier works makes a big, the slow climber will be a lot further out on crosswind and downwind, and if you're flying a high performance aircraft closer in will sometimes lose a place or two then call base ahead of you, but take forever to appear in front of you etc. 4 hours ago, Mike Gearon said: Regarding aircraft location for DOWNWIND or BASE call. 1. Why does it matter if they are further upwind and further crosswind and making a DOWNWIND call? It’s still going to alert inbound CROSSWIND, DOWNWIND and BASE join aircraft of their presence. When flying the circuit, an airfield with both RA and GA produces roughly the spread that you see on the diagramme below. RA alone or GA alone are even more manageable lines of sight. Crosswind usually denotes this band of tracks. If you're going to be joining downwind you can more easily see the ones banking, but it's going to be the ones who have already turned downwind that cause you stress. With a Baron in close and fast, you're looking to join behind him and he'll be going away from you all the way down. With a very slow aircraft out wide, you're looking to join further downwind to be ahead of him and he'll be getting further behind you all the way down. It's a game of moving targets. 4 hours ago, Mike Gearon said: 2. Why are they so far out of the standard circuit for the DOWNWIND then somehow at expected CROSSWIND position for the turn call. I get that the aircraft could be wide and otherwise at the expected turn position. Same then holds more or less for the downwind position. There's Crosswind after take off and it's Base after downwind. They are likely to be the ones who incorrectly turn on landmarks instead of performance; they realise they're in the wrong spot and fly across to the landmark. If you look at the circuit tracks there are no collision points (unless you are silly enough to run over the aircraft ahead of you on takeoff) until final. 4 hours ago, Mike Gearon said: 3. Almost all the time the circuit circulating aircraft at a school airport are going to be training aircraft weekdays and a mix on the weekend. The mix will also be almost all standard performance aircraft turning at the same or similar downwind location. This renders the argument for not making the DOWNWIND call irrelevant. Why make it BASE for the rare occurrence of an aircraft turning DOWNWIND at a different spot? You don't know when a Bonanza or Baron are going to arrive and join. 4 hours ago, Mike Gearon said: So, it still holds in my humble opinion that DOWNWIND should be the call at not BASE for a single call as being taught by the schools and practiced by the student and solo pilots. Downwind is still reasonably orderly from take off; Base not only has wings turning which are easier to see, but its the start of collecting into an orderly final. You might have an opinion but if 98% of Pilots are following the CASA information your chances of being involved in a collision elevate. 4 hours ago, Mike Gearon said: I was doing my BFR last week and returning from French Island practice area. Made the incoming call and told the instructor I bet the circulating school aircraft doesn’t call their DOWNWIND. I’d have made money on that bet. They didn’t. Two sets of eyes helped and the instructor spotted the downwind aircraft just before I did. (I’ll call and ask if I don’t spot them) I’ve also adjusted my downwind to an early downwind at circuit height and reduced speed and no more oblique downwind entries. This is a big help for both sides of the SEE and AVOID. If you look at the diagramme downwind is a bit of a long breather where you have time to do your pr-landing checks, have a look round at the order of aircraft and speed up/slow down/extend circuit/shorten circuit to help build an orderly line of aircraft so they can all land, minimising wasted go rounds. I take it the downwind you are adjusting is a downwind join. If so and you start with the intention of joining midfield, all the aircraft are arrayed in front of you and as you apprach the circuit you can see the faster ones and the slower ones etc. so while there's no problem with someone at a country strip calling downwind, there's not enough time in a busy radio strip. It really doesn't matter when they turn downwind, but it matters a lot more on the Base turn order-wise.
Mike Gearon Posted July 12 Author Posted July 12 21 hours ago, facthunter said: CASA have made the Point that calling in the turn presents a more visible aircraft, because the wings are banked. The way I read the latest attitude to this is leave it to the pilot rather than prescribe. I don't think. I've ever gone into a circuit with a SPECIFIC number of radio calls in my mind. You accommodate to the circumstances with the aim of knowing where any conflicting aircraft is and not transmit any longer than absolutely necessary, and don't give any erroneous calls. ALLOW for faster aircraft making a straight in approach .Nev For sure on banking. I have a base turn aircraft etched into my mind because it hadn’t made a downwind call in response to my inbound call. Zero situational awareness! It was ahead and suddenly became visible both as it turned and because of the call. And…… I was looking for the aircraft! Pic below was Tyabb last night. Ermin Xavier new head of operations with the mike discussing situational awareness in the circuit. Seated is Richard Rhimes the safety officer. Both are doing a great job. The club president Stephen Braim also on safety committee. Pic doesn’t do it justice. There were probably 100 people there. 1
Mike Gearon Posted July 12 Author Posted July 12 18 hours ago, turboplanner said: I wouldn't rate myself as being experienced unless it was experienced at making mistakes every flight. Two of our members had near-collisions in the circuit last year, so I did some analysis. In answer to your question, the positions are reasonably easy to calculate and draw to scale. Okay, I’m suitably humbled by your detailed response. Also, appreciative of the depth of analysis. Also, appreciating the fact that you’re not pretending to be perfect. That makes me want to catch up. Maybe we can message and discuss. Note…. My mistake in messing up downwind and base with crosswind in discussion. Of course it’s downwind to base. I’m occasionally stressed by making a fuss about the radio calls both at my local club and here. If I make a major mistake at some point I’ll be “that guy” However, it’s a big deal. I am going to write a letter to CASA once I find the right person to talk to. I thought there was going to be a CASA guy last night but that wasn’t the case. You’ve presented such a treasure trove of information I’m going to sift slowly through it then respond.
BurnieM Posted July 12 Posted July 12 (edited) I believe calling inbound, joining and turning base is pretty common at most places. Plus a current position report if I hear a new plane I had not heard before. The pilot can exercise his/her judgement to call as any times as they believe is required but ... too many calls is a real problem at many locations. If a call is stomped on then neither pilot will be heard and both will be unaware this has occured. CASAs recommendation appears to be a reasonable way to deal with this. I am pretty inexperienced with flying but I do have radio experience with 2 other organisations and there is a big difference between making a call and passing (and receiving) information. Edited July 12 by BurnieM 2
facthunter Posted July 12 Posted July 12 "Transmitting over" can happen with just the button pressed. Like many things in flying it is a "situational awareness" thing . Not easily comprehended by those who want a prescribed procedure to fit all circumstances. There's a lot of Judgement and Managing and planning ahead in flying. Your performance in that area is what makes you a safer pilot. Not just being able to recite stuff. Nev 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now