Speaking on the radio

[turboplanner]

I agree; on final and short final you will know there's an aircraft just landed/landing/on the runway, and your primary go round decision is based on whether he has left the runway, not whether he says he has, because many forget, and some don't bother.

 

What I believe, and in 15 minutes of searching, haven't been able to find (A CASA search of "radio phrases" turns up "no results"), is that "Base touch and go" and "Base full stop" have been replaced by "Base", and "clear all runways" simply means you're out of the action and gone - no one has to worry about you. That's for non-towered airfields, which still can have six aircraft in the circuit clogging up the radio waves. So I san understand that deleting six "Touch and Goes/Full Stops" and just alerting that you're gone from the circuit will open up the time available for standard transmissions.

 

I've said a few times CASA are bordering on negligent in failing to group and index all radio traffic.

 

I'm aware that some of the changes have been for Public Liability protection, where the changed transmissions leave the PL square in the hands, or words, of the PIC, but not hjaving the guts to come out and tell us, and cvreating such a mess of confusion will almost certainly get them into court anyway, with very little sympathy from anyone.

 

 

[Keith Page]

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

Yes "vacated" indicates the runway is empty of your aircraft.. "Clear" is used by the towers "Clear to land" "Clear to take off" or communication on the ground e.g. "Yes you are clear go to taxi way" indicating you as a pilot are aware of another aircraft is operating on the ground as well or coming into land.

KP.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

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?

If repeating the location is allowed then perhaps I'll call "Gympie traffic Gympie traffic Gympie traffic..."... It makes about as much sense.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

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.

I'll try not to take offence at your post, Nathan. I could demonstrate shed loads of effort on my part to improve safety- my own and that of others. My only crime has been speaking up for a tiny, common sense change to the wording of my transmission (in an effort to improve safety) I have copped a heap of lecturing about rules. Meanwhile, plenty of aviators - experienced and not so, professional and amateur- routinely flout the rules and keep quiet about it. It does my head in.

 

 

[ian00798]

And the pilots that routinely flout the rules need action taken against them! If you are that certain you are right, then get the rules changed! Until then follow the existing regulations. It is not your role, and it is unprofessional to just make up your own rules.

 

If repeating the location is allowed then perhaps I'll call "Gympie traffic Gympie traffic Gympie traffic..."... It makes about as much sense.

At least what I suggested is in the AIP as a legitimate procedure! Words twice is a recommended and accepted method of ensuring the message is received in radio communications! You show me the paragraph in AIP that says words backward is acceptable! Here's the link to AIP Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) | Airservices

 

You have been advised by your peers that what you recommended is not a good idea. Normalization of deviation is very insidious and will very quickly creep into other areas of flying if left unchecked. People on this forum have recommended several methods you can use to achieve the safety goal and comply with the regulations. You have refused to listen to any of them. I guess as General Melchett would say, "if nothing else works, a total pig headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through".

 

 

[M61A1]

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

Just for the fun of I'll throw this in here.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 166C

 

Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio

 

(1) If:

 

(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and

 

(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and

 

© the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;

 

the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).

 

(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:

 

(a) the name of the aerodrome;

 

(b) the aircraft's type and call sign;

 

© the position of the aircraft and the pilot's intentions.

 

Note 1: See the AIP for the recommended format for broadcasting the information mentioned in this regulation.

 

Note 2: For the requirement to maintain a listening watch, see regulation 243.

 

Note that these are the regs (the compulsory bits), and it direct s you to the AIPs for the RECCOMMENDED format.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just for the fun of I'll throw this in here.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 166C

 

Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio

 

(1) If:

 

(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and

 

(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and

 

© the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;

 

the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).

 

(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:

 

(a) the name of the aerodrome;

 

(b) the aircraft's type and call sign;

 

© the position of the aircraft and the pilot's intentions.

 

Note 1: See the AIP for the recommended format for broadcasting the information mentioned in this regulation.

 

Note 2: For the requirement to maintain a listening watch, see regulation 243.

 

Note that these are the regs (the compulsory bits), and it direct s you to the AIPs for the RECCOMMENDED format.

.........and if there is a safety recommendation, policy, code, etc. and you ignore it, then you become fodder for the lawyers.

 

 

[ian00798]

And a nuisance to everyone else in the sky

 

 

[M61A1]

.........and if there is a safety recommendation, policy, code, etc. and you ignore it, then you become fodder for the lawyers.

I actually prefer "location traffic' rather than "traffic location", but, both are legal and you can't seriously be arguing that the latter is less safe.

What next, are we going to argue about what colour underwear you need to be on final?

 

 

[ian00798]

What next, are we going to argue about what colour underwear you need to be on final?

Yes, it should be brown just in case

 

 

[turboplanner]

We can discount you M, we know your fingerprints.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...You have been advised by your peers that what you recommended is not a good idea. Normalization of deviation is very insidious and will very quickly creep into other areas of flying if left unchecked. People on this forum have recommended several methods you can use to achieve the safety goal and comply with the regulations. You have refused to listen to any of them. I guess as General Melchett would say, "if nothing else works, a total pig headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through".

This one I will take offence to, Ian. I have learnt heaps from this forum and, if you read my thousands of posts, you might find that I have demonstrated a readiness to learn from more experienced aviators.

 

I have not "refused to listen to any of them".

 

I am yet to hear a valid reason that calling the word "traffic" before location is a safety issue. To me this seems to be mindlessly following the rules no matter what. Innovation is vital to the future of our species. I am blown away by the strident criticism of my efforts to improve how we communicate, and predictions that I could be endangering lives.

 

I am beginning to understand why many innovators who have left this country in dispair.

 

 

[ian00798]

You have shown no signs of having listened to anyone. I have no issue with innovation at all, it has to be done the right way! Have the documents changed, and have everyone do the same thing if you strongly believe in your method! And that would involve actually doing research and producing evidence that there is a safety benefit to changing things! Otherwise follow the rules like every other pilot has to.

 

No offense was intended, I just don't know how to put my message into words that you will actually pay attention to, as you seemed to ignore everything I have said. I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I get to see the big picture with aviation, and I have seen breakdowns in standard phraseology nearly kill people even though the other pilot believed they were doing the right thing. With standard phraseology order is important, it creates a flow that people can assimilate quickly and with minimal effort. Reading traffic 1st or second is unlikely to have a major impact either way so there is no benefit to changing it, especially not on your own initiative. And it leaves me wondering what other standard phraseologies people believe they can be slack with.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This one I will take offence to, Ian. I have learnt heaps from this forum and, if you read my thousands of posts, you might find that I have demonstrated a readiness to learn from more experienced aviators.I have not "refused to listen to any of them".

I am yet to hear a valid reason that calling the word "traffic" before location is a safety issue. To me this seems to be mindlessly following the rules no matter what. Innovation is vital to the future of our species. I am blown away by the strident criticism of my efforts to improve how we communicate, and predictions that I could be endangering lives.

 

I am beginning to understand why many innovators who have left this country in dispair.

I'll try to simplify it. If we use CASA's phrase example of "Parkes Traffic", then someone inbound with a faulty radio may only come across as " * ** ", so if I'm in the circuit at Parkes, this still gives me an alert that someone else is going to do something at Parkes, either inbound or taking off.

If you come in, thinking everything is normal and call "Traffic Parkes", but your radio is on the blink and what comes across is " **. * " I'd judge that to be an aircraft calling a long way off, and so irrelevant to me. If I don't see you, and I won't if you are below me, then the risk goes up exponentially.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I actually prefer "location traffic' rather than "traffic location", but, both are legal and you can't seriously be arguing that the latter is less safe.What next, are we going to argue about what colour underwear you need to be on final?

I always say traffic and then location. The main reason I continue to use this format is that I have either been talking or listening to the passenger when a call comes in that says location first, which I will miss and listen intently for the location at the message end.

 

PHIL

 

 

[ian00798]

So you mean if you miss the location in the first bit you listen closely to the whole transmission to find out the location? Most people would argue that is a good thing....

 

 

[frank marriott]

I guess it is how one treats regs and advisory docs.

 

I have my own opinion in relation to CAAP 166 but I comply with its content as it exists (under review at present).

 

Similar I elect to no longer read the "feel good" rubbish currently being sent out by RAA (or the self promoting mag) - I comply with the ops and tech manual, although I have extreme opposition to some aspects of them.

 

Comments here by the likes of "airsick " (I would imagine most people know his true identy and probably using another invented name by now) are just sad.

 

The bottom line, whether it be RAA or CASA some things need changing, and there is a process by which one can attempt to change them, but until that happens there is an obligation to comply no matter what ones opinion is of the particular rule or guideline. I don't believe there is room to decide for yourself which parts you may accept and others to disregard.

 

 

[M61A1]

I'll try to simplify it. If we use CASA's phrase example of "Parkes Traffic", then someone inbound with a faulty radio may only come across as " * ** ", so if I'm in the circuit at Parkes, this still gives me an alert that someone else is going to do something at Parkes, either inbound or taking off.If you come in, thinking everything is normal and call "Traffic Parkes", but your radio is on the blink and what comes across is " **. * " I'd judge that to be an aircraft calling a long way off, and so irrelevant to me. If I don't see you, and I won't if you are below me, then the risk goes up exponentially.

Well that made no sense at all.

If the first part is clipped, you will hear "### Parkes" in one instance and "#### traffic" in the other. If you are relying on hearing it at the end, then why bother at all with saying it at the beginning of your transmission?

 

As I said, I prefer the recommended format, but I hear more of those using "traffic" first than I do of the other, so someone out there is teaching a lot of people, and realistically, it makes it easier to understand quickly, as a lot of transmissions seem to get clipped and you miss the first word frequently.

 

Also, on the subject of recommended vs not recommended, CAAPs state that straight in approaches are not recommended standard procedures either but are allowable under CARs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well that made no sense all

No, not the version you wrote.

With VHF radio, it's not uncommon to get just static blips representing syllables.

 

 

[Nightmare]

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

If I've just vacated runway 12, then my call would be "[Location] traffic, [Callsign] clear of runway12 [Location]" "Runway vacated" is just too vague... Which runway is vacated? You want to communicate to other pilots where you are and what your intentions are.

 

 

[M61A1]

No, not the version you wrote.With VHF radio, it's not uncommon to get just static blips representing syllables.

It's way more common to get clipped transmissions, or just completely unreadable, rarely half readable.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

If I've just vacated runway 12, then my call would be "[Location] traffic, [Callsign] clear of runway12 [Location]""Runway vacated" is just too vague... Which runway is vacated? You want to communicate to other pilots where you are and what your intentions are.

So do we agree that broadcasts are made to satisfy the requirements of CAR 166C?

ie: "must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision"

 

So how does a "clear of runway" call avoid a collision? In general this is a totally unnecessary broadcast.

 

At a controlled airport contact with SMC is made when clear of the runway, it's not telling ATC that you're clear of the runway you are simply establishing comm's on their frequency.

 

 

[dutchroll]

If a transmission is clipped or unintelligible in any way which makes it uncertain as to whether it's relevant to you, people should be querying it.

 

Notwithstanding that, basic radiotelephony teaches that you key the mic first then speak, not key and speak simultaneously.

 

If pilots are regularly skipping the first word of their "traffic broadcast", then either they need a revision lesson on how to use the radio, or it's not working properly and they need to get it fixed!

 

 

[turboplanner]

So do we agree that broadcasts are made to satisfy the requirements of CAR 166C?ie: "must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision"

So how does a "clear of runway" call avoid a collision? In general this is a totally unnecessary broadcast.

 

At a controlled airport contact with SMC is made when clear of the runway, it's not telling ATC that you're clear of the runway you are simply establishing comm's on their frequency.

In a controlled airport, you are switching frequency to SMC and just giving your reg, for a different purpose. The tower controller is watching the circuit.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You have shown no signs of having listened to anyone...

I have read every post and taken in the arguments. I just haven't been convinced this is a big deal.

 

I have no issue with innovation at all, it has to be done the right way! Have the documents changed, and have everyone do the same thing if you strongly believe in your method! And that would involve actually doing research and producing evidence that there is a safety benefit to changing things! Otherwise follow the rules like every other pilot has to...

Actually Ian, throughout my life I have tried to implement many improvements in systems and procedures. It has been my painful experience that going thru channels is a path to frustration, disappointment and worse. Almost all reforms that I have achieved have been solo efforts, against a tide of complacency or active resistance.

Aviation is an area which seems particularly hard to change.

 

Even before the recently-announced staff cuts, Airservices seemed to be unable to respond to feedback from pilots. It took me over five years to get them to correct a mistake on a chart.

 

No offense was intended, I just don't know how to put my message into words that you will actually pay attention to, as you seemed to ignore everything I have said...Reading traffic 1st or second is unlikely to have a major impact either way so there is no benefit to changing it, especially not on your own initiative. And it leaves me wondering what other standard phraseologies people believe they can be slack with.

You have a valid point here. Plenty of variations from standard phraseology are heard on the airwaves.

I understand your point of view and respect your efforts to communicate it. The end result is a whole lot of aggravation that neither of us need.