ian00798

I would say very well done, he got the helicopter on the ground the right way up and everyone lives to fly another day. An insurance company is now the proud owner of a slightly used R44 and the armchair experts now get their chance to chime in and say how if it was them they would have done a much better job. But in all seriousness very well done to that pilot, regardless of what the cause was they did a good job to make it survivable.

I will produce the list, it's going to be a long post and will take a while

Because transposing the radio call is poor radio technique. There is a format written in AIP, stop arguing to validate your poor below standard radio procedure and just follow the rule like most of the pilots in the sky. I can not think of one single accident that has been caused by correct procedure following. I could probably list 30 or more where poor radio technique, non standard phraseology and poor general communication has lead to an accident that would have been avoided is the correct procedure was followed.

Then there are a lot of wise men dying when they choose not to follow the rules designed for fools. I would be the first to agree that there are occasions where bending the rules is appropriate. The virgin 737 landing below minima at Mildura being one of the more obvious recent ones. What isn't correct is choosing not to follow the rules that work fine for everyone else because you think you know better. So what do we teach students? Follow the rules if they suit you and you agree with them? When do you know enough that you can start just ignoring them? 50 hours? 500? 5000?

And I think the whole not been able to go below 500ft is pesky and I know better, so I won't follow that, remaining out of cloud is for rookies, and really, the entire CASR and AIP is really boring and I don't want to read it, let alone follow it. Where does the rule bending/breaking stop? How do you decide which rules and procedures you follow? Just flip a coin? I can not, and will not, accept a normalization of deviance as acceptable, and as pilots we need to hold our self to a high standard. There is a process to change the AIP, if you want to use a different phraseology then go and get it changed in the regulations first. Otherwise follow the same rules that every other pilot in the skies has to follow.

That's because some of us have seen people nearly die from communications mix ups that would not have happened if people used standard phraseologies.

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....

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.

Yes, it should be brown just in case

And a nuisance to everyone else in the sky

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. 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".

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?

It's for that reason ATC try and avoid using the phrase "go ahead", as there is to big a chance it could be misinterpreted and somebody misconstrue it as a clearance. There is a very very good reason for using standard phraseology as much as you possibly can, that way everyone is on the same page. It is also a sign of your professionalism and the attention to detail you have toward your flying in general. Remember passengers judge you by your landings, other pilots judge you by your radio calls.

This is the post that concerns me more than any so far. That means their is an instructor who is willingly and knowingly teaching students phraseology contrary to the regulations because they think they know better. Making up your own rules is not the role of the instructor, they are the keeper of standards in the organisation and have an obligation to teach students to the regulations. It leaves me wondering what other rules these instructors think are optional, or they know better.

You can be in Australia too, sometimes with as little as 600m separation depending on the weights of the aircraft involved.

At some runways the other end may not be visible from the departure end, so it may be worth giving a vacating call so the guy waiting to roll up the other end knows your clear. Toowoomba is a good example of this one, and ersa recommends giving a vacating call as well. Otherwise you are right, it's an unnecessary call cluttering up the radio. Frankly so is a taxi call at an uncontrolled aerodrome.

Yeah that should be instant revocation of your radio endorsement.

First up I think some of my previous posts have been harshly worded, I don't believe you are incompetent, stupid, reckless or anything like that and I would much rather someone voice their opinion if they feel there is a potential safety hazard, and what you are saying does absolutely have merit to it. The thing I'm not as comfortable with is your decision to unilaterally change an accepted procedure. There is a method to raise this and have changing it investigated. My question to you is if, hypothetically, you succeeded getting it changed and AIP updated, would you expect other pilots to comply with the new procedure? I would comply if it was written in AIP even though I disagree with you on this occasion. It's asking a lot to expect other pilots to respect the rules that you are knowingly ignoring on this occasion, even if it is well intentioned. If you feel as strongly as I believe you do about this, then I recommend going through the correct channels and having the procedure changed, until then please respect your fellow pilots, and the professional image of the entire organisation, and comply with the rules.

That's the exact reference from AIP. It says exactly what format to use, and why to use it. Nowhere does it recommend varying the format of you know better etc. There are standard phraseologies I wish I could vary as well, for example instead of saying climb to flight level xxx I would prefer saying climb flight level xxx, as I believe to sounds way too much like two, however the phraseology is prescribed and I follow it. As I have already said, traffic xxxxxx is far to close to an emergency phraseology and doing it that way is totally inappropriate.

Exactly right, perfectly said in every way!

I think your missing my entire point at the moment. Absolutely been heard and understood is the point of radio communications. And a critical part of achieving that is using standard phraseology. That is how everyone from the savannah bashing around the training area to Air France inbound to Sydney from Paris is able to safely communicate. Every other pilot is expecting information to flow in a particular format, and the way chunking works in our brains it helps to get the same information the same way each time. I agree that what you suggest is well intentioned and I can understand your point even if I don't actually agree with it, however it's not really our choice to ignore the regulations and standards laid out in AIP. If something goes wrong one day and the ATSB lists non standard phraseology as a contributing factor how do you think your going to explain your choice to 12 of your peers in a court of law? That is the reality of what could possibly happen.

Yeah, I have to agree there, and there isn't standard phraseology for every eventuality, even controllers have to improvise at times. When there is standard phraseology available though it very much helps to use it.

That's why we say the location name again at the end of the transmission, in case the first one was missed. AIP gives the correct format for a CTAF call, and that is what should be adhered to, that's what everyone else will be expecting. Modifying phrases because you think it might be better isn't the best idea, and where does it end? My biggest issue with using traffic at the start is that is the format ATC will use to tell you your about to hit someone, which is a pretty crucial transmission. If people get used to hearing traffic then it will desensitize them and they might not hear the call that is meant to save their life. We can't just go changing the rules because we slightly disagree with them, after all most of them have been written a certain way because somebody died, or nearly died.

The good news is if you plan through a controllers controlled airspace the flight plan will go to our prescribe flights queue weather it's an ifr or vfr flight. Then not matter what you have put the plan in as, I will be able to find it quick and easy. As far as patching the system up, the most significant issue would be that it is a mid 90s system put in service in the 2000s, and doesn't really have a lot of capacity left. Besides, there are system issues which actually have possible safety implications I would prefer to see fixed first

Yeah but the issue is no controller is ever going to find your flight plan if you put it in as R1234, and also most recreational pilots don't plan that way. Not to mention, manually coupling ADSB is a more involved process than manually coupling radar.