Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"all telling the CASA about this issue so they are very well aware of it & we were told it would be discussed with the FTFs with foreign students. That was nearly a year ago & there has been no change. "

 

No 1 rule when dealing with any level of Government - Put it on paper. Not email. Not verbally. Ink on paper only. Every bit of correspondence that a government body, from Local to Federal, is given an ID number and a file location.

 

Bernard Woolley:

Shall I file it?

James Hacker:

Shall you file it? Shred it!

Bernard Woolley:

Shred it?

James Hacker:

Nobody must ever be able to find it again.

Bernard Woolley:

In that case, Minister, I think it's best I file it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's always the opportunity to harness the NIMBY forces. Get in touch with a reported from your local newspaper and spin a yarn that there is danger in the skies over their town because of the failure of clear radio communication.

 

This might not be the right time to use this method at Grafton, with REX pulling out due to excessive landing fees charged by the local council, and Albury losing services due to Virgin's demise. Both these are making aviation a bit on the nose in those places.

 

{Please don't go off topic with witty comments about "Virgin's demise" }

 

Virgins Denise! You brought it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, what’s this nautical miles thing? Everyone seems to say that these days. As if it would make any difference nautical or statute for a ten mile call. And we are obliged to use nautical so why say it?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see any strict enforcement of clear English being implemented, given commercial considerations and the parlours state of Australia's relations with our biggest source of students.

 

The same from the other side. Sometimes I can not recognise what native speakers (pilots, ATC) say, if it is not one of usual wellknown standard phrases. Fast, mumbling and unrecognisable, even without strongest accent (I met some guys on work with accent that I could not understand at all, even not by phone or radio, and when I am not busy with something like plane control). I passed EPL to 6 without any problems, but it does not help at all in case when speaker relies on my understanding and apriori knowledge, and I do not have it!

 

There is one female ATC in Bankstown which I can not decifer at all if she says somesing unusual/nonstandard. Even guy with strongest Indian accent is much more understandable for me. I do not know why, but this is a fact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here, we don't end blind calls with the airfield. We will first make a call to the station if there is one, and if not, we will repeat the call to the location traffic. The call when you are expecting someone to answer is:

"Dunkeswell traffic, Golf Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta 10 miles to the south 5 tousand on one-zero-one-niner, request join". If you get no response or you are doing an initial call to a non-manned aerodrome, it will be:

 

"Dunkeswell traffic, Golf Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta 10 miles to the south 5 tousand on one-zero-one-niner, joining left downwind runway zero-niner" (I don't think that is a runway at Dunks, but you get the idea. If you don't know what runway you would omit the runway and maybe say for an overhead join or other proecedure used at the airfield.

 

BTW, when flying in France (accidentally posted this in an entirely unrelated thread), then vous devriez essayer de voler en France. Ils parleront français aux pilotes français et anglais à tout le monde. Bien sûr, l'EASA n'y fait rien

 

Which for some reason does not translate back well...

 

It should say, you should try flying in France. They speak French to the French pilots and English to everyone else.. and of course, EASA does nothing about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only recommended, no mandated as far as I know. I say the destination then time.

Some calls may only be recommended, but the phraseology is mandatory and must be in the standard published order.

In other words, you may choose whether or not to make a call based on traffic or relevance, but if you make the call, it must contain pertinent information, in the approved order, using approved words.

The reason being, rather than to be compliant and make the call to satisfy a legal requirement, the call needs to be meaningful to any recipient it may be directed to, and that pilot is expecting a stream of relevent information in a particular order, due mainly to limitations in short term memory.

If the listening pilot missed the first bit of a call and does not know what station the call is being made to, then all that pilot needs to do, is listen to the rest of the call, knowing that the station identifier will be confirmed with the last word of the call.

 

The call begins and ends with the station identifier.

  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some calls may only be recommended, but the phraseology is mandatory and must be in the standard published order.

In other words, you may choose whether or not to make a call based on traffic or relevance, but if you make the call, it must contain pertinent information, in the approved order, using approved words.

The reason being, rather than to be compliant and make the call to satisfy a legal requirement, the call needs to be meaningful to any recipient it may be directed to, and that pilot is expecting a stream of relevent information in a particular order, due mainly to limitations in short term memory.

If the listening pilot missed the first bit of a call and does not know what station the call is being made to, then all that pilot needs to do, is listen to the rest of the call, knowing that the station identifier will be confirmed with the last word of the call.

 

The call begins and ends with the station identifier.

Yes and it does not end with the word traffic.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is not many have much faith in CASA, my dealings with CASA I avoid them at all costs.

That's a cynical way of looking at things but 40 years both being an operator and flying for a living, my experience is their toxic.

I know that's the wrong attitude.

In this situation a bit if toxicity might help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In NZ the CTAF calls do not end with the station identifier as per the UK but personally I think it is a good idea as often you miss or do not hear clearly the name at the beginning of the transmission. When i first flew here I kept on omitting it but after hearing others it quickly became habit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In these days of technology taking over everything, why doesn't someone come up with an voice recognition app on their smartphone that can translate their intentions, that then can be Bluetoothed to the airband radio for broadcast.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always reverse the name and say Traffic first then the name. Example "Traffic Parks blarr blarr" because when the mic is keyed sometimes you loose the first word also gives the receiver a chance to listen. As far as poor English is concerned you don't need to even have a radio when flying in class G, ergo no need to make calls at all let alone make them intelligible. Just saying :)

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ones that irk me the most are the Indians out of Moorabbin that think it is radio FM, basically the only thing they don’t tell you is the colour of their jocks and socks.

Here them telling their mates they are over the red roof house over Sandy Point.

Another irk is from many a pilot is 10 nautical mile call.

Guys aviation is in nautical miles just say one zero miles or even 10 miles and stop wasting the airways with dribble.

We all get it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't do anything because there's money in it and they don't want to deter the processor or stir up angst. Nev

The major driver for the Part 61 reg reform was to better facilitate training of off shore students. So your are correct Nev, the focus is on $$$

Link to post
Share on other sites

Foreign students are required to achieve a pass at ”Cambridge Level two English”. The training they buy to achieve this qualification is verging on fraudulent.

 

Most eventually get it sort of OK if they persevere. I still remember “which one are you? Waggle your wings! ...from YMMB tower.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 61, biggest waste of time and money, no gains only pain. No swap with FAA or JAA. Typical CASA, wasted space.

 

CASA's only role is to confuse, complicate & retain their draconian ways, a boys club, they are complicit in their objective!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"all telling the CASA about this issue so they are very well aware of it & we were told it would be discussed with the FTFs with foreign students. That was nearly a year ago & there has been no change. "

 

No 1 rule when dealing with any level of Government - Put it on paper. Not email. Not verbally. Ink on paper only. Every bit of correspondence that a government body, from Local to Federal, is given an ID number and a file location.

 

 

 

Have any of you who have had close calls filed a repcon? It is much harder for a bureaucrat to ignore the problem if it is in their safety system...

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary/repcon-aviation/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a look at the form, it might be Confidential but you still have to put your contact details. Anybody I know who flys for a living would not submit one of those for the fear of consequences.

As I said before, anything to do with CASA is toxic and consider ATSB as part of the system. Several times through my career I have tried to let them know about major problems, there was no help, all I got was increased attention by adits and surveillance.

Take a look at prune and what they did to Glen Buckley.

Whistle blowers in Australia are treated like crimminals.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a look at the form, it might be Confidential but you still have to put your contact details. Anybody I know who flys for a living would not submit one of those for the fear of consequences.

As I said before, anything to do with CASA is toxic and consider ATSB as part of the system. Several times through my career I have tried to let them know about major problems, there was no help, all I got was increased attention by adits and surveillance.

Take a look at prune and what they did to Glen Buckley.

Whistle blowers in Australia are treated like crimminals.

 

Spot on! It boils down to " them & us" !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having deeper pockets than you have is one thing and they are making the prosecution. Law of absolute liability applies. The dice is loaded NOT in your favour.. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. that is educative. From my short stint in a state OH&S regulator in Aus, I know that they do take an us and them approach - it seems to be in the Aussie regulator psyche..

 

The CAA have their issues, but on the whole, they seem to be very fair about how they deal with those they regulate.. they do understand people aren't perfect and accidents happen. Naturally, complete stuff ups are unlikely to be tolerated, but submitting a report will not attract undue attention, unless it is falsified, I guess. If we are deined class D transits, we are encouraged to report it and people do. Not sure anything happens, but there is no fear of reprisal.

 

Very sad as the system cannot improve if they are actively discouraging feedback - which sounds like what they are doing. And this cannot be in the short or long term interests of safety... Maybe their acronym stands fro Completely Against Safe Aviation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. that is educative. From my short stint in a state OH&S regulator in Aus, I know that they do take an us and them approach - it seems to be in the Aussie regulator psyche..

 

The CAA have their issues, but on the whole, they seem to be very fair about how they deal with those they regulate.. they do understand people aren't perfect and accidents happen. Naturally, complete stuff ups are unlikely to be tolerated, but submitting a report will not attract undue attention, unless it is falsified, I guess. If we are deined class D transits, we are encouraged to report it and people do. Not sure anything happens, but there is no fear of reprisal.

 

Very sad as the system cannot improve if they are actively discouraging feedback - which sounds like what they are doing. And this cannot be in the short or long term interests of safety... Maybe their acronym stands fro Completely Against Safe Aviation?

 

CAsA aren't ' completely against safe aviation' just completly against GA, well seems like it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...