Pilot standards decreasing?

[SW3]

Leadsled not avoiding your point at all, raising my own. Our procedures aren't too onerous at all, particularly in CTA. However I do agree our OCTA provedures leave much to be desired with far too many 'recommended' calls. Even so they are recommendations and common sense must prevail here. Nothing worse than the guy calling at every turn in the circuit. Situational awareness ties in with airmanship. Despite this, CTA calls are practical and simple.

[Stan van de Wiel]

LeadSled if I could get away without having to look at the Australian set of Jepp ATC section at least every six months I'd ponder your suggestion, however since it must be read and adhered to and we are in Australia and what it says (Which comes from AIP) is binding, that will do for me.

Isn't that the PRESCRIPTION Leadsled is talking about. Understand that that is what the AUS CASA require, but that doesn't make it correct. (Just go to the latest ICAO Audit of CASA to see what was wrong or missing) Yes for recurrent testing you must comply??? "DO AS I SAY NOT DO AS I DO"

SW3,
Avoiding the issue I raised, I see.

The issue is that there is no or very little input (opportunity) from Industry, hence there is little change. the "she'll be right mate" attitude reigns, also known as "apathy" What other country would allow 23 years of non legislative re-write without some form of revolt. But then it only cost $140million +-.

Create a manual so dense and complex nobody can use, and nobody will use it.

Create regulations so complex, apparently contradictory and confusing, and they will be ignored.

Leadsled - without complexity the lawyers would have no work. This has nothing to do with SAFETY - My first AOC took 14 days and had an 18 page approved Ops manual?

[aroa]

How things have changed ....for the worse.!

A good aviator friend...his AOC took 14 months, thousands of dollars and more like 18,00 pages.!

And as for all that pap about a business plan..( wtf would a bureaucrat know about business.!)...by the time he did get his AOC, he was broke..!

And a few things ... apart from the time, contributed to that.
Like the CASA guy not turning up for the flight test, TWICE.!

So you wouldnt know whether CASA were just protecting a mate's business,
have dedcided they dont want any more operators locally... but cant/dont say so,....or just plain incompetant.

And as for the "regs".. written by psuedo-lawyers and para(site)legals, with absolutely no interest in the downstream practical effects of those bits of convoluted gobbledegook....all strict liability of course.

They've said themselves: Written by "lawyers"(sic) for Lawyers..whats it matter if the pilot plebs cant understand it.!

[Aussie Bob]

Interesting comments, all of them but I can't help but think, there is no industry quite like aviation to heap critisism on its own. Some of you I am sure, are convinced your own dung don't ever stink.

In 25 odd years of flying I confess I have done most of the things mentioned on this thread and it has made me a better pilot and one who is tolerant of all kinds of "poor" airmanship.

I say to the more pedantic of you, including you Mr Cranky ATC, perhaps it is time to seek your vocations elswhere.

[Jabawocky]

Going to make a semi useful contribution despite my cheeky ones so far.

Thread was about pilot standards. I suppose that could include R/T standards as well, but lets leave that for a minute.

My thoughts are far too many folk are being pumped our of aeroclubs and schools by instructors that have barely learned themselves. Old point but a critical one. They have learned by rote, including many bad teachings and they pass it on verbatim. Look at the OWT training exposed in the engine management threads.

Now I am no "rocket scientist pilot" or whatever that funny phrase was recently but I did enjoy the benefit of being taught by really experienced pilots all the way through. And during each phase I had just the one instructor and not several who had no real idea where the last one left me. This being the second problem. It is no wonder some folk take forever to do their first solo .

As for R/T.....simple rules not taught or displayed, Who You Are, Where You Are, What Your Intentions Are. Sure there may be some additional info you might like to add like offering a better route away from some MIL CTR work so you do not hold up them or others using the ILS above when you can go around. Simple airmanship by being acutely aware of what is around you and how your actions or intentions affect others.

Departure calls from a CTAF.....I thought....and jump on me if I am wrong here, but I thought they went the way of the Dodo. Its just another clogging of the frequency and everyone who was in the airspace around you has already heard your intentions when you taxied to the runway. I still hear these being drummed into students coming from a famous aeroclub with a new CTAF not far north of YBBN ......I have a feeling they may even be taught at YCAB too .

Of course if they are back in vogue.....I am doing it all wrong

[Trent 972]

Jaba, AIP (2 Jun 11) GEN 3.4 5.14.8 (page 57)
Departure Reports departing a Non-Towered Aerodrome. (Unique to Australia)

[Jabawocky]

Ya kidding me..........I thought that was scrubbed in one of the NAS 1,2a,2b,2c or the CTAF R or one other such great improvements


Hang on a minute........ are we talking about IFR departure reports here? Or VFR.

I made the comment about no clogging the CTAF

Generally I find more success with my IFR departure reports on the BNE/MEL CEN frequency.....on the CTAF you get laughed at .

Maybe I was not clear enough .....or are they still required when in G from a CTAF and bugging off VFR in G, Surely not?

[Trent 972]

No - vfr as well, although strictly speaking you are not wrong.
I assumed you would refer to the 'Summary of Broadcast - All aircraft at Non Towered Aerodromes' AIP ENR, and you are quite correct although that summary gives the 'minimum' calls to be made. Additional calls recommended if it assists with traffic situation, as per CAR166 C.

edit

I still hear these being drummed into students coming from a famous aeroclub with a new CTAF not far north of YBBN

Carriage of radio is not mandatory at R........!
Just turn it off, (if you're brave enough). I'm not!

[Jabawocky]

hahahha so you have been around here lately

Well Some days you are better off NOCOMS......and keeping a good lookout

As for departure reports in a CTAF...........most folk making them are not adding anything to theirs or others safety, and I figure you can work out why.

[Trent 972]

Too true, but I figure it's mostly a 'training' aerodrome and don't expect the same standards as Heathrow etc.

[VH-FTS]

No - vfr as well, although strictly speaking you are not wrong.

I assumed you would refer to the 'Summary of Broadcast - All aircraft at Non Towered Aerodromes' AIP ENR, and you are quite correct although that summary gives the 'minimum' calls to be made.

Read elsewhere in your Jepps/AIPs and you'll discover Departure Reports are an IFR procedure for communicating with ATC. They are not a CTAF procedure. I don't have the AIP ref, but my Jepps AU-903/4 confirm this.

Unfortunately many instructors think this applies to them when flying VFR and force departure calls upon students. A departure call on the CTAF can be a good thing for helping inbound aircraft (back to the debate about airmanship), but you must learn what the true intention of the format is. No one care what your estimate for Gympie is when you're departing Redcliffe/Caboolture. However, ATC do care because it aids your IFR tracking until you are identified. Aiding ATC and their subsequent assistance traffic management is the point behind a departure REPORT.

Nothing in all of the changed CTAF procedures from CASA etc a while ago made any mention to giving a departure report. Nothing in the non-towered section mentions it either. Use it when appropriate, but get your understanding of its intentions correct.

FTS you miss the point. R/T procedures should have logical not just prescribed features. Anything that assists pilots' S.A. (outside the cockpit) should be utilised especially in a night environment with a lot of back lighting. The point of making the assumed sequence call at BASE turn is because it is far more difficult to spot the descending aircraft preceding you. This was the case at YMMB when the then #2 was doing a B747 circuit (turning a looong final for 17) when #3 identified the then #1 aircraft on mid final. In this case "blind spots" played a major role, so no amount of look-out could have assisted once the aircraft were on a collision course.

But you, or perhaps the organisational who altered their SOPs, are applying a prescribed feature by mandating the sequence number into radio calls. Stating your number in the sequence can be error-prone, and if wrong affects the judgement of those following you in the circuit.

This gets back to "declining standards" Even though G.A. badly needs these foreign students, the fact that you need to mention their struggling indicates that they are not ready to be flying at night! If they get their #..s wrong, assuming that this is not mathematical but purely insufficient look-out at least it gives the others a chance to come back on Radio to correct the situation as per example the Go AROUND.

Obviously you've never flown with someone who has english as a second language? We're talking about 50-100 hour pilots here, who most are flying to a good standard. But they still have to translate what they heard into their own language, comprehend it, translate to a response then say it. Starts to become very easy for inexperienced pilots, no matter their standard, to get it wrong. And not just foreign pilots either! If you want airmanship, get them to focus on getting their spacing and lookout right and you won't have to create your own procedures.

[Trent 972]

Read elsewhere in your Jepps/AIPs and you'll discover Departure Reports are an IFR procedure for communicating with ATC.

Oh dear, I don't know how to answer that one, except to ask another question. What do you say/do when departing VFR from a non radar, tower controlled aerodrome? Just slink away?

They are not a CTAF procedure.

I agree

A departure call on the CTAF can be a good thing for helping inbound aircraft (back to the debate about airmanship), but you must learn what the true intention of the format is.

I agree

I don't have the AIP ref

I do.

Phraseologies contained in this section are generic and, although primarily reflecting a controlled airspace environment, pilots operating in Class G airspace should use these generic phrases unless specific Class G phrases are shown.

Departure Report - Procedural when notifying departure report to a control tower

a.* DEPARTED (time) TRACKING (track being flown) (FROM (reference aid used to establish track ) or VIA SID identifier)) CLIMBING TO (level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)

or
contacting procedural unit other than departure aerodrome

b. * DEPARTED (location) (time in minutes) TRACKING [TO INTERCEPT] (track) CLIMBING TO (level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)

[Jabawocky]

Ahhhhhh But!!!

Departure Report - Procedural when notifying departure report to a control tower

So when departing a non towered CTAF like Roma for Charleville VFR OCTA? Taxi with intentions, Enter/backtrack, and lastly Roma traffic Trent 972 rolling rwy36 departure west for Charleville. and keep eyes peeled

Anyone arriving from a non conflicting direction can all but ignore you, anyone tracking west to east may want to talk to you, anyone arriving thinking there may be a conflict will talk to you, so who needs another "departure call"? Save if for the IFR ops on CEN.

Am I doing anything wrong?

Are you suggesting departure reports should be made by VFR aircraft departing non-towered aerodromes in G?

I hope not........or someone will be locking me up for a long time

[mcgrath50]

If I've been doing Circuits at a CTAF then departing I will give a quick "departing off downwind for the south west" for example, just to give people a heads up. Similarly if I am departing overhead (ie; climbing over the field) or if there are guys inbound from a similar direction I might add a 'departure call in' to give them a heads up.

As said above, who cares what your estimate for a place 1,000 miles away is. On the other hand, if you are tracking to a major point it for example the start of a VFR lane a few miles away (thinking sugar loaf reservoir and lillydale here) it can narrow down the way you are tracking.

[LeadSled]

Carriage of radio is not mandatory at R........!
Just turn it off, (if you're brave enough). I'm not!

Trent 972,
Said tongue firmly in cheek, I hope.
Lest anybody be influenced by the suggestion, please read CAR 166 carefully.
In short, maybe carriage of radio is not mandatory, but if ya gottit, ya gotta use it.
Tootle pip!!

[Trent 972]

Yes yes leadsled, you are totally correct, please excuse the 'tongue in cheek' banter with Jaba. If you've got it, you have to use it.
What I should have said, to be more correct is.
If flying around R........, and your radio is giving you the sh!ts, stick your boot through the bloody thing. (More than likely to be unserviceable then). Continue nocom.
Is that more betterer?
My, how my standards are falling as I get older and crankier!

[LeadSled]

Trent 972,
Fell better now?
Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Leadie old chap............You walked into that one, not that we set a trap for anyone.

Trent972 and I seem to have a very good understanding of the realities of life in a certain coatal strip.......chances are we even know each other!

............if only my boot can get through a GTX327 /SL40 and a GNS530W all at once

Ok not a good idea.........c'mon Trent, you are a smart bugger, any better ideas?

[mcgrath50]

I was always taught, if a circuit breaker pops twice in a row, to leave it popped as that's a sign something is wrong and it's not just a fluke. So I assume, if you pull out the circuit breaker once, push it back in and pull it back out again, the same principle would apply.

Write it up in the maintenance release "Circuit breaker found out, reset, popped again". Sorted.

[VH-FTS]

Trent, I think we're in agreement (this would be easier if we were sitting at the bar!).

Back to your post on the last page, you've proved my point that departure 'reports' are for ATC. This can involve IFR or VFR to the tower (i.e. Class D, excluding former GAAPs*) or IFR departing a non-towered aerodrome. There is no requirement for VFR to make that full blown departure report on the CTAF (reports are for ATC, broadcasts are for everyone). As I've said though, there is a time an place for them, just be aware of the intent of the AIPs/Jepps.

Reason I get wound up about it is I used to hear the CTAF calls coming out of a larger school. The instructors had no idea and were teaching students the IFR departure report format, even if just overflying. I'm not saying don't call, but it means nothing to the CTAF traffic when you give an estimate for an aerodrome 100nm away!

* ex-GAAPs don't require a departure report - so much for trying to standardize procedures! No wonder we are all in disagreement!

P.s. Just name the place you are all complaining about that clogs the radios - Redcliffe Aero Club. They teach their pilots to make a call everytime they scratch their balls.