Clear Radio Communications Increase Safety

And don't forget to tune in to next week's epsode, Not Hitting Things Prevents Crashes. :D


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
And don't forget to tune in to next week's epsode, Not Hitting Things Prevents Crashes. :D


Trapper John
Click to expand...
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • captobvious-738633-747223.jpg
    captobvious-738633-747223.jpg
    45.5 KB · Views: 165
Thanks for posting your tips. I'll bet lots of new pilots pick up some pointers that grizzled old-timers believe are old news.
 
Btw, there was a center controller (Don Brown?) that used to have a column in Avweb about communication. It was good stuff, maybe it's archived there.


Trapper John
 
dmccormack said:
I wasn't -- who is responsible for this breach!

Pilots will go out and hit things until it is clearly defined as unacceptable in the CFRs!!
Click to expand...

Heh, is it possible to perform stabilized, power-off obstacle avoidance?


Trapper John
 
dmccormack said:
Pilots will go out and hit things until it is clearly defined as unacceptable in the CFRs!!
Click to expand...

What about the anti-authority types who will go out and hit things because it is in the CFRs? After all the FAA knows they are out there so the rules have to allow for them!
 
I certainly cannot argue against clear communications...
But the thought intrudes that perhaps just repeating the clearance, "NXYZ, number 2, cleared to land 31 left" still leaves ambiguity as to where I am in the pattern...
Perhaps I should also include my altitude, "NXYZ, number 2 at, cleared to land 31 left, 800 feet"
But then that leaves the other pilots with the question of what direction to look, so it needs to become, "NXYZ, number 2, cleared to land 31 left, 800 feet over the Taco Bell"
Now, the other pilots will need to know how long before I turn base so I need to add, "NXYZ, number 2, cleared to land 31 left, 800 feet over the Taco Bell, 68 knots"

And if one carries the need for non-ambiguous communications to the logical end point I need to describe the color of the plane, the amount of fuel on board and whether the VOR check is current [hey, they need to be sure that I am at 'their' airport]...

denny-o </who navigates by using a weather rock/>
 
Dr. O said:
I certainly cannot argue against clear communications...
But the thought intrudes that perhaps just repeating the clearance, "NXYZ, number 2, cleared to land 31 left" still leaves ambiguity as to where I am in the pattern...
Perhaps I should also include my altitude, "NXYZ, number 2 at, cleared to land 31 left, 800 feet"
But then that leaves the other pilots with the question of what direction to look, so it needs to become, "NXYZ, number 2, cleared to land 31 left, 800 feet over the Taco Bell"
Now, the other pilots will need to know how long before I turn base so I need to add, "NXYZ, number 2, cleared to land 31 left, 800 feet over the Taco Bell, 68 knots"

And if one carries the need for non-ambiguous communications to the logical end point I need to describe the color of the plane, the amount of fuel on board and whether the VOR check is current [hey, they need to be sure that I am at 'their' airport]...

denny-o </who navigates by using a weather rock/>
Click to expand...
Just a question, has anyone ever given you permission to fly an airplane all by yourself?:nono:
 
I'm not sure I see the problem with Denny's comments. We've all heard the person who comes on the radio and tells his or her life story in the course of stating whatever it is he or she has to say. This clogs up the airwaves and doesn't provide much in the way of useful information.

"Clear" does not necessarily mean "more." I would argue that making your point concisely will aid safety, by keeping the radio free. Example:

I'm coming into a non-towered field. About 10 miles out:

"Selinsgrove traffic Aztec 6927Y 10 miles to the north inbound Selinsgrove."

Get in closer:

"Selinsgrove traffic, Aztec 6927Y 5 miles to the north, straight in 17 Selinsgrove."

Then I hear:

"Selinsgrove traffic, Cessna 739GV left downwind 17 Selinsgrove."

A ha, someone else is there, and he's in the pattern, so I won't be able to do my straight-in. Darn. Conversation as necessary continues, we coordinate with eachother, no problem, I just couldn't do the lazy entry that I wanted.

Had I come around and done a "standard" entry, I could either come in at the same time that this Cessna was on downwind, or alternately come in behind him, and my downwind speed is faster than his cruise speed. Not good. So, coordination would've been necessary anyway and it wouldn't have been any safer.

Mentioning the runway you're using and aircraft type are good practice, I do both.
 
Last edited:
Dr. O said:
... perhaps just repeating the clearance, "NXYZ, number 2, cleared to land 31 left" still leaves ambiguity as to where I am in the pattern...
Click to expand...


If one is acknowledging 'cleared to land', the scenario is obviously a controlled airport with an operating tower. Somebody has a piece of glass with green blips on it who knows if you are over Taco Bell.

Mentioning the Rwy # is necessary so it confirms to ATC that you won't try to land atop the Citabria positoned and holding on Rwy 31R.

- Niladri
Free Info for Student Pilots
 
I agree with your subject line, but...

ATC: Cessna NXYZ, Runway 31, cleared for takeoff.
NXYZ: Rolling, Runway 31, NXYZ
Click to expand...

"Rolling" is not defined in the P/CG and is a poor example - It should be "Cleared for takeoff runway 31, NXYZ."

Other than that, pretty good article.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I agree with your subject line, but...



"Rolling" is not defined in the P/CG and is a poor example - It should be "Cleared for takeoff runway 31, NXYZ."

Other than that, pretty good article.
Click to expand...

I agree that 'rolling" is extremely informal.

There was tremendous debate after the Tenerife disaster (Pan Am and KLM), whether the word "takeoff" should be used by pilots while talking to the tower. The argument being that in an airport with multiple runways, some other pilot (potentially hearing a not-so-clear transmission, and holding short for a mid-point departure) might mistake it for his or her own clearance for takeoff. But I guess, this is a subject where opinions are many.

Personally, I will use the word takeoff if talking to ground control. e.g. "... taxi for takeoff..."

If talking to the tower then:

(a) post run-up I say: "NXYZ at Rwy NN is ready to go / ready for departure"
(b) acknowledging takeoff clearance I say "Rolling" only in order to avoid using the word 'takeoff'

- Niladri
Free Info for Student Pilots
 
Last edited:
Niladri said:
If one is acknowledging 'cleared to land', the scenario is obviously a controlled airport with an operating tower. Somebody has a piece of glass with green blips on it who knows if you are over Taco Bell.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Not all control towers have a radar scope.
 
Niladri said:
Personally, I will use the word takeoff if talking to ground control. e.g. "... taxi for takeoff..."
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are but around here all that Ground Control does is give instructions for taxi to a particular spot. If I said anything that included "taxi for takeoff" I suspect I'd get specific instructions to hold short and either call the tower for clearance of wait for the tower to call me. I would also have to read back the hold short instruction verbatim.

At controlled fields around here the pre-taxi call for VFR flight is simple. Give'em who, where ya are ("behind the yoke" won't work well even though it is accurate), what ya wanna do (VFR & direction & perhaps a desired runway), and the atis code. It's about as simple as it gets and no big analysis of words needed.

For dealing with the Tower, I'll either read back verbatim or sometimes use a bit of shorthand but always include runway identifier and any directional instructions.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I agree with your subject line, but...



"Rolling" is not defined in the P/CG and is a poor example - It should be "Cleared for takeoff runway 31, NXYZ."

Other than that, pretty good article.
Click to expand...

Taking off from KPIE in dense fog tower cleared me for take off ask me to advise when rolling and if the runway center line lights were lit.

There was a lot of seemingly non p/c glossary coms that morning. I was asked to give position reports as I taxied and a 717 was cleared to taxi following me as long as he could maintain visual contact. If visual contact was lost he was told to hold and report his position.
 
Niladri said:
Um, now that you pointed it out, I see. Never thought of that. Thanks!

The point still being that one is in controllers' visual range.
Click to expand...

Also not always true.

I fly out of a class D field. The controller has neither radar nor great visibility. You can be in the class D while being behind a ridge and thus completely out of view of the controller.

The main function of the guy is to get your clearance from ATC (and cancel it when you land). Otherwise, he pretty much just is a middle man for conversation that you'd otherwise have at a non-towered field.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Also not always true.

I fly out of a class D field. The controller has neither radar nor great visibility. You can be in the class D while being behind a ridge and thus completely out of view of the controller.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I got a new perspective on things.

I am in an area with hills, but they either fall just short of the Class D airspace, or the ridges are not high enough to restrict visibility for the airport I fly out of.
 
Niladri said:
Thanks! I got a new perspective on things.
Click to expand...

The more places you fly, the more perspective you will get. The most educational thing for me is flying someplace I've never been before. :)

I am in an area with hills, but they either fall just short of the Class D airspace, or the ridges are not high enough to restrict visibility for the airport I fly out of.
Click to expand...

I always wondered why they put my airport where they did. That said, I'm not complaining - it's convenient to my house, so I'll take it! You'll find as you fly around there are a lot of airports in hilly areas that aren't in the best location with regard to visibility of other aircraft. Many are in valleys rather than on ridges.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
<snippity snip>
I'm coming into a non-towered field. About 10 miles out:

"Selinsgrove traffic Aztec 6927Y 10 miles to the north inbound Selinsgrove."

Get in closer:

"Selinsgrove traffic, Aztec 6927Y 5 miles to the north, straight in 17 Selinsgrove."

<snip>
Click to expand...

Something I really appreciate on the ~5 mile out call is the altitude. I'm often in a 5mile ring around the airport towing up gliders, and it is nice to know if the other guy is at 3K descending, or is already at PA.

Tim
 
Troska said:
Something I really appreciate on the ~5 mile out call is the altitude. I'm often in a 5mile ring around the airport towing up gliders, and it is nice to know if the other guy is at 3K descending, or is already at PA.
Click to expand...

Right, but there's nothing that prevents you from asking.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Right, but there's nothing that prevents you from asking.
Click to expand...

Correct.

It's just something that makes _me_ smile when I don't have to ask.

In fact, I'd rather hear that you were at 2K feet, then 5 miles out. 5 miles out to a pilot w/out GPS can be anywhere from 2 to 20. Altitude - most can read their altimeter.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, it is just what I like.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top