leaving d-space & freq changes

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,463
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Fox McCloud
This is more an etiquette question then anything but here goes.

Let's say that you're departing (VFR) from a d-space airport that is particularly busy that day. The tower freq is busy & or a "student" controller is learning the ropes and you don't want to overwhelm him. You reach the edge of d-space and enter e or g-space.

Obviously you can just switch freqs, but should you advise them first ("Cessna 123 clear of delta. Goodday") or save bandwidth and stay quite? Since we're all squawking 1200 can we assume tower can easily lose us sometimes? In the past I've heard them try to call someone who's left the d-space & freq silently.
 
Agree with Felix.
Unless specifically requested to report clear of the Delta, I go quietly on my way.
 
I did exactly that a while back when I was with one of my instructors. He said that once you leave their airspace, they were done with you, goodbye. If you are flying to another field very close by and you need to switch frequency before leaving Delta, then you have to call and get permission for a frequency change. Otherwise just fly on out.

John
 
AIM Section 4-3-2a:
In the interest of reducing tower frequency congestion, pilots are reminded that it is not necessary to request permission to leave the tower frequency once outside of Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas.
Click to expand...
 
I only acknowledge with "freq change approved 08Romeo" if they make the effort to cut me loose. If I exit the ILG class Delta without hearing from the tower I hang on a bit then change to pick up flight following depending on my direction of flight.
 
A lot of the D space around here, is TRSA. So we are not squawking 1200, and we get handed off to APP/DEP.
 
EdFred said:
A lot of the D space around here, is TRSA. So we are not squawking 1200, and we get handed off to APP/DEP.
Click to expand...

At controlled airports within a TRSA, departing aircraft are assumed to want TRSA service unless the pilot states, “negative TRSA service,” or makes a similar comment.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
At controlled airports within a TRSA, departing aircraft are assumed to want TRSA service unless the pilot states, “negative TRSA service,” or makes a similar comment.
Click to expand...
That is, by the way, straight out of the AIM:
AIM 4-1-18b said:
2. If any aircraft does not want the service, the pilot should state "NEGATIVE TRSA SERVICE" or make a similar comment, on initial contact with approach control or ground control, as appropriate.
Click to expand...
 
If it's a standard class D without a TRSA (like my home field) I'll make a statement if it's a not-busy day, but if it's a busy day just go ahead and change frequencies so as to not bother tower. The only reason I'll call on not busy days is more to say goodbye to the tower folk (who all know me). Otherwise, I'd just change frequencies.
 
dmccormack said:
The OP wasn't about "requesting permission," but rather is it an expected courtesy?

I agree with the others who've posted that it's no slight to the tower not to say adios.
Click to expand...

It is hardly courteous to the controller when s/he must make a transmission ("frequency change approved") that is otherwise unnecessary.

Bob Gardner
 
midlifeflyer said:
...and the busier the tower, the less courteous it is.
Click to expand...

Right. The sad fact is that it is easier (takes less frequency time) to say "Frequency change approved" than to educate pilots by saying "Be advised request for frequency change not required." It is equally unfortunate that everyone on the frequency who hears the frequency change request and the controller's reply files that away under "good operating practices."

About 90 percent of the time, parroting what we hear other pilots say is a good idea...it is the other 10 percent that hurts.

Bob Gardner
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
You mean "Leaving 3 point seven for 10" isn't good form? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but not as much for the "point" as for the "for". I don't like the words "to" and "for" used in conjunction with numbers. I'd prefer "three thousand seven hundred climbing one zero thousand".
 
roncachamp said:
I don't think it is, but not as much for the "point" as for the "for". I don't like the words "to" and "for" used in conjunction with numbers. I'd prefer "three thousand seven hundred climbing one zero thousand".
Click to expand...

Agree, which is why I don't use it. Hear plenty of heavies using it, though.
 
bobmrg said:
Right. The sad fact is that it is easier (takes less frequency time) to say "Frequency change approved" than to educate pilots by saying "Be advised request for frequency change not required." It is equally unfortunate that everyone on the frequency who hears the frequency change request and the controller's reply files that away under "good operating practices."

About 90 percent of the time, parroting what we hear other pilots say is a good idea...it is the other 10 percent that hurts.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Perhaps the FAA could install something on ATC comms that would allow the controllers to transmit some sort of rude sound by pressing a button whenever they hear (or after they transmit) something they'd rather not have repeated. That way when we pilot's hear the sound we'd know not to accept whatever we just heard as "good operating practices". Might be a market for aircraft as well, this would be the perfect response to ATITAPA.
 
gismo said:
Might be a market for aircraft as well, this would be the perfect response to ATITAPA.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a bigger potential problem than anything for pilots (think about it in the hands of Ed, for instance). May make more sense for ATC, but still things vary so much from controller to controller as to what they want to hear (tell two different controllers the same thing and get two different responses) it seems potentially problematic. The other problem is that if you have a sound or something else that indicates a bad practice, for the person to make an effective change you'd need to know what to replace that bad practice with. Most people probably won't know.
 
dmccormack said:
You mean "Leaving 3 point seven for 10" isn't good form? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have no problem whatsoever with decimal reporting such as your example. BTDT, and have never understood why it is perceived as wrong. All of which puts me solidly on both sides of procedural questions.

Bob
 
roncachamp said:
I don't think it is, but not as much for the "point" as for the "for". I don't like the words "to" and "for" used in conjunction with numbers. I'd prefer "three thousand seven hundred climbing one zero thousand".
Click to expand...
You mean, like it says in the book? But -- but -- that's giving up one's individuality, one's freedom to be different! How totally un-American!:rolleyes:
 
Ron Levy said:
You mean, like it says in the book?
Click to expand...

In what book can "three thousand seven hundred climbing one zero thousand" be found? I think you'll find the AIM format to be "leaving three thousand seven hundred climbing to one zero thousand".
 
roncachamp said:
In what book can "three thousand seven hundred climbing one zero thousand" be found? I think you'll find the AIM format to be "leaving three thousand seven hundred climbing to one zero thousand".
Click to expand...

Two one zero thousand is mighty high....
 
SkyHog said:
Two one zero thousand is mighty high....
Click to expand...

True but all it takes is a little static and a controller might hear two zero thousand and if the clearance was a descent to FL200 and the pilot thought he heard one zero thousand something is going to get messed up. Granted even two zero thousand is wrong since it should be Flight Level two zero zero but I've heard that done wrong as well.
 
bobmrg said:
I have no problem whatsoever with decimal reporting such as your example. BTDT, and have never understood why it is perceived as wrong. All of which puts me solidly on both sides of procedural questions.
Click to expand...

How about "because it's not in the book?"

AIM said:
4-2-9. Altitudes and Flight Levels

a. Up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL, state the separate digits of the thousands plus the hundreds if appropriate.

EXAMPLE-
1. 12,000 one two thousand

2. 12,500 one two thousand five hundred

b. At and above 18,000 feet MSL (FL 180), state the words "flight level" followed by the separate digits of the flight level.

EXAMPLE-
1. 190 Flight Level One Niner Zero

2. 275 Flight Level Two Seven Five
Click to expand...

IMHO, the reason for not using the "point" phraseology for altitude is simply to avoid any possible confusion with the things that ARE supposed to use "point," namely, radio frequencies and mach speeds. Why do you think we're supposed to say "traffic in sight" instead of "positive contact"? Yeah, the chances of confusion in the Point case are unlikely, but not impossible.
 
To get back to the original question, it is not a "courtesy" to use valuable frequency time to make a transmission that is neither required nor expected. If a controller wants to know when you clear the D airspace, he will state specifically "report clear of the delta airspace" or "report five miles north" or something like that. In the absence of such as request, he has essentially told you that he DOES NOT want to know when you are five miles away.

While the frequency may be quiet, the unnecessary "clear" call seems to come just when I have something real to tell the tower. So please skip it.

Jon
 
flyingcheesehead said:
How about "because it's not in the book?"



IMHO, the reason for not using the "point" phraseology for altitude is simply to avoid any possible confusion with the things that ARE supposed to use "point," namely, radio frequencies and mach speeds. Why do you think we're supposed to say "traffic in sight" instead of "positive contact"? Yeah, the chances of confusion in the Point case are unlikely, but not impossible.
Click to expand...

If you are a regular on this board, you know that I am a strong supporter of using "the book" for guidance instead of relying on whan an instructor or other seemingly more experienced pilot does. As I say in my post, this is one area where I am on the other side of the question.

Bob Gardner
 
It's communication. Effective communication means the person you're talking to understands what you're trying to convey. We standardize communication to make it easier to make sure the person you're talking to understands what you're trying to convey.

I frequently use the "point" method. Don't see a problem with it, nobody's complained to me about it yet. I know it's not in the book. It's quicker and conveys the necessary info. What's a problem is when someone gets on the radio in busy airspace with a 30+ second request, preventing anyone else from talking during that time period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top