Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1840889
IMCR wrote:I know and I am sorry I dont agree with any snipping it all gets a but tiresome. It is a chat forum for me all very social, sometimes some robust views but best to avoid unnecessary pedanticism. :lol:


@IMCR

You missed my point: Just read the first 2-3 pages of the thread I have linked!

Explains a lot in the greater scheme of things. :wink:
#1840908
IMCR wrote:I know and I am sorry I dont agree with any snipping it all gets a but tiresome. It is a chat forum for me all very social, sometimes some robust views but best to avoid unnecessary pedanticism. :lol:


pedanticism?

Surely you mean pedantry!

No bloody americanisms here, purlease!

:D
JodelDavo, Rob P, PeteSpencer and 2 others liked this
#1840930
Well now, it’s good to see agreement , judging by the 30 ‘likes’ for Dave W’s unmistakeably pro Safetycom OP ,particularly the exhortation to ‘top and tail’ calls, especially as many of these ‘likers ’ posted with scorn and derision towards safetycom in the 2004 thread I linked.

Refreshing to see that the passage of time, now that Safetycom has been successfully in use for over fifteen years, has mellowed bigotry into acceptance :lol:

Res ipsa loquitur,
as they say in Hartlepool. :wink:
#1840939
IMCR wrote:I think the same applies to unmanned airfields. I often hear pilots on an unmanned frequency self announcing but you dont always know if they intend to be on that frequency, and indeed what their intentions actually are.

(Edited to say I am referring to an unmanned frequency where the airfield has been allocated a frequency and you are not therefore using Safetycom to keep DavidW happy :lol: )


I disagree with this idea.

You can make a case for topping and tailing a call with the airfield name if you're on a shared frequency, such as Safetycom (there are others). The case is that its important for people at other airfields sharing the frequency to know which the call applies to - and the name at the front isn't enough.

But there's also a general presumption in RT that you keep the transmission as short as reasonably possible, leaving out unnecessary words.

And in the case of an airfield with its own frequency, but without (at least at that time) an ATSU, the argument that is given for topping and tailing doesn't apply. A call simply to 'Anytown traffic' is fine, or even just the call itself without the prefix. It's shorter, and there's little risk of someone at a different airfield hearing it.

Paul
#1840941
PaulisHome wrote:
IMCR wrote:I think the same applies to unmanned airfields. I often hear pilots on an unmanned frequency self announcing but you dont always know if they intend to be on that frequency, and indeed what their intentions actually are.

(Edited to say I am referring to an unmanned frequency where the airfield has been allocated a frequency and you are not therefore using Safetycom to keep DavidW happy :lol: )


I disagree with this idea.

You can make a case for topping and tailing a call with the airfield name if you're on a shared frequency, such as Safetycom (there are others). The case is that its important for people at other airfields sharing the frequency to know which the call applies to - and the name at the front isn't enough.

But there's also a general presumption in RT that you keep the transmission as short as reasonably possible, leaving out unnecessary words.

And in the case of an airfield with its own frequency, but without (at least at that time) an ATSU, the argument that is given for topping and tailing doesn't apply. A call simply to 'Anytown traffic' is fine, or even just the call itself without the prefix. It's shorter, and there's little risk of someone at a different airfield hearing it.

Paul


This argument has some merit, but the extra time taken to add 'xxxx traffic' at the end is minimal and it displays to other listeners on the frequency that the caller is aware that the station is unmanned and that he is transmitting blind.(Maybe to notify impending MATZ transit to anybody in the vicinity and is not likely misguidedly to make two more unanswered calls before giving up.)

Our local RAF station has gliding at weekends and occasionally answers on a hand held on the dedicated frequency to 'xxxx traffic'.

There is a tendency, especially in proximity of our local MATZs who go home after 5, for other pilots, on hearing a call on the dedicated frequency to the (now closed) airfield , to chip in ' they've gorn home mate' or worse still 'Station calling xxx, this is G-XXXX, the RAF knocks off at 5 mate' which further clutters up the airwaves. :roll:
#1840955
PeteSpencer wrote: ... other pilots, on hearing a call on the dedicated frequency to the (now closed) airfield , to chip in ' they've gorn home mate' or worse still 'Station calling xxx, this is G-XXXX, the RAF knocks off at 5 mate' which further clutters up the airwaves. :roll:


Is this clutter worse or better than leaving the original caller to make the two statutory follow-up calls to the MATZ before being permitted to conclude they are not active?

Rob P
#1840958
PeteSpencer wrote:
This argument has some merit, but the extra time taken to add 'xxxx traffic' at the end is minimal and it displays to other listeners on the frequency that the caller is aware that the station is unmanned and that he is transmitting blind.(Maybe to notify impending MATZ transit to anybody in the vicinity and is not likely misguidedly to make two more unanswered calls before giving up.)

Our local RAF station has gliding at weekends and occasionally answers on a hand held on the dedicated frequency to 'xxxx traffic'.

There is a tendency, especially in proximity of our local MATZs who go home after 5, for other pilots, on hearing a call on the dedicated frequency to the (now closed) airfield , to chip in ' they've gorn home mate' or worse still 'Station calling xxx, this is G-XXXX, the RAF knocks off at 5 mate' which further clutters up the airwaves. :roll:


Surely prefixing (maybe the first) call with "Anytown traffic" tells people that. And I thought you were proposing both prefixing and postfixing the transmission with the airfield name.

One of the places I fly is a very busy gliding airfield with its own frequency. By this proposal we would be changing "28 Downwind 04 right" to " "Gliding Airfield Traffic 28 Downwind 04 right Gliding Airfield" which by my count is more than doubling the transmission length. That's quite expensive for, as far as I can see, little to no value.

Paul
#1840967
Just checked (Ed.22, 2016 which seems to be the latest) and you're correct.

I was mistaken; I distinctly remember a CAA document (and discussion here) that encouraged tp and tail and had been sure it was CAP413, but no. I'll look later and find it.

As you say, it remains good practice however.