[Crash one]

Yes we are saying the same thing.
I was just trying to simplify/condense it.
My apologies.

[Smaragd]

If it doesn’t have a dedicated frequency it would be on Safetycom 135.48, “Heathrow traffic, Gxxxx joining overhead/downwind/final, Heathrow traffic”.
( Prefix and suffix).
What is confusing or difficult about that?

How about following CAP413 and missing out the final "traffic"?

[PaulisHome]

2) So what? At an airfield with a dedicated frequency, all you actually need is the intentions. And we don't use the 'radio transmissions get clipped' idea for any other calls we make - else we'd be saying everything twice. How does the airfield being unmanned make a difference?

Paul

OK, I'll bite: You will have noticed that the OP refers exclusively to the use of Safetycom and it is upon this that I and many others have based our replies.

I know what the OP said, and I'm not disagreeing with it. You can make a good case for doing just that.

But, in an earlier post, you extended it to airfields with their own frequency too (as I think did someone else).

If you are trying to raise a (closed) airfield which has its own frequency , say to self announce transit through its ATZ , the call is down graded to ‘xxx- name of airfield- traffic’ on its own frequency and strictly speaking the call should be topped and tailed too .

(my bold)

Indeed, CAP413 says the same thing (albeit not as clearly as one would like). It does this by introducing Safetycom (4.162) then in the next paragraph talks about airfields outside promulgated hours which otherwise have an ATSU (4.163). It lumps both of these in the 'unattended aerodrome' category and goes on to talk about the RT we are discussing. [The CAA don't seem to understand the concept of airfields with their own frequencies which don't have some sort of ATSU].

It's that which I'm reacting against, and suggesting that this interpretation is a bad thing, for the reasons I've given.

I think everyone would agree that we should keep radio calls as short as practical. There needs to be a reason for each element of each call. At an unattended airfield with its own frequency, that phraseology fails that test, IMHO.

To Rob P's message

But why?

Good airmanship

Saying 'Airmanship' doesn't answer my why question. Why is it good airmanship? The only significant reason previously put forward for this (unattended airfields with their own frequency, remember) is that people have poor microphone technique. Well, that might be the case, but this doesn't seem to me to be the way to fix it.

As to:

... if I can be pedantic, that's not what CAP413 asks you to do

Why should this concern me?

Rob P

I'd answer, it may not, but I guess if you're going to do this, you may as well do it correctly (and the second invocation of the airfield name is to say where it is, not who you are addressing, so "Tibenham traffic G-CD downwind, runway XX, Tibenham", not "... downwind, runway XX, Tibenham Traffic". At least according to CAP413 (4.178).

It's all a fairly minor point, really. But on the whole I like there to be good reasons for the things that we do.

Paul

[PeteSpencer]

However you look at it we all owe a debt of gratitude to the late Richard W (WKW).

In the CAA's half-ar sed original introduction of Safetycom in mid 2000s, it ignored everyone's pleas to copy the unicom/CTAF system from the USA with airfield name prefixing and suffixing and omitted the suggestion of suffixing in its introduction of Safetycom.

Richard took it upon himself, while we all raged and postured on Forums, to go into battle on our behalf as a one man band to persuade the CAA in its CAP413 revisions of Safetycom to include the suggestion of 'topping and tailing'/.

He succesfully persuaded them to amend CAP413 Safetycom instructions into what we see today and it would be a fitting tribute to WKW's efforts if we all took up the cudgels and topped and tailed our Safetycom calls every time.

Peter

[Crash one]

If it doesn’t have a dedicated frequency it would be on Safetycom 135.48, “Heathrow traffic, Gxxxx joining overhead/downwind/final, Heathrow traffic”.
( Prefix and suffix).
What is confusing or difficult about that?

How about following CAP413 and missing out the final "traffic"?

Not when you are on someone’s six o’clock, guns blazing.
Otherwise, my mistake!