Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1851088
Rob P wrote:I am told that examiners will mark down anyone ending an interaction with a ATSU using the words "Going en route". The candidates are expected to nominate a frequency every time.


That's interesting. Whenever I use that phrase I actually mean say "Whereas I may dial in another frequency, I will not be calling or talking to anyone until I have to. Please just forget I am here."

So if that is what I want to say, what would the correct RT be? "Going No radio?" Or "Calling London Info 124.600*" which would probably be a lie and I really don't want to check in with anyone else.

* or any other chocolate-pot frequency. No offense intended to the various LARS and info operators and I am grateful for the service when opening a flightplan or doing a radio check at the crack of dawn , but in general you do not have what I want...
#1851091
Rob P wrote:I just now looked up Swanley on SkyDemon. Then I tried to find it on the chart reproduced in the report.

My conclusion is that the pilot's main Error was carrying a paper chart in the first place. He should have Treated (managed) this Threat by dumping it in the nearest waste bin.

Rob P


At least Swanley *is* on the 500k chart. Sarfend have several times asked me to report "Shoeburyness" which isn't. And last week they cleared me across their zone "remaining outside the ATZ" which also isn't marked.

Is it common practice to plan routes through the overhead of busy airfields (Biggin Hill)? I avoid them like the plague.
Last edited by matthew_w100 on Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1851092
VFRBimbler wrote:Following on from Irv’s post and notwithstanding FD’s and Rob P’s comments above, I hope those responsible for the comms from the ground are themselves looking at TEM and/or carrying out a review of some kind into the consequences of them distracting pilots flying close to CAS and how the risk of doing so can be minimised by better interaction.


It’s always worth remembering that there was a time all controllers going through NATS’ training got at least some familiarisation flying in light aircraft. Initially it was a full PPL but over time for bean counter reasons that gradually reduced, until for at least probably the last twenty five years or so it has been zero. At the same time a small subsidy towards a few hours a year for helping to keep licence current was also reduced then disappeared.

What that means is that when I did my PPL there was a reasonable chance pretty much every controller I spoke to had first hand experience of flying as pilot a light aircraft.

Whereas anyone starting their PPL now, or flying now, there’s a more than reasonable chance any controller one speaks to doesn’t know the front end of a light aircraft from the back end and has absolutely no idea of what’s involved in piloting one.

Ally that lack of individual knowledge and experience from the person on the ground one is talking to with perhaps an ANSP that is indifferent at best to encouraging the provision of any decent level of service to the lighter end of the market and the end result is all too dismally apparent.

Note- there is, or at least was when I was last involved, still a fair degree of effort made to get controllers and airline pilots together on a reasonably regular basis. Be that around tables for discussions, in their respective simulators and also importantly in their respective cockpits and ops room to see the real life working environment in action.

For light GA there really was no effort made to do anything.
flybymike, MichaelP, Flyin'Dutch' and 3 others liked this
#1851118
Morten wrote:So if that is what I want to say, what would the correct RT be?


Do keep up, I gave you this several posts ago

"Going to VHF LL Common on 130.490"


Rob P
#1851121
Rob P wrote:...I am told that examiners will mark down anyone ending an interaction with a ATSU using the words "Going en route". The candidates are expected to nominate a frequency every time.

My preference is "Going en route non-radio" which, I think, meets that expectation. :wink:

Regarding 'Basic service' and upon being offered that I have on occasion used "No service required." :twisted:

FTAOD I don't routinely operate in the deep 'daan sarff'.
rogerb liked this
#1851122
matthew_w100 wrote:Is it common practice to plan routes through the overhead of busy airfields (Biggin Hill)? I avoid them like the plague.

If I'm going that way then I'd always route the Biggin overhead. With a clearance obviously, but I've never had the slightest hesitation from them.

It's never seemed busy enough to make a transit even remotely an issue.

North of Biggin it's very built up, and South there's only a smallish gap between the ATZ boundary and the Gatwick zone, although in fairness the M25 makes it easy enough to avoid. So the overhead is my preference.
#1851124
TopCat wrote:
matthew_w100 wrote:Is it common practice to plan routes through the overhead of busy airfields (Biggin Hill)? I avoid them like the plague.

If I'm going that way then I'd always route the Biggin overhead. With a clearance obviously, but I've never had the slightest hesitation from them.
..


ISTR requesting and getting a NE-SW (Staverton to St Mawgan) clearance via Lulsgate overhead at 2000'. It was a while ago!
#1851127
NigelC wrote:At this rate my next aircraft will be stealth non radio.


Soon after Gulf War 1 (and unveiling to wider world of F117) I took a Robin ATL (on F- register) to RAF Wittering for a MCASD. Several young trainee Harrier pilots crowded round it asking what on earth it was. I explained that, being plastic and V-tail, it was the prototype of the new French Stealth Fighter :)
#1851132
TopCat wrote:
matthew_w100 wrote:Is it common practice to plan routes through the overhead of busy airfields (Biggin Hill)? I avoid them like the plague.

If I'm going that way then I'd always route the Biggin overhead. With a clearance obviously, but I've never had the slightest hesitation from them.

It's never seemed busy enough to make a transit even remotely an issue.

North of Biggin it's very built up, and South there's only a smallish gap between the ATZ boundary and the Gatwick zone, although in fairness the M25 makes it easy enough to avoid. So the overhead is my preference.


Fair 'nuff! I fly from Redhill - there isn't really time to transfer and get clearance to go through BH - at least not without increasing rather than reducing workload, so I always go round.
#1851144
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:@Rob P

Indeed, as I've said before, we pilots are often our own worst enemies. Hanging on to old, outdated practises which have long been ready for the bin.

Why mess about with a paper chart?

I have never ever had a breakdown of electronic stuff (either built in/carry on) to the extent that a navigational issue arose, but should it, my go to would be the radio, with the question: 'help'


I hadn't had an equipment breakdown until last weekend. Where the iPad over heated.

Map was left in my bag on the back seat.

Had to hold the iPad against the air blower for a few minutes 'till it fired up again.
#1851145
FWIW and IME, Android tablets do not shut down when they overheat in the sun; they stop charging (if connected) but otherwise carry on as before.

In the event that my tablet was to fail, I would revert to my phone.

In the event that the GPS signal was to fail, I would use the tablet/phone as a non-moving map. And if necessary make more use of the radio.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this