FLYER Forums

It really does go to show how totally out of touch with reality the people who write these things are.

I'm not sure if they have any employees there with some critical thinking ability but I would feel sorry for anyone who could who was surrounded by this sort of moronic thinking.

It is very difficult to know exactly where you will become distracted; none of us have the benefit of hindsight but with effective TEM, one can anticipate when you may succumb to increased workload, heightened stress and a greater risk of distraction. Hindsight? No; active TEM? Yes

What a strange way to put it.

James Chan wrote:

THIS IS ALL CARP

Indeed. Thanks for the rant.

Talk less, navigate more.

Doesn’t work I’m afraid. Not being aware of limitations to navigational performance combined with being non-radio has caused large issues.

And people always think if there’s a voice to talk to, then the “controller will sort it out”, and to be fair, in many other countries, they do.

So you say you don't agree with me only to suggest that people should not rely on a voice to sort them out.

I am too simple to understand your logic there.

To go from one station 'providing' a basic service, to the next on such a short cross country in a very congested part of the country is just adding to the workload for no notable benefit - QED.

Plot your course, fly the headings, follow the line you set out in the comfort of a chair and a table without any pressure is very easy and very stress-free.

By all means tune into London Info 'just in case' and if you must ask them for a basic service but I would not even bother with that.

It would have made the journey stress free and likely infringement free too.

If it needs to be called TEM then so be it, I call it, making life easy.

MichaelP wrote:I suppose there are bad, confrontational, controllers who put many pilots off talking to them

So would the Farnborough guys on here know who I was talking about if I referred to 'Mr Stickler'?

Don't get me wrong, I like him. He's quite rightly pulled me up a couple of times, and he makes me smile. I always make a special effort to give perfect readbacks when I hear him. (Not that I don't at other times, obvs)

I really had to chuckle the other day, he was on when I wanted a N-S transit, and he tripped over his worms in the way that usually only us GA guys can do over the radio.

I'd love to buy him a beer some time.

So you say you don't agree with me only to suggest that people should not rely on a voice to sort them out. I am too simple to understand your logic there.

What I meant to say was that I agree with you - but instead the Basic Service should not be offered at radar units.

Because of the reasons you describe, and because people incorrectly believe it to be Flight Following and monitored by radar.

No BS means pilots (who do not want a TS) know they're on their own to navigate. They can, if they wish, use a listening squawk whilst also knowing that no radar controller is going to "sort out everything for them".

Who are these people that believe a BS is Flight Following? No GA pilot that has not flown outside the UK (the vast majority I suspect) will have a clue what Flight Following is so it’s just poor airmanship if they don’t know what a BS is.

Longfinal wrote:No GA pilot that has not flown outside the UK

Have you any concept of how hard it is for a wine-aided brain to decode that double negative?

Rob P

Crash one wrote:

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:To many people think that 'basic service' = flight following.

Talk less, navigate more.

I have always believed that Basic Service is a registration collection service.

There was a time when the initial call requesting a Basic Service gave useful situational awareness to other pilots on frequency. Aha so that's what a Flight Information Service was before BS.

Since the introduction of Listening Squawks it seems so much quieter, and with a loss of SA to other pilots that could think there is not much out there..... as cant see them, cant hear them, ....

How does that play out in the TEM analysis.... its a one way TEM instead of two-way in the old days.

Swanley isn't a vrp is it? Would this have happened if the pilot had been asked to report passing 5 miles or even reaching the M25? Isn't the real dynamic cause the pilot trying to find an unfamiliar name that is just a town "somewhere".

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

@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'

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.

As an interesting sidelight on this, I have been doing some coaching on VFR Radio Comms for glider pilots via the BGA.

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.

The course has finished so I'm too late to suggest that they might earn brownie points with

"Going to VHF LL Common on 130.490"

Rob P

At this rate my next aircraft will be stealth non radio.

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

I think if Swanley were a vrp, the pilot would have simply glanced at either paper or screen looking for a vrp somewhere sensibly ahead, and it would have stood out, without any time head down searching, and we would never have heard of this flight. Equally if Swanley had never been mentioned at all.