Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878285
No.

There is only any need to top and tail on shared frequencies such as SafetyCom when it is inherently unclear which airfield you are at.

As Paul says, at airfields with their own frequencies it is generally pointless and clutters up the airwaves.

CAP413 doesn't require it other than on SafetyCom.
mick w, Rob P, AndyR and 2 others liked this
By MikeW
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878287
PaulisHome wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:
Such calls should be made on the published frequency to " (Name of airfield) Traffic": even better if calls are topped and tailed.

Peter. :wink:


Pet grievance of mine (sorry).

Why the last bit? I understand the argument for topping and tailing calls on Safetycom - it's not clear which airfield you're talking about otherwise. But for somewhere with a discrete frequency, it's just pointless verbiage. Use "(Name of airfield) Traffic" on the first call, then keep it short. (Nor do you need full callsigns.)

There's a basic principle in RT which is to say what you need to say in the shortest way possible.

Paul


Flying yesterday from Deanland, where the airfield frequency 129.725, is always used as a "traffic" call, I was clearly hearing calls to and from Peterborough Connington which uses the same frequency.
TBH this was unlikely to cause confusion at Deanland (Connington tower being clearly audible as well as aircraft), but if Connington traffic and tower were hearing unidentified Deanland calls it could cause confusion there.
So I wouldn't agree, it is worth topping and tailing "traffic" calls to an airfield frequency, not just safetycom.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878290
I'd say the thing to do is what CAP413 requires and advises - don't individually make stuff up because it seems like a good idea.
Iceman, Stampe, Shoestring Flyer and 1 others liked this
#1878292
MikeW wrote:Flying yesterday from Deanland, where the airfield frequency 129.725, is always used as a "traffic" call, I was clearly hearing calls to and from Peterborough Connington which uses the same frequency.
TBH this was unlikely to cause confusion at Deanland (Connington tower being clearly audible as well as aircraft), but if Connington traffic and tower were hearing unidentified Deanland calls it could cause confusion there.
So I wouldn't agree, it is worth topping and tailing "traffic" calls to an airfield frequency, not just safetycom.


Deanland 129.730

Conington 129.725

Two thoughts:

1) Is there a reason why Conington is still on a 25khz frequency?

2) With 8.33 channel spacing now, why are two airfields close enough together to hear each other still on the same ( to all intents and purposes) frequency?
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1878297
Charliesixtysix wrote:1) Is there a reason why Conington is still on a 25khz frequency?

2) With 8.33 channel spacing now, why are two airfields close enough together to hear each other still on the same ( to all intents and purposes) frequency?


ISTR reading somewhere that some civil fields had kept 25kHz because they were nominated as RAF diversion or distress fields and some of the military fleet didn't have 8.33 radios.
129.725 and 129.730 are actually exactly the same frequency. The transmission is centred on 129.725MHz. The ridiculous way of calling an 8.33kHz frequency by a number that doesn't actually mean what it says still upsets me...
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878303
Dave W wrote:No.

There is only any need to top and tail on shared frequencies such as SafetyCom when it is inherently unclear which airfield you are at.

As Paul says, at airfields with their own frequencies it is generally pointless and clutters up the airwaves.

CAP413 doesn't require it other than on SafetyCom.


I beg to differ.
Radiotelephony Reports at Unattended Aerodromes
Introduction

4.162 Where an aeronautical communications frequency is allocated for
use at a United Kingdom aerodrome, all RTF communications are to
be conducted on the allocated frequency ....

4.164 The phraseology to be used at an unattended aerodrome, as described
in this section,
is not to be used at aerodromes with ATS in attendance.
Where ATS is provided, the relevant ATS unit will issue appropriate
instructions.

Unattended Aerodrome Phraseology Examples

4.175 Taxiing Phraseology Example

Borton Traffic, G-ABCD,
taxiing for Runway 09,
Borton


etc. etc.
PeteSpencer liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878307
Blimey. I sit corrected.

I wonder what their reasoning is for non-shared freqs?

It's not that long ago that SafetyCom phraseology in CAP413 didn't include top & tail, and am pretty sure that's even more recent.
PeteSpencer liked this
By rdfb
#1878318
Rob P wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:(Though I would question the use of shortened call signs in an anonymous and unknown environment)


:scratch:

I don't follow that line of reasoning

If I arrive at Mudtown Smallstrip and their A/G is not operating that day, what benefit is it to the other traffic if the know the first three letter of my callsign are Golf, Bravo Zulu?


It could be very confusing if there's another aircraft with the same abbreviation and they don't pick up on it. I guess that's the logic. Whether you think this means that people should never use abbreviated callsigns when there isn't a ground station, or it's OK for callsign-conflicting pilots to spot the ambiguity themselves and unabbreviate, is I suppose subjective.

At my local airfield I know of at least one pair of based aircraft that share the same abbreviated callsign.
PeteSpencer liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1878332
rdfb wrote: Whether you think this means that ... when there isn't a ground station ... it's OK for callsign-conflicting pilots to spot the ambiguity themselves and unabbreviate ...


The chance of a dangerous confusion sounds possible until you actually think it through.

Typical scenario "Golf X-Ray Bravo overhead descending dead side" Followed quite soon by a different voice "Golf X-Ray Bravo final".

What would be the likeliest point for me (third aircraft) to be at for this to cause me any confusion?

I'm downwind? There's an aircraft deadside I can discount and there's an aircraft on final I need to find

I'm rejoining? There's two aircraft in the circuit, Look out for both.

Do you honestly notice the callsign anyway? Maybe it's just me, but I suspect the chances of me noticing a callsign similarity I would rate as thin. I only notice the actual callsign if it is amusing or familiar.

I am happy to be convinced if someone can suggest a scenario fraught with danger.

Also note that at a field where calls are to Traffic, or they use Safetycom, my callsign is always "Van's X-Ray Bravo" anyway.

Rob P
Sooty25 liked this
By rdfb
#1878339
Rob P wrote:The chance of a dangerous confusion sounds possible until you actually think it through.


Say you hear a "joining left base" call followed by a "final" call from the same abbreviated callsign. You're late downwind. You might think that the aircraft that was joining left base is now on final. But it's actually two aircraft with the same abbreviated callsign. The one that was joining left base is still on left base and to your right, and you're no longer looking out for it as much as you are looking to your left for the aircraft on final thinking about your spacing.

Yes, you should be looking out in all directions anyway, but the point of the radio is to help, and in this scenario you're no longer getting any radio-based help spotting that aircraft that's potentially in conflict with you. As far as getting traffic information by radio is concerned, the left base traffic is invisible.
Rob P, riverrock liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878343
Sorry @Rob P but its not always possible to differentiate different voices on the radio. I have done so, yes... but not always, and especially with open cockpit aeroplanes or microlights. Our aeroclub and another not too far away have the same aircraft type with the same abbrieviated callsign. We have slightly different runways but both use the common 123.5.

The problem is that people get lazy. We all do. You drop the full callsign occasionally. You drop the station name occasionally. You drop the runway numbers occasionally. Any one or combination can add to confusion and those "Damn!! :shock: Is that here? :shock: Where is he? :? " head-swivel sphincter-clenching moments that I for one would rather not have. And I have had it the other way around - convinced that an aeroplane is at the other aerodrome when I suddenly spot him about to turn final on a huge circuit with a student (yes its always instructors) as I call "dernier virage" and check both ways... :roll:

My view on this is "what would I want to know from the other guy" when Im speaking on the radio. Which is why from now on Im going to try to remember to add aeroplane type to my calls - as someone suggested on here not long ago. :thumleft:

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878345
skydriller wrote:Which is why from now on Im going to try to remember to add aeroplane type to my calls - as someone suggested on here not long ago. :thumleft: .

Surely the effectiveness of that is reduced in France with its preponderance of Robins as club aircraft.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878353
You could say the same thing about "cessna" in the US... or any aerodrome where there is a fleet of similar training aeroplanes.

I heard it here and thought that yep, good idea...because I often think "what am I looking for?". Especially in France where F-xxxx could be a Microlight or Autogyro - in france they are not F-Mxxx, its a mix of letters - and Microlights and Autogyros often have a 500ft lower, smaller circuit than Aeroplanes. So you could be looking in the wrong place...

Regards, SD..
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10