|
The Ferret King posted:If the ATC facility who takes the report is a terminal facility (Tower/TRACON) then the information is forwarded to the overlying Center and they take over responsibility for activating search and rescue. They'll coordinate with Flight Service, the Air Force, and reports are probably made to the Domestic Events Network to ensure efforts are made to locate the signal. If it's a strong signal heard in the vicinity of an airport, one of the first things we'll do is ask airport management to drive around and check the hangars. A lot of the times these ELTs go off after a hard landing and the flight crew parks the airplane without realizing they're "beeping." Lazy pilots, or incomplete checklists. When I was flying, the last thing we always did before shutting off the avionics was to monitor 121.5 to see if we'd accidentally set off the ELT (or if there was another signal, I suppose, in case no one else had noticed it). I assumed this was just standard procedure to prevent the sort of situation you describe, but maybe it's not as common as I thought and it was just the school's policy.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
I miss being involved in aviation pretty much every day since I decided to take a different path, but I suppose I can be comforted that I made a reasonable choice. I feel bad saying it, though, because I know I took the easy way out and basically turned my back on something I was really passionate about. It really sucks that a very significant part of the modern world is built on an industry where pretty much everyone is used and abused, from pilots to controllers to mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
the culminator posted:The only one of those that could potentially be forced on you is Alaska if you're western region. Guam and Puerto Rico are just alternates you can choose if you don't like what's on the list. Maybe it's just because I'm sitting here and the windchill was -16 yesterday afternoon, but both of those places sound like perfectly nice places to be sent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
You're supposed to say "Oscar" like you have a British accent? I never knew that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
kmcormick9 posted:KEHBECK Why were you saying it that way? That's a wrong pronunciation for the province of Quebec itself in addition to not being correct for radiotelephony.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Shouldn't those flight numbers be spoken as "three eight two eight" and "one three two eight" to help avoid this sort of issue?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:They should be spoken in group form as was done. However when a similar sounding callsign issue is known, the carrier should be spoken both before and after the flight number. "Southwest 3828 Southwest." Additionally the pilots should be advised of the similarity. Hmm, I learned something new today! How are three-digit flight numbers grouped -- I assume with the first number spoken alone and the second two grouped?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I linked the relevant ICAO document in a post above, which cites the requirement to speak out numbers in serial for callsigns. "To Position and Hold" was commonly used in Canada as well, I thought "line up and wait" was the non-standard form given its informal-soundingness to a native speaker, but I guess it's probably more distinct and easy to understand for ESL speakers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
This is probably another one of those Canadian/American cultural differences, but... Guam? Why in gently caress's name wouldn't you take that posting? Why is this a question?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
You aren't required to file a flight plan if you're flying VFR either, but it takes five minutes and could save your life. Why not do it, even if it's not strictly required?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
From a Canadian perspective, it seems like y'all have much more crowded airspace, many more uncontrolled airports, and comparatively fewer requirements to be in contact with ATC. I mean, my entire city and the outlying areas thereof (where the main GA airport is) is pretty much all class-C airspace, and we're not that large of a city at all by American standards (just over a million people).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
Much like anyone that has to deal with Sunwing in any way, I'm very sorry for you. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that their pilots are as incompetent as every other aspect of their operation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 04:17
|
|
: "Sunwing zero two five, say normal speed in the climb."
|
I've never flown IFR in Canada, but for VFR flights we always acknowledged instructions with the last three letters of our registration, never "roger." I've never flown in the US but I assume it's the same, no?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Yes, but what they're saying is that Canadian controllers always close the loop again with "Roger." So even if you, as a pilot, acknowledge something they said, they STILL come back and say "Roger." Do they, though (according to regulation)? It must be an IFR-only thing if it's not a controller-specific thing, because I've never heard it even after reading back a hold short. Now I'm curious...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:That is literally the question being discussed right now. Oh, sorry, I misread your answer and thought you were providing an answer. I looked briefly in the AIM (available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-publications/AIM-2014-1-E-ACCESS.pdf ) and none of the radio phraseology examples (on p. 303 of the PDF, or printed page 275, for example) include "roger." I don't think this is definitive one way or the other, but I'd certainly lean toward it being a controller idiosyncrasy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
From NavCanada's phraseology guide: https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publications/VFR%20Phraseology.pdf ROGER -- I have received your transmission (generally used by ATC rather than pilots) Maybe I just never noticed it when I was flying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
I'm curious how STAR/SID design works. Is it done by controllers, or by specialized experts in procedure design, or what?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I recently found out that noise-sensitive airports have sensors that trigger if an aircraft goes through the area while being too noisy. Pilots get warned and then barred from accessing that airport if they violate the noise abatement rules too often. Lots of people are whiny, delicate little snowflakes that believe their every wish must be catered to at all times, and that any unwelcome intrusion into their lives must be eliminated. I think it comes from a failure to develop from a child into an adult in a normal fashion -- there should be a stage in your adolescence at which you realize you aren't the centre of the universe, and it's clearly a stage that many of these people missed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
We need noise abatement procedures for land vehicles, too. Like "short shift in residential areas or we crush your beloved Harley into a cube." I'd rather deal with aircraft noise all day and all night, by a long shot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Last time our union Pres Paul Rinaldi came by, he made a very good case for a not-for-profit private corporation. I believe this is the model that Canada uses -- Nav Canada is a private not-for-profit corporation. I'm not sure if it's particularly better or worse for the employees, but I've had zero complaints about the services they provide from the pilot's point of view.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Not that the US wouldn't find a way to gently caress up privatization, but I'll just leave my regular reminder that NavCanada is private and it works just fine (and from what I hear they're a decent employer too).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
i am kiss u now posted:I'll be damned if I have to pay for ATC services. We don't have to in Canada. Just pointing out that there is a successful (and ultimately GA-friendly) model for private ATS.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
Trump's frequent vacations must be a serious pain in the arse. I know I was amazed by the amount of air traffic (and airports) in South Florida to begin with, I can't imagine what a fuckup it must be to throw a wrench into the works.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:26
|
|
TFR over PBI plus Sun-n-Fun southbound exodus plus no-airfile rule for most Palm Beach area airports equals 
|
Being exposed to the dumb poo poo government does on a regular basis could conceivably cause someone to become pro-small-government while still being a part of the government. It's not a particularly wise move, but I can see how it happens.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
What is wrong with people that they think the workplace is an acceptable place to air their political grievances? I don't do that poo poo even when I'm pretty sure the people I'm talking to would agree with me, because it just can't end well. How diverse is the ATC workforce? I'd say, based on voices I hear on the radio (in Canada), it slants heavily, but certainly not exclusively male (definitely more than pilots, though) and I don't hear many controllers with identifiable accents but other than that I have no idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Controllers aren't known for their good workplace behavior. Lots of inappropriate conversations. Small steps, I guess. Most of the airline pilots I see are still white guys, but the instructors at my school are at least half female, and probably over half non-white, so hopefully that will filter down into the rest of the industry (it's gotten noticeably better in both respects since I first started my PPL in '05). And having flown with almost all of instructors at this point, I can say from experience that you're a loving idiot if you think people that aren't white/male are any less competent. Regarding inappropriateness: I heard someone say "oh poo poo!" on 126.7 today while giving a position report, and it made me giggle because I know I've at least thought it if I've not said it. Related question: is there a US equivalent to what 126.7 is in Canada (air-to-air frequency for traffic advisory in uncontrolled airspace)?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:CTAF - Common Traffic Advisory Frequency I always thought that was the US equivalent of 123.2 -- the frequency we monitor while operating at uncontrolled aerodromes if no other is specified. Am I mistaken, or would the CTAF be used for both enroute traffic advisories and uncontrolled aerodrome operations? It's fascinating seeing the differences between the US and Canada. I've heard that in the US you can be cleared to land in sequence, for example, and US pilots get nervous about only getting cleared to land on short final here (after the preceding aircraft is clear of the runway). That seems weird to me; is it true?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Specifically, to answer the letter of your question: 122.75 and 122.85? is Air to Air, however I don't think you'll find many monitoring that. You're bound to find more people on the CTAF talking about their lunch plans. Huh, interesting. 122.75 is the air-to-air frequency we monitor specifically in the local practice area. 126.7 is moderately casual, we don't discuss lunch plans (often) but there's plenty of chatter beyond simple position reports if we think we recognise someone's voice 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
There was a student here that got bitched out by tower on his third solo because he acknowledged an instruction (one non-standard circuit after his touch and go) and then didn't follow it. I told my instructor, who'd been the one to sign him out although he wasn't his normal student, and apparently the dumbassery didn't end there -- the next person who did a walkaround on the plane discovered that the magnetos has been left in the on position after the engine was shut down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Most pilots are very competent and professional, but I've definitely come across some scary ones. I had the controller give a brasher warning to a lady once after he cleared her for a low-approach, and she did a full stop. She then failed to exit the runway. When she called in and I spoke to her she did not understand what low approach meant, and didn't understand that you have to clear the hold-short bars, not just get your tail over the runway edge, in order to be clear of the runway. It was one of the most surreal conversations I've ever had. Granted those are bad mistakes for anyone with even a student pilot permit (particularly leaving the magnetos on -- gently caress me!), but it was only his third solo flight. No way you're going to pass a flight test like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
What are the requirements for readbacks in the US? In Canada, they're only required for hold-short instructions unless you're IFR. I got into the bad habit of not reading things back, because for some reason my PPL instructors didn't like it, but now I read everything back, more or less, just because it helps solidify things in my brain, and provides an extra chance for a mistake on either end to be caught before it causes a problem. That guy I was talking about who got bitched out by the controller for not following instructions? You guessed it: not reading things back.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:U.S. ATC is required to obtain acknowledgement of instructions from the pilot, including their callsign. Acknowledgement can be "roger," "wilco," or other such remarks. IF a pilot reads back an instruction's contents, the controller is responsible for ensuring that the readback is accurate. So, mostly the same as Canada, except that we can acknowledge just by transmitting our callsign, unless a readback is required.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:I do have to admit, as a personal matter, I hate the callup, "Potomac Approach, November 123"... and then nothing. I find that extremely unhelpful, and ironically, it's substantially less helpful the busier I am. If I'm busy, I have no idea where to slot you into my workflow (since I don't know what you want) and I'm also afraid to get back to you because too many pilots take that as an invitation to dominate the frequency. To me, no matter how busy I am, a useful callup tells me who you are, where you are (in relation to a fix I'm likely to know about) and what you want. For example, "Potomac approach, Skyhawk 123, 5 miles north of Casanova, request flight following to Martinsburg". Boom, now I know exactly what it's going to take to handle you, and I can take care of the things on my end (transponder code, etc) and get back to you when it makes sense with everything else I'm doing. As a pilot, how I'd hope that open-ended call would be interpreted is "I recognize the frequency is busy, I'm well outside the area where I need to talk to you immediately, but I have to talk to you for some reason eventually so let's do it at a convenient time" -- so, in essence, always lowest priority compared to everything else. But if it's more convenient on your end for us to just make a succinct but full initial call regardless, I could start making a habit of that too. I'm just nervous about taking more of your time when you've more important things to attend to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
When I went flying today I focused on taking y'all's advice with my radio calls and it went great. I think a problem with a lot of pilot training is that, with regards to communications, it focuses on being legal and "good enough." But we're the other side in a very important equation, so honestly we should pay as much attention to improving our communication procedures as the rest of our airmanship. Two questions, though: on approach I got "cleared to descent" with no restriction. I clarified, but in the future should I take that to mean I can descend as required for a straight in approach? Second: on ground, I was given clearance to taxi to an intersecting, inactive runway and pull off to allow opposite direction traffic to pass. I pulled left on the runway, but I get the feeling I should have gone right. No direction was specified; was that my fault, for not being aware of where other traffic was taxiing (which I suppose it was, in any case), should the controller have given me an instruction, or should I have asked for clarification?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Iucounu posted:If you're VFR you can descend as required for whatever pattern entry you're given. Yeah, that's what I figured on both counts, after thinking about it. I still think I should've asked for further direction, to make things easiest for everyone. gently caress, no wonder pilots need so many hours before being trusted with anything important 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:RVS had a 60% wash rate. It is a level 7 tower. That place points out every single flaw in how the FAA rates facilities in the book. The overwhelming majority of the ops there are Chinese student pilots. It has volume, but who needs volume when you have students who can't even enunciate eating up your freqs? Couldn't you say the same thing about any general aviation airport? Certainly is true for all the ones I've been to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Lazy Edit: I meant mainly in terms of the Chinese students, but your point is taken. I fly out of one of the busiest GA airports in Canada (under half of what RVS handles, but without being able to use two runways at once) and both volume and poor English are significant issues there as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
VFR is only about visibility, it doesn't mean the weather is good or advisable to fly in. A good many pilots would do well to learn that. Last week we had the most amazing clear skies, over 40SM visibility, the most amazingly VFR day I can imagine, and you still wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole because the winds were 35 gusting 50 with severe turbulence and wind shear owing to a LLJS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it changed in Canada around the same time, because when I originally stopped flying there were no such clearances, and now they're always specified. Given the, uh, interesting routes that I've seen or heard of student pilots taking to a runway which may or may not be the one they were cleared to taxi to, I'm pretty sure making the clearances more specific is a good thing, at least at training airports
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Having trouble spotting a single airstrip that blends in with the landscape is one thing, but I just looked up RNO and yeah you should really be able to see that from a considerable distance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 16:07
|
|