Pet Peeves

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by CpnCrunch »

Lurch wrote:
CpnCrunch wrote:Where exactly on the VTA are they listed? They seem to be very well hidden...
Try the AIM under COMs, you'll find it listed under the Air to Air freq :wink:
Nope, that just says that 122.75 is the "air to air" frequency.
---------- ADS -----------
 
reality check
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:35 pm

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by reality check »

Nothing says pet peeve to me like the kids coming up who can't read a map, but want respect at 500hrs. Want to use thier "right" under SOP's to and SMS to file reports on senior captains who actually have a clue.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lurch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:42 pm

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Lurch »

CpnCrunch wrote:[ 122.75 is the "air to air" frequency.
Now say that ten times slowly and hopefully you'll understand
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by CpnCrunch »

Lurch wrote:
CpnCrunch wrote:[ 122.75 is the "air to air" frequency.
Now say that ten times slowly and hopefully you'll understand
Ok, let me explain. 126.7 is the frequency that they tell us we should use when giving position reports, and that is the frequency that everyone will be listening on.

122.75 is the frequency you should use when chatting to other pilots when you are in formation, flying to a fly-in, or having a general chat about your lunch - that is what "air to air" means.

Now, it seems that some flight schools in BC and Alberta (and possibly elsewhere) have decided that you should use 122.75 for position reports when in the practice area. Doesn't really seem like a good idea to me. MichaelP suggested a while ago that the schools should decide on a new frequency to use and put it on the charts, which makes more sense.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Schooner69A »

In addition to students out here being "infected" with the "CTPLA" virus, these self-same students then "inflict" it upon we ordinaries in this part of the Okanagan. They, and their instructors, then set up and practice upper (and lower) air work over a busy VFR route through the area.

Concur with comment about the unnecessary "deconflict" calls: "Roger, check you departing Runway 23 heading northbound; I'm southbound, eight miles west; should be no conflict". If you are not a threat to me, I don't want to hear from you.

A pox on all their houses.

John
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by AirFrame »

With respect to frequencies not being on the maps, at least in the Vancouver area, they weren't always there. It was only a couple of issues ago that they printed the frequencies for the practice areas. They were announced by NavCanada, but they missed their own deadline for printing so they didn't get on until the next issue.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
mgm
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by mgm »

While the practice area frequency isn't on the chart, it's CYA(T) class F restricted airspace and non participating aircraft are discouraged from entering (just passed my ground school, so I have stuff like this on the brain). Someone meandering through on 126.7 and not bothering to steer clear of the area is in the wrong.

This thread seemed to start with a complaint about "any conflicting traffic please advise" -- do you advocate simply stating position/intent and leaving it up to people to respond, or using a shorter "any conflicting" or what?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Schooner69A »

The mere fact that you have stated your position and intentions is the invitation for "Conflicting traffic" to advise you of that fact. If there is no conflict, they will remain "stumm". Unfortunately, like syphilis, the infection has reached into all reaches of aviation, including airline pilots, corporate pilots, and some of the fling wing fraternity who have all been guilty of appending it to their announcements.

The practice spread slowly and it will probably take the same amount of time to stamp it out.

John
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Shiny Side Up »

mgm wrote:
This thread seemed to start with a complaint about "any conflicting traffic please advise" -- do you advocate simply stating position/intent and leaving it up to people to respond
Yes!

Remember, you're transmitting on a two way radio, you're not posting a request on an internet forum asking for input, you're not posting an ad on kijiji, you're not speaking directly in front of an audience. Said audience can only reply when you're done talking. The equivalent would be to wonder why you don't get any responses to a post you haven't finished typing - if you're still blabbing "ACTPA" (and as many do, then redundantly tell them the frequency you're transmitting on, who you are and where you are again) then its defeating the point of what you're trying to do.

A wise man once said "never miss an opportunity to stop talking."

More pilots should take it to heart.

Additionally to that, something that drives me figuratively insane is when you hear two pilots who've determined that they are, or possibly "conflicting" yet continue on course towards each other! This will usually prompt them to repeatedly compare position, until there's a big sigh of relief and someone sees the other. Madness!
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by iflyforpie »

I redundantly say which frequency I'm on. I was taught this because if you've got two or more radios tuned to different frequencies it is sometimes difficult to tell who is transmitting on what.

I keep radios at different volumes (the ones I don't care as much about are turned down) but not everyone does it.

A guy from Flight Services told me it really helps out in the tower of an MF where one guy is (or was anyways) monitoring half a dozen frequencies.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Taco Joe
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:33 am
Location: RONTO

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Taco Joe »

mgm wrote:it's CYA(T) class F restricted airspace
It's actually advisory airspace, big difference.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Shiny Side Up »

iflyforpie wrote:I redundantly say which frequency I'm on. I was taught this because if you've got two or more radios tuned to different frequencies it is sometimes difficult to tell who is transmitting on what.

I keep radios at different volumes (the ones I don't care as much about are turned down) but not everyone does it.

A guy from Flight Services told me it really helps out in the tower of an MF where one guy is (or was anyways) monitoring half a dozen frequencies.
In 99% of instances it doesn't matter what frequency the traffic calling is on, If they aren't conflicting, you don't need to call them back. If they are conflicting, then that also means you know where they are, and thus already know what frequency you should call them back on. Small point. In a vast majority of the cases though what frequency they're on is moot since:

a) They're not really where they say they're at - for a variety of reasons.

b) They tie up the radio so long that I've already resolved the conflict by avoiding them since there was no open air to call them back, and

c) Other pilots many times aren't going to deviate their own course to resolve.

That said, if you're not talking to another pilot, reminding them what frequency you're calling them on is perfectly sane and reasonable. Through RCOs in particular. But...

a) You're never going to end one of these calls with an "ACTPA" (or I sure hope not) and,

b) Once you establish contact you won't have to remind him on each successive call what frequency you're calling him on.

It should be noted that b) irritates them if you do so, I remember hearing one pilot get a blast from the FSS guy over it. In short, a frequency reminder (or location reminder) is occasionally useful situationally when talking to a ground station who might be monitoring more than one frequency, but shouldn't really be necessary for pilots who possibly might be monitoring two.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 784
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by CFR »

mgm wrote:While the practice area frequency isn't on the chart, it's CYA(T) class F restricted airspace and non participating aircraft are discouraged from entering (just passed my ground school, so I have stuff like this on the brain). Someone meandering through on 126.7 and not bothering to steer clear of the area is in the wrong.

This thread seemed to start with a complaint about "any conflicting traffic please advise" -- do you advocate simply stating position/intent and leaving it up to people to respond, or using a shorter "any conflicting" or what?
You may want to re-read this portion of the AIM as your recollection is incorrect!
Advisory Airspace
Airspace may be classified as Class F advisory airspace if it is
airspace within which an activity occurs that, for flight safety
purposes, non-participating pilots should be aware of, such as
training, parachuting, hang gliding, military operations, etc.
There are no specific restrictions that apply to the use of
advisory airspace. VFR aircraft are, however, encouraged
to avoid flight in advisory airspace unless participating in
the activity taking place therein. If necessary, pilots of nonparticipating flights may enter advisory areas at their own
discretion; however, due to the nature of the aerial activity,
extra vigilance is recommended. Pilots of participating
aircraft, as well as pilots flying through the area, are equally
responsible for collision avoidance ...

... Pilots intending to fly in Class F advisory airspace are
encouraged to monitor an appropriate frequency, to broadcast
their intentions when entering and leaving the area, and to
communicate, as necessary, with other users to ensure flight
safety in the airspace. In a Class F advisory uncontrolled
airspace area, 126.7 MHz would be an appropriate frequency.
Of interest is the fact that on some of the latest printings of VTA charts (Winnipeg for one) the frequencies used in the practice area (122.75 and 126.7) are printed on the chart.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Rudder Bug
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2735
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:09 pm
Location: Right seat but I own the seat

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Rudder Bug »

Schooner69A wrote:The mere fact that you have stated your position and intentions is the invitation for "Conflicting traffic" to advise you of that fact. If there is no conflict, they will remain "stumm". Unfortunately, like syphilis, the infection has reached into all reaches of aviation, including airline pilots, corporate pilots, and some of the fling wing fraternity who have all been guilty of appending it to their announcements.

The practice spread slowly and it will probably take the same amount of time to stamp it out.

John
John;

I think that « infection » could be addressed by contacting our local FTU’s instructors and chat about it.

I will call one in the morning and let you know how it turned out.

That 126.7 pollution really sucks and I am confident we can work it out if we stick together and do something about it.

Gilles
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Rookie50
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 am
Location: Clear of the Active.

Re: Pet Peeves

Post by Rookie50 »

Taco Joe wrote:
mgm wrote:it's CYA(T) class F restricted airspace
It's actually advisory airspace, big difference.
Ditto. Huge difference. And there is zero expectation to stay clear. If you did that around here you wouldn't be getting anywhere fast. I'll edit to say -- just be wise about how you transit per the regs, or fly up high. Edit again -- I do stay clear of parachute and busy glider areas -- but the AC training areas are much larger.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”