Sorry, just have to rant!

[AuxBatOn]

Care to explain a little more what happenned, without saying callsigns?

[AuxBatOn]

Well its quite simple really,the CAF aircraft was "leading the pack" into the worlds second most expensive airport with about twelve others in trail, all had been given a fixed Mach/IAS to fly to maintain seperation when this twit gave his TAS instead of IAS as requested by ATC and is standard practise, as a result the controller belived that the CAF aircraft would maintain seperation on those behind, but what happened is of course they all began to gain on the CAF twit so the very busy controller had to slow up some and vector others to maintain min in trail seperation , what was a very well run operation became a very complex job for ATC simply because of this one guy. In case number two the Big Red rambled on at such length that ATC couldnt get a word in to hand others over to the next sector , I just cant belive some of the piss poor radio work Im hearing from major outfits these days, some treat the radio like a bloody phone call, yak, yak yak! Lets not even talk about the noise on 126.7!

Clunkdriver, depending on the circumstances, I could well give you a TAS, if you don't specify (when I'm high is one case). Airspeed can be many things. You can PM me if you want to more details if you don't want to give them publicly.

[200hr Wonder]

Gotta agree with Clunkdriver on this one, no one ever asks for true!

To assist with radar vectoring, it is sometimes necessary to
issue speed adjustments, while ATC will take every precaution
not to request speeds beyond the capability of the aircraft, it
is the pilot’s responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is not
operated at an unsafe speed. If ATC issues a speed reduction
that is inconsistent with safe operation, the pilot must inform
ATC when unable to comply.
Speed adjustment will be expressed in units of 10 KT or
multiples of 10 KT based on the indicated airspeed (IAS).
Pilots complying with speed adjustment are expected
to maintain a speed within plus or minus 10 KT of the
specified speed.

Why on earth would you give TAS?!?!? ATC cares about indicated. That way you can just look at the ASI when they say slow to 180 or what ever speed they are restricting you to.

[AuxBatOn]

For the same reason I'd give my mach. Down low, on approach, there is no excuse. However, depending on the type of aircraft, you can select to have your TAS in the HUD, vice IAS. It may have been a honest mistake.

[iflyforpie]

Hopefully he doesn't make the same mistake when doing a takeoff roll...

[Blakey]

Why on earth would you give TAS?!?!? ATC cares about indicated.

Really? I'll have to file IAS on my flight plan next time. Can I refer them to you when they call me up to ask WTF I think I'm doing?

[flying4dollars]

Why on earth would you give TAS?!?!? ATC cares about indicated.

Really? I'll have to file IAS on my flight plan next time. Can I refer them to you when they call me up to ask WTF I think I'm doing?

Filing is one thing, when asked what your indicated is, they probably want to know what your indicated is. Naturally..

[IFRATC]

I don't understand what all the bantering back and forth is all about. If asked your IAS then that is what you should give. When I am assigning speeds do you think it is TAS I am giving you??? Come on people.
If at the top of decent I'll give you a specific mach and transition speed as well. I don't see the confusion here at all. People are just playing devils advocate to be ridiculous. Clunkdriver, I understand your frustration. We here the sarcasm all the time, especially when it is busy....

IFRATC

[Legacy]

Well its quite simple really,the CAF aircraft was "leading the pack" into the worlds second most expensive airport with about twelve others in trail, all had been given a fixed Mach/IAS to fly to maintain seperation when this twit gave his TAS instead of IAS as requested by ATC and is standard practise, as a result the controller belived that the CAF aircraft would maintain seperation on those behind, but what happened is of course they all began to gain on the CAF twit so the very busy controller had to slow up some and vector others to maintain min in trail seperation , what was a very well run operation became a very complex job for ATC simply because of this one guy. In case number two the Big Red rambled on at such length that ATC couldnt get a word in to hand others over to the next sector , I just cant belive some of the piss poor radio work Im hearing from major outfits these days, some treat the radio like a bloody phone call, yak, yak yak! Lets not even talk about the noise on 126.7!

Clunkdriver, depending on the circumstances, I could well give you a TAS, if you don't specify (when I'm high is one case). Airspeed can be many things. You can PM me if you want to more details if you don't want to give them publicly.

The only time ATC will ever ask for ny form of TAS is mach number. In my years of flying ATC has never or probably will never ask for TAS. It's useless to them. But lie you said it could have been an honest mistake. I am doubting the pilot intentionally gave his TAS. As for the Big Red thing? Don't get me started. I could go on and on about that one.

[Liquid Charlie]

The only time ATC will ever ask for ny form of TAS is mach number. In my years of flying ATC has never or probably will never ask for TAS

Not to split hairs but ATC will assign a true airspeed in a clearance (oceanic for sure and non radar sometimes) for all aircraft and if you are slow it will be TAS - I have been assigned TAS on numerous occasions over my years of flying --

But as stated before "real time" control for vectors clearly the air force dude screwed up for whatever reason -- if he misread his HUD well maybe it's time for SMS to creep into the military -- LMFAO -- or the tax payer needs to shell out more money to let them fly more hours --

[iflyforpie]

My, it looks like my little rant has developed legs of its own, so let me just close with the following, the standard of RT has decayed to the point where it is starting to impede ATC, as an example the use of ten words when one will do, ie, ABC" currently "by --- where the hell does "curently" play any part in a PX? {even on Av Canada, its "Currently" the time is,WTF!!} As a radio examiner I for one would like to know how these folks are getting their Radio Lic, we wont even mention the "conflicting please advise" stuff and the "Roger THAT" Top Gun crap, ah well, maybe one day it will all be data link, then folks like me who cant type worth a shit will be the problem {My generation hired ladies to type for us, they wernt all hired for their typing skills either!}

That's a big 10-4!

Seriously, I know what you mean. I try to eliminate every unnecessary word in RT without further increasing the confusion,

[linecrew]

My, it looks like my little rant has developed legs of its own, so let me just close with the following, the standard of RT has decayed to the point where it is starting to impede ATC, as an example the use of ten words when one will do, ie, ABC" currently "by --- where the hell does "curently" play any part in a PX? {even on Av Canada, its "Currently" the time is,WTF!!} As a radio examiner I for one would like to know how these folks are getting their Radio Lic, we wont even mention the "conflicting please advise" stuff and the "Roger THAT" Top Gun crap, ah well, maybe one day it will all be data link, then folks like me who cant type worth a shit will be the problem {My generation hired ladies to type for us, they wernt all hired for their typing skills either!}

That's a big 10-4!

Seriously, I know what you mean. I try to eliminate every unnecessary word in RT without further increasing the confusion,

Roger THAT!

[Dave T]

For those wondering...
From the TC AIM

9.7.3 Speed Adjustment – Radar Controlled Aircraft

NOTE: This section is for information only. It describes directives to controllers and in no way alters the applications of CAR 602.32, which prescribes the following maximum speeds for all aircraft:

below 10 000 feet ASL, 250 KT; and
below 3 000 feet AGL and within 10 NM of controlled airports, 200 KT.
To assist with radar vectoring, it is sometimes necessary to issue speed adjustments, while ATC will take every precaution not to request speeds beyond the capability of the aircraft, it is the pilot’s responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is not operated at an unsafe speed. If ATC issues a speed reduction that is inconsistent with safe operation, the pilot must inform ATC when unable to comply.

[Speed adjustment will be expressed in units of 10 KT or multiples of 10 KT based on the indicated airspeed (IAS). Pilots complying with speed adjustment are expected to maintain a speed within plus or minus 10 KT of the specified speed.

Pilots may be asked to:

(a) maintain present speed; or

(b) increase or reduce speed to a specified speed or by a specified amount.

Unless prior concurrence in the use of a lower speed is obtained from the pilot, the following minimum speeds will be applied to:

(a) aircraft operating 20 NM or more from destination airport;

(i) at or above 10 000 feet ASL: 250 KT IAS, and

(ii) below 10 000 feet ASL: 210 KT IAS;

(b) turbojet aircraft operating less than 20 NM from destination airport: 160 KT IAS; and

(c) propeller-driven aircraft operating less than 20 NM from destination airport: 120 KTIAS.

I agree radio work in the country needs a lot of work. People need to be clear, concise, and use proper phraseology. There are to many missed calls, messed up read backs, useless information on the radio these days.

[TG]

I agree radio work in the country needs a lot of work. People need to be clear, concise, and use proper phraseology. There are to many missed calls, messed up read backs, useless information on the radio these days.

I can plaid guilty sometime, also I'm trying to improve myself as much as I can.
We are not that bad in Canada mind you. Try few flights in some countries in Africa or South America and it will put things back into perspective ---> <---

-----------

However, depending on the type of aircraft, you can select to have your TAS in the HUD, vice IAS. It may have been a honest mistake.

Nice remark, might really be the explanation.

[. ._]

Those CAF guys must be good!

I haven't figured out TAS for years. Don't you need a flight calculator for that stuff?



-istp

[IFRATC]

Dave T,
Good post. The TC AIM also makes reference to mach and TAS for those interested. A change in TAS of 5% must be approved by ATC first when applicable. If not ATC must be notified ASAP. A change in mach by.01 or greater has the same compliance....

IFRATC

[IFRATC]

Clunkdriver,
I am a former CAF member. I have seen first hand what FRP (force reduction plan) did to devastate the level of senior competency in the forces. It was like a mass exodus of experienced aircrew that left the force to pursue civil dreams of large money. All the power to them mind you. But, that left the Air force with alot of relatively low time, low experience aircrew occupying instructor AND crew commander positions....Can you say "trickle down effect!!!" I know this post is a little off topic, but could be relavent to some of the "mistaken" speed readout theories!!!!

IFRATC

[mcrit]

understand why we have officer rank flying

...because air force NCMs are the smartest NCMs around.....they stay safe and sound and send the officers out to die!

[fleet16b]

Lets not even talk about the noise on 126.7!

Yes there is a lot of talking on 126.7 but thats what it is there for "air to air"
We use it while c/out formation practice all the time.
Once a obviously young instructor tried to impress his student by coming on air to chastise us for actually talking on the frequency.
When it was stated to him that it is an air to air freq, his comment was "well go find another frequency" ...... WTF ?????
I question whether he should really have been monitoring the freq anyway as all the chatter would be an obvious distraction to his student.

[aviatrixfss]

Actually, the air to air freq in the SDA is 122.75. Until recently 126.7 was used for contact with FSS enroute. The only time it was permissible to just blindly transmit on this freq was if you were outside of controlled airspace AND out of range of any FSS.
So many pilots decided to start blabbing their postion and intentions every 5 minutes, and instead of educating the pilots, TC decided to change the freqs for FISE. Now thanks to these blabbermouths, you no longer have ONE freq to contact FSS thoughtout Canada...you have to now look up which freq is being used for FISE in the area where you are flying.

I started flying in southern Ontario more than 20 years ago and 126.7 was quiet except for FSS/pilot contacts, now you can't get a word in edgewise. In fact, before they started to change the freqs for FISE, it was almost impossible to do your job in the FIC because of all the chatter. It was hard to tell if someone was calling FSS because everybody was talking all over each other.

Thank God I'm out of that environment now.

Rant over!

[fleet16b]

Actually, the air to air freq in the SDA is 122.75.

Rant over!

You are right my mistake.We were on 122.75 when this instructor tried to tell us that we not be talking on it.

[mcrit]

Hey Clunk, I was just yanking your chain a little bit there. I stole the 'sending the officers out to die comment' from a former NCM (a rigger) of my aquaintence. He used to needle the ex-army guys with that one on occasion. It was all in good fun.
I agree that some things in the CF could do with some scrutiny, but you'll understand if I choose not to debate them here in an open forum.

[mcrit]

The only ring I wear is a wedding ring, other than that I'm keeping my mouth shut!

[SAR_YQQ]

This entire rant is juvenile. All I hear is whining and complaints. Some members on here are ardent CF-bashers and use their anonymity of the Web to bash the entire system based on their biased views.

Come on down to CYPG and see how many incompetent aviators are waddling around. While out, you might as well visit all the operational wings and see what the Military is all about. Before you start to type and talk about the good ol' days when you flew your piston powered fighter - stop for a moment and realize that you are so out of touch with the modern CF that your comments are not worth the 0.00001 cents it costs this server.

Rant Over

[shitdisturber]

Hey Clunk, I was just yanking your chain a little bit there. I stole the 'sending the officers out to die comment' from a former NCM (a rigger) of my aquaintence. He used to needle the ex-army guys with that one on occasion. It was all in good fun.
I agree that some things in the CF could do with some scrutiny, but you'll understand if I choose not to debate them here in an open forum.

I think your friend borrowed that one from me; I used to torment the grunts in the parachute club in Lahr with that one all the time for amusement. They never did have an answer to that one.