"Any conflicting traffic..." Is A Stupid Thing To Say

[Aft CofG]

I was flying the across the prairies yesterday at at FL270, and I was unlucky enough to hear several different military trainers repeatedly end every single one of their long-winded transmissions with this stupid statements. I even heard someone gently suggest for them to stop saying this. Naturally, that crew came back with some smarmy response about saying whatever they want.

It's too bad the military baby pilots are being taught such terrible habits by their not-quite baby pilot instructors. I certainly do not mean that they can't fly, because they have excellent skills. This is one area that they certainly need to do a better job at teaching radio habits and etiquette.

It was painful to listen to this for several hours. It's such a ridiculous thing to say, and such a waste of bandwidth.

[flyingvinnie]

First, I wouldn't brag about being at FL270.

Secondly, I doubt they were saying that on a center frequency. At FL270, did you really need to listen to the frequency they were on? ( I doubt they were saying "conflicts please advise" on a center freq., and at FL270 did you really need to be on 126.7 or a MF for an uncontrolled airport?)

[pelmet]

Time to come clean. I try to avoid saying this sentence as it is unnecessary and I know that AvCanada posters will be all over me in this very forum if any one of them hears those awful words come from me over the air. Haven't said it in years actually, if I ever did say it. But guess what, a couple of months ago I somehow found myself saying it by accident. Once I had started, I figured I might as well not stop. Where?..........in Chicago O'Hare airport of all places.

Mind you it was on 122.95 while taxiing to the southeast cargo ramp where in daytime operations it is just a blind transmission that you are approaching the ramp and what gate we will be parking at in case another aircraft is taxiing out. But still, I can now claim to have said it at the world's busiest airport.

"Ramp Common, XXX 195 is approaching Sierra 2 parking at gate XXyy. Any conflicting please advise." Damn, what will they say on Avcanada.

[Johnny#5]

Yeah what frequency were you on and why? (to OP)

[flyinthebug]

What is wrong with the following call on 126.7? when making a position report?...

Traffic on 26.7 this is Piper Navajo GABC, currently on the descent out of 6500 for 3000...30 north of Mukluk Sk, estimating the field in x minutes. Conflicting, 26.7/22.8 ABC. (Notice I said estimating the field, not wheels down at...)

I think that is a reasonable call whether there is an MF at your destination or not. I even find it reasonable to say conflicting when not on the climb or descent. Traffic on 26.7 Piper Navajo GABC currently level at 6500 40 north of YPA for YSF next. Conflicting GABC 26.7/22.8.

If you keep it short and sweet, I don't see any problem with saying "conflicting". If the military train that way, maybe we should pay attention to why?

Some of you guys are a bit oversensitive about this topic. Everyone has their own way of transmitting intentions. Its the LONG winded ones that annoy me...and we had a guy FAMOUS (or infamous) in YRL 20+ years ago, that gave 2 minute long position reports and wished all our families well while he was at it. Come to think of it, he said "conflicting traffic" as well...but that part didn't bother anyone...just his LONG winded reports. I get that the military guys can be a bit wordy with their reports, but I still suggest they are reasonable in length and substance (conflicting).

Fly safe all.
FTB

[Gravol]

What is wrong with the following call on 126.7? when making a position report?...

Traffic on 26.7 this is Piper Navajo GABC, currently on the descent out of 6500 for 3000...30 north of Mukluk Sk, estimating the field in x minutes. Conflicting, 26.7/22.8 ABC. (Notice I said estimating the field, not wheels down at...)

I think that is a reasonable call whether there is an MF at your destination or not. I even find it reasonable to say conflicting when not on the climb or descent. Traffic on 26.7 Piper Navajo GABC currently level at 6500 40 north of YPA for YSF next. Conflicting GABC 26.7/22.8.

If you keep it short and sweet, I don't see any problem with saying "conflicting". If the military train that way, maybe we should pay attention to why?

Some of you guys are a bit oversensitive about this topic. Everyone has their own way of transmitting intentions. Its the LONG winded ones that annoy me...and we had a guy FAMOUS (or infamous) in YRL 20+ years ago, that gave 2 minute long position reports and wished all our families well while he was at it. Come to think of it, he said "conflicting traffic" as well...but that part didn't bother anyone...just his LONG winded reports. I get that the military guys can be a bit wordy with their reports, but I still suggest they are reasonable in length and substance (conflicting).

Fly safe all.
FTB

+1

Not this topic again.

I will copy and paste my response from the last thread. I find it funny how it bothers people so much. And my usual question ; how, in plain english, would you give a clear and concise heads up to someone in your vicinity, and in the vicinity 5- 10 min ahead of you? Is it the verbiage that annoys you? I agree long winded POS reports are annoying, but you seem held up on the wrong thing. Oh, and what if you are conflicting?

What is worse, is reading stupid ass threads like this or better yet , listening to speeches about "how it should be", which then of course leads to some poor kid talking for 2 minutes being as "detailed as possible" during a pos report because his/her anal retentive 300hr wonder FI told him/her to. " But, i once read this thread on Av......"

I don't know, but I definitely want to know where I can reach someone if I am .... " conflicting" ? Get a life. You have a CPL with maybe a FIR, or hell, maybe you're lucky enough to have 50,000 hours and an ATPL . Could care less.

Conflicting 26.7 or ___insert freq here_____ . Why are you people obsessed with the word conflicting? AC entering the zone at the same time as I? Anyone else out there? Amelia Earhart...

The additional 1.5 seconds it takes to spit this out IMO, can not , in any way shape or form, allow you to frame an illogical frivolous argument for or against. Your points are so utterly trivial that it makes me give up all hope for humanity.

[CID]

Who's the baby?

[Gravol]

Who's the baby?

Those complaining over people using a single word in their position reports. Have anything to contribute?

[PositiveRate27]

Agreed, the only thing more annoying than the sentence in question is the constant threads about it. Get over it.

[Shiny Side Up]

The additional 1.5 seconds it takes to spit this out IMO, can not , in any way shape or form, allow you to frame an illogical frivolous argument for or against.

Sure it can, but I wish I could support it with evidence, so one day I'm going to record a typical hour of what its like to try to monitor a frequency - you know, in case there actually might be some useful intel there to avoid running into someone else - but rather its a steady squeal of hot mike jamming, useful to no one. Since everyone adds only a "few extra seconds" it means everyone is stepping on everyone. Non stop. The funny thing is how if there's blessed silence for any length of time, that will increase the amount of squeal after, since soon as someone breaks the silence, there's a mad panic of cascading radio calls that follow.

Now I get that if you're somewhere, you probably don't hear the other guy transmitting if he's out of your line of sight, so you might feel comfortable to blab at leisure and claim that extra bit of air time, but anyone who has line of sight on both of you just gets treated to the "SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" or occasionally when some magic of the radiowaves happens the treasured "OOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOO".

Using up air time I equate to filling up a back pack, if you're loading it, yeah, every extra bit hardly matters. If you're the one packing it though, you notice every extra gram.

Now the substantial uselessness of the radio might not matter to you if you're cruising around IFR and usually on center instead. But if you're like me, you're doing a lot of flying relatively low level and VFR in among the rest of the bug smashers, the nullification of one of your useful safety tools is somewhat worrisome.

[Shiny Side Up]

Agreed, the only thing more annoying than the sentence in question is the constant threads about it. Get over it.

The threads will continue until people stop doing it. If everyone who didn't like it, got on people's cases who did do it enough to stop, then we might rid ourselves of it. Mercilessly stamp it out. Like Polio. Or Small pox.

[Rookie50]

The additional 1.5 seconds it takes to spit this out IMO, can not , in any way shape or form, allow you to frame an illogical frivolous argument for or against.

Sure it can, but I wish I could support it with evidence, so one day I'm going to record a typical hour of what its like to try to monitor a frequency - you know, in case there actually might be some useful intel there to avoid running into someone else - but rather its a steady squeal of hot mike jamming, useful to no one. Since everyone adds only a "few extra seconds" it means everyone is stepping on everyone. Non stop. The funny thing is how if there's blessed silence for any length of time, that will increase the amount of squeal after, since soon as someone breaks the silence, there's a mad panic of cascading radio calls that follow.

Now I get that if you're somewhere, you probably don't hear the other guy transmitting if he's out of your line of sight, so you might feel comfortable to blab at leisure and claim that extra bit of air time, but anyone who has line of sight on both of you just gets treated to the "SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" or occasionally when some magic of the radiowaves happens the treasured "OOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOO".

Using up air time I equate to filling up a back pack, if you're loading it, yeah, every extra bit hardly matters. If you're the one packing it though, you notice every extra gram.

Now the substantial uselessness of the radio might not matter to you if you're cruising around IFR and usually on center instead. But if you're like me, you're doing a lot of flying relatively low level and VFR in among the rest of the bug smashers, the nullification of one of your useful safety tools is somewhat worrisome.

Exactly. I was up northwest of the GTA today. A sunny, calm Saturday, --hence BUSY -- trying to monitor 3 frequencies 126.7 and the practice area freq., then the airport freq 122.80 only shared with a million other airports --- , with a million students it seems -- all repeating the same call every 5 minutes and stepping on each other, and 95% using that useless phrase. Hash. Keep it short! You're not the only one out there.

Edit -- forgot the glider my sharp -eyed pax spotted. Man they are hard to see.

Did I mention it's not all about you when telling your life story? ACTPA is un-necessary, and takes forever. If I hear someone in my way doing airwork close to my route (I did) I'll call him up if I'm passing close (I was) whether he says ACTPA or not. (Don't think he did)

Good call to me is the guy I heard, "XXX lake area traffic, piper GABC, overhead, southbound 3500, Guelph next". Clear as a bell.

[DanWEC]

I actually heard a guy yesterday finish a call with "Conflicting conflicts, it's GABC." Now that a conflict!

[xchox]

Yeah... But if they don't say "Any conflicts please advise." I won't advise if I'm conflicting.

Simple

[AirFrame]

The problem with "conflicting 126.7 GABC" is, what does that mean? Is GABC saying they're conflicting traffic for someone? If i've just tuned the frequency, and that's the only call I hear, how do I know that someone else didn't just call up in a position right in front of GABC, and GABC is replying to say "we're conflicting with you"?

A longer, more detailed call of "any conflicting traffic please advise" lulls people into the situation of thinking they are completely safe when nobody replies. No need to look out for NORDO traffic or aircraft that tuned in on the frequency two seconds after the pilot made his ACTPA call. It also assumes that what came before ACTPA was a position, direction, and speed report that was (a) accurate, and (b) detailed enough that other pilots could use it to determine whether they are on an intersecting path. To date, I don't think i've heard an ACTPA call that was either. The pilots are invariably not where they say they are, nor are they giving enough information for another pilot to determine whether a confict will occur.

ACTPA is just like any other disease that needs to be eradicated. That only happens by vaccinating students. Start with sincere council, and follow up with ridicule if it continues. Those pilots who oppose vaccinating against this disease are only guilty of ensuring it's success.

[Rookie50]

Gotta keep head on a swivel --- who knows what freq people are chatting on. Where I flew today - short 67 NM flight --- passed from 123.50 ZBA, near Guelph, fairly close to Waterloo zone 126.00, enroute 126.70, practice area 123.02, terminal 119.30, 128.27, center for a minute 132.57, destination 122.80. Too many in 35 minutes.

Terminal is great here though, they will call it out, but not every target even has a transponder. Don't know how there isn't carnage in YVR terminal -- or below their airspace as I know how busy it is and they don't accommodate VFR's not in the class C

[PointyEngine]

I'll track it down, but somewhere there is a NavCanada publication which explicitly says not to say "Any conflicting traffic please advise". Sure it only adds a extra few seconds, but on a busy frequency it's a pain in the butt. Twats who say it should have their radio license revoked...

1d9a3dda_21169_facepalm_picard2.jpeg (9.3 KiB) Viewed 4779 times

[Skyhunter]

Personally I use it!!!!

I like it.

I will end a posit report with conflicting advise (insert my callsign here) on 126.7. I don't care if you don't like it. I think it is a professional way to end the transmission. Get over yourselves if you don't like it.

[Liquid Charlie]

Disable the side tone - might cut down on the verbal diarrhea

[digits_]

I think it is a professional way to end the transmission. Get over yourselves if you don't like it.

Don't know if you are sarcastic or not, I hope you are, but either way I would say it is more professional to use the standard phraseology on the appropriate frequency instead of making up your own stuff. Extra prof points if you use 126.7 as the enroute frequency and not 122.8

Remember, the system is set up to accomodate the worst possible pilot globally, not the hot shot professional bush pilots talking to themselves in an abbreviated lingo that no foreign PPL would ever understand.