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

[Gannet167]

Students in YMJ are taught and then hyper evaluated on an unbelievable, almost unreasonable amount of procedures that are extremely strictly enforced. They might have 80 hours at the end of their course, but when you hear them making these calls, most have less than 50 hrs TT, flying some fairly difficult missions in a fairly high performance plane. Although brevity and accuracy is emphasized in radio work at the school in YMJ, this call has no specified procedure so the students just copy what other students and their instructors do.

ACTPA is not a military or civilian thing. It's merely a technique, I think we can basically all agree a poor one. That technique has crept into the common routine of making a 26.7 call and like a bad fashion trend, metastasized and spread. Since there is no laid down procedure (despite the counter fit TC "Take 5" posters), people hear ACTPA and think "oh, is that how we're all doing position reports now? Sounds quite official and proper, I guess I should say that too." And then it becomes adopted as a habit. Many guys I have brought this subject up with say they use ACTPA as a method of being able to re-state their callsign at the end of the broadcast. Re-stating your C/S isn't a bad idea, but you don't need ACTPA to do so, you can just blurt it out. I'm sure ACTPA has unfortunately become habit and is used civy and mil flying for the same reasons.

If you're flying over YMJ and for some reason put up 26.7, you will hear these calls often. That's because of an insane volume of traffic flying low level navigation missions all over southern Saskatchewan. There are frequently aircraft that have near misses, all flying crossing routes at the same altitudes, so this call is made often and is important. Typically it's made once per each leg on a navigation route. Each leg is only a few minutes long and then the plane is travelling in an entirely different direction. There's no other way to safely fly these missions but to make frequent calls.

As much as ACTPA is annoying, and it's use has been brought up around the school as a verbose and bad technique, some still use it in the absence of a specific phraseology because it's how they learned. Maybe one day the school will provide specific phraseology and this stupid call can be kept out of new pilots' bag of techniques. In defense of YMJ students, other than ACTPA, their radio calls are generally very brief, just very frequent (as necessary).

[AirFrame]

In this case, there is no standard out there that says not to use conflicting traffic, therefore the Standards Officer cannot fault a student for saying it during a position report. He could, however, nail a student for forgetting the altitude in the call as it is a published procedure.

I'm sure there's nothing in the standard that says the student shouldn't tell his standards officer that she has nice tits, either. But I highly doubt any student would be stupid enough to say it, as they could be certain of some kind of penalty afterwards. At some point in that student's life, they were taken aside and told what is, and what isn't, appropriate to say in certain situations. This isn't any different.

[Gravol]

The clear and concise transmission I am talking about has most certainly done more good than bad. Why? Not directly because I said conflicting, but because I said where I am headed and when I will be there. In a low level environment, whether they say conflicting or traffic + where I can talk to them, is very helpful. Again, people trying to make a high flown point for the sake of making a point. The ones who chose not to deconflict resulted in near misses. This is great airmanship. Just because you're listening to something that has nothing to do with you on the coms, doesn't mean it's not important. Are you that bored sitting on your deck? If so , + to Auxbat, turn off your damn radio and tear up your license when you land. A big + 1 to Gannett as well.

[AirFrame]

Position reports are important, nobody is saying they aren't.
Responding to one when you perceive there will be a conflict is also important, nobody is saying it isn't.

The key point people are missing is that neither require someone to waste airtime in dense airspace by asking for conflicting traffic to advise.

First, it won't catch people who aren't on frequency or who are NORDO, which leads to a false sense of security on the part of the person asking.
Second, it's redundant. To respond to and avoid a potential conflict is simply good airmanship. Make a radio call, or change your flight path, to accommodate the other plane.

[Rowdy]

T

Who you are, where you are and where you're going. Calls don't need to be longer than 15-20 seconds. Its busy out there friends!

15 - 20 SECONDS????? WHAT?

Yeah.. at the absolute MAX. For kicks I had an FO time one of the weekend warriors position reports after reading this ridiculous thread. 1:05 seconds. A solid minute tieing up an already busy frequency. Absurd.

It amazes me how people are arguing about this.

[BeaverDreamer]

For you west coast guys... How often do you call on 123.2? I was coming down along the coast the other day low level. So many broken up calls from float guys departing out of the inlets it's tough to catch them all. I ended up making a call over pretty well every major inlet, probably would have pissed most of you off but what are you supposed to do in those scenarios?

[B208]

1.) This is not just a military issue. Plenty of civies do it.
2.) It represents a deviation from the ideal, (The ideal being the most concise transmission possible). The military strives for the ideal.
3.). Fix it by having someone in authority at the Big 2 and the Bigger 3 tell the minions, "Don't do that". Also have someone at 402 ATS pass this along to the ACSOs (The c is silent).

[URC]

Anyone know when "ACTPA" first came into use ? It was the standard in the high arctic when I started flying up there back in 1989. Not really a big deal as there wasn't much traffic to piss off on 126.70. Was this a standard phrase used in the 60's and 70's, someone must have started it ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The FAA Aeronautical information man section 4-1-9(g)(1) states:

"Pilots stating traffic in the area, "please advise" is not a recognized self-announce position and/or intention phrase and should not be used under any condition."

[2R]

Not only is it a stupid thing to say ,but I would say it is a dangerous waste of air time, valuable radio air time that could be used to give accurate position reports with relevant information. Information that can be valuable to the safety of flight.

The inaccuracies that are spewed out by some pilots are legend in the North .
You hear them calling thirty miles out landing in five at EBMFN muktuk then the dreaded ACTPA ,Really does your POS nevergo travel at six miles a minute all the way to landing

When you have aircraft converging over four hundred miles an hour your chances of spotting traffic are less than twenty percent.
Accurate radios calls add to safety of flight. I try very hard to be accurate and add two minutes to what the magic box says will be eta seems to work out plus or minus twenty seconds.

Long winded irrelevant waffle gab like ACTPA is just pure mental poop

Whoever started ACTPA needs a kick in the plums with a frozen moccasin

Next rant : Who makes all those animal noises on company ?

[AuxBatOn]

In this case, there is no standard out there that says not to use conflicting traffic, therefore the Standards Officer cannot fault a student for saying it during a position report. He could, however, nail a student for forgetting the altitude in the call as it is a published procedure.

I'm sure there's nothing in the standard that says the student shouldn't tell his standards officer that she has nice tits, either. But I highly doubt any student would be stupid enough to say it, as they could be certain of some kind of penalty afterwards. At some point in that student's life, they were taken aside and told what is, and what isn't, appropriate to say in certain situations. This isn't any different.

Comparing those 3 words to sexual harassment. That's a new one. Going to great lenght to defend the POV that those words are in appropriate, but again, no real substance.

BPF: last time I checked, Canada is still an independant country and FAA rules don't apply here.

[AuxBatOn]

2.) It represents a deviation from the ideal, (The ideal being the most concise transmission possible). The military strives for the ideal.
3.). Fix it by having someone in authority at the Big 2 and the Bigger 3 tell the minions, "Don't do that". Also have someone at 402 ATS pass this along to the ACSOs

2.) Is there a time lenght associated with a position report or what shall not be said? Nope. Therefore it is not a deviation from the ideal. Concise is very much open to interpretation and most would agree that adding 0.5 seconds to your transmission does not affect its conciseness. People chatting for minutes with each other on 126.7 is probably more of an issue.

3.) I think there are far more important issues to focus on in Flight Training than nailing people for this. Again, people need to undo the knot in their panties and get a life. This is not about safety of flight, this is about people with a pet peeve that want the world to do like they do.

[C208]

Alberta, Canada Traffic, Cessna 172 Canadian F*$&@^ 2.5 NM North East of Peace River Airport 3500 Feet South Bound Transiting Southbound For Blah Blah Expect Next Position Report at Blah Blah Lake in 4 minutes.....And so on for 30 minutes. Best radio call I ever heard.

[Shiny Side Up]

In this case, there is no standard out there that says not to use conflicting traffic, therefore the Standards Officer cannot fault a student.

Screw the lack of a standard, are you saying that if there isn't a standard published for something that feel free to do it? I had a student once who helpfully pointed out that the CARs also have no "standard" for what constitutes a good landing either, aside from not injuring anyone or wrecking any property or airplanes. What's wrong with just doing things better? Do the training officers just go, "well he meets the standard", or does anyone shoot for better these days? Is this what its come to? Forget about ACTPA, you defending mediocre performance that my tax dollars pay for makes me angrier.

Oh, so now these words now cause mid-air collisions. Interesting. Please refer me to a single instance where these words led (directly or indirectly) to a mid-air.

Technically, there's no proof that it hasn't. I know of many instances where I've spotted aircraft that I've had to avoid where the pilot didn't see me, or at least couldn't fly and hold the mike button down at the same time. Good thing one of us was playing heads up Hockey, one of them was a Harvard II to boot. And yes, sometimes the airwaves over southern Sask are full almost non stop, at least when the kids from MJ are on the loose. Maybe you don't spend enough time there, try to do eight hours airborne in the same patch and you'll see what I mean. I get the idea that collision avoidance is based on the same theory that if you keep your hand on the horn from when you leave your drive way until you get to destination everyone just gets out of your way.

Again as well, its not just ACTPA that those kids are doing bad, there's a lot of long windedness with those calls besides that. Sort of like how its in vogue with a lot of class one instructors to teach their new class fours "don't leave anything out" as the primary goal of the training. Maybe you'd approve of two hour briefings on slow flight, because hey, they met all the standards...

Or can we concede that it should be better?

[AuxBatOn]

Screw the lack of a standard, are you saying that if there isn't a standard published for something that feel free to do it? I had a student once who helpfully pointed out that the CARs also have no "standard" for what constitutes a good landing either, aside from not injuring anyone or wrecking any property or airplanes. What's wrong with just doing things better? Do the training officers just go, "well he meets the standard", or does anyone shoot for better these days? Is this what its come to? Forget about ACTPA, you defending mediocre performance that my tax dollars pay for makes me angrier.

Well, technically, in the military anyways, there is a standard on how to land the airplane. In fact, there is a standard for everything the aircraft is capable of doing in the Standard Maneuvers Manual.

I bet most POH have a section on how to land the aircraft. This would be the standard as it is an official document approved by TC as part of the Airworthiness Process.

For the performance, there are several levels that meet the standard. we grade people from 1 to 5 for each event during a flight. 1 is IP had to take control to prevent you from killing yourself, 2 is major errors needed IP intervention. 3 is major errors self corrected, minor errors required IP intervention, 4 is small errors, self corrected, 5 is no errors.

So there are different levels of how well the student achieved the Standard.

Technically, there's no proof that it hasn't. I know of many instances where I've spotted aircraft that I've had to avoid where the pilot didn't see me, or at least couldn't fly and hold the mike button down at the same time. Good thing one of us was playing heads up Hockey, one of them was a Harvard II to boot. And yes, sometimes the airwaves over southern Sask are full almost non stop, at least when the kids from MJ are on the loose. Maybe you don't spend enough time there, try to do eight hours airborne in the same patch and you'll see what I mean. I get the idea that collision avoidance is based on the same theory that if you keep your hand on the horn from when you leave your drive way until you get to destination everyone just gets out of your way.

I asked you to provide evidence that saying those 3 words lead to a mishap. I see you are unable to provide one. If no accidents were attributed to this directly or indirectly, maybe you are overthinking this....

Again as well, its not just ACTPA that those kids are doing bad, there's a lot of long windedness with those calls besides that. Sort of like how its in vogue with a lot of class one instructors to teach their new class fours "don't leave anything out" as the primary goal of the training. Maybe you'd approve of two hour briefings on slow flight, because hey, they met all the standards...

Or can we concede that it should be better?

I don't know, I think military pilots are doing pretty good in general. Maybe the training system is right?

As far as briefing goes, there is also a standard in the military. 1h15 minutes, including a coordination brief with other aircraft participating. 1h without. If you go over, you bet you'll hear about it in the debrief or worse, I'll cut you off if I am you IP or Standards Pilot.

But again, there is absolutely nothing that says it shouldn't or shalln't be done and you have no proof it has an effect on Safety of Flight, therefore you have absolutely no argument for giving anybody a hard time for saying it.

[niss]

Who you are, where you are and where you're going. Calls don't need to be longer than 15-20 seconds. Its busy out there friends!

Rowdy treats radio work like sex. He only talks about himself, it never lasts more than 20 seconds, and firmly believes that shorter is better.

[AirFrame]

I asked you to provide evidence that saying those 3 words lead to a mishap. I see you are unable to provide one. If no accidents were attributed to this directly or indirectly, maybe you are overthinking this....

Okay, so try it the other way around: Please provide evidence that using those five words has *prevented* a mishap. Feel free to highlight the portion of the incident report where they conclude that those five words saved the day.

[AuxBatOn]

This is not the point. People want to see it go away. I pesonally do not give a @#$! is somebody uses it. It doesn't bother a bit and I don't think it increases or decreases the flight safety margin.

If I was saying everybody should use it then I would be in a position where I would have to justify why, and provide concrete data (rules, safety of flight impliations, SOPs) as to why people be using it.

[Shiny Side Up]

So there are different levels of how well the student achieved the Standard.

Bear with me then, can't the same thing be applied to radio calls? I get that you work for the government where efficiency doesn't matter, but do all students make the standard? I'm starting to get the idea from your words that the "standard system" that's used only uses double speak to make sure everyone is some level of "good" at the end of the day.

This is not the point. People want to see it go away. I personally do not give a @#$! is somebody uses it. It doesn't bother a bit and I don't think it increases or decreases the flight safety margin.

You should give a shit though, at the least, its an example of inefficiency in the use of a resource that contributes to safety. By your argument, use of the comm radio does not contribute at all to safety therefore the efficiency of using it doesn't matter. Do you not listen to yours when you're flying? I hate listening to mine though I continue to do so since I feel that listening to it is helping contribute to my overall situational awareness, however little that may be with the current state of a large portion of the users poor ability to convey info in a reasonable manner. The kids in the Harvard IIs technically are the worst hazard out there, being somewhat faster that if they're not looking out the window - and blabbing on the radio as their chief means of defense - are way more likely to be able to catch someone else in a blind spot. The last time I had an encounter with one, I spotted him at my 4'oclock, on a collision course seemingly before he spotted me. Or maybe he didn't care since I avoided first, hard to tell, his radio was thumbed as he went by. So I have some reason to believe that safety is somewhat compromised. How do I spot someone at a disadvantaged position in an aircraft with worse visibility before they see me? Maybe they didn't play heads up hockey as a kid, or maybe that hideously long radio call he droned on about took up most of his CPU power.

And that's the part you're missing here. ACTPA is a symptom of a larger problem that all of its users exhibit. If those were the only five words tying up the frequency, I wouldn't have much to complain about, but they're not. Pilots, including the kids at MJ - I should say that they're notable in that they are uniform in their use of ACTPA which seems that radio inefficiency is systemic in its problem also love to add the following in as well. If you're someone who likes ACTPA, you're likely to insert a lot of currently, approximately, ands, uuuhms, aaahhs, decimals, specific headings, quadruple redundancies, circular sentences, obscure locations, long descriptors.

Yes I want all of that to go away. How long to you spend on 126.7 on any given day? Perhaps you just haven't been subjected to it long enough.

[Gravol]

I asked you to provide evidence that saying those 3 words lead to a mishap. I see you are unable to provide one. If no accidents were attributed to this directly or indirectly, maybe you are overthinking this....

Okay, so try it the other way around: Please provide evidence that using those five words has *prevented* a mishap. Feel free to highlight the portion of the incident report where they conclude that those five words saved the day.

How would he or anyone know if it prevented a mishap? The mishap didn't happen. Is that a serious question? Some people do not have the luxury of a crystal ball.

We can assume that, if someone made a RT call that was clear and concise - I would argue they heard 1) the area one is headed towards @ the specific time which conveniently crosses their track and 2) where we can talk and deconflict. Sorry that I cannot provide you with go pro footage and a CVR inclusive of transcript, where this aided in deconflicting thus an accident. So again, let me make this clear , your point is that because someone says conflicting - its this single word which might kill you. Absolutely ridiculous and i'd argue you'd feel exactly as described if I sat you down and had you attempt to explain this to a group of people. Okay, change the intransitive verb to COLLIDING. Colliding 126.7 . Problem solved.

[Shiny Side Up]

its this single word

Its funny that you assume that its just one irritating word that irritates people. I can only assume that you just plain don't listen to the radio. If it was only ONE word, we wouldn't be having this lively talk.

[Gravol]

So there are different levels of how well the student achieved the Standard.

Bear with me then, can't the same thing be applied to radio calls? I get that you work for the government where efficiency doesn't matter, but do all students make the standard? I'm starting to get the idea from your words that the "standard system" that's used only uses double speak to make sure everyone is some level of "good" at the end of the day.

This is not the point. People want to see it go away. I personally do not give a @#$! is somebody uses it. It doesn't bother a bit and I don't think it increases or decreases the flight safety margin.

You should give a shit though, at the least, its an example of inefficiency in the use of a resource that contributes to safety. By your argument, use of the comm radio does not contribute at all to safety therefore the efficiency of using it doesn't matter. Do you not listen to yours when you're flying? I hate listening to mine though I continue to do so since I feel that listening to it is helping contribute to my overall situational awareness, however little that may be with the current state of a large portion of the users poor ability to convey info in a reasonable manner. The kids in the Harvard IIs technically are the worst hazard out there, being somewhat faster that if they're not looking out the window - and blabbing on the radio as their chief means of defense - are way more likely to be able to catch someone else in a blind spot. The last time I had an encounter with one, I spotted him at my 4'oclock, on a collision course seemingly before he spotted me. Or maybe he didn't care since I avoided first, hard to tell, his radio was thumbed as he went by. So I have some reason to believe that safety is somewhat compromised. How do I spot someone at a disadvantaged position in an aircraft with worse visibility before they see me?

This is a very baseless thing to say, and no fair minded person would agree or come to said conclusion based off anything written here. Hopefully you can clarify your position because I am viewing this as objectively as possible.

The specifics above by a variety of different users in the lower sask area made it very clear why said calls are made. It's not a 172 at 90 kts. I find it counterproductive how you alleviate any and all responsibility from other aircraft flying within 100 miles of where this is all taking place. I like it how you place blame on one aircraft who just happens to be zipping along minding their own business doing their due diligence. How do you expect anyone to answer your question when it comes to visibility? I don't know, go purchase and airplane with better visibility. You also admitted they possibly saw you? If they evaluated you were not a threat, why would they deviate? So, obviously he/she did their job. Imagine if they called (maybe they did) , a few minutes earlier and stated they'd be in said vicinity? Could it be , that you were not listening out on 126.7 and did not deconflict with them? I cannot tell you how annoying it is to listen to "near miss" stories, whereby the "bandit" is always wrong and Gods gift is always right.

The story you provided states that air force guys and gals training are guilty by association and that efficiency means absolutely nothing at 250 kts 500 agl . I'd imagine that in this environment, efficiency matters.

its this single word

Its funny that you assume that its just one irritating word that irritates people. I can only assume that you just plain don't listen to the radio. If it was only ONE word, we wouldn't be having this lively talk.

I suggest you reread this entire thread. If what you say is true, the thread title should be changed. But it hasn't been

[AirFrame]

How would he or anyone know if it prevented a mishap? The mishap didn't happen. Is that a serious question? Some people do not have the luxury of a crystal ball.

That was my point. There's no evidence it's prevented, or caused, accidents.

So again, let me make this clear , your point is that because someone says conflicting - its this single word which might kill you. Absolutely ridiculous and i'd argue you'd feel exactly as described if I sat you down and had you attempt to explain this to a group of people. Okay, change the intransitive verb to COLLIDING. Colliding 126.7 . Problem solved.

No, you've completely missed the point. Ending a transmission with "conflicting 126.7" is vague in the extreme. Are you telling people you're conflicting? Are you asking a question? You may think it's perfectly clear, but it's not.

As i've pointed out before: Asking is redundant, as anyone who hears the RT and perceives a conflict should be replying anyway regardless of whether someone asks them to. It's also pointless when you're in a busy area that also has NORDO traffic or is covered by multiple frequencies. So bothering to say it wastes time that could be used to communicate a potential conflict.

[AuxBatOn]

That was my point. There's no evidence it's prevented, or caused, accidents.

If it caused an accident, we would know as it would be in the investigation report. If it caused a near miss, we may know through the CADORS (civilian channels) or the Flight Safety chain (military channels).

Unless you record events of people using the words and then compare the results to events when people don't use the words and you have a statisticaly relevant amount of data for both datasets, you will not be able to conclusively say it helps to safety of flight. And I never suggested that. I suggested that at worse, it doesn't have an impact on safety.

The lac of incidents/accidents reported in the last 10 years about the matter though strongly suggest that at least, it doesn't matter.

[B208]

2.) Is there a time lenght associated with a position report or what shall not be said?

Radios calls are meant to be concise. "ACTPA" is not concise, therefore it is a deviation from the ideal, just like being 20' off your altitude.

3.) I think there are far more important issues to focus on in Flight Training than nailing people for this.

There are. However, I believe we can multi-task and deal with those problems while dealing with this.

BPF: last time I checked, Canada is still an independant country and FAA rules don't apply here.

Good ideas should not be limited by jurisdictional boundaries.

GPH204A 1101.1

"Radio telephony messages should be delivered clearly and concisely."

ACTPA is superfluous, which is the opposite of concise. Therefore its use is a deviation from the ideal and should avoided.