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

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who ask CTPA and then when you do, using their exact callsign: THEY'RE NOT LISTENING!

Hence why I don't care what other plane's callsigns are. For some reason there are a lot of ATFs within transmission distance that have the same runway numbers, so where someone is is the more critical piece of information. That said you often hear someone in a panic calling you trying to sort out how they don't conflict with you, and sometimes I just let them stew if its really apparent that they don't actually listen to what others say, but rather are operating on the "I'm telling you where I'm at so get out of my way" method of traffic avoidance. That's the thing that really drives me crazy, is listening to two guys who maybe are on "conflicting" courses keep flying straight at one another. "I don't see you yet". with play by play up to the point of contact. Just avoid each other!

[newbiewings]

Thank you for the responses to my $0.02 worth on ACTPA.

[HiFlyChick]

While the call sign is useful, if I've missed it, I just identify them based on the last call they made:
"Aircraft joining overhead crosswind, this is GABC, joining downwind"

[B208]

While the call sign is useful, if I've missed it, I just identify them based on the last call they made:
"Aircraft joining overhead crosswind, this is GABC, joining downwind"

where someone is is the more critical piece of information.

Very good bits of advice. Putting the airport at the end of a blind broadcast is useful. The call-sign is not.

How exactly are they fouling up? Transmissions should be concise but not must be, and who's to say

The answer is within your own question. If you are not doing something you should (in the absence of a compelling reason not to do said thing you should be doing), then you are fouling up. I have as yet to hear a compelling reason to use ACTPA.

[Rockie]

How exactly are they fouling up? Transmissions should be concise but not must be, and who's to say

The answer is within your own question. If you are not doing something you should (in the absence of a compelling reason not to do said thing you should be doing), then you are fouling up. I have as yet to hear a compelling reason to use ACTPA.

Maybe because you cut my quote off short. If you hadn't stopped reading just then you would have seen this:

and who's to say ACTPA isn't concise if it's information whoever utters it on the radio wants to know?

Would "Any aircraft in the vicinity please reply" be better, or would "AAITVPR" be just as unacceptable? No wait - that's not as concise as ACTPA. How should one put it anyway if they really want to hear from the other airplanes? We have to get it down from five words to four or less, so how about just CTPA? Even less - CTA - yeah that's it, no need to be polite by saying please. "Conflicting Traffic Advise"

There we go...

Publish that in the AIM and we can finally put this horrific issue to bed.

[B208]

Maybe because you cut my quote off short. If you hadn't stopped reading just then you would have seen this:

and who's to say ACTPA isn't concise if it's information whoever utters it on the radio wants to know?

I cut your comment short because, much like ACTPA, it was not useful.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concise

Full Definition of CONCISE


: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail <a concise report> <a concise definition>

ACTPA is a superfluous elaboration; Therefore, Mr Merriam and Mr Webster say its not concise. Would you like to tell us that you are smarter than they are?

[Rockie]

I cut your comment short because, much like ACTPA, it was not useful.

Are you the sole arbiter of what information is useful or not?

[human garbage]

This subject again... Wow.

Maybe I was taught wrong, but when I was doing my PPL the instructor told me to add "conflicting (traffic) this is C-FABC" at the end of the transmission. His reasoning was the someone who wasn't paying attention until they realized from my position that there was a possible conflict would get my call sign at the end. Has worked well enough for me. In a busy area like YCW I get called back right by my call sign instead of 'last aircraft transmitting on downwind' so it must work for others too.

I agree that ACTPA is a waste of bandwidth unless it has a purpose such as the above. I don't get pissed off about it however. I just laugh inwardly. Of course I'm going to call you if I'm a conflict buddy. Its in my best interest as well.

[B208]

I cut your comment short because, much like ACTPA, it was not useful.

Are you the sole arbiter of what information is useful or not?

Yes. Deal with it.

[digits_]

Would "Any aircraft in the vicinity please reply" be better, or would "AAITVPR" be just as unacceptable? No wait - that's not as concise as ACTPA. How should one put it anyway if they really want to hear from the other airplanes? We have to get it down from five words to four or less, so how about just CTPA? Even less - CTA - yeah that's it, no need to be polite by saying please. "Conflicting Traffic Advise"

But do you honestly think any conflicting traffic will keep its mouth shut because somebody didn't ask for "Conflicting Traffic Advise" ? As in "They didn't ask me to reply to this transmission, so I am just going to fly straight at them untill they do ask."

[Maynard]

"Hank billygoat is 15 northwest of gangbang hill 7,500 northwestbound, partytown"

Has everyone forgot the simple "who you are, where you are and what you want to do"
No Currently, at this time, traffic 26.7, traffic near..., ACPA, . If anyone else is headed to the party, they will speak up. If they hear you, they are obviously listening to the same freq, so lets not remind everyone.

Keep it short and to the GD point.

[donnybrook]

Also, there may be more than one aircraft conflicting, so don't jam up the airwaves with useless back and forth chit chat. Has happened to me many times....

[Rockie]

I cut your comment short because, much like ACTPA, it was not useful.

Are you the sole arbiter of what information is useful or not?

Yes. Deal with it.

I think the real problem here is that too many people have their hats done up way too tight.

[goingnowherefast]

People like hearing themselves talk. Both online and on the radio. This thread has been repeating the same points for the past 2 pages.

[Liquid Charlie]

Since this is now the acronym generation -- I'm waiting for it -- lmfaooooooo

[switchflicker]

People like hearing themselves talk. Both online and on the radio. This thread has been repeating the same points for the past 2 pages.

Size 16 collar and size 6 cap.

[AirFrame]

and who's to say ACTPA isn't concise if it's information whoever utters it on the radio wants to know?

Do you need to be told that the person making a position report wants to know if you're going to hit him? Isn't that the purpose of a position report, and therefore redundant? Why not start every position report with "this is a position report" too?

If you hear a position report and perceive a conflict, you should speak up, and/or change course to avoid the conflict. You don't need to hear ACTPA to do it.

[Aviatard]

Stop saying Charlie at the beginning of your call sign, when you're a Canadian aircraft operating in Canada.

[Gannet167]

If you don't listen for traffic, then someone transmitting ACTPA isn't going to make you start listening.
If you don't speak up when you think there might be a conflict, hearing ACTPA wont make you start. You don't need to be told via ACTPA that you should advise. If you think there's a conflict it's obvious what to do. You have a pilot license. If you're going to crash: do some of that pilot thing.
If you need to repeat your call sign or location, (which isn't a bad idea) you DO NOT need ACTPA inserted in front of your C/S in order to say it. Just say it at the end.
ACTPA may not reduce safety in any measurable way, but it SURE DOESN'T help. It's redundant, serves no functional purpose, is time consuming, and is a symptom of a bigger problem. It makes me wait to either reply to the C/S who's very close to me and a potential conflict, or make my own report. There just is no valid reason to say this, it is as USELESS as saying inshallah.

People who find this petty have never flown around in busy space listening to ACTPA dozens of times in an hour while they try to deconflict and still get something done with their own plane. If concise RT isn't a big deal, why don't we also say "Any traffic that is not conflicting, please do not reply"? Why not add ACTPA to every circuit call at uncontrolled airports? If it's so necessary and helpful, surely it would improve safety to every downwind, final, clear of the active, taxiing, taking off, etc. call?

[comfail]

I was wondering what the Colonels thoughts would be on radiotelephony procedures so I did a quick site search and dug up this gem.

If I was God (or Merlin Preuss - I am told God
must answer to Merlin Preuss) I would require
a new TSO be enacted for all PTT switches,
applicable to all certified, homebuilt, and handheld
comm radios.

This TSO would require a heater be installed on
the PTT. This heater would be required to increase
the temperature of the PTT by 10 degrees C for
every second that it is depressed.

So, when the pilots in Toronto wanted to blather
on for 10 seconds on the radio about completely
useless nonsense, their thumb would be heated
to 100C.

You're welcome. I will not even bother submitting
a patent for this idea, and will release it unfettered
into the public domain.

Who the hell is Merlin Preuss?

[ea306]

Merlin Preuss

Director General Civil Aviation
Transport Canada
2002 – 2009

[B208]

I think the real problem here is that too many people have their hats done up way too tight.

Dude,
Hat size is not the issue at hand; Airmanship is. If some are willing to accept mediocrity, so be it. Others are not.

[Rockie]

Dude, Hat size is not the issue at hand; Airmanship is. If some are willing to accept mediocrity, so be it. Others are not.

Dude, you missed the joke.

It isn't about airmanship either - it's about a bunch of overwrought people who HATE THAT PHRASE

Someday your head is going to explode and make a mess all over northern Ontario. How's that for mediocrity?

[Changes in Latitudes]

Are you guys almost done being boring?

[HiFlyChick]

Dude, Hat size is not the issue at hand; Airmanship is. If some are willing to accept mediocrity, so be it. Others are not.

It isn't about airmanship either - it's about a bunch of overwrought people who HATE THAT PHRASE

The reason why people hate the phrase is because it is poor airmanship.
I agree with B208 - if you're okay with mediocrity and sounding unprofessional (and wasting time), go ahead - keep using it....