Radio Proceedure

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:32 pm

cyyz wrote:
zzjayca wrote:

Fine, time for us to start reporting you guys... seems fair...

To be honest with you cyyz, please report any infractions on our part to NC customer relations. If you leave a name and number with them they will get back to you on what actions have been taken to insure nothing like this happens again. I have the same mentality as pilots i want to do the best job i can therefore providing the best service i can to the pilots and through them the passengers or boxes, whatever they are flying. We have checks and investigations in place to report errors, investigate them and learn from then hopefully averting a similar event in the future.

the same goes for any other pilot if in the course of your dealings with ATS if you see an error on our part please report it. We don't like to be wrong anymore than pilots but if we can correct it hopefully in the future your flying experience will be that much better. And anyways you all know we never make mistakes....LOL!!!!

FREEFALL · Post by **FREEFALL** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:36 am

I'm all over that like a fat kid on a SMARTIE!!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:20 pm

Grimey wrote:

" Given the shit I understand that you've been through with TC (I still don't think I heard even a tenth of the story), I can't blame you for saying that. "

When I return to Canada TC will have ample opportunity to make their case with me as I plan on operating an airservice doing what ever I need to do to earn a living.

In that under the direction and management of the DGCA sitting in Ottawa and the Regional Director Civil Aviation in the pacific Region both of whom in my opinin are moral degenerates who flaunt the law with impunity I also intend to flaunt the law.

It should prove interesting because I will refuse to cooperate on any level with any TC inspector who approaches me....

..that of course will eventually lead to fines which I will not pay, and eventually the law will force them to charge me under inditement which will eventually end up with me serving time in jail.

I would not sleep to well if I were the inspector who helped put me in jail, and if I were the DGCA and the Regional Director C A in the Pacific Region I would not sleep at all after I get out of jail.

These people are fuc.ing maggotts who are protected by the very system that they are in charge of, me I'm just someone who has decided enough is enough and I am prepared to go to defy them regardless of the consequences...

...So don't any of you FSS types worry about me because my problem is not with you, I'm a professional pilot who knows the rules and am smart enough to abide by them when operating an airplane.

Flying without an OC is of course breaking the rules, but these pricks broke the rules by denying me the right to work so fu.k em on that part of their rules.

Cat

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:12 am

.: anyone who reads a newspaper knows our federal government is totally corrupt, all the way to the top. They hold the taxpayer and the taxpayer's money in complete contempt:

HDRC scandal - $1 billion
EH-101 cancellation - $500 million
Gun registry - $1+ billion
Submarines - $800 million
Quebec Sponsorship Scandal - $250 million
DOD Embezzlement Scandal - $150+ million

The list goes on, and on, and on.

Now the question is, why would you expect a government, which is corrupt at the top, to NOT be corrupt at the bottom? Look at their leadership!

What the government has done to you and me is pretty small beer compared to what other terrible things they do.

The truly frightening fact is that citizens of this country have no intention of getting rid of the corruption in the government. Canada really is a lost cause, IMHO. We are an irrelevant banana republic.

FREEFALL · Post by **FREEFALL** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:34 am

I think the government wants a gun control act because the are affraid of the public baring arms against them. And if they keep screwing over Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public, it is quite possible.

red003 · Post by **red003** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:32 am

here's one for ya:

a couple nights ago, in the face of a wall of t storms i had to divert to my alternate, which happened to be right underneath me. handed off and talking to radio i told him i was starting the approach in ONE minute, call procedure turn outbound, etc. get on the ground, in the time (4 minutes or less) that it took me to call dispatch 4 mm hail came down with wickedly hard rain and insane gusts (my a/c spun around on the ramp, jumped all 3 chocks). so had i done a turn in the hold or something to kill time i would've gotten into that weather and definitely wouldn't have been landing there.

i'm pretty sure that in a situation like that they'd let the 5 mins prior to approach call go....or would they? comments?

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:16 am

red003 wrote:here's one for ya:

a couple nights ago, in the face of a wall of t storms i had to divert to my alternate, which happened to be right underneath me. handed off and talking to radio i told him i was starting the approach in ONE minute, call procedure turn outbound, etc. get on the ground, in the time (4 minutes or less) that it took me to call dispatch 4 mm hail came down with wickedly hard rain and insane gusts (my a/c spun around on the ramp, jumped all 3 chocks). so had i done a turn in the hold or something to kill time i would've gotten into that weather and definitely wouldn't have been landing there.

i'm pretty sure that in a situation like that they'd let the 5 mins prior to approach call go....or would they? comments?

You diverted due weather, and I'd write a report up for that, not for a regulatory violation. Basically, it'd say "@1230z, F-ABC, enroute from A to B, diverted to C due to an intense line of TS. No effect or traffic, aircraft landed safely @1234z".

It's the same thing with an emergency. If a guy in a twin has an engine failure in IFR weather shortly after takeoff, I'm going report what's most important, that he returned to the airport with one engine out, did the ILS for 05, and landed safely. I'm sure the ACC shift manager can understand what happened, and why the guy didn't make his call, he never got 5 minutes away from the approach.

Safety comes first, I sure as hell don't expect you to go into a hold in the center of a CB. Am I going to report what happened? Sure. Am I going to itemize every minor regulation you broke? No, I'll report what was most important, and won't feel at all guilty about it, especially since we've been told not to include CARs references in our reports. You were saving your ass, and those of your passengers. If it comes out that weather was crappy to the point that you never should have taken off in the first place, then something else might come of it, but that's not for me to say. I cover my ass, by reporting what happened, and I try to cover yours, by explaining your actions.

And in all the cases that I'd mentioned previously, no aircraft had diverted from somewhere else. Center provided me with estimates on them 30 minutes before they were expected to land.

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:12 pm

Like Grimey said we aren't allowed to quote how they you broke CAR's we just in as simple as possible terms lay out what happened and then it goes to the Shift Supervisor at the appropriate ACC and the Shift Manager determines what category to file it under (emergency, regulatory infraction, debris falling from A/C ) then the report is forwared onto TC who shuffles it onto the proper inspector. Then it is further investigated from there by the inspectors, enforcemnet etc.. So if there is extrenuating circumstances the inspector i'm sure will throw it out like the situation stated above. they will look at the situation pull tapes and strips and radar tapes if neccesary from FSS and ATC then will talk to you and take any neccesary actions. So i'm sure you wouldn't be hurt in that situation or any other time if there is reasonable evidence to believe you followed an action for a reason.

rightseatwonder · Post by **rightseatwonder** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:51 pm

Somebody asked the float drivers to report their position and destination with reference to "the" airport. What if there isnt one around? I could tell you that according to my GPS we are 83 nm north west of kenora airport and going to a lake that is 65 nm northwest of the airport but then ill catch hell at the pub from the other float drivers for cloggin up the freq.

and the reason that we make those posts is because if you are going to be traffic to us down at our alts in an area of float operations then you should be outta IMC and looking out the windows on top of knowing where the fu%K you are.

but i will concede the point that has been made regarding 122.8

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:20 pm

" debris falling from A/C ) then the report is forwared onto TC who shuffles it onto the proper inspector. Then it is further investigated from there by the inspectors, enforcemnet etc.. So if there is extrenuating circumstances the inspector i'm sure will throw it out like the situation stated above. they will look at the situation pull tapes and strips and radar tapes if neccesary from FSS and ATC then will talk to you and take any neccesary actions. So i'm sure you wouldn't be hurt in that situation or any other time if there is reasonable evidence to believe you followed an action for a reason.
_________________
FSS: puting the Service back in Flight Services.... "

The above is the position of an unknown author.

The following is a statement of truth posted by . . outlining exactly how an Aviation Occurance Report filed by the FSS in Nanaimo B.C. was dealt with by Transport Canada.

A couple of summers ago I was conducting a routine test flight of a privately registered Cessna 150 that had just been signed out as airworthy after an annual inspection.

During the latter part of the landing roll out as I was exiting the runway I heard a strange noise coming from the area of the left wheel. I exited the runway and informed FSS that I was shutting down to investigate the noise.

I found that the wheel retaining nut on the left wheel axle had fallen off and the wheel was not secured to the axle, however it was safe to move to the hangar as the brake unit would keep the wheel from coming off the axle. The engineer inspected the axle, wheel and bearings and found them to be serviceable and they were reinstalled and the cotter pin installed....the cotter pin had not been installed during the replacement of the wheel and of course the rotation of said wheel resulted in the retaining nut spinning off. ( We had found the parts on the runway )

Several weeks later I received a call from TC, enforcement inquireing about the FSS report. I explained the issue to the inspector and he said that if they required anymore information they would get back to me.

A couple of weeks later I get a call from my regional M&M office, after explaining the issue once again I asked him if he wanted me to send the SDR that I had filled out and his response was no that would not be necessary as the incident was quite clear and did not need any further looking into....I had a funny feeling that this was not going to be the end of the problem so I asked for his name and a confirmation in writing that he did not need the SDR and he was satisfied that no further investigation was needed, he agreed to that and we ended the conversation.

About two weeks later I get a call from enforcement again and this time the inspector started off with an attitude that made me suspect that this was going to get worse, not better so I asked him for his name and telephone number, he informed me that he would ask the questions and I would answer them and why did need to know his name and phone number.

I informed him that it was so it would save time for the person in Ottawa to find him after I filed the harassement report that I was about to file with the appropriate office in ottawa..The conversation got tense and I got tired of listening to some self serving as.hole that was determined to try and make my life miserable over something that I had no control over.

I told him I would not accept this kind of idiotic behaviour from TC enforcement and if he ever contacted me again he had better have a good lawyer available to defend himself from a civil lawsuit for unlawful harassement.

I never ever heard from him again, although of course I know him very well and he is typical of the mentality that drives a wedge between those of us who are law abiding citizens and the regulator in their zeal to show how much power they wield, protected by a disfunctional management.

And that troops is the reality of what your life under this illustirous regulator has degenerated into.

How many of you working stiffs really believe these people are there to serve you the industry?

. ....Cat

T.C. · Post by **T.C.** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:56 am

Cat Driver wrote:" debris falling from A/C ) then the report is forwared onto TC who shuffles it onto the proper inspector. Then it is further investigated from there by the inspectors, enforcemnet etc.. So if there is extrenuating circumstances the inspector i'm sure will throw it out like the situation stated above. they will look at the situation pull tapes and strips and radar tapes if neccesary from FSS and ATC then will talk to you and take any neccesary actions. So i'm sure you wouldn't be hurt in that situation or any other time if there is reasonable evidence to believe you followed an action for a reason.
_________________
FSS: puting the Service back in Flight Services.... "

The above is the position of an unknown author.

The following is a statement of truth posted by . . outlining exactly how an Aviation Occurance Report filed by the FSS in Nanaimo B.C. was dealt with by Transport Canada.

A couple of summers ago I was conducting a routine test flight of a privately registered Cessna 150 that had just been signed out as airworthy after an annual inspection.

During the latter part of the landing roll out as I was exiting the runway I heard a strange noise coming from the area of the left wheel. I exited the runway and informed FSS that I was shutting down to investigate the noise.

I found that the wheel retaining nut on the left wheel axle had fallen off and the wheel was not secured to the axle, however it was safe to move to the hangar as the brake unit would keep the wheel from coming off the axle. The engineer inspected the axle, wheel and bearings and found them to be serviceable and they were reinstalled and the cotter pin installed....the cotter pin had not been installed during the replacement of the wheel and of course the rotation of said wheel resulted in the retaining nut spinning off. ( We had found the parts on the runway )

Several weeks later I received a call from TC, enforcement inquireing about the FSS report. I explained the issue to the inspector and he said that if they required anymore information they would get back to me.

A couple of weeks later I get a call from my regional M&M office, after explaining the issue once again I asked him if he wanted me to send the SDR that I had filled out and his response was no that would not be necessary as the incident was quite clear and did not need any further looking into....I had a funny feeling that this was not going to be the end of the problem so I asked for his name and a confirmation in writing that he did not need the SDR and he was satisfied that no further investigation was needed, he agreed to that and we ended the conversation.

About two weeks later I get a call from enforcement again and this time the inspector started off with an attitude that made me suspect that this was going to get worse, not better so I asked him for his name and telephone number, he informed me that he would ask the questions and I would answer them and why did need to know his name and phone number.

I informed him that it was so it would save time for the person in Ottawa to find him after I filed the harassement report that I was about to file with the appropriate office in ottawa..The conversation got tense and I got tired of listening to some self serving as.hole that was determined to try and make my life miserable over something that I had no control over.

I told him I would not accept this kind of idiotic behaviour from TC enforcement and if he ever contacted me again he had better have a good lawyer available to defend himself from a civil lawsuit for unlawful harassement.

I never ever heard from him again, although of course I know him very well and he is typical of the mentality that drives a wedge between those of us who are law abiding citizens and the regulator in their zeal to show how much power they wield, protected by a disfunctional management.

And that troops is the reality of what your life under this illustirous regulator has degenerated into.

How many of you working stiffs really believe these people are there to serve you the industry?

. ....Cat

Lmao nice work. What was the name of the inspector? It would make my day if it is who I think it is lol.

The Mole · Post by **The Mole** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:21 pm

Well this is a great topic. I also fly in a helicopter in fort mac. My complant with you fixed wing guy's is why o why did you give every gas plant a vhf radio. I don't really care that your to lazey to walk to the plant to get a truck.......... I thought you needede a radio license to talk on a aircraft frequences. The other thing i brodcasting what channel your are on is great. My aircraft can montiore 5 channels at once. 1 VHF and 4 FM. When somecalls it nice to what channel they called you on.

JetJordan · Post by **JetJordan** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:45 pm

sounds like mr. chopper boy, has a little issue with himself..hmm. Complaining about our phraseology...I hate those fixed wing "air canada" boys, kinda attitude..You are so jealous and envious that we fly heavy metal and you fly loads of dogshit and logs from probablly a small, isolated, inbreeding, cold drunk town. So next time you want to prove a point, try making the real issue the centre of your topic, rather then your deep-rooted "I WISH I WAS A FIXED WING PILOT, IM SO JEALOUS, IM AN IDIOT" . I would say, the phraseology blab, was not the real issue, rather a symptom of your jealous hatred of airline types and white collar fliers.
You could always fly for helijet.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:49 pm

bigfssguy wrote:

To lazy. =)

So, what if, I say I'm 1 minute away, you write me up, but as soon as you hang up to write me up, I tell you I'm executing plan Bravo, and I enter your zone in 5.... =)

Can I sue NavCanada for slander/liber(whatever), since it's saying I broke the rules when I didn't?

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:38 pm

Your more than welcome to try and sue the company. Not really my issue. The hundred or so lawyers that NC keeps on th payroll can handle that. I only talk to the planes and do weather obs and try to keep the wife happy. Mine is a simple life. But remember if you break the rules knowingly or unknowingly i am obligated to write the AOR (aviation occurence report) and pass it on to NavCanada. The thing that really surprises me is when i write up someone they get mad at me like i was the one flying the plane and broke the rule. Though it isn;t required i always tell someone i am doing an AOR on them so they can have a heads up. This quite often makes a lot more work for me since i get an irate pilot asking why and usually followed by a phone call in which at first they are very nice trying to suck up to me so that i don;t write them up then it usually goes down hill with them whining about how it is so unfair, they didn't do it, they don't want to have to deal with it etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that if you break a rule we have to pass the report on. Yelling at the FSS will not change the fact that it was your error. I would like to thank the pilot earlier this week flying a float plane out of YYQ who i had to write up for an infraction. He never yelled or got upset he only said roger. When back inbound i told him the wording of the report and he said thanks for the heads up and that was it. Nice to see that at times some people can be level headed.

Pachanga · Post by **Pachanga** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:46 pm

The Mole wrote:Well this is a great topic. I also fly in a helicopter in fort mac. My complant with you fixed wing guy's is why o why did you give every gas plant a vhf radio. I don't really care that your to lazey to walk to the plant to get a truck.......... I thought you needede a radio license to talk on a aircraft frequences. The other thing i brodcasting what channel your are on is great. My aircraft can montiore 5 channels at once. 1 VHF and 4 FM. When somecalls it nice to what channel they called you on.

I'm sorry buddy but you have the worst spelling and sentence structure I have EVER seen. Either take off the gloves while you are typing or go back to grade 3.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:37 pm

This FSS, Radio procedure has only been driving me nuts for forty something years, so without ten pages of examples, here are two points.

Pinkus.....................I hope when taxiing and you transmit on 126.7 you are simultaneously monitoring the MF, because this simple "safe" thing can block transmission by a conflicting aircraft. In this case, a probably unnecessary "safe" action can get you and the other aircraft in a lot of trouble. I have seen this happen. Also, your 126.7 transmission may not be heard by someone 5+ nm out. In a few minutes, when your transmission might be more timely (post takeoff), then your chance of making a good contact is better.

I have said before that 5nm MF is inadequate with the speed of aircraft these days.

Hedley.....................Sometimes FSS can be a problem. It usually only happens with a very few FSS personnel. It is true they make mistakes, but a busy FSS is a confusing environment. Certainly, they can look out of the window and "unofficially" give the WX when you need it. Better them than the AUTO WX reports. There are more horror stories on that than you may believe. Perhaps you have not been around long enough to know they were withdrawn from service after the initial installations because the only WX they knew was S*1t.

bumffs · Post by **bumffs** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:29 pm

Some people are not capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time and yet the same individuals given a radio will try to talk on two frequencies at the same time as not listening on either,YOU know who you are numbnuts,
It is a safety issue to listen to the ATF when below 3000' or 5nm from the aerodrome.OH yeah and don't forget to look outside now and again you might just like the view.

The Mole · Post by **The Mole** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:09 pm

So much anger, so much rage, dam that rap music.

What's it like like jetjordan, dreaming of "flying a cargo plane, full of rubber dog shit out of hong kong"

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:28 pm

snaproll20, why do you say "unofficial" weather

Trans Pound Her · Post by **Trans Pound Her** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:06 pm

"Conflict please advise"

For those of you that don't like to hear it, here's why some say it.

The airspace that we operate in below FL180 consists of class G airspace.
The class G airspace can be further divided into two sections; 1- ATF corridor class G (ground to 12499'), 2- class G (12500' to 17999').

Potential problems exists when transitioning area 1 to 2 or 2 to 1 because area 1 does not utilize the same frequency as area 2.

Here is an example of a conflict:

East bound aircraft A is level at FL210 on center frequency monitors area 2 frequnecy in preperation for the descend below FL180.

West bound aircraft B departs aerodrome in area 1, broadcasts on area 1 frequency and monitors area 2 frequency in preperation for flight above 12500'.

Aircraft A get cleared outside controlled airspace below FL180 and broadcasts a position report in the transition descending through FL180.
Aircraft B does not hear the position report because the crew is busy passing over arrival and departure time on company frequency.

In less than 5 minutes from top of descent/begining of take off, both aircraft are on a collision course and neither is aware of each others presence.

Both aircraft approach the transition zone between area 1 and 2. Aircraft B broadcasts a position report through the transition on area 1 frequency but does not specify what frequency they are on. Aircraft A responds and advises potential conflict, aircraft B does not respond.
After flipping through frequencies a few times and a little help from TCAS the conflict is resolved.

"Advisory on 126.7 FABC is in a descent through FL180 60 miles west of Airport X landing 09 at 2030z conflict advise FABC on 126.7"

It takes about 10 seconds to say...the "conflict" part take less than 3 seconds to say!
In this case, the statement of what frequency you are on would have helped speed up the conflict resolution.

One last note about calling FSS 5 minutes prior to the start of an instrument approach procedure;
We fly to several MF airports that are less the 40 miles from our departure point, our time en-route can be as little as 8 minutes!!
Sometimes, calling 5 minutes prior to the start of an instrument approach procedure is just impossible.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:10 am

Trans Pound Her wrote: One last note about calling FSS 5 minutes prior to the start of an instrument approach procedure;
We fly to several MF airports that are less the 40 miles from our departure point, our time en-route can be as little as 8 minutes!!
Sometimes, calling 5 minutes prior to the start of an instrument approach procedure is just impossible.

IFR or VFR, though? For VFR, there's some sort of "if able" wording associated with the 5 minute call. Within reason, if you don't make the call, I'm likely to assume you weren't able.

Again, I'm not saying that the rules always make sense, or that the enforcement mechanisms are just, all I was saying was that if you make a call, don't make it obvious that you're breaking CARs.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:41 pm

lifssister:

"unofficial" is where the FSS specialist looks out the window and tells you he sees something other than the published weather. ie. "blue sky to the west" when the airport Automatic is reporting "zero zero" in fog.

while your fuel gauge is close to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Specialist!

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:00 pm

Okay snaproll20, I see your reasoning, I guess, if you're at an airport with AWOS. Just sounded odd to me since at my airport, whatever I say the weather is, IS the official weather, whether it's been transmitted on the "official" weather circuit to Environment Canada or not. Not too sure about the AWOS thing, but I thought that FSS or contract observers augment ir correct it, and their word is the "official" weather, too. Could be wrong, though, since I don't have to deal with that peice of c@#p.

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:10 pm

Most AWOS's are used as a tool not the definative weather. I have used a new generation one in Terrace BC when i was there and they were actually pretty good but by no means were they the final word. We have one of the really really old ones here in Churchill and it is terrible. You can have one little whiff of .. cloud in a clear sky and it will call 003 OVC. But unless you have AUTO in front of the winds in the METAR you will have an observer providing a real ob. SNAPROLL20 if you are flying into an airport and you have an FSS or ATC giving you an "unofficial" weather ob it means there is someone there that is doing a manned observation. Meaning they may be using an AWOS but it is a real ob your getting. The unofficial ob is just the FSS or ATC helping you out.

Radio Proceedure

sour grapes