CAN WE TALK?
Can we ever! Just tune in 122.8 on a nice weekend and you will hear lots of pilots talking, but many of them are not communicating very well.
The use of the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) for traffic information is a great tool when it is used correctly. Sadly it too often sounds like channel 17 on the CB radio. For those of you that did not participate in the CB world, channel 17 was, and perhaps still is, the trucker’s channel. It spawned phrases such as “10-4 good buddy” and “roger that “. Rather than traffic separation, the CB was most often used to locate the Smokey’s i.e. the highway patrol.
Aviation communication on the other hand has a greater safety mission and therefore needs to be more precise and less prone to misunderstanding. So when the CTAF begins to sound more like the CB it not only makes us sound unprofessional but it also reduces airport safety.
Remember, with the CTAF, only one person can talk at a time, so the less we talk the more opportunity for someone else to report their position. When a pilot makes unnecessary calls, in my opinion, they are actually creating a safety hazard as they could be blocking another pilot’s legitimate position report.
The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) provides the guidance for the proper use of the CTAF. It tells us when arriving at an airport to make a call 10 miles out. A good airman will be listening to the CTAF much farther out . If we have been paying attention, we already know what runway is in use and have a general idea of traffic in the area. So we don’t need to ask those questions.
Over two years ago the AIM was revised to say that the call “any traffic in the area please advise”, is not an appropriate call and should not be used under any circumstances, yet I hear this call on the CTAF almost every day. Think about it, if no one answers that call you still don’t know anything useful, and if more than one answers, you only get garble. If you have been listening to the CTAF for a few minutes, you will already know if there is traffic in the area.
That 10 mile call should look something like this “Pleasantville traffic, Cessna 3456Z 10 miles North, 2000, landing, Pleasantville”. Please don’t report over the freeway or the hospital or some other landmark that means nothing to the transient pilot. Check this – The next call is not until entering downwind. Not every mile or two as you approach the airport. Naturally if there is a potential conflict with other traffic additional reports are appropriate but, random blind calls just clog up the frequency.
So according to the AIM, for landing, we will make only five calls: Ten miles out, entering downwind, base, final and leaving the runway. Departing, just two, before taxiing, and again before taxiing on the runway for departure.
If two pilots want to talk to each other while airborne, please don’t use the CTAF frequency. Even if you think there is no conflict at your airport, you may be blocking a legitimate call at another airport using the same frequency. There are proper frequencies available for plane to plane communications.
In the CTAF world, I firmly believe less is more, so I challenge you to dust off that AIM and review the appropriate CTAF calls and try to make them just as described on your next flight. If you can do it, you will sound more professional and will be making a contribution to safer operations at your airport.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Your article had me very interested, so I did a little investigating and found that the exact wording in the AIM CH4 Section 1-9, d, 2 is:
An inbound aircraft should initiate contact approximately 10 miles from the airport, reporting aircraft identification and type, altitude, location relative to the airport, intentions (landing or over flight), possession of the automated weather, and request airport advisory or airport information service.
What caught my eye is that the AIM says to request airport advisory or airport information service, which ultimately conflicts with your article. I understand that CTAF’s get clobbered and we in the military are notorious for doing it too. However, requesting airport advisories is smart and just plain good business, especially to build situational awareness for you and anyone else in the area.
AIM isn’t wrong. The very act of announcing your position is the request for any traffic in the area to advise of their position and intent, therefore it is redundant. Short, accurate, and to the point is what ant radio call should be.
Hi,
I’m doing English classes for non native pilots and ATCs and I find the ideas about communication discipline in your article highly useful. Can I pass it on to my students?
Thanks
Mandy
Radio discipline can be difficult without some practice, which isn’t always given during primary instruction. A lot of pilots cross over into amateur radio (I’m KW0U), and that helps. But a good review on procedures and what radios can and can’t do could be part of training, especially for those learning in uncontrolled fields. It is different from just talking (and how many people know to say “niner” and why that’s used?)
1) Please post the appropriate air-to-air freq(s) in your article. I think 123.75 is one of them, but not sure.
2) AIM is wrong. Saying ” … any traffic please advise” is a good idea. If aircraft A gives a position report, then aircraft B gives a position report without the above statement, the assumption by aircraft A is that their report has been heard by aircraft B. Instead, aircraft B could have just tuned in to the frequency, right after aircraft A made their report. Aircraft A assumes aircraft B heard their report, and aircraft B assumes no one else is near since no one responds (Yes, assumptions = bad). Plus, as any psychologist will tell you, ASKING for help gets a lot more response than not. Many pilots are apprehensive about talking on the radio, but if you ask them to, they will. Communication is good!
By the way, can we PLEASE make radio calls, and their associated expenses (buy one, use it properly, and maintain it, please), MANDATORY? Please!
3) Can we get some more frequency separation from nearby fields? A jet travelling to an uncontrolled field at way over 300 knots (or maybe “just” 250K below 10) can hear a lot of other transmissions, and thus the “garble”. Those jets also need to make more than the 10-mile-out call. By the time that is made, a light piston on the takeoff roll for pattern work will become a hazard on the downwind or base. It can be difficult for these jet drivers to listen the the CTAF, run checklists, communicate with ATC, maintain overall situational awareness, communicate between each other as required, and maintain the added safety of a two-pilot cockpit, all at the same time – especially in less than CAVU, but still VFR, conditions.
What we need is MORE communication, CLEAR and ACCURATE communication, and the ability/requirement to do so, not less.
And as the article said, keep the non-essential stuff on another freq.
Thanks!
Hi Christine,
Yes – you can include the contents of the blog post as long as you print the link back to http://www.pilotworkshop.com/blog
Jeff
Wally – I’d like to reprint this article in our EAA chapter’s newsletter. It would be properly attributed and link back to this website. Is that okay?
Here’s another good post on this topic. Even more dramatic, but same good points.
http://cockpitintelligence.blogspot.com/2009/06/ctaf-abuse.html
Bill