New AIM Changes

[poadeleted20]

A quick review of the "changes" page to the new AIM notes the following items of significance:

1. The new AIM changes specifically tell you not to use "Any traffic in the area, please advise" under any circumstances.


2. The horrible wording instituted a year ago about when PT's are required has been replaced with the very clear:

"a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish</IMG> the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol "No PT" is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix."

​

3. The question of when you can bypass a HPILPT when given the approach clearance after entering the hold has been more clearly answered by the establishment of specific criteria -- you must be established on the inbound course after executing the entry, and you must be at the prescribed altitude for that segment.

These are all items that have been debated on this site in the past -- one hopes the new language makes clear what is expected and ends all the debate.

 

[RogerT]

"1. The new AIM changes specifically tell you not to use "Any traffic in the area, please advise" under any circumstances."

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes that one to go away. I hear
it constantly around here .. and the biggest offenders are biz aircraft
coming into our uncontrolled fields.

 

[jesse]

Same. I hear a lot of bizjets saying "any traffic in the area please advise" when they are departing or arriving at an uncontrolled field.

 

[Greebo]

I wonder how many people will respond with:
"Bugsmasher 12345, recommend you get a new copy of the AIM and read section x-x-x" (cant remember the ##)

Gonna be some types just WAITING to jump on others with this and clutter up the radio.

 

[rpadula]

Same. I hear a lot of bizjets saying "any traffic in the area please advise" when they are departing or arriving at an uncontrolled field.

Yeah, they may be saying "any traffic in the area please advise", but what they really mean is "I'm bigger, faster, and more important than you because I'm burning pounds of jet fuel by the second."

Kind of like "excuse me" now means "get the **** out of my way!"


-Rich

 

[mikea]

"1. The new AIM changes specifically tell you not to use "Any traffic in the area, please advise" under any circumstances."

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes that one to go away.

I'll take "10 years to never" for $500 Alex.

I'm "with you."

 

[gismo]

Yeah, they may be saying "any traffic in the area please advise", but what they really mean is "I'm bigger, faster, and more important than you because I'm burning pounds of jet fuel by the second."

Kind of like "excuse me" now means "get the **** out of my way!"


-Rich

Rich, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts (wait, that's not such a great deal these days is it?) that most of the pilots chanting "... please advise" aren't thinking that way at all, and actually (incorrectly IMO) thinking this is the proper way to end an initial position announcement. More likely than not, they were taught to do this by their IR CFI or someone else in authority along the way. I've even heard some say it's in their part 135 procedure manual.

My real point is that we "enlightened" pilots shouldn't be so quick to assign all that negative attitude to the less enlightened ones just because they use inappropriate phraseology (or don't conform to our own pattern entry practice). Encountering someone with a truly beligerent attitude is one thing, but we can all get along better if we don't assume the worst WRT another pilot's spoken transmissions.

 

[rpadula]

My real point is that we "enlightened" pilots shouldn't be so quick to assign all that negative attitude to the less enlightened ones just because they use inappropriate phraseology (or don't conform to our own pattern entry practice).

Lance, don't get me wrong; I just said that coz the jet pilots seem to always be in a hurry. And I'm not perfect either. Last year, I started making myself say "negative contact" (instead of "looking") to traffic callouts while flying on IFR flight plans after a big red board discussion over that terminology!

On to the next nit-pick topic, I suppose.


-Rich

 

[gismo]

Lance, don't get me wrong; I just said that coz the jet pilots seem to always be in a hurry. And I'm not perfect either.

OK, but I do see some folks taking one ill advised action and jumping to the conclusion that it was a deliberate result of an offensive attitude and a good predictor of other selfish behaviors and I think that's just as wrong as the precipitating offense.

Last year, I started making myself say "negative contact" (instead of "looking") to traffic callouts while flying on IFR flight plans after a big red board discussion over that terminology!

Same here actually. And I'm still working on it.

On to the next nit-pick topic, I suppose.

Sure, that's what webboards are for, right?

 

[jbelew]

Be it right or wrong, here is my offical DE notifacation.

The inane practice of using the phrase "any traffic please advise" has become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a "do not do this" in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:

Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. 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.

If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one online at:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/

Bob Linenweber, ASI
314-890-4864

Another item for my oral checK list

Jim

 

[RogerT]

My real point is that we "enlightened" pilots shouldn't be so quick to assign all that negative attitude to the less enlightened ones just because they use inappropriate phraseology

You know I could really care less about phraseology .. the important
thing is that someone lets me know they're there. I personally have never
used "any traffic in the area ...." or heaven forbid .. "with you" and I try to use standard phraseology because it's short and mostly habit after all
this time.

But if someone came into our airport and said "Hey, y'all, I'm our here about
5 miles east fixin' to land" .. I'd know what they meant.

RT

 

[poadeleted20]

I like that word -- "inane." It sums it up so perfectly...

"silly and pointless, as in : Those two students wasted our class time by asking inane questions." (www.business-words.com/dictionary/I.html)

 

[spiderweb]

Thanks for posting this, Ron.

 

[AirBaker]

Lance, don't get me wrong; I just said that coz the jet pilots seem to always be in a hurry.

I think 'hurry' is what we observe... its just that they're eating up ground a whole lot faster. I'm sure ego plays a part some of the time, but It doesn't bother me.

I often get in front of the MD-80 that comes into Laughlin/Bullhead after hours. I just pull up the gear and expedite on in...

 

[C-1 PILOT]

Lance, don't get me wrong; I just said that coz the jet pilots seem to always be in a hurry. And I'm not perfect either. Last year, I started making myself say "negative contact" (instead of "looking") to traffic callouts while flying on IFR flight plans after a big red board discussion over that terminology!

On to the next nit-pick topic, I suppose.


-Rich

Rich, isn't the standard phraseology "Searching For Traffic" when asked by ATC? Or was that changed to "Negative Traffic"? Hope this isn't nit-picking.....LOL

 

[cherokeeflyboy]

Rich, isn't the standard phraseology "Searching For Traffic" when asked by ATC? Or was that changed to "Negative Traffic"? Hope this isn't nit-picking.....LOL

Standard phraseology is either "negative contact" or "traffic in sight".
Nothing less nothing more.

 

[poadeleted20]

Standard phraseology is either "negative contact" or "traffic in sight".

Unless you're military, in which case it is "Tally" or "No joy," respectively. Every controller I've ever dealt with understood both the civilian and military terminology, and doesn't really care which you use.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Unless you're military, in which case it is "Tally" or "No joy," respectively. Every controller I've ever dealt with understood both the civilian and military terminology, and doesn't really care which you use.

So the AIM is the AIM unless it's not. Not picking a fight, just finding it funny. :<)

Len

P.S. While I have used No Joy I have never ever used the phrase Tally or Tally Ho and never will unless I find myself hunting fox in England or have been transported back in time to fly a Spitfire over London during WWII.

 

[poadeleted20]

So the AIM is the AIM unless it's not. Not picking a fight, just finding it funny. :<)

That's not what I said. I said the military uses different terms than the FAA teaches. The military doesn't use the AIM; they use the JANAP's and their own service-specific aviation manuals and regulations for terminology. The military is DoD and FAA is DoT, but there are agreements between the FAA and DoD to accept non-FAA procedures from military aircraft.

P.S. While I have used No Joy I have never ever used the phrase Tally or Tally Ho and never will unless I find myself hunting fox in England or have been transported back in time to fly a Spitfire over London during WWII.

Whatever. The military's pubs call for its use, military crews use it, and FAA controllers understand it.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Whatever. The military's pubs call for its use, military crews use it, and FAA controllers understand it.

Ron,

I misunderstood. When you first said the FAA controllers understand the terms I thought you were suggesting that it was fine for civilian pilot use.

As for military pilot use...I figure someone flying a military aircraft has to follow the military rules. For myself, it is very unlikely that I'll ever find myself flying a military aircraft so I probably won't ever be in a position to say Tally Ho without it sounding a little silly.

Len

 

[poadeleted20]

I misunderstood. When you first said the FAA controllers understand the terms I thought you were suggesting that it was fine for civilian pilot use.

I won't say it's "fine for civilian use," as those terms are not in the AIM P/CG, but there's nothing wrong with using them since the pilot concerned and the controller both know what they mean, and that's what communication is all about.

As for military pilot use...I figure someone flying a military aircraft has to follow the military rules. For myself, it is very unlikely that I'll ever find myself flying a military aircraft so I probably won't ever be in a position to say Tally Ho without it sounding a little silly.

Understood. After 15 years of military flying, it became habit for me, so I don't feel silly (or think I sound silly -- I certainly don't think anyone else sounds silly for saying "Tally" or "No Joy") for using it, and at this point, there's just no motivation to expend the effort to change that now-30-year habit. Further, I've heard pilots call "traffic [scratchy] in [scratchy] sight," been unable to tell from my end whether they were saying "traffic in sight" or "traffic not in sight," and wondered if the controller had similar trouble determining what the pilot said. OTOH, you can't confuse "Tally" with "No Joy" unless the radio is totally unreadable, in which case it doesn't matter what terminology you use.

BTW, no US military-trained pilot says "Tally Ho" -- it's just "Tally."

 

[cherokeeflyboy]

in [scratchy] sight," been unable to tell from my end whether they were saying "traffic in sight" or "traffic not in sight," and wondered if the controller had similar trouble t terminology you use."

Me thinks thats why we should use PROPER terminology ie: negitave contact.
no ambiguity there.

 

[AirBaker]

I think Tally Ho is fun to say... Hmm... I'm going to use it around the house today.

 

[Pilawt]

I think Tally Ho is fun to say... Hmm... I'm going to use it around the house today.

That's right up there with "Yoiks! The fox!"

-- Pilawt

 

[etsisk]

That's right up there with "Yoiks! The fox!" - Pilawt

Hey, can we say, "Yoiks! The traffic!!"

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Be it right or wrong, here is my offical DE notifacation.

The inane practice of using the phrase "any traffic please advise" has become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a "do not do this" in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:

Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. 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.

If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one online at:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/

Bob Linenweber, ASI
314-890-4864

When I was at AUW yesterday, I saw that the above is printed and taped to the FBO counter.