I'm a low time PPL. In my personal opinion, practice pans, perhaps one or two a year, are a good thing. Practice in a procedure that builds confidence removes one more item from the pucker factor list if it does all go wrong and lets your brain focus on the situation.
The D&D cell are always happy to assist and I know that they welcome it as it gives them practice as much as it does me. They are always excellent and it's comforting to know that they are there if I ever need them for real.
However, I know that many pro pilots do not approve of this. I am aware that they are often required to monitor guard and that practice pans can be a source of noise but is it really that disturbing? I've even had that terse "transmitting on guard" broadcast which to me is a) entirely rhetorical and b) great irony.
If something genuine crops up on guard, then of course I'd shut up and continue on my way but are there any genuine reasons for amateurs to not practice? Surely it's better for all users of the sky to be as good as they can?
I presume you are from UK since it is the only country I know of that uses practice pans.
Basically, ICAO (ICAO Annex 10, Volume V, § 22.214.171.124.1) states that the emergency frequency 121.5 MHz (sometimes called "guard") shall be used only for genuine emergencies. So typically any other use is considered misuse.
However, countries can file deviations from this rule and publish these deviations in their AIP. One such example is the UK, where 121.5 can be used for practice PAN calls to ensure pilot familiarity with the process.
Pilots not familiar with the situation in the UK sometimes frown upon this use, and as you mention, jump in with the dreaded "transmitting on guard" sentence. But those doing that seem to have the same reaction when a real emergency is going on.
If you are flying in the UK and want to practice an emergency situation you are encouraged to do so by the D&D cells. But remember to ask permission first:
A/C > London Centre, callsign, request Practice Pan
If they have the time to accommodate you, the reply will be something like
London > callsign, Practice Pan acknowledged, continue when ready
And remember, it is not only a practice for you, but also for controllers. There is a benefit for everyone flying around.
I'm a low time PPL. In my personal opinion, practice pans, perhaps one or two a year, are a good thing. Practice in a procedure that builds confidence removes one more item from the pucker factor list if it does all go wrong and lets your brain focus on the situation. The D&D cell are always happy to assist and I know that they welcome it as it gives them practice as much as it does me... rhetorical and b) great irony. If something genuine crops up on guard, then of course I'd shut up and continue on my way but are there any genuine reasons for amateurs to not practice? Surely it's better
that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the required training of section 61.93(b)(1). I have determined that he/she is proficient to practice solo takeoffs and landings at (airport name). The takeoffs and landings at (airport name) are subject to the following conditions: (List any applicable conditions or limitations.) Emphasis on the word TO, in (1). I interpret this as "You must... the 25nm part except in title). The situation it is used in most commonly is the towered-field TO/LDG practice. There is a towered field about 10 miles north of our airport where we all go to practice
Recently I was checking in to a flight and was asked if I'd like a window or aisle seat as usual and choose a window seat. I was then told that there are no more window seats available but I could get an aisle seat without someone sitting next to me and then just take that window seat. The plane was an ATR-72 so the rows were 2+2 seats. I know about weight distribution to the front/back but I couldn't come up for a good reason to do this. What could be the reason for not giving me that apparently free window seat right away?
, and with good cause): "Tower; Arrow-23: Did you forget about me?" only to have the tower come back with a snappy and frustrated: "I'm doing the best I can. I'll get you all out of here as fast as I... the respect they deserve as hard working professionals. One common scenario is when I'm ready to go, along with multiple other planes, all coming from various taxiways. I know the tower tries hard to clear... to sequence me in, I stay on an extended the downwind leg for a long time, waiting to be cleared before turning base. But if they really did get busy and overlook me, I can end up well out of position
A few times, when flying into SFO, me and my fellow passengers were informed that due to foggy weather one of two parallel runways there is closed, causing delays. So, a few questions: Why can only one runway be used during fog? During an instrument landing, if the instruments are precise enough to land the plane exactly in the middle of one runway, then surely they are precise enough to differentiate between two runways? Is this standard practice in all airports or something specific to SFO? Is there some minimum distance between parallel runways above which it is safe to keep them both
Since the retirement of the Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144, there aren't any civilian airplanes (passengers carrier or business jet) flying supersonic. I heard that Dassault and SAAB had rather advanced studies on this topic but abandoned them due to various problems. Does anyone know if any aircraft manufacturer plans to develop one?
If someone does a contract flight, or a mechanic does contract maintenance for an aircraft owner and they refuse to pay after the fact, what options do they have to "encourage" the owner to pay? One of the big problems is that this tends to happen informally: Owner: "Hey, can you do this flight for me?" Pilot: "Sure, I charge $xxx." " Owner: "Okay, great. See you on Monday morning at 9:00." Pilot: "Sounds good, see you then." So they show up, do the flight, send an invoice, and wait. And wait.. And wait.... After a few weeks or 30 days, they send the invoice again. Give
So the EGT gauge on the 172 (and other cessna singles?) doesn't have a numerical scale on it, just markings every 25 degrees. I know that one is supposed to use the EGT for leaning operations (ROP, LOP, what have you), but it's always stymied me that there are no actual numbers on it. Any reason why this is so?
to actually be working or engaged. Assuming that my MEL allows me to defer the autopilot and still fly, can I fly in RVSM airspace? Some people however say that if you are in RVSM airspace...FAR Part 91, Appendix G, Section 2 says: (c) Altitude-keeping equipment: All aircraft. To approve an aircraft group or a nongroup aircraft, the Administrator must find that the aircraft meets the following requirements: ... (2) The aircraft must be equipped with at least one automatic altitude control system that controls the aircraft altitude Note that it does not say
Airplanes with propellers were invented a long time ago. After that, jet engines came into existence. My question is: why do we still have propeller engines? The reasons I can think of are: They are cheaper; They cannot achieve very high speed; They are not very noisy (though not always). Besides these, are there any other reasons general aviation airplanes built nowadays don't have jet engines?