Even when I use a SD generated PLOG, I will always write down expected frequencies by hand.
I dont recall a time when SD has been wrong on flights I have done, but SD will often list about 20 or 30 frequencies even for a 1 hour flight. In reality, I will actually use two or three and I prefer to make the prediction which frequency I will need to use.
If you can’t tune it, it can’t be right – unless the ATIS is being transmitted also on a VOR ident frequency but even then it isn’t right to show it as “ATIS” because not everybody flying VFR will have a NAV receiver.
There are multiple airport which use ATIS on NAV, and also some that use ATIS on NAV only. To my best knowledge, Rotterdam EHRD has only ATIS on 110.40
when there are multiple frequencies in the AIP, they should favor the one that is in the VHF range.
This doesn’t reliably work IMO, you really need to print all ATIS frequencies.
LSZH has two ATIS frequencies in the VHF COM band, one for IFR arrivals, and one for IFR departures and VFR operations. (Which is IMO quite stupid as the IFR dep ATIS has very low output power, which together with the fact that VFR must fly low due to the TMA and no entry clearances means that the range is almost zero)
EDLN has it ATIS on the VOR Frequency, too. I like it, because I don’t have to work that much with my only COM in some planes and if I want to go there, I tend to have the VOR tuned in anyway. The point of more and more VOR receivers disappearing out of VFR aircraft is valid though.
122,1 MHz is most definitely never an ATIS Frequency in Germany. It’s military ATC.
122,1 MHz is most definitely never an ATIS Frequency in Germany. It’s military ATC.
Same thing here in BE.
As for ATIS on the VOR’s: quite a common thing in BE.
EBBR:
Only the last is a comm’s frq, five are VOR’s.
EBCI and EBLG also have the ATIS broadcast on their VOR’s, plus on a comm’s frequency.
Malmö (ESMS) used to broadcast ATIS on the on-field VOR (112.0), but a number of years ago had it changed to a COM frequency. I wonder if any recommandations exist whether to use COM frequencies if possible.
Obviously:
ATIS on a VOR frequency is an advantage if you have a VOR reciever and only one COM.
ATIS on a COM frequency is an advantage if you do not have a VOR reciever.
I suspect that a digital NAV-tuner like the GNS530 or G1000 would have trouble auto-identing a NAV broadcasting ATIS instead of a morse identifier. Whether that small problem is in the equation somewhere, I have no clue.
Quote
If you can’t tune it, it can’t be right – unless the ATIS is being transmitted also on a VOR ident frequency but even then it isn’t right to show it as “ATIS” because not everybody flying VFR will have a NAV receiver.
sorry Peter, that statement does not make sense – why should it not be designated ATIS just because pilot Joe does not have the required equipment?
Because it is not required equipment?
That does not make sense to me either. The ATIS is broadcast on 2 frequencies. Just because you do not have the equipment to receive one of those frequencies it does not affect the information broadcast. As has been pointed out by other posters there are numerous examples where the ATIS is only available on. NAV frequency.
ATIS on a VOR frequency is an advantage if you have a VOR reciever and only one COM.
ATIS on a COM frequency is an advantage if you do not have a VOR reciever.
I don’t understand the logic that would say ATIS on a nav frequency makes sense if you have a single com radio – I listen to ATIS before I talk to a ground station, not simultaneously. There’s no great problem without being out of voice contact with some ground station for just a few seconds.
In the case of having no ATIS on a com frequency, it seems to create a problem for aircraft without a VOR receiver in exchange for reducing tax burden – which in that case is the primary motivation.
