Standard R/T... or not?

[fireflybob]

Talking about the UK and ab initio, PPL etc.

Where I do a little bit of flying instruction in the Midlands some of the guys are being taught to add the RW designator at the end of the downwind call, eg. "Downwind Runway 20".

This is non standard RT according to the CAP and I see little point in doing so. Indeed the A/G operator advised me that an aircraft recently landed on the wrong runway despite calling downwind for the runway in use.

I make these comments against a background of "Joe taught me to do this" or "Brian thinks we ought to do it this way". Instead of the standard call "Ready for Departure" we now get a running commentary.."at the hold Runway 27 ready to enter back track, line up etc etc..."

Yes I agree that at an uncontrolled aerodrome there may be (rare) cases where it is good airmanship to announce what you are doing to all and sundry but it's an uphill battle getting people to stick to standard RT procedures and we all know the dangers and drawbacks of not adhering to them, don't we?

I would be interested to hear any comments and also input from ATC.

[Stan Evil]

I fear an awful lot of this verbal diarrhoea (thank you OED) comes from people trained in the US where the motto is 'never use one word when a paragraph will do'!

[A and C]

It,s not just an american problem to often i hear people reading back all that they hear and not just the things that require a read back and this is not just a pilot problem some ATC units are as bad , but the real problem is that so much importance is placed on "the radio" that some students treat a radio failure as a grade A full blown emergency and not as the minor irritation that it should be.

You should hear the rumpus when an aircraft joins the CCT non radio and as for light signals how meny of you can remember them ?.

Once you can convince people that the radio is nice to have but not nessasery then they feel a lot less inclined to speek forever.

[Lew Ton]

I'm with you, fireflybob, the minimum RT the better. Certainly don't add to it for the sake of it, unless, of course, it is deemed necessary in the circumstances, and that comes with experience.

[Noggin]

The question is "Who" is requiring these calls? An A/G op cannot do so. CAP452 the Aeronautical Radio Station Guide does not require it and neither does the law.

[Stan Woolley]

Hi Bob

'Downwind ' tells other aircraft nothing about the guys position, is he even at this airfield? 'Left downwind 20' says a lot more for very little extra talk.

Even at the big airports the above applies, at the end of the day there have been Mid-Air collisions in controlled airspace too.
Situational awareness.

Not completely by the book but sensible IMHO.

[Noggin]

You are always LEFT downwind unless you say otherwise!

[Stan Woolley]

Well I learned to fly abroad so that's where I learned my bad habits.

If you want verbose try: 'Newcastle approach this is Grogbird 123 passing Flight level niner zero descending altitude six thousand feet on QNH one zero two five,Radar heading two five zero, speed two-fifty with information Bravo,Boeing 737'. :eek:

[fireflybob]

Flanker, thanks for your input.

You may have a valid point but, as you say, it's "IMHO" - we all have opinions but should we not be adhering to the standard phraseology or if we think it's wrong then we should lobby CAA etc to change the procedures?

I just think it's a bad example to set to students to imply that it's ok to depart from the standard phraseology.

[Spotter]

My vote goes to Downwind Left/Right runway (whatever).

It should help to ensure that you are where you think you are, and also where I think you are. Two useful concepts in my opinion.

[Stan Woolley]

Bob I accept it is not ideal and as a great believer in standardisation I feel I may be taking a bit of a hypocritical stance, especially talking about early training.

However my feeling is that while we can get pedantic over some things I think the business of airmanship is getting lost in trivia a lot of the time,perhaps the guy landing on the wrong runway is such an example.As a practical operator I stand by my view, in fact I can't recall the last time I made the call in question as I am not current in light aircraft.

What I do know is that the guys you are teaching who go on to fly for the airlines or military will end up operating in places where the niceties of UK RT will be a luxury they rarely enjoy.


For the other gentleman it is nice to know somebody is on a LEFT downwind after making his 'downwind' call- but you still don't know where to look for him unless you are assuming the runway he's using.I accept it is often obvious but what about the times it's not?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I go for belt and braces touch every time - suggest you always include the runway designator. And yes, I have had a/c call me "downwind" when they had the wrong freq selected and were landing elsewhere... and yes, I have had a/c position downwind 180 degrees out. Final directors at Heathrow always specify the runway in the first contact.. It's our version of "airmanship".

[fireflybob]

I feel that this thread has drifted away from that which I intended but thanks for all the input.

Flanker - I instructed for the military for four years and can assure you that they do not add the runway when calling downwind in the circuit! Yes, things are different in other states, etc. and airmanship should be applied accordingly.

Heathrow Director - I see a difference in the sort of environment you are operating in (and I speak as someone who has flown with UK airlines for circa 25 years). I am specifically addressing the issue of students pilots and what they should be taught.

With respect I think that my basic point has been missed. I am talking specifically about the ab initio scene and also the fact that there are standard RT procedures. I agree that there is also something called "airmanship" and this does not preclude any pilot using "common sense" when required. However, if we all start adding bits because we think it's a good idea then where will this take us? This becomes very confusing to someone who is learning to fly and getting more than one version of the story.

I respect other opinions but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this topic!

Finally, I reiterate what I have said previously. If you think that the current RT procedures are not adequate then why not write the CAA and suggest they should be changed?

[Stan Woolley]

Bob

In the environment you are talking about I agree with you, and if I were instructing I would teach the RT as per 'SOP'.

I would also discuss the subject with students as we are doing and would probably write to the CAA to express my contrary opinion.

I never said the military did call the runway designator,just that they too operate to places where the 'Downwind' call is woefully inadequate.

Regards

Over and Out!

[Spoonbill]

I'm with HD on this one.
Stick to standard phraseology at all times, regardless of where you are flying.
You can only be critisised for:
1) Talking too much on the R/T.
or
2) Talking when you have nothing to say.
"Stand up, Speak up, Shut up". :)

[tacpot]

Strikes me we have the best of both worlds:

We can follow the standard phrasiology; no-one has post ANY critism of a pilot using only the standard calls.

OR

We can, if we judge the situation to warrant it, e.g. multiple runways in use, or a non-standard circuit being flown, add
a short rider the standard call, e.g. "DOWNWIND 23". I don't see the problem with adding this bit of additional information, or even the more verbose example of "DOWNWIND for GLIDE LANDING". I think that longer call adds to air safety, rather than detracts from it.

I do understand your point that people are being taught that this is the "right" way to do it, when patently it is NOT in the standard phrasiology. My personal view is that the standard is for guidance and is not an immutable standard. If I want someone to know exactly where I am in the circuit I'll add the bit extra.

The guy who landed on the wrong runway having made a sensible RT call needs his compass checking! :eek: (This is not fault of sloppy RT!)

[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: tacpot ]

[Trine]

Don't really know the regs in the UK but here in Oz there is a provision for pilot discretion in making other than mandatory calls to assist other traffic.

Standard phraseology is required in these "assisting broadcasts" so safety is not affected from that standpoint.

It is a pretty poor pilot, IMHO, who has a midair because he/she was too stuck on the minutiae of regs. I agree with tacpot that the standard should be for guidance, not as gospel.

[Chilli Monster]

I think it's safe to say that there are pro's for both sides here. It all depends on the place however.

Where Bob instructs is A/G only, all joins should be via the overhead and all circuits are left hand only to only one runway in use. Therefore the direction and runway designator are superfluous.

If however you are at an airfield with left and right hand circuits, with possible dual runway operations, then the chances are that there will be ATC. In that case it would be up to them to instigate extra calls (e.g left/right hand, which runway etc) if they feel it is necessary.

Until that time then it should be standard calls only - there's too much verbal diarhoea out there as it is (normally just as you're about to turn someone onto the ILS :mad:

CM

[moggie]

HD, Tacpot and Trine hit the nail on the head. Standard R/T is great but often requires a little extra to be VALUABLE R/T.

Including the runway designator in all clearances/reports is essential at places like LHR with multiple runways and so is a damn good habit to get into from the start.

LHR and other places require the following on first contact - callsign, current and cleared level/altitude, any non-standard clearance you may have and ATIS code (arrivals). This is so that they can check your mode C and your understanding of your clearance - so "Haethrow Director, Speedbird123, passing FL95 for FL70, Direct Bovingdon, Information G" is ESSENTIAL info for the controller.

If you are VFR at an airfield with 1 runway, 1 circuit direction and have not left the circuit (still on original ATIS) then you need to say a lot less in your calls.

As for the guy at NCL passing a FLIGHT LEVEL while reporting "QNH XXXX set" - GIT! That and including his speed are all he got wrong because failure to include enough information makes for question and answer as the controller has to winkle it all out of you.

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]

[M.Mouse]

What about in the circuit at Cranfield? Activity used to be manic of a weekend 15 years ago. Practice ILS, visual traffic, grass in use, helicopters and if you were lucky parachutists as well!

I would say include the runway when airmanship dictates, one cannot legislate for every conceivable situation.

[Stan Woolley]

Calm down Moggie!

I just made up the call to Newcastle approach as it is absolutely typical of what we say every day and it's a right mouthfull compared to 'XYZ left downwind 24'-'Grogbird' is not a callsign I know!

By the way our SOP's call for QNH to be set as soon as we are cleared to an altitude, but it is quite conceivable in the real world that the controller may require a call passing a flight level on the way.Does the VC10 only have one altimeter? What about Transition LEVEL? GIT's a bit harsh!

Also we are asked to include speed in our initial call more often than not.

Cheers

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: Flanker ]

[moggie]

Flanker - It's OK I was/am calm!!!

Maybe I was harsh but the point was that the call was ok (including speed if asked to give it). Most big aeroplanes have at least 3 altimeters and I have yet to come across an SOP that does not require QNH set on all of them as soon as the controller asks. My point was that (unless asked to report FL) the Grogbird should have given altitude once he had QNH set.

If the controller asks for FL (which he should not do if he has told you to go to a QNH altitude) then you are into the realms of guess work or the more realistic re-set to 1013 on the standby.

Still, my point (as an ex-controller) is that the ATC chap needs most of that info from you and an initial call that gives it all saves the even more time consuming Q&A session.

Often the AERAD/Jeppesen doc will tell you what you have to say - e.g. Glasgow SID "On first contact with Scottish Control include callsign, SID designator, current and cleared altitude". Note "include" - but not "limit to even if there are some other things you really need to say".

I really do believe that standard R/T often needs a little extra if it is to TRULY convey the meaning of your message.

I am calm, am not having a go at anyone and hope no offence gets taken anywhere.

I guessed that Grogbird was made up, by the way!