...............This time wankers

[Super Cecil]

An annoying phrase that won't go away is "This time".


If your departing then it takes no longer to say "XYZ departed 55" rather than "XYZ departed this time"


When taxying, then your taxying why say this time, if your going to say this time then why not say on this fine day too?:8

[MOR]

I'm not sure which is more anal, people who say "this time", or people who complain about other people who say "this time'...

Besides we all know that ATC are unable to tell time, so... ;)

[Di_Vosh]

1. One less number to keep in your head when giving (sometimes) long and complex radio calls.

2. "This time" means right now. If I were to say (at time 55) "Departed time 55" that means that everyone who has an interest in my transmission has to check their timepiece and do a mental conversion, only to realise "Oh, he meant right now!"

(I've never heard anyone giving "this time" as part of a taxi call)

Why is this a problem for you?

[Capt Claret]

Ah yes, but if the pilot's this time is different to the ATCO's this time there can be no cross check of the time! :ugh:

Besides, this time is just plain lazy.

[Di_Vosh]

I hadn't thought of that. I do get a time check when taxiing, but of course, am unlikely to be saying "This time" to the ATCO with whom I did a time check.

Disagree with the "plain lazy" call, as I still think it's an aid to other pilots SA.

DIVOSH!

[Towering Q]

Of a similar nature is the call, "....estimate XXX at time three six". Is it necessary to say 'time'?

Not being anal here, just trying to 'trim some of the fat' from my radio calls.

[Kornholio]

"This time" means now. When you say "Taxiing" you don't need to mention the time. Saying "This time" is a moronic phrase.

[The Chef]

Read the AIP.

Last time i checked the word "time" was not even mentioned.

Pretty straight forward really.

The Chef

[Hugh Jarse]

Right on Chef. No requirement anywhere in AIP/Jepps to use the word "time", but it really is amusing to hear it so often.:}

In addition Cecil, saying the numbers allows a latent check (for ATC) to confirm your clocks are reasonably in synch. This is particularly important in a procedural environment.

If I had a $ for every time somebody got a departure time wrong (including myself), only for the ATCO to query it with a time check, then I'd have a full pocket of dollar coins:E

Gidday.

[MOR]

It's just another Americanism, a piece of verbal diahorrea used by people who have watched one too many war movies.

The only words you need to use are the ones described in the AIP. Anything else is unnecessary.

Saying "xxxxx this time" is a complete oxymoron, as all around you already know that is what you are doing without the additional words.

Lastly, it certainly doesn't help Situational Awareness when you are in airspace used by others for whom English is not their first language. Many foreign pilots only have specific english for aviation (particularly Russians), and if you start using non-standard phraseology, you confuse the crap out of them.

Are we really discussing this...?:rolleyes:

[compressor stall]

MOR, that would be a tautology...repeating the same thing twice :)

And I fully agree w.r.t. foreign pilots!

[gatfield]

I've always wondered why other pilots did it and found it rather annoying. It doesn't mean anything.

I think kiwis do it more.

[Kornholio]

As oposed to pilots (usually private pilots -Joe Lighty- and usually kiwis) who announce they are "over the top" of some town/lake/spot-height/whatever when they make a position report.

OTT is where the diggers used to go in WWI, but is not mentioned in the AIP....

Let it stop now. :mad:

[MOR]

How about "with you", "out of", etc etc etc... mostly Americans of course... ;)

[RENURPP]

another one

"XXX rolls this time for XXX" ******

most departure calls require an estimate for the first reporting point???


this time + 27 mins = ???

definelty lazy and oh so coooool

[currawong]

Yeah.

Most days listening out on 126.7 one can hear some clown in some hot $hit aircraft give some four (4) point position call when inbound.

None of which mean anything to any VFR pilot.

Inclined to call back "yes, but where are you?"

[Super Cecil]

Yip have asked that, the best I've heard is 7 calls from inbound to landed in a CTAF with no traffic, only talking to himself.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Glad it's not just me that gets driven to distraction by the "this time" gnomes.

My pet hate on Perth Radar "All stations in the lane, XXX overhead Fremantle Golf Course AT THIS TIME tracking north in the lane...."

1. It is a radar frequency, get a traffic advisory then we can all hear you and you'll know where the traffic is!

2. There is no lane, it's just pottering along under a control step, the legend on the VTC is "VFR Route", as I understand it a "lane" has CTR each side of it, not the case here.

3. Feel like telling them to learn how to use R/T AT THIS TIME!


Who is teaching them this cr@p? Who gave these people R/T licences?? :mad:

[duke of duchess]

ABC Position????

Why are there so many people just giving position reports with out saying Position, and waiting for atc to tell them to go ahead.

It really annoys me when atc are busy and miss it because they didn't know it was coming so get them to do it again. which just jams up the freq for longer and its usually when your trying to get a call out yourself.

The worst offenders appear to be QF, its sad when air china, paradise, and a host of others all sound more profesional than our national carrier

keep smiling

[triadic]

No .. the most useless phrase used is when some pilots get airborne and wish to start their SAR prior to the dep call...

".... airborne place, standby for departure"

Just what else is ATS going to do? Go and have a cup of tea... they are of course always standing by.

Just "....airborne place" is all that is needed. None of which is in AIP anyway.... just one of those calls that has been passed on over time.


Duke... you are showing your age. The practice you refer to is called "offering" in which you give ATS time to pick up their pen or mouse. Pre TAAATS it was the done thing to just go straight ahead, except perhaps on HF if comms were not that good. Most good ATC and FS (boohoo) officers would always get it first time. Far less chat than now with the offering now written into the AIP as a result of TAAATS. Operator we were told needed time to get your electronic stip on the screen so as to process the info there directly. Also told that it would be only in place during TAAATS intro so training would be easier, but like other things as stuck.

Much the same as the provision of first ETA with departure call. Can you think of a worse time to put your head down and work out the first ETA. Call was needed to verify TAAATS info. Should have been at top of climb where there is a call anyway.....

[Kornholio]

they are of course always standing by. So why do they need an "offering"???

Another example of the tables turning. Pilots' procedures being altered to make life easier for everyone else in the picture.

If they're always standing by, then they are ready for a position report at any time. Let's face it, what else do they have to do other than their JOB??? If you don't make an "offering", are you going to interrupt something important like the guy:

drinking his coffee
chatting to his mate about last night's drunken sh@g
picking his nose.

If he's any good, the operator would friggin-well KNOW you're gonna make a POSREP any time now and be ready for it because other-wise it means you've flown into a freakin mountainside someplace!!! And that's the whole idea!!!!!

They are there to do a job: Provide ATS - air traffic SERVICE. They can run around after us, not the other way around. Instead of just getting on with it and noting the POSREP they whinge about not getting their "offering" and then interrupt your transition checks with a freq change right at 10000' when they KNOW you're busy.

Just say, : "Say again, you were in with a checklist/cabin station/crossword..."

[duke of duchess]

showing my age hmmmmm, i thought we had to keep up with changes in procedures. isn't that in the job description, and considered part of proffesionalism

[Kornholio]

I love it when pilots carry on about "proffesionalism" but can't actually spell it!!!!

What a classic!

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:sad:

:oh:

:ugh:

:hmm:

:zzz:

[Spotlight]

Try getting used to my FMS with its predicative, ve, ve, estimate. Practice tells you to put an extra minute on.

[Not_Another_Pot]

CFI, could not agree more! Other things that bug me are:

1) Coming down from the north VFR enjoying the view just out over the sea when suddenly another aircraft is spotted going the other way at the same alt and also over the sea:uhoh:

2) Arriving at my little airfield just south of JT and making a radio call stating that fact. Of the three aircraft doing bumps only one is kind enough to let me know she is there. The remainder say bloody nothing:*

Man I'm off to get a traffic warning device!

NAPpy

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Let's face it, what else do they have to do other than their JOB??? If you don't make an "offering", are you going to interrupt something important like the guy:
drinking his coffee
chatting to his mate about last night's drunken sh@g
picking his nose.


also add one or more of the following ;
coordinating traffic with adjacant sectors,
talking on another frequency,
working multple sectors,


So what's the problem in 'offering' to help the ATCO multitask and prioritize.

[triadic]

Bigg's.. there is no real problem with "offering" but as I said before, once upon a time we got by without it. You may well say that the equipment and traffic levels are different these days, but then explain that to the controllers (and pilots) in other countries that seem to get most of the calls first time on VHF. In fact in some places the traffic levels are such that you could not afford to have such a practice.

It went the other way as well, when some controllers would just transmit a SID and expect the crew to pick up on it... from my experience most did, but a few well chosen complaints saw a change in instructions resulting with SIDs having to be offered. Many of these changes were blamed on the intro of TAAATS which in many cases sounded quite valid. Now that it is in and running maybe we can all benefit from the promised efficiencies.

Hey! we both have a job to do and part of that is communicating on the radio. Obviously at times we have other tasks to do and training should train both controllers and pilots to multi-task and prioritise those tasks. Often there is tasks that generate a "say again", but at the same time I believe many say again's are because of poor training, inability to prioritise or just plain laziness.

[duke of duchess]

sorry korn old boy, I guess my spelling could use a bit of improvment, I would like to thank you for bringing that to my attention I shall aim to improve.

why doesnt this come with spell checker
:sad:

[AerocatS2A]

Multitasking is all well and good except that as long as ATCos are going to be working more than one sector or whatever then you need the offering to avoid the response: "ABC you were in with a ground station, say again."

As for the coastal VFR route north of Perth, my impression from the VNC/VTC is that it is only active while certain restricted areas are active, when there are no restricted areas, there is no VFR route.

[triadic]

Aerocat... if you go back a few years, it was quite common for Flight Service and other ATS agencies to monitor numerous VHF frequencies as well as HF. This was of course before the day of "retransmission". If ATS staff and pilots were trained in the same manner as those a decade+ or so ago the problems that you mention would be minimal. I don't hear pilots say "in with the CSM, say again" very often, if at all. Such a response, as used far too frequently by ATS, although maybe correct shows an inability to prioritise tasks, within the available hardware. Mind you, from what I have seen, the VHF switching within TAAATS does not help much - maybe it makes it worse. And this is meant to be an advanced system.....! Go o/s and you would be laughed at.

[Kornholio]

Then there's the quaint habit of Callsign at the end of transmissions, all the time even though the AIP calls for only readbacks to be suffixed with callsign.
Eg: "Virgil 69 report heading."

"heading 090 Virgil 69."

Get it right guys, just read the regs, it's very simple.

This leads to, instead of the remark beginning with the callsign, it invariably begins with the yank-style "oka-aaaay..." or "understand..." or "roger..." or all three, as in:

"Okay, roger, understand cleared to....." Who are these twits, congesting the airways with this unnecessary crap? You can thank the Rat as it was they who pushed for the (then) CAA to abandon the variation and adopt the ICAO practice.

Problem is ignorance. Also some people are afraid to make a reply without reading back every single extraneous word, like, "cleared to" and "when ready" instead of just the actual level/heading/speed/whatever.

Thanks to the rat, we changed to this format some years ago. Back then some Rat dweeb actually wrote a dissertation on the benefits in the safety digest and assured the rest of the aviation community that they'd all see the logic and benefits of doing things rat-style, even though at that stage it was contrary to the AIP.

Thanks Rat.

:mad:

:*

:rolleyes:

:confused:

:suspect:

:bored:

:zzz:

[Spodman]

"airborne, standby for departure."

Makes me want to do what they ask, not make any reply and wait for the departure...:8

[Bevan666]

"airborne, standby for departure."

There is a good reason for this report though. If I do a lawn dart between getting airborne and departing the aerodrome you will have started a sar watch and hopefully it will be noticed I am missing a lot lot sooner than otherwise.

Bevan..

[triadic]

Bevan.. I don't think anyone says the reason for the call is without good reason, it is the call itself which we are critical of

viz

"Melbourne ABC airborne Tyabb"

(NOTE: no "standby for departure")

It is just not needed and means nothing - so why do pilots still say this...??

Training is the problem again !

[Bevan666]

Doh, I stand corrected.

[Low-Pass]

CFI - I think you're being a little pedantic here. Yes, it's not a "lane", but everyone knows it as such. If someone says, "Fremantle Golf Course, northbound in the lane..." everyone knows what they are doing. (I agree that there is no need to say "this time".)

With regard to getting radar advisory, that's well and good but instead of one transmission, you get three. Simply reporting your position, others will look out for you and (hopefully) pipe up if there is a conflict. Anyone going along that little stretch of coast NEEDS to keep a good lookout.

Aside from that, Perth Radar is very good at calling any possible conflicts.

Cheers,

LP

[Spodman]

Another thing I've learnt from this thread, you can post the word "wankers" rather than "w@nkers" or "w*nkers" without Mr. Grumpy appearing! :mad:

A great leap forward for personal expression.

[Spinnerhead]

If you are VFR, keep your trap shut and your eyes open, no matter how important you think you are. OR go IFR and pay to talk.

If you are IFR, read the friggin AIP, or equivalent, and make your broadcasts verbatim. OR press the transmitt switch and just say "I'M A WANKERS"

Every time you transmit your own special brand of the AIP, and we see you on the apron, after hearing you on the radio, we will have a little snigger, and think to ourselves "WANKERS"!

edited to change "w@nker" to "wankers" so it wouldn't get ****ed out.

[karrank]

Just a bit harsh Spannerhead... But it does get a bit annoying getting repeated broadcasts on the area freq of some bug-smasher doing circuits at ArgleBargle.

Do you find it annoying when IFR make 'personal AIP' calls on descent OCTA?

[Captain Sand Dune]

And my all time favourite:

"All stations Oonagalabie CTAF, XYZ, 10NM North, 3,000FT, inbound, circuit area 43. All stations Oonagalabie"
:yuk: :yuk:
Gee, why not just repeat the whole :mad: call!!:*

[AerocatS2A]

The AIP advises that you should repeat the "All stations..." part if you are in an area with several CTAFs on the same frequency. Now, I don't know where this "Oonagalabie" is, but perhaps that is what's happening in your example.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Hmmmmm...so it does! (Winds neck back in again):O

[Avgas172]

Or more likely "stations oongalbargie ctaf XXX ...etc etc ..traffic oongalbargie" brief common sense and eyes out looking for the jabiru that gave no call or the 152 that was on the wrong freq or the archer with radio failure....(in our area of the NSW central west, calls can be heard from cowra, parkes, forbes, mudgee, orange, young , cootamundra, temora, narromine and condobolin....(appolgies to anyone i missed) depending on the alt of the transmiting aircraft eg rfds king air..... being in the bush dosen't mean you are alone. the biggest problem seems to be with the so called professional pilots rushing through the whole report and no one has a clue where they are to start with... hence the need for the ctaf location last. :ok:

[triadic]

AIP ENR 68.5 makes no mention of saying "All Stataions Location" at the end of the call (at least I can't find such a mention).

The requirement as I see it is to include the place name TWICE in the call - not to repeat the all stations bit at the end. I believe this habit started with a large regional in the southern states and seems to have stuck.

So all that is needed is something like:

"All stations location, ABC, type, 15 miles SE, level, inbound location, intentions"
ENR 63.1

Note - please no radials just cardinal compass points - you would be surprised how many get radials wrong by 180 deg !! - inbound on the 360 radial and they are to the South..der!!

[AerocatS2A]

Triadic, it seems that we're both almost right. You're correct the "all stations" part is not required twice. What it says is that "... the aerodrome name must be included at the beginning and end of each transmission when entering a MBZ or CTAF area"

Personally I prefer the old NZ way (I don't if they still do it like this over there), instead of "All stations Tekapo etc etc" you say "Tekapo traffic etc etc". It rolls off the toungue a little easier. I also have a problem with the insistance on saying "all stations" AND naming each individual aircraft or station that you want to talk to. E.g., "All stations didgabringbeeralong and ABC, JST, and CCC, XYZ 10NM N at 3000 etc etc". I don't know if this is what we're supposed to do but it is extremely long winded, I would think that by saying "all stations" that encompasses everyone.

[Avgas172]

AHA! but aerocat ... it's the all stations or 'traffic' that needs to be said first..... standard r/t procedure since valves were not just something that let the air and fuel into a motor.... reason is that poor old blokes like me might get my mouth into gear before the fingers engage the mike button, hence the traffic is heard but not the location...... also the reason i imagine to include the location again at the end of the transmit :E

[AerocatS2A]

Yeah, fair enough.

[Tinstaafl]

Using a combination of a broadcast call & a directed call is a standar RT technique ie an 'All stations and abc, def..'.

Generally broadcasts do not require a response from the recipient(s) where as directed calls do. The respondents should reply in the same sequence as their call signs were transmitted. It's radio shorthand because otherwise two or more separate calls would have to be used.

I can't see that it's bad procedure. There can be lots of times where a broadcast is required AND specific communication requiring a response from someone is also necessary

[Capt W E Johns]

the old NZ way (I don't if they still do it like this over there), instead of "All stations Tekapo etc etc" you say "Tekapo traffic etc etc"

Yes, that's still the practice here. Personally I prefer the Australian standard of 'all stations Didgibunderup' instead of the NZ practice of putting the aerodrome as the first word transmitted. I find in NZ it is easy to miss that critical first word and be guessing about the location... or maybe I'm just old and deaf!

[UnusualAttitudes]

Think this bloke must be the "King"

Heard this call some time ago from an Ultralight at Maitland.

"All stations Maitland CTAF, Drifter XXX taxying this time for runway 23 for circuits, and Ill be keeping my eye in the sky"



:mad: W@NKER :mad:

[druglord]

phew, you all gotta start drinkin a little more decaf!

I get annoyed when someone cuts me off in the circut or gives me an RA not by petty little radio phraseology nuances of pilots that aren't sky kings and sleep with their AIP.

[QSK?]

Capt W E Johns: ... or maybe I'm just old and deaf! Sorry, mate, what did you say??

[tinpis]

:hmm:


quote:the old NZ way (I don't if they still do it like this over there), instead of "All stations Tekapo etc etc" you say "Tekapo traffic etc etc"

The old way was no bloody wireless at all ya looked out the windas.

When I started flyin in PNG me trainer asked me dont you have radios where you come from ?

[Sunfish]

There was a "this time" w@nker departing Bacchus Marsh this afternoon about 3.30, or maybe he was a PPrune reader just trying it on!:p

[Super Cecil]

Heard this morning, Bank run bloke getting ICUS to RPT
"I have you slightly visual, the sun is in my eyes":rolleyes:

[Arm out the window]

Well going against the general consensus, I almost always do the heads-up first contact call with just my callsign and wait for acknowledgement before launching into my clearance request spiel or whatever, just out of courtesy.
Obviously if it's just a couple of words such as being handed off to tower by approach, then it's easier to just say it straight off, but if it's a VFR return to the control zone without being handed off for example, then I reckon an establishment of contact and 'wait to be served', particularly if they're busy, is just good manners.
The air traffickers seem to appreciate it most times too.
And to add insult to injury, I also say 'ABC position'! before giving my position report, which in my experience lets them get ready to listen to your call and avoids having to repeat parts of what you just said.
So call me a ****** if you will!!

[Super Cecil]

Arm out the window (you musta done a bit of Beaver time) the ****** remark was for people who say "this time".

First (VFR) contact with C or D don't they tell you to just give your callsign with transit or inbound details? then after the boys log off the net or wake up or whatever they're doing they can get your details. :}

[AerocatS2A]

posted by TinstaaflUsing a combination of a broadcast call & a directed call is a standar RT technique ie an 'All stations and abc, def..'.

I can't see that it's bad procedure. There can be lots of times where a broadcast is required AND specific communication requiring a response from someone is also necessary

I can see where it's a good thing when used properly. However I hear it used too often where one aircraft is making a broadcast and they have to include every callsign they have written down on their note paper regardless of whether or not each of those callsigns really needs to acknowledge the call.

It's a little annoying having to respond to a call that I would normally have disregarded as being not relevant to me.

[Square Bear]

Just had a read of this post and noted that this has been posted.

Note - please no radials just cardinal compass points - you would be surprised how many get radials wrong by 180 deg !! - inbound on the 360 radial and they are to the South..der!!

If someone has problems with where they are on an omni radial perhaps they should be encouraged to say both the cardinal point and the radial.

eg "20miles to the south inbound on the 180 radial".

Anyway, all non radar CTA require the inbound radial on first contact so why not get it right, also there are many pilots who look at their separation using radials and distance.

Dumbing down is just an easy way out.

Also concise is good, whilst someone is waffling on the radio Murphy's law says that there will be someone trying to request some type of clearance etc.

[triadic]

eg "20miles to the south inbound on the 180 radial".


But is not this just another example of what we DO NOT want pilots to say??

You don't have to say both! If we all expanded calls to include cr@p that we think others need to know the chat would go on for hours. Get real. All this means is that you don't understand the system and how it should work. This as I have said before is a factor of the training (or lack of) in R/T use.

IFR pilots should realise that it is not uncommon for VFR pilots to get radials wrong by 180deg. By suggesting that VFR pilots should use compass points, whilst being as precise as possible, cuts back on the additional calls needed to resolve any possible error. Sure advise ATC of the radial you are on when that is the requirement, but it is not a requirement in Class G or in CTAFs or MBZs.


I can see where it's a good thing when used properly. However I hear it used too often where one aircraft is making a broadcast and they have to include every callsign they have written down on their note paper regardless of whether or not each of those callsigns really needs to acknowledge the call.


What is it... a broadcast .. or a directed call... I really don't see the need for both in the one transmission. This again only adds to the cr@p mentioned previously.... and what's more is not needed.

You make a broadcast - if someone answers AND they are a possible conflict, then and only then engage in a directed transmission to resolve the issue. Talking to everyone you hear in the MBZ (as some seem to insist on doing) is a waste of time, unprofessional, and again shows a lack of understanding of the system and again…. poor training.

rant off...

[Sunfish]

Yes, but poorly trained or not, I want to communicate with them so that somehow we can avoid sharing the same space at the same time.

While good VP makes you sound just like a QF 747, the last thing you want is for one of us bug smashing PPL amateurs to shut up when we should be talking because we are tongue tied or embarrassed.

Arm out the window, the callsign and wait sounds like a good idea. Might try it for YMEN and YMMB when they are having a busy day. I've learned a bit from this thread.

[Square Bear]

Triadic

I assure you that I understand the system and how it should work and your assumption that I don’t is quite far off the mark.

The AIP gives the phraseology for aircraft inbound to the MBZ as

““(aircraft type) (position reported as either the radial, bearing or quadrant from the aerodrome) (level) (intention)”.

Now if someone wanted to be anal about it, like yourself, I agree that it does say either the radial, bearing or quadrant, not all or a mixture thereof but as:

“the primary function of a mandatory broadcast frequencies is to provide a means for pilots to exchange traffic information for separation purposes(AIP 4.7.2)” “,

I am sure a mixture ie: 20 miles south inbound on the 180 radial would not be seen as a wrong.

Nor do I see it as a crime to steal less than one second of your obviously precious air time in order to add that little bit in.

Having said that I find it Interesting that you actually put up a very good argument for the use of …south inbound on the 180…. when you suggest that the VFR pilot often gets the radial 180 degrees wrong.

By giving the call in the manner I suggested you are broadcasting to professional pilots who want the radial information at the same time as you are broadcasting to a pilot who may not know what a radial means but does know the cardinal points.

In effect you may actually have saved radio time

And if you don’t realize how important knowing the radial of an inbound/outbound aircraft as opposed to only knowing his cardinal point may I suggest you speak to those that do.

[Woomera]

triadic me old. :ok:

Herding cats comes to mind. :rolleyes: :}

Keep it going chaps and chapesses, we are all learning heaps.

[triadic]

I assure you that I understand the system and how it should work and your assumption that I don’t is quite far off the mark.


Maybe so, however I can assure you that many instructors, CFIs and airline training captains think the same, but in actual fact many have very little idea at all. Many have their own beliefs and try by various means to change the procedures / system to what they think is best for everyone. Sadly this only adds to the lack of standardisation. Unique phrase such as what you suggest may have merit, but only serve to confuse those that don't understand the intent or the why. There are numerous examples of phrases generated in such a way. Many I suggest are good and perhaps should be incorporated in the AIP or training guides(?). Some are just a waste of time and effort and do nothing but make someone feel good. It is not the IFR pilot (as a rule) that is confused by use of radials, but use of compass points is not likely to be as confusing to the VFR pilot. And after all it is the VFR pilot that we want to participate and understand what we (the IFR pilot) is doing/intending. As an IFR RPT pilot operating in G for many years, it is my experience that compass points from a VFR is all that we need, certainly not a radial which from experience must be questioned and verified. It should be our aim to not say anything which might confuse a VFR pilot whose capability is often not known.

CASA have not in recent times placed any emphasis on R/T procedures and even their own CDs lack standardisation from time to time. There are no examinations on R/T, specifically for any class of licence and CASA seem to believe that the instructors will provide all the training that is necessary - all without any specific training documentation and no standardisation material. No wonder there is so many different points of view...?

As an example, back in 1997 when the R/T phraseologies were reviewed by an industry group, one of the concerns of the group was that if the appropriate documents were not written correctly and there was not appropriate follow up training then the chances of having everyone understand the intent of the changes would be minimal. It was said that if it was not right, the default position of those that did not understand or perhaps care would be to read everything back… I hate to say it, but the level of incorrect readbacks now reflects that failure to do what the working group fully intended...and it is just getting worse!

The famous G trial also failed due to a lack of training. For every 100 pilots operating in that area, there were maybe 90 different ideas on how it should work. No wonder there were incidents and the pin had to be pulled.

As one who has experience at both ends of the R/T, I can say that the level of understanding of the procedures (and the why's behind them) etc is not as good as it should be on both sides of the fence. We seem now not to have the time to exchange time in each others workplace. Times have changed and these exchange visits are no longer something that is often rostered. You have to do it in your own time and many just don't want to do that.


Yes, but poorly trained or not, I want to communicate with them so that somehow we can avoid sharing the same space at the same time.

Sunfish, I like your posts, however the best way to achieve what you say and keep the talk to a minimum is when you are mixing it with others, and you think you may be in conflict, acknowledge appropriate broadcasts with your position level and intentions and then shut up. If the other chaps needs more info based on what you say, he will ask you for it. No need at the first cut to enter into a directed exchange, unless of course you need to resolve the conflict quickly.

---

eg's in this thread:
This time
standby for departure
readback of traffic info and weather..(!!)
IFR lingo to VFR pilots
talking to everyone that answers in the MBZ


and heaps more...


This is a good thread.... thanks W (I'm good with cats..)

[AerocatS2A]

CASA have not in recent times placed any emphasis on R/T procedures and even their own CDs lack standardisation from time to time. There are no examinations on R/T, specifically for any class of licence and CASA seem to believe that the instructors will provide all the training that is necessary - all without any specific training documentation and no standardisation material. No wonder there is so many different points of view...?

Triadic, I couldn't agree with you more. As a pilot from another country who had to undergo minimal training in Australia prior to being let loose here, I've found it very difficult to get good information on what should be said and how. The AIP gives some information but it is scattered throughout the document (or perhaps that is the fault of the Jepps format, I don't know) and although it gives examples, most of the situations I come across seem to be almost entirely unlike any example given. Reading this forum and asking question of my work colleagues generally sets me straight and when I reread the AIP it then makes sense, but if you're trying to get everything you need from it (the AIP) it's hopeless.

[Sunfish]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Aerocat. Grew up with military voice procedure. Then learnt marine VP and now Aviation VP. Even though I've done the frol I still have a lot to learn and the AIP or VFR Guide is not as helpful as it might be.

One thing that annoys me is the Skykings who speak at a zillion words a minute. I suppose if they are doing it every day to controllers who hear it every day, it means something, but some people are too fast for this persons grey cells.

On the other hand the QF and VB pilots are models of good VP, at least as a measured clear delivery is concerned. Not too fast, but not wasting time either.

[Capt Claret]

AerocatS2A

In the good-ole-days the AIP published VP in a sequenced and sensible order, from taxi, through takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing and subsequent taxi. It was REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, easy to understand, and easy to find examples. Jeppesen published the same.

Then, probably to conform to some beaurocrats idea, the AIP changed into the mish-mash that we have now, where it's really really hard to find what one wants. :{

[takeonme]

Compressor stall,

Back to page 1,

Tautology is actually the same sound repeated twice, not the same thing.

For example, in Wilfred Owen's poem, "Futility", we hear a prime example of tautology.

"The stuttering rifle's rapid rattle", note the repetition of the r.

And for arguments sake no im not not a nerd, and no i didnt just do my HSC last year.

Use it wisely, my son.

T.O.M

[QSK?]

takeonme:

Ah, takeonme, I think you need to go back and do your HSC again mate.

The example you have given from Wilfred Owen's poem is, in fact, an example of alliteration - not tautology.

For your information and further edification my boy, the Oxford definition of alliteration is:...the occurrence of the same letter or sound at the beginning of adjacent or closely connected words eg cool, calm and collected or "...rifle's rapid rattle" as given in your example while the definition of tautology is:...the saying of the same thing twice over in different words eg arrived one after the other in succession; or as the famous Rugby League commentator, Rex Mossop (a tautology expert), was often heard to say "...if xxxx get this kick over it will be his 18th successful consecutive kick in a row"All tongue in cheek and educational, you understand.

[takeonme]

Umm yeah, I was uhh umm just testing ahh you.

Congratulations! You win the prize!




Phew

[Woomera]

Bwahahaha.:ok:

PPRuNedom is a hard school eh.:8

[Icarus2001]

TRIADIC Love your work and I agree with most of what you say. However...There are no examinations on R/T, specifically for any class of licence and CASA seem to believe... Sorry you are wrong. ALL flying schools have to produce a radio theory exam and examine SPL candidates in R/T procedures.

Reference:http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fcl_lic/download/arocp.pdfThis is for the AROCP not a FROL but the principle is the same.

[triadic]

Icarus

What you quote is correct, but it is my experience that the syllabus quoted is somewhat lacking and it is also obvious that the training which may be undertaken by the schools is both poor and without any standardisation whatsoever.

from the CASA doc you quote (in part)
2.7 State standard radio procedures for:
• communication with a ground control agency
• communication with a control tower
• communication with any other air traffic agency.


What about communicating with another aircraft in a G/CTAF/MBZ??

What about management of traffic situations and self separation??

What about use of multiple VHFs and audio controls??

What about understanding the differences in the various classes of airspace A-G and what they mean and the services provided??

etc.... etc... ??

Let me repeat myself....

THERE IS NO STANDARDISED OR EXAMINED TRAINING FOR THE USE OF RADIO AND FOR THE PARTICIPATION IN THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF AIRSPACE.

The best intentions of some flying schools to comply with the syllabus come nowhere near what is required unless the internal exams significantly exceed the syllabus. I have seen many, yes many pilots that fly aircraft well after obtaining their licence who do NOT even know how to activate the ident on the transponder and what it does. Don't even mention HF and its correct and efficient use! No pilot should ever fly an aircraft that is not fully conversant with all the systems of that aircraft including all the avionics. These days even correct use of an ADF is not seen all that often. Even GPS knowledge is poor once past using the Direct button!!

Geeeeez... need I go on. And we wonder why pilots are out there making up phrases etc that mean nothing to others that confine their knowledge to AIP phases or those recommended by ICAO for example.

This problem is NOT confined to flying schools and PPLs, but to all operators and even pilots flying with the airlines and the military. Why is this so? Well it is my opinion that even the check and training pilots with the major operators have little idea of what should be the norm. Many have grown up in this mish-mash. Have a listen to 737s or such going into ISA or AYE ... not many have a clue and it shows. Sad part is that the guys out there in GA world hear what is said and think it must be right and copy same... it only gets worse as you go.... the guys and gals at the top end should get it right all the time, some don't know and some just don't care.... call it a culture thing if you like. I have little idea of what the fix may be.....if any…!


This is a CASA problem which they have shown over the last ten years they don't want to address. Even when they had the chance after the RTF workshops in 97 they did not follow thru. Until CASA pick up the bat and do something, we will continue to have the lack of standardisation and poor training leading to the mess we have now.

Please tell me how you manage what is not in the syllabus????

[Binoculars]

Perhaps the overall concept we most need to grasp is that the best phraseologies are short, precise and easily understood.

While a lot of people seem to be getting their rocks off by pointing out the odd two or three superfluous words, and others are demonstrating their own superiority or seniority by quoting the books, the real world demands a certain respectful compromise, a word rarely heard these days.

When things are slack I confess to being slack in my phraseologies. When things are busy I try to keep unnecessary words to a minimum, and I know the professionals on the other end of the line do the same thing. It's called mutual respect.

As Woomera indicated, this is an excellent thread to learn things from, no matter who we are. With that in mind, and for the benefit of those who operate into and out of the airspace owned by procedural towers, I offer the pilot of the Dash8 who offers "SS314 departure" the advice that because we are expecting a departure call there is no need to preface it.

The "offering" call is designed for people we don't know about, to wit VFR. e.g. "Tower, ABC with outbound details"

What this call does is allow us to select the right coloured strip to write the details on rather than scribble the details on a jotter and transcribe them on to a strip when we know what colour it has to be. This doesn't apply to IFR flights. They are in the system, we know about them, their strips are already written up ready to go.

Short lesson: Outbound details go on a blue strip, Inbound details go on a yellow strip, everything else (circuits, practice IAL's, out and back to the training area, overflying etc) go on a pink strip. So if we don't know about you because you haven't submitted a plan, all we want to know for a start is Tower, ABC, "inbound details", "outbound details" or "local (or overflying) details".

Think about this: we get a call from a well-meaning pilot, "Tower, ABC, we are 30 miles south (hmm, what colour strip?) maintaining 4500, (umm, yeah?) tracking 323 to Mackay (go on, go on....!, ) received Foxtrot (ahh! a clue! he's landing! drag out yellow strip and scribble details on....!) requesting clearance to overfly (****) for Townsville coastal on descent to two thousand. *Sigh*

This isn't anybody's fault, it's just a lack of communication between both sides of the equation. While we are all being instilled with crap like "Behind that aircraft, line up behind" (read back the time while you read that back) nothing is going to change.

A previous post of mine has already attracted attention from CASA. I can assure you they do read these pages.

My voice is that of a dinosaur suggesting that the constant changes imposed on us in aviation are the result of the same forces causing constant interference in our day to day lives; to wit, lawyers and the fear of litigation.

Nobody is game to make a decision anymore for fear of litigation. That explains the whole CASA debacle for a start. Since Piper and Cessna stopped producing aircraft because of ridiculous litigation, the aviation world has never been the same.

In my time on the other end of the microphone, I've seen the system work superbly. Professionalism at one end engenders respect at the other end. There is the odd dud at both ends of the microphone, but the whole system would work better if we all stopped pointing out the mistakes of the"other mob", and concentrated on reducing our own error level.

Happy flying, people.

(Funny, there's someone knocking at the door. Odd. What? State secrets? Me??? Arrrggghhhhh!!!!!!!)

[maxgrad]

Binno's
Well said that man!

short concise statements that get the message across to who you are aiming at, preferably at a common level of understanding.
Yes, follow the regs, but we all know(or should) that the real world throws all sorts of bridges at us.
Our job is to cross them without bumping in to anyone else in the process.


Yes I know I can't spell, did I get my message across??

[Sprite]

Thanks Binos that does make sense. I was always under the impression that one had to notify a departure, as a courtesy. Until i flew out of HB one day and the controller (who regularly demonstrated his wry sense of humour) finally said "you know we don't really need you to say that here, just go straight into the departure..."

Leaving me of course rather embarassed. Which often happens in radio procedure. I guess it is all just common sense!!!

[Pinky the pilot]

Binos & Maxgrad; Well put both of you!!:ok: And if your observation re CASA reading these pages is correct Binos and I have no indication to the contrary, then I have a message for them;
Oi CASA; How about seeing to it that the AIPs are suitably amended to include an easily understood, clear and concise section on correct and proper radio procedure. One that is totally free of ambiguity, bureaucratese (sic) or any possible misunderstanding.
That should'nt be too hard now should it?

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[bushy]

Keeping it simple would help. And reducing the number of changes. VFR pilots are expected to know where fictitious ifr reporting points are They are not marked on WAC charts,and are often used in weather forecasts that VFR pilots are expected to understand. Controlled airspace is often defined by DME distances,for pilots who may not have DME.) And confusion at Ayers Rock is eliminated by using the words "Ayers Rock" (for the aerodrome)or "The Rock" (for Ayers Rock) Who's kidding who? They are two different places. What's the matter with calling the aerodrome Connellan which is it's proper name.
The culture should change. The military style of using everchanging codewords, abreviations, and ever changing procedures will certainly confuse the enemy. But the VFR aircraft is not the enemy. There are about 10,000 of them, and they will not go away. Many are confused. It appears that some of the Airservices people are also confused. It is time that systems were designed to make it simpler,and less confusing by using language that is understandable by all concerned.

[maxgrad]

Bushy, with all due respect all pilots should be able to handle and understand the maps used.

DME. you may not have one in the machine but I bet there is a GPS sitting on the dash, worst case is just use the WAC and nail your position from that.(inbound to a terminal area, make pionts or arcs on the WAC to show airspace change and identify a good landmark just prior)

Wx decode. All pilots should have a PCA chart, that sorts out the secret codes.

Everchanging codes and procedures. agree with you totally, pain in the a$s

How many communities do you fly to with only one name? Hooker Creek/Lajimanu as an e.g

The authority certainly makes all our jobs a lot harder by "trying to improve the airspace and the way it is used", but at the end of the day it is us...all of us that have to do the best with what we have.

[Hempy]

my personal fav's

- "Centre Virgil101 with you FL280" :bored:

- "Virgil 101 checked overhead NUFFY time 55, cruising FL 280, and we'll be estimating VRBOS at time 33. :hmm:

and my all time fav, one busy afternoon,

"Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome aboard Virgil flight 101 to Adelaide. We'll be flying today at 28 thousand feet, the weather enroute is fine, and we can expect to be in Adelaide around 9:30 this evening. Currently the temperature in Adelaide is 22 degrees and fine. On behalf of Captain Kremmin and all the crew we hope you enjoy your flight, and we'd like to thank you for flying Virgil Airlines." :\

[Sunfish]

Worse Sunfish this afternoon.. Gives his CTAF call (119.00) Barwon Heads, on 119.90 (freudian slip) and is reminded that this is YMMB ground freq

Damn those digits! Stupidity and inexperience= 1, professionalism= 0)

Oh to sound like a skygod(assuming factual information).

[Planet Express]

I was told off during my IR flight test (by the ATO) for saying on the CTAF "......outbound to the north for the NDB approach on descent to XXXX......".

He said all that was needed was " XXX outbound for the NDB will call again inbound."

Why is it so bad to deviate (even slightly) from the procedures to ensure that a less competent pilot knows what you're doing?

It seems from these threads that many of you want RT procs straight from the book which is fair enough- but good airmanship often requires you to "make your own AIPs" to cater for different circumstances- specifically in GA.

Many ab-initio pilots don't know what an NDB approach is and the vast majority of non- instrument rated pilots won't be familiar with the tracks of an approach at a particular airport- especially if they're from other parts.

When common sense is pitted against the AIP's I'll take common sense thank you very much :ok:

BTW It would be great to hear some more opinions / advice from ATC if available.....

[bushy]

Maxgrad
Thanks for your valuable information. I do know these things, as I have been doing it for 30 odd years. The Point is that many pilots in Australia do not fly often, and the system is unneccesarily complicated, often stupid and ambiguous. The Ayers Rock example is one case. The aerodrome near Ayers Rock was called Yulara, and that worked fine. Then they changed it. Both Ayers Rock, and the aerodrome which is ten nm away were called Ayers rock. This led to at least one incident where there was confusion, and an aeroplane flew across the track of another. And it will happen again. Ayers Rock, is now to be called "The Rock" even though the earthlings, and all the maps (including the WAC charts) say it is Ayers Rock. The Connellan aerodrome, ten miles away near Yulara village, is to be called Ayers Rock.?????? This is illogical, unnecessary, and unsafe.
Unnecessary confusion.
Our system too often relies on having pilots rote learning and memorising masses in olligical information, instead of using common sense and fact.
I'm not talking about places having two names. I am talking about two different olaces having the same name, and this problem generated by our friendly regulator/service provider.

[QSK?]

Planet Express:Why is it so bad to deviate (even slightly) from the procedures to ensure that a less competent pilot knows what you're doing? Generally, I'm in agreement with you on this subject, however one needs to consider the impact that the widespread use of non-standard phraseology may have on air safety.

Many of the world's regulatory agencies, investigation bureaux, airlines and ATS providers (as well as ICAO) have identified breakdowns in communications (usually as a result of the use of non-standard phraseology) between ATC and pilots, and between pilots, as being a significant contributory factor in a number of aircraft incidents and accidents throughout the world. Where pilots do not have English as their first language this contributory factor is exacerbated. Therefore, it is in everyone's safety interest to ensure that we stick to standard phraseology wherever possible to minimise the chances of a misunderstanding.

However, I believe pilots (and ATC) should have the flexibility to vary the phraseology to make it appropriate to the current operational situation if they believe safety is enhanced. From my dim memory (which may be wrong), I seem to recall that the old AIP used to have some clause encouraging pilots to adapt the standard phraseology to enhance communication if the circumstances warranted it.

Having said that, when I'm conducting an instrument approach I tend to use a phraseology that is similar to yours eg: "All stations (place) (callsign) overhead the NDB (altitude) descending to (MDA) tracking outbound to the (direction), will call turning inbound (place)"This is not strictly standard but I'm satisfied that it meets the information requirements for all other IFR or VFR users.

If anybody else has any suggestions for appropriate phraseology in this instance, I'm all ears.

[maxgrad]

Bushy,
May have misinterpreted you somewhat.
A number of poster's have stated the word(act?) common sense. Although many use this in the real world some may not, skill level, experience or just not available. The authority I believe falls into that last category,"just not available"
The AYE example sounds very much like pollitics, people with no brains and their head stuck up .............. I think you get the idea. Two places with same name as in your e.g is just an accident waiting to happen.

I have been to AYE any number of times and, apart from the occasional cessna or piper tour gaggle have found that all use common sense and sufficient calls to get the job done. Many of these calls may not be from the book but they do get their piont across.

My way of handling the fantastic system we have is to use the correct forms when and where required but make a call that gets my piont/intention/position/request across. If that means not using standard phrasology at times, so be it.

[Sal-e]

YOU GUYS ARE WORRIED/ANNOYED/ANGERED/INTIMIDATED/ETC ETC ETC ABOUT THE SMALLEST THINGS......

GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!

[druglord]

dittos Sal-e... get a life.. the world's not gonna fall apart if people don't use AIP phraseology...sound like the sort that have to say Cessna two zero six instead of two-oh-six.

[Avgas172]

I gotta life boys & girls ....unfortunately its owned by the National Aust Bank, and as for 206, two zero six or two ohhhhh six i don't get to say it at all cause i'm to broke to afford one. oh well at least you can't confuddle anyone with 172 (slowly gettin' there chaps... stand by) :{