"Leaving" or "Left" Altitudes (ATC'ers pls) [Archive]

Jungmeister

25th Sep 2005, 14:04

The use of "left Flight Level.." seemed perfectly clear to me over the past 35 years. And I don't recall any pilot problems either.

There was a certain group of controllers who were concerned about ATC issuing a clearance to "maintain" an intermediate altitude or level. EG "Maintain one thousand five hundred, cleared for take off." The protagonists suggested that a more correct phrase would be "Climb to and maintain.." There was never enough support to change the AIP (and I don't think it was necessary).

You can drive yourself nuts trying to come up with completely unambiguous phrases. Many can be misinterpreted. And this includes the many USA and UK peculiarities.

This reminds me of a funny episode at a GA airport when a pilot did not read back his cleared altitude when departing on an amended clearance. The aircraft became airborne and the controller tried once more in slow clear words; "ABC read back altitude"

The pilot replied "ABC, Back altitude one thousand!"

(Actually you had to be there - it doesn't sound quite so funny now!)

Roger Standby

25th Sep 2005, 15:19

Tobzalp , LOL

Kooka , Is "vacated" the same as "vacating"?

BSD , I believe that leaving is not good enough, especially in a step climb/descent.

Cheers,

R-S.

DeBurcs

25th Sep 2005, 22:00

Another case of Qantas knows best obviously... :rolleyes: Like the landing lights thing.

While we're at it, why the variation between ATCers on

"Descend 5000"
"Descend 5000 feet"
"Descend and maintain 5000"
"Descend to 5000" (descend 2 5 thousand)

The last one's a classic. I thought it went out after the Tiger tried to descend "to 5 zero zero feet" and hit a hill...???

A bit like "reduce speed 2 2 5 0 kts"

And as an aside, what about "over the top" calls. :rolleyes:

tobzalp

25th Sep 2005, 22:34

'Descend to 5000' is the correct Australian phrase. Feet can be added to make certain it is an altitude being given.

The confusion comes because some people drop the 'to' thinking they are doing the right thing because 'there was that crash where they did/did not say to and the plane crashed and I think it was because of to and it was in (insert one of 10 countries grapevine style). '

Poms do it different as do the seppos.

Whether or not it is the best way to do it, the book (in Oz) says to say 'to' so everybody should. Simple.

TAY 611

25th Sep 2005, 23:15

Bearing in mind that Australia is in a minority that calls vacating an altitude in a radar environment "Vacating" and "passing" seem to work fairly well in other parts of the world with "Left" being reserved for a lateral dirction change and "out of" sounding a bit retrospective.
It is only Down under where it is almost OK if you crash provided you got the poetry (Quacking) right that we are likely to have these sort of debates that often become heated and drawn out.. A false sense of security perhaps. The Tiger 66 accident in KL malaysia highlights flaws in the "To" and "For" brigade.
Here is another one why do people ask for an "airways clearance" where I am yet to see an airway in Australia? Even the regulators get things wrong and whilst we should follow procedures it is also our responsibility to notify any possible errors in our AIP's (latent failures) to those that write them rather than continue blindly following potentially flawed procedures just because they are in the AIP and react after an incident has occured. We have got brains havn't we? and we are supposed to use them out there and the judicious addition of "FEET" or omision of a "TO" or "FOR" to aid clarity in a situation where comunication has been difficult (perhaps a non English speaking country) would display airmanship. Be aware that procedures and even colloqualisms of one country could be fundamentaly fatal in another (where "to's and Two's don't sound the same) and flexibility is often required to achieve clarity and understanding. Perhaps this is why we study and practise good communication skills on our recurrent CRM courses. Some of the worst examples of radio communication that I have heard come from english speaking country's.

Scurvy.D.Dog

25th Sep 2005, 23:31

One small gripe :D

When we ask present level...............WE WANT THE LEVEL LEFT i.e. "......... left five thousand three hundred"

"...... approaching Six thousand" is 4/5ths of F$%kall use to us for separation purposes!! :ok:

Much obliged :E

Desert Dingo

26th Sep 2005, 00:14

Yes.
It is just so hard to infer that if someone reports "approaching six thousand" he must have "left five thousand", (or seven thousand if going the other way). :E
Or do you really separate aircraft in one hundred foot increments?

En-Rooter

26th Sep 2005, 00:22

Tobzalp,

I'd think very carefully about driving out to Bankstown, getting out of there alive is the real challenge.

:D

sprucegoose

26th Sep 2005, 01:07

"Leaving" is a present tense term and does not mean that you are no longer at the previously maintained altitude. "Left" is a past tense term and implies you are gone...no longer there and is therefor the correct information for ATC and thus the reason it is published as such I would say.

NIMFLT

26th Sep 2005, 02:16

"Yes.
It is just so hard to infer that if someone reports "approaching six thousand" he must have "left five thousand", (or seven thousand if going the other way).
Or do you really separate aircraft in one hundred foot increments?"

It's not hard to infer, just incorrect, and hence dangerous.

pondoklabu

26th Sep 2005, 03:23

Hello gentlemen why don’t you just encourage CASA to join the rest of the world and conform to standard ICAO procedures.

Also there seems to be a slight aversion to be negative to your national carrier QANTAS, all I can say here is its very hard to use different calls in every different countries airspace you fly through, so I would suspect QANTAS just found it easier to comply with ICAO.

Also just because CASA has always done it a certain way, dosnt mean they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Your AIP can be changed the world wont end.

Chimbu chuckles

26th Sep 2005, 06:23

No-one else complies with ICAO why should Australia...every country has its differences from ICAO including UK, US...China and Russia are metric..that ICAO?

In Australia read the AIP and comply with that...not hard really. If you fly long haul you soon pick up the little local differences around the world and modify your calls as necesary.

If more people read the AIP radio phraseology section there would be about a 30% reduction in words used in general...particularly on read backs...you don't need to read back EVERYTHING the ATCO says to you!!!

Capt Claret

26th Sep 2005, 07:11

But Chuckles, if ya don't read back everything the controller says, even "copied no IFR traffic" :rolleyes: , how will you know you've read back all the required bits? :ugh: :{ :zzz:

Capn Bloggs

26th Sep 2005, 07:34

Scurvy,
When we ask present level...............WE WANT THE LEVEL LEFT i.e. "......... left five thousand three hundred"
When I learnt to fly, "level" meant one of the assignable levels listed in the book eg whole thousands or perhaps whole 500s.

So if I'm passing 5300 on descent and you ask "report present level" or for that matter "report last vacated level" I'm going to say "Left 6000".

tobzalp

26th Sep 2005, 08:57

Bloggs. I would be happy with that. Any ATC with half a brain (ie about 1/3 of them) would if they want a specific level ask for 'report Left XXX'

Chimbu chuckles

26th Sep 2005, 09:01

Clarry...was justing chatting about this very thing last week over multitudinous rums with a good mate...who happens to be No 2 man in C&Ting on the 717s...he been verry busy training all our NJS chums in fact.

The classic is "XYX call departures now 124.7"....Call departures now 124.7 XYZ" arrrrggghhhh:{

One part of clearance delivery/readback practice in Australia that is a little bemusing is the long winded departure clearances which include SID, subsequent tracking, an altitude and transponder code.

In the UK, ME etc there is a altitude restriction on the SID...6000' on the Dover 5F at LHR for instance...so when you call London Clearance delivery the just respond with "Cleared destination via Dover 5 fox, squawk 2576"..."Dover 5 foxtrot, 2576 XYZ". Clearance above 6000, traffic permitting, will only happen after contacting departures in the later stages of the noise abate procedure. They also have this strange thing about calling "Fully ready" which bemused me until I heard last week some dill with a heavy accent asking for pushback...and then the aircraft on the next aerobridge pipes up with "He doesn't have a tug and we do so can we push back?" ".......ah..heavily accented dill do you have a tug...are you fully ready for push?" "....er...london ground heavil accented dill...no...we'd like to hold position until we get a tug":ok: :E

So ATC can we have simpliied departure clearances like that in SY? It works in busy places.:E

triadic

26th Sep 2005, 09:13

So if I'm passing 5300 on descent and you ask "report present level" or for that matter "report last vacated level" I'm going to say "Left 6000".

No No No !!! The intent is to check your present level and in that context it means the numbers on you altimeter to the nearest 100 ft.

Your response should be "passing 5300" It is often best not to second guess what the controller is asking you that info for.... should be a case of providing a simple reply to a simple question....No?

Remember in a radar environment the checking of such is necessary for any number of reasons including verification of your mode C.

Are you more interested in playing with the words in the book or giving the controller some meaningful information??

As for "approaching 6000"... you have more than likely been doing that since you left FL390....! Useless, unless you are really approaching 6000 and want further - but I believe there are better words to use in such circumstances which may just make your intent clearer!

Much of this discussion comes from one's interpretation on what the other man means or did he say what I said stuff.... again it comes back to training and how some of our documents are written.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Chimbu chuckles

26th Sep 2005, 09:26

Yup...if you are approaching a clearance limit just say '...request further descent'.

Prop's ????

26th Sep 2005, 09:32

Jeppesen

Air Traffic Control (page AU-705)

DESCENT AND ENTRY

1.9.1.4

eg: "MELBOURNE CENTER (CALL-SIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO"

Looks to me that they want us to say LEAVING not LEFT.

Capn Bloggs

26th Sep 2005, 09:36

Triadic,
I beg to differ. I while ago, what I said above were the rules. It's just that it's disappeared out of AIP with no guidance at all as to what to say now, hence all the confusion. I never been chipped for giving my last passed ATC-assignable level. "Report Present Level" is used to allow another aircraft to be cleared closer to you, and by reporting your actual level they have to do more mental calculations to work out the assignable level for the other aircraft. Hence they don't want "approaching" as you rightly say, bit IMO, they likelwise don't want "5,300".

If controllers want my actual, precise level (only for a altimeter check), they always say "Report Level/Altitude passing" or "verify present level".

Standing by to be shot down in flames!

Of course, all this nonsense could easily be fixed by some clarifications of R/T procedures which suffered when AIP was butchered by office boffins into ICAO R/T and has not recovered.

For example, what's the correct call to a radar Approach facility on descent? :p "On top"? :yuk:

Prop's ????

26th Sep 2005, 10:28

Capn Bloggs

Look up one post, Jeppesen gives an example

Capn Bloggs

26th Sep 2005, 10:47

Props,

I wasn't referring to that call.

But now you come to mention it, the change to it was a ballsup. Even after one of my compatriots suggested they change it from the first totally confusing text, they still messed it up. Perhaps after reading this thread they will change it to what it should be: "Left FL290".

pakeha-boy

26th Sep 2005, 16:07

maaaaaaaaaaaate!!...who,s turn is it to change the water in the "bong " pipe....whilst your at it grab a tinnie for me as well ....whew!..piri

yarrayarra

26th Sep 2005, 17:53

I'll go with this:
If I need you to within the nearest hundred feet (checking Mode C) I'll ask: "verify level"
If I need to know your level for any other reason (separation/level assignment) it's "Report present level"
and you only report the last level left to the the nearest 500ft
Carry on all!!

maxgrad

26th Sep 2005, 22:08

OK while we are at it, how about reports of change of levels while in controlled and more importantly in radar identified space.

As per the book:

a. when an aircraft has left a level at which level flight has been conducted in the course of a climb, cruise or descent; and

b. when the aircraft leaves a level for which ATC has requested a report.

a. and b. (above) are from the non controlled airspace pages.
Does the same hold true for changes in level in a radar situation?
If so where is the reg. for it?

Cloud Cutter

26th Sep 2005, 23:17

How about:

"report level passing".... "passing 2,300 for FL180"
"verify level".... "maintaining FL180"

Seems to work.

esreverlluf

27th Sep 2005, 01:01

"Left" vs "leaving" - there seems to be conflicting advice in WWT (AU) and AIP, "leaving" makes much more sense to me as cannot be confused with a direction of turn (ie left or right). Ambiguity is indeed the enemy!

Readbacks - please everyone learn what needs to be readback - it's in the AIP and quite clear. A lot of people read back way too much.

Contacting approach - you can append "visual" if you reckon you can make a visual approach. If you are "in cloud" or "on top", then you do NOT have tell anyone (and everyone) about it. Again quite clearly set out in the AIP.

My other gripe is with people that say "Taxies this time" or "approaches 5000" or "maintains FL140" - please guys, that is not even proper English, let alone to be found anywhere in the AIP or WWT, you are "taxying", "approaching" or "maintaining".

OK - rant over.

ATCO1962

27th Sep 2005, 04:34

Give me your altitude/flight level to within 100 ft every time, as triadic wrote. No matter what phraseology you use, I want accuracy every time because I base separation, particularly in procedural airspace or in the case of mode C failure, on an accurate altitude. Why? Because we assume that, when you are within 300 ft of a level(200ft in RVSM airspace), you are at a level separated from other levels. In the case of a climbing or descending aircraft, the nearest or best 1000 ft level doesn't cut it for me. There's also the small matter of 500ft separation in some airspace where we need the most accurate level you can give.

king oath

27th Sep 2005, 04:59

When someone is promoted to Big Manager in that certain australian airline, they automatically become the worlds expert on all things aviation.

So they tell all the good little Boys and Girls who fly their aircraft to say "leaving" not "left."

Those with a brain ignore bullsh*t when they hear it. The other good boys and girls do as they are told. It is a diverse group of people. But there is some intelligent life left in the organisation.

They are the ones who just get on with it and look after the important stuff. Rivetting subject this.Lets get a life people.

boofhead

27th Sep 2005, 05:25

The case that always p*****d me off when flying with guys from **** was the way they all, when cleared to a new level, always replied "Cleared 7000, leaving 8000." I would plead with them to wait until they had gone through the required ceremony of setting the new altitude, having it confirmed by the other pilot, selecting VNAV/FLChange and seeing the airplane actually start to move out of the old altitude before reporting leaving/left. I would say, "you are not actually leaving, are you? Just getting ready to do so, surely? And what happens if you select VNAV but the airplane is in ALT HOLD? Nothing will happen but you have already told ATC it is OK to let someone use our altitude, haven't you? (actually happened to me more than once, causing great grief to ATC and me!). The blank looks it earned me showed it was a waste of time trying to teach some of those yobbos what it is all about.."that's the way we have always done it!"

I had on old Airforce Wing Commander who insisted that we had to be at least 500 feet away from the old altitude, with an established rate of descent, before calling "left XXXX ft", and at the time I thought it was silly, but now I agree with it.

And never mind that in most parts of the world it is not necessary to call leaving. Clearances (such as Oceanic) will specify that you report "Reaching", and that makes more sense since separation will be based on the altitude you are currently occupying.
I guess when you get to see the belly of a 747 from real close you learn that little things can get you dead real fast.

GaryGnu

27th Sep 2005, 05:29

For what it is worth,

I checked my copy of AIP.
ENR 1.1-19, Paragraph 11.1.4

'After any frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level: eg, "MELBOURNE CENTRE (CALLSIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO".'

The copy on AsA's web site says the same thing.

Obviously this differs from BSD's copy in only one word but perhaps the good gentleman at Qantas is not as far off the mark as some may think.

Back Seat Driver

27th Sep 2005, 06:26

Thankyou GG
I will admit to being tardy by having the immediate past revision of the AIP on my computer. Time for an update!
ps Used 'Left'... ATC said TA... The capt. said ..'Leaving D!ckhead':O

Transition Layer

27th Sep 2005, 07:13

I've always been a "leaving" man myself. I brought it up on another thread earlier this year but was always taught to say everything in the present sense, i.e. leaving, climbing, turning, passing, lining up etc etc

Everyone has mentioned the descending case, so what about climbing. I.e.

ATC: "Qantas XX climb FL390"

Me :"Climbing FL390, leaving FL370, Qantas XX"

Is that not OK? :confused:

TL

Back Seat Driver

27th Sep 2005, 07:26

Checked the latest amendment and GaryGnu is spot-on.
Thankyou to all ATC'ers who replied...I've always been a "Left" person at heart but as the good book now says....
BSD has 'Leaving' the building.....

Prop's ????

27th Sep 2005, 10:23

esreverlluf

Jeppesen AU-705

1.9.1.6

When making first contact with Approach Control:

b. Radar Identified - report assigned level, flight conditions, if appropriate, and receipt of the ATIS.

Maybe you should have a closer look!

Capn Bloggs

27th Sep 2005, 11:08

Props,
report...flight conditions, if appropriate
WTF does that mean? Please explain?! :{

esreverlluf

27th Sep 2005, 12:03

OK Props - now read your AIP.

Ready Immediate

27th Sep 2005, 12:07

Don't care much whether you use "left" or "leaving" but definitely give a precise level when requested. If I can give you a turn out of a particular level or I'm wanting to assign a level to another aircraft then saying "approaching" isn't much good to me. And yes I do regularly separate using levels down to 100's of feet. Probably true though that it's more important in non-radar.

RI

Capn Bloggs

27th Sep 2005, 12:47

I do regularly separate using levels down to 100's of feet
You ain't been controlling me or any other aircraft I've been on the R/T with in tha last 31 years: I have never heard an ATC clear an aircraft, on the basis of a "left" report from another aircraft, to anything other than a whole 500ft level. If I have, it certainly happens so infrequently I can't remember. I must have dumped that byte a long time ago.

FlexibleResponse

27th Sep 2005, 13:10

Descend to 5000' is the correct Australian phrase.

DeBurcs comment is correct. The misinterpretation of the use of “two” as “to” in the descent clearance was the probable cause of the loss of the Flying Tiger B747 freighter at Kuala Lumpur.

As a result to avoid confusion ATC agencies worldwide adopted changes to preclude the use of the word to in altitude clearances (which parodoxically was what the KUL controller used). Oz took the opposite tact for probably for much the same reasons.

In non-English speaking countries odd bits of speech such as to are commonly left out. So the International default eliminated it also.

Perhaps we will need another “Flying Tiger” before we can agree on joining the rest of the ICAO World in standardizing ATC procedures based on the experience of others.

OVC002 Date: 19 FEB 1989
Time: 06:36
Type: Boeing 747-249F
Operator: Flying Tiger Line
Registration: N807FT
Msn / C/n: 21828/408
Year built: 1979
Total airframe hrs: 34000 hours
Cycles: 9000 cycles
Engines: 4 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7Q
Crew: 4 fatalities / 4 on board
Passengers: 0 fatalities / 0 on board
Total: 4 fatalities / 4 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: 12 km (7.5 mls) from Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
Phase: Approach (APR)
Nature: Cargo
Departure airport: Singapore
Destination airport: Kuala Lumpur-Subang Airport (KUL)
Flightnumber: 66
Narrative:
The Boeing, named "Thomas Haywood", was less than half loaded with textiles, computer software and mail when it departed Singapore. Approaching Kuala Lumpur, the crew were cleared to route direct to the Kayell (KL) beacon for a runway 33 approach. While on the NDB approach, the crew were cleared to "...descend two four zero zero..." which was interpreted by the crew as "...to 400...". The aircraft descended below minimum altitude and crashed into a hillside at 600 feet/180m msl just before reaching the Kayell NDB, where minimum descent height was 2400 feet. The Boeing hit treetops and started to break up until bursting into flames.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Non-standard phraseology was used by Kuala Lumpur ATC, causing the crew to misinterpret the instructions.

ferris

27th Sep 2005, 13:36

Can only cause a problem on the climb in oz.
"descend to one thousand feet" can only be missed as 21000'
"climb to five thousand feet" could be heard as 25000', so not a terrain issue.

Capn Bloggs

27th Sep 2005, 13:51

descend two four zero zero..."
And that is why in Oz a while back we changed our verbals to say Flight Level Three Hundred" instead of Three Zero Zero, until the international experts came in and changed it back to the superior international way of doing things. :yuk:

Ferris:ok:

Ronnie Honker

27th Sep 2005, 13:58

Sorry Flexible One, but if operating crew can't read their f:mad:ing Jepps, and prefer to follow what they THINK they heard, then this profession is f:mad:ed as well.

How about getting REAL on this subject!
If an aircraft suffers a rapid depressurisation and diverts LEFT of his assigned, flight planned track, then he's also going to transmit a "Pan", or a "Mayday".

LEFT is PAST tense, therefore to be chronologically correct - in the English Language terminology - one can only transmit LEFT,some time AFTER having vacated the altituide.

LEAVING - in the English Language terminology - is PRESENT tense, meaning it must be transmitted at the very moment the action is initiated.
10 seconds or more later, and you are transmitting false information!

(Was this introduced during The Dick's Reign? It sounds like the trivial sort of **** he'd think of....as a professional wannabee).

Transition Layer

27th Sep 2005, 14:33

Just to throw a spanner in the works...

What if you say "leaving" and do it within one minute Ronnie? Or commence the descent, then 50 secs later say "leaving"?

Don't the regs say that when instructed to climb or descend it must be initiated within one minute? Therefore you've got a minute up your sleeve from the moment you say you're leaving, the same way you have one minute from when you are instructed to leave. Or am I interpreting the regs a little loosely?

TL

boofhead

27th Sep 2005, 15:51

Mode C gives ATC and anyone with TCAS immediate verification of your leaving an alititude, does it not?

Scurvy.D.Dog

27th Sep 2005, 18:58

Bloggsie

You must be spending most of your time in the comfort of Vectors and maestro infected radar comfy stuff :ooh:......:p

In my world (procedural App/Twr) those hundreds can mean the difference between getting following Acft below the Cloudbase on a 'Deary Me' arrival etc or to check sep with a bug smasher (class D)etc etc

soooooo........play nice and give us accurate levels......none of this approaching ****e'..............or I'll bust ya chops:E

True Story (no names, no pack drill)

737 departure report just the other day

..........Departed blah blah, tracking blah blah, approaching eight thousand.............the f#$ker had just left 1900ft on the TSAD (which we cannot use for altitude/mode C verification)..............getting in early for further climb is one thing but......pppppppppppppplllllease..:hmm:

Capt Claret

27th Sep 2005, 21:07

Scurvey,

What if said No Name 737 was going up at > 3000 fpm? Perhaps s/he wanted to avoid the bunt as the automatics captured 8000 because if they left the call till passing 7000 there'd only be 20 seconds for onwards clearance to be issued (and of course some dill would be reading back his war and peace R/T) and by about 5 secs after reporting it'd be in capture mode.

TAY 611

27th Sep 2005, 22:10

Pleeeease...:confused: listen to you guys..:{ it is absolutely painful to read all the drivel on this thread. Im outta here (bit like leaving but not left) and Im not a labor supporter.

tobzalp

27th Sep 2005, 22:40

Don't let the door hit you in the arse.......

coitus interuptus

28th Sep 2005, 00:04

Radio calls in oz these days are generally a disgrace.

"Taxis this time", WRONG ,"Taxying"

"on climb", WRONG, "climbing to"

"on descent", WRONG, "descending to"

ETC ETC.

Departure calls from class D towers and MBZ's are some of the biggest jokes going around at the moment as well. All verbal diarrhoea. Have some modicum of professionalism and read your books a little more often.

I am LEAVING my girlfriends house now, (present tense).
Woops, I LEFT the condom on the pillow, (past tense).

It just aint that hard, (in the bedroom or in the air).

Capn Bloggs

28th Sep 2005, 00:17

Scurvy,

1. I'll second Claret's comment. We use "Approaching" to tell you "we need the next level you can give us" to stop the friggin autopilot go into capture mode with all the attendant dramas.

2. I've never used "approaching" as a response to "report present level"

3. Please enlighten the masses about how a 100ft (in this case lower) more accurate level call would help any aircrft trying to conduct an instrument approach at say Alice: there is obviously an aircraft in front on the same/similar instrument approach or in the same area and the follower is never going to get visual if I, the one in front, hasn't got visual, being 1000ft lower! If the cloud base is XXXX, the only way an aircraft is going to get Visual is to be at XXXX. It won't matter if they get cleared to XXXX+300 or XXXX+400.

4. "Checking" separation with a lighty? Interesting concept! Wasn't it already assured by the clearance we were operating to?

5. I've never had the pleasure of being Maestro'd. Sounds like great fun...not.

Boofhead,
Yes it does, except that ATC must apparently allow a 400ft (??) buffer on the Transponder readout before assigning the level below or above us. If we give it on the R/T, they can assign it immediately. Sometimes I think they are just reading the paper and want us to remind them when we "left" a level. But they don't realise that I'm onto my first cup of coffee by then and by the time I put it down, put the Inside Sport down and hop on the radio, I'm a couple of thousand feet past when they wanted me to call anyway!

Transition Layer

28th Sep 2005, 00:39

coitus interuptus,

It just aint that hard...in the bedroom

Maybe you should talk to someone about this little problem? I'm sure one of these whiz bang nasal sprays can help you out.

TL

Ready Immediate

28th Sep 2005, 01:59

Capn Bloggs,

Let me enlighten you to the joys of using visual separation. An example if I may:

Cloud base 5400ft. Inbound on decent LEFT 4300ft (doesn't matter whether it's an instrument approach or not) and you are approaching over head for a sector entry for any approach. I assign you 5300ft, you get visual, I get you in sight and can give further decent and clearance for the approach using visual separation with the inbound. If I'd assigned 5500ft or worse 6000ft you are still in the muck and you have to do a holding pattern before I can give further decent. Additionally by getting you visual I can facilitate climb (using visual separation again) with someone departing who is maintaining under you in the sector entry.

Finally - if you are held up on decent for an approach by a preceding doing the same approach then there's a good chance he's on decent or maintaining a MSA or track LSALT etc which don't seem to come in even 500ft levels. I will always give you as much decent as possible - ie 1000ft above this level!!!!!!

Hope this helps.

RI

Capn Bloggs

28th Sep 2005, 02:40

RI/Scurvy,

Point taken. :ok:

Roger Standby

28th Sep 2005, 07:23

The only situation I can possibly see where assigning odd levels would be practical is in TMA or airspace owning towers. It is simply not practical enroute due to the interaction with TAAATS drop down menus.

Yarrayarra is spot on the money... the only time I want your exact level is when verifying it. At all other times all I want to know is what level (ie standard levels) you are out of so I can determine what is usable for me.

Tranition layer... good call.

Would it be acceptable for an aircraft which is on descent from f350 to f210 and passing f231 to say leaving f230? The righteous will say, "no way it doesn't happen!". Sure it doesn't!

Unfortunately over the years documents like AIP and even MATS get changed around, bastardized, returned to what it was before and throughout these changes, words get altered and meanings become wishy washy. The whole lot needs a bloody overhaul.

As for the use of the word "to" in level assignments, I will not use it. Every check I get comments about my phraseolgy and my refusal to use the word. It's just one less hole in the cheese.

As for the question of mode c in TAAATS, the allowable error is 200ft... therefore in the cruise at say A080, your mode c could be reading anywhere between A078 and A082 and you will not get grilled. Without going into how all the errors are calculated, without a pilot report on level left, we cannot assume you have left a level on mode c until you are out by 400ft.

Cheers,

R-S.

maxgrad

28th Sep 2005, 13:24

R.S good call!
common sense with knowledge and experience

FlexibleResponse

28th Sep 2005, 13:31

Sorry Flexible One, but if operating crew can't read their f ing Jepps, and prefer to follow what they THINK they heard, then this profession is f ed as well.I agree that the poor Flying Tiger crew should not have crashed under these circumstances, but they did. But is Ronnie correct that the Flying Tiger crew deserved to die because they misinterpreted the ATC instruction?

That train of thought would sure save us a lot of time arguing semantics to try to achieve standardisation of International radio communication.

But I think we are wasting our time trying to invent new "Australian unique" phraseology to confound the visiting International operators and also to make our Oz pilots look unprofessional when operating in other countries. This problem should only be tackled at an International level (ICAO).

TAY 611

29th Sep 2005, 06:06

Ahh some sense at last..:ok:

ETOPS Jock

29th Sep 2005, 08:43

Storm in a teacup ....:{

esreverlluf ... It's no sense harping on about your AIP. As a foreigner I don't even know the colour of the cover of your AIP let alone what's written in it. But I sure know what the Jepp says. And that's what I'm going parrot out of the transmitter. Thank goodness for ADS. :cool:

esreverlluf

29th Sep 2005, 11:43

Jock - It's not the international operators/itinerants that upset me - it's the locals that should know better. Hell - I'm sure I bugger things up a little bit R/T wise when outside Oz.

This is the D & G forum after all . . .

Capn Bloggs

29th Sep 2005, 12:13

As a foreigner

I'm glad you know your position in life considering it appears from from UN ZUD. :p

pakeha-boy

29th Sep 2005, 16:18

I dont make the rules...I just follow them.....READ YOUR AIM....how hard can it be????:{

Scurvy.D.Dog

4th Oct 2005, 00:32

Bloggsie

Thanks, there are a whole host of reasons why the accurate level ‘left’ in the departure report (tower terminal area) or on descent (although those will generally be asked for if needed) can save you and me unnecessary work/talking and thus headaches i.e.
- VFR inbound expected (seen on TSAD or perhaps is a local who we know will return around a certain time or has already called at a VFR reporting point) around the time you are ‘wheels off’…… you report out of 2600 in the departure report and the VFR is at 2500, then I can clear him/her in without bothering you with traffic info that just ain’t gunna matter to you nor have to ask you for another level report unnecessarily whilst you are concentrating on cleaning up and hitting the straps.
- IFR inbound on a DME arrival at 18DME with a clearance limit of say 7DME, you are ready to roll……now I may make a ‘pluck’ and estimate where you might be by the time they need to have the limit removed, in which case I will ask for a specific level report, most of the time in this circumstance the level left by a Jet in the departure report will be high enough to enable a cancelling of the clearance limit without further interrupting you, me or the conflicting traffic.
- In an arriving sequence (irrespective of approach type) the more accurate the level reports the greater the descent offered to the following aircraft this can be critical if there are more than two in a sequence with an intermediate cloudbase.
As RI explained and the brief examples above…….the list goes on…….
That said, it is apparently not so critical for the light starved ‘Battery Roosters and Hens’ in the BN and ML coops…..

Capt ClaretWhat if said No Name 737 was going up at > 3000 fpm? Perhaps s/he wanted to avoid the bunt as the automatics captured 8000 because if they left the call till passing 7000 there'd only be 20 seconds for onwards clearance to be issued (and of course some dill would be reading back his war and peace R/T) and by about 5 secs after reporting it'd be in capture mode.No argument with that…….the point I was making was simply that at 1900ft climbing to 8000ft, calling ‘approaching’ is farkall use to us for clearing useable levels for others and it serves no useful purpose to you for expediting climb assignment particularly if we will have to go back and ask the ‘level left’ (two transmissions, wasted time, potential delays for others).

All I ask is that you all just add an accurate ‘level left’ when making the departure report. Make an early departure call by all means!

Regarding climb assignments and the issue of ‘capture at low levels’…… I personally (and most others who work in regional towers) will always attempt to get a higher level from the sector either when you are lining up or just airborne to avoid that very thing………even if the centre for whatever reason cannot issue higher through the TWR, ‘traffic permitting’ I will flick you to them early for climb issuance to avoid same.

Where able, I facilitate options to avoid vertical stops because I am aware off and understand the problem from your seat………..isn’t this conversation about mutual enlightenment and thus assistance?!?!

plazBloggs. I would be happy with that. Any ATC with half a brain (ie about 1/3 of them) would if they want a specific level ask for 'report Left XXX'Sure, if you like the sound of your own voice and have the time to make multiple transmissions when one would suffice!........comon’ dude…… oh I know, ATC is one big happy family……….as long as you reside in one of the big coop’s....:suspect: ...:ooh: .....:E

Capt Claret

4th Oct 2005, 00:43

Scurvy.

Thanks for that.

In the interests of greater "mutual enlightenment and thus assistance", TSAD is an acronym for?

Scurvy.D.Dog

4th Oct 2005, 01:02

Tower Situational Awareness Display …….effectively a radar that is not certified as such as the data throughput is not guaranteed to arrive on the screen within the required time frame to be used as radar.

We can use it for very little, it is extremely useful for monitoring separation and sequencing already set up procedurally and for ensuring some of our less experienced GA cousins are where they say they are.

In reality, the data is proving very reliable, it could before long be used more effectively, although ‘Radar ratings’ and the commensurate implications for the shareholder (guess who) would be financially unpalatable me thinks........
:mad: ..........:{ ............:hmm:

Capt Claret

4th Oct 2005, 01:41

Scurvey,

Thanks. Are the TSADs at all non radar towers or just some of them? If not all, which ones?

One wonders, is big brother watching? :8

ps when I say big brother, I'm not suggesting you or ATC, more a tung in cheek go at tha potential for gummint to look, and introduce infraction revenue raising techniques.

RENURPP

4th Oct 2005, 09:18

A bit of a test!

If I was flying a jet and was asked my present altitude, as ATC wanted to clear another aircraft to climb to my last vacated level. The following aircraft is also a jet how ever has a better rate of climb. I called and said ABC is approaching 9,000, at what altitude am I at???
What level can ATC clear the following aircraft to, assuming 1000 ft seperation.

If I was flying a jet and was asked my present altitude, as ATC wanted to clear another aircraft to climb to my last vacated level. The following aircraft is also a jet how ever has a better rate of climb. I called and said ABC has left 8500 at what altitude am I at???
What level can ATC clear the following aircraft to, assuming 1000 ft seperation

divingduck

4th Oct 2005, 19:52

Another variation on the theme....

ICAO doc4444 says that a level can be assigned to an aircraft when the conflicting aircraft has left that level.

example CPA002 "Left F250", we say "GFA 751 climb FL 250", couple of caveats there somewhere about similar performance aircraft etc. Not what we used to do in OZ I can tell you:ooh: then (and possibly now) we had to have a minimum of 1000 feet.

The Messiah

7th Oct 2005, 01:59

....you farken losers.....:confused:

Kelly Slater

7th Oct 2005, 04:59

Below are extracts from both the AIP and JEPPS. They both refer to calls made associated with a frequency change when descent has already commenced. Some people now take this to mean that any time you leave an assigned level, the correct terminology is "leaving". When I am on centre maintaining one level whilst assigned another, should I say "leaving" or "left" when I start descent? I am after specific references either in the AIP or JEPPS for commencing descent in controlled airspace. I am not after opinions or English lessons, only specific references for this single case whilst still on the centre frequency that assigned the lower level.

'After any frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level: eg, "MELBOURNE CENTRE (CALLSIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO".'

Jeppesen

Air Traffic Control (page AU-705)

DESCENT AND ENTRY

1.9.1.4

eg: "MELBOURNE CENTER (CALL-SIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO"

Scurvy.D.Dog

12th Oct 2005, 07:45

Capt Claret

Most regional tower will have them by now!

Rule of thumb is...if there is useable radar coverage into the tower CTR steps then the tower should have a TSAD.

TSAD is only showing us what the Coops (TAARTS) have always seen in any case :ok:

Cannot charge for a service that does not happen or exist:E

knight kevlar

13th Oct 2005, 00:58

technically you should not call" left" a lower level until passing 100 feet above or below that level due tolerance of calibrationof the altimeter (+- 3 millibars)

transonic dragon

3rd Nov 2005, 21:51

I have also read my AIP regarding this extremely important matter.

My copy says:-

ENR 1.1-19, Paragraph 11.1.4

'After any frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level: eg, "MELBOURNE CENTRE (CALLSIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, SHALL HAVE BEEN LEAVING HAVING HAS LEFT FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO".'

I also heard some amateur on the radio call "TAXYING". We professionals know to actually call "TAXIING" or "TAXI-ING".

As many posters have already said, good radio calls are the mark of a true professional. Thank god there are no losers posting here.

CAVOK Pilot

4th Nov 2005, 22:15

Why would using the word LEFT cause any confusion when talking about a FL? :hmm:

Icarus2001

6th Sep 2006, 02:26

Okay I have dug up this old thread to ask the ATCOs on here a question...

The AIP/Jepp used to say that pilots were required to call leaving/left a level they had been maintaing in CTA. This appears to have been removed, some time ago by the look of it. The only reference now is "after a frequency cahnge..." Jepp AU705 1.9.1.4

The other reference is AU-806 3.5.1.6

It appears many pilots still give this call, is it required anymore, particularly when radar identified?

eg. "ABC when ready descend to FL 130"

"when ready descend FL130 ABC"

then after a minute or two...

"ABC left/leaving FL230"

What is interesting is that as I fly from coast to coast there are some regional differences as to what is said and it appears also what is expected.

Comments from ATCOs would be appreciated.

*Lancer*

6th Sep 2006, 03:17

Tut-tut Icarus, no requirement to read back "when ready" ;)

SM4 Pirate

6th Sep 2006, 03:34

AFAIK, there has been no change to the AIP...

What has crept in more is "assigned FL130 left FL230"; really confusing if you clip it, or someone else is talking to me on a non VHF line. Would prefer "left FL230" only; otherwise I'm obliged to confirm the level you read to me when vacating, which might lead me (and does) to say "say again assigned level"... But we've already been there and done that when I originally gave you the level...

Peter Fanelli

6th Sep 2006, 03:44

GaryGnu

6th Sep 2006, 04:43

The other reference is AU-806 3.5.1.6
Although I am not an ATCO, here is my tuppence worth.
The reference you quote states:
3.5.1.6 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft,
receiving an instruction from ATC to change level,
must report:
a. when the aircraft has left a level at which level
flight has been conducted in the course of climb,
cruise or descent; and
b. when the aircraft leaves a level for which ATC
has requested a report.
The equivalent reference in AIP is ENR 1.7 - 4.1.6
My view, based upon that reference, is that you are still required to report "left" a level. I say "left" as I once asked an ATCO, over VHF, whether they believed leaving or left was the correct term. After consulting with others he quoted this exact passage as the basis for "left" being the correct term.

SM4 Pirate

6th Sep 2006, 06:54

Any synonym of "Left" works for me, "vacated", "leaving", "out of (American accent required)", "commenced descent", "departed", but "left" works well...

It's the advice that's important, not the words used, as long as there is no ambiguity.

I work in radar, lack of advice of leaving a level, tends to leave me getting an 'approaching FLXXX" call, (response to self well if you have said "left FLXXX" I'd have giving you lower...), response to you "descend FLZZZ" This is especially common when you've had a when ready descend advice and you take more than 5 minutes to descend; i.e. I don't need to look at you (in terms of next task) until you call "left FLXXX".

triadic

6th Sep 2006, 08:48

Icarus....

"when ready descend FL130 ABC"

actually "FL130 ABC" is all that is required !!

It's now 9 years since all the readback changes - you would expect that most folk would get it right by now.

Philthy

6th Sep 2006, 11:38

I believe that there are places that if you say "Left FL350" that means somebody else can then be assigned that level...

It is possible in Oz, in some very limited circumstances.

mustafagander

7th Sep 2006, 00:41

Given the variety of accents and the variations in English proficiency I encounter, I detest the word "LEFT" to report out of an altitude. It's not too big a stretch of the imagination for this to be misconstrued as a (compass) direction. I much prefer "OUT OF" since it does not refer to any other aviation thing.

Philthy

7th Sep 2006, 00:52

Thank you BSD. A pilot that reads his/her AIP.
The phrase is LEFT. The controller is not confused. Other pilots that read their AIP are not confused.
Clever folk tha wanna use their own phrases, go build your own airspace system and play there.
There is no problem. Thus no solutions or bright ideas are required.
AIP. You paid for it. Why not read the bluddy thing?

Christ, ITCZ had it right months ago. Stick to what's in the book. Use the words 'Flight Level' and nobody will ever be confused. The End.

APMR

7th Sep 2006, 02:10

Great thread!

You ATC'ers seem to be saying that after you give an instruction like:

"ABC, when ready, descend to 7,000"

pilots should not read back the "when ready" words; i.e, we should just respond:

"ABC, 7,000".

But, if there is no read back of the "when ready" part, doesn't that open the door to the kind of uncertainty that the "left XXXX" is meant to resolve?

For example, consider this scenario where VH-ABC is given descent clearance "when ready" but doesn't hear the "when ready" words:

ATC: "ABC, when ready, descend to 7,000"

ABC: "ABC, 7,000"

But VH-ABC, having not heard the "when ready" words, commences descent immediately and as seems to be customary when given immediate climbs/descents, does not add the "left 7,000".

So, in this scenario, ABC is now on descent but ATC thinks he is still maintaining his original level. What if the ATC radar was to now fail?

In fact, isn't the whole reason for reporting having left a level so that ATC can update the manual record (formerly the "flight strip") for just in case the radar fails?

Green on, Go!

7th Sep 2006, 02:38

For AMPR:

Nope, you should read back, '7000, ABC'.:}

I give a 'when ready' instruction with descent to give YOU the flexibility to commence descent when YOU want to. Ultimately, I don't care exactly when you commence the descent. If I need you to commence descent I'll either leave out the 'when ready' or use something like 'descend to 7000, reach 7000 by XXX'.

Once I've assigned a level change to an aircraft I consider you to be at the previously assigned level, the new level or anywhere in between regardless of whether 'when ready' was used or not. Doesn't matter whether the pressure-altitude derived level info or ATS surveillance system is not working as I can always ask whether you have LEFT, are LEAVING, or are OUT OF (whatever) any particular level.:ugh:

Capt Claret

7th Sep 2006, 03:33

APMR

In the scenario you paint, the correct read back,assuming one hasn't heard the "when ready" is; 7,000, left/leaving [cruise level], ABC

Just responding to a level assignment doesn't indicate the departure from the old level, hence the requirement to report left/leaving a maintained level.

Occasionally in the confusion, ATC will omit the usual "when ready", or we will miss the "when ready". If unsure it's simple to get clarification.

SM4 Pirate

7th Sep 2006, 07:52

APMR, there is no manual record... it's TAAATS now, since 1998... one click deserves another...

I will always give 'when ready' unless I need you to go now, or you requested descent. I often here 'request descent', followed by 'confirm when ready to FLXXX', no actually you asked for it, I gave it, so no it's not when ready. If you want to program it in your box or get it in advance, say approaching descent point or TOD in XX trackmiles etc.

I agree with the others, once issued a descent clearance it's from where you are now to the level I chose, if there is something in the way, or between the levels that is my problem to resolve, ie control it. I don't care if you descend early, that's your problem. I of course try to avoid you descending late.

No need to readback, 'when ready'...

Icarus2001

7th Sep 2006, 10:22

Thanks Pirate, aaargghhhhh. That is what I was after.

And a big thank you to *Lancer* and triadic for castigating me for being verbose and adding "when ready" to my read back. I will however continue to add this to differentiate my clearance to descend "when ready" from an instruction to "descend" now. Thanks all the same. Call me recalcitrant but I also call "ready in turn" when it is not required. It does seem to help the nice man in the tower as last week they lined one up and cleared the next in line to take off whilst he was at the holding point, "in turn" helps oil the wheels just as "when ready" oils the wheels and clarifies the clearance, as mentioned by APMR above.

What if the ATC radar was to now fail?
What the en route and the TAR? Well as happened a couple of months ago in ML the whole system grinds to a halt.:sad:

I really did not want to get in to the left/leaving pedantry as even the people who write the bloody manuals can't be consistent. It is interesting that different TCUs around the country seem to operate slightly differently with regard to expecting a "left FL180" call.

triadic

8th Sep 2006, 23:30

Icarus2001

You don’t seem to get it ! As a pilot who:

………. is that as I fly from coast to coast……..

I would expect that you have procedures and checklists etc that you are obliged to follow. Do you add bits here and there because you believe it might:

……….helps oil the wheels…

I think not, otherwise your might come fowl of your C&T Captains… No?

In the same way we have procedures which in the Australian case are quite prescriptive and detailed in AIP/JEPPs. In general terms for all normal situations we really are obliged to use these terms.

I would be the first to agree that CASA have failed in some areas to write various sections that are not open to a variety of interpretations, but I think to some extent that has been the case since the beginning of time. This subject is perhaps one example of such a variance in interpretations, and I might add has been so for some years, but then if you have been about for a while you will know how difficult and how long it takes to process any change whatsoever through ICAO.

The working group that processed the R/T phrases changes back in 1997 said that the new procedures should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. It was then agreed that if they were not the default position of those that either did not know or did not care would be to just read everything back…! Think about it. When you go flying – listen - how many do just that? like reading back weather, traffic info etc and other lots of words that do nothing but jam up the airwaves. (we can blame that on the CASA AIP writers of the day)

Part of the big problem with this subject is that in some countries these requirements are different and one’s procedures must cover off such anomalies to the satisfaction of the locals, wherever that might be. The differences in North America and the UK/EUR and some small 3rd world counties are usually quite obvious.

We are lucky in Oz as we have only one language to deal with (domestically) and to a large extent we were able to review (back in 1997) much of the ICAO phrases and standards and as a result many are not included in the AIP. The problem was/is that CASA have failed to provide appropriate education to that change and now many instructors and check pilots lack a standardised approach to the subject.

The bottom line in this is, that like your internal SOPs, there is a process to change the AIP and that if you are of the belief that saying these extra words is both necessary for safety and efficiency then put up a case for them to be included in the AIP. I am sure that if Controllers believed such words were necessary they would have done that already. There are no obvious proposals for such in the wind as far as I know and in fact if many of the controllers that I know had their way, some of the existing readback requirements would be removed. What you also don’t seem to appreciate is that if the non existence of a phrase or readback has the effect of defaulting “safe” then why should we bother. In your case, (as said by other scribes) you can descend when ever you like - it does not matter and the controller will always be prescriptive if he/she wants otherwise. As for:

but I also call "ready in turn" when it is not required

I used to say that once as I thought like you it helped, but helped who? You are not the one that decides the take-off sequence (turn) and if you call ready you should in fact be ready to line up and go.

Think about it and try not to waste your breath, trying to sound professional when you don’t !!

Rant off !......I’m leaving… no left !!

:ugh: :ugh: :ok:

NOtimTAMs

9th Sep 2006, 11:54

So if we're going to be a bit anal about lots of words that do nothing but jam up the airwaves. what about the use of "lubricating" words like "good morning/afternoon/evening" on first contact with each freq change and "see ya" / "hooroo" / " good-bye" on last contact when given frequency change approval? Not to mention "thank you".....

We all hear it every day by pilots and ATC alike, from GA to heavy and have for years. I do it too - as it just sounded rude when I tried for a few days without. Should we eliminate this "operationally superfluous" stuff from our transmissions too, in the interest of limiting unnecessary transmissions and in the interest of conformance with AIP and ICAO?? Or should we just get a life.....:rolleyes:

Chimbu chuckles

9th Sep 2006, 13:16

In my view there is a big difference between courtesy and bad RT discipline. Good radio discipline would suggest ditching the 'good mornings' etc at busy times.

In my company good RT is very heavily pushed by the C&Ting department...and as we are a JAROPS compliant airline operating under the Brit CAA we must reference CAP 371 (I think it is).

Local standards do vary because everywhere has their own differences from ICAO (including CAP 371) but basic airmanship suffices in all situations.

When I am getting ready to call for clearance I look up the Jepps (usually in 10-9) and give them exactly what they need in exactly the order asked. After that it is always the minumum amount of words.

Examples;

"Cleared xyz, tonvo 1 delta, sqauwk 2245 blah69" In the real world stop altitudes are on the SID and do not nead to be read back...you are never cleared above that altitude prior to changing to departures and it greatly simplifies things...Oz ATC please note.:ugh:

XYZ grnd Blah69, recieved xray, stand bravo 9, request push and start.

Clear to push, face west blah69

xyz grnd blah69 request taxi clearance.

Juliet1, Yankee, Kilo, Mike 14, hold short 30R blah69

xyz twr blah69 ready for departure (never 'ready in turn')

30 right clear for takeoff 124.45 blah69

xyz control request FL 370 (never add 'if available', if it isn't you wont get it...simple)

when cleared onto a new heading "right heading xyz, blah69" I have occassionally been cleared the long way to a heading...'confirm left heading xyz?" "negative blah69, right heading xyz, sorry"

When changing frequencies always "xyz control blah69 maintaining/climbing/descending FLxyz or 'altitude' X000"...never put 'to' in..and yes that is standard practice in Australia but were I am we get in trouble for it...I personally think it's paranoid, by I don't get a vote.

When cleared to descend "When ready" just read back the altitude...it's pretty bloody obvious most of the time...if you're miles from your planned descent point and he doesn't say "when ready" querry it.:ugh:

If told "blah69 call departures now 124.45" You DO NOT ready back "Call departures now 124 decimal 45, blah69"...a simply "124 decimal 45, blah69" is all that is required.

When leaving an assigned altitude it is " XYZ control blah69, Left FL 370, descending altitude 8 thousand". It's the last chance to catch mistakes...in many parts of the world...you are supposed to wait until you have LEFT the level/alt because ATC won't necesarily pick up on their scopes until you have actually changed level/alt by 300' (I think it is) Leaving is a very vague term...leaving now or leaving in 30 seconds...LEFT is unambiguous:ok:

Bottom line is it is VERY important to get your voice on the tape clearly for the investigation that might follow:ok: .

The list of must read back items is so incredibly short it is beyond me why there is this, seemingly, insurmountable problem.:confused:

Frequencies,
Altitudes,
Headings,
Clearance limits,
Taxi routes,
route designators,
runways.

If you are recleared "blah69, Sydney, recleared direct xyz, then W123 shelleys, descend when ready FL150". Do you read back every word or is it simply "Direct xyz, whiskey 123 shelleys, FL150 blah69"?

Similarly when requesting direct routing never say "Request 'present position' direct xyz" Where the hell else are you going to track direct from if not present position?

Sydney, blah69 request direct Griffith"

Why so hard?

Roger Standby

10th Sep 2006, 11:17

The one I love to hear is...

"ABC, request descent"

"ABC, descend to F130"

"Ahh, centre, confirm that's when ready descend to F130, ABC?":confused:

esreverlluf

11th Sep 2006, 03:11

Roger S - maybe you should consider the case when one would like to stay at ones cruising level for more than the one minute permitted by the AIP after an instruction to climb or descend.

That's when it is important to confirm the "when ready" aspect.

Now for my own personal gripe - people who say "ABC maintains FLXXX". I believe it has something to do with an incorrect form of the verb "to maintain". Ditto for "ABC descends FLXXX" and "climbs".

Why can't people just stick to what's in the book (ie "maintaining", "descending" or "climbing") rather than trying to invent their own radio techniques? Now that was a rhetorical question, but I expect some here will take it literally.

No Further Requirements

11th Sep 2006, 05:28

Roger S - maybe you should consider the case when one would like to stay at ones cruising level for more than the one minute permitted by the AIP after an instruction to climb or descend.
Maybe one should consider only asking for descent within one minute of actually needing descent......hence, when the words "request descent" are heard by ATC, we say "descend to".

I'm with Roger Standby on this one.

:ugh:

Cheers,

NFR.

Hempy

11th Sep 2006, 05:42

Roger S - maybe you should consider the case when one would like to stay at ones cruising level for more than the one minute permitted by the AIP after an instruction to climb or descend.

If you are instructed to descend, it's probably for a very good reason (noise abatement :}), and as much as you like being at your cruising level I'd consider it prudent to comply ASAP.

If you are requesting descent, most controllers would assume that you want descent now, hence giving you the clearance. If you want descent in 2 minutes, a simple "ABC, TOD in 2 minutes" would suffice I imagine, and unless there was lower traffic restricting your descent, I'm pretty sure you would get your "when ready".

Capn Bloggs

11th Sep 2006, 06:41

If you want descent in 2 minutes, a simple "ABC, TOD in 2 minutes" would suffice
Or my normal one for this situation: "ABC Approaching descent point". Almost always, I get "ABC, when ready, descend to..."

Fullreverse reversed,
Why can't people just stick to what's in the book (ie "maintaining", "descending" or "climbing")
Where in the book does it say "descending to"? Genuine question, not a windup.

esreverlluf

11th Sep 2006, 07:18

Hempy and NFR

I was referring to the situation where ATC issue a clearance (without request from the crew) for descent 5, 10, 15 minutes or more before one wishes to descend. This is what happens more often than not in my world (RPT), should ATC not to clarify it as "when ready", it can only be interpreted as an instruction and consequently descent must be commenced within 1 minute. (nb - this happens quite commonly)

That is unless you can clarify, with ATC, that the intent of the clearance was "when ready". This may seem to be arguing semantics, however that is exactly what will happen in the court room should you be unfortunate enough to end up there!

Personally, I will not make a request for descent unless planning to do so within the next minute.

Capt Bloggs - I never did make a case for "descending to FLxxx", I think you'll find the correct phraseology is simply "descending FLxxx" - although "descending to" does not grate nearly as much as "descends".

Roger Standby

11th Sep 2006, 08:35

esreverlluf,

There may be a bit of confusion here, but from my original quote, it was implied that the crew had asked for descent. I would be hard pressed to think of any enroute controller who would not say "when ready" unless there was a need to get an immediate level change.:eek:

Cheers.

Contract Con

11th Sep 2006, 10:42

Thread drift:

One of my favourites has come from AKL tower more than once,

"FNC1234 are you ready immediate?"

"FNC1234 Affirm"

"Roger, Line up and wait"

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Cheers,

Con:ok:

esreverlluf

11th Sep 2006, 12:52

Roger Standby - sorry if I came in a little late on the conversation and maybe it doesn't happen on your shift, but quite often I have to clarify the clearance as described above. I will continue to do so as long as there is any possible ambiguity (as I'm sure you would do from the other side of the wireless link).

Roger Standby

11th Sep 2006, 16:30

Can't argue with the logic that if you're unsure, ask. :ok:

RTB RFN

11th Sep 2006, 20:25

Chimbu mentioned something that is important with RT as it is with other aspects in aviation - order and predictability.

As with pilot processes (checklist, approach assignment (!!) etc) this improves error detection and reduces workload for ATC. Regardless of whether a controller is using procedural or a high level automation system (TAAATS/ADATS etc) the order of RT assists with the mechanical aspects of feeding the processes that ATC must carry out (feeding the animal - the manual or automatic system).

So any RT calls should be in the 'normal' order with the predictable stuff first and the variables last. ATC would normally respond with the normal stuff first and then deal with the extraordinary later. Basic, I know but not everyone has 30K hours up.

No Further Requirements

12th Sep 2006, 00:41

RTB RFN,

TAAATS is actually arse-about from what we hear. The readbacks now days have the callsign at the end, so we hear the level/heading/etc first and then the callsign. Easy when ticking a strip, but not so for TAAATS when you need to click the level and then check it was the right callsign. Have been a number of incidents where this 'wrong way round' RT has been a contributing factor (me included).

Cheers,

NFR.

RTB RFN

12th Sep 2006, 07:31

Hi caramber - that's insane; I didn't know that. You get what you pay for mate.

Kelly Slater

12th Sep 2006, 07:37

With refersece to taxiing, I believe the call is "ready" not "ready in turn" or "ready for departure." For reading back a turn to a heading, heading is not used. The readback for a left turn to a heading of 210 would be "left 210."
Anyone who believes that the AIP does a good job of describing radio procedure must either work for CASA or live in lala land. This post would not have endured for over a year if the answers were in the book.

Kelly Slater

12th Sep 2006, 07:39

Before anyone else pipes up, PPRune needs a spell checker and yes, I need typing lessons. For those in doubt, I meant to tyre "reference"

tobzalp

12th Sep 2006, 08:45

http://www.iespell.com/cms/

Spell checker for Internet explorer.

Kelly Slater

12th Sep 2006, 08:52

Thank you, I'm downloading it now.

Capt Claret

12th Sep 2006, 09:07

Bloggs comes to a halt behind another aircraft and calls, "ready in turn". Why? Does s/he think the other aircraft is going to be told to get outa the way? Does Bloggs believe s/he's going to be cleared for takeoff and then have to taxi around the aircraft in front????

It's a bit like becoming ready for takeoff whilst backtracking the runway. Our erstwhile Bloggs calls, "ready on line up".

How does the man in the tower interpret this? Does he think,

Bloggs must think I'm stupid and that I'm gonna clear him for takeoff in the wrong direction, with only 200m of runway left.
Hmm, is he ready now? Will he be ready on line up, or does he just expect to be ready on line up??

Surely when ready, one calls ready, then the man in the tower knows that Bloggs is ready and can fit him into the sequence.

18-Wheeler

12th Sep 2006, 09:12

Don't know if it's been mentioned earlier, but one of my pet hates is the use of 'Charlie charlie' instead of 'Afirmative'.

It must be stopped!

Capn Bloggs

12th Sep 2006, 11:08

Easy when ticking a strip, but not so for TAAATS when you need to click the level and then check it was the right callsign. Have been a number of incidents where this 'wrong way round' RT has been a contributing factor (me included).

My understanding has always been that the callsign at the end was simply a way of indicating the end of the readback, not a philosophy to be used for ALL transmissions.

When asked for, say, a DME distance or level passing or similar, especially if there is another aircraft involved, I always reply with my callsign first then the info asked-for. It has never made sense to me that an aircraft would rabbit on giving all this info with the controller scratching his/her head wondering who's speaking until he/she finally hears the callsign at the end.

No Further Requirements

12th Sep 2006, 11:41

Bloggsy,

The correct RT is, I believe:

ATC - ABC descend to 5000
ABC - 5000 ABC

Hence my above comments that callsign last can lead to errors in the TAAATS environment. Pop into a centre/approach cell and ask them to show you what I mean.

Cheers,

NFR.

hoggsnortrupert

12th Sep 2006, 15:51

I have been watching this thread for some time:
As one that learnt to fly in NZ, and was taught "thou shalt only use standard Phraseology".
BUT after working all over this Sphere, I have found it does not always hold true.
Even more important than using correct phraseology, is the need to not only be understood, but to understand, That is your RESPONSIBILITY FOREMOST, if out side of CTA, eg: decsending A/C crossing tracks outside of CTA, you ( We, I ) will often have to work things out between your selves, if the other crew suffers from "PPV"( see title)(you can rest assured that you to suffer "PPV" from their perspective) you need to come up with something that works.
Circa 1988 me and N 153 K over Rome/Rocket VOR's( cant remeber which one) I was told to contact Hartsfield Ctr, The reply I recieved on transfer was unintellagible to me, the accent was "Dennis Weaver" ( AKA McCloud), he refered to me as Crocodile Dundee?
I realised I had an accent.
When reporting altitudes or levels in the USA, I followed suit and used abreaviated IE: FL 195- Nineteen POINT Five ,hey it is precise:
Around the pacific Islands I learned to slow down my speech and give them time to get organised.
In/out of places in Europe, Spain,France, Algeria,Cameroon,Nigeria,Chad,( there is a host of PPV's) to try to get ones ears around, even knowing what comes next in the norm of things is not enough sometimes.( Don't forget they use ICAO)
EG: HB--- ( Oh tel Brrrrarvu) when ready cleared to decsend to Fl ---, contact XYZ on ---.--, On contact with XYZ, "Oh tel brrrrarvu --- say level maintaining"???
Left Fl --- just will not work, you will invariably just run around chasing your tail and getting frustrated, He or She wants to understand you, you want to understand He/She on the other end, so communicate with what works, I use with this scenario, vacated Fl ---, Passing Fl ---, and my rego,The reason is that He/She picks up on my PPV, can Identify it with the Transmission if stepped upon by another english speaking accent:
With regard to the Tiger in the hill, If you are not 100 % sure of the
territory, dont go down,be absolutely bloody certain, your lives and those of others so bloody bloody sadly often, depend on the Two of you getting it 100% F:mad: g correct. cleared down to four hundred, not good enough.
I use UNDERSTAND ( and I say the word) (remember they want to understand you, you need to understand them) CLEARED TO VACATE FL--- DOWN TWO TOWSAND "small pause" FOUR ZERO ZERO FEET QNH ----.
Some of you are going to say OLD F:mad:'s mad, but hey as I say In NZ or Aussie it doesn't matter alot, Flying your AB 340, or B 747, internationally on company set routes it doesn't matter a great deal, but when you are constantly going in out of boarders, and different places with out much notice, you will evolve believe me, your life depends on it.
Using the word AFFIRMATIVE, for get it, I will use CHARLIE CHARLIE everytime I want to be understood, it works, PERIOD.
To me its just good AIRMANSHIP, now thats a subject thats been debated for years isn't it.
The Airmanship to operate your AB or Boeing, is different to the Airmanship required to match the particular type of operation, not in total, but certainly in part.
And for your sake and that of your families , the whole aim is to become an OLD PILOT, nothing more, nothing less.
This is not about ICAO, it is about communicating, try asking your Narita, or Seol Controller to say Romeo, or Hotel, you can not say they don't speak english, we fly into their countries, they use PPV's particular to the region/ Country they are from.
Now ask your self this Q: HOW DO I SOUND TO THEM: Yes you to suffer from PPV.
Fly safe, & cherish your family:ok:
H/Snort.

Capn Bloggs

13th Sep 2006, 02:33

NFR,
I agree entirely. Reading something back? Callsign last. Providing info? I reckon callsign first.

SM4 Pirate

13th Sep 2006, 04:56

I'm all for that Bloggsy... providing estimates too etc. {Callsign} [my action - open Position box on that aircraft] {Estimate Apoma 35} [put in estimate 35, press enter]. If I get the callsign last, i remember the time, then repeat above process; subsequently delaying the next task.

Capn Bloggs

13th Sep 2006, 05:44

NFR,
Sorry, I have only just realised what you are on about (with the help of SM 4 below). So it should be callsign first always.:ok: We should mount a mission to stir up D F-L...:}

No Further Requirements

13th Sep 2006, 05:50

Won't happen mate - we can't go back as that would be an admission of defeat! :ugh:

Cheers,

NFR.

gas-chamber

14th Sep 2006, 10:52

Hogsnort pretty well says it all. Adapt your R/T to the local idiom. Best learned by listening to what the other users say. Leaving - vacating - passing - reaching and maintaining work well in the vertical mode as none of those words should confuse the foreigner. Left and right work best if restricted to the lateral mode for the same reason. Even the occasional parochial Aussie ATCO will understand these terms. ICAO is accepted here, therefore none of us have an obligation to use anything else. However, if local lingo does accept "left" as a reference to some vertical activity, there's no harm in that either. Me? I avoid the word unless relating to a turn but if my co-pilot wants to use it I am not about to get my knickers in a twist, as I know the locals understand it. However, if he does it on an international sector I will berate him and require him to buy beer.