RADIO CALLS!

[Hold_Short]

I am in the air on a daily basis and it amazes me how a lot of pilots (both commercial and private) use there own terminology for IFR flying both on arrival and departure of any aerodrome. It tends to frustrate myself and the controllers constantly!

Just detailing a few as I have to constantly turn down my radio when pilots spend up to 3 minutes wasting valuable airways times when it is completly unnecessary and avoidable.

First of all, when transmitting you are in PRESENT TENSE not PAST TENSE!

You don’t speak this way when talking on the phone or to someone face to face! :ugh:eg.

Should be :

"ABC, Taxiing runway 18 for a departure to the South"

NOT

"ABC, Taxi's runway 18 for a departure to the South"

Also, IFR Departure and Taxi Reports should be transmitted with the correct sequence WITHOUT the use of "ABC, IFR Departure" and "ABC, IFR Taxi".

The ATC controller is already waiting for you to depart and/or taxi and is expecting you to just say the departure report or taxi report! Both types of radio calls are not published or listed in AIP or JEPPS and wastes valuable radio silence in the event of an emergency.

This also includes using the word 'TIME'! When transmitting your departure report, the use of the word 'TIME' is not necessary as the numerical minute is only required.

"ABC DEPARTED (location) at *(time), CLIMBING TO (intended level)
ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT *(time).

* the word TIME prior to the minute is not stated and should not be used.

See: JEPPS ATC AU-715 6.3.2 and (AIP GEN 3.4-48 5.14.4)

READ OVER:
Departure Reports
Requirements for departure reports are found on JEPPS ATC AU-936 8.8 (AIP GEN 3.4-56 5.14.8 & AIP ENR 1.1-73 43.3)

And finally, cancelling Sarwatch should be phrased for an IFR Aircraft as:

"ABC, Landed (location) cancel SARWATCH' or "ABC, in the circuit area (location) cancel SARWATCH".

NOT SAR!

There are two types, SARWATCH AND SARTIME, and both used for different reasons and flight operations.

I am only passing on this information as there seems to be a lack of standardisation across the aviation community. We all must keep our radio calls short, concise and brief whilst using the standard terminology when we can.
Like a refresher for everyone...that is all!
Cheers :eek:

[Best Rate]

Any leave coming up ?? ;)

[Flava Saver]

Grab a bottle of wine on the way home from work ay!

I notice you are in Townsville, and you mention controllers are sharing your frustrations?

I get frustrated flying in and out of Townsville too-not from other people's calls, but because of the "controlling" :}

Better grab a case of wine shags.

[VH-MLE]

I agree with Hold Short,

The use of correct radio phraseologies seems to have become a low priority in IFR training schools and with a significant number of pilots in general.

Cheers.

VH-MLE

[ConfigFull]

Spot on Hold_Short, there's a reason for the myriad of pages in AIP/Jepp so really no excuse for getting it wrong.

The problem I see is with enforcing the standards. An ATO/checky is going to come across as a real hard-a$$ if they start nailing people for spitting out a slightly-incorrect phrase while they're under the pump - after all the aim of the game is aviate/navigate/communicate. This puts the onus on the individual pilot to maintain (or get!) the standard that everyone expects.

However, in a busy radio environment I can justify the use of "ABC, departure" etc. - the amount of times I've heard ATC require a repeat because of the length and detail of the calls (no ones fault, they're just full of pretty important information). Like everything, it comes down to common sense/airmanship to know when to jump in and when to wait. My way of (nearly) complying with AIP/Jepp in that scenario would be to say:

IFR Taxi: "ML CEN, ABC?"; and
Departure Report: "ABC, departure".


In those scenarios (while it's busy) the controller has your callsign for your flightplan and also has the chance to request that you standby. If it's quiet then go for whatever AIP/Jepp says - after all it's ASA that writes the publication; if they want it changed they can.

So how do we fix it? I'm a believer that, although all CASA/ASA publications can now be downloaded for free online, the hard copies should all be substantially cheaper. This way, the cost burden will be significantly less on a new pilot (including RAA); and they can learn everything the right way from the beginning.

So, for:

RAA/GA pilots: All instructors should face a grilling in FIR initials/renewals/upgrades for incorrect phraseology because they're the ones that set the standard; and
RPT pilots: Sim/route checkies should be all over the standard their pilots are either maintaining or ignoring. I know on my check forms you either meet the standard or you don't.


You'll see that I've left AFRs out of the list there for GA pilots. The standard I've seen set by at least half of AFR applicants (mostly PPLs) has been SO low that nailing them on R/T procedures is only going to drive them away and make them adverse to being reviewed every two years. In this case, if it's not blatantly unsafe then it's probably better to let it go and concentrate on the major items.

In the big picture, there are plenty more unsafe acts that require everyone's attention but this one is an easy fix. You can't hardly change a pilot's hazardous attitude towards their everyday flying BUT R/T procedures can easily be fixed by sitting down and reading the appropriate AIP/Jepp. Unfortunately, people think once they sit and pass the RAA/GFPT/PPL/CPL flight test(s) the study stops!

[Zapatas Blood]

"ABC, Taxiing runway 18 for a departure to the South"

NOT

"ABC, Taxi's runway 18 for a departure to the South"

Good grief, only in australia would this willy waving debate exist.

[le Pingouin]

If the aircraft has been operating IFR there is no possibility of confusion as it can only have one type of SAR. While it may not be quite standard there is no risk.

If comms are crap or I'm busy then the brief warning transmission can be a time saver, not waster as I don't have to get you to say it all again. I'm not just sitting there waiting for your call, believe me. Might be the case at a towered aerodrome where they can see you getting ready but not for the rest.

Far more time is wasted by pilots not listening before they transmit.

[Hold_Short]

I STRONGLY AGREE CONFIGFULL!!

You have come in a side angle to the argument and I appreciate your input. My company, like many others, put a strong emphasis on getting the radio calls right, as it is a show of pressessionalism, not only for yourself, but the company you represent.

The moral of the argument is that you just need to understand the required format from ATC/ASA and/or AIP/JEPPS to respect the information you are required to transmit. It is such an easy thing to master and get right all of the time (circumstance dependant) that you shouldn't really have to think too much about the format, just the content.

It truely is that easy. That is what the Aeronautical Information Publication is for!

As for the instructors and RPT operators who are regularly on flying duties must set a standard. It shows though the students who are coming up through the industry that there must be a bar and standard to reach. Then the rest is just fill in the blanks.

By no means am I generalising the discussion or singling out operators... but on the otherside of the coin, it sure is not rocket science!

Thanks

[Captain Dart]

Agreed, a lot of 'willie waving'. Anal Australian ATC has a firm grasp of the non-essentials, sometimes cringeworthy when I operate into Australian airspace with foreign guys and gals in the cockpit.

Aussie ATC is a standing joke in my airline.

I do sympathise with the individual ATCO's, who have to toe the party line.

[Hold_Short]

Understand Le Pingouin!

Dont take offence to the word 'just sitting there'. What I was trying to say was the controller has your flight plan and your ETD and by this I mean you may not be a 'surprise radio call'.

If you are an ATC controller for either AREA/TERMINAL/APPROACH I would like to know a bit more of the frustrations there are between controller and pilot which you might be able to add your two cents to the disscussion!

[1a sound asleep]

Try flying into other countries and you might see how bad it isnt in Australia

[chickoroll]

HOLD SHORT-

If you are so concerned about the valuable extra seconds some ppl take you might want to consider in your departure report altitude passing, just saves the controller asking you to verify level, you having to say it then ATC having to acknowledge 2 wasted transmissions there mate.

[Hold_Short]

Waste of time, chickoroll, if your not in a radar environment.

[Capn Bloggs]

And finally, cancelling Sarwatch should be phrased for an IFR Aircraft as:

"ABC, Landed (location) cancel SARWATCH' or "ABC, in the circuit area (location) cancel SARWATCH".

You don't say "Landed" anymore. :ok:

Hey Zapa, you bored? Trawling DG RP from Mehico? How about you mind your own business? It must really irk you that some of us like doing things properly. Geez, words have to be said, what's the big deal with saying them correctly??

When's my IFR Taxi arriving?! I ordered it ages ago! :ugh:

[Awol57]

Over transmissions or not waiting for a response (when it's required) before starting your radio call would be up there. We have a local issue here where aircraft on the ground often can't hear people calling inbound at 40nm so it isn't really anyone's fault but it can be frustrating at times.

As a tower controller, generally if you are the only one in the air I don't need a heads up for your departure report. However if it's busy then I appreciate it. Often I am doing coord with Centre or a myriad of other things and the departure report is often a fair way down my list of priorities, so you may get a standby while I deal with other things.

[MACH082]

Don't go flying in the US then :hmm:

I must admit the lack of 'ings' annoy the crap out of me.

[DutchRoll]

First of all, when transmitting you are in PRESENT TENSE not PAST TENSE!

You don’t speak this way when talking on the phone or to someone face to face!

It's a bit like talking in the 3rd person.

Dutchy really hates it when people talk in the 3rd person. Dutchy thinks it's just a bastardisation of the english language.

[lk978]

Although I agree with the original post, radio calls are terrible by some profession pilot's every time I give a taxiing call straight away I always get the controller wanting me to repeat it....

so what to do... repeat the whole thing every time or just give a short burst of ABC IFR taxi, then you know they are listening and ready to copy???

[scavenger]

I love it when the person whinging about dodgy phraeseology gives examples of dodgy phraeseology themselves. :D

"ABC, Taxiing runway 18 for a departure to the South"


This is not even close to correct. I understand the main point was the taxiing, not taxis, but since when are you supposed to say 'for a departure to the south'? Same thing with the SARWATCH call as pointed out earlier.

I think the OP should concentrate on what they are doing and keep the radio turned up, no matter how frustrating.

My company, like many others, put a strong emphasis on getting the radio calls right, as it is a show of pressessionalism, not only for yourself, but the company you represent.

I think you and your company have a way to go, Hold_Short...

[Hold_Short]

CTAF Broadcasts (all Aricraft)
The standard broadcast format is:
Location 'Traffic'
Aircraft type
Callsign
Position/intentions
Location

eg. Griffith Traffic, Cessna 172, ABC, Taxiing rwy 05 for departure to the South, Griffith.

IFR flights include the following information to CTR:
-aircraft type
-POB (for IFR flights other than RPT)
-IFR
-location
-destination or departure quadrant or intentions and
-runway to be used

JEPPS ATC AU-714 6.1.2. (AIP ENR 1.1-69 40.2)

Say what you will.

Also

To Cancel Sarwatch...have a look scavenger!

JEPPS AU-921 7.5.2 & JEPPS AU-721 6.11.1.2 (AIP ENR 1.1-84 52.1.2)

Thanks Capn Bloggs, for the 'landed' cancel SARWATCH...you are correct, it is only LOCATION phrase is used!

[Plazbot]

Is an ATC Controller like an ATM Machine? Your thread fails.

[ejectx3]

While we're at it... it's "LEAVING FL350" not "LEFT FL350"!

And no it's not pedantic..it's so altitudes are not confused with radar headings...

I'm looking at you Jetstar pilots! Yeah I said it!....

[piston broke again]

...on guard :ok:

[Howard Hughes]

With the social networking generation, I expect things to get a lot worse before they get any better, you ain't seen nothing yet!;)

[Capn Bloggs]

every time I give a taxiing call straight away I always get the controller wanting me to repeat it....

so what to do... repeat the whole thing every time or just give a short burst of ABC IFR taxi, then you know they are listening and ready to copy???
If Airservices staff decide that they want a prompt before the full taxi call (or departure report, for that matter) let them change AIP. We shouldn't be deciding for ourselves what call is appropriate. Putting it another way, the more they get annoyed with a full taxi call out of the blue the quicker they'll change it, like they did with the Position Report.

[1a sound asleep]

Victor Hotel Kilo Oscar Bravo IFR Piper PA-31P Pressurized Navajo 850 horespower taxing at Bendigo for Cairns via Rockhampton and Hamilton Island and requsting airways clearance for climb to Flight Level 150, endurance 350 minutes, POB 6 plus pilot with epaulettes and ATPL subjects:ugh:

[c100driver]

While we're at it... it's "LEAVING FL350" not "LEFT FL350"!

Amazing that the Aussie ATC RADAR tags do not have altitude readout!!!! It appears that the remainder of the world ATC RADAR can SEE you start descent.

WTF would you need to tell them that you have commenced descent, you already have a clearance to decend?

To be really anal. Call when "leaving FL350" this would mean that you have not already started descent. So the call should be "left FL350"

[travelator]

Some of my favourites are:

Pending clearance;
On climb/descent;
IFR taxi (already mentioned);
Maintaining (in radar environment or when changing frequencies).

But the one that really makes me laugh:
"Centre ABC request."
"ABC go ahead."
"ABC request FL350 IF AVAILABLE!"

All that needs to be said is "ABC request FL350". If it's not available you will not get it. Simple.

While I'm at it, who decided that The words "diagonal" or "oblique" belong in an airep? The wind is described as "250 degrees 17 knots". Jepps meteorology section.

C100 driver, it has already been pointed out why "leaving" is the required word and not "left". Again, it's what Bloggs said. Just say what you are required to say and if ATC think it's not appropriate then they can change it.

[flyby]

Can anyone show me where it states leaving not left your assigned level ,
last time i looked either was correct.

P.S - if you get riled by taxi's versus taxing you really need a holiday , Australia the truly home of the anal retentive.

As previously mentioned sometimes being a robot to our beloved ASA isn't always the rightway to operate , think outside the box to encourage situational awareness - Not everyone comprehends airspace like you do - A case of experience Vs correctness.

[Artificial Horizon]

If you have to tell them that you are 'leaving' an altitude when you are on RADAR why would you not tell them that you are 'maintaining' an altitude as ATC seem incapable of monitoring it themselves. Whilst we are on the subject why does Oz ATC use 'to' in altitude clearances e.g. Descend to 2500 feet. The rest of the world has stopped this practice and just says 'descend 2500 feet' to avoid any confusion :ugh:

[Wally Mk2]

Oh boy the willy waving is in full swing here! Correct R/T is impossible to achieve, can't be done so common sense should prevail. We don't live in a 'Jepps' world where humans are expected to behave like airframes which can be made identical so we do our best! Use the 'kiss' method & Aviate, Navigate & leave the R/T 'till last to get perfect I say!


Wmk2

[Capt Fathom]

*Denotes pilot transmission

There is no mention of 'Left' or 'Leaving' in the Phraseology section.

Both gone for some time.

Elvis is leaving the building just doesn't have the same ring to it! :E

[*Lancer*]

ejectx3, why does saying "Flight Level" before three numbers confuse you? :p

[travelator]

From ATC (I don't have paper copies anymore so can't give page number)

1.10.1.4 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 CENTER (CALL-SIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO”.

NOTE: The “last vacated level” may be omitted by identified aircraft squawking pressure altitude derived level information.

If they want us to say leaving here, why would it be different for any other call?

It's not hard to do it correctly.

[John Citizen]

I agree it is hard to find things in the documents sometimes.:{

You might want to look here :

Jeppesen - ATC page AU-705 paragraph 1.10.1.4
or
AIP ENR 1.1-20 paragraph 12.1.4

"...LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL..."

To insert such information under "phraseology" would be just too much common sense for the publisher :ugh:

[Jack Ranga]

Any leave coming up ??

I note the post originated in Townsville, RAAF? If so, I'd imagine leave WOULD be available?

If ASA, are you kidding? Leave, I bull**** you not is now a privilege not a right. The farce that is rec leave in ASA is un-describable without most controllers going red in the face and wanting to punch the nearest object. :ugh:

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Geezuz,

Get a life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

When you've been in the industry longer than six months, you'll see the procedures changing every change of CEO ( CASA or ASA ), infrequently the change is for the better.

Left, leaving, pending clearance, in-turn, traffic XXX, all stations XXX,,,,,,who cares.

[Hold_Short]

It pretty much comes down to speaking English in and English speaking country! Just speak properly! Who speaks in past tense anyway? I'm no novel writer...

Melb centre, abc?
Abc, melb centre?
Melb centre, Abc.... and the repetition continues!

Come on! Get onto it... havnt got all day. And when talking speak in present tense because what ever your doing... your actually doing it right now!

[RAC/OPS]

First of all, when transmitting you are in PRESENT TENSE not PAST TENSE!

You don’t speak this way when talking on the phone or to someone face to face! eg.

Should be :

"ABC, Taxiing runway 18 for a departure to the South"

NOT

"ABC, Taxi's runway 18 for a departure to the South"

Aren't they both present tense? Notwithstanding the apostrophe which would make the second example mean "taxi is runway..." or the runway belongs to the taxi. I am on leave and am a pedantic controller!

[wrongwayaround]

:{ are we really arguing about this

I remember hearing a Qantas pilot (B737) and a cessna caravan on floats separating themselves in a CTAF one day..

Caravan pilot says "we'll extend downwind to allow you to backtrack the runway, the passengers won't mind, we're on a little scenic up here" :)

Qantas pilot: "really half your luck, bloody fantastic, wish I could have joined, errr, anyway, Qantas 212 entering and backtracking the runway"
:}

[ExSp33db1rd]

Whatever you say, say it S-L-O-W-L-Y

I've been know to transmit to some new pip-squeak CPL who thinks that the only way to be a 'professional' pilot is to rattle out their R/T as fast as they can, becoming totally incomprehensible as a result, and requiring a 'say again' - which wastes everybody's time - " If you fly as fast as you talk, I'm getting out of here"

[The The]

So when ATC say "ABC disregard". Should you read back "disregard, ABC" or is it "disregarded, ABC" or even "disregardeded, ABC"? "disregard" is an instruction, so it must be read back, Not many do this though, why not?

"disregard" is present tense, but you are reading back your compliance to the instruction, so it then becomes past tense, so you should probably say "disregarded". But if you are reading back a compliance of disregarded, then you should say "disregardeded". Is that right?

[Howard Hughes]

Of course if you are a little slow and hadn't totally disregarded the instruction before you read it back, then surely it would be "disregarding, ABC"...:E

[The The]

One more. When ATC say "in with a ground station" should you read that back so that ATC know that you know that they were in with a ground station and just didn't hear you because they were watching the cricket?

[Jack Ranga]

Out of all threads on proon I find the phraseology one's the most helpful and informative. Especially from all you international pilots telling us how good it is overseas, keep up the good work :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

When ATC say "in with a ground station" should you read that back so that ATC know that you know that they were in with a ground station and just didn't hear you because they were watching the cricket?

You crack me up :D There were a lot of 'in with a ground station' when Clarkey scored his 300, I tell ya that for nuthin' ;)

And I generally find that if you read back everything i.e. an exact mirror of what ATC has just said saves more time overall than learning phraseologies from AIP :ok:

[nitpicker330]

Yawn.

Really guys????

Whilst I'm all for doing and saying all the right things as PROFESSIONALS some of you really need to get a grip.

For goodness sake, BIG PICTURE STUFF.

Doesn't matter if you end up in a smoking hole just as long as you got the RT 100% correct!!!

Funny.

At the end of the day it's "communication" it doesn't really matter how you say it as long as it is UNDERSTOOD.

[Jack Ranga]

Nooooo, please Nits, I'd prefer if the gems keep comin'

[Jack Ranga]

And by the way, I'm lobbying ICAO, CASA, FAA, ASA etc to have:

'Request traffic & Squwark' included in taxy calls. (because most ATC's are dip****s and can't remember to give it to you)

[romeocharlie]

You're and your. Is it so hard to distinguish the two? For people arguing over correct phraseology, correct grammar shouldn't be so difficult.

Leaving........this thread.

[Capn Bloggs]

'Request ...& Squwark' included in taxy calls
Who cares? So what if you come onto radar squawking 3000? :E

Nit, my RAAF instructor eons ago said that if your R/T is slack, the rest of your flying is probably slack too. Do (say) it by doing (saying) it right. :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Blogggggs :ugh: I'd prefer if you were squawking 1200 when you depart so I can give you traffic on yourself..............gees mate?

[Radix]

You don’t speak this way when talking on the phone or to someone face to face! :ugh:eg.

I'm with the topic starter that we should make phone conversation the norm for radio speak.

"Yo atc mate how 'r you going? Can I get you some IFR stuff?"

And no we don't have radar coverage everywhere in Australia.

[seconds]

Was hoping this would be a funny thing you have heard of the radio thread.

Writing an email now to get it brought back in crash comic!:D

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Here's one for an ATC type person...

AIP GEN 3.4 4.14.3
(ATC callsigns)
The name of the location or the service may be omitted provided that satisfactory communication has been established.

I would take this to mean that once you have made an initial contact,
(eg Sunshine Coast Tower, ABC, Maintaining 2 thousand 5 hundred
ABC, Sunshine Coast Tower, descend to 1 thousand 5 hundred
Descend to 1 thousand 5 hundred, ABC)
{No, it's not a complete example, I know...},

Every subsequent contact should begin with either Sunshine Coast or Tower?
(eg Tower, ABC maintaining 1 thousand 5 hundred
ABC, Tower.)

[nitpicker330]

Bloggsy......yes I do agree BUT let's keep it real! Some here are being a tad pedantic.

[ejectx3]

It matters because 1) it's the correct way and 2) the reason they stipulate "leaving" not "left" is because of an incident where an incorrect read back using "left" not "leaving" caused a breakdown in separation. It was then mandated as "leaving".

"left" is too easily confused with a direction of turn as in "left 320" meaning a heading change rather than an altitude vacated.

[framer]

So am I right in saying that even when you're radar identified in Ausi, upon every single frequency change you have to give either
a) the altitude you're maintaining
b) the altitude you're descending to
or
c) the altitude you're climbing to

[ejectx3]

Yes. Except tower, ground and clearance :-)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As I have posted every time this thread, in various guises, pops up --- you could all do well to have a look at what ICAO requires, and traditional ICAO (as per, for example, NZ AIP or UK CAA R/T Handbook) ) R/T procedures.

If Australian student pilots were taught rudiments of standard R/T procedure, and the why and how they came to be what they are (except in Australia) we wouldn't need this thread again. Sadly, rote learning (from the grossly excessive "standard phrases in the AIP), rather than the principles of good R/T communication, is a core problem.

Trouble is, instructors who were taught by their instructors, who don't know either, and the anal Australian approach to compliance, at the cost of communication ---- and the problem has become self perpetuating.

As I have said so often, Australia has "radio procedures", the rest of the world communicates.

If you knew, inwardly digested, understood and followed ICAO SARPs on this subject (Annex X, Vol. 2, or PANS/RAC 4444) all the silly questions, including where some of you get tense about tense, and most of the other questions/complaints would just go away.

But, sadly, that's not the "Australian way".

Tootle pip!!

PS: And, please, only read back what is required.

[Ando1Bar]

For those that love to say 'reference the omni/NDB' when departing non-towered aerodromes:

1. Pull out Jepps or AIPs
2. If Jepps, go to section ATC, Communications para 8.8 (page AU-936). If AIPs, go to GEN 3.4 para 5.14.8 (page GEN 3.4-56).
3. Have a read of 'Departure Report - Procedural when notifying departure report to a control tower'.
4. Then read the next item 'Departure Report - non-towered aerodrome'.
5. Compare and contrast.
6. Stop saying 'reference the omni' when departing a non-towered aerodrome.

You Qlink pilots started it, now every man and his dog is using it!

For those jumping on the 'get over poor R/T' bandwagon - it's our job to get the correct information to ATC efficiently. It's really not that hard.

[Hold_Short]

Thanks Andobar. Spot on...! That's exactly correct...

What I like is pilots giving their inbound radial to a non-controlled aerodrome when there is no aid or just an NDB!

If there is no VOR there is no radial. Simple! :D

[Hold_Short]

Ohhh and to those pressurised aircraft drivers, when departing a non-controlled aerodrome, SAY the flight level you are on climb to! Not just FLIGHT LEVELS!

Remember there are and very well could be PRESSURISED VFR AIRCRAFT flying below FL180 or more so below FL245 in some sections of Australian airspace! :eek:

[The Butcher's Dog]

Radio Phraseology as described in the AIP or Jepp is not definitive, easily locatable (there is subtext in differing locations of said references), nor is it consistent, the profiles are arguable "clumsy" and subject to change without obvious notification. Go on tell me it isn't!

When you blame the hordes for not getting it right, you are probably not allocating responsibility in the correct area.

Attention Messrs Hold Short et al, it might help you to produce (and publish) a definitive reference of all the necessary radio calls - if you find this too difficult to compile, then go back and read some of the posts of those who have significant and wide ranging experience and see why they say what they say about this subject.

[travelator]

Luckily for all, such a document exists Butcher. It's the AIP. I agree it isn't the easiest text to read but the information is there for those who can be bothered to seek it.

Experience is not an excuse for sloppy RT. If anything, lack of experience is.

[morno]

It's not hard to be professional. AIP GEN 3.4 is an easy starting point.

While even I don't get my calls word for word perfect, they are at least as close as possible to the AIP.

How many people read back their squawk codes on taxi at places like Brisbane? I know the guys down at RFDS are now doing it. Why? Because it says so in AIP.

morno

[Hold_Short]

correct Morno! Even the number of POB is required for non RPT operators too if you read the AIP. Quite a lot of detail required and NOT just "abc, at GA apron, request taxi".

On the humorous side... today I was inbound to an aerodrome at roughly a similar time to another IFR aircraft. I broadcast what was required, which included my revised eta. And he responded with all the right information but had to add on the end " and when we arrive we'll make sure your off the runway before we land"!

Now that's a super idea I must say! :)

[Zapatas Blood]

"Hey Zapa, you bored? Trawling DG RP from Mehico? How about you mind your own business?"

Sorry bloggs, Im as ozzie as the next bludger.

But as an employee of a foreign carrier, it bugs me when I return to oz and listen to the way ATC talk to foreign pilots non english as a first language types. Insisting on word perfect oz only phraseology is stoooopid considering this crew just flew through 50 different countries last month and only gets to hear oz atc once a year.

It may make you feel all warm and cozy inside to pretend professionalism is word perfect r/t but a better way would be to fit in the rest of the world. The most important thing is to get the message across and when atc ask a foreign pilot to report over oodnadatta instead of oscar oscar delta then .......arghhhh!

Same with most other rules/regs and crap ozmates go on with totally clueless that there is an entire world out there doing just fine thankyou very much

rant over

[le Pingouin]

Zapata, do you mean like insisting on getting a readback of required items? Little things like flight levels, headings & clearances. I doubt anyone insists on word perfect phraseology. Geez, you wouldn't be referring to the American way when you say the rest of the world would you? :E

We're human. If you usually refer to OOD as Oodnadatta & far more often than as oscar oscar delta then it's going to slip out as the usual way occasionally.

[Capt Claret]

And I generally find that if you read back everything i.e. an exact mirror of what ATC has just said saves more time overall than learning phraseologies from AIP

That really helps when descending at 300 kias, and around 3000' FPM, on profile and the aircraft captures the last assigned level because one can't get a word in edge ways for all the reading back of "copied no IFR traffic" etc etc etc.:ugh:

[Captain Dart]

What Zap said.

Both national and foreign carriers seemed to be doing OK with ATC at Heathrow Director, Tokyo Control and SOCAL Approach last time I was there, without being castigated for not reading back previously-requested weather deviations etc. The Aussie read-back requirements are getting ridiculous.

And why does Australia have the ground tugs on aircraft frequencies at our international gateways? Further clutter.

The last major ATC incident that affected my airline was in Australian airspace not that long ago. And in three decades of aviation the only time I've seen two go-rounds in a row due to ATC was at an Australian international airport.

Out of ten on my global rating for efficiency, ease of use and 'pleasantness', the Aussie ATC environment gets a lukewarm 'four' (the Brits get 'ten', and China and India share 'one').

[cancel_speed]

Ahhhh, this thread is giving me a headache!!

What i can say is some of those Pel Air AA boys are the worst, not all of them just a few. I have heard some shockers from them, for instance, "Centre (not Melbourne Center just "Center" VAI taxis Mildura" THAT IS IT, how crap is that!!and i have heard ****e similar to that from those boys numerous times and they are meant to be so called "some of the better more experienced pilots!" does not show much ambition to be professional at all. Sorry you AA pel air guys but had to be said.

The other one that is super annoying is people requesting traffic......WHY?? that's what ATC is there for, TO GIVE YOU TRAFFIC. I heard someone taxing at East Sale one day and requested traffic, the controller came back and said "no need to request traffic sir that's why we are here" that just says it all.

Non standard calls just sound ****e, the end! how some people come up with their own radio phraseology who knows but why don't you do all of us a favor and read yours Jeps.

How horrible would it be if our airways started sounding like they do in the US?

Keep it Professional

[Captain Dart]

...the US does pretty well, actually, especially considering the volume of traffic, domestic and international, that it handles. Why would it be 'horrible?'

[Howard Hughes]

If there is no VOR there is no radial. Simple!
But there is a bearing!:ok:

[ravan]

Indeed HH, but some seem not to know the difference:hmm:

[Di_Vosh]

LeadSled

the anal Australian approach to compliance, at the cost of communication ---- and the problem has become self perpetuating.

My opinion:

Over the last 20 or 30 years, the Australian Government has lost the ability to legislate for or otherwise create productivity or performance in either the public and private sector. This is coupled with a simliar loss on how to monitor productivity or performance.

This has resulted in a public service that is only able to monitor compliance! In the absence of being able to create productivity, all the government can do is create more regulations, which creates the need to monitor compliance with the new regulations. This is how the public service measures success, IMHO.

This attitude is now pervading Australian society and we're picking up on it.

Evidenced by threads such as this one, where people appear to be losing sleep over whether someone else says "Taxi's" instead of "Taxiing".

Really, some of you guys are holding on a bit tight. :hmm:

Hold Short. You sound like you need to get out in the world a bit more. I'm guessing you've never flown into Darwin where the controllers insist on POB even if you're RPT?

Also, IFR Departure and Taxi Reports should be transmitted with the correct sequence WITHOUT the use of "ABC, IFR Departure" and "ABC, IFR Taxi".

Guess you've not operated in an HF environment then? I first heard other pilots calling "IFR Taxi" when I was flying in the Tiwi islands where there is only HF comms on the ground at many places. It gave the HF operator a second to get his/her self ready to copy. I repeated a few taxi calls to HF before I got into this habit.

And finally, cancelling Sarwatch should be phrased for an IFR Aircraft as:

"ABC, Landed (location) cancel SARWATCH' or "ABC, in the circuit area (location) cancel SARWATCH".

NOT SAR!



As mentioned earlier, if you're flying IFR and you call up on the ground to cancel "SAR", I'm thinking the Controller is going to know that it's Sarwatch and not Sartime.

You're getting wrapped around the axles on some pretty anal stuff like "Sar" vs. "Sarwatch". How about all the IFR pilots who cancel Sar (sorry, Sarwatch :ooh:) when they're over 5 Nm from the airport? Saw this plenty of times when I'm in the circuit. Someone cancels Sar(watch) at my aerodrome, I'm looking for them then they'll call "10 miles inbound" on CTAF.

There's some gold in this thread...

While we're at it... it's "LEAVING FL350" not "LEFT FL350"!

And no it's not pedantic..it's so altitudes are not confused with radar headings...



Funny stuff. I can't recall the last time I was asked to turn LEFT onto heading FL350 :} :}. Confusion? Not sure about you, but I think that the words "turn onto heading" before the number prevent any confusion. Similarly, "climb to" or "descend to" generally give me the impression that the Controller wants me to climb or descend, and not turn.

Another gem:

Ohhh and to those pressurised aircraft drivers, when departing a non-controlled aerodrome, SAY the flight level you are on climb to! Not just FLIGHT LEVELS!

Remember there are and very well could be PRESSURISED VFR AIRCRAFT flying below FL180 or more so below FL245 in some sections of Australian airspace!

Most people I see "flight levels" when departing non-towered airports. ATCO's often give traffic as "climbing flight levels". Why? Possibly because it's highly unlikely that anyone listening on CTAF is going to care, as long as they know I'm climbing to over 10,000'! Any IFR would already be aware of me and my intentions already, similarly to meatbombers.

When is a VFR (pressurised or not) going to be monitoring a CTAF? Arriving, departing, or transiting. How many CTAF's extend up to the flight levels? And how many VFR pilots flying at flight levels monitor the CTAF's they're flying over?

If a VFR is arriving to an AD and decides to monitor CTAF from 40Nm (13,000' ish) and hears an RPT giving a departure report on a reciprocal heading and hears that the RPT is climbing to "Flight levels" instead of "FL180", he's not going to care which flight level.


Nit, my RAAF instructor eons ago said that if your R/T is slack, the rest of your flying is probably slack too.

LOVE comments like that. :yuk: Did your instructor also say that if you had sloppy parade ground drill it meant that you're probably a sloppy pilot as well? Makes about as much sense.

DIVOSH!

[InTheWeeds]

Divosh... :D:D:D:D

Post of the thread!

[Wally Mk2]

'Divosh'.....we luvs ya !:D:D:DCouldn't have said it better myself:ok:
I also couldn't be bothered typing all what you did but well done as it's insane how crazy some are getting over this!



Wmk2

[Capt Fathom]

I've got so much material here! Just can't wait to fly past Townsville again! :E

BROADCASTING.....

Leaving, Taxi's, for Flightlevels, reference the NDB, if available, etc etc...

"All stations TSV, ABC, a magnificent Aztec is 10nm inbound from the south, on descent from 5000, circuit at 10!

How simple is it?

[wrongwayaround]

Advice.......

Make radio calls to the best of your ability and training...

Flick to the AIP's/Jepps if you're curious (which we should all do from time to time anyway).

If you find you're calls have been slightly off... like saying "on climb to" rather than "climbing to"......
Then just start using the right terminology?
Rather than starting on one of the pedantic lovers threads.

It's the thing about being a pilot. There's so many things we have to get right... Keep flicking through the manuals, your whole career you'll realize how many little things you say and do that aren't quite 100% polished.

Great post divosh :)

[Capn Bloggs]

Simple. Do it the proper way or do it Divosh's way. :cool:

[the distant future]

While we are talking about clogging airways. Is it really necessary to say 'request 10 miles left (to avoid weather)' I mean what else could you be diverting around that ATC didn't already know about...I could be wrong, I mean maybe a giant version of Dr Manhattan just appeared to battle Ozymandias or perhaps Godzilla is running amok and you want to get the hell out of his fire breathing terror as he thwarts Mothra.
Also why on earth would you cancel SARWATCH in the circuit. You're still in the air. Personally that's pretty much the most critical time I want someone looking out for me! Regardless of the fact that I'm "in contact" with some company stooge who wouldn't know what to do if we didn't actually land.
I recently heard some dude request cancel SAR as his "landing was assured"....I wish I was that positive all the time.
And what the hell is "departed at this time"...What time is that! I might be in a worm hole and think you were next to me and I sure as hell don't want to merge with you when I come out.
I once heard a guy request a visual approach to a non towered aerodrome from ATC and they said "sure, if your visual".
Either way it all makes me laugh and I don't get it right every time anyhow.

[nitpicker330]

Yep good post:ok:

By the way, CX changed our manuals 5 years ago to remove the requirement to report leaving/maintaining a Level whilst Radar identified. I haven't made such a call in Oz since then and haven't been told off!! In my hours and hours of listening in whilst droning over Oz I hardly ever hear any Oz operators do so either. It is the 21st century after all!!

Progress!!

This is all mute anyway, give it 10 years and it will all be CPDLC!!

[Hold_Short]

If you tend to look closer at the requirements for operating into and put of MILITARY aerodromes, they require you state POB on initial Taxi call! Darwin is a dual military/commercial aerodrome and that is why they controllers are asking you to state your POB... Devosh!

Also I sometime operate a pressurised aircraft, VFR at flight levels below FL180. when you think no one is listening to craft, think again... it is a requirements for our company to listen to both CTR and CTAF FREQUENCIES when able. So when I'm on decent from FL150 to my CTAF at 25NM, chances can be that I'll conflict with outbound Metro traffic departing for a hop skip jump at FL120, on my decent.

So Yes... it can and does happen. Just because you cruise above 10000ft doesn't mean your oblivious to what's happening underneath you.

Simple answer just say the FL on climb to. How hard is it! Maybe I'll start saying "climbing altitudes" when I depart a CTAF and see how the traffic inbound takes it. I'm sure the radioactivity will get clogged then! :D

[Hold_Short]

Jepp Atc AU-207 1.1

Operations into controlled airspace... pilot action and related activity in civil AND military controlled airspace.

Then... just below.

1.2.3.1 PIC for IFR flight MUST provide ATC with number of POB when requesting Taxi Clearance.

Divosh... there you have it.

[Hold_Short]

This thread isn't supposed to make people bitter and twisted about themselves or others with simple radio calls.

It's just some handy tips and pointers for those who want to fine tune their calls to be be as close to correct as possible, with details on references for further reading.

[Ando1Bar]

Knowing the AIPs and their requirements doesn't make him a village idiot - it makes him educated.

Off you hop.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

DiVosh, great post.

Educated, now that's very funny.

Someone on a soap box spruiking "facts" is hardly educated.

Hold Short, I know who you are in the real world, you should not be spruiking anything to anybody.

Knowing the AIPs and their requirements doesn't make him a village idiot - it makes him educated.Oh really ?, POB is not required for RPT, thats a piece of the puzzle that he is missing, along with many other pieces.

Dick waving, like many of the posts above makes pprune far less fun than it could be.

[Hold_Short]

Jepp Atc AU-207... for those interested in the actual radio requirements for controlled airspace.

We are always learning!

[harrowing]

Hold short,
I could not find that page in my Jep, however I did find in ATC AU-701 1.2.3.2 effective 2 Jun 11: 'For IFR flights operating as other than RPT, the pilot-in-command must provide ATC with the number of POB when requesting taxi clearance.'
I suspect you have an old page that has been updated. You may also find further down on that page that there was no requirement for RPT to comply.
Cheers

[Ando1Bar]

Someone on a soap box spruiking "facts" is hardly educated.



But someone on a soap box spruiking it's okay to use non-standard phraseology is hardly professional.

If ATC continuously did it you'd all be up in arms. Everyone has a slip up, but not bothering to learn, or deliberately not using, correct R/T is just plain slack. At least you think you sound so cool on the radio...the majority listening think you sound like a joker.

[Hold_Short]

Harrowing,

My appologies, it is JEPPS AU 701 1.2.3.1.

Don't know where I got 207 from. Thanks for that.

[metalman2]

C'mon people, we're only a few posts from the neat 100,,,,all because some boob said "taxi's",,,,,,,gotta love this site!!!!:D:D:D:D:D

[b_sta]

So we've got the 'be a polished, knowledgeable pilot and keep your calls as closely in line with AIP as possible' group, versus the 'you're being ridiculously pedantic, look at the big picture, if the communication is clear and understood then what's the difference' group...

http://www.excusememe.com/pics/imagebase/5208.gif

(personally, 'taxies' gives me the ****s, as does 'climbing flight levels'... but then, I have no problem with 'cancel SAR', nor with 'request 5 miles left of track due weather' :})

[Wally Mk2]

That's right 'mm2' gotta luv this site & this pedantic thread subject has almost reached a 100 posts in only a few days!!!....this is better than watching the idiots/children in Parliament on the TV!!!:)
Yanks reading this would be choking on their hot dogs I reckon with laughter!:E


Wmk2

[Ando1Bar]

So we've got the 'be a polished, knowledgeable pilot and keep your calls as closely in line with AIP as possible' group, versus the 'you're being ridiculously pedantic, look at the big picture, if the communication is clear and understood then what's the difference' group...


versus the 'you sound like a muppet, your communication is not clear nor easily understood and requires multiple replies from ATC to get all of the required information from you'.

I think it is these clowns that frustrated Hold_Short to the point where he had to write something about it.

100 posts and not locked yet - me thinks this is a radio call threat record.

[metalman2]

Damn ,I had something really witty for the big 100,,,got in late and missed it double damn!!
and yeh the yanks would love the side show for sure

[Mr.Buzzy]

Must be a slow day in the Rex CT office.
Get back to your flying schools.

Bbbbbbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzzzbbbzzzzzzzz

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Just throw the SAO's on the ground in the centre of the circle and run out the door, leave them to their own "devices".

[Mr.Buzzy]

If only it were that easy SDT. Would be funny to fill their bottle of baby oil with skydrol though!

Bbbbbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzzzzz

[maverick22]

Oh so disappointed I only found this thread now! It is overdue, as it has been such a long time since the last one :rolleyes:

Just as an aside, I believe it is not a requirement to make a departure call on the ctaf, as per the AIP. My company manual does stipulate though that a departure call should be made when turning contrary to the circuit direction and it actually includes the phrase "climbing to flight levels" :ooh:

And let's face it, anyone who cares what flight level we are "climbing to" will hear it in the full departure report we make on the area frequency shortly after.

[jas24zzk]

So according to this thread, the YMMB tower broke all the rules a few years back when I was the only one doing laps, by giving me score updates as part of Tx'ing #1 clear to land??? :ugh:

Seriously, being clear and concise missing part of the info is more professional than spitting it out as fast as possible 100% correct :ugh::ugh::ugh:

At least when the guy whom is clear is understood and can be questioned for further info if needed........i.e ABC you needed to read that back to me in full, or OCTA, "BBB, what level are you at?" Or we just be a prig, "CCC why don't you read the AIP so your calls are correct :ugh:

With the rate of change of the rules in this country, its a wonder anyone can get their R/T 100% correct all the time. The most able would have to be ATC as they are doing it all the time. Fair cop to the recreational (PPL/RAA/glider) who at least try to get it right, lest be pounded by some 'professional'

That in mind, it opens the box as to what % of time do you spend memorising the correct phrase so your R/T

Aviate, Navigate, communicate. (great in a crew environment with all the latest gadgets to tell you that you need to turn left) (might explain why the guy on page 5 wasn't so sure his landing was assured :ouch: )

[framer]

Aviate, Navigate, communicate. (great in a crew environment with all the latest gadgets to tell you that you need to turn left)

It's great in any environment, crew or not, C206 or A380.

[VH-FTS]

Seriously, being clear and concise missing part of the info is more professional than spitting it out as fast as possible 100% correct

Ever been flying around SYD/BNE/MEL approach with many many aircraft in the airspace? You have to be clear yet efficient. You need to learn the call properly to avoid the following from happening:

At least when the guy whom is clear is understood and can be questioned for further info if needed........i.e ABC you needed to read that back to me in full, or OCTA, "BBB, what level are you at?" Or we just be a prig, "CCC why don't you read the AIP so your calls are correct


With the rate of change of the rules in this country, its a wonder anyone can get their R/T 100% correct all the time.


Most calls haven't changed in a long time. CTAF calls were amended in 2005, then a slight change as when to make them 18 months ago (but the format didn't change). Old mate in his 182 has had plenty of time and educational material to get it right and not come blasting through a major CTAF or CTA talking dribble.

Aviate, Navigate, communicate.

Yep, do it in that order, but do it all properly. jas24zzk, you hope to join Rex or someone similar one day. I'd hope by the time you get an aviation job and stop bashing car bodies around that you have realised the importance of being professional in every aspect of being a pilot, including radio calls. Everyone has their own style and there are moments of humour - don't think anyone is saying that should change. But learning what to say is just part of your job, whether you do it recreationally or for a living. Get it right early in your career and you'll be thankful later.

[VH-XXX]

There is no mention of 'Left' or 'Leaving' in the Phraseology section.


That's right and you could use either depending on whether or not you have been cleared to descend.

If you were cleared to descend, you descend, but are waiting for someone else to finish their long-winded radio call, then you will have "left' your FL. If you are in fact leaving your FL, you would say you are "leaving." Pretty simple really.

They are not the same thing.

[LeadSled]

That's right and you could use either depending on whether or not you have been cleared to descend.

If you were cleared to descend, you descend, but are waiting for someone else to finish their long-winded radio call, then you will have "left' your FL. If you are in fact leaving your FL, you would say you are "leaving." Pretty simple really.

XXX

Pretty simple really ---- simply rubbish ---- with all due respect.
Can we please forget primary school grammar and stick with the very common sense ICAO and the rest of the world recommended usage:

LEFT ( or RIGHT) is a direction.
LEAVING --- when you are proceeding ( nearly said headed) up or down, the associated words being PASSING and MAINTAINING.

Pity there is nothing in the CASA training training syllabi or the AIP about the principles of good R/T, as apposed to a ridiculously (compared to Annex X, Vol 2) long list of "standard phrases".

Tootle pip!!

[Popgun]

Ah yes...gotta love the OZ aviation scene...

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

PG

[VH-XXX]

With all due respect LS, what would you say if you left FL250 2 minutes ago if you were cleared prior....?

Doesn't happen every time as I said, but it's often very busy and impossible to get your call out. The standard phraseology would not suit in this instance.

[eocvictim]

"On decent XX Passing FLXX".

[Di_Vosh]

All I'm seeing is a confirmation of my earlier claim re: compliance vs. productivity or performance.

Also I sometime operate a pressurised aircraft, VFR at flight levels below FL180. when you think no one is listening to craft, think again... it is a requirements for our company to listen to both CTR and CTAF FREQUENCIES when able.So when I'm on decent from FL150 to my CTAF at 25NM, chances can be that I'll conflict with outbound Metro traffic departing for a hop skip jump at FL120, on my decent.

There is a lot wrong with this paragraph, but the author is more concerned whether someone calls "Taxi's" instead of "Taxiing" instead of asking questions to his CP about airmanship and SOP's that enhance safety instead of detracting from safety.

IMHO, these are the questions you should be asking:

Why are you flying passenger carrying charters VFR? Why are you flying airwork/charter at flight levels VFR? If your company can afford to operate pressurised aircraft, they can afford the cost of flying IFR and all the extra protection that it provides both you and the passengers who've paid good money to fly from A to B.

Why does your company have a requirement to monitor en-route CTAF's if you're at flight levels? Please tell me how it is going to aid your Situational Awareness if you're flying above FL150 and listening to enroute CTAFs? I can't see any benefit. All I can see is distracting cockpit noise; 99% of which is irrelevant to you. And the 1% that may be relevant to you would be passed onto you if you were flying IFR!

Why are you at FL150 at 25Nm on descent to a CTAF? (Disclaimer: my only experience of pressurised aircraft is a Dash8 flying RPT. If people who fly aircraft like Cessna 421's/Conquests/King airs, etc, do this regularly then I withdraw the question). Does it make sense to fly a 6 degree glide path?
Wouldn't it be more fuel efficient to fly a shallower glide path?

These are the types of questions I'd be asking: i.e. Airmanship, SOP's that are conducive to safe flying, etc. Not some pet hates about how other people can't comply with the byzantine regs set out in the AIP.

(btw, thanks for the link. Just adds to what I'm saying about overly complicated and byzantine regs that we live with here in Oz.)

So when I'm on decent from FL150 to my CTAF at 25NM, chances can be that I'll conflict with outbound Metro traffic departing for a hop skip jump at FL120, on my decent.

As I said in my reply to you earlier, if you're on anything like a reciprocal heading you're going to be in conflict with the metro if it's climbing anywhere from 6000' to FL180. So if the Metro says "flight levels", who cares?

Are you NOT going to call the Metro and arrange separation?

Simple answer just say the FL on climb to. How hard is it!

A better question! :ok: Out of Devonport my intended FL is FL180 but I can't climb above FL125 without a clearance. I may not get the clearance to fly above FL125 until around 30Nm from Devonport. I may not get FL180 due the Rex out of Wynyard or the Q400 out of Launy asking for the same, or god knows who else out there flying on an oblique track. We may decide to fly higher or lower depending on the en-route winds.

So I can call "climbing FL180", but it could be a lie! :eek: I suppose I could call "climbing intended FL180" but people like you would peg me for non-standard-AIP r/t and there would be another prune thread about it. :}


It's just some handy tips and pointers for those who want to fine tune their calls to be be as close to correct as possible, with details on references for further reading.

In my experience when people write an email or post on a bulletin board they have in their head a train of thoughts behind what they wrote, as well as their own tone and stye of writing. Unfortunately the reader of the post or email has their own thoughts, tone, and style.

The result is that it's difficult to write something and have another person read and understand it in the same manner in which you intended it to be read and understood.

So you may well have intended your thread to be about "handy tips and pointers". But I read your first post and most of the rest of your posts in this thread as diatribes and rants.

Bloggs

Simple. Do it the proper way or do it Divosh's way.

Very droll! If only everything were so black and white and clear cut.

We had a flight going into YMAY a few years ago from Sydney. The FO made her inbound call to Albury tower but messed up the sequence of the call. Albury tower were pretty good about it, understood what she was trying to say, and gave her a clearance. The Captain made her say the entire call again iaw the AIP in spite of Albury tower giving her the clearance.

So who's clogging up the airwaves? The FO? Albury tower? No. The Captain who insisted on the FO making an entirely unnecessary second call to Albury tower because he wanted it done exactly as per the AIP.


DIVOSH!

[travelator]

DI Vosh. You have accused Bloggs as being black or white yet you are also guilty by stating this is compliance vs productivity. You can be compliant and productive, they are not mutually exclusive. If you say taxis instead of taxiing then you are being productive, however if you say taxiing then you are both productive and compliant.

As for the climbing to flight levels. Simply say the level you are climbing to, your flight planned level. If you want to change it then can do so with ATC and everybody knows what you are doing. I am at FL350 and you say flight levels, are you planning on climbing that high? Am I going have to make a radio call to see if we conflict? If you say your flight planned altitude then that covers everyone in between and excludes all else. Far more efficient and productive.

Somebody else mentioned the old "aviate, navigate, communicate" chestnut. "Communicate" being the third priority is not an excuse to be sloppy. We, as professionals, should be striving to get every aspect of our work correct.

I am amazed at some of the comments and attacks on this thread. A lot of you guys are getting upset at those pointing out the correct ways of doing things without any valid reasons to do it otherwise. Other than DI Vosh who has tried to justify not doing it correct, the rest are just name calling. If you can't be bothered doing it the way it is set out in the AIP then that's fine by me, just don't try and justify it by being anything other than lazy and ignorant.

PS ecovictim, it should actually be "ABC descending to FLXX", if not identified then you would add "leaving FLXX". "on climb" and "on descent" are non-standard and as such, do not exist in the AIP. :E

[Jack Ranga]

I'll relax a little about radio calls when just one of you IFR pilots tells me why their taxy call is:

'Melbourne Centre, ABC taxy-ing IFR Wagga for Bankstown request traffic and code'

When the correct call is:

'Melbourne Centre, ABC, Chieftain, POB 6, IFR, Taxy-ing Wagga for Bankstown, Runway 23

Which one of you started the crap? If you don't get a code, squawk 2000, if you don't get a traffic statement and there is any, holiday time for the ATC.

This garbage has even made it's way into the RAAF. Why are you RAAF pilots adopting this garbage?

You may think that not using standard phraseology is ok, what's it matter? It matters particularly when it's busy and I have to go back and ask you what your departure runway is so the inbound traffic knows. The POB is there for a reason. If anything happens to you and a phase is declared the services need to know how many people they are looking for.

Things happen quickly at times (not all the time). When our sectors are on combine one person is managing 7 frequencies (sectors), they are on re-transmit but you are not necessarily hearing everyone else. You don't know at times how busy the ATC is.

I don't see why it is so difficult to look at AIP GEN page 3.4 - 48 para 5.14.4 for your taxy call when you are going to be doing it every day?

[Howard Hughes]

A question for ATCers, where do I put 'Med one' in my taxi call? I've tried at the start, finish and in the middle somewhere, always seems to get missed! :(

Maybe it's all the nights I am doing!;)

[Wally Mk2]

'HH' add Med 1 anywhere you like in yr R/T, the excersize is to get the information out there not try to conform to some pedantic R/T proc that few seem to use as per the book anyway. Just 'cause it's written in the book doesn't mean it suits every situation.
I used to always add in extra small bits of info where necessary on my calls to make it plain English & understandable. One had to 'speak' to whomever is out there in R/T land as if they where the lowest common denominator of all pilots.


Wmk2

[nitpicker330]

I think most of us take pride in what we say on the Radio and mostly try to use correct phraseology HOWEVER if you misplace the occasional word or say "left" instead of "leaving" etc then by god it's no biggy, REALLY it's not.

As I said earlier it's all a matter of communication, does the other party understand what you are saying? If yes then :ok:

In Australia where we mostly speak good English to each other the occasional mistake/omission is easily fixed.

In places like India, China, Indonesia etc it is much more vital that standard calls are made because the locals will have no idea what you said AND probably won't confirm what you said, they'll most likely ignore it all together. THAT is a real safety problem.:eek:

[travelator]

I agree Nitpicker (which is a colloquialism for being pedantic, oh the irony!). The occasional slip up is easily done and therefore excused. The issue is more focused towards not even knowing when one is slipping up. If you always say "left" instead of "leaving" because you don't know or care that it is incorrect, then re-education is required. Hence the purpose of this thread.

As Ranga said, standard phraseology serves a higher purpose that being a platform to nit pick. It is intended to reduce any confusion between parties.

[nitpicker330]

Yawn........really.

Yawn.


Leaving, Left........who gives a Rats really??????

If I was an ATCO and QFA134 reported "leaving FL350" I'd understand that to be he was no longer maintaining FL350 and was now descending.

If I was an ATCO and QFA134 reported "left FL350" I'd understand that to be he was no longer maintaining FL350 and was now descending.

AND a check of my zillion dollar Radar display would indeed confirm that the Altitude readout was no longer steady at FL350.

Mmmmmmm. Could be lots of confusion there !!

[Jabawocky]

Maverick....long time no see!

Yes the number of dep calls by a jabiru in a CTAF like YCAB is amazing:ugh: no wonder YRED has a separate freq now as they have the same problem.

Mr Ranga makes a very good point..... I try ever so hard to follow correctly the required format because seeing how you guys work the other end of the radio really opens your eyes:eek:

[maverick22]

Hey jabba, I'll be out your way tomorrow flying one of those things without engines. Hopefully my ctaf calls will be up to scratch :O

[Jabawocky]

No engines :eek::eek::eek:

Wally has a meltdown when you have just one....:uhoh:

Drop me a PM with when where and who, if I am free I might seek in :ok: hydration supplies in hangar fridge too.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

All right, I'm back, who ended up eating the SAO's ?.

[Capn Bloggs]

Swaziland? It shows... :}

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Ok, my two bobs worth.
I'm not sure why people can't come to terms with correct R/T. It really isn't that hard to read, understand and repeat.
With R/T, (as with many things in life), those that argue 'It's not that important', or 'as long as I get the general idea out there' are usually too lazy to try (and not brave enough to admit they're lazy) or lack the spare capacity to operate an aircraft AND make correct R/T at the same time.
The rules are rules, and as PROFESSIONAL pilots, we should, at the very least, ATTEMPT to make srandard and correct R/T.
A lot (notice it is A LOT and not alot :) ) of what we say on the radio is said in a particular fashion for a reason. If you think it is wrong, write a submission to CASA to have it changed.
Of all the things we as aviators face and are expected to do, making correct radio calls should be the easiest of the lot.
Read, remember, repeat.

As an old instructor of mine once said (talking particularly about formation - but it applies to flying in general) "look good coming over the base, and sound good on over radio".

Over and out😜
(yes I know that is wrong - I'm joking for god's sake :) )

[Capt Claret]

What allthecoolnamesarego said. :ok:

[SW3]

Agreed Hold Short. Standard phrases there for a reason so use them. Makes life much easier for all. Take pride in yor flying!

[Duff Man]

While we're at it
Radar
Doesn't exist any more. It's: Surveillance!

Ps. Duff Man's onto the leaving/left case to get it removed altogether. Waste of r/t in controlled airspace.

[triadic]

This thread subject comes up every year or so and is always interesting and has a few laughs!

However nobody seems to examine how these problems (if they are so) come about? If you go back to basic flight schools you will find that R/T is one of the few subjects that is not subject to a CASA exam. It is left to the flying school and the CFI to set the standards and provide the instruction etc by whatever method. This brings about what might be considered a lack of standardisation and we see this right thru the industry and have done so for the past 10 or 20 years. Even the C&T Captains at the top end of the market do the same and there is a failure to understand and teach what is correct. Some domestic RPT/Regional pilots are the worst offenders.....:=

Trouble is they don't know what they don't know and an understanding of ATC/ATS is not in the pilot syllabus. Those that have such an understanding are usually more proficient in their R/T use.:ok:

So what is the problem? Yes lets speak ICAO English and abide wherever possible with the AIP. However once again it is the interpretations of what is published that fail to provide the standardisation that is intended.

Whilst the AIP is published by ASA, it is CASA that is the author of the subject matter under discussion.

Why do pilots get it wrong? Instruction and standardisation is top of the list in my book and a failure by CASA to even understand the issues and provide the much needed standardisation....!

My pet hates include::=

Acknowledge and acknowledgment
Too many readbacks
Not including location in broadcasts on descent in G (ATC might know, but other pilots don't!)
Too much "offering" (the practice of establishing coms prior to passing info) They don't do this o/s, so why in Oz? Are pilots and controllers not able to pick something up the first time - they used to be able to!]


Many procedures changed when TAAATS was introduced so as to give the controllers time to get used to the new system. Sadly many of the then temporary procedures (?) are still in place. Do we really need them now?

By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.

Whilst I have the greatest respect for our controllers, there is a culture within that does not exist in other major aviation countries….. I remember an experienced international pilot saying once; Why is it that all over the world you are treated by ATC as a professional until you show yourself to be and idiot, but in Oz, on first contact, one is often treated as an idiot until you show you are a professional?:ugh:

As is shown by the size of this thread, there is much interest in this subject, however everyone looks at it in a different way, and whilst they do, we will continue to have these discussions. As said previously, there is not much that can be done about it now.

[Oktas8]

I think every country has problems with RT standards, and as a recently arrival to Australia myself I've made my fair share of nonsense calls at regional ports.

Although I've read the relevant section of the AIP (twice), it seems to be written by people of a legal mindset rather than an instructional mindset. Some countries have introduced RT Guides for pilots. These are written in the style of a CAAP - that is, readable and simple with practical examples. Much like one or two of the posts here in fact!

I thought of writing something myself - to teach myself mainly, but also anyone else who wanted to read a practical RT guide. But I simply can't do it based on the AIP. There are too many missing bits and exceptions and too much that can't be interpreted correctly without extra explanation.

[Jack Ranga]

By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.

Agree with you here so this is not having a crack, BUT it's the staffing that makes some of us busy. As I said in a previous post, when my group combines all of our sectors we are running 7 sectors/frequencies.

Whilst I have the greatest respect for our controllers, there is a culture within that does not exist in other major aviation countries….. I remember an experienced international pilot saying once; Why is it that all over the world you are treated by ATC as a professional until you show yourself to be and idiot, but in Oz, on first contact, one is often treated as an idiot until you show you are a professional?

Seriously mate, this is just so not the case. If a controller gives a bit of lip and it's reported, we are guilty, bit like copping a smack in a game of footy, if you retaliate, you cop the suspension. It's just not worth being a smartarse on the radio anymore.

As is shown by the size of this thread, there is much interest in this subject, however everyone looks at it in a different way, and whilst they do, we will continue to have these discussions. As said previously, there is not much that can be done about it now.

From my point of view, I'm not gonna get all anal on the sequence of what's in the read back, what does irritate the f@ck out of me is when you just make stuff up and reading back every single detail of a transmission because you don't know what's meant to be read back.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

So why do we have to read back QNH when we state we've already received the current ATIS?

[LeadSled]

By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.

Triadic,
Great to see that, now you are out in the big wide world, you have notice that ICAO/US/UK actually know what they are doing, and it all works, with about a tenth of the 'Standard Phrases" in the Australian AIP.

Where "communications" is the name of the game --- not "complying with procedures".

As to the question, why read back the QNH when it is on the ATIS --- dead bodies is why!! --- as a result of accidents that created said dead bodies ---- ICAO made it a SARP, and despite considerable opposition here at the time, it was adopted.

Tootle pip!!

[triadic]

QNH

When the procedures and R/T were revamped in 1997, the QNH was discussed for hours. It got up, as it was an ICAO recommendation. One of the points that failed to be understood by the CASA rep on that working group was that "Area QNH" is information and as such should not be a readback. He did not really understand and now many read back the AQNH! Don’t know if that was the intent, but it certainly is the result. Everybody was just too busy to fully work thru the PIR of those changes.

READBACKS
Major problem is that many just don’t understand the system and what is needed, hence the default position of reading everything back. (which was warned of in the 97 working group discussions) Some even readback traffic info... give me a break! It is just not required!

ATC STAFF LEVELS
Have to agree that there is a problem in Oz, and the real problem started way back in the early 90s when we saw the bulk introduction and use of re-transmission. Many pilots don't understand the concept and sadly there are some controllers that can’t seem to use it efficiently. Once I thought it was the system, but on different days with different controllers it can be very different.

CULTURE
Like it or not there is a different culture in every countries ATC world. My quote is some years old, but there is nothing to suggest it has changed much. Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner. Maybe if the AG's Dept got out of writing many of Oz documents it might improve??

We can only do our best and work within the guidelines we have…..

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As I have posted on a number of other threads on this subject, lousy training from the start is a major problem here ----- and with the unholy "compliance" mindset, we have the "pingya" credo.

Thus, to quote a well know CFI from the Sydney area:

"Read everything back, then they can't pingya".

Good communications doesn't get a look in with this kind of training, even if this CFI had some understanding of what proper communications are --- which he doesn't.

And, as we all know, what is learned first is learned best. Bad habits inculcated during the first few hours of training are hard to shift.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner.

Mate, we get checked 6 monthly plus a contextual report (attitude, yearly). We also get random voice sampled, which can (and has been found to) be embarrassing!

As Leadsled says (good lord! Taking a good, long, hard look at myself) If it's learnt correctly from the start it'll be done properly. The school at Mangalore that does international students (Asian) obviously teach the students the correct calls...........because they are correct.............right from the start. I have not heard one of them utter 'Request traffic and code' when they are given IFR traffic they don't read all the superfluous garbage back, just their callsign.

[VH-FTS]

Unfortunately many local students who get taught the correct calls then start a GA journey that exposes them to dribble from other pilots.

[SW3]

At the end of the day read the ATC section of the Jepps plus the Met section or the AIP and pronounce phrases as printed in black and white. This is what ATC and other pilots are expecting to hear. How often do you hear a controller making up there own calls? It just doesn't happen. The format passes the required info in a concise and predictable manner.
As stated, monkey see monkey do. One must be trained from the start. Take pride in your profession. Most of all, think before pressing the PTT.

[Capn Bloggs]

Unfortunately many local students who get taught the correct calls then start a GA journey that exposes them to dribble from other pilots.
And that's the point of the thread. Almost all of our calls are p1ss-easy. The problem is the slackers can't be bothered doing the right thing, combined with a little bit of confusion caused by the rushed intro of ICAO R/T by the fundamentalists like Leedsleead. QNH. What dumbo wouldn't check the ATC-given QNH with the ATIS QNH?

Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner.
Triadic, most of your stuff is pretty good but ...what did you mean by that?? How do you communicate in a professional manner if you don't get it right by the book? Or are you suggesting that we be professional by doing our own thing? Maybe professional means using a deep voice? How about we 1/comply with the rules and then, if we don't like them, 2/Change them?

[LeadSled]

Triadic, most of your stuff is pretty good but ...what did you mean by that?? How do you communicate in a professional manner if you don't get it right by the book? Or are you suggesting that we be professional by doing our own thing? Maybe professional means using a deep voice? How about we 1/comply with the rules and then, if we don't like them, 2/Change them?

Bloggs,
As ever, you simply don't understand. Having come from the land of compliance downunder, where parroting phrases "by the book" takes precedence over Annex X, Vol. 2, and such parroting is regarded by people like you as the "height of professionalism".

Ruled by rules, saves you having to think.

"Communications", as the rest of the aviation world understands it, doesn't get a look in with you, does it. Just follow the "rules". Sadly, so many of Australia's self confessed "professionals" sound like rank amateurs to those who actually know and understand the meaning behind the ICAO/UK/US/NZ etc., etc.practices, procedures and recommendations.

Pity you haven't been exposed, in any meaningful sense, to the world of aviation outside Australia, then you might have developed some understanding as those of us who have spent large parts of our aviation professional lives outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- particularly outside the Australian psychological 12 mile limit. understand.

Then you would understand what Triadic is saying.

Tootle pip!!

[Pinky the pilot]

Pity you haven't been exposed, in any meaningful sense, to the world of aviation outside Australia, then you might have developed some understanding as those of us who have spent large parts of our aviation professional lives outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- particularly outside the Australian psychological 12 mile limit. understand.


Well said LeadSled. I flew for a while in PNG and found it challenging and rewarding in many ways.:ok:

One thing that struck me was that both ATC and Flight Service were total professionals (likewise all other pilot I had the pleasure of working with) and their radio communications were just that,Communications! Clear and precise.

There was however, one particular Female FSO who once used some non standard phraseology to me but that was because I..........:E

[Slippery_Pete]

I completely agree with the author of the original post. The lack of standard phraseology is increasing.

For those who have said it's just a case of willy waving, and unimportant in the "big picture", have a look here:

http://www.pan-american.de/Desasters/Teneriff2.html

Before some of you jump up and down about accident theory, I understand there were a hell of a lot of holes in different pieces of cheese and that the KLM Captain's impatience was probably the over-riding factor. But this is a prime example where standard phraseology deteriorated into improvised radio rabble - and the end result was the world's largest single aviation accident.

The other surprising fact about many of the responses to the original post is that many people fail to make the connection between slack/lazy radio use, and overall operational professionalism. I can almost guarantee that a crew who make the effort to be accurate and compliant with AIP radio calls are more than likely to carry that professionalism through to other aspects of their flying. Fair enough, "pending clearance" or "IFR taxi" might not kill someone, but if a pilot is lazy enough to not give a sh*t about it, then tells me a lot about their attitude to other aspects of their profession.

You want some willy waving? Heard a guy make every CTAF call the other day with "SUPER King Air 350, ABC....". What a tool :ok:

I resisted the urge to say "Super Boeing 737-800 Series Next Generation" in my subsequent CTAF calls, but wasn't easy :D.

[Capn Bloggs]

where parroting phrases "by the book" takes precedence over Annex X, Vol. 2, and such parroting is regarded by people like you as the "height of professionalism".
Classic. Don't do what the book says, do what you think Annex X Vol 2 wants you to say. Bla Bla bla!

[Kelly Slater]

The thing that always comes out in threads like this is that the AIP is not readily interpreted by all. Pilots read the same section and continue to come up with different opinions on what is required. The book is simply not clear. Not all calls are covered and a complete list of ICAO radio calls is only available if you pay for it. A complete reference does not exist on the web for free. I haven't looked for 12 months so if anyone has a link to all calls please prove me wrong and post it.
Many moons ago, there was a Trevor Tomms publication that layed out the vast majority of radio calls needed to operate in Australia in an unambigous manner. Even I could read it and know exactly what I was supposed to say. This type of publication is needed, something that takes the guessing out of what the AIP means. For those of you that think they can define exactly what is required from the AIP, I guarantee that I can find at least one call where you will be unsure.

[Tempo]

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

Who cares if the radio calls are not perfect out of the AIP. Most of us have other interests outside our jobs and do not spend every waking minute of the day rehearsing their calls.

What a joke.

[YorkshireTyke]

All that matters is to say it S L O W L Y ( and clearly )

Having to " Say again?" wastes everybody's time.

[VH-FTS]

Aviate, navigate, communicate huh? Communicate is still in that saying - just because it is a lower priority doesn't give you an excuse to do it incorrectly.

That's alright, keep thinking about your sail boat and don't worry about proper communications. Gives me something to laugh at when I hear your tripe on the radio. I have a really sad life anyway, only reading through the AIPs on weekends - so the laughing at your rubbish calls helps me prevent self- harm.

[Wally Mk2]

Actually that's well put 'Tempo'. Some take the R/T too seriously.NOBODY does it perfectly ALL the time inc ATC so am amazed that this thread has lasted so long! I guess willy waving has become a sport here in Oz:)


Wmk2

[Di_Vosh]

Well, it's amusing to see that this thread is still going. :zzz:

Travelator

You have accused Bloggs as being black or white yet you are also guilty by stating this is compliance vs productivity. You can be compliant and productive, they are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I was simply returning the same kind of throwaway line back at Bloggs. Nothing more than that.

If you say taxis instead of taxiing then you are being productive, however if you say taxiing then you are both productive and compliant.

I agree! I try to do all my radio calls correctly. But if I get it wrong I'm not going to obsess about it. We all have our pet hates with what we hear on the radio, but apart from rolling my eyes at the time (like this: :rolleyes:), I move on.

As for the climbing to flight levels. Simply say the level you are climbing to, your flight planned level. If you want to change it then can do so with ATC and everybody knows what you are doing. I am at FL350 and you say flight levels, are you planning on climbing that high? Am I going have to make a radio call to see if we conflict? If you say your flight planned altitude then that covers everyone in between and excludes all else. Far more efficient and productive.

Not sure where you're going with this, as the point was mentioning "Climbing flight levels" on the CTAF.

Big picture stuff here. If you're at FL350 why are you listening to a CTAF? You do understand that at FL350 you're in Class A airspace, so no need to call me to arrange separation?

Not sure what distance your FCOM says to monitor CTAF if arriving at a non-controlled airport (ours is 30Nm). But even if it were TOD it wouldn't matter. As I said to Hold Short, if the departing aircraft is on anything like a reciprocal heading you're going to be potentially conflicting traffic if the departure aircraft is climbing to anything over 4000' AGL. So you're probably going to have to call and arrange separation in any event.

If you can't be bothered doing it the way it is set out in the AIP then that's fine by me, just don't try and justify it by being anything other than lazy and ignorant.

Big call there, fella. I love being called lazy and ignorant because I have a different OPINION than you. If all the calls were presented in an easy to understand, easy to reference, simple manner then I might agree.

Somebody else mentioned the old "aviate, navigate, communicate" chestnut. "Communicate" being the third priority is not an excuse to be sloppy.

Agree. But Communicate is the third priority for a reason. People shouldn't be concentrating on getting "Communicate" 100% correct 100% of the time at the expense of "Aviate" or "Navigate".


Still more gold in this thread:

The other surprising fact about many of the responses to the original post is that many people fail to make the connection between slack/lazy radio use, and overall operational professionalism.

Back this statement up? Of course not.

Why stop at r/t though? How about pilots who don't have shiny shoes or who don't wear a tie or a hat? They don't care about their appearance. If they don't care about their apperance then they probably don't care about other aspects of their aviation. How about pilots who get speeding tickets? If they are so casual about road rules then they probably break avaition rules as well? How many times have you read on Prune "How can you be a professional pilot if you can't spell properly?"

I've read all these opinions here on Prune before, and they all make about the same amount of sense :yuk:

Another gem

I can almost guarantee that a crew who make the effort to be accurate and compliant with AIP radio calls are more than likely to carry that professionalism through to other aspects of their flying.


Absolute rubbish! If they're accurate and compliant with their radio calls, the ONLY conclusion that you can draw is that they're accurate and compliant with their radio calls. ANY other conclusion base on r/t alone tells me that your decision making ability is faulty.

You don't have to look further than this thread to find examples from pilots who claim to have great r/t but have indicated that other aspects of their aviation could do with improvement.

DIVOSH!

P.S. Wally, and SDT :ok: :ok:

[eocvictim]

I'm surprised there has been no complaints about the usage of "G'day". There's no mention of that in the AIP.

[Slippery_Pete]

Back this statement up? Of course not.

That's my opinion from years of checking airline pilots, but if you don't agree that's none of my business and you are entitled to that opinion.
I've seen some pilots who are disciplined and accurate on the radio who were poor overall, and pilots with slack communications who were good overall. But they are the exception to the rule - in the vast majority of cases (>95%) the two go hand in hand.

Why stop at r/t though? How about pilots who don't have shiny shoes or who don't wear a tie or a hat? They don't care about their appearance. If they don't care about their apperance then they probably don't care about other aspects of their aviation. How about pilots who get speeding tickets? If they are so casual about road rules then they probably break avaition rules as well? How many times have you read on Prune "How can you be a professional pilot if you can't spell properly?"

I've read all these opinions here on Prune before, and they all make about the same amount of sense http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but it would to most pilots who treat flying as their profession, not their job.

Your profile says you are a 48 year old Dash 8 FO. I'm just curious, but is that accurate?

Big call there, fella. I love being called lazy and ignorant because I have a different OPINION than you. If all the calls were presented in an easy to understand, easy to reference, simple manner then I might agree.

It would probably take you less time to read that section of the AIP and become more compliant than to type your last post about how unimportant you think it is. :D

[Capn Bloggs]

Travelator 1, Divosh 0.

Not sure what distance your FCOM says to monitor CTAF if arriving at a non-controlled airport (ours is 30Nm).
Appropriate for a C152 operation. :cool:

[pistinaround]

May be they should introduce an exam here In OZ like in JAA land that requires you to conduct a VFR & IFR coms exam before you can be issued with an licence be it PPL or ATPL. ( it basically gives you 4 answers and you have to pick the correct answer for the situation given )

[fujii]

This thread has dragged on long enough. The irony is that the majority of posts contain grammatical, punctuation, spelling or typing errors. If pontificating about others, first ensure your own house is in order.

[Tempo]

Aviate, navigate, communicate huh? Communicate is still in that saying - just because it is a lower priority doesn't give you an excuse to do it incorrectly.

That's alright, keep thinking about your sail boat and don't worry about proper communications. Gives me something to laugh at when I hear your tripe on the radio. I have a really sad life anyway, only reading through the AIPs on weekends - so the laughing at your rubbish calls helps me prevent self- harm.

Good on you FTS, a well thought out and intelligent reply. If you are in the industry as a professional you will realise that there is more to flying than sounding like the ace of base. I have flown with many people over the years and some of the most instinctive and practical pilots were not the best radio call wise. But really, give me a good operator who has excellent S/A and practical knowledge rather than some pain in the ass who picks you up every time you fart incorrectly. You keep studying that AIP if it makes you feel better and feel free to pick me up because I say the wrong thing. I have not looked at the AIP communications section for a long time and have no desire to either.The guys that I admire and respect are those who go about their business with eyes on the big picture, not this bull****.

It's the weekend so you better get back to that AIP. Have fun! I will go back to my imaginary sail boat.

[VH-FTS]

It was a well thought out reply.

Don't worry though, I won't be picking you up when you get it wrong. That's the job of your training and checking department. Hopefully they're doing their job properly. If you are a trainer or checkie, god help us all with an attitude like that.

I'm all for task management etc, but there's no excuse for getting R/T wrong. I'm not talking about "ing" vs "s" - that was never my argument, nor am I arguing that when the ****e hits the fan and you've reached the point of task saturation that you should still be able to communicate in a 100% error free manner. But when you hear an RPT operator who can't either get a CTAF call or departure report done properly, it says a lot them as a pilot. Not communicating properly can cause back-flow problems to navigating and aviating. At the very least it is time consuming when ATC or other pilots call them back. At the worst, accidents have happened.

How many controllers have replied to this thread saying "nah, it's cool when pilots don't give me the required info"? None! They're the ones processing the information we give them. The ones pulling their willies are the pilots who think they're too cool to research or go back through their procedures once or twice a year.

[Di_Vosh]

Where are we?

Oh yes.


Slippery Pete

Congratulations! Someone who can actually argue a point without resorting to name calling! :D

That's my opinion from years of checking airline pilots, but if you don't agree that's none of my business and you are entitled to that opinion.
I've seen some pilots who are disciplined and accurate on the radio who were poor overall, and pilots with slack communications who were good overall. But they are the exception to the rule - in the vast majority of cases (>95%) the two go hand in hand.

Well, that's your opinion based on your experience. I've an extensive training background (non-aviation) and one thing my experience has told me is that there are very few individuals who have excellent skills in their entire skill-set; most people have an Achilles heel in at least one area.

I don't have an extensive aviation background (only started flying 10 years ago) but once again my experience doesn't back up your claim. I've seen gifted aviators who struggle with radio calls. I've seen people with great radio skills who can't land without denting the runway or get lost within 50 miles of departure without a GPS! I've seen pilots who are crap at everything and a very few who are great at everything. Most pilots I've seen have a skills area which isn't as good as their other skills.

So my opinion is different to yours. But my opinion doesn't lead me to make unfounded assumptions based on nothing more than how someone makes a radio call! ;)

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but it would to most pilots who treat flying as their profession, not their job.

Well, you were able to argue one point before posting some kind of smug, patronising reply. :(

or this one:

It would probably take you less time to read that section of the AIP and become more compliant than to type your last post about how unimportant you think it is.

Happy to discuss the issue, if you're capable of doing so.


Bloggs


Travelator 1, Divosh 0.



Very droll, and a typical "intelligent" contribution to the debate :hmm:

It was Slippery Pete and not Travelator who replied. Try to keep up, mate. :rolleyes:

FTS

How many controllers have replied to this thread saying "nah, it's cool when pilots don't give me the required info"? None!

Well, that's because the point of this thread isn't about missing information in a radio call; it's about pilots who give all the information but who get some of the words wrong like "Taxiing" instead of "Taxi's".

But there was a controller who appreciated the "Centre, ABC, IFR taxi" call so that he could prepare to receive info.

Not communicating properly can cause back-flow problems to navigating and aviating

You'll need to explain that one a bit better.

155 posts so far and it appears that there are two groups:

Group one (Bloggs, S_P, Hold Short, et al) who consider that 100% AIP compliance 100% of the time is the only acceptable outcome when on the radio.

Group two (Me, and a few others) know the calls, but accept that some people say the wrong word (e.g. "Left" instead of "Leaving"). They also acknowledge why some people may make a radio call such as (e.g. "Centre, ABC, IFR taxi") even though it's not in the AIP.

This group don't have an issue with this because they're aware that the pilot is still communicating effectively and that effective communication is more important than 100% AIP compliance.

I've heard non-compliant calls from every airline, the RAAF as well as ATC. I've never heard ATC ask for clarification when a pilot mentions "This time", "taxiing", "Pending Clearance", etc.

DIVOSH!

[Slippery_Pete]

If you are in the industry as a professional you will realise that there is more to flying than sounding like the ace of base.

This is exactly the point you are missing. The pilots who place importance on getting the radio work right sound boring - because it's the same every time - easier for other pilots, easier for ATC, easier for awareness in a multicrew environment.

If you think trying to "sound like the ace of the base" on the radio = accurate, compliant & safe radio you have utterly missed the fundamental point of the original post.

I have not looked at the AIP communications section for a long time and have no desire to either.

This epitomises everything that is wrong with Australian aviation today.

Please don't tell me that you were once a flying instructor or are planning on an instructing or training position - I can handle individuals with this attitude and accept that it probably won't change, but I shudder to think that this level of disregard might be passed on to others in the industry, particularly newbies.

It's the weekend so you better get back to that AIP. Have fun! I will go back to my imaginary sail boat.

It's not about spending every weekend reading the AIP as you have made it out to be. It's about spending a little bit of time, every now and then (such as on long sectors) making the effort to get a little bit better.

A pilot who doesn't want to get better in every area is an accident waiting to happen.

[Tempo]

Adios Amigos....

Pprune has deteriorated over the last 15 years to this crap.

Have fun.....I've had enough.

[maehhh]

This thread finally brings some light on how an actually relaxed country like Australia could develop something like CASA... :rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

Travelator

Quote:
You have accused Bloggs as being black or white yet you are also guilty by stating this is compliance vs productivity. You can be compliant and productive, they are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I was simply returning the same kind of throwaway line back at Bloggs. Nothing more than that.



Bloggs
Travelator 1, Divosh 0.

Very droll, and a typical "intelligent" contribution to the debate

It was Slippery Pete and not Travelator who replied. Try to keep up, mate.


Very sorry Divosh, I thought you were directing your reply at Travelator. My mistake. Back to AIP-COMM and my C152.

[LeadSled]

Classic. Don't do what the book says, do what you think Annex X Vol 2 wants you to say. Bla Bla bla!


Bloggs,
Unlike you, I actually know and understand what Annex X, Vol 2 (or PANS/RAC 4444) says, including the history of it's development --- as well as the Australian AIP, and its great gaps in this area.

There is far more than just standard phrases, it's all about how to communicate --- including, for example, how you vary what you have to say, depending on the circumstances.

In complete contrast to the Great Australian One Size Fits All, rote repetition without too much (any??) thought at to what and why.

Thank goodness for spreading CPDLC position reporting, I am increasingly spared the agony of listening, too often, to many an Australian trained pilot trying to pass something as simple as a position report on a busy frequency --- and get it ICAO correct.

Why don't you do something smart, invest in a copy of UK CAA CAP413 (99.9% straight ICAO) and actually learn about "aviation communications". It is a great pity there is no similar CAAP here in Australia, it's a great training and reference tool.

Tootle pip!!

[Wally Mk2]

"Temp' don't go this is like politics, it's them & us!:ok:

Me bin flyin' for over 30 yrs I don't let the goody two shoes out there get to me & I've bin in some ugly situations where comms are the last thing I want to do by the book!:)
As they say sticks & stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me:E



Wmk2

[allthecoolnamesarego]

SP is right on the money. Well argued and reasoned.

Di Vosh, I dont think this is quite correct:

Group one (Bloggs, S_P, Hold Short, et al) who consider that 100% AIP compliance 100% of the time is the only acceptable outcome when on the radio

No one as far as I can tell, has said 100% compliance 100% of the time, what they are arguing is an attempt to get it right, and that a professional attempts to be PROFESSIONAL IN ALL ASPECTS of their chosen field.

Those that don't at least, occasionally, read AIP (and seem to wear it as a badge of honour) are not professional, but think that they are some how 'above all that trainee stuff - I'm a REAL pilot'.

R/T is an INTEGRAL part of our job, and deserves as much consideration as every other component of our job.

I am not getting personal, but I do find it strange that a person who purports to have an extensive background in training, can SEEM to be so blasé about about aspects of their chosen PROFESSION.

[Capn Bloggs]

I am increasingly spared the agony of listening to often to many an Australian trained pilot trying to pass something as simple as a position report on a busy frequency --- and get it ICAO correct.
Oh for FFS. Isn't that what some of us have been saying here? A PR is p1ss easy: try it a few times (as per AIP) and you'll get it right thereafter. It ain't that hard!! If the AIP PR format is wrong, then get it changed!

There is far more than just standard phrases, it's all about how to communicate --- including, for example, how you vary what you have to say, depending on the circumstances.
Righto, put your money where your mouth is and give us an example of "varying what you have to say".

Why don't you do something smart, invest in a copy of UK CAA CAP413 (99.9% straight ICAO) and actually learn about "aviation communications".
I've got better things to spend my money on. I am quite happy saying what's in the book which details what the rules in Oz are. If some ICAO-centric @#$% wants it changed, then go for it. Stop sledging those of us who take pride in getting right what really is pretty easy in the vast majority of situations, if you take the time to actually read the book.

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
Your basic ignorance of "communications", as opposed to "radio procedures" is rather profound, is it not?
Given you many posts on this subject, and their collective contents, all you have done,continually and most effectively, is make the case, for Triadic, myself and other who have some understanding of the fundamentals -- and our views on what is wrong with R/T in Australia.
Tootle pip!!

[Mr.Buzzy]

Oh yaaawn....yaaawn....feckin.....yaaaaawn!

Get a life.....the lot of you....... Deliver the aluminum safely, get a safe message over the radio and above all else..... Mind your own damn business!


Bbbbbbbbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzzzzz

[Capn Bloggs]

Bloggs,
Your basic ignorance of "communications", as opposed to "radio procedures" is rather profound, is it not?
Given you many posts on this subject, and their collective contents, all you have done,continually and most effectively, is make the case, for Triadic, myself and other who have some understanding of the fundamentals -- and our views on what is wrong with R/T in Australia.

Yep, just as I expected, in now-typical Sled fashion. Theoretical mumbo jumbo but when specifically asked to stump up with an example of what you are talking about, you can't do it.

[Much Ado]

Hmmm...I have a number of mates who are C&Ting at various airlines in Oz and out.

ONE of their bigger whinges is "Gen Y cant be ar$ed getting the radio calls right - and it carries over into most of their flying"

I hear from one of them that VB had a 50% failure rate on a recent command course - not because they couldn't physically fly but because they couldn't be ar$ed making an effort to get in the books and display a high standard in the nitty gritty detail....like correct radio phraseology as just ONE example.

I see a fair bit of "so who cares? Near enough is good enough"on this thread - well if you want to spend your careers in the RHS you can bet the company won't care.

They will simply promote people who DO care.

My personal bug bear is read backs;

"XYZ call departures now"

"Call departures now XYZ" :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[CrankyATC]

Alright, here we go.

Things that i don't like in radio calls:

-Pilots (And i'm not only looking at GA ones here) who don't include all required information on first contact, neccesitating numerous calls to deliver the required info. And i'm not being nit picky here, things like levels, ATIS, inflight conditions, all of which affect the way we can process you.

-Pilots who argue the toss about whether they need a departure report or not. Granted, it is not as clear now as it once was, but if in doubt, ask. And if the ATC requests your departure report, theres a fairly good chance you need to give one. Don't argue.

-Not reading back "Holding point" in taxy clearances. Required info people. For those who are in the "well he gets the gist of it in this readback" club, not good enough. ATC are routinely stood down because they didn't enforce this readback, and the aircraft entered the runway without a clearance. Guess what? They cop the kick for it. I'm not saying it's right, just saying that's the way the system is.

And i'm sure there's plenty more. If you think ATC are being pedantic, we are. We have to deal with a potential stand down if we miss a readback, so for our own longevity in our careers, unfortunately, this is what is has come to.

[morno]

LeadSled, if you don't like our procedures, you can always go home.

If we went to the UK, you can be sure that we would have to comply with their procedures, so why don't you read the book on AUSTRALIAN procedures and whether you like them or not, comply with them.

No one is saying we have to be 100% correct 100% of the time. What we are saying, is that if you at least try and make the call as per the AIP, then it sure as hell sounds more professional than making up your own call.

It's not hard people, to have a read of the AIP and brush up on things you may not have read for the last 5 years. If this PPRuNer can do it and then apply it, so can you.

morno

[Captain Nomad]

I'm surprised this one hasn't popped up yet in this multitudinous page thread... Two little words: "planned route" in a route clearance readback. Seems to get missed more these days and more often than not, by airline pilots. One particular nice and professional Melbourne ATCer is regularly 'pinging' pilots on this one. I think the best comeback from him goes along the lines of, "Sorry sir, I need a 'planned route' after XXX. One day you will go from XXX direct to Perth and you will be in trouble and so will I!"

No doubt a simple oversight on occasions but one that does have significance in its meaning. As is so often the case in our profession, small errors can have results of major consequence.

Keep it professional but as this ATCer demonstrates, you can keep it fun and keep it real too!

PS - Perhaps one of the reasons we are so pedantic in Australia is because of the lack of radar coverage. ATC can't always 'see' what we are doing. They rely on accurate descriptions in our radio calls and procedures as per the example above. Standard phrases perhaps increase in importance as a result.

[SW3]

In a Multi crew environment we MUST use standard phrases and procedures for safety and to ensure everything is done correctly. One action signals another to begin. SOPs also allow it to be much easier to detect any abnormality. This concept is no different to radio procedures.
In short, follow the procedures, THEN revert to plain English if the message isn't coming across. Concise procedures may not seem a big deal but remember we all share the same airspace, no matter what you fly. An extra 15 seconds transmitting unnecessary calls can mean 1.0nm travelled for some.

[LeadSled]

LeadSled, if you don't like our procedures, you can always go home.Morno,
For your information, this is home, and "radio communications" is one aspect of aviation at which we do not excel, with the consequent safety implications.

Much like the rest of the world, UK by and large DOES NOT differ from ICAO. Anybody who has access to the Jepp. World Wide Text can easily determine the differences to ICAO filed by most countries, in the case of UK, US,NZ, CA to name but several, may have one or two minor differences. Last time I looked, in the US it was three, all to do with conditional descent clearances. Alternatively, most NAA AIPs are now online.

The Australian WW Text entry goes on for pages. Why is flying here so different --- it's not --- except for the Australian psychological 12 mile limit, that has such a stultifying effect on the thinking of you "little Australian(s)" who have no knowledge of, and apparently have no wish to have any knowledge of ---- what happens in the big wide world of aviation.

At least, in recent years, we have moved a little closer to the rest of the world, but not nearly far enough, in understanding the difference between "communicating" and just what is little more than rote recitation of set phrases, with little thought.

The most common examples of this occur around airfields in G, with Regionals and pilots of larger GA aircraft the main offenders against good communication. At least in controlled airspace there will be a somewhat frustrated controller demanding the gaps be filled in.

I sympathies with the lot of the controllers, their standards enforcement mob are very inflexible --- a bit like Australian "radio procedures", really.

Bloggs, I wouldn't even attempt to try and explain some of the nuances of position reporting to you, it would be a waste of time and effort.

Tootle pip!!

[morno]

So far LeadSled, you haven't been able to show us any of the differences. Go on, try us, :hmm:.

I don't care whether we comply or don't comply with ICAO, these are the procedures, stick to them.

It'd be a bit like going to an airline and saying "No, you all do it the wrong way, I learnt this much better way at the last place I was at, stuff ya's, I'm going to do it that way". That just doesn't happen.

mono

[LeadSled]

Morno,

Strangely, every major Australian operator, including the one who employed me for so many years, has supported Australia complying with ICAO SARPs, rather than having unique Australian procedures.

At the time, some years ago now, when the policy decision was taken to move towards ICAO compliance in this area, it was significant that AIPA supported the proposition, but AFAP were vehemently opposed.

Another example of the difference between those with some knowledge of the big wide world of aviation, versus those mentally confined within our 12 mile limit.

Tootle pip!!

[morno]

That's all good and well LeadSled, BUT, whether you like it or not, they're not the rules employed here in Australia.

I don't nessecarily disagree that we have some silly procedures here that probably don't comply with ICAO, but they are the rules and procedures under which we must operate. Why? Because when there's an incident or accident and you're answering the questions in that court room of "Why did you not comply with the procedures as set out in AIP?", with "Because I think ICAO is much better", I don't think it's going to get you anything other than the blame.

morno

[LeadSled]

Morno.

And there we have it in a nutshell ---- from the mouths of babes etc ---- Australian "compliance with procedures", on pain of criminal sanction, versus effective communication to get the best (air) safety outcomes.

"Compliance" takes precedence, regardless of the fact that there is quite a large body of study and analysis, proven valid (Hudson, Kern, Reason, Maurino et al) that shows why this approach does not, and cannot, produce the best achievable air safety outcomes.

A good example, even if unintended, of why Australia's air safety outcomes are nothing to write home about, and not nearly as good as we keep kidding ourselves they are --- seen through our 12 mile limit inspired rose tinted glasses.

Australian aviation regulation's dedication to complex prescriptive procedures, with criminal penalties, versus outcome based regulation, where the outcome is the best achievable air safety outcome.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Had a spare hour so, foolishly read this thread. It's to easy boys and girls they solved it. Circa 1953. From the immortal Goon Show..

Greenslade: You will find the answer to that question in the Radio Times, price thruppence. Three copper coins, mark you, and by jove, it has become so interesting I would much sooner settle down and read it than listen to the radio any day. :D

Mutters never, not ever again. :ugh: Silly boy, buddy, silly.

[morno]

It's like talking to a brick wall, :ugh:.

What other rules do you not comply with because you think they're a silly idea LeadSlead?

[Capn Bloggs]

So what was a simple "Do your calls properly" thread has turned into yet another rant by Sleddie about the disgraceful state of aviation in Oz.

Bloggs, I wouldn't even attempt to try and explain some of the nuances of position reporting to you, it would be a waste of time and effort.

Nuances of a flippin' position report? Ya joking, aren't you? Talk about making something simple difficult! Heading North, hold mic in left hand and speak with gruff voice. Southbound, hold mic in right hand and squeal. Hang on, that'll be the effo's leg so better brief him what nuance applies then... Maybe we could implement PR nuance policy in Ops Manual. Better still, in AIP!! Then there wouldn't be any arguments. :{

[Captain Dart]

...and Leady, the 'great communicator', what you excrutiatingly append each and every one of your posts with should be bloody
TOODLE pip! :ugh:


toodle pip - Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toodle_pip)

[Captain Nomad]

I see my effort to get the thread back on track didn't work... :hmm:

Capt Dart :D

[Capn Bloggs]

Typically used jocularly, in imitation of upper-class speakers
Lower-class Leddie in the presence of upper-class pruners. :}

[le Pingouin]

As to the question, why read back the QNH when it is on the ATIS --- dead bodies is why!!

Have you ever considered that maybe that is why we have the procedures we do, LeadSled? Someone buggered up.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Urban Dictionary: tootlepip (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tootlepip)

Jackass.

[Wally Mk2]

Come on boys & girls calm down this nonsensical thread is close to 200 posts, don't let the Mods win by closing it:)

Radio calls have been made incorrect since the 'Wrong Bros' started flying & tried to yell at people on the ground. Ya can't change, ya can't fix it despite the rules & regs 'tis human to err, the machines are the planes we fly you can make them all perfect not the drivers so accept it & get on with the actual flyin'!:ok:


Wmk2

[Capn Bloggs]

One who loves one's car and hair too much.

Commonly confused with a Jabroni.

Lover of small Animals.
Last time I saw LS he had hardly any hair (that was over 10 years ago). The "small animals" bit sounds interesting though. :}:}

[Jack Ranga]

Thank goodness for spreading CPDLC position reporting

Hey dood, CPDLC is only to be used outside of VHF coverage so you should be able to keep listening. :ok:

[nitpicker330]

Sorry Jack, we use CPDLC ADS all the time all over Aust AND within VHF all of the time.:ok:

As do most other international Jets now days.

[Trent 972]

Jacks Statement responding to Leadsled...CPDLC is only to be used outside of VHF coverage so you should be able to keep listening.
is entirely correct.
AIP GEN3.4 6.3.2

In Australian continental airspace, CPDLC is normally used as a backup communications medium to VHF voice. Depending on traffic loadings, controllers may initiate the use of CPDLC in some domestic airspace sectors. Other than the transmission of position reports as described in paragraph
6.5.1, pilots should not initiate CPDLC messaging within domestic VHF voice airspace unless authorised to do so by the controller, or an emergency situation exists.


What nitpicker330 says is partially correct in that the use of ADS (Automatic Dependent Surveillance) means we don't normally have to give position reports, BUT we don't normally send CPDLC position reports other than to establish the link, in accordance with the AIP quote above.

[Jack Ranga]

Sorry Jack, we use CPDLC ADS all the time all over Aust AND within VHF all of the time.

Well ya shouldn't should ya?? You are a very naughty, naughty boy :=

I just thought Leadsled was up with AIP, CAO, CAR, ICAO, ASA, CASA, DAP, ERSA, EASA, FAA, FAR etc, was just trying to help him out :ok:

[nitpicker330]

Splitting hairs Jack.
We login to YBBB or YMMM, send an initial position report using the thing then make the occasional freq change, some directed to via voice and some via data link message. ADS B is independantly connected and operational so no position reports required.

Nothing "naughty" about it, in fact we are required to log on, in fact some times if we are slow hitting "notify" ATC come up on voice and ask us to log on to YBBB/YMMM.

System works well.

Cheers

[Capn Bloggs]

ADS B is operational
Identified?! :eek: Maybe that's why PRs are not required.

[Jack Ranga]

Splitting hairs Jack.

Yeah, ok then, whatever floats ya boat. I can give you reasons for all of the above but.............

My original post was taking the piss out of Leadsled, (coz he thinks he knows everything) maybe I should have stated that.

[nitpicker330]

Ok :ok:..........

[PukinDog]

This thread is almost as entertaining as watching kangaroos punch and kick the crap out of each other on Discovery Channel specials about Oz. And I suppose I now know what they're fighting about. Carry on.

Cheers,

an amused Yank

(P.S. When constructing sentences, could the use of the word "whilst" please be kept to a minimum, or preferably avoided altogether? While it may seem proper, nobody really talks like that. Worse, it comes off as.....you know....British, which spoils the whole Oz-flavor thing for me. Thanks)

[Capn Bloggs]

Well well well, a dog (Yank at that) lecturing us on the use of the English language. Whilst everybody is entitled their opinion, that is an EPIC FAIL!

[Capt Fathom]

an amused Yank

Not really a challenge! :uhoh:

[Jack Ranga]

Had a star read back tonight that went something along the lines of:

'Expectin' tha B_ _ 6, 36 oh'

No Runway readback, the star isn't runway specific so anything could have gone into the FMS, should I get all anal and ask for the runway readback or just hope for the best? Coz after all we are pretty picky here in Australia eh!!

And no you're not 'expectin' the B_ _6 you were CLEARED the B_ _6, should I get all anal and insist on a proper readback or just hope that if he f@cks up and flys the wrong star that he did say he was 'expectin' not cleared the B_ _6?

Near enough is good enough?

Stuffed if I'm going to be part of any **** going through those holes in the cheese!

[jas24zzk]

Yer it can be a bit ordinary jack.

Heard a ripper on ML CEN tonite, student, tho (not picking on him). The controller called him 3 times, and gave hints for the readback. The guy was clearly asian, and his replies were very clear and concise, if only lacking the req'd info.

Kudo's to the Controller, who was patient and guiding for the student. :ok:

Pity the poor instructor who on the 4th try from the controller came over the top and rattled if off like an angry copperhead and got it all wrong.

The controllers reply had me curled up in the seat. " XXX ask your student what he said and add the bits he missed, then maybe we can continue"

Positively plum! :ok:

[jas24zzk]

This thread is almost as entertaining as watching kangaroos punch and kick the crap out of each other on Discovery Channel specials about Oz. And I suppose I now know what they're fighting about. Carry on.

Not half as entertaining as watching quality yankee tv like Swamp People, where we get to watch half educated seppo's wrestle 'gators in the hope that one might actually bite back and make it really entertaining.

Cheers,

an amused Yank

Did you look in the mirror?


(P.S. When constructing sentences, could the use of the word "whilst" please be kept to a minimum, or preferably avoided altogether? While it may seem proper, nobody really talks like that. Worse, it comes off as.....you know....British, which spoils the whole Oz-flavor thing for me. Thanks)

Whilst, I have no desire to sound British, I'd also rather not sound like a yank. I am also grateful that I have adequate schooling that I can spell correctly when I choose too, and also speak correctly with distinction at the same time.

Lets face the fact.
The British are the best at massacring the English language.
The Skips and Kiwi's attempt to hold it to its originality.
The yanks tried to re-write it.

Ya'll have fun when you realise the colour is actually red http://www.mustangtech.com.au/images/smiles/icon_dance2.gif

On ya bike old bean

[konstantin]

jas, you bad!
But, sadly, very correct in what you say...

an amused Yank

(P.S. When constructing sentences, could the use of the word "whilst" please be kept to a minimum, or preferably avoided altogether? While it may seem proper, nobody really talks like that. Worse, it comes off as.....you know....British, which spoils the whole Oz-flavor thing for me. Thanks) Ah, sorry? Let they who are without sin, etc...

"Get your feet off of the table" - that disease is spreading here too. Bugger.

"All as I want to say..."

And my PET HATE

"I will be back momentarily" :ugh: :ugh:


Yeah, back at ya PukinDog - "nobody really talks like that" either...outside the US, anyways...y`all... :=


Regional language evolution...or linguistic genocide? Must be a cultural thing I suppose, sigh, remember many years ago desperately trying to explain to a Canadian the concept of rhyming slang - he just could not get his head around it! And he wasn`t even a real seppo... ;)


But anyway, from a quick google;

Both while and whilst have been in the language for a very long time. While was in use in Old English; whilst is a Middle English development of while. As conjunctions they are interchangeable in meaning, but whilst has not survived in standard American English.
I waited whilst Mugabe delivered what he thought were his pearls of wisdom…
I waited while breakfast was finished.
To the American ear whilst sounds quaint. Some British and Canadian speakers think it sounds literary or old-fashioned, but many British speakers prefer it to while.
See Among vs Amongst

Gidday, cobber, see ya later, mate! "Oz" enough there for all? :)
[Cancel thread drift!]

[Ozzie Mozzie]

Leave the poor guy alone.

[Pinky the pilot]

quality yankee tv

No such thing! (I know jas24zzk,
You were just being facetious)

Leave the poor guy alone.

Why??:confused:

[Wally Mk2]

................yeah here here leave da poor guy alone:) Where would we be without the Yanks? No big cubed engines, no KFC, No Boeings!!!:ok:The terrorists would be looking elsewhere too! ...........nah luv the yanks they make real good war movies too:ok:
We wouldn't have had Top Gun, ahhh Kelly you made that movie:E

Whilst I had momentarily thought that the above was of/off the wall silly sense came to me while I was tossing up whether to use further momentarily lapses off brain matter:)

Wmk2

[SHVC]

I have been flying for 7yrs have 3500hrs know the standard phrases pretty well, all though not perfect. But what the hell does "joining for an oblique circuit" mean? I was doing an approach last week minima was 800ft then all of a sudden some jerk in a helicopter joins an oblique circuit 500ft and seems to think its ok to ignore all my other inbound call.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Ah, yes....

Top Gun.

The reason all those air force cadets turn up wearing bug-eye ray ban sunnies.....:rolleyes::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

Gotta admit the chase sequence from the start of Behind Enemy Lines is f:mad:cking fantastic!:ok:

Drift out.