Where do these things come from? [Archive]

By George

16th Apr 2012, 11:10

Capt Fathom

16th Apr 2012, 11:18

The USA have a lot of explaining to do.... If you could just understand it!

jas24zzk

16th Apr 2012, 11:35

By George,
that is too funny to be true! :D

Fathom,
forget us understanding it......they can't explain what they do not understand themselves

Capn Bloggs

16th Apr 2012, 11:51

QANTASlink (QLD)
The boat variety, I assume/hope! :}

TKFS

16th Apr 2012, 12:18

Haha, That is right. Capn Bloggs

DUXNUTZ

16th Apr 2012, 12:38

Sounds very American to me. Our friends over there love all that cool stuff.

ATC: "Report sighting a 757 in your 1 o'clock at six miles"

Capt Cool: "We got em on the fish finder". (TCAS)

ATC: "Squawk 5125".

Capt Cool: "Fifty one twenty five is comming down at yer".

The one that really made me smile. Fed-Ex out of Clark in the Philippines,

Capt Cool: "We've lost a stove and we wanna come on back down, right now". (he lost an engine).

Bet the bloke you heard yesterday had his base ball hat on back to front and the crutch of his pants down to his knees. You've just got to get with it old chap.

Yes let's hate on the yanks. They design most of the aircraft we fly, have a reasonably decent ATC system and fly in weather that would leave lil brown stains in most Aussie pilots underwear but yet they have to be second rate because at times their r/t is simplistic and to the point.
:ugh:

4Greens

16th Apr 2012, 18:59

Check out Rumours and News for an item where a non standard call confused a Controller in the US. Could have been a serious emergency. Stick with standard.

...still single

16th Apr 2012, 19:01

They design most of the aircraft we fly, Yep

have a reasonably decent ATC system Yep

and fly in weather that would leave lil brown stains in most Aussie pilots underwear Yep

but yet they have to be second rate because at times their r/t is simplistic and to the point. Nope. Standard phraseology is simple and to the point, and leaves little room for (mis)interpretation. That's why we use it.

thorn bird

16th Apr 2012, 21:05

still single,
you forgot to add

"about three thousand pages of reg's less than us"
and
"A safety record much better than ours"

By George

16th Apr 2012, 21:08

I do not hate the Yanks, in fact I'd rather fly into JFK, ORD or LAX than SYD. They have a great 'can-do' attitude which is refeshing compared to this country. I do think they should be more standard in their RT for safety reasons. I remember one call in Asia that caused confusion, on being cleared to 4,000ft, Capt Cool said: "We're outa six for four". ATC: "Negative you are cleared to 4,000". (ATC took the read-back as 4,400ft). This is dangerous. Leave the coolness until you are on the ground.
Think I'll wear my sunnies backwards today.

Keg

16th Apr 2012, 21:50

I think I used the words 'coming down' when changing a squawk code to ATC in european airspace as a S/O years ago. Thankfully the bruises given to me by the F/O have all faded now! :ok:

I've rarely seen standard phraseology cause confusion. I've often heard non standard phraseology cause significant issues.

Horatio Leafblower

16th Apr 2012, 23:04

still single,
you forgot to add

"about three thousand pages of reg's less than us"
and
"A safety record much better than ours"

So Thorn Bird,

your argument is that because they are (supposedly) better at us in many ways, it is inconceivable that we could be better than them in any way?

:confused:

Howard Hughes

16th Apr 2012, 23:12

Without standard Phraseology half of the threads in D&G would be gone!;)

noclue

16th Apr 2012, 23:23

"climbing to 6000" Vs. "climbing 26 thousand"

T28D

17th Apr 2012, 02:03

Horatio,

You are right we are better than the U.S. at many things:

Our prosecution rate for pilots and small operators is way more numerous than the U.S.

Our safety measured as number of accidents /100,000 hours is way more than the U.S.

Our rate of change of prescriptive regulation outstrips the U.S. but our adoption of risk based regulation is snails pace compared to U.S.

Our restrictions on runway use at capital city airports is way more prescriptive than the U.S.

we are good at getting ourselves into a state of total disharmony with the regulator, whereas the U.S. experience is the opposite, Alaska is a really great example of co operative behaviour, what happens there would cause a flurry of prosecutions here.

Yes we are good at restricting ourselves.

Wally Mk2

17th Apr 2012, 02:15

Have to agree there 'T28' we are such a backward country when it comes to aviation. We are damned lucky that this place is virtually empty compared to the rest of the world.
In such a safety conscience industry as aviation it's amazing that we have such a divided wall up between the flying community & it's regulators.
It's also a shame that common sense isn't used much in flying when it comes to R/T procedures for Eg as we have to be spoon fed with regs that make us severely over regulated.

Wmk2

A37575

17th Apr 2012, 02:55

Best I heard was in Guam many years back when PANAM flew their 747's there.
ATC was a US Navy tower with one young lady giving out ATC clearances so fast it was almost impossible to write them down.
PANAM asked for route clearance and 15 seconds of non-stop gabbling came from the lady in the tower, culminating in her last words of "Read Back". There was this long pause before a Texas type drawl came from the PANAM pilot saying " Hey Ma'am -Would you mind running that back again to us real SLOW, because I've just had a pen failure...."

Slasher

17th Apr 2012, 03:36

I used to enjoy the straightforward no bull**** RT when
descending into LAX -

133.6 - "XXXX heavy, make Santa Monica (whatever it
was) arrival twenty five left. Gimme 10 over Monica. I'll
see if I can get you 7 later."

133.6 - "XXXX heavy, bring it down to 7 by Monica. Yer
now for twenty five right."

Outbound on SFO freq - "SFO XXXX, can we track direct
AAAA to straighten out the kink?"

SFO - "XXXX track direct AAAA for kink straightener."

Jabawocky

17th Apr 2012, 04:06

SFO - "XXXX track direct AAAA for kink straightener."

Now that is Gold http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/coffeescreen.gif

Lancair70

17th Apr 2012, 04:10

ForkTailedDrKiller

17th Apr 2012, 07:13

Hey Dr, re what you heard, wasnt an english accent by any chance was it ? flying a piper single anywhere near or enroute to or from south to Thangool ?
Ive heard a chap near here say "3613 coming down" Apparently Euro ATC talk ?

Sounds like him! Didn't catch where he departed from but I was in the Thangool area at the time. He was headed for Ballina.

Dr :8

PS: I was scud running at A025 at the time - but that's a whole other story!

thorn bird

17th Apr 2012, 07:58

So Horiatio,
what is the point of regulation if its not for "Safety"?
Common sense was always aviat, communicate, since common sense
is now such an unpopular Phrase, what do we have?..a new generation
of yound pilots frightened to "communicate" for fear of sanction.

Horatio Leafblower

17th Apr 2012, 08:42

Wasn't it Aviate, Navigate, Communicate?

I think Still Single summed it up best when he/she said:

Standard phraseology is simple and to the point, and leaves little room for (mis)interpretation. That's why we use it.

There is a "right" way and it's described in the AIP. We all use plain language from time to time. We occasionally have a joke too.

But making **** up just because it sounds cool and you want to be the cleverest person on the radio can just make life hard for everyone. :suspect:

Regs be damned, I just think if you call yourself a professional you are honour-bound to do every aspect of your job as well as you can. :ok:

Lancair70

17th Apr 2012, 10:11

Hey this guy may have used non standard phraseology, but at least he is easily understood, (I know the guy and often fly in the same airspace, sometimes same aircraft, as him).
Id like to know where in the phraseology it requires comms broadcasts to be limited to a few seconds reqardless of how much needs saying. I hear some CPL and ATPL operators speaking so fast its almost unintelligable. That may be fine when told to contact one controller from another in the CTA environment, the next ATC knows youre calling and what you will probably say. The guy who last flew 6 months ago doesnt understand "Trafficballinavirgin1142ifr737is35southpassing9000ondcenttra ckingviawiskeyechoforrnavrwy06circtuittime36traffic ballina" when its transmitted in 3secs flat.
Interestingly enough, the next day I maight hear something like "traffic in ar erm . . . . ballina Byron gateway ctaf, virgin . . . 1142 is a boeing 737, ifr and we err . . . 35 mile south now passing . . 8500 on descent to . . and we are tracking for urm . . . Wiskey echo for the err . . gps rnav and er . . well be there at . . . 36 and landing 41 . . traffic in the ballina byron ctaf"

LeadSled

17th Apr 2012, 14:23

I think I used the words 'coming down' when changing a squawk code--------
Keg,
A legacy affectation of the old BEA ---- even if you didn't know it!!
I've never heard it used by yanks, only poms, the bloke at Clark was probably a contract pilot.

SFO - "XXXX track direct AAAA for kink straightener."

My favorite, an informal short cut into EGLL from the north, to eliminate going via Bovingdon, traffic permitting landing to the east --- available only to those seriously familiar with "local" procedures----

XXX - Director -- Request the (Bovingdon) snatch ---
with luck (worth about 6 minutes off EGCC-EGLL) XXX cleared for the snatch, descend 2500, call established rw yy.

Tootle pip!!

clear to land

17th Apr 2012, 18:35

'Coming Down' re TXPDR is from UK CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual-and is applied through Europe and also is the standard we use at EK (US pilots radio work notwithstanding ;) ) Seems strange, along with 'fully ready' as I always thought I was either 'ready' or not- but that is what is written. Happy reading.

noclue

17th Apr 2012, 22:40

Where does "ready in turn" come from?

Horatio Leafblower

17th Apr 2012, 22:44

The same place as "Climbing _ _ _ pending clearance" :yuk:

T28D

17th Apr 2012, 23:18

Where does "ready in turn" come from? Long queues at holding points pertinent for YPPH

Oktas8

18th Apr 2012, 00:00

'Coming Down' re TXPDR is from UK CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual

Umm, no. Perhaps a long time ago, not recently though.

Where does "ready in turn" come from?

Long queues of light aircraft at Class D airfields, where the tower may not be able to read the registration of the aircraft in front of the queue and has forgotten the aircraft in front of the queue called ready five minutes ago.

LeadSled

18th Apr 2012, 01:20

'Coming Down' re TXPDR is from UK CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual

Clear to Land,
Would you like to quote a page reference, I can't find it in my most recent edition ( which is not very recent) of the CAP 413 (Radiotelephony Manual), but the "coming down" nonsense has been around since the 1960s.
UK stick closely to ICAO, it sure a hell isn't ICAO compliant, see Annex X, Vol. 2/DOc.9432

Tootle pip!!

PS 1: Reference from my latest edition of CAP 413, page 66, Chapter 3, 6.3.2.

From ATC: Fastair 345 squawk 6411.
Fastair readback: 6411 Fastair 345.

PS 2: The only change from my hard copy of CAP 413, to the latest edition is that "Fastair 345" has become "Bigjet 347", the intent and readback is unchanged.

Capt Chambo

18th Apr 2012, 01:28

XXX - Director -- Request the (Bovingdon) snatch ---
with luck (worth about 6 minutes off EGCC-EGLL) XXX cleared for the snatch, descend 2500, call established rw yy.

LeadSled, replace Bovingdon with Westcott. Put you on a left base for R/W 09L(R) at Heathrow, normally also required a dirty dive to get in.

ForkTailedDrKiller

18th Apr 2012, 01:33

Long queues of light aircraft at Class D airfields, where the tower may not be able to read the registration of the aircraft in front of the queue and has forgotten the aircraft in front of the queue called ready five minutes ago.

But you are not ready are you! There is an aeroplane right in front of you. :E

You might as well say, "Ready when these aeroplanes in front of me get the hell out of the way"!

Dr :8

LeadSled

18th Apr 2012, 01:39

Chambo,
A while since I've been into EGLL, except as a passenger.

At least something remains (more or less) the same. What a pleasure it is operating with UK ATC, compared to the completely anal approach in Australia.

I could never have been an Australian domestic airline pilot, I would have wound up in the loony bin. Having originally learn to fly in the UK, followed by a most enjoyable first exposure to flying in the US, I didn't realise how bloody difficult and complicated flying was, until I came home to Australia.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Getting rid of the height and speed was never a problem with the 747, any model, dangling the Dunlops plus suitable application of the Pilot's PAL (Profile Adjustment Lever, aka speedbrakes) make for a very flexible aeroplane.

Jack Ranga

18th Apr 2012, 02:08

I didn't realise how bloody difficult and complicated flying was, until I came home to Australia.

It's not that hard mate, just read the AIP and commit to not being a slack-arse :ok:

Pontius

18th Apr 2012, 02:25

A legacy affectation of the old BEA

I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with a different victim, Leadsled, because it certainly did not come from BEA, BOAC or BA. That sort of non-standard phraseology would be quickly stepped on and rightly so :) Just to be awkward; I've heard it a LOT more on the other side of the Pond and it's only a few prats around Europe who repeat such American nonsense just to sound (what they think) 'cool'; the reality being something completely different :rolleyes:

As for CAP 413; I have copies going back to 1983 and can find no reference to the phrase. I call 'bolleaux' to the suggestion of it being a UK term.

How about:

"American 123, squawk ident"
"Coming down, with a flash"

Cocks!

Edited to add:

Chambo, Leadsled is right; it's known as the "Bovingdon Snatch" but you're correct in that it goes direct from WCO to 09L/R.

Capn Bloggs

18th Apr 2012, 02:41

I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with a different victim, Leadsled, because it certainly did not come from BEA, BOAC or BA.
What?! Another furphy from the Sled?? What can we believe from him?? :{

Capt Chambo

18th Apr 2012, 02:56

Chambo, Leadsled is right; it's known as the "Bovingdon Snatch" but you're correct in that it goes direct from WCO to 09L/R.

Not in the outfit I worked for! We always called it the "Wescott Snatch".

LeadSled

18th Apr 2012, 04:01

Pontious,

Were you there at the time?? I was!!

And it was specifically BEA, not BOAC--- even in relatively recent times it told you which side of the merger a pilot started on. Years ago, I worked with a bunch of BOAC and BEA pilots on leave of absence at one of the UK independents, believe me, it was the BEA blokes who spouted the "XXXX coming down" nonsense.

Jack,
I'll back my knowledge of the AU Act, Regulations, Orders, AIP etc against you or anybody else, any day.

That's not the issue, the real issue is that Australia has the world's most complex, convoluted and often contradictory aviation law, and a completely anal approach to "compliance" ---- all of which produces what, in terms of air safety outcomes ?? ---- and the answer is a very mediocre result, and an often quite unpleasant working/flying environment ---- compare to the USA.

And an ever shrinking GA sector, outside services to the mining provinces, and private flying and light business flying are in real trouble.

A good example right now ----- the CASR Part 42 parts and components justification rules alone are more pages and words than the whole of FAR 43 --- the US rules for maintenance of aircraft .

And the interesting thing is that FAR 43 continually uses the serviceability of the aircraft as the benchmark for whatever decisions an A&P makes in the course of maintenance ----- the Australian rules are all about process, with the not entirely justified assumption that flawlessly following seriously flawed process will result in an airworthy aircraft ---- instead of making the production of an airworthy aircraft the legally required outcome ---- as the FAA regulations do!!

Tootle pip!!

PS: Bloggs, why don't you pull your head in, this is well beyond your area of experience, and I will be interested to know if Pontious' experience goes back as far as mine.

Horatio Leafblower

18th Apr 2012, 04:39

Someone told me today that the CASA blokes who drafted the "Australian FARs" (to align Australian maintenance rules with the FAA's) were 1 roundabout away from delivering them to Parliament House when they got a call from the office saying "Turn around, Byron's changed his mind and we're aligning with the EASA system".

Another 10 years down the drain.... :(

Jack Ranga

18th Apr 2012, 04:55

Jack,
I'll back my knowledge of the AU Act, Regulations, Orders, AIP etc against you or anybody else, any day

Good stuff old mate :ok: Now all you need is a committment not to be a slack-arse.

clear to land

18th Apr 2012, 04:56

I stand corrected-just proving that you should never assume!. I reviewed my current-and old- copies of CAP 413 and the reference to coming down is not in them. No excuse for not checking before typing-am guessing assumption based on being told by previous UK instructors-and hearing it usually in that part of the world. So-given that my statement is wrong-where does it come from. Also still looking for an explanation of 'fully ready' when ICAO Phraseology is 'ready for departure.' Degrees of readiness are for weapons.:O

LeadSled

18th Apr 2012, 05:00

Horatio,
Not quite right, in about 2003 or 4, CASA produces a "Maintenance Suite" that had everybody from QF down, up in arms. It was a horror, and the total of projected pages of disallowable documents was around 9000 ----- more than the gargantuan tax act, just to perform maintenance on an aircraft. The FAA page count of regulations to cover the same field was about 30 pages only (plus, of course a non-regulatory and very useful library of ACs.

Anderson was the Minister at the time, and when he was advised that there would be a dis-allowance motion in the Senate (given the numbers, it would probably have got up) he withdrew the package.

Yes, Byron re-directed toward the EASA approach, but what we have got now bears little relation to EASA, or what the policy advisory committee, put together by Byron, recommended.

Indeed, the "culture" underlying the legislation withdrawn in 2003 or 4, is well in evidence in the current stuff, quite apart from being ineffective from the point of view of air safety outcomes, it is (not will, is) destroying small maintenance organizations, and making larger ones uncompetitive in the international market.

Not surprisingly, larger outfits are getting/already have EASA and FAA approvals, and are marketing those internationally, the CASA Part 42 setup is unsaleable. For those in the parts and components overhaul field, CASA paperwork is effectively no longer recognized outside Australia, unlike NZ/ Singapore/Malaysia etc.

Once again, regulatory overkill exports Australia jobs, instead or exporting Australian services.

As always, we are the only soldier in the battalion in step!!

Tootle pip!!

Now all you need is a committment not to be a slack-arse.Jack,
And maybe you need to not be a slack-arse with your spelling, does this typify your approach to matters aviation generally.
Nobody who knows me suggest that I ever take a other than a very thorough approach to achieving the best aviation safety outcomes ---- and over many years have put a bloody lot of time and effort into the subject.

Capn Bloggs

18th Apr 2012, 06:06

Bloggs, why don't you pull your head in, this is well beyond your area of experience
Yes, I agree, I would NEVER have thought of putting the wheels down AND using the speedbrake to kill a bit of excess energy; thanks very much for that. I'll store it away for use when next I get shortened up on a "smartarse snatch" or whatever it was you were on...

Pontius

18th Apr 2012, 06:26

Years ago, I worked with a bunch of BOAC and BEA pilots on leave of absence at one of the UK independents

Does my working for BA, with the same pilots, trump your working for one of the independents with pilots on a leave of absence?

By way of additional information, BA's manuals include specific reference to RT phraseology and they definitely do NOT include "coming down".

LeadSled

18th Apr 2012, 06:28

Bloggs,

As I said, this is well beyond you're area of experience, and by the sound of it, beyond your level of expertise. Some of us are quite happy to fit in with the local system, where ever we are around the world.

Pontious,
Depends on the years you are talking about, next you'll want me to submit name, rank and serial number of said miscreants. The boss of standards of said independent made his views of BEAisms abundantly clear, as did the CAA inspector assigned to said independent. They didn't have any doubts as to the source.

BEA also had their own weird and wonderful ways of operating a B707, derived from their rather unique approach to the old -436s, they took some time to adapt to the idea that the Boeing way of flying a Boeing had lots going for it.

A G- registered B707 had enough strange differences ( thanks D.P. Davies) without any more home grown non standard "standards".

"---- coming down" most certainly didn't originate in the US, or in BOAC.

Tootle pip!!