Wrong radio phrase after handoff

[soaringhigh650]

I often hear pilots use with you or checking in when contacting a new controller following a handoff between ATC sectors or facilities. e.g. "New York Approach, Cessna 123AC is with you at six-thousand."

Unfortunately, neither is correct.

The proper phraseology, if your aircraft is neither climbing nor descending at the time of call up is level, e.g "New York Approach, Cessna 123AC level at 6,000"

If you are climbing or descending, state your current and assigned/target altitude, e.g. "New York Approach, Cessna 123AC passing 1,200 for 2,500"

Remember to use your full, un-abbreviated callsign as well on initial contact.

:\

[AnglianAV8R]

Ta muchly,
I shall bear that in mind next time I fly to Northrepps International ;)

[AdamFrisch]

"With you" and "outta" and "for" have become American staples in R/T.

I don't particularly like to hear them, but I have caught myself using them once in awhile. They stem from the requirement in FAA-land in IFR environment from relaying the altitude your leaving and the altitude you're going to. "N20VE, leaving 4000, climbing to 8000". This becomes slightly ungainly and long and therefore the "outta 4 for 8" has become very common.

"With you" is redundant in almost all cases unless you've just come back on a frequency and want to tell ATC that, perhaps. It serves no function and actually adds words, ie "SoCal Approach, N20VE, 6000ft" vs. "SoCal Approach, N20VE, with you at 6000ft".

In the airline world there are other colloquialisms that have crept in. Like the "fully ready". Completely useless.

[reportyourlevel]

I get a lot of "G-ABCD is on frequency". I know that, that's how I can hear you!

[Cusco]

If you are climbing or descending, state your current and assigned/target altitude, e.g. "New York Approach, Cessna 123AC passing 1,200 for 2,500"

To be even more pernickety in this pernickety thread the above should read 'passing 1,200 climbing 2,500'

Words like 'for' and 'to' should be avoided in R/T to avoid confusion with 4 and 2

Cusco

[RedsBluesGreens]

Thanks for the tip I shall bear that in mind!

[POBJOY]

Of course in France the Radio Operator is quite likely to want to know how many there will be for lunch !!!
I thought thats what the Radio was for.
I think standards are dropping; i called Croydon (Banstead inbound) recently but no one replied, and the light beacon was off.

[172_driver]

Since nobody seem to agree on what is standard R/T, is there a standard? ICAO Doc. 9432 is rough guide, but does not consider all conceivable situations and is rather outdated. CAP413 is not bad, but is just standard for UK. What about the rest of Europe? I've been flying over 3 years in the US and could never find a manual for standard phraseology. Perhaps I just missed it? The FAR/AIM has recommendations for proper speech spread out through the whole manual.

And for information, Doc. 9432 does not say that "TO" and "FOR" should be avoided. It uses examples such as "Climb to flight level 70" or "Descend to altitude 2000 ft". As long as the transmission is unambiguous I really couldn't care less if someones adds a "with you" or "checking in".

[thing]

I was always told the three 'W's would always see you right wherever you were. Who you are, where you are and where you are going.

And in case you are somewhere foreign just say at louder and slower.

[jxk]

Don't worry chaps soon EASA will edict the definitive radio phraseology and to suit all of Europe it will be in Esperanto:yuk: