(Only relevant in UK) CAP 413 RT for Air/Ground airfield

[TheEnthusiast]

Please note this will only interest pilots flying in UK and UK A/G operators, and even then only ones who enjoy being pedantic like I do!

I'm loving being a student pilot and as well as always trying to improve my flying I do like to get pedantic about correct RT. We're told by instructors to regard CAA document CAP 413 as 'the bible' for uk phraseology. Seems it's changing quicker than the instructors can keep up with though!

I've made a list of particular things I've noticed for A/G (I fly from an A/G airfield) and it would be good to get some comments especially from any A/G operators out there. I'll run this past my instructors too but instructors don't always like to admit when they don't know things!!

1. "Entering runway..." is no longer given in any examples in CAP 413. The only accepted phrases appear to be "Lining up" and "Backtracking". (Lots of people still say "Entering runway" in real life). So for example if I'm ready to enter a runway 15 which requires a 200m backtrack prior to take-off I think I would say "G-CD ready for departure, backtracking and lining up runway 15" to be most consistent with CAP phrases.

2. CAP 413 examples always say the radio frequency in radio checks "Littletown Radio G-ABCD radio check 118.50". I wasn't in the habit of including the frequency at an airfield with just one frequency. But maybe I should.

3. Instructors teach us to say "Littletown Radio G-ABCD request radio check and airfield information" on the initial call. But CAP 413 would suggest we ought to say "Littletown Radio G-ABCD radio check and request taxi information." (The word information at the end there is important because if we just said "request taxi" that sounds like we're asking permission, which we're not with an A/G service.) I like this change in terms of keeping other traffic informed because it makes it very obvious that we're still taxiing on the ground.

4. On approach to the circuit our instructors teach us to transmit callsign, await "pass your message", then give type/position/altitude/QNH followed by "request airfield information". CAP 413 is unclear on this but implies that the call should instead end with "request join". This seems a bit inconsistent - I would prefer "request joining information" to be consistent with "request taxi information" or "request traffic information" which are the other information requests that CAP 413 says we can make to an A/G station.

The reason I say CAP 413 is unclear on this item is that there is actually no example of giving type/position/altitude/QNH on A/G when intending to join the circuit, only an example for transiting the overhead en-route. Instead they have an example where they just give callsign, position and say "request join", all in the same transmission. I think that unless under great time pressure I'll stick to awaiting "pass your message" and making the full type/position/altitude/QNH report with "request join" at the end - seems safer that way for alerting other traffic to my location.

5. To request traffic information en-route, CAP 413 suggests that my call "Littletown Radio G-ABCD request traffic information" would be met with "pass your message" so that I can give my position report first. But I wonder how many A/G operators would really say that...many would launch straight into airfield info. To make sure they give me the chance to report position I might say "Littletown Radio G-ABCD" first, then give position report when requested to pass my message, and only say "request traffic information" at the end.

Comments welcome, especially from A/G operators or CAA people who write 413! Cheers.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

would be met with "pass your message" so that I can give my position report first. But I wonder how many A/G operators would really say that...
I know one A/G airfield where you might get "runway 27" as the entire reply to pretty well anything you might say.

[TheEnthusiast]

Yes I can easily believe that :-)

[Heston]

Indeed the standard of radio phraseology used by A/G operators varies from exemplary (e.g. North Weald) to worse than useless (quite common). Trying to get it right is a good thing I suppose - but just don't expect anybody to notice. As long as you know what to read back you'll be OK.

[TheEnthusiast]

Yes that makes sense Heston - thanks. I'd like to get it right on my skills test too of course (though not at the expense of the aviate and navigate elements!) :-)

[fireflybob]

request join

It might be in CAP 413 but I don't like this one! A/G can only give you information . This call implies to me that you are asking for permission and/or instructions. For me better would be "Request joining information".

Littletown Radio G-ABCD radio check and request taxi information.

Sorry don't like this one either. Implies you are asking the A/G for routing as to how to get to the holding point.

I think that unless under great time pressure I'll stick to awaiting "pass your message" and making the full type/position/altitude/QNH report with "request join" at the end - seems safer that way for alerting other traffic to my location.

If you already on the frequency (e.g. a local flight) there is no need to reestablish communication which takes up unnecessary airtime - that is only necessary if you are making an initial call having been working another frequency.

When intending to join the circuit I think this is a time when position and altitude information should be given.

When you make a call on an A/G frequency this is substantially for the benefit of other airspace users and not for the A/G operator to feel better. So for example having received departure information a call should be made "G-XX taxying Runway YY" to inform other users that you are now on the move. Same applies "G-XX taking off Runway YY" to inform users where you are and what you are doing.

Frankly we'd be better to get rid of A/G completely in my opinion and just have a SafetyCom system.

A lot of this garbage has come about as more and more A/Gs seem to want to operate as a pseudo control service when they do not have the authority to do so.

I am all for standard R/T but some parts of CAP 413 would be better consigned to the bonfire.

I speak as one of those (very experienced) instructors who believe that rules are made for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

I wonder how many of those who sit on committees and write CAP 413 actually do any real flying.

Seems it's changing quicker than the instructors can keep up with though!

That's probably because there are much more important things to think about like teaching students/pilots to lookout rather than yack on the radio.

As a final point I believe the legislation says the only calls you are legally required to make are when you leave and enter the ATZ.

[Steve6443]

5. To request traffic information en-route, CAP 413 suggests that my call "Littletown Radio G-ABCD request traffic information" would be met with "pass your message" so that I can give my position report first. But I wonder how many A/G operators would really say that...many would launch straight into airfield info. To make sure they give me the chance to report position I might say "Littletown Radio G-ABCD" first, then give position report when requested to pass my message, and only say "request traffic information" at the end.

I'm a little bewildered at this - if, as frequently occurs, a Radar Unit refuses to give you traffic information based on "controller workload", what assistance can a non Radar equipped unit offer? They can possibly state "2 aircraft in the circuit" but traffic information? For example, what if NORDO traffic is in the vicinity?

My concern is you're asking for something, giving yourself in a false sense of security because you've asked the ground station to give you traffic information but without radar, how can they warn you about traffic????

[BigEndBob]

Remember when CAP413 was a 20 page HMSO booklet.
Not a lot has changed since then.
Pretty much all r/t could be written on two sides of one A4 sheet.

Can't see why we can't say approaching an A/G;

"XX radio G-ABCD PA28 10 south 2000 feet on 1012 inbound"

If no reply than state intention, i.e. join overhead, d/wind, base final etc.

When departing
"XX radio G-ABCD ready for taxi"

If no reply state intention.

Problem with some r/t is that it seems it's for the controllers benefit rather than other pilots.
Today was quite hazy in the circuit and with four in, a chap describes how it was hard to see other traffic.
So instead of atc trying to work out a sequence, it would be much better if pilots just called downwind, base and final without atc clogging up the freq, with inaccurate info.

[TheEnthusiast]

Many thanks for your thoughts FireflyBob!

For me better would be "Request joining information".
Glad you agree with me :-)

Regarding "taxi information" Sorry don't like this one either. Implies you are asking the A/G for routing as to how to get to the holding point.
True! Though at least it doesn't sound like I am asking permission, and it does make it clear that I'm on the ground, and it is in CAP 413. I might just use this one and see what the instructors say :-)

When intending to join the circuit I think this is a time when position and altitude information should be given.
Yes seems very sensible - I do find it surprising that the CAP 413 doesn't include altitude in the A/G circuit join example - in reality I certainly appreciate it when I hear it from others.

When you make a call on an A/G frequency this is substantially for the benefit of other airspace users and not for the A/G operator to feel better.
Understood - yes I try to think what my messages will mean to other pilots rather then the operator.

...there are much more important things to think about like teaching students/pilots to lookout rather than yack on the radio.
I totally understand - I didn't mean to criticise instructors or suggest that communicating was more important that aviating or navigating! Also I understand that CAP 413 is a guide not a rulebook. As students we begin knowing nothing about RT so I figure we may as well learn a 'correct' set of phrases as our starting point, accepting that we may need to be flexible if we encounter unusual situations. It would be nice if there were a core set of accepted phrases to cover the most common situations so we could begin by learning that; but it seems that's not really true at the moment.

Not sure what I think about replacing A/G with SAFETYCOM - as a student I do find it helpful and welcoming to be speaking to someone on the ground who has a rough overview of what's going on...and can tell me where to park!

[TheEnthusiast]

Ah thanks BigEndBob - your long experience is interesting.


Can't see why we can't say approaching an A/G;

"XX radio G-ABCD PA28 10 south 2000 feet on 1012 inbound"


Well in a way the latest CAP 413 comes close to that - it has an example of initial contact by giving a position report followed by "request join" without going through the "pass your message" handshake. But unlike your example they ommitted aircraft type, altitude, and intentions.

[fireflybob]

TheEnthusiast, it's great that you are asking these questions which shows you are keen to get it right.

Correct phraseology is important but remember to keep things in perspective. Task one is always to maintain safe control of the a/c, task two when that has been satisfied is to navigate (both horizontally and vertically - e.g. don't hit the hill) and when those two tasks are satisfied it's time to communicate, if required.

Many years ago a/c managed to fly around general aviation airfields without any radios at all. In fact in the early 1960s I well remember my father taking me to the local airfield on a sunny weekend afternoon where there was circa 12 (yes twelve) aircraft doing circuits all without radios.

Am not a luddite and am not suggesting we would want to return to those days but there is much we can learn from those aviators.

Lookout (and listening) is more important than actually talking on the radio I would suggest.

[TheEnthusiast]

My concern is you're asking for something, giving yourself in a false sense of security because you've asked the ground station to give you traffic information but without radar, how can they warn you about traffic????

Thanks for the question Steve. Yes this is why I wrote it might only interest UK pilots. I'll try to reply just so you have some idea about it...

The UK system does rely on everyone knowing the limitations of an A/G field; which we do learn as students in UK. You can think of A/G airfields almost like unattended airfields, since you're not guaranteed a reply. When you request traffic information from A/G there is no guarantee that you will be told of all traffic. The main purpose of the call is to alert other radio traffic of your own position; and if you do get a reply you'll probably hear about runway in use and circuit direction so you know the most likely places to look. You might be told about traffic in the circuit.

So basically it's only slightly more useful than an unattended field, and if you fly in UK you just have to know that's how it works otherwise indeed it could be dangerous. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but that's how it works!

[TheEnthusiast]

TheEnthusiast, it's great that you are asking these questions which shows you are keen to get it right.

Correct phraseology is important but remember to keep things in perspective.

Lookout (and listening) is more important than actually talking on the radio I would suggest.

Thanks for the support and yes I totally understand. If only the weather had been better today I'd have been out practising my lookout instead of having too much time on my hands to think of geeky RT questions ;-)

[Steve6443]

Thanks for the question Steve. Yes this is why I wrote it might only interest UK pilots. I'll try to reply just so you have some idea about it...

You're making the (wrong) assumption that, because I live in Germany, I don't fly in the UK. In fact, half my hours are flown in UK and I frequently get frustrated by the tendency of certain Radar units (Bristol springs to mind) to dump you on a Basic service on first contact due to "controller workload"

What makes thing worse - and you'll probably experience this yourself one day - is approaching an airfield on the correct traffic pattern (22 left hand, as an example) only to hear someone announcing joining "right base", even though the published instructions are clear. When I asked on the ground about this poor airmanship the response was "well, some people come from that way so they do join right hand......"

This can lead to the situation where, if you start making assumptions about where to look for traffic, you might make the mistake of only looking where you believe traffic SHOULD be, not where they actually are.....

[TheEnthusiast]

You're making the (wrong) assumption that...I don't fly in the UK
Sorry Steve! In that case maybe I just didn't explain properly the traffic information procedure I was talking about...I meant the one in CAA's example for transiting the overhead which looks like:

** Seaton Radio, G-BCDA, request traffic information
-- G-BCDA, Seaton Radio, pass your message
** G-BCDA, PA28 from Westbury to Millom position overhead Marlow, 1800 feet on QNH 1021, estimate Seaton at 15
-- G-DA, Roger. Runway 23 is active left hand with a Cessna 172 reported downwind QNH 1022
** QNH 1022 will report overhead, G-DA
** G-DA, overhead at 15 will report leaving the frequency
-- G-DA, Roger
** G-DA, now leaving the ATZ changing to Wrayton Information 124.750

Clearly it's as much about the transiting aircraft reporting its position as it is about anything else. Hope that clears up some of your earlier bewilderment :-)

[skyhighfallguy]

I think the original poster should be commended for indicating that this is a UK thing only and hope that OTHER posters use this technique.

[Sir George Cayley]

Slight thread drift, but there are some airfields with local r/t procedures that can't be found in their AIP entry.

One place requires you to open with your callsign and intentions and then wait to be acknowledged.

SGC

[dont overfil]

Hi enthusiast.

I agree CAP 413 is inconsistent. It is also too 'wordy.'

Why ask for a radio check? Surely you will be told if there is a problem anyway. Pilots don't need to give QNH except for readback. The AG operator will give you it.

I wish pilots would say when they leave the frequency.

That's this mornings moan over. (I got the days smile out of the way earlier).
D.O.

[TheEnthusiast]

I think the original poster should be commended...
Well thank you :-)

One place requires you to open with your callsign and intentions and then wait to be acknowledged.
Are you still talking about A/G in the UK, Sir George?

Why ask for a radio check?
Thanks D.O. for your earlier comments and for agreeing with me about the inconsistencies! That said, radio check does make sense to me and is the one thing which seems universally taught by all instructors and all text books. By requiring the operator to say my readability whilst on the ground I know I can be forewarned of problems which might get more severe when in the air. If readability is anything other than 5 when I'm right outside the tower then something is clearly wrong - a badly adjusted mic or faulty headset perhaps.

I wish pilots would say when they leave the frequency.
Yes we really should!! It is possible I have been guilty of forgetting it once...but I wouldn't admit it here of course ;-)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

That said, radio check does make sense to me and is the one thing which seems universally taught by all instructors and all text books.
And almost never heard on air.


I use it if my first attempt to communicate fails (eg "station calling xxx, carrier wave only") and I want to see whether I've fixed the problem, that's about all.

[TheEnthusiast]

And almost never heard on air.
That's interesting - as a student obviously my main experience is from my home A/G field - and there absolutely everyone seems to request a radio check in their initial call after startup. I'd say on the average flight I make I hear it 3 or 4 times from others. I guess everywhere is different.

[Talkdownman]

It's probably worth bearing in mind the following:

From CAP413:

4.135
Local procedures vary from aerodrome to aerodrome and it is impossible to give examples to cover every situation which may arise at the multiplicity of different types of aerodrome.

4.138
An AGCS radio station operator is not necessarily able to view any part of the aerodrome or surrounding airspace. Traffic information provided by an AGCS radio station operator is therefore based primarily on reports made by other pilots.

From CAP452:

Chapter 4 Para 1.1
Air Ground Communications Service (AGCS) is a service provided to pilots at specific UK at aerodromes. However, it is not viewed by the UK as an Air Traffic Service because it does not include an alerting service as part of its content.

My bold.

An A/G operator is not even required to write anything down. It might not necessarily be his/her only task. He/she could be taking landing fees, making tea for punters, serving Eccles cakes, ice creams etc, answering the phone evry two minutes only to find it is always for somebody else, circumnavigating an obese pilot who has borrowed the chair to laboriously file a VFR flight plan to nowhere in particular, vacuuming the carpet, listening to the boring anecdotes of a low-hours pilot clutching an iPad and three GPSs who flies twice a year, or stopping a German Shepherd from stealing his sandwiches, or wrestling with the illogical vagaries of a non-user friendly touch-screen sales terminal. (I have a particular familiar location in mind..)

It's only A/G, just don't expect too much. And keep your eyes peeled...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

An A/G operator is not even required to write anything down. It might not necessarily be his/her only task.
Could be a handleld radio which lives on a table in the caff. If anyone is around and feels like it they might answer it, otherwise you won't get a reply ... or maybe a reply from someone else in the air, eg "well, I just took off from 13, you could try landing on that one".

[TheEnthusiast]

It's only A/G, just don't expect too much. And keep your eyes peeled...
Thanks Talkdownman - yes that all makes sense. The post was about me making sure that the initial vocabulary I learn is correct so that other pilots understand me. Any replies the A/G operator gives are a bonus as far as I'm concerned!

Actually that's not true...the post was about me having too much time on my hands because the weather had stopped me practising more important things, like aviating and navigating :-)

[Keef]

The "books" get refined regularly in an attempt to make them less confusing. I suppose that's good, but I wonder about some of the recommended words.

If I'm leaving the airfield, all I want to know from the A/G person is QNH, which runway's in use, and if there's anyone else around. I can't see "radio check" helping much with that. Anything else I need to know I already have, from the airfield plate on my plogboard, the NOTAMs, and the met information.

If the A/G op is not there, I'll set the QNH based on the known airfield elevation, and look at the windsock to decide which runway. If there's anyone in the circuit, I'll hear their calls by the time I get to the runway.

If I get no response to my call, but others do, then I'll ask for a radio check.

Announcing taxying, entering runway, and taking off tells everyone what's happening. Keeping eyes outside and alert spots the non-radio aircraft.

Arriving it's much the same. I usually ask for "joining information", which seems to communicate the requirement OK.

TDM's well known "Who are you, where are you, what do you want?" fulfils the rest.

[Whopity]

Remember when CAP413 was a 20 page HMSO booklet.Interestingly, the original CAP 413 still exists as ICAO Doc 9432 (http://www.aeroclubvercelli.it/download/Manual%20of%20RT%20DOC%209432%20-%204%20ed.%202007.pdf#)

[GBEBZ]

An A/G operator is not even required to write anything down. It might not necessarily be his/her only task. He/she could be taking landing fees, making tea for punters, serving Eccles cakes, ice creams etc, answering the phone evry two minutes only to find it is always for somebody else, circumnavigating an obese pilot who has borrowed the chair to laboriously file a VFR flight plan to nowhere in particular, vacuuming the carpet, listening to the boring anecdotes of a low-hours pilot clutching an iPad and three GPSs who flies twice a year, or stopping a German Shepherd from stealing his sandwiches, or wrestling with the illogical vagaries of a non-user friendly touch-screen sales terminal. (I have a particular familiar location in mind..)

As a 'certified' Air/Ground Operator at a field that sounds remarkable like the one you talk about... I can say that most things written in this thread make me chuckle.

On days when the above aforementioned official multitasker is very busy peeps like me man the radio full time.

And what fun it is, as a pilot, to hear the crap other pilots tell A/G operators, and what 'information' pilots from larger fields visiting expect to get from the A/G radio operator.

I really don't need to know how long your flight will take, your persons on board, or your destination, how many cakes you consumed, or your routing - unless you precede those with MayDay!

I will tell you to watch your wingtips passing obstructions, give you information about grass conditions, provide helpful information about parking, fuel, the queues at the fuel which you might not see behind a building, demand (sorry ask) you slow down and do wide radius turns on the grass - Pilots from larger airports really love to leave their mark on the grass. E.t.c

As for someone asking me to pass them traffic information - almost unheard of apart from HeliMed wanting to cross at ATZ low level.

A/G can be much more than a 'Roger' to everything you say :-)

You can call up three times and tell me you are holding at the hold ready for departure, and you will still get the same reply, "Roger, wind is this and that" - if you are lucky and I can see beyond the glass I might also tell you there is one about to turn final.... but you should already know that as you were listening out... you can call me the forth time and you will get the same reply... I'm not going to give you a clearance or your discretion... it gets quite funny in the office after a while.... 4 times in my record...

I should also say though, the service you receive and the calls pilots make is also dependant on the business of the airport. On a crisp clear blue sky day with 4 circuit training and many PPRed and other visitors, and someone dedicated to A/G, then more radio calls from pilots improve safety I guess - there are times when I come back to the field at 5pm in winter knowing the A/G lady is hoovering, thats where blind calls and signal square/windsock come into play - but after all isn't that airmanship?

Also I think there is a huge different between those that learn/fly at large airports like Bristol/Gloucester and those pilots that have learnt/fly at small fields - it would be great if every pilot got some good experience in both environments before judging each.

And oh the absolute bad airmanship that we are all guilty of occasionally - when you are not multi-tasking but dedicated on the A/G and looking out the window, it can be like watching a massive free for all... I think they smell the cake and just have to be first to land... haha

Yes a 'AGCS radio station operator' is just one station above toilet cleaner - but although its 'not viewed by the UK as an Air Traffic Service' it is still a valuable service, with trained and examined 'operators' who can listen to a mayday & dial 999 (or D&D) when your day turns sour...

If anyone is around and feels like it they might answer it

Actually thats illegal unless they have the correct Radio Operator's Certificate of Competence paperwork. And also contra to what some believe, you CANNOT operate as a 'AGCS radio station operator' without taking the test, under the supervision of someone with a Radio Operator's Certificate of Competence!

Without your own certificate, duly signed by the OFCOM Listed responsible person for that field, you cannot even practice... yup thats the law (it is different in Maritime land)

[soay]

You can call up three times and tell me you are holding at the hold ready for departure, and you will still get the same reply, "Roger, wind is this and that" - if you are lucky and I can see beyond the glass I might also tell you there is one about to turn final.... but you should already know that as you were listening out... you can call me the forth time and you will get the same reply... I'm not going to give you a clearance or your discretion... it gets quite funny in the office after a while.... 4 times in my record...
I can understand where you're coming from in taking that approach, but if someone clearly doesn't understand the limitations of an A/G operator, surely it would be better to let them know that, rather than letting them carry on in ignorance. They could be a risk to the rest of us.

[TheEnthusiast]

Hey it's great that we're getting some A/G operators commenting on here - thanks people! I like that the topic has strayed way off my original post - it's a fun discussion. However if anyone fancies responding to my original question about phraseology then please do :-)

Things this thread was supposed to be about


using CAP 413 as a student pilot to learn a correct core set of phraseology for A/G airfields (it might not be critical but we have to learn something, so it may as well be the right thing)

Things this thread was not (originally) about


questioning the role of A/G operators - I love you guys!
the 'request traffic information' procedure for transiting an A/G ATZ (ok it's my fault we got into that, but it is well defined in CAP 413, and I found myself educating others about it rather than the other way around!)
questioning the need for a radio check - personally I'll continue to do them as taught and as I find it helpful. I did have a question about phraseology for radio check though (see original post).
the importance of lookout, aviating and navigating compared to communicating. Hehe do you really think I'd be indoors writing this if the weather was good enough for me to be in the sky practising my aviating and navigating? :-)

Interestingly, the original CAP 413 still exists as ICAO Doc 9432 (http://www.aeroclubvercelli.it/download/Manual%20of%20RT%20DOC%209432%20-%204%20ed.%202007.pdf#)
That actually is interesting to me - thanks! As an aside I wonder if the reason that CAP 413 seems clearer at defining phraseology for ATC compared with A/G is that the ATC procedures are handed down to CAA by ICAO whereas A/G is something CAA has to define for itself.

[dont overfil]

Hi TE

Have a look at CAP 453.. That has the guidance for A/G operators and as you will see it is a pretty minimal document.

Because of the enormous cost of providing an ATC service many fairly busy airfields prefer to hold on to an A/G service if they can.

You will find a huge variation in the type of calls depending on the airfield, varying from the seldom touched radio in the café at a quiet field to formal calls at larger sometimes multi runway fields where you may be sharing airspace with commercial traffic and the military.

Ask what to expect when you call for PPR. Once you understand what to expect you will be doing better than some professionals.

D.O.

[GBEBZ]

let them know that, rather than letting them carry on in ignorance.

Cant find official phraseology for that - haha - greater men than me have tried and failed to `educate` `ignorant` pilots - hahah

Things this thread was supposed to be about
using CAP 413 as a student pilot to learn a correct core set of phraseology for A/G airfields (it might not be critical but we have to learn something, so it may as well be the right thing)


The best thing you can do as a student is get yourself a UniDen Receiver (£40ish) and sit in the car park of your nearest A/G Field on different days - and listen to real conversations.

Or actually introduce yourself in person to the A/G operator and ask if they will allow you to sit next to them for a shift and see exactly what goes on that end of the radio (that would be a good thing for most pilots to do and not just students!) - As long as you don't get in the way I don't think anyone would have an issue with that.

And lastly, you could even see if your local A/G field are looking for Volunteer Radio Operators, and self-pay your way through the one day course and exams, and actually be that person on the end of the radio

Also all these things dont just apply to A/G areas, there are also a lot of great/bad examples of phrases and chat that happen at other major airports as well.... google youtube for ATC conversations (All non-UK as our laws prohibit this) and enjoy the laughs...

[fireflybob]

I can understand where you're coming from in taking that approach, but if someone clearly doesn't understand the limitations of an A/G operator, surely it would be better to let them know that, rather than letting them carry on in ignorance. They could be a risk to the rest of us.

Surely the limitations and status of A/G should have been covered in their training? (Either as part of PPL and/or RT licence etc).

Where I fly from the A/G is generally intelligently operated. But when instructing I am careful never to refer to the building they operate from as "the Tower" (although it looks like a control tower). I usually say something like "that building over there"! On the very first lesson I impress upon students that all the A/G can do is provide information and that they are not licensed controllers and therefore cannot instruct us to do anything or indeed clear us to do anything. This is often a surprise to people who are new to flying.

I was flying with one student and as we flew downwind the voice on the A/G changed (shift change) he remarked "Ah change of controller!". I looked across at him and said "They are not controllers" and we had a recap on the debrief.

[soay]

Cant find official phraseology for that - haha - greater men than me have tried and failed to `educate` `ignorant` pilots - hahah
How about: "As you'll know from your preflight briefing, this airfield operates an A/G service. If you don't know the limitations of such a service, we can explain, if you'd care to return to the tower."?

The pilot may well choose not to take up the offer, but they're unlikely to be as ill-prepared in future. Otherwise, they may leave under the mistaken impression that your service is not up to the standard they're used to.

[thing]

I looked across at him and said "They are not controllers"

The odd one or two think they are...:)

[TheEnthusiast]

Cant find official phraseology for that - haha - greater men than me have tried and failed to `educate` `ignorant` pilots - hahah
If it makes you feel any better at our local field a thing I hear quite a bit is "please be advised Littletown is air-ground only and we are unable to give you instructions". Also "Littletown radio G-ABCD request basic service" followed by "G-CD negative basic service, air-ground only..." happens quite a lot!!

And thanks GBEBZ for your thoughts and ideas on improving RT.

I actually feel fine with my RT - this post wasn't really about any problems I was having. It's just that I now know about 3 different ways to say the same things and before I get any bad habits I wanted to use CAP 413 to choose a 'correct' set of stock vocab to be my standard phrases (which of course I know I may have to modify according to the situation). Now is the time that my habits will get formed, so they may as well be good ones!

[fireflybob]

The odd one or two think they are...

thing, too true!!

[whowhenwhy]

Chaps, just my 2-penneth but if you've identified issues with CAP 413 or you have questions regarding the phraseology it contains, the front pages give an email address ([email protected] I think) for you to send your queries to. In my experience, the CAP 413 team always answer questions very quickly.

In terms of the people who write CAP 413, bear in mind that the contents of the CAP are determined by a working group which consists of CAA and industry - GA, commercial and MOD pilots, ATC (civilian and MOD) and FISOs. The CAA side of the group is made up of ATC and flight crew, many of whom also fly recreationally.

[Talkdownman]

a working group which consists of CAA and industry - GA, commercial and MOD pilots, ATC (civilian and MOD) and FISOs
….wot, no A/G operators??

[whowhenwhy]

Nope, just the customers at the moment.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Enthusiast

As an instructor I am glad you are interested in being the best pilot you can be, however I would like to offer a word of caution.

Too many pilots drop the airplane to fly the microphone. In the appropriate airspace you can take off fly around and land without even having a radio in the airplane let alone talking on a radio. Do not assign an unwarranted importance to radio work. As a pilot the most important skill and knowledge you have is the ability and knowledge to make the aircraft go exactly where you want it to at any given moment in a flight.

My observation is that any discussion about the correct radio calls among UK pilots quickly dissolves into extremely pointless pedantry about the most trivial points (eg do you call final or do you call finals) :rolleyes:

Sure as a student it is better to learn and follow the official documents as long as is not to the detriment of learning and studying the vital foundation knowledge areas of theory of flight, aircraft engines and systems, navigation theory, met and air regulations.

[TheEnthusiast]

...as long as is not to the detriment of learning and studying the vital foundation knowledge areas...

Yes I'm sure these are wise words - thanks Big P!

Really I started the thread because I wanted to think about RT less... it was bugging me that there seemed to be 3 different ways to say the same things and I don't want to have to think about RT too much in the air...so I may as well choose my vocab now and not have to worry about it again. As I said earlier in the thread, if the weather was good enough for me to be out there pracisting my lookout, aviating and navigating I certainly wouldn't have been indoors thinking about this stuff!!

In my experience, the CAP 413 team always answer questions very quickly.

That's good to know - thanks Mr. HowWhatWhere! I think I will contact them one day about A/G phraseology. I'll work through my PPL first though!! It does say on the withdrawn CAP 413 Supplement 3 page that they're working on some new documents for GA, so hopefully there will be more about A/G soon anyway.

[chevvron]

whowhenwhy/talkdownman:
Until recently, I was on the UK Phraseology Working Group which 'edited' content of CAP413 and as I'm an authorised A/G Examiner and holder of a ROCC, A/G operators were represented.

[TheEnthusiast]

whowhenwhy/talkdownman:
Until recently, I was on the UK Phraseology Working Group which 'edited' content of CAP413 and as I'm an authorised A/G Examiner and holder of a ROCC, A/G operators were represented.
Ah that's great to hear Chevvron - really appreciate you taking the time to respond on that. Any comments on my on my opening post would also be appreciated. Basically I'm trying to assemble a core set of stock phrases which will be my 'default' ones to use in the most common situations - of course I also realise the need to be flexible and that there will always be situations not covered; but as students we have to start by learning something so it may as well be the right thing!

[Talkdownman]

I was on the UK Phraseology Working Group which 'edited' content of CAP413
Ah, say no more, that explains everything….so it's all your fault…. :E

[Whopity]

As an aside I wonder if the reason that CAP 413 seems clearer at defining phraseology for ATC compared with A/G is that the ATC procedures are handed down to CAA by ICAO whereas A/G is something CAA has to define for itself. In the main, ICAO copied the CAA document but never bothered to update it! CAP 413 was the pilot's equivalent of CAP 493 the Manual of Air Traffic Services related to Air Traffic Control Communication, it did not originally cover AFIS or A/G which were covered by CAP 410 and CAP 453 respectively. A/G and AFIS phraseology was only added to CAP 413 when it became apparent that many pilots did not understand it!