View Full Version : Safety Issue: Reporting "Final"
Doing my Air/Ground bit recently, I was caught out by the following report from a pilot:
"G-XX on final".
What I heard was "G-XX long final" (in other words, more than 4 miles away). The two sound very similar over the r/t. My fault, but a point worth mentioning for the sake of safety in a busy circuit. The correct and unambiguous report at 4 nm or less is:
"G-XX final"
That was one of the first things my instructor drummed into me when I started circuit bashing.
He must have been good, to put up with me and I enjoyed every second of the training:eek:
FlyingForFun
10th Dec 2002, 08:14
Very good point.
I've never heard this particular example, but I can see it would cause confusion. "G-XX climbing to two thousand feet" (or is that "climbing two two thousand feet"?) is another. I'm sure there are many others.
People in general, and pilots in particular, don't seem to like following instructions to the letter, and often with good reason. But CAP413, with the exception of position reporting, is a very thoroughly thought-out document. Stick to what it says, and you won't go wrong!
(Out of interest, how many PPRuNers regularly use the word "niner" on the R/T?)
FFF
-------------
knobbygb
10th Dec 2002, 08:22
I always use 'niner'. Also always 'final', not 'finals', although I don't think that one's particularly ambiguous. I even have an instructor who uses 'fife' for 'five' and 'tousand' for 'thousand' as per CAP413, but I refuse to go that far.
FlyingForFun
10th Dec 2002, 09:40
:D Knobby! Does he also use "Deycimal"? Have to admit the only time I've ever heard "fife", "tousand" or "deycimal" used was by the examiner in my R/T practical exam - had to try very hard not to laugh! Does anyone know the reason for these? I can't see any ambiguity... I wonder if it's because they're easier to pronounce for people whose first language is not English?
FFF
----------------
Hew Jampton
10th Dec 2002, 11:45
Certainly at least until a few years ago Australian ATC were using "Dayseemal", and why not, it's ICAO Standard, and as with "Tousand", probably helps non native English speakers to understand and be understood? "Fife" and "Niner" are to prevent possibly serious confusion between the two. I must admit, however, to drawing the line myself at "Fower".
"Final" is of course correct and this thread reminds me of one of my many pet hates: pilots who say, and instructors who teach, the R/T call "Turning finals". Unless you're doing a constant turn approach in a Spitfire etc, it's wrong.
Select Zone Five
10th Dec 2002, 14:26
I pretty much always use "niner" and "fife" but I cannot bring myself to say "tree" :rolleyes:
I was fortunate in that my father is a radio ham and I always used to listen in to the airband on a dodgy little radio he gave me when I was younger. This helped me a lot when I started my PPL. I already knew the jargon and the phonetic alphabet.
All seems quite funny when you do the RT practical, when everything is by the book and almost ridiculous sounding, then you hear ATC in the USA and it's frequently of the form...
"yeah...left, right, ground point niner" :p
140cherokee
10th Dec 2002, 15:02
Have no problem with 'fower' (or wun or daysimel). Comes naturally to anyone from Wolverhampton and Dudley.
...really should be 'noin' rather than 'niner' though!
Mike Cross
10th Dec 2002, 16:53
On a serious note let's not forget that a major cause of the world's worst air disaster at Tenerife was ambiguous r/t calls.
At that time you called "Gxxx ready for take off" and the clearance was "Gxxx clear to take off".
An a/c at the hold called "ready for take off", followed immediately by the next a/c in line also calling "ready for take off". First a/c thought he'd heard "clear to take off" in response to his call and went thundering down the runway into a backtracking a/c that had just landed and was hidden by fog.
That's why we now call "Gxxx ready for departure".
This is all from memory so apologies in advance if anything is not quite 100%
Mike
Chuck Ellsworth
10th Dec 2002, 20:53
The only important thing about radio communication is if you are not sure what was said ask them to say again.
There are so many different languages and accents in aviation that there will always be difficulty in clearly understanding some transmissions.
Don't be shy about asking them to say again.
Cat Driver:
WorkingHard
10th Dec 2002, 21:20
It seems to me that there is a reluctance on the part of some pilots to use standard RT calls and phraseology. PLEASE point out to those who fail in this way that it is for their protection as well as the protection of others. Circuit traffic sometimes seems very inadequate in position reporting. Without those reports then joining traffic cannot assemble a picture of where everyone is and join safely.
Has anyone who's flown in the States experienced the ATC's difficulty in understanding the difference between two and three? I ask because on more occasions I can remember the controller always thought I said three when I was saying two and vice versa. Really got on my tits after a while.
Another difference I spotted straight off over there is the use of the radio for idle, non flight related chit-chat. I thought at the time that this must seriously wind up hardened British flyers and controllers alike to hear pilots asking for footie results over the radio!
On one particular occasion I was engaged in a conversation with the MLB International tower about where I was planning to go for a drink that night to celebrate the end of my training! He even started asking other aircraft in the airspace for their opinion on the best watering hole for a Wednesday night! I must point out that all this was instigated by him and not me!
Other occasions I heard pilots asking pilots of other aircraft if there were jobs going in that airline (had to chuckle) and wolf whistling of female flyers voices!
Good conversation pieces for me on this BB but was it altogether safe?
VFE.
bookworm
11th Dec 2002, 07:01
On a serious note let's not forget that a major cause of the world's worst air disaster at Tenerife was ambiguous r/t calls.
An excellent point Mike. FWIW, the details were slightly different. There were only the two aircraft around at the time. The controller gave the KLM aircraft, lined up on the runway, its airways clearance, containing the words "after take-off" It was this that was misunderstood as a take-off clearance. It was compounded by some unfortunate crossing of subsequent clarifying transmissions.
Accident account (http://www.pan-american.de/Desasters/Teneriffe3.html)
foxmoth
11th Dec 2002, 07:51
FFF
"climbing to two thousand feet" (or is that "climbing two two thousand feet"?) "
You would NOT climb to two two thousand - even in the States with its high Transition alt. you should be on standard alt. setting by then and climbing to two two zero (FL). but I do agree with your basic point.;)
FlyingForFun
11th Dec 2002, 08:05
Of course, foxmoth - thank you!
Something which occurs to me, reading the replies, though, is this: clarity of R/T transmitions is obviously important, but the final responsibility for looking out, in visual conditions at least, must always rest with the pilot.
Being based at an airfield when non-radio aircraft are common, I have to admit being slightly worried by comments along the lines of:
Circuit traffic sometimes seems very inadequate in position reporting. Without those reports then joining traffic cannot assemble a picture of where everyone is and join safely.Of course making good, accurate and adequate position reports is important. But it's also important not to rely on what you hear on the R/T. Can't hear anyone in the circuit? Don't assume the circuit is clear! Cleared for take-off? Take a quick look along final first. It certainly is possible to assemble a picture of where everyone is in a busy circuit without hearing everyone on the radio - I've done it myself when I've been non-radio. It just takes a bit of effort.
FFF
-----------------
rustle
11th Dec 2002, 08:16
FFF, you were correct just not the best example ;)
An accident occurred when an aircraft was cleared to descend:
ATC: "Descend two four hundred..."
Pilot heard: "descend to four hundred" = CFIT.
(Germany I believe)
Hence we have the word altitude or height in climb/descent clearances.
"Descend to altitude two four hundred" - less ambiguity.
"Descend to altitude two thousand four hundred" - no ambiguity (UK model)
Clearances to FL do not contain the word "to":
"Climb/descend FL40"
bookworm
11th Dec 2002, 13:01
An accident occurred when an aircraft was cleared to descend:
ATC: "Descend two four hundred..."
Pilot heard: "descend to four hundred" = CFIT.
(Germany I believe)
At the risk of exposing the nitpicky side of me ... wotsat? whaddya mean "only side of you we see" ... :)
The words were actually "descend two four zero zero". "Two four zero zero ft" used to be the official phraseology in the UK for 2400 ft until fairly recently (the change was possibly triggered by that). I can't imagine anyone using "two four hundred".
The accident (http://aviation-safety.net/database/1989/890219-0.htm) occured in Malaysia, to a Flying Tigers 747. To echo FFF's sentiment, the pilot should check that whatever is heard is sensible, and quite what possessed the crew to descend to 400 ft more than 20 miles out is unclear.