Phraseology 1.0
 

Dear pilots,
I have noticed in my day to day operation some "changes" that may interfere ( significantly) with safety ( direct ) of our operations.
example ,


ATCO:triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000
pilot: passing 6000
ATCO: ???


It is not one crew, one company or one CAA (that approves training centers ) .It seems that such answer became standard.


So if it is standard , please tell us ICAO document that you refer in such circumstances, We will accept it and change our knowledge and expectations.


or if there is no such document, please refer to
DOC 4444 ATM/501 Procedures for ANS Chapter 4.5.7.5 READBACK OF ATC CLEARANCES and Chapter 12 PHRASEOLOGIES


Also, DOC 9432 MANUAL OF RADIOTELEPHONY with the special emphasis to given question- read back of level instruction
Chapter 3 3.3 Level instruction
as you could see in those pages example,


G-AB report passing FL 80
G-AB WILCO
G-AB PASSING FL 80


and that is point , you may answer with WILCO ( although it is a little bit contrary to read back instructions ) but you can not answer with passing before actually passing that assigned ( or otherwise restricted ) level.
It is not safe, it is not under international standard, and may confuse ATCOs ( rare- because we know that you aren't Spaceshuttle so can't climb 10 000 feet in a second ) but other pilots -very often and it is real danger.


It is not only restricted to level instructions but to other instruction and read back procedures as well, so stick it to rules and common sense, and World will be better place at the end of the day.

(I wonder whether ATC Issues isn't the better thread to start this i.o. R&N)

Just for my understanding and better situational awareness :) was it something like this:
00:00:00 A/C just airborne
00:00:30 ATCO: triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000
00:00:35 pilot: passing 6000 _____ <== so: omitting to acknowledge the most important element safety wise; no callsign
00:00:38 ATCO: ??? ______________ <== ATCO being puzzled, but remaining puzzled??

And this was not the rest of the transcript??
00:00:42 ATCO: triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000
00:00:38 pilot: passing 6000
00:00:45 ATCO: triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000. READ BACK
00:00:55 pilot: …

Surely, you can’t let them get away with this, can you? Not strictly by the book is one thing, but sloppiness with an incontestably safety aspect :=

Some years ago in Australia, if ATC told you to (say) "Descend to flight level 130" you were required to report leaving your present level. The pilot would say "Left flight level 350" (the height he was currently flying at) Clearly there was no doubt in ATC's mind the pilot was actually descending since he had reported that he had departed 350.

Then that was changed because of an ICAO directive and the pilot instead would reply "Leaving flight level 350." This led to doubts that the pilot had not yet left 350. Or was it he had received the instruction and intended to leave 350 since the requirement in this situation was the pilot must vacate that altitude within one minute. So now the current situation exists that there is a modicum of doubt that the aircraft has physically vacated since the word "Leaving" signifies an intention but not necessarily that it has happened.

There were slack-arses who would also reply to an ATC instruction to descend to flight level 210 by saying "Flight level 210, left 350" when there was no way the aircraft had commenced the descent in the 3 seconds it took to reply.

"Left 350" could be misinterpreted as an intent to turn left instead of an intent to leave an altitude.

Centaurus,
Many years ago, it was common to hear descending pilots calling "... out of flight-level three-five-zero." That was open to interpretation.

"... leaving ..." means you have properly initiated the descent or climb, and commits you thereafter to a certain minimum average VS as laid down in some ICAO document (I forget which).

Centaurus,
It was never an "ICAO directive", it was Australia conforming to ICAO SARPs (PANS/RAC 4444 and Annex X, Vol.II, from memory) at long bleeding last, after a string of serious incidents cause by Australian unique "radio procedures". It was over much resistance from a number of Australian domestic pedant pilots, to whom bar room barrister strict grammatical construction was more important than effective and clear minimum risk (aka safe) aeronautical communications.

Left (and right) had always been directions of turn, both militarily, and in civil use elsewhere but Australia. As you probably remember, turn instructions, up to that time, were not read back, again introducing ICAO conforming read-back rules also encountered great resistance in Australia.

Seeing that I was well acquainted with the authors of the submissions on the subject for BAR, AATA, Qantas separately, Ansett likewise, AIPA, AOPA and RFACA, who all agreed, I can remember it all too well. AFAP was thoroughly outvoted.

Chris Scott and peekay4 are pretty much on the money.

not 00:00:35 but 00:00:31 :}

Exactly, without call sign, without cleared level, it sounds like it has already passed inter level ,
and happened regularly these days( and I did numerous corrections but now I believe that something has been changed in pilot training without informing ATC system )

that is the reason for posting on these pages. And I thought that it was more appropriate here rather than ATC chapter.
:ok:

I always report "XXX Vacating Flight Level 350, descending Flight level 180"

Astra - it's in the AIM. Many ignore the requirement.

Yes, yet another Ledsled ideological rant.

As for reading back "report...", you don't! :ok:

Though outside the defined ATC lexicon, words of civility, respect, and even the occasional humour reminds everyone in this increasingly automated profession that on the other end of that faceless transmission is a living, breathing, fallible human being. This is NOT nonsense. This is inserting a moment of humanity into the rigid discipline of aviation.

Good day sir.

Astra : correct. Flytdeck ; endearing. Recalling heady days of bombing into LHR in the tripot, an ATCO had an immediately distinguishable "Sarf Landon" accent and in response to our "Good Morning" would reply "Maunin" ! I was never held to book when leaving a frequency, as instructed, with a "Cheers mate.............nice one !" ! Aaaaah, but that was in the good ole days.

Bloggs,
Or a statement of fact, depending on your point of view.
We all know your point of view ---- the sainted Australian domestic pilot knows it all, and the rest of the world wouldn't have a clue.
It must be a wonderful world to live in, never to have your prejudices troubled by the facts.

PS: Folks, please stick with ICAO standard phraseology, no personal embellishment, isms or fashions de jour. The guy at the other end of the conversation, or other pilots, may not have English as the mother tongue, but will most likely understand ATC English. At least, in this day and age, it is easily available, on the net, or invest in a copy of UK CAA CAP 413.

it should be written in line with pprune logo, instead of advertisement ( and than ask ICAO for money difference )
There is no any benefit omitting correct read back procedures, call signs ( very often these days ) and similar "state -of the- art" features.

sky is busy, but no so busy to avoid safe ( well documented and backed ) procedures.
thank you

The pilot is supposed to read back his climb clearance, so as far as I can tell he has to readback the "climb to FL170", whether or not he wants to reply to the instruction of report passing 6000 feet with a complete readback, or a "wilco", is more or less up to him.

It is also stated that once two-way communication is established between a ground station and an aircraft, you can omit the callsigns. So if you're already communicating, and the communication hasn't been interrupted, the "passing 6000 feet" would suffice. But if the transmission is "paused" for a while, I'd be puzzled as well is someone just said "passing 6000" without a callsign?

jmmoric,
You still terminate the transmission with the aircraft callsign, so ATC knows who is replying.
Remember (see Annex X, Vol. II) in this case the use of the call sign is the accepted substitute for "over" or "over and out", phrases that many current pilots would never have heard used.
Use of the "callsign" in this case should not be confused with the use of the callsign in initiating or responding to an initial pilot/controller contact.

Just the two cent of a rotor driver.

Why wouldn´t you read back .......climb to FL170, next report passing 6000?

Omitting your callsign would have to be the biggest threat to modern R/T. There is always the possibility that you have inadvertantly responded to a clearance given to another aircraft, or that another aircraft has inadvertantly responded to a clearance given to you. Omitting your airline designation associated with a flight number, such as "619" instead of "Flyright 619" is also a threat as there may be more than one aircraft on frequency with the same flight number.

Hear hear!
The three fundamental elements of a radio call:
Who is Where doing/wanting/requiring/requesting What
That info helps everyone on the freq.

Fair dinkum! "I'm better at R/T than you are"... strewth...

I've never had a flight, anywhere in the world, where pucker ICAO phraseology was used. I thought the point of comms is clear communication over radios even with poor reception to ensure flight safety. If ATC don't understand the response or aren't happy with it they say so - same the other way around. So if both parties are happy, what's the big deal? Sure, on congested freq you should stick to the basics and keep it professional - if nothing else, it minimises the chance of misunderstanding leading to a second call.

You'd have to ask Mrs Trash if I'm a "slack-arse", but there were plenty of times I was held up by ATC so when the clearance finally came, I was descending in the 3 seconds they took to finish their call so I could get down to stabilise my approach prior to the final fix.

Very much depends on what is said, where and when. Airmanship will guide you...