Aser / 212Man
This is one of the most common RT errors I hear every day...
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons...
Where does it actually say, anywhere officially, that 'Ready for Takeoff," must not be used?.
Before you flame me, I know the issues and have studied the accidents involved with miscommunication, and particularly the Tenerife, Canary islands, 1977 crash; all in detail for a research paper I'm working on.
This is why I ask, because I couldn't actually find much (any) 'official' guidance on this phraseology. I'm talking about an official (CAD / CASA / FAA etc..) policy change or advisory circular, rather than just an information website on good practice or an amateurs thoughts...I have seen most of those.
Of course, I strive to use standard RT, and employ any measures I can (including avoiding the word takeoff) to reduce the chance for miscommunication, a subject which I am very interested in.
Here's another issue (one of many):
How to report altitudes??
Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to four thousand feet.
Pilot: Roger, leaving FL 310, descending to FL24...
Approach: Huh?
Of course here, the homophones (to / two) are being confused. Solution...always insert the word Altitude or FL before any altitude. Four and For are also easily confused. i.e.
Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to
altitude four thousand feet.
One last one for US pilots...(a real pet hate).
How many of you say, " Traffic not in sight"? THIS IS WRONG!
Only
Negative Contact or
Traffic in Sight are acceptable replies!
"Traffic not in sight", "I've got him on the fish-finder" are other commonly used errors. I don't consider the term "no joy" confusing but I don't see it in the book either. Ditto for "tally ho," "looking," "searching," and "radar contact."
Food for thought...
IHL
There will be some opportunities for Teachers of English as a Second Language in non-English airlines as the implementation date draws near.
Interesting you say that. I am trained in TEFL, TESOL and have an education degree. I have done a lot of research about 'Aviation English' and ESL. So far all the courses by schools that I have looked at are taught by either....'Education experts with little or no aviation background', or 'pilots with little or no education background'.
In fact
'pilots with little or no education background' is a general problem in aviation training across the board.
cl12pv2s