Originally Posted by Eclan
Originally Posted by Hempy
even the "request clearance" bit is superfluous
Admittedly I am not a whiz on the current phraseology but when I was taught some years ago, the phrase was. "Request AIRWAYS clearance." If that's still the case then perhaps a little more introspection may be required.
If for some reason you can't wait for the controller to issue you a clearance, there is no problem with requesting one (the phrase is just "Request clearance" now (GEN 3.4 - 37)). The point I am trying to make is that the sytstem is geared towards the controller knowing what you want, mostly before you have even called on frequency.
Originally Posted by GEN 3.4 - 55
4. Departure Reports
departing a non−towered aerodrome
a.* DEPARTED (location) (time in minutes) TRACKING (three digits) CLIMBING TO (intended level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time),
or
b.* DEPARTED (location) (time in minutes) TRACKING TO INTERCEPT (track) CLIMBING TO (intended level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time).
Destination, planned level, including any changes enroute, airwork, estimates etc. It's all there on a screen in front of him. If you don't get a clearance on departure, there is always a reason. Mostly, it's because the person you are talking to is not responsible for issuing you one, and you will hear something like "...approaching FL___, contact centre 123.4,
expect airways clearance", or words to that effect. The controller on the next frequency will either issue you a clearance on first contact, tell you to report approaching the base of CTA (if you aren't there already), or deny you a clearance because he can't give you one for traffic reasons. The person you talked to on departure
can organise a clearance for you if you really need it, but it's more work. You can add things like "pending clearance" or any thing else that you think adds more information/ situational awareness/sounds good if you really want I spose, but mostly its just a waste of breath (and
time).
The original point of my post was because non-standard phraseology was slipping into documentation here because RPT pilots are using it and I wanted to get some idea of why.
[edit] I would also like to add that from the other side of the microphone, the standard of local pilot phraseology
generally improves in direct proportion with his/her aircraft's seating capacity. I guess that just goes to prove something......