Callsign first or last?

[pete zahut]

-When I was learning radio procedures, my teachers told me that when receiving instructions from ATC, I should always end or close my replies (confirmations) to ATC with the appropriate callsign of my flight or aircraft reg..

But in the last years, I hear more pilots reduplicate the phrase from ATC 100% like parrots, i.e. starting their confirmation of the transmission with their own callsign.

I have noticed that more or less most- or lets say many Lufthansa pilots do it that way, and now I wonder if they are right, and the others wrong (including me and my teachers), -or if both RT procedures are correct.

Example:
ATC: ‘LH 999 cleared to land’
LH 999: ‘LH 999 cleared to land’

-or 'Cleared to land,LH 999'

regards Pete Za:confused:

[Spuds McKenzie]

You're correct, there are both ways to be heard on the R/T.
If only one of them is correct, or both, I frankly don't know.
ICAO tends to change things concerning R/T regularly, and it often doesn't make sense, because what once used to be valid is not anymore, and then it changes again to how it used to be before.
Prime example:

200 is now to be said "two zero zero" (unless it has changed in the meantime...), which, IMO, can be easily mistaken as "two seven zero".
It used to be "two hundred", which would be much more appropriate.
And, believe it or not, before that it was "two zero zero"...

:confused:

Looks to me like someone needs to be kept occupied in Montreal...

[M.85]

When the crew calls ATC: Flight number first after ATC ID:ie Dallas aproach,American 456....
When crews reply to ATC ,flight number at the end..to show end of transmission..to other pilots and to whom it was sent to..(ie..join *** transition,resume all navigation. American 456.

Clear?;) :p

M.85

[Timothy]

200 is now to be said "two zero zero" (unless it has changed in the meantime...), which, IMO, can be easily mistaken as "two seven zero".My bug bear is when they changed "one two zero zero feet" to "one tousand two hundred feet" (I think this was quite a while ago, so the youngsters might not remember :ugh: ).

The problem is that if you (the single pilot) are writing down the ATIS while trying to hand fly in turbulence (something all you ATCO chappies should try, incidentally) and it is something like SCT 1200' BKN 1800' OVC 2400', by the time the voice has said "scattered one tousand..." you have written S1000, but if you wait for the whole lot, then you are still writing S1200 while the voice is saying "Broken one tousand..." etc.

This may seem trivial as you read this at a desk with your feet up, but it's more of a human factor than you might think when the workload is high and picking up the ATIS is actually at the bottom of a considerable list of tasks!

Timothy

[bagpuss lives]

Now I remember why fam flights were so damned useful.

[Chilli Monster]

Timothy

Top tip - write it as a METAR. You hear "Scattered One thousand - two hundred then as soon as you hear the "One thousand you write "S01" - then add the "2" to it whan you hear "Two hundred".

Believe me - it works (the high speed ATIS at LFMD has proved the technique!)

[Timothy]

Top tip - write it as a METAR. You hear "Scattered One thousand - two hundred then as soon as you hear the "One thousand you write "S01" - then add the "2" to it whan you hear "Two hundred".I'll give it a go, but I fear that the problem still arises because the voice either says "Scattered One tousand feet" or it says "Scattered one tousand two hundred feet". It doesn't say "Scattered one tousand zero hundred feet."

Nonetheless, I'll try it and let you know! Ta!

Timothy

[2 sheds]

Spuds

"200 is now to be said "two zero zero" (unless it has changed in the meantime...), which, IMO, can be easily mistaken as "two seven zero"."

Where did you get this from - and are you, allegedly, quoting ICAO or a particular State?

[Spuds McKenzie]

2 sheds,

Was told that it is so according to ICAO (phraseo refresher).

Correct me if I'm wrong (hope I am actually).



:uhoh:

[Chilli Monster]

Timothy
I'll give it a go, but I fear that the problem still arises because the voice either says "Scattered One tousand feet" or it says "Scattered one tousand two hundred feet". It doesn't say "Scattered one tousand zero hundred feet."

Ah yes - but then when you don't hear any hundreds you just write "0"

Works for any number if said correctly e.g: Scattered one thousand becomes S01 and wait for the hundreds, Scattered one two thousand becomes S12 and wait for the hundreds. Obviously Scattered eight hundred - S008 (you've heard no thousands).

[alphaalpha]

Has the UK filed a difference?

If I paraphrase CAP413 (Sept 2003 edition): all numbers shall be transmitted by transmitting each digit separately except:

FL100 FL200 FL300 etc which shall be transmitted as Flight Level wun hundred, too hundred etc.

Whole hundreds and thousands in transmission of altitude, height, cloud height, vis, rvr shall be transmitted as eg too tousand fife hundred.

AA.

[coracle]

Going back to the original thread!!!

Prefer the callsign last, not too bothered if it comes first, as long as you USE your callsign and I mean the WHOLE callsign and not just the trip number

[M.85]

i read a post above about problems writing the atis when single pilot..itd be more usuful to put one finger up his nose than writing down the atis..why?if you listen instead of typing away,,ull hear if you have the minima or not..simple as that.:E :ouch:

[Timothy]

M.85

I see that you have already awarded yourself a :ouch:, and I wouldn't hit a..., a..., oh an alphanumeric grouping when it's down, so I won't comment. :hmm:

Timothy

[M.85]

:confused:
Say again?
M.85

[FoxRomeo]

Since Lufthansa is quoted further up, just a short comment.

For some some reason Lufthansa requires its pilots to use special R/T. E.g. the callsign is to be said always at the beginning, likewise they are encouraging their pilots to read back verbatim (parrot like, as said above).

Whether it makes sense or not, Lufthansa is top notch in Germany concerning all matters of aviation (at least that's how they view themselves)

Cheers,

FR

[FWA NATCA]

I've got to the point that I don't care if you give your call sign at the beginning or end just as long as I receive an acurate read back.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[Spuds McKenzie]

FWA NATCA,

Aherrmm...don't the readbacks in the US mainly consist of "Roger"?

"American 64 cleared to land Runway 16."
"Roger".

;)

[mad_jock]

M.85

All public transport flights are mean't to have associated paper work after landing. And non public transport flights and something happens you also have to prove you were doing the job. And i don't think any excuses would be taken from a CPL holder for not doing it.

Some sort of proof that you have monitored your fuel against expected burn, weather at alternates and destination and time keeping on your route plan.

Then at a later date when the ops inspectors appear they pick a few flights out of the hat and check that you have been doing your job. In CAVOK country wide (apart from leeds :) ) in the middel of a huge high you maybe just do the legal minimum. When it starts getting a bit hairy you are checking your wx on the volmet updates so you can have a cunning plan early instead of it all being sprung on you when you collect the arrival ATIS.

Its also good to write them down so you can see a trend developing.


As for the callsign stuff. Its common sense.

If first contact (either intial or after a break) the ATCO needs to know what strip to write on so call sign first.

After that they will want to know when you have finished talking so callsign last.

We are all guilty sometimes of remembering a manitory read back half way through the callsign at the end so then stick it on afterwards.

The one that really seems to piss the ATCO's off is not reading back the limitation of a clearance before the clearance. ie "After the landing, line up runway 24R". Read back "line up 24R after the landing" which is understandable because it sounds like you are about to obstruct the runway.

MJ


MJ

[M.85]

MJ,
I totally agree about writing down Volmets like you said to know about how the weather is changing if it does..the initial question was about i belive writing down the atis,which you get maybe 100 miles out depending on a/caltitude of course..
In the US,you pick atis below 18000ft normally in the descent so the Qnh can be directly set..however in europe you may get it before leaving a FL.Therefore i think its common use to write it down not to forget it and set it in the stby altimeter..
Always tell approach on initial contact which atis you got and recheck it hasnt changed since..but writing down that the sky is scattered at 10000 and broken at 6000 in a single pilot ops..i have my doubt of its use..but all is entitled to his own way of spending time up there;)

M.85

[Timothy]

M.85

I assumed that you were just doing a wind-up, I couldn't really believe that you thought that sticking a finger up the nose is more useful than writing down the weather.

Oh, where do I start?

First of all there is the legal requirement that jock mentioned. Ops Inspectors have a habit of descending on the paperwork and checking that every dot and cross is there. They even get all stroppy if you don't write down a frequency change, even if you have flip-flop radios.

Secondly, although I mentioned ATIS, this was supposed to be illustrative, as I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. The same is, of course, true of VOLMET, of picking up various ATISs as you go by and when the weather is read to you by FIS, to check for and keep a note of bolt-holes.

Thirdly, it sometimes happens that the weather is not BKN100 SCT060 (which is what I assume you mean, because the way round you put it makes little sense in context.) Yesterday I made an approach to minima (200'DH) at Exeter and another IMC approach. This is not too uncommon in winter in the UK. It is on these occasions that a knowledge of the weather matters.

Fourthly, you might not end up doing the approach you planned. You might find that the GS fails and you have to convert to LOC only, or VOR/DME. It's not much use to you if all you have done is check that the ILS is above minima, but not the non-precision approaches, and that is not the time that you want to switch the ATIS on again.

Fifthly, basic human factors tells us that when we are under high workload we are more likely to make errors of skill and judgement than at other times, so writing down one run of the ATIS and then reading it through as it is repeated is a good way of checking that you have got it right. Under high workload you forget things that you might not have predicted that you were going to forget, particularly if you were under decreased workload when you took in the information. This is called circumstantial or environmental memory and is included in 101 Psychology courses.

Your point is not well made about the QNH, because the QNH is the one thing that is repeated multiple times by the Approach, Director and Tower as you go down (thank goodness!).

So, you may think that you can fly an aeroplane with your finger stuck up your nose better than I can fly one without, but that is the kind of pride that is well known for coming before a fall, beware. I am doing it "properly". You may be proud of a more casual approach, but that's nothing to brag about in the context of approaches to minima, as the 36 people who were killed in Tashkent the other day would, no doubt, like to be able to be in a position to tell you themselves.

Have I "said again" clearly enough for you?

Timothy

[FWA NATCA]

Spuds,

Whenever a pilot responds with just ROGER without their call sign, it forces me to restate the clearance or to request a proper read back, thus taking up valuable frequency time.

Mike

[Timothy]

Mike

Please ask for a readback, rather than being "clever" and just repeating it until you get the readback you want. ATC/aircraft co-operation should never become a pissing contest.

The worst such behaviour I have had was (surprisingly and unusually) from Amsterdam (or was it Rotterdam?) where the instruction was to change frequency immediately after take-off.

The conversation went:

Schipol Departures this is <callsign> passing 500' in the XYZ1C
.
.
.
Schipol Departures this is <callsign> passing 800' in the XYZ1C do you read?
.
.
.
<callsign> nothing heard changing to TWR on nnn.nn
<callsign> this is Schipol Departure. If you make yourself known to radar I will be able to provide a service.

Yes, that's right, I had forgotten to switch on the transponder and this was his way of telling me. Sad really.

I have also had Wolverhampton Intergalactic Spaceport, sorry, private joke, Wolverhampton Business Airport not speak to me because I addressed them as Halfpenny Green a few weeks after the change of name.

Such people should find jobs better suited to their temperaments!

Timothy

[Spuds McKenzie]

Mike,

I have to say that the worst phraseology discipline I had to deal with by far was with American airline pilots ( not all of them of course).

No readbacks of route clearance or just "roger" and when you insisted on a readback they would say "can you say that route again?".

:(

[mad_jock]

M.85

I acually sort of know where you are coming from after knowing that you post in wannabies.

I have about 140 hours in the uS and after I came back to the UK the poling the thing round the sky wasn't brillant but i could get by.

The biggest difference is the procedures and protocols with ATC.
Some might say they are over board but they work.
There is a saying you can do it the easy way or the British way.
9 times out of 10 the easy way will work. Then that 10% bites your bum, when you find out the british ways was actually the safest way forward its to late and you have to work to try and get back up to speed and save the situation.

The more I fly in the UK the more what appear to be daft procedures actually work. Some days over the top but after you get into a habit of doing them there isn't any problems. Then when the poo does hit the fan. You have all the info required to make a good educated plan of action.

Timothy by the sounds of it is in one of the hardest sectors of the industry and I am sure he will have countless storys about when and how knowing the procedures and running them has saved his bacon. The work load involved with any sort of incident in the air cannot be described and thankfully the small upsets i have had have been in VFR conditions or multicrew (and they only were upsets). I wouldn't like to imagine whats its like single pilot IFR in winter wx with ATIS telling you that there are RVR's about and something not quite right. Its then that the years of writing stuff down when its wasn't really required come into there own.


MJ

[FWA NATCA]

Timothy,

We see pilots departing all the time with the transponder off (so much for the checklist), we will radar identify the departure and say, "Check that your Transponder is ON".

The trouble with readbacks in the US is that the controller is responsible for ensuring an accurate readback, if the pilot only responds with "ROGER", how do I know that you understood the complete clearance, I don't.

The key is "EDUCATION", if this means calling the company chief pilot, or someone from ATC meeting the aircraft when it lands so be it. The goal is to prevent "ACCIDENTS".

Mike
NATCA FWA

[Timothy]

MikeThe trouble with readbacks in the US is that the controller is responsible for ensuring an accurate readback, if the pilot only responds with "ROGER", how do I know that you understood the complete clearance, I don't.Oh, absolutely no argument there!

All I am asking is that you don't get involved in the kind of stupid conversation I have heard, even in our own, so well managed, airways:

<callsign> make your heading 230 and descend FL130
<callsign> roger
<callsign> make your heading 230 and descend FL130
<callsign> roger
<callsign> make your heading 230 and descend FL130
<callsign> heading 230 descend 130

as opposed to:
<callsign> make your heading 230 and descend FL130
<callsign> roger
<callsign> please readback heading and level
<callsign> heading 230 descend 130

I guess that the reason I get wound up is that the former is the way my father used to behave over the breakfast table when not passed the salt :\ :ouch:

Timothy