Reference for correct radiotelephony

[wandrinabout]

Anyone know where I can find a ref to correct ICAO RTP. I had a look in the jepps but cant seem to find it there, maybe I'm blind.

Just want to definitively separate what is correct from the "urban legend" crap that is heard daily. I hear some phrases so often that I am starting to wonder if it is a case of regional idiosyncrosis or in fact if its a case of what i've always thought was universally correct is perhaps not.

For example: Radio check - I always thought loud and clear was reported as strength "5". I hardly ever hear that now. Most of the time I hear "5 by 5". Am I out of date?
Another common one - "affirm" as in the affirmative. Commonly hear "charlie charlie" used in its place. Where'd that come from?

I know I know. Minor points. Much has also been documented also about the huge chasm that exists between the US standard (or perhaps lack of - ouch!) and others, but thats not my issue. Just want to make sure that at least what I say is correct.

An ICAO annex maybe??

Anybody? Cheers.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In the UK we use a document called "CAP 413" which you can download from www.srg.caa.co.uk

Mind you there a few mild inconsistencies in UK RT as well, but I think it's closer to ICAO than the US standards.

G

[chiglet]

5 by 5 is [AFAIK] R/T Volume strength 5 and Clarity ditto.
"Charlie" has been covered before, [sorry can't find the link]
Affirm...just bone idle
watp,iktch

[Spitoon]

ICAO docs are not easily obtainable on-line unless you pay! RTF procedures are split between Annex 10 Vol 2 and PANS-ATM (Doc 4444).

Affirm is an ICAO Standard - it means Yes.

Clarity of transmissions in reported on the Readability Scale
1 Unreadable
2 Readable now and then
3 Readable but with difficulty
4 Readable
5 Perfectly readable

The Readability Scale is a Procedure for Air Navigation described in Annex 10. The introduction text says 'The Procedures far Air Navigation Services (PAVS) contained in Volume II of Annex 10 do not carry the status afforded to Standards adopted by tlie Council as Annexes to the Convention and, therefore. do not come within the obligation imposed by Article 35 of the Convention to notify differences in the event of non-implementation. However, attention of States is drawn to
the provisions of Annex 15 related to the publication in their
Aeronautical Information Pnblications of lists of significant
differences between their proccdures and the related ICA0
Procedures.'

I guess this means if a country uses '5 by 5' it should say this in the AIP.

In the UK we use the term 'Readability 5' in response to a radio check (unless, of course, the radio is garbage).

[RUDAS]

"charly charly",according to an ATC i know,isnt standard R/T phraseology and is therefore technically incorrect.but its very widely used.Especially,I have found,in Africa.

"Affirm" is standard apparently,but 5/5 is,I would guess,just really another way of expressing the "strength Five" we know as being perfectly readable,which is the standard.

[wandrinabout]

My point exactly, there are many phrases widely used and accepted, but many of them are not correct.

Thanks for the links and references guys - quietly reading away.

And no chiglet, "affirm" is not just bone idle.

[Willit Run]

The "Charlie Charlie" thing has been morphed a bit through the years. When flying out of VHF range and using the HF, your position reports are going to a radio operator, who then forwards your report to the appropriate Air Traffic control center. If you want your position report to go to your ops department, you would say "Copy Company" hence the slang, "Charly Charly"
Well, unfortuneatly, some take it to mean "Roger"
Just a little history.

[chiglet]

wanderin,
sorry, but I forgot the :rolleyes: smiley
watp,iktch

[Engine overtemp]

"Affirmative" was dropped several years ago to save possible confusion with "Negative".
Affirm and Negative are the correct words to use. :ok: