Leaving vs Left FL xxx

[hounddog high]

anyone with any Official reference to the above r/t phraseology. Hearsay that "Left FLxxx" originated from Downunder.

while I'm at it, what's the latest on "FL two zero zero" vs "FL two hundred"? Which is more correct? There seemed to be a flipflop after the introduction of the "hundreds".

Thanks. :)

[250 kts]

Tried to get SRG to agree to "two hundred" but they declined the offer. I always use ? hundred phraseology and cannot think of a single readback error. How do you feel about the use of american style flight numbers eg Speedbird two twenty seven or SAS fifteen twenty one - again very few mis-readbacks experienced.

[Baby Blue]

250kts. Are you saying that you adopt your own phraseology? The whole idea of phraseology is that it should be standard. It's people who modify approved phrases/techniques who cause the trouble. As an ex-examiner, there is nothing more irritating than sitting with someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't play the game. If we don't like the current mouth-music, there are ways to get it changed. Yes, they may be laborious, but at least we are all singing off the same songsheet. Standardization is they key to unambiguous phraseology!

[identnospeed]

Baby blue,

Sometimes use of non-standard phraseology is the ONLY way to get the pilot to understand !

"ABC4189 (non-UK airline) squawk ident, report your passing altitude"

"we climba 6000ft" (no callsign given)

"ABC4189 what altitude are passing at this time"

"6000ft" (when the radar indicates 2600ft)

"ABC4189 what is your altitude NOW !!"

"2700"

In fact I don't know what the standard phraseology really is for this one because sometimes one has to tailor transmissions to the pilot. In most cases involving the above example to elicit the required response I wouldn't use standard phraseology !

We are trying to communicate and if the pilot doesn't understand standard phraseology then we have to seek an alternative.

INS

[This message has been edited by identnospeed (edited 14 August 2000).]

[karrank]

"ABC4189, verify level."
"ABC4189, 2700."

Works every time.

"ABC4189, left 2700." please!

------------------
"Station calling Centre, grow a head..."

[TinPusher]

FL two hundred is OK to use in NZ, in fact it is encouraged as two hundred is more error tolerant than two zero zero

[atcdd]

Non-standard phraseology is a necessity when it's time to dea with non-english speaking pilots specially russians and eastern european pilots. Once I asked a russian pilot to report his position he came up with nonsense. I asked him "where are you now". He gave me his correct position. So much for standard phraseology.

[identnospeed]

Karrank,

The pilots you talk to are obviously well trained, BUT the smattering of East Europeans and others in the TMA don't always understand as atcdd has already highlighted !

R/T can be very slack even with those whose speak English as a first language.

Recent exchange :

"ABC6873 turn left heading 210 degrees climb FL190"

"OK, two one oh and one nine oh"

"ABC6873 confirm HEADING 210 degrees, CLIMB FL190 !"

"Thats correct sir"

"ABC6873 please readback that you are climbing to FL190"

"Yes sir climbing FL190"

(at this stage I wish I'd said 215 degrees ..... but sometimes the heading needed IS 210).

INS

[karrank]

Well ident, have worked Aeroflot, LOT & ADB but worse by far is Alitalia, and worse than them is Air China. We also get a lot of Asian pilots, some great, some not.

I once told Air China. "Descend to FL210, descend at 270knots above 10,000'."
"Ah roger, descend to Fl270 at 100kts."

Since then I use standard phraseologies only, do one thing at a time when the english is dodgy, resist the urge to talk loudly and slowly, and if I don't get the correct response f*ck 'em, I move somebody else.



------------------
"Station calling Centre, grow a head..."

[identnospeed]

K,

Absolutely agree with the one-thing-at-a-time. Lots of RT Tx, but it works with the non-regulars.

The Eastern Europeans I mentioned are actually the ex-USSR republics like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan(which I suppose are technically Asian !?)

some pilots from these countries are good ..... some not.

All the best

INS

[U B Nadd]

karrank. if you really gave an instruction like that you deserve to be mis-understood. I hope you don't work in the UK.
And while it's pilot bashing time, the Eastern Europeans so easily criticised don't have English as their first language. The Americans do, and some of them are atrocious. Especially when they mix inches and millibars. QNH992 and QNH2992 are 600 feet apart.
The skill of an artisan is in the way he uses his tools. The tool of the ATC trade is the RT and should be used effectively - and not abused.

[fweeeeep]

Working in the Middle East, we have a rather high percentage of Eastern Europeans and New West Russian States operating in our (often) busy environment.

I try my best to speak specifically slowly and cleary with them. I announciate every word, and try my best to use standard RT. For the most part, these guys react well to my method, and I save a lot of time by doing it slowly first time.

Possibly you can take some pointers, maybe you already do it like this.

[Bigmouth]

If it works, it´s right.

[Visual Approach]

Bigmouth

...until it doesn't!

[cossack]

Even though US ATCOs speak at 400 words per minute and don't breathe in, there seem to be less instances of callsign confusion over there than here in the UK. Isn't it about time we adopted some of their procedures such as suggested by 250 kts. Some of the alphanumeric callsigns we are presented with are real tongue twisters! I'm not suggesting anything radical like "...number 5 31 left cleared to land'" just common sense procedures that may reduce the instances of callsign confusion, multiple replies, missed replies and the Airproxes that sometimes result. Shouldn't we at least have a trial?