Use of the words "Flight Level"

[fourthreethree]

This is fast becoming a pet hate of mine.
When I give a pilot the clearance "Descend Flight Level 270" I expect the readback " descending flight level 270"

NOT...

"Descending 270"

There are incidents of level busting every week as a result of this laziness on R/T. If a pilot replies "descending 270" is he saying "descending two-seven-zero" or "descending to seven-zero"?

Its a simple thing, so you would imagine, but today I was astonished at the number of pilots, of all nationalities, who got it wrong, and required confirmation of their clearance, sometimes more than once :mad: ...In the worst case today, I asked the pilot twice to "confirm cleared flight level 270", twice had the response "affirm descending 270", so I told him in plain language, "ABC123 I need to hear the words Flight Level in your readback, please confirm your cleared level is flight level 270". I got the rather annoyed response from the pilot "Yes sir we ARE descending 270"

What do we have to do? How many more level busts are needed before pilots realise that correct R/T can save incidents, and incorrect or lazy R/T simply adds to the existing problem of R/T congestion?

I would love to get some feedback from pilots on this one, because I don't see any reasonable explanation for such a simple matter.

[hoofhearted]

There is no reasonable explanation. Just keep plugging away and hopefully they'll eventually get the message.:sad:

[Hoover Pilot]

Yes - I agree - poor RT.

Been a bug-bear of mine for years and it still apalls me to hear the same thing on every day that I fly.

HP

[foo fighting]

perhaps if this was switched to the relative pilots forum it might gain more mileage.

heartily agree with everything above, it's a very annoying, time wasting and dangerous habit

[Ojuka]

With you all the way on this one. However we are persistently faced in this industry with DULLARDS who will never get it. Some are very senior and should know better.

[Right Way Up]

433,
Do you have the ability to file Air Safety Reports. It may seem a bit harsh, but to be honest whether the pilot repeated the indiscretion due to laziness or lack of knowledge it is an extrememy serious problem. We all make mistakes but on being picked up by ATC most people realise their mistakes and like me will apologise. Yesterday flying into the UK from the east. I was amazed at the number of pilots either cutting short or just not using their callsign. One of the London controllers had to tell a crew to use their callsign!

[WaterMeths]

The state of R/T I feel is generally good. There are obviously exceptions to the norm but perhaps these belong to relatively few perpetrators.

One of my favourite bug-bears is a simple reply of "Roger" to a series of clearances given by ATC. Quite often challenged - as expected.

How would that said pilot like the reply of "Roger" from the controller to a specific request such as a clearance for descent? Might cause some further need for clarification - eh?

[SR71]

Not a defence but the flip side of the coin...

For some reason my company has recently moved away from the suggested alphanumeric call signs and we are now working with four digit callsigns. I (and numerous others) are moaning about this seriously.

In an instruction to turn left onto heading xxx, descend flight level xxx and advise that to Radar xxx.xxx, I now have 16 digits to remember in a read-back amongst other things.

I'm sure the protocol is that ATC shouldn't give me multiple instructions like that in one call (reference?) but it invariably does happen, whereupon the presumption is probably, whats good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Like I said, no defence, and I need reminding as much as the next guy/gal.

:ok:

[fourthreethree]

SR71

Under no circumstances should ATC gie you the next contact channel in the same transmission as a clearance in case of a misunderstood clearance there might not be the chance to correct it. Besides, for the reasons you outline, the example you give will, 9 times out of 10, result in "say again". I was always tought more haste less speed, its quite an accurate idiom. Like you said though....no excuse ;)

Right Way Up

I will be doing that in the future, it is a factor which affects air safety, so I think its quite appropriate.

Watermeths

In an incident a couple of years ago, an ATC trasmission was cut off by another a/c calling in....the pilot to whom the descent clearance was made heard "ABC123 descend FL...." and responded "Roger we are descending ABC123" And proceeded to do so....the controller did NOT pick him up on it, and when questioned as to why he had bust his level he explained he was descending until further notice. :eek:

An isolated incident, with serious faults on both sides, but it shows just what can happen if correct R/T procedures are not followed.

[Lon More]

433

Be careful, you're starting to sound like Jan Crans, or even worse - me.

[fourthreethree]

Ok thats it...I'm out of here....I cannot and will not work under these conditions!!!!!! :E :8 ;)

[flower]

I know you are not UK based 433 but can you nevertheless use the forum of CHIRP or have an equivalent ?

Of late I have had to on numerous occasions repeat myself to simply get a mandatory readback read back to me.
I am guilty as the next person for not always using standard RT but mandatory readbacks are exactly that, mandatory.

[Turn It Off]

If you keep getting the same guy making the same mistake MOR them. Its not worth the hassle at the subsequent board of inquiry " Why didn't you challenge the lack of / incorrect readback." Even better, make use of this open reporting thingy!! That starts at my unit this month sometime. Shoud be a hoot!!!!

Mats Part 1 - (I can't remember where) states that a suggested maximum of 3 instructions per transmission to avoid causing confusion.

TIO