"Decend to maintain"

[Cosmic Wind]

Seems common phraseology at UK , particularly regional, units over recent months to use a "climb/decend and maintain flxxx". Have I missed something, pointless instruction?

[M609]

I've seen the phrase mentioned as a mitigating measure when it comes to level busts. I think it was in one of the eurocontrol pamflets that appears in the mailbox at work all the time.

Level busts are not exactly rare...... :ok:

[Scott Voigt]

Gee it sounds like the Americanizing of your phraseology <G>. We have used climb and maintain for decades...

regards

Scott

[DirtyPierre]

Not in the Oz documents. Seems to me like tautology.

If you're instructed to descend to F250, doesn't that mean when you get to F250 you'll maintain that level?

Next thing you know, we'll be acknowledging acknowledgements.

[av8boy]

Next thing you know, we'll be acknowledging acknowledgements
Roger that.:rolleyes:

[2 sheds]

Have come across this at present unit. Seems to be the result of some Jobsworth wanting to be seen to be doing something as the result of an incident. If it does not comply with published phraseology, this sort of thing is a menace as it just devalues the standardisation that would otherwise exist.

[Spuds McKenzie]

So, when I say "descend to FL...", does that encourage a level bust??
Unless I add "maintain" meaning "please don't do a level bust"??

BOLLOX :*

[Eva San]

I agree that's americanizing, but in the sense of taking every single precaution so that nobody can sue you ...

More seriously, some chaps in the quality/safety management services have suddenly figured out that the word "maintain" might prevent some level busts... so here we go ! now we have to use it ! or at least we're advised to use it... but would the word "advised" make any difference in case of accident ?

Now, another example of some great thinking: a plane has been cleared on delivery on some std departure up to level XX. Now at first contact, we're advised to say "maintain level XX on reaching, I'll call you back for higher" and not to use "climb" if not giving further climb...

I agree that safety is a serious issue, but if you consider every single little possibility of a misunderstanding or of a mistake, you'll end up making 5 minutes sentences as clearances... Are you supposed to make the rules for one stupid fool ?

And now let's imagine that you have eradicated any possibility of misunderstanding in the language, now what happens if the pilot selects level XX plus or minus 10 instead of XX and still reads back correctly, because he's thinking about the cute steward/stewardess that just brought her/him lunch... Will we ask to have the selected level on our screen through S mode radar ? And what if the controller makes a mistake, will we ask to have two ATCs on a position so that the second controller can check on the first one ? And maybe a third one, to check on the second ...?

In my unit, we used to have some level busts problems with a circling approach with departures climbing 1500ft and arrivals in opposite direction descending 2500ft. Guess what the management suggested ? That there should be one more controller on the Vcr looking at the radar screen to see if those two levels were maintained correctly...:8

We're living in an unperfect world, and we're only humans, and we've to cope with it every day!

So now, I'll use that phraseology, but please don't add more because some guy in a well heated office has decided that to cover up his ass he'll invent some new and revolutionnary way of preventing accidents by adding something .


Oh and by the way, I'm not working in The UK, but in France... Looks like it's now spreading...

[Talkdownman]

....and what is all this "maintain x (level) on reaching" nonsense......?

on reaching is totally superfluous. Where else other than level x can level x be maintained?

[eyeinthesky]

Another one:

"Continue present heading until advised"

'Continue' means just that: Do it until I tell you to do something else.

What next: maintain (level) until advised?

[Jerricho]

Ah, that great little word "maintain"

Over here on this small North American continent, the term "maintain" is used as the command instruction to change an altitude. In Blighty, the use is something totally different, and in fact could lead to a major misunderstanding.

Example in Canada: "ACA123, maintain 6000". ACA123 is cleared to 6000'

Example in UK: "ACA123 descend and maintain 6000". No major issue, ACA is still cleared to 6000' (albeit twice ;) )

Now, take this example:

Pilot: "ACA123 level 6000" (as they do here)

Canada ATC "ACA123 Roger" (or whatever)

UK ATC "ACA123 maintain" (as I used to do)

Now, the pilot as heard the command instruction "maintain". First though, listen out for the new altitude associated with the command "maintain"?

Hmmmmm......

[Northerner]

Okay, I do use it.

If I'm giving climb or descent and I know I should be able to give continuous further climb/descent I say nothing.

If however I know the guy is going to have to level due to crossing traffic, then I usually say "Climb/descend and maintain FLxxx trraffic to cross left/right...." etc. Why? I guess I'm hoping that they might then use an appropriate ROC and not set off TCAS. (I know, it's up to them, I'm not trying to fly the plane)

I have to say also that I use this more with foreign crews where English may be a little poor, I hope it helps with situational awareness.

Similarly I often say "maintain FLxxx on reaching, traffic to cross ......" when the planes are climbing or descending. Obviously I won't say on reaching if they are already there!

I'm all for standard R/T, though I know I'm not perfect, but more importantly I'm for anything that might prevent an incident and if it stops one level bust with implications isn't that a good thing?

BTW, how many times have I heard "C/S reaching FLxxx for further" for me to say "Roger, maintain traffic to cross" and then be told "Yes we've got him on TCAS"

:* :* :*

I've no doubt there will now be lots of people tell me why I shouldn't, and I promise to keep an open mind.

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

[DirtyPierre]

Northerner,

I can see where you're coming from. But over in Oz we prefer to say something like,

" Descend to F250, expect further descent in 3 minutes due crossing traffic."

Same sort of thing, just a different way of saying it. I still think, however, that saying "descend/climb and maintain" in other than this case is superflous R/T.

[M609]

And would that extend to making "Hold position " before giving ATC clearence at the hold, or "line up and wait" superflous too?

:cool:

[BOAC]

Northener and DirtyP - you are definitely on my side in giving the pilots some more SA!

I do, however, think some of your colleagues will shout at you! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=39182) :D

[DirtyPierre]

M609,

I'm not a tower controller these days (not since 1982) so I'm not going to comment about tower phraseology.

BOAC,

thanks, I try to make all my trainees keep the PIC in the picture as much as possible. Don't know anything about the other thread, never heard a thing about this in Oz.

[Canoehead]

Agree with most posters here. Just too much blah blah on the frequencies. " Maintain seventeen, one-seven thousand" (groan)

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

The need (perceived or otherwise) for the phraseology used by Canoehead shows why we must not allow TA to be raised to 18000' in the UK, but I digress...

G W-H

[Jerricho]

Interesting G-W-H. Having worked both airspaces, I'm curious as to why you think that.

[FFP]

Changing subject slightly but wondering if you guys can clarify something

What is the correct way of requesting descent to FL100

Is it

a) Request FL One Hundred
b) Request descend one hundred
c) Request descent FL One Zero Zero
d) We would like to descend to FL One zero zero

The reason I ask is that this is the question I was faced with today in a JAA ATPL exam. I thought the "most correct" answer is (a).

What do you guys think ?

[brain fade]

The VHF is NOT! a bloody telephone without wires. The way some folk (ATCers and pilots) use it, it's plain they've forgotten that (unlike the 'phone) we only have a simplex net to work with.

For example, and I know its small beer but it happens 100 times a day where i'm based:

a/c going ground to Twr

a/c "Twr, good afternoon ABC123 taxiing A1 to hold"
Twr " ABC123 hold at A1" (what else were they planning? )
a/c " Hold at A1, ABC123"

Whats wrong with "ABC123 roger" on line 2 and no line 3?

or. Airways "ABC 123, maintain present heading"
a/c "maintain present heading thats ahh ahh radar heading 327 degrees ABC 123"
Why not "Wilco, ABC123" thus saving loads of chat?

Or how about this simple tactic. When you change freq listen out for about 5 seconds before you open your trap and talk right over someone else whos already transmitting? Or more likely launch into your message just after an instruction has been passed but not yet read back! Happens all the time. Listen out before you speak! It's only good manners after all:ok:

Also that awful prase beloved of some pilots. "roger, we have him on TCAS" really. providing our own seperation now or are we just proud of our equipment.

Another dreadful practice is unneccessary "offering" of messages. for example.

a/c "London ABC123"
airways "ABC123 pass your message"
a/c "ABC123 request (whatever it bloody is!)"
Airways "(grants it or not)"

By all means offer a msg if you suspect no sods listening ie talking to BA ops at EDI. It's not neccesary on ATC freqs most of the time and just takes up 'airtime'.

Comments welcome!:8

[brain fade]

No Mike 5 nano-seconds ain't long enough! You need to be sure no one else is half way through something. Wait about 5 secs after you tune the new freq, then speak. Obviously you don't need to wait 5 secs after every other tx before you speak. About 5 nano-seconds sounds about right for some freqs. The long pause is inly on initial transfer to a new freq.

Is "maintain present heading" not properly acknowledged by "Wilco" then. Says it all if you ask me. Inderstood your tx and will comply. What else do you need? I agree "Wilco" will not do to acknowledge a specific instruction like "ABC turn right heading 360". Mind you even "maintain present heading" would be an improvement!

[spekesoftly]

Sorry, CAP 413 says "Full readback of heading instructions", so "maintain present heading" is the correct response in this case.
and,

Mind you even "maintain present heading" would be an improvement!

Continue should be used for Headings, and Maintain for Levels.

[eyeinthesky]

QUOTE

or. Airways "ABC 123, maintain present heading"
a/c "maintain present heading thats ahh ahh radar heading 327 degrees ABC 123"
Why not "Wilco, ABC123" thus saving loads of chat?

UNQUOTE

Because it is helpful to know what the heading is so that if necessary the guy you are on a heading against can be put on a relevant one as well.

Otherwise it becomes the following:

'xxx Report your heading'
'xxx Heading 125 degrees'
'xxx Continue the heading (125 degrees)

Also if you are asked to continue a heading and report it: PLEASE do report it!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I have to say in this part of the world, ie. the Middle East, "WILCO", is pretty useless and we need a readback of pretty much all instructions. Partly due to the Russians and related cousins from the various "-STANS" who try to understand instructions but invariably don't, but will respond with "WILCO" anyway, or the American military guys who when they aren't sure of where to go, will reply "WILCO" and then go where they were going before regardless.

So it may clog up the R/T but it is still the better way to go.

Still don't agree with the descend and maintain instruction, and will try not to use it in the future.

[brain fade]

Speke softly
Maintain/ Continue. Thanks. I didn't know that one:ok:

I suspect they often get used 'one for the other'. Certainly I've been told to 'maintain' a heading loads of times.

Re 'Wilco' readbacks. If you are 'own nav' to somewhere and you are then given 'continue present heading' surely 'wilco' would do? I mean it's not an instruction to manoevre, merely an order not to. So I think 'Wilco' would do but if I'm wrong it wont be the first time.

As for saying outloud what the heading is. Well sometimes that's requested and sometimes it isn't. So are you saying that the hdg should always be reported even if its not been asked for? Shurely not!

What about my main point really which is about there being too much blah and not enough brevity.
(don't mind a bit of nit picking tho):{

[eastern wiseguy]

Brain Fade


a/c "Twr, good afternoon ABC123 taxiing A1 to hold"

What else were they planning ? you ask.

Well from my point of view since runway incursions are pretty rife at the moment I AM DAMN WELL GOING TO REINFORCE IT! I would rather be pontificated at here by you than be involved in an incursion or WORSE(ask our colleagues at Linate).

Same goes for maintain levels.When you can categorically assure me that you will not BUST a level I will categorically assure you that I will stop trying to stop you!!:ok:

[brain fade]

Eastern
Hopefully not pontificating, nor 'teaching other folks grannies how to suck eggs'. It's not so much of an issue on a relatively quiet Twr frq but congested RT is/ can be a problem. For example in the recent DHL/ Tu-154 mid air the DHL crew were unable to get out the crucial 'TCAS Descent!' call that may have saved them all, due to the freq being blocked.

You've picked me up on that one point you mention above and made your own pertinant point in reply.

Nevertheless would you not agree that there is plenty of scope for improving RT voice procedure and also that a lot of stuff is just woffle, repetition or the sort of 'belt and braces' security type stuff done because of your own experience with bad RT procedure in the past?

Going from what you've posted above perhaps you had better give all your clearances out in duplicate.

Or shall we make in it triplicate just to be on the safe side?

[Gary Lager]

I would rather everything in duplicate than allow any kind of ambiguity to exist w.r.t. clearances to enter runways/change flight levels etc.

Of course as I understand your point, if everybody's R/T was as good as yours, brainfade(;) ), then there'd be no need to clarify or reinforce instructions or clearances. I agree. But in an analogy with motoring, just because my driving is perfect (which it is), doesn't mean I am safe from the guy who isn't paying attention on the motorway, or who doesn't give way where he should. So I drive defensively, and apply the same technique to everything (not just R/T) I do at work (I am a B737 Captain).

Correct R/T technique is not necessarily synonymous with as 'good' R/T - it's a means to an end. Unambiguous communication of information and instructions is the ultimate goal and sometimes, whether through distraction, fatigue, or inexperience, that may require a bit more airtime than the ideal, just to reassure us all that the correct instruction was indeed received as intended.

Brevity is great, blah is not. However ensuring elimination of any ambiguity, even it it uses 2 seconds more R/T, is not, IMHO, blah. See Tenerife N, 1977, amongst others.

Blah is things like: (my bugbears)

"Request descent when available "

So if it's not available, you're not requesting it?

"Request direct CF30 at CWL if possible "

Again, if it's not possible (seeing as you're over SW France, quite likely), you're not requesting it???

I do have more....!

[eastern wiseguy]

Going from what you've posted above perhaps you had better give all your clearances out in duplicate.Or triplicate.

No ....and frankly that is puerile. We are instucted to consider the taxi phase as a "crucial moment"during the flight.You will be,I am sure ,busy. I may also be busy.The guy on final approach for the runway may be "busy".Which is preferable? The clearance unambiguously given(even if it means twice)or I trust to your,mine and the guy at 125 knots infallibility and let things go?.

As far as duplication goes the ENTIRE system is built upon checks and balances. I clear you ....you read it back....you get take off clearance you read it back...the first call to radar you offer your cleared level radar will confirm it.The name of the game is safety.If you have a particular dislike ,well I am sorry .Until there is a better way to do it you will have to bite the bullet.

I agree with you regarding poor r/t however I am not looking at it from that point of view but from the SAFETY point of view.Another thread is dealing with "wheres my traffic" THAT is a waste of R/T time and an interupption to my thought processes,but I am sure you would never try to second guess the guy with the radar! :O :O

[brain fade]

Eastern
I'm sure we all agree on the basics of our subject. What I'm drawing attention to is plain poor practice and I've outlined a few examples to illustrate my point.

If you think extra waffle is ok then we disagree. I gave examples including unneccesary offering, wasted calls due to 'crossing' etc etc

Brevity does not mean poorer comms it means better comms. It's not the case that more words +repetition makes communication better! Extra uncalled for stuff multiplies over time leading to blah!.

Your point about being cleared/ reading it back is correct.
All I'm saying is ONE clearance = ONE readback. Which is what you said, I think.

;)

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Jerrico

My main concern with the "one three (thirteen) thousand feet" type phraseology is that stating of the numbers in two different forms is required because people have been confused in the past.

If the phrase "descend to altitude one five thousand feet" is clipped/crossed/garbled/misheard, then an aircraft may descend to five thousand feet (or potentially one thousand feet). This problem is solved by repeating the cleared level in the "fifteen" format - adding to the RT loading, about which another thread is complaining!

In the UK we have FL150 and (for most users who would descend to FL150) FL50 is not a very "likely" level, thereby providing an automatic check on the cleared level.

My second complaint about the US type phraseology is that it feels unwieldy to speak, but I do accept that this may be just because I only use it a couple of times a month.

Just my thoughts

G W-H

[bekolblockage]

I'm with brain fade.

There seems to be a certain group of people who find great delight in extracting whatever ambiguity they can from a simple, straight-forward instruction. (E.g. "ABC take next taxiway left" , "ABC is that the next taxiway or the one after?" - I kid you not ,WTF!!!)

We now find ourselves almost trying to second-guess just how wrongly someone will interpret what we are saying and phrase it in such a fashion that even a simpleton could not misunderstand -but to no avail.

No wonder our R/T loadings are going through the roof.

[Jerricho]

Thanks for the reply G-W-H.

I found it very strange when I moved here to Canada having to teach myself to say "8 thousand" all the way up to 17 thousand (and using the word maintain rather than climb/descend). It is something you have to get used to.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

You can't convince the powers-that-be over there that "climb/descend" is better than "maintain" then?

G W-H

[Jerricho]

Better than "descend and maintain" :E ;)

[brain fade]

Bekol

Thanks!

You know it's impossible to frame all your instructions in such a way that they are all 'idiotproof'.

But if you insist on trying, you end up talking to everyone as if they are idiots!

So don't be surprised when they act like idiots, as plainly they think they are being treated as such!

In other words when you issue loads of 'clearances' for the bleeding obvious, before you know it nobody will do even the bleeding obvious without a 'clearance'!

A degree of trust is required.
A degree of professionalism is required.

One clearance. One readback. Less blah. More thought. More quiet.