Classic RT

[Mack Tuck]

EK flight on transfer from CPDLC to MEL Centre a few days ago. MEL called EK several times with no response. Finally the response comes back "Go ahead good buddy"; no call sign though. Entire content of EK transmissions non-standard and unprofessional. I wonder if anyone can guess the nationality of the pilot? It shouldnt be a surprise; they get enough **** on prune anyway.

[White Knight]

I agree that some of the RT from our colleagues is shockingly bad:confused: I don't know why, it's not hard - it'll get worse though with all these "no speaka da english" new joiners as well:ugh:

[bus canuck]

EK flight on transfer from CPDLC to MEL Centre a few days ago. MEL called EK several times with no response. Finally the response comes back "Go ahead good buddy"; no call sign though. Entire content of EK transmissions non-standard and unprofessional. I wonder if anyone can guess the nationality of the pilot? It shouldnt be a surprise; they get enough **** on prune anyway.
Just taking the piss out of the most anal retentive controllers on the planet. :D
I didn't do it, but wish I had thought of it.

Personally, I find that US ATC is the most efficient (e.g. ORD) that I've ever experienced even with "non-standard" RT. They must be doing something right.

Now SYD... don't get me started...:ugh:

[Elroy Jettson]

US the most efficient? Seriously? Try getting 20 miles left and right of track with a climb on San Fran HF! You will be in the next FIR before they get back to you... "Read Back!" :ugh: I rate those useless b@stards up there with Chennai or Kabul! :yuk:

[kingoftheslipstream]

10-4 good buddy...

got your ears on? What's your 20?

Looks like we got us a convoy...

[puff m'call]

My God you must be as old as me!!!!

Talk about bad, sorry dangerous RT, I had some this morning coming back into DXB from the UAE area guy, and this is one of my pet hates, will someone please explain why Austrailian's have to say the word "TO" when giving level changes, the plonker this morning instructed me to descend "to" 10,000, coming out of MEL last week i got Climb "to" 5000, was that 25000 or altitude 5000. :=

Piss poor RT and one day it will cause an accident.

[divingduck]

Dearest Puff...as an interested obsever....being Australian and ATC in UAE...

I give you DOC 4444 PANS ATM Chapter 12 12.3 ATC Phrasiologies...

a)Climb (or Descend) followed by

1) TO (level)
2) TO and maintain...

The rest of it is there if you give it a glance...

To sum up, the ATC is following ICAO standard phrasiologies...perhaps you may like to do the same??

[mjbow2]

Divingduck....

Please... let me just duck out and buy me a copy of said doco. :bored:

Bus canuck.... I agree! I think the Yanks (especially ORD) do it quite well.

In particular they way they handle climb and descent instructions...

'Climb and maintain....' , 'Descend and maintain....'

MJB

[filejw]

Mensaboy.If you think most Americans are embarrassed by the way Geo W speaks imagine what people think if they also graduated from Yale University.:eek:

[Arnie DeDump]

puff m'call, it did cause an accident once, the Flying Tiger 747 approach into Subang in bad wx who was told to " decend two five thousand " ( 2,500' ? ) and ended up in the trees killing all four.

[Statorblade]

I seem to recall that the communication misunderstanding in the Tiger accident at KUL was actually the result of the controller saying: "Descend TWO four zero zero ft " and the pilot interpreting it as: "Descend TO four zero zero ft ".

The pilot thought he had a clearance to 400 ft. The controller thought he had issued a clearance to 2400 ft. With QNH set, and no intervening action by the crew, this proved to be fatal.

Largely as a result of that accident, ATC phraseology regarding altitude assignments was changed to long hand - ie "descend to two thousand four hundred ft"

[Ali Bin Somewhere]

" decend two five thousand "

as mensaboy said. if feet or flightlevel etc are used in conjunction with "to" then all ambiguity gone.

as far as australians and r/t go. we trained from the college onwards to follow the requirements laid down in ICAO docs and the relevent rules given to us by the governing body of the FIR in which we work. if you think it is poor r/t practice to follow those rules then perhaps a working group of pilots and atc should get together and partition ICAO and the relevent FIR authorties to get it changed. there are always things that can be improved and if removeing "to" from that part of ICAO docs would improve safety then work out a safety case with all the relevent proof and do something about it. based on what statorblade has said(and i have to agree) removing "to" wouldn't improve the situation. at the same time we should also look at those pilots/atc who don't follow std r/t and do something about them too.

i am curious though. aussies are often called retentive, restrictive etc when it comes to r/t, readbacks, sep and rules.... but pilots are given set speeds, flap settings etc to fly for landing as part of the SOP's issued from the manufacture.... if they dont fly outside these parameters/rules does that also make them retentive, restrictive etc ?????? SOP's for both pilots and ATC are there for a reason lets all try and follow them:ok:

[AMF]

I always wonder why the Nigels sound so puffed-up and stodgy whilst doing something as basic as reading-back a frequency. You get the impression they're trumpeting the arrival of the queen or something. Y'all love hearing yourselves talk.

And by the way, signing-off with "Buh-bye" sounds....gay. Please stop it.

[Alphaprot]

I was at a conference a couple of years ago and the presenter was the head of CASA (Aus regulator). He was pontificating on about how good the Aus ATM system was, in an open discussion a couple of foreign pilots, including me pointed out that Australian ATC was tangibly different to the rest of the world. He was quite put out by this and very defensive. As usual I had not really thought out my argument before opening my mouth, however, I was saved by a Qantas Captain who pointed out that at that time there were 15 pages of differences between Aussie regulations and the ICAO SARPS in the Jepp text, unlike countries like India and the UK who had very few.
One thing I find, is that while the Australian system of aviation is very professional, they do love re-inventing the wheel, creating lots of rules and regulations and basically making things difficult for us dumb jet-jockeys.
Oh and lets not mention Dick Smith :}

[Muttley Crew]

''Roger that, understanded cleared to TWO FIVE OH........... is amiguous, lengthy and downright stupid. (for example, was that a FL or a heading in that readback?)You forgot to add:

"..Oka-aaaay, understand cleared to too five oh fer 2 oh 1...."

''clearance readback, without added phrases and sayings,
READBACKS?
''heading 220, emirates 201"
''climb FL 150, emirates 201"
''contact Bahrain 126.7, emirates 201''
What's wrong with just reading the frequency? Any idiot can tell you are meant to contact someone, it's the freq you need to be certain of.

The 3rd world pilots are equally deserving, let's not forget that. You can hear entire conversations in the 3rd world where a callsign is never mentioned at all, especially by Indian controllers.

Just ignore them when they don't use the callsign and answer when they do, it will slowly teach them. Painful, I know, but it seems to be the only way these twits will get it through their fat heads.
I won't even enter into a discussion about whether or not its more common amongst americans to totally bastardize RT (especially considering it is their first language), because it is the absolute truth. But I sincerely would like to know why.
Yeah, funny, especially when the yanks invented the powered airplane (just before anyone else designed the same thing) even if it did only JUST get off the ground... and now they are bastardising RT in the industry that evolved from it.

"too five OH..." Love it!!!

"Ah roger, okay understand too wun oh is cleared to too five oh for runway one."

Runway ONE?????

[Ali Bin Somewhere]

they do love re-inventing the wheel, creating lots of rules and regulations

very true alpha some of that is because the aus airspace is so different to most other airspace{as is all airspace to one extent or another} but some of it is people justifying their job. but while they or any FIR pays my bills i stick to their rules.

[AMF]

That's correct...."Runway One".

Yanks quit caring what the Nigels thought of them about 230 years ago. O'hare has approximately twice the number of a/c movements per year as Heathrow, and 10 out of 10 of the world's busiest airports (by this same standard) in the world are in the U.S. I believe they all depend on that "bastardized" R/T some here are fussing about.

But I'm sure that the R/T experts at such a big fish as EK in the tiniest of ponds (OMDB) could show them how it's done! I myself would simply be riveted hearing what the difference between "Ready for takeoff", and "FULLY ready for takeoff", is.

Buh-bye!

[Alphaprot]

while they or any FIR pays my bills i stick to their rules
No doubt, unfortunately we get to experience several different FIR's in one day and even more in one month.
As I said to the CASA chappie when he was waxing lyrically how the Aus ATM had plans to be the best in the world..
My definition of best, is the ones that are closest to ICAO SARPS and that shares the most standardisation with the rest of the world.
As a pilot we are expected to know and follow everyones rules, variations and idiosyncrasies. In the case of the Aus ones, that was 15 pages worth, that is putting a lot of demand on the average hypoxic, dehydrated, jet lagged, village idiot of a pilot (at least that's what my girlfriend affectionately refers to me as).
Guess you are lucky your control tower or centre does not move and you have only one or two sets of rules to learn, there you are I knew I would eventually find a reason to want to become a controller :O

[uplock]

I think this add for a recent Movie American Dreamz explains a lothttp://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOX3.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V55710961_.jpg

[AMF]

Uplock,

Yes, it explains that we have a sense of humor. It's something you aquire when you shed musty, dusty old trappings like monarchies, titles, and Houses of Lords.

Has the queen Knighted any more pop singers lately?

[mjbow2]

Muttley Crew

Runway ONE?????

Take it easy.... I challenge you to find a runway in the US with 01 painted on it! The difference between the Yanks and the Ozzies is that the Yanks dont get all hung up when some sap thinks he can see 01 painted on the runway.... they dont care... they understood what was meant (yes they too would like to correct everyone who gets it wrong but they dont. They let such trivia go) Australians need to learn to do the same!

Australians on the other hand have a knack of portraying this holier than thou attitude just like you and mesnaboy are doing on this thread.

And mesaboy

Oh yes, and when checking in, it is not required to state 'maintaining FL 220'

Over the last year in Australia, all I hear is '...mel center, xyz maintains FL220'. What really gets me is when an Australian controller says 'contact me on 124.1' the pilots will repeat the instrction then call the same guy on a different frequency with ' xyz maintains FL220' . At least the Yanks simply switch over freq instead of tieing up the airwaves and reports with something like 'xyz made the switch 124.1.

I hear regularly, both in SE Asia and previously in the middle east,Ozzie pilots using the phrase 'maintains FL....' when checking onto a frequency. So please stop the Yank bashing youre giving us all bad name.


Australian system of aviation is very professional, they do love re-inventing the wheel, creating lots of rules and regulations and basically making things difficult

Alphaprot, Could not agree more!

[max AB]

Are you guys seriously hung up on this stuff???? Who really cares that much, get on with the cross word...

[White Knight]

Hey AMF - funny how the film "American Dreamz" needs an Englishman in the form of Hugh Grant to make the film funny:} :}

God Save The Queen:ok:

[porridge]

One I found utterly confusing in the US when I first heard it was "remain on beacon code" - i.e. "remain on current SQUAWK".

[Chimbu chuckles]

It is drummed into the thick skulls of us Ozzie and Kiwi 'dehydrated, jet lagged, hypoxic village idiots' (just love that:D ) by our mostly Brit C&Ters that we must use maintaining (not maintains) climbing or descending (never 'to') when changing frequencies.

This was stated as ICAO compliant but given the quoted reference above seems not to be.

It DOES however increase situational awareness for those sharing our piece of sky and as such is good airmanship in my view...particularly as we spend an innordinate amount of our flying lives in Indonesian, Thai, Indian, Burmese and ME, EU skies...as well as Oz and the land of the long white cloud. The next time an aircraft is on an airway with opposite direction traffic at the same level won't be the first:ooh:

When on climb and descent in various places it also acts as a final filter for picking up missunderstood clearances...aviation 'English' being what it is in some parts of the globe:rolleyes:

I remember hearing a yank flying Reach xy some months back in the ME with excellent radio discipline...and was stunned...generally I want to Dry Reach listening to them.

Any C&Ter and/or Captain who allows 'ahhh' or 'um' to punctuate every second word of a radio call without swatting it on the head needs a talking too....it's disgracefull.

Every country has it's ICAO differences and I don't think any can claim the high ground on this matter....certainly not OZ OR the UK.:}

Just what IS the story with 'fully ready' in the UK:E ?

Why can't all countries have the same standard call for getting clearance and requesting push back?

Why do I seem to be the only person who reads that part of Jepps and rights down the info in the requested order before calling DXB ground (WHEN are you getting a CLD freq?) or London Clearance?

Love the simple clearances that seem the order of the day OUTSIDE Oz ..."Birdseed 007, cleared xyz, Tonvo 1 delta, squawk 2238." "Tonvo 1 Delta, 2238, birdseed 007". When will Oz put stop heights on their SIDs?

BTW the correct answer to "Call UAE control now xyz.a" is "xyz.a, emirates 007" (no, don't work there:ok: ) NOT "call UAE control now xyz.a, emirates 007"

Don't get me started on "Charlie Charlie"...or those Tossers who append their callsign with 'The"...mostly BA...mind you that seems to have been a passing fade..haven't heard it for ages. Perhaps management put out an edict banning it....or maybe I am filtering it.

[popay]

Togalk, perhaps a refresher in RT wouldn't harm
When transmitting messages containing flight levels each digit shall be
transmitted separately. However, in an endeavour to reduce ‘level busts’ caused by the confusion between some levels (100/110, 200/220 etc.), levels which are whole hundreds e.g. FL 100, 200, 300 shall be spoken as “Flight level (number) HUN DRED”. The word hundred must not be used for headings. Extraction from CAP 413 UK.
Cheers.:8

[Funk]

:} I don't care how you put it just make it concise, succinct and preferabley in audible english......hooroo!:}


btw the way the 'hundred' flight level thingy must have changed back and forth about three times since i first got me licence 11 years ago, which is why I usually give headings ending in five....wish I could give cardinals like I used to used in my previous proffession.

"EK985 steer NE by E traffic four points off the port side low steady bearing...argh!" ;)

[Togalk]

Thanks, that may be in the UK CAP, but I am pretty sure it is not anywhere else, as that is the only place I hear it, or guys from there. I may be mistaken, (it won't be the first time) and next time I go to work I will look at the Jeppesen manual and supply the reference in it.

[galaxy flyer]

To the earlier poster:

"DXB, XXX with you at FL250"; you're not "with him", his on the ground and YOU are in the plane. He could all 'round the building and not find you.

A simple "DXB, XXX, FL250" will do fine.

GF

[readytocopy]

Talking about RT....nor is "my-salami-camal-cum"...or however you spell that word in arabic, used for a greeting an ICAO phraseology...why don't you Ozzies and Brits realize that the world is made up of other nationalities....did you understand when the guy said 25oh...because I did...or do you need me to take that stick out of your a**. How about when we pass 10000ft...why do we say "one hundred climbing 250"...where does "one hundred" come from. Like I said fly the damn plane and stop fretting the small stuff.

And the other arguement about "to 5000" or did they mean "25000"....its obvious it was "5000" or they would have said "FL"...guys use your brain or do you need everything handed to you on a silver platter.....oh wait, I know you must sleep with the FOM under your pillows.

And whats with the PDC read back in SYD...reading the Dep, tansistion, cleared alt, and squawk...isn't there a reason why there is a PDC number so we don't have to pick up and read back the entire clearence.....we might as well as forget about PDC and just call them for the clearence.

[chinawladi]

Same goes for many places, DXB beeing one of them: If on first contact we have to state A/C type and ATIS code and STAR, shouldn't the active runway and QNH be clear by then? Apparently not, because try not to read back the runway or QNH, given again by the controller, and you'll be very kindly reminded to read back.
Waste of time if the ATIS code matches.

[Muttley Crew]

isn't there a reason why there is a PDC number so we don't have to pick up and read back the entire clearence.....we might as well as forget about PDC and just call them for the clearence.
There is a reason for all that. Usually it’s because some halfwit who isn’t is snart as you obviously are, has screwed up a simple process in the past. Now we ALL readback EVERYTHING.

A bit like calling ready (or fully ready if you’re a pom) and being told to hold-short despite not having been cleared to do anything else and being stationary at the holding point. It’s somewhat irritating to those of us who never make mistakes… (typos excepted)

Chimbu, I was working up some outrage but then I read your words of wisdom and just settled back with another cold beer instead. Barbican, of course.

But I must disagree on one point: The Dubai clearance process inevitably begins with…

“Dubai ground, Coconut 123.” (Doesn’t have the sense to just say it all at once)

“Coconut 123, Dubai ground go ahead.”

“(No longer bothers with callsign) “okay (has been listening to yanks and wants to be one), okay, for Bombay, three five Oh, POB two one Oh.” [POB not required]

“(local atco needs no encouragement to get into the no-callsign thing) What’s your registration?”

“(relaxes now that callsigns are obviously long forgotten) Wictor, Nowember, Rrrrdddddddd-omeo”

“What’s your parking bay?”

“Dubai ground, Assman 123 taxi”

“Say again?”

“Station calling?”

“(Local vaguely recalls training and elects to try callsign again) Coconut 123 say again?”

“BRREEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH H…..…you copy??”



Love it. :rolleyes:

[Warlock2000]

Hey Duck guy,

Perhaps you could find the page where INSHALA features in the middle east RT manual and post that too...

Amazing, as soon as 120.0 is tuned for Damascus right until the Paki FIR is cleared the normal reply "ABC clear-red to XYZ" becomes "Rog, clear-red to XYZ, inshala"