View Full Version : Non-standard R/T
FougaMagister
2nd Jun 2006, 17:32
... my pet hate!
Practicing R/T in my current job (and sometimes listening on a scanner to improve my R/T practice), I am surprised by the amount of non-standard R/T coming from aircrew who should know better. Just try it: read CAP 371 (again) then listen to R/T exchanges between aircraft and radar/approach/director/tower etc. Amazing!
While ATC here at BHX is just about always spot on standards-wise, even adapting their speech rate for foreign (sounding) aircrew, dividing their instructions in several transmissions and even anticipating problems with unfamiliar aircrew, some of the replies from aircraft either on the approach, on departure or on the ground beggar belief.
The most surprising is that most of this non-standard R/T comes from... British aircrew, and sometimes from seasoned pilots (recently-qualified ones tending to stick closely to what they have learned or not having had the time to forget the salient points of CAP 371 over the years). Foreign crew also seem to keep more closely to standard R/T (they are probably trying hard enough in a language that is not their own). When one knows the high regard in which British commercial pilot training is (rightly) held over the world, I find this R/T issue surprising.
Examples? Not ending an R/T exchange with the callsign EVERY TIME (sometimes only the flight number being used, sometimes nothing at all when there is APPARENTLY no risk of confusion); not reading back a full instruction (generally on approach); not calling radar on departure with the FOUR basic bits of info (callsign, passing altitude, cleared level, SID); crew reading back information (such as wind velocity, number in sequence or position in the circuit); crew not reading back conditional clearances fully (i.e. ATC: "Bloggs Air 167, after the landing BritFly 737, line up and wait runway 33". Bloggs Air: "After the landing 737, line up and wait, Bloggs Air 167"). I don't call that a positive ID of the landing aircraft - it's as if some crew were reluctant to be heard mentioning a competitor's name on the R/T.
We all know what that means: more R/T congestion as ATC will sometimes ask for clarification; potential for decreased flight safety at a critical time (taxi, approach/finals, departure); decreased situational awareness for other crew listening in; basically plain bad airmanship.
OK, so I might not be flying much (yet), but I always endeavour to use standard R/T and sound professionnal - and flying around in a GA aircraft for proficiency, I sometimes sound more professionnal with ATC than some aircrew on the same frequency! OK, so they might be at the end of a long four-sector day, or might be on an approach with a max x-wind or with very limited RVR, but I'm not quite sure that's an excuse - that's precisely when R/T should be at its most accurate.
Your thoughts?
Cheers :cool:
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
2nd Jun 2006, 18:40
FougaMagister. Firstly, you are breaking the law by listening to a scanner.
Having spent my life as a controller (two international airports, 1 ATCC and two light aircraft fields) I would agree that there are occasional lapses on both sides. However, the vast majority (99.999%) of professional airline/ helicopter/ air taxi pilots I dealt with were very good and kept to standard phraseology. Let's face it, in a very busy environment you have to! However, the R/T from many private pilots could have done with improvement. Maybe this stems from a) poor training (do any potential PPLs get simulator time before operating live R/T?) and b) poor R/T from their home "ATC" unit. I have heard terrible R/T from some AFISOs and ATCOs at small training airfields, yet these are the people who should be ultra-strict with their procedures so that trainee pilots learn correct R/T from square 1.
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked so they are encouraged to "stay-standard".
Atcham Tower
2nd Jun 2006, 18:57
< Firstly, you are breaking the law by listening to a scanner. >
HD, I have enormous respect for what you achieved during your career but I wish you wouldn't be quite so pompous about air band listening. Yes, it is technically illegal but FM is using it as a tool to improve his R/T and harming no-one thereby. A lot of PPLs could learn in the same way if they could be bothered and we wouldn't have to put up with so much rubbish R/T!
FougaMagister
2nd Jun 2006, 19:13
HEATHROW DIRECTOR - I agree that a number of PPLs etc. could do with more R/T practice; as you correctly mention, some simulator time might come in handy in that respect - but I guess that's another problem!
I was reflecting only on commercial R/T standards; checking aircrew R/T standards as part of the OPC for instance, would ensure that they stay up to scratch. Unfortunately, because the 6-monthly sim check rides can be so intensive with all the SOPs/emergencies etc. thrown in, R/T phraseology is rarely checked after licence issue.
An extreme example of the consequences of non-standard R/T can be found in the Flying Tigers 747 accident in Kuala Lumpur on 18 February 1989. I agree that most of the points I have highlighted will thankfully not come to that, but it does show a trend which, left unchecked, could one day contribute to another tragic outcome.
Cheers
P.S.: as for the legality of airband scanners, I use mine for professionnal reasons (and it has probably improved my R/T standards). If OFCOM was serious about prohibiting scanners, then they shouldn't be legally sold in most pilot shops.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
2nd Jun 2006, 19:28
OK guys.. I was merely stating the FACTS. OK? I'm was not being pompous about anything Atcham. You say you respect what I've done so why don't you respect the radio regulations? I KNOW that thousands of people use scanners, like thousands of people break the speed limits; it doesn't make it any more legal. I have high respect for radio regs both as a professional and hobbyist. As a professional I have experienced at first hand the result of the lack of policing of the radio regs in the UK and the consequent illegal use of radio gear. As I said, I know people do it, but suggest it is unwise to discuss it on here or other forums.
FougaMagister. Air traffic controllers also have "check rides" when emergencies and other procedures are practised. Additionally, R/T recordings are passed to specially appointed colleagues for assessment and discussion with the controller concerned. When I obtained my Flight R/T Licence some 40+ years ago, long before I was a controller, I had to undergo an examination in a simulator followed by oral questioning. It was pretty scary stuff! Guess standards are not so rigorous nowadays?
FougaMagister
2nd Jun 2006, 19:49
There is still a practical R/T exam and I recall doing mine in a simulator (which looked like a booth for a translator at the UN!). This is done at PPL level, and then... that's it!
I got an R/T licence issued with the PPL, with a "VHF only" mention. Then I undertook the VFR and IFR comms exams for the ATPL, and... ta da! my (commercial) R/T licence now mentions "no restrictions", which means I can do HF as well (even though I only know HF theory).
That's about it. All the rest, as you say, is picked up when actually flying (which is why some GA pilots don't get enough exposure to a busy, commercial, R/T environment. I guess it must be frustrating to deal with an unsure GA pilot asking for Flight Information Service in the middle of your airline traffic). I see that R/T standards are taken very seriously by NATS; I think there should be something similar for aircrew; maybe training captains/TREs should simply make a point of insisting on correct R/T phraseology during OPCs/check rides.
Cheers :cool:
Mike Rosewhich
2nd Jun 2006, 20:37
Sorry to be pedantic but CAP 371 is Avoidance Of Fatigue in Air Crews or are you saying the rubbish RT is because everyone is tired!
Try CAP 413, a right riveting read and very good for point scoring, especially when having taunted your subject for some time you justify you position of pious righteousness by producing a copy form your nav bag (or PDA).
MR
BitMoreRightRudder
2nd Jun 2006, 21:08
I think there should be something similar for aircrew; maybe training captains/TREs should simply make a point of insisting on correct R/T phraseology during OPCs/check rides.
Cheers :cool:
The vast majority of TREs/LTCs do.
RT discipline is entirely down to the individual, and while I take your point, a lot of the abbreviations will be from pilots who operate in and out of the same airfield everyday and have become somewhat familiar with making the same calls day in day out. In these circumstances it is easy to let some of the squeaky clean disciplined RT we all start off with slip. Thankfully we are provided with an excellent standard of ATC in the UK that usually makes up for any short comings!
Thankfully we are provided with an excellent standard of ATC in the UK that usually makes up for any short comings!
Yes, it does.
No, it shouldn't have to.
R/T discipline, both on the part of flight crew and ATC is getting worse in my experience. A lot of the problems in this matter are due to commercial pressure. We all need to work together to raise R/T phraseology to the highest standards.
MrBitsy
2nd Jun 2006, 22:14
FougaMagister. Firstly, you are breaking the law by listening to a scanner.
Are you sure about that? As all frequencies in the UK are published in many public places, I would have thought listening in and not passing anything on was fine. It's open to interpretation of course :)
Having spent my life as a controller (two international airports, 1 ATCC and two light aircraft fields) I would agree that there are occasional lapses on both sides. However, the vast majority (99.999%) of professional airline/ helicopter/ air taxi pilots I dealt with were very good and kept to standard phraseology. Let's face it, in a very busy environment you have to! However, the R/T from many private pilots could have done with improvement. Maybe this stems from a) poor training (do any potential PPLs get simulator time before operating live R/T?) and b) poor R/T from their home "ATC" unit. I have heard terrible R/T from some AFISOs and ATCOs at small training airfields, yet these are the people who should be ultra-strict with their procedures so that trainee pilots learn correct R/T from square 1.
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked so they are encouraged to "stay-standard".
This is very interesting considering my recent experience. After 30 years listening to ATC on various scanners (TMA Brookmans Park is my regular haunt as I live in Welwyn Garden City - great job guys!), I decided to go and learn to fly.
I have completed 34 hours of the PPL flying out of Elstree and my RT procedure has been commented on many times. One of my instructors is an ex BA first officer who says I sound like a professional over the radio - very fluent and strict to correct RT phraesology :) So, instead of being one of those lazy private types, my RT is good, BECAUSE of listening to scanners ;)
Ray Keattch
MrBitsy
2nd Jun 2006, 22:25
That's about it. All the rest, as you say, is picked up when actually flying (which is why some GA pilots don't get enough exposure to a busy, commercial, R/T environment. I guess it must be frustrating to deal with an unsure GA pilot asking for Flight Information Service in the middle of your airline traffic).
Cheers :cool:
Perhaps all PPL's should have to buy a scanner as part of the training - 30 years of listening sure helped me on the PPL :) Airspace, RT procedure, circuit calls, zone crossings etc were all second nature to me on the first lesson. I knew all about the London TMA, SIDS & STARS from my scanner hobby.
Yep, there are idiots out there who misuse equipment, but for most people there is no harm in them listening in. Actually, I now have one of the Kinetic SBS units so I can also see the traffic live on screen - does even more wonders for learning about airspace and the way ATC works ;)
If you want better private pilots, you should be encouraging scanners and SBS use :cool:
RK
hollywood285
2nd Jun 2006, 22:45
As a PPL
learn the 5 W's
Easy
What you are
Where your from
Where your going
What height
What you want
Keep to that and your quids in and not going to get a "stay clear of controlled airspace":=
Are you sure about that?
Afraid so.
The Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 123).
See the sticky topic at the top of this forum.
Particularly the last sentence (or should that be 'prison term'?:) ) However, if you pass on information from what you hear, through Bulletin Boards, the press, or by setting up a live feed, then it's entirely feasible to feel Ofcom's hand on your collar and an appointment before the beak. - not that anyone would do that - even 'anonymously' - of course.:ugh:
ATCbabe
3rd Jun 2006, 08:03
Bloggs Air: "After the landing 737, line up and wait, Bloggs Air 167"). I don't call that a positive ID of the landing aircraft
To get a lineup clearance like that, then the aircraft have to be no 1 to land and no 1 to line up at least in the uk. How is that not a positive id of the lander???
I agree with standard rt although it is not always posssible to stictly use it to the letter. But please am I the only one here thinking get a life???:rolleyes:
CAP493
3rd Jun 2006, 08:07
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked
FISOs (Airfield & ACC) are subject to competency checks by SRG and this includes R/T standards.
The vast majority of TREs/LTCs do.
True - but there's no recurrent requirement stipulated by any licening authority applying to pilots, commercial or private. This is one of the reasons that the UK's SRG has over the last 12 months, been randomly sampling pilot R/T standards at a number of UK ATC units including airfields/airports and ACCs.
In the UK, NATS is also adopting a more proactive approach to poor flight crew R/T standards (having already instigated a mandatory sampling process for all its ATCOs).
Personally, I don't think we should get too hung up about purely 'non-standard' R/T.
In my view there are three categories of R/T exchange:
1. Standard
2. Non-standard but not ambiguous, confusing or verbous
3. Non-standard and ambiguous and/or confusing and/or verbous.
It's only # 3 that we need to address and eradicate - on both sides, ATC and the flight deck/cockpit.
:ok:
MrBitsy
3rd Jun 2006, 08:50
Afraid so.
The Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 123).
See the sticky topic at the top of this forum.
That sticky topic mentions "published" frequencies as ok to listen to - I certainly don't have to look far to find London ATC frequencies.
RK
That sticky topic mentions "published" frequencies as ok to listen to - I certainly don't have to look far to find London ATC frequencies.
When it talks about 'published frequencies', OFCOM means officially published frequencies for public use (i.e. at an airshow, as explained).
Otherwise the officially published frequencies to which I assume you refer (AIP, AICs etc) are for operational use.
MrBitsy
3rd Jun 2006, 09:52
When it talks about 'published frequencies', OFCOM means officially published frequencies for public use (i.e. at an airshow, as explained).
Otherwise the officially published frequencies to which I assume you refer (AIP, AICs etc) are for operational use.
A member of the public can open an account and browse the AIP - hardly hidden away :rolleyes:
RK
Why does it need to be hidden? It's illegal.
I say again, for operational use.
From the AIS website:
This information is supplied for Pre-flight planning purposes only
Spitoon
3rd Jun 2006, 10:53
Mr. Bitsy, just accept it. You are not supposed to listen to ATC frequencies. At present, and for as long as anyone I know can remember, the relevant authorities do not take action against someone who listens to the frequencies out of interest or other innocent reasons. But it is not a right under the UK legislation as it appears to be interpreted by OFCOM and, I presume, the British courts for the time being.
People who use receivers, and worse, transmitters, on ATC frequencies for nefarious purposes or who create interference on the frequencies are deservedly tracked down by the authorities.
If all you want to do is listen in to improve your skills or whatever, just do it and keep quiet. But accept that it is probably not lawful for you to do so.
MrBitsy
3rd Jun 2006, 11:11
Mr. Bitsy, just accept it. You are not supposed to listen to ATC frequencies. At present, and for as long as anyone I know can remember, the relevant authorities do not take action against someone who listens to the frequencies out of interest or other innocent reasons. But it is not a right under the UK legislation as it appears to be interpreted by OFCOM and, I presume, the British courts for the time being.
People who use receivers, and worse, transmitters, on ATC frequencies for nefarious purposes or who create interference on the frequencies are deservedly tracked down by the authorities.
If all you want to do is listen in to improve your skills or whatever, just do it and keep quiet. But accept that it is probably not lawful for you to do so.
I do accept it's illegal - just pointing out that all frequencies are published and available to all :rolleyes:, so that could be interpreted by many as a go to listen in.
What about the positive side of listening in - everytime the press print one of the silly "near miss" stories, I have the knowledge to defend the ATC guys to friends and family :cool:
RK.
Ah yes, and where do the press find out about the 'jumbo jets seconds from disaster'? I wonder.
Could it be people listening in to the R/T?
No, of course not.
MrBitsy
3rd Jun 2006, 11:31
Ah yes, and where do the press find out about the 'jumbo jets seconds from disaster'? I wonder.
Could it be people listening in to the R/T?
No, of course not.
Bad apples ...
I bet far more positive comes out of listening in. :)
RK
Lifes2good
3rd Jun 2006, 15:59
Perhaps everyone should look at CAP 413 every so often its now available on the web free download even ! Perhaps the powers that be should look at perhaps more checks on pilots, as has already been stated ATC & FISO's are subject to regular checks by SRG and require to display good RTF to them. Pilots don't do regular RTF checks themselves unless on a check ride which encompasses many varied things. The FRTOL licence exam is a one of exam still with a written and practical. However after the exam no further exam in required, should this be the case ? Hope I've got my facts right if not I look forward to being corrected.
FougaMagister
3rd Jun 2006, 22:22
Mike Rosewich - of course, I stand corrected re. CAP 413. I didn't bother to go upstairs to double-check the cover before posting! FYI, my point on starting this thread has not been to score points or show off but simply to underline a trend.
CAP493 - I agree with your assessment that there might be three levels of R/T, but non-standard R/T has the capacity, given the right (wrong?) circumstances, to be ambiguous.
ATC Babe - my point was that if there are more than one aircraft of a given type on approach, an incomplete readback may not tell the ATCO whether the aircraft he/she refers to is actually the one identified by the crew holding short - or am I seeing too much into this?
The point of this thread (at least at first) wasn't to discuss the legality of airband scanners or the R/T proficiency of private pilots, but to reflect on whether or not professionnal R/T standards are slipping. Of course I understand those that say "get real", but accepting that the standard is "good enough" maybe just isn't good enough...
Cheers :cool:
2 sheds
4th Jun 2006, 07:58
I do accept it's illegal - just pointing out that all frequencies are published and available to all :rolleyes:, so that could be interpreted by many as a go to listen in.
What about the positive side of listening in - everytime the press print one of the silly "near miss" stories, I have the knowledge to defend the ATC guys to friends and family :cool:
RK.
Mr Bitsy.
The frequencies are published in specific documents and indicate the service available on each. Therefore, unless you are participating in that service, it is not a "free for all". Because of the nature of radio waves and the simplex frequencies employed, it is impossible to prevent non-participants monitoring; however, they should realise that they are putting their ears to the keyhole of what is essentially a private exchange. By comparison, how would you view someone putting a telephone tap on an inter-unit landline? Or on your BT telephone line at home?
With respect, you do not have the knowledge to defend any ATC "guys" in the case of an alleged incident and it is not your place to do so, using, probably wrongly, any information you might have gleaned through illegal monitoring. That is no more sensible or legal than the press "shock horror" stories gained from similar sources. The facts and factors contributing to any incident are usually many and complex and are not apparent merely from one overheard RTF exchange.
MrBitsy
4th Jun 2006, 09:25
Mr Bitsy.
The frequencies are published in specific documents and indicate the service available on each. Therefore, unless you are participating in that service, it is not a "free for all". Because of the nature of radio waves and the simplex frequencies employed, it is impossible to prevent non-participants monitoring; however, they should realise that they are putting their ears to the keyhole of what is essentially a private exchange. By comparison, how would you view someone putting a telephone tap on an inter-unit landline? Or on your BT telephone line at home?
I know it is not a "free for all", I think that is what I meant by, "I know its illegal" :) However, with the information freely available to all, it is hardly surprising it is seen as legal by many.
I hardly think listening in to a private telephone conversation, is as intrusive as listening to the civil airband :hmm:
With respect, you do not have the knowledge to defend any ATC "guys" in the case of an alleged incident and it is not your place to do so, using, probably wrongly, any information you might have gleaned through illegal monitoring. That is no more sensible or legal than the press "shock horror" stories gained from similar sources. The facts and factors contributing to any incident are usually many and complex and are not apparent merely from one overheard RTF exchange.
The tone of your point may be justified if I was trying to defend ATC in front of an official enquiry into an incident - it is hardly the same as a conversation with friends, family or collegues, in response to a rather stupid press article on another "near miss" - I do have the knowledge to comment on that to the people mentioned, through my 30 year knowledge of the ATC system as an enthusiast, and 34 hours flying through it as part of the UK PPL. Oh, did I mention a friend was an ATCO, who arranged 25 hours plus at West Drayton sitting at the radarand talking with the ATCO's? I especially enjoyed the visit to EGLL tower for an afternoon.
Putting peoples misconceptions right about UK airspace in conversation is not as bad as a press "shock horror" stories.
RK
Mike Rosewhich
4th Jun 2006, 10:14
FM, nobody suggested this was a point scoring exercise, and as you can see from the above there seems to be some lively debate.
The fact is there are so many publications out there that many pilots don’t read on a regular basis because it is nearly impossible. Many will concentrate their efforts on the aircraft library, updates and CAP 371 as well as the 5 or so memo’s that seem to come out of my company on a daily basis. However documents like The ANO, UK AIP, CAP 413 and the many others that exist aren’t studied so closely.
By you own admission “I didn't bother to go upstairs to double-check the cover before posting!” well, you may then understand to ere is human.
With time, route familiarity and fatigue RT standards do slip, and yes we are checked on a yearly basis but that doesn’t mean the RT is formally assessed against the standard of CAP 413.
None of this is an excuse but there are other battles to fight, such as aircraft doing 300kts in Class E or pointing out what the difference between light and severe turbulence is. (Definition in UIK AIP BTW).
However I agree that in some cases RT discipline needs to be addressed and perhaps it should be part of our annual line check.
planeenglish
4th Jun 2006, 11:27
However I agree that in some cases RT discipline needs to be addressed and perhaps it should be part of our annual line check.
Dear Mike Rosewhich,
It may very well become part of your line check. ICAO new standards being adopted by JAA/EASA may have a way for this to be implemented in your bi-annual checks. It all depends on how each Member State interprets and implements these new standards.
Regarding use of R/T standard and not: I teach aviation personnel (ATC and Pilots, amongst other non-flying staff) in the "plain" language to be used when the Standard phraseologies do not suffice. A large majority of my time teaching non-native English speakers is spent giving listening exercises in class to help them understand what they will really hear on the radio while wa/ondering through the clouds.
These new standards are for the language that pilots and ATC must use in abnormal situations when the R/T phraseologies can not communicate needs and requirements otherwise. (For example, a lost pilot or landing gear problems.)
Studies were conducted on over 27,000 incidents and accidents. Many had communication as a factor as part of their cause. However, if we look at the actual incidents and accidents that have communication as a factor only a percentage are actually due to insufficient proficiency. Many were due to use of non-standard R/T, incorrect or no read back, etc. For ineffective communication one does not have to be low in their proficiency. Incidents and accidents have happened as a result of mis-communication between two proficient, native speakers.
If monolingual ATC and pilots using the radio would use standard R/T all the time and an International English in those situations where there is no sufficient phraseology incidents and accidents would happen less often. It would also be a relief to those who speak English as a second/foreign language.
Regardless, the emphasis must be first on using your standard phraseology and then when in situations regarding more communication, using a clear, concise and non-colloquial language.
What do you all think?
Plane English
clicker
4th Jun 2006, 23:43
just pointing out that all frequencies are published and available to all
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. :)
niknak
5th Jun 2006, 14:58
Stand up - speak up - shut up,that's all you have to do...
There's no harm in a bit of brevity when it's quiet, but when you are busy, and/or dealing with aircrew who may be inexperienced/a bit wary of the radio or whose first language is not English, just get on with it and don't **** around with non standard phraseology.:rolleyes:
planeenglish
6th Jun 2006, 13:27
Dear NikNak,
Could you explain that? I didn't understand.
Thanks,
PE
NudgingSteel
6th Jun 2006, 21:55
"There's no harm in a bit of brevity when it's quiet....."
errrr......
do you by any chance mean "levity"? As we're on the subject of correct communications and all that....:ugh:
arn3696
17th Jul 2006, 10:04
Listening to Airband comms isnt illegal - thats what the FRTOL is for. Using radio equipment with a SCANNING facility is! Whether airband or not.
--Edited for poor punctuation--
mocoman
17th Jul 2006, 10:41
arn,
Listening to RT without a licence or while not engaged in an activity requiring that you to monitor or communcate on said frequencies using the rights conferred by your licence IS illegal; since you are monitoring what OFCOM have defined as 'restricted communications'
I believe that you will find that even if you are in possession of a FRTOL you are only entitled to listen to airband transmission while in the course of your duties/aerial activity:
ie: your licence covers you for listening/using the frequencies while actively flying or controlling. It does NOT cover you for listening outside of the environment for which you have been licenced.
Using scanning equipment is, in itself, NOT illegal; it is the unauthorised monitoring of 'restricted communications' that is illegal.
Here we go again!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151544
PLEASE READ