"...taxying Blonkity for Wonkity, request traffic and transponder code"

[karrank]

To which I would answer, "ABC, no reported IFR traffic (assuming there isn't any), squawk 1234."

On the other hand if the report was recieved as, "ABC, taxying Blonkity for Wonkity."

I would answer, "ABC, no reported IFR traffic (assuming there isn't any), squawk 1234."

Why do pilots request traffic on taxying and when changing level when we are required to issue the traffic statement (either "NRIT" or "Traffic is") when IFR aircraft taxy or change level, so will pass it anyhow?

Why do pilots bother their collective asses about codes also, surely that is our problem? If we haven't passed one (for a couple of reasons we might not) you can sqawk the generic.

[RENURPP]

Because they don't know any better. Next time, PLEASE, say something, the guy you advise will get the message, other guys listening will get the message and it will probably be bar talk that night and more people will get the message. We would all appreciate it.

Its like all these crazy readbacks that some ATC's want, particularly military, and some pilots simply do. Because they don't know any better

[esreverlluf]

Ready in turn!

[Hugh Jarse]

I prefer to call "Ready out of turn":} just to confuse the ATCO.

What about:
"Proposed descent"
"maintains" (plural for maintaining - a special R/T for multi-crew aeroplanes)
"THE xxxx"
"cruising one-five-zero-zero" (hillbilly still using his VFG from 1983)

or those who just read back everything because they're too lazy to pick up their AIP/JEPPS.

NEXT!:ugh:

[wdn]

there are about 10000 of these i'm sure:

what about "tracking 132, reference the NDB" during a departure report from a nontowered aerodrome. really is w*nkers trying to sound cool by adding the reference the NDB or omni - the navaid used to establish track is only required when passing a departure report to a class D tower.

pilots aren't all to blame, where the hell does "left (or right) exit approved" come from at BK? if ATC doesn't approve it, what stops you from doing it anyway, provided you exit the runway strip and stop short of any other runway strips?

[Hempy]

my fav is "in turn contact centre", I believe it is the opposite of "at the same time contact centre" :ugh:

[maxgrad]

And then there are the.Taxiing this time..........
OH so that wasn't you taxiing 2hrs 43mins ago. Glad we sorted that out

[news]

Karrank

To answer the question. They were taught that way. And taught a bad habit from someone who was wrong. :=

We have one guy who continues this dogmatic mantra. I have asked him to stop and I have told him to stop. With no success. :ugh: :{

Please Karrank you can help us both. :D Tell these pilots to stop requesting code and traffic. Writing the words makes me cringe.

Goodluck:ok:

[Hugh Jarse]

Not to forget the evergreen classic:

"Standby for departure":ugh: :yuk: :yuk:

[Capt Claret]

What RENURPP & Jarse said.

The number of times one hears a plethora of unrequired bullsh!t read back, then the tower has to ask for the required bits that were missed! :{ :ugh:

copied no IFR traffic! Gawd 'elp us! :ugh: :ugh:

[Gen Ties]

News you said

"To answer the question. They were taught that way. And taught a bad habit from someone who was wrong".

I think you are quite possibly correct.

A call I have heard at several QLD regional airports over the last year or so is;

"ABC taxying for the training area, ONE PLUS ONE."

I guess they are saying this so that ATC understands that there is an Instructer on board, but where does this appear in the AIP. Seems that some Flying Schools are making up their own radio calls and teaching this ability right from the beginning.

BTW what is the radio call when the Instructor is not on board,....ONE MINUS ONE!

[No Further Requirements]

Hugh - "Standby for departure" isn't such a bad thing. As an enroute controller, I go looking for an aircraft 10 mins after they call taxiing. If it has been a while, some pilots will give us "Centre, ABC, airborne YXXX, standby for departure" so we don't bug them for the departure.
RENURPP:
Its like all these crazy readbacks that some ATC's want, particularly military, and some pilots simply do. Because they don't know any better
Let me guess, "Cleared Visual Approach". Are you ever going to let that one go????:ok: :E :}

Cheers all,

NFR.

[RENURPP]

NFR,
actually that is a requirement as of thursday, it SHOULD be read back, as should any clerarance for an instrument approach..

CC was in the jump seat a few days ago and we were having a laugh at ATC requiring some wierd readback, for the life of me i can't remember what it was.

[sailing]

BTW what is the radio call when the Instructor is not on board,....ONE MINUS ONE!
The instructor obviously comes first, so the call would be "ZERO PLUS ONE"!!!

[MrGaspo]

As an IFR instructor I've previously used this call on many occasions. Often I will be simulating a low cloud departure from an non-controlled aerodrome without the benefit of published SID's. It's highly likely in this scenario that you'll leave the CTAF area ( where separation is pilot to pilot ) before actually intercepting outbound track. In this case a " standby for departure" call alerts atc that they have me on frequency and can forward any relevant traffic since receiving my departure call.
Used to be a lot easier to decide just when to make this call when ctaf's had a boundary , now if operating single comms it's a bit of an educated guess particularly if your in something that gets to a reasonable altitude before 10 miles.

[TLAW]

Its like all these crazy readbacks that some ATC's want, particularly military, and some pilots simply do. Because they don't know any better

I've been asked to readback reporting requirements by Military ATC, which I was always under the impression was a no-no.

And yes, I read it back, because otherwise they wouldn't give me my clearance :rolleyes:

[turbantime]

Another thing required with the new ammendments is to call maintaining altitude if not radar identified.

I remember when I first started instructing IFR I was hounded by the seniors at the time as to why I didn't teach things such as request traffic, code etc.

As I moved onto charter conducting multiple IFR sectors I learnt by experience that I didn't have to call ABC TOD request traffic then make yet another call telling them that I'm leaving....these days it's just ABC leaving altitude and I know I'll get traffic...plus you should have a good idea of who's around anyway with situational awareness.

The point is that the students i taught will do the request this and that and it is because I didn't know any better but with some experience I hope they'll know better.

[rmcdonal]

"ABC taxying for the training area, ONE PLUS ONE."
Isn’t that a formation thing the Air Force do? 1+1 is the number of people in each aircraft in the formation. So 1+2+1 is a formation of 3 with 2POB in one of the Aircraft.

[Best Speed]

Comon' how about?

"Centre IFR Taxi!!"

[Philthy]

I learnt by experience that I didn't have to call ABC TOD request traffic then make yet another call telling them that I'm leaving....these days it's just ABC leaving altitude and I know I'll get traffic...

'Scuse me, but aren't you supposed to provide 2 minutes notice of an intended level change OCTA? Or did that get scrubbed from AIP while I wasn't looking...

[Hugh Jarse]

One minute to TOPD?

Mr. Gaspo, I thought your taxi call was sufficient to get you IFR traffic for departure. Failing that, "Airborne Uppercumbuktawest" was for if you couldn't establish comms on the ground. From memory that got you 5 mins to complete manoeuvring and get a departure call out.:)

[Lord Snot]

....and that other gem:

"Warrior blah blah over the top, this time......." :rolleyes:

GOD that sh!ts me.

And thanks to Dickless So-and-So, we now get to listen to it all day long up in the flight levels of CTA. Fc*king priceless..... :ugh:

[ThoughtCrime]

How about

"passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"

on CTAF's!!!!

'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! :ugh: Nobody cares otherwise.

TC

[Shitsu_Tonka]

All true, but is it any wonder nobody knows what to say or readback these days, with the contonuous torrent of (often unexplained) changes that sneak in 13 times a year. Much of it to do with the continually buggering around with the airspace and CTAF's for god knows what reason.

A fair smattering of ATC's are in the same boat as pilots where they just don't know what the latest change is either - it's called change fatigue, and it is accellerating.

Many of the wunderkinden who come up with this bull**** don't appreciate they are making things less safe by always tinkering with it.

[Philthy]

- it's called change fatigue, and it is accellerating.


See, it's even effecting spelling...

(Yes, OK, I know...)

[karrank]

'Scuse me, but aren't you supposed to provide 2 minutes notice of an intended level change OCTA? Erm, like just telling me that you will be on descent in 2 minutes. Dumb rule though.
"In turn contact..."Oops! Guilty. It won't seem natural but I'll try it without and see what happens.

Back to my whinge, I don't think I could bring myself to give online counselling to pilots when they do the "request traffic" thing. Still hate it but.

[Deepsea Racing Prawn]

Mr K, whilst there is an ATCer in the house, can you answer me this? When I arrive at aerodrome with VHF on the ground and say "...landed Blah Blah cancel SAR" and you say "Blah Blah SARWATCH cancelled" am I supposed to reply with "ABC" (or whatever the callsign may be)?

I seem to remember reading somewhere, possibly JEPPS when I last opened them:uhoh: that you're not supposed to but I always do as: a) it seems like the polite thing to do, and b) it lets centre know that you heard them.

Your thoughts?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

:ok: When was the last time you heard an international position report done as per the book?? Look it up and see if it sounds like what you have said / heard.

[RENURPP]

Another thing required with the new ammendments is to call maintaining altitude if not radar identified

Is that new??

[GearOff]

How about
"passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"
on CTAF's!!!!
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! :ugh: Nobody cares otherwise.
TC

Actually, I find that information quite useful for arranging mutual separation.

This topic is of huge interest to me - not only do I request traffic for descent XXXX, I was of the distinct impression that those who didn't request traffic prior to 'leaving' were causing the enroute controller all sorts of grief by making him drop everything to find you traffic before you hit something.

Learn something every day!

[AerocatS2A]

Comon' how about? "Centre IFR Taxi!!"

I've altered the formatting so my post doesn't look as ugly as yours :).

I actually thought this was a requirement, but I can't find it. At any rate, it is far preferable to launching in to "Melbourne Centre, ABC C182 2 POB IFR taxiing Learmonth Port Hedland runway 36" only to recieve the reply, "ABC, you were in with a ground station, say again".

It is certainly a requirement to contact ATS 2 minutes prior to TOD (or any other level change) so they can pass traffic. The best way I've heard this carried out is,

"ABC 2 minutes top of descent"
"ABC, traffic is bla bla bla"

<<2 minutes later>>

"Centre and all stations Broome area, ABC 30 miles SW of Broome, leaving FL130 on descent, Broome at 32"

You get your traffic in good time, you then make the leaving call as well as alerting any VFR traffic in the area of where you are and what you are doing.

[RENURPP]

My interpretation

"...landed Blah Blah cancel SAR" and you say "Blah Blah SARWATCH cancelled" am I supposed to reply with "ABC" (or whatever the callsign may be)?
leave out the landed and no need to respond after he has responded with the cancelation.

[triadic]

Change fatigue is at full throttle !

Problem has always been training. Not only instructors at the flying schools but the training captains with the airlines. Very few know what is correct so they make it up along the way.

Once upon a time this change process was floated past the RAPACs for input and comment, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Many of these changes are from CASA who on past experience knee jerk to incidents where they think alternative words would be more appropriate. It would be good to know why some of these changes are implemented (other than "it's ICAO"). If you go back in time you will find changes that got scrubbed and are now back again! What about changes that are just short term (eg when TAAATS was introduced).. we still have them as there has been no review. Just where is the corporate history these days???

Mr K, whilst there is an ATCer in the house, can you answer me this? When I arrive at aerodrome with VHF on the ground and say "...landed Blah Blah cancel SAR" and you say "Blah Blah SARWATCH cancelled" am I supposed to reply with "ABC" (or whatever the callsign may be)?

An old one, but there has NEVER been a requirement to acknowledge and acknowledgement. What ATS say to you in response is their acknowledgement, so there is NO, requirement to acknowledge further unless of course you like the sound of your own voice!

like just telling me that you will be on descent in 2 minutes. Dumb rule though.

Not really dumb. Not only is the requirement to advise PRIOR to descent to enable ATS to review any known traffic, but to let the VFR chap 500 ft below you that you are about to start down! Another reason why you should say your position with the same call. ATS know where you are (usually) but the VFR below do not.

Nothing worse than: "ABC top of descent in 2 min" [top of descent where??]

I thought your taxi call was sufficient to get you IFR traffic for departure. Failing that, "Airborne Uppercumbuktawest" was for if you couldn't establish comms on the ground. From memory that got you 5 mins to complete manoeuvring and get a departure call out.

If you want ATS to know you are in the air and contact was not possible on the ground then an airborne call is an option. As soon as ATS get that call they will start putting you in the system. Saying "standby for departure" is pointless... just what else are they going to do??

What about "Code 1234"
The use of the word "code" is not required at any time by either ATS or pilots. If you go back in time it was a misprint in the AIP when transponders first came in. In the bit where it said code there should have been [brackets] around the word code to indicate the insertion of other text - ie 1234, but the brackets were left out, hence it became an Oz practice for many years until audited against o/s practice.

Just who is responsible for the training?? CASA of course, but then they don't have much/any corporate history to be across this themselves and it is left up to those that have been around for some years to try and get the message across.... a bit like swimming upstream!! difficult to get anywhere!

:sad:

[Lord Snot]

Not only is the requirement to advise PRIOR to descent to enable ATS to review any known traffic, but to let the VFR chap 500 ft below you that you are about to start down! Another reason why you should say your position with the same call. ATS know where you are (usually) but the VFR below do not.Ah, but the VFR should be applying the simple rules of See-And-Avoid as one luckless Dickless individual would have it.... :rolleyes:

ATS should know where the guy is. Location was never a part of the call as far as I was aware (way back then in my GA daze....) but what did I know???

[AerocatS2A]

Nothing worse than: "ABC top of descent in 2 min" [top of descent where??]


Well, you are required to make two calls, one 2 minutes prior to TOD for traffic, and another when you leave the level. Position and intentions (for VFR traffic) could go at either call. If you make it when you call "leaving" then "2 mins TOD" is fine. ATC know where you are, everyone else who needs to know, will know in 2 minutes when you call "leaving." Which ever way you do it, it is the same amount of quacking.

[Philthy]

It is certainly a requirement to contact ATS 2 minutes prior to TOD (or any other level change) so they can pass traffic. The best way I've heard this carried out is,
"ABC 2 minutes top of descent"
"ABC, traffic is bla bla bla"
<<2 minutes later>>
"Centre and all stations Broome area, ABC 30 miles SW of Broome, leaving FL130 on descent, Broome at 32"
You get your traffic in good time, you then make the leaving call as well as alerting any VFR traffic in the area of where you are and what you are doing.

:ok: :ok:

[YesTAM]

Hmmmm, now I know why I'm just a VFR person.

[triadic]

AerocatS2A

:ok: :ok:

Yes, I agree with you, and that is the way I have always done it.

Including the place name is, I believe, a good thing in the first call, as it helps with the situational awareness of others and even helps ATC as they know exactly where to look (especially in these days of huge sectors).

Trouble is not that many follow up with the second call !

It all goes back to training and an understanding of how the system works (or should work!)

The training and examination on airspace participation is just not good enough and there is certainly no standardisation of those that do the training!:(

Airmanship comes in this discussion as well... pity they don't teach that any more!!:( :(

[wdn]

would someone please explain the 2 minutes notice before changing level OCTA, i thought it was 1?

[Philthy]

Well I'll be :mad: ed: they did scrub it from AIP while I wasn't looking...

AIP ENR 1.1 - 79

60.2 The pilot in command of an IFR flight must notify the intention to amend route, deviate from track or change level in sufficient time for ATS to advise traffic.

Having said that, the one that gets my goat is "Monitoring CTAF". Well, what am I supposed to do with that? Tell me you're changing to CTAF or don't say anything at all!

[Capt Claret]

ThoughtCrime,

You said, how about "passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"

on CTAF's!!!!

'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! Nobody cares otherwise.

I'd disagree inasmuch as good airmanship dictates that if other aircraft know what level one has left, they can determine whether the threat has passed, or remains.

If I'm inbound and you're outbound and you call climbing to Axxx or FLyyy, I'm going to have to ask your level passing.

If you give your level passing as part of the original call, and you're above me, then there's no need for any further calls.

NFR

Yep, it's cleard visual approach. We can't get upset over it any more as it's mandated as of 8Jun06.

As RENURPP said, t'other day into Alice some obscure comment (forgotten for the moment what it was) that didn't require a readback was made, and the controller on duty pushed for a readback. :{

____________________________

And on an aside, when cancelling SARWATCH the phrase is BNE/MEL centre, Gove [location], cancel SARWATCH Not cancel "SAR". In 99.x% of cases one shouldn't have a SAR phase on!

[Philthy]

ThoughtCrime,
As RENURPP said, t'other day into Alice some obscure comment (forgotten for the moment what it was) that didn't require a readback was made, and the controller on duty pushed for a readback. :{


Without getting into the specific instance, if a controller wants to make sure that something is understood accurately then they're perfectly entitled to ask for a readback of that item even if a readback isn't mandated. Readbacks aren't rationed, you know.

Despite what our Lords and Masters seem to think, one of the best and simplest ways to improve aviation safety is to remove ambuguity from the system. :uhoh: Heretical thought: it might even help on occasion if pilots asked controllers for readbacks, because I've heard some fanciful interpretations of what a controller's just been told by a pilot.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

Well I'll be :mad: ed: they did scrub it from AIP while I wasn't looking...
AIP ENR 1.1 - 79
60.2 The pilot in command of an IFR flight must notify the intention to amend route, deviate from track or change level in sufficient time for ATS to advise traffic.

Ah, no it hasn't been deleted - one minutes notice and a postion report required.....

AIP 1.7 4.2 (08 Jun 06)
4.2 ATC Approval Not Required
4.2.1 In airspace where ATC approval is not required to change level, the pilot of an IFR flight must report present position and intention to ATC approximately one (1) minute prior to making any change.

This is pretty clear about reporting present position for all of those braying about not knowing where the descent is about to happen.

[Capt Claret]

Philthy

To some degree I disagree with you. One presumes that R/T phreseology is mandated so that pilot and ATS operators alike, know what is expected. Sadly, ATS operators are FAR BETTER at the use of correct phraseology than the general pilot population.

However, if we're to allow individual ATSers to demand a readback of their pet thing, then proscribing the phraseology in the AIP is a waste of time.

I forget what the guy into Alice said the other day, save that it was not particularly signifficant. It wasn't a wind check but the scenario could be likened to being given a wind check, x-wind 5 kts, and being asked to read back, "copied 5 kts x/wind".

IMHO we read back far too much. In the good old days where most R/T was acknowledged with the transmission of a call-sign, things seemed to work well from my perspective. I can't see that anything has improved by the mandating of more and more detailed readbacks, so that now, it's not uncommon to be unable to get onto ATS for, say a descent clearance, because Bloggs (not THE Capn Bloggs of course) is reading back, "copied no Eye-Ef-R traffic, area Que-En-Aitch one zero one three, cleared to leave control area on descent when ready, contact BNE centre one two fife deycimal zero leaving Flight level one eight zero" 37 words;

when the only response required is one zero one three, one two fife daycimal zero 9 words

ps. haven't had a detailed look at the 8Jun amendment yet, some of the above comments may be incorrect in the light of what ever is in the amendment.

[Philthy]

Philthy

However, if we're to allow individual ATSers to demand a readback of their pet thing, then proscribing the phraseology in the AIP is a waste of time.

[/i]

Cap'n Sir, I didn't mean to imply that one should condone ATSers demanding readbacks of trivial things, but there are some instances where I think it is legitimate to ask for a readback of a non-prescribed item. Dealing with foreign student pilots is one that springs to mind. Foreign airline pilots too, for that matter, especially Seppos. But only for important things.

I tend to agree with you about the extent of readbacks today which, of course, we adopted because ICAO said so. On the other hand, I recently heard someone read back a 20+ mb difference in QNH, so maybe they have some value after all...

[wdn]

Sadly, ATS operators are FAR BETTER at the use of correct phraseology than the general pilot population.


maybe because communication is their highest priority but the lowest for pilots? no excuse i know........

[Ex Douglas Driver]

But one can over shorten the readback, which may indicate a misunderstanding of the information given by ATC, thereby further cluttering the airwaves while confirmation takes place.

AIP GEN 3.4 - 4.4 Readback Requirements
4.4.1 Pilots must transmit a correct read-back of ATC clearances, instructions and information which are transmitted by voice. For other than Item a., only key elements of the following clearances, instructions, or information must be read back ensuring sufficient detail in included to indicate compliance.
a. an ATC route clearance in its entirety, and any amendments;
b. en route holding instructions;
c. any holding point specificed in a taxi clearance
d. any clearances or instructions to hold short of, enter, land on, conditional line-up on, take-off from, cross, taxi or backtrack on, any runway;
e. any approach clearance;
f. assigned runway, altimeter settings directed to specific aircraft, radio and radio navigation frequency instructions;
Note: An "expectation" of the runway to be used is not to be read back.
g. SSR codes, data link logon codes;
h. level instructions, direction of turn, heading and speed instructions.

While I certainly agree that too much is read-back "word-for-word", in CC's shortened readback example, I'd argue that sufficient detail is not included to indicate understanding and compliance with all parts of the instruction (e.g freq change when leaving).

[namate]

Question:

TWR: "ABC, contact departures airborne, runway 12, cleared for takeoff"


Is the 'contact dep airborne' required in the readback as the frequency has already been given in the ATIS?? or is it just "cleared for takeoff, ABC"?

I have been told both so just wondering what you guys think?



Thanks,

Namate:ok:

[maxgrad]

I read back .....departures airborne clear for take off...........
To me that confirms to ATC that I must change freq and confirm the correct freq

[Capt Claret]

G'day Philthy,

I don't have a problem with the QNH being read back, but there's no need to read back the words Queue-En-Aitch. I know it's only three words but they all add up and they all take time, and it sounds aweful listening to some of the twaddle.

namate


you asked:
Is the 'contact dep airborne' required in the readback as the frequency has already been given in the ATIS?

Ex Douglas Driver said, in part: (my bolding)

radio and radio navigation frequency instructions

I would argue that only the frequency is read back as thr IAP doesn't say frequency and station instructions. I presume that ATS want to know you've got the correct frequency, as the agency doesn't really matter.

[\pontification_mode]

[AerocatS2A]

Ah, no it hasn't been deleted - one minutes notice and a postion report required.....
AIP 1.7 4.2 (08 Jun 06)
This is pretty clear about reporting present position for all of those braying about not knowing where the descent is about to happen.

You are correct. I thought it used to say 2 minutes, not to worry, ignorance fought.

So in one part of the AIP it says you must give "sufficient" notice, and in another part it stipulates "approximately one (1) minute". They obviously consider one minute to be sufficient notice. Though I would give at least two minutes when the traffic is being relayed through Flightwatch on HF.

[karrank]

Though I would give at least two minutes when the traffic is being relayed through Flightwatch on HF. This is the only time we (you) NEED notice. A lot of these rules were written for Flight Service, in the days when a significant proportion of comms were on HF, even in the cruise, and nobody wanted to call aircraft in case they didn't answer, which could up the workload remarkably. If I was sitting in Perth and heard a call to Kalgoorlie (that Kalgoorlie didn't) the notice would give me time to call him & get a traffic statement and call you back.

I don't need notice on VHF, I've probably already passed any traffic I consider to be immediately vital. I regularly see on my radar screen the Mode C readout going 150, 150, 149, 148, 146, "Senna, ABC, request traffic (grinding of teeth) for descent Urblegurble."

I suppose there are also times when coord to another controller is required to give them the opportunity to assess traffic also.

[grrowler]

Any ATCers, what's the go with;

When changing to certain towers:

"YXXX Tower, ABC"

"ABC, YXXX Tower, continue approach" :confused: As opposed to what?

Is this call a requirement?

Do I need to read back this instruction?

[news]

Philthy

You are not a fan of 'monitoring ctaf'.

Perhaps there is a better way to convey the message.

The ambiguity lies with how many vhf comms are functioning. If the pilot has access to only one vhf comm then when he says changing to ctaf ATC no longer has comms. Straight forward. Alternatively with two vhf comms the pilot has access to both comms continuously. So if ATC asks the frquency changing question is there a more succinct way to deliver the message.

My point is does ATC know how many vhf comms you have operating or is it an assumption it must be two.

[Philthy]

Alternatively with two vhf comms the pilot has access to both comms continuously. So if ATC asks the frquency changing question is there a more succinct way to deliver the message.

Well to take the second point first, I can't imagine why ATC would ask whether you were changing to CTAF. Nevertheless, in relation to the first point, if you're monitoring both frequencies continuously all I need to know is that you're still listening to me. And if you haven't told me you're changing to CTAF then I assume you are.

My point is does ATC know how many vhf comms you have operating or is it an assumption it must be two.

ATC has no way of knowing and really doesn't care, so long as we know when you're listening to us and when you're not.

[Capt Claret]

News, I can't remember how many years CTAFs have been in existance but I've never been asked if I'm monitoring it, nor have I ever heard ATS ask another aircraft, well pilot really 'coz aircraft can't speak. ;)

[Jungmeister]

Any ATCers, what's the go with;
When changing to certain towers:
"YXXX Tower, ABC"
"ABC, YXXX Tower, continue approach" :confused: As opposed to what?
Is this call a requirement?
Do I need to read back this instruction?
"Continue Approach" is probably a bit of unnecessary padding. You don't have to read it back! It has been around for a long time and probably relates to "Procedural Towers" IE those without a Radar Approach service. Typically those towers would have progressively issued instructions for descent and then clearance for final approach. If a landing clearance is not immediately available it makes sense to simply say "continue approach"
An acknowledgement with callsign only sounds a bit blunt. It happens with the "Ready" call too and some controllers say "Hold Short of the runway" but others just acknowledge with a callsign.
Certain Tower checkers are more vigorous than others in pursuing the stamping out of unnecessary TWR transmissions

[Continental-520]

Centre IFR Taxi

Sorry, but what's so wrong in that? A wise ATO once told me that I need to state I am IFR when operating so, as per AIP GEN 3.4 (pg 45). I do realise that VFR guys don't give taxi reports, so therefore anyone giving one would theoretically be IFR.

The said ATO also told me that a MECIR renewal has a requirement to have an IFR flight plan submitted for the renewal flight. Even if OCTA.

Any clarifications? The ATO is not above being wrong, of course, like all of us.

520.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Evening Mr Philthy et al …
.
Don’t ya just love AIP amendments :\
.
ThoughtCrime,
.
You said,how about "passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"
.
on CTAF's!!!!
.
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! Nobody cares otherwise. … don’t have AIP or MATS handy for references …. In practical terms … D Towers like the ‘passing’ info as it often negates having to ask for it when looking to clear or de-conflict low level non-pump up’s etc
.
jungmeister "Continue Approach" is probably a bit of unnecessary padding. … it is primarily to stop pilots asking for a landing clearance before we can issue it (perhaps due one rolling or rolling out) … saves on RT and/or twitchy skippers from applying TOGA when the gap is gunna be OK ;) … otherwise it can get ugly when a go-round is trying to use the same bit of upwind as the airborne departure ahead, slower and lower :ooh: You don't have to read it back! true … please don’t read this back It has been around for a long time and probably relates to "Procedural Towers" IE those without a Radar Approach service. … think you will find it is used at all towers in certain circumstances An acknowledgement with callsign only sounds a bit blunt. It happens with the "Ready" call too and some controllers say "Hold Short of the runway" but others just acknowledge with a callsign. .. another ICAO/AIP requirement … we should all be issuing ‘hold short of Runway XX’Certain Tower checkers are more vigorous than others in pursuing the stamping out of unnecessary TWR transmissions … standardisation is a BIG issue at the moment, across ‘like type’ and (where possible) more generally … expect some improvement in uniformity over the next year or so! :E
.
Cheers
.
da Dog

[tlf]

"THE xxxx"




Used to hear that a lot from a guy out of Whyalla in "THE Victa"
Anyone would think he was something special instead of just an airborne collection of FJ holden and XP Falcon parts.

[chief wiggum]

My favourite, is the initial call to tower when approaching ....

should be " XXX Tower, ABC"

yet some "professionals" say , "XXX tower, ABC, on final, 7 miles rwy 23" or "XXX towere, ABC, extablished on the ILS for RWY 23"

I think that the tower KNOWS where you are, chaps.

still, 'let he who is without blame, cast the first stone"
. I am sure that I make some calls that are not ENTIRELY standard. I apologise in advance for this.

regards the "STANDBY FOR DEPARTURE", I use this, when departing an aerodrome where I cannot raise centre on taxi. It just gives THEM a heads up, and tells them that I am busy at the moment, and will get back to them shortly.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

Sorry, but what's so wrong in that? A wise ATO once told me that I need to state I am IFR when operating so, as per AIP GEN 3.4 (pg 45). I do realise that VFR guys don't give taxi reports, so therefore anyone giving one would theoretically be IFR.
The said ATO also told me that a MECIR renewal has a requirement to have an IFR flight plan submitted for the renewal flight. Even if OCTA.
Any clarifications? The ATO is not above being wrong, of course, like all of us.
520.

AIP ENR 1.1 58. TAXIING
58.1 Pilots of IFR flights operating from non-towered aerodromes must report to ATC on taxiing. If unable to establish contact, proceed in accordance with para 56.1.

58.2 Taxiing reports for IFR flights must include the following information:
a. aircraft type;
b. POB (for IFR flights other than RPT);
c. IFR my bold
d. location;
e. destination or departure quadrant or intentions; and
f. runway to be used.


A wise and professional pilot would know where to look in the AIP to confirm whether the information was correct.... it's available online http://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/publications/aip.asp

[RENURPP]

I think its the difference between,

"centre ABC IFR taxi" brake and wait for acknowledement and off we go again and,
"centre ABC B747 300 POB (for IFR flights other than RPT) IFR, Goodooga for Argadargada runway 12.

hell what else are you going to be and why prefix it with taxi anyway, either just say it or if you must "centre ABC"

[Jungmeister]

People,
Let's not forget that we are communicating in the English language and a bit of correct grammar doesn't go astray. The message should be easily understood and make sense.
If we keep on cutting out the "unnecessary" bits we will finish up with something like the ICAO MET abbreviations that can make METARS etc virtually impossible to understand when read verbatim! Or worse still, some Aussie version of Hollywood's "Pushing Tin" dialogue.
:)

[RENURPP]

jungmeister,

and an example is?

[Continental-520]

A wise and professional pilot would know where to look in the AIP to confirm whether the information was correct.... it's available online

Yes, certainly, and I am aware of the extract you quoted, thank you for quoting it anyhow.

My query was whether the initial "make contact" call should be "Centre, ABC, taxi", or "Centre, ABC, IFR taxi", since, as your bold indicates, the requirement does exist to state that you're operating IFR.

Obviously I was not clear enough in my previous post.


520.

[RENURPP]

My oppinion only is that the first call should be your taxi call, I would just about bet money the ATcer is sitting at a console waiting for some one to say some thing!

[touchncloth]

Are you lot kidding around or are you that boring that a debate over whether you say IFR in your initial contact transmission or thereafter rates as a technical debate this evening:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

The above is much less painful:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

[AerocatS2A]

My oppinion only is that the first call should be your taxi call, I would just about bet money the ATcer is sitting at a console waiting for some one to say some thing!

The same ATCer is often talking to someone else that you can't hear. Their response to you launching in to a taxi, postion, or departure call, is sometimes "ABC, say again."

[RENURPP]

Touchncloth, what would you like to discuss???
If you don't like our discussion, you can always find something more interesting. Feel free.

The same ATCer is often talking to someone else that you can't hear.

Possible, and also possible he is waisting time listening to some one saying twice as much as they need to. I have never and never will, (until it becomes a requirement) waist everybodies time with that call.

If its so important to que ATC for this call they can stick a phrase in AIP as they have for position reports.

e.g. "BN centre ABC position".

Until then they don't so just simply say it.

[Gen Ties]

The same ATCer is often talking to someone else that you can't hear. "


Ah yes, the old "in with a ground station" excuse.:)

[kimwestt]

:} Used to hear "Upside Downwind" at YPJT a fair while ago - a Bellanca at on time - any one know what happened to Rob T (part time scuba instructor also)!!

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Oh man, this is all getting a bit anal isn't it?

[BTW: The in with a ground station is legit - 90% of communication going on isnt on the VHF - but it is often at the same volume level - 'tuning' out is a skill quickly, and neccessarily learnt. This is something that - when pilots used to be bothered, or permitted, to do a proper ATC famils - they all came away saying: I didnt realise how much coord goes on in the background. So we are not ignoring you - we are just..... uhm, well, kind of ignoring you I suppose - but in a nice way!]

[Coander]

Thought I'd add my 2 cents. My pet hate is

"On climb too" when its "Climbing too"

gets me even more when this is said in a dep report

"On climb, not above xxxx" -> Your already "not above" any altitude even if your still on the ground. No need to climb to get "not above" an altitude.

Also, heard this one a few times at millitary AD's on VFR flights,

"ABC, Cleared for take off, right turn 290, visual"
I thought all VFR flights were visual ?!?! In one instance ATC required me to read back "visual".

Having said all this I know I make many mistakes myself.

[Capt Claret]

Coander,

Visual in the context you have described is required to be read back to ensure that you know, the controller has assigned you the respnsibility of terrain/obstacle clearance. As opposed to you (the pilot) assuming that ATC will keep you clear of obstacles/terrain.

[RENURPP]

CC,
he said he was VFR. He is already resposnible for visual terrain clearance.
Coander, was it a military ATCér.

[Coander]

RENURPP,

Yes it was a military ATCér. My reply to the call was "V F R".

C

[blueloo]

"Continue Approach"

I thought this was a requirement to be read back.....or was that an internal memo/ or company publication telling us we had to read it back?



Just as an aside, has anyone thought that some companies liase directly with ATC, to find out what they want to hear, and whilst this may go against whats in the AIP, the company then issues a directive to its pilots in an attempt to standardise procedures at particular aerodromes.......

I am not saying its right or wrong, but if the company makes it part of the SOPs then it tends to be prundent for its employees to follow their wishes...(of course other pilots will not hear about xxx companies changes, hence the "what the.... " when they hear it.)

[No Further Requirements]

Coander and RENURPP:
It matters not if it was a military ATC or not. The point is that the ATC must say to any VFR aircraft that is vectored off the runway "VISUAL" with the heading. It is just a rule that we have to do and that is that.
The MATS reference states:
3.2.8.2 When a departing aircraft is required to assume a heading immediately
following take-off, the appropriate controller shall determine the heading and advisethe tower controller as follows:
a. for VFR flights by day or for IFR flights by day in VMC not departing via
a SID "RUNWAY HEADING VISUAL or RIGHT/LEFT (degrees) VISUAL";
Yes, although this talks about what the departures controller says to the tower controller, rest assured that is what is said to the aircraft too. And as it is a heading instruction, it must be read back. I suppose it could be argued both ways as AIP only states that direction of turns and headings are readbacks. I will do a snap poll with the civil tower I work with and see if they chase the "VISUAL" readback.
Cheers all,
NFR.:ok:

[RENURPP]

Point taken,
If you are required to add "visual" to a VFR aircraft, (seems pointless) then I accept that reading it back is required by the pilot.

Actually after pondering this one a little longer I change my attitude slightly. I don't "recall" ever hearing this instruction given! Having said that it is not possible for me to know who is VFR and who is IFR. If I were VFR I wouldn't read it back, with out meaning to offend, I would expect a military controller to require the readback and otherwise common sense to prevail.

[wdn]

NFR, why would we rest assured that what you assert is true? i assume you provided the reference to back up your assertion that "visual" is a required readback. your reference does not support the conclusion.

the collective opinion of those in the tower does not override the MATS.

[No Further Requirements]

wdn: What I am saying is that the departure instruction read back by the tower controller to the departures controller is exactly what is transmitted to the aircraft. It is a fact. The tower cannot change it.

With regards to reading back 'VISUAL' I said that I thought it should be read back as it forms part of both a level and heading instruction. Clearly this is not the opinion of some other people. All I was getting at is that it seem that it is not whether one is military or civil, it is whether one thinks that it is required as a readback. One of those grey areas I'm guessing. I'm not saying at all that it over rides MATS, quite the opposite, that as it is not explicity stated that it is read back, do people want it read back?

As I said, AIP/MATS says that headings and levels must be read back. If there is a condition to that heading or level (VISUAL, not below the DME steps etc) should that also form part of the read back? I think yes. Others think no. Some don't care. Where do you sit?

Cheers,

NFR.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

blueloo"Continue Approach"
.
I thought this was a requirement to be read back.....or was that an internal memo/ or company publication telling us we had to read it back? … must have been an internal company thing …
.
AIP GEN 3.4.4.4 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Read-Back Requirements, including 4.4.1.f note ..An “expectation” of runway to be used is not to be read back
.
I interpret this to apply to arriving aircraft including those on final; also
.
AIP GEN 3.4.5.13 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Phraseologies – Vicinity of the Aerodrome - Arrival at Aerodrome, including 5.13.9 d Approach Instructions - “CONTINUE APPROACH” … does not indicate (with an “*” ) a pilot read-back requirement
.Just as an aside, has anyone thought that some companies liase directly with ATC, to find out what they want to hear, … we are having direct talks with RPT re same! ..early in the process though, and will have to be assessed against ICAO anyhow (seeing as Oz is a signatory) and whilst this may go against whats in the AIP, the company then issues a directive to its pilots in an attempt to standardise procedures at particular aerodromes....... .. companies and ATC may discuss, and where agreed, operate in certain ways with those carriers! Those sort of ‘unique’ agreements do not (normally) include matters such as Phraseologies or any other operational matter that may affect other airspace users.I am not saying its right or wrong, but if the company makes it part of the SOPs then it tends to be prundent for its employees to follow their wishes... … agreed, it is concerning though companies have SOPS not congruent with the Reg's particualrly in this case, given that a read-back by aircrew at that phase of flight, or in the terminal/tower environment where ‘seconds’ of unnecessary VHF use could be detrimental to flight deck and terminal/runway operations safety!
.
NFR … had me head in AIP so …..
.
wdnNFR, why would we rest assured that what you assert is true? i assume you provided the reference to back up your assertion that "visual" is a required readback.AIP GEN 3.4.5.13 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Phraseologies – Vicinity of the Aerodrome – Runway Operations – Take-off Clearance, including 5.13.6.3.f-p, and more particularly:-
.
6.3.l & m – when a VFR aircraft, or an IFR aircraft cleared for a visual departure is issued heading instructions
.
l. (instructions) MAINTAIN RUNWAY HEADING [TURN LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees)] VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF
.
m.* (instructions) RUNWAY HEADING [LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees)] VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFFthe collective opinion of those in the tower does not override the MATS. … agreed in principal, there are however other areas of the doc’s that can be read in conflicting ways, Phraseologies is not one of them!:ok:

[NIMFLT]

If you don't readback the 'visual' then you haven't accepted responsibility for terrain clearance on the assigned heading.

By acknowledging 'visual' you are agreeing that you can maintain VMC and terrain clearance on that heading, as opposed to a right or left turn where you have some extra manoueverability.

I generally agree that there are too many requirements for readbacks and controllers chasing ones that are not mandated is simply a lack of knowledge or training. Controllers should only require mandated readbacks and those readbacks should only include the minimum essential info.

[RENURPP]

If you don't readback the 'visual' then you haven't accepted responsibility for terrain clearance on the assigned heading.


We're talking VFR. They have no option BUT to accept terrain clearnce visually.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

RENURPP ..... think it applies to VFR in this case as a heading instruction involves the VFR pilot having to be heads down on the DG rather than out the front full time.

[rmcdonal]

VFR pilot having to be heads down on the DG rather than out the front full time. Even Part time I reckon I can avoid the side of a hill. ;)

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

..mate .... I hear ya ;) ... but you know what this world is like with 'legally' having to re-iterate the bleeding obvious ... cause were asking a pilot to use an 'instrument' .... I guess!. :E .. :ooh:

[NIMFLT]

We're talking VFR. They have no option BUT to accept terrain clearnce visually.

I agree, but AIP/MATS doesn't.

[Capt Claret]

For those of us who are Jeppesen users, the reference can be found at Jeppesen/ATC/AU-936.
when a VFR aircraft, or an IFR aircraft cleared for a visual departure is issued heading instructions

13. {symbol} (instructions) RUNWAY HEADING [LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees) VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF

The {symbol} which I couldn't paste into the above means: Unique to Australia (ICAO silent)

Jeppesen/ATC/AU-920 refers.

[mince]

What does this statement actually mean?

I've always imagined it's ATC language for "Sorry, but I had a mouth full of coffee and/or donut and couldn't respond to your transmission."

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[rmcdonal]

mince :} But then again when they call us after the 3rd attempt I reckon It's because of the same reason.:E

[Continental-520]

Hahahahah!

Well, I can admit to seeing that one.

Mince, what they refer to is they are talking:

a) to Flightwatch, or flightwatch is talking to them

b) to a CTR controller somewhere

c) on the telephone

d) someone else in the room.

e) anyone else that I've not mentioned.


All of the above are at the same volume, pretty much as your voice on VHF on their headset or through the speakers. It may be easier to have you repeat what you said than whoever else you were "in" with.

That's how I understand it anyway.


520.

[SM4 Pirate]

Mostly it's a coordination event. Not necessarily about you, but someone else in my airspace or coming into it, or maybe someone 'skimming my airspace' that I need an Ident or boundary traffic on. Everytime you depart somewhere with a frequency transfer within a few minutes; ie EA WOL-ML flight; the coordination is from SY Radar, to SY Deps, to MEL Sectors to NWA Approach; all before the aircraft has hopefully set-course. This might be as quick as 1 minute after the airborne call. Otherwise it's a standard call to the next unit about you coming; ie TWR to DEP, confirming departure instructions, subject to auto release procs.

Other units that coord to us include Flows, Supervisors, technicians, Flightwatch, towers 'under our airspace', international units.

Coord outways R/T by about 5 to one; particularly sequencing and TMA sectors, ie I'm going to do this with my Arriving aircraft, you do this with your departing one (APP-DEP coord) if you've got two or three APP units and DEP units and directors within the TMA etc. it's even uglier.

In non-radar environments, the system (Eurocat, which was designed for no surveillance) does a lot of the coord, but not all of it.

To help us out our comms system is digital now, so your analogue TXs are converted to a digital signal, which nicely takes pitch and volume changes and flattens them, so you sound very similar no matter how you scream; this on top of a coord event is often unreadable; as that sound the same too; we often just finnish the coord and ask you to say again, cause we can 'control' the air for 3 seconds by not answering you, but the chance of the other ATC have someone call is high if you ring them back instead of finnishing it off.

It doesn't always work that way, but we after a while have a really good feel for important calls and ones that can be repeated in a few seconds, even if you don't want to 'say again'.

[Hempy]

Mostly it's a coordination event. Not necessarily about you, but someone else in my airspace or coming into it, or maybe someone 'skimming my airspace' that I need an Ident or boundary traffic on. Everytime you depart somewhere with a frequency transfer within a few minutes; ie EA WOL-ML flight; the coordination is from SY Radar, to SY Deps, to MEL Sectors to NWA Approach; all before the aircraft has hopefully set-course. This might be as quick as 1 minute after the airborne call. Otherwise it's a standard call to the next unit about you coming; ie TWR to DEP, confirming departure instructions, subject to auto release procs.

Other units that coord to us include Flows, Supervisors, technicians, Flightwatch, towers 'under our airspace', international units.

Coord outways R/T by about 5 to one; particularly sequencing and TMA sectors, ie I'm going to do this with my Arriving aircraft, you do this with your departing one (APP-DEP coord) if you've got two or three APP units and DEP units and directors within the TMA etc. it's even uglier.

In non-radar environments, the system (Eurocat, which was designed for no surveillance) does a lot of the coord, but not all of it.

To help us out our comms system is digital now, so your analogue TXs are converted to a digital signal, which nicely takes pitch and volume changes and flattens them, so you sound very similar no matter how you scream; this on top of a coord event is often unreadable; as that sound the same too; we often just finnish the coord and ask you to say again, cause we can 'control' the air for 3 seconds by not answering you, but the chance of the other ATC have someone call is high if you ring them back instead of finnishing it off.

It doesn't always work that way, but we after a while have a really good feel for important calls and ones that can be repeated in a few seconds, even if you don't want to 'say again'.

+ coffee :}

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Due to modern training techniques, and an alignment with the US NAS system , controllers can now actually listen and drink coffee at the same time.

We are still working on the drinking coffee and talking at the same time however.

[No Further Requirements]

We are still working on the drinking coffee and talking at the same time however.
Tried it - results were messy and inconclusive. I say we put an I.V. line in for the consumption of coffee whilst retaining the ability for voice communiction.
To quote Barney Gumble - JUST TAP IT TO MY VEIN!
Cheers,
NFR.

[blueloo]

If you can drink coffee and talk at the same time - is this the beginners qualifiaction? - I presume you only get the advanced qualification when you can drink coffee, eat a krispy creme donut, and talk at the same time?

[Spodman]

Part of the ATC aptitude testing is to prove your multi-tasking ability by reading a newspaper & picking one's nose at the same time...

[RENURPP]

If drinking and talking at the same time was a prerequisite there would be a hell of a lot more female controllers!

I say we put an I.V. line in for the consumption of coffee

Barny would not waste his time on coffee!

[Philthy]

Part of the ATC aptitude testing is to prove your multi-tasking ability by reading a newspaper & picking one's nose at the same time...

...but you were selected in the days of yore when the test involved simultaneously farting and reading the paper, weren't you Spod?

[blueloo]

farting doesnt count as it doesnt require effort or concentration.........unless you are trying to prevent "follow through", and contamination of the fart filters.

[Pinky the pilot]

Err RENURPP;If drinking and talking at the same time were a prerequisite there would be a hell of a lot more female controllers!

You forgot to add 'filing/clipping/painting finger/toe nails, touching up lippy etc etc.:E :D

(Dives into slit trench, dons flak jacket and stahlhelm, awaits incoming....)