Tree Fife Niner

[Roger Standby]

I am the first to admit I hate a lot of the rubbish that is used on the radios eg. "this time", "call you on the ground" etc. I do however say G'day to just about every aircraft that I handoff to the next sector, so I can't complain too much.

My plead to the piloting community and to ATC's is that if you can bring yourself to change just one thing you say over the air, please, please, stop saying "Nine" and use the term "niner". Not because it annoys me, but for safety sake. I'm not so anal that I expect everyone to use fower and tree or even fife, but "nine" just sounds too close to "5". :{

A090 is a common level used in CTA as "paperstop" levels between sectors. Controllers have been stood down, myself included awhile back, for assigning A090 and hearing "Nine" as a response only to later find out the pilot had possibly read back "Five" (15 min of intensive listening to the tapes resulted in "sounded like 9, could have been 5"). I have since had reason to ask pilots up to 3 times "confirm assigned niner thousand" and received"affirm, nine thousand". After the third time you're banging your head and assuring yourself that you did in fact hear "nine". :ugh: It just shouldn't have to happen.

On a side note, I am sure that the extra 120ft on the altimeter would be preferred when conducting approach to the minima in IMC as well.:eek:

Cheers,

R_S.

[kellykelpie]

Good post but I'm not sure I understand the side note?

[Chesty Morgan]

4 x 30feet - Does that help?

[Ratshit]

On a side note, I am sure that the extra 120ft on the altimeter would be preferred when conducting approach to the minima in IMC as well.:eek:



Please explain?

R:cool:

[Chesty Morgan]

4 x 30feet - Does that help?
1019 - 1015 = 4. 30'/mb

[mingalababya]

Please explain?

R:cool:

QNH one-zero-two-fife

as opposed to

QNH one-zero-two-niner

[Shitsu_Tonka]

No wonder I am no good at cryptic crosswords.

The original point is worth raising (yet again) however. Having 5000 as a paper stop level on departure seems a little bit 'loaded' as well. Brisbane uses 6000.

The point about getting pilots to repeat the readback is true from experience - but also because the transmissions are clipped. I know that everyone pushes the PTT before talking (right?) but there is also a slight (very slight) processing lag - as I understand it the VHF reply is digitised at the Antenna site, then packet-switched (like the internet), sent by various means (VHF, Microwave, Fibre-Optic, Sat etc.), re-assembled at the receiver centre, and then comes out through the digital VSCS. This all happens very quickly, but I sense that not quick enough for the trigger-happy PTT user sometimes.

The result -

ATC: AIRLINER 958 DESCEND FOUR THOUSAND
PILOT: -R THOUSAND AIRLINER 958
ATC: AIRLINER 958 CONFIRM DESCEND FOUR THOUSAND
PILOT: -R THOUSAND AIRLINER 958

And on it goes. Many of you will say, why don't we read back the callsign first? I agree. It used to work just fine.

[DutchRoll]

OK, do you a deal. I'll say 'niner' (which I try to do anyway) if I don't have to say 'tree'. 'Tree' not only sounds silly, but 'three' sounds nothing like any other number.;)

[Blip]

Thank you for raising this issue again Roger. It's a pet hate of mine too.

It can be a problem with these coloquial flight number callsigns too.
"Qantas four thirty nine descend to niner thousand."
"Niner thousand, Qantas four thirty five" :uhoh:

How many of us would say "Four thirty nineR"?
Not enough I would suggest.

[Jungmeister]

You wouldn't believe the number of times TWO and THREE get misheard. This is especially noticeable when the number is repeated eg "Turn right heading two three zero" Readback as "Heading two two zero". It can also apply to flight levels of course.
Something goes missing in the conversion of human voice to RT.
I don't necessarily advocate the ""TREE", but clear and slower enunciation always helps on both sides. :)

[Blastoid]

R_S,

Completely agree. It has saved me countless times, asking a pilot "confirm assigned nin-ER thousand", as that is a level we assign a lot (base of E :{ ).

I will bite and say that I am one of the few that uses "tree", but only in assigning FLs and frequency changes. I have found it does eliminate the majority of incorrect readbacks.

RT is definitely becoming slacker on both sides of the fence, and like you I will often be one to initiate a "G'day" on transfer. But for those pilots out there, if we ask you to "say again cleared level" or "clipped transmission, say again", don't get annoyed and readback "NIN-ER THOU-SAND, AIR-LINE TWO THIR-TY TWO"; it's not because we really love hearing your voice and wasting time, we are trying to protect us both!! (and save, at a minimum, an embarrasing stand-down and wrist slap, but what could be much worse.... :ooh: ). We're all playing the same game here!!

Blastoid.

[Transition Layer]

Have to agree about the similarity between "two" and "three", especially when used in sequence.

Can think of a number of times I have personally f*cked up or heard someone else f*ck up something like reading back a frequency - "One three two decimal eight" instead of "one two three decimal eight".

[Blastoid]

Transition Layer & jungmeister,

Completely agree. Up in my neck of the woods we use 123.0 (within range of 133.0), 133.0, 133.2, 133.8 and 134.4 (within range of another station 124.4). We are very careful to listen for frequency readbacks (hence also why I use TREE, especially with a number of foreign pilots in the area), and still some go to the wrong frequency!! :{

[tobzalp]

I use a 125.7 that is in range of another 125.7. Now that gets confusing very quickly some days. All the trees and niners aren't going to help there.

[Capn Bloggs]

"Two" and "Three" on the Yank ATIS have been a pet hate of mine for years but nobody will listen...:{

The Australian way of callsign first was better to reduce the effect of clipping: "Foxtrot November Romeo nine (r) thousand" but then I suppose the serial speed-mouths would chop (no pun intended) off the "foxtrot"...

[Centaurus]

From listening on my trusty hand held receiver I am very surprised at the amount of reading back by pilots of instructions that are not required by AIP to be read back. G'days, cheers, thanks, please, all these are superfluous yet are common on the air waves. These are only minor non-standards but other read backs are just nothing but lazy practices based on "when in doubt, read everything back and the bastards can't nail you".

Is the clarity of VHF transmissions in Australia so bad that reading back of practically everything is needed? What is good for ICAO is not necessarily good for Australia where the vast number of R/T transmissions are in Aussie accents.

Perhaps the number of excessive read backs could be reduced if ATC gave an instruction or clearance adding the words "Read Back" at the end of the message. No read back needed unless the controller asks for it. It would take a quantum change in radio procedure philosophy from ICAO recommended practices which are aimed primarily at the English second language (or third or fourth) operators.

After all, the last time I looked, the term "Read back" was still part of ICAO terminology. My bet is the steady increase over the years of additional read-backs published in AIP, is probably due more to arse-covering in the legal sense rather than a history of mis-understanding by pilots.

[DutchRoll]

Actually, if you say 'two' and 'tree' they sound every bit as similar - perhaps even more so - as 'two' and 'three'.
Maybe the answer is for everyone to just stop bloody clipping, slurring, and rushing your R/T! :hmm:

Nuff said.

[Capn Bloggs]

Centaurus,

My bet is the steady increase over the years of additional read-backs published in AIP, is probably due more to arse-covering in the legal sense rather than a history of mis-understanding by pilots.
You bet wrong. Readbacks were generally much less than present (and much better documented) until ICAO R/T was introduced by the Dick Smith Internationalisation brigade a few years ago.

Nothing wrong with being friendly on the radio...as long as it doesn't "force" a perhaps busy controller to make an extra transmission to reply in kind.

[king oath]

Can't stand excessive read backs myself. Just read the guts of the message. One day I will hear,
.........
ATC: "And stop reading back everything I say."

Aircraft: "Stop reading back everything I say."

Its got to happen.

[Arm out the window]

Fully agree with the importance of 'niner'.

Been hearing a few excessive readbacks lately (p'raps known to get a bit verbose myself, though I try not to) - the 'line up behind' one gets them.
I know ATC are supposed to say the word 'behind' twice, but there's a bit of readback creep sometimes and it gets read back twice as well.

I'd go back to saying the callsign first any day, not necessary to change it, I thought, and it just feels unnatural (shows I'm getting older I s'pose).

[Jungmeister]

Fully agree with the importance of 'niner'.
Been hearing a few excessive readbacks lately (p'raps known to get a bit verbose myself, though I try not to) - the 'line up behind' one gets them.
I know ATC are supposed to say the word 'behind' twice, but there's a bit of readback creep sometimes and it gets read back twice as well.
I'd go back to saying the callsign first any day, not necessary to change it, I thought, and it just feels unnatural (shows I'm getting older I s'pose).
I think that the correct readback for this conditional clearance should be
"..Affirm behind" !!
:D

[tobzalp]

'Stand By'
'Standing by'

:mad: :ugh:

[DutchRoll]

People getting hot & sweaty about readbacks obviously haven't operated overseas much (especially in the US)!

[Desert Flower]

While we're on the subject of radio transmissions, can someone please tell my why the phrase "Roger that" is creeping into everything these days? I hear it not only on the aviation side, but on almost every other organisation you care to name. Ambos, firies, SES etc. It irks me no end! Whatever happened to just "Roger"?

DF.

[Arm out the window]

Good one, jungmeister!
If they start using it too much, there'll be more behinds than Molly Meldrum's little black book.:eek:

[No Further Requirements]

But I hope they never remove my all time favourite:
SE-VEN
I just can't get enough of it!
Maybe we should all do a Ritchie Benaud for the number two and say it as a "tchew". Eastern Airlines flights out of Wagga will have a blast, especially EA2222! (May have already happened.....:ok: :E )
R_S - good points, all well made.

Cheers,
NFR.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I think the crew of VOZ222 BN-SY each day enjoy their 1:05 of being Richie Benaud as much as I enjoy being there in the Central Commentary Position.

Super Stuff.

[pall]

What about speaking too fast. I have had a great deal of training in public speaking. RT is similar in that you know what you are saying, others may not. If you speak quickly it doesn't allow time for others to process your RT properly. Speaking at a speed that to you seems a little slow usually sounds clear and just right to listeners.:)

[Sunfish]

I used to think the ATC call "No need to acknowledge" on a "cleared to land" call was quaint until I was told that it was because they were running out of time.

[Altimeters]

'Stand By'
'Standing by'
:mad: :ugh:



That's a good one. I heard recently on the airwaves from the tower:

ATC: "Check Altitude"

PILOT: "Checking Altitude"

:mad: :ugh:

[Capt Claret]

What about "copied no IFR traffic"! :ugh: :ugh: :{

Sadly, for quite some time now, it seems that the answer to readbacks has been to try to readback everything so that, hopefully, the required items will be captured.

It is common to hear a readback full of supurfluous cr@p that misses the required items. :{

[M.25]

I might comment that over the last week or so I have heard many occasions where not enough was read back, and in one case nothing was read back. Once the controller had to repeat the whole clearance three times! Not reading back enough can be just as time consuming as reading back too much. Moral of the story.... know what is required and do your best to get it right. At the end of the day though, no-one is perfect.:cool:

[Lord Snot]

I have since had reason to ask pilots up to 3 times "confirm assigned niner thousand" and received"affirm, nine thousand". After the third time you're banging your head and assuring yourself that you did in fact hear "nine".

If this is what you call bad R/T, then the standards in some parts of the world out there would make you cut your wrists. It so happens that Australian ATC is held as the epitome of uptight, anal ATC. Even the Europeans think we are uptight and anal here just because we have standards. It's an amazing mindset when you hear them whinging about it.

Personally, I have no problem with the expectation that an R/T operator merely observes proper radiotelephony procedures but what you find from other parts of the world is:


no callsign after initial call
no readbacks
readbacks of EVERYthing
use of "any chance of" instead of "request"
use of "okay, understand, code #### comin' down.... "
Reply with "Roger, squawking Ident" (but no callsign) when told to squawk Ident...... :rolleyes:
and much, much more...... you get the idea.


Asking most of these halfwits to repeat so you can hear them say "niner' instead of "nine" will do nothing but convince them Aussie ATC are a bunch of twaats and/or confuse them into shutting up altogether.

I'll be sure I use "niner". I just wish the rest of the world could get their sh!t together too.

Meanwhile, why is this:

The old fade-out when advising QNH or next freq - EG:

" ### contact ML Centre on one three three decimal......", or

" ### area QNH one zero one......."

Try to get your own procedures squared away while you're at it!!

[Shitsu_Tonka]

That fade-out is associated with the head falling back as we try and get some sleep.

[Roger Standby]

Rofl, ****su:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[Lord Snot]

Good reply, Roger.......... What a guy!

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/asshole.gif!!

[Roger Standby]

Bit touchy Snot,

I may be wrong but I took ****su's comment to be related to fatigue levels (hence the zzz's) at work and that's what I found amusing. I did not find your comments boring. You can almost feel the attitude, though.

Frankly I don't care what they do overseas, and don't expect anything overly flash from internationals. We're just making observations of how we think we can tidy up our own our part of the world. Sounds you like you could do with a sleep.

[Lord Snot]

Not at all....

I'm all for improving things and hearing your side of it is obviously a big help. But surely your 'big picture' is improved by knowledge of how things work outside this country since a large volume of air traffic is foreign??? Or is the upper airspace not your area?

My own comment isn't a tit-for-tat response, it's something I've observed for years and years. I'm sure your seemingly flippant reply (or lack of) doesn't mean you think enunciating the QNH or radio freq digits clearly and concisely is any less important than differtiating between niner and fife, right?

If you're keen on all-round R/T improvements, I figured you'd have something constructive to say rather than....... :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Okay I'll go take my pills now.

[Roger Standby]

My intention was not to belittle your response and your point is well point taken. I will endeavour to make sure that I do not clip or fade the end of my transmissions in future.:ok:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I think Roger is just picking up on a very topical point in my post that may have been an in-joke.... namely we are all working silly overtime and many are tired and....... [yawn] ......likely to just drift off before finishing a senten...zzzzzzz

[andrew495]

Fully agree with the importance of 'niner'.

Been hearing a few excessive readbacks lately (p'raps known to get a bit verbose myself, though I try not to) - the 'line up behind' one gets them.
I know ATC are supposed to say the word 'behind' twice, but there's a bit of readback creep sometimes and it gets read back twice as well.

I'd go back to saying the callsign first any day, not necessary to change it, I thought, and it just feels unnatural (shows I'm getting older I s'pose).

through my training my instructors always told me for the line up behind calls to read that back in full, but now should i only read the 'behind' part once? i know it sounds stupid to say it twice, but is it a procedure thats meant to happen or have i just been told to say this to avoid confusion?

[Led Zep]

Andrew,
AIP GEN 3.4-13 para 4.5.3:

ATS: "(Aircraft call sign) behind A340 on short final line up RWY xx behind."
You: "Behind the A340 lining up RWY xx (aircraft call sign)."

GEN 3.4 is devoted to comms and phraseologies worth a look as you might find it interesting like I. :ok:



"Over and out!" :} :} :} :E

[Lynx206]

After 20+ years of flying I still have to read Gen 3.4 to make sure my calls are correct. (The result of some serious 'beasting' by instructors who held a philosophy that the only thing the majority people really get to judge your professionalism on is the standard of your calls.)

This discussion tempted me to dive right back into AIP for some more refresher reading. I agree completely with the need to follow the book so that there is no misunderstanding between the cockpit and ATC. Interestingly, the examples given on Gen 3.4-15 and 16 contradict the proscription given that:

Radiotelephony pronunciation of numbers shall be in the phonetic
form as follows...9 NIN er

The examples contain few instances of the use of "9" and when they do they appear to be incorrect.

Altimeter Setting...29.95 “TWO NINE DECIMAL NINE FIVE”

Time...0920 UTC “ZERO NINE TWO ZERO ZULU”

Or is there an implied requirement to read the printed numbers in these examples phonetically?

[Lynx206]

"Over and out!"
AIP Gen 3.4, 4.13.1
OVER My transmission is ended and I expect a response from you (not normally used in VHF communication).
OUT My transmission is ended and I expect no response from you (not normally used in VHFcommunication).
Only ever used together in poorly made movies...:}

[Arm out the window]

"through my training my instructors always told me for the line up behind calls to read that back in full"

The power of the instructors' word - it's hard to avoid perpetuating furphies, and I'd be as guilty as anyone here, but a good look through the AIP on points of order sometimes coughs up a few surprises!

Hard to keep track of all this stuff, though, and the 'line up behind' thing being read back once only stuck in my mind because there was a special notice sent around by CASA when it came in, as I remember.

[GearOff]

I was hammering the importance of saying only what's necessary on the radio to my student today. I had to laugh when upon leaving CTA, the centre controller took a good 30 seconds to tell us to squawk 1200 and go away - at least 15 of which were spent saying "arrrrrrr"!

Standard phraseology makes it easier for all of us. Despite having prepared him fairly thoroughly, my student, who was from overseas, just looked at me blankly after the totally non-standard phraseology in that instance.

He was expecting something like "ABC, leaving controlled airspace, radar and control services terminated squawk 1200, frequency change approved"

What he got was complex enough to confuse the best of us! :ugh:

[Roger Standby]

GearOff,

Unfortunately the nonsense comes from both ends of the line. We work with a guy that we've named "words twice", but we're slowly beating him out of it. Always sounds worse when its a controller though 'coz it dominates the airwaves.

Cheers,

R.S.

[OpsNormal]

......I had to laugh when upon leaving CTA, the centre controller took a good 30 seconds to tell us to squawk 1200 and go away - at least 15 of which were spent saying "arrrrrrr"!....

Dammit! Did I miss National Talk Like a Pirate Day again?:ooh: :ooh: :} :E

[Towering Q]

"ABC, leaving controlled airspace, radar and control services terminated squawk 1200, frequency change approved"

When did "radar services terminated" got swapped for "identification terminated"?
Anyone know the equivalent section in Jepps for Gen 3.4?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Short Answer - when ADS-B was commissioned.

Techincally it is not even Identificatiion Services Terminated but Identification Terminated - even though you are still Identified - makes sense doesn't it?! [EDIT: I see that is what you wrote TQ, but have heard the services part included as well]

Many who have to say this mouthful protested when we found out about it (no consultation that I recall), but were basically dismissed.

So if you hear Identification Terminated when leaving a control step, chances are you are still Identified - you are just not getting a service unless you request it (i.e. RIS).

(Call me stupid - but I think if a pilot hears Identification Terminated they probably think they are no longer Radar Identified)

[Continental-520]

Dammit! Did I miss National Talk Like a Pirate Day again?

Um, September the 19th, I believe...!! :)


520.

[Roger Standby]

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/ :}