'Climb and report level...'

[tmmorris]

If I am asked to climb and report level at the new altitude, the conversation usually goes...

ATC: 'G-ABCD, climb and report level FL50'
Me:'Climb and report level FL50, G-ABCD'.
...
Me:'G-ABCD level, FL50'

I was told off for this yesterday - apparently my last call should be 'G-ABCD maintaining FL50'. Is that right? (ditto for descents, I assume).

Tim

[waldorf]

If you check R/T regs I believe you will find that an instruction to 'Climb' is defined as "climb and maintain" (the reverse for 'descend'). Therefore an ATC instruction to 'Climb, report level' should therefore be acknowledged with the fact that you are indeed maintaining the assigned level.

Hope that helps?

[tmmorris]

Thanks both - the instructor I was told off by is also an airline pilot as his day job, so I guess he was right!

Tim

[Pierre Argh]

Waldorf says If you check R/T regs and is right as far as CIVIL/ICAO procedures go... once again inexplicable differences exist between UK Mil and UK Civil phraseology. Tim I believe you often fly speaking to Mil ATC(?)... in which case what the controller said was correct. (as was, I believe, the response you were told to give?)

[fireflybob]

Sorry to throw another pebble in the pool but shouldn't the response be "Wilco - climb flight level five zero" and then when level "reaching flight level five zero"

Pith helmet donned - need to check CAP 430 (or is it 413 ?)

[tmmorris]

Pierre Argh,

You are right - well spotted. In fact almost all the controllers I regularly speak to are military - this one was Lyneham as the route yesterday was Benson - Lyneham (NDB app to overshoot) - Benson (ILS).

Tim

[anotherthing]

Fireflybob....

You are taking the pith, I atthume?!!

reaching FLXX is not definitive.... it implies that as yet you have not reached it!! It still does not tell the controller that you are at the level, it means little or nowt to a contriller.

If you were given a climb of say 15000 feet, when would you say you were 'reaching' your level? 200' to go, 500', 1000'??

'Reaching' is one of those annoying phrases that airline pilots who are given a climb to an intermediate level like to use to try to get continuous climb. I usually answer with the phrase "I do have a RADAR, thank you very much" if I have the time. Particularly Iberia pilots from EGLL I have noticed :mad:

Wilco is not needed as a full readback of the climb instruction is required (mandatory readback). Wilco is used for request/instructions that do not have a safety implication and do not need a mandatory readback. For example a male pilot is being controlled by his ATCO wife... it could go like this...

"Tower, could you please make sure my dinner is ready when I get back"
"Wilco (mutter mutter mutter)" :E

[fireflybob]

anotherthing, thanks for that but I refer you to CAP 413 Ch 10 Page 7 (dated 1 May 2006) which states, I believe, that "reaching" is acceptable phraseology.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Tim,

Your instructor is wrong. Take a reality check and do what the controller asked. The precise phraseology is secondary to the clear information provided.

[Ops and Mops]

Mil Phraseology:

ATC: Callsign, Climb and report Level FL 50
A/C: Climb and report level FL50, Callsign

On reaching:

A/C: Callsign, Level FL50.
ATC: Callsign, Roger

Civil Phraseology:

ATC: Callsign, Climb FL50
A/C: Climb FL50, Callsign

No requirement to call level

OR

ATC: Callsign, Climb FL50, report reaching
A/C: Climb FL50, wilco, Callsign.

When level:

A/C: Callsign, maintaining FL50
ATC: Callsign, Roger.

(Note that in Civil Phraseology, although the phrase "Climb and Maintain XXXX" is in common use, it is NOT standard phraseology. "Maintain" should only be used to refer to level flight.)

[Diddley Dee]

Ops and Mops

To imply that Mil phraseology requires you to report level is incorrect. If asked, you report it, if not you dont. We can see when you are level at the new level by seeing 3 sweeps of +/- 200 feet. The use of report level by the controller is optional in a SSR environment.

Didley Dee

[Chilli Monster]

Tim - your instructor is being ridiculously Anal - there's nothing wrong with what you said.

Next time he comes out with such cr*p - tell him to get a life!

[Diddley Dee]

Tim - your instructor is being ridiculously Anal - there's nothing wrong with what you said.

Next time he comes out with such cr*p - tell him to get a life!


:ok:

DD

[Ops and Mops]

Diddley Dee

I believe my example of Mil phraseology was:

ATC: Callsign, Climb and report Level FL 50
A/C: Climb and report level FL50, Callsign

On reaching:

A/C: Callsign, Level FL50.
ATC: Callsign, Roger


Therefore the pilot was requested to report level.....

If the Mil controller used the phraseology "Climb FL50" the clearly the pilot is not required to report level!!!

However at Military Terminal units, the former example of phraseology is the most commonly used, therefore it was used as my primary example!

:ugh:

[Diddley Dee]

Dont know why the :ugh: ....?????
Your example in that case, was confusing. Why differenciate between Mil & Civil giving examples for Civil where reporting level is required & where it is not, yet for the Mil Phraseology just stating the phraseology with a requirement to report level.

IMHO it should have been clearer if you are trying to demonstrate something. If I am the only one that misinterperated your point I apologise....

Diddley Dee

[Ops and Mops]

The :ugh: is because I feel that you are being overly pedandtic!

Tim asked the question using a specific piece of phraseology. This was identified as being given by a military controller. His instructor however, was correcting him using civilian phraseology.

Within the bounds of Tim's scenario the military phraseology example and the required response was all that was needed to indicate the correct phraseology. The civilian phraseology was included to show where Tim's instructor (who may use various versions in his "day job") may be coming from.

If you want me to conduct a CATCS lesson in phraseology to answer a simple question then fair enough....

[Diddley Dee]

Thanks for the kind offer of your undoubted wisdom but I will decline, I thought I had apologised if I had misunderstood your point.... Dont fret, you shouldnt feel that a misunderstanding obligates you to conduct a lesson.
Off to go flying now so please dont bother replying for my benefit.

Diddley Dee

[Ops and Mops]

Enjoy your flying then! :E

[Neptune262]

With regards the use of "wilco" - could the pilot not state the following..........

"Climb FL50, wilco, G-ABCD"

Another point - surely "climb and report level FL 50" could be misunderstood to mean climb FL50 and report your present level? I understand that the word "your" is omitted, but still I don't like the phrase. Surely "Climb FL50 and report reaching" would be better. Yes "reaching" is listed in CAP413. Or "Climb FL50 and report maintaining" - maybe this is the best!

[Ops and Mops]

ATC: Callsign, Climb FL50, report reaching
A/C: Climb FL50, wilco, Callsign.


Yes they could. :p

[Hippy]

If the OP is a civilian pilot talking to a military controller, then shouldn't he use CAP413 phraseology in response to the JSP instructions? Just a thought.

Also, the "report level" bit is used far to frequently by my colleagues IMHO. It seems that most controllers just tag it on through habit even though a perfectly good SSR label is available. :rolleyes:

[tmmorris]

Thanks for supportive messages above - I like to think my instructor was just trying to think of something to criticize...

As I do most of my flying talking to military units (Benson, Brize, Lyneham, for example) it's probably worth my being conversant with the military way anyway.

Is the relevant JSP available as a PDF anywhere?

Tim

[No_Speed_Restriction]

the instructor I was told off by is also an airline pilot as his day job, so I guess he was right!
Tim

Dont count on it!:=

[waldorf]

Hippy,

I might just be spiffballing here but I believe many controllers add the term 'report level' to avoid potential ambiguity. If an ac at 5000ft is told "descend 2000ft", will the ac level at 3000ft (5000 - 2000) or at 2000ft? If an ac at 5000ft is instructed to " descend, report level, 2000ft" surely there is little doubt as to where the ac might end up? As controllers (and hopefully pilots too) we all know where we expect the ac to level but I believe the addition of 'report level' helps prevent such misunderstanings?

[CL300]

'Reaching' is one of those annoying phrases that airline pilots who are given a climb to an intermediate level like to use to try to get continuous climb. I usually answer with the phrase "I do have a RADAR, thank you very much" if I have the time. Particularly Iberia pilots from EGLL I have noticed :mad:
:E

Today's aircrafts are (for most of them fully automated (as you know)). Climbing out of low levels up to FL300 our rate of climb is often in excess of 2500 ft/mn. Our vertical navigation system is bound to take ANY level interception at ANY given rate just by changing its internal logic. When our Vertical navigation shows 'ASEL' sometimes 1500 ou 2000 ft before assigned altitude, the Flight director logic changes and initiate a level off, reduce the thrust on the engines the full monthy.. :) Therefore, the saavy and lazy pilot is quering the ATC to get an unrestricted climb, like that he does not have to push an extra button to reinitiate the climb. The VNAV, vertical navigation, is giving pilots the optimum climb/time/fuel schedule for a given weight, on top of it it does automatically levels off in step climb profiles and in descent manages the speed and altitude constraints (ie FL80 at sandy). All this works fine as long as we are on the published route and not in radar heading...

Downside. on a step climb profile we usually dial in the altitude selector the last altitude ( 3000 - 4000 - 5000 ) we will dial 5000 and the aircraft will do ALL the level off AUTOMATICALLY... (magic huuuu) BUT with the new radar ATC sees 5000 and start to freak out that we will not level, and start filling a potential level bust....:ugh:

In descend, as soon as we go out of the published track, we have to give manual inputs to the AFCS (Autopilot) to comply with descent clearances and so on.

So when we call reaching, it is just to prevent all this logic to step in, and have more ressources to deal with what we are paid for : the unexpected..:ok: