RT

[360BakTrak]

At risk of being flamed by the usual suspects I would like to ask you fine people a question.

In your official literature (Is it JSP 552 these days?) does it state that you should call 'Final' or 'Finals'? Where I work some visiting Mil aircraft call final and others finals. In the civi world there is no 'S' as it's obviously derived from 'Final Approach'......any answers are gratefully received!

[High_Expect]

is that the distant sound of a button of Irrelevance?!? :ugh:

[TheOddOne]

High Expect,

I don't know why, really, but this little matter really winds people up. Perhaps more serious is the difference between waiting until aligned with the runway centreline before making the call (normal in civvy aviation) and making the call turning from downwind onto base 'leg'. I believe the argument surrounds the nature of the circuit flown by some military pilots.

'When in Rome...'

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[360BakTrak]

Blimey......only a simple question, which you's think would generate a simple answer, the issue doesn't wind me up BTW. Do I assume that neither of you know the answer then?!:E

[High_Expect]

don't know, don't really care....

I say 'Finals' but that could be because its cooler and I'm a fighter pilot :ok:



In reality its probably 'Final, gear down'

[Diddley Dee]

Bored so looked it up in JSP552 ...... Finals is what the good book says.

DD

[BEagle]

Presumably the correct phraseology is in whatever JSP318A is called these days?

The requirement for 'gear down' escaped many for years. Before then it was anything from '3 greens', '3 wheels', '4 greens', 'gear checked' depending on the aircraft type. It is a RAF requirement for the ATCO to confirm that the landing gear is down. So those C-130 people who still call 'gear checked' can expect to be asked to confirm that their landing gear is down when landing at Brize.

A while ago I submitted a CHIRP report after an ATCO cleared a heavy jet to line-up after I had been given clearnace to land and was at about 100 ft. The purple idiot at whatever IFS is called these days seemed more interested in castigating the controller than solving the cause - failure of the RAF to adopt conditional clearances ("after landing traffic, line up and wait")......

It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long!

[360BakTrak]

Diddley Dee & BEagle, thanks for you replies.

It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long! I couldn't agree more!

[Gnd]

This is an amazing triviality, civil-mil, who cares. Don't hit each other and don't get your knickers in a twist - much better things to worry about like when the next rocket is needing to be avoided, Oh not on the civi radar I guess. Man up chaps and look into world poverty, or is that poverties.

PS mine is welded so I don't give a monkeys what they ask, they all sound stupid to me!!:yuk:

[360BakTrak]

Who's hitting each other and who's knickers are in a twist? What a pointless post. Tried valium or prozac?

[Gnd]

I did and it made me think about final / s, so stoped and got a life instead!!!!!:\

[360BakTrak]

What sparkling wit!:E :ok:

[Gnd]

Thanks:eek:

[360BakTrak]

You're welcome:\

[TOPBUNKER]

I was taught many years ago that the call "Finals" was derived from the old 'funnels' approach lights system - a funnel shaped array of lights leading in to the landing threshold from about half a mile out.
The call was apparently made when inside said funnel of lights.
I am not totally convinced about the validity of the story but a QFI would surely never be wrong!!!

[aluminium persuader]

S'right- "Finals" is mil & "final" is civ.

Remember an old(er!) ATSA/master sim at the College of Knowledge at Bournemouth growling "Finalsssss??? Just how many landingssss will you be making off this approach, then?"

Such frantic semantics!

ap:hmm:

[Seymour Belvoir]

Surely the point of calling 'Finals' in the turn instead of when you are lined up on the centre-line is to get a clearance to land before the other bloke.

Or is that just me?:p

[London Mil]

Beags, you mention the land/roll/touch and go/overshoot stuff. Personally I like the 'option' - do what you want, from an ATC perspective I don't really care. If I can't give you the 'option', then I will tell you what I can give you (ie 'overshoot only not below ... etc).
Of course, suggestions like that will take until the next millenium to be staffed.:hmm:

[BEagle]

The call isn't for the benefit of the Air Trafficker alone, it is to help others plan their circuit. For example, if I've just climbed away on take-off and have heard someone else call 'downwind to land', then I may need to extend upwind to ensure that I don't get balked on the approach by an aircraft still on the RW after landing if I plan to fly a touch and go.

Aircraft in the visual circuit should plan their own activity without interference from the visual controller. There is nothing worse than being ordered about by some well-meaning controller who does not understand the effect of wind on slow aircraft, for example.

And as for those who think a 'visual straight in' takes priority over traffic already in the visual circuit.... I was Duty Dog at Benson once when a Queen's Flight 146 announced he was straight in to land. "No he isn't", I told the visual controller, "Tell him to join on the deadside as there are 3 aircraft in the visual circuit ahead of him!". Which he did; when he tried to whinge to the CFI afterwards he was told to go and read the FOB!

[ATCO Fred]

Diddley Dee & BEagle, thanks for you replies.
Quote:
It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long!
I couldn't agree more!
That'll be the Phraseology working group chaired by GD/P, the group that veto's many of the changes Mil ATC want to introduce to align with Civil ATC.
Cue change to 'line up and hold/wait'
"We don't need to be told to hold we know were not cleared for take off"
ATC retreat and mandatory report all take off without clearance....
6 months later, over 2 dozen occurrences and a rapid backtrack inbound.....probably NOT!!
Grenade!!
Fred

[BEagle]

I hope it isn't chaired by a FJ GD/P - they're often the worst offenders when it comes to correct RT procs, in my experience! The same people who moaned about the brief period when we briefly went back to QNH at military aerodromes.

"After landing traffic, line up and wait" is entirely reasonable and safe. And your GD/P needs to be told "Yes you WILL have to accept being told to wait!". Again, this shows poor understanding of the needs of others. The aircraft on final who hears "After landing traffic, line up and wait" being passed to a military aircraft approaching the holding position at least knows that the mil. aircraft won't try to take-off without a further ATC clearance.

You need a ME QFI with experience of both civil and military aerodromes worldwide to chair such a group. Preferably one who has some FJ experience.

[teeteringhead]

You need a ME QFI with experience of both civil and military aerodromes worldwide to chair such a group. Preferably one who has some FJ experience. ... thought you had a job BEags! ;)

[London Mil]

The call isn't for the benefit of the Air Trafficker alone, it is to help others plan their circuit.
Bu&&er, thats where I'm going wrong. There was me thinking the big shiney things were there exclusively to populate my pinboard. :)
Aside, I agree Beags.

[L J R]

....and when will you use QNH like everyone else?

[Roland Pulfrew]

....and when will you use QNH like everyone else?

Hopefully just as Hell freezes over. And with global warming that will be.................:E

[MAD Boom]

All this talk of pointless posts - rubbish!!!!!

About time we saw something for discussion which doesn't include 'I hate the RAF/movers/non-aircrew (FC's) etc'.

However, not being of the two winged variety, I cannot add any wealth to the original topic.

So bring on the discussions I say, no matter how trivial. :ok:

[spekesoftly]

a FJ GD/P - they're often the worst offenders when it comes to correct RT procs, in my experience! The same people who moaned about the brief period when we briefly went back to QNH at military aerodromes.

Strange how things evolve over the years. In his excellent book 'Meteor Eject', Nick Carter writes much about his RAF training as a fighter pilot in the early 50s. On the subject of Instrument Rating Tests, he comments:-

"It is interesting to note that the RAF always did approach and landings with the airfield QNH set, whereas civil operators used QFE settings"

And today we have almost the complete reverse!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

aaahhhh QFE vs QNH,.... now there's a topic worth fighting over! Stick with QFE, it's so much easier it's untrue!

[MaxReheat]

Roll=one syllable;Touch-and-go=3 syllables;latter = RT clutter.

[MrBernoulli]

"Stick with QFE, it's so much easier it's untrue! "

......... not when there are big bloody hills or mountains about, its not!:}

[Al-Berr]

MaxReheat,

Spot on! :ok:

It's always comedy listening to the zone freq with the civvies giving their life stories. :zzz:

Al

[Brain Potter]

When the last QFE/QNH debate took place the FJ and (to a lesser extent) RW fleets did not do a significant amount of flying away from the "comfort zone" of UK Mil ATC procedures. Surely now that everyone is a bit more worldy-wise we can change some of our anachronistic and parochial habits. It speaks volumes that QFE is only common at UK Mil aerodromes and in former Soviet countries. Adherence to QFE as our UK standard not only continues to breed less terrain aware crews, but also goes against the maxim of "train-like-you-fight". To me, it makes sense to inculcate our young crews with QNH right from the start of their careers. Instead, we expect them to adapt whist on ops, in somewhere hilly, where people are trying to kill you (that just the ATC!) I am told that the strongest resisitance to QNH came from the CFS world (for teaching PFLs etc). The worst story I heard was a former Woodvale Stn Cdr who decreeed that, as there was only about 1 mb difference, QFE would be used in the local operating area vice regional QNH. Ergo, a whole generation of UAS students who thougt that QFE was perfectly valid at 20-30 nm from the aerodrome.
As we become a smaller and smaller part of total UK traffic surely there becomes a point where even procedures that have reasonable logic (roll vs touch-and-go) become less defensible simply on the grounds that they are non-standard.

And who has been teaching pilots to drop the "Clear ..." from all the clearances?

[tmmorris]

As a convert (civvy pilot now flying at a mil airfield) I must say I am almost wholly convinced by military RT. The circuit procedures are easier, I love the initials join, and the RT is brisk and businesslike. Now going back into civvy airfields some of the RT drives me mad.

But there is definitely an element in the RAF which refuses to learn from the experience and theories of civilian MCC and human factors research. Some of the examples above (conditional clearances, line up and wait, for example) are clear indicators of where adding a couple of words can avoid incidents, yet people still fulminate against it.

I don't want to sound twee, but... both sides can learn from each other :)

Tim

[TheOddOne]

And who has been teaching pilots to drop the "Clear ..." from all the clearances?

Well, everyone, I should jolly well hope!!!

The word 'clear' is EXCLUSIVELY reserved for 'clear for take-off' and 'clear to land' and should be used under NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. Let's not have another Tenerife.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[Brain Potter]

Wrong.
After Tenerife "Ready for take-off" was replaced by "Ready for departure". This was so that another aircraft indicating readiness could not be confused with ATC issuing a take-off clearance. The pilot readback of "Cleared..." was not dropped.
CAP 413 states:
Controllers will use the following phraseology for take off.
G-CD cleared for take-off
The quoted response is:
Cleared for take-off G-CD
JSP 552 says almost the same "c/s clear take-off; clear take-off c/s"
Both documents follow similar patterns for the Land/Roll/O'shoot clearances.

Edited to add:

TheOddOne - Sorry if I sounded a bit agresssive. I don't know if there ever was a version of CAP413 where only ATC said "cleared" with word being dropped on readback. On the occasions that I have queried this abbreviation of clearance readbacks, older folks have quoted Tenerife as the reason (and younger ones say that's what their QFI said) However, I have never seen any published phraseology (civil or mil) that agrees, which leads me to suspect that it was a myth.

[Backwards PLT]

OK - just because I'm really bored (and slightly euphoric from a sleep deprivation/caffeine mix).

I'm not an expert and have never read JSP blah de blah:eek: . I just fly aeroplanes.

The problem with "After landing traffic, line up and wait" is when the first bit gets stepped on/scrambled so all you hear is "...line up and wait". Seen it happen with an airliner when I was on short finals (obviously he didnt look out his window, he just rolled onto the runway in front of me).

Secondly I was always taught NEVER to repeat the "clear" part of a clearance as it could be mistaken by another aircraft for their clearance. Was told this in the olden days by a QFI, so it must be true. Had to have it beaten out of me as I had all those nasty habits from Flying Scholarship days! Interesting that lessons seem to get unlearnt after a while.

Wish I was flying today instead of reading PPRuNe :(

[BEagle]

"Secondly I was always taught NEVER to repeat the "clear" part of a clearance as it could be mistaken by another aircraft for their clearance."

That was ONCE the case; however, it had changed by the early 1990s. It then became MANDATORY to repeat the word 'clear' afer ATC had used it. You ARE TO readback all clearances.

When I came back to QFI-ing on the VC10 after some QFI-ing on the Bulldog, I found that some of my colleagues hadn't kept up with the changes and were still advocating the use of the word 'ROGER' after ATC called 'Clear to land'. Or even the 'click-click' on RT.

"I'm not an expert and have never read JSP blah de blah . I just fly aeroplanes."

I would say that is an unprofessional attitude. I suggest you go and read 'JSP blah de blah' and improve your professionalism if you're not flying!