Silly little book from the CAA

[TheGorrilla]

Today I arrived home from a trip to look on my doorstep at a CAA envelope. Heart stopped for a short while till I opened the wee parcel and revealed a little ring bound book on RT.

How to ask for start up clearance, push back, taxi...... I'm sorry numb nuts but this has clearly been delivered to the wrong house!

I've been asking for these clearances for many years now and through shear simplicity hardly ever accidentally ask for eggs over-easy and a well grilled steak by accident instead of clearance to start and push. I'm assuming most other pilots receive a similar level of basic training. So why am I parting with lots of money to renew my licence every five years to be sent a glossy little christmas card (bit early) reminding me how to speak. I would point out this was compiled by an office w&nker who uses a radio once a year to prove to himself that he can or order a taxi home when he's pissed.

Err.. What the heck is this all about?

Aviate, navigate and talk ****e to someone who is really gonna help you from 500 miles away when your cargo hold is on fire mid atlantic. 14 minutes till we burn to death. Excellent! I'll dig out that silly little book the CAA gave me on how to ask for a start up clearance.

Thanks guys.

[2 sheds]

If you read it, you will also notice that not only has it been compiled by a consortium of experts from NATS, CAA SRG, UKFSC and Thordis Ltd (who?), but in several cases, having extolled the virtues of standard phraseology,....they have got it WRONG!

[throw a dyce]

An interesting document.I had a little ''happening'' the other day,and one of the LCE's comment was too many instructions in one transmission.Yet low and behold on page 20,UK-ILS it says,
''Big jet 345,turn right heading 240 degrees (1),descend to altitude 3000ft (2), report established on localiser,runway 27 right,(3).
Now I got into trouble for using that exact sequence of phrases and the LCE thought it contributed to a level bust by there being 3 instructions rather than 2.:ugh: Elsewhere there are other examples of this ,so who's right?
Also at the bottom of that page it says ''Big jet 345,cleared to land rwy 27R,wind 270 degrees ten knots.
Wrong way round,surface wind?
It's a good idea in theory,but I think there are mistakes in there.:D

[Helen49]

The background and lack of experience of the 'Editor' tell you everything.
H49

[ShyTorque]

Glad to hear others got these; I was thinking they sent me one in isolation, and wondered who perhaps complained about me.... :\

I'm going to ask for start and pushback tomorrow, in my helicopter. :E

[VectorLine]

I've not got one, who is the editor?

[Defruiter]

Also got one as well...Looks like a waste of money printing them to me :ugh:

[AlanM]

Nice and shiney - and a waste of money I think.

Unless of course it gets issued to the American crews (esp the readback section)

ShyT - best you ask for Startup clearance next time you are on the ground at Burnham...... or there will be trouble mate!

[Spitoon]

Sadly I haven't received one - I guess they're happy with my R/T. Is this the same thing as was put on the web site a few days ago as a CAP 413 supplement?

If so, it seems like they can't work out who it's for - the thing on the web says it's for pilots so why send it to controllers? If controllers have R/T problems write something for them. The really ironic thing is that the supplement seems to be being publicised to pilots through a FODCOM but maybe being sent individuaslly to controllers!

Even if it's not the same, the web thing is all very glossy, colourful and clever, but the people it's aimed at are grown-ups (and professionals). If I need some information then just give it to me - I suspect that many professional pilots will feel the same way! Fine dress it up a little so it's not completely boring to read but page-turning sounds....pleeeeze, it's for five-year olds!

And that's before I talk about how much it must all cost......and, ultimately, I can't help feeling that either money could be better spent or could be used to reduce charges in some way.

[neilmac]

Yep I got one as well, and I am RAF Controller with a PPL so WTF? I can push back my PA28 without pemission. But to be fair it is nice and shiny.............little things and little minds!!

NM

[Angrel]

Throw a Dyce: I'm on the APP course at Hurn and we are told to give 3 instructions in one transmission. For example Heading, level, speed.

Whats it like ''out there'' in reality?:}

[BEXIL160]

we are told to give 3 instructions in one transmission

Shouldn't that be a MAXIMUM of three instructions?

Or are you taught to "save them up" until you've got three things to say ;)

The real world is Significantly different from CATC. (the constant "London Control" with almost every tx doesn't happen for example.... you don't have time) That said, you Do have to start to learn the basics somewhere. That place is CATC.

Rgds BEX

[Angrel]

fair point it is a maximum! my bad.

And i realise the college has a role to play, was just being tongue in cheek about reality.

[Roffa]

Throw a Dyce: I'm on the APP course at Hurn and we are told to give 3 instructions in one transmission. For example Heading, level, speed.
Whats it like ''out there'' in reality?

You'll find out when you try it with the likes of China Eastern or similar.

You'll probably only do it the once and use it as a learning experience ;)

[eyeinthesky]

Of course, if everyone was as perfect as you lot think you are, then there wouldn't be so many incidents where communication error was the cause, would there?

Why knock someone trying to do something about it? Luddites...:ugh:

[Angrel]

yeah i bet!! not the same with 1 input using the same voice for all transmissions! not to say they dont do a great job cos they do :ok: but it must be a different ball game with pilots from all over the world! cant wait!!

[speedrestriction]

Personally I think an email with a link to CAP 413 would have been a better idea, cheaper and more indepth.

During busy stages of flight eg. departure and approach, three instructions at once can be a bit much.

[throw a dyce]

Angrel,
There is a piece of shiney plastic out from Nats that says you should try to avoid giving more than 2 instructions in one transmission.That is a change from Mats part 1 which says 3.Defintion of instruction is a bit wooly.
The reality is that you have to correct wrong readbacks everyday,and if you miss one then it's your fault.Never mind external circumstances.If you make a mistake,then someone will find fault,no matter what it is.You don't get brownie points for the ones that get spotted.Oh and watch out for any airline with China in it.Be very careful with them.

[Dannyboyblue]

But hey as Blackadder once said it does have its uses............

Soft, strong and totally absorbent:}

DBB

[whitehorse]

Out of the country at the moment, but my wife tells me that it is waiting for me at home. The suspence is killing me. I think I will have to make it the 3rd thing I do when I get home - put down the suitcase, *********** the wife and then read the booklet.

[ShyTorque]

AlanM, I will ask for startup but the pushback might be difficult in that walled garden ;)

Whitehorse, I would take your time with the missus, the booklet's not worth rushing that for... :)

[hangten]

''Big jet 345,cleared to land rwy 27R,wind 270 degrees ten knots.
Wrong way round,surface wind?

In what way? I believe 'wind' is an acceptable abbreviation of 'surface wind'.

Now I got into trouble for using that exact sequence of phrases and the LCE thought it contributed to a level bust by there being 3 instructions rather than 2. Elsewhere there are other examples of this ,so who's right?

I guess the problem is there aren't any hard and fast rules as such. We just have to try and use our common sense. If you can afford to break it up, do. If not then don't. Just be aware of the risk.

Of course, if everyone was as perfect as you lot think you are, then there wouldn't be so many incidents where communication error was the cause, would there?

Hear hear.

[throw a dyce]

Hangten,
The phraseology used in this booklet is not what Nats are telling us to say.The amount of instructions given is not what Nats are telling us to say.Common sense perhaps,but if we use the phraseology in that book,our LCE will kick our backsides.If some incident happens then you get it for exceeding maximum number of instructions.That is fact.If the CAA issue a booklet like this,then the minimum requirement is that the controllers phraseology is correct.It isn't.:suspect:

[22/04]

I seem to be out of date. Montoring LHR as I drove by ( icenised radio, licensed RTF holder) clearances alll seemed to be "clear to start and pushback", Don't most do it the other way round - I remember "push and start" as standard. Can anyone enlighten?

[Spitoon]

The phraseology used in this booklet is not what Nats are telling us to say.The amount of instructions given is not what Nats are telling us to say.Common sense perhaps,but if we use the phraseology in that book,our LCE will kick our backsides.If some incident happens then you get it for exceeding maximum number of instructions.That is fact.If the CAA issue a booklet like this,then the minimum requirement is that the controllers phraseology is correct.It isn'tThe CAA sets minimum standards for the UK. The way things work these days it is possible that a particular service provider may set more stringent standards for its own people - which may be what NATS is doing. I still don't know if this is the same booklet that is aimed at pilots - because I haven't received one - but if it is, what is puzzling is that NATS contributed to it. This would suggest that some peope in NATS don't know what is going on elsewhere in the organisation - surely not!

[False Capture]

I've just read that "silly little book from the CAA" which I've been using as a hot-drinks coaster in my study since it invaded my house.

I have to say, I'm a little surprised at how old-fashioned my RT is (errr, I mean was). These areas were also covered in my base-check last week such as:
- appending "millibars" to pressure values of less than 1000 millibars.
- using six digits for VHF frequencies.
- using "to" in climb or descent instructions relating to an altitude and followed by "altitude".
- appending "degrees" to any heading ending in zero.
- "Go Ahead" is now replaced with "Pass your message" (Mess your Passage?:ooh:).

Anyway, you'll be pleased to hear that the book has now been re-employed as a drinks coaster.

If anyone from the CAA is reading this, please could you issue my next guide in DVD-ROM format as these make really useful beer-mats.:ok:

[Ahh-40612]

Also works well under the patio table to stop it rocking. Book is fairly waterproof so far.

Another error in the book is " no speed restriction " after departure.

This was outlawed recently on non-existent evidence in total disregard to staff who actually work the sectors concerned.

The practise is being used quite regularly now to achieve spacing and early transfer to LACC.

40612
Just a pile of scrap in the Arizona desert.

[Firestorm]

OK: here's a question for you ATCO chappies.

Why do some of you tell us, when handing us over to another sector, to call channel (and it's always quite heavily emphasised as such) 123.455, when in reality it's frequency?

[Firestorm]

And whilst I'm here... Is there a rule about not issuing clearances (flight level, heading and so on) and a frequency change in the same transmission?

I couldn't find answers to either question in CAP 413, or The Silly Little Book (I am the pilot that read and ignored it) which doesn't mean that the answers aren't there!

[INCA9]

You won't be given a clearance and frequency change in the same transmission due to the requirement to obtain a readback. It reduces the risk of you accepting a change in flight level for example (potentially to an incorrect level) and disappearing off to another frequency before you've read it back.

[Firestorm]

INCA9. I thought that was supposed to be the case, but I am constantly given clearances and frequency changes in the same transmission, in both UK and foreign airspace! Obviously if this guidance isn't mentioned in The Silly Little Book, then it is only guidance, or common sense good practice rather than a rule.

[Hand Solo]

Why do some of you tell us, when handing us over to another sector, to call channel (and it's always quite heavily emphasised as such) 123.455, when in reality it's frequency?

IIRC it's a throwback to when 8.33KHz frequency spacing was introduced and is a heads-up that you are about to get 6 figures thrown at you instead of 5.

[hs1611]

Originally Posted by hangten

Quote:
''Big jet 345,cleared to land rwy 27R,wind 270 degrees ten knots.
Wrong way round,surface wind?

In what way? I believe 'wind' is an acceptable abbreviation of 'surface wind'.

IIRC wind information should be given before clearance to land, like "Big jet 345, wind 270 degrees 10 knots, cleared to land RWY 27R"

[throw a dyce]

Nats notice says runway designator,then cleared take off or land.
They contributed to the CAP413 supplement,but don't follow their own guidelines.

[2 sheds]

The few authoritative references that exist indicate surface wind information being given after the take-off or landing clearance. The runway designator being specified before the clearance was an ICAO change, introduced specifically to heighten awareness of the specific runway (when more than one in use), and was adopted by the UK (3 or 4 years ago?).

The co-conspiritors of this recent document do not seem to know their subject, are certainly not aware of such recent(?) changes and apparently have not even checked their production for accuracy against the appropriate documents! If there is any justice, there ought to be some heads rolling in CAA and NATS.

[Mister Geezer]

Think some of our American colleagues should take a look at the book... some of the R/T displayed by some of the Yanks going in and out of KK today was abysmal!

[VATCO]

Well said 2 sheds we cannot continue to be instructed and advised to use RTF in different ways if we continue to be told various ways of doing things how can uniformity ever come about!

[letMfly]

I'm with 2 Sheds and VATCO on this one. We have ICAO standard phraseology, UK standard phraseology, NATS is increasingly developing it's own phraseology because it knows better than everyone else, and Unit specific phraseology! No wonder the poor pilots get confused.:ugh:

[NBanker]

Firestorm
Why do some of you tell us, when handing us over to another sector, to call channel (and it's always quite heavily emphasised as such) 123.455, when in reality it's frequency?
Ah, but that's the point - they're not frequencies. When dealing with 8.33 spacing, it's not the the actual frequencies that are passed but their channel names.
To give an example, 132.0500 can be either a 25kHz or an 8.33kHz spaced frequency. To avoid confusion, the 25kHz version is passed as a frequency (or channel name, as they're the same in this case) of 132.050 but, the 8.33 version is passed as a channel of 132.055.
The next 8.33 frequency up is 132.0583 and this is transmitted as channel 132.060; the next 8.33 frequency of 132.0667 is transmitted as channel 132.065 and so on.
NB

[hangten]

The few authoritative references that exist indicate surface wind information being given after the take-off or landing clearance.

That's what I thought and it matches the book - hence my query.

Clearly I can't speak for anybody else but in reality I swap the order about a fair bit, often tactically; e.g. to control the R/T so I can't get usurped when I need to give a late landing clearance. Does it really matter as long as the words and phrases used are kept in the standard format?

For example, which is correct:

"Big jet 245 turn left heading 230 degrees, climb flight level 100."

"Big jet 245 climb flight level 100, turn left heading 230 degrees."

[ATCO4114]

Only in the London TMA is the lifting of the speed restriction outlawed !!! NOT throughout the UK

[ATCO4114]

I am outraged at the pathetic atitude. We are all guilty of poor RT at times whether you admit it or not. Some of the references to changes are concerning - if anyone had ever read CAP413 they would know that there are no changes but it is simply accepted that the 'slang' we often hear on the RT is acceptable and has become the norm- and it is not.
Let us also consider that if it were not a fact that there are a very high proportion of incidents in the UK are caused or contributed to by poor or incorrect RT then there would be no need for such a reminder but the facts prove it all - we are at fault on occasion and in some cases positively dangerous. Many Pilots have not undergone any refresher training for RT since they qualified and in many airlines it is not a core part of their base checks. So lets not all be full of bravado and pretent to be offended because of how GOOD we are because the facts show we are not all that good on the whole and is it not about time that instead of knocking the people that at least try to do something - in their own time - while many of us sit on our fat behinds drinking red wine we support some possitive action. - it it stops one air miss or worse it IS worth it

[PPRuNe Radar]

Only in the London TMA is the lifting of the speed restriction outlawed !!! NOT throughout the UK

Not true. Trials are underway in other UK TMAs as well.

[VectorLine]

In the Scottish TMA for example:
RAC : Q)EGPX/QATXX/I/NBO/E/030/245/5543N00352W045
FROM 07/01/22 00:00 TO 07/07/31 23:59 B0064/07
E)SCOTTISH TMA DEPARTURE SPEED RESTICTION
A TRIAL OF MAINTAINING THE PUBLISHED SPEED RESTRICTION WILL BE
APPLIED TO ACFT DEPARTING ON SIDS FROM EGPF EGPH AND EGPK, CREWS ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO OBSERVE AN IAS LIMIT OF 250KTS BELOW FL100.
SCACC TMA CONTROLLERS SHALL NOT CANCEL THIS SPEED RESTRICTION, UNLESS THERE ARE OVERIDING SAFETY REASONS FOR DOING SO, OR THE PILOT REPORTS THAT HE IS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SPEED RESTRICTION DUE TO THE ACFT CONFIGURATION.
THE BENIFITS SHOULD BE THAT DEPARTURE SEPARATIONS ARE MAINTAINED FOR LONGER, REDUCED BUNCHING BELOW FL100, MORE PREDICTABLE TRAFFIC FLOWS, A REDUCTION IN RTF, IMPROVE TRACK KEEPING/SID ADHERENCE AND AND IMPROVED CLIMB PERFORMANCE ON MOST ACFT TYPES

[Defruiter]

How strange....Now it's being promoted on the Intranet :ugh:

Can't understand it...

[agent007]

ATCO4114,
I must agree that it is a sad reflection that many pilots appear not to appreciate some of the intricacies of RTF. Within UK it is a pity that once a pilot has been through the FRTOL exam there is little further examination by examiners other than perhaps SOPS and checks within the airlines. ATCO's are checked yearly and only recently I have witnessed SRG commenting on RTF standards and procedures.
Perhaps the CAA Chief Examiner should look again at some of the regulatory requirements of the FRTOL licence.
The booklet was I'm sure published with the best of intentions however as seen within this thread some mistakes were made prior to publishing and hopefully a correction will be forthcoming in the near future !!
Having said all this I do feel over the years the majority of RTF has improved somewhat.