ICAO phraseology vs UK phraseology - and where does CAP 413 fit in?

[Spitoon]

I've been thinking about this for a while and I haven't really come to any conclusions. So I offer it for wider discussion.

I'm a UK controller. My phraseology guide is that contained in MATS Part 1 and, to an extent, CAP 413. We know that the UK has some differences to ICAO phraseology - CAP 413 even lists them in an appendix now. Some of these differences seem unnecessary although others appear to address an obvious potential for misunderstanding (but perhaps only to a native speaker) in the ICAO phraseology and I support them fully. Even for those variations that seem unnecessary, someone has gone to the trouble of devising them so I suppose there must be some justification that I just don't see.

Now, in theory, in the UK, I guess CAP 413 phraseology should be used - wherever the pilot/aircraft may come from - that's one reason why States have to file differences with ICAO. But as a controller who speaks to aircraft driven by pilots of many different nationalities, I recognise that some pilots may not immediately understand or be familiar with our local phraseology. So I am aware of the ICAO standard phraseology and will switch to it if it will help to ensure that a pilot understands what I am saying (although I don't think there is any CAA requirement for me to be able to do so - indeed, it may even be frowned upon by the boys from Aviation House).

So far, so good.

As I understand it, however, pilots gaining their licences in the UK are examined using examinations that are common to all JAA/EASA member States and these examinations are based on ICAO phraseology. As far as I am aware, there is no supplemental examination in UK-specific phraseology.

So what is the point of CAP 413? If my understanding of the situation is correct, pilots are not examined on its contents. But the day after gaining their licence, nominally, they should use phraseology that they have not needed to learn and have not demonstrated their knowledge of. It's conceivable that a UK-licensed pilot may well be confused by a controller who is using UK standard phaseology.

And what of the UK differences that obviously address weaknesses in the ICAO standards - are these safety measures now effectively undermined?

[windriver]

A most interesting post. In fact I`ve been tempted to ask the same question.

Having been involved in R/T Training and examining mainly for PPL's since CAP 46 (ie Pre CAP 413 days) I`ve come to the conclusion that the CAP 413 was (and still is) a pragmatic solution to the problem of standardisation in R/T training at grass roots level. Perhaps with an understanding that once a pilot progresses to an IFR environment they will receive relevant training appropriate to their envirionment.

THe CAP 413's not perfect, but in my view it provides a solid framework for primary R/T training.

In the highly unlikely event I was asked to edit the CAP 413 (The Radiotelephony Guide) I would go for a Volume 1 (VFR procs UK) and Volume 2 (IFR procedures)

With this approach the differences could be meaningfully incorporated into the narrative.

However in answer to the initial post it's probably a question of awareness training.

I suppose I'll get plenty of flack but R/T always seems to be the Cindarella subject.

[Goldfish Jack]

Down at the bottom of Africa, aka Cape Town, our SOPs say that the r/t used will be based on ICAO ATM (Doc4444), however we may use any phraseology in cases where ICAO is problematic, as long as the pilot is able to understand what we are saying and there is no chance of a mis-interpretation.

Always worked for me and i have not had any probs in 20 years.

[Pierre Argh]

I think(?) in most circumstances there is some form of caveat allowing for deviation from standard phraseology to plain language when communication difficulty is experienced. Of course, if the comms problem is due to limited understanding of the language - then that might not help?

If you think differences between ICAO standard and CAP413 are hard to handle - spare a thought for the UK Mil ATCO who, according to JSP552, is required to use "civilian" phraseology when speaking to civilian pilots - This ludricous regulation (probably inserted as a sop to justify the Mil differences in the first place?) - is funnily enough given a stiff ignoring most of the time.... but one wonders what the BOIs view would be?