G-XXXX ready for departure

[PompeyPaul]

Another question that's been bugging me, I think with no right or wrong answer.

You are sat at final holding pen before joining the runway. There is an aircraft on base that you can see. Do you announce "G-XXXX ready for departure" to say I'm ready for departure whenever ATIS is ?

Or do you wait until you the aircraft on base, lands and vacates the runway and you really are ready, and prepared for departure before calling "ready for departure" ?

I'm presuming an "information" service that you are talking to.

[dublinpilot]

You don't want to scare anyone into thinking you're about to enter the runway and take off!

Better would be "G-XXXX on <taxiway designatin> , holding short of <runway identifer>, power checks complete and ready for departure."

dp

[Shunter]

Surely it's a judgement call... if you're all ready to roll you'll be long gone before said aircraft is anywhere near the runway. You could say "Visual with traffic on base, ready for immediate".

[stickandrudderman]

"Ready for departure after finals traffic" works well for me.

[TurboJ]

If you are talking to a tower, I would say "G-XXXX ready for departure"

They may reply, "Can you accept an immediate"

Your reply "Afirm"

Tower would say, "Cleared immediate take-off, rwy xx, wind xxx/xx"

A radio or information service would simply say, "Roger" They are not there to tell you whether to take off or land and cannot give you a clearance. If you are visual with traffic on a base leg then I would suggest there is more than enough space/time to depart.

As a general comment there is no need for long waffling statements on the radio. Short, sharp and concise.

There are right/wrong answers with regards to R/T. They can be found in CAP413 at www.caa.co.uk

[BackPacker]

"Ready for departure, traffic on base in sight" lets everybody know you are ready but you've seen the traffic and are not going to line up or do something else stupid which might interfere with that traffic.

"Ready for immediate departure, traffic on base in sight" subtly lets the tower controllers know that you think you can squeeze in front. But at the end of the day, it's their judgement call.

At a controlled airport I call "ready for departure" as soon as I am ready (checks complete), regardless of what happens around me (other than finding a suitable moment in the R/T stream). My opinion is the earlier ATC knows about my readiness state, the earlier they can schedule me in the runway order. But I do try to let ATC know that I'm aware of the situation. "Ready for departure at xxx, number two", even when number one hasn't called ready for departure yet (student taking his sweet little time with the power checks) has, on occasion, granted me with a "can you pass the number one?" "affirm" "cleared for immediate takeoff"

[A and C]

G-XXXX holding short RWY XX ready departure.

That is all you need say, the guy on final and the tower know that you are now ready to go and that you are holding clear of the runway. Any more is just useless waffle clogging the frequency!

Dispite "holding short" being an ICAO standard term the British don't seem to use it very much........................ Why when it is so usefull to keep the chat to a minimum?

However if the field is uncontroled and the aircraft is on base I would say "G-XXXX taking off RW XX" and be long gone before the average light aircraft was half way down final app.

[TheKentishFledgling]

Same as someone said above - if you think you can make it before he lands (and he's not been cleared or whatever..) "ready for departure, contact with aircraft on final", maybe even "ready for immediate departure, contact....". If not, it's "ready for departure, contact one on final, holding short".

tKF

[Chilli Monster]

In an ATC environmemnt: "G-XXXX - ready for departure".

I don't care if you can see the traffic on base.
I don't care if you want to wait for the traffic on base (though by definition if you want to wait then you're not ready, therefore you shouldn't say anything).

The call itself is a simple statement of fact - nothing more - that you're "ready for departure". Checks are complete, you can go if I say.
That's it - nothing else required to be said.

In a FISO environment: "G-XXXX - ready for departure"

Much the same as the above, the difference being he'll pass traffic information, you make the decision whether to go or not.

In an A/G environment: "G-XXXX, lining up and departing Rwy ??, visual traffic on base" if you're going to go ahead of the traffic. If you're not and you're going to wait, then say nothing until the traffic is past you, the approach is clear, and then you just say "G-XXXX, lining up and departing Rwy ??"

"Ready for departure" implies that you're waiting for a take off clearance from someone - not appropriate at A/G airfields.

"G-XXXX on <taxiway designatin> , holding short of <runway identifer>, power checks complete and ready for departure."

What a pile of useless guff! Of course you're holding short, you haven't been given a line up clearance - unnecessary verbiage. Power checks complete - who cares? More unnecessary verbiage.

[PompeyPaul]

To be clear, I'm thinking about situations where you know you can't depart because of traffic. In those situations do you tell ATC that you are ready for departure so they can schedule you in, or should you wait until you are ready and prepared for departure ?

[A and C]

You should not say "ready for departure" untill all the checks are done and you are ready for departure.

I cant beleave I,m having to write this, is it not common sence?

[PompeyPaul]

All checks are complete, you are sat there, can see an aircraft coming in. In that sense you are "ready for departure"

[A and C]

Sorry I don't understand!

You are ready for departure ........or you are not ready for departure.

If you are not ready in any way DON'T call ready. If you are ready to line up and go call "ready".

[Whirlybird]

If you are ready for departure, tell ATC, as briefly as possible. It's now up to them to make the decision as to when you take off, not you.

Chilli Monster is an ATCO and tells it like it is. :ok:

[bookworm]

I don't care if you want to wait for the traffic on base (though by definition if you want to wait then you're not ready, therefore you shouldn't say anything).

I find it hard to believe that it's not helpful for planning for the tower to know in advance that you'll be ready after the next landing rather than your waiting until the landing aircraft has passed before opeining your mouth.

[PompeyPaul]

I guess I'll call "ready for departure" when I'm ready, and willing, to accept a clearence!

[Chilli Monster]

find it hard to believe that it's not helpful for planning for the tower to know in advance that you'll be ready after the next landing rather than your waiting until the landing aircraft has passed before opeining your mouth.

For the nanoseconds in planning time it'll take me (and I've worked out all the possible departure permutations long before you call - remember that game of chess :) )it really isn't necessary for you to say when you're going to be ready if you're not ready at that point in time. All I want to hear is "Ready" when you're ready, not before. (Because if I think I can get you out ahead of a 737 on a 3 mile final I'll do it ;) )

[IO540]

"N-XXXX ready for departure" is OK anytime unless there is traffic before me waiting to depart, in which case I use
"N-XXXX ready for departure in turn"

Abroad, I would not use the "in turn" because ATC English competence is often limited solely to the prescribed phrases, so any kind of free use of the English language is a dodgy area. This is going to change, over time, as a result of new English language competence requirements for ATC, which I dare say a lot of people out there aren't too happy about.

[stiknruda]

Pprune is such a useful resource to elicit useful bits of info but I can't help feeling that some of the questions asked here recently indicate a serious decrease in the level of basic instruction.

This question and the one about total time should have been covered by the instructor during ab-initio lessons.


Stik

[Capt Pit Bull]

You could always say:

"G-XX, Ready for departure, able immediate."

Economical with the words, and shows you recognise the traffic situation, and shows you don't have some technical ADD situation requiring action on the runway such that an immediate will not be possible.

pb

[englishal]

Of course you're holding short, you haven't been given a line up clearance
To be fair though, I normally include the runway or intersection if at an airfield with more than one runway or intersection departures e.g. "XYZ holding short of 25L at Delta ready for departure". I agree "power checks complete" is guff :)

A FISO can issue clearances on the ground so I'd call "GABCD ready for departure" as soon as I was ready. If I was subsequently cleared to "take off at your discretion" I'd probably call something like "GABCD holding for landing traffic" if I was going to hold.

I don't include "in turn" or "number 2" etc..because of habit from the USA - you may be waiting behind someone who is waiting for IFR release and if you are VFR you could nip in infront of them and get away.

At an AG field I'd either wait until the other plane had landed or if time, taxy out calling "GABCD departing 25 to the south, traffic on base in sight " or something like that. If I had a queue behind me or the landing pilot was getting twitchy :)I may say something like "GABCD holding for landing traffic" ....

[Chilli Monster]

"G-XX, Ready for departure, able immediate."

With all due respect - that's not your call. YOU say whether you're ready, I decide whether to offer you an immediate or not.

WHY do you people insist on adding things which aren't necessary - go back, read my original post - come back if there's anythng there you don't understand.

To be fair though, I normally include the runway or intersection if at an airfield with more than one runway or intersection departures e.g. "XYZ holding short of 25L at Delta ready for departure".

Here's a surprise - I know where you are because; a) I sent you there, and b) They give me nice big windows to look out of - a pre-requisite for doing the job properly :ugh:

[snapper41]

I cant beleave I,m having to write this, is it not common sence?
Rather like your spelling and grammar??:E

[TractorBoy]

Here's a surprise - I know where you are because; a) I sent you there, and b) They give me nice big windows to look out of - a pre-requisite for doing the job properly

I was under the impression that if you are told to hold at a particular point, that when you got there you were supposed to inform ATC ? I'm open for correction, of course.....

[bookworm]

For the nanoseconds in planning time it'll take me (and I've worked out all the possible departure permutations long before you call - remember that game of chess )it really isn't necessary for you to say when you're going to be ready if you're not ready at that point in time.

Presumably then, you never give conditional line-up clearances? How can you do so if you don't know that I'm ready for departure but haven't called because there's an aircraft on approach?

All I want to hear is "Ready" when you're ready, not before. (Because if I think I can get you out ahead of a 737 on a 3 mile final I'll do it )

And if I don't think you can, I won't, as you know very well.

[Chilli Monster]

I was under the impression that if you are told to hold at a particular point, that when you got there you were supposed to inform ATC ? I'm open for correction, of course.....

Consider yourself corrected.

Presumably then, you never give conditional line-up clearances? How can you do so if you don't know that I'm ready for departure but haven't called because there's an aircraft on approach?

Use conditionals all the time - couldn't do the job without them. I suspect you've missed the point of an earlier post. I said I wanted to hear "Ready" WHEN you're ready - NOT "Ready after the aircraft on base / final etc etc", nor do I want you to wait to make the ready call until an aircraft has passed you. Say it when you are, not before, not after.

And if I don't think you can, I won't, as you know very well.

Your perogative - from MATS part 1.

When given the instruction 'cleared for immediate take-off ' it is expected that the pilot will act as follows:

a) At the holding point, taxi immediately on to the runway and commence take-off without stopping the aircraft. (Not to be given to Heavy aircraft);

b) If already lined up on the runway, take-off without delay.

If you can't fulfill either of the above criteria I would fully expect you to refuse the take-off clearance, quite happy with that.

[DFC]

Have to agree 100% with Chilli's comments.

"Ready in turn" is another bit of verbosity.

If you are behind an aircraft or a number of aircraft at the holding point, do you think that simply calling "ready for departure" will cause the ATS unit to levitate you over those ahead to the front of the que?

If not at the hold then you should move to the hold before reporting ready and if others who taxied out before you are still doing their checks in the run-up area, you may even be number 1 for departure. It is not que jumping because you are first at the hold.

At an air-ground aerodrome as Chilli says, you are not going to be reporting ready anyway so it will not apply......you move to the hold and if there is no one between you and the hold, you are next to go.

Regards,

DFC

[20driver]

Chili I agree that comms should be simple but intersection information can be relevant.
There was a fatal runway crash in Florida a few years back. The controller had just come on position and cleared the Cessna at the intersection into position and hold and cleared the Cessna at the end to take off. All on both planes were killed.
I try to remember to include my intersection position when holding short in that situation and when reading back a take off clearance.
A good reason to keeps comms a short as possible is it helps all traffic maintain situational awareness.

20driver

[bookworm]

I suspect you've missed the point of an earlier post. I said I wanted to hear "Ready" WHEN you're ready - NOT "Ready after the aircraft on base / final etc etc", nor do I want you to wait to make the ready call until an aircraft has passed you. Say it when you are, not before, not after.

I was reading the bit where you wrote:

I don't care if you want to wait for the traffic on base (though by definition if you want to wait then you're not ready, therefore you shouldn't say anything).

which seems inconsistent with your last comment.

So, if I'm ready and able to enter the runway and depart but I see traffic on base or final in front of which I don't think it safe to depart, what should I do?

a) say nothing until the aircraft has passed

b) say "ready for departure" and subsequently reject your take off clearance if offered

or

c) say "ready for departure after the landing" and save us all some grief. ;)

[FullyFlapped]

Hmm. Well, firstly, DFC goes to the bottom of the spelling class ... qu'est-ce que c'est ? :)

Secondly, Chilli is of course correct with respect to ATC airfields (although, Chilli, I have to say that on several occasions I've had to remind ATC that I'm sat at a hold burning fuel, usually when it's busy and there's a "change of voice" !).

However, in the case of A/G fields, my own rules are that I will say whatever I think I need to to keep me (and everyone else) safe. I have very often made calls which are absolutely not required by CAPxxx but which I think will help the guy blatting around the ciruit or whatever ; and if that helps him avoid an unnecessary go around, or lets that low-hours student concentrate on his landing etc, I'm afraid I will continue to do so.

Absolutely agree that useless chatter should wherever possible be avoided : but safety is far more important than a few extra words - especially, to pick up a point Stik made earlier, when I read some of the questions on this forum !

FF :ok:

[englishal]

Here's a surprise - I know where you are because; a) I sent you there, and b) They give me nice big windows to look out of - a pre-requisite for doing the job properly
Not everyone is as good as you ;)- I do it as a CMA, seeing as when a pilot f**ks up the pilot dies, and when the controller f**cks up the pilot dies.;)

You may NOT have sent me there, someone else may have.You should know about me, but then again you may be having a bad day.

I had a controller once clear me to depart a left runway seconds after clearing another plane to depart a right runway. He then cleared to other aeroplane to make a LEFT crosswind, while I was departing straight out (the other aeroplane was slightly ahead). It was night and the result was evasive action with the other plane passing just over the top of us. The controller apologised like crazy, and said he forgot who was who.

Repeating runways, holding points and intersections is not a bad thing, IMHO, and takes a second extra. I always read back runway numbers for example "Line up and wait 26", "Holding short of 26 at November 1", "cleared for take off 08".....

[Chilli Monster]

Bookworm - you're just being perverse now ;)

Inconsistency was not intended - the basic tenet of the argument still remains. Effectively what you're trying to do here is "second guess" ATC - not something I would suggest is a good idea for a multitude of reasons. For all you know ATC might not think the gap is big enough anyway.

However, you're overcomplicating things here - just say "Ready" when you're ready - we'll assess the gap, we'll decide whether it's safe or not, if you're still not happy refuse the departure and give your reasons.

[bookworm]

Bookworm - you're just being perverse now

I find it strangely satisfying that you can't tell whether I'm trying to make a point I believe in or just being perverse for the hell of it. ;)

Effectively what you're trying to do here is "second guess" ATC

This is the heart of it. I think you underestimate the potential for collaboration between ATC and crew by the sharing of information about intentions and plans.

[Chilli Monster]

This is the heart of it. I think you underestimate the potential for collaboration between ATC and crew by the sharing of information about intentions and plans.

No - but I think there are limits. You want to go, I want to let you go in the safest possible manner - what is there to share?

ATC is relatively simple (that's why I do it - being a simple soul) - it's only pilots that overcomplicate matters :)

[DFC]

Hmm. Well, firstly, DFC goes to the bottom of the spelling class ... qu'est-ce que c'est ?

Prhepas tmie has aivrerd to rinemd erynveoe taht tihs is a fuorm for dcsusiinsg aatiiovn and taht it is esliay swohn how sllipeng deos not mtetar if you can raed.

:D :p :ok:

Raegdrs

DFC

[LH2]

Of course you're holding short

You can be holding a bit too short though. Like the Ryanairs at my home airfield who call "ready for departure" as soon as they get disconnected from the pushback truck. Never quite figured out whether they expect a clearance to take off on the taxiway or what :}

[PompeyPaul]

But bookworm's question is really driving at what I'm getting at. Do I call "ready" when I'm ready to go, but can see traffic, and leave it to ATC to clear me when it's free ?

Or do I call "ready" when I'm ready, and everythign seems quiet for me to go ?

Sorry, I'm not trying to cause yet more pprune wars :ouch:, I'm just interested and it's something I've sat and pondered at the holding point, whilst watching a PA28 coming onto the runway (he's called final and so RT is clear).

[Chilli Monster]

You can be holding a bit too short though. Like the Ryanairs at my home airfield who call "ready for departure" as soon as they get disconnected from the pushback truck. Never quite figured out whether they expect a clearance to take off on the taxiway or what

Better than calling for pushback even though there's no pushback truck within 100m of the aircraft ;) (It happens - often!)

Do I call "ready" when I'm ready to go, but can see traffic, and leave it to ATC to clear me when it's free
YES! (I thought this was relatively simple - obviously not)

[BackPacker]

Do I call "ready" when I'm ready to go, but can see traffic, and leave it to ATC to clear me when it's free ?

PP, that's a YES. You call ready whenever you are ready. The only reason to wait with it is when the R/T is busy. Even if there's a stream of I don't know how many landings and departures in front of you. This allows ATC (or an AFIS, in certain situations) do a bit of planning.

(Have to admit, if you're in a 30-aircraft queue waiting for departure at Duxford after the airshow, they - rightfully - ask you to report ready only when you're number one.)

Calling "ready behind the xxx on final" makes no sense at all. You are either ready now, or not, but it is unlikely that your state of readiness is dependent on the arrival of another aircraft (unless the other aircraft has something on board that needs to be on board of your aircraft before you are ready).


Ryanairs at my home airfield who call "ready for departure" as soon as they get disconnected from the pushback truck.

Ever tried giving them a "cleared for immediate takeoff, expect cancellation of take-off clearance if not rolling in 30 seconds"?

[Bravo73]

Just to confirm...

Do I call "ready" when I'm ready to go, but can see traffic, and leave it to ATC to clear me when it's free ?



Yes. :)

[LH2]

Better than calling for pushback even though there's no pushback truck within 100m of the aircraft (It happens - often!)

You mean, and the doors are open and passengers still boarding? Noooo.... that couldn't possibly happen, could it? :rolleyes:

[gcolyer]

G-XXXX holding short RWY (Blah) ready for departure.

I can't believe how this one has dragged on.

[BillieBob]

CAP413 states that the correct call in all circumstances is "G-XXXX ready for departure". No 'Holding short', 'Ready in turn', Ready immediate' or any other extraneous verbal diarrhoea. Why must people try to make aviation more complicated than it really is?

[gcolyer]

Holding short RWY (Blah) is most likely more common with us that fly a fair bit in FAA land. PLus if you fly from an airfield that is using multiple departing runways it is fairly usefull to state which runway you are at (yes I know ATC told you what runway to go to go in the first place).

[bookworm]

CAP413 also says in Chapter 3:

Obviously, it is not practicable to detail phraseology examples suitable for every situation. However, if standard phrases are adhered to when composing a message, any possible ambiguity will be reduced to a minimum. Only when standard phraseology cannot serve an intended transmission, shall plain language be used.

If you need to convey a message with additional meaning or conditions attached, use standard phraseology as far as possible. IMO, "Ready for departure after the landing" does exactly that.

[foxmoth]

a) At the holding point, taxi immediately on to the runway and commence take-off without stopping the aircraft. (Not to be given to Heavy aircraft);

Not sure why they say not to be given to a heavy, heavies take more to get them going again if they come to a halt so personally I prefer (and have been given) immediate TO in an A330.:ooh:

[Chilli Monster]

IMO, "Ready for departure after the landing" does exactly that

Which part of NOT INTERESTED did you not understand? :ugh:

Probably worth adding here that using that particular phrase (in much the same way as some of the airline fraternity use "ready for pushback in 5 minutes") may only get the response "Call me back when you're actually ready". ;)

[Contacttower]

Here's a surprise - I know where you are because; a) I sent you there, and b) They give me nice big windows to look out of - a pre-requisite for doing the job properly


Just out of interest Chilli would you want a confirmation of position at the hold if for some reason you couldn't see out of those nice big windows?

[Chilli Monster]

Question doesn't arise normally as I can see the whole airfield, and indeed part of the licensing requirements of an ATC unit and airfield are that all holding points are visible either by eye or, if any building infrastructure is in the way, by CCTV.

However - when you start going into LVP's (cloud base less than 200ft, visibility less than 550 metres at my unit) then you'd ask for it. (If PompeyPaul was flying in those conditions I suspect his instructor wold have a lot of explaining to do ;) )

The simple rule of thumb is, If I don't ask - I don't want.

[Contacttower]

if I wanted a report (SOP in CAT III LVP's) I'd ask for it.


That's what I was alluding to....although I'd have thought even on a slightly hazy night the tower at some airports I know might struggle to identify many different aircraft moving around at once.

[TractorBoy]

Thanks for your comments, Chilli. I've found this thread informative as to the general lack of awareness and variations (me included) in RT phraseology, even for something as basic as this. I feel a re-read of CAP 413 coming on.....

[DFC]

For those that say "ready after the landing".

Would that be the next landing or the one after that or the one after that?

What about the heli crosser working approach which will cross the runway after the first aircraft you see has landed and thus you will have to wait for that and the second lander that you have not yet seen.

Of course when ready to join controlled airspace or to get an enroute clearance these same pilots will of course say "ready to copy clearance after the southbound traffic at our level..blah blah.

Leaving ATC to ATC leaves you more time to concentrate on being a good Captain of your area of responsibility which is wingtip to wingtip and nose to tail.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

Which part of NOT INTERESTED did you not understand?

Frankly CM, I don't care if you are interested or not. Most controllers I work with seem to appreciate the extra information and I'll continue to use it.

[Chilli Monster]

Bookworm - fine, feel free. However, as DFC has so well pointed out - you might be ready, we might not be ;) (And I doubt these other ATCO's either appreciate or not - ambivalence is probably a better description).

I can think of several occasions where you might be ready "After the landing" but - when radar's packing them down the ILS 4 miles apart (and they're all 737's doing 140-160Kts), you don't stand a cat in hells chance of getting away after the landing you can actually see. You're going when there's a gap - and I'll tell you when that gap will be, not vice versa.

See how superfluous your "after the landing" is now?

[Contacttower]

Frankly CM, I don't care if you are interested or not.


I'm inclined to agree with bookworm on this one. The other day at my home airfield (just an A/G station) an aircraft was about to line up and take off while I was coming into land going the other way...I don't know exactly how this happened but I think it was because the tower decided to change the runway direction while the offending plane was doing its power checks...somehow nobody noticed (even with an instructor on the plane) that planes were now going the other way. The tower didn't notice that they were still at the opposing hold and it was only until they called 'ready for departure' that the mistake was realised. OK the ATC are going to be more vigilant at controlled airfields....but even so, it's amazing how these mistakes happen.

See how superfluous your "after the landing" is now?

Yes at a controlled airfield I would never use that phrase...it is as you say superfluous and inappropriate.

[DFC]

"G-ABCD ready for departure after the landing"

"G-CD Roger Hold position"

25 minutes later after the aircraft that was on final has gone arround at 500ft, climbed back to the beacon and completed a procedural ILS, it is once gain on final.

"G-CD after the landing duchess line up and wait"

Don't you just love giving people what they ask for. :ok:

------------
Contacttower,

Ah the old - "ready for departure" call before looking out the window!

What is the difference at an A/G or Safety Com field of the pilot calling "ready for departure" and then lining up compared to the call "G-CD lining up and departing runway xx" followed by the pilot doing what they say.

I would say that the first one does not indicate any entry to the runway before it happens. The second one most certainly does.

Scream blue murder at the first and the pilot may simply think "To$$er - I never said anything about lining up" and they may even be correct.

The second case is different.

You need to remind yourself of who decides what the runway in use is at an uncontrolled aerodrome i.e. one with Air/Ground radio service or Safety Comm.

Too often A/G operators think they can tell aircraft to do things. They can not. Not ever. If your colleague had decided that sticking with the original runway was safe and legal then they are entitled to use it safely. The pilot in command is the only person who can decide what runway is safe and legal for their flight. Imagine if the other aircraft was non-radio.

Just to clarify that I am not saying that it is safe to ignore the pattern made by aircraft and the windsock or local written rules etc etc but the A/G operator has to ask pilots if they want to change the runway in use and not be a pseudo ATC by telling them that the runway in use is XX.

Until the air-ground operator is satisfied that everyone is happy then there is always the danger that the situation you describe will happen. Same thing often happens at such airfields when the wind is calm mostly because the owner has not taken the time to specify the preferential runway to be used.

Regards,

DFC

[englishal]

Well, my view is that I'll do or say anything that is going to make MY life safer. I don't care if the ATcontroller wants to know or not, they are by no means perfect and occasionally make mistakes (except CM ;)). It is not unknown for an aeroplane to be vectored into the ground or for an aeroplane to be given take off clearance while another is on the runway.

Also by me adding a few extra words it makes it clear to another pilot listening what my intentions are. "Lining up 26" lets another pilot who may have taxyed onto 08 in less than perfect weather that maybe there is a problem...

I don't know what all the fuss is about myself....

[dublinpilot]

Holding short RWY (Blah) is most likely more common with us that fly a fair bit in FAA land. PLus if you fly from an airfield that is using multiple departing runways it is fairly usefull to state which runway you are at (yes I know ATC told you what runway to go to go in the first place).

Also common among those of us who fly from larger fields in Europe. At that larger fields the ready for departure call is likely to be your first call to tower. Leaving out the holding short sometimes results in a panicked "HOLD SHORT OF RW..." instruction which you must read back, before they get on with thes rest of their business. Including it in your inital call seems to leave tower much more relaxed ;)

As for the power checks....perhaps thats a local thing to Dublin. I always get asked if I've completed power checks if I leave that out....perhaps they've had people do the power checks on the runway in the past?

dp

[A and C]

Just how up your self are you?

This thread is not abour spelling or grammar it is about RT practice.
Most ICAO standard RT would not make it when it comes to spelling and grammar in the academic world.

I think that the whole problem with you is that all you have to bring to this thread is some off toppic smart a** comments unlike all the other posts, some of these are incorrect and some half true but at least they are adding to the debate.

There is far too much verbage in GA RT and the fact that some one is a pilot and is in doubt what "ready for depature" actualy shows the flying training that they have receved in a very poor light.

This poor practice continues with peope hinting that "ready emmediate" is usefull ........ Why?? IF you have called "ready" then you should be READY FOR DEPARTURE at that point.

The "holding short" call is ICAO standard and very usefull if you are taxing up to the hould , it is a very quick way of indicating that you do not intend to line up on the runway, this leaves the controler and a pilot on short final in no doubt as to your intentions using the mimimum "airtime".

It is a mystery to me why it is not used in the UK, most of the rest of the world are quite happy with it.

[bookworm]

I can think of several occasions where you might be ready "After the landing" but - when radar's packing them down the ILS 4 miles apart (and they're all 737's doing 140-160Kts), you don't stand a cat in hells chance of getting away after the landing you can actually see. You're going when there's a gap - and I'll tell you when that gap will be, not vice versa.

See how superfluous your "after the landing" is now?

I think you're missing the point in your own example CM. I would only use the phrase "after the landing" in circumstances in which I would refuse to line up if cleared to do so in response. If you can't offer me a gap in which I feel it's safe to depart, I'm not going anywhere in any case, am I?

The response to DFC's example is exactly the same. I'll make my decision about the next lander when the time arises. "After the landing" simply means that I'm not prepared to take off before this one.

Leaving ATC to ATC leaves you more time to concentrate on being a good Captain of your area of responsibility which is wingtip to wingtip and nose to tail.

I couldn't disagree more, DFC. My area of responsibility is the safety of my aircraft, and where that safety is impacted by external factors, an understanding of those factors is key. Understanding the traffic situation is an important part of situational awareness, and a better appreciation of traffic around them would have saved a lot of crews over the years, particularly in the airport environment.

[Contacttower]

Too often A/G operators think they can tell aircraft to do things. They can not. Not ever. If your colleague had decided that sticking with the original runway was safe and legal then they are entitled to use it safely. The pilot in command is the only person who can decide what runway is safe and legal for their flight. Imagine if the other aircraft was non-radio.



I quite agree...and I hear A/G and AFIS perhaps over stepping their remit quite a lot. But a lot of the blame is on pilots...a 'request' to enter and backtrack is likely to be met with a 'roger, that's approved' even though the station is in question is A/G. If pilots stopped asking A/G whether they can do things or not A/G might stop thinking they can tell planes what to do. I was taught to say 'ready for departure' at uncontrolled airfields, even though 'lining up and departing' is far more accurate. The idea of always saying on the radio your extact location on the airfield becomes VERY important when you are on a 'traffic' frequency and there is no one to hear you except other pilots.

[Chilli Monster]

I would only use the phrase "after the landing" in circumstances in which I would refuse to line up if cleared to do so in response.

You're trying to justify an argument which doesn't exist. It is highly unlikely that I'm going to offer you a gap which I might think is useable but you don't. The reverse will, 99.9% of the time, be the case.

You're not the only aircraft out there, you don't know the intentions of the aircraft on final, you don't know the overall traffic situation. For all you know the two aircraft behind you might be no.1 & no.2 in the departure sequence due to IFR separation requirements and, although you might be ready "after the landing aircraft" you might be no.3 in the departure sequence - which you will be told at the appropriate time.

You're trying to justify something which is unnecessary - I'd lay that King on its side now ;)

Also common among those of us who fly from larger fields in Europe. At that larger fields the ready for departure call is likely to be your first call to tower. Leaving out the holding short sometimes results in a panicked "HOLD SHORT OF RW..." instruction which you must read back,

Of course - you could always prevent that happening by doing it correctly, which would be "..........(callsign)............, taxying to holding point........(clearance limit)............" No mention of a runway meas no panic on the part of Controller - as discovered by those of us who fly in and out of the larger fields in Europe ;)

[stiknruda]

"I'd lay that King on its side now" - I totally concur.
I don't "know" CM, but he has been incredibly helpful to me in the past. He is an ATCO and he flies. IE - it's his profession and his pastime, ergo he should know better than many.

I do hear some dreadful RT whilst I'm indulging in my pastime. Recently some regional (national) accents have been so strong that it has required repetition for the sake of clarity.

About time this thread "died", too, methinks!

[bookworm]

It is highly unlikely that I'm going to offer you a gap which I might think is useable but you don't. The reverse will, 99.9% of the time, be the case.

Perhaps it's that perception that causes us to differ.

I operate at a base where every departure involves a backtrack, hence perhaps more uncertainty than you're used to. Generally, ATC is much better at judging gaps than I am (small wonder, since it's part of the job description). But I'm much better at judging the needs of my flight, how far I need to backtrack, how fast I will do so, how fast I swing it around the turn and therefore how long it will take me to get away (small wonder, since I'm the one with my hands on the controls). For the cost of three words of airtime, I'm going to continue to make my intentions clear.

[LH2]

About time this thread "died", too, methinks!

Indeed, for one thing it's gone full circle twice already :)

But I think this quotation from another poster may summarise it nicely:

my view is that I'll do or say anything that is going to make MY life safer.
[....]by me adding a few extra words it makes it clear to another pilot listening what my intentions are

...and therein lies the problem. This is a classical example of what, in the field of applied maths, has come to be known as the "tragedy of the commons". It's essentially the situation where overexploitation of a common resource generates a conflict between individual and collective interests resulting in a net detrimental effect.

Or in practical aviation-related terms: hugging the airwaves does not make you safer, it makes everyone less safe.

[dublinpilot]

Of course - you could always prevent that happening by doing it correctly, which would be "..........(callsign)............, taxying to holding point........(clearance limit)............" No mention of a runway meas no panic on the part of Controller - as discovered by those of us who fly in and out of the larger fields in Europe

Yes.....but I'm regularly on the taxi way, stopped, holding short...having reached my clearance limit, before I'm handed over to the tower.

There is no point telling the tower I'm taxing when I'm not, nor telling them what the clearance limit given by the ground controller was, if I'm already there ;) Besides....your argument is that I should just say "Tower, EI-xxx ready for departure." not giving my clearance limits. As I already said, this causes problems. Letting them know that I've no intention of taxing further seems to solve that!

dp

[stiknruda]

Losing the will to live now after the posts at 15.48 and 16.26.

You've been told by a professional, how he expects it done in accordance with CAP 40x - but you chaps seem to know better. Ho hum!

[fireflybob]

dublinpilot, are you referring to Dublin where they clear you to taxi on the ground freq (and of course we always read back the clearance limit correctly, don't we?) and then later say "Listen out on 118.6 (Tower Freq) - Hold Short"? I don't quite understand why we have to told to "Hold Short" when we have already acknowledged the clearance limit.

Similarly on certain occasions I have observed that during enroute climb or descent, having correctly acknowledged the cleared flight level, one is later told (again) "Maintain FL XXX on reaching".

Glad to see you are back Chilli_Monster - have you been away on hols?

[dublinpilot]

Stick.....if Pprune causes you such problems, I suggest staying away a little while ;)

Fireflybob.

Yes, Dublin clear you to taxi on the ground frequency as you would expect at an international airport. I'm not sure why you would think that I don't read back my clearances correctly...I do. And yes, ground will often tell you to "Monitor the tower now on 118.6 goodday." They have only started with the monitor in the past 12 months or so. They have been know to forget someone handed over from ground to tower too ;) When asked to monitor the tower, first call from the tower will be to ask if you are ready for departure, so there isn't much need to report your position, or clearance limit in that case.


However, you are not always told to monitor the tower. Sometimes you are told to contact them. Not reporting your hold short in such cases, often results in the problem described above....especially if someone is just about to touch down. Dublin is not unique in this....I've heard it elsewhere too, when the holding short part is excluded from the call.

dp

[Bravo73]

Glad to see you are back Chilli_Monster - have you been away on hols?

At this rate, Chilli is going to go away on holiday. Permanently. :}

I'm with you, stik. It's unbelievable that this thread is still going! :zzz:



Is this the, er, pink thread for the 21st century, I wonder?

[IO540]

There is a great deal of anal retentiveness in some quarters here...

There is nothing wrong with "ready for immediate" when used in the correct context.

Quite often, at some busy GA airfield, there will be half a dozen planes waiting at the runway holding point. Some of these will know what they are doing, some won't, and often the queue will be held up by somebody very slowly going through their checks (a student pilot with an instructor for example).

You might be sitting at another holding point for the same runway, via which you can completely safely jump the queue.

What "ready for immediate" it tells the ATCO is that you are ready to go NOW, you will not be farting around, and he can shoot you off out of the way while the others are still waiting at the other place.

The more clever ATCOs who have been at the airfield for years will know who is quick and who is slow and can use these tips to expedite traffic which can be expedited.

I wouldn't use nonstandard phrases in Italy, Albania, Egypt or whatever.

[stiknruda]

Dublinpilot

I assure you that I am old and wise enough not to let Pprune affect me! People may affect me however!

There are however a couple of posters who do not seem to want to take good advice from a "professional", one might even come from the Emerald Isle, where from experience things are done slightly differently. The initiator of this thread I believe to be a student pilot from the South Coast of England. England not Ireland, so not quite sure how relevant your "situation" is with regards to this particular thread.

This is the private pilots' forum, I come here to learn, to help when I can and sometimes just to share my good fortune with other like minded souls as I live a lonely life.

Perhaps I am anally retentive, but I really just want to do this aviation thing as "professionally" as I can, taking sound advice from those better qualified than myself has never caused me any soul-searching, grief or refusal to change my ways.

My earlier comment about poor standards of ab-initio training still holds true.

Stik

(still can't make the smilies work - anymore!)

[Whirlybird]

I've decided to add my voice to the wasted bandwidth, unnecessary posts....and people who are amazed that this thread is still here as it has nothing else to say.

[SkyHawk-N]

"G-XX (not G-XXXX :E) ready for departure"

[Slopey]

But only if the ATCO used G-XX first! ;)

[SkyHawk-N]

true, but he would have done ;)

[LH2]

Why has nobody complained yet that G-XXXX is not a valid registration. :uhoh:

[fireflybob]

Long as we don't start debating whether it's "Final" or "Finals" !

[Fuji Abound]

With all due respect - that's not your call. YOU say whether you're ready, I decide whether to offer you an immediate or not.

You can offer what you like, but whether the pilot can do what you want is a whole different matter, and the trouble is you don’t know. Whether he should be able to is academic.

The reality is there are some GA fields which at times are very busy and have a wide mix of pilot experience levels. The ATCOs often know the home based pilots and know that if those pilots indicate ready immediate they really understand what immediate means. If possible they will slot the aircraft into a tight slot. IMO that is the partnership between ATCO and pilot working well. Personally, I can think of many occasions when I have been flying for business and the ATCOs are able to get me away with the minimum of delay - for which I am very grateful. I have yet to hear a pilot call ready immediate unless he really means it, I have heard on numerous occasions a pilot be asked if he can accept an immediate, say yes, and take so long, the aircraft on the approach is sent around.

There is another reality. There are occasions a “new” controller is working the radio. Now in my experience whilst ATCOs are clearly well trained the fact of the matter is, just like pilots, the new boys are not as efficient as the old timers in terms of managing the arrivals and departures. Here again a ready immediate politely prompts the controller that there is an obvious gap in the traffic into which he might like to slot you.

Chilli your flow control of the traffic I am sure is always very efficient, but I can guarantee you I have seen some very poor flow control, to the point at which it becomes embarassing.

I make a point of talking to the ATCOs at my home field reasonably often. I know they appreciate a call of immediate becasue they tell me so, otherwise I wouldn’t use it and even then I do so sparingly.

I've decided to add my voice to the wasted bandwidth, unnecessary posts....and people who are amazed that this thread is still here as it has nothing else to say.

That’s good.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Chillimonster
With all due respect - that's not your call. YOU say whether you're ready, I decide whether to offer you an immediate or not.

<cough>
Actually, it is my call. You don't know whether or not I can make an immediate departure, unless I tell you; and it saves airtime to make that in one call rather than 2.

[Chilli Monster]

I wasn't going to post any more, but Fuji's comments just beggar belief. However, a brief side note.

Glad to see you are back Chilli_Monster - have you been away on hols?

Yes - I've been away flying something that some of these so called f**king experts (EX - as in has been, (S)PERTS - as in drip undr pressure!) could only aspire to, but will never get their @rses into no matter how much flying they ever do!

And that's the problem - GA really produces some @r$eholes, many of whom have spouted some absolute $hite on here. Instead of bleating about how you know far better than someone who does the JOB day in and day out how about proving it. You think you know better - get yourself a licence and prove it.

I've read some real crap from people who probably have flown nothing bigger than a C172 on a nice sunny day - you want to be taken seriously? I've decided I shall only be taking the comments as valid as those who have flown an aircraft weighing greater than 6 tonnes, on a 6 sector day, in lousy weather, to a schedule. Hands up all those who've done that - funny, I suspect I'm only going to see two hands there, and one of those is mine.

So - before any of you whining ba$tards say anymore which will just prove how far up your own @r$es you are bear one final thought in mind.

Me ATCO, you pilot. Whether I share my plan with you in a spirit of tree hugging political correctness or not (and the latter is often, but not always, going to be the case) just remember what you really say doesn't matter - it's my trainset, not yours, and nothing some little pi$$ ant sat at the hold who thinks the world revolves around them is going to change that :)

P.S - too much invective? Having seen Kevin "Bl**dy" Wilson last night he's great inspiration for dealing with tw@ts. If you don't know who I mean type it into Google or Youtube - I'm not explaining!

P.P.S - Capt PitBull, you can say whether you're ready immediate until your blue in the face, it's still my call whether I offer it to you. However, if I ever suspect you're flying the aircraft that asks for it I suspect that gap on final is going to be a little bit too small for me to use ;)

[Capt Pit Bull]

I've decided I shall only be taking the comments as valid as those who have flown an aircraft weighing greater than 6 tonnes, on a 6 sector day, in lousy weather, to a schedule. Hands up all those who've done that

<raises a hand>

[Fuji Abound]

I've read some real crap from people who probably have flown nothing bigger than a C172 on a nice sunny day - you want to be taken seriously? I've decided I shall only be taking the comments as valid as those who have flown an aircraft weighing greater than 6 tonnes, on a 6 sector day, in lousy weather, to a schedule. Hands up all those who've done that - funny, I suspect I'm only going to see two hands there, and one of those is mine.

Shame really because it is all those C172 drivers that keep you and some of your colleagues in a job.

Your comments are indicative of having very little appreciation of aviation. I can guarantee you flying a C172 in lousy weather is far harder work to that which you seem to aspire - sad to say.

Personally, I have always greatly respected your posts, but after that lot my opinion has somewhat changed. Maybe you are having a bad day, but anyway good luck to you, but I think you have missed the plot.

[Contacttower]

The words 'ready for departure' would trigger the go around for me.



The words ready for departure don't actually mean 'I am about to line up and depart' and certainly just because someone at the hold at an A/G airfield said 'Ready for departure' I wouldn't go around....you are in the air and you have priority. If the plane started to enter the runway I would repeat my finals call and only then if he still continued would I go around.


Very Well done for going solo. :ok:

[Capt Pit Bull]

And in fact I do have to add a little something extra.

Chilli, I think you're reading to much into an RT call.

If I say "Ready immediate" it means the following:

"I am able to taxy onto the runway and immediately apply take off power without coming to halt"

It does NOT mean "I can see a tiny gap that I am convinced *I*, through my god given ultimate flying skillz, can take off in, so I therefore request, NAY DEMAND that you give me take off clearance."

It means "I am not going to trundle out onto the runway and then spin my engines up for 30 seconds against the brakes because its icing conditions and my company SOPs require it."

It means "Hay, i can go if it suits you, if it doesn't I'm quite happy to sit here clocking up to my 900 for the year."

It's a snippet of information to go into your melting pot, and in my experience a judicious snippet can save a lot of air time.

pb

[Contacttower]

Chilli, I think you're reading to much into an RT call.

I'm with Chilli on this one, (although I take offence at comment about C172s and sunny days) 'ready immediate' is not needed. If you are not in a position to taxi onto the runway and take off without stopping then you shouldn't have called 'ready for departure' in the first place.

[Chilli Monster]

Capt PB - fair enough, that makes 3 of us :) (30 second warm through - ERJ?) And yes, you're probably right, however, having seen some of the piffle that's been written here you can probably understand the general gist.

Fuji - you have a P.M, hope you enjoy reading my aviation CV. You know, that thing I obviously know nothing about ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Thanks for the PM.

Your cv is absolutely fine - well done you - but it proves very little.

You have done what many on here have, and there are also many with a great deal more experience than you. Of course you have fallen into the trap of believing the more ratings you have and the heavier metal you fly, the better pilot it makes you. You are wrong, and the evidence that you are wrong is widely available.

Sorry old fella, I wouldnt give you a job.

IMO the remarks you made earlier having nothing to do with the argument and in any event I cant say I am too interested in "wining" or losing" arguments - all a bit long in the tooth for that old chap. I was simply giving an opinion which you were happy to dismiss with:

but Fuji's comments just beggar belief.

I think if you really hold the views you set out in the above post you are a dangerous - and that is why I wouldnt give you a job whatever you wrote on your cv so thanks for trying but .. .. .. dont wait up for the call.

However, fortunately at the end of the day, you will go on doing what you do, and, given that you have not convinved me to change what I do, I will also go on doing what I do :).

.. .. .. Capt Pit Bull - exactly right, that was precisely what I was trying to say. So far as I am concerned "ready immediate" has nothing to do with being pushing or anything to do with God given flying skills, its just that I thought it might be helpful to let you know "I am able to taxy onto the runway and immediately apply take off power without coming to halt" and because you now know that is what I will do you might want to get me away.

[Final 3 Greens]

If you are not in a position to taxi onto the runway and take off without stopping then you shouldn't have called 'ready for departure' in the first place.

That is nonsense.

You are describing a rolling take off and there are good reasons why this may not be sensible practice in certain contexts.

Ready for departure means exactly that that.

[FullyFlapped]

You've got to laugh, really ...

08:30 this morning, sat at the hold at my local galactic spaceport waiting patiently while a gaggle of 6-tonne-plus costa-del-chips specials got themselves away. Finally, there's a lull in the frenzy, and apart from a 737 on the ILS miles away, there's not a lot going on.

Having sat and waited 20+ mins, I'm pretty keen to go, and since no-one's talked to me for ages, by way of a gentle reminder I call "G-XX is ready". A brief silence ensues, then I hear, "G-XX are you ready immediate?". "Affirm, G-XX". "G-XX line up runway XX cleared immediate departure" etc etc (I'm sure I have the phraseology wrong but you get the idea).

I was thinking about this thread shortly afterwards, and realised what had just happened. I got to thinking, what would have happened if I'd said I was "ready immediate" ? Would ATC have consigned me to another 20 mins of holding to teach me not to be a cheeky git ? Or would the harrassed, busy busy busy controller (who I reckon had definitely forgotten me in the rush) have just done what he did anyway ? I know what I think ... :p

Seems to make b*gger all difference really, doesn't it ? :ugh: Certainly not worth raising your blood pressure over !

FF :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

What should we be saying?

G-XX taking off runway XX

[Contacttower]

That is nonsense.



OK F3G I admit, there are some instances when what I said isn't true but nearly all the take-offs I have done and witnessed have been rolling...obviously if I need to run up to full power on the brakes for STOL reasons I will but that is not likely at a controlled airfield. Most of the time when I call ready for departure I will not stop again on the ground.


I'll explain, at my A/G field there is no other call made, if a pilot at the hold calls ready for departure they are saying they are about to taxi out onto the runway and line up, they won't usually make another call. What should we be saying? Would it make more sense if we said, 'G-XX is ready to line up?'. You see, ready for departure is all I hear said before people do line up.


G-EMMA, it's just like that at my home airfield: 'ready for departure' and thats it. That is why, just like you, I don't call 'ready for departure' until it is actually clear to take off...but I've noticed that some pilots do call 'ready for departure' when the runway is not clear...9 times out of 10 they then wait and when it is clear they make a call 'lining up'. So if I'm on short finals and someone calls 'ready for departure' I usually trust them to wait.

The call G-XX lining up and departing/taking off runway XX is as many have said already is a much more accurate description of what you are doing in the A/G or AFIS enviroment. But I was taught 'ready for departure', I never questionned it but I can see from this thread why there are more appropriate phrases.

[BackPacker]

Just out of curiosity and to refresh my knowledge, I checked out what Jeremy Pratt had to say about this subject. As expected, different phraseology depending on the type of service:

Controlled field:

G-ST ready for departure
G-ST runway 15, cleared take-off, wind 170/8
Runway 15 cleared take-off, G-ST

Uncontrolled with AFIS unit:

G-ST ready for departure
G-ST take-off your discretion, wind 170/8
Taking off, G-ST

Uncontrolled with A/G service:

G-ST ready for departure
G-ST no known traffic, wind 170/8
Taking off, G-ST

So at an uncontrolled field, it looks like the call "ready for departure" has a secondary meaning of inviting the AFIS or A/G service to pass any traffic information or other things affecting the departure to the aircraft, even though the decision to take-off or not is left to the pilot.

Furthermore:
An ATC Unit may issue a clearance for an immediate take-off. If the pilot accepts the clearance he should:
1. From the holding point, taxy onto the runway immediately and begin the take-off without stopping.
2. If already on the runway, begin the take-off without delay


So it looks like there is a distinction between receiving a "cleared take-off" and "cleared immediate take-off" and because of that, I think it makes sense to declare yourself "ready immediate departure" if you can accept an "immediate take-off".

Obviously if it's fairly quiet then ATC probably doesn't care whether you perform an "immediate take-off" or a "normal take-off", but if it's very busy and it's either an "immediate take-off" or "hold short", then I'll take the immediate, thank you.

[Contacttower]

Uncontrolled with A/G service:

G-ST ready for departure
G-ST no known traffic, wind 170/8
Taking off, G-ST


Just out of interest is the A/G expected to comment on the traffic situation? Although Pratt quotes 'no know traffic' etc I've only heard one or two stations say that...most just pass the wind. From now on I'm always going to add...'lining up and departing runway XX' after having said 'ready for departure' when talking to A/G or AFIS.

[BackPacker]

Contacttower, now that I've got the book out anyway:

In the context of an AFIS service: "FISOs can only issue instructions to aircraft and vehicles on the ground. To aircraft about to take-off and those in flight they issue information concerning the aerodrome and guideance to assist pilots in avoiding collisions."

In the context of an A/G service: "The operator of an AGCS is essentially limited to giving information regarding an aerodrome, and details of any know traffic."

So it looks like an A/G operator can give you traffic info. Although I have to admit, I don't hear them do it all too often.

Regardless, the proper call, even in an AFIS or A/G situation is "G-AB taking off runway XXX" or some variation thereof. "Ready for departure" is meaningless to other aircraft in the circuit and is definitely NOT (intended as or to be used for) an announcement that you're about to enter the active runway. At least, that's how I read this.

[Fuji Abound]

OK F3G I admit, there are some instances when what I said isn't true but nearly all the take-offs I have done and witnessed have been rolling...obviously if I need to run up to full power on the brakes for STOL reasons I will but that is not likely at a controlled airfield. Most of the time when I call ready for departure I will not stop again on the ground.

I really just wonder about some of the comments on this subject.

I know you are an ATCO and must watch goes on all day long.

All I can say is there is many a time I have watched the going of traffic and excluding those asked to "line up and wait" not than many amoung the GA fraternity when you observe them rolling away from the hold and continue the roll without a stop into the take off run.

[Chilli Monster]

I think if you really hold the views you set out in the above post you are a dangerous - and that is why I wouldnt give you a job whatever you wrote on your cv so thanks for trying but .. .. .. dont wait up for the call.

Thankfully the people who really count (my employer and the CAA's Safety Regulating Group) don't agree with you - so don't expect a call

(I stopped working for c*nts when I left the Air Force anyway ;) )

[Fuji Abound]

A/G

In an A/G environment: "G-XXXX, lining up and departing Rwy ??, visual traffic on base" if you're going to go ahead of the traffic. If you're not and you're going to wait, then say nothing until the traffic is past you, the approach is clear, and then you just say "G-XXXX, lining up and departing Rwy ??"

Well for me it is G-XXXX is lining up (and if there is any question about the runway) 02. Adding and departing is fine if you intend to roll immediately.

Alternatively, as soon as you start rolling G-XXXX is rolling.

Works fine, clear, unambigous, tells the aircraft behind 1. when you are moving onto the runway, 2. when you are actually moving off the runway.
Dont move onto the runway if you are going to impede the next aircraft to land.

Personally hear it all the time at A/G fields from the locals - not that they would know what they are doing of course.

Thankfully the people who really count (my employer and the CAA's Safety Regulating Group) don't agree with you - so don't expect a call
(I stopped working for c*nts when I left the Air Force anyway )

Good for you, and thanks for your input, as always I have enjoyed the debate, however

c*nts

so far as I am concerned, an anoymous forum or not behind which to hide, if I was your employer I wouldnt want you working for me.

[stiknruda]

And yet again, it all goes too far and we resort to the playground.
Shame really. But then I ought to expect nothing more.

[Contacttower]

Perhaps someone at the CAA should be considering a new leaflet for us defining the term clearly in each environment or stating that at A/G fields we should be using RT that better describes the situation??

I think that is the most important point to take away from this debate...we need much more standardisation in GA RT. The overall standard of RT among private pilots is pretty rubbish most of the time. Not only that but I often think that ATCOs need to re-read the rules as well. Should controllers really use the phrase 'MATZ crossing approved'? Does anyone else think that Duxford ATIS seems to act like a tower frequency a lot of the time (sorry to single them out)? Is it really appropriate for an A/G station to tell me 'roger, that's approved' in response to announcing an intention to backtrack the runway? I recently read about a pilot who thought he was getting a RIS from White Waltham! I could go on...

'Ready for departure' should be replaced with 'lining up' or 'departing' at A/G airfields, the CAA should start doing more to erradicate these inconsistencies in RT language and more people should read CA413.

[Final 3 Greens]

Well said Stik. I don't like this language either.

Chilli Monster, I have always respected you, but your behaviour in using such language makes you look crass and childish, which is a shame as I tended to agree with your views.

[stiknruda]

It's not so much the language, rather the: I wouldn't want you working for me, I wouldn't work for you, my dad is bigger than your dad, childishness.

At the end of the day, the two protagonists are hardly likely to be in the same employ - BUT and it is a bloody big BUT, if Fuji rocks up at CM's ATZ - they will be working together for the benefit and safety of the rest of sharing the sky!

Like I said some time ago, this should have been allowed to die.

Mods - can you lock this now?

[englishal]

Lock it and stop the fun ;)

Who cares who says what really, as long as it is clear, concise and accurate and doesn't absorb too much bandwidth?

The overall standard of RT among private pilots is pretty rubbish most of the time.
It is pretty rubbish amongst many professional pilots too....

Anyway as I am cleared for an immediate into LAX I must go....;)

[LH2]

...and after reading this thread, can one still wonder why ATC (allegedly) take a dim view of GA pilots? :rolleyes:

Gents, CAP413 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF) is there for everyone to study (not just "read"). If you think something in it might need improving, then why not discuss your case with the CAA?

Can't see the point of arguing about it here, we're all coming across as a bunch of armchair experts :cool:

As for Chilli, I personally thought that was a magnific rant :} Now, if you could tell me where you control... I have a feeling anyone going there in their 172 on the next few days will be spending the afternoon doing 360s waiting for their landing clearance :p

[Final 3 Greens]

Gents, CAP413 is there for everyone to study (not just "read"). If you think something in it might need improving, then why not discuss your case with the CAA?

The trouble is that CAP413 does not always mirror ATC's own standards.

"Fly Radar Heading" - where will you find that in CAP413?

[Whirlybird]

Who cares who says what really, as long as it is clear, concise and accurate and doesn't absorb too much bandwidth?


Absolutely. :ok::ok::ok:

And most pilots' RT seems to be quite reasonable, IMHO. We communicate, we get where we want to go, we don't upset too many people too much of the time. What more is required? Most students and new PPLs are scared enough of the radio anyway, without feeling as though they're being criticised the moment they open their mouths. They improve with practice, when they're not scared. Luckily, out there in the world most pilots and most ATCOs are very tolerant and so long as they understand what anyone is trying to communicate, no-one worries.

This thread has got completely out of hand. I'm just glad that PPRuNe Rage doesn't translate into Air Rage, or I wouldn't want to be sharing the skies with many of you at the moment, and I certainly wouldn't want to be flying into any airfield where Chilli was the ATCO. After all, no helicopter is over....whatever massive size it was he stated! :)

I too think this thread should be closed. Unless.......people are merely using it to let off steam, which is kind of fun sometimes, isn't it? I think they must be doing that, as the alternative - that people are really getting this het up over the use or otherwise of a few words - is too bizarre to contemplate....even on PPRuNe.

[fireflybob]

The trouble is that CAP413 does not always mirror ATC's own standards.


That may be true in certain cases but tell me where CAP 413 says I should say "Ready for immediate" but it does say the call is "Ready for Departure" - surely that's clear enough and I cannot understand why anyone wants to deviate from standard phraseology in this respect as Chilli has rightly pointed out.

It's drifting a little from the main thread topic but as one who has instructed extensively at both A/G and full ATC aerodromes I can tell you that many students/pilots who have trained exclusively at one or the other face great challenges with RT when they venture into the "other" environment!

[Final 3 Greens]

That may be true in certain cases but tell me where CAP 413 says I should say "Ready for immediate" but it does say the call is "Ready for Departure"

It doesn't.

But that is not the point.

If one is going to be judgmental and complain about deviations from standard phraseology (bear in mind that I agree with CM's argument, if not style), then the waters are made muddier when different standards exist and I don't think that LH2 can fully make his point under those circumstances.

That's all I was saying.

You also said

I can tell you that many students/pilots who have trained exclusively at one or the other face great challenges with RT when they venture into the "other" environment!

Well if you look at post #97, G-EMMA with a recent solo says

It seems to me (taking into account lack of experience etc) that those that do learn at A/G fields adjust better to the ATC environment than those who learn in the ATC environment do to visiting an A/G field.

So it appears that you are wrong :rolleyes:

[Kirstey]

What a lovely way to spend the last hour of work on a Friday - thanks everyone!!

It may have been discussed before.. but a lot of people on here G-EMMA included are debating the meaning of "Ready for Departure" at an A/G field. What it means is "I'm too stupid to understand the service I'm under and what's required of me".

When you're ready to take of at an A/G field.. report lining up (or entering and backtracking).. and then report "taking off".. unless you're a knobhead/c*nt (sorry I'm with CM.. a horrid word, but sometimes the cap just fits) in which case you say "rolling" coz you think it makes you sound good!!

FISOs/AG ops can be an invaluable tool to the decision making process.. they can also just be a bunch of tools.

As for Chilli's aggressive point of view? well in my opinion he's correct. Fuji, would you give someone a bit less forthright the job? even if they had no idea what they were all talking about?

[LH2]

"Fly Radar Heading" - where will you find that in CAP413?

:rolleyes:

discuss your case with the CAA :cool:

[BackPacker]

G-EMMA, if the brief sheet you're having *only* tells you to report "ready for departure", nothing else, before entering the active runway and opening the throttle, make a printout of CAP413 pages 4-28 and surrounding pages, and discuss this with your instructor and/or the person who wrote the brief.

CAP413 clearly specifies the call "taking off" or "lining up" in the departure sequence.

[Final 3 Greens]

Kirstey

Sometimes I am deeply in love with you.

Tonight is such a time.

Have a good weekend :E

[Final 3 Greens]

LH2

Do you understand where the phrase "Fly radar heading" comes from and why it is not in CAP413?

[BackPacker]

G-EMMA, let us know what he says.

[Keef]

Good grief! I just looked in here after some weeks of relaxation, and I see things haven't improved a lot.

There is one place where I will tell ATC where I am, and that's the hold for runway 06 at Southend. It can't be seen from the tower, and the cameras (if there are any) don't seem to work. So there, I'll say "G-XX at C1 ready for departure".

I was told by my very wise instructor, many moons ago, never to say "Ready immediate". That sounds like a demand for an immediate, and ATC makes those decisions. I don't need to annoy ATC by demanding things.

What I do say, very occasionally, is "Ready in turn" if the aircraft in front is sitting there not doing a lot and hasn't called "Ready". That sometimes elicits the response "Can you get past G-YY?"

I was also taught not to say "Ready for departure" if there's someone on short final. It might give them a moment of panic. Either say it when the aircraft is a fair way out (when maybe you could accept an immediate and take off before that one lands), or wait till it passes you.

[Contacttower]

Do you understand where the phrase "Fly radar heading" comes from and why it is not in CAP413?

Please enlighten me F3G.

[Fuji Abound]

I think we all should be reminded of the comment made by bookworm:

Obviously, it is not practicable to detail phraseology examples suitable for every situation. However, if standard phrases are adhered to when composing a message, any possible ambiguity will be reduced to a minimum. Only when standard phraseology cannot serve an intended transmission, shall plain language be used.

The comment I made was because I consider the addition of "immediate" in some circumstances is fully compliant with the CAP. I dont see how its inclusion could possibly introduce any ambiguity what so ever.

Still never the less I am sorry if any of you feel I was drawn into a slanging match with Chilli, chuffed for providing a little light entertainment on a Friday afternoon :) for those who took it in that spirit, and no worse for drawing my old friend Chilli back into the debate with:

I wasn't going to post any more, but Fuji's comments just beggar belief.

I am ready for an immediate glass of wine now :).

[Chilli Monster]

As am I - shame I'm working tomorrow (oh $hit I hear some cry ;) )

But I'll leave the last word to someone else (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxmUKVrT0iI)

[fireflybob]

As am I - shame I'm working tomorrow (oh $hit I hear some cry )


Chilli so am I - is it ok if I say "Ready for immediate departure".......? LOL

[BRL]

Going to close this for now. I have been out all day and returned to a few PM's and emails saying how bad this thread is.

I am off out to the pub now so have not got time to have a good look at it, I will close it now and return to it sometime in the morning and make a decision then on whether to keep it open or not.....