Annoying RT

[Arthur Dailey]

With radio frequencies becoming more and more congested why do I have to spend all day listening to people clogging up busy airwaves with 10 words of drivel when 3 will do? For example;

“TODAY we are requesting FL370”Can we not assume that any request you make is for today and not any other day?

“London IT'S THE ****, FL200 heading 250”Why?

“**** request”Why not just pass your request?

“You're on Guard”I know and so are you!

The list goes on.:ugh:

**** insert generic callsign

[Foxy Loxy]

....is whatever interrupts me from reading the newspaper.

Foxy

[controllerzhu]

How about...."Departure **** climbing through 110 for 150 requesting higher" Really?

Or a big on in the US the legendary blanket broadcast by a pilot of "BLOCKED". How about pay attention or just say nothing, we often are working multi-freqs.

CZHU

[Scuzi]

* “**** request”

Why not just pass your request?

If it's long winded it is good airmanship to let the cotroller know before you launch into a whole spiel, especially if it's busy.

One I hate to hear controllers say, usually when they've made a mistake.

"Fastjet123, stop your climb INITIALLY FL120":ugh:

[Lon More]

I hate to hear controllers say, usually when they've made a mistake
It's a dynamic situation; things change requiring different solutions.

If it's busy why make the request, wait for the next sector. Asking the Dep Controller for FL360 is probably not generating any response that you will see except http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/masturbate.gif

[Scuzi]

It's a dynamic situation; things change requiring different solutions.
And don't I know it. You usually only hear the "INITIALLY" when a cock up has been realised.:E

Otherwise it's the correct phraseology, "stop climb FL120".

[tolgab]

That's not necessarily true... I will clear you "initially" to FL 310 when I know your requested is further up but I cannot "now" because of traffic. I use the "Initially" to inform you that you can expect further climb within my sector.

If in an occasion you were cleared to a certain level but then had to be stopped for many possible reasons, some being; not giving the expected rate to get above traffic we've been monitoring you against or a change in situation where the opposite descending going down faster than expected and that the crossing will be more efficient at different levels, *cough* a cock-up *cough*, you will be told to stop climb "initially" so that you know you can expect further climb.

That "initially" most of the times gets rid of the "climbing FL310, however our requested today is"

some use it others don't, but those that do don't necessarily do it on mistakes.

[Scuzi]

Apologies, I should have mentioned that I was talking about a TMA environment where the word "initially" is an utter waste of breath.
Honestly, if you stop a 747-400 going to Los Angeles at FL90, is he going to think he's staying there for the rest of the flight?:hmm:

[Hold West]

Worst waste of breath and frequency time: "Who was that for?" Especially when I'm working multiple frequencies and the aircraft the transmission was intended for has already answered!

Note to pilots: I ignore this one. Completely.

Now, if you key up and say, "Bugsmasher 111, was that for us?" I'll give you a polite yes or no, and a repeat if you need it.

[Canoehead]

It works both ways...Some fellow controllers have 3 airplanes on the frequency and it sounds like they have 25. :eek:The smooth guys say as little as possible and never seem to be too busy. :D

[expediteoff]

Scuzi,
Third attempt to get your view across - I think thats what we're talking about!
Get all the PERTINENT information in on the first call(or post)!

Happy xmas

[Scuzi]

I must be one of those guys that sounds like there's 20 aircraft on frequency when there's realy only 3. :}

Merry xmas.

[DB6]

Lon More, that's the best icon I've ever seen and I am in tears just now.

[eastern wiseguy]

Some fellow controllers have 3 airplanes on the frequency


Sometimes those three can make you a lot busier than 20 all streamed and seperated.

What annoys me is (usually as you are about to turn the three for an intercept heading) someone who just launches in with their life story.....and the three sail through!:ugh:

OR.......the little hellos and private messages some guys think it is ok to pass to each other.Really bl**dy annoying!.

[Pontious]

In that case why do controllers ask "...XXX123, say your requested level"?

Is it not annotated on the flight-plan strip?

Is it not 'Airmanship' to advise an ATC sector as soon as practicable if you request a level differant from the one originally filed for?

And LATCC controllers please note, as drivers we see many differant standards of 'controlling' just as you probably see differing levels of compliance to instructions therefore some 'newie' crews entering the UK FIR for the first time may have differant expectations of the provided ATC services.

A Controller simply saying "Contact **** on ***.** leaves the system open to mis-use.
I think the practice of 'Contact **** on ***.** with heading & speed only', or "Contact Director Callsign only" are excellant proven phrases that could be incorporated more into R/T discipline to reduce frequency congestion...

....as well as FIR boundary-direct-to-FIR boundary given as a matter of course instead of having to tie up the frequency by grovelling....(I jest!)
:ok:

[126,7]

In that case why do controllers ask "...XXX123, say your requested level"?

Is it not annotated on the flight-plan strip?

Yeah, but that's the level filed by the ops folk and not your requested level. And what if they filed a really low level for you due to slot restrictions, but the ATCO can get you higher? That's why he is asking. Just to help you get a smoother flight, or is it because he doesn't want you in his airspace? Can't remember which.

[fireflybob]

A Controller simply saying "Contact **** on ***.** leaves the system open to mis-use.


How come? Don't we have standard RT Procedures to cover this?

[Loki]

Shouldn`t say "on" anyway....it`s not "on" anything.

Should be "Contact agency, frequency"

[DFC]

Yeah, but that's the level filed by the ops folk and not your requested level. And what if they filed a really low level for you due to slot restrictions, but the ATCO can get you higher?

If we are at a level because of flow restrictions, how do you know that your giving a higher level is not going to cause a problem 30 minutes or 1 hour further down the line? Do you check which regulation is restricting us before removing the restriction?

We get a copy of the FPL (it is a requirement) and so we have the exact same level info as ATC do as well as ops. If the level is going to be changed at the planning stage then there are things we have to considder such as new fuel requirement, new flow restrictions at that level etc.

Regards,

DFC

[llanfairpg]

Pilots and controllers wasting words, never, apart from all of the preceeding

[Chrome]

ATC: HMA80, direct [waypoint], descend FL150, speed 270kts.
HM80: HMA80 confirmed direct [waypoint], descend FL150, speed 270kts?
ATC: HMA80 AFFIRM, direct [waypoint], descend FL150, speed 270kts.
HM80: Direct [waypoint], descend FL150, speed 270kts, HMA80.

:ugh:

[126,7]

If we are at a level because of flow restrictions, how do you know that your giving a higher level is not going to cause a problem 30 minutes or 1 hour further down the line? Do you check which regulation is restricting us before removing the restriction?

Nooo, we never check. :hmm: Maybe I should've put in my post earlier that we do check who the restricting centre is or where the restriction lies. Takes about 2 minutes with CFMU in Brussels.

[No Further Requirements]

Me: ABC, traffic is a Dash8, 12 o'clock, left to right, 7500, report sighting.
ABC: Affirm.

:ugh:

It's like pulling teeth sometimes.....

Cheers,

NFR.

[Track Coastal]

"visual on top"

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Colleague of mine at EGLL who went on to become a senior Manager who had slightly lost the picture on GMC:

"The Trident with the Vanguard just behind, what's your callsign?"

[mr.777]

XX INT: Contact XX Director callsign only 123.456

ABC: Roger, Director 123.456 callsign only.

ABC: XX Director ABC123 heading 270,speed 220kts, descending to alt 4000ft, B737 with information L.


:ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

777... loved that! I had one once like that. He called me with his life story, etc.. He'd just got through line 27 of his granny's soup recipe when a voice in the background shouted: "Nooooo.. he wants callsign only". The bloke carried on "...... oo, or sorry, er, XXX123 on frequency". Only took 17 minutes....

[DFC]

Maybe I should've put in my post earlier that we do check who the restricting centre is or where the restriction lies. Takes about 2 minutes with CFMU in Brussels.

Thanks for confirming that.

One other issue which does not happen very often but on short sectors, we may have planned at a lower (not very efficient level) and we actually don't want a better level because the reduction in fuel burn combined with a better tail wind could mean that we have to hold and burn off fuel at destination because we got airbourne planning on a max landing weight arrival.

However, since you will not know that it is always nice to be offered a better level or even a short-cut.

Regards,

DFC

[mr.777]

Had many like that HD...meanwhile the one you should have chucked to tower is now at 2mile final with the AIR guy on the priority line trying to find out where he is...
The one waiting for the turn onto the ILS has gone through the localiser and is heading straight towards one of your outbounds...
The one downwind waiting for a base leg turn is now heading outside CAS having missed the turn....
Not to mention the one on the go around :}

[ImnotanERIC]

you wait until you get those damn biggin hill ouybounds into the mix!!!

[ATCO Fred]

All those who start their transmission with 'And callsign......' predominately GA.

Can sound like PAN Callsign.

Just my pet hate. 'PAN acknowledge squawk emergency' usually sorts them out'

[Hand Solo]

How about any R/T from the tower to an aircraft doing 90 kts on the landing roll? It's all pointless as we're not paying any attention to it and you'll have to call us again and 20 kts.

[RAAFASA]

Heard a good one in North Queensland (regional Australia) where a lightie pilot, who rarely flew in controlled airspace, made a great call on first contact - callsign, acft type, position, intentions, level request etc, and then finished with the laconic Nth QLD "thanks, mate eh". (Seems everyone north of Mackay finishes their sentences with "eh")

For those without an Aussie accent, say "mate eh" out loud, with a lot of nasality and running the 2 words together .... sounds a lot like "Mayday"! It took the approach controller 2 further transmissions (each reply ending with mate, eh) after he said: "Roger Mayday, what is the nature of your emergency?" before he realised the guy was just being friendly!

While we're in North QLD, also heard a great exchange between TVL approach and a very chatty yank pilot.

ATC: (trying to get a "visual" report in order to issue a visual approach) "N123CE report inflight conditions".
ACFT: (broad west coast US accent, somewhat bewildered and consequently talking quite slowly) "N123CE, ah, thanks for asking, we're pretty comfortable up here, ah, it's about 24 degrees and ah, yeah, we've just had some coffee, ah, thanks for asking..."

Entire approach room in hysterics except for the controller who had about 10 on frequency including another 2 under vectors, TWR asking for dep instructions and was also trying to coordinate outbounds with sector. :D

[OMRK]

Or (normally) Il-76'es after landing with all engines in full reverse and making enough noise to wake up dead people reports "on ground" as they roll past the tower...

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<How about any R/T from the tower to an aircraft doing 90 kts on the landing roll? It's all pointless as we're not paying any attention to it and you'll have to call us again and 20 kts.>>
Yeah, I was taught that at an early stage... but if I had a quid for every pilot who has spoken to me a) during the roll-out or b) during take-off I'd be as rich as them.. As OMRK reminds us... recall the Aeroflots who always said: "On the ground" the moment their wheels touched or "airborne" the moment they were off the deck? Or the landers on 09L.. "OK to roll down to 16?" and all, and all..
My best was a 747 at Heathrow, about 10 seconds into the roll off from 10L around 8am one morning.. He said "We're not too familair with this runway, will you just run through the SID for us". And, if you fly into LL, do you remember the Christmas Cracker riddles on the ATIS?? The number of crews who responded by asking us similar questions as they were landing or taking off..... Well, I could go on.

[WireFired]

Conditional line-up clearances incorrectly read-back are a pet hate of mine, eg. "C/S after the landing Boeing 737 via Foxtrot 1 line-up & wait RWY**". Too often read back as "Line-up after the Boeing 737", don't want to point the finger but this is a regular occurence at my aerodrome, normally by GA.

[Grabbers]

How about: "Reds,check..."

They annoy the t*ts off me!

[Neptune262]

"Charlie, Charlie." is my pet hate!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I'm not certain, but I believe Charlie Charlie is a close relative of Roger Dee...

[DX Wombat]

"Charlie, Charlie." is my pet hate!
Probably a good job this one (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0822244/M/)has been re-registered then. :E

[Neptune262]

Nice - How do you get four Charlies on a plane??

Oh sorry - that is an entirely different joke!!

:E:mad::E

[learrocket]

As I understand its correct to, during climb in a SID state your level passing and then the level you are cleared to. But do you need to do that later on in your climb and also even later in your descent???

[terrain safe]

"super speedy airline 123 report ready for departure"

"affirm"

:ugh::ugh::{:ugh::{:ugh:

[Gonzo]

Along the same lines:

ATC: Report ready.....

A/c: We're ready now, apart from the cabin......

or.....

A/c: We're ready now, apart from a pushback tug...

or....

A/c: We're ready now, apart from our final figures....

[Tarq57]

"## tower, this is ###"

"###, tower, standby."

"Roger, ##tower, ### standing by."

[Mister Geezer]

Is it not 'Airmanship' to advise an ATC sector as soon as practicable if you request a level differant from the one originally filed for?

I think the key thing is here is that as flight crew most of us don't know how the cogs will turn in the background for each sector that we speak to. For example telling a London TC controller you want FLXXX to cruise will be a wasted breath however not everyone knows that telling a TC controller this bit of info is wasted airtime. For pilots a London frequency is a London frequency and thats it! Not everyone is a sad **** like me who knows which sector I am speaking to before I key the mike!

[anotherthing]

Grabbers

I always used to ask the 'Reds' to confirm type and POB..... used to wind them up a little...............

[makespeed250kt]

What really gives me the sh!ts is the number of RPT that call my sector from Departures on climb with the following;

"XXX centre, XXX123 on climb to F180." "XXX123, XXX centre, climb to FL390."(Planned level) Long pause...."Aaaggghhh, uummm, centre, request FL370.":ugh:

I can appreciate that this is going to happen from time to time but it's starting to become the norm rather than the exception Down Under.

All good and well when it's quiet but a little frustrating when the frequencies are busy.

Cheers.

[criss]

Granted FL is usually filed by OPS department (and quite often with RFL), and not changed for an individual flight on a given day. Nevertheless the best moment to notify about your request is while requesting ATC clearance while still parked at the apron - we then have plenty of time to notify next sectors, especially if we're on dedicated DEL position.

[White Knight]

What you jolly fine ATCO chaps forget is that whilst you're ALWAYS esconced in your own little radar room or tower, WE are in an ever changing environment that (believe it or not) has different rules, regs and PHRASOLOGIES!!!!!!.

I do agree that there is some awful radio work from some pilots - it makes me cringe to hear it sometimes:ugh::ugh: But have you thought that when you just get something like "affirm" in response to an "are you ready" maybe the guys in the front are busy with something and only vaguely heard what you said. Yes, I know we're supposed to maintain an ear out - but that doesn't always happen... Tiredness, tech problem, cabin problem - I could go on!!!

And as HS points out - any R/T calls whilst we're landing will be ignored:ok:

[sr562]

What you jolly fine ATCO chaps forget is that whilst you're ALWAYS esconced in your own little radar room or tower, WE are in an ever changing environment

??? I always thought ATC was an ever changing environment too or has the pause button on the radar screens at my unit broken.

White Knight why dont you go have a visit to one of the little radar rooms or towers and have a look. While you guys can concentrate on YOUR flight and what YOU want to do controllers have lots of A/C to deal with, usually all wanting to go the same way and climb and descend into each other (and on a good day he/she might just keep you apart).:eek:

[Lon More]

sr562 I think the point that White Knight was making is that procedures can vary from state to state.

[White Knight]

sr562 - mighty defensive heh? I've visited TRACON in the US, and tower at LGW, very impressed too with the professionalism. I thought your job was to keep us apart - even if we're going the same way at the same time:) Besides, we are supposed to be concentrating on OUR flight - I couldn't care less what the others are doing..
Lon got the idea of what I was saying..

[Airbus Unplugged]

Whilst I understand the frustration with reporting 'Fully Ready' but with a proviso, can you imagine the frustration of having your ducks so nearly in a row that you'll be ready in 3 minutes...

We then call fully ready, only to be told 'Right, twenty minutes startup delay'

If you thought the R/T was annoying, just be thankful you can't hear the screaming.:mad::mad::mad:

[amberale]

Slight drift but what annoys me is when I hit a HOT line to a sector only to hear "stand by approach, XXX123 when ready descend Fl120" etc.

AA

[PH-SCP]

When switching from Approach to Tower, I often hear the phrase "Roger Papa Charlie Papa, continue approach". What a load of ole crap and waste of effort and breath that is. Unless flying a helo, there's not much else I can do buddy !! In my opinion the "continue approach"-instruction is just a way of buying time but it makes no sense at all.

[PH-SCP]

An ATCO at EHBK who kinda lost it many, many moons ago and who retired a few years back (a day of monumental rejoicing:):)), once uttered these words...

"Papa Echo Sierra, proceed to the east, slowly but not immediately, we expect traffic in a minute or five, so I give you a call when you actually have to start moving."

This is not a joke, it really happened. Apparently this guy is still teaching RT at a local flying school....What a :mad:

[Wojtus]

When switching from Approach to Tower, I often hear the phrase "Roger Papa Charlie Papa, continue approach". What a load of ole crap and waste of effort and breath that is. Unless flying a helo, there's not much else I can do buddy !! In my opinion the "continue approach"-instruction is just a way of buying time but it makes no sense at all.Saying "continue approach" contribute to situation awareness of other crews on the frequency. Also, surface wind could be stated at this time to make forthcoming landing clearance shorter. However, when ATCO is short of his breath, "continue approach" is the first thing to omit.

[eastern wiseguy]

maybe the guys in the front are busy with something and only vaguely heard what you said

then the reply should be "Stand by" or " Say Again"...not AFFIRM!! :hmm:

[White Knight]

I agree Eastern Wiseguy:hmm::hmm: However, for some reason some will say "affirm", or "charlie charlie" or - I don't know mate. I was pointing out that the guys may be preoccupied. Maybe English isn't their first language, maybe they're not ICAO level4, maybe their cat got run over and they can't think straight:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[sr562]

White Knight/Lon Point taken and i shall hang my head in shame and read the posts more carefully:(

[Lon More]

PH-SCP In previous years he often had me wishing for AG capability on the Warrior. When he heard that I worked for Eurocontrol he tried to make my life hell. He also did, IIRC, the RT exam at Schiphol back then. Despite 20 years as Controller and Pilot he gave me 71% on the practical. ""Mr. More, an aviation professional would use "Foxtrot" not "Fox"", and that the complicated and garbled communications about gliding activity miles off my track was not read back word for word,



To me it was water off a duck's back. Must be something to do with sharing a flat with the Creeganator in the past:}

[llanfairpg]

However, when ATCO is short of his breath, "continue approach" is the first thing to omit.

Why should an ATCO be short of breath, I have always wondered what you get upto in those cosy little towers.

[Dream Land]

Good point White Knight, although I am a short hauler, the long haul guys are in a different country every flight, might not have been there for quite some time. Thanks to ATC for their input, will try to do better. :O

[PH-SCP]

I'm afraid I totally disagree. Saying "Continue Approach" supplies just as much situational awareness to other crews on the frequency as saying "Continue to Breath". Other crews are totally clueless about the position of this particular aircraft other than it's "out there somewhere". If you want to say something meaningfull that also increases situational awaressness fot other crews, say "report passing xxx(fix) or xxx (dme) and include a landing number, that way other crews know that the aircraft hasn't passed that particular fix yet. If you can't issue a landing clearance yet, don't say "continue approach" but say "expect landing clearance on short final". Keep the pilot in the picture and don't say things that are obvious. The pilot will continue his approach until otherwise instructed, you don't have to tell him that !!


Quote:
When switching from Approach to Tower, I often hear the phrase "Roger Papa Charlie Papa, continue approach". What a load of ole crap and waste of effort and breath that is. Unless flying a helo, there's not much else I can do buddy !! In my opinion the "continue approach"-instruction is just a way of buying time but it makes no sense at all.
Saying "continue approach" contribute to situation awareness of other crews on the frequency. Also, surface wind could be stated at this time to make forthcoming landing clearance shorter. However, when ATCO is short of his breath, "continue approach" is the first thing to omit.

[criss]

"Expect landing clearance on short final" makes no sense neither. They expect it sooner or later anyway.

The problem is you need to say something when they check in, coz they expect you to. Telling them winds while they're on 10 miles is quite often irrelevent. Number in sequence is also not very useful, unless you tell them they're number 1 and can relax a bit.

So what I prefer to do is either to inform how many departures they can expect before their landing (same/crossing rwy), or a simple "good morning/afternoon/evening".

ATCo saying "continue approach" is only half of the problem, the other half is you read it back:ugh:

[2 sheds]

In my opinion the "continue approach"-instruction is just a way of buying time but it makes no sense at all.


The purpose is to emphasise that you do NOT yet have landing clearance - but without mentioning the latter words and having them misheard.

[tp555]

My pet hate is with a particularly well known northern airfield, and I apologise if this is a specific local procedure of which I am not aware.

It goes as follows,

XXXXXXXXXX Delivery, XXX123, Boeing XXX, Stand XXX with Information A, QNH1013, Request clearance to XXY.

XXX123 Cleared to XYZ, NOKIN1Y, Squawk 1234, Information is Alpha, QNH1013.

Cleared to XYZ, NOKIN1Y, Squawk 1234, Information Alpha, QNH1013

My point being, most ATCO's seem to read back to you the ATIS code and QNH in the clearance, which, according to my book means I am obliged to read back the QNH and as good airmanship if nothing else, readback the ATIS code.

Incidentally, this is not limited to delivery and happens frequently on initial call with Radar too when passing ATIS code.

Not entirely R/T related but don't get me started on speed restrictions not being lifted, "300kts untill advised". When will that be then, arrival on stand?

Sorry... Rant Over...

[NudgingSteel]

tp555
that may be due to a) habit, the delivery controller is reading the same standard sentence many times per hour and even if he's heard the pilot report the current ATIS, he just can't help it slipping out again!
or b) he's confirming that the information IS Alpha and the QNH IS indeed 1007.
A question of emphasis, maybe; but when a pilot reports that they've got the current ATIS, I always confirm that it is indeed still current. The damn things change so often!
No need to mention the QNH if the pilot's read it out correctly once, although I am also guilty of blurting it out again inadvertantly!

[criss]

The truth is that thrown away from reading your newspaper you can barely catch who's calling, if you're lucky you will even notice the stand he's given. ATIS - you're asking for too much :}

[VoxPopuli]

"Are speed restrictions in force today?"

Why the hell wouldn't it be?

or

"Request further climb"
"Standby, traffic above'
"Roger, we have him on TCAS"

:{:{

[Grabbers]

The next time it happens I shall do likewise.

Cheers

[727 exec]

WHY OH WHY OH WHY do some ATC personages insist on talking to us when the main wheels are 0.1mm from the runway...

Just as the PF is wrestling the flying device to the runway and the PNF is watching, calling speeds, checking the reversers are out etc etc etc - some helpful ATC guy/girl will go ahead with the full "landed at XXXX, vacate next left at XX then hold at X, call ground on XXX.XXX and was there any turbulence/windshear on finals"???

P L E A S E PLEASE please
wait until we've got it on the ground and can talk to you before going ahead...having been a controller in a former life, it's like someone asking if you want tea just as you're using the "surface wind is XXX at XX knots, runway XX you're cleared to land" ploy to stretch a small gap into a larger one...Thank you muchly

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

727 exec.. look at my posting #36. ATCOs are trained not to talk to pilots at critical times during take-off and landing except in an emergency. But, as I pointed out, some pilots are more than capable of talking to ATC at those times. The way you talk, anyone would think pilots are busy!!!

[727 exec]

Busy?? we've got to try and get the plane level enough for the first cup of tea after departure!!

I did have a look at #36, and I've never had an issue at your venerable airport, but some others...and yes, we're guilty too.

I once had a visit up the old tower at LL land - it was great!! Something us pilots should do more often at their local airport - always found choccy biccies went down well as a visiting gift, and we've had controllers visit us when they realised that there was always pizza before departure...:D

[WhatUMean]

still the best has to be the Pre-departure cabin announcement made on the ground frequency! Especially when they tell the passengers how ATC have given them a slot! DOH!

[Lon More]

Shouldn`t say "on" anyway....it`s not "on" anything.

Should be "Contact agency, frequency"

Should be "Contact agency, frequency/channel":)

[saywhat]

ANNOYING R/T
Some interesting ones from south of the equator:

From the pilots side they report approaching their cleared flight level.In general they are also approaching traffic 1000ft above or below.Contrary to popular belief the radar actually does work in certain third world countries.

From the ATC side certain controllers will request a pilot to reduce speed to 180kts ' when comfortable' :confused:, what happens if that is only at the outer marker?:ugh:

[RadarRambler]

continue approach, can be useful sometimes, apart from the points made above it may be continue approach you are number 4, so helps create a better situational awareness, just the same as a pilot reporting on frequency and his range from touchdown, most units have a ATM so know how many miles you are, but the other aircraft dont, aircraft at the hold can become aware of the likely hood of getting a line up clearance, someone landing ahead be more aware of need to vacate quicker etc

[WhatUMean]

I once had a visit up the old tower at LL land - it was great!! Something us pilots should do more often at their local airport - always found choccy biccies went down well as a visiting gift, and we've had controllers visit us when they realised that there was alwa:Dys pizza before departure...

Think any unit would welcome you if you bringing biccies and pizza!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Should be "Contact agency, frequency/channel"

ATC phraseology pedants know that we don't use the phrase Channel (or Canal in French) in RT anymore ;)

[slink]

I'm afraid I totally disagree. Saying "Continue Approach" supplies just as much situational awareness to other crews on the frequency as saying "Continue to Breath". Other crews are totally clueless about the position of this particular aircraft other than it's "out there somewhere".

I can see it from both sides. When a pilot checks in on my (tower) frequency and I can't (or won't) clear him to land, "continue approach" emphasises I want him to continue normally. Roger is just a bit vague - but you of course can acknowledge my "continue approach" with "wilco", or just "continue". If there's a reason I want you to "continue", I'll give it, i.e. "Continue approach, one to depart" or similar. If there's an issue, then I'll also state it, along with any action - such as "reduce to minimum safe approach speed", to prepare the pilot for what may end up being a missed approach. This is becoming more regular now we cannot depart anything after a reported birdstrike (or suspected birdstrike) - and it always happens when it's tight and you've given the one at the hold a conditional line up clearance...

Finally on this subject - my bugbear! If we're quiet, you check in at 10 miles, nothing's going on...you will probably get a "continue approach", not a landing clearance. Why? Because at 2 miles, you'll ask "can you confirm we are cleared to land". Thanks for getting confirmation - I'm not against that at all, but invariably it gets us jumping up with binoculars wondering what you've seen on the runway! If I just give you a continue, then a clearance at 4 miles, I don't get the raised heart rate! I often wonder why the flight deck get a placard for the cabin crew to set "cabin ready take off / landing", but there isn't one to say "cleared to land" when landing clearance is received...

[slink]

P L E A S E PLEASE please
wait until we've got it on the ground and can talk to you before going ahead...having been a controller in a former life, it's like someone asking if you want tea just as you're using the "surface wind is XXX at XX knots, runway XX you're cleared to land" ploy to stretch a small gap into a larger one...Thank you muchly

OK, try this fairly common scenario...

"XXX, continue approach, 1 to depart. After landing vacate at the end, your stand occupied".
"YYY cleared for takeoff"
"XXX cleared to land, wind blah"

A/c now at around 1/2 mile, stand screen flashes into life with a new stand, or GMC start the one on your stand.

"XXX no need to acknowledge, you may vacate at C1, stand changed"

To a pilot, is that useful, or not? Bear in mind, I've not had anyone ignore it and roll to the end anyway :\

[Lon More]

we don't use the phrase Channel (or Canal in French) in RT anymore


Not even with 8.33 spacing?

In the land of retirement now, but was quoting last ICAO doc I had available

[PPRuNe Radar]

Hi Lon,

Hope retirement is fun :ok:

It was the case that ''Channel' was in the phraseology, but it was removed when everyone went to using 6 digits for frequencies. For most of the civilised world, this was in November 2005. For the UK, it was May 2006.

[Lon More]

Things change quickly. that was a suggestion made on day 1 of 8.33 ops. I didn't think it would ever make it through Montreal.
Hope retirement is fun
On the whole. Still miss the people and the actual job. NOT the b/s I was supposed to distribute on behalf of management.

[Reimers]

Slink:

With more and more airfields busy with traffic and the TWR controller unaware of anything that occurs on the apron, I always appreciate the times when an extra effort is made with regard to taxying / parking!:ok:

[RHAG]

Time to get this thread going again ;)

"Hold Short"

This crops up in central europe, mostly german & french speeking countries.

ATC: "Hold short runway 28"
(given to an aircraft cleared to the holding point 28)

How short is short. 3 meters or 30 meters. Is it permission to move past the holding point surface markings and get a little bit closer to the runway?

ATC: "Hold short taxiway Lima"

Same again. OK I'll keep 3cm short of the taxiway.

Its bull**** :ugh:

Then there is ...

ATC: "Standby short" (mostly heard in switzerland and germany)

OK - what does this mean ???
Maybe we should define how long a standard "standby" is and what units we measure it in. Minutes, fuel burn or $ or £ or euro-things.
Then when we know how long a standard standby is, then we could usefully work out how long "Standby short" is.

ATC please stop using local rubbish and keep it standard :D

[Waterfall]

which spacing or channel ????
There s an ICAO phraseology for that

*Advise 8.33 eqipped * ,he replies- *Affirm 8.33* or *Negative 8.33*or exempted ....

Same for RVSM you say

*Confirm RVSM approved*,pilot replies* Affirm or Negative RVSM *

Really annoying to listen to*advice 8.33 spacing capability*and the pilot goes *say it again?*,and again and again...:ugh:

[expediteoff]

RHAG - Uh!??

I'll have some of whatever he's using!

[criss]

In what way is "hold short" non-standard rubbish? Or do you mean it's the lack of "of" that annoys you?

[RHAG]

Read the origional text :)

So the ATC says hold short runway 36.

I elect to hold 3 meters from the runway edge.
That’s short of the runway :ok:

I am NOT told this will not give enough wing tip clearance from the aircraft using the runway, which may not stay on the centerline, and may veer to one side, who's wing may then hang over the runway edge by more than 3 meters.

Bang!
That’s the sound the wing tip makes as it slices through my cockpit.:eek:

As a pilot the only thing I need to know is that I am as instructed "holding short of the runway":)

So how short is short ?
Its just not good R/T and there are many pilots out there that will not know how close they are allowed to get to the runway.

[RHAG]

Read the question :)

How short is short ?
Is 3 meters from the runway edge OK ?
Seems far enough to me :ok:

Its just bad R/T.

[Gonzo]

No it's not.

When you are told to hold short of Echo you hold short of the sign that tells you you are about to cross Echo.

When you are told to hold short of Runway 27L you hold short of the sign that says '27L', where the wigwags/guard ambers are, if you've not been told to hold at a specific point.

It's all in ICAO PANS/ATM Doc4444.

[criss]

I read your question and referred to it. As Gonzo says, there is plenty of hold short in ICAO DOC 4444, so it seems rather lack of knowledge than poor RT. One can advocate that it is a poor phraseology to have and that ICAO should change it, but not that it's poor RT to use while rules are as they stand ATM.

[Pera]

Troll alert. :=

[anotherthing]

Maybe not in civvy life, but is 'channel' not still used for military aircraft which are 'studded' for home base.

Channel 1 - Ground
Channel 2 - TWR
Channel 3 - App etc

[Avman]

For me, one of the most irritating and totally unnecessary word is " fully ready". Still hear it all the time both from ATC and crew. Listen guys, you are either ready or not. If you report "ready" that should mean nothing else than that you are ready! Get rid of the "fully"!

[Dreadful]

"FULLY ready" is a heap of habitual nonsense as Avman says. "FULLY ready" with the doors wide open and the tug not connected is doubly crap, not least naive. Look to your left and right guys as we on adjacent stands are shaking our heads in disbelief:rolleyes:


"4321 THE squawk" ....thats another embarrassing attempt to sound "cool". Being asked to squawk is an instruction, but many pilots don't want to read it back as "squawk 4321 G-ABCD." Why?

"G-ABCD WITH YOU" = stating-the-obvious crap.

"COPIED / ready to COPY G-ABCD" = CB radio crap.

"OK, join left base etc." = over-relaxed crap.

"To tower eighteen one, G-ABCD" = cringeworthy crap.

"G-ABCD ready." = ready for what? cryptic crap.

"Tower G-ABCD WITH YOU (:ugh:) FULLY ESTABLISHED ON THE GLIDE ( :ugh:) at erm.....errrr....four point five DEE :ugh:" = long winded unnecessary crap.

"LAND G-ABCD" = over stern crap. (this is a clearance and should be read back as such including the words CLEARED TO..., it's not a demand from ATC that you must land at all costs.)

"We have him on TCAS" = useless crap.:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk: God why do these n**bers think this makes any difference to the controller?


RT is surely one of the most repetitive and therefore easiest part of a commercial pilots life so why do so many people disregard it as secondary to just about everything else? In the last two UK airlines Ive worked for the TRI / TRES have demonstrated some of the worst RT I have ever heard! If good RT practice cant be demonstrated from the top of the trainig tree in airlines then Im afraid controllers its never going to get any better. The fact is preccious few pilots care and those that do are tarred with the nit picking brush.

[5milesbaby]

anotherthing, not sure if that also changed with the intro of "channel" for 8.33 as the last few Boscome's we've had went to "Stud 6" instead. Can't find any documents to support though....

[BasicService]

I agree with everything else that Dreadful wrote but I think that 'ready' is ICAO standard phraseology and has the same meaning as 'ready for departure'.

[sr562]

I have been reading through this thread with interest and as a lowly trainee controller, I would like to ask our pilot friends to spare a thought for the trainee when using non standard rubbish RT. As a trainee we are held responsible for your every mistake and will face a grilling for not challenging you, here are a few examples:

Lowly trainee: ***123, Contact *****, 123.45
Pilot: Roger over to ******, See ya.
(Now I have to either get you to read back the frequency before you flick the switch, or waste my time and the next sector controllers time by making a phone call to ensure you went to the correct sector)

Lowly trainee: ***123, taxi via A and B to stand **
Pilot: Roger, stand **
(Now I have to read the whole clearance again to get you to read it back, wasting 2 transmissions in the process)

After being told to hold short of a link or apron
Pilot: ***123 approaching ***
(Whilst I understand why this is done, and sometimes it can be useful, if the frequency is busy then it just clogs up valuable RT time. It also seems to spread like a virus, as after 1 or 2 of these transmissions every pilot feels the need to say it)

One final bugbear is pilots stepping on each other. Why not select the frequency and listen for 10-15 secs before transmitting. That way you dont request your clearance in the middle of someone else's, or ask for taxi while your colleague on another flight is reading his instructions back.
I know you guys are under pressure to achieve on time departures and cram in multi sector days, but no-one gets anywhere any faster when i have to say everything twice.

So please spare a thought for us trainees. We dont have years of experience to fall back on, may not always give you what you want straight away, but we are trying hard.

Rant over

P.S all donations to the lowly trainee controller fund are greatly appreciated, we accept cash, cheque, alcohol or even pizza as we dont get paid much. :ok:

[DX Wombat]

Why not select the frequency and listen for 10-15 secs before transmitting. Been there, done that, several times only to find somebody else was doing (or maybe NOT doing) exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. :\ :uhoh:

[JohnnyEagle]

ATC: "cleared dct [fix]"
American pilot: "UNDERSTAND, cleared dct [fix]"

[inner]

Hello

It think this is a very interesting topic. I started my professional career 2.5 years ago in biz aviation and up to now i must say that ATC can be for me the most frustrating item.

When i finished my line check the line training captain told me that my atc was good, as long if it was standard. This means when twr/app was talking non standard i was really out of the blue. In addition they were sometimes hard to understand, speaking so fast english with a foreign accent (germans, egyptian, spanish)and this in stressy situations, i felt i was a loser. 2.5 years later (now) things are a bit better.

That'swhy i really think that both parties (pilots and atc) should stick to phraseologie and speak in a understandable way. No more no less. And to be honest i think there are a lot of guys outhere in same situation as me.

My opinion.

[davecfm56]

Personally;

ATC 'FASTJET 01 SQUARK 1234'

A/C '1234 coming down FASTJET 01'
:}

[gc4atco]

"Fully visual" - when asking for a visual approach really gets me. :ugh:

[172_driver]

Ready to be fully shot down here

Having flown in US the last year and a half it amazes me how poor the standard R/T is. Most time spent in SoCal area and yes... they push a lot of tin and they can be really efficient, but mostly at the expense of ambiguous clearances and a lot of bashing for not doing what ATC wanted!! :ugh:

Other examples, starred by pilots

"OK....errr...Roger, we'll go down to 3 and join the LOC, thank you sir" = WTF???

"Ready for take-off" = Heard by anyone from tyro pilot to flight instructors and professional pilots :=

"Here we go/We're on the roll" = And other standard take-off clearances

"Tally Ho/No joy" = took me about 6 months to figure out what it meant :yuk:

"Roger when it should be Wilco, Yes that's right sir when it should be Affirm" etc.

"Turn left on A, proceed straight ahead and make it second right onto D, then follow the taxiway to the end" = When simply "taxi A, D" would do it..... a lot less confusing, too.

If some kind of standard phraseology could be worked out maybe they could cut all the useless information on the ATIS as well like "read back all hold short instructions" DOH!!!

Rant over

[JulieAndrews]

ATC "Callsign confirm position..."
Pilot "....at this time.....2nm west of ..."

[crwjerk]

Forgive me if I repeat someone else's posts, but I don't wanna read through the whole lot..........

Americans stop saying "UNDERSTAND" after every instruction you get.
Out.

[ONE_ZERO]

what happened to bravityand clarity

[Bullethead]

bravityand clarity

And spelling? :8

Maybe you do need a certain amount of 'bravity' to fly around in the SOCAL locality. :}

Regards,
BH.

[ONE_ZERO]

slip of the finger. LOL

[Capt Pit Bull]

As per usual on these kinds of threads, the issue of "Fully Ready" raises its head. The reason this comes about is because standard RT doesn't cover the situation when start delays are long and tugs are limited and you get this situation:

1. Can't have a tug because you aren't in the queue.
2. Can't be in the queue because you can't declare yourself ready.
3. Can't declare yourself ready because you don't have a tug.
1. Can't get a tug because... [repeat ad infinitum]

The only way to break the loop is to say something 'non-standard' or just lie.

I can either say "Ready" and wait for the sarcastic comment from the tower "oh is your tug invisible" or some such bollocks. Or I can say "Ready apart from a tug" in the sure and certain knowledge that the denizens of this forum are at risk of a stroke as their collective blood pressure ratchets up before shooting "well, you aren't ready then are you". Or I can call "Please can I be in the queue for start even though I am not strictly ready because you know and I know start is 45 mins away and if you let me in the queue I can then go on the list for tug which will certainly be less time than that". At which point ATC usually agree... and then ask me to report "fully" ready.

The point being that whilst precise RT use is highly desireable, pro-words are there to be our servants, not our masters. In the case of start clearance, the vocabulary is deficient and is overdue for a rewrite. In the mean time grin and bear it or start taking some valium 'cos I swear some of you guys sound ready to have a stroke.

pb

[vespasia]

Some excellent points raised by Capt. Pit Bull.

Personally, when there are start delays I'm more than happy to put you in the queue when you have pax on board, fuelled etc. and then get you to report "fully" ready with a tug. If your turn comes up before the tug arrives you'll just "hold" your position until it does i.e. as soon as the tug is with you you become number 1.

However, I won't put you in the queue when you report ready with pax still climbing the steps, baggage ramps still attached, or the BP vehicle still plugged in!!!

:ok:

[AMF]

"Fully ready"

"Charlie charlie"

Ending every readback with the word "Confirm"? Yes, we know you like to make in impact on the airwaves, but if you have to confirm every clearance then perhaps you need more work on your listening watch or be ready to write things down the first time.

Any queries in a radar environment under positive control of ATC that relates to "track miles". Just do what you're told, fly your aircraft, check your TCAS to see where you fit into the sequence if you're that interested, and shut up.

In a radar environment, after they've been givin a final intercept turn and "Cleared for the ILS Rwy XX approach" , pilots reporting they're "established on the localizer" (which usually forces the controller to respond with an equally useless "continue approach"), or even worse, querying if they're cleared to "descend on the glide". Yes, being "cleared for the ILS approach" means you are also cleared to intercept and descend on the glideslope, and you DON'T have to report established in a radar environment unless asked by ATC to "report established". THey can see you turning to establish yourself. Seeing you doing things is the whole point of having ATC radar.

Controllers who you think may have cleared you to fly direct to a waypoint, but don't use the word "direct", forcing us to question if that's what they really meant.

Controllers who have a runway exit plan for you after touchdown, but keep it as a closely-guarded secret until on the landing roll.

[RHAG]

Hi criss,

see I am not the only one who thinks "Hold Short" is not that good.

Standard Noise (http://www.pprune.org/members/43679-standard-noise)
StandupfortheUlstermen

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Where the singing aardvarks told me I should be but when they stop singing I'm gonna escape
Posts: 1,125


No ATCO should ever say 'hold short of runway xx'. Don't give a toss what any book says, it's bad practice and will lead to a runway incursion. I've seen this very thing happen at my unit in the last 12 months. The ATCO involved had a talking to from me afterwards.

Should you ever be given an instruction telling you to 'hold short of runway xx', you should ask for clarification of exactly where you are to hold.

SN,
Unit Competancy Examiner,
Out-in-the-sticks International


Can think of much R/T that had been added, changed and removed from the good book of R/T. Just because its in the good book of one country or used by people in another country, it does not mean its good R/T.
Dont care what they say at LHR, listen to the BBC TV series East Enders and you'll see that they dont talk to good anyway.

Remember, if there is room for a missunderstanding to become an error, it will become an accident, sooner or later. Just hope I am not a passenger on that airplane. I like to arrive on my feet and not in a bag.

[Guy D'ageradar]

AMF,

Suggest you check out some accident reports - after Crossair Flight 3597 and several others, it bacame mandatory in a lot of places to confirm established before transfer to tower.

Guy.

[747JJ]

Beginning of rant

"XXXX fully ready for take off". Now can you be half ready? And even if you can, what difference does that make?

"XXXX Request FL350 if available". Well if 350 is bloody available then the controller will be able to assign it to you.

Useless yapping more to sound ubercool than for a reason. The standards of RT work have gone to sh.its in the last 5 years. A marked difference with the surge of inexperienced pilots flooding in when the times where good.

Another thing that I get annoyed is with a FO giving a TO/Dep briefing and telling me that in case of a problem we must perform a "Re-Landing" ( What in the God's name is a Re-Landing???) urgh. Makes me squirm

End of rant :}

[AMF]

RHAG Hold Short --- is not good R/T

No ATCO should ever say 'hold short of runway xx'. Don't give a toss what any book says, it's bad practice and will lead to a runway incursion. I've seen this very thing happen at my unit in the last 12 months. The ATCO involved had a talking to from me afterwards.

Should you ever be given an instruction telling you to 'hold short of runway xx', you should ask for clarification of exactly where you are to hold.

SN,
Unit Competancy Examiner,
Out-in-the-sticks International


Can think of much R/T that had been added, changed and removed from the good book of R/T. Just because its in the good book of one country or used by people in another country, it does not mean its good R/T.
Dont care what they say at LHR, listen to the BBC TV series East Enders and you'll see that they dont talk to good anyway.

Remember, if there is room for a missunderstanding to become an error, it will become an accident, sooner or later.

If hold lines are present, why on earth would anyone need to clarify where a pilot should "Hold short of Rwy XX" while they are on a taxiway unless they've; 1) neglected to learn what pavement markings mean, 2) don't understand the end of the taxiway end and runway beginning is defined by the hold lines, and 3) those lines coincide with their taxi clearance limit?

Hold lines delineate the taxiway side from the runway side, and are usually co-located with white on red signage drawing your attention to the fact that anything past those indicators is "runway". No part of the aircraft should cross the hold lines onto the runway side until a runway clearance is issued. That's exactly where you should hold. There is no fuzzy no-man's-land area after the hold lines...it's considered runway. Go past them without clearance, and it's an incursion.

"Hold short of Twy xx" is hardly "bad practice". On the contrary, unless there's a failure on the part of the pilot to understand basic pavement markings (quite frankly, PPL stuff) or the markings or signage are nonexistant, it's a perfectly clear, acceptable, and unambiguous instruction. If there's any misunderstanding, it sounds more like a local unit problem of not opening the books.

[criss]

RHAG, and your point is? One can argue that any "by the book phraseology" is bad, but without substantiating, it simply remains a private opinion.

[Agaricus bisporus]

"Fully" anything. Meaningless bollix. You either are or you aren't. No fully or partially involved. Ever.

"Filthy 1234, are you ready?". "No, waiting on the cabin" AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!! What's wrong with the correct "Negative"? What kind of idiotic gloop-speak is "waiting on the cabin"? Are you serving the cabin tea? Do cabins even drink tea? Just "Waiting for the cabin" would be bad enough, but on it?

Telling the fella your heading after he's told you to maintain it, he'll ask "and report it" if he wants to know.

Asking closed-loop questions " Confirm cleared FLXXX" Instead of "Confirm cleared level" Basic Human factors stuff.

Hitting the ident after departure "because they always ask for it"

Briefing taxi routes and parking positions before you've recieved them,or when there is only one way possible (a particular bugbear in my company). What, are you psychic or something? Why/how can you just assume that? Or why waste breath briefing the self-evident?

Spouting a great unasked-for frequency-blocking spiel on contacting Approach reporting type, variant, heading, speed, altitude, ATIS ident and QNH everywhere you go just because the unique procedure at home base seems to need this, yet not noticing that it doesn't happen elsewhere cos it isn't necessary or wanted.

Spouting unnecessary detail about minor tech problems that can only result in overreaction by those who aren't allowed the discretion to disregard such details.

Spouting details of non-critical tech problems on "company". Manna for the media maggots.

"Repeat" for "say again".

ie, just not engaging brain before using the radio.

[Defruiter]

Completely agree with that ident comment. Incredibly annoying. If any crews are reading this, don't push the ident button before being asked to do so. Technically, the aircraft can only be identified with the ident method when instructed to "squawk ident". From the book:

When using Mode A to identify aircraft, one of the following methods is to be
employed:
c) Observing an IDENT feature when it has been requested. Caution must be
exercised when employing this method because simultaneous requests for SPI
transmissions within the same area may result in misidentification. Aircraft
displaying the conspicuity code 7000 are not to be identified by this method."

Pedantic I know, but them's the rules!

Another one of my pet hates is aircraft that fail to readback a speed instruction properly, if at all. Speed is a mandatory readback. Full list from the book:

5.3.1 Pilots/drivers are required to read-back in full messages containing any of the
following items:
•Taxi/towing instructions;
• Level instructions;
• Heading instructions;
• Speed instructions;
• Airways or route clearances;
• Approach clearances;
• Runway-in-use;
• Clearance to enter, land on, take-off, backtrack, cross or hold short of any active
runway;
• SSR operating instructions;
• Altimeter settings;
• VDF information;
• Frequency changes;
• Type of ATS;
• Transition levels.

If you were instructed as a pilot to "Descend FL120", you wouldn't respond with "Roger", "Wilco", "Starting that descent now", "already descending" or some of the other rubbish we get, so why do it with a speed? Speed is just as important as anything else.

Food for thought anyway...

[On the beach]

XYZ "Minimum fuel" :ugh:

To which my response is always: "Are you declaring an emergency?"

And to which the answer invariably is "Errrrr, no"

So what is the actual problem?

As far as I'm aware, minimum fuel means you have enough fuel for an approach, followed by a missed approach and a diversion to your nominated alternate. It's what every aircraft has to carry. You don't need to tell us unless you can't do any of the above.

If you are genuinely at the bare minimum fuel and have only enough to reach your destination then prefix the call with "Mayday" and I guarantee you that you will get our undivided attention and will be number one to the closest airfield available.

On the beach

[5LY]

It's been mentioned already, but have to beat on it some more. They guy who before every altitude change says "Big Town Control, Too cool 123 request..... and the controller has to say Too cool 123 go ahead, and Too cool 123 says 'Too cool 123 reqest FL350.

When I hear some w'ker do that I expect the request to be something amazing like "can we go down and fly under that bridge inverted and then rejoin the airway?" Just ask for your blinkin' FL and stop imagining you're staring in your own movie.:ugh:

And further on someone's whinge about ATC exit instructions: When I'm bouncing down your runway at 90 knots, I can't read the chart, and I haven't memorized all of the taxiway names. At best, I know I'm shooting for the first or 2nd high speed on the left or whatever (really I do have a plan) but telling me to exit B or somesuch is going to cause me consternation unless I happen to be fully familliar with your layout.

Mostly we love you guys. Thanks for the handholding all these years.:ok:

[fireflybob]

On the ground at an airport with no ATIS and a/c calling for the "Weather" when it should be "Departure Information"!

[one dot right]

And further on someone's whinge about ATC exit instructions: When I'm bouncing down your runway at 90 knots, I can't read the chart, and I haven't memorized all of the taxiway names. At best, I know I'm shooting for the first or 2nd high speed on the left or whatever (really I do have a plan) but telling me to exit B or somesuch is going to cause me consternation unless I happen to be fully familliar with your layout

:D . Heard this at Liverpool one night, some poor b*gger in a chieftain had just broken out of the overcast at around 300' and was in the flare when he was given "G-XYZ vacate at A take taxiway B parking C". Single crew, unfamiliar with airfield layout, the guy just said 'er, i'm single crew, when I get it stopped and off the runway i'll have a look at the plate"

ATC can be too slick for their own good sometimes!

[blissbak]

@On the beach
In Italy minimum fuel is a priority request, this means no delay then, 'cause they haven't much endurance to follow the phases you talked about before, moreover, if you give them too much delay and in the worst situation they later need to go around, it will probably turn into emergency/critical fuel.

[Max Angle]

So what is the actual problem?

No problem at all if you are sitting in a nice cosy and warm ATC suite where your ass will remain safe no matter what happens.

[criss]

Reading/understanding problem?

[On the beach]

OK Max Angle, here's the problem I was faced with a few years ago. I had 9 aircraft inbound, all trans-oceanics, 6 of whom on first contact stated "minimum fuel", because of either adverse winds or bad planning. Now, 5 of these inbounds on minimum fuel aren't going to be number one and from the statement "minimum fuel", I cannot tell who has the least fuel of the 6. So, I have to ask all in turn if they are "declaring an emergency". And the answer from all 6 was NO. So I'm back to my original problem of sequencing, except that I now know that someone up there probably is genuinely low on fuel or will be if they are made number 6 in the sequence or have to hold. Now, not one of these minimum fuel aircraft declared an emergency even though 5 of them had to be vectored or speed controlled.

Many years ago if a Captain was in the same situation he would have said something along the lines of "We're low on fuel and don't have enough reserves left for holding. If there's any holding we need to divert". In which case ATC know exactly what the situation is and will ensure that, subject to weather and other emergencies that particular aircraft gets in ahead of others who may have to hold or will be told of the ATC situation which makes it impossible. There seems to be an increasing reluctance among the younger Captains these days to declare a fuel emergency for fear of jeopardising their future.

I appreciate that in this day and age commercial pressures play an increasing role in the way many fleets are operated and the luxury of the Captain getting the refuellers to "put a little extra in for Mum and the kids" no longer exists. Sadly, though many operators are taking off with not much more than is the absolute legal minimum fuel requirement.

However, the use of the phrase "minimum fuel" seems to be becoming more prevalent and if it is used by all operators then the whole system is at risk.

I'm sure you are aware of Avianca Flight 52 which crashed near New York back in 1990 after running out of fuel. It was only after 75 minutes holding that the crew declared that they were "running out of fuel". The point here being that they were probably close to "minimum fuel" when they entered the hold but they only decided to tell ATC after 75 minutes of holding. A "minimum fuel" call would have been meaningless as due to the weather I'm sure most of the other aircraft holding were in the same situation.

The NTSB report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per IATA guidelines.

The pertinent word here being "emergency". So that's what the actual problem is and why not only is it annoying R/T saying "minimum fuel" but is also meaningless to ATCOs. I hope this clarifies the situation.

On the beach

[blissbak]

I'm not aware about other countries, in Italy we have "minimum fuel" reported in our manuals and in our national AIP.
About the case you referred, you just had to give them delay as less as possible as of everyone else around but everyone who declared the minimum fuel, they can still fly normally, so it's like a PAN call (underlining the "like").
To avoid the problems there were in the past (cheating pilots :E ), someone should check them when on the ground.

[Navigator33]

With all due respect but I have the feeling there are more "procedures" and "calls" written in Italian manuals and AIPs that make no sense whatsoever to the rest of the world :ugh:

Standing by to stand by...

[blissbak]

I've never talked about our procedures as the best in the world,
I just said that when you're flying throw the worst airspace in the world,
just in case your fuel is not that much but still ok to continue almost safely, in that case I'll try to give you no delay, 'cause I don't like to wait till the real emergency.
In the event you're burning like a big fire ball, I'll give you special assistance even if you don't call a mayday :hmm:
Cheers

[Brie]

Another thing that frustrates me as a pilot: atc talking so fast that they are really unreadable (and im not talking about africans). Ok i understand that sometimes it has to go fast but please pronunciate clearly so i don't have to ask five times "say again".

My advice is : keep it short and clear.

[DFC]

2) don't understand the end of the taxiway end and runway beginning is defined by the hold lines,


Small point but I think that you will find that the end of a taxiway is where the taxiway and the runway join i.e. at the physical edge of the runway.

Taxiway holding positions (holding points) are designated (marked) to ensure that the largest aircraft for which the aerodrome is designed holding at the most adverse angle does not infringe a myriad of obstacle and / or signal critical areas.

Asking a pilot to hold short of runway(nn) assumes that the pilot knows the design standard of the aerodrome, the aerodrome category, the physical limitations and the signal in space limitations not to mention the wingspan of the aircraft about to roll combined with the pilot's ability to maintain the centerline.

Bit of a big ask!!

Hence the reason for holding points (position).


"Filthy 1234, are you ready?". "No, waiting on the cabin" AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!! What's wrong with the correct "Negative"? What kind of idiotic gloop-speak is "waiting on the cabin"? Are you serving the cabin tea? Do cabins even drink tea? Just "Waiting for the cabin" would be bad enough, but on it?



Ah Ha, I can see that in expecting you to have a basic understanding of the issues involved in getting a commercial flight in the air, I have been placing your understanding on too high a level.

Please think of "just waiting for the cabin" to mean that we have the tug, driver, engineer, release from ops and you might see that everything has been removed from the aircraft including the airbridge but we are not yet ready because.......so even if you don't know how long that is going to take if you tell the aircraft waiting for this stand what we said then atleast they will understand.....................just like when we say "request FL380" and you respond with "NO".........in a team environment, it helps to know why i.e. we do not object to (we prefer) "FL380 not available doe traffic" or "FL380 not available due to military restriction" etc.

[criss]

Any ATC instruction/clearance ASSUMES crew is able to fly their a/c, know regulations and have licences (sometimes a big ask in fact, as someone managed to fly for 13yrs without a licence). If you clear them for take-off, you assume they know the correct flap setting and when to pull up. What's the point in having regulations if we assume crews don't know them and treat them like idiots?

[AMF]

DFC Quote:

Small point but I think that you will find that the end of a taxiway is where the taxiway and the runway join i.e. at the physical edge of the runway.

It's no small point to not know where being guilty of a runway incursion is, and the definition you give (join at the physical edge of the runway) is most certainly your own and other misinformed souls when it comes to a taxi limit that doesn't include a runway clearance. I would fail any PPL candidate that didn't know this very very basic and very very vital/safety-related definition.

Taxiway holding positions (holding points) are designated (marked) to ensure that the largest aircraft for which the aerodrome is designed holding at the most adverse angle does not infringe a myriad of obstacle and / or signal critical areas.

You are speaking to why hold lines may be where they are...it doesn't matter to a pilot why they are where they are, but the pilot must know those lines deleniate the taxiway side vs. the runway side. Being hooked on your own erroneous definition (where the pavement joins), or being over-interested in why hold lines perhaps are different distances from the centerline, have you wrapped around the axle, so to speak.

Asking a pilot to hold short of runway(nn) assumes that the pilot knows the design standard of the aerodrome, the aerodrome category, the physical limitations and the signal in space limitations not to mention the wingspan of the aircraft about to roll combined with the pilot's ability to maintain the centerline.

Bit of a big ask!!

It assumes no such thing, and nobody's asking it of you as a pilot. What's asked of you as a pilot is to understand basic pavement markings and obey them, since they are so you can obey the instruction. Only not understanding would lead you to think an instruction for you to "hold short" is as large and convoluted as you're making it out to be.

Hence the reason for holding points (position).

The reason for hold lines is to define taxiway side and the runway side of pavement. Learn this...please. You're confusing yourself. You're trying to build a watch when someone asks you what time it is, except watch-building in this case is a detriment to safety.

[AMF]

Guy D'ageradar quote

AMFSuggest you check out some accident reports - after Crossair Flight 3597 and several others, it bacame mandatory in a lot of places to confirm established before transfer to tower.

Guy.

If such reporting is mandatory in certain locales, it will either be published or the mandate will be met by ATC giving instructions for each aircraft to do so, which is usually the case.

And don't toss "read accident report" suggestions at me when the question is extraneous R/T, because I can toss as many back regarding accident/near accidents due to bogged-down airwaves and missed communications because some just want to hear themselves talk.

[AMF]

Agaricus bisporus

"Filthy 1234, are you ready?". "No, waiting on the cabin" AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!! What's wrong with the correct "Negative"? What kind of idiotic gloop-speak is "waiting on the cabin"? Are you serving the cabin tea? Do cabins even drink tea? Just "Waiting for the cabin" would be bad enough, but on it?

Since the expectation is for turbine aircraft is to be ready upon reaching the hold lines, most of the time you hear "cabin not ready" (or some derivative) as an explanation as to why a takeoff clearance or line-up and wait instruction is refused. We do this all the time, and sometimes an explantion is required..."Unable high speed due to turbulence", "Unable FL ..... due to weight", "Negative RVSM due to equipment", "Unable 250 degree heading due to weather" etc. etc. Because of the expectation by ATC that aircraft are ready upon reaching the hold lines, explaining the reason for refusing further clearance is appropriate.

Responding to the much-less-frequently occuring question "Are you ready" with a "Negative due to cabin", instead of "Negative" (with no explanation) is technically extraneous but understandable, because in the pilot's mind he's essentially refusing the clearance he would expect next if he answers in the affirmative.

[radarman]

Here's a new version of the 'Fully Ready' chestnut I got tonight: 'Hello tower, Bigjet 1234 on Stand 5, we're nearly fully ready for push'. :mad::mad:

[Gonzo]

If an aircraft near a departure holding point tells me he's not ready for departure, I'd like to know the reason: If it's for the cabin then I can reasonably expect it to be ready in the next few minutes, if it's for final figures then I might consider moving it out the way to another holding point to enable a/c behind to get to the runway. Likewise for a technical issue or possible bag discrenpancy, also in those cases I might warn Ground that the aircraft might be returning to the terminal.

[jozo]

Hold short of ... is standard phraseology,the only problem is that 70% of pilots do not know what the he.. that means,therefore, I am not using that phrase,because YOU DON'T KNOOOOW ! Education ,RHAG,education ...

[babotika]

Heard this the other day...

ATC: Propflier 9876 expect further climb in about 10 miles due crossing traffic descending to 1000ft above.
Propflier: Roger, expecting further climb due ... err ... in 10 miles ... for crossing traffic ... um ... 1000ft above us Propflier 9876.

Meanwhile we are about to hit our clearance limit waiting to call in on the frequency.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

As an aside Jeppesen says the following about calling for P/S in Heathrow:
Phraseology should be: callsign, ACFT type, stand number, ATIS letter, QNH and "fully ready, request start-up"

S.

[DFC]

I heard this the other day:

APP Controller: N...XX. Be careful of the base of controlled airspace at FL65.
Pilot: Errrrrr...... Roger. Climbing to FL65. N...XX
APP Controller: FL65 is the BASE of controlled airspace. Remain below FL65.



Is that an example of the controller not knowing that if the base of controlled airspace is FL65 then an aircraft at FL65 is in uncontrolled airspace. i.e. Where a higher class of airspace overlies a lower class then ther dividing level is taken to be the lower class?

Clearly in that case the N pilot was more aware of the situation than the controller!! :D

[Arch Stanton]

if the base of controlled airspace is FL65 then an aircraft at FL65 is in uncontrolled airspace.

Any idea where this is published? It would make my life a bit easier if I could use it when aircraft are bumping along at 2500' underneath the TMA.

[2 sheds]

Annex 11, 2.6:
"Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc."

2 s

[Pugilistic Animus]

I think in the US "Squawk mode Charlie Charlie on the xpndr" is valid but why one controller insists on telling me that all the time is a mystery as I always put on the xpndr in mode C and they don't have ground radar,..:rolleyes:

what really hate is when after touchdown and you are occupied the same twr controller gives fast turnoff instructions,...causes many students [solo] to stop on the runway only to be berated loudly,... :ugh: in fact there's a youtube of this behavior
I don't know the guy in the Mooney,...but I know the Mooney involved

airport involved FRG

[Kiltie]

Babotika ..... good spot!

However, if Jeppesen are promoting the use of "fully ready", we are all f***ing doomed in the cesspit of acceptance of non-standard rubbish:mad:

[BellyAir]

WRT the 'fully ready' debate.

In the Geneva plates, it states that you should only ask for start when 'Fully Ready'.

Also, what about 'fully established'? you're either established on the localiser only or established (on the ILS).

[Quintilian]

When I hear "fully established" I understand that as "established both on localizer and glide"... "Established inbound" I consider localizer-only.

2cent.

[shrimp42]

Whenever I hear a pilot or one of my colleagues start a transmission with the word AND, I die a little inside

[OurSoul]

I die a little when I hear people start their sentences with the word "so"!!:ugh:

[OutsideCAS]

@ Shrimp42;

I understand where your coming from with the "AND" phrase when using RT - i freely admit it is wrong, i will also admit i am one of the offenders of using it - i always think afterwards "why did i do that ?" and for some reason i can only conclude it is because it felt natural to me, albeit totally wrong for me to do so of course !! anyone else ??

[chevvron]

Even more annoying is footballers stsrting every sentence 'ya know'.

[Kiltie]

Button-holders, whilst quite rare, are acutely irritating. When is someone in the training department of a Scottish regional airline that's been operating for 40 years, that now has Swedish aeroplanes, going to tell one of their Captains of the chaos he creates whenever he lingers over the PTT switch after he's finished speaking?

Busy ATC: "xxx123 climb FL 125"
xxx pilot: "climb FL125 xxx123.......pause....linger...(finally release switch)"
Busy ATC: "....tish Control 124.5"
xxx pilot silence..............
Busy ATC: "xxx123??"
xxx pilot "Go ahead xxx123..........pause....linger...(finally release switch)"
Busy ATC: "......oo four decimal five."
xxx pilot "Sorry was that for xxx123 contact 124.5?...(pause....linger etc.)"
Busy ATC: ....did reply but have finished the acknowledgement.

Meanwhile the rest of us have our ears fried by the constant two-stations-at-once DYOOOOOOOOOOO noise....:ugh::ugh:

[Stop Stop Stop]

A couple of pet hates from "downstairs"

The controller who replies "correct" after every readback of a clearance from the pilot.

The London controllers who tell you on first contact, "ABC123 make your present heading a radar heading and after the vectors route REFSO, LAM, CPT for the BRS1C."

This has caused several problems with inexperienced crews unfamiliar with this type of clearance- why not just omit the "after the vectors" bit and when we are released from the vectors, just say "route direct LAM, CPT BRS1C etc?" We don't know at what point you are going to release us- it might be somewhere near CPT- we don't know. You will be surprised how many will miss the 'Radar Heading' bit and type in DCT LAM before being challenged by the Almighty!

Oh and I won't even get started on the "When established on the localiser, descend with the glidepath" which for a non-native speaker is like gobbledegook (believe me- I work with them- and they mostly struggle with this phrase). That is why you will often get the "cleared for the approach" reply to that one!

[FlyboyUK]

And in France, aircraft checks in on quiet frequency...

Controller responds...

"ooh es callinnnggg??":ugh:

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Four rules for VHF VP.

1. Speak slightly more loudly
2. Speak slightly more slowly
3. Speak in a slightly higher pitch if you can
4. If possible, introduce a natural rhythm to your speech.

Anyone knows where that comes from?


And LISTEN OUT, before TX ing:ok:

[taekyon2]

For me the most annoying transmissions are along the lines of: "Request any direct!" or "Any shortcut available today?", simply because one gets to hear those so often every day.

It's as if pilots believe ATCOs rejoice in not providing the shortest possible track the circumstances permit. :ugh:

Also...quite irritating...seriously bad weather (e.g. heavy thunderstorms in the entire TMA, or runways not available due to heavy snowfall), and pilots asking..."Report reason for delay!"

One time one of my co-workers answered "Reason for delay is turtle race on the runway". :p I know I know...not very professional, but all of us were struggling with massive traffic loads and dozens of aircraft in the holdings...

[galaxy flyer]

"Request any direct!" or "Any shortcut available today?"

As if the ATCO enjoys watching us plod along fix to fix when a direct routing is available.

GF

[fireflybob]

When a/c already established on the frequency:-

Bloggsworth Control StarTrek 1234 REQUEST

Startrek 1234 Pass Your Message

Ah Startrek 1234 we were wondering if Flight Level XXX might be available?

Yes Startrek 1234 Affirm do you wish to climb?

Startrek 1234 Affirm we're in moderate chop hear/in the tops (fill in the blanks)

Startrek 1234 Climb Flight Level XXX

Climb Flight Level XXX Startrek 1234

PLEASE why not just say "Startrek 1234 Request Flight Level XXX" - why all this REQUEST etc which takes up a load more air time?

[CRX]

Two pet annoyances for me...
1. The Lufthansa policy of reading back and STARTING with callsign. Why???
'Lufthansa 123 climb flight level 50'
'Lufthansa 123 climb flight level 50' echo echo echo echo....
2. And to agree with Kiltie, the Scottish button lingerer!!! I thought I was the only one to notice. Around 3 secs is what I timed last time I heard him, and several clipped tx's.

CRX.

[BrATCO]

And in France, on a not so quiet frenquency (I guess it works also with other accents) :


- Airr Huatteverr one too tree for, conntacter Bwest, one too niner decimowl fife, goohd by.
...
- Airr Huatteverr one too tree for, conntacter Bwest, one too niner decimowl fife, goohd by.
...
- Airr Huatteverr one too tree for, on ze frrequansea ?
...
- Airr Huatteverr one too tree for, iffer yooh reed mee, squohk hi-dennter !
...
- Are you calling me, Whatever 1234?
- Ahfirmer, Huatteverr one too tree four, conntacter Bwest, one too niner decimowl fife, goohd by.
- Contact Brest, 129.5, Whatever 1234, bye.

[dcb2008uk]

YES! Couldn't agree more, I always think they're questioning whatever I've just said whenever they read it back.

[Coffin Corner]

My pet hates:

A/C: London control Speedy123 FL230 to x
ATC: Speedy123 London Roger, squawk ident
A/C: presses ident button
ATC: Speedy123 Squawk Ident
A/C Squawk Ident Speedy123.

Why do we need to read back SQ ident? Surely you can see it on your radar screens? You have our callsign, a/c type and sq code displaying, along with a flash when we ident, you know where we're coming from, and where we're going.

Another.

A/C: xxx Radar Speedy123 descending FL70 to the centrefix RWYxx, Space Shuttle Charlie with information Xray, QNH 1019, request deconfliction service outside controlled airspace.
ATC: speedy123 roger, descend FL40
A/C: descend FL40 speedy123
ATC: Speedy123 latest information is Xray, QNH 1019, turn left hdg xxx, what service do you require?

A/C: :ugh::ugh::ugh:I just told you I had Xray 1019, I just asked for a deconfliction service.

ATC: speedy123 descend altitude 3,000ft, QNH 1019
A/C: descend Altitude 3,000ft, QNH 1019 Speedy123
ATC: speedy123 descend altitude 2,500ft, QNH 1019
A/C: descend altitude 2,500ft QNH 1019 Speedy123
A/C now on finals etc:
ATC: Speedy123 contact tower on 123.450
A/C: Contact Tower 123.450
A/C: xxx Tower Speedy123 ILS etc etc etc
ATC: Speedy123 roger, QNH 1019
A/C: QNH 1019 Speedy123
ATC: Speedy123 cleared to land rwy xxx, surface wind 360/40G80 etc etc.

Sorry, do you want to run the QNH by me one more time, I don't think I got it the last 8 times you gave it to me :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Data Dad]

Stop Stop Stop wrote:

The controller who replies "correct" after every readback of a clearance from the pilot.

Agree with you on this EXCEPT - it is becoming increasingly common for pilots to say 'Was my readback correct?' if you don't do it :ugh:

DD

[DFC]

It's as if pilots believe ATCOs rejoice in not providing the shortest possible track the circumstances permit


No but I am sure than many will agree when I say certain European countries have controllers that always leave you at the upper level in their sector until you call before passing you to the sector above for higher.

eg

ABC123 climb FL180 report your requested level

ABC123 reports requesting FL380 climbs to FL180 and levels.

After a while and no traffic in sight, ABC123 reports level at FL180

ABC123 contact xxxxx on 134575

New frequency - ABC123 climb FL260 report your requested level

ABC123 reports requesting FL380 climbs to FL260 and levels

After a while and no traffic in sight, ABC123 reports level at FL260

ABC123 contact xxxxx on 134575

So now we make the very anoying call of ABC123 passing FL150 for FL180 in the hope that sometimes the controller will wake up and transfer us to the sector above before we have to reduce our climb or level off where there is no traffic.

The other bit of anoying R/T is being stepped up in 1000ft incriments (which of course we do at a rate of 1000ft per minute or less) and being told that if you can expedite the climb you can get a direct. Feel like saying well if you give me a climb that I can expedite (4 to 6000ft per minute possible) then you we will both get what we want. :D

[Avoiding_Action]

CoffinCorner
Why do we need to read back SQ ident? Surely you can see it on your radar screens? You have our callsign, a/c type and sq code displaying, along with a flash when we ident, you know where we're coming from, and where we're going.
From CAP493

Pilots/drivers are required to read-back in full messages containing any of the following items:
*SSR Operating instructions

Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a read-back is not immediately forthcoming.

[Torque2]

FireflyB

PLEASE why not just say "Startrek 1234 Request Flight Level XXX" - why all this REQUEST etc which takes up a load more air time?

I think its because that's how it is depicted in the CAP.....XYZ request..,

thus suggesting that it is an initial request to be followed up by the detail.

I agree with you that it it is much more concise to get the request done in one transmission.

[Chesty Morgan]

How else would the controller know that it was you identing?

[Coffin Corner]

Avoiding Action.

Appreciate that's what CAP493 says, I am instigating that it is old fashioned and out of date, especially with the advent of Mode S and BDS6 compliant.

Wingo.

That may well be the case, but surely it takes the pilot about 2-3 seconds to hit the ident button, and the controller should be concentrating on the call in hand, i.e. if he asks for SQ ident then he'll already be looking at our radar tag. If someone else calls he can still have his eyes on our tag even if a new call is ½ way through it's check-in call etc.

Chesty

Because the controller's tag already shows our callsign, a/c type, squawk code, groundspeed, altitude etc etc. Just because we read it back it doesn't make the controller notice where we are. What makes the controller know where we are is the fact that he already has a mental picture of the traffic in his sector, he already knows we are there, and he can see the a/c tag flash when it idents. It doesn't need us to read back "SQ Ident Speedy123"

[Gonzo]

Acknowledging squawk ident is used to identify you.

Yes, I'm sure that in the future it will become obselete, but without you identing and acknowledging when asked, you technically are not identified. The fact that you are displaying a callsign doesn't mean anything, you might have got airborne using the wrong squawk (not uncommon) and thus be displaying the wrong callsign.

[MIKECR]

Ok...here's my grump. At the particular airfield(shall remain nameless!) I fly from we have one particular controller who preceeds every opening reply with "readibilty 5"(or whatever scale it may be). When departing,having told him i've got information(insert letter) he then replies to the effect that im correct and then proceeds to tell me the whole ATIS again! Having then got my IFR clearance and having told him im ready for departure, im then told to line up on the runway and wait. I then get literally told the whole of ATIS information for a 3rd time, followed by any local procedures/info(already included in the ATIS!!). I then get a great long winded message about the type of service i will receive. Having sat for goodness knows how long on the runway, i finally get clearance to take off. Included in the message "cleared take off" I then get literally everything again for a 4th time! Is this over control or someone who just likes the sound of their own voice?? I may be simpleton Pilot but I dont need to be told the same information 4 times in the space of 10 minutes!

Oh and another airfield I fly from we have an ineresting "leave the apronwith the marshallers instructions" reply to requests for taxi. If I dont reply with the taxi......"with the marshallers instructions" bit then ATC wont accept my reply. I have to repeat the instruction until I include the relevant marshallers bit. Is this normal procedure elsewhere?? Is this proper RT??

[radarman]

A/c: 'Approach, Airtwit 1234 with you, visual with the surface'
ATC: (Thinks): 'So what. Is he trying to drop a hint?'

Next day.
A/c: Approach, Airtwit 1234 with you, fully visual'
ATC: (Taking hint): Airtwit 1234 cleared for visual approach runway 18, QNH 1012'
A/c: Errr roger, it's still a bit hazy so we'd like to stay with radar till we're established on final'. :ugh:

[Agaricus bisporus]

"Tower, this is the Airtwit. fully established rwy24, fully in reciept of ATIS Charlie (I'm being polite), fully cleared to land...

Fully arsehole.

Wups! Sorry, "the" fully arsehole.

[Kiltie]

"Fully visual" is pointless trivia that should be ignored or acknowledged only by ATC. It is used by lazy pilots instead of a proper request for a visual approach but I am surprised ATC continue to issue a Visual Approach clearance based on this rubbish alone.

Why do many pilots still readback "Climb NOW FL190" as "Climb FL190" ?:ugh:

Why, when ATC give a conditional "After the landing Easyjet Airbus A319...." do folk readback "after the landing aircraft...."

I don't understand why people have difficulty in reading back exactly what they've just been told but choose to put their own twist on it. Maybe a more useful RT exam should be to reach an acceptable score on crappy 1980s electronic game "Simon" to prove you can repeat what you've just heard.

[Coffin Corner]

Wingo

Of course it isn't a stress, the title of this thread is a giveaway - Annoying RT, this is why I brought it up, I most certainly don't lose sleep over it. But when it's busy and you can't get a word in then what's the point?

Gonzo

1. So how would we have been able to reach an en-route controller with the wrong squawk in the first place? Surely this is picked up by the tower/approach controller?

2. Are you saying if we have the wrong squawk set then it automatically displays an arbitrary callsign?

3. How many a/c is an en-route (area) controller allowed to control at any one time? And what is the norm on a typical day? Anywhere near this limit?

4. If the answer to the question above is something like 13 or 14 then when you ask someone to SQ-I how many others are likely to SQ-I at the same time, in the same place to cause you confusion?

I just don't see why you have to read it back still, if we have checked in, you know our callsign already, we've told you where we are going, and what level we are, you surely have ATC handovers, from one sector to another, and flightstrips, so you know who we are,, if you've asked us to SQ-I and you then see the ident on your screen, so why do we need to read it back? I am still not getting the importance of it.

CC

[DFC]

Why, when ATC give a conditional "After the landing Easyjet Airbus A319...." do folk readback "after the landing aircraft...."



Could it be that there is absolutley no requirement for pilots to have any idea of what an A319 looks like or even what an easyjet aircraft looks like.

Therefore when given a conditional they will line up after the first aircraft to land..........which is why you have to limit it to the first aircraft to land.

:)

-----------

The instruction to squawk ident is a mandatory readback item everywhere. The reason is as gonzo says and you should look up the official words used to describe the procedure which are along the lines of observing an ident from an aircraft which has acknowledged an instruction to ident.

[Gonzo]

CC,

1. So how would we have been able to reach an en-route controller with the wrong squawk in the first place? Surely this is picked up by the tower/approach controller?

Sorry, I was only talking about transfer from tower to departure sector.

2. Are you saying if we have the wrong squawk set then it automatically displays an arbitrary callsign?

In the UK it usually does, because we approach code saturation often, so chances are that any random code will be assigned to another flight, so you show their callsign.

3. How many a/c is an en-route (area) controller allowed to control at any one time? And what is the norm on a typical day? Anywhere near this limit?

I'll leave that to those who work en-route.

4. If the answer to the question above is something like 13 or 14 then when you ask someone to SQ-I how many others are likely to SQ-I at the same time, in the same place to cause you confusion?

Again, it's not the fact that others might sq. ident at the same time, the identification of the aircraft is achieved when the callsign of that flight is observed identing after that flight has acknowledged the request.

[Northerner]

Gonzo and others are right, which is why it's really annoying when you get "blah blah blah, passing x thousand feet for x thousand feet on a y departure with ident

Trouble is I'm only allowed to count you identified if I ask for the squawk ident, you acknowledge it, and then I see it on the radar at the aircraft I expect you to be. SO if you ident without asking, I haven't asked, and so I can't count it.

As for the number of planes we work at once - regularly 12 - 15 in the London TMA, occasionally more than that.

The chances of more than one identing are less likely if we ask for it, but it can happen, and remember that whilst squawk ident is most frequently asked for after departure from the major airfields, it can also be used for other traffic where we might not be as sure which is who.....

In the good old days getting you identing also used to set off the tracking system and ensure that your flight plan was activated. Is that still the case anyone?

Hope that helps.:)

Cheers,
Northerner

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

[spekesoftly]

Perhaps the most recent "Annoying R/T" trend is pilots from the same airline indulging in personal "chit-chat", oblivious to how distracting it is to others. Not just in quiet periods, but also during a busy radar sequence! :rolleyes:

[John R81]

Echoing sentiment above

"After the landing PA28" (Airbus, or anything except Concord)......

I am a heli pilot. All planks look the same. My readback will be "after the landing aircraft..." If there is something ahead of the P28 I would "go" in the wrong place.

Different (for me) if told "after the A109" or R22, or EC145, but how many plank drivers know the difference there?

John

[Gonzo]

To add to Northerner's post, we in the tower look out for the ident as an indication that the aircraft has two-way with London.....absence of ident prompts us to try again to see if the a/c is still on our frequency.

To John R81, in the scenario you describe, what would you expect the ATCO to do if there was an 'aircraft' (A320) just slowing down after landing and vacating, but clearly within your field of view, and another 'aircraft' (PA28) on short final?

If I was that ATCO and you read back 'aircraft' I'd expect the worst and assume that you meant after the one vacating. While my heart rate shoots up I'd be trying to get on the R/T and confirm.

If you don't understand the clearance you've been given, you must say so. If you don't know the difference between an A320 and a PA28 then you must say so, and the ATCO will come back with clarifying remarks. By just reading back 'aircraft' you are already passing through the first slice of cheese.

[DFC]

Gonzo,


Conditional clearances are to relate to one movement only and, in
the case of landing traffic, this must be the first aircraft on approach.


Rolling out is not on approach.

While ATCOs (aerodrome at least) are provided with training in and assessed on aircraft recognition pilots are not and there is no requirement for a pilot to know what an A320 looks like.

You say "After the landing A320 line up and wait"

I say "After the landing A320 line up and wait"

and then wait and see what an A320 looks like. :)

Same airport, same traffic makes it easy.

Of course we do get "after the landing falcon line up and wait"

Is that the 20, 50, 900 900lx, 2000 2000lx or 7x..........quite different aircraft and as you say it is so important to get it right :)

Your "after the landing falcon" = a pilots "after the landing aircraft" :) :)

because if you tell me to line up after the landing falcon I could sit there waiting for one of these;

http://www.aerofalcon.com/images/3_Falcons_at_Hovings.jpg

:D

[Gonzo]

DFC,

It's all very well quoting from MATS Part 1, but we both know the world is not so black and white.

I've seen many crew assume the conditional aircraft was the one that had already passed them on the runway, not the one still on final. I've also seen ATCOs make mistakes and misjudgements.

So what would you do if you were waiting to cross at the midpoint; one aircraft had just touched down but was yet to pass you, there was another 2.5nm out on approach, and I'd just given you an 'after the landing, cross......' clearance. Would you know I meant after the at 2.5nm, beacuse that's what MATS Part 1 says? Would I be safe to assume all pilots are as familiar with that document?

Not sure why you think this is all rather amusing, some of us take this sort of thing quite seriously.

[Denti]

Why, when ATC give a conditional "After the landing Easyjet Airbus A319...." do folk readback "after the landing aircraft...."

Simple, last time i waited for the correct aircraft i got reprimanded by ATC. After all they told me to line up behind that landing Lufthansa A320 so i told them we would do so and waited for a Lufty A320. Next landing was of course a BMI A320 so we didn't line up.

By the way, the identing after departure seems to be a british peculiarity, is there really any technical reason anymore for that? Or just a local procedural oddity? After all in other parts of europe we do not even get individual squawks anymore, just 1000 for all on those routes, not to mention no ident and ATC has no problem working with us anyway.

[John R81]

Gonzo

I meant "Aircraft" in place of the type. Full readback would be, for example

"After the landing aircraft, line up 26 right"

I don't say back the aircraft type as this would give a false impression to you that I know what one of them is. I don't.

So no problem in your scenario. Only issue comes if you have given me the 2nd or 3rd landing aircraft but don't give me that vital (to me) piece of information. A320 v P38 I might just get that one, but 3x BA flights, same livery and similar size please help me by referencing only the 1st aircraft or make it clear.... eg "After the BA 747 number 3 on final, line up 26R".

I understand what you are trying to do. I posted as working all day with plank drivers (as many ATC do) who may know all the different fix-wing models I wanted to point out only that Rotorheads might be just as anal regarding Heli's but have a complete blank for make / model of fixed wing.

I will take on board one thing from your response; I could be a little clearer without wasting time. In future I will add "next" so above readback becomes "After the next landing aircraft, line up 26 right".

If unclear, then shout - absolutely. It does, as you say, work both ways.

Thanks for making me think a little

John

[055166k]

The "ident" can be for a number of different reasons.....besides the confirmation of aircraft identity and ensuring that the correct SSR code correlates to the correct flight. On my sectors the "ident" will trigger the code-callsign conversion [if not automatically done] and starts to track the aircraft.....depending on the particular bit of airspace it can change the "label" from a background grey colour to a foreground green colour.
Occassionally an aircraft might display a wrong code [misheard or selection error or redundant pairing or similar] and this may cause a wrong label to be displayed and/or activate the flight plan for the wrong flight.

[Pera]

Johnr81

Just reply unable if you are unfamiliar with the type. The ATC might miss your cryptic readback.

P.

[PaulW]

I apologise for adding fuel to the fire, but its quite common at Aberdeen to be given the clearance "after the landing Jetstream line up and wait", and a Saab 2000 or Embraer flies over the threshold. "Eastflight" doesnt always mean a Jetstream.

My pet hates on the RT are "Ident you have" and the words "thats copied and understood"
Just repeat back "ident callsign" and say "roger"

From a turboprop pilots point of view asking a jet to "maintain highspeed" and asking the the turboprop to "reduce speed 180 or less" with forty track miles to go for sequencing when the jet will be wanting to slow down anyway and the turboprop would quite happily of maintained 250kts to final and the jet would not have known it was there. Just because its a jet doesnt mean its faster in the zone or that its lower so itll get there first.

[DFC]

So what would you do if you were waiting to cross at the midpoint; one aircraft had just touched down but was yet to pass you, there was another 2.5nm out on approach, and I'd just given you an 'after the landing, cross......' clearance. Would you know I meant after the at 2.5nm, beacuse that's what MATS Part 1 says? Would I be safe to assume all pilots are as familiar with that document?



I would look out my window and see that you had provided an unsafe clearance.

You could have no traffic on the runway and say "after the landing A320 cross 27L" and as said A320 vacates at the exit prior to me wonder what you were talking about.

Perhaps you need to have a think about conditional clearances issued to traffic waiting to cross at the midpoint etc.

PaulW, so true!! but isn't that why we make our initial call to approach with type, atis code and qnh?

[Chesty Morgan]

PaulW, roger does not mean understood!

[Data Dad]

PaulW wrote:

its quite common at Aberdeen to be given the clearance "after the landing Jetstream line up and wait", and a Saab 2000 or Embraer flies over the threshold.

I hope its not common at all! Aberdeen Unit policy is not to use Conditional Clearances for runway movements. When they are used the aircraft type is taken from what the (electronic) 'strip' says and that is directly from the flight plan ..... garbage in, garbage out.

Just because its a jet doesnt mean its faster in the zone or that its lower so itll get there first.

Hear, hear. Most airport controllers are well aware of that BUT are usually at mercy of the preceding en-route sectors who are not so aware and have made the decision to 'get the jet ahead'.


John R81,

Only issue comes if you have given me the 2nd or 3rd landing aircraft

Read the CAP413 extract posted by DFC above - conditionals are only allowed to refer to the FIRST aircraft.

DD

[Mister Geezer]

In the days of when PD did use conditionals (few years ago now), some types were often generalised and a member of the A320 family would often be referred to as 'an Airbus' and a E145 or a E190 was often simply referred to as 'an Embraer'. Whilst that in itself would have little safety impact, it is perhaps somewhat different to the conditional phraseology used at larger NATS units. Funnily enough, I never heard a member of the Boeing family being referred to as simply being 'a Boeing'.

CAA ATS seem reluctant to stipulate the use of the aircraft operator in addition to the aircraft type since it can get rather complicated with wet lease ops. However at larger airfields it is often second nature for the aircraft operator to be mentioned in a conditional clearance.

With a number of ATC units now not using conditional clearances, is there anything that could have done by the regulator to make the use of such clearances less potentially unambiguous? After all, if there was no risk of ambiguity, then I suspect that no units would have opted to not use conditionals? Could there be a safety case for the regulator to do away with conditionals all together, based on where we are at present? Perhaps the CAA ATS boys and girls have not done enough in making conditionals more robust?

I would be interested to hear what you controllers think.

[PaulW]

Regarding the incorrect aircraft types passing over the threshold with conditional clearances, that was in no way a dig at the controllers, I am aware that the flight plans and aircraft type often get changed by the company and type may sometimes be incorrect through error in operations, Im just pointing out that the aircraft type is not always correct, for whatever reason. Repeatedly questioning did you mean this aircraft type will add to the controller work load. In the same way I couldnt tell the difference between a puma and a tiger or super puma? Do they look any different from the outside or is just different engines, avionics and gearbox? Its a bond, chc, or bristows helicopter to me.

Roger means message received edit apologies to ChestyMorgan Ive just read CAP 413 and indeed it does not say understood, but there is no confirmation for understood except reading it back. Apparently unless its important enough to readback a message only needs to be received.

So Ill go back and say I dont like the word copied..
CAP 413

Acknowledgements of information should be signified by the use of the receiving
stations’ callsign or Roger callsign, and not by messages such as: 'callsign-copy the
weather' or 'callsign-copy the traffic'.

[Chesty Morgan]

Nope it just means received. Although most people use it to mean understood...incorrectly.

Eurocontrol thingy (https://trainingzone.eurocontrol.int/phraseology/resource.jsp?pID=502)

[PaulW]

Thanks ChestyMorgan nice link to a useful page.
I just search through CAP413 but your link is good.

[DFC]

What happens when the number 1 is a B737 and so is the number 2,3,4 and 5.

"After the Landing B737 line up and wait" :)

I think that in the ICAO docs Roger means "received and understood".

To me that simply means that;

1. The message has been received in full

2. The message makes sense

The actions or not subsequent to receiving the message may not be the responsibility of the person receiving the message and it may take some time for the person receiving the message to inform the responsible person of the message. I am not just talking about radio operator passing message to pilot it could be PNF receiving the message and interupting the PIC's dinner to pass on the message.

[spekesoftly]

What happens when the number 1 is a B737 and so is the number 2,3,4 and 5.CAP 493 states that:- "no ambiguity must exist as to the identity of the aircraft concerned"

So a conditional line-up clearance in the above example may not comply. Suggest it depends on the spacing between the successive B737s ?

[Oiga]

French controllers and their way of always using the names of the nav stations instead of using letters. That really annoys me...

ATC: xxx, you are cleared to Montdidier
A/C: say again
ATC: xxx, direct Montdidier
A/C: confirm MTD
ATC: affirm

:ugh:

[Alt Crz Green]

Oiga,
99% of the time you only get directed to VORs on your flight plan. Is it really too difficult to a) know which VOR's you're planned via and b) to know the names of said VOR's as well as the ident? Hint: they're in the charts.

[Alt Crz Green]

And to dig up something for earlier in this thread: holding short of the runway.
I'm slightly baffled as to where there is any ambiguity here.
As far as I'm concerned, every taxi instruction has its limit at whichever point/taxiway/etc is the last one mentioned.
i.e. "Taxi A, B and C" means taxi as far as the point where C becomes something else (which should be de-lineated by a mark on the ground or a sign - if there's ambiguity, just ask).
In the same fashion, any taxi instruction automatically is limited by a runway holding point unless specific crossing/lining up instructions are received. So in that sense the very instruction "hold short of the runway" is redundant as the default reaction is always to hold short. Now obviously it makes good sense to reinforce the hold short by verbalising it.
So far so easy. So why the big fuss about the holding point? It's very damn simple really. There are painted lines on the ground, either cat 1 or cat 2/3 and depending on conditions, you stop at the correct line and thus are holding short.

[Kiltie]

DFC what if the controller said "after the landing Easyjet....", would you still read it back as "after the landing aircraft..."? I still don't understand why you would want to create a deliberate Swiss Cheese hole by intentionally reading back a more vague instruction than you had just received.

PaulW I too am a member of the anti-"Copied" club though we are a very small community. The correct answer to "G-CD clearance" (or similar) is "pass your message" not "ready to COPY.....ie Breaker Breaker One Nine what's your Twenty?"

CAP413, as you say, makes reference to using just your callsign in a transmission to acknowledge information. But as we have all come to realise over the years, even though CAP413 is in its 50 millionth edition, it still contains utter, utter rubbish that contradicts much of the Manual of Air Traffic Services. CAP413 must be the all time greatest CAA Publication from the Dept. of Not Really Interested.

In such a situation I continue to use the phrase "Acknowledged, G-CD." Many years ago ROGER stood for "message received and understood." Some years ago it changed to "I have received all of your last transmission."

What does it mean now out of interest?

Oh and by the way, Transavia B738 in CHQ on Tuesday morning, what an utterly massive c**t you sounded on the radio with your laid back "style" of RT. Why do you think the Greek controller asked for a second readback of "1234 IN THE BOX" as you so put it.....twice in succession? Does not saying the word SQUAWK make you cooler than the rest of us? We followed you north-westbound and had to listen to your "COMING DOWN" crap much of the way home.:yuk:

And I agree with Oiga using local names for VORs is a pain in the neck. The UK is just as bad though asking foreigners to route to places like Stornoway when they haven't a clue where that is. There is rarely any doubt as to the location of Sierra Tango November though.

A previous poster mentioned a German airline begins every readback with their callsign at the beginning of the transmission. Having read this on Pprune and went flying the next day, I noticed every German callsign was doing it........another new annoyance to contend with! Bah!!!

[Alt Crz Green]

Transavia B738

The clue ish in the firsht 2 letters of his reg.!

And I agree with Oiga using local names for VORs is a pain in the neck.

They're not "local" names, they're the official name of the beacon, as official as the 3-letter identifier. I reiterate the point that it shouldn't be beyond people to know the names of VOR's on the flight plan. If you are flying scheduled ops in Europe, it's likely you follow the sames routes quite often - it's not a chore to learn them. It's basic airmanship to know about the route you overfly, in terms of terrain, airports, nav. aids etc.

[Denti]

VORs do have three letter codes and only those are used in our OFPs nowadays. Gone are the days where the frequency and full name was in there too. Maps are a thing we are not required to use anymore either as the authority assures us that 2 operating FMC are enough. We do have them, somewhere in our EFB but if I have to look the name simply because a French controller can't be bothered to use the TLC o the second try like the rest of the world does would probably take around 10 minutes (booting up the EFB, starting the correct program, loading the route, zoom in far enough to get VOR names, pan to the correct part of the world).

@Kiltie, it might be an easyjet to you, but looks pretty much like an Icelandair to the rest of us, same for many other airlines tha exchange aircraft between them. Over here it could be an Air Berlin to the controller, but it's a flyniki or tuifly for us. It is actually enough if we pilots acknowledge that after the next landing we can cross or line up, aircraft type and airline can be very misleading.

[flydive1]

DFC what if the controller said "after the landing Easyjet....", would you still read it back as "after the landing aircraft..."? I still don't understand why you would want to create a deliberate Swiss Cheese hole by intentionally reading back a more vague instruction than you had just received.Well if you are at one of the Easyjet homebase would not change much, same if you are in LIRF and they tell you "after the Alitalia", you might have a line of 10 of them...

[flydive1]

We do have them, somewhere in our EFB but if I have to look the name simply because a French controller can't be bothered to use the TLCWell, I seems to get the same in USA, Germany, UK, and so on, not a French only problem

[Denti]

Wrong quoting there, I said on the second try.

[Gonzo]

Quote:
So what would you do if you were waiting to cross at the midpoint; one aircraft had just touched down but was yet to pass you, there was another 2.5nm out on approach, and I'd just given you an 'after the landing, cross......' clearance. Would you know I meant after the at 2.5nm, beacuse that's what MATS Part 1 says? Would I be safe to assume all pilots are as familiar with that document?

I would look out my window and see that you had provided an unsafe clearance.

So why would you come to that conclusion? Why wouldn't you cross after the 'aircraft' that had just touched down? Would all pilots react that way?

[DFC]

So why would you come to that conclusion? Why wouldn't you cross after the 'aircraft' that had just touched down? Would all pilots react that way?


The clearance is confusing and therefore unsafe.

I would query the clerance.

If I was not happy then I would sit where I was - not breaking any rules and 100% safe. Pilots should remember that they are the ones that have the final decision (and responsibility) as to accepting a clearance and are entitled to refuse it and ask for a better (safer) one.

While they wait for the new one they can moan to the passengers about ATC delays!! :)

[Old Mac]

Kiltie

As one who has operated extensively using Morse Code, I believe that the use of "R" originates from operations in that mode. "R" as sent by a Morse operator means "I have successfully received and decoded all of your last transmission", i.e with no charaters lost by QRM or QSB (fading). It thereby implies that the message has been received correctly. However if the operator is receiving coded messages he or she has no way of knowing that the message has actually been copied correctly and therefore has to rely upon skill and training to make a best judgement. If there were any doubts then "AA" (All after . . ) or QSL? (Please confirm I have received this correctly) would be used, and in the case of QSL then the received data would be transmitted back - heavy going in Morse! The use of "R" (i.e. Roger) in voice communication is rather meaningless in my view, as only a readback can guarantee 100% accuracy. That is obviously impossible for every message exchange, so leaves the meaning of "Roger" down to trust, like "Wilco"! After all, one can easily understand a message but actually hear the wrong thing!

Regards

OM

[Lon More]

Kiltie although I've not been around as long as Old Mac, IIRC "Ready to copy the clearance" has been in use for many years, certainly in the 1960s in the UK; long before CB.

[Mike_Retired_ATC]

After the B737 line up and wait (whether or not there is a string of B737's on final), after the 757 cross runway 17, are conditional clearances and in the U.S it is illegal to issue a conditional clearance.

I can't believe that conditional clearances like the two above would be legal anywhere, the potential for a serious error is huge.

[Old Mac]

My Morse experience is maritime and amateur - I'm not quite old enough to have operated Morse in an aviation environment apart from reading fluent VOR and NDB, although I knew many of the Communicator grade at LATCC who did. Interestingly I also know someone who has a severe stammer but sends perfectly fluent Morse!!;)

OM

(EIEIO)

[Surferboy]

@ M_R_A: Very legal in quite a few parts of Europe, while 'Number 6 cleared to land' would be illegal in most of Europe.

[Kiltie]

Lon More you're absolutely right, it has been around for decades, but that doesn't make it correct R/T!

[Old Mac]

What's more, a propos nothing at all, there is no such thing as a letter 'haych'
I am turning into an angry Old Mac!! QSL?

Rgds

OM

[Kiltie]

Old Mac, I agree with you. Some seem to think that the pronunciation of a letter must include that letter. When I put that argument to them it is met with blank expression. A similar offence is the pronunciation of the letter J as "j-eye", which I can only assume is because it follows the letter I ("eye").

I am having a bit of a Victor Meldrew Sunday today. :*

[Old Mac]

A for 'orses, B for mutton, C for sailors Oh dear I'm showing my age!

Whilst on a visit to meet some engineers from the FAA I was accused of "having a respect for the language" and having a "British accent". Had to advise that "this is how English sounds when spoken properly and it is you who have the accent" . A subsequent communique from the nits advises that they are suitably picked.

I also get stroppy on roundabouts when people think that they don't have to indicate their chosen exit or indicate one exit too early. Maybe I should stop flying in case I get upset by "hold for the landing flying saucer at 2.5 nm" ....;)

[Old Mac]

PS What made Victor funny is that he was always right. Suggests that getting everything right is the prerogative of the elderly. Not too long for me to be right all the time, therefore. "Which end of the runway is that hedge we just flew over?" . . . errrrr it's called the Slough end

[Mister Geezer]

I know this has done the rounds already but if you wish to see some non standard RT from some of our Dutch friends.... then take a look at this:

YouTube - Funny ATC - Air Traffic Controller at Amsterdam Schiphol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KFU1GKQNNU)