R/T phraseology in the USA

[GoneWest]

I struggled with the decision as to whether to post this on the North America forum - or jet blast (perhaps the moderators will decide for themselves and move it) - but I have to ask if there is some form of fundamental problem with the use of correct, or even acceptable, radio phraseology within the USA.

I genuinely do not want this to turn into the usual International slanging match but, hey - come on.

I work closely with the FAA on their Flight Safety programmes and the two biggest concerns at the moment are Collission Avoidance and Runway Incursions.

During both programmes, the phrase "situational awareness" keeps cropping up - pilots should have a mental picture of what is going on around them. Surely nobody would argue with that.

But doesn't this situational awareness stem from clear and concise radio procedures?

I was at Naples Airport in Florida recently. Immediately behind me was an instructor in a Cessna 172 belonging to the 'Civil Air Patrol'. The Cessna (callsign Capflight 833) was preparing to fly a 'standardisation' sortie in the circuit pattern.

Shortly after my departure I heard, on tower frequency, "Capflight 833 is ready for the active when you're ready for me"

Granted, the guy in the Tower knew what he meant - but what about all the student pilots in the area?

.......................

A week later - overheard on a Miami Centre (Area Radar) frequency "Miami, N*** ready for clearance to ?????" (I missed his callsign and could not decipher the destination).

Miami could not decipher it either and asked for clarification of destination. Back came the reply "Q T S, that's Queen, Tommy, Sam".

The conversation between Miami and the pilot was long and drawn out until the Miami controller eventually twigged that the pilot was using his own phonetic language - for an IFR airways clearance.

......................

Last week, also on Miami, "N***, approaching the glide, and ready to slide" was substituted for "Outer Marker"

........................

About a month ago, I was at another lecture on runway incursions which was being hosted by an Orlando Air Traffic Controller. He was discussing the fact that "when Orlando gets too busy, there is no time to read back every word I say"...he went on..."if I give you a clearance such as 'N***, turn right heading 150 to intercept the localiser one eight right, maintain one thousand five hundred feet, altimeter two nine nine two, until established then call the tower on (whatever), cleared ILS approach' your response should be "Roger!".

Does this mean that when the airspace is busy with IFR traffic you do not need professional communications - but you do when the airspace is quiet(er).

Is there anybody out there with a valid defence for any of this? I'm not even going to start on the fact that you can be cleared to land whilst there is an aircraft still on the runway.

[JJflyer]

Yip.. Heard some really horrendous crap from pilots both sides of the pond.

You had some really good examples. It´s been a while since I have heard anything really horrible but one comes to my mind
A light twin flying VFR was making her initial contact with Las Vegas approach with the following statement that took me a minute or 2 as well as the controller to figure out. Went something like this:
A/C -Las Vegas, Seneca 146 UUU CEE 5433 over.
APP - Senaca 146 Uniform Charlie, Right heading 220 for traffic, contact APP on 130.65 advice him on heading, Squack 4734.
A/C - Arrr.. Heading 220 contact on 130.65 Seneca 146 UUU CEE with a flash.

Heard some other examples but this was one of the worst.

Probably the most annoying ones are Majors like United asking continously for ride reports whe they check in on a frequency...
Like this.

Oakland center, Northwest 1234 FL330 looking for ride reports.
Not a problem but when everybody does it gets pretty congested quickly. Why not just keep traps shut and instead of asking if there has been turbulence report it when encountered.

Over the Med flying around, I find it interesting when say estimating METRU many of our Arabic colleauges do it this way : Saudia 3344 estimating METRU point Insh Allah at 1250Z .

JJ

[weasil]

The point of readbacks is only to verify that you got the info correctly. However in the US air traffic control is not responsible if the pilot didn't get all the info. If you need clarification of something then ask. A readback does not constitute clarification because the controller might not even be listening as they're too busy. So leaving out a readback when atc is busy is no problem cause they won't be listening anyway..... see my point.

Just because it's different to what you know doesn't make it wrong. That's what got the germans in trouble.

[West Coast]

Alot of you chaps from the other side of the pond must leave your correct and proper R/T on your side when you come here. Since joining PPRUNE and hearing all the bashing I now listen closely to BA/Virgin/other Brit carriers. The stuff I hear is no differant/better than what American carriers use. More than once controllers here have had to have them read back altitudes, hold shorts, etc that were answered with "roger"
I guess they loosen the ties and top button over here. Sure, we could do a better job of it here, we recognize that.

[GoneWest]

Weasil - you are, of course, correct. The onus is on the pilot, not ATC to get it right. I fully agree.

I'm assuming that since joining pprune in 1999 as a student pilot you have now qualified for a licence. Could I ask you - you personally - do you agree with the phraseology of the pilots that I mentioned?

Secondly, could I ask if you read back anything - anything at all - to ATC? If the answer to that is "Yes" would you be prepared to advise us of what IS worth reading back - and what is NOT worth reading back.

As you point out - it's the pilots job and ATC are often not listening anyway...so why bother with any readbacks whatsoever? Just let ATC say it and assume that the pilot will comply with it. Would save a lot of R/T time, wouldn't it?

I'd also be curious for your definition of "busy" - as you suggest that there is little point in reading information back correctly when ATC is busy. This would suggest, by default, that we SHOULD read stuff back when ATC is NOT busy.

I don't quite follow the difference here. Are you saying that when the chances of conflicting with another aircraft are higher you do not need to get it right - but when there is nothing else around you.....?

As for the comment "just because it's different to what you know doesn't make it wrong" - again, I fully agree with you. However, just because it is different to Internationally agreed procedures and conventions might make it wrong.

Whilst I would be the first to admit that I believe the American pilots were in no way to blame for the crash - you must take into account that the main causual factor of the Tenerife disaster - which killed some 600 people...half of which were on a PanAmerican Boeing 747 - appears to have been misunderstood communications. Tell me again that standard phraseology is not important.

Even if you think it isn't - answer my question above...do you think the exchanges that I mentioned in my first message were correct and/or justifiable?

West Coast - whilst I am NOT trying to attend any of the "bashing" seminars, I have to chuckle at the phraseology of your first line..."you chaps from the other side of the pond must leave your correct and proper R/T on your side when you come here"...is that because the USA doesn't want, or doesn't need "correct and proper R/T".

I'm also interested to note that you appear to listen especially to UK carriers in your airspace - rather than all aircraft. (Sorry, that time I was teasing).

But I'm serious when I point out that you say (words to the effect of [not cut and pasted]) "ATC often have to ask for a correct readback".

Are you telling me that there is a standard that must be adopted and maintained for reading back information? Weasil seems not to think so.


All teasing apart - let's get back to the real point of my original question...some pilots (YES, both sides of the water) seem to make a distinct effort to be funny or smart on the R/T - rather than professional. I really do believe that the radio calls I have mentioned in my first message are a disgrace.

Is there anybody out there that wants to say, on this public forum, that either the calls that I highlighted were acceptable phraseology or that R/T procedures need not be professional. Anybody?

I've asked numerous (US) flight crews (who have been standing at the baggage carousels at the end of their trip) what they think of operations in European airspace - and every single one of them has started off with a comment as to how strict the R/T is.

[West Coast]

The bashing comes from the Brits mostly, so I moniter their carriers the closest.
I fly out of LAX and SFO, two extremely busy, complicated, communications intense airports on a daily to weekly basis, despite what you consider inferior R/T, we (U.S.carriers) get the job done rather well.
Yes, there is standard over here for radio work, examples and standards are listed in the AIM, if your familier with it

[JJflyer]

I have to disagree about not reading back to ATC.

If you look at the regulations you will find out there is a requirement to do so. Furthermore it is within your own interest to get your reply on TAPE in case something out of the oridinary happens and you need to prove that you did copy ATC instructions.

Since strating flying professionally, I have never left a instruction repeated, unless I missed the call.
How you do the read back is up to the pilot. as long as it contains all the relevant information.
This comes increasingly important when both the controller and pilot are non native English speakers, or when using HF and when not in radar coverage.

Controller might not be listening but the tapes are.

JJ

Weasil... How ya doing . Lost your Email. How´s CFI life with the Sierra paradise :)

[Mert]

Excellent topic, I too have heard Pilots from many different countries use improper radio phraseology, and can sum it up in one simple statement.... " Some Pilots would rather sound cool than correct " this was told to me by a former boss, and by golly I think he's right. I guess it comes from some peoples desire to strut their stuff, and since you can't see their swagger on the radio they have to do it audibly.
How about me, you may be asking? Well I still try to do it right, maybe some people think I sound silly, but I can't help it, I guess it was a lesson well learned from a person I still look up to, and have a lot of respect for.

;)

[JJflyer]

Yessir.

That sounding cool thing. I have heard that on radio ah so many times.Unfortunately my former roomie had the idea that he needed to sound like a B747 pilot and he did ask me if he sounded like one.
It seems that the smaller the plane the bigger you need to sound... hahahahah kind of a ego thing before you realise that it does not matter how you sound as log as there is an understanding or rather a link between you and the controller.

One of the the most important things is that ATC understands your intentions and there is no miscommunication.
This comes with strickt adherance to standard phraseology and using standard terms as far as practicable. Now if a situation is out of ordinary there is nothing wrong in using laymans terms to clarify.

JJ

[G-LOC]

You have a point. The Europeans are very anal about radio comms. The Americans are not. I often hear the world series scores broadcast to the world.
The Point is that they all do (or should) know the proper phraseology and technique. It's just that often they don't need to, so they just don't bother.
I work at the busiest non-radar airport in the world. All calls are very professional except those that come from Euro folks building time on long cross countries. Thats not a dig, just an observation.
Always read back the clearance limit (in English) and we will all live a bit longer.
Living longer would be good.......I think.....

[JJflyer]

Busiest non radar airport ... Wher is that. I know that KGCN ( Grand Canyon National Park ) is allgedly the busiest single runway airport in the world. Would think that Gatwick and Malaga are busier in the sommer months but who knows.

Your observation about time builders is generally correct. Low time new enviroment = studder and all that.

JJ

[cavu]

I am a British FAA/JAA flight instructor in Vero Beach and prior to that I Instructed with Comair Airlines in Orlando. As I have also lived in the mid-west, I can tell you that the problem is mainly experienced when flying VFR in Florida. I have never heard so many blithering idiots in my entire life,but Florida s certainly not representative of the US as a whole.

You have a number of factors conspiring to produce this twaddle, but the main culprits are weekend flyers, non-English speaking student pilots/pilots who have been issued medical certificates contrary to the requirement to read, speak and understand the English language and third rate flying schools.

Once you start flying IFR, you filter out most of the willy wallys and any that make their way through are given the bashing they deserve by ATC. If you've ever flown IFR in the North East, you'll no that there is zero tolerence for the incompetant

As a general rule the higher you go, the less idiots there are!

[GoneWest]

I'm not just trying to bring this back to the top again - but I attended a flight safety seminar earlier this week which was hosted by an FAA air traffic controller.

The main thrust of the seminar was about communications with ATC.

One of the closing lines in the seminar was that AOPA USA is pushing to have the USA aviation fraternity adopt the "procedures and phraseology used in Europe".

The controller said that he was against this - for no other reason than "there are more flights in the USA than there are in Europe...so why should they change".

There was no comment as to WHY an aviation body with the verbal power and respect (in the USA at least) that AOPA has should recommend such a thing.

Maybe the controller agrees with West Coast that the end justifies the means - and sod the expense.

Scary.

[OnTheStep]

i fly in Canada and recently did a short ferry trip from one province to another: ontario-québec (the latter a french speaking province). it was interesting to hear about 50% of the calls into centre/appr being made in french and we were none to impressed when we were passed over to twr to hear everyone else on the freq speaking in french including the controller who spoke to us in english. being quasi-fluent in french myself it wasn't too much of a problem to work out where everyone else was but my sympathy is with any non-french speaking pilots flying in vfr.

$0.02
"when in rome..."

[This message has been edited by OnTheStep (edited 14 June 2001).]

[411A]

When foreign pilots or airlines come to the USA, blend in with the American way or go home and do not come back.
You will NOT be missed.
Was behind BA on approach to PHX a few days ago, have to admit his R/T was very precise AND sounded very "American".

[This message has been edited by 411A (edited 15 June 2001).]

[wonderbusdriver]

"...blend in with the American way or go home and do not come back.
You will NOT be missed."

No that sounds very "professional", 411A.
Wouldn´t have expected such an answer from someone with such extensive worlwide experience.

"...R/T was very precise AND sounded very "American"."

Aha. Whatever that means then.

Can we at least agree on the fact that R/T (or communication in general), should be done in such a way as to avoid "questions", "clarifications", "misunderstandings" AND to keep ALL involved "in the loop" with the least effort necessary for ALL.

Adhering to standard phraseology in the universal language of "English" goes a long way in the effort to achieve this goal.
JMHO

[411A]

Wonderbusdriver--
Would have to agree, R/T should be clear, concise, etc.
However, in the USA you have a mix of student pilots and aircarriers at many airports, especially in Florida. For airline pilots to expect that student pilots have the same degree of sophistication with R/T as they have is clearly not possible. If, after suitable time however, the student does not at least have the ability to communicate clearly, the INSTRUCTOR needs to be called on the carpet to explain. Suspect that this is not done to any great degree.

[Wino]

My solution is that no more foreign pilots can come to America to learn how to fly.

Then more American pilots can find jobs around the world as the shortage of pilots will increase, and American R/T will be more standardized.

Quit slammin the world's pilot training grounds.

Cheers
Wino

[Barnburner]

OK - so the septics do talk their own way, mostly it is understandable though. Sometimes it goes too far however (queen, tommy, sam etc) and the jokers responsible should examine their professionalism.

I do agree with the person complaining about everyone asking for ride reports. Fair enough if centre's not busy, but otherwise - do what you should do - call flightwatch (122.0 for those who don't know) and make/get a PIREP and/or talk to others on your company freq or 128.95.

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

[411A]

Barnburner--
Most jets don't use 122.0 for Flight Watch, unless of course they are cruising at DC-6 altitudes. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

[alibaba]

I'm a British guy who was based south of TPA, Florida. I do have to say that I feel very embaressed about what wonderbus said. Speedbird does not own the sky contary to what everybody comes to believe. I'm sorry but it does sound like the charge of the light brigade when Speedbird comes to town. The amount of time wasted by the word heavy being expressed as heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaavvvvvvvvvvyyyyyyyy.Yes we know you are there!
The thing is we Brit's just never make mistakes do we? Listening to the ATIS might be a start for the Allmighty Speedbirds. I was at Raytheon at TPA last month when I was taxing to 36L. One of BA's 777's were taxing aswell and there were a number of Taxiways closed for resurfacing. Didn't they end up on one of these having to do a 360 with a 777. You should have heard the R/T then wonderbus. Not exactly professional! At this point various FAR's and fines were being discussed. Various Notams were published aswell as ATIS intructions and specific taxing instructions on ground.
I've been flying into MCO, TPA and MIA on nearlly on a daily basis. I would say 99% of the time hold short instructions,CLNC's, CLNC limits and Altitudes are repeated to ATC. Yes even the QNH, only sometimes on that one though.
If you look at the state of NATS in the UK and at the stacking system that we employ over London. Which resembles something off a German bombing raid. The problems with JAR introduction. Flying over France or even sometimes Germany were we don't even have a genral idea of where someone is or could be around us! You would probably conclude that we have no room to talk about other nations problems. I included France and Germany with us because we nearlly are one stupid nation! Keep your own house in order before you start judging other peoples.
Also could you please tell a few guys that leather gloves are not needed in the cockpit anymore. Goggles aswell! cheers alibaba.

[zerozero]

I joined this topic a little late and I'm not too interested in jumpin' in the middle of a spitting match, but...

...on the point of readbacks, I just wanted to make one observation:

When it's busy, just read back that portion that you can be busted on.

For example--"Barnburner 123, ATIS Charlie now current, altimeter 29.93, turn left heading 320, descend at pilot's discretion to 8000, expect to cross INTER at 5000."

Personally, I would just read back: "Left 320, discretion to 8000, Barnburner 123."

The rest of the stuff has been acknowledged, tacitly, simply by responding in the first place.

Readbacks are good, but we don't need to be parrots out there.

[cavu]

Alibaba

Well said. Your comments are exemplified in the JAA forum of the week past.

[wonderbusdriver]

alibaba:

No need to be embarresed because of my statements. ONLY responding to 411As remarks - you have sloppy R/T all over the world.

I´m not saying we Euros are "the best".
I hate it when the French do their thing (even though it´s officialy allowed), same with the Spaniards or Brazilians.
Yeah and sometimes even the Germans do it - though I haven´t heard anyone saying anything "important" for others.(But then, who am I?!)

Looking at the posts though, and seeing through the "communication" problems evident even here in a "common" language that isn´t native to all of us, I think most of us agree on what actually counts in R/T...

I think, this is what what the first post was trying to get at anyway.

Let´s stop the pissing contest and get to the heart of the matter.

"We are all foreigners everywhere."

[alibaba]

To be honest it wasn't really you wonderbus driver who I was having a go at. It was gone west.

I agree with you wonderbus, in that we all know what R/T is for. So we all should use it properly and precisely as possible. I do say though the way we say it sometimes, is less important than what we mean. This is especially important when dealing in low altitude terminal areas with low time student pilots and weekend warriors around.

I'm not sure who it was but somebody used the example of Tennirife with KLM and Pan Am as a example of bad R/T or Comms. I think that example had nothing to do with that! Bad C.R.M. between the KLM pilots was the main problem in that accident. It sounds pretty stupid to me, to lay the blame on the Pan Am 747.
Stay Safe, alibaba.

[Lu Zuckerman]

I flew on an Air Canada A330 to the UK a few weeks ago and then on to Munich on a BA A320. When the respective pilots addressed the passengers I was able to understand every word uttered by the Air Canada pilot and not one single word uttered by the BA pilot. I know it takes a bit of time to adjust your ear to different accents but the BA pilot could have talked for hours and I still wouldn’t understand him. Can you imagine the problems that air controllers and possibly other pilots have when listening to not only this pilot but others as well that do not have English as a first language.

------------------
The Cat

[GoneWest]

Alibaba. One of the fundamental properties of using a bulletin board such as this is the ability to read.

Let me cut and paste a comment from your posting....

"It sounds pretty stupid to me, to lay the blame on the Pan Am 747."

Now, cut and paste the opening line of the comment you referred to...

"Whilst I would be the first to admit that I believe the American pilots were in no way to blame for the crash...."

That's almost exactly my point. The crew and passengers of the PanAm 747 were VICTIMS of the situation (which HAS been attributed - at least in part - to communications). This is why I don't quite understand the defiant resistance to unambiguous communication procedures.

Let me ask you (all) a completely different question - imagine a student pilot,flying at, say, two thousand feet.

English (from either side of the Atlantic) is NOT his/her first language (and he/she is not very good at it).

In a communication with ATC (either air to ground or ground to air) the phrase "climb 4,000 feet" is passed. You would expect that student to climb to 4,000 feet - but would you be totally surprised if he/she climbed to 6,000 feet?

[zerozero]

I don't know what the clearance would sound like in Europe or Asia, but in America the clearance would be (999 times out of 1000): "Climb and *maintain* 4,000 feet".

US ATC is quite strict with respect to standard phraseology.

I admit, Joe Sixpack in his Skyhawk on the weekend could use some improvement.

[Long Haul]

O.K., we need standard phraseology, but when I'm in Houston I always say, "Houston tower, this is XXXX123, and we are GO for launch.." Just can't help it, I suppose.

[GoneWest]

Despite my rantings about standards, I do believe that there are times when a little humour does not (necessarily) get in the way - although the CAPFLIGHT call in my first message still makes me squirm.

I am reminded of the story from Rod Machado (US Flight Instructor) who recounts the call from an airliner at the hold saying (don't quote me on the airline or the airfield - this is an example [I've forgotten the real details])...

"Houston Tower, American 12345, this is the number one crew, on the number one airplane, of the number one airline, number one at the hold and ready for departure"

to which they got the reply......

"American 12345, still with ground, call tower on ***.**"

Now - I just know somebody is going to accuse me of double standards....even though the call was still (roughly) along the guidelines of correct phraseology - which "approaching the glide and ready to slide" is not.

[zerozero]

Funniest thing I heard in Anchorage right after a jet is cleared for takeoff and climbing through about 500':

Tower: Airliner 123 contact departure 118.6, before you go, traffic a flight of two F-15s on the Elmendorf final, left to right, report that traffic in sight.

Airliner 123: I have that traffic in sight, switching to guns.

Tower: Roger, good day.

[Smoozesailing]

Several years ago there was an AIRDEX in my country which included the USAF. A USAF a/c just came on to the area control frequency and this was the jist of the conversation:

Ctrl: Jackel XXX, squark ident.
USAF: Jackel XXX coming down with a flash.
Ctrl: Jackel XXX, squark ident.
USAF: Jackel XXX coming down with a flash.
Ctrl: Jackel XXX, I say again, squark ident.

It took me a while to figure out what a "flash" meant (much later in the hotel room), and I think it took the controller just as long or even longer. It wasn't because the controller didn't know the concept of identing nor was he lacking in any technical knowledge, he just didn't know American slang.

Imagine if he needed identification for immediate collision avoidance, the consequences could have been dire.

The French will speak French, the Chinese, Mandarin, the Thais, Thai, the Americans, American, so on and so forth, and there is nothing much that you and I can do about it. The only thing that can be done is to discipline ourselves to speak "Standard R/T English" when operating outside of our native country.

I might be overstating the obvious, but the obvious might be the simple answer.

[askcv]

Look at the AIM to see what has to be read back. On the ground; nothing (except Hold Short instructions and squawk codes if asked). In the air; very little indeed. Repeat, look it up and learn. It is NOT the same as it is in Europe.
Not sure? Ask for a repeat.
If pilots don't start using correct (American) RT on the ground at LAX, soon nothing will be able to move. Like a disease, even the US pilots have verbal diahrrea now. Most instructions (they are not 'clearances') can be acknowledged with a callsign. The controller is not even listening, he is too busy.

My opinion, based on memory of the RT at Tenerife, one reason for the collision was an unnecessary readback. The tower asked the US airplane to call when clear of the runway, and he replied "Roger, will call when clear of the runway". The KLM pilot heard what he was expecting, namely "clear of the runway" and off he went.

[411A]

Yes, and if you notice, many of the "problems" are linked to the USAF idea of equil opportunity....resulting in many empty kitchens.

[GoneWest]

"Roger, will call when clear of the runway".

This could be exactly my point - it isn't an unnessary readback...it's an INCORRECT one....and if you are correct in your memory - then it could be a casual factor in the worst aviation disaster in history (and it lays the blame (partly) on US R/T standards).

"Wilco, Clipper ***" would have worked.

All I was saying at the top of page one was for "Standardisation"

[zerozero]

askcv, GoneWest--Not quite.

One of the problems at Tenerife wasn't exactly the poor readback but a misunderstood clearance that was never clarified because of a squeal while both ATC and PanAm simultaneously keyed the mike.

From "Air Disasters" by Leo Marriott, Stanley Stewart and Michael Sharpe:

At 17.05:28hrs the captain stopped the aircraft at the end of the runway and immediately opened up the throttles.

KLM FO:"Wait a minute, we don't have an ATC clearance."

The KLM captain, being a senior training pilot, had a lack of recent route practice and was more used to operations in the simulator. In the simulator radio work is kept to a minimum on the grounds of expediency in order to concentrate on drill and procedures, and takeoffs are often conducted without any formalities. Such an oversight, although alarming, can perhaps be explained by the circumstances. On closing the throttles the captain replied, "No, I know that, go ahead, ask." The first officer pressed the button and asked for both takeoff air traffic clearances.

KLM FO RT:"KLM4805 is now ready for takeoff and we are waiting for our ATC clearance."

PanAm arrived at exit Charlie 3 just as approach began to read back KLMs ATC clearance. Having miscounted the turnoffs they missed their designated taxi route and continued on down the runway unaware of their mistake. They were still about a mile from the threshold and out of sight of KLM. It was now over two minutes since the approach controller's last call to PanAm requesting him to report leaving the runway, and in the KLM crew's desire to depart, the fact that PanAm was still in front of them, not having cleared the runway, was being overlooked.

17.05:53hrs Approach RT:"KLM4805, you are cleared to the papa beacon, climb to and maintain flight level nine zero. Right turn after takeoff, proceed with heading zero four zero until intercepting the three three five radial from Las Palmas VOR."

Towards the end of this transmission, and before the controller had finished speaking, the KLM captain accepted this as an unequivocal clearance to takeoff and said, "Yes." He opened up the thrust levers slightly with the aircraft held on the brakes and paused till the engines stablilized.

17.06:09hrs KLM FO RT:"Ah roger sir, we're cleared to the papa beacon, flight level nine zero..."

As the first officer spoke the captain released the brakes at 17.06:11hrs and, one second later, said, "Let's go, check thrust." The throttles were opened to takeoff power and the engines were heard to spin up. The commencement of the takeoff in the middle of reading back the clearance caught the first officer off balance and during the moments which followed this, he "became noticeably hurried and less clear."

KLM FO FT:"...right turn, out, zero four zero, until intercepting the three two five, We are now at takeoff."

This last sentence was far from distinct. Whatever was said the rapid statement was sufficiently ambiguous to cause concern and both the approach controller and the PanAm first officer replied simultaneously.

17.06:18hrs Approach RT:"OK..."

In the one second gap in the controllers' transmission, PanAm called to make their position clear. The two spoke over the top of each other.

17.06:19hrs Approach RT:"...stand by for takeoff, I will call you."

PanAm FO RT:"No, uh...and we are still taxying down the runway, the Clipper 1736."

The combined transmissions were heard as a loud three-second squeal on the KLM flightdeck causing distortion to the messages. Had the words been clearer the KLM crew might have realized their predicament but, only moments later, a second chance came for them to assess the danger. The controller had received only the Clipper call sign with any clarity but immediately called back in acknowledgment.

17.06:20hrs Approach RT:"Roger papa alpha 1736, report the runway clear."

On this one and only radio call the controller, for no apparent reason, used the call sign papa alpha instead of Clipper.

17.06:30hrs Clipper RT:"OK we'll report when we're clear."
Approach RT:"Thank you."

In spite of these transmissions, the KLM Boeing 747 continued to accelerate down the runway. The words were lost to the pilots concentrating on the takeoff but they caught the flight engineer's attention. He tentatively inquired of the situation.

KLM FE:"Is he not clear then?"
KLM Capt:"What did you say?"
KLM FE:"Is he not clear, that Pan American?"
KLM Capt:"Oh, yes."
-------------------------------------------
And we all know what happened after this.



[This message has been edited by zerozero (edited 06 July 2001).]

[Ignition Override]

Just two observations: Years ago as FO on a narrowbody plane I responded to a request from a US ATC Center controller by saying "roger, wilco". Naturally, the Captain looked at me as if I were some geek (nerd). I wanted to test his reaction, because it was supposedly correct phraseology and yet I almost never heard it from US airline pilots on the radio.


As for the danger about runway incursions, even as a native American (speaking loosely here), one of the biggest risks over here seems to be when we are slowing with brakes and stowing reversers by 60 knots and while turning at maybe 20-30 knots onto a high-speed runway turnoff, the tower controller blurts out some clearance, even when the turnoff leads directly to an intersection at a closely-spaced runway only about 70 feet away. These are very easy to misunderstand. Does ATC realize this at all? But maybe they are required to issue a clearance a certain distance from the parallel runway etc?

I plan to ask for a repeat of all clearances in this situation when still busy, even if I clearly hear and think I understand what the controller wants. Sometimes the lead flt. attendant opens the door right when we are approaching a runway and waiting for a clearance to cross and he/she says "has my commuter flight to ATL left yet?" !!!! Another item to be briefed (I have just a few, because most fa's begin to act/look bored after about a minute-one said "how long have you been a Captain?). Anyway, it seems to me that ATC should not issue any clearance until we are off the runway and at a taxi speed, but this must be hard for them to judge through binoculars. Any US tower ATC folks "in here"? A pilot just described this hazard in a letter to the editor, printed in the latest "Airline Pilot Magazine".

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[triadic]

Giday Gents...

I don't often visit this site, but the title attracted me as we have gone thru a bit of change in R/T downunder in Australia over the past few years.

No post to date seems to mention ICAO and the standards that are promulgated by them for R/T use worldwide.

Prior to our revamp in 1997, we did in fact have procedures which did NOT follow many of the ICAO recommendations. In fact when I learnt to fly some 30 years ago there were only 6 or 7 items that were subject to a readback requirement, it was simple and nobody got it wrong - today it has gone mad courtesy of ICAO and international harmonization, which is a buzz phrase in these parts at the moment.. Today our procedures do in fact (in most cases) follow those ICAO recommendations for better or worse. We are lucky in that we don't have much of a language problem except for international airlines and some of the larger schools teaching overseas students, mainly from Asia.

The readback requirements in Australia were minimal up until the change and there was to my knowledge no incident or accidents resulting from not reading something back. Now of course we follow ICAO and even read the QNH back, which I don't believe is necessary and is just a carry on from when QFE was used in some countries. Anyway I wont argue about that. (lost cause - the poms will never change!)

Of course the default position of many pilots in Australia (and elsewhere) is that they now read just about everything back because they don't really know what they should (or shouldn't) and why! If we had the traffic levels that exist in North America and Europe I am sure our system would grind to a halt unless we took the shortcuts that are mentioned already in this post.

As mentioned already the reasons that we have standards is that everyone can use them and understand each other when communication is so important. (the importance of SOPs when you can fly with a new F/O every day in a big outfit cannot be understated) Certainly there will be local variations and I doubt if there is anything we can do about some of them.

At an ATC conference a few years back a European pilot asked what could be done to get the FAA controllers to follow international practice and use ICAO phrases etc. Given that it takes around seven years to process anything through ICAO, the reply was that it would be easier to change ICAO then the FAA..!

There is certainly some amongst us that have an ego that likes to be fed by using all sorts of fancy words or phrases on the R/T, but as we know, it is not really necessary and usually reflects poorly on that person and perhaps his/her employer in regard to the professionalism displayed.

My experience is that many pilots and to some extent controllers say what they do because they don't really understand the reasons behind the standard phraseology. Some I suspect also do not understand the meaning of some of the words they use every day!! Maybe this is a training problem??

We have a pretty good safety record in Australia and there is no evidence whatsoever that having 50 odd years of basic R/T with minimal readbacks was anything but satisfactory. Of course if you introduce variation in training standards, ATC procedures and a high level of non English (as a first language) speaking pilots and controllers then of course you have a case for making sure the loop is closed in making sure all parties understand what is going on and expected of them.

Recent investigations by IATA have shown that using anything but English in R/T reduces significantly situational awareness and in fact has contributed to at least one airline accident last year. Of course the use of slang should be avoided for the same reasons.

There is, therefore a good case for standard phraseologies and for the ICAO recommendations. Yes, I think it was about time some of these were revisited to reflect current practice and procedures. I would not hold my breath in seeing any quick change, as there are too many self interest groups (countries) that put themselves in front of the greater (world) interest. Good training and following your own guidelines would be a good start however.

Giday!
:cool:

[zerozero]

GoneWest
PPRuNe Flight Deck Qualified
Member # 31523
posted 12 July 2001 03:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You guys seen my thread "R/T phraseology in the USA" in the North america forum?
It caused quite a stir - Americans don't seem to be happy with Limeys crticising them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 33 | From: Florida, USA | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged
---------------------------------------------
Hi Gonewest: This American can take criticism just as well as any Brit.

What bugs me is when a Limey blames an entire accident (and not just *any* accident, but the worst aviation disaster in history!) on American R/T.

Adding insult to injury: You smuggly post the above comments (in a different forum) after I made a sober response to your bogus allegation.

Perhaps you simply prefer to "cause a stir" rather than discuss, quite matter-of-factly, what actually occured in Tenerife.

I find it really audacious that you indiscriminately slam the people and a crew from the country that presented you with an opportunity that apparently you didn't have back home.

When the static finally curls your hair feel free to offer your seat to an American.

Til then, fly safe. ;)

[CAVU]

GoneWest

I have a feeling you're "yanking the chain", but I think we're all open to criticism, the response simply depends on the tone of the comment.

[GoneWest]

Zero ...

Fortunately, after reading your posting, I took my dog for a walk before responding- then came home, had dinner, watched a movie (crap movie) - then re-read your message.

At first reading your message made my blood boil and I was about to send you the most flaming response you have ever seen.

Having just logged on again - to send that message - I have had the opportunity to re-read your posting and have realised that I totally misconstrued what you were saying - and how you were saying it.

It would appear that - without the benefit of emotions in the written word - the reader may jump to conclusions and accept those conclusions as fact before thinking through what was actually said.

Let me try once more. I have NEVER, EVER, blamed the crew of the PanAm aircraft at any time. Indeed, I have stressed on numerous occassions that the passengers and crew OF BOTH AIRCRAFT were all victims of a terrible and unfortunate string of events that ended in tragic circumstances.

Tenerife, Lockerbie and the Challenger disaster all spring to the forefront of my mind when I think of the worst events in my memory - there was also Aberfan (for those old enough to remember).

I say again, I do not blame the PanAm crew for anything that day - though I do strongly believe that lessons were learned by the industry and that steps were taken in an attempt to prevent anything like it ever happening again. These steps have been accepted and adopted by many Countries.

I do feel equally strongly about the use of unamibiguos communications on the R/T - there is still (occassionally) the time and place for humour on the radio...and we all like it.

However, I think that the calls made by the various aircraft in my opening message are an absolute disgrace....and the various pilots should be ashamed of themselves. They are not funny, they are not clever - they are just a disgrace.

Tenerife, I use as a constant training aid for flight students. It was a tragedy, but it is a good pointer to the fact that incorrect R/T procedures can, in the worst case, help in allowing such a disaster to occur.

I also use the, more recent, tragedy of JFK and the loss of his life, two passengers lives, and an aircraft. I do not point any BLAME at him during any of my conversations, I try not to let any hint of criticism come out during the recounting of the story - I just use it as an example to flight students that to fly any aircraft in the wrong conditions is a bad thing.

The death of JFK is an extremely sad and unfortunate event - as is the loss of any "aviator involved in that which he loves" - but the event is a fantastic training aid, and I see that look of acceptance slowly dawn on each person I discuss it with.

I also often recount - during the same training lessons - of the airliner that got lost on the taxiways in thick fog (in the USA). The crew of the aircraft called the tower and stressed that they were absolutley lost and needed help - the tower controller barked at them to shut up because she was trying to get an aircraft to depart - the crew of the second aircraft refused to accept the take off clearance until they knew exactly where the lost aircraft was...and (yes) it WAS on their runway.

Now that is professional communication (at least from the aircraft - although the controller was sent back for re-training). Very good thinking - clear cut avoidance of another disaster - and praise to all.

That is my only point - unambiguous communication can save lives...I just do not understand why so many pilots feel the need to abuse it to the extent that I mentioned in my first posting. And, all politics aside, I do find more examples of it over on this side of the Atlantic than I did in the UK - not a political comment, just a statement of fact from my own experiences.

I remember reading in Flight International, some time ago, the comment "Always learn from everybody else's mistakes - because you will not live long enough to make them all yourself". Brilliant stuff - so true.

I also admit to the time that I was flying a commercial (single crew) aircraft into Dublin. The tower controller asked me to check "wheels down". To my absolute horror they were firmly UP. Without a shadow of a doubt, I would have landed that aircraft with the wheels tucked neatly away - and that then requires a phenomenal amount of power to taxy in. What distresses me to this day (and that event was over ten years ago) is that I said to that tower controller "Yeah, thanks, I was just doing it!". I didn't have the guts to admit to that man (and everyone else on frequency) that he saved the aircraft.

Having read through this thread, time and time again - the one thing that does strike me (and I admit that this is MY PERCEPTION and it may be incorrect) is that I feel that the responses from those within the US aviation industry does show a lack of acceptance at being critised by a Limey.

Numerous messages are along of the lines of "if you don't like it, sod off" - "it must be safe because it has worked so far" etc. etc.

With regard to the comment of "give up the seat for an american" (paraphrased) - I do not believe that there is an American citizen that has the experience and qualifications that I am currently using THAT WOULD WANT TO DO THE JOB. That's why I.N.S gave me the green card - because there are no suitable aplicants for the position that I have found myself in.

By the time that they have a fraction of the experience and qualification requirements for what I'm doing they have raced of to an airline position.

I have chosen to stay in General aviation - because I enjoy it - and YES, America, this IS the best place in the World for G.A. and that's why I'm here despite having the same opportunity in the UK.

Because of the pleasure that I get from being here, doing what I am doing, I donate a great deal of my TIME and MONEY to furthering the education of other pilots in aviation safety matters. Many Saturdays will find me crawling out of bed at 4 in the morning to do a two hour drive to put on a free flight safety seminar. I do it for nothing other tha trying to prevent more Tenerifes, more JFK's.

With regard to the message that I posted in the ATC forum it was merely an attempt to draw some ATC'ers into the discussion.

I admit, now, that it was a particularly badly phrased, inept, attempt at generating comment and I CAN see why people would be upset at the way it was written.

For that, I apologise unreservedly. I became the victim of a can of beer on an empty stomach - and of engaging keyboard without engaging brain. The message was in no way intended to upset anybody - but I appreciate that it did. I apologise.

[AyrTC]

Being 1) a visitor and 2) an Air traffic Controller in the UK I enter this debate with trepedation.
I work the radar interface to OAC airspace north of 55'N.
When we are really busy trying to get you American chaps (American as a nation ,not an airline!),to you're Ocean level we just love the excitement/intensity of youre R/T :

ATC thougts in parenthesis.

A/C from USA. "Centre good morning this is ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhXXX123 we are ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh direct ehhhh 57 north eh 10 west and we ehhhh estimate that position at ehhhhhhh 1105 no! 1107. We ehhh get 350 for the crossing but ehhhhhh we would like to maintain 310 for the moment and have a late climb.
ATC(yeah yeah yeah hmm must start thinking about turning that speedbird): "XXX123 good morning when ready climb Flight level 350 to cross 10 West level."

XXX123 "Uhhhh do you want us to climb now ehhh 'cos we really ehhh would like a late climb ehhhh if thats ehhhhhhhhhhhhh OK?"

ATC( I really should start turning that Speedbird)"XXX123 affirm when ready climb flight level 350 to cross 10 west level."

XXX123 "Uhhhhhhhh does that mean we can maintain ehhhhhhhhhhh 310 for the ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh moment?)

ATC(Oh for f&*^$ sake)"XXX123 affirm at pilots discretion climb flight level 350 to cross 10 west level BREAK BAWXXXturnleftheadingthreefourzerodescendnowflightleveltwosi xzero"

XX123" Uhhhhh centre XXX123 was uhhhh that uhhhhh heading uhh for uh us?"

ATC(nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo)

Of course we would not want it any other way and we realise that sometimes you guys are tired .I really cannot fathom out how you cope with intense American R/t maybe you are just more relaxed in Europe.

Also if ever we need an a/c to relay a message to another flight and there were no British flights available then some of us would probably rather use KLM to pass the message than use an American airline.

I hope I have not offended anyone from the USA but it is just s personal view ,because without you guys we would never hav heard the phrase at xmas time "You'all have a cool yule now" ,still brings a smile to our faces. :)

[zerozero]

Uhhhmmmm AyrTC. Like whatever man, Thanks for that, uhhhmmmm really constructive contribution. :confused:

GoneWest: Apology accepted. Thank you for a sincere response. I appreciate your dedication to American GA. I consider myself quite a stickler with standard phraseology and I cringe everytime one of our pilots says something really inane.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you made a fairly harsh indictment of the PanAm crew when you wrote: "This could be exactly my point - it isn't an unnessary readback...it's an INCORRECT one....and if you are correct in your memory - then it could be a casual factor in the worst aviation disaster in history (and it lays the blame (partly) on US R/T standards)."

If you read the transcript that I posted above I'm sure you'll agree the most egregious violation of R/T procedures is when the KLM flight mistakes an ATC clearance for a clearance to takeoff.

Granted, the Americans missed their turnoff (got lost in the fog) and transmitted at the same time ATC did (creating a squeal), but I'm sorry, I just couldn't sit here and let someone incriminate a dead crew when the blame should be evenly distributed.

Thanks for indulging me after walking the dog. Fly safe. :)

[Scott Voigt]

Howdy;

First of all, let me start off by saying that appropriate phraseology is VERY IMPORTANT. Now that said, we do indeed have a HUGE problem in the USA with poor phraseology. The biggest reason for this is probably because just about everyone who uses the system speaks english as a first language, so a LOT of pilots have no need to learn specific phraseology. We can normally figure out what they are saying. That doesn't make it right by ANY MEANS!

We do have standard phraseology here in the US. Most pilots just don't use it all. It is one thing that I have been fighting for for a very long time. Hopefully with education we can get somewhere, but I am not going to hold my breath. We just have a LOT of pilots over here.

Now as to the comment someone made about controllers not having to care about what a pilot says. That is NOT true at all. There is a rumor going around that has taken on the power of an Urban Legend. The commercial pilots here call it "The Interpretive Rule." There was a case of a pilot reading back a clearance that was not meant for them and then flying it. This caused an ATC error and was then blamed on the pilot. The reason that this happened was due to a strange set of circumstances. There were two cockpit crews responding to the ATC issued clearance. For whatever reason the only thing heard on the radio (and tapes) was the appropriate flight crew reading back the clearance. There was NO hetrodyne (squeel when to radios transmit at the same time.) nor was there any garbled transmission. All the controller heard was a good readback from the appropriate flight crew. Because of this, there was NO WAY that the controller could have responded to the bad readback. The administrative law judge found that the controller had no way of keeping the incident from happening and found the offending flight crew guilty since they had mis heard and flew contrary to a clearance.

The FAA's legal council about a year ago briefed the ATPAC (Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Commitee) that only in this case would the flight crew be found at fault. If the controller had ANY WAY of hearing the bad readback, a blocked transmission or garbled transmission, it was then up to the controller to fix the problem.

regards

[West Coast]

Gone West
If you cant take the U.S. phraseology GO EAST. As much as I disliked this thread, I believed you started it in an effort to promote dialogue. After reading your post about how we cant take the heat, I know better now. From the sounds of your post walking the dog diatribe, you are the one who cant take the criticism. I dont know what or where you fly here in the States, but you should consider yourself lucky to be doing it. As much as you played it down, I reckon I could find a young U.S. pilot who would do it for cheaper. I am not suggesting you give up your rights to comment when you cross the border, however it should be done
in earnest and not to provoke.

[GoneWest]

West Coast - by all means, find me a yound American pilot that will do the job (even for the same salary). I will give them a job in a heart beat - I need the manpower.

Lets start at the bottom of the requirement tree - find me a young USA pilot, with a JAA instructor rating, who wishes to stay in General Aviation.

We'll get to the experience and extra qualifications later.

As for the thread - you were right - you are now wrong - it was started in order to provoke discussion. Unfortunatley every response from the West side of the Atlantic had litle more to offer than "if you don't like it, go away". Very constructive.

Note: The FAA recognise there is a problem and AOPA recognise there is a problem (and I work with BOTH).

Seems the biggest poroblem is 'attitude'.

[West Coast]

I agree there is a problem with the R/T, could be a hell of alot better. I would be willing to discuss it with you, except your credability is now non existant. As I said before, if you had started the thread to promote dialogue, thats one thing, but when its done to provoke, its another.
As far as finding someone to take your job, oh yeah, they're out there. As hiring at the majors slows, it trickles down, hiring at some better regionals has stopped, some lower tier regionals have even sent pilots home. Before too long some kid will be looking at your job. I have found out through the years that there will always be pilots with more hours, ratings and experience lurking.
I rather enjoy input from others, it only serves to make me a better pilot. If you want to have an intelligent thread, quit being an A$$ on other threads and stick to the buisness at hand.