What are your pet hate non-standard phraseologies?

[Pilot Pete]

I'll start the ball rolling.

"London, callsign with you".

"London, callsign request" (on VHF).

"London, callsign passing FL224, climbing FL260" (NOT an initial call).

So, what non-standard phraseologies do you hear regularly that you would like us to sort out?

PP

[SU-GCM]

as i have said in my topic on PPRuNe

the Egyptian Controllers saying:

1-Radar Climb

2-and once in an emergency of a private jet (VP-BGS) (Have it recorded though the full 30 mins) the Pilot asked the ATC Several times if he can see the gear down or not and the Answer was Roger :D :D :D

3- During the same emergency the pilot asked the ATC if he can see landing lights or not the ATC Reply was : You want me to see landing lights or landing gears :}:ugh:

[Lurking123]

"Be advised...." - I believe it is an Americanism.:eek:

[reportyourlevel]

"c/s fully ready." (Used when baggage truck and fueller are still attached and pax are still boarding.)

"c/s fully visual."

"c/s request start." "Start-up approved." "Are we OK for push as well?"

"c/s short final." (Used when clearly on a very wide left base.)

[ZOOKER]

c/s " On frequency"

"Blocked" -no callsign given or anything.

[foghorn]

Blocked

In my opinion very useful when someone else on frequency has blocked my transmission. I don't need to know a callsign or any other extraneous rubbish, I just need to know I need to transmit the last again, and quickly.

[controllerzhu]

"Blocked"

Zooker is right on the money with that one. As a controller a reply is expected for most of our transmissions, so if one is not received we retransmit and if we do not answer your transmission you (the pilot) call us again.
But by far I think the worst trend are pilots not using callsigns :ugh:

CZHU

[ZOOKER]

Looking at CAP 413, I think the correct phraseology (UK at least),
should be:-
Say Again callsign, - but please correct me if I'm wrong!

[forget]

Zooker, controllerzhu, With respect, I think you are missing the point of an anonymous ’Blocked’. Pilots can often hear radio exchanges which are lost to the controller.

An example; you issue a climb clearance to ABC. However, DEF had misheard the call-sign and thought it was for him. ABC and DEF reply at the same time. ABC, the correct respondent, is closer to your receiving antenna and his call completely obscures the incorrect call from DEF, and both commence a climb. Now you’ve got an aircraft going walkabout.

However, it’s just possible that a third aircraft was in a position to hear the radio conflict which you’d missed. An immediate ‘Blocked’ could well alert ABC/DEF to confirm what they are/aren't supposed to be doing.

[IntheTin]

Here in Florida we often hear " Tally ho". :hmm:

[PPRuNe Radar]

Radar heading .....

[BEXIL160]

approaching..... FL, place... whatever

The a/c has always been "approaching" somewhere / some level since it first moved. How far away is "approaching", anyway? 2000ft, 100 miles? :rolleyes:

Where the aeroplane actually IS, would be more useful.

BEX

[anotherthing]

Not quite phraseology as much as airmanship, but I hate it when some crews call

"reaching FLxxx looking for further climb"

When I then point out they have traffic 1 mile away crossing 1000' above they often reply

"We have that on TCAS"

:ugh::ugh:

[left bass]

"turn left onto a heading of........"

The "of" is usually drawn out while the culprit dreams up the heading that they should have had in mind before they actually commenced this atrocious transmission.

[trailblazer]

Some controllers from a country far south on the African continent like to use "cancel heading, cleared direct XXX/ resume own nav XXX.
Strangely enough, a lot of the same people like to use the term "radar heading" as mentioned by a previous poster

[Robot1]

Aircraft approaching the holding point is told to monitor AMC. Pilot decides to call AMC to report ready for departure. In most cases AMC will assume all aircraft at the hold are ready. Please do not make this 'we are ready' call, it is a complete waste of RT space and controller thinking time. If AMC needs to know if you're ready he will call you.

Thanks

[ferris]

"Confirm"

as in "XXX descend to FL150, confirm?"

If FL150 heard, read that back and do it.
If unsure of the instruction, say "say again".

Especially when "confirm" comes at the end of every readback, as a matter of routine.

[niknak]

If all ATCOs and PILOTS would think that prioir to transmitting, all you have to do is:

STAND UP, SPEAK UP + SHUT UP

everyone's working lives would be a lot easier.:rolleyes::eek::=

[Data Dad]

"XYZ123 is visual if it helps" when it obvious to all and sundry that not only is the frequency going nineteen-to-the-dozen but there are at least 7 or 8 aircraft ahead.

Echo the above comment on the "Fully Ready" nonsense which seems to have evolved into three stages: "Ready in 5 minutes", "Nearly Ready" and "Fully Ready" (I even had a "nearly fully ready" call the other day) :ugh::ugh: you are either ready or you aren't.

DD

[rogervisual]

Those R/T users who feel they don't have to readback certain things, but
end up saying more words than the correct readback:ugh:

[GT3]

"We are fully ready, just waiting for the tug"

Well YOU might be but its cock all use to me.

[hvogt]

"[SQUAWK] IN THE BOX." or "[SQUAWK] COMING IN."

[javelin]

Any US traffic - Any ride reports, or Checking in FL320 slight chop. - They usually fly Boeings and are therefore lower than us :eek:

Who cares, what can you do about it and do any of you Americans actually read a Sig Weather chart - if so, you would realise that today is not going to be a good day for smooth rides so stop whining :suspect:

Now, I will stop whining.

Damn, that felt good :E

[FinDir]

1. "Copied the wind ..."

2. "Roger, er ... descend er ... 3000 ft ... er .... QNH er ... say again"

[letMfly]

1. "Roger, that's understood"

2. "Report your position, this time"

[coz96]

Here in Florida we often hear " Tally ho".Sounds pretty standard to me. You should be able to find it in the AIM in the Pilot/Controller Glossary right next to "No Joy".

[ShyTorque]

"Remain clear of controlled airspace." (= keep away from my patch until I've sorted my £hit out here, boy!)

I generally aim to do exactly that, unless ATC say I'm allowed in. That's why I'm calling.

"Terrain separation is your own responsibility." (= I have no real idea how high the ground is round abouts where you say you are, and to be honest, I've no time to find out).

Too right! Even if ATC says fly right into the ground, I'm not so stupid as to do it without an argument.

(Yes, I know, you have to say it but it always grates....). ;)

[spekesoftly]

"Remain clear of controlled airspace." Yes, absolutely disgraceful! The correct phrase being:-

"Remain outside controlled airspace" ;)

[Mister Geezer]

This fully ready business has no reference in CAP413 and it is utter bollocks really. Sadly it is very common with some of our colleagues that fly into larger airfields - LL springs to mind. If you are fully ready then you 'Request Start'.

One BAW called fully ready on one occasion and the controller replied 'Mmm - are you requesting push and start?' Made me smile!

[Pilot Pete]

Just thought of another;

"Squawk 1234, coming down.":rolleyes:

PP

[Hyperborean]

"Finals." How many approaches are we making here? Or, "Ready for departure." followed by at least a minutes worth of; full and free movement of controls, illumination of landing/taxy lights exercise of throttles /pitch levers and finally off we go.

[left bass]

"Remain clear of controlled airspace." (= keep away from my patch until I've sorted my £hit out here, boy!)

I generally aim to do exactly that, unless ATC say I'm allowed in. That's why I'm calling.

Many are the pilots just to the SW of this zone who may "aim" to remain clear of controlled airspace but their aim is ****e. :}

It does no harm at all to hammer the point home repeatedly in the hope that it may stick.

On another matter, I welcome the third party "blocked" which I occasionally hear on my frequency. It speeds up the realisation that someone could have picked up an instruction meant for someone else. Or that I have not been heard at all.

Here's one: "tower confirm we're cleared to land"

Pilots are by all means welcome to say this at any stage, but it always freaks me out when I hear it with an aircraft on very short finals and results in a panicky look down the runway...:eek:

[Mr Red]

Any non-italian pilot who uses the phrase 'ciao'

Always makes me mutter something under my breath, and then a quick check that I hadn't transmitted it!!

[mad_jock]

I know it is standard but....

"Radar Information limited due ..........." I haven't had a unlimited RI in about a year now.

"Your under my sector safe and resposable for your own terrian seperation."
Yes I know, I am always resposable for that not with standing the fact I am VFR on a FIS.

I know its a comfort zone thing and bum covering and I am sure its a pain to say it as it is to listen to it.

And I always cringe when everyone is getting told to listen out on tower. Then someone proceeds to give a full booking in including "fully ready" when there is 4 planes in front at the runway hold. All while the tower guy has 1 departing, 2 on final for the fixed wing runway, 1 landing on the heli strip and 1 on final for it with 3 waiting to go. With us usually sitting watching the whole thing from E3 thinking how the hell does manage all that (dips hat to ABZ tower controllers)

[Medway Control]

Sorta not really a phraseology thing but anyway...

'London, good morning ryanair (normally lol) **** passing 2 thousand, for 4 thousand, CLN departure, squawking ident'

dont squawk ident before we tell you too guys and girls: There is a reason why we ask for an ident, and you dont give us one...
1) you're not identified if you do :=
2) its bloody annoying :ugh:

[left bass]

This piece of unnecessary phraseology regularly used on departure at a certain busy field by a certain low-fares airline:

".....passing 3000 ft..."

Which translates as: "we're in a hurry, turn us early off the SID"

(Recent utterances by this airline's management about controllers, however, loosely translate as: "full SID please") :E :E :E

[inbalance]

Yesterday, Brussels Approach:

XXX Airline descend to 3000 feet

XXX Airline descend to 2500 feet

all the Airplanes respondet in the correct way: descending Altitude 3000.....
but the Lady continued that way. Seems to be her standard




inbalance

[Kiltie]

"....traffic COPIED..."
"....COPIED the traffic..."

Why not complement this rubbish with "TEN FOUR RUBBER DUCK"?

ACKNOWLEDGED or ROGER should be used where appropriate.

And how about "Hotjet 123 REQUEST?"

"...sigh....Hotjet 123 pass your message."

"Hotjet 123 request flight level 320."

Why not just ask this in the first place instead of preparing the controller to write out your shopping list?

London you are by far the worst offenders for not reading the last digit of a frequency.....120.225 is exactly that, not "one two zero decimal two two." You seem to be slick with all other transmissions so why is this such a glaring one very day? Is it because the "5" doesn't appear on your screen? Don't spoil the good work!

[TinPusher]

"Control, we're running a bit behind schedule and would appreciate any track shortening you can provide us...."

Of course I'll shorten your tracking a) when it suits me to do so and b) anytime..... after your airline has the foresight to offer me discounted tickets. Until then, fly the airway!!:}

[mad_jock]

I am suprised that know one has brought up the....

"We have the traffic on TCAS"

Leftbass The request to confirm the landing clearance is purely a CRM thing. In our landing checklist the cleared to land/runway clear check is the last item. The second last action is at 500ft agl. So if anyone has missed or not sure, even if one person is 100% sure it has been given I have always been taught to check. I reckon my memory lasts about 4 miles, 2 miles if the wx is horrible.

[Dr. Gonzo]

"Charlie Charlie"

and

Heard quite often from a certain Irish low cost carrier: "London, we're routing direct to point XXX, can you tell us the next waypoint on our flightplan after point XXX". (Why ask ATC? Why don't you check what it says on your own copy of the flightplan? I mean, you do have a copy with you, don't you?):E

[galaxy flyer]

Where is the error in "C/S, passing 3,200, climbing to FL90"? That is required in the US to verify the Mode C report on the radar. Has been since the '70s.

Question for ATCOs, do you expect a report when actually leaving a level/altitude when you have issued a "when ready" (US: pilot's discretion) clearance? The US AIM requires it in Chap 5, I think, as mandatory report.


GF

[left bass]

mad jock,

you're absolutely correct to check if not 100% sure - I would never discourage anyone from confirming a clearance. And I have no problem with anyone using this particular piece of phraseology.

But it always makes me jump! I suppose tower controllers all eventually become neurotic...

left bass

[DFC]

Have to comment on a few points raised. Overall, some of the comments raised here seem to show a lack of understanding regarding SOPs - Elemts of the Operations Manual that are approved by the CAA - the same CAA that publishes the R/T Manual.

An example being;

ATC - (Callsign) Descend FL200

A/C - Descend FL200 (Callsign) CONFIRM.

Many commercial operators using multi crew have very specific Ops manual requirments regarding who replies to the R/T, who sets the cleared level in the altitude window and what callouts and responses are made. Thus you have a 3 person crosscheck - the controller and both pilots

When the other crewmember is on the other radio - often obtaining the ATIS - a single crewmember is left as Pilot Flying, Radio operator and the sole person who acknowledges the clearance and sets the altitude window.

Relying on the lack of a correction to a mistaken call is not seen as being suficiently robust and double confirmation is required as per the CAA approved ops manual.

Thus, you have the "Descend FL200 (Callsign) CONFIRM to which ATC simply say - AFIRM. Simple short very safe check in the absence of the normal crosschecking procedures.

---------

Callsign passing FL140 Climbing FL160 (when passing level not requested)

Is often translated as - we are climbing at 2000ft per minute - if you want us to keep going give us higher otherwise we are going to have to reduce that to 1000ft per minute or less - Ops manuals require 1000ft per minute or less in last 1000ft.

Also linked to the many European ATC units where you are for example cleared climb to fl270. Nothing happens until a few seconds after leveling you report so and you are either given further climb or you are transferred to the next sector who immediately issue climb.

------------

London, we're routing direct to point XXX, can you tell us the next waypoint on our flightplan after point XXX". (Why ask ATC? Why don't you check what it says on your own copy of the flightplan? I mean, you do have a copy with you, don't you?)

Often happens when the point we are going direct to is not on the flight plan.

Pilots do not want to do legs 5nm long at 90 degrees to the direction of travel simply because the next position in our flight plan is almost abeam the point ATC sent us to.

A very good example - since when has LAM become part of the London City Arrival route...................vectors and then "direct LAM to leave on a heading of xxx"

Perhaps ATC would prefer..........do you have our flight plan? do you know the points on the XXX arrival..........or simply LAM not on our flight plan response?

Most of the other points I agree with but as I said, some of the complaints display a lack of knowledge of what the CAA has operators put in the ops manual.

Regards,

DFC

[ZOOKER]

Very similar to post No.40, but with alternative suitably cheeky ripostes proposed.

A transmission often heard in UK airspace, usually emanating from propellor-driven commuter aircraft.

"Er we're running a bit late this evening and would appreciate any short-cuts available"

Suggested solutions to this chronological dilemma:-

1 Endeavour to get airborne on time in future.:E or
2 Buy a jet. :}

[Jungmeister]

When there are a few at the holding point, aircraft approaching the end of the queue; "XXX Ready in turn"

Jung

[ferris]

DFC, as I am the person who posted the "confirm" whinge- I have to say; your post is a load of crap.
When this topic was previously raised on this forum, it was mentioned that some operators have required both pilots to confirm altitude clearances. Those SOPs do NOT ask the pilot TO SAY THE WORD CONFIRM if both pilots did not hear. They ask the pilot to confirm the clearance. The approved method to have things confirmed, is to say "say again".
If you advocate changes to regulated procedures being done by company SOPs and pilot-driven interpretation of those SOPs, then I will have to take issue. Why have a regulator?


Anyway, MY whinge is directed at pilots from a certain geographical area, who say "confirm" at the end of every clearance, not due to SOPs, but purely because they dont have the confidence either in themselves to get it right in one try, or the confidence in controllers in their homeland to listen to readbacks (as revealed by pilots from that area).

I hope I have cleared up your lack of understanding on that particular topic. As for your IAA rants.....:hmm:

[Tommy Tipee]

Something that has become very common (among pilots) is adding the words "IF AVAILABLE" to a request.
This takes up valueable air time for no valid reason.
If it isn't available, you won't get it!

[BeforeStart]

One thing that really annoys me is people who stick their non-spitcap fitted headset mike into their mouths before transmitting.

It sounds horrible and are obvious to anyone but themselves. It also wastes a lot of airtime when the controller (or even his fellow pilot!) has to ask for confirmation.

What is wrong with placing the boom mike in such a position so that you can´t hear your own "S", "T" and other classical mic sounds?

[DFC]

ferris,

As long as the procedure is in CAA approved JAR-OPS compliant ops manual then those pilots operating in accordance with the CAA approved ops manual will continue to do as I said in my post.

You seem to forget that the response to confirm is simply "afirm" when the proposed information is correct. If one was to use "say again" then that would require you to repeat all the information again. Also say again is appropriate when all or part of the message was missed which is not the case and of course, the ops manual would still require the "confirm" at the end.

Perhaps you would prefer that both pilot remained on frequency and you passed the ATIS on your frequency? ;)

Not advocating the use of the term on calls when both pilots are in the loop but as a tool to prevent level busts in situations where only on pilot is in the loop it is a useful tool which uses very little R/T time.

If you get it all the time it could be that the other pilot is out of the loop for the whole period that flight is in your sector. If that aircraft is below 10,000 and/ or it is a busy terminal area then you could have an argument for it not being a good time to be getting the ATIS etc.

Regards,

DFC

[rocky01]

1. "Twr, EIZZZ, ready in turn..." (while No3 in the taxi Q):=

2. "Twr, I have the No1 in sight , request glide approach with a go round...":uhoh:

3. "Twr, EIZZZ joining overhead (Speed 200kts), where's the circuit traffic...?":{

4. Twr, yes I am familiar with the DP, can you just run it by me...":rolleyes:

I'm going on shift, will have some more beauties when I get back...:ok:

Sylvester

[DFC]

"Remain clear of controlled airspace." (= keep away from my patch until I've sorted my £hit out here, boy!)

Also unfortunately ignores the fact that a controller simply can not require a VFR flight to remain outside all controlled airspace.

Regards,

DFC

[thorisgod]

Absolutely hate any use of the words "Climb" or "Descend/Descent" unless a level change is actualy being issued.
e.g.
"stand by for climb"
"stand by for climb to 330"
"are you requesting climb to 330"
etc.

any of these transmissions have the potential to cause disaster if they get clipped, stepped on or just mis-interpreted.

[throw a dyce]

Pilots at the holding point asking what the delay is.The sky is full of aircraft,yet they take up valuable time with pointless calls.Even get it from training aircraft who are miles down on the priority list.I just answer unknown.

DFC,
I strongly suggest that any pilot told to remain clear of CAS does just that.You could find a pretty heavy book aimed at you if you don't.:)

[mad_jock]

I presumed that ! Left bass

I was just trying to explain why we do it. I can completely understand why it gives you a fright. And if we are lucky we can time it just as you have a mouthfull of tea :p.

For us its a bit like when we have taken a climb clearance while still climbing and just as we get +300ft through the previous cleared level the controller then gives the climb clearance again.

It never fails to make my bum twitch "have we just level busted, I am sure he cleared us for that already, did we take the wrong call." etc etc

And don't worry if there is something on the runway or something we don't like we will say a bit more than "say again clearance" which is the way I ask.
Leading questions and all that good stuff about not using the T or L word unless it is a clearance.

[ShyTorque]

Many are the pilots just to the SW of this zone who may "aim" to remain clear of controlled airspace but their aim is ****e.

If their "aim is ****e" or they are uncertain of position when they call ATC it might make little difference in that respect. Some controllers now seem to routinely use the expression as their initial reply every time someone free calls them. While I understand the ATC concerns, after a while it becomes less meaningful. In effect, then controller is telling all pilots to meet their responsibilities with regard to the ANO.

BTW, ATC don't routinely tell scheduled aircraft to stay inside controlled airspace on the first call. ;)

[left bass]

...the controller then gives the climb clearance again.

mad jock

:} lol, have to confess I'm a known offender in that regard.

I've never considered what effect it has on pilots' nerves before.

Maybe I could start doing it deliberately now for entertainment! ;)

left bass

[1985]

Also unfortunately ignores the fact that a controller simply can not require a VFR flight to remain outside all controlled airspace


But he can for all airspace that requires a ATC clearance to enter. ie Class D upwards. Class E i'll give you but why are you asking anyway?

[FougaMagister]

My top pet hate: flight crew who just talk to much on the R/T, e.g. "Control, sorry to be a pain, but would it be possible for you to..." :rolleyes: When they should transmit "Control, xxx request..." :ok:

Do they really think that by being obsequious they will have their way? The ATCO will try to accomodate their request if he/she can. Whatever happened to standard R/T? :{

Cheers :cool:

[loubylou]

Crews that use a hand held mike to get the clearance , giving me earache from the feed back.

Refusal to read back the QNH and merely repeating the ATIS letter (one guy did this 4 times before reading it back)

Crews that ask if I know what the order for departure is - when I am doing departures :confused: Sadly the order that you get to the holding point does not confer the order for departure in the grand scheme!

And the usual - what's the reason for the delay - my reply - if it's blindingly obvious what the reason is, is a terse "traffic"!

But I have no problem if crews check a landing clearance - even if it is Mad Jock! :p

louby

[DFC]

But he can for all airspace that requires a ATC clearance to enter. ie Class D upwards. Class E i'll give you but why are you asking anyway?

1. Transit of class E prior to entering class D. Standard initial call of remain outside controlled airspace fails to recognise that for VFR flight, Class E is controlled but no clearance is required.

2. As can happen in the UK - one unit says remain outside controlled airspace but other unit being worked says cleared to join at xxx FL xxx.

3. Remain outside controlled airspace rom a unit that provides FIS only and ignoring the fact that there is an airway in my 12 O'Clock 5nm that is class E.

If the argument goes that pilot could enter unless specifically told not to then why is the call limited to controlled airspace. Does entering Restricted, Prohibited Danger and Temporary Notamed airspace not have similar risks to the flight being talked to?

--------------

throw a dyce,

Perhaps you should read the class E airspace controlled airspace requirements in that big heavy book. ;)

Regards,

DFC

[Rule3]

DFC.....

I have to correct you, every, and I repeat every, response from a controller or pilot requires the use of "CALLSIGN" and not just affirm. Something that is sadly lacking from the supposed sharp end in this part of the world.:sad::ugh:

[timelapse]

Someone should print this thread out and take it to the next TRM session!

[mad_jock]

Name your airport Left Bass we will see who gets fed up first :ok: ;)

Cheers louby :) and your forgivenfor putting us through the localiser so often :p

I still remember telling that Captain what was so special about Tuesdays and you confirming it.

[kontrolor]

control...that was too close for our confort

:O

[coz96]

This thread is a real eye opener.

I always hear controllers on the air and they seem very pleasant, and even seem to be having a good time with the occasional back and forth banter. Now I am wondering if they are all constantly secretly annoyed with my R/T, and the moment the mike is un-keyed they roll their eyes with their co-workers.

Almost seems that at some point, once we are all at 100% standard phraseology that too much voice inflection will be discouraged, and we will be listening to a monotone voice reading a clearance.

Honestly not trying to be a troll, just the amount of annoyance shown here by controllers really has been eye opening.

(If it makes a difference I am a PPL, but I do almost always fly IFR so I can play along in the SoCal system)

[loubylou]

You cheeky menace Mad Jock! :p
Coz - we mostly are all pleasant types - to be honest - most of these "gripes" are about professional pilots - not the GA guys.

louby

[DFC]

DFC.....

I have to correct you, every, and I repeat every, response from a controller or pilot requires the use of "CALLSIGN" and not just affirm. Something that is sadly lacking from the supposed sharp end in this part of the world


I did not specify callsign because as far as I am concerned it should be a given that the callsign would be used appropriately in all transmissions. I do agree that many people at the pointy end need assistance with this important issue.

However, if you want to be 100% correct you will see in the rules that once an R/T conversation has been established between two stations the two stations concerned can drop their callsigns. :D

Regards,

DFC

[Pinky95]

Today at Leeds the TWR guy took an extensive briefing of all the options to a certain A/C about flying through their filed IFR flightplan or take a more direct routing with FIS. On which the A/C replied "say again" whereafter TWR gave an even more extensive brief on the options, eventually stating "do you wish to proceed controlled or uncontrolled". Which finally made the point.
The last 4 mins of the transmission we where standing with engines running waiting to taxi...
If the TWR guy had just started with that final sentence it would have saved 5 mins of blattering around on TWR frequency, or just invite the guy to the tower for a cup of coffee.

Also annoying the terrible quality of transmission of most UK controllers compared to german/scandinavian/dutch. Especially when you can hear other aircraft replying very crisp and clear (and much louder...)

[Fly Through]

Shy torque,
Not all countries are the same, in the land of touques and poteen just establishing two way comms allows aircraft to enter controlled airspace.

DFC,
How would you like me to put it then, "Remain clear of controlled airspace that you require a clearance to enter." or "standby, I'll get back to you but don't just continue on into the zone I'm controlling without a specific clearance from me." But I do take your point on board and will bear it in mind when talking to a/c in the vicinity of class E. Oh, I think Ferris was referring to certain airlines who always say 'confirm' in response to anything and sometimes with both crew members trying to speak at once!!

FT

[DFC]

Bittertwisted,

Here are the two relevant parts from ICAO Annex 10;

5.2.1.7.3.3.2 After contact has been established, continuous
two-way communication shall be permitted without further
identification or call until termination of the contact.

5.2.1.7.3.3.3 In order to avoid any possible confusion,
when issuing ATC clearances and reading back such clearances,
controllers and pilots shall always add the call sign of
the aircraft to which the clearance applies.

The above means that when a clearance is issued, the callsign must be included. However, the first paragraph says that the following conversation is perfectly correct;

ABC123 Seaton Control Cleared direct ZZZ FL350

Cleared direct ZZZ FL350 ABC123

Can you accept FL390

Is direct YYY available at FL390

Afirm

Roger we can accept FL390

ABC123 maintain FL350 expect further higher in 5 minutes

Maintain FL350 ABC123

--------------

I see that some on here have a pet hate of;

London ABC123 request

ABC123 pass your message


I think that while the word "request" may be incorrect, the use of "London ABC123" is perfectly correct when it is desired to confirm that the station the message is directed to is ready to receive the message;

ICAO Annex 10;

5.2.1.7.3.2.5 Communications shall commence with a call
and a reply when it is desired to establish contact, except that,
when it is certain that the station called will receive the call,
the calling station may transmit the message, without waiting
for a reply from the station called.

So if I want to say something and do not want the "Sorry I was on the telephone" response I think that "London ABC123" is very appropriate.

Since the UK publishes no difference to the above ICAO standards there is nothing wrong with their use.

Regards,

DFC

[Short Approach?]

DFC, your knowledge of ICAO Annex 10 makes me horny.

[DFC]

Just because ICAO (all hail!) says we can do it .... Use common sense, think of the Swiss cheese and all those holes in it and also never assume and all that jazz!

Agree 100% and you will probably agree that in practice the callsign is used more often than ICAO say it is necessary. There are a few notables who use it less also!

However, one can not complain when people do what the book says.

Regards,

DFC

[PPRuNe Radar]

Roger we can accept FL390

ABC123 maintain FL350 expect further higher in 5 minutes

Maintain FL350 ABC123


NATS 'Best Practice' in the UK is not to include the actual Flight Level if using the phrase 'Maintain'. This is because there is a chance the wrong level might be mentioned (human error is always a possibility) and in some States the pilot can take the 'Maintain' to be a clearance to change level.

Plug the Swiss Cheese holes :ok:

[skiesfull]

As one in the 'pointy end', my pet hate is pilots asking "any chance of.....?". The reply ,of course, should always be "No f*****g chance whatsoever!" But naturally, you chaps/esses are much too polite.
Off topic, there was a soccer team some years ago apparently called "Norfolk Enchants"!
Best not to be too anal-retentive with R/T -humour is what the world turns on.

[Captain_djaffar]

"Over and out!!!"

self explanatory.

But i heard this only once from a professional,i reckon it was maybe jetlag.:E

But hear it on many occasions from non-professionals.

[Pontius]

Start up and push-back procs. Clearances Phraseology should
be -Callsign clearance received by datalink. Acft type
stand number QNH XXXX. Fully ready request startup-.

Sorry chaps and chapettes of LHR & LGW but you may be hearing a few more 'fully ready' calls and a lack of ATIS letters. The quote above is taken from our briefing matter and shows why BAW may be guilty of the aforementioned sins.

As for me, most of my pet hates have already been mentioned:
'London, ABC123 Request'....you know the rest
'If available'
US carriers and their constant whining about ride reports and freakin' 'light chop'....NOBODY CARES
XPDR codes 'coming down' or 'with a flash'....give me strength
Australians are always 'on climb' or 'on descent'. Why is everybody else in the World 'climbing' or 'descending'?

Okay, back to my chanting exercises before braving US airspace again later ;)

[Il Duce]

"Zis is the guard frequency!"
"You're on guard."
"Can't you do this on another frequency!?"

All from commercial pilots during GA practise Pans on 121.5................which is permitted in the UK.

If you don't like it, lobby NATS to provide a VHF frequency for practise Pans - the military have a UHF one.

[PPRuNe Radar]

If you don't like it, lobby NATS to provide a VHF frequency for practise Pans - the military have a UHF one.

NATS don't provide the Distress and Diversion service, the UK MoD does. You'd be better lobbying them or the CAA.

NATS only provides the D&D equipment and facilities under contract to the MoD.

[Il Duce]

Whoever you lobby, don't do it on 121.5!
:ok:

[ShyTorque]

My clearance today (given whilst lined up and in the same transmission as my take off clearance) began:

"Remain outside controlled airspace".

I was already in controlled airspace........

[fourthreethree]

"ABC123 descend Flight Level two seven zero"

"Roger, descending two seven zero ABC123 "

"ABC123 confirm thats FLIGHT LEVEL two seven zero"

"I say again we are descending two seven zero ABC123"

etc etc etc..........:ugh:

[TrafficTraffic]

"ABC123 descend Flight Level two seven zero"

"Roger, descending two seven zero ABC123 "

"ABC123 confirm thats FLIGHT LEVEL two seven zero"

"I say again we are descending two seven zero ABC123"

etc etc etc..........

Shouldnt it be

"ABC123 descend to Flight Level Two Seven Zero"

Lets just add another to (two) in there....


TT

[Kiltie]

ATC: "(callsign) squawk ident."

Pilot: SILENCE :ugh:

[ray cosmic]

Maybe it is hard to grasp, but what is not required at one airport, is required at the other. So just sometimes it happens you do or do not mention something because it is out of the ordinary. As well some calls are techniques which proved to be clear in most of the world. Therefore, when you have crews who fly worldwide making a call which works with 98% of ATC worldwide, please don't be annoyed by this. It is not bad will, simply at some stage you are forced so often to phrase non-standard just to a have clear and therefore more safe operation that when you fly in an area where CAP is the standard you kind of lose what is called standard.

[loubylou]

Traffic2
In the UK :
descend flight level 270
descend to altitude 2000 feet
I realise this may only be a uk standard

louby

[macker]

Not all countries are the same, in the land of touques and poteen just establishing two way comms allows aircraft to enter controlled airspace.

Where is the land of touques and poteen?

I sure hope pilots in the land of poteen don't believe this to be the case. :}

[fourthreethree]

loubylou.....TT works in his own world, where rules and standards exist purely to be manipulated according to who he intends to wind up :eek: :E :p

It normally works mind.......

[dme4ils]

My pet hate is giving a pilot a frequency change instruction, which is immediately followed by someone else calling for something. (Not an emergency!)

Typically when I re-iterate to the first pilot his instruction, he has already left the frequency, so everyone else gets delayed whilst I check he has arrived with the new sector.

This is a rampant issue for GA pilots in receipt of a LARS service.

[Liklik balus]

Kiltie....

[quote=ATC: "(callsign) squawk ident."

Pilot: SILENCE :ugh:[/quote]


What do you expect?......perfectly acceptable!!!!!!

[terrain safe]

"Request start in accordance with our slot".

WTF does that mean!:ugh::confused:

Giving a pilot a clearance and before he reads it ack another aircraft requests his clearance. Listen before transmitting please !!!!!

[downwindabeam]

For everybody that is annoyed by us american pilots whining about ride reports and light chops while flying in the CONUS. I'm going to try to shed some light here...

Most domestic operations in the US, suffice their wx info pakcet requirements with giving us only the TAF/METARS of DEP,DEST,ALTN and AREA airports... nobody here gets a nice SIGWX chart or any other chart for that matter.

Some of us have turb plot messages but for the most part no charts at all.

Thats why the constant questioning about ride reports.... we really dont have the info in the cockpit.

[Goldfish Jack]

Tower to a/c on first contact (inbound) : 'ABC123 continue approach"

Tower to a/c taxing to hold, after being cleared to hold by ground: "ABC123 continue to the hold" !!!

Talk about tits on a bull!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jagohu]

downwindabeam: you might wanna have a look at http://euro.wx.propilots.net if you're looking for SIGMETs and stuffs like that...

As for the subject of the topic, my pet hate is:
ATC: callsign, contact London xxx.xxx
Pilot: bye

[fireflybob]

Kiltie....

[quote=ATC: "(callsign) squawk ident."

Pilot: SILENCE


What do you expect?......perfectly acceptable!!!!!![/QUOTE]

I was under the impression that transponder operating instructions were required to be readback in full.

[Kiltie]

Likewise. Can anyone show any get-out-clause printed in MATS or CAP413? I certainly can't.

How would you otherwise know that the correct callsign knows to squawk ident and someone else hasn't taken the instruction in error?

[anotherthing]

I'm with Kiltie on this one... Not replying to a "squawk ident" instruction is plain rude if nothing else... especially as 9 times out of 10 it is issued as a first exchange of transmissions between a radar unit and an aircraft.

I'd like to get a verbal response as well as the actual physical response to let me know you have heard me and we have two way comms.

Any pilot that claims they are too busy to read back the instruction should not be flying!!

[GunkyTom]

Pilot: SILENCE :ugh:


What do you expect?......perfectly acceptable!!!!!!
[/quote]




LIKLIK

I can't copy the ref. for this but CAP493 appendix E p9 specifies:-

Pilot readback of RTF messages
SSR operating instructions

Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a readback is not immediately forthcoming


Also in CAP 413 RT Manual (for pilots and ATC)

[DenhamPPL]

Is it really that bad to say you are "ready for departure in turn" when at the hold and ready for departure behind other aircraft?

It may not be CAP413 standard phraseology but at least you're letting ATC know that you're aware of the other aircraft waiting and not trying to jump the queue?

I think we use it more at my home airfield as the FIS guy sometimes gets shirty if we just say "ready for departure" when there are other aircraft waiting at the hold. Maybe I should adjust my language and suffer the wrath..?

[GunkyTom]

I have to say, the majority of RT 'hates' posted on here don't bother me in the slightest, however, after giving tfc info, 'Got him on TCAS' does irritate as there is nothing ATC can do with that info. If you are not visual, it doesn't count. I am sure there is plenty that we do that irritate pilots too. A lot of it is down to not understanding why it HAS to be said and that applies to both sides.

[Van Der Hum]

Tower to a/c on first contact (inbound) : 'ABC123 continue approach"

Tower to a/c taxing to hold, after being cleared to hold by ground: "ABC123 continue to the hold" !!!

Talk about tits on a bull!!!!!!!!!!!

In the first instance it implies that you're not cleared to land so it's very useful! Unless you'd prefer "go around I say again go around acknowledge" instead?

[DFC]

LIKLIK

I can't copy the ref. for this but CAP493 appendix E p9 specifies:-

Pilot readback of RTF messages
SSR operating instructions

Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a readback is not immediately forthcoming


Also in CAP 413 RT Manual (for pilots and ATC)

Thankfully we never hear " If you read this transmission squawk ident" then :p

However, Both the ICAO R/T manual and the local UK CAP 413 require either a readback or an acknowledgement of an instruction to squawk ident.

Regards,

DFC

[forget]

This is all getting quite worrying :ooh:

[Skyjuggler]

same old same old, long time reader... etc. But I just HAD to add my two cents to this thread...

I'm surprised it hasn't been posted already but...
ATC: "ABC123 standby"
ABC123: "Copied, we'll stand by"

In frustration with one particular repeat offender I added
"ABC123 standby, I'll call you back"
to which he responds quite casually
"Okay, copied. We'll standby and wait for your call shortly...":{

[Short Approach?]

In frustration with one particular repeat offender I added
"ABC123 standby, I'll call you back"
to which he responds quite casually
"Okay, copied. We'll standby and wait for your call shortly..."'

Boy u must be busy! I present you this tool: "ABC123 standby, BREAK, ABC234 cleared whatever...."

[Dream Land]

I have to say, the majority of RT 'hates' posted on here don't bother me in the slightest, however, after giving tfc info, 'Got him on TCAS' does irritate as there is nothing ATC can do with that info. If you are not visual, it doesn't count. I am sure there is plenty that we do that irritate pilots too. A lot of it is down to not understanding why it HAS to be said and that applies to both sides.Have to agree, as I see it every region seems to develop their own brand of phraseology, I remember as an ex-air traffic controller (US), my check pilot in the UK hammering me on my poor phraseology, he was dead on and I will always remember Mike at Caledonian. It seems to me that many of the worst habits seem to develop from Asia, like:

Approaching level....

We have him on TCAS...

Charlie, charlie...

Fully ready...

If available...

Bye...Germany?

Blocked...USA

Track shortening...HKG

Pass your message?? UK

On the good side, US pilots DO make turbulence reports, in Asia, such reports nonexistent.

[Thylakoid]

Foghorn, we hear a lot of these "blocked" things in India and in the Middle East, where pilots change frequencies, press the mike, and fire the message. No listening or regard for whoever might be talking to the controller at that moment.:*

[refplus20]

Geeez. What a depressing thread. Seems that no matter who I talk to, I will be upsetting someone. Guess CPDLC for all will solve the problem!! :*:*

[vector4fun]

I dunno, I think a bunch of you folks would go absolutely nutty listening to a typical weekend's chatter in the States. Standard phraseology, Whazzat???

"We have 'em on TCAS/Fishfinder" etc. -- Useless, please look away from the screen and out the window, let me know when you SEE the traffic.

Lately, every other turbine aircraft seems to need to tell me they will be ready at the end when they're still a half mile from the end on the taxiway. No kidding, you got both engines running? :rolleyes:

When changing freqs, LISTEN 15 seconds, then speak if appropriate.

If you hear me say "Nxxx, #4 standby", now is NOT a good time to ask for a shortcut. Your wish is suddenly on the very bottom of my "to do" list;
in very small print

;)

[javelin]

And another one...........

Inbound MAN, Shannon says - descend now, be level FL270, 10 miles before LIFFY.

Has the already low block standing agreement changed again ?

We will be level at LIFFY, we do not wish to squander another 200kgs of fuel being level 10 miles before LIFFY thankyou :sad:

[Medway Control]

thats a dangerous game to be playing javelin...

what if the level restriction is for seperation?? what if the shannon controller has another aircraft behind/in front that relies on that 10 miles before liffey?? Level restrictions aren't given just to piss you pilots off... they are given for a reason, normally a very good one!! someday you're attitude to them may bite you in the proverbial a**...

[Artie Fufkin]

"Morning Ground, Callsign, B737, Stand x, information y, QNH, request clearance"

"Cleared to etc. information y, QNH"

"Cleared to, information y, QNH"

20 seconds later

"Callsign, request push and start""

"Callsign, say again stand number"

"Callsign, stand x"

"Callsign, push and start approved, information y, QNH"

"Callsign, push and start approved, information y, QNH"

I guess its all standard but just how many times do we need to tell ATC that we have the :mad: ATIS and QNH? The words Polly and Parrot sometimes comes to mind!

[Kiltie]

Javelin that is an absolutely disgraceful attitude which is an admission of a direct compromise of flight safety on your part.

I would like to re-assure controllers that such scoffing at a clear ATC instruction with intended non-compliance is extremely rare in my experience.

[speedrestriction]

Me: " AAA Control, ABC123 FL120 H220 degrees"

ATC: "ABC123 good morning, turn right ten degrees, report new heading"

Errr what's that all about, does it just slip out due to habit or is it some kind of SOP?

[Data Dad]

Artie Fufkin wrote:

I guess its all standard but just how many times do we need to tell ATC that we have the :mad: ATIS and QNH? The words Polly and Parrot sometimes comes to mind!

Turning that on its head....

Very recently, aircraft called for clearance, acknowledged the current ATIS gave me the correct QNH which I noted. When the crew later called for taxy, (no change in either runway or QNH) I said "Taxy to Holding Point XX" reply was "Taxy to Holding Point XX, errr err err Runway YY, QNH zzzz" - Reading back things not said!

:ok::ok:

DD

[Pilot Pete]

Let's not forget that standard phraseology for an ATCer is just that. For a pilot standard phraseology changes depending on where in the world he happens to be! I am all for as standard as possible, but we do hear variances even at different UK airfields, let alone what we hear once we have left these hallowed shores. Just a point in our defence!:ok:

PP

[RAAFASA]

To issue a VSA I need to hear "visual" as in "can maintain continuous visual reference to the ground or water etc..." "Visual on top" is so frustrating - can't give you anything based on that cobber!

But USA military pilots definitely get my vote for bizarre RT:

"Comin' at ya, abeam the numbers, good gear, goin' nowhere" (Southern drawl)

Heard it 14 years ago on my first TWR rating, can still hear it plain as anything. For a minute there, I wasn't even sure it was English, then my supervisor managed to stop laughing long enough to say "base, 3 greens, full stop". Guess I haven't watched Top Gun enough.....:confused:

[DFC]

And another one...........

Inbound MAN, Shannon says - descend now, be level FL270, 10 miles before LIFFY.

Has the already low block standing agreement changed again ?

We will be level at LIFFY, we do not wish to squander another 200kgs of fuel being level 10 miles before LIFFY thankyou

and the Shannon controller sees that you are unable to comply with the clearance by reaching the level 10 miles late so the next day they tell you to be level 20 miles before liffy. :)

How much fuel does that cost? :D

Can't believe that someone would not comply with a clearance without telling ATC first.

Regards,

DFC

[fireflybob]

Also surely level by clearances are a limit and not a target!

[javelin]

I thought I would wait a while........ I asked the fine gent in Shannon why 10 before. He said that sometimes aeroplanes didn't make the restriction and he prefered to hand traffic to MAN level. The remark about the BSA is my question, not a reply on air.

I agree, we sometimes get early descent to avoid conflict, but usually we have already spotted this on TCAS and also by being observant as to who is who coming off the ocean. In this case, I normally offer a level change to help.

While the BSA's work in reducing holding at destination, all I ask is for some consistency. If it's 10 before, publish it, let's not make it a restriction on the whim of a controller :ok:

Out of work, I sit on an airspace group to help coordinate ATC and GA aircraft. I also do Fam Flights for ATC so really, I do my bit to help !

[alwaysmovin]

As the controller said the reason he gives this extra restriction is because flight crews don't comply to the already published restriction.....don't go complaining that a controller is making you waste fuel...go complain to your colleauges about not making restrictions....it's not that difficult.....:ugh:

[FerrypilotDK]

ATC: "(callsign) squawk ident."

Pilot: SILENCE :ugh:

Hmmmmmm Here there are numerous complaints about this "precious" air time, and when the opportunity arises to push a button and keep your mouth shut....it is also a problem. If the box lights up, why have to confirm verbally?

[Pera]

If the squawk ident request is being used to identify the aircraft, you must verify that the aircraft squawking is the one you asked to squawk and not someone else who misheard your request. The ident and the acknowledgement must be received for the aircraft to be correctly identified.

[GunkyTom]

Ferry Pilot DK
[quote] ATC: "(callsign) squawk ident."

Pilot: SILENCE :ugh:

Hmmmmmm Here there are numerous complaints about this "precious" air time, and when the opportunity arises to push a button and keep your mouth shut....it is also a problem. If the box lights up, why have to confirm verbally?
/QUOTE]

IF the wrong a/c takes the call, selects the sqk and i/d, then there is likely to be a mis ident which at best is a waste of time and annoying, at worst blxxdy dangerous.

[crispey]

I've read all these.As somebody said,slightly worrying.

For me the worst is

"G-ABCD, orbit left over Alderley Edge,1500 ft QNH,expect 45 minute delay due inbound IFR traffic"

They've got autopilots I haven't.

Not meant seriously but it did happen a few times.

[JustAnotherVictim]

Pass your message?? UK

That is allowed according to the CAP413 though, isn't it?

[coz96]

For me the worst is

"G-ABCD, orbit left over Alderley Edge,1500 ft QNH,expect 45 minute delay due inbound IFR traffic"

They've got autopilots I haven't.
I got something similar at KLAS once, but either the controller decided to be nice and help me out, or he didn't want a light IFR airplane in his mix to handle.

ATC: Expect 1 hour delay for IFR traffic.
ME : Understood. Would you prefer I get an IFR clearance from FSS? Or can you handle a pop-up clearance?
ATC: Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace turn left heading..... remain VFR

Come to think of it, KLAS seems to be the worst offender in giving a very low priority to VFR light airplanes. Another time during VFR flight following, when I was overflying Bravo airspace but checked in for traffic advisories:

ATC: Turn right heading 270 for traffic
ME : Turning right 270 (90 degrees to my desired course)

After 10 miles:

ME : Cancel flight following. Turning back on course.
ATC : Uhh ok.

Now I don't bother checking in with KLAS approach when overflying them.

[hangten]

Starting initial calls with the word 'And'!

'And Ground...'
'And Tower...'

Grrrr. :mad:

Notably an Easyjet trait (gross generalisation of course...)

[SM4 Pirate]

ATC: Turn right heading 270 for traffic
ME : Turning right 270 (90 degrees to my desired course)

After 10 miles:

ME : Cancel flight following. Turning back on course.
ATC : Uhh ok. Much easier to give you "service" and get you out of the way rather than vector half a dozen (or more) heavies out of "your way". It amazes me that people assume there is no reason; oh yes that's right we always do it for controller amusement.

Use of "Say again", when "correction" is better:

ME: "Descend to seven thousand feet QNH 1013"
PILOT: "Descend to five {pause}, I say again, seven thousand QNH 1013"

[Fork Handles]

Someone mentioned LIFFY.
Why do ATC insist on not publishing these handover agrements. 330 by exmor, 270 by liffey, 280 by otbed.etc etc. Pain in the arse on a trg flight. Things that need to be planned for on a trg flight need some form of reason. Just do it because it will happen isnt good trg technique. Espacially when it doesnt on occasion. Publish it , with caveats or it shouldnt be a requirement.
Oh and while Im here. 30 track miles should mean just that. Are you listening female controllers at manchester? Requesting to maintain 220kts at 5000 and 15 miles in a 757 with a tail wind and then turning on to the approach with another request for 160 to 4, then an immediate min approach request is pure bolox.

[1985]

Why do ATC insist on not publishing these handover agrements. 330 by exmor, 270 by liffey, 280 by otbed.etc etc. Pain in the arse on a trg flight. Things that need to be planned for on a trg flight need some form of reason. Just do it because it will happen isnt good trg technique. Espacially when it doesnt on occasion. Publish it , with caveats or it shouldnt be a requirement


Obviously you fly into Manchester fairly often, if you look at MACC's airspace (which is published) you will see that all of these restrictions are to get you into MACC's airspace. No point in working LACC or Scottish that close to Manch with the volume of other traffic around. They are there to ensure the best efficient use of airspace, not to pi$$ off pilots. ;)

[MU3001A]

Any US traffic - Any ride reports, or Checking in FL320 slight chop. - They usually fly Boeings and are therefore lower than us :eek:

Who cares, what can you do about it and do any of you Americans actually read a Sig Weather chart - if so, you would realise that today is not going to be a good day for smooth rides so stop whining

It's annoying to be sure, but when you realize that cruise altitude is about the last opportunity to exercise their discretion allowed crews by todays tightly scripted airline operations along with the desire to give pax as good an experience as possible, very understandable.

[CEJM]

Very interesting about the squawk ident. I have always been taught not to reply to this instruction unless there was a new transponder code given. (i.e. squawk 0470 and ident)

A/C: LONDON - ABC123 - PASSING ALTITUDE 2300FT - CLIMBING TO ALTITUDE 3000FT - SAM2V
ATC: ABC123 - LONDON - CLIMB FL80 - SQUAWK IDENT
A/C: CLIMB FL80 - ABC123

Had a look through CAP 413 and couldn't find anything. In the supplement in the Climb-Cruise-Descent section the last instruction is to squawk ident but they don't give a reply.

[GunkyTom]

CEMJ

Had a look through CAP 413 and couldn't find anything. In the supplement in the Climb-Cruise-Descent section the last instruction is to squawk ident but they don't give a reply.


Have a look at CAP 413 Ch2 RT Gen Procedures p1-2-12
Ch5 Rad Phraseology Rad id of a/c p1-5-3 para 1-3-2
And the Supp -Taxi and Take Off section p17 which I interpret as a general instruction as some of the items are unlikely to be included in normal Taxi-T/O situations.

[ImnotanERIC]

"callsign, london, roger"

and then turns round and

To the management, "boo hoo hoo, im such a loser. i need to complain, IMMEDIATELY, go and do it for me, i couldn't possibly do it myself in a professional mature manner"

[CEJM]

GunkyTom,

Thanks you, I hang my head in shame.

[Fork Handles]

1985,

I am fully aware of why the restrictions are there. I am not aware of any reason why they couldnt publish these things next to the waypoints on the enroutes, terminals etc. These are what we use on a day to day basis, not dimensinal tables or aips. Have you sen a uk jepp 1/2 hi level recently? Have a look and tell me how hard it would be , as opposed to trawling the shaded areas for dimensions, reading the front of the chart etc etc, oh and trying to loose upto 7000 with a tail wind in 1/3 profile ie 21 miles when the london guy gives the exmor limit based on 1/3 descent.
Equally the 310 climb limit southbound, publish it somewhere and more people will achieve it with planning

[1985]

FH


Equally the 310 climb limit southbound, publish it somewhere and more people will achieve it with planning


I presume you are talking about FL310 L AMRAL? If so thats not an agreement anywhere. Its a tactical restriction given by the controller based on other traffic going along UL9, the controller probably needs you to achieve that otherwise you are going to get a stepped climb under a transatlantic 747 or A340. Which would you prefer? If you can't make that one then just say so and the controller will sort it. If there is no conflicting traffic then the restriction won't be given.

Its the same with the Exmoor FL330 restriction. Usually this is given to take you out of the High Level sector (FL335+) and to deconflict you with high level cruisers going eastbound along UL9, but its still not a published standing agreement.

I agree if they are standing agreement that are written in our manuals then they should be published, ie the Liffey and Otbed ones, but we can't publish anything if nothing exists to be published

[Fork Handles]

Amral is 270a.
Im on about 310 65 before mid etc. Im not disputing the need for them, but its should be promulgated. I train alot of ab initio f/o from cadet to jet. In the early stages you need something to hang your hat on. Trying to expalin a restriction that you cant prove is annoying.. Not a train smash just makes me hoarse, having to give heads up to unpublished stuff when planning exercises would be so much more beneficial if one could present all the info and let them figure it out. Second guessing a candidates knowledge is the worst form of demoralising technique. Bit of a tangent but my perspective.
Cheers

[loubylou]

Perhaps it was busy with IFR traffic that had been holding - I imagine any IFR aircraft would be a bit miffed if a VFR traffic pitched up and got straight in when they had been going around in circles for an hour!! :hmm:

louby

[javelin]

1985 - Etc.

Spot on, I don't care what the restrictions are, provided the are published on the Jepp plates we use and are available easily for us to see.

The climb restrictions are easy as well - just say no, can't do because of the laws of physics and ATC will always help.

[Firestorm]

As a pilot I have a few come backs about ATC voice procedure. I have sympathy with quite a few of the points mentioned before: I don't think that we're all perfect, and we are all moderately intelligent, so I think that as a rule we know what each other mean. Onto my gripes.

An unnamed airport in the West Midlands that when a clearance is issued mentions the flight level, which is exzctly that published on the SID chart. Same unnamed airport that when QNH dips below 1013mb makes a very pointed remark about SIDs climbing to a flight level ather than an altitude (the published SID is a flight level).

Over wordy descent clearances, such as coming North towards Avant the clearance is normally 'descend FL 250 to be level 10 miles before Avant'. It's always very busy through that bit of sky (I once had to wait 4 minutes before being able to check in with London there), so why not say dexcend FL 250 level by Susix' [which is 10 or 12 miles South of Avant].

Terminal radar controllers who when you check in, and mention the ATIS that you have already recieved, but whislt you are still cleared to a flight level tell you what the QNH is: it is confusing. Am I now cleared to an altitude? No: it is not relevant at this point.

Don't think there are any other winges for now.

[GunkyTom]

Firestorm

Terminal radar controllers who when you check in, and mention the ATIS that you have already recieved, but whislt you are still cleared to a flight level tell you what the QNH is: it is confusing. Am I now cleared to an altitude? No: it is not relevant at this point.




I am not at TC but at any airport I have worked at, we are obliged to give or confirm the current ATIS along with the type of App and the QNH, regardless of your cleared level. CAP 413 Ch 6 App Phraseology P1-6-3 refers. The example is for a/c joining CAS but the principle is the same. I sympathise and personally, I don't mention QNH until I want the a/c to set it but I am wrong for doing so.

[crispey]

Louby

""Not meant seriously but it did happen a few times""

I meant my post wasn't to be taken too seriously!!I spent a lot of time circling Alderley Edge and a very fine place it is too.You can also count the shoppers in Wilmslow.Handy for keeping your orbits accurate too.

I trained at MFS at MAN so came into contact and became friendly with quite a few big iron drivers.ATCOs too.It was never a major problem.I needed help twice in my 10 or more years there.I got help twice,very quickly too.

[1985]

Over wordy descent clearances, such as coming North towards Avant the clearance is normally 'descend FL 250 to be level 10 miles before Avant'. It's always very busy through that bit of sky (I once had to wait 4 minutes before being able to check in with London there), so why not say dexcend FL 250 level by Susix' [which is 10 or 12 miles South of Avant].



100% agree. There are lots of restriction like that. I guarantee you the controllers are just as annoyed as you are. R/T congestion is a major problem. Some of them are in the process of being looked at, and altered hopefully.

[AlexCartman]

Tower to a/c on first contact (inbound) : 'ABC123 continue approach"

Tower to a/c taxing to hold, after being cleared to hold by ground: "ABC123 continue to the hold" !!!When I used to work AMC, I would reply to initial calls with "ABC123, hello!" only. 50 per cent of pilots were happy with this, while the rest, obviously expecting something more, would reply with useless info like "we're ready for departure" or "established eight miles out" or whatever.

Oh, and while I'm at it, my pet peave: What in the world has happened to the concept of initial calls? Instead of the standard "Callsign, level" or "callsign, level passing, cleared level" I get presented with all sorts of useless info "inbound XYZ, out of airport ABC, executing SID whatever". I need your level passing to confirm the mode C readout (not allowed to use it for separation purposes otherwise), and I need your cleared level since the previous controllers might have made a mistake. Again I base my separation on your cleared level. So please, standard initial calls. If you then insist on tacking on extra info like a SID, so be it! :D

[Defruiter]

So please, standard initial calls. If you then insist on tacking on extra info like a SID, so be it!

Is that something standard for Germany? IIRC, in the UK, it is a requirement to also include the SID (as well as passing and cleared level) once airborne.

[DFC]

when non-french/non-spanish/non-italian aircraft on the frequency.
English and English only please!



Marseille good morning big airline 123 passing flight level 230 descending flight level 150 boeing 757 with information bravo requesting a visual approach and that you inform every other aircraft that we only speak and hear english.

big airline 123 good morning roger take up the hold expect 1 hour delay while we wait for the french only speaking pilots to finish their operation.

Confirm 1 hour delay big airline 123.

afirm - ICAO standard that calls be made in the language of the ground station or english if that is not possible. The language of this ground station is French can you speak french?

Oui bon matin, nous sommes prêts à une approche à vue lorsque disponible

:E

Regards,

DFC

[Kiltie]

Defruiter is entirely correct (from a UK perspective.)

[javelin]

The climb requirements are nearly always impossible with a loaded 320 or 321 - don't start on the Bus/Boing argument. I politely advise we are unable due weight and give my best level at the current speed. I am loath to reduce speed to try and achieve an unattainable level, only to then have to fly level to accelerate in order to climb. Hopefully, when enough folk do similar, sensible boundaries will be arranged :ok:

[Gnirren]

I agree with previous posters regarding the QNH, especially in the UK. It seems to me that every single person that I talk to gives me the QNH, I'll have repeated it 15 times before I get airborne. I'm expecting to have to read it back to the fuel guy soon...

[fireflybob]

I'm expecting to have to read it back to the fuel guy soon...

You never know!

I agree this repeating of the QNH "n" times is quite OTT and certainly when combined with a Flight Level is open to error.

We seem to live in a world where slavish adherence to "procedures" is overriding good practice. Now don't get me wrong I am all for SOPs and correct phraseology but it is, in my opinion, better to do the "right thing" than to do "things right".

When you introduce a procedure to fix a "problem" you have to be careful that you do not generate a list of more potential problems. What I see in aviation these days are knee-jerk reactions because there has been one or two incidents instead of really thinking through the aim and ensuring all involved are correctly trained through understanding of the reasons behind why the procedures are in place.

I cannot see any really big deal with level restrictions though so long as they are given in a timely manner. If you can make the level it's ok and if you cannot it's still ok - just advise ATC accordingly.

[thorisgod]

DFC, Fork handles and others;

In our (Shannon) MATS part 2 Co-ordination procedures we have a Letter of Agreement (LOA) with each adjoining centre. Each LOA defines minimum radar separations for silent handovers, reduced separations etc. Included in the LOA for London are level restrictions for most EGxx ADES's.

London sets these levels, off hand they include:
LIFFY (any ADES in MAN/IOM area) max FL270 e.g. EGCC, EGBB
LIFFY some Northeastern ADES can have FL330, I think EGNX, EGUN etc.

STU/EVRIN
Any EGLL TMA Max FL330
Simultaneous OPS through STU and EVRIN(UL607) are allowed providing
1.Both are EGLL TMA inbound or
2.Both are overflyers
3.If one is inbound and the other overflying then the inbound has to be through EVRIN
STU Cardiff and Bristol max F310

BANBA Southbound DEPs from EIDW Max 270, EICK UB10 max 250

Thers are others, but LIFFY is a special case. Over DUB VOR we are trying to accomodate EGAx inbounds descending to F250 and in transfer to EIDW,
EGCC etc. inbounds descending to F270 and in transfer to MACC (anything higher and still descending has to be co-ordinated with EGTT sec 7, Outbounds from EGCC climbing to F280 looking for higher but have to co-ordinated with EGTT sec 7 before RAMOX. EGAx deps climbing to F240 looking for higher. Scottish TMA inbounds descending to Max F320.
East Midlands etc, inbounds descending to F330, Scottish TMA outbounds, climbing to Fl310 looking for higher.
And of course there's always some other looney doing something different in the mix, like RVSM excempt state a/c or SST trials in the Irish sea to complicate it further.

While I appreciate these things don't all happen at the same time It's not uncommon to have 6 or 7 a/c crossing in 3 dimension within 5 miles of DUB VOR.

Best practice should be common practice this is why the work is done early. A/c have to be level before transfer to another sector unless otherwise co-ordinated.
Thorisgod

[Wojtus]

ATC: "XXX, Report ready to copy ATC clearance"
A/C: "Standing by for ATC"

I wish I had a cent every time I have to guess if that was "standing by" or "standby".

[Van Der Hum]

Those, (both ATCOs and flight crew) who think it sounds cool to shorten the phonetic alphabet eg "X", "pap", "fox" etc. Just makes you sound like a chimp.

[Jungmeister]

What about the large sections of our aviation community who say "Poppa" instead of "Pah-pah"

J

[Kiltie]

One many of my lot use:

"London Hotjet 123 good morning Flight Level 390 Brecon."

....when we are routing directly to, but still have 60nm to go to Brecon!

[AlexCartman]

See http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319439

I don't know what source that comes from, but it is the same in Germany. No mention of a SID anywhere.

[Lear Jockey]

"callsign descend to FL290, call radar on 123,425 goodbye" given by the french controllers all the time the callsign being said very slowly as well as the word descend but then the flight level together with the frequency in such a rapid manner wizz ze very euh frenchy accent euh...that's unacceptable really, you can give maybe a heading with a frequency change ut certainly not a flight level given the very few margin in a 1000ft RVSM environment.

Otherwise these "with you", "blocked" (just to be smarter than anyone else as anyway if no answer the controller will repeat and such "blocked" will use RT space), "who's calling?!" that you'll get maybe 50% of the time on first contact with a french controller. And last but not least, ton first contact to an approach controller wou give the information letter from the last ATIS, why would you give the QNH on top as anyway the controller will issue the QNH on first descent to an altitude...the british controllers ask you about it and will issue QNH almost everytime a further descent to an other altitude is given, this is a waste of time as well, believe me, all BA pilots do the same and its a pain when you have 15 airplane to monitor and someone is telling you his life on the VHF, almost giving the numbers of bolts in his aeroplane...:}

kepp it simple, in modern world, where ATIS gives you the QNH, stop saying that on the frequency, just say "...Aapproach, callsign, passing flight level 200, descending to FL160, information S". the aircraft type is on request by most approach places but anyway the controller has a strip of paper with all the infos which are correct.

Thank you!

[Pilot Pete]

just say "...Aapproach, callsign, passing flight level 200, descending to FL160, information S" So, just keep it non-standard then?;)

PP

[Caudillo]

I particularly enjoy ones on the variation of Stand By

Jokejet123: standingby for lower

You wouldn't go to McDonlands and place your order with "I'm waiting for a Big Mac" now would you? Just ask for it.



Jokejet123: Looking for lower

Most likely beneath you. Do you want a descent?



Control: Jokejet123, Standby

Jokejet123: Standingby

Great to know, thanks. Because otherwise you would've switched off the radio?



Germanjet: You're on gaard

Germanjet2: You're on gaard

Usually repeated ad nauseum until everybody in Bavaria has had their go. Points given for those to point out the infraction within 2 seconds. I'd say it's likely the error will be noticed by the pilot himeself when he doesn't get an acknowledgement from the controller. But nice of you to help nonetheless, because you were being helpful rather than hectoring weren't you?



Skygod 1: Uuuuuuuuh, London, Skygod 1 descending etc

Conjures up the image of self importance or being a slack-jawed hillbilly. Do try to keep your mouth closed when you eat Cletus, there's a good boy.




Skygod 1: London, the Skygod 1, requesting descent.

Oh, the Skygod early afternoon flight in from Alicante. The definite article is genuinely used for such, rather than your two-bit flight in from the costas. Reserve for something noteworthy.

[Riverboat]

Interesting thread! Bit sad in some ways, but some useful info to boot. As a pilot I was keen to pick up some tips, and I got a few. The last thing I want to do is irritate very busy controllers.

I must admit to being very irritated myself with "keep outside controlled airspace" regularly offered advice which is usually totally irrelevant and unhelpful. If you guys want to reduce the amount of talking, you could cut this one out most of the time.

"Ready in turn" shouldn't upset anyone. It is not meant to be pushy, just a polite way of saying "ready" when you are not at the front of the Q.

"Got him on TCAS" is really the same as "I have him visual", and shouldn't really irritate anyone. Once again the pilot is passing some reassuring info the the ATCO, keeping him/her informed of what might be marginally relevant.

I appreciate that there are pedants in ATC, and it is hard to argue against it in the current "liability" climate, but personally I wish neither the pilot nor the ATCO would get wound up about imperfections that don't actually cause any problems. We are both working together to achieve an end.

[Kiltie]

"Got him on TCAS" is really the same as "I have him visual",

Riverboat, that's exactly the point; it's not!

Controllers may be able to offer a new opportunity for the following pilot to maneouvre behind the preceding aircraft if he has visual contact with the one ahead in an approach situation; thereby reducing the usual IFR separation hindrance required. Knowledge of TCAS contact doesn't create any advantage to a controller's work unless it is of course in an RA situation.

What is pertinent in this day and age is clutter of R/T frequencies. If everyone responded "Roger, Flyguy 123" instead of "Copied, we see that traffic on TCAS, Flyguy 123", the seconds saved would add up to useful useable frequency space during the working day. This is where we can all work together to enhance a safer flying environment.

I do however agree with you that we are all working toward the same end of enhancing safety, but sometimes kindhearted pilot's extra "reassurance" is not required when the controller is not trying to imply a risk of collision in the first place.

[Lear Jockey]

Yes, and "we have it on TCAS" can be mistaken for an other trafic that the TCAS maybe doesn't have, and it's not 100% sure you're talking about the same one...be carefull, I know it's easy to say that, even me saying this I've done it many times, but ever after realised that it's wrong to do it.

For the thing of doing it non standard as in approach control, I really think that saying the level passing, the level cleared to, the information and maybe if you feel good the aircraft type is well enough and save sooooo much RT space, imagine, EVERY airplane telling the whole story on a charter saturday in Geneva...(anybody experienced that already??!!, I've done...on both side of the radar screen so believe me on this one...), it's a pain:mad:
Why do you think when passing to the final controller (or director..) you just say your callsign? To minimize RT, let the controller sequence correctly his aircraft and that's it, so why using time for nothing on the approach frequency when maybe no final is open but still a lot of trafic flies? I'd rather have a 3NM spacing, speed stabilized approach or 6Nm when departures ahead than a 200kts approach, with 2.8NM spacing and finally a go around because somebody use too much controller's brain just by saying too much (and actually believe me or not, they couldn't care less about you saying "information O" when "P is current...just a few check this, the others not :E)

Checked?!

Thank you

[Goldfish Jack]

Pilots that say FULLY READY!!

Whats the difference between READY and FULLY READY?

Surely u are ready and "fully" is ssuperflous fancy rubbish talk.What pees me off even more is ATCs that tell a/c to report fully ready!!

[Pilot Pete]

Lear JockeyFor the thing of doing it non standard as in approach control, I really think that saying the level passing, the level cleared to, the information and maybe if you feel good the aircraft type is well enough and save sooooo much RT space I think you missed my point, which was why are you saying that the passing level should be mentioned to the approach controller? :confused:

PP

[criss]

"Yesterday, Brussels Approach:

XXX Airline descend to 3000 feet

XXX Airline descend to 2500 feet

all the Airplanes respondet in the correct way: descending Altitude 3000.....
but the Lady continued that way. Seems to be her standard




inbalance"

It might be incorrect with CAP413 or your standard phraseology, but its how thing goes in my copy of 4444.

[Lear Jockey]

yes pp, when passing to an other controller you always have to say the level passing before the level you are cleared to in order to verify the mode C..., tell me if I'm mistaking that one:ok:
And it is a british thing to add the word "altitude", not ICAO. Same as giving turns in degrees with normally a "5" at the end ("..turn right heading 125 degrees"), that's to make sure the airplane doesn't climb or descend to such a flight level, but it's not ICAO standard!

[Jagohu]

ATC: "Airline turn left 5 degrees"
P: "Could you state the reason of the heading, why do we need to turn???"

Especially nice when you've got 23 a/c on the frequency...

[loubylou]

"Remain outside controlled airspace" is not a piece of irelevant advice but an instruction to do just that. The reason why controllers feel obliged to say this is because when pilots have accidentally infringed controlled airspace that have inevitably said - " well we weren't TOLD to remain OCAS"!!!

As for the rest of your post - Kiltie -couldn't agree more with your response.

And "ready in turn " - why not just "ready"? I decide the dep order, depending on routes/slots/sector restrictions which crews will not know about/various other reasons that are not apparant to the the flight deck.

louby

[Riverboat]

I think you must be an ATCO Louby, and not a pilot. You are making an assumption that when a controller states "remain outside controlled airspace", they are 1) controlling you, and 2) they have some jurisdiction over the airspace in which you are flying or into which you are going to fly.

I regularly fly from Northern England to Brittany and the Channel Islands. Sometimes airways sometimes in the FIR. Quite often Brize, when called fo a radar service will say "Remain clear of Brize Zone, Stand By." OK, I take the point, but I will be at FL 060 and their zone goes up to 3500 ft. I might not even be flying that near to it.

Then further south, Bournemouth have a habit of barking this instruction at you "Remain outside controlled airspace.Stand by". I might well in IN controlled airspace. Or, more likely, I am going to overfly their airspace well above CA.

It is all very well suggsting that pilots say too much on the air, but the system in the UK requires so much more to be said. The controllers asking you to keep clear haven't made this instruction up themselves: I am sure they have been instructed to say it, because SOMEONE somewhere has decided that as some aircraft do inadvertently enter CA without permission, this might help to stop it.

Well it might. But it also adds more talk And this SOMEONE is coming up with all sorts of arcane and special UK R/T requirements. Years ago we were striving (I thought) for commonality with our foreign friends. Now the British keep coming up with all sorts of sometimes bizarre changes to R/T procedures in order, it is suggested, to prevent some allegedly possible confusion from arising.

I know you will argue, Kiltie. You'll say that anything that can be done that will help prevent any sort of incident whatoever should be done, etc etc. But I think it is time to call a halt to all these British R/T add-ons which often just sound plain daft.

Re. the "have him on TCAS" bit. OK, fair point. I must admit that I wasn't thinking of approach control at the time, and I can see that the response is a bit pointless under those circumstances. Sometimes, though, you just respond in a manner that's common without actually thinking about what you are saying. Maybe the controller shouldn't bother saying anything in the first place if the pilot is not expected to respond with anything other than Roger?

RB

[Pontius]

all BA pilots do the same

No they don't. Delivery get told the QNH I have, Director gets told the ATIS letter and aircraft type.

Aapproach, callsign, passing flight level 200, descending to FL160, information S

Oh dear! In your quest to free up airtime, how about leaving out the "passing flight level" bit. The UK is not the USA and this 'extra' icall of yours is unnecessary. Similarly, if you say you're descending "to" a flight level then you really should go and get the books out before lecturing us on how it should be done :rolleyes:.

[loubylou]

If I give the instruction "remain outside controlled airspace" it is precisely because I DO NOT wish to control that aircraft, that the aircraft is outside controlled airspace and therefore not under a CONTROL service. This is not to be confused with FIS/RIS/RAS.

Your further point confuses me though - when Bournemouth "bark" at you to remain outside controlled airspace - how could you be in controlled airspace already at this point without a clearance and indeed a control service? I didn't think there was any class E airspace around Bournemouth.

Phraseology has been and is being developed constantly following from various incidents in order to avoid confusion and to reduce to probability of it happening again. I accept that it may be perceived to be a pain, but frankly if it means we can all avoid paperwork then I'm all for it!

louby


louby

[DFC]

It is all very well suggsting that pilots say too much on the air, but the system in the UK requires so much more to be said. The controllers asking you to keep clear haven't made this instruction up themselves: I am sure they have been instructed to say it, because SOMEONE somewhere has decided that as some aircraft do inadvertently enter CA without permission, this might help to stop it.


It has been explained to me that oft said phrase came about as a result of an aircraft doing the following at I think Belfast;

VFR flight calls up and reports it's route as from A to B (a point on the southern control zone boundary) and then to C (a point on the northern control zone boundary) and on to another point. A straight line from B to C taking the flight through the control zone.

The controller said nothing in particular to the flight until it was inside the zone. The result was an argument as to did the flight request clearance for the route and if the controller simply acknowledged the proposed routing and asked to the pilot to report passing C (the exit from the zone) was this absence of a clear instruction not to enter controlled airspace somehow seen as an approvale for the proposed route through controlled airspace.

Take that to a bigger scale and in many cases, when flights report routing from xyz (small village) to abc (another small village) the controller or the FIS provider have no real idea if the proposed route takes the flight via controlled airspace or not - hence the ass covering statement required.

Far simpler I believe to remind pilots that a clearance is required and that acknowledgement of a proposed routing (the filing of a flight plan) does not provide clearance.

---------------

Here is one often heard;

ABC123 do this that and the other

no response

ABC123 did you receive my transmission

Say again ABC123

ABC123 do this that and the other

How about simply replacing the ABC123 did you receive my transmission with "ABC123 London"

Regards,

DFC

[Little Indian]

Whilst I tend to agree that it does niggle to be reminded to Remain Outside Controlled Airspace - particularly by London Information, my pet hate is not being given a positive clearance into controlled airspace. Particularly true of the occasional UK Military and all French ATC.

"XXXX approach, G-XXXX bonjour"
"G-XXXX pass your message"
"G-XXXX <insert life history here> request cross your zone direct XXXX"
"G-XXXX Squawk 1234"
"Squawk 1234 G-XXXX"

... and then nothing. No "identified", cleared to enter controlled airspace, maintain VFR or whatever. Which is of course met with:

"XXXX approach, G-XXXX confirm clear to enter controlled airspace at altitude/level".
The response to which is usually "Affirm" and an all to audible gallic shrug.


But the best example of good R/T was joining the circuit a Quiberon in Southern Brittany a few years ago. It's air-to-air in French, so I had learnt all my French R/T and was doing all my calls in the correct local language, with about three other local French aircraft in the circuit. A german registered aircraft called up to join the circuit in perfect English. The three French pilots immediately switched to doing all their calls in English. Rather impressive. :)

[GunkyTom]

Riverboat
Maybe the controller shouldn't bother saying anything in the first place if the pilot is not expected to respond with anything other than Roger?



'Roger' is not the only reply expected. 'Visual' is another which would allow the respondee to follow the one ahead if that is the purpose of the traffic info.

[180]

RiverBoat...has Bournemouth upset you at some point? Only Brize "say rocas" and yet Bournemouth "bark remain ocas"???

Its cautionary as many have mentioned to say to an a/c remain outside controlled airspace until we're able to get back to that a/c with a clearance to cross through, subject many things..traffic, weather, emergencies etc. If it said in the transmission along with pass your message then yes, waste of time!

[Lear Jockey]

Yes Pontius, "Descend to Flight Level" same as "Descend to 3000 feet", and if ever you want it, I can scan you the ATM ,the swiss one, not the american one by the way:8

Strange I know, would be better to avoid that word, but still, I do not tend to lecture you on how to do stuff, but that's the way it is!

And yes, maybe not all BA pilots do the same, yet I still find it useless to have this:

--"Delivery callsign stand A2, B737-800, request clearance Information Oscar, QNH 1004"

--"callsign delivery, cleared to EGLL, via (SID), squawk 5773"

--"readback of clearance"

--"Callsign, correct, QNH 1004, for start-up contact apron on 121,750"

The QNH is anyway said again from ground or delivery, so...

Better have some more words but be sure to have all infos than missing some by the way, as long as the one speaking doesn't seem to be sleeping on the radio!!

Take care and fly safe

[Riverboat]

Louby, [I] mean no disrespect. This is thread about calls that irritate one, and I am regularly irritated by the completely unnecessary call for me to remain clear of controlled airspace when I have no intention of ever going near it! But I accept that the ATCO was just saying what he or she was supposed to say. I don't blame them, and, in a sense, I blame the system, hence my comments about specialised UK phraseology.

I suppose it is just "dumbing down" if DFC's explanation is to be believed. Pity.

Gunky Tom - fair point!

As regards Bourneouth ATC - let's just say "patchy"!

RB

[bigmanatc]

Pilots requesting "full procedure approach"..... Is there a half procedure....?:ugh:

[anychanceofanupgrade]

Not so much phraseology but poor RT eg:

1. The old chestnut of giving someone a frequency change and they go without acknowledging

2. You ask them a question and no response so you ask them again and you realise that all the time they were working on a response - why don't they say 'standby' so you know they've heard you the first time?

3. Supposedly cool phraseology like "PD to 350" = "Pilot's discretion to FL350" etc

No guesses for the nationality producing the bulk of the above :ugh:

[Jumbo Driver]

"Remain clear of controlled airspace." (= keep away from my patch until I've sorted my £hit out here, boy!)

I generally aim to do exactly that, unless ATC say I'm allowed in. That's why I'm calling.

Yes, absolutely disgraceful! The correct phrase being:-

"Remain outside controlled airspace" ;)

Pedant ON

An instruction can only be given - and is only meaningful - when you are under some form of "Control".

"Remain outside controlled airspace" is an instruction.

If you are in Class G, waiting to enter Class D, there is NO Air Traffic "Control".

Ergo, the phrase is unnecessary - indeed, in law it could be said to be ultra vires ...
Pedant OFF


JD
:)

[DFC]

Pilots requesting "full procedure approach"..... Is there a half procedure....?


Yes. When radar vectors the aircraft to the final approch and the aircraft does not fly the initial or intermediate portions of the published approach procedure.

Regards,

DFC

[PPRuNe Radar]

Pedant ON
An instruction can only be given - and is only meaningful - when you are under some form of "Control".

"Remain outside controlled airspace" is an instruction.

If you are in Class G, waiting to enter Class D, there is NO Air Traffic "Control".

Ergo, the phrase is unnecessary - indeed, in law it could be said to be ultra vires ...
Pedant OFF

True, in which case maybe we should be asking the pilot to confirm he will be remaining outside ... which is a request for information, not an instruction. That said, how can I instruct you to join if you are in Class G as I can't give you any Air Traffic Control instructions by your reckoning ??

Alternatively, ATC say nothing, let the infringement occur and leave it to the magistrates court to deal with, no doubt with the CAA eventually becoming sick of GA and putting in some draconian rules which will hurt all GA pilots.

[MungoP]

Radar Heading

Am I missing something here ? Early in this thread (haven't read them all I admit)... it seems that some (inc Pprune Radar) take exception to hearing it.. It's been a very long time since doing my IR training but I seem to remember that on hand-over we were supposed to inc the phrase and heading to the next controller... just by way of a back-up..., not unlike confirming that one is climbing/descending to a cleared level is that wrong ?

[Pilot Pete]

Mungo

I think the point is that you are on a HEADING, is there any other form of heading other than a RADAR HEADING? I don't think the word RADAR is required.

PP

[Pilot Pete]

Lear

yes pp, when passing to an other controller you always have to say the level passing before the level you are cleared to in order to verify the mode C..., tell me if I'm mistaking that one I was under the impression that you only have to say your passing level in the initial contact to the radar controller AFTER DEPARTURE, when the mode C is verified and then drop it for the rest of the flight? Or is that just a UK thing? Anyone?

PP

[L'aviateur]

At EGNT yesterday heard the following by a familiar german airline:

a/c: Newcastle Tower, jet123 ready
twr: Jet123 call back when 'fully ready'
a/c: Newcastle Tower, jet123 FULLY READY
twr: Jet123 your still loading passengers, advise when fully ready
a/c: We are fully ready, we are closing the door in 10 seconds.
twr: Jet123 call me when your fully ready.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Agree - "FULLY" in any shape or form. Thoroughly gash. Even ATC are starting this horrible habit now.

"At this time..." How unnecessary is that? In the unusual event of a forward estimate being given standard RT makes this clear.

And worst of all for pomposity, "THE..." before a callsign.

[Riverboat]

PPRuNE, you miss the point:

You write: "True, in which case maybe we should be asking the pilot to confirm he will be remaining outside ... which is a request for information, not an instruction. That said, how can I instruct you to join if you are in Class G as I can't give you any Air Traffic Control instructions by your reckoning ??"

You are assuming that every time aircraft call you they are going to ask to enter your controlled airspace! If you are (for example) flying 20 miles west of BOH and just giving them a courtesy call, you might still get the "Remain outside controlled airspace. Stand By" response, when you have no intention whatsoever of going into CA and all you are doing is trying to let them know who you are and what you are doing.

Of course, if Bournemouth ATS are happy to have aircraft overfly (above CA) or pass close to their general area without these aircraft making any call, OK. But I think they'd rather know what was going on.

Or there are occasions one might already be IN controlled airspace, and you are calling BOH for some reason unconnected to your immediate flight, such as asking when you are closing tonight.

There is no point in being pompous and saying that 1) most times the first isn't happening, and 2) you should call by telephone to find out closing time, etc., because although you may be right, the fact is, there is a percentage of times when being told "Remain outside controlled airspace" is totally inappropriate, hacks you off, and the more it happens the more it hacks you off!

How many other instructions do ATC give that can be totally inappropriate?

This is a thread about "pet hates"! The fact that a few posters have mentioned it shows that it does qualfy as a pet hate.

By the way, Brize is a greater offender than Bournemouth. I use these examples only because I am pretty familiar with them. Other ATSs may be even worse.

RB

[Jumbo Driver]

True, in which case maybe we should be asking the pilot to confirm he will be remaining outside ... which is a request for information, not an instruction. That said, how can I instruct you to join if you are in Class G as I can't give you any Air Traffic Control instructions by your reckoning ??

PPRuNe Radar, you would not be "instructing me to join" - you are merely giving approval for me to join at my request, albeit possibly placing certain restrictions (in the form of a clearance) but which will and can only apply after I have entered CAS.

Alternatively, ATC say nothing, let the infringement occur and leave it to the magistrates court to deal with, no doubt with the CAA eventually becoming sick of GA and putting in some draconian rules which will hurt all GA pilots.

..."let the infringement occur" ... !!! Oh, PPRuNe Radar, you are assuming that every pilot calling you is so ignorant of his own responsibilities that he will burgle your airspace in a trice unless you specifically forbid him from doing so. Life is not like that. You have your responsibilities, we have ours. You know you do not control aircraft which are in Class G airspace - you should realise that acting as if you do is bound to get up our informed noses.



JD
:)

[ChickenLips]

you are assuming that every pilot calling you is so ignorant of his own responsibilities that he will burgle your airspace in a trice unless you specifically forbid him from doing so

Absolutely. We never used to say it in Oz. It came in a few years ago as a response to incursion after incursion after incursion.

It is an unfortunate trend that the rules are changing and continue to change to meet 'arse covering' requirements - to protect ourselves from the lowest common denominator (on both ends of the AGA).

It is a reflection of society's trend in the reduction of personal accountability, IMHO. Instead of having a rule (eg don't enter CTA unless you have a clearance) and then punishing the breakers of said rule (eg here's a fine or Yoink, there goes your licence) a redundant phrase is introduced as a tin plate exercise.

[ShyTorque]

Alternatively, ATC say nothing, let the infringement occur and leave it to the magistrates court to deal with, no doubt with the CAA eventually becoming sick of GA and putting in some draconian rules which will hurt all GA pilots.

PPRuNe Radar,

As I suggested in my original post on that issue, I'm calling because I know my responsibilities with regard to obtaining a clearance to cross airspace. To assume that unless ATC tells me not to enter controlled airspace I WILL infringe, is a bit of a slur on my professionalism; that's why I don't like the phrase.

If I'm simply told to "Standby" and receive no clearance in good time, I'll go round the airspace or make other arrangements. I can often tell from listening to the ATC r/t load before my call, whether or not to ask for a crossing in the first place; a classic example is the western end of the Luton CTR. I plan an alternative and if told to "Standby" will immediately put plan B into action and go round / under the CTA.

I can understand that infringements have taken place where an (inexperienced, or badly trained?) pilot has blundered on having called right on the boundary, or perhaps already inside - but in many of those cases, I would suggest the pilot was uncertain of his position, rather than uncertain of his responsibility. :)

[1985]

Shytorque, Riverboat + Jumbodriver

The unfortunate fact is that there is a growing number of controlled airspace infringements.

"Remain outside controlled airspace" is not aimed at the majority of GA pilots who know what they are doing, where they are and their responsibilities regarding avoiding CAS. It is a phrase aimed at the lowest common denominator. Ie the few idiots that do infringe.

The problem ATC have is that we don't know if you are ultra proffessional or a numpty when you call, therefore you get the stock numpty phrase. It may be irritating but bear with us it is said for a good reason. If it helps to avoid one potential airprox a year then its worth it.

[ShyTorque]

The problem ATC have is that we don't know if you are ultra proffessional or a numpty when you call,

And vice versa, likewise. ;)

But how DOES it prevent an infringement?

[perusal]

Ready for base / ready for the turn

Seems to get more popular by the day. A good swift "Roger" (over the RT of course :rolleyes:) tends to do the trick, unfortunately not always.

I don't know where pilots get this myth that controllers really want to spoil their day and eek out their time on frequency for as long as we can. Whilst inkeeping with providing the best service etc, I want to get rid of you as soon as I can, so 99% of the time i'm not keeping you on downwind for my own pleasure, it's due to reasons that you won't necessarily be able to see on your sacred TCAS.

Unless of course some totty has appeared in Radar and concentration on radar becomes momentarily diverted :p

Unfortunately not at my unit...

[PPRuNe Radar]

Mungo P

Radar Heading

Am I missing something here ? Early in this thread (haven't read them all I admit)... it seems that some (inc Pprune Radar) take exception to hearing it.. It's been a very long time since doing my IR training but I seem to remember that on hand-over we were supposed to inc the phrase and heading to the next controller... just by way of a back-up...

It's not in the CAP413 or the controller's Manual, so it's not standard phraseology, and it's precise meaning is therefore not defined anywhere. That makes it meaningless and superfluous. On handover you certainly should pass your heading if you have been assigned one, but by stating the heading you are flying in terms of degrees.

Riverboat

You are assuming that every time aircraft call you they are going to ask to enter your controlled airspace! If you are (for example) flying 20 miles west of BOH and just giving them a courtesy call, you might still get the "Remain outside controlled airspace. Stand By" response, when you have no intention whatsoever of going into CA and all you are doing is trying to let them know who you are and what you are doing.

There is no assumption needed if the pilot states on his first call what his reqeuest actually is, as per the CAP413, i.e. flight information service (no request to transit CAS is needed), joining instructions (requesting permission to enter controlled airspace to land at an airfield within it), or a controlled airspace transit. In the latter two cases, the arse covering is required if an immediate clearance to enter can't be given, in the former I would think that ATC could intelligently omit the phrase. In my experience when operating as GA pilot, this is more often than not the case.

The need has come about historically and is one of the many layers put in place to prevent incidents happening. If there had never been infringements by aircraft who had simply been told to stand by, we probably wouldn't need it. But as they have actually occurred in the past, safety measures are taken to reduce the possibility of a reoccurrence. It's not a guarantee it can't happen of course, nor is it a statement that 100% of GA pilots can't be trusted. It's simply a little thing which might prevent someone from making an error.

You also have to remember that non UK licenced pilots also operate in the airspace and their 'local' rules for entry might be vastly different (US and Canada for example), so it's another reason for making the distinction that entry to controlled airspace has not yet been granted. These foreign licence holders might be flying in G reg aircraft, or might be UK nationals trained outside the UK flying any manner of registered aircraft, so ATC can't simply assume that a local aircraft or a local sounding pilot are au fait with the UK rules.


Jumbo Driver

Oh, PPRuNe Radar, you are assuming that every pilot calling you is so ignorant of his own responsibilities that he will burgle your airspace in a trice unless you specifically forbid him from doing so. Life is not like that. You have your responsibilities, we have ours. You know you do not control aircraft which are in Class G airspace - you should realise that acting as if you do is bound to get up our informed noses.

No such assumption is made, however how can I know that you are not one of the pilots who contributed to the 699 infringements which took place in 2007 (46 were medium risk and 7 were high risk ) or 1 of the 80 which have occurred so far this year (7 medium risk) ? Quite simply I can't, and my role is not one of a traffic policeman checking your qualifications and competence before tailoring my advice to you to remain outside until I have given you a clearance. The CAA, with the support of the ATC agencies and working groups such as the excellent Flyontrack, try to think of measures to pre-empt the danger posed by unauthorised airspace incursions. The reminder phraseology is just part of that work. It may annoy you but it's not there for that purpose. It's there to try and enhance safety.

If you read Chickenlips' post, you will also see that the UK is not alone in experiencing infringements, nor alone in bringing phraseology to help prevent them where it can.

Shy Torque

As I suggested in my original post on that issue, I'm calling because I know my responsibilities with regard to obtaining a clearance to cross airspace. To assume that unless ATC tells me not to enter controlled airspace I WILL infringe, is a bit of a slur on my professionalism; that's why I don't like the phrase.

But it's not a slur. It's as I have explained above. A tool which ATC use to try and prevent the incursion by those who may have infringed (for whatever reason) had they not been given the 'heads up' warning. We can't identify those that know the rules, and those that don't, simply from a RT call. So as someone else said, we have to cater for the lowest piloting skill and experience level.

[ShyTorque]

But I've never heard ATC tell an airline pilot to "Standby, remain inside controlled airspace".... :}

[PPRuNe Radar]

You're assuming airline pilots would know there is a controlled airspace boundary ;)

[GunkyTom]

Quote:
The problem ATC have is that we don't know if you are ultra proffessional or a numpty when you call,
And vice versa, likewise. ;)

But how DOES it prevent an iincursion


ShyTorque, Having read many of your posts, I am confused as I credited you with more knowledge/understanding than the above comment and the Airline pilot ref would imply. Firstly, the 'professional' slight. Yes, we are not all the same standard but we are regulated and tested on a regular basis (quarterly) to confirm standards do not fall below what is acceptable, are you? (I am referring to PPLs) By telling a/c to remain OCAS, you are more likely to prevent incursion than if you don't. Finally, how many airline pilots call from outside CAS to join? In my experience, any pilots OCAS are under a RAS and are handed over by the previous unit.

[Jumbo Driver]

... It's as I have explained above. A tool which ATC use to try and prevent the incursion by those who may have infringed (for whatever reason) had they not been given the 'heads up' warning.


PPRuNe Radar, do you not understand that many will find this immensely irritating, being told that, but for a reminder by ATC, they were expected to have proceeded without any clearance and infringed CAS? Furthermore, you seem to be employing an "it's for your own good" argument and that simply won't wash.


No such assumption is made, however how can I know that you are not one of the pilots who contributed to the 699 infringements which took place in 2007 (46 were medium risk and 7 were high risk ) or 1 of the 80 which have occurred so far this year (7 medium risk) ?


You cannot know - but on the other hand you shouldn't assume that I am. It is just not good interpersonal skills to make the assumption that every caller will be a miscreant, unless you pre-emptively stop them. That may be fine for your own protection - but talking to them as if they are guilty before the event is bound to irritate a significant number. In my book, it is just not a good professional attitude; if you save one potential incursion but in the process antagonise a large number of the rest of your "customers", is that really a success?

Look at it another way, if I were to assume every time I called you that you were about to demonstrate the worst standard of controlling that I had ever experienced in over 35 years of flying, that would hardly be a good start, would it? Furthermore, you might well object - and rightly so. So please don't do this to me when I call you and you are too busy to fully answer my call.

There is a very significant difference between you being concerned about a potential incursion, which is part of your professional responsibility, and making the assumption that every pilot who calls you is an irresponsible numpty.


JD
:)

[Jumbo Driver]

"Remain outside controlled airspace ..."


PPRuNe Radar, et al, maybe we can nail this one, once and for all ...

I find that MATS Part 1 is definitive about this and says under Section 3 (Approach Services), Chapter 1 (Approach Control), para 21 (p.15):

21 Joining and Overflying Aircraft

When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.


It seems therefore that, after the initial call, if ATC does not have the time to respond more fully, there are two options:

1. If there is a stated or implied request to enter CAS, the reply should conform fully to the above and include a time of expected clearance and a time check ... or,

2. If there is no stated or implied request to enter CAS, a simple "Stand-By" should suffice.
... nuff said?



JD
:)

[PPRuNe Radar]

It seems therefore that, after the initial call, if ATC does not have the time to respond more fully, there are two options:

1. If there is a stated or implied request to enter CAS, the reply should conform fully to the above and include a time of expected clearance and a time check ... or,

2. If there is no stated or implied request to enter CAS, a simple "Stand-By" should suffice.
... nuff said?


Err, that's what I said .... (highlighted below)

There is no assumption needed if the pilot states on his first call what his reqeuest actually is, as per the CAP413, i.e. flight information service (no request to transit CAS is needed), joining instructions (requesting permission to enter controlled airspace to land at an airfield within it), or a controlled airspace transit. In the latter two cases, the arse covering is required if an immediate clearance to enter can't be given, in the former I would think that ATC could intelligently omit the phrase. In my experience when operating as GA pilot, this is more often than not the case.

[Jumbo Driver]

Err, that's what I said ....

Well ... almost ... but not quite - certainly your explanation seemed to me more about your own "arse-covering" than about approved procedure from MATS Part 1. Also, you omitted to mention that the "remain outside CAS" request should be accompanied by 1) an indication when to expect clearance and 2) a current time check - both of which are required by CAP493.

Can you not see that it is the frequent use of this phrase on its own as a holding response to an initial call that makes one feel as if one is being pre-judged by ATC to be a naughty little boy? I'm sure this is not what you wish to convey and I still feel that such usage is counter-productive.


JD
:)

[ShyTorque]

GunkyTom,

Firstly, be aware that sometimes I post here with my tongue firmly in cheek (but there is no tongue in cheek smiley).

Sometimes I post to generate a response and further discussion. It's worked but so far you haven't answered the question you are apparently criticising me for asking.

As I said, airspace infringements usually happen because a pilot is uncertain of position, not because he thinks he can enter without clearance. Telling a lost pilot to avoid will likely as not make absolutely no difference; in fact you'll be lucky if the errant one is on frequency.

No, I have never held a PPL. However, I do get checked once a year, until recently twice a year (still two medicals).

If ATC say to me "Standby", I know to remain clear / go round the airspace. It's not rocket science, just the ANO. Every pilot must pass the exam on it before solo.

Sorry, but I regard a "standard response" to "remain clear" in the same vein as the recent trend of security folk "spotting" someone not wearing a hi-vis vest from the other side of the airfield and dashing up, lights flashing to berate them, telling it's for their own good, so they can be seen when on an airfield......

Perhaps in future I'll just say "Callsign, Approaching your airspace NOW", then the "standard" answer will carry some weight.

Btw, please, if you are going to quote me, at least use the copy / paste facility so I don't get credited with spelling mistakes I didn't make (I never wrote iincursion, certainly not with two "i"s at the beginning).

[timelapse]

if you save one potential incursion but in the process antagonise a large number of the rest of your "customers", is that really a success?

Quite frankly, yes. Or would you rather wait for more people to die before it becomes a standard course of action to tag the "remain outside" on the end?

Preventing any potential Aeromexico disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498) is far more important than annoying people who really should just realise it's a safety-first attitude and not be so sensitive about it.

The same reason that at some aerodromes, controllers repeat "hold short runway XX" all the time. Of course when you give a pilot/tug/vehicle a taxi instruction to a holding point before a runway, they're not going to enter the runway.. But experience shows that they do, so you add that on so maybe it will stop that one runway incursion that would have happened otherwise?

It makes perfect sense to me.

[timelapse]

I'm also a first hand witness to the way some pilots act related to this.. I was flying as a passenger in a light aircraft on a trip to france about a year ago now and we called up XX radar (major UK airfield) for FIS. It was quite busy around, summer weekend rush and lots of stuff going on.

On board was pilot (CPL), his friend (PPL) (neither of whom I knew), both in the front, and me (PPL) in the back. As it happened my headset microphone wasn't working so I could only hear, not speak.

This pilot was a CPL 600+ hours and doing his instructor rating.

Pilot: XX radar, G-XX request FIS
ATC: G-XX standby I'll call you..

2 mins later

ATC: G-XX, pass your message
Pilot: G-XX from blah to blah currently at blah routing XYZ request FIS.

(The routing he had given if flown directly would infringe the CAS by about 1nm)

ATC: G-XX roger FIS, QNH 1013, remain *outside* controlled airspace - let me know if you need to come through
Pilot: G-XX roger.

The pilot and his friend then discussed whether they could take the direct route. He then made the turn cutting straight through the CAS. I saw this happening and tapped them on the shoulder, shook my head and pointed at the map but they weren't interested in what I was saying and I couldn't speak to them.

They chatted to each other for a bit about the fact they were transitting the CAS without a clearance, the pilot saying "yeah but he knows where we are and who we are - and we're not going in by much so it'll be fine".

Next thing that happens:

ATC: G-XX squawk 7206
G-XX: 7206 roger
ATC: G-XX you are inside my controlled airspace by 2nm, make the turn left now heading 090 degrees. I suggest you navigate more carefully in future.

So they turned, got out and the pilot was visibly upset by this - his pride dented - and was getting very distracted and kept talking about it, saying "f***ing asshole controller" etc.

I had the event logged on my PDA/GPS map and I took it home later in the day to discover that at our altitude we had flown straight through the SID tracks out of the airfield. :D

So this just goes to show that although I am sure most pilots would not have done this, some do. And even despite it being emphasised not to enter the airspace, they still had no problem doing so. In this case it seems that even the verbal warning was not enough to stop it happening.. it's events like this that keep the controllers saying it. As PPrune Radar said - if nobody did it - they wouldn't need to say it at all. :ugh:

[Lost man standing]

Blocked

Is this really so bad? If I am desparate to get a word in on a really busy, SE UK frequency and the controller's transmission is blocked by another I don't want the controller to wait until sure no reply is going to come, leaving dead time I cannot interrupt (but a newcomer on the frequency might unknowingly do, and extend the confusion and jump in where I am waiting politely). Why not someone just say that the transmission has been blocked and is not going to be acknowledged, so the call can be repeated? Why is a callsign needed?

I accept there might be a downside to this, and so have never called it myself, but it has always been useful when I have heard it

Descend FLXX0, turn right heading XXX, report that heading to AB Control on 1xx.xxx

To turn it onto the controllers, this is one of my pet hates. If there is a junior pilot on the radio and the captain is busy, or if there is only one pilot in the aircraft (or on the flight deck at that time) then multiple instrctions are tricky but not too bad. Multiple instructions and a frequency change are really hard. It wastes air time if we have to check the frequency or if we get something wrong. At worst we could read back and note the wrong level or heading, then change frequency before you can correct it. I know we're supposed to wait, but we all know we sometimes don't especially when busy rebriefing for an approach to the new runway, say.

timelapse

I hope I never have to fly with either of them! Even the PPL cannot be excused that sort of stupid behaviour, except that he was presumably not captain.

[No Further Requirements]

They chatted to each other for a bit about the fact they were transitting the CAS without a clearance, the pilot saying "yeah but he knows where we are and who we are - and we're not going in by much so it'll be fine".


Unbelievable.......:ugh:

"It's only only 100ft below the minima, I know the runway is there, we're not going below the minima for the approach by much, so it'll be fine"

Cheers,

NFR.

[ShyTorque]

Timelapse, I take it you ensured the pilots guilty of that infringement were reported to the CAA?

"Remain outside, standby" as a standard response.... is like calling an insurance company to renew your car insurance. You get put on hold with the message "do not drive without car insurance" being repeated in your ears........ :ugh:

[1985]

"Remain outside, standby" as a standard response.... is like calling an insurance company to renew your car insurance. You get put on hold with the message "do not drive without car insurance" being repeated in your ears........


And yet some people do.....

[GunkyTom]

As I said, airspace infringements usually happen because a pilot is uncertain of position, not because he thinks he can enter without clearance. Telling a lost pilot to avoid will likely as not make absolutely no difference; in fact you'll be lucky if the errant one is on frequency.

If he isn't on freq, then he won't be calling, if he is and he is lost, then he should advise that and we will deal with it.


If ATC say to me "Standby", I know to remain clear / go round the airspace. It's not rocket science, just the ANO. Every pilot must pass the exam on it before solo.

Obviously not everyone does remain clear otherwise we wouldn't need the phrase and we wouldn't be having this discussion

Sorry, but I regard a "standard response" to "remain clear" in the same vein as the recent trend of security folk "spotting" someone not wearing a hi-vis vest from the other side of the airfield and dashing up, lights flashing to berate them, telling it's for their own good, so they can be seen when on an airfield......

It was at Manchester that a pilot was fatally injured on the airfield and it was thought to be a contributing factor that he wasn't wearing a vest, who knows? If it saves 1 life, it is worth it. H+S is everywhere.

Perhaps in future I'll just say "Callsign, Approaching your airspace NOW", then the "standard" answer will carry some weight.

Don't try it, why lower what you consider to be a professional standard to make a point-badly!

Btw, please, if you are going to quote me, at least use the copy / paste facility so I don't get credited with spelling mistakes I didn't make (I never wrote iincursion, certainly not with two "i"s at the beginning).[/QUOTE]


Sorry, I am but a lowly controller and struggle to Cut + Paste and also type but I will try harder

[ShyTorque]

And yet some people do.....

Yes, of course they do - but not the ones who ring up to renew their policy.

My point is that the call (and that phone message) is probably targetted at the wrong audience.

[mad_jock]

To be fair to the ATC folk with there remain clear of controlled airspace I have sat with multiple people who should have known better who have though it perfectly acceptable to cross P600 from St Abb's direct INS sub FL200 without a crossing clearance and thier excuse is that they haven't been told to remain clear.

It didn't help that whenever I pushed the point and asked for a clearance a confused sounding clearance was given as if the controller had presumed we were cleared as well. If I was a SEP I think I would have been told to remain clear (mainly because the suckling had asked for start in city and Dundee had started clearing the airspace within 50 miles). Or because PPrune Radar was behined the controller and had informed them that G-LP had a dodgy VOR and by any stretch of the imagination wasn't airways IFR equiped.

[thorisgod]

Pilots trust ATC to give them competent instructions. ATC trust pilots to give them competent info. and compliance with instructions.

No two people are ever on the same wavelength despite standardisation across the board in both jobs.

As a controller I often give what seems to be "obvious and unnecessary instructions" from a pilots point of view, but believe me I have a reason at the time. So if I ask you to remain clear of controlled airspace, I not only expect you to comply, I also expect you (as a competent pilot) to understand all my actions have reasons.

The instructions are the same wether you are a suspected "numpty" or not. I might be giving you said intruction because the controller sharing the sector with me is a suspected numpty, or other numpty pilots are on freq..

.................. or then again I might be the numpty!

I don't harrangue my shoe salesman because he measures my feet before he sells me shoes. Your Airline is paying for a service you are receiving. Please receive it.

[throw a dyce]

As a controller who used to do some PPL flying,it didn't bother me to get a remain clear of CAS call.It's a standard R/T phrase,and is used for good reasons.When flying I just did as I was told,readback the things I needed to,and never had a problem.I have flown holds at VRP's because of volume of traffic,and it didn't bother me either.

[ShyTorque]

and thier excuse is that they haven't been told to remain clear.

Yup! So controllers, by routine over-use of this phrase have unfortunately made a rod for their own backs.... if the phrase isn't now used on EVERY initial call, you're cleared?

NO!

Like trying to spot a high vis jacket in a box full of high viz jackets. Sometimes it's better to wear black. :rolleyes:

[126.825]

" request further descent........"

when they are at min stack say FL70 with 45nm to go and any further decent would take them outside controlled airpace....

all in good fun....

[Jumbo Driver]

"Request QSY" ... or just "QSY", if I'm feeling even more pedantic than usual ;)

"Roger Wilco" - this one actually appeared briefly in CAP413 (Sep04)


JD
:)

[pocpicadoor]

Many years ago, requested the pilot to "Report your position reference Kabuna" (PNG)

Pilot's responce: "we're 10 miles this side of Kabuna"

Side with me!!!!!!!!!!:sad:

[Life's a Beech]

126.825

At 45 nm and FL70 I might well need descent fairly soon (my ideal from 7000' aal is 50 track miles, if QNH is high and the airfield not high then I might need 35 nm as an absolute minimum to descend safely), and it is perfectly acceptable to leave controlled airspace. At many airports I go to I need to at some stage anyway, because the airport itself is outside controlled airspace. Unpressurised aircraft have a limit to the rate of descent, especially if they have passengers on board. Some light twins can be very difficult to slow down without damaging the engines once a certain descent gradient is needed.

So while the call might be non-standard, the aircraft is also non-standard and the request is perfectly compliant with all relevant rules.

In fact, one of my pet hates is being told I can't descend because it would take me into uncontrolled airspace, I must wait x miles which means I am going to have to request extra track miles (or if I am flying without pax I have to use excessive rate of descent). Some controllers allow me to descend, so it isn't unheard of; that is why I ask.

[ChickenLips]

In fact, one of my pet hates is being told I can't descend because it would take me into uncontrolled airspace, I must wait x miles

Perhaps a "...request to leave and re enter [if you do re enter] controlled airspace on descent" might work?

ATC are obliged to provide descent that will keep you in CTA (and provide terrain protection), except in a couple of circumstances.

Though many ATC are aircraft enthusiasts not every one will know intimately the limitations on your particular aircraft. So without a reason or request otherwise, they will keep you in CTA.

This is a great example where visits and or phone calls will help grow understanding on both sides. If you had rung your local ATC shop and said "hey you know when I usually ask for descent before the next CTA step you guys always say no. I really need descent 'cause of my acft config, is there a way I can ask so that it will allow you guys to issue the clearance?" They may well have said sure just say ..., or given reasons why they CAN'T, not won't.

It is all about communication folks.....

[Riverboat]

"QSY" is a pretty quick way of asking to change frequency - it is a pity it is not used all the time. I know it is incorrectly pronounced "Kwew-ess-why" which a pedant will probably say should be Quebec Sierra Yankee, but it wouldn't be short and sweet if said that way.

"QSY Exeter" - sounds good!

[newcomer]

I fly an unpressurised twin turbine, my normal track to my home airport is pretty much on the Loc for the main runway. normally the controller wont let me descent from my cruising level FL70 25 miles so im pretty on slope at that point. So if i maintian 220 kts IAS to 6 miles im gonna have a RoD of about 1300ft which is normally ok since im on my own but occasionally i have 9 PAX so i slow down. Travel slower RoD reduces. By slowing down 60 odd kts its going to reduce Rod to closer to 800fpm. Going to take extra 2 minutes to get on the ground, oh well, if controller wants to know why you have slowed down and stuffed his pattern let him know.

By the way QSY is used quite a bit up in scotland, the bond guys use it all the time

[Kiltie]

newcomer -

Top marks to you for considering those passenger's ears! The reason a controller can't give you a glideslope intercept from over 25 miles out is that a localiser is only legally promulgated to 25nm, and the glideslope to 10nm. Outwith this you are subject to ATC's MSAs within certain ranges or the minimum radar descent altitude printed on your Radar Vectoring Area plate.

I still use QSY, which has been forbidden for years, in favour of the more correct "request frequency change to...." I've yet to be chastised for it!

You are unlikely to stuff a controller's pattern in an F406. Their speed flexibility is legendary.

[newcomer]

My pet hate is "squawk Alpha 1234" since Charlie is the correct term for Alt on the transponder. I know its a small thing but hey they always tell me off if i say "Radar Information Service". when I was supposed to say "limited Radar Information service due to low radar coverage"

[Kiltie]

Alpha1234 is the correct terminology. The Alpha part does not bear reference to the modes A or C available on your transponder; though I forget what it actually means!

[newcomer]

Kiltie (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=8969),

I know Im not crazy, So I just had a very interesting read of CAP 413, Page 97 of 198 states very clear

Phase "Squawk Charlie"
Meaning " Select altitude reporting feature"

There is no mention at all about squawking Alpha .

[Kiltie]

You're quite correct newcomer, but you refer to a totally different instruction, where the controller has specifically asked you to manipulate the "C" facility of your transponder. The "A" prefix you mention previously does not mean "mode A" on your transponder, it refers to something else of which the definition escapes me right now without the books handy. You won't find it in CAP413, it is more likely to be found in MATS. Perhaps someone else would elaborate with a definition.

In the meantime, if it helps, think of the instruction "squawk A1234" as "squawk A1234 with mode Charlie".

Controllers rightly expect that good airmanship will dictate squawking mode C at all times and should rarely require instruction to the pilot.

[Visual Calls]

"Cleared to lock on"
when cleared for the localiser. Supposed to make speaker sound Top Gun cool perhaps, but merely sounds like an aerosexual pratt.

"Thank you"
when every readback. Just sounds stupid, the ATCO ain't doing you a favour with every clearance, it's just his job.

"Standing-by" or some other reply
when told to standby. "Standby" means "shut the f**k up, say nothing and i'll call you back" :rolleyes:

"XYZ123, standing by for further climb please when you have it"
Are you paid by the word?? Correct phraseology is "XYZ123, request climb", if you must say anything, most likely you'll get it when that traffic plainly visible 1000' above you is clear.

"Standing by for ......."
If you're standing by, you should be saying nothing. Why not just request whatever it is you want. Don't worry, the controller won't be offended by a direct request.

"We're late, request direct ABC"
So what, the controllers gonna vector everyone else out of your way to accommodate your inability to run a schedule? If you can, you'll get it anyway, if you can't, you won't.

"At this time", "currently", "today"
Thanks for pointing this out, otherwise the controller may think that your request, or speed report or whatever, refers to a different sector you did last week.

"On guuuaaarrrrdddd"
SHUT. THE. F*/K. UP. PLEASE.

Ryanair pilots
Half of them can't speak English, the other half talk too much and are the worst bulls*it phraseology offenders (and are responsible for most of the above, except "on guard" which seems to be the preserve of Nigel's or Heinz's).

[Kiltie]

Well done Visual Calls for getting the thread back on track! I share all those pet hates!

STANDING BY for more annoying transmissions!!!

[low n' slow]

Interesting thread.
May I borrow some space for a couple of questions related to this?

Confirm cleared FL? I use this when I get a bad feeling about what's set on the APA. I can't say "say again" because it was probably some time since the clearance was given and I don't want to include the actual level so as to make it easy for the controller just to say "affirm". That is, I don't want to give the answer within the question. Is this ok?

Sweden, C/S, FL XX climbing FL XXX. I've seen here some object to stating the level being passed aswell as the cleared level. What's right or wrong regarding the first call on a new frequency?

And now for some critique from my side: The worst clearance I've ever been given:

C/S, Descend to FL 80, TL 80, QNH XXXX Result: Uhhh?!

Other funny things ATC say to me (mostly in a wide norwegian accent): It's aaaaaallmost CAVOK, broken fog. And for some strange reason, the phrase "Radar contact" in norway translates into "roger". Strange place.

LnS

[Riverboat]

Kiltie, you say that it is correct to ask someone to sqwark Alpha 1234, even though they are not referring to the Alpha mode, but to something you can't remember.

Now, I know I am being a bit picky, but some of you controllers come over so precious! What the heck are you on about? There should never be an instruction given that is not clear and obvious, that is the whole rationale for our bastardised UK phraseology. CAP 413 has been made into somewhat of a mess in an effort to avoid ambiguity. So are you really trying to tell us that the instruction to sqwark alpha 1234 makes any sense when it has (if you are correct) nothing to do with mode alpha?

If no one, including you, knows what this "alpha" bit is for, it strikes me that it should be expunged as soon as possible.

You controllers go on about cutting out unnecessary verbage, but you do it yourselves and even stick up for it!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Lifes a beech

Polite question wtf are u flying that sounds like a gradient of about 1.5%, over 6 times your height in distance?

Unpressurised twin at say 180kts should give you a thousand feet a minute and the old 421 could do 1500fpm at TOD with a few inches left on to keep the gitsos warm.

Just curious

[sabenaboy]

Polite question wtf are u flying...

"Polite" and "wtf" in the same phrase: not so very polite.

Unpressurised twin at say 180kts should give you a thousand feet a minute...

Why don't you read "life's a beech's" post again? Doesn't unpressurized and pax onboard ring a bell? Do you think your pax (and their ears) would appreciate going down at 1000 ft/min?

[Kiltie]

Riverboat, that's a bit harsh.

The reason I can't remember what the Alpha bit means is because my reference books are a hundred miles away; I am a pilot stuck in a hotel room, not a controller!! I knew the answer once but it has long since vanished in my shrinking memory.

There have been annoying differences between CAP413 and MATS for many years, but I think you'll find that's not my fault. My invitation still stands for someone to elaborate on this issue, not chew my f***ing head off, to solve newcomer's query.

[1985]

low n slow

Confirm cleared FL? I use this when I get a bad feeling about what's set on the APA. I can't say "say again" because it was probably some time since the clearance was given and I don't want to include the actual level so as to make it easy for the controller just to say "affirm". That is, I don't want to give the answer within the question. Is this ok?


Yes this is fine. More than fine. If you are unsure ask. I'd rather you asked than had an airmiss with the one a thousand feet above your cleared level because you didn't.

[Riverboat]

Sorry Kiltie. It did come out a bit harsh, and I apologise. I have always felt that you were very knowledgable, and generally had an answer for most things, so the last thing I should have done was seemingly get irritated with you! I was trying to make a point, but rather overcooked it!

I criticised some ATCOs for being precious and pompous. Uncalled for. There are lots of pilots who are as bad or worse, and the same goes for every other profession, I guess. I have plenty of ATCO friends, and they are great blokes.

[newcomer]

Pet hate: Tower gives you ur clearance to direct somewhere at FL100.

I get airborne clean the dirty plane up, set up the engines, ATO checklist then set QNH to 1013. I then get told to change to radar. I tell him passing FL30 cleared FL100. Im then told what is your passing altitude. This doesnt happen with every controller. Ive been cleared to a FL so arent i supposed to be using 1013. And plus if he knows my FL doesnt he know my Alt?

Very confused

[Capt Claret]

Confused Newcomer

You're in Scotland, I'm in Australia. I know nothing of your rules and procedures.

However, here in Aus, the AIP directs one to change to 1013.2 AT or AFTER passing the Transition Altitude.

I'd be guessing that if you've set 1013.2 and then call "passing FLxxx" you're giving him/her a FL when s/he wants an altitude, thus s/he can't verify the accuracy of your altimeter or his/her radar readout of same.

[Check Airman]

"London, callsign request" (on VHF).


I wasn't aware ATCO's dislike this. I always use it before an "out of the ordinary" request, just in case you're doing something, and are not a little startled at whatever I want to do. Should I stop?

[No Country Members]

Or, "Ready for departure." followed by at least a minutes worth of; full and free movement of controls, illumination of landing/taxy lights exercise of throttles /pitch levers and finally off we go.

It's in our line up checklist, so we gotta do it. Also some of the damn things overheat if we turn 'em on early, before we line up. Alternatively I can't tell you I am ready until after you have cleared me to line up, so I am stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[newcomer]

Capt Claret, Im very aware of the rules and regs in Australia, as I started my flying career there. Everything is in black at white, trans at 10,000 at all times. Set 1013 passing Trans alt set QNH passing trans level. But in the UK It cant be that simple. Controlled 6000, uncontrolled 3000 or what ever it says on the plate. But there is no simple diagram like there is in the Aus jeps. In my operations manual it say when you cleared to a flight level set 1013 and when your cleared to alt set a QNH.

[Megaton]

Amsterdam yesterday:

Us: Tower, good morning, Callsign 41AM established ILS 18R.
Amsterdam Tower: Hi De Hi

which led to much juvenile and uncontrolled giggling on the flt deck.

After recovering from our first encounter with tower, ground was equally brief with nothing more than "Toodle Oooo."

After reading this thread I've become paranoid and have stopped using the phrase "radar heading" instead shortening it to just "heading."

[No Country Members]

Surely radar heading is more clear. On that heading it's your instruction and I'll stick to it.

If I just report the heading I happen to be using to make my track, well I might change it soon, although I'll keep the track. Sometimes I just blow in the wind, I can be so indecisive.

[Kiltie]

No probs Riverboat! I am bemused as to why one of our controller friends hasn't answered the question though...

[Jumbo Driver]

Alpha1234 is the correct terminology. The Alpha part does not bear reference to the modes A or C available on your transponder; though I forget what it actually means!

Kiltie, I believe "Squawk A1234" does refer to the "Alpha" Mode (technically Mode 3/A) element of the SSR squawk, which is that portion of the code that you manually select. The Mode C element, which can only be selected ON or OFF, provides the altitude reporting content of the SSR response. Mode S (when fitted) is another more recent (and far more informative) part of the response.

So to say "Squawk A1234" is technically correct, although "Squawk 1234" must surely be perfectly adequate as there is little if any chance of ambiguity between the two requests.

Kiltie (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=8969),

I know Im not crazy, So I just had a very interesting read of CAP 413, Page 97 of 198 states very clear

Phase "Squawk Charlie"
Meaning " Select altitude reporting feature"

There is no mention at all about squawking Alpha .

newcomer, "Squawk" effectively means "Squawk Alpha" because by simply turning the Transponder to "On", you are asking it to respond to any Mode A interrogation received. You cannot inhibit Mode A except by switching the unit to STBY or OFF whereas Mode C (or Mode S when fitted) may be selectively activated or suppressed. Hence the "Squawk Standby" and "Stop Squawk Charlie" instructions.


For anybody still awake ;), a far more detailed technical treatise on Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) can be found here (http://www.radartutorial.eu/13.ssr/sr06.en.html) ...



JD
:)

[SM4 Pirate]

If I just report the heading I happen to be using to make my track, well I might change it soon, although I'll keep the track. Sometimes I just blow in the wind, I can be so indecisive. But why would you 'say anything' about your heading if you are under your own nav; unless asked? The context was about whilst being vectored. "Heading 280" is the same meaning as "Radar Heading 280" so why use the word RADAR in that context; was the concept.

"London, callsign request" (on VHF).

I wasn't aware ATCO's dislike this. I always use it before an "out of the ordinary" request, just in case you're doing something, and are not a little startled at whatever I want to do. Should I stop? I guess because 'out of the ordinary' has not obvious definition, I'd rather you just jumped into the request. If I think it's unusual or I can't answer immediately or I don't understand, I'll be asking you to standby, saying yes/no, or saying to say again anyway, prepared for the request or not. So from my point of view just request away please.

[Pilot Pete]

SM4 Pirate

I agree entirely. On VHF you have already established two-way comms, the frequency is usually fairly readable and therefore making a 'request' transmission just adds more radio traffic, when the idea is to keep it to a minimum.

Request comes from HF transmissions I believe, when all the above is a little different.....

A personal interpretation of 'something out of the ordinary' is a personal definition and a case of making up your own phraseology contrary to CAP413. I am as guilty as the next man of having started to copy others non standard phraseologies that I had heard on the radio.....I went through a stage many years ago as an F/O of using the 'with you' saying on initial contact. I now barff at the thought of it! These things come and go as trends and that is the danger, how will someone 'not from round these parts' understand local gingoisms?

PP

[Pilot Pete]

I had an interesting one yesterday.

Cleared to descend FL90, direct to waypoint x, information is 'Yankee' QNH992mb.

I guess MATS would advise against clearing descent to a FL and then mentioning the QNH in the same transmission. I think it was in response to my call stating that we had information X-Ray. The QNH had changed from 991mb and the controller wanted to advise us of the change. I must admit I almost felt I detected a hint of 'I shouldn't have added that on' just as the controller said 'Information is Yankee, QNH....992mb'! I made a point of emphasising my cleared FL and the fact that I had copied the QNH as 992. Probably non standard in the way I did it!!!:rolleyes:

PP