Lufthansa pilots way of speaking on the radio

[bla bla]

Can some one please tell me why Lufthansa pilots allways state there callsign BEFORE they answer ATC question, sounds stupied, and seems to me that it increases the chance of getting the readback wrong?
For example: Lufthansa 1432 squak 1342 "lufthansa 1432 squak 1342"
once established contact why not do as everybody else??
IT IRRITATES ME :ugh:
Sorry... had to get that out of my system:)

Merry X mas to everybody

[PicMas]

you and me both...

And while we are at it, they also sound like a soundclip from " 'allo 'allo":}

"Leezen kahrfoolee, I shall say theeeees onlee oance"

[CirrusF]

It is because in German you always at the end of the sentence the verb put. So it is ganz schwierig wie uns zu antworten.

[roljoe]

I don't really see any concern here...

Lufthansa crews have a verry good radio proc's..even if the callsign is placed ahead...

The majority of other crews should have the same discipline..in this matter...

I'm not german, neither Lufthansa crew member..but each time I have a LH crew on the same frequency...everything's clear....

Furthermore...in my opinion there is much more interesting stuff to be discuted here..

anyway merry Xmas to all

[DBate]

It is standard operating procedure at Lufthansa to do the readback starting with the callsign. The reason ist the following:

It gives the PF time to set the new HDG/Alt. etc. in the FCU, and then the PNF does the readback directly from the FMA (and by that checks the new setting on the FMA), thus making sure that the PF indeed made the correct settings. It is therefore another way to check the correct entry/setting of the clearance.

By the way, the search funtion is your friend :} as this subject has been discussed several times already on pprune, e.g.

here (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/238755-lufthansa-readbacks.html)

Merry XMas,
DBate

[18-Wheeler]

It's the way we used to do it in Australia, and it makes far more sense to me. It got changed because QF wanted it changed to be the same as most of the rest of the world.

[cancel_mayday]

Callsign first - is exactly to our RTF Rules.

[RWL-Trainee]

We also try to teach this SOP to our new pilots in our Airline! (Partner of LH in Germany)...

[Death Pencil]

I take it this isn't laid out in Jepps (?) in Germany?

At least in Australia it is...(ATC AU-912) and not left to a company's SOPs.

[Rainboe]

bla bla- it's actually the right way to do it! It's the way I was taught long ago! It's also the way I have gotten out of the habit of using. But what does grate is the wrong use of there, their and they're. But if English is not your first language, you are totally forgiven! Enough pig ignorant English people who I paid to attend school for 12 years or so still don't know the difference!

[hetfield]

So, mods please close this thread now.

Thx and

MERRY X-MAS

[fireflybob]

Sorry to disappoint you but CAP 413 (UK Radiotelephony Manual) has countless examples of the readback terminating with the a/c callsign!

CAP 413 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=247)

[hetfield]

Oh, than all others must be wrong.....

[A Very Civil Pilot]

In UK airspace....yes!

[roljoe]

So now...considering the huge development of this really important subject...what's next..:E

[xxgunnerxx]

I don't think this is exclusive only to Lufthansa pilots, Aeroflot pilots do it as well except they also repeat the callsign at the end of the transmission in addition to the beginning. :ouch:

[pilotmike]

But what does grate is.... pig ignorant English people who I paid to attend school for 12 years...
It would appear that not only your money was wasted.:eek: How we love own goals such as this!:ok:

[Min Stack]

Can some one please tell me why Lufthansa pilots allways state there callsign BEFORE they answer ATC question, sounds stupied, and seems to me that it increases the chance of getting the readback wrong?
For example: Lufthansa 1432 squak 1342 "lufthansa 1432 squak 1342"
once established contact why not do as everybody else??
IT IRRITATES ME :ugh:


Doesn't irritate me one jot. As a controller, I find Lufthansa pilots' RT excellent. When I transmit, what I'm looking for is a quick reply, especially when busy. Best crews for quick replies are most European, Middle Eastern and Asian airlines that I come in contact with. Worst ones are most USA airlines - some examples I regularly come across:

1. Long delay before getting any response (if at all)
2. Was that for us?
3. Were you calling XXX123?
4. Who was that for?
5. XXX123 replies instead of XXX345
6. Non-standard 'clever' RT. Recently told XXX123 to "descend when ready to FL200". XXX123 replied "Roger, PD to 200" It took me a while to work that one out - "Pilot's discretion to FL200" (I think) :ugh:

Why the delay and ambiguity?? Can only guess that it's crews using handmikes instead of headsets - even in areas of poor RT coverage. Why do some crews reply almost instantaneously and others don't? Fumbling for a handmike, cockpit noise drowning out speaker in the cockpit ceiling? Nothing worse than having to transmit twice or more when working a busy sector. :*

[airman13]

I cannot see what's wrong...?!, I am nor german neither lufthansa crew, but usually I put my call sign before the message, and I am a holder of level 5.....and ......I wish you a merry christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gargleblaster]

I know that I'll be flamed for this, but I'm a bit amazed at this discussion.

I have read the original thread: http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/238755-lufthansa-readbacks.html

The worst air-disaster ever (Tenerife) was due to poor R/T. The ICAO docs aren't available online ? Every country seems to have different standards ?

It seems to me that company procedures are accepted to override international regulations, at least according to what I've been tought.

I hold a humble JAR PPL, but I am examined and certified to fly VFR in any JAR country, and communicate accordingly.

What you're describing here would have made me fail my RT exams.

Readback of instructions (squawk codes count as instructions) are always to be terminated with the AC callsign. End of story for me, unless I've been tought wrongly. Please correct me if I'm wrong !

[frabase]

Well..The answer is simple and already stated: It s in the Lufthansa Operational Manual :stated Callsign+Message..But also allowed to do it the other way round..;-)
Icao has a recommendation to do it the otherway(exept.on Position reports..so why the difference??)..but..in fact..i never got any complain from a controler..
So..my return question Blabla(nice nick;-) What Irritates you so much to crash your head against the wall?...and..to CirrusF..you re wrong..no idea who told you this..the only 2 languages i know with the verb at the end is japanese and turkish(pls fellow users correct me if i m wrong in this)
Best Regards-) And Merry Xmas

[RobinR200]

In addition to the true fact that we do this because pnf can reply reading back from the MCP, it is also because from a study with controllers it was found that replying with callsign first it was easier for the controller to handle the message to whom it belonges.

For that matter what irritates me on the rtf is that even controllers give instructions like: "climb TO...", "descent TO...".

merry xmas

[JEP]

For that matter what irritates me on the rtf is that even controllers give instructions like: "climb TO...", "descent TO...".


Well that is how ICAO DOC 4444 Chapter 12 states it should be done.


Gargleblaster:
ICAO documents are available online http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/

[FIRESYSOK]

In Atlanta, the ramp controllers slur every word, yet the Lutfy crews can usually decipher. I say good work!

[navigante]

Quite aside from the fact that LH is an excellent company with well-trained crew, in this one case their procedures are not in accordance with ICAO standards...

ICAO Radiotelephony Manual DOC 9432 under section 2.8.3 Issue of clearance and read-back requirements clearly states 2.8.3.7 An aircraft should terminate the read-back by its callsign.

CAP 413, while less specific, still places the aircraft callsign at the end of all clearance readback examples.

Having said that, I find LH (and Germans in general) to have very good RT and pronunciation... also they're really good about giving jumpseats :ok:

Happy holidays to all!

[K. Soze]

In addition to what navigante wrote ICAO Annex 10 Vol. 2 will tell you this:

5.2.1.9.2.2 PANS.— An aircraft station should
acknowledge receipt of important air traffic control messages
or parts thereof by reading them back and terminating the
readback by its radio call sign.

Note 1.— Air traffic control clearances, instructions and
information requiring readback are specified in PANS-ATM
(Doc 4444).

Note 2.— The following example illustrates the application
of this procedure:
(ATC clearance by network station to an aircraft)

Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID

Aircraft:
MADRID TWA NINE SIX THREE — GO AHEAD

Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID — ATC CLEARS
TWA NINE SIX THREE TO DESCEND TO NINE
THOUSAND FEET

Aircraft (acknowledging):
CLEARED TO DESCEND TO NINE THOUSAND
FEET — TWA NINE SIX THREE

[maybepilot]

Really don't understand what your point is guys: Lufthansa crews are amongst the most professional the industry has ever seen and we can hear and see it everyday in every corner of the planet.

To be honest i have never heard a LH crew having problems understanding or being understood by ATC unlike Alitalia,Air France or Iberia just to name a few.

Finally many here quote ICAO documents as if they were word of God, maybe many are not aware that lots of those doc's are pretty much outdated if compared to more modern ones published by several aviation authorities around the globe and based on the latest aviation trends: one that comes to mind is ,for instance, the one many states are adhering to that says FL100 should be pronounced as "one hundred" and not "one zero zero" based on the latest studies on altidude busts.
When did ICAO have their latest study on the subject?

[PENKO]

It might be professional, but it is still irritating!

In busy airspace our brains are very clever in filtering out all the non-essential radio chatter by prioritising. A reply from an aircraft has a low priority, the voice of the controller much higher, and your callsign wakes you up from even the deepest slumber.. This is the only way to keep your sanity in busy airspace.

So pilots are filtered out, controllers are paid more attention to.

One way the brain distinguishes between controller and pilots is the order in which they broadcast the content of their message. Controllers always start their message with a callsign, EZY123 turn left heading 090 degrees. So every time you hear a callsign at the beginning of a transmission your attention is hightend, after all it is the controller speaking and the message might be adressed to you. So each and every time our dear German colleagues start with their callsign and send out a message in the exact order as a controller would do, you kind of jump to attention for a fraction of a second, thinking it is the controller speaking. In busy airspace this can be irritating indeed. In no way am I complaining. It's just human factors!

[maybepilot]

Weird, I have been flying for a couple of decades now in every corner of this planet and never been irritated by LH r/t's; on the other hand i could make a long list of truly irritating things I have heard over the radio but that would be for a new 3D...

[K. Soze]

maybepilot: Dunno if ICAO made a study on it but it sure is in the Annex - although you need to find it in one of the amendments.

According to an amendment to Annex 10 Vol. 2:

5.2.1.4.1.1 One exception. Flight levels ending in hundreds are transmitted as “HUNDRED” e.g., “FLIGHT LEVEL ONE HUNDRED” in order to differentiate from flight level one one zero.

Remarks. On safety grounds in order to reduce “level busts” where it was found that pilots were confusing one zero zero with one one zero.

Page 16 in the follwing document:
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%20X%20-%20Aeronautical%20Telecommunications/Volume%20II%20-%20Communication%20Procedures%20including%20those%20with%20P ANS%20Status/an10_V2_6ed_sup_jan04.pdf

On page 51 you'll find the original 5.2.1.4.1.1:
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%20X%20-%20Aeronautical%20Telecommunications/Volume%20II%20-%20Communication%20Procedures%20including%20those%20with%20P ANS%20Status/Communication%20Procedures%20including%20those%20with%20PANS %20Status%20-%20AMDT%2080.pdf

[maybepilot]

K soze,

one is the original ICAO doc. and the other one is an amendment related to the UK (different practices from ICAO standards) and if you look on page 14 you'll find the same difference valid for Norway.
The country for which the differences apply are noted in the top right corner of the page.
These differences are based on local studies and approved by the local authorities as "standard practeces" in their airspace.

[navigante]

Maybepilot... the latest edition I have of DOC 9432 is 2007, while the last edition I have of CAP 413 (which is where the use of "level one hundred" is mandated instead of the ICAO standard "one zero zero") is from 2006!

Anyway there are several differences between ICAO RT procedures and CAP 413 procedures, this is only one of them. It is quite normal for a UK operator to refer to CAP 413, US operators to FAR-AIM, while most other operators (whose countries have not filed RT differences with ICAO) would refer directly to the umbrella of ICAO DOCs and annexes.

Germany however has not filed a difference with ICAO (as the UK has done for all the differences in CAP 413) for using a callsign at the beginning of a clearance read-back rather than the end, so technically speaking LH pilots should not do so...

HOWEVER as you say quite frankly LH RT is generally very good and their English is sometimes easier to understand than that of the Brits or Yanks!!:}

Much fuss over nothing... relax everyone and have a good Christmas/new year, whether with the family or in the flight levels!

N

[maybepilot]

navigante,

the same goes for those UK operators who, while operating in non-UK airspace, use phraseology which is standard in UK airspace only (or Norwegian as previously seen) like "flight level two hundred" or "turn right 270 degrees" etc.
Basically one should use different R/T's as he flies along in different countries...

I think the point here is that LH crews have never had a single R/T problem with their very high standards therefore i don't actually see any point.

On the other hand there are plenty of apparently fully ICAO compliant operators whos pilots couldn't even order a coffee at the bar in decent english....

[navigante]

The point is that while it acceptable to use "one hundred" when operating in UK airspace, or eventually for a UK operator abroad, this is because it is a filed UK difference with ICAO standards... there is no such difference filed for using one's callsign at the beginning of a read-back, in Germany or anywhere else I'm aware of.

Like you say though, this exception apart, not very many operators are as consistently clear and professional with their RT as Lufthansa, so this thread is unnecessary... at least LH don't say "XXXX coming down" when reading back a squawk code!

[FLCH]

or use the word "The" (or is is "Thee") preceding a call sign...... :}

[navigante]

Don't you love them? :}:}:}

Merry xmas Nigels, Lufties and all!!

[maybepilot]

Not so navigante, otherwise US operators flying say into LHR could happily use their standard "cleared into position and hold" without any consequencies because it's an officially accepted non ICAO US practice.

The reason why some countries use "hundred" instead of "one zero zero" has been explained as has the LH callsign issue.
They both make very good sense and are safety based.

[navigante]

Obviously I haven't managed to explain myself clearly; what I'm trying to say is that unlike all other examples you have been giving (ie "one hundred" etc) which are all very well, putting one's callsign at the beginning of a read-back is NOT accepted practice anywhere, it's neither ICAO nor under any contracting state's filed differences.

However, we are belaboring a rather minor point wouldn't you say? ;)

[maybepilot]

As i already wrote earlier:

On the other hand there are plenty of apparently fully ICAO compliant operators whos pilots couldn't even order a coffee at the bar in decent english....

happy holidays and wish everybody to be as professional as LH crews in 2009!!!
:E:E

[Pilot Pete]

Navigante

the latest edition I have of DOC 9432 is 2007, while the last edition I have of CAP 413 (which is where the use of "level one hundred" is mandated instead of the ICAO standard "one zero zero") is from 2006!Try http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF for a 2008 edition of CAP413.:ok:

PP

[Boroda]

xxxgunnerxxx:

According to russian RTF procedures we have the same order: callsign, phrase. But it is for communicating in russian, in english - reverse order. That is the reason for callsign before and after heard by you ussually.

[navigante]

Thx Pilot Pete!:ok:

Happy RT to all

N

[bookworm]

Germany however has not filed a difference with ICAO (as the UK has done for all the differences in CAP 413) for using a callsign at the beginning of a clearance read-back rather than the end, so technically speaking LH pilots should not do so...

You need to read the preamble to the documents you are keen to quote:

The following editorial practice has been followed in the
writing of specifications: for Standards the operative verb
“shall” is used, and for Recommended Practices the operative
verb “should” is used.

In addition to the use of the word "should", the text you and K Soze have quoted is printed in italics, indicating that it is a recommendation, not a standard. States are not required to file differences for recommendations.


...
Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID — ATC CLEARS
TWA NINE SIX THREE TO DESCEND TO NINE
THOUSAND FEET

Aircraft (acknowledging):
CLEARED TO DESCEND TO NINE THOUSAND
FEET — TWA NINE SIX THREE

But you left out the final bit of the recommendation! The "Station" is meant to confirm a correct readback with its callsign.

Station (denoting accuracy of readback):
MADRID

If ATC is to complain that Lufthansa fails to follow the recommendation, can pilots similarly complain when ATC fails, as it invariably does, to follow that aspect of the same recommendation? ;)

[navigante]

Point taken Bookworm. Actually, even if it had said "shall" and had thus been a standard, my understanding is that ICAO has no real regulatory authority per se, it is the individual contracting states' aviation authorities which decide whether to adhere partially or completely to their recommendations and standards... is this correct?

Anyway my point is, it's a rather minor RT faux-pas being discussed here, and generally the quality of LH RT is very good (IMO)... like you say, there is plenty of bad RT to be picking on, even from some ATCOs!

Speaking of which, sorry for the slight thread drift, do you know where the maximum recommended number of instructions per ATC transmission is stated? I seem to remember it's three?

N

[golfyankeesierra]

Check this one out: German coastguard (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4roXEY8hk):):):):):)