For BM3RE to EGLL 20 July

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Hi Guys. I was on 119.72 for your approach this morning and I did not understand your comment about my inclusion of "to" in the descent clearance causing confusion?? Our book "Teach Yourself ATC" says that "to" is the correct word to use when an altitude is involved, e.g. "Descend TO altitude four thousand feet...". When a FL is involved the word is omitted, e.g. "Climb FL 80". There is on-going discussion about phraseology and I think that eventually the use of the word "to" may be discouraged. However, it's perfectly standard at present so expect to hear it more often..

[PPRuNe Radar]

HD,

Maybe we could all chip in and buy the guy a copy of CAP413 ?? ;)

[Chalky]

HEATHROW DIRECTOR,

An interesting little leaflet, published by your employer, has just dropped out of my CHIRP envelope. It says, among other things:

'You may have been given a clearance "Climb to FL80, set altimeter 1013"'. Note the word "to" in the context of a Flight Level.

It also says 'Do not use the word "to" when reading back a climb or descent clearance', and yet surely it is normal practice to repeat back what the controller says verbatim.

Confusing, ain't it!

Chalky

By the way, it wasn't me!! (with apologies to whoever uses that as a tag line)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I wonder if any aircrew have ever heard a UK civil controller say "Climb to FL** set altimeter 1013". I'm pretty sure that phraseology is not in our Manual... but I'm not an Area controller so can't swear to it!

[BEXIL160]

Chalky..

HD is correct. AREA (and sometimes APPROACH / DIR... think CPT deps off easterlies :) ) would say "Climb FL80" with absolutely no mention of the SPS.

And yes, confusing though it is we are supposed to say, for example, "Descend to altitude 4000ft, QNH 1018, XX miles from touchdown".

Readbacks are indeed supposed to be verbatim but I'm interested in this document that you recived with FEEDBACK. There wasn't anything extra in my copy, so it's difficult to comment, but the phraseology bible remains CAP413 q.v.

Oh one minor point. HD (and I) work for NATS Ltd now, not the dear old CAA (or MCA / DoT)

Rgds BEX

[CaptSensible]

The controllers in the UK are usually excellent.

However ATC in Irish airspace seem often unable to stick to proper phraseology.

Just the other day I was given this clearance:

'climb to (2?) eight zero'

When I asked for clarification I got a snide sounding slow readback (with heavy emphasis on the previously missing phrase 'Flight Level'). The emphasis continued in all level clearances until handover. Childish.

The thing about pilots is that they travel from sector to sector getting variable standards of controlling, and soon recognise what's good and what's gash.

Controllers (esp. in Ireland) just don't get the same kind of exposure on a daily basis, so if standards are allowed to slip they can soon become pretty bad by comparison.

[Chalky]

HEATHROW DIRECTOR & BEXIL160,

The leaflet I quoted from is published by NATS. It has been produced "to give pilots better understanding of our ATCO colleagues' problems and requirements...". It says a similar leaflet has been produced for ATCOs.

It also says "the inclusion of 'set 1013' will hopefully cut down on the 15% of MOR incidents caused by pilots forgetting to set standard settings."

It seems a shame that you weren't given the courtesy of a briefing on the leaflet's contents prior to its publication!

[BEXIL160]

Curiouser and curiouser... We'll just have to wait until our copy turns up.

It does seem a bit odd though, as there is usually lots of paperwork floating around when phraseology changes but just a little bit (I'm thinking of "FL wun hundred" and "Tree hundred, three zero zero" which were very widely publicized).

What you've described seems quite a big change by comparison.

Waiting with interest, BEX

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Chalky.. something about right and and left hands springs to mind.

[Warped Factor]

HD and Bex,

The "climb FL?? set altimeter 1013mb" phraseology was trialed recently on X Watch, it stemmed from an ACE project or something like that.

I believe it caused more confusion than anything else......

WF.

[BEXIL160]

Warped.... Presumably it wasn't much of a success then? Not really surprisng, as there are enough numbers in use on the RTF already, without adding more to confuse.

It sounds like an ex- military type phraseology I may have used in a previous existence. "Set QFE1013, desend to height 1500ft" or for THAT (short lived) period when QNH was used by the cra.. sorry, RAF "Set QNH1013, descend to altitude 1900ft". (As I recall the RN stayed on QFE, but that's different discussion)

Anyway, i don't actually see too much wrong with the current phraseology, but as always I'm willing to listen if anybody has a better/different way of doing things that avoids confusion.

Rgds BEX

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Sorry but there actually must be plenty of spare R/T time as some genius has come up with the idea of approach controllers specifying the stack in which an a/c is holding when sending instructions, eg "In Biggin, Speedbird 999 descend FL80". It's supposed to prevent near-stack incidents, although how it's supposed to work I don't fully understand. If it works the scheme will probably be adopted nationwide... then expect London Control to say things like "Seventeen and three-quarter miles bearing zero seven seven degrees from Houghton Regis, Speedbird seven seven seven descend FL 110". Seems perfectly OK to me... Only minor problem is that aircraft will have to carry either the AA Book of Air Navigation or the complete series of OS Landranger maps so they can determine if it's them being called by working out their exact location...

[Warped Factor]

HD,

What you describe was roundly pooh, poohed at a recent TC Tech Ctte meeting.

Hopefully we've heard the last of it, though I suspect...... :rolleyes:

WF.

[cossack]

The RTF phraseology you describe has been in use at Manchester for at least 5 years. Well I say in use, its in the part 2! :rolleyes:
It is slightly different, however, e.g.
"c/s holding DAYNE, descend flight level 90"
As fot the "climb FL... set altimeter 1013" that's just crap! IMHO
There are, I believe, far more important issues that would have a positive and instant benefit to air safety.