The "fully" Plague on RT

[Agaricus bisporus]

Where did this dreadful habit come from?

Two years ago we never heard it, now it seems everyone (including ATC) are doing it!

I'm talking about using the word "fully" in RT transmissions.

THe correct phraseology for intercepting an ILS is "Localiser Established" and/or "Established", not "Fully Established". Equally you are either "Ready for Departure" or "Not Ready". After all, you cannot be "partially established" or "partially ready" and (I hope) would not be so shoddy or confused as to use those expressions.

So why say "Fully??????"

Clearly any verbal habit may be caught, perhaps unintentionally, by mimicing other people, as in "I was like..." instead of "I said", or the pompous and grating use of "the" in front of a callsign, but slipshod habits should not be used on our RT, especially with the confusion already existing with some nationalities' RT standards - as in parts of Europe.

Yesterday I heard on a Spanish ground freq "##### report engines fully started..." and tried to imagine how or why anyone might report half way through an engine start. Like a plague, it is spreading.

It's illogical, incorrect, unprofessional and unnecessary, and our newer colleagues are growing into a world where it is becoming the norm, and some genuinely appear to know no better!!!

Please help discourage it?

[eastern wiseguy]

I agree totally. However with regard to Spanish aircrews.....they do seem to call ready for push and start and still have steps attached ...doors open(on many occasions they spend a full 15 minutes before they actually ARE ready to push)...so perhaps they qualify for the use of the word FULLY?:ok:

[fmgc]

argh, there are so many irritating little foibles like that.

Coming Down,
ABC123 with you
Ready for take off (always makes me cringe)

[eastern wiseguy]

And identing before you are asked!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Never caused me any concern at all.. When we told pilots to establish on the localiser and, later, to descend on the ILS... "Fully established" let me know that they were on the glide too.

Now what used to really, REALLY, REALLY get up my nose were the idiot pilots who would not read back the speed on final approach - and I didn't have all day to keep on and on and on at them.. The conversation would go something like:

Me: Descend on the ILS, 160 kts to 4 DME".
Pilot: "Descend on the ILS, roger on the speed".
Me: "Confirm 160 kts to 4 DME"
Pilot: "Yes, we got the speed OK"
Me: "160 kts confirm"
Pilot "Confirmed"

99% of the time it was Brits. Foreign pilots were very good at readbacks. I hope things have changed....

[Dizzee Rascal]

"Report ready for departure".
"Ready in 2 minutes".

2 minutes later after organising other traffic.

"Cleared for take-off".
"We need another minute".

[Atcham Tower]

Pilot minutes, Dizzee. Mentally double them and you may still be disappointed!

[Agaricus bisporus]

Heathrow Director, with a handle like yours I'm surprised at you!

This is exactly what I am talking about - and you should know better than anyone. "Established" means on the localiser and glide, by definition - nothing else - there's no "fully" about it! You don't expect "Established, on localiser and glidepath" - why not take it further and say "Fully established, on localiser and glidepath" - and say it three times over just to be sure? Why not "cleared land and to put my wheels on the runway"

Putting gash words in front of the correct ones merely serves to dilute the meaning of the correct one - the suggestion of "fully ready to push" "is making it cleare" is going down the same rocky road as Heathrow Director in deliberately failing to understand and act on correct RT, and surely we can all see that hazards of that.
The answer on the pushback scenario is just to keep them waiting another 10 minutes if they pull that one, and then explain why. That would soon stop it.

Why not just stick to correct RT?

(I haven't heard "ready for take off" in many years - thankfully)

[elcrusoe]

I love getting this one "XXX is ready,number one" when they clearly see the other guy on short final. It really pisses me off cuz i always have to reply so they don't think the radio is broke or sth. What i wanna say is look out the window and try it again hehe

[JonathanB]

Surely they mean number one in the queue for departure at the hold? Not saying it's right though!

[JonathanB]

Also wanted to say that the FISOs at an airfield near London that I fly from regularly have the habit of asking "report finals"... that drives me mad! I might start reporting "downwinds". :rolleyes:

[BOAC]

"Established" means on the localiser and glide, by definition - can a CAP reader confirm this? I thought that when told 'heading 300, cleared for the ILS report established' a call of Localiser established was expected? Do we actually only call with the glide? Its all too much for an old man......................

[LEGAL TENDER]

Yes, being on 3k+ a month and having to put up with obscenity like "fully ready" or "fully established" really makes for some serious hardship...

[FL370 Officeboy]

Now this is my sort of thread.

Unfortunately, some people seem to think 'fully ready' sounds professional :ugh:

[Artie Fufkin]

Reminds me of when Alan Partridge called the 9-year-old-child-prodigy on his radio show "very unique", only to be corrected by the child that "one cannot have gradations of uniqueness, one is either unique or not".

By the end of the show, Alan had hit the child.

Maybe ATCOs should reply to "fully ready" that the aircraft is "cleared to fully push and fully start" ?

[Capt Pit Bull]

Ab

This is exactly what I am talking about - and you should know better than anyone. "Established" means on the localiser and glide, by definition - nothing else - there's no "fully" about it! You don't expect "Established, on localiser and glidepath" - why not take it further and say "Fully established, on localiser and glidepath" - and say it three times over just to be sure? Why not "cleared land and to put my wheels on the runway"


I'm with BOAC on this one. How else do explain the innumerable threads on this board over the last 10 years over the necessity of being cleared for the ILS but being told to report 'LOCALISER established' so that we can then be given the seperate clearance to descend on the glide. Its ATC that drive this distinction, not flight crew.

The reality is that radio pro-words are intended to have standard meanings, but as the nature of the operation changes the formal definition may not mean exactly what we want to say and it therefore becomes necessary to add additional words to clarify what we want.

Pro-words are supposed to be our servants, not our masters, it is perfectly reasonable to add a word or two for emphasis when the situation warrants it.

And incidentally, the 'ready for push' versus 'fully ready for push' is another thing driven by the realities of the situation; vis-a-vis ground ops allocation of a tug versus the start queue, versus allocation of a place in the start queue. The chicken and egg situation. At some places you can't get a tug until you have a place in the start queue; this collides head on with the need to be ready before calling for start.

Consequently the concept of being 'ready' but not being 'fully' ready is valid!

Now, if you'd like a new pro-word that means "The aircraft is fuelled, loaded and ready for pushback in all respects apart from having a tug" I'd be the first to support it.

"Report ready for departure".
"Ready in 2 minutes".

2 minutes later after organising other traffic.

"Cleared for take-off".
"We need another minute

Now then Dizzee. Did the pilot actually report ready? No? Why clear him for it then? Most likely, he's waiting on cabin security, so any time passed is a guesstimate of something he doesn't directly control.

OK, I admit, if I'd been in his shoes I'd have said 'ESTIMATE 2 mins" or similar but there no need to bust his balls for trying to give you some information to help your planning ;)

The alternative is we say nothing, (and of course if the freq is busy that might be the best option).


pb
(though I only fly a desk these days so what do I know)

[linedriva]

Slight thread drift, but I think that RT phraseology in general is becoming worse - myself included. I find that in certain parts of the world, it's too confusing for the controllers if you use the correct terms, so I abbreviate (mostly in the Indian region). But in other areas, you are expected to use the correct form.

So, when I'm on a flight that takes in Australian airspace (correct use) , Indian airspace (abbreviated), and Middle Eastern airspace (depends on the controller, but generally correct use), I just use the terminology that gets the job done with few corrections as possible. If I'm in any way unsure of the clearance or instruction, I'll always ask again.

Back to thread - I don't like 'fully ready' I'm either ready, or I'm not. Simple

[Cows getting bigger]

I think I've lifted the correct phrase from CAP 413

BIGJET 347 12 miles from
touchdown turn right heading 240
degrees closing localiser from the
right. When established on localiser,
descend on glidepath QNH 1011

It doesn't exactly spring off the tongue, fully or not. :confused:

Ps. Echoing someone else's comment, if I was a highly paid ATCO I'm not sure I would be getting my knickers in a twist about this one. :)

[Geffen]

"Fully Ready" is that like being "fully pregnant'? You either are ready or you are not. Simples.

[goatface]

Rarely can there have been such a condescending thread on PPRUNE.

I am all for the "stand up, speak up and shut up" school of R/T, but the vast majority of the criticism seems to be aimed at foreign pilots, most of whom will have learnt their R/T English by flying.............. mostly in the UK.
They try a lot harder than the vast majority of English pilots and ATCOs to make themselves understood and are a lot better at achieving it.

When any UK ATCO can speak Spanish, Greek, German, Dutch etc as part of their job, as fluently as all these can speak English, then you have a right to criticise.
Very few of you, if any, ever will, so either speak up or shut up:rolleyes:

[Gingerbread Man]

"Fully Ready" is that like being "fully pregnant'? You either are ready or you are not. Simples.

I hope that cringeworthy addition was used ironically.


Also wanted to say that the FISOs at an airfield near London that I fly from regularly have the habit of asking "report finals"... that drives me mad!

That's a military term I believe, where circuits are flown slightly differently.

The 'fully' thing is a bit odd. I regularly get things like "XYZ, almost becoming fully established..."


Cheers

Ginger ;)

[BOAC]

goatface - are we reading the same thread?:confused: One comment about 'Spanish pilots' who call ready to push when they are not - unless you see other references to 'foreign pilots'?

[reportyourlevel]

One that I've heard recently is "almost have the airport in sight". OK, you're "almost cleared visual approach".

[LEGAL TENDER]

One that I've heard recently is "almost have the airport in sight". OK, you're "almost cleared visual approach".

But then again you don't need to be visual with the field. So why just "almost" cleared ? ;)
Could be 20 miles out, visual and almost have the airport in sight.
Good. Cleared for the visual approach ;)

Confirm no descent restriction ?
Of course. It's a visual approach !

But elsewhere we get the restriction lifted.
Ahh. Non standard RT ! God forbid ;)

[ImnotanERIC]

goatface
When any UK ATCO can speak Spanish, Greek, German, Dutch etc as part of their job, as fluently as all these can speak English, then you have a right to criticise.
Very few of you, if any, ever will, so either speak up or shut up:rolleyes:

irrelevant. i don't need to so won't.

pilots in uk airspace NEED to, so must.

even when i go abroad i don't bother with the lingo. it's english, with occasional pointing at what i want, getting louder and louder until i'm understood. if that still fails, i just smash the place up and leave.

[Dunregulatin]

The one that used to wind me up the most was the "if you"!

You know, the "if you just hold there" (usually with a "please" ) or "if you turn left there" (ditto). What happened to "hold position" or "turn left" or, if you (sorry!) must, "next left".

The "if you" implies a consequential something but nobody ever tells you what it is.

Actually, it's two things - infectious, bad phraseology and mindless verbal punctuation.

[PaulW]

I thought a visual approach, you had to be visual with the threshold, callling fastjet 123 visual with the airfield requesting visual approach runway -- . Your thinking of a contact approach which doesn't exist in the uk. Then again you can cancel your flight plan and request basic service, and route direct a vrp. The remark that makes me cringe is the words you have... Ie ident you have. And copy that, and copied undertood, just say roger, it's a lot easier.

[Dizzee Rascal]

Then again you can cancel your flight plan and request basic service, and route direct a vrp. The remark that makes me cringe is the words you have... Ie ident you have. And copy that, and copied undertood, just say roger, it's a lot easier.

Cancel the flight plan during flight?

[hangten]

Now this thread is great night shift fodder...

Reminds me of when Alan Partridge called the 9-year-old-child-prodigy on his radio show "very unique", only to be corrected by the child that "one cannot have gradations of uniqueness, one is either unique or not".

Genius. In all respects.

Capt Pit Bull's measured and intelligent response about the use of words in the English language is extremely apt. The fact is that words may appear superfluous on the surface but have hidden meaning, which we understand.

That said I HATE it when pilots start a transmission with the word 'and'... As in 'and Tower, EZY***, blah blah'.

Now I shall go back to getting this shift over with so I can go home and have some kip. Then tomorrow night I can have that beer (actually, those beers, while we're being precise) that Yahoo suggests, whilst not giving any of this a second thought.

[LEGAL TENDER]

I thought a visual approach, you had to be visual with the threshold, callling fastjet 123 visual with the airfield requesting visual approach runway -- . Your thinking of a contact approach which doesn't exist in the uk.

To quote the hallowed CAP493.....


12 Visual Approach
12.1 To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual approaches if the pilot reports that he can maintain visual reference to the surface and:

a) the reported cloud ceiling is at or above the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment; or
b) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance exists that this can be accomplished.


Anyway, getting a bit off topic now, its worse than all the non-standard R/T round here :ok:

[fireflybob]

You hear these sorts of things everyday:-

"Standing By for descent" - instead of "Request Descent"

"Blah blah were in light chop here we were just wondering if FL XXX was available" - instead of "Request FL XXX".

My theory is that those who add lots of extra words need more thinking time!

[DFC]

"Blah blah were in light chop here we were just wondering if FL XXX was available" - instead of "Request FL XXX".



Indeed totally wrong. It should be "Blah blah were in light chop here do you have any ride reports at FL XXX or FL XXX+2":suspect:

If I have turbulence and want to change level I will want to know if it is going to be better where I am going and at the same time let you know why I want the level change. "Request FL XXX" does not achieve either.

I am with Heathrow Director on the "fully established". When established on the loc we are only partially established on the ILS since we are only tracking 1 of the 2 elements. When we are tracking both elements then we are fully established.

Perhaps it would be more correct to report "final approach point" but I think that would confuse more ATCO's than "fully established" anoys.

Regards,

DFC

[411A]

Many years ago, when BOAC first started their non-stop LHR-LAX services with B707 aircraft, the following was heard...

BOAC:
Los Angeles tower, Speedbird 591, outer marker, two five left.

LAX tower:
OK, who is the joker with a bird at the outer marker?

BOAC:
Tower, SPEEDBIRD 591, outer marker, two five left, and we need landing clearance NOW as we are short of gravy.


True story, heard it myself, personally.

[fireflybob]

DFC I think we have had this debate before but I think we will have to agree to disagree!

I am not saying there's anything wrong with asking for ride reports at other levels but I don't really see the point in taking up RT time by giving the reason for the request for a different level notwithstanding of course that there is a requirement to report "hazardous" weather to ATC for the benefit of other airspace users.