Changes to departure reports

[Aimpoint]

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a12-h11.pdf

Hope everyone's versed on the changes for tomorrow.

[FGD135]

Re that new phraseology in the AIC:

What exactly is the first word supposed to be for 4a from the table? The first word(s) will be whatever (location reference departure aerodrome) translates to, but what exactly that is is the subject of this post.

Departing from Jabiru for Darwin, for example, where I expect to become SSR identified following the departure report, is this the correct report:

"Brisbane Centre, XYZ, Jabiru, Passing 3,000 on climb FL130, estimating Darwin 36".

[Aimpoint]

The question is why give an estimate if you are identified? I can't figure that one out! The simplest report would have been "ABC passing 1400, climbing to FL190", like the airborne report without the heading info.

Also, why "on climb" vs "climbing to" for other departure reports. Seems a bit rushed in its implementation.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Hmm this doesn't look terribly well thought out.

Departing YRED IFR into Class C why would you be worried about giving an estimate?

[avconnection]

"Climbing to two thousand five hundred"? Would have thought they'd have dropped the "to" as its superfluous and confusing.

[Josh Cox]

That's a good change, well done.

There are many more calls that could be trimmed the same way.

[PLovett]

I have always thought the phrase; "..........on climb (what ever thousand feet)....." is preferable. The possibility of a misunderstanding by using "...climbing to (etc.)....." is too apparent.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Apparent?

I think the individual who originally posited the idea should be restrained from further public utterances.

How can "climbing to six thousand" possibly be confused in the real world with "climbing two six thousand" when there is no such altitude?

[mates rates]

If your 1st language is not english (to) is a number!! that's why ICAO don't use it in radio comm's.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Even if your first language is not English there is STILL no such ALTITUDE as 'two six thousand' it's 'Flight Level two six zero'.

If that's too hard for someone with level 4 English proficiency don't give them a fcking license for anything more difficult than a car.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Bravo.......:D

[Jabawocky]

Last few posts are just awesome :ok::ok::ok:


Hehehehe lucky I don't have an incontinence problem ;)

[Oktas8]

Not everyone in the world uses Australian procedures.

Within Australia, use of "to" is clear and simple. But not every pilot in Australia, departs and arrives within Australian airspace... That's why ICAO exists. To harmonise between States in order to prevent confusion &/or accidents, primarily for international aviation.

I don't really care about the "to" discussed above. Better things to think about. But I wish local pilots were at least hesitant to criticize something that ICAO thinks is a Really Good Idea.

[Chimbu chuckles]

So, where in the world is to/two six thousand an altitude?

[Capn Bloggs]

What exactly is the first word supposed to be for 4a from the table? The first word(s) will be whatever (location reference departure aerodrome) translates to, but what exactly that is is the subject of this post.

Departing from Jabiru for Darwin, for example, where I expect to become SSR identified following the departure report, is this the correct report:

"Brisbane Centre, XYZ, Jabiru, Passing 3,000 on climb FL130, estimating Darwin 36".
Blogg's hypothesis: "What is your location with reference to the departure aerodrome". In other words, they have to know where you are to help them identify you. Not such a major issue in a bug-frightner that does 40 knots, but in a 737 out of KTA outside tower hours, they could be 20nm away (at 5500ft :}) by the time they get their departure report out.

Also, why "on climb" vs "climbing to" for other departure reports.
Agree. KISS please! I also like the "on climb" argument ( sorry Tart). :D

While you're there, IM, remove "estimating" from the departure report. We don't use it in any of the other position reports we make. http://www.smilies.our-local.co.uk/index_files/pray2.gif

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Re that new phraseology in the AIC:

What exactly is the first word supposed to be for 4a from the table? The first word(s) will be whatever (location reference departure aerodrome) translates to, but what exactly that is is the subject of this post.

Departing from Jabiru for Darwin, for example, where I expect to become SSR identified following the departure report, is this the correct report:

"Brisbane Centre, XYZ, Jabiru, Passing 3,000 on climb FL130, estimating Darwin 36".

I think it's meant to be (exapanded) Your location, in reference to the departure aerodrome.

I.e. "Brisbane Centre, XYZ, 5 miles west of Jabiru, passing 3000 on climb FL130 estimating Darwin 36."

Or similar.

[Aimpoint]

I think it's meant to be (exapanded) Your location, in reference to the departure aerodrome.


But isn't the whole point behind the new reports that they will have you on their screen anyway? No need to give a distance etc. I would think, only a need to verify your altitude.

Where's Jack Ranga and co. to give us a perspective from the other side.

[ChaseIt]

Cynical Pilot: There is always the easy way, just don't say to. eg. "Passing 4500, Climbing 6000."

:D:ok::D

Couldn't agree more!!

KISS!! Climbing, descending, leaving, joining, turning, taxiing!

[Jack Ranga]

Where's Jack Ranga and co. to give us a perspective from the other side.

Aimpoint, ATC's who hold a CPL, ME-CIR, Flight Instructor Rating etc, their opinion is not sought or valued so all sorts of non-sensical changes seem to appear. A lot of the time they don't make any sense to an ATC let alone a pilot.

A lot of IFR pilots cannot manage a taxy call let alone any new procedure. Standard phraseology is not used by the majority of pilots these days so the chance of any new procedure being used correctly? Snowball ;)

[Nautilus Blue]

I gave up trying to understand the logic of phraseology when they changed "leave control area on descent" to "leave control area descending" to improve safety, but here goes

But isn't the whole point behind the new reports that they will have you on their screen anyway? No need to give a distance etc. I would think, only a need to verify your altitude.

The location reference aerodrome seems to be a double check to make sure what we see on the screen is you. Feels like a throwback to the days when ATC gave you a position when identified.

Estimate also seems redundant. Most of the time I won't enter a pilot estimate anyway in theses circumstances. I don't need it and as often as not it will be revised at TOC anyway.

The useful part is level passing for Mode C verification, but a lot of our regular operators have been giving that in their departure reports for years anyway.

If the aim was to save us and pilots time, the phraseology would simply be "ABC passing (current level)". I know where you are and what level you planned and I don't need an estimate.

[flyingfrenchman]

I think the idea behind the initial position ref the departure aerodrome and the estimate is to give VFR guys in Class E some chance of working out where you are. For example YPPD, CTAF and class E to 180 but ADSB gets identified in the cct.

[ozineurope]

FF - exactly - see and avoid dictates that someone needs to know where to look to avoid. May not work but it sure feels better!

As to ICAO - they are silent on "climbing to" or "on climb".

Jack - maybe you should seek out the correct unit to give your feedback and input - I can assure you it will be listened to.

[2bigmellons]

Chimbu,

So, where in the world is to/two six thousand an altitude?

Fair point mate, obviously not much room for misinterpretation here, but consider the use of the word "to" when descending. Believe it or not, it has happened before where the word "to" has caused some confusion as to the cleared altitude. In one instance, for the unfortunate crew of an unfortunate 747, culminated in controlled flight into terrain.

"...ATC radioed to the flight, "Tiger 66, descend two four zero zero [2,400 ft]. Cleared for NDB approach runway three three." The captain of Tiger 66, who heard "descend to four zero zero" replied with, "Okay, four zero zero" (meaning 400 ft above sea level, which was 2,000 ft too low). The proper radio call from ATC, instead of "descend two four zero zero", should have been "descend and maintain two thousand four hundred feet". The captain read back "okay, four zero zero" where the proper read back should have been "Roger, descend and maintain four-hundred feet"...."

source: Flying Tiger Line Flight 66 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tiger_Line_Flight_66)

Clearly this is an example of a prized f&*k-up, but if there is ambiguity to be had out of a phrase then a "standard phraseology" shall be employed, don't you agree?

I say "do away" with use of the word "to".

[Go West]

Seriously who cares.

Just rattle off the important stuff then get on with it.

Its just not important.

[Jabawocky]

especially when dealing with a culture of sloppy and lazy R/T.


This is exactly where the problem lies.

And in the USA this is quite common. In fact correct R/T is rare.

For a professional pilot and ATC to make the same mistake requires a pretty special cock up.:ooh:

[Jack Ranga]

There ya go, all you young CPL's & ATC's. Words of wisdom from go west ::D

[Capn Bloggs]

This has all been created because of "high pressure" on (I assume) jet crews that can't handle low-level controlled airspace. May I suggest that a clearance be obtained when taxiing? This may not always be available, but when it is it would obviate the need for all this gnashing of teeth and abbreviated departure calls, which, as pointed out earlier, serve the very useful purpose of letting VFR know what is going on.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And in the USA this is quite common. In fact correct R/T is rare.

That would include that gem of a transmission, "With you", that all the "cool yankee wannabe pilots" and more likely MS Flight Sim trainees tend to use?

[Checkboard]

Europe, and the UK especially, use "to" in every climb/descent instruction - however they also require the word "altitude" when specifying altitudes and "flight level" for levels.

"Checkers 123 descend to altitude five thousand feet"

Personally, I omit "to" in my readbacks - but that's just my Australian habit.

[ramble on]

The Europe UK method of reporting a climb or descent gets my vote too....it is simple clear and provides a suitable subtle reminder to double check your Altimeter setting.

I also like that they also set QNH/Standard when cleared to altitudes/levels below or above the TL.

Lets get rid of the "to/two" confusion and dump it and while we are at it lose the "feet" in reports as well.

ATC - "Descend or climb altitude x thousand/flight level xx"

Pilot - "Climbing/Descending altitude x thousand/flight level xx"

Geez, couldn't be simpler or clearer than that CASA - Airservices!

[nitpicker330]

Nice to see they are concentrating on the really important stuff!!

I mean who gives a rats really??

This is designed by some smart assed bureaucrat with nothing better to do.

I say we remove the Australian AIP and use an ICAO one instead.:ok:

[Tinstaafl]

Unless I'm mis-remembering things, many years ago 'on climb' was the correct terminology.

[morno]

Seriously who cares.

Just rattle off the important stuff then get on with it.

Its just not important

Yes, yes, that's why we have accidents. Who cares what the rules say, let's just make up our own crap.

It starts with a radio call, finishes in the side of a mountain after you think something else is rubbish too.

There are operators who can comply with AIP phraseology, why can't everyone?

morno

[Old Akro]

Jack Ranga
A lot of IFR pilots cannot manage a taxy call let alone any new procedure.

Ouch, I'm hurt. But seriously, I do try and use both the phraseology and procedures that are in common use / work best for ATC. Partly because sounding like you know what you are doing yields better treatment and partly because what works best for you guys, generally results in a smoother ride through CTR space for Class G guys like me.

The point is that the commonly used phraseology doesn't seem to have a lot in common with the AIP. I certainly don't hear the airlines using it. I think "Go West" is closer to the mark in just concentrating on communicating the important details in a logical order, clearly and succinctly.

It seems to me that the major benefit of the changes in standard phraseology is to keep another whole workgroup occupied at CASA.

Our dogma on standard phraseology amuses me when I go to NZ or Thailand, both of whom seem to think the more words in a call the better.

[hurlingham]

Not that many years ago it used to be that if you listened to the 'airlines' the RT procedure was always correct - unfortunately everyone, (including the 'airlines') now seem to be deciding what they think sounds best and a lot of others follow.

Agree 100% with Morno.

[Creampuff]

I used to think the main problem was change fatigue.

I now think the problem has evolved into change indifference.

New terminology or airspace grand plan? Meh, it’s all gonna change again, soon. Don’t worry. Just give it your best shot in plain English, near the position you think’s a good one, and all’s good. :(

[Jabawocky]

morno & Jack :D

Creamie....sadly I think you are right once again. I reckon I could even become a victim despite trying not to. :uhoh:

[compressor stall]

Change fatigue and change indifference. Creamie, you summed it up perfectly.