Standard of RT in USA

[A7700]

In general , i am of the opinion that English should not be used as a so called common language for ATC exchange, as it creates -and will always creates- a distortion between those who get it as a native language and....the majority represented by rest of the world!. A common LEARNED language like Esperanto will put all actors at the same level of humbleness ...not sure that this last word is understood by native speakers!

[obgraham]

A7700:
So your theory is that if Nobody understands ATC equally, we'll all be better off.

[MPN11]

As a retired career Mil ATCO, I've learned how Americans speak and handled a 4-ship of Italian F-104s descending through the London TMA. I've coped with mispronunciation, gibberish and unclear emergency messages.

I helped run the Instrument Schools at USAF bases in UK, teaching the new guys how different things are. Our Unit even had a USAFLO to enhance coordination.

If everyone would just slow down, and realise where they are, life gets quite easy. Is that too much to ask? Or do we all sit in a oersonal space?

[ehwatezedoing]

A7700:
So your theory is that if Nobody understands ATC equally, we'll all be better off.
No.
His theory is that it "will put all actors at the same level of humbleness ...not sure that this last word is understood by native speakers!"

And you kind of inadvertently proved his point (unless you are not a native English speaker) :)

[Coagie]

In general , i am of the opinion that English should not be used as a so called common language for ATC exchange, as it creates -and will always creates- a distortion between those who get it as a native language and....the majority represented by rest of the world!. A common LEARNED language like Esperanto will put all actors at the same level of humbleness ...not sure that this last word is understood by native speakers! No. Everyone should do like scientists, and switch to Latin! Since it's a dead language and never changes! Very telling, that you brought up Esperanto. It was a language concocted back when the Sun never set on the British Empire, to cut down on the "arrogance of the British", since their language was spoken in many parts of the world, so, this means the real problem many have with this issue, isn't so much the differences within the English language, but that your "self esteem" is hurt, because your language is not the standard. Your melancholy selves would rather everyone be dragged down to your level of misery, than accepting and improving the way things are. Some language had to become the standard. A few slight changes in history, and it could have easily been French, Spanish, Portuguese, or some other language.

[Flytiger]

There is a feeling you get when you go to England that they all think the worlds English is their English. What a shame it hasn't been that way for at least 300 years now. But we shouldn't be harsh on them - they are European and see the world differently.

[Pylut737]

Fellow Aviators,

How is this issue any different from a foreign language being spoken in that country's native tongue? When I fly in China I here Chineese being spoken, French in france, Africanz in south Africa.

If you address a contoller in the propper vernacular, you should be replied to in the same. As a habit, when outside the US I repeat ATC instructions verbatim. I routinely ask the people I fly with to avoid the colloquialisms of the US, as they are often met with a repeat of the ATC transmision (or Silence). In some countries the only engilsh the ATC personnel speak are the words required to be spoken and their meanings, nothing else.

It has been my experience that some of the things done outside the US could help inside the US and vive verse.

[acroguy]

I'm surprised that in these pages and pages of comments, nobody has mentioned the stupid "Line up and wait" that we've had to adopt in the US as result of the inane ICAO rules. What in the world was wrong with "Taxi into position and hold".? Answer: Nothing.

"Line up and wait" sounds more like the status of life in the UK, where people apparently like to queue up like sheep. Or more like the story of my life.

ICAO - remember, these are the people who brought you METAR -- another useless improvement over the SA and other reports we had in the US previously.

Please ICAO, keep your "improvements" on the other side of the pond...

[Dream Land]

Just be happy that when we call the center in the states, they don't respond with "Pass your message" :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[White None]

Acroguy

So you join PPRUNE in 2007, wait 6 years to formulate a pithy, meaningful, thought provoking post of substance..... and that's it? What you need old son is a nice cuppa tea. :D

[SMOC]

Line up and wait

4 words.

4 syllables.


Taxi into position and hold

5 words.

9 syllables.


I know which I prefer :ugh:

[Cows getting bigger]

Do the 'Merikans still use Inches of Mercury or have they caught on that the Hectopascal is now all the rage? :rolleyes:

If ever there is an industry that needs international standards, it is aviation.

[acroguy]

Quote:
Line up and wait
4 words.

4 syllables.


Quote:
Taxi into position and hold
5 words.

9 syllables.


I know which I prefer

Prior to the change, you would hear clearances such as "Taxi into position runway 1, keep it moving, be ready to go following the Learjet crossing right to left."

After the change, what is the controller supposed to do, issue a clearance like, "Line up and wait, keep it moving...?" Yep, that's really clear. I have never heard a clearance like the first one since the change.

As to ICAO standard English in Europe, I have done quite a bit of flying in the south of France -- always with a French pilot since there is not a word of English to be heard...

[galaxy flyer]

Cows get bigger,

We'll move over to millibars when everyone STANDARDIZES on one transition altitude, may I suggest FL180 and 17,000'?

[Cows getting bigger]

Yes, I would be happy with that. :0 However, millibars seemed to have disappeared a year or two back. :cool:

[BuzzBox]

If ever there is an industry that needs international standards, it is aviation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there ARE international standards. Trouble is, the US doesn't follow them! :E

[500 above]

We'll move over to millibars when everyone STANDARDIZES on one transition altitude, may I suggest FL180 and 17,000'?

UK and Ireland consult on a common transition level (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-and-ireland-consult-on-a-common-transition-level-352495/)

GF, get ready for the hectopascal...

At least we all have "fish finders" these days if one was to mis set the sub scale...

[Dont Hang Up]

Line up and wait
4 words.

4 syllables.


Quote:
Taxi into position and hold
5 words.

9 syllables.


I know which I prefer

And then of course the real reason -"hold" can be mistaken for "roll"

[acroguy]

Quote:
Line up and wait
4 words.

4 syllables.


Quote:
Taxi into position and hold
5 words.

9 syllables.


I know which I prefer
And then of course the real reason -"hold" can be mistaken for "roll"

"Taxi into position and roll?" Are you kidding?

That was never in anybody's controller syllabus...

[Easy Street]

And then of course the real reason -"hold" can be mistaken for "roll"


I thought the reason for the change was that virtually all countries use "hold" (in a ground manoeuvring context) to mean "do not enter the runway"? It's an important enough instruction that it should not have any other uses in a similar context, just as "take off" is replaced with "departure" in all R/T except the actual delivery of the take off clearance.

[galaxy flyer]

It maybe only 3 countries using inches, vice millibars, but the USA has just short of 50% of all flying, which counts for something. Canada uses proper inches, too.

It's just a flip of the switch, anyway.

[White None]

"Taxi into position runway 1, keep it moving, be ready to go following the Learjet crossing right to left."

So Imagine trying to understand that call, possibly made in a heavy US regional accent and pushed out at high speed, in your second language! I find it hard enough and "English" is my first language. you then say:-

I have never heard a clearance like the first one since the change.

As if we should all agree that it's a sad loss!? Standardisation of wording and pronuncuation is not there to make it pleasant, chatty and relaxed for some, but to make it unequivocably clear to all.

As regards French speaking French in France, I agree - unacceptable.

[acroguy]

Quote:
"Taxi into position runway 1, keep it moving, be ready to go following the Learjet crossing right to left."
So Imagine trying to understand that call, possibly made in a heavy US regional accent and pushed out at high speed, in your second language! I find it hard enough and "English" is my first language. you then say:-


I would say that that is extremely straightforward English, with no odd nouns or verbs and should be understood by anybody claiming to understand even rudimentary English. If any professional pilot doesn't understand that clearance, then God help us all...

The total clearance would probably be more like: " Taxi into position runway 1, traffic landing runway 28, keep it moving -- be ready to go after the Learjet crossing right to left, company on a two mile final for runway 28"

And, in my experience, tower clearances such as these are not typically delivered at high speed. High speed is usually an approach specialty...

[Una Due Tfc]

ICAO allow in cases where an aircraft is not crossing an international border, they can speak the local lingo. I know this is not the case in France IE AFR and TSC frequently speak French. Unacceptable. As for "Line up and wait" , it's clear, and takes less time to say. When your freq is busy this is an asset, that's why I personally prefer it

[acroguy]

ICAO allow in cases where an aircraft is not crossing an international border, they can speak the local lingo. I know this is not the case in France IE AFR and TSC frequently speak French. Unacceptable. As for "Line up and wait" , it's clear, and takes less time to say. When your freq is busy this is an asset, that's why I personally prefer it


So what is the clearance when the tower needs an immediate takeoff for traffic? "Line up and wait, cleared for immediate takeoff, no delay?"

Is is possible that those operating in other parts of the world have no appreciation of how hard US ATCO's are pushing traffic over here?

[pigboat]

What's the difference between a hectopascal and a millibar? :confused:

[galaxy flyer]

acroguy,

Please stop embarrassing us Americans who fly overseas and are under enough embarrassment for our radio "techniques". "Line up and Wait" was a simple improvement. Why would an ATCO say "into position and hold, cleared for immediate"?

pigboat, a couple of syllables, I'd guess and a salute to a forgotten Frenchman like most scurvy metric ideas. :cool: :p

[acroguy]

I promise to stop contributing to this thread, but I never said the old clearance was "position and hold, cleared for immediate". I said the clearance used to be "taxi into position, cleared for an immediate...". The point being, what is the point of the word "wait" if the clearance is going to be for an immediate?

I also promise to stop being embarrassed for the UK guys who apparently are flabbergasted at being cleared to land 7-8 miles from the airport here in the US. Imagine that. Maybe ICAO could learn something.

[galaxy flyer]

In that case, why not, "cleared for immediate take-off" and drop "into position"? Standard ICAO aviation English requires no more time, just a ommitment to using it properly.

[White None]

There is no doubt that the job done by ATC in many places the world round is impressive. Likewise the ability of ORD etc to shift huge total No's if AC from their runways. To them, I doff my hat.

Your assertation that long-winded sentences are necessary to achieve high flow rates is simply WRONG. Purely as an example, London Gatwick achieves the highest flow-rate (by movements per hour) of any commercial airport runway in the world. They have a truly international clientele, and trust me, you Never hear the motivational speaking you have advocated bracketed around the somewhat camouflaged clearance.

I think you are fighting for what you like and prefer, not seeing the big picture. Patriotism, (and I am proud of my country) has no place in Flt Safety.

[West Coast]

White none

Can you expand upon your claim? I've heard they are the busiest single runway commercial, but not sure of the point you're making.

[White None]

Can I expand - Sure. The fact that the example was Gatwick is irrelevant. The claim I am making is that in order to Push a lot of Tin, it is absolutely NOT necessary to use transmissions like
Taxi into position runway 1, traffic landing runway 28, keep it moving -- be ready to go after the Learjet crossing right to left, company on a two mile final for runway 28" which was straight from acroguy's post.

You would never hear that at Gatwick, hence I used it as an example, but the same could be said for Hong Kong where I personally am now attuned to the local accents, but for everyone's benefit ATC generally strive to hit the agreed, thought out Standards.

As an aside, I'm Ex-Military where at the right place to the right audience a degree of humour, sarcasm, banter etc was, if not encouraged, allowed and it led to a feeling of teamwork and a good way to start and end missions, yadayada...:zzz: So I truly get the good natured, getting the job done, intentions of transmissions such as the above BUT, anyone who says these would never be spoken (too)quickly hasn't been to a busy US port. acroguy mentioned that there are no " odd nouns or verbs" in there - agreed, but that is not the point. My current home port is HKG, we have crew from worldwide and I regularly fly with people for whom English is a second language who find that they CAN deal with UK ATC but find the US much harder. Put a US pilot's spouse in a cockpit and ask them to understand ALL the R/T, ( it's all important, right?), they wouldn't be able to because they have little preconception of what is about to be said. Expectation is a significant part of the auditory understanding process, and one can only 'expect' standard calls, especially under stress.

If it is not already clear I am not defending any particular nation, just the principles of standardisation, to try to give examples for those who seem to think everyone should fit in with whatever a host nation's practise is, and to try to put all Non English as a first language crews in the same bracket of finding it tricky, not just Asians.

Finally, again, those French Huh!!!! :ok:

[RobertS975]

KDCA is pretty busy with what amounts to a single runway... yeah, I know there are two other runways, but 90% of the 290,000 landings and takeoffs occur on 18-36. LGW has approx 50,000 less plane movements although with an average bigger aircraft. The biggest thing that KDCA sees is a B757. Not to demean what LGW manages to accomplish with a single runway....

[West Coast]

Whites none

Seemed your post was built around the Gatwick example, but ok.

[HundredPercentPlease]

USA:

Taxi into position runway 1, traffic landing runway 28, keep it moving -- be ready to go after the Learjet crossing right to left, company on a two mile final for runway 28

ROTW:

Line up and wait 01, expedite, be ready immediate

[Island-Flyer]

I like being told who I'm waiting for when holding for a runway or taking a position. God help me if they don't tell me and just give me a takeoff clearance when some other flight is still landing on a crossing runway.

Again this is just a personal preference as an airman, but having more information is better than having less.

[White None]

West Coast.

It was, Gatwick is a perfect example, which I don't apologise for using. An example is just something which is typical of other similar, Err....., Examples? Inevitably people are a bit hairsprung to assume other people are having a go on the basis of nationality, I'm not.
( Except for the French :uhoh: )

[Agaricus bisporus]

What's the difference between a hectopascal and a millibar?

Precisely my point!

None whatsoever, except one is harder to say and doesn't tell you what it is. Everyone can figure that a Mb is a thousandth of an atmosphere. Why change something that is self evident for something that is not. All it can do is add confusion, as it has done here. Completely idiotic.

ps. does "taxi onto position runway 1" mean "taxi into position runway (unreadable zero) 1" or Taxi into position runway 1 (unreadable zero)". No one can ever know...

[White None]

Ha Haa - Nice "PS". Running out of Cans for all the Worms here. :D

[cribble]

Acro
I tried to post similar to the following yesterday, but technical issues prevailed.

Some North Americans seem to have a :mad: about ICAO.
As a gentle reminder:
1.ICAO began at the Chicago Conference in 1944
2. ICAO HQ is in Montreal
3. ICAO is a UN body (for what that is worth!)
4. Countries can file exceptions to ICAO standards if it seems to them that this is a good idea.

[JW411]

Hectopascals have been around for some time. I well remember the original NOTAM which stated that the FDR (West Germany), the GDR (East Germany) and Malawi would adopt the hectopascal at midnight and abandon the milibar. It went on to say that the conversion ratio was 1 hectopascal = 1 milibar.

I think the date was 14 September 1984 and I was flying from McGuire to Frankfurt. Sure enough, the Frankfurt ATIS was giving the pressure setting in hectopascals on our arrival.

So, for the last 30 years or so the rest of the world has been missing out on hectopascals!

[cactusbusdrvr]

This thread is a joke. The system works very well in the US. The system does not work when foreign carriers employ pilots that: A can't fly visual approaches, and B, can't speak or understand English.

[radorabatin]

You have no idea what you're talking about.....especially with americans flying out of north america,for example europe....they have trouble to understand english without "the american" accent, for example british pilots and australians have absolutely no problem to undestand correctly spoken english,but without american accent....so I wouldn't say that there is problem with pilots poor english knowledge.....as an ATC I know what I'm talking about,because from my position,as a one who is instructing pilots it is just simple....because pilot is responding,I'm familiar with my airspace,I know all waypoints and procedures,which is not case for pilot,who flies through my airspace maybe 10x per year,so he cannot remember it,and thus react promptly on my instructions.....and this happens with americans over my airspace also....especially when I use ICAO phraseology,they have problem to understand....just because they are used to slang and "open language" or some kind of freestyle....over US airspace...I just hope it won't result in accident somewhere over congested area in US...

[beardy]

The system works very well in the US

I think that you have hit the nail on the head. Belief in something does not necessarily mean that it is true. The 'system' does work, but according to some of us who visit and are used to ICAO standards being implemented in a disciplined environment, not well.

[J.O.]

This thread is a joke. The system works very well in the US. The system does not work when foreign carriers employ pilots that: A can't fly visual approaches, and B, can't speak or understand English.

Denial. Nature's alternative to fixing a simple problem. Often used when one's culture is offended.

This is aviation safety and effective communications we're talking about, not performance art. The above posted quotes of non-standard language used by some controllers are examples of performance art, not effective communications that an international audience can understand. If you want to put on a show, go sign up for amateur night at the local comedy club. This stuff has no place in aviation.

[Checkerboard 13]

You have no idea what you're talking about.....especially with americans flying out of north america,for example europe....they have trouble to understand english without "the american" accent, for example british pilots and australians have absolutely no problem to undestand correctly spoken english,but without american accent....so I wouldn't say that there is problem with pilots poor english knowledge.....as an ATC I know what I'm talking about,because from my position,as a one who is instructing pilots it is just simple....because pilot is responding,I'm familiar with my airspace,I know all waypoints and procedures,which is not case for pilot,who flies through my airspace maybe 10x per year,so he cannot remember it,and thus react promptly on my instructions.....and this happens with americans over my airspace also....especially when I use ICAO phraseology,they have problem to understand....just because they are used to slang and "open language" or some kind of freestyle....over US airspace...I just hope it won't result in accident somewhere over congested area in US... Might one hope that ATCO's English is more "correctly spoken" than the above is written? (If not, difficulties in understanding could be entirely understandable.)

It is also worth noting the the British and Aussies (as well as all English speakers) have accents, as well. Is an American's difficulty in understanding a British accent any different than the converse?

And lest anyone try to lay claim to the "pure" version of the language, it should be remembered that all language evolves. Perhaps the purest modern variant of the "King's English" might be that which was left with the colonials across the pond, a couple of centuries ago.

[4runner]

American slang is much worse than non-english. I really enjoy lessons in French and Spanish and Arabic you get outside of the US. Excellent for situational awareness. Also, and I've said this before, I have to translate ALL the time for Brits and Aussies flying for a certain ME and Brit carrier in Afrika. So much for your 13 exams and phraseology handbook. I also have said this before on PPRUNE, the airman phraseology handbook is just another nitpicky, whingy, whiny Lymey invention to use to attempt to look down on aviators from elsewhere and assert their position as masters of the aviation world. But seriously, Americans are bad pilots(they must be because they need 1500 hours to fly 121), undisciplined and Vickers and Airbus will soon take over the world. Visual approach and handflying skills bad, airman phraseology and 200 hour FO's who pay to fly good. All you need to be a good pilot is the inability to think outside the box, 100,000 euros for training and your own type rating, excellent airman phraseology, 13 written tests, a MCC course, 200 hours, 50 words per minute typing ability for the fms/fmc, a functional autopilot, an ils, and no x-wind. You will never stall an Airbus, handfly a visual, or have an unskilled controller trying to fly you into a mountain. Enjoy your 200,000 euro a year job!:ugh:

[Two_dogs]

Whilst I am all for standardisation and correct phraseology, I found this highly amusing and probably acceptable for domestic ops between 'locals'.

Boston John, a tower controller at Boston, Massachusetts has a bit of a following on youtube. I thought the "Love of my Life " at 3:05 was classic, but at 3:10, all is back to a professional level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpHhzvgxkKw

Not everyone likes it though,

Boston John, speak english ! - YouTube

It's only Rock and Roll, but I like it.

[MPN11]

I have mixed views on "Boston John", and much of that hinges on the traffic levels at the time. Was this night traffic? Probably best to avoid the habit of non-English messages, though - the 2nd clip sums that up quite neatly.

Although …. OK, an affectation, perhaps, but I sort of like his emphasis on words like "crossss RW27". That's not going to lead to a mistake, and obviates the need for further messages and keeps the traffic flow going.

[Basil]

I listened to the first clip which, although easy to understand, required more effort to listen to than it should have.

[douglasheld]

Taxi into position runway 1, keep it moving, be ready to go following the Learjet crossing right to left.

I am only a lowly PPL with 130 hours of experience, but I hope this is a legitimate question: WTF is the proper readback to such a request??

[Lord Spandex Masher]

"Line up and wait callsignxx"

[douglasheld]

Honestly I think the best I would muster, after mental translation, would be "line up immediate callsign", followed by "lined up".

[aa73]

My read back would be along the lines of " Line up and wait on Runway (XX), American XXX, we'll be ready."

Have had several of these types of clearances and honestly, it's no big deal. You guys are making way too much out of this. Can we just accept the fact that the system works fine on both sides of the pond?

[MPN11]

Systems work well on both sides of the Pond. It tends to go to rats when people cross Ponds. Which is why things like ICAO were invented.

"Hey, 73, you're good to go after the three in front. Follow the herd."

[West Coast]

Understood, wilco,,73

Pretty clear

[HDRW]

What's the difference between a hectopascal and a millibar? :confused:
Same as the difference between cycles per second and Hertz - new name for the old measure, using someone's name. The SI people like to do this.
The UK has notified a difference, and still uses millibars.

[acroguy]

USA:

Quote:
Taxi into position runway 1, traffic landing runway 28, keep it moving -- be ready to go after the Learjet crossing right to left, company on a two mile final for runway 28
ROTW:

Quote:
Line up and wait 01, expedite, be ready immediate

Unless the US tower controller rulebook has been changed, he/she must advise if traffic is taking off or landing on an intersecting runway...maybe only a letter of agreement thing at big airports, but always my experience.

As always, ICAO may know better.

[pigboat]

So mb to HPa was merely a cosmetic change with no basis in logic. It could have been called a puncheon and would have made as much sense. ;)

[White None]

Side 1

for the "Readback" question, as it's a Clearance where presumably all the qualifying info is vital - in FULL so:-

"Taxi into position runway 1, keep it moving, be ready to go following the
Learjet crossing right to left - Callsign"

iIf I neglected to add, say, "... follow the Learjet ..." then ATC 'should' (IMO) question me. My reception of that 'Restriction' may have been blocked? ATC should retransmit on the assumption that ai may (reasonably) go before the Learjet. Don't think tyat couldn't happen - absolutely everybody has been blocked or got half a call. Basically, If it's important for the clearance 1) ATC say it, 2) I Read it back 3) ATC correct if required. If it's not important they shouldn't / needn't say it.

Side 2

Best call ever heard, (Civvy) Some guy (sounded Texan to me) held high flowing out East over JFK, finally after a few RQSTs got:-

" Turn *** inbound descend *** immediate, cleared *** approach
no height/speed restriction "

Out came the immortal, succinct and silently applauded by all Readback:-

"...... YeeeHaaah .... "

It"s true, even those of us bitching away about standardisation would really like to be John Wayne.

[Fargo Boyle]

'The UK has notified a difference, and still uses millibars'


Where do you work/fly? Nats at least uses Hp, been mandated for a few months now

[HDRW]

'The UK has notified a difference, and still uses millibars'

Where do you work/fly? Nats at least uses Hp, been mandated for a few months now

It's a fair cop, I haven't been flying for some time and my information is out of date :rolleyes: - it was correct when HPa was introduced and I hadn't realised it had changed. Sorry!
(Although reading the latest CAP413 I can't find any reference to the change except to that of changing the words in the document itself - no mention of the removal of the difference).

I note that Hectopascals are now only said when the number is less than 1000, presumably because that's when it could be confused with inHg.

[Basil]

" Turn *** inbound descend *** immediate, cleared *** approach
. . . "
Had something like that at LHR after sending Mayday due engine fire.
ISTR I just read it back :hmm:

[GlueBall]

I've always accepted the non standard R/T and non English R/T in foreign airspace as a challenge, rather than as an annoyance.
We are guests in foreign airspace and cannot expect the locals to refrain from talking to each other in their own language. It doesn't matter what ICAO says, because ICAO cannot impose R/T rules, it can only recommend. So, when you fly between Urumqi and Shanghai, you'll hear lots of Mandarin R/T; and between Buenos Aires and Cochabamba you'll hear lots of Spanish R/T; between Khartoum and Cairo you'll hear lots of Arabic R/T . . . that's just the way the cookie crumbles, and it won't change in our lifetime. :ooh:

[Cows getting bigger]

You're right that ICAO cannot impose the rules. However, by being a signatory to the Chicago Convention, states are obliged to either comply with ICAO SARPs or file Differences. Either way, states concerned are responsible for ensuring compliance with their own regulations.

A quick gander through the US AIP (GEN 1.7-23) gives an idea of their filed differences. I don't see too much of the verbage previously quoted being a notified difference. :) Perhaps the question should be directed at the FAA as far as standardisation is concerned?

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIP/aip.pdf

[MPN11]

Having searched that .pdf, I can't find anything that allows a 'difference' in respect of unofficial, casual, informal RT either.

But then I controlled, and spoke, 'by the book' … as I am a boring old sod, not a cabaret act. :cool:

[banjodrone]

There's a video available on youtube.com of the atc from the 777 crash at Heathrow a few years ago. The whole thing is impressive and professional but there's one bit that stands out that I think kind of illustrates the type of thing we're talking about and that some American pilots might find just a little bit over the top.

You can hear the tower controller go through the procedures in a very well rehearsed flowchart like manner giving the details to emergency crews and at one point he says something along the lines of "type of problem is crash, aircraft has crashed...".....if you listen to it you'll see what I mean.

In the US they might go something like "Boeing 777 crash at the threshold of 27L, immediately dispatch emergency vehicles to the incident"....or something along those lines. They'll have guidelines and procedures but they won't necessarily have a rigid sequence of steps where it's stated that there's an aircraft accident then later on that the accident is a crash.

Again not a criticism it all worked out great but it does illustrate the different ways of thinking and how that tends to translate to RT procedure.

[deefer dog]

From the FAA...

National regulations and practices concerning
facilitation of international air transport are being
carried out at all international airports as far as
possible in accordance with the provisions set forth in
the Standards and Recommended Practices of
Annex 9 to the Convention on International Civil
Aviation. Differences from certain Annex 9 provisions
exist only in those cases where it has not yet
been possible to amend national legislation accordingly.
Continuous efforts are being made to eliminate
these differences. (my bold)Clearly the FAA agree with the principal that global standarization is in everyone's interest; unlike the few vociferous posters here who feel that the USA has a right to run the show any way they choose in their home region.

[West Coast]

Rhetoric is cheap. I expect little to no change.

[jandakotcruiser]

Back in the '80s some Flying Tiger aces planted a B747 into a hill at WMSA old Subang Kuala Lumpur international airport because they descended to 400ft instead of the cleared altitude of two thousand four hundred feet. After that ( and a lot of hoo haa, hand wringing and racist protestations ) ICAO recommended against using the phrase " cleared to " as the then KUL ATC had cleared those guys with the instructions" cleared two four zero zero feet " which was two thousand four hunderd feet, but the Flying Tigers crew misinterpreted that as "cleared to four zero zero feet ".

Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214 crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!! Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.:ugh:

[galaxy flyer]

And that would be because......there were no Internet thingy then. :E

[N90-EWR]

Some fun read in this thread. I particularly loved the Heathrow controller saying none of us could manage it. :D

In my 23 years working at New York Approach, I've heard just about every accent, or slang there is. The worst ones to communicate with have always been Asian carriers, though some South American carriers have been just as bad. Rarely do I have any issues with European carriers, with probably the Polish, and Russians being the notable exceptions.

[Cows getting bigger]

Said by a New Yorker. Priceless. :D Surely the point is that phraseology needs to be standard because of the various accents?

(PS. my SW Irish accent is just perfect!) :)

[N90-EWR]

I'm not a native New Yorker! ;)

[White None]

Personally I think (understandably) some US guys here are reacting as they feel their STANDARD of R/T and hence Op's is being criticised. Personally, that is not MY point which is just that WORLDWIDE STANDARDISATION should be enforced for all the good reasons. Everyone the same, every call made meeting the receivers expected list of possibles in their circumstances with a solid confirmation of clearances, no room for misinterpretation.

"Bad Standards" is an accusation any professional would get annoyed about.

"Lets STANDARDISE" should be more palatable or even (arguably) an unarguable step to take.

[West Coast]

Even the ICAO doesn't aspire to that goal of 100% worldwide compliance. How many variances (the proper term escapes me-kinda ironic) do individual countries enjoy, each of which divurges from the goal.

I recognize that many of the changes are necessary for local needs.

[N90-EWR]

I rarely have any issues with foreign crews about communication. If anything, my biggest complain with certain foreign airlines is slowing down below 250 knots 40 to 50 miles from the airport without telling me, and also not maintaining assigned airspeeds on final. If you're not able to maintain 170 knots to the final approach fix, then tell me, so that I can plan adequate spacing behind.:ugh:

[grounded27]

Back in the '80s some Flying Tiger aces planted a B747 into a hill at WMSA old Subang Kuala Lumpur international airport because they descended to 400ft instead of the cleared altitude of two thousand four hundred feet. After that ( and a lot of hoo haa, hand wringing and racist protestations ) ICAO recommended against using the phrase " cleared to " as the then KUL ATC had cleared those guys with the instructions" cleared two four zero zero feet " which was two thousand four hunderd feet, but the Flying Tigers crew misinterpreted that as "cleared to four zero zero feet ".

Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214 crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!! Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.:ugh:

It is clearly understood as a mis-communication and a moron agreement to recieve clearance "to 400", yeah they paid the ultimate price for one of many global dumbass moves. Two Four Zero would have saved this flight, agree a damnb tired crew hearing "to 400" was complacent. None the less it is no excuse for the lack of global adhereance to a common form of communication, thus cpdlc etc. God save the tired and retarded....

[4runner]

I haven't flown with a Yank in over two years. I have been flying with Euro "level 6" guys. Most can hardly order a beer in an english speaking country and basic communications inside and outside the cockpit are strained. The problem is the corrupt EASA system where people can basically buy icao level 6 in SPAIN???? SPAIN!!!! Actually, as far as im concerned, the whole euro aviation system is corrupted. There is no system to develop and weed out lesser candidates. The one who pays the Euro gets the job, not the most suitable candidate. Now, products of this same convoluted, ineffective and over-regulated mess is lashing out at the country that invented flying in a pathetic attempt to mask their own faults and failures. Next time you need American help, make sure you stop all the B-17 crews before their daylight bombing raids and give them some lessons in RT from ur handbook you keep in your flight case. The language is English, not German and you're welcome.
Even the Brits have a hard time with their own accents at smaller northern airports. But hey, Americans invented aviation but the Brits perfected it right?

[grounded27]

Standard...

1 wun

2 too

3 tree

4 fower

5 fife

6 siks

7 seven

8 ait

9 niner

0 zeero

Has this been lost?

[Cows getting bigger]

4Runner - oh, dear. Did we have a bad day? :eek:

[stratofactor]

Next time you need American help, make sure you stop all the B-17 crews before their daylight bombing raids and give them some lessons in RT from ur handbook you keep in your flight case. The language is English, not German and you're welcome.
That is some funny stuff, I just spit my morning coffee on my keyboard!

[silverstrata]

Next time you need American help, make sure you stop all the B-17 crews before their daylight bombing raids and give them some lessons in RT from ur handbook you keep in your flight case.


Funnily enough I was listening to the (KC-135s?) coming back from missions in Iraq, through into the Eastern Med. Mission in enemy airspace went fine, but boy were they in a tizz with ATC transmissions. Everything was given and re-given four times, and still they did not get it.

Never mind the SAM evasion course, how about a course in standard RT phraseology and a guide book to Eastern Mediterranean accents?? "Aaarrrrr - Reach 3-4, say that again sloowwwly...."

[Metro man]

"This is triple nickle, eight ball, five in the slot, boots on and laced, ready to bounce and blow"

Translation: "This is (call sign) 558, five miles out, established ILS, request touch and go"

[Ancient Mariner]

Wouldn't that be double nickle, or 5558?

[aterpster]

Grounded 27:


Standard...

1wun

2too

3tree

4fower

5fife

6siks

7seven

8ait

9niner

0zeero

Has this been lost?

This is a page from the FAA's AIM:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/AIMPhonetic_zpsc29dd633.jpg

[Tipsy Barossa]

Back in the '80s some Flying Tiger aces planted a B747 into a hill at WMSA old Subang Kuala Lumpur international airport because they descended to 400ft instead of the cleared altitude of two thousand four hundred feet. After that ( and a lot of hoo haa, hand wringing and racist protestations ) ICAO recommended against using the phrase " cleared to " as the then KUL ATC had cleared those guys with the instructions" cleared two four zero zero feet " which was two thousand four hunderd feet, but the Flying Tigers crew misinterpreted that as "cleared to four zero zero feet ".

Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214
crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!!
Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.


Was this the REAL cause of the accident or a red herring to hide other possible
reasons like chronic fatigue, negligence or other errors? Just asking.....

[J.O.]

They set 400 feet on the altitude selector, so no, it was not a red herring. Other factors such as ignoring repeated GPWS pull up warnings didn't help but had they set 2400 ft instead, they'd likely still be alive today.

[pigboat]

Not a single occurrence. In 1991 a G2 was given a clearance to 4000 feet on approach to Kota Kinabalu. Unfortunately the local terrain was 4100 feet.

[RandomPerson8008]

As an American pilot who conducts most of their flights outside the US, I agree, the phraseology standard of most of my colleagues is downright embarrassing. Indeed, it seems that many US pilots go out of their way to be non-standard and I find it absolutely maddening.

They do things like omit their flight number in readbacks, other times say only the flight number and omit the callsign, they add a possesive 's to the end of their callsin, say "checkin' on with ya" on intial callup, say "up to three four oh" when cleared to climb, say "down to two seven oh" when cleared to descend, and otherwise just break into random sentences of non-standard English when doing something as simple as asking for a weather deviation. It is very frustrating to be an unwilling accomplice to this behavior.

Unfortunately there is no way to address this issue without coming off as a complete :mad:. I've found that pilots take these types of criticisms personally, especially if they come from a relatively junior pilot such as myself. I have little choice but to keep my distaste internalized. All I can do is strive to be standard when it is my turn to key the mic.

[1999]

RandomPerson8008 ..... my hats off to you Sir .... I would gladly board your plane anytime. Seeing that there are still some real professionals out there is encourageing and maybe there's still a hope for this industry...
Salute and best regards from a relatively "old farted" European ATC . :)

[West Coast]

Hopefully RT isn't the deciding factor for you to put your family on someone's aircraft. I'm sure Sully's RT wasn't the greatest that day. Nor was Al Haines in Sioux City, nor David Cronin returning to HNL with number 3 and 4 toast and a large chunk of the fuselage missing.

I know where your going with it and I understand, but don't make any assumptions of ones flying skills based on RT. as much as I'm sure I'll be lambasted, I do believe that.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Are we to assume that most American pilots are constantly in the middle of a crisis then? ;)

[1999]

RT isn't the only deciding factor of course ... but based on my 47 year lifes experiance - the folks prone to cutting the corners in one "field" are most likely cutting them elsewhere ... but as I said, that's my experiance.
Examples of those pilots you mentioned were emergency and life threataning situations and as such maybe not the best reference to the topic ....
and to further elaborate my initial post ... the intention of my post was not bashing US pilots ... there are good and bad apples everywhere ... I just wanted to praise one voice who speaks out and goes against the "general" defensive attitude of (to) many ....

[Al Murdoch]

Sullenberger's RT was far from standard, but it was brief and to the point and in a critical situation such as the one he was in, was highly appropriate.
I just got back from a long trip to the States and while I generally find the standard of RT not as bad as some people on this forum would have it, it can be very poor at times. I can think of at least 5 or 6 occasions on the sector home where clearances had to be repeated largely because of poor RT technique. A phenomenon which I am noticing more and more from US operators is the press the R/T switch and say nothing technique. Nobody seems to think before they start transmitting. As we are told that US R/T is non-standard because of the busy airspace, I wonder how much time is lost because of it?
I also heard someone pretty much arranging a date between a departure radar controller and the female pilot of a regional jet. Seriously?

[dailyazna]

As said before it's not like they are banging in airliners all that often. In recent times I have heard even domestic Australian pilots breakout the US RT proceedures when frequencies get congested. Seems to work much better!

[flyboyike]

As an American pilot who conducts most of their flights outside the US, I agree, the phraseology standard of most of my colleagues is downright embarrassing. Indeed, it seems that many US pilots go out of their way to be non-standard and I find it absolutely maddening.

They do things like omit their flight number in readbacks, other times say only the flight number and omit the callsign, they add a possesive 's to the end of their callsin, say "checkin' on with ya" on intial callup, say "up to three four oh" when cleared to climb, say "down to two seven oh" when cleared to descend, and otherwise just break into random sentences of non-standard English when doing something as simple as asking for a weather deviation. It is very frustrating to be an unwilling accomplice to this behavior.

Unfortunately there is no way to address this issue without coming off as a complete . I've found that pilots take these types of criticisms personally, especially if they come from a relatively junior pilot such as myself. I have little choice but to keep my distaste internalized. All I can do is strive to be standard when it is my turn to key the mic.


What kind of starch do you use for your shirts? I've been using Faultless, but I'm being told real professionals only use Niagara. Is that true?

[RandomPerson8008]

What kind of starch do you use for your shirts? I've been using Faultless, but I'm being told real professionals only use Niagara. Is that true?

I use whatever the "Guppy Killer" "heavy RJ" drivers are using. They're undoubtedly the experts on all things concerning professional aviation, especially this topic, since they so often depart the confines of comfortable North America. Oh, wait a second.....:rolleyes:

I'm sure "checkin on with ya three four oh lookin for a smooth ride, how ya'll doin down there?, over and out little buddy" works just fine all day long on that super desireable IND-CLT route. Sure, you sound like a tool, but it makes you feel like Luke Duke form the Dukes of Hazard so it's all worthwhile. :rolleyes:

[flyboyike]

That's just it, I've seen some of them use Faultess, some Niagara and some just sizing spray, so I'm all confused on that issue.

[J.O.]

None of us is faultless. How does that affect the fact that we all have a responsibility to raise our concerns when unsafe behaviours creep into the operation?

[bubbers44]

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Notice which one has last priority?

[Cows getting bigger]

Absolutely, hence the concern when the communicate bit takes too much time because:

a. Other 'professional' pilots/controllers are using ten words when two will do.

b. You have to ask for repeats of instructions because they weren't given in a standard format first.

This whole thread (and the Asiana SFO) one is a great example of why we need to do CRM. :ugh:

[Astra driver]

"Standard of RT in the USA"?

Well let's see, in the UK I've been told by numerous controllers to "Climb level four hundred", etc. In France when checking in with a speed restriction I've been told "Free speed", I could go on and on but I think the phrase that comes to mind here is "Be careful not to cast stones in glass houses".

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

Bubbers,

So because its the 3rd in line out of the 3 it just doesn't matter? Reassuring. :eek:

Astra Driver,

Firstly I've never heard that in my life and I'm guessing I fly in the UK far more than you do. And secondly if that's the best example of crap RT you can muster from outside of the US then I think that probably tells a story!? :ok:

Don't really know why this has turned into an intercontinental p1ssing contest, its about safety and nothing else. I'm not judging the standards of any country's ATC, but to defend US ATC units' and pilots use of totally non-standard RT by saying "hey it works just fine here/we know more than anyone as we invented flying etc etc" is laughable. The whole point of "standardised" RT is so people from all 4 corners of the aviation world (there is a rather large world beyond US borders) can understand and be understood. This must take into account the lowest common denominator whoever they may be.

Unfortunately US ATC aren't always easy to understand and that's to a native English speaker. If it works "just fine" for you then great, but why can't so many people see the fact that for non-natives its harder (and therefore potentially less safe) than using standard phrases. I'm not so anal as to expect any controller/pilot exchange to be anything close to word perfect anywhere in the world, but the whole point is that many US pilots/controllers don't even make an effort to sound professional or attempt to use any standard phrases. Why?

Because YOU know better and it works fine for YOU. What else matters!?

[VFR Only Please]

It's always seemed to me that reading back a clearance in a slightly different way (i.e. not just word-for-word parroting of the controller's instructions) to show you've understood is a good idea. In the Kuala Lumpur example, if in reply to "XYZ cleared two four zero zero feet" the crew had said something like "XYZ descending four hundred feet", this would have saved the day.

[Uplinker]

Nicely put, Daily - I agree 100%

The point surely is that standardization is the most important lesson here.

Yes; some folk - flight deck or ATC - may think they are very clever and professional just because they sound cool and slick with their invented calls and linguistic shortcuts, but if they are using non-standard phrases that even just one crew does not understand one day, and that crew then taxis into an aircraft taking off, or descends into the flightpath of another aircraft and crashes - how are they going to feel?

Would they be able to sleep at night?

Some ICAO phrases do seem laborious, and I do understand why some folk feel the need to make things slicker, but they must understand that non-standard phraseology could lead to disaster one day. As I've said; we were given totally the wrong QNH going into Mexico, purely because the controller was trying to save time by making his own invented verbal shortcut. Fine for him, but what if we had stuffed the aircraft into the ground in IMC conditions because we had the wrong QNH set?

[galaxy flyer]

flyboymike,
Would you be one of THESE guys....

Unfortunately there is no way to address this issue without coming off as a complete . I've found that pilots take these types of criticisms personally

Personally, I agree, about 75% or more of US Yanks sound terrible on the radio, here and overseas.

I'll bet that RJ gets your international a lot, like twice a month to YYZ. Don't take it personally, I've asked guys, if the flew international; their answer was, "sure, we go to Toronto and Montreal."

[galaxy flyer]

Despite years of international USAF flying, the Canadians I work with taught, and demanded, good ICAO R/T. :ok:

Not that many French would recognize it.:E

[Captain Stravaigin]

Not sure why Decimal is preferred to Point - given that the latter is a lot shorter. I suspect that it may be because French was an important language in the early days of ICAO and the decimal seperator in French is "vergul" or comma in English. Point is the thousands seperator. Quite a lot of scope for confusion there !

Any History/Linguistic experts out there know the real reason ?

[flyboyike]

I'll bet that RJ gets your international a lot, like twice a month to YYZ. Don't take it personally, I've asked guys, if the flew international; their answer was, "sure, we go to Toronto and Montreal."



Don't be ridiculous, I also go to YEG, YOW, YWG and even Bahamas and Mexico sometimes.

Too bad I have no idea what that has to do with the issue at hand, maybe if I were a little smarter....As it is, half the time when I hear "AyrChiaKah-goh" or "Korrrrreanayr" check in, I haven't the foggiest what language they're speaking, never mind what phraseology.

[galaxy flyer]

The issue is, in the US, one can get away with our slang, silly check-ins, and the like, overseas it's a problem and many Yanks sound like hicks.

[flyboyike]

Like I said, at least we actually speak English, which is more than a great many operators can claim. Do I need to post the link to the legendary exchange between JFK Ground and a CAAC 747?

[MPN11]

My mis-spent youth [70- 79]was predominantly spent controlling in East Anglia and over/through the London TMA. USAF aircrew were OK - perhaps because I got used to them, maybe because they were taught 'proper' at Base Instrument Schools at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Upper Heyford.

There were variations, of course - 'Diverse Recovery' (wozzat?), the desire to burn fuel in holding patterns instead of getting on with it. But they spoke NATO, and were easy to handle in the vast numbers they had back then.

Perhaps being 'overseas' focussed their minds? Perhaps we (the RAF) taught them proper, so that you said Hazeborough instead of Happisburg? we all melded happily, thanks to ATCRU USAFLOs.

Could that work in the US? "No way, Juan"

[galaxy flyer]

Flyboymike

So, your solution is only native English speakers can fly, or at least, use the radios. Even the Brits, who invented English, have trouble with US slang and what passes for Aviation English. Lastly, please review the FAA's AIM and show us where "checkin' at three five oh" or "with you" is found.

[flyboyike]

I've offered no solutions whatsoever (although it might interest you that I'm NOT a native speaker, in fact, English is my fourth language). I leave that to smart people.

[boofhead]

In the UK etc when a clearance is read back the controller is obliged to listen and report to the pilot that the clearance readback is correct. Is this true in the US? I have not seen anything to say so, and always assumed that reading back the clearance gave the controller the chance to correct errors, but that the controller was not legally obliged to do so. It is unusual for a US controller to tell me that I was "correct".

If the controller does not challenge me, I assume that my readback was correct.

I am particularly interested in clearances received in flight, such as altitude assignments. For example if a pilot mis-hears an assignment to climb to FL 310, reads back FL330, and the controller does not reply. Nor does the controller say "clearance readback correct". The pilot then climbs to 330 and is busted.

Does he have an argument for perhaps reducing the penalty?

[jxk]

Not sure why Decimal is preferred to Point - given that the latter is a lot shorter. Because point can be a noun, verb etc.. Decimal is just decimal! Especially confusing when the controller says, 'go to Point 6' - I never did find it ;)

[West Coast]

"Point 6"

It's in the AIM for those who fly in the US.

[divingduck]

I actually like "point"... one syllable, day-cee-mal...count them...

I also like "point out approved" (ATC stuff) rather than the VERY long winded way of saying it in other parts of the world.

As for the rest of the "standard" r/t...well...:{

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The lack of syllables in a word isn't the basis for forming standard phraseology. Indeed multiple syllable words are often easier to decipher through static which is the main reason for using them.

[Capn Bloggs]

In the UK etc when a clearance is read back the controller is obliged to listen and report to the pilot that the clearance readback is correct.
That is not the case in Oz. The controllers do not acknowledge a correct readback.

I am particularly interested in clearances received in flight, such as altitude assignments. For example if a pilot mis-hears an assignment to climb to FL 310, reads back FL330, and the controller does not reply. Nor does the controller say "clearance readback correct". The pilot then climbs to 330 and is busted.
The controller would be required to challenge the incorrect readback, would he not? If he did not, then the crew can hardly be busted, in fact I'd say "drop on your head, play the tape, I read back FL310 and you should have corrected it". That's what a closed-loop communication procedure is all about.

[PA-28-180]

" In the UK etc when a clearance is read back the controller is obliged to listen and report to the pilot that the clearance readback is correct. Is this true in the US? I have not seen anything to say so, and always assumed that reading back the clearance gave the controller the chance to correct errors, but that the controller was not legally obliged to do so. It is unusual for a US controller to tell me that I was "correct". "

In the U.S., for a ground delivered IFR clearance anyway.....they always say "readback correct", or give corrections if needed.

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

Boofhead,

If I read your post correctly then I think you are a little confused. UK ATC do not reply with "readback correct" for anything other than giving the initial clearance on the ground, this is the same the world over. If they said it after every in-flight clearance nobody would get a word in on a busy frequency. :ok:

[Eclan]

In fact that's not correct and there are many places where a readback of a readback is commonplace. Indians, for example, for some cultural reason fly around needing the readback readback and ending their own readbacks with, "...confirm?"

I wouldn't go using the JFK/China exchange as an example of anything other than disgraceful controlling. So bad the poster has taken it down from youtube I believe. The same New Yorker would be hopelessly lost in Peking, wandering the streets asking for a hot dog and not knowing a single word of the local lingo, unlike the Chinaman he blasted on the radio.

Sadly, the Canucks are indistinguishable from the yanks, I'm afraid. Comes from being on the same airwaves presumably. Bad RT and folksy, yokel terminology spreads on VHF exactly like a virus and you now have Indians "checkin' in, on handover" and pilots from the 'stans with their squawk codes "...comin' down" or in some cases even "... comin' up." Even ATC catch it with middle-east controllers requesting pilots to "...say your altitude" instead of "report." Every second pilot around the world is beginning a readback with, "...Okay understand."

The Brits aren't much better with "fully" this and that which has crept in. You're either ready or not. Established or not.

It's not hard; stop making excuses. There's a book, just read it.

[Uplinker]

Confirming correct read backs is very distracting I find, (apart from initial clearances).

Going into parts of the Caribbean, the controllers always come back and say "correct" (or sometimes even "callsign correct") about 3 seconds after you have correctly read back!

This is very distracting, because supposing they have just cleared you to 'descend flight level 250'; you read that back, then the pilot flying starts to say in the cockpit; "Mach descent, flight level 250......" as s/he is making the appropriate selections. Then; halfway through, the controller 'interrupts' to say "correct", or "callsign correct". Both pilots then have to stop what they were saying and doing and listen to this 'new clearance'. When this is finished, they then have to go back and make the SOP calls for the descent again to make sure they are doing the right thing. Drives me mad every time!

[jxk]

The reason the phonetic codes were changed and agreed was presumably so that there would be no ambiguity and less confusion between all nationalities and dialects this is also presumably the reason that a standard phraseology was determined by the ICAO.

Romeo Roger?

[DozyWannabe]

I'm sure Sully's RT wasn't the greatest that day..

Apropos of nothing, his comms on that day seemed right on the button based on what I've read. Additionally, check the ATC tape of his last departure from Ft. Lauderdale on his retirement day:

Sully Sullenberger Final Flight - YouTube

Departure controller is gushing away (as well he may), but Sully himself keeps his transmissions terse and to the point because he's a pro and knows that the frequency needs to be as clear as possible.

[flyboyike]

I wouldn't go using the JFK/China exchange as an example of anything other than disgraceful controlling.


What's disgraceful is entrusting half a thousand lives to a guy who can't tell a statement from a question.

[misd-agin]

Daily D. Dave -

"Firstly I've never heard that in my life and I'm guessing I fly in the UK far more than you do."


That's the first you've heard "Climb Level 400"? Pronounced 'four hundred'. Isn't that the standard call and correct RT? I'm feeling stupid right now because I've heard it numerous times and didn't realize it wasn't 'approved' RT. What is the correct RT?

[Capn Bloggs]

"Climb Level 400"? Pronounced 'four hundred'. Isn't that the standard call and correct RT?
We had a few years of "Four Hundred" for headings and flight levels but are now back to "Four Zero Zero", I assume because that's because it's the current ICAO way.

[riakiraetah]

Good Lord! By page TREE, I was "with you" enjoying a level FIFE headache!

I will start by saying this: ICAO standard does not help anyone who cannot read, speak and COMPREHEND the English language.

Why is the accident rate so low in the US which, by far, has the highest amount of air traffic? Yes, douchiness abounds on the US airwaves, but no more than some ass hat who refuses to speak English because he is in his home airspace. Like many of you, I've flown all over the world. Experience tells me that, though not perfect, the US is the easiest place to communicate.

I don't believe it is laziness and know for certain that it is not inability with US controllers. I hear controllers constantly shift gears to assist a "LEVEL 5" English speakers in busy Northeastern US/Chicago/Los Angeles/San Francisco airspace. US Air Traffic Controllers are the finest in the world with the UK, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany being excellent as well.

I have NEVER heard Lufthansa, BA, Air France, KLM, Brussels, Alitalia, SAS, Cathay, Singapore, JAL, ANA, Korean, SAA or hell...even Turkish or Iberia...struggle in US airspace. Aeroflot? LOT? Saudi Arabian? Egyptair? Ethiopian? China Southern? China Air Lines? Well...er...again: The issue is not ICAO RT, it is the ability to read, speak and COMPREHEND English.

Some US regional airline pilots are genuine turds in the punchbowl with regard to radio phraseology, but not enough to lower the bar to even a comparable level experienced all throughout Eastern Europe, CIS, 99.99675 percent of Africa, the Middle East (is Insha'Allah ICAO?), India, Indonesia, China, Mexico and nearly all of South America and other noteworthy locales.

It's amazing to me the utter garbage that is spewed on the radios all over the world, yet people like to piss about the US system. It smells of sour grapes.

Oh, and what is wrong with "read back correct" for clearances in the US? In some of the nether regions, reading back clearances and getting "read back correct" only assures that you've regurgitated what some half wit has given you as you back taxi past goats and villagers down the runway of some third world **** show airport. In the US, at least you know the clearance you've been given and read back will keep you alive if adhered to.

[mross]

Why is the accident rate so low in the US which, by far, has the highest amount of air traffic?

Actually, the accident rate in Asia is lower than in USA. (accidents per million departures)

ICAO 2012 Safety Report (http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_State-of-Global-Safety_web_EN.pdf) p11

ICAO 2011 State of Global Aviation Safety (http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_State-of-Global-Safety_web_EN.pdf) p13

[aterpster]

mross:

Actually, the accident rate in Asia is lower than in USA. (accidents per million departures)

You don't get the full picture without including the number of fatal accidents.

[misd-agin]

We had a few years of "Four Hundred" for headings and flight levels but are now back to "Four Zero Zero", I assume because that's because it's the current ICAO way.


"Flight Level 100 (One Hundred)" "200", "300" is a common radio call. So much so that I'm surprised to read that it's not approved.

Maybe we should start a thread about the standard of UK RT? :)

[mross]

"Flight Level 100 (One Hundred)" "200", "300" is a common radio call. So much so that I'm surprised to read that it's not approved.

Maybe we should start a thread about the standard of UK RT?

It is standard in UK. cap413 Ch2 p7 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=list&type=search&search=cap413) and, yes, it has been notified to IACO!

[misd-agin]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20413%20Radiotelephony%20Manual%20Edition%2021.pdf


Ch. 2, page 7.

"Flight Level One Hundred" = FL100. :ok:

[Hell Man]

US R/T is smooth and efficient and works.

Go fly someplace else!

[Hell Man]

Originally Posted by West Coast
I'm sure Sully's RT wasn't the greatest that day..

US Airways Flight 1549 Full Cockpit Recording - YouTube

What exactly was wrong with Sully's R/T?

[c53204]

Thread should have been closed after one page.

If there is a standard and a country is part of that standard, then said countries should adhere fully to said standard.

Deviation can only lead to mistakes - and no doubt has in the past.

[mross]

US R/T is smooth and efficient and works. Go fly someplace else!

For Americans in America, yes :rolleyes:. Aviation is international and Americans need to abide by internationally agreed procedures at home and abroad. As do we all.

[Hell Man]

Hear what you're sayin' guys, just not sure if it'll catch on this side.

We kinda like it how it is! :ok:

[CP32]

Flight level 100, 200 etc is an ICAO variation in the UK. When UK ATC issue a heading not ending in a '5', they will say 'degrees' to avoid confusion with any flight level clearance.

In general, tho' US ATC is 'different' from some in Europe, it is, in general far far better than in some FIR's world wide.

My only real whine is New York approach - I know it's very busy airspace and with EWR, JFK & LGA + Teterboro' things are all a bit adjacent. Sometimes the Tracon guys speak sooo fast, and then.... silence as the freq is not that busy at that time.

Actually, one more comment. 123.45 on the Ocean is intended for messages of "Air Traffic Advisory" between aircraft, not lengthy chats about terms and conditions or for fools with new mobile ring tones. Sorry, thread drift

[West Coast]

Hell man

Nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned.

One poster here tried to tie RT to professionalism. Sully's RT before and after the bird strike wasn't in exacting compliance some of the pedants here advocate yet we both know the outcome. My point is trying tie overall professionalism to RT comes up a bit short on accuracy.

He now has a drink named after him. The "sully" two shots of grey goose and a splash of water.

[aterpster]

In most of the en route structure of the U.S., the controllers observe ICAO protocol almost to a fault.

Delta 245 is level at Flight Level 260 and anticipating clearance to Flight Level 400.

"Delta two four five, climb and maintain flight level four zero zero."

What could be better than that?

Sadly to say, most U.S. pilots are not nearly as conforming.

[Pander216]

Hear what you're sayin' guys, just not sure if it'll catch on this side.

We kinda like it how it is!


Howdie cowboy! Even writing comprehensive English is difficult isn't it? Let alone speak it...

That's the problem; you like to keep things simple for yourself. You forget that that the world is bigger than your own country.

[Uplinker]

Just returned from a trip to the USA, and what struck me in the light of this thread was the number of incorrect read backs, and misheard frequencies, along with quite literally dozens of: "........I missed it - who was that climbing to '4 oh oh'?" or ".......sorry what heading was the Cactus on?" type of confusions I heard, because just about everyone was using non-standard phrases.

Yes, using ICAO standard phraseology does make us all sound a bit like spanners, and it probably does sound much cooler to say something like "Monck centre cactus three oh four checkin in descending two six oh smooth" and one can just imagine the square jawed, handsome pilot wearing Wayfarers who says it. :D

Particularly intriguing though I would have thought, is the risk of lawsuits in the USA, making me wonder why folk would potentially leave themselves wide open to the lawyers in the event of a mistake caused by use of non-standard RT? Or wouldn't this apply?

[Annex14]

Rather with growing frustration one sees this thread go through 400+ posts.
Very clearly all that ballyhoo and shoulder clapping about who does it best is good for the birds and should have stopped much earlier.
Just as a reminder:
There is a Convention of Chicago since 1944 - invented and started by the United States of America.
There are Standards and Recommended Practices since then - deviations have to be reported to ICAO.
The relevant Annex 10 is effective since 1. March 1950 - and amended since then regularily.
All that have posted different from these agreed Standards and Recommended Practices should have a close look and study into Chap. 5 of Annex 10.

My experience tells me that any "homemade" clearance or phrase that is not understood and needs to be repeated properly only eats up time, as the least questionable result. Safe, orderly and expeditious is the sequence of action that has to be obeyed. At least that is what once our superiors told us.

[galaxy flyer]

Uplinker,

As perhaps the sole Yank arguing for standard aviation English terms, I agree, missed calls, freqs, clearances are common, BUT woe the pilot who tries to use the correct, FAA AIM (ICAO compliant, btw) terms and most pilots will hoot you out of the cockpit as a pedantic know-it-all. The right way isin the books, books too many refuse to comply with.

Until the NTSB puts radio comms into a report the lawyers won't get involved, too technical.

[WillowRun 6-3]

The legal doctrine of negligence per se applies to (a) negligence claims where (b) the asserted breach of a legal duty is shown to have involved a violation of an applicable governmental regulation or (even more clearly) some regulatory law or standard. One could argue, I guess, deviation from ICAO standard words phrases, syntax, numeric convention ("point dot or decimal??" - the Internet derivative of 'coffee, tea or me?'?) and from other expressions/indications and/or manifestations of Uniformity, the Big Uniformity, constitutes such a violation. I think not. The very fact - glaringly obvious fact - that so many posting members disagree, or even quarrel, over the relevance (.....if any) of adherence to ICAO Straight Talk proves, to a legal certainty (at least to this holder of General Counsel right title and writ) that deviations from ICAO-stuff Are NOT probative, ipso facto, of negligence per se.

Less than 70 words per sentence, I thinka, and Thank You!!-!!-!! to member who earlier urged brev-it-y. WillowRun 6-3, ORD area, With You [six words, or seven?]

[cvg2iln]

Just returned from a trip to the USA, and what struck me in the light of this thread was the number of incorrect read backs, and misheard frequencies, along with quite literally dozens of: "........I missed it - who was that climbing to '4 oh oh'?" or ".......sorry what heading was the Cactus on?" type of confusions I heard, because just about everyone was using non-standard phrases.

Non standard to exactly whom? Non standard perhaps to the residents of Little Britain, but so be it. The world doesn't revolve around your axle. Do please engage your translation circuits ( similar to others do when flying in UK airspace) when exiting the M25 orbital.

I have never experienced ambiguity when operating under US ATC. Conversely, I have never experienced complete certainty as to the meaning of the given clearance when operating in UK airspace. Even "cleared as filed" doesn't mean cleared as filed. We just read it back and do what we think is required. When heading west, there's a sigh of relief when we drop from radar coverage and the mess is behind us.

Shanwick on 123.95 is a good thing.

Best not to mention points further east.

My ultimate responsibility is that of getting the aircraft on the ground before it runs out of fuel, and that's what I do, regardless of the jumbled- up lingo.

[mross]

Better. Twenty-four words per sentence. But could you say it in plain English?
I think you are saying that, because so many pilots do not comply with ICAO phraseology, that it is not negligent? You guys invented jargon!

[Uplinker]

cvg2iln: ICAO, dear chap, not "Little Britain" as you so quaintly put it. And no translation is needed if the standard phrases are used - that's the whole point!

I have been based at 5 different locations around the UK, so far, none within the M25, and a year based in France too. I am simply making the observation that a lot of mistakes one hears are associated with "non-standard phrases" and I don't mean just in the USA, although that is what the OP asked. I am not claiming that the UK is perfect either, but they do have some of the busiest airspace in the world and their controllers are excellent - almost all of them use standard phraseology.

As far as ambiguity is concerned; myself, the crew and over 300 passengers might have been killed a few years back after a Mexican controller gave us the wrong QNH because he was either trying to save time, or trying to be slick, or couldn't be bothered to say the proper phrase.

As far as 'heading west and leaving the mess behind'; Thanks - I'm sure the Irish, Scottish, English, Dutch and German ATC, all of whom are the epitome of clarity and professionalism, will be delighted by that swipe.

Galaxy; I hear you.

[737er]

Actually this topic is of great concern and US controllers have been working on an experimental new procedure by which they can both alert and hopefully appease complaints of British pilots operating stateside. The procedure is based on tone recognition technology and the testing thus far has been very promising. Here is a brit captain during a test who gratuitously volunteered:
http://youtu.be/IH9OvSqtxRU

[beardy]

cvg2iln,

If you have to ask whose standard you should be working to, you are ill prepared for your job. It seems from your subsequent points that you neither work to your own country's, nor ICAO standards. That is a problem for the rest of us, one which you seem incapable of acknowledging despite it being pointed out to you. Do you learn nothing from other people?

[Artie Fufkin]

cvg2iln,

Have you ever considered that your inability to understand published standard phraseology in foreign airspace may say something about you?

If you can't cope with ICAO standard, varied by promulgated national differences, maybe you should ask your employer for a transfer to a domestic only fleet?

[Jet Jockey A4]

OK, I must admit I laughed but you are a naughty boy!

Poor baby I thought his eyes were going to pop out!

[captjns]

Best RT in the universe? London Shannon Dublin Maastricht, Germany, Sncandinavian Countries. I'm just a lowly expat from a country west of 30 West, but that's the way I see it.:ok::D

[WillowRun 6-3]

To mross: not exactly. (That is, your post, while using plain English admirably, does not quite state the point I made, or attempted to make.) There is the legal concept of negligence. A claim of negligence must sufficiently prove four elements. They are: first, the existence of a legal duty (that is, a legal duty owed by the person being sued (the defendant) to the person who was injured by the claimed negligence and who is suing (the plaintiff). (Plaintiff as a word includes a party suing on behalf of someone else, such as in the case of an estate suing on behalf of the individuals who tragically lost their lives in, just for example, the SFO Triple-7 mishap). Second is the element of breach, IOW breach by the defendant of the legal duty. We'll come back to that one shortly. Third is the element of 'proximate cause', which can be murky, ambiguous, highly contentious, very complicated. How many times has the NTSB found one single hole in the metaphoric Swiss cheese as the cause of a given accident? Legally the idea is to hit up the single-biggest-cause Without Which It Would Not Have Happened. Fourth is dumb-luck obvious: damages (the plaintiff has to have suffered damages).

Now, ordinarily, the plaintiff has to undertake and accomplish some heavy lifting in order to prove that the defendant breached the legal duty. Fair enough. But......the doctrine of "negligence per se" allows the plaintiff to point out to the court that the defendant's act or omission Violated a Law or Regulatory Standard of some importance. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but I'm highly confident that you get the idea.

Now to apply this to the main focus of this thread, which began with an observation or assertion that the US civil aviation system or community or cadre of pilots and controllers - whatever you want to call it - necessarily must take one of two actions. Either, one, cop an exception to ICAO. Or two, quit all the checkin' in with you, yadda yadda, blah blah blah.

And now, finally, to answer your Post In Re the Seeking of Clarification and/or Confirmation of My Prior Post. I am saying - My Contention Would Be - that because there is such open and notorious, widespread, commonplace, and impliedly accepted deviation from ICAO standard phraseology (here, meaning all the ICAO standard rules and practices for R/T), that a plaintiff could not rely on the ICAO standard to win the element of Breach of Duty on the basis of negligence per se. Certainly and obviously, if the R/T in a given mishap was a major causitive factor, a plaintiff could use its divergence from ICAO standard as evidence of negligence. But it would not be negligence per se. Per se, two words, five letters (two of which are recurrent), simple Latin to enunciate, yet, all the difference in the (legal) world.

Very interestingly, this effort at dejargonizing the point I sought earlier to make leads to another point of some substantive relevance (or so I surely hope). It is that those pilots and others advocating here for strict adherence to ICAO standards may want to think about the legal impact such adherence might well have. Namely, if you get uniform adherence to standard R/T accomplished, then deviations from such standard could very well indeed trigger findings of negligence per se. It is a sort of 'be careful what you wish for' suggestion. ICAO is, after all, just ICAO, a UN agency with a sort of concocted jurisdictional scope. I lack the qualifications to assess this point; maybe the risk of easier lawsuit outcomes is a risk well worth taking, in order to obtain compliance with the ICAO rules. On another thread, the learned and highly knowledge PJ2 held forth in eloquent expression on the need to not just respect, but to preserve, protect and defend the architecture of the Safety System of civil aviation. And thus, I defer to such far wiser posters on the matter of whether the press for compliance with standarisation has a downside in the form of easier "wins" against certificated air carriers in scheduled service and their aircrews, whether here in the US, in Great Britain, on the Continent, or anywhere else.

Lots of traffic in an approach corridor over my campus yesterday, on final to ORD, compass heading looked like about 40-45, altitude from purely visual observation about 1200-1500 feet, color me clueless to guess airspeed. Pretty closely metered - though I didn't time it, spacing seemed like under a minute 30. I'm guessing all the approach parameters and techniques, and their interplay with particular avionics or navigation systems (as is being painstakingly dissected on the UPS crash at Birmingham thread), are impacted when ATC packs the corridor with aircraft so close together? Or even with such spacing, it's all the same?

[MikeMeister]

The number of wrong readbacks and missed calls by US pilots in European airspace outnumbers any other nationality by far. I blame this mainly on the use of non-standard RT in their own country and the almost sheer impossibity to communicate in standard RT.

I am surprised that the FAA does not act, or am I ?
The point made about liability and claims because of wrongdoing make sense.
It's time to clean up your act guys !

[mross]

'per se' has only one recurrent letter. No one is suggesting suing pilots for negligence; we are not using the word in its legal sense. Anyway, instead of hijacking this thread I suggest you go to eBay, buy a thousand commas and assorted punctuation marks and sell off all you capital letters. :hmm: Flesch-Kincaid reading grade 12 - needs improvement ;)

[WillowRun 6-3]

So, don't buy my book, when it comes out, if you're so fastidious about supposed writing convention. Actually I did wonder how to count the letters, but never mind. And as to use of caps - an obviously sarcastic device, as any schoolboy knows - I can't help it if you (in the sense of anyone) have to think and pay attention when legal matters are discussed. You complained about complex sentences - so I watered them down by means of such devices.

One. The thread clearly implicated suits against carriers not just pilots (perhaps including reference to aviators was error on my part).

Two. If you think I write in excessively complex form, wait until the effort to standardize R/T more completely- if that is the way forward that is chosen - gets reduced to writing.

Three. I shudder to see the horrid word "hijack" used near or in reference to my name, even a pseudo. Please retract or ask the MOD to delete my recent posts. You already know the reason, and I care not that the "h-word" may sometimes be used here.
Good Day.

[Annex14]

No doubt you highlight an interesting side aspect of the ongoing discussion. However, you obviously do it with "national law focussed " glasses.
I believe your statement:
ICAO is, after all, just ICAO, a UN agency with a sort of concocted jurisdictional scope.
is simply not covering the facts.
Those experts inside ICAO, developing and evaluating the Standards and Recommended Practices, are a multi national task force, many members of which are US Americans. All the signatory states of that Convention of Chicago - USA is one of many - have agreed upon the procedure to implement these Standards and Recommended Practices into their national laws. At the same time the rule applies that deviations from that standard have to be reported to ICAO, so it can be published in Amendments to the relevant Documents.

What puzzles the international community is not the fact that deviation in R/T communications happen , but that the responsible administration - FAA - apparently misses to catch and correct the departures from international agreed procedures in the field of R/T communications.

The last chapter of your post describing the situation in ORD APP sectors is a fine example of how it should be. Obviously no controller get into his mind to apply homemade separation minima or issue undue instructions. At the same time none of those pilots involved not a moment get into their mind not to follow those instructions.
Apparently these Standards and Recommended Practices coming forth from a - concocted jurisdictional scope - wholly or partial transferred into National Rules and Regulations work very well.
Question: Why should that not be possible in R/T Communications as well ?
Jo

[WillowRun 6-3]

Annex14, thank you for your posted comments, and effectively impelling me to revise and extend my remarks. Let me please start with a brief note of background and/or explanation: in serving as an adjunct professor in one of my university's doctorate programs, I have been acculturated to the use of message board such as this as a means to provoke discussion from which participants may gain a better or deeper understanding of the subject at hand. In this effort I may overlook subtleties of word-choice. To wit, I meant no offense to the men and women who serve ICAO, nor to the fine and important work the organisation has done and continues to do.

Rather, the point embedded in the phrase 'concocted jurisdictional scope' is, in fact, nicely illustrated by your observation as to the relative lack of effectiveness of the FAA (with respect to requiring adherence to R/T standards). FAA, recall, has the full authority of the United States Government behind it. It has all the law enforcement staff and means and so on. Yet it is inadequate to some of its primary accountabilities: how many years has its next generation data processing system been in the pipeline?

What means does ICAO have at its disposal to enforce or require compliance with its standards?

Moreover, ICAO covers the world (I was tipped off by the word International, I guess). There are signatory states, are there not, where the concept of adherence to the R/T standards is far from anyone's idea of important? (Or maybe there are not any such states, but by intuitive reasoning, if a major customer of Airbus and Boeing flies a perfectly good aircraft into a hull loss in perfectly good weather, how well does that customer's nation-state do with ICAO standards compliance?). And are there not nations in which operators of big iron in civil transport exist, but are not signatories? Maybe ICAO is universal. I just have a hard time thinking that the approach metering from whatever they use as a TRACON for Damascus Int'l (as a random example) is as good as my friendly neighborhood ORD Terminal Control Area (that's what TCA stands for, right?). And so the whole world-wide system is so massive with so many moving parts (literally and figuratively!!) that -WITHOUT denigrating ICAO such as it is - the means and methods of that fine organisation still seem insufficient to tackle and ground this problem as a whole.

I plead guilty to seeing things through the prism of American law. But I try to be open-minded and thus, again, thank you, and good day.

[flarepilot]

the modern ways of radio com in the usa is probably due to an evolution...more planes on the radio, more complicated clearances and the like.

mind you I am one of the by the book guys on the radio, I still say WILCO for example (check the AIM pilot controller glossary). I say FIFE instead of FIVE and NINER instead of NINE and WUN instead of ONE.

when I was a copilot some captains told me to knock it off...but when I made captain I did it the right way.

I've heard people read back a clearance like: fl250, heading 250, 132.4 and not read their callsign. of course the wrong plane got it.

I had a japanese controller address an alpa conference and tell us all he didn't understand when a plane called for fire engines to standby...the thought that others don't call fire engines , fire engines is bothersome, but we must work together.

and the speed of speech is obviously above mach 1.0 in certain environments like LGA and ORD.

And slow flight at MACON TRACON.


But, we are still the best.

I recall flying in mexico from mexico city to san diego. We made position reports as it was non radar much of the way and I read off my position report in PTATEN fashion...the mexican controller just responded with the last two letters of my call sign...ROMEO PAPA...that was it...He didn't say who he was, or that he heard anything, he just said the last two letters of my N number.


When in Rome, be a roman candle

When in Rome, do as the romans do


When in the USA, do like the Americans do.

[Capn Bloggs]

I say FIFE instead of FIVE and NINER instead of NINE and WUN instead of ONE
Got the first two, but WUN for ONE? How do you yanks pronounce wun/one?? ;)

[Lord Spandex Masher]

But, we are still the best.

I'm glad you're time in the cooler hasn't affected your ego sevenstrokeroll.

Welcome back. ;)

[400drvr]

Con Pilot...Don't forget to duck after lobbing a grenade like that:)

[acroguy]

For those outside the US (and maybe those inside) this is how it works here, and works very well, thank you.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7947104/DD2.mp3

[ehwatezedoing]

The anatomy of a communications breakdown in interpreting a taxi clearance from ATC by an air carrie... - NASA ASRS (http://www.37000feet.com/report/1063841/anatomy-of-a-communications-breakdown-in-interpreting-a-taxi-clearance-from)

Interesting incident report and its best quote in my view:
This ATC ground controller has one field he is master of; I have 65 fields I have to be master of

[The Blu Riband]

For those outside the US (and maybe those inside) this is how it works here, and works very well, thank you.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7947104/DD2.mp3

Did you intend for that to be used as an example of the efficacy of US r/t?

It is , in fact, an excellent example of poor r/t!

Very non standard and verbose - i would estimate 25% unnecessary words and how many times does he say "no delay"??
How many correct readbacks? Did the atco check any?

[acroguy]

Quote:
For those outside the US (and maybe those inside) this is how it works here, and works very well, thank you.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7947104/DD2.mp3

Did you intend for that to be used as an example of the efficacy of US r/t?

It is , in fact, an excellent example of poor r/t!

Very non standard and verbose - i would estimate 25% unnecessary words and how many times does he say "no delay"??
How many correct readbacks? Did the atco check any?

I intended it to be an example of the real world.

[obgraham]

Well, considering the references to "Eastern" and "PSA", the recording is over 25 years old.

Sounds to me like the Controller was "In Control".

[The Blu Riband]

Sounds to me like the Controller was "In Control".

sounded to me like the controller was working VERY hard and improvising
unnecessarily.

I think you've missed the point of this thread. :hmm:

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

It works very well for who? You? Your compatriots? Who else matters eh on this big planet eh?

You are missing the point entirely by not taking on board the fact that its not how well it works for "native" ears that counts. Of course most native English speakers can understand and by understood no matter how gash and unprofessional the RT. However the whole point of standard phraseology is to accommodate and make life safer for EVERYBODY.

Most developed countries who don't have English as their first language make a good stab at keeping it standard (ish), yes there are local nuances and accents and some non-standardisms used, but on the whole they try. What many people outside of the US can't quite grasp is why go out of your way to sound gash when flying at home or elsewhere, when there are clear guidelines set out and being native English speakers its easier for you than most.

So many times through this thread guys from N America use the defence that it "works just fine" "we're ok with it" "yeah but we're the best" "what about you anal lot over there!" blah blah. What sort of defence is that for disregarding rules that most of the world signs up to?

It comes across as pure 100% arrogance.

For balance I've flown a lot in the US and enjoy it immensely and have utmost respect for ATC especially at the bigger hubs, I'm in no way questioning anyone's ability, I just don't understand why it's not easier for ALL to stick to the script to make it easier and SAFER as well as simpler for EVERYONE.

[con-pilot]

It comes across as pure 100% arrogance.


After reading all the arrogant comments by non-Americans in this thread, all I have to say is; 'Now that is funny and I don't care who you are'. :p

There is an old saying that this thread reminds me of; 'If ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Do please carry on. :ok:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Woooooooosssssshhhhhh

The sound of the point going straight over the top of someone's head...again. :ugh:

[obgraham]

Summary of this thread to date:

We all do it this way. You have to do it our way.

No. We like our way.

We all got together and voted that you do it our way.

No. Your way isn't our way.

We don't like your way.

Tough. Stay away.

No. You have to do it our way.

Our way works fine.

Beside the point. Do it our way.

No.

Repeat, 430 times.

[acroguy]

Well, considering the references to "Eastern" and "PSA", the recording is over 25 years old.

Sounds to me like the Controller was "In Control".

I think that is correct as to the vintage of the recording. However, except for the "Position and Hold" being replaced by "Line up and Wait", it is identical to current practice.

Not to further inflame the discussion, but here is a well-known recording of New York Approach. You will notice that there is really no time for perfect "ICAO approved" R/T but everybody is on the same page, including the foreign carriers.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7947104/EWR-Approach.mp3

[beardy]

OBGRAHAM,
You really have missed the point. The USA negotiated some of and agreed to ICAO standards, they were not imposed externally, they are applicable to domestic and international traffic. Many American pilots appear to be unaware of them and many that are aware seem to delight in ignoring in them. This gives rise to doubt, uncertainty and inefficiency for non-American pilots when flying in the USA and for American pilots outside their own airspace. All of which is avoidable by respecting international agreements. Perhaps you have the same cavalier attitude to your checklists, although I hope not.

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

Thank you for single handedly confirming all I suspected!........Frightening. :eek:

I'm glad you're unlikely to be flying me anywhere soon, your skills may not be dangerous, even your RT may not be dangerous.......your attitude however.......

YEEEEE HAHH Cowboy!

[Cows getting bigger]

I blame Hollywood. :ugh:

[TheBigD]

They are just jealous of us Yanks.
I can't believe they are not blaming the recent over runs in Asia on non standard American R/T.....
It's all right. They know more than we do. But here is the rub with that. We invented flying; we have the most complex, busiest and safest airpsace system in the world. We are the real deal, and you jealous gents (Aussies, Canucks, and Kiwi's excluded) are just but a cheap shiny import.

[Cows getting bigger]

TheBigD, sorry to wee on you breakfast cereal, but there were plenty of other manned flights before the USA was even discovered. Now, if you were to say that you invented powered flight, most of us would tend to believe you although the facts are arguable.

As for the rest, US aviation seems to have had a couple of embarrassing moments recently (bent 737 nose leg, UPS landing somewhat short and a rather surreal fire engine/survivor encounter).

Sure, everything must be absolutely fine and dandy over there.

Right, must go back to my potato famine.......... :bored:

[con-pilot]

I'm glad you're unlikely to be flying me anywhere soon

So, you are not a pilot. But yet you assume that you are an authority on ATC issues around the world. :hmm:

That sir, speaks volumes. And once again, 'That is funny and I don't care who you are.' :p

As for this snotty little comment;

YEEEEE HAHH Cowboy!

No sir, I am not a cowboy, I am a retired pilot with over 42 years of experience and have over 21,000 hours of flying time. I flew all over the world, including Great Britain many times and around the world. I never damaged an aircraft and never had a violation. One could say a perfect record.

How about you?

[beardy]

Hey BigD,

How right you are and how kind to remind us of your humility. Why then, after showing us all how it's done when you layed down the rules through ICAO, don't you do it the way you showed us? Have you forgotten already? Is that too difficult?

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

You really are hilarious. You "invented flying" and are basically the best so nobody else knows anything!?

Nobody (sensible) is claiming who is better/worse or who invented what. What a cringeworthy and embarrassing defence that is to completely ignore what YOUR regulatory body have signed up to (and probably helped devise).

As far as I can gather nobody is saying we know it all and you're all useless, just that there is a convention that most of the world try and stick to other than you. Why don't you stick to it? Because you guys are the best and know more than anyone so why would you need to.

Again the arrogance is breathtaking. :eek:

[pigboat]

No sir, I am not a cowboy, I am a retired pilot with over 42 years of experience and have over 21,000 hours of flying time. I flew all over the world, including Great Britain many times and around the world. I never damaged an aircraft and never had a violation. One could say a perfect record.

How about you
He drove to the airport without getting a traffic violation? ;)

[beardy]

UK to Dalaman, (which is probably Daily Dalamn's routing) has probably 5 or 6 different countries to overfly (depending on routing), each with their own language. Thank goodness all of them have heard of ICAO and understand the need for standardised RT. Otherwise the result would be horrendous.

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

Yes I am a pilot so therefore feel suitably qualified to comment thanks very much.

But given the fact that I don't work in your country I'm unlikely to fly WITH you anytime soon. Therefore it would only be as pax and as i haven't planned anymore holidays this year that isn't going to happen.

Is that really so difficult for you to comprehend before jumping to the 100% incorrect conclusion? Interesting that confusion can occur when communications aren't absolutely clear eh?

How ironic, but thanks for highlighting point beautifully! :ok:

[obgraham]

Beardy:

OBGRAHAM,You really have missed the point.

Indeed as have you. There has not been any new point raised in this thread, now surpassing 450 posts. You all keep making the same argument, and we keep responding the same, often hyperbolic way.

Nothing new here.

[con-pilot]

Bah. Who needs atc or radio. Our local airfield at its busiest has 200+ movements per hour without either.

Once after a hurricane hit the US Virgin Islands, I was the second aircraft (727) to land just after the hurricane passed. We followed a USAF C-141 into the airport. While the runway had been cleared, none of the airport buildings were usable, including all ATC structures.

From our pre-mission briefing I knew that the FAA was enroute in one of their DC-9s with a portable ATC tower and ATC controllers. But they had been delayed. We also knew that there were quite a few other aircraft inbound.

So after I talked to the PIC of the C-141, we was decided that we would use the 727 as make do ATC 'advisory' point. We pilots took turns relaying radio calls and positron reports from the inbound aircraft for about six hours until the FAA DC-9 showed up. Then while the temporary control tower was being set up the FAA controllers that were in the DC-9 worked from the 727.

Overall it worked pretty good, but I can tell you that we damn happy when those FAA ATC controllers showed up.

One big advantage we had was that weather was perfectly clear. A beautiful day actually.

And we did have a secret advantage, my co-pilot that day was a former ATC controller and about after two hours or so later two local ATC controllers showed up to help. Later an Air Force AWAC 135 came on station orbiting the island providing radar service and coordination with San Juan. But that was after I had left heading back to Miami to dump prisoners, get more water/ice and more SOG team members.

Remarkable how when people work together, things get done.

Okay, now you lot can go back to bashing the US. :p

[beardy]

obgraham, you said:
We all do it this way. You have to do it our way.

No. We like our way.

We all got together and voted that you do it our way.

No. Your way isn't our way.

There is no "our way/your way" there is the ICAO way which we ALL voted for (including the USA) and then there is the lazy way.

THAT is the point. Many of the transmissions in the USA don't conform to ANY standard, at times they are amusing, at times they are confusing, at times they are unexpected phrases which require interpretation.

430 odd posts and you didn't see that?

[NWR]

583 fatalities in Tenerife ! - and it is still debated?

But that was March 27th 1977
I guess the Old pilots who learned from that are now retired
just the Bold pilots...

Audio podcast (from transcripts) says it all
How Pilots Killed People with the Wrong Words (http://atccommunication.com/being-dead-wrong-on-aircraft-radio)

Of the many holes in that Swiss cheese model, the RT slice was key.

[Cows getting bigger]

Con-Pilot, it may surprise you, but the scenario you quote us not unique to the USA. The really sad bit is that it appears there are those here who believe that only the USA is cable of such feats.

When will you guys wake up and realise that there is a world of intelligent beings out here? Instead of telling us you are the best, why don't you try and work with us, thus convincing us you are pretty damn good?

[deefer dog]

It seems to me that the vast majority of professionals here agree that it makes good sense for all of the world's pilots to communicate in a standardized fashion.

A small minority of US based posters, and probably those who don't even posses passports (population 313 million, passports issued only 110 million) can only put forward the notion that "when you come to USA, do it our way." In reality I suspect that those putting forward this view are merely grabbing at straws in an attempt to save face. It's a peculiar but not entirely unpredictable reaction from any vociferous preacher of democracy; democracy is fine but only if applied in line with my rules.

The thread has run its course. For the last sixty years ICAO, and those members of it who represent the US interests, have introduced standards and practices. All member states have agreed to play by the rules that they collectively and democratically decided were in the best interst of flight safety. The carraige of emergency equipment, airport lighting, design of approach procedures, and a host of other components that make it possible for operators of all nations to interact on the same global playing field were agreed upon by the US.

Most US residents don't even get out of their home state, let alone the country, so its hardly surprising that they are unable to adapt to the principle of global democracy, even in our line of work.

[con-pilot]

Instead of telling us you are the best

Considering the size and scope of the US ATC system, who do you believe has a better ATC system?

Now, I don't say that the US ATC is the best or better than any other country, but I've just never encountered any that were as good. With the possible exception of London Center, but even they they do not handle the amount of traffic of say New York City Tracon, which handles the traffic for JFK, LGA, SWF, EWR, ISP, HPH and TEB. Same with ORD, ATL, LAX, SFO, DFW, etc.

Of the top 15 busiest airports in the world, by amount of air traffic handled, the top six are US airports, eleven of the top 15 busiest airports are US, London comes in at 12th, after CDG and FRA.

So, why are you arguing against success? I know not of a single accident that can be blamed on the US ATC system involving a foreign carrier due to the language used by the US ATC Controllers. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me and I'll retract that statement.

I do however, know of a fatal UK registered Lear Jet accident in France that was due to ATC language issue.

Like a BA 747 captain posted here once when this subject was being discussed, it never fails to impress him that on his call from a US ATC controller, after radar contact is established coming in from London, is that he is cleared direct to arrival gate for LAX, on the other side of the US.

Like I said, it is hard to argue against success.

So, with that being written, unless someone can point out an accident involving a foreign carrier due to US ATC language, I am out of this thread, because all I've been seeing lately is sour grapes and jealousy, coupled with cheap shots at people that dare disagree with the British idea of 'we do it better than any other nation in the world'.

Now all of you have a nice day and if you hate flying in the US so much, bid different routes.

[deefer dog]

Con Pilot,

that dare disagree with the British idea of 'we do it better than any other nation in the world'. Dear chap, anybody who states that the English do it better, or the Americans do it better, is talking nonsence. You cannot compare apples with oranges, but in any case none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the point of this thread! But I think you know that, don't you?

What you don't grasp is that ICAO is neither British or American. Why don't you do yourself a favour and google ICAO because in order to promote any argument on a professional board such as this it helps if you at least have a vague understanding of the subject matter.

I do however, know of a fatal UK registered Lear Jet accident in France that was due to ATC language issue.The accident in Paris I presume you refer to was caused entirely as a result of one aircraft being cleared to "line up" into the path of another aircraft that had been "cleared to land" onto the same piece of concrete. Had the clearance to land been issued in English language, rather than French language, the English speaking crew would have realised the conflict. Yes there was a communications "issue" at play, and THAT old chap is the point of this thread that you can't, or refuse to accept! Probably because of the reasons stated in my earlier post of the day.

There is however one point you make that I entirely agree with. You should heed your own advise and get out of the thread. You are not equipped to forgo national pride, and appear not to have the intellect to put forward a valid and reasoned argument to support your theory that the US should do things their way.

Good bye.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Well, now. I hope someone posts what he really thinks. I really hope so.

I get that lots of posts have been read as urging a reductio ad absurdum as what someone else's post had been all about. Or even some posts which themselves took the Reductio airway to waypoint Ad Absurdum. It happens.

There were, I nonetheless think, some substantive comments. There were. I read them. Maybe a couple of weeks back. But I saw them. I think.

In fact I tried to post one or two of them. The substantive ones. I think I did, anyway.

International Civil Aviation Organization. One thing about this thread right now, the word Civil means government. If this thread were a dictionary that word would not mean "polite in ways large and small, especially used in processes, proceedings and places of significant social or societal import". Like the fine pilots of the world who get together on the internet to identify problems and work toward solutions. In my line of professional endeavor, we call it Civility. Sometimes lawyers act without civility. I used to. Sometimes I still do, I guess, but I try not to.

I'll risk what warm Guiness the Speedbirds want to throw in my face, or the stale and flat Molson urged upon my visage by my MapleLeaf neighbors, or the sour wine tossed in my eyes by the Francophones, or anyone else's idea of insult and opprobrium - even deprivation of a hamburger French fries and a Coke by my Yank countrymen -- for what I am about to say.

"Flight Everybody, this is the Vox ex ICAO. I have come to urge calm. If you want to contribute to the discussion here, don't. Go home, and start at the beginning of the thread, and read each and every post. Every one of them. Even ones you wrote. And be prepared when business opens next week (whenever that is in your part of the world) to post only in two-part harmony: identify a problem with particularity, as if you were testifying in front of a formal, on the record proceeding of your country's CAA. Articulate it with precision. And then propose a solution in practical terms."

Otherwise, let's all repair to the bar, pub, café, or other version of watering hole and, forget about the whole thing. No, I'm not buying. I'm a lawyer, remember? I already passed the bar.

[West Coast]

Global democracy? Poorly worded if that's some official term.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Oh, no, this was not to advocate any such thing as what you referred to as Global Democracy. Not at all. CAAs are extensions of sovereign states. And the entire ICAO apparatus is based on nation-states a juridical entities reciprocally and universally, without regard to their individual forms of government.
Safety in civil aeronautics is just too important to let quaint notions of national pride stand in the path of a good, robust, no holds barred GroupThink about where things should go next, relative to the standardization, and the lack of standardization, in R/T. As is often slung about in cliché form, the truth is somewhere in the middle, as between the Cowboys and the ICAO Supremacists (my phrases, pile on if you like). Problem is, that middle is down the centerline of some other runway, not the one the mud-slingers are fighting over on recent posts. Safety in civil aeronautics is just too important for yours truly to avoid saying, Straighten Up and Fly Right, and let's discuss this like educated men and women, no crybabies, no matter whose flag you're wearing or tearing. That's all for now, ladies and gentlemen, if ladies and gentlemen you be.

[LeadSled]

Considering the size and scope of the US ATC system, who do you believe has a better ATC system?

Now, I don't say that the US ATC is the best or better than any other country, but I've just never encountered any that were as good. With the possible exception of London Center, but even they they do not handle the amount of traffic of say New York City Tracon, which handles the traffic for JFK, LGA, SWF, EWR, ISP, HPH and TEB. Same with ORD, ATL, LAX, SFO, DFW, etc.

Of the top 15 busiest airports in the world, by amount of air traffic handled, the top six are US airports, eleven of the top 15 busiest airports are US, London comes in at 12th, after CDG and FRA.

So, why are you arguing against success? I know not of a single accident that can be blamed on the US ATC system involving a foreign carrier due to the language used by the US ATC Controllers. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me and I'll retract that statement.

Con-pilot et al,

Couldn't have put it better myself, base on 35 years of experience covering most of the places mentioned.
With the honourable exceptions of the Scandinavian, UK, Dutch and German ATC systems, most of Europe is pretty ordinary, and the dangers of conducting ATC communication with local carriers in the local language poses a par greater threat than minor differences in interpretations of ICAO SARPS on the matter of communication.

At home base, Australia, a byword for stilted and inflexible "radio procedures" (communications doesn't get a look in), all ICAO to the max, we have any number of incidents involving communications, including one collision between a DC-8 and B727 many years ago.
The US system works, and works just as well for foreign pilots, with only a minor "attitude adjustment" needed.

Tootle pip!!

[rogerg]

dangers of conducting ATC communication with local carriers in the local language poses a par greater threat than minor differences in interpretations of ICAO SARPS on the matter of communication.


Well said. At least the regional differences in the US are in "kind of" English.

[cludow]

I don't fly except as a passenger or a sunny Sunday PPLer but I have been in the industry for over twenty years as an engineer and manager in the organisations that screw together the hardware you guys fly. I wonder how you would feel if we in manufacturing became all chauvinistic about whose way of torquing bolts was best? Or maybe different ways of programming the FADEC or AP? Maybe the French CMM is better than the British for the Trent engines? The GE90 engines are serviced at Nantgarw in Wales but built in Durham NC and Cincinnati OH.

My point is, it doesn't matter where any of this happens geographically or culturally because there are standard methods developed by the TC holder's Design Authority that are applied universally. FAR145 keeps everything safe for us all and hardly anyone is unprofessional enough to ignore the regulations. Those that do, wind up in jail and out of the profession - usually following an incident.

We are trained to look over our own shoulder at work and imagine explaining the choices we make to a board of inquiry. If we follow the standard process and there is an incident, we examine the process. Once we deviate from the standard, we are personally accountable for every consequence that flows from that decision.

If we as an industry can manage it when we build aircraft, surely it follows for those that operate the aircraft. Regardless of what the eventual "standard" RT procedure looks like, we just follow it and continuously improve it? There is no room for iconoclasm or petty chauvinism in an inherently risky environment. I've listened to poor ATC all over the world whether it be a US ATCO who thinks "Pushing Tin" is a documentary and apes the stereotype represented or the bone headed Spanish jabbering ATCOs who will eventually cause an incident in their own airspace by reducing situational awareness for everybody else.

The idiot chauvinist who ignores the standard and the idiot pedant who refuses to acknowledge the possibility that the standard could (and should) be improved have one characteristic in common...stupidity.

[West Coast]

Willow run

I understand the intent, just the wording sounds a bit daft.

[DA50driver]

Why is it that there is a total lack of courtesy and etiquette in European airspace?

I have been irritated by this for some time, but after seeing my fellow Europeans gang up on US R/T standards I think it is time to take a hard look at ourselves.

Why is it that no one can listen for a second before transmitting? There is no reason to cut others off mid sentence, nor is there justification for jumping into a conversation mid-stream.

While we may use standard phraseology, it is a much less effective way to communicate than what the Yanks use. I think that if everyone was at least a Level 4 ICAO English speaker the European system would work better.

As Europeans we think we are better than Americans, but it might be time to see that things are occasionally done better over there.

Just for the record English is my third language. A lot of time and effort was expended to learn it properly since it is the language of my profession.

[FR8R H8R]

You want to experience some great RT, give China a try.

[HDRW]

As Europeans we think we are better than Americans

Please - speak for yourself, not anyone else.

There's a high enough temperature in these threads without adding to the fire!

[DA50driver]

That is not my intent, but it needs to be said. Almost all think it, I just put it down in writing.

Better now?

[747JJ]

"Request FLxxx if available": Well if it is not available you won't get it. There are a lot of examples of what I call filler words uselessly congesting the frequency. Another one is "Understand" prior to repeating read back. This one seems to have been imported from across the Atlantic.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I'm English and cannot speak for other EU countries because I have never experienced them from an aviation viewpoint. Also, it's 11 years since I retired and my ex-colleagues keep telling me that everything has changed beyond recognition. However, during my 30+ years in English ATC I cannot recall too many incidents of bad R/T either by ATC or pilots.

Back in the 70s the east european and one or two southern european crews did not speak much english but they got by. Russian aircraft, e.g. TU-104, had very poor radios not helped by (I think) throat mics. By the time I left everything seemed A-OK. In all my ATC time, including time abroad, I found US pilots exceedingly good to work with and the USAF beat everyone else hands down. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

I think you've misunderstood this thread somewhat. Nobody sensible is saying (or presumably even thinking) that anyone is "better", however you and a few US based guys have interpreted it that way.

[DA50driver]

Asia based. Before that Moscow and Oxford. Prior to that Europe.

Try reading this thread from a US point of view. It is nothing short of "you scuk" and "we are great".

[Daily Dalaman Dave]

I didn't mean YOU were US based, I meant you AND some US based pilots.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Well, now, 466 posts only? I read them all this evening. I didn't say 'read closely.'

I'm going to propose three (3) questions, and then a contention, you know, a proposition for policy or reform or action, based on or derived from the central arguments made here. Rather than add more of my words in an effort (probably doomed to failure) to summarize these central arguments, here are three representative posts (IMO), including one from the OP:

deefer dog (post #14). "The point I am making is simply this. In the US the phraseology is completely non standard to that agreed in the convention and bears no relationship to any differences filed. Whichever way you look at it, and as painful as it may feel, your system of not complying with agreed conventions increases the likelihood of confusion, especially when operators whose native language is not English have to disseminate slang. Confusion in a busy ATC environment is not what any of us want."

West Coast (post # 129). "As worldwide air traffic picks up, there's going to be pressure to place more aircraft into the same airspace and airports that exist. Eventually RT will come into the sights of regulators who are charged with making this happen and change will be upon us."

Ace Rimmer (post #172) (responding to post by yours truly about ICAO processes)

"Willow Run: experience has shown that when ICAO moves at sprint pace (and that doesn't happen that often) it takes about seven (yup SEVEN) years to get something adopted as a standard...and even then longer to for Individual States to implement the changes in their national ANO provided they don't decide to file a difference (or ignore the SARP altogether)...

I submit that the solution to this problem (and if the findings of recent IATA/IFALPA/IFATCA Phaseology survey are believed there IS a significant problem) lies more with national CAA/DGCAs actually implementing (and enforcing) the existing SARPs rather than trying push through new ones (at ICAOs blistering pace!)"

I. There is something just plain unseemly about all the sparring. Would not your energies be better directed at forming a unified coalition or partnership as against those nations, whether signatories of ICAO or not, where the compliance with ICAO R/T standardization is rather of secondary importance compared to the given nation's adherence to basic international norms (aww, dunno, let's, uh, checkin' out possible employment of chemical weapons within say 75 minutes at under Mach 2 from Incirilk)? The point is not "politics" but rather "priorities". So very much here is hangover.

2. What happens if there is another "System Perturbation" such as the US ground stop on 9-11 (phrase from The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett)? - will closer if not complete adherence to ICAO R/T standards get everyone out of the air more expeditiously and/or safely? Or does the status quo already provide optimum assurance?

3. What about in the case of armed conflict occurring? Assume active hot warfighting in, say, Syria? Are you now more concerned, or less (or unchanged) about ICAO R/T standardization compliance if you are PIC within, let's again say, 75 minutes (U.S.), at under Mach 2, of Incirilik?

Proposition: with due respect to Ace R, the ICAO triennial is next month. 466 posts, and mounting some special agenda item for ICAO merits but a shrug? Well, if so, I'm left wondering what all the ground-pounding was about.

Discuss. Or drink. Probably not both (at the same time, is what I meant).

Sent from my iPad

[deefer dog]

WillowRun 6-3,

I assume that you support my contention that the US, and a few others, need to up their game and join the ranks of those who support the theme of standardization as advanced by ICAO.

I use the word assume because you dress up your observations by using prose in a very unusual style. Are you not able to use plain English as a means of communicating?

I read them all this evening. I didn't say 'read closely.' What happens if there is another "System Perturbation" such as the US ground stop on 9-11 (phrase from The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett)?
:bored:

What about in the case of armed conflict occurring? Assume active hot warfighting in, say, Syria? Are you now more concerned, or less (or unchanged) about ICAO R/T standardization compliance if you are PIC within, let's again say, 75 minutes (U.S.), at under Mach 2, of Incirilik? :bored::bored::bored:

Proposition: with due respect to Ace R, the ICAO triennial is next month. 466 posts, and mounting some special agenda item for ICAO merits but a shrug? Well, if so, I'm left wondering what all the ground-pounding was about. Unintelligible.

Discuss. Or drink. Probably not both (at the same time, is what I meant). I think you may have had one too many!

What on earth is the message you are trying to get across|? And what are you on?

[caevans]

You mean like "Flight Level One Hundred"? How about "Route Direct"?
ICAO Standard?? You must be ex-military. If it ain't in the book I don't understand?????

When one flies overseas one needs to learn to roll with the punches!!

Charlie Charlie?? Roger Roger??

Get a life!!!

[Basil]

Charlie Charlie??
Yup! On HF.

[Uplinker]

Language moves with the times, and some slang might arguably be better than current ICAO; for example; 'point' instead of 'dey-ci-mal' - the fewer the number of syllables, the better I reckon.

But the thing is; all of the ICAO compliant organisations need to agree such terms so that all pilots and ATC {who speak all sorts of different languages, not necessarily English} only use approved phrases, and all know what is meant by such terms. Slang that is not ambiguous for one person might be incomprehensible to another - resulting in at best extra read-backs, confusion and too much time taken up on busy frequencies, or at worst a flight safety incident.


So get them approved by ICAO and I'm sure we will all be happy to use them (and know what they mean).

Simples :)

[WillowRun 6-3]

This was your thread, deefer dog. So first of all, even if I ultimately fail, even fail miserably, to fulfill my main objective - which is to stimulate more relevant discussion (by posing questions and making some observations) - I really do hope you see that I am trying, in a sense to contribute, to the discourse. Even if you don't see that, for whatever reason, it is nevertheless the truth.

Second let's get something straight here. I "am on" nothing and did not have any too many. In fact the only thing I was on last night was a barstool in a Tilted Kilt and I nursed one brew (a craft, not swill) through most of the last NFL game (49ers v someone, who cares?).

With these preliminaries out of the way, let's get to the two most important points. Start with ICAO.

If your contention is correct, that is, if it is true that (a) U.S. ATC deviates from ICAO standard in non-trivial ways, and (b) this is a bad thing, then why is it so hard for the assemblage on this thread to discuss what to do about it? Your premise in the OP and reiterated by you and others is that (I'm paraphrasing) "HEY U.S., you signed an international convention. One that has its roots in the Chicago Convention of 1944, in fact. Yet you persist, U.S., in deviating from the requirements of the ICAO SARPS and Documents and Annexes where standard R/T is concerned. STRAIGHTEN UP U.S. and stop using anything but approved ICAO R/T." Now, deefer dog, I'm sure, quite sure, you would prefer that all the aviators and ATCOs in the U.S. just got the message like a flash of brilliance and suddenly Standardisation reigned over the skies. But seeing as how that is not likely to happen.....the proposition (the end of my prior post) is this: if you are convinced Standardisation of R/T so as to conform literally or substantially with all ICAO forms and procedures is necessary, well, there's a big ICAO triennial meeting this fall, dd. The agenda and all the working papers and the petty bureaucratic trappings of supposedly doing something all are there for anyone to see. I didn't see anything about R/T Standardisation, though. And Ace Rimmer's post says, in effect, 'forget ICAO processes, they take too long, like seven years.' So, rather than take some initiative to bring this matter to ICAO's triennial meeting, even if only "new business from the floor", you (in the sense of those who advocate for the U.S. being required to comply) are doing what? Or will you be at the Triennial to advocate for action on this matter? Money talks, writing-style criticism walks.

Now, as to the underlying premise - do I agree that R/T standardisation must be enforced in the U.S. and elsewhere? I don't know, deefer dog. Four Hundred and Forty-Six posts in, and there's plenty of chest-thumping, and plenty of "mostly saying hooray for our side" - but nothing I could see as definitive. I read the Tenerife report soon after it became available publicly. But that wasn't a case of just non-standard, that was a case of galactic carelessness combined with stupidity. I posited two scenarios. (The first, another urgent ground stop due to some horrible incident or problem, and the second, an escalation involving armed services of one or more countries in the situation in Syria.). Since the assemblage on this thread cannot seem to develop consensus around whether the lack of standardisation actually is a detriment to safety or efficiency, my intention was to shift the context to a couple of realistic scenarios and see whether the case would apply there. As in, 'oh yes, if ICAO standardisation were in place, and there were another urgent ground stop, for sure, it would go much better.' Or, 'no, if the Syrians fly any MiGs out of their airspace and a commercial flight is anywhere close by, the last thing anyone needs to be concerned about is whether the R/T is read from the ICAO script.' It's a discussion board, correct?

As for matters of style, the role of obfuscation in persuasion, the structure of arguments (legal as well as rhetorical), and assorted other left-overs, well, I'm pretty sure no one cares, or is interested. But I don't mind at all being held accountable - trust me, I'm a lawyer.

[HDRW]

Language moves with the times, and some slang might arguably be better than current ICAO; for example; 'point' instead of 'dey-ci-mal' - the fewer the number of syllables, the better I reckon.
NO! It's not a race - they didn't choose 'decimal' on a whim - everthing has a reason, and one of those is to reduce the possibility of mis-hearing. Apart from the fact that 'point' in French is used as 'comma' is in numbers in English (to separate every three digits) it's not a distinctive enough word to come through clearly on a noisy channel or when audio is low - it can be confused with 'four' in those cases (yes, really!).
Other pronunciations are also for disambiguation: FIFE and NINER separate what can otherwise sound similar (NINER is two syllables but is 'better' than NINE). TREE is because some languages don't have a TH sound so would find it hard to pronounce the word THREE. (For those who don't understand how a sound can be missing from a language, consider the 'CH' sound in Scottish - we english pronounce the name Murdoch as 'murdok' whereas the scots finish it with a long soft sound which we just don't have. The Welsh pronunciation of 'LL' is also absent outside the Land Of My Fathers).
Language and slang evolve with usage, but this isn't a language, it's a communications standard which evolves by discussion and agreement, not by ignoring it. But the thing is; all of the ICAO compliant organisations need to agree such terms so that all pilots and ATC {who speak all sorts of different languages, not necessarily English} only use approved phrases, and all know what is meant by such terms. Slang that is not ambiguous for one person might be incomprehensible to another - resulting in at best extra read-backs, confusion and too much time taken up on busy frequencies, or at worst a flight safety incident.
Yes Yes Yes! That's it exactly - it's an International agreement - it's not the Brits trying to force our ideas on the rest, it's been discussed and decided by all the countries involved in ICAO, and we aren't saying 'you should do it our way' but 'you should do it the way you (and everyone else) agreed to'.
So get them approved by ICAO and I'm sure we will all be happy to use them (and know what they mean).

Simples :) Indeed, that's what has already happened, the current set of standards exists, and until it's changed it should be used. Making it up as you go on because you think you know better is just arrogant and dangerous. Speed of delivery isn't the most important factor - accurate, unambiguous communication is.

[MPN11]

The language of aviation has evolved constantly since I started in ATC in 64. Words and phrases came, and subsequently went again, as "correct phraseology" reacted to incidents where confusion could have existed.

Phonetics were but one element of that evolution: words were deleted from the lexicon in case they could be misinterpreted, or their use was confined to very specific messages. The use [or not] of "to" is, perhaps, the classic example.

Some 50 years later, evolution still hasn't achieved the ideal. And blinkered vision will prevent any progress towards that desirable objective.

[Basil]

Bring back 'larboard'! :E

[Churchills Ghost]

Bring back 'larboard'! :E

Yes, right after reinstating port!

[HDRW]

Bring back 'larboard'! :E
Excellent example, Basil! Two words that sound alike but have opposite meanings. I wonder if they replaced it with 'Port' because someone was worried about it, or after an actual mishearing incident on a windswept ship's deck caused a turn onto the rocks instead of away from them?
Incidentally, do you know that the meaning of a helm instruction changed direction? On the Titanic the instruction 'Hard a starboard' meant to turn *left* ASAP, because the instruction dated back to the time when tillers were used, and that's the way the tiller would be moved (opposite the direction of turn). The convention continued when wheel steering was used, but has been changed to what we'd consider the obvious way at some time since then. I wonder how that went down with old seamen used to the Old Way? (End of titbit!)

[N90-EWR]

Huge thread full of a lot of hot air and little substance. Too much worry about fixing something that is not really broken (USA R/T), instead of focusing on fixing the ones that need fixing (all those other countries where they speak their native language in addition to English).

[Basil]

Incidentally, do you know that the meaning of a helm instruction changed direction? On the Titanic the instruction 'Hard a starboard' meant to turn *left* ASAP
Despite being ex Merch (eng, so bit of an excuse), I didn't know that, and assumed there had been a little error in the 1997 Titanic film when, in fact, the film maker had it correct (almost typed 'right' there and we all know how confusing that could be).
Senior BA trainer & Pruner pointed it out to me.

[deefer dog]

(all those other countries where they speak their native language in addition to English).

Agree 100%, but unfortunately this is such a contentious issue that ICAO have not been able to negotiate this to cease. (Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's the French who are the most vociferous objectors).

[mross]

all those other countries where they speak their native language

But that's the problem!!!!!

You Americans are speaking your native language. The rest of the world is speaking International English. ;)

[deefer dog]

Last week.....inUSA, the home off most muppets!

JFK Controller: (to my confirmation by using the ICAO expression "affirm") "xxx was that an affirmative?"
Me: "Affirm"
Controller: "err, So is that a yes or a no?"
Me: "Well actually it's an affirm. But call it a yes if you wish."
Controller: "xxxx, are you not able to speak plain English? Give me a yes or a no, that would help us all out."
Me: "Ok, yes, affirm"
Controller: "Call Boston on xxx.xx"

[West Coast]

"inUSA, the home off most muppets"

Kind of ironic given your complaints about effective communications.

[27/09]

Muppets?

The phrase "It takes one to know one" comes to mind