Standard of RT in USA

[deefer dog]

I know thesis likely to be a contentious thread, but the standard of American RT has been raised a few times in the SFO crash thread.

I have no idea if the USA has filed ICAO differences in respect of their ATC RT comms, but either way 50% of what they speak bears absolutely no resemblance to the norms around the rest of the world, or ICAO.

It amazes me how non English speakers can grasp what is actually meant when so many non standard or slang abbreviations are used. A few of the worlds busiest airports are located outside of America and yet they manage to communicate without the use of non standard slang, so, in the interests of safety, isn't it about time this issue was addressed?

Ready for incoming flack!

[Wizofoz]

What?

You mean "Outa thirteen point seven for three five oh, two sixty one seven comin' down" Isn't ICAO standard?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Fact 1: On any given day there is more airliners flying in North America than anywhere else in the world.

Fact 2: North American airlines have the lowest accident rate anywhere

Maybe it is time for European operators, especially the British ones, to realize their culture of arrogance and self righteousness makes them incapable of learning from others

As for whose ATC works better, well I will take US ATC over the screwed up, inefficient, Balkanized mess that is Euro Control, any day :rolleyes:

[DooblerChina]

non ICAO maybe but perfectly legible. Id much rather read back "twent eight sixty" as opposed to "one two eight decimal six zero"

[bubbers44]

We live here and like it. Had a flight into TGU Honduras once and our AA flight, a 757' was put in a hold at the FAF so they could let a Spanish speaking prop plane fly through our holding pattern at our holding altitude in the clouds. Of course we couldn't understand what they were saying so realizing by TCAS we were joining up with them at the fix in non radar turned away from our clearance to avoid a conflict.

Which is worse? A midair because of not using the international language for ATC or a bit of local slang? Out of 16.5 for 350 pales vs a midair.

[Oxidant]

Fact 1: On any given day there is more airliners flying in North America than anywhere else in the world.

Fact 2: North American airlines have the lowest accident rate anywhere

Maybe it is time for European operators, especially the British ones, to realize their culture of arrogance and self righteousness makes them incapable of learning from others

As for whose ATC works better, well I will take US ATC over the screwed up, inefficient, Balkanized mess that is Euro Control, any day

Big Pistons Forever is online now Report Post


Now, now, you forgot the Australians & the French........:E

[Crabman]

"I have no idea if the USA has filed ICAO differences in respect of their ATC RT comms, ..."

ICAO?? ICAO??? We don't need no stinkin' ICAO!

[reynoldsno1]

...bbbbut the Convention was held in, err, Chicago ....

[Dushan]

Fact 1: On any given day there is more airplanes flying in North America than anywhere else in the world.


There, I fixed it for you...

[bubbers44]

QANTAS according to Tom Hanks but AF447 changes AF status.

[West Coast]

Deefers

Does the UK have any variances (or whatever the proper term is) from ICAO standard phraseology? I've seen this discussed and I believe the answer was yes. Perhaps you should focus your efforts on your own countries procedures and RT before you worry about anyone else.

[neville_nobody]

The US system is about making it work rather than following to the letter the musings of some ICAO RT sub comittee. When you have the sheer volume of traffic that the US has on frequency at times the whole ICAO proceedures dont actually work as they are to verbose. 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!:}

[con-pilot]

It seems that about every other year or so, someone starts a thread about how terrible the US ATC system's language use is.

Well, the FAA is slowly changing it more in compliance with ICAO standards. Not because of 99 percent of the air traffic that is in US airspace everyday, but for the one percent of foreign crews that fly in US airspace, domestically, on any given day. The Pacific region of Oakland Center would be an exception, as it controls nearly the entire North Pacific airspace from California to Japan, China and the Philippines.

So sorry, learn to live with it. We are doing a lot more to change than anyone else is.

Also, with my experience in international flying, which is considerable, the US still has the best ATC system and controllers. With London ATC a very close second.

As for Euro Control, what a joke that is. Until there is a single ATC system in Europe, it is still in the dark ages of aviation.

Now awaiting for incoming. ;)

[deefer dog]

West Coast, yes, the UK has filed differences. Not many, but one or two. All member states are quite entitled to file differences, that is the way the system works so that all users of it know what to expect, and what different phrases actually mean when heard depending on where they operate around the world.

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.

Put simply, if you sign up and agree to a convention, why not honour it?

[HPSOV L]

American ATC is great for Americans. And the place is so big they (understandably) don't see any point in adjusting for the rest of the world. Of course this is a problem for the rest of the world when they come to visit, or receive visits for that matter.:p

[jackstraw]

Neville, good point.
I can't speak to flying in the UK but, down under, they certainly aren't immune to straying from ICAO or even the English language...(i.e., "shock" intersection.) Did someone steal the r's from the Ausssie controllers? Just kidding really but, if you're not from the USA, don't think for a moment that we have the market cornered on colloquialisms.

[neilki]

In the interests of accuracy, Phraseology & Hollywood et al, i think you'll find it was Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man who would only fly Queensland & Northern Territory Air Services...:D

[Lord Spandex Masher]

We are doing a lot more to change than anyone else is.

Perhaps because you need to?

Your gash RT might also explain why 99% of Americans find it hard to understand correct RT and simple English terms like:

"American # direct Romeo Lima Papa"
"Eeerrrrrr say again"
"Direct Romeo Lima Papa"
"Errrrr how do you spell that?"
"ROOOMMMEEEOOOO LLLIIIIIMMMMAAAAA PPAAAAPPPAAAA"
"Okay maaaaam direct Vesan"

Heard today.

[West Coast]

I like it deefer, you admit the UK has differences from the ICAO standard, yet you glaze over that to bitch about the US despite it having the most traffic. Work on your own country. When it moves as much traffic as the US, then talk to me. The UK last I checked didn't even crack the top 10 as far as busiest airports as measured in aircraft operations. France has busier airports.

Fix your own before you feel entitled to complain about the one that moves the most.

[West Coast]

Spandex

I've heard speed bird among other euro carriers dork up clearances in the US many times, even the most basic ones at a straight forward airport like LAX. Get off your high horse.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Probably because of gash American ATC RT?

[galaxy flyer]

Maybe if the ATCO just said "American xx, cleared direct Rolampont" it would have understood. :ugh:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

She tried that first. :ugh:

[despegue]

As long as the USA is part of ICAO, they should ADHERE to the STANDARD ICAO Phraseology or ask for OFFICIAL ICAO published amendments.
Don't like it Yanks? Then get the hell out of ICAO.

American Carriers ATC is absolutely horrible out of their own country. They do not want or know how to communicate in standard calls, do not understand standard instructions, even when told in very clear aviation English.

In the USA, Unless there is an OFFICIAL ICAO amendment, ATC HAS TO comply with standars ICAO phraseology, and especially so when dealing with International traffic. All the moaning about some carriers not having a clue what is said by atc in JFK, ORD, etc. is mostly NOT because of poor ATC disipline by the crews but by American controllers who do not get it that they are dealing with crews that are not local. speak slower, cut the slang and start being Professional!

And for those who think that Eurocontrol is in the Middle ages... on the contrary...US ATC is twenty years behind the equipment that most European ATC centres have, especially Eurocontrol, which has the most modern equipment in the World, together with Langen and Munchen. So get your facts right.

[con-pilot]

What's hard to pick up about "Romeo Lima Papa"? And then how do you get a five letter waypoint from three letters? Surely if everyone else can understand it...

It is when a French controller says it.

So sorry LSM, we really don't care what you think about our ATC system, it is still the best. Fix your own house before bitching about ours.

Actually don't, as London is close to the US when comes to the best and they are more like the US than any other country.

As one BA captain posted on the same subject a few years ago, paraphrased of course; 'Say what you like about the US ATC system, but when inbound to Los Angles from London and on the first radar contact with the US, we're cleared direct to the gate for the LAX arrival, from all the way across the county, speaks volumes'.

[ph-sbe]

I know that as a PPL'er I'm not considered a professional pilot, but still my 2 cents:

I moved to the US a couple of years ago and it took me about 4 months to get used to the local RT (mind you, I live in the Bay Area). Especially in the SFO class Bravo things tend to go very fast and for a non-native English speaker, that can be challenging.

Having that said, I do find the local RT to be much more efficient, and the deviation from ICAO RT isn't spectacular. Perhaps that's just because I'm a low-level VFR only fly on your windscreens, but I kind of like it.

[despegue]

In fact, French controllers are mostly using better AVIATION ENGLISH then the American collegeagues. Note the words AVIATION ENGLISH. it has nothing to do with everyday speak. aviation English is an International way of communication based on English words, spoken in a neutral way so to be as clear and concise as possible for all users.
Something the Americans have no clue about in general.

[West Coast]

I thought for a moment you were serious about having a conversation till the last blatant generalization.

[1Charlie]

Why do UK ATC say "descend on the glide" instead of cleared ILS approach? That's not an ICAO phrase is it?

What the US do well is Airports. Being cleared straight to the gate is much easier if you have twice the runways as Heathrow but nowhere near twice the traffic.

[*Lancer*]

No individual uses perfect ICAO phraseology, and different countries have introduced their own little non-standard variations.

The use of "fully ready" or "fully established" at Heathrow might have a purpose, but everywhere else it's just annoying.

It can be genuinely hard flying in the states without having 'adjusted' to their radio technique, but - like the French or the Chinese - that's just the culture. It does seem to spite the concept of 'standard' phraseology, and would be exceedingly difficult for a non-English speaker to follow.

It also gets a little frustrating listening to American pilots using their style overseas with some poor Japanese or Singaporean (and they're the good ones) controller who has no idea what the aircraft is carrying on about.

[BenThere]

I sincerely make every effort to speak standardized, by the book radio transmissions. "Passing one zero thousand for one three thousand", for example.

It's a good system, and the vocabulary of standardized ATC words is really quite small. Never say, "Lookin' for lower" but the correct, "Request descent".

Some time ago, I was furloughed from my US airline job and worked for five years, mostly in Europe, but a lot of Asia and the Middle East. It was so nice to come back home to US ATC's and native English speakers.

[galaxy flyer]

One thing lost in willy-waving is that a US pilot could fly a long and happy career flying, airliners, corporate jets or ag planes, and never leave the US and, perhaps, Canada. In Europe, such "provincialism" is impossible, you HAVE to deal with non-native English speakers. That's why Aviation English was invented. The FAA Airman's Information Manual has all the correct Aviation English, it's just isn't required on a daily basis and habits die hard.

I agree US pilots sound terrible in Europe and overseas, in general.

[Yankee Whisky]

You'll find that in any system where people communicate, a "slang" or abbreviated style develops.
I flew an airplane for many years and instead of referring every x'mission to "Charly Golf Golf Delta Uniform" I only used it in the initial contact with local
ATC and later on this became "Delta Uniform" in further x'missions with the same terminal operator. Professionals in the Air Force, where I spent some time also developed a shorthand "slang" ,which we all understood.
In International traffic understandable language, of course, becomes more critical and we should use clear and concise English language and terminology. That at least is common curtsey and mostly enables a pilot who has only learned standard phrases in the English language a fighting chance to understand the instruction correctly (particularly on VHF !). To insist on using one language in all air communications everywhere in the world seems to run into political problems of nationalism etc and cannot be expected to be resolved any time soon and leaves the door open to misunderstandings about traffic situations in the air and on the ground:bored:

[con-pilot]

I sincerely make every effort to speak standardized, by the book radio transmissions. "Passing one zero thousand for one three thousand", for example.


I do, err did, as well. In corporate aviation, the hardest thing that I had trouble with, was teaching my fellow US pilots to use 'November' rather than 'Gulfstream/Boeing/Falcon/etc as is used in the US, when flying international.

In the US the traffic level is so high as compared to anywhere else in the world, including London, the controllers prefer to immediately know what type of aircraft they are dealing with. So that is why the aircraft type is used instead of 'November'.

[JeroenC]

The issue is not if US ATC is better or not. It's ONLY about the fact they've signed up to ICAO but didn't file differences.
The annoying "descent with the glide" was filed, IIRC.

[Contacttower]

As much as I love flying in the USA I cannot help thinking that the posters claiming that it has the "best ATC in the world" and that others should sort their own problems out first are being unnessarily defensive.

This is not meant to be a "my ATC is better than yours" competition I think people are just voicing a genuine concern at something that a lot of foreigners flying in the US have picked up on. I am not saying our system does not have its own non standard phrases (cleared to glide and FL one hundred anyone?) but honestly the standard of RT in the US does leave a lot to be desired...

My biggest observation is that new pilots are not taught in a standardised fashion exactly what to say at different phases of flight, they just seem to pick it up as they go along. There is no RT test and as a consequence people just seem to develop their own way of saying things for no particular good reason.

This is mainly aimed at the pilots because in general the standard of controlling and controller use of correct terminology is very good in the US.

[Locked door]

Big Pistons Forever.

Your 'facts' are typical guff spouted by someone with no experience of the outside world.

North American Airlines are far from the safest, a random google search pulled up this

Top 10: Safest Airlines - AskMen (http://uk.askmen.com/top_10/travel/top-10-safest-airlines_1.html)

And this

World's Safest Airlines- Page 2 - Articles | Travel + Leisure (http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-safest-airlines/2)

You have a classic case of arrogance brought on by ignorance. But there will be no telling you because of the above qualities.

[Cows getting bigger]

I must admit, when entering US airspace I have to consciously take-off my ICAO RT hat and replace with an American one. That said, it isn't too difficult as long as the controllers speak at a reasonable speed. However, the incessant machine-gun type delivery is often completely unnecessary.

I think someone has already said it - sign up to ICAO and play in accordance with SARPs or file a difference. Alternatively, ignore what you have signed-up to and incur the wrath of ppruners. :)

[kcockayne]

No particular complaint about US RT, but shouldn't it be best if EVERYONE used an internationallly agreed & accepted Standard RT format ?

Having said that, I must admit to using non-standard myself, on occasion, BUT, very sparingly in my defence!

[Lone_Ranger]

Once again, Amerikans having difficulty thinking outside Amerika.............obviously Your RT works well inside your own country, but you do of course fly your aeroplanes outside the great landmass quite often..this is where the problem arises and ATC have to decipher the mess.

[AdamFrisch]

The jargon here in the US is something that sometimes annoys me and lacks discipline, but I do have to say that some of the Americanisms are actually better. One very good example are altitudes above 4 digits: "Thirteen thousand five hundred feet" is much more legible and understandable than "One three thousand five hundred". The human mind doesn't compute additive instructions as well as compound ones.

Very often you hear crews ask for clarification on either new freq or altimeter settings and what alway settles it is when the controller departs ICAO and speaks "plain english". Example:

"Contact SoCal on one two three point seven five".
"What was that frequency again?"
"Twenty three seventy five".

Additive vs compound again. The latter is much clearer to compute in all scenarios. Settles it right away and I've never heard anyone ask for them to repeat such an instruction - ever. If safety and brevity is the objective, then the instruction that is the most understandable is the correct one, ICAO or not.

[bamboo30]

Fly internationally and long haul my whole life, no problems understanding american, chinese, japanese atc. However do realized one pattern, native english pilots have some prolems understanding asian atc even after number of years operating in he region.

[Contacttower]

Very often you hear crews ask for clarification on either new freq or altimeter settings and what alway settles it is when the controller departs ICAO and speaks "plain english". Example:

"Contact SoCal on one two three point two seven five".
"What was that frequency again?"
"Twenty three seventy five".

I completely agree with that. The way a lot of people's mind's work they need the number said in plain English in order to visualise it and therefore remember it. If one is only paying half attention to the radio one will often only hear unintelligible numbers if single digits are used whereas a number said "twenty three" for example can be heard and remember with only very limited mental effort.

That is a point on which the rest of the world could perhaps learn something from the US. In general the Americans can be relied on to find the easiest ways to do things...

However I still think they could improve their RT training for the pilots even if for the most part the controllers themselves are pretty good.

[Mimpe]

Conversely Class C and D Control in Australia is very " ICAO" and I/ve never in any single nteraction had any doubt whatsoever what the instruction was. The traffic intensity is is much less of course, and I suspect International flights into the USA just adopt the local lingo with USA destinations - this is easy to do if you're are a native English speaker, but its a definite safety issue for non native english linguists.

Emergency requests are often best best made in plain speech.

[casablanca]

As an American I do not feel that the intent of the post was to argue if they are the best or not. I feel it was more constructive criticism and he/she was right. There are many areas we could improve to make it safer and more clear for the many different nationalities who operate into our airspace. I would also recommend various countries to not communicate in their native language at large international airports, as again it takes many people out of the loop.
Ultimately, if we can be more standardized around the world it can only improve safety......but probably won't happen

[AviatorDave]

AdamFrisch wrote:
"Additive vs compound again. The latter is much clearer to compute in all scenarios. Settles it right away and I've never heard anyone ask for them to repeat such an instruction - ever. If safety is the objective, then the instruction that is the most understandable is the correct one, ICAO or not."

Well, it depends on what you are used to. A frequency given to me as "twentythreeseventyfive" or compounded altimeter settings and transponder codes would make things more cumbersome for me in a high-speed, busy communication environment. I grew up with the European way of radio communication and my brain needs to "translate" the compounded information into the familiar format.

While it's not overly difficult, it adds more load, as small as that load may be.
And more load is never a good thing.

What works best for you doesn't have to cut it for everybody else. Everybody will have to adapt in some way, depending on where you fly. That should be both pilots and ATC.

[Bernoulli]

Con-Pilot said 'We are doing more to change than anybody else is'. Errr, no you're not. Those born with their native tongue not English have to adapt far more than any English speaking American.

The machine gun delivery used by some American controllers is counterproductive when employed to direct 'foreign' aircraft. I fly for a British airline and frequently have to ask the US controllers to 'say again, slowly' thus defeating the initial objective of haste. It's a bit like listening to some of the VOLMET reports that are delivered so fast in heavily accented english that you've got to listen right through three times before you can understand it. 'More haste less speed' as my old granny used to say.

[beardy]

I find ATC in the USA to be very professional, succinct and accurate. I understand them and I am aware of their notified differences from ICAO. I am in awe of their ability to speak an entirely different form of RT phraseology from most (not all) American pilots and not lose their cool. It amazing that two ends of the conversation can be talking different languages and yet understand each other!

[flydive1]

"Charly Golf Golf Delta Uniform" I only used it in the initial contact with local
ATC and later on this became "Delta Uniform" in further x'missions with the same terminal operator. Professionals in the Air Force, where I spent some time also developed a shorthand "slang" ,which we all understood.

Yes, but sometimes they catch you out when they call you "Cee Gee Gee Dee You"

[awblain]

The most egregious case of non-standard terms I've heard was a reported call from a United Express flight into an unmanned airfield in inclement weather in Colorado.

While intending to confirm that he was next for arrival with the statement "I'm on deck", this understandably confused the private aircraft waiting to depart, who interpreted it as "I have cleared the active runway".

[beardy]

1Charlie:
I too don't like the UK "descend on the glide" however it is a notified difference from ICAO and is there to try and prevent pilots from descending below their cleared altitude before becoming established on the localiser. Apparently this has happened, the aircraft was not in the safe surveyed area.
I know, cleared ILS means establish on the localiser before descending on the glidepath, but not everyone knows that (they should) and even some of those who do know it do not always abide by it. The UK phraseology is just there to try and help flight safety.

[Sprinkles]

They've been saying "cleared for the ILS" in Gatwick for months! :hmm:

[Leftofcentre2009]

Why do the US ATC use the word "point" as opposed to "decimal" when speaking frequencies?

I'm genuinely interested to know.

123.45

One Two Three Point Four Five
One Two Three Decimal Four Five

[awqward]

Good question about point vs decimal....just it should be the other way round! Point is two syllables shorter....is what is used in normal speech and I can't see it being confused with any numbers....so why Decimal?

[Schnowzer]

Yeah but think how much shorter R/T would be if we all just used Americanisms. Just look at what they did to doughnut; donut! 5 letters saved and 2000 calories added!

My vote is for good R/T but I have no problems with plain English or Umerican, personally my biggest problem is getting my 2s and 3s understood on the sub-continent!

[172_driver]

I think Casablanca is the best :ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

As long as the USA is part of ICAO, they should ADHERE to the STANDARD ICAO Phraseology or ask for OFFICIAL ICAO published amendments. Don't like it Yanks? Then get the hell out of ICAO.
I suggest you stay the hell out of America if you don't like talking on the radios here. Enjoy your travels in the rest of the world. Or, you might take a lesson from beardy.

I find ATC in the USA to be very professional, succinct and accurate. I understand them and I am aware of their notified differences from ICAO. I am in awe of their ability to speak an entirely different form of RT phraseology from most (not all) American pilots and not lose their cool. It amazing that two ends of the conversation can be talking different languages and yet understand each other!
The above considered, my experiences with ATC in the Laguardia/Newark/Kennedy madhouse were, to say the least, frequently challenging and I am a native speaker of American English. But rather than whinge about it, I did my very best to master and deal with it.
Why?
Well, I wasn't the only plane in the sky, and I know that the folks in ATC are busting their butts to do the best they can in very crowded airspace.

As to "say again:" it's in the phrase book for a reason. I used it when I need it, and I think we all have.

[diginagain]

It was never going to be pretty...........

[Contacttower]

While intending to confirm that he was next for arrival with the statement "I'm on deck", this understandably confused the private aircraft waiting to depart, who interpreted it as "I have cleared the active runway".

That is exactly one of the problems. If the US had more formalised RT training the we would not get these strange non standard phrases used. I seem to remember I while ago during some emergency a pilot asked ATC to "roll trucks"; I mean where does that sort of thing come from? :ugh:

[bubbers44]

Contact ground 21 8 eliminates two syllables so that should be the standard because everybody knows what it means.

[beardy]

When a controller wishes a pilot to descend with the ILS glidepath from a level which is above the published level that intercepts the ILS/MLS glidepath at the Final Approach Fix, the controller may use the following alternative form of phraseology.

When established on localiser runway 28, descend on the glidepath QNH 1011, BIGJET 347

Or

or when the aircraft is already established on the localiser:

Descend on the glidepath, QNH 1011, BIGJET 347


BUT:

When a controller has issued a descent instruction to the level that coincides with the published level that intercepts the ILS/MLS glidepath at the Final Approach Fix, or to a lower level when allocated in accordance with the Surveillance Minimum Altitude Chart, the controller may clear the pilot for the ILS/MLS approach

Simple really. The change came in to useage last year. Source CAP 413

[pudoc]

Can only agree, the US has horrible RT. Canada's is just as bad. A little while back a Canadian ATC controller instructed pilots to go around using RT slang. Something like "sixteen twenty eight go around". The ATC missed the prefix of their callsign and the pilots didn't understand it was for them. They ended up landing.

I've heard the RT of both the SFO tower controller after the crash there, and the Heathrow tower controller after the BA crash a few years ago. The SFO controller sounded like he was trying trying to rap a song.

English is my natural language, I fly in busy airspace, yet I just about managed to make out what the SFO controller was saying. Those poor, poor foreign pilots have no hope. Even a United Airlines pilot in his witness report said the SFO tower controller was very rushed and it all sounded confusing (something along those lines).

The US' poor RT standards have lead onto a lot of incidents, it's only a matter of time before a crash.

Yes the UK isn't ICAO standard, but most differences are clearly mentioned in the CAP413. UK is not perfect. The US is horrendous (especially for ICAO level 4 English holders).

One last thing. What ever happend to mayday calls in the US? It's all "emergency" now.

[aterpster]

pudoc:

One last thing. What ever happend to mayday calls in the US? It's all "emergency" now.
Relegated to the dust bin. Domestic ATC is often busy, and not exactly a "ship to shore" environment.

:)

[WillowRun 6-3]

Always ask clients for data before scoping out alternatives, let alone making any judgment calls (and rendering legal advice based thereon) about which one is most consistent with, or least risky under, applicable law and practice. That's the way I was taught (in Chicago English). And certainly no basing of legal advice on anecdotes (or message board word-volleys).

For background, the variables appear to be safety of the nation's ATC system overall, volume of air traffic (with data sub-sets for sched carriers, GA, corporate, other operators like broadcast/traffic, and military), and technological sophistication of the ATC system infrastructure. If these factors are going to be said to be pertinent to evaluation of RT usages and practices -- and particularly if the question is whether the US should undertake to entrain an ICAO process relative to typical and customary ATCO usages and practices -- let us see the data. Don't know if it exists, or if it does, where. But this is just (if you will) pre-flight.

The harder data question is what specific usages and practices are trouble-makers, so to speak. If it is typical to verbalize altitudes and frequencies by means of digital expression (American 446, climb to three zero thousand maintain Mach 1.5, vs climb to thirty thousand...), isn't the question whether one or the other is better? Or are both safe and efficacious? Or is one better in certain environments or under certain conditions? Give me the data; leave your false patriot act on the ramp, whether foreign or domestic.

Next question (and it bears only a shadow of relation to NextGen): what if major US ATC installations all were switched to the equivalent of a CVN flight deck in high sortie rate conditions, or a front-line F-15 and F-16 air base in "high and hot" conditions (with or without high sortie rate)? Better ATC usages and practices? Yes, of course not everyone would understand - that observation here misses the point. This mil standard, as I have at least tried to describe and/or articulate it, is quite standard in actual practice, is it not? And this thread was opened by a plaintive cry for standardization, or was it, standardisation, affirmative?

[beardy]

Relegated to the dust bin. Domestic ATC is often busy, and not exactly a "ship to shore" environment.
What an extraordinary statement, coming from someone who claims:

19,000 hours total time, 14,500 with TWA. Retired late 1990. TERPs Committee and accident investigatgor for ALPA National and to be an Aviation Consultant in U.S. terminal instrument procedures and airspace matters.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all where and when the USA notified an ICAO difference that they would no longer use MAYDAY. Or was it a personal opinion?

In my count "MAYDAY" 3 times is 6 syllables, "this is an emergency" is 7 and I have an emergency is also 7 never mind "I am declaring an emergency."
In my opinion "MAYDAY" gets everybody's attention in a way that the word emergency doesn't.

[Lonewolf_50]

I'm with beardy on this one. MAYDAY is good way to get people to start listening to what's about to be declared, isn't it?

The "Pan Pan" for a malfunction (invented before universal radar coverage) versus various discussions with controllers on issues short of an emergency, looks to have gone the way of the plains buffalo.

(See "minimum fuel" versus 'emergency fuel' reports for a similar issue ... )

[mary meagher]

Or do I say mayday? Or would I like to declare an emergency?

Delighted to see my post 1642 still standing on page 83 of the SF thread has sparked off such an entertaining and freewheeling slagging match on this less inhibited thread. I mentioned that foreign pilots entering US airspace may have difficulty with ATC...and are reluctant to use those useful words "say again...." or "unable".

On the same page 83, Captain Emad was quite rude to me on this subject, but the Heavy Heavy followed shortly after with a truly wonderful post, number 1657...."I'm meek, I'm meek, I'm meek!"

So there you go. I have as PPL IR in the US, found ATC always helpful. Can you bear another anecdote?

In a rented 172, over water (notice how the engine runs rough over water) while enjoying enroute flight following, the controller asked kindly if I was aware I had gone off track. "Well," I replied, having just noticed that the right hand (gravity fed) tank gauge was reading empty while the left said full, "I may be having a problem with fuel...."

The ATC came back immediately with the eager response "Would you like to declare an emergncy?"

I demurred, undecided what to do. "Would you like me to vector you to the nearest airport?" (nice plain concise English, that.)

"That might be a good idea." We agreed Tallahasse would be nearest. The controller then said "Descend to 4,000 feet"......(I was at 11,500, being over water.....)

"Negative," I replied. "If I am going to become a glider I want to start as high as possible!" "Yes Ma'am" he replied. "We have cleared your entire route from 12,000 feet to the ground!" and so held my hand all the way to Tallahassee where I was met by the fire brigade, etc etc....and of course it was only a gauge that was US after all.

I love those guys! I could, if you wanted to hear it, tell a different story about a Birmingham controller.....

[aterpster]

beardy:

What an extraordinary statement, coming from someone who claims:

19,000 hours total time, 14,500 with TWA. Retired late 1990. TERPs Committee and accident investigatgor for ALPA National and to be an Aviation Consultant in U.S. terminal instrument procedures and airspace matters.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all where and when the USA notified an ICAO difference that they would no longer use MAYDAY. Or was it a personal opinion?

In my count "MAYDAY" 3 times is 6 syllables, "this is an emergency" is 7 and I have an emergency is also 7 never mind "I am declaring an emergency."
In my opinion "MAYDAY" gets everybody's attention in a way that the word emergency doesn't.

I'm not defending it, I am telling it the way it is.

Having said that I declared only once in my career. It was on a taxiway at ORD where a DAL had taken the wrong turn and was headed for us, getting closer and closer with each vain attempt to turn around a 727-200 on a taxiway. The tower wouldn't intercede. So, when it got too close for comfort I got on ground control and stated, "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! XXX is declaring an emergency on Taxiway YYY."

That got him stopped....finally. My F/E was ready to leave the cockpit because the next wing swipe would have taken out the cockpit.

You can read about it in Dave Gwinn's book.

[beardy]

That's fine. As a current Captain I can tell you that it is not relegated to the dustbin, despite it no longer being just ship to shore communications.

Since it is just your opinion I can disagree with you that it is not "the way it is"

Yet!

[Feathered]

Bubbers44 wrote: Contact ground 21 8 eliminates two syllables so that should be the standard because everybody knows what it means. That can be replaced with Contact Ground Point 8. That sure isn't ICAO standard, but is official FAA phraseology for contacting ground. In the absence of a frequency before the "point," it is assumed to be 121.xxx

It's just a method to make every single syllable count on congested tower frequencies.

Examples: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/PHAK%20-%20Appendix%201.pdf

[Faire d'income]

North America is a rather large continent and like, say, Europe, standards will vary over such a large area.

The New York accent may sound pushy or even aggressive, but then so do certain Eastern European ones and even the occasional Scottish accent.

Some parts of the US use local slang but that is hardly as bad as, say, the Spanish or French languages frequently used, which blatantly ignores ICAO and seriously reduces the situational awareness of other crews. Irish ATC tends to be clear and cautious, but the local procedures are often eccentric and unpredictable and they almost never give EATs or accurate track miles when asked. Italy is a law unto itself but even there ATC often varies from North to South.

The Swiss and parts of Germany like to try to climb aircraft at minimum rates of climb at high altitude, obviously without understanding the physics but they don't get upset when one says one is 'unable'. The Swiss also like to keep aircraft high with tailwinds on approach but then they have the excuse of terrain issues.

All of these are easily managed, usually, but are undesirable.

The issue I would have with, in particular, some ATC centres in the States, is the apparently envelope-pushing clearances some of them issue. I won't name airfields but for example the various speed, track miles, frequent late approach/runway changes that can be given are a more serious problem. This problem grows with the weight of the type and the length of the flights.

All that said, I do enjoy flying in the States and my positive experiences far, far outweigh negative ones there.

I do take issue with the following though:

Also, with my experience in international flying, which is considerable, the US still has the best ATC system and controllers. With London ATC a very close second.

London is well ahead of the rest.

If only they could get their ATC people to run their airport security!

[despegue]

Actually, France and Spain DO follow ICAO. Communications must be done in the language of the country the ground station is in. If the air station is unable to understand, then English is to be used.
Check your ICAO Annex 10 at home.

Note that I do not like their use of local language in major airports or UAC, but they DO follow the Annex 10.

[Faire d'income]

You are correct.

I re-read this report: Ryanair B738 at Alicante and Valencia on May 14th 2010, fuel emergency | AeroInside (http://www.aeroinside.com/item/2736/ryanair-b738-at-alicante-and-valencia-on-may-14th-2010-fuel-emergency)

The CIAIAC thus annotated: "The fact that English was not used in the communications kept RYR 9ZC from understanding the more explicit and colloquial information that was being given to the other aircraft. That is why it would be convenient that, when aircraft converge at the same airport and whose crews speak different languages, English be used so that all have the same information and all benefit from the information provided to other crews."

The Spanish Authorities merely suggested English 'would be convenient' but didn't point to a regulation.

I stand corrected on the ICAO point.

[GAPSTER]

You don't want our ATC people running security believe you me.....if by that you mean our management people.

I've enjoyed this debate.A bit less testosterone might aid some of the posters though.I've been lucky enough to spend a fair bit of time at close quarters with the US ATC system both as a ground level observer and as a jump seat rider.I've spent 30 years and counting as a London area ATCO and have nothing but admiration for the professionalism and competence of my colleagues stateside.My only criticism does chime with some of the earlier comments in that I have found the pace of r/t delivery on occasion very fast.I always make a conscious effort to slow mine down for non-native speakers and certain airlines in order to avoid confusion and/or having to transmit the whole thing over again.

As for the medal placings,not bothered...don't think they would be either.ATCOs of a feather....

[Agaricus bisporus]

All this talk about reducing the syllable count from 7 to 6 and whether twenty three seventy five is better is surely beside the point. Its the total package that's in question rather than the detail. As I type this at 1800 local on a friday Maastricht the London middle level sector's r/t must be the busiest in the world, the r/t is solid wall to wall yet everyone manages to enunciate clearly in near ICAO standard phraseology and the job gets done with few if any opportunity for misunderstandings and not a slit second of gaps. If they can do this S of London why not elsewhere? Why does r/t have to be frantically gabbled with no breaks, intonation or pause like a sheep-auction when there is time to do it properly? I listen to US r/t and understand maybe 30% of each exchange. That can't be right, and there is nothing wrong with my hearing. OK, I'm not used to it but then I shouldn't have to be. IT SHOULD BE STANDARD, whatever the little cowboys in big hats think.

They aren't operating a CVN at high sortie rates so shouldn't behave as if they are. What is this? Theatre? Willy waving walts time? Sometimes it sure sounds like it...

[WillowRun 6-3]

@Agaricus

Point of invoking CVN flight ops in high sortie rate conditions is not that it should be emulated as such. The point was instead to refer to an intensive flight ops environment (because - a number of defenders of the status quo of US ATC have cited its high traffic characteristic) where (presumably) there is a fairly high degree of uniformity, or of standardization, which was the gist of the opening post of this thread (at least as I understood it). If the military approach (no pun intended) to air traffic management, including but not limited to standardized or mostly standardized r/t, is a good model to try to follow, it might be useful and practical for the further reason that necessarily it works by virtue of people following their unit's chain of command. Somehow I do not have the sense that FAA facilities function quite the same way (yet). What about in the UK?? does atc tend to function as if a strong chain of command is in place, or is it more like a mere civil service workplace? [this is a mere interrogative - I intended no sarcasm or other aspersion, cast or otherwise conveyed or implied.]

[DA50driver]

Every country can use their native language in radio transmissions. (Determined at the same meeting, in Chicago) Now, what is the official language of the USA? (Hint; Good Luck).

Lets call the official language of the USA non-ICAO english, and all the people that complain about R/T in the USA not following ICAO English just lost the argument. No need to file anything with ICAO, as we are communicating in the local language when you do not understand what is being said, much like when I fly in China or Spain.

I am not a native English speaker, but the US is the easiest and most efficient ATC environment I have operated in. (The only place I have not been yet is the Antarctic. Still want to go there as my Grandmothers cousin was the first guy to get to the South Pole and back).

Why not embrace and enjoy our differences? I operate world wide and it is part of what makes my job interesting.

Learn something. Every flight, every day.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<< the controller may use the following alternative form of phraseology.

When established on localiser runway 28, descend on the glidepath QNH 1011, BIGJET 347

Or

or when the aircraft is already established on the localiser:

Descend on the glidepath, QNH 1011, BIGJET 347>>

No controller would ever put the aircraft callsign at the end of the message, captain!!!

[beardy]

Good point Mr Heathrow, would you like to propose the amendment to the CAP from whence the quote came?

[wasthatit]

Good point Mr Heathrow, would you like to propose the amendment to the CAP from whence the quote came?

I think you are quoting the readback but not the instruction.

[EGPFlyer]

Indeed he is, the clue is the little aircraft (as opposed to the tower) in the box :ok:

[J.O.]

A little while back a Canadian ATC controller instructed pilots to go around using RT slang. Something like "sixteen twenty eight go around". The ATC missed the prefix of their callsign and the pilots didn't understand it was for them. They ended up landing.

I know the incident you are referring to and can state categorically that it did not happen that way. Recordings on the LiveATC site seemed to show that the full call sign wasn't used but that's because LiveATC scans multiple frequencies and often clips a transmission. The ATC recordings were reviewed and showed that the controller used the proper phraseology when issuing the go-around instruction. The crew just flat out missed it.

[Pucka]

The various flavours of ATC stateside and in Europe in MHO are perfectly fine. The templates that ATC use on both sides of the pond are pretty much the same and for that, we have to be grateful..for the purists out there..get a life. Who cares if the controller doesn't say.."decimal" or that R/W 07L is just.."seven left"? Human communication is a fallible exercise..sometimes colourful and sometimes pretty droll..let it be..

[pigboat]

95% of the users of the American ATC system seem able to live with it. I have an idea. Lets change it to appease the remaining 5% who have difficulty with it because it doesn't meet some mythical international standard. :E

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Wasthatit and EGPFflyer. Take a look at message #62. I merely quoted what a previous poster had written. Controllers give callsigns at the beginning of the transmission..

[B190]

I have operated out of Uk a few years back on heavy jets into and out of all the world hubs. also operated in US and UK military controlled areas of the Middle East .Before that operated in Africa.
Now operating in Australia.
In my opinion UK and US ( military and civil) controllers are top notch.
Best London area after engine fire in flight.
Aussies pedantic but correct.
Africa, South America, Asia ......WTF (Dubai and SA excluded)

[I.R.PIRATE]

Spending most of my life hopping between Europe and the US, including lots of domestic flying in the states, I have to say that I find the standard of US ATC top notch. But I need to elaborate a little.

From the ATC SIDE of things it's fine; succinct, efficient, expedient and most of all, generally makes sense, save for a few odd profile descents every now and then. Yes, sometimes spat at you quicker than a rapper on speed, but you are always welcome to ask for a repeat.

It's the air side of things in the US where the most non standard, bog slang is to be found, as every guy out there is trying to sound cooler or more colloquial than the next. But, once more, that's the way it is, doesn't bother me, I find it a comical aside to my daily job.

Having dealt a lot with US military controllers and drivers during a previous life, I can clearly see where the need on the civilian side for colorful phrases and image were birthed and/or adopted, but the difference being that in the US military, everyone comes from within the same system.

I find UK ATC great too, orderly, clear and generally at a pace that accommodates everyone. I don't always understand why you have to inform each new freq of your clearances, but hey, that's how it is.

I picture the brave and the free trying to out slang each other in their version of the aerial rodeo, while all the queen's men like to see who can inflect the most ennui into their radio calls between sips of tea.

Once more, that's just how it goes, and I find it adds color to the otherwise dreary grind of interactions on the airwaves elsewhere in the world.

Many years of Africa and the Mid East make me most thankful for the great controlling on both sides of the pond.

[SMOC]

the remaining 5% who have difficulty

Great idea 5% of A/C in the skies above you having difficulty, what a novel safety aspect. :ugh:

[perantau]

Communication is both transmitting and receiving (understanding) what is being said. Minimizing syllables and rapid transmissions become pointless when the other end keeps coming back with, "say again".

[con-pilot]

Great idea 5% of A/C in the skies above you having difficulty, what a novel safety aspect

Name one country's ATC system where 100% of all air traffic has no issue with the R/T of the controllers and the controllers with the pilots?

Just one.

That's what I thought, I'll keep the 95 to 99 percent average here in the US thank you very much. :rolleyes:

[dazdaz1]

Non pilot....I recall a study back in the mid 90s US university who carried out this problem/situation/a2a comms. Long story short, If one spoke in a deep slow baritone voice (actor Roger Moore) comms are more understandable. Just requires a bit of practice to do a Roger Moore voice.

[Cows getting bigger]

That's what I thought, I'll keep the 95 to 99 percent average here in the US thank you very much.

Please do but could you arrange for a NOTAM to be issued whenever you think about flying outside of your microcosm?

[jayceehi]

Miss the days many years ago of my first job on a DC-3.....20 miles out you just turned off the radio master and enjoyed the flight...No one for miles around no one to listen too....Just enjoy the flight and the scenery.....
No whining and bitching....Just flying!!!! Nice.....

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Name one country's ATC system where 100% of all air traffic has no issue with the R/T of the controllers and the controllers with the pilots?

Just one.

That's what I thought, I'll keep the 95 to 99 percent average here in the US thank you very much. :rolleyes:

Name one country's ATC system which attempts* to ensure that 100% of all air traffic has no issue with the RT of the controllers and the controllers with the pilots.

Name one that doesn't.

*by using standard phraseology. You know because many different nations come and visit.

[con-pilot]

I recall a study back in the mid 90s US university who carried out this problem/situation/a2a comms. Long story short, If one spoke in a deep slow baritone voice (actor Roger Moore) comms are more understandable. Just requires a bit of practice to do a Roger Moore voice.

Well, that would be the only thing I would have in common with Roger Moore. :p

I have been told that my radio voice is a lot different than my normal conversational voice, my voice on the radio is deeper and slower. So there might be something to that.

What bothered me the most, were the guys (and gals believe or not) that faked the Chuck Yeager yawl, like; 'Ahh, XXX 465 is, ahh, out of, ahh, 31.0 to, ahh, 24.0.'

Drove me crazy.

[Basil]

On HF we used a high pitched shouty voice.
Dunno if it worked :confused:

[cvg2iln]

This sums it up nicely.

Rosemary Clooney & Gene Puerling - "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off" - YouTube

[Coagie]

Funny. The Chuck Yeager drawl is what I thought of, when you mentioned the study. I think modern equipment brings the most out of a low baritone voice, but in the old days, when they had squeaky equipment, maybe the Chuck Yeager nasal voice came out better? In the early days of the phonograph, a tenor came out better. Even Bing Crosby, a great baritone, had to sing tenor until, they had hi-fi recording and playback equipment after the war. Two way radios were some of the last pieces of equipment, you listen to, that were made to sound better. I guess, they figured, it's often full of static anyway, so what's the use?

[con-pilot]

On HF we used a high pitched shouty voice.
Dunno if it worked

There have been times in places I've flown, that I've wondered if anything on HF worked.

[llondel]

Standard comms equipment normally passes 300Hz-3kHz, with increasing attenuation outside that range. So a really deep voice wouldn't work too well, nor would wearing your trousers too tight.

Playing amateur radio, female voices are often easier to understand on a noisy link, although we're not usually using AM so the characteristics will be different to VHF airband.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The ATC recordings were reviewed and showed that the controller used the proper phraseology when issuing the go-around instruction. The crew just flat out missed it.
"[callsign] go around I say again go around acknowledge"

Given a lack of acknowledgement, isn't that a clue to ATC that the pilot might have missed the instruction?

[pigboat]

On HF we used a high pitched shouty voice.
Dunno if it worked.
Back in the day before SSB, we had a male dispatcher who had a rather high on air voice, he could be mistaken for a female if you didn't know otherwise. His was the best voice that could be understood over HF. SSB reduced everyone to sounding like rain in a tin pisspot.

Playing amateur radio, female voices are often easier to understand on a noisy link, although we're not usually using AM so the characteristics will be different to VHF airband.
I'd say the same for VHF also.

[VFR Only Please]

Delta pilot to NY controller: "Y'all hear how fast I'm speaking? Well that's as fast as I understand too."

[Rananim]

Nobodys perfect.N.America ATC is the best going with Euroland a close second.Ive worked as an expat so seen all corners of the Earth.I like the variation.I dont get upset working a foreign ATCC.I dont expect them to sound the same or do things the same.I adapt.

[Diesel8]

I second Raninim.

[SMOC]

Rananim, is English your first language?

[Hardbutt]

I operate on international flights. The Japanese and UK ATCOs are top notch. All standard ICAO. The larger American airports have improved tremendously in recent years, less 'slang and stlye'. Maybe this a result of having to "say again" repeatedly with the surge of foreing air carriers. :D

[Loose rivets]

I vaguely recall the term Overshooting being used to Go Around. When was the term Go Around cast in stone?


Not that I'm experienced in the US, but when I did my ATP, the exams were a walk in the park. The RT during the flight test was another thing altogether. I really struggled at first.

The thing is, I'd been speaking Tex-Mex for years.


Oh, edit to ask: What was that bloke's name in Shell Mex house who did the RT exam and the IR pre-test in the Link trainer? He used to launch into a falsetto voice at one stage, and make keeping a straight face a matter of command willpower. Something beginning with S ?

[SMOC]

slang and stlye

Exactly, most westerners with English as a first language can adapt, which takes time if you only fly into the US a few times a year.

Hearing some ATCer get angry at a foreign carrier with a guy who clearly has english as a second or third language as previously said is pointless. He was trained to an ICAO English proficiency what else can you expect.

Use slang and style with the locals and carriers who can/have adapted and standard ICAO with those that are expecting just that.

[atpcliff]

It's not just the US. I flew in Africa for about 18 mos, and they did all kinds of non-standard stuff, and used non-standard radio terminology.

We had an ICAO-type guy, who wanted to use standard phraseology. He was trying to correct the African controllers on the radio, and he always used standard phraseology himself. Sometimes, they couldn't understand him, and his corrections weren't very appreciated.

[mary meagher]

Well, nobody requested my contribution about a Birmingham controller, but here goes anyhow.

Flying my PA18 in the UK (and being accustomed to helpful ATC in the US)
I hopfully asked to be permitted to climb into the Birmingham zone, to avoid increasing cloud cover - the PA had all the necessary bells and whistles, and so did I....but although not a peep had been heard on the Birmingham frequency that early morning, the reply was curt. Negative.

So I flew on, dodging cu. Asked again. Still Negative. And he wasn't talking to anybody else at all at all. Once more, I was now facing a diversion as the cloud was spreading out. Still negative.

Whereupon a Speedbird, in Best BA Baritone, informed me "You're not in America now, you know!"

I diverted.

[nolimitholdem]

It was probably the same BA guy who stands ever-ready to correct anyone mistakenly broadcasting on 121.5. (Is it really only one guy? He sure is vigilant.)

Man, this thread is a pedant's wet dream. Or an Australian's.

I think what annoys the Yank-bashers the most is that they don't HAVE to care what the rest of the world thinks.

Rananim puts is best. Adapt and move on. There are bigger issues out there. Like maybe learning to fly a visual approach by the time you have 10,000 hours.

[beamer]

A few observations:

1. At the end of a long dark night across the pond, none of us are as sharp as we might like to be and that results in a little lax RT - our colonial cousins are not the only culprits by a long way.

2. The shambolic situation at Spanish airports continues unabated. In busy ATC environments, the use of local language reduces dramatically pilots understanding of who is where in the sky. It is not because they cannot speak English, it is because they cannot be bothered to do so or are making some political point.

3. Some GA pilots in the UK, when talking to major ATC units on those weekend afternoons are far too verbose and need to learn not only when to speak but also how much to say.

4. Why do ATIS broadcasts in the US need to be made at such a frenetic pace ? At Sanford it usually takes me about three runs to get all the information down and that is sitting on stand with engines shut down. How on earth the light aircraft fraternity manage with one hand on the stick and another on their chinagraph is beyond me - slow down please !

5. The 'guard police' are still at it all over the world - we all make mistakes, don't get so punchy !

6. Do the Americans actually go on a course of instruction to adopt that lazy comfortable southern drawl :ok:

And finally, last night I followed an Easyjet airbus all the way from Turkey to the UK. The poor kid in presumably the RHS, managed to screw up every RT call from the eastern Med to blighty. It became quite amusing after a while; his Captain must have been giving him a very hard time or was 'resting' after a long day. Don't worry son, you will get there in the end !

[mross]

I work in the engine room on a multinationaly-crewed ship. All the Bulgarains, Croatians, Filipinos, Indians etc seem to communicate very well in a subset of English. As a native English speaker it is I who has the most difficulty, especially when it is noisy - I tend to lose concentration when poor grammar is used even though it does not affect the sense. So I must learn the pidgin!

On another point, listening to some Americans is like trying to read a book with no punctuation, it's all delivered in a flat monotone with no pitch changes or pauses to let you figure out the phrase and sentances!

[Willit Run]

The American southern d r a w l, is no worse than a thick scotch accent.
The rapid fire Indian chatter with everything but the colour of the ship drives me nuts and hinders the rest of us trying to get a word in edgewise.
the nasal monotone of the Taiwanese is not always easy to understand. Mainland Chinese is sometimes bloody impossible. Throw in a thick Aussie accent, that throws me for a loop now and then. Oh wait, how about Yangoon, yikes!

If ya fly around the world a lot, get used to it! thats part of the fun.

Enough of the pedants and rants, get a life!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

I think what annoys the Yank-bashers the most is that they don't HAVE to care what the rest of the world thinks.


Well they do, when they're in the rest of the world or the rest of the world goes to America.

It's not Yank bashing by the way. It's poor RT bashing and applies to more than America. Just in case some poor under confident American gets upset again.

[Eclan]

If you want to understand why American pilots have so much trouble with standard RT, watch a film called "Idiocracy" starring Luke Wilson. It illustrates the direction in which the USA in general is headed and especially their grasp of verbal communication.

Like a lot of their TV, Yank RT seems "cool" but bears little resemblance to reality.

Yank RT Translation:

Okaaaaay = I am about to start speaking,

...is with you = I am on your frequency in case this isn't obvious by me transmitting,

checkin' in = I am on your frequency in case this isn't obvious by me transmitting,

two one point three = Passing flight level 213 or maybe flight level 21.3 (2130 ft ???)- who knows??

twenny eight fourteen = Squawking 2814

with the flash = with ident. Not a required call anyway.

lookin' fer lower = Request further descent

Unnerstand one five oh = read back with no acceptance of responsibilty - I only understand the clearance to be XXXXX and it's your fault if I have it wrong.

oh = zero

Twenny three an' a quarter = one two three decimal two five

An' = and

Maintain two five oh = maintain heading 250 or maybe FL250 or maybe 250 KIAS. Who knows??

Look at Flying Tiger 66 for an example of crap RT leading to a crash.

The USA may have the best safety record as someone claimed (I doubt it) but sadly they also have the record for the dumbest causes of accidents:

Looking for spare light bulbs, teasing the FO, reversing out of an iced-in parking bay with reverse thrust (!!??), no flaps for take off while chatting the stewardess, etc, reading back 2400 as 400 feet, many more.

Use it at home, leave it at home if you're going to fly in the rest of the world!

[Mr.Bloggs]

RT should be of a high standard at all international airfields. (Real ones that is; half the little towns in the States have "international" fields.

There is no place for high-speed drawl, be it on ATIS or on ATC comms.

To be fair, the same applies worldwide. Many female Turkish controllers are not understandable due to their high-pitched monotonal delivery. And as for Mumbai..........:*

[OSCAR YANKEE]

I love threads like these, because that gives me the opportunity to say, that everyone should just do like the danes, ;)

STD ICAO - no exceptions, no excuses.

All Professionals speak English at all times, and the ATC is by far the best in the world. (Though ill admit with a less complicated starting point, than ie. London.)

I have always found it inherently funny that the brits, have to have exeptions because they of course know better than everyone else,
and the americans dont really care as long as it works back home. (Which is why they are probably alright with PRISM as it is only targeted at foreigners :} )

The best part about the exceptions are that they "exported" and used outside the homepond.

The americans say "xxx Heavy" everywhere, and the brits feel obliged to tell departure on which SID, pass alt, cleared level they are to everyone,
eventhough nobody seem to care outside the UK. :ok:

(And before any dutch start rambling about ATC in AMS which is good, sorry but a bit to gash generally !! :} )

[twentypoint4]

Enjoyed reading the back and forth on this thread!

If I had a quid for every time an American or Canadian pilot read back a clearance/instruction in exactly the same, standard form as I'd transmitted to them, I'd have zero quid.

You have nothing to prove, we know you're much cooler than the rest of us, but please stop needlessly over-complicating everything and start joining in with keeping it simple!

From a whiny, pedant of a London ATCO.

P.S. I love both America and Canada, your people (women :ok:), and your cultures. I especially love Reese's peanut butter cups, really good work on them.

[Faire d'income]

Simple question:

In your opinion where are you more to receive an unacceptable or uncomfortable clearance on approach?

EGLL/EGKK/EGCC or KJFK/KORD/KBOS

[Keke Napep]

How amazing that a total no-post like this can generate so much overheated and xenophobic excitement. As an African whose secondary and tertiary education was in Europe and North America I think ICAO should declare pidgin to be the universal 'speak'. Naturally, on Prune this would then generate a new thread with hundreds of thousands of opinions as to which form of pidgin was universally acceptable :ooh:. For goodness sake, some version of 'English' is understood by 99% of all pilots and controllers, as long as it's broadcast at the rate of a Texan drawl to those who are not native 'English' speakers :}

[Airbubba]

I have always found it inherently funny that the brits, have to have exeptions because they of course know better than everyone else, and the americans dont really care as long as it works back home.

I'd have to agree with that statement. :)

[mary meagher]

Well, les moderateurs have so far spared the axe permitting my contributions to remain, here's another one regarding UK and US RT.....

Friend of mine was newly minted as an air traffic controller at LHR. Let us call her Belinda. Seems that once qualified, one is detailed to handle the ground control, and so was Belinda, on her very first day on duty - with of course an attentive supervisor to guarantee nothing went wrong.

Incidentally, I met Belinda at my gliding club, not far from LHR -

So after a couple of smooth encounters with early arrivals from foreign parts, the next aircraft to be directed to the stand turned out to be a fellow glider pilot...quite a lot of BA pilots enjoyed that sport in their spare time as it happens, in our gliding club.

So the BA pilot, relaxing from the strict RT discipline of approach and tower, recognizing Belinda's voice on ground control, gave her the big hello...."Hey, Belinda, is that your voice? how's it going?"

Belinda didn't allow herself to be distracted from absolute propriety in directing the cheeky chappy to his place. After three more BA arrivals turned up, each one with a personal hello to a fellow glider pilot, it grew more and more difficult to retain professional discipline. When an American Airlines Pilot who happened to hear the last couple of "Hello Belinda, how you doing?"s broke in with "That Belinda must be some swinger!" she lost it.

The supervisor had to step in.

Since then, her career as controller has been unblemished. But the story is still told.

[742]

Simple question:

In your opinion where are you more to receive an
unacceptable or uncomfortable clearance on approach?

EGLL/EGKK/EGCC or
KJFK/KORD/KBOS



Easy. EGLL/EGKK/EGCC. And for the simple reason that I grew up, both personally and professionally, in the United States. KJFK/KORD/KBOS make sense to me. And I have fond memories of KDCA.

Everyone is more comfortable on home turf. Every country as its own aviation culture, notwithstanding ICAO. And almost everyone has to find some reason to look down on other people. These are, I think, three facts of life.

[phil gollin]

So I presume that the US Armed Forces Air Traffic Controllers go along with the abbreviated terminology of their civil cousins ?

[OBK!]

I'd love to see any ATC in the USA try and manage Heathrow for an hour....don't forget the CDA's folks.

FL200 at over 150nm from touchdown is common in the states, it's a disgrace if people think that's good and efficient air traffic control. Then there's the RT...just have to listen to a well known live atc website for a glimpse at how gash it is.

Have to say tho, Pa28'ing around the states was a pleasure. Bloody hate it commercially.

[West Coast]

I think a lot can be learned by standardizing RT as some genuine posters have opined, the bashers that join in seem to have little to add however. 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. The exactness of the RT standards does not support any large increases in volume, heck even RT what is complained about here has minimal impact, but it does support some additional volume.
The ICAO standard likely works well at medium intensity airports, but at airports pushing 700,000 to almost a million ops a year it's a limiting factor.
The Chicago TRACON (arr/dept) facility was evacuated yesterday due to false fire alarms. It severely effected the airport and when ops restarted the traffic volume was beyond anything I've ever seen there or elsewhere. One local controller (tower) was working three runways masterfully. Two departure runways and one arrival runway that all cross. He never stopped talking other than to catch his breath and accept readbacks. His instructions were clear and concise but likely not exactly ICAO standard. there wasn't anyone needing clarification on frequency, foreign pilots were mixed in and seemed to have no issues either. Other runways were also in use with a different controller as well.

These traffic levels are coming to an airport near you in the coming years. How the controllers will cope is the question.

Now a certain few posters will poo poo over what I've posted here, you'll be able to figure out who they are soon. However ask yourself the question I'm posing about increased traffic volumes and how that will be accomplished. My belief is it will be a number of factors, including changing the ICAO standard of RT.

[misd-agin]

Guys new to S. America often struggle with the Spanish accents and the Spanish names. It gets better.

Female Japanese controllers? Probably the hardest to understand. Accent and femlae voice, for some unknown reason, make it tough to understand. Coworkers usually agree.

Love standard RT, until it's stupid. Freq change - 127.025. "One two seven decimal zero two five."

Flip the radio and it goes 127.010, 127.025, 127.030. Why bother with the 'five" when saying ".025"? It's just another number to remember when there is no .020, .023, .027, etc, etc.

And oh the horrors, 'oh' instead of 'zero'. Or 'point' instead of 'decimal'. Yeah(that's U.S. for yes), I use standard RT except for the occasional "FL 21.3 climbing to FL330". Dem Brits, 'em some smart fellas and they git it. Fast learners. Proud of 'em.

[misd-agin]

OBK-FL200 at over 150nm from touchdown is common in the states

Common? Where? Random? Sure.

West arrivals into JFK arrive at FL190 35nm NW of the airport. Three major airports in one of the busiest air corridors of the world (BOS-DCA) makes it a mess.

And the LAX basin used to have more than half of the busiest 10 airports in the U.S. Again, the volume of traffic forces flow problems.

Same with S. Florida. The list goes on and on. They don't put airplanes at FL200 150 nm from the airport for fun.

And managing LHR? Compared to many U.S. airports it appears to be much easier. That's a pilot's perspective from years of listening, and flying, in the airspace.

[galaxy flyer]

OBK!,

You must be joking about LHR--it's less busy than CDG and about the same as PHX. ORD or ATL are twice as busy.

I'll agree that standard ICAO English is not any more time consuming and better than our version of it.

[Faire d'income]

Easy. EGLL/EGKK/EGCC. And for the simple reason that I grew up, both personally and professionally, in the United States. KJFK/KORD/KBOS make sense to me. And I have fond memories of KDCA.

Everyone is more comfortable on home turf. Every country as its own aviation culture, notwithstanding ICAO. And almost everyone has to find some reason to look down on other people. These are, I think, three facts of life.

But neither is my home turf.

I have never received an uncomfortable clearance in London without it having being first offered as an option. Manchester can leave things tight but it is a rare occurrence and a request for extra miles would never cause a problem.

The three US airports I mentioned have frequently given me instructions with which I was not comfortable.

IMHO the big difference between the two is not ICAO. It is not ability or training. It is simply respect.

[Faire d'income]

And managing LHR? Compared to many U.S. airports it appears to be much easier. That's a pilot's perspective from years of listening, and flying, in the airspace.

Now think about that for a while.

It IS much easier, for the pilots.

[I.R.PIRATE]

Misd...

Every single time flying into KTEB, KJFK,KBOS, KEWR from across the pond, we end up at FL200 or below at least 100-150 nm out.

Every single time flying into KVNY and surrounds, same story.

Flying into Raleigh, Norfolk, you name it....same story.

We now plan an extra hours fuel just to handle this ridiculous exercise. In fact on certain days coming out of the UK we cannot legally make our East Coast destination purely because of this twisted descent profile. Sucks ass it does.

...and dont even bother with trying to get discretion for the descent, because you will get the slam dunk of all slam dunks if you try and hold out for a normal profile descent.

...certainly adds to the bottom line...

[West Coast]

I fly jets into the airports you mention with the exception of VNY. I haven't had similar problems. I know our dispatch managers have worked closely with the leadership at the centers and tracons to find routing that allows as close to optimal altitudes. Perhaps that might be an avenue for your folks to try. It's been proven to work.

[galaxy flyer]

I can't imagine what jet you are flying that requires an extra HOUR for a less than optimum descent. KVNY, KTEB are bizjet ports, so maybe an extra 15 minutes is more like it.

[con-pilot]

I'd love to see any ATC in the USA try and manage Heathrow for an hour....don't forget the CDA's folks.


Now that's down right funny and I don't care who you are. :p

[AdamFrisch]

I'd love to see any ATC in the USA try and manage Heathrow for an hour....don't forget the CDA's folks.

You're funny. Most of them run circles around LHR when it comes to traffic. Heathrow handles IFR arrivals in class A airspace where there's no other distractions from any traffic except these arrivals - not a single US big airport has that luxury. They have to deal with VFR traffic and all the other stuff as well. To more than 2 rwys as well..

[WillowRun 6-3]

What's especially interesting here is how the "clearances" and "readbacks" - if you will (in lieu of some mundanity as 'back and forth') - have left the original query by which this thread was launched somewhere amidst open air spaces, as if looking for Cold Lake RCAF AB (Alberta) when it's gone dark. I mean, question was, with US ATC departing from ICAO standard, should the US file a difference with ICAO, in recognition of the non-standard usages (a lawyer word, for "words or phrases").

There's a fair - and at times hysterically funny - debate about how to evaluate the overall -- what is the sense here, efficacy? safety? projected resilience in the face of anticipated increased traffic volumes? user-friendly-ness to drivers? of atc in different parts of the world (sorry, if using the word "user" in reference to drivers offends any).

But this debate really opens up a window into another important question, imo. Which is: forget ICAO standardization as such. Is there some larger convention (conceptually speaking) about appropriate Air Traffic Control procedures and usages -- call it Standardization 2.0 if you like -- which needs to be looked at? For support, I cite the fact that a thread which began with focus upon non-standard usages by US ATCOs morphed into a more general discourse (at times hysterically funny, granted) about proclivities and bad habits, of atc in various parts of the world (and it also digressed into the actual methods of control, such as (as I understood it anyway) approach clearances fixed at altitudes too high to be optimal for a given distance from the outer marker), and also focused upon contextual or situational factors - such as the volume of air traffic at ORD or in the NYC corridor. The reported incident at the TRACON-Chicago is a great anecdotal illustration of such situational factor. Standard 2.0 needs to account not just for the verbal communication aspect, but the air traffic/airspace management context of a given location, does it not?

I leave for some other day, night, rotation, shift, look-up for Belinda's sister, the question whether the creation of a Standard 2.0 should, or should not, be done within the existing architecture of ICAO. Realize (yup, I do) that whether such a new standard(ization) should be pursued and adopted is a threshold question (as us legal eagles like to call things preliminary and requisite in nature) but trends being what they are, I'll leave it to others, too, to flesh out the scenarios by which the intensity of ATC is certainly going to ramp up, and way up at that, and by ramp, I don't mean the kind upon which the driver does her or his walk-around.

[Airbubba]

I use standard RT except for the occasional "FL 21.3 climbing to FL330".

I've commented here previously that we Americans (not 'North Americans' :) ) couldn't call flight levels correctly if our lives depended on it.

FL 21.3 is 2130 feet on QNE right?

[aviatorhi]

I'd love to see any ATC in the USA try and manage Heathrow for an hour...

Well, considering that 8 of the 10 busiest airports in the world by aircraft movements are located in the US, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch. Heathrow is 12th.

[Pucka]

Avia..please define "busy". LHR has 2 runways. It has some pretty savage noise abate protocols that ATC have to feed traffic around, particularly on the 27's. I know of no other airport where I have to call DIRECTOR with call sign only. The approach separation distances are absolute minimums and rely almost exclusively on the most prompt of runway exits. I think 'Busy" is a tadge different from traffic density, given the paucity of runways at LHR compared to the other 11.
...and BTW can someone explain again to me why LHR insist on the ATIS readback to include QNH still...and for that matter, why do they need a confirmation of a/c type??..I thought that was on the flight plan, which after all defines the weight of the aerplane and thus the levy of charges??..or am I still in the 80's???

[Defruiter]

The aircraft type filed on the plan is not always the actual type that is being used. When doing final approach spacing down to the minimums, we need to be sure that the aircraft is the type we are expecting. Happens more often than you would think.

[Hotel Tango]

Many years ago I spent some time as an ATC simulator pilot for trainee controllers. I used a whole spectrum of accents and phraseology standards with my “pilot” r/t. Instructors and trainees were amused. I told them that in fact my intention wasn’t to be amusing but simply trying to introduce them to the real world of ATC r/t. Many trainees later came back to me after their first live r/t experiences stating that my r/t “acting” had come in useful.

I like both the British and American phraseology. It really doesn’t bother me at all. Although it is generally getting better these days, the only criticism I have is that some US controllers still need to slow down their delivery rate a little when speaking to certain nationalities.

[Surferboy]

The americans say "xxx Heavy" everywhere, and the brits feel obliged to tell departure on which SID, pass alt, cleared level they are to everyone,
eventhough nobody seem to care outside the UK. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

(And before any dutch start rambling about ATC in AMS which is good, sorry but a bit to gash generally !! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif )

Indeed, always a pleasure to have British crews also tell me the QNH, the ATIS letter, Aircraft-type and the arrival they are expecting.:} Luckily most of the time they don't do it when the freq. is busy!

I'll try to be less gash next time! :E

[Flying Wild]

... I know of no other airport where I have to call DIRECTOR with call sign only...

Not flown into Amsterdam Schipol then?

[His dudeness]

which SID, pass alt, cleared level

Thats how we do it as well.

I´m German, from the formerly (or still?) US occupied part.

Although overweight, I refrain from calling myself 'heavy'...

Sorry if thats wrong.

[aviatorhi]

Pucka, every airport has it's unique elements, but to say that a US controller would have difficulty adjusting to how busy Heathrow is, well that's just something I don't buy.

As I said this is by aircraft movements.

CLT was comparable until they added the third runway in 2010 it has an additional long parallel runway. LAS is also comparable. The busier airports like ATL, ORD, JFK, etc. all have more runways simply because they need them to handle the volume of traffic. LHR would need to almost double it's traffic to approach ATL.

I also don't think LHR controllers would have much difficulty going the other way.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

All this talk of ours is busier than yours that's why we are gash is nonsense.

The busier an airport the more important it is to get the message across clearly (and yes that includes to foreigners who haven't got English as a first language), the first time. That's why we have standards and standard phraseology etc.

[Pucka]

Avia, Paola if I implied US airports wouldn't hack it at LHR..I certainly didn't mean that in the slightest..it was just to get the definition of BUSY ATC sorted in the aviation context. I am certain that given role exchanges twist LHR and US ATC, the world would be a little more colorful, a tadge less stuck up and a bit less arrogant!
Yes..AMS and this DIRECTOR thingy..strangely after operating in there for a pretty long time..since 1980 ish..I can't recall.."call director call sign only".. Must either be early onset...or I am so gash they don't trust me!!!

[Surferboy]

IIRC it's in the charts to check in with AMS Approach with c/s only. ;)

[West Coast]

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with spandex, standard phraseology is good. That standard RT needs to change in the future to a less verbose standard however.

[Lonewolf_50]

6. Do the Americans actually go on a course of instruction to adopt that lazy comfortable southern drawl
We can't tell you, or we'd have to kill you. ;) PS: the folks at LaGuardia sure as hell don't speak with a drawl.

Eclan:
your post full of whinging is noted.

I like clear concise R/T comms, but that may be due to having been an instructor for years and harping on
Who
Where
What
radio call formats to teach newbies why we say things the way we do over the radio, in the order we say them. (PTAPTP ... oh, wait, we are all radar covered now, right? )
"Sir, why do we say niner"
"Because nine and five sould too much alike when the radio is a bit scratchy"
"Sir, why do we say zero instead of oh?"
"Because clarity is important in communication"
"Why do we say .Pan Pan Pan" (Or, as I was once informed, "pan pan, pan pan, pan pan" )
"Because it's Spanish for bread, and when it's in the pan your goose is cooked." ;):cool::E I had a flight student do a double take when I slipped that one in ... we had a good laugh over it.

Keke
For goodness sake, some version of 'English' is understood by 99% of all pilots and controllers, as long as it's broadcast at the rate of a Texan drawl to those who are not native 'English' speakers
An actual Texan drawl/twang if delivered in rapid rhythm isn't really a drawl.
The person well above you who spoke about a "high speed drawl" may have misunderstood what a drawl is ...

Phil
So I presume that the US Armed Forces Air Traffic Controllers go along with the abbreviated terminology of their civil cousins ?

Why do you presume that? Brevity has its own virtues, and traps, in military comms.
The busier an airport the more important it is to get the message across clearly (and yes that includes to foreigners who haven't got English as a first language), the first time.
Of course it is. Brevity and clarity in communication was also the original point of using terms like "roger" to indicate something, and "out" to indicate something else, and "over" to indicate end of a transmission that expected a reply.

And so on.

Pet Peeve:

Readback of clearance strikes me as a place where there is NO room for paraphrasing instructions. Clearance is a critical part of the pilot/controller interface in terms of safety and 'getting it right' together., whether one is on the ground or inflight.

This includes taxi instructions. :mad:

[misd-agin]

British ATC is falling apart. Last trip the controllers said "have a nice day". At least twice. Pleasant chaps. Maybe they're married to U.S. women.

[Callsign Kilo]

Leave off the Yanks, they might be "non-standard" but they're not unsafe.

What's unsafe is how controllers and pilots across many major TMAs and international airports insist on speaking in their native tongue which degrades situational awareness and adds to workload. It's killed before and I'm positive it will do so again. This isn't a business for second guessing.

And I'm not one of these "I speak English so everybody bloody should" types. There's a time and a place.

[pigboat]

I'd love to see any ATC in the USA try and manage Heathrow for an hour...
Is that with or without a snowstorm? ;)

[galaxy flyer]

Heathrow has no problem with a snowstorm--airport closed, no planes, no problem. Mind you, it would a snow storm you can see the blades of grass through the snow cover. :}

[West Coast]

The folks at DFW, airlines, ATC and airport ops pretty much do the same at the first sigh of an ice storm. Guess its cheaper overall to park 'em for the one a year storm than keep all the equipment in place.

[Linktrained]

Some may recall that in the late 1940s that there was a proposal made to PICAO ( Provisional ICAO, I think) that Spanish should be the "Language of the Air". I cannot recall which countries made this proposal.

The U.S.A. said ... "NO"

Thank heavens !

An alternative, then, might have been an expanded Q-Code, to be done in Morse Code, just to make it " International...".

[galaxy flyer]

Why would Spanish possibly been considered? They weren't one of the four powers that won the war, even the Russians only grudgingly participated in the Chicago Convention. Everything ICAO is in the powers' languages.

GF

[despegue]

When ICAO decided on the Common Aviation Language, Spanish was indeed set to win. However, the USA bribed Mexico which voted for English:hmm:...
True story.

Nothing to do with any war by the way.

[Faire d'income]

Leave off the Yanks, they might be "non-standard" but they're not unsafe.
Watch the whole thing and tell us what you think:
NTSB Animation Runway Incursion Between Aer Lingus A330 and US Air B737 - YouTube

[Hell Man]

Deefer the Dog wrote:
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.

Put simply, if you sign up and agree to a convention, why not honour it?

Deefer, let me ask you a question.

Is your real concern with safety or with the fact that we dare to do things a little differently and fail to "honor" the convention as you put it?

If its because we've got minds of our own and don't fear doing what works for us, I don't have much to say.

If its to do with safety then statistics clearly show that we are safe, real safe in fact.

[beardy]

Well Hell Man, I suppose you don't care about being SAFER, you don't care about taking advice from others who think about phraseology and it's impact on safety and mutual understanding and agree to it's use. You don't seem to care much at all, just so long as your free to make it up as you go along regardless of anyone else. So that's OK then.

[Hell Man]

Point is beardy, we are safe.

Its our non-conformist approach that seems to rile you limeys!

[WillowRun 6-3]

But that was just an attention-getting device......
Anybody know if the substantive discourse within this thread also will be the subject of a panel discussion or more formal proceeding at the ICAO conference this fall? I do not mean to suggest that this thread per se would be (or even could be......or could it?) synched to the ICAO conf agenda; it just strikes me as reasonable to expect that such substantive matter or matters as (a) standardisation (with, or without, differences filed under the Convention); (b) determination of most appropriate safety metrics to be employed in assessing efficacy of specific ATC regimes in various nations and/or geographic regions thereof; (c) possibility of moving toward a more flexible concept of standardisation under ICAO so as to account for important differences in language, airports, and other factors; and (d) some means of integrating (i) driver objections to specific habits of ATC, assigned to particular approach airspace, in giving suboptimal (or, evidently, highly suboptimal) approach clearances with (ii) the over-arching question of standardisation of ATC language, all warrant a formal examination and deliberative process. Without delay. I'd be keen on taking that proceeding in, if it is on the slate. Any Delegates here?

[Basil]

you limeys!
Ah, yes, those people who discovered, in the eighteenth century, that lime juice will prevent scurvy. :ok:

[Basil]

Can you imagine the row there must have been when it was decreed that 'larboard' would henceforth be known as 'port'? :)

[beardy]

Well Hell Man,

It's the non-standard I don't like. It adds nothing and since the likes of me have to pause and think "what did he/she really mean" it introduces elements of doubt. I say again, it adds nothing; it is neither more concise nor clearer: this begs the question why do it? Perhaps you have inadvetrantly answered this with the word non-conformist (rebellious, cowboy, unwillingness and inability to act as others do?) or would it possibly be through ignorance of procedures? (Not rhetorical)

If you are content with your safety record then why bother to improve it (rhetorical) why bother to be standard with anything. Just do what you want when you want and the rest of the aviation community will fit in around you. (Ironic)

[vrb03kt]

I think the point is being missed entirely here; willy-waving about whose airport is better on which side of the pond is a boring side-track. As is debating regional differences such as "director call sign only". Even in the UK alone there are a myriad of different ways to skin the cat, whether it's Southampton insisting that we read back "next frequency when instructed Solent 120.225" with the clearance every single day (WTF indeed) or East Midlands wanting us to squawk ident on the approach frequency.

The important point is using standard phraseology spoken in a clear and concise way. This applies to all of us. Understanding that not everyone has the same command of the English language that you do, or do not have ears tuned to your accent, would go a long way to making sure all the players involved are aware of what is expected of them. It isn't just beneficial for the controller and immediate recipient, it aids the situational awareness of all other traffic on the frequency. It might just be the last line of defence in preventing someone lining up without clearance with another on a takeoff roll, for example.

[Ace Rimmer]

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!)

[Hell Man]

Beardy, would you like to provide an example that you have personally experienced on this side where we have made things difficult for you to understand and which, as you say, has caused you to doubt?

[Capt Groper]

Whilst there is a need for standardization, some local RT phraseology may be appropriate and could be included in specific Country Rules and Regulations (CRAR).
Some local terminology can reduced length of RT transmissions, include more meaningful replies and be more easily understood by controllers.

For example,
1/ Out of 29.7 for 30.0 as a replacement for Passing Flight Level 297 for Flight Level 300.
2/ Can you slow to 220? Answer is Affirm. Make it so.
3/ Charlie Charlie instead of Affirm.

[Basil]

Capn Groper, did you miss out the :rolleyes: ?

[beardy]

Dear Hell Man,

I am so sorry, I don't keep a record of the times I am confused by non-standard RT, I am normally too busy! Although I do operate to and from your country weekly.

I do find the area air traffic controllers to be, normally, quite good, terminal area radar controllers to be fine, runway controllers to be mostly OK although a little slapdash when overworked.

However, there seems to be a marked reluctance by pilots, at all times, to even read back, verbatim, what they have heard. Never mind phrase requests and reports correctly. There is always that element of non-conformity. The simplest of all is substituting OH for zero. Air traffickers ALWAYS say zero, pilots rarely do, it makes little difference most of the time, but neatly illustrates a certain obstinacy. There is no need for it to be so, after all they hear zero from ATC so ignorance is no excuse, why refuse to use it?

[EEngr]

Fact 1: On any given day there is more airliners flying in North America than anywhere else in the world.But we have more airspace than Europe.

Canada? Calgary to Edmonton would be considered a near miss. ;)

[beardy]

I know I am getting old so forgive what may seem an obvious question, but here goes:

When I did my FAA ATPL and airbus type rating in Minneapolis, I don't recall having to sit an RT exam. Does my memory serve me well, one doesn't have to have RT training and an RT licence?

Addendum:
Just found my licence from FCC (not the FAA) but don't recall an exam in aviation terminology.

[West Coast]

RT license is required in the US.

[beardy]

We can't even agree to spell it the same way. What hope is there?

[DIBO]

Put the steroides aside and don't make it so complicted.
1) English based RT for all professionals (it's a good exercise for every non native English speaker). Mixing RT languages will continue to cause problems
2) native english ATCO to non native guest: treat them as such. From the first contact you're able to judge what proficiency level you are dealing with. Leave your John Wayne and do some of your highschool english.
3) native english speaking pilots visiting: behave like a guest - same remedy.

Story time........This morning in a southern spanish fish market I visited, the probably poorly educated girl rattled something after handing over the order. Within a split second of seeing my puzzled face she repeated 'dosss EUROOO cciinnncuuentaaa'. Exchange was kept brief and a quick smile cleared me for a swift departure, the next client lining-up right behind me. She could have handled LAX/LHR/ORD any time

[barrold]

My submission has been pre-empted by the excellent post of Dibo. Just about sums it up.
I can only supplement by stressing that the use of Aviation English is paramount at airports with multiple nationalities on both ends of the mic. I work at a busy Asian hub and, while we are certainly not perfect, we require standard phraseologies at all times.
While controllers and pilots are supposedly operational Level 4 or above, standards vary dramatically.

[deefer dog]

To Hell Man, (and others who don't get the point of the thread),

This thread has NOTHING to do with who handles the most traffic, or who has the best safety record, or indeed who are the World's best Air Traffic Controllers! If you want to argue about these semantics, please start a separate thread and fight among yourselves until you are blue in the face, but please do not divert the thread away from its premise.

The ONLY point of the thread was to question why the vast majority of US operators and ATC operatives feel the need to make use of a completely different code of communicating when using RT than the rest of the World, and one that flies in the face of the Standards and Recommended Practices agreed by all ICAO Member States, including themselves.

If by now you don't understand the concept of ICAO, what its purpose is, who the members are, and how international agreements are decided upon, made and implemented, please read no further as you will never get the point I am trying to make here.

The unavoidable fact that many seem to miss here is that a committee including representatives of the US decided that standardization would be in the best interests of safety and the industry as a whole. They concluded that specific phraseology should be defined and used to direct traffic, and in doing so they created what are in effect SOPS for ATC and pilots. The sole purpose of standardizing the industry in this respect was to minimize the possibility of misunderstandings that could potentially lead to unsafe conflicts. Over time the SARPS have been amended - many of you will recall that we used to say "ready for take off" instead of today's "ready for departure," and in time I'm sure there will be more amendments incorporated as we learn from experiences (and phraseology) that lead to confusion. The point I am trying to make here is simple; ALL users of USA airspace need to understand what they and others are being instructed to do, just as US operators need to when flying outside of what may be their comfort zone.

If some of you still don't get it, consider how those of you in the US would feel if we in Europe started "tweaking" the way we light our airports. How about some of us choosing to use green centre line light bulbs if we run out of white ones, or just for the heck of it choose to space out the lights at different intervals, just because we can't be bothered to stick to the international agreements, or don't have the time during busy periods? Would you be confused, would it likely lead to a degradation of safety? Get my point? Well do you, Hell Man? So what possible argument do you have for discarding the internationally agreed SARPS in respect of ATC comms?


The argument put forward by some is just plain stupid, especially when talking about busy US hubs. Talking slang to a Chinese, Japanese or even Pikanese pilot is more likely to result in a request to "say again prease," if indeed its possible to get a word back in. Use of the correct phraseology in such cases will not only reduce misunderstandings, it will also expedite the traffic flow.

As for isolated instances of traffic conflicts, misheard comms, or simple cock ups, they serve no useful purpose in this thread. Pilots and controllers of all nations screw up from time to time. As the starter of the thread I would rather explore how we can all work together and make best use of the agreed standards, or, if some are to be believed, should we simply all go our own way and chat to each other in any way shape, form or language?

Standardizing ATC comms cannot be argued against, and its my opinion that the US needs to fall into line and follow the rules in the interests of IMPROVING on what is already their excellent safety record!

[Lonewolf_50]

DIBO:
1) English based RT for all professionals (it's a good exercise for every non native English speaker). Mixing RT languages will continue to cause problems.
2) native english ATCO to non native guest: treat them as such. From the first contact you're able to judge what proficiency level you are dealing with.
3) native english speaking pilots visiting: behave like a guest - same remedy.
Brilliant. Someone buy this man a cigar. :ok:

Deefer: while I appreciate your sentiments (as noted, I had many pet peeves about standard R/T and in particular read backs) in general, the flavour of your OP was both of a wind up and a bash.
That is how your OP came off.
Not sure if that is what was intended.

Note:
To repeat, as I noted to Mary in re LaGuardia, it ain't just foreigners who have difficulty with that comms environment.

I seem to recall that the OP's origin was linked directly to Asiana mishap and the wide ranging discussion in that mega-thread.

I reject the insinuation that comms at SFO was the cause of the accident, or even a causal factor: (When the NTSB report goes final, we'll see if my view matches the investigators' views).

1. Aviate
2. Navigate
3. Communicate

Priority order, right? Pri 1 seems to have been missed.

[deefer dog]

Lonewolf:

I'm sorry if you got the impression that the post was a "bash" or that I insinuated that RT comms was in any way connected to the recent mishap at SFO. I have no idea what caused that crash, and like you I will wait for the investigation to run its course.

What prompted me was the blank faces of F/O's I get fed up looking at when they are dumbfounded by instructions they are required to read back and adhere to when operating in the US. It doesn't happen in any of the other continents we fly through or into, (all of them except Australia which I have yet to visit), or any of the 50 odd DIFFERENT countries (and languages) that make up Europe.

I appreciate that to some extent at least you understand the problem. Please appreciate that I have a genuine reason for asking that you guys play according to the operating standards that, with very few exceptions, the rest of the world generally follow.

I have a feeling that I'm banging my head against a brick wall here; whichever way you slice it you know you guys don't comply in the main, and rather than try to defend the indefensible its perhaps easier to look at the post as a "bashing."

Consider it this way. As a global leaders in aviation, and as proud holders of an enviable safety record, do you not at least agree that the US should up its game in this respect, and at least try to adopt the principles and standards that you helped to design, and agreed to?

I know it won't happen overnight, but baby steps might help.

[Yellow & Blue Baron]

One can listen (live) to all ATC at JFK here (http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=jfk). Just been listening to Approach for the past 10 mins while reading this thread - what I can say is that they sound very professional to me.

Well done USA! :ok:

[Uplinker]

Deefer and DIBO, I agree with you 100%

ATC Guys/Gals in the USA: We don't think you are more clever or more skilled just because you speak fast. Quite the opposite in fact - it makes me think you are nervous and not fully in control of the situation.

I have had to ask for complete repeats; 'slowly' or "words twice" on several occasions at USA airports over the years.

Speaking fast does not impress anyone and simply results in wasted time because you have to repeat everything you just said, and also results in a loss of safety.

I am not being partisan when I say the the UK controllers do it just right - calm, measured and precise.

Slow down ! - Less is more.

[mary meagher]

Come on, Deefer Dog, in your original post you more or less invited incoming flac....please don't get all bent out of shape if we take you up on it!

[Lonewolf_50]

I have a feeling that I'm banging my head against a brick wall here; whichever way you slice it you know you guys don't comply in the main, and rather than try to defend the indefensible its perhaps easier to look at the post as a "bashing."
Deefer

I don't think you can support that (bolded ) statement, and it is probably the matter of "generalization" that made it look more like a bash than perhaps you intended.

Since I had to teach R/T and standardization, I am as much in your camp as a matter of principle as anyone, but I also learned over the years that some minor variation (though not in the terminal area) is nothing to get all up in arms over.

From where I sit, the terminal area -- departures and arrivals -- are, due to their density of air traffic and comms traffic, the places where the benefits of clear, concise, brief, and standard comms are the greatest.

Getting sloppy in the radio in Class A airspace is, for my money, no way to perform in the air.

[West Coast]

I wonder if anyone beyond those in this circular argument really give a F what any of us care? I don't think so. I haven't seen any change to US controllers or pilots in the few days since this thread started.

[clivewatson]

of course you don't give a fcuk, that's the the problem isn't it?

"a good tradesman measures twice, and cuts only once." if your ATC slang was eliminated, and you spoke like everyone else does your guys wouldn't need to keep "sayin" it again.

"outta 2 point seven for one nine oh," (what exactly does that mean?) (don't answer, its a rhetorical question)
"direct to the keys" (how the fcuk is a foreign crew supposed to know where they are, or what the ident is?)
"ground point 9" (elimination of the two vital words, namely "frequency" and decimal - used to give crews at least a clue!)
"thirty point one" (is it an altimeter setting or a frequency?) (fcuk it, not important so let's all just guess)
"right two hundred" (is that "okay heading 200 degrees", or "okay descend to FL 200", or maybe 200 knots?)

call me antagonistic if you like, but in this respect you guys are more like john wayne cowboys than safety conscious professionals.

USA: guilty as charged m'lud! your ATC is atrocious, abysmal and amateurish
and you should be ashamed of it. (alliteration)

[West Coast]

I guess I didn't get the memo to keep the hating up. The traffic keeps flowing.

[con-pilot]

USA: guilty as charged m'lud! your ATC is atrocious, abysmal and amateurish
and you should be ashamed of it

Just how many accidents have occurred from your totally erroneous, BS charges.

I can wait.

[AdamFrisch]

Clive - many of those things on their own look horrible when taken out of context. But in real life, when R/T has been established, when all parties are well versed and comfortable and familiar, there are shortcuts that not only save time, but are safer. "Fourteen thousand feet" is much, much clearer than "one four thousand" as an example. There is virtually no way of misunderstanding that.

At my home airport the tower controllers know me, my tail number and my plane. In a busy environment they'll often say "turn left at Foxtrot, contact ground". No freq. We don't need it - I know what the freq is, they know that I know what it is, so why waste the student pilot on short finals time who's not got a clearance to land yet? Likewise, in a CTAF/AFIS environment - why the obsession after one has established contact with the tail number? Once that's been presented as you enter area, then just call out type and position. "Aerostar on base for 19L", "Aerostar on final for 19L" etc - who needs the tail number in every call? Waste of time. They're either visual with you or not - it's not like they can read your tail number anyway.

Horses for courses. There's a time for shortcuts and there's a time for doing it by the book.

I do totally agree that US R/T is way too fast, though. It's like a speed race sometimes - whoever says things the fastest, wins. I deliberately try to slow things down, without being verbose. Efficiency is key.

[kcockayne]

deefer dog, DIBO & lone wolf.

Congratulations, you've said it all.

Who can question the common sense that you've spoken, & what more needs to be said on this subject ?

[Basil]

AdamFrisch,
At my home airport the tower controllers know me, my tail number and my plane
That's different from a busy international airport handling everything from B737s to A380s.

Recollect, many years ago, landing at well known west coast Canadian airport.
Our SOP, at the time, was pilot called for reverse which was applied and cancelled by the other guy so there's a bit of chatter on the flight deck. As we were rolling out about 90kn, ATC decided to pass us our taxi clearance at machine gun speed. I ignored the transmission until we'd cancelled reverse and then called for a repeat, remarking that it would be better to have left it until we'd finished our landing.
ATC miffed, captain embarrassed, Bas - fkit! I was right! but no one wants to lose the pissing contest:rolleyes:
Anyway the ATCO must have been so upset that he told our next airport. When we landed there we rolled to the turnoff, exited the runway and only then did the US ATCO say "Hey, ***, OK to speak to you now?" :)

[Uplinker]

Approved RT terminology may seem tedious and unnecessarily pedantic, but it is like that for a very good reason.

Many incidents and accidents have been caused over the years owing to misunderstandings between ATC and pilots. Use of the standard terms is safer because their meaning is defined and cannot be confused. It must also be borne in mind that transmission and reception is not perfect. Radios can be distorted or suffer interference, and cockpits can be very noisy places. As Basil suggests, the pilots are often very busy doing several things at once.

ATC need to remember that they are a SERVICE and are ASSISTING the aircraft pilots. The aeroplane comes first, not the controller wishing to clear a strip off his tray quickly.

Also we must bear in mind that pilots or ATC may not have English as their first language, which is another good reason not to speak too quickly. We had a discussion with Turkish ATC about something the other night and the person did not understand our conversational English at all, although that same ATC operator could control us in English perfectly well.

Going to Mexico a little while ago, the controller gave us a QNH of "993". We thought that odd as we were expecting inches of mercury and queried it several times. It later transpired that the controller had meant "29.93" but was using his own verbal shortcut by dropping the 2 and the decimal.

In this case the error didn't kill us, but it might easily have done.

[Basil]

Uplinker, As I think I posted earlier, I witnessed a situation where that very error could, with a lower cloudbase, have been fatal.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Just how many accidents have occurred from your totally erroneous, BS charges.

I can wait.

It's interesting to see that you judge the quality of something by the number of accidents it has or hasn't caused!

Furthermore, as a pilot, I have caused no accidents and, therefore, must be the best pilot in the world - using your very own yardstick, of course. I'm sure there will be plenty of opposition to my statement, including me.

Poor defence.

[Goldenbawls]

I wonder if anyone beyond those in this circular argument really give a F what any of us care? I don't think so. I haven't seen any change to US controllers or pilots in the few days since this thread started.
No, you're probably right that few controllers or pilots will change their ways of speaking on the radio based on this thread. And while I know that most of this thread is based on how the US ATC operates, I do think that some of the bashing of American pilots operating internationally is unfair. I hear them using standard ICAO procedures over the skies of Europe everyday. Pretty much every single transmission I hear from them include spelling out individual digits in their call sign and using that godawful word "decimal". What a useless word by the way. Especially combined with all the stupid frequencies that exists in Europe after 8.33 kHz spacing was implemented. Give me "thirty-five point one" over "one three four decimal two eight five" any day of the week.

I also see that some others agree with me regarding the use of "fully ready". Please explain to me once more, preferably one of you pretentious Brits, the difference between being ready for departure and fully ready for departure. Or being ready for start-up and fully ready for start-up? And why are some of you seemingly not able to utilize common sense and abbreviate your verbose exchanges, or speed up a bit, at times when it clearly is necessary? Classic example: late afternoon in a busy TMA with CBs all over. People are stepping on each other in order to get permission to deviate. In comes Mr. UK with a 45-sec monotone transmission that includes not only the who, the where, and the what, but also the information received, the STAR being flown, the squawk code and the a/c type. To include the "-300". KISS FFS.

In conclusion, having flown domestically in the US for several years as a non-native English speaker, and now operating all over Europe, I definitely know which system I prefer. I'll take the land of the free any day, please. And add bacon.

[mary meagher]

Okay, here comes another anecdote, just to keep the conversation friendly.

As a British Pilot, I took the RT,course, practiced the patter, and made a habit of listening on Channel 9 when flying UA as a pax. Approaching London, was delighted to hear the following exchange.

American pilot politely and properly requested Direct to Bovingdon.

Heathrow Director politely and properly declined.

American pilot asked again a few minutes later, also according to the Queen's English as she is spoken over here.

Heathrow replied "Sorry, sir, cannot approve that routing as it would take you through a danger zone."

Speedbird pilot, unidentified, chipped in: "Go for it!"

[Linktrained]

I had mentioned earlier the possibility for confusion between a "HAMPTON 4 DEPARTURE" and "HAMPTON FOR DEPARTURE".

The read-back by the Anglophone F/O was quickly queried by a busy Idlewild Control. The Scotophone Captain was word perfect at once. Congratulations to both.

Leaving this embarrassed F/O wondering if another number could or should be used. ( It was my first trip !)

[West Coast]

Basil

Next time might I suggest you simply call the tower after parking if you have a comment. If you're about RT standardization, then surely you can see the folly of making comments on frequency. A reply on frequency can be perceived as simply being a smartass (which given your comments at the next airport, it was) while a call with a well reasoned explanation can go a long way towards a remedy.
US ATC had the JS experience taken from them post Sept 11 up until fairly recently. Even now the program is not user friendly and the few controllers I interact with have pressed their boss'es for the time off to get into the actual JS so they can see things from our perspective. Feedback such as you tried by my estimation is appreciated, but it's about how you do it as much as what your saying.

[Basil]

Next time might I suggest you simply call the tower after parking if you have a comment.
You're probably right but, as an ex ATCO, I felt I'd never have started yacking on at an aircraft during the high speed part of the landing roll unless there was imminent danger.

[West Coast]

I understand your point, I disagree with the way went about it.

[BEagle]

We used to take baby VC10K pilots to the US to expose them to a number of new situations - high temp / mil ops / busy civil ATC etc.- all achievable within a few days.

I found US RT 'different', but never impossible. Civil Center controllers were mostly fine, as were airport controllers, but many military ATIS readers were an idiotic liability.

Landing at Honolulu the crew was told "Next available, Ground point 9 when off". To me, sitting on the jump seat, that was blindingly obvious; take the next exit, then call Hono' Ground for taxying instructions on the VHF ground frequency which ends in .9. But no, the crew blundered off onto the next exit, then turned straight onto the taxiway without calling Ground, causing a 747 to come to rather a rapid halt, then struck up a conversation with the busy local controller...:rolleyes:

Only issue I ever had could be summed up as "Speak fast, speak twice!". Rapid clearance delivered at a tobacco-auctioneer's pace, ending in "Readback" isn't helpful - crews will often ask for a repeat. But they should be ready to note it down, of course.

"xxxAir checking in at 360" I thought was a great idea - it let us know that he wasn't at our level. Equally "xxxAir passing 280 climbing 360". But when I did the same, my training captain said it wasn't necessary "Because ATC already know that!". Well, they might - but other aircraft won't and it all helps to build SA!

But please - no 'rounders' scores on 123.45 on the ocean!

[J.O.]

But please - no 'rounders' scores on 123.45 on the ocean!

Same goes for UEFA and the EPL, please. BTW, no one has played rounders in close to a century.

[Lonewolf_50]

"xxxAir checking in at 360" I thought was a great idea - it let us know that he wasn't at our level. Equally "xxxAir passing 280 climbing 360". But when I did the same, my training captain said it wasn't necessary "Because ATC already know that!". Well, they might - but other aircraft won't and it all helps to build SA!"
The voice report used when switching freqs from one controller to another with altitude included, IIRC originated in the days when not all airspace was radar covered.
Even with radar coverage, if the controller you are checking in with does NOT copy your transponder, for whaterver reason, at his end or yours, alerting him to your altitude is a good thing.

I need to check voice reports again in the AIM to see what has chnaged since I used to teach this stuff. I agree with you on the wisdom of those reports.
However, "checking in at" is probably not the right report. (Again, I need to look this up).

Format from memory: "Houston Center, XXXAir NA556, Flight Level 250 (or one's altitude when FL is not appropriate)" is the standard call. If this has changed, I'd be curious as to why. Short, sweet, and to the point.

EDIT:

Looks like it is mostly the same, and I'd be interested to know if this is not the same in ICAO procedures.
From the 2012 edition of the AIM:

5-3-1.b.2. The following phraseology should be utilized by pilots for establishing contact with the designated facility:
(a) When operating in a radar environment:
On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s assigned altitude preceded by the words “level,” or “climbing to,” or “descending to,” as appropriate; and the aircraft’spresent vacating altitude, if applicable.
EXAMPLE−
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).
NOTE− Exact altitude or flight level means to the nearest 100 foot increment. Exact altitude or flight level reports on initial contact provide ATC with information required prior to using Mode C altitude information for separation purposes.

(b) When operating in a nonradar environment:
(1) On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s present position, altitude and time estimate for the next reporting point.
EXAMPLE−
(Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), (position), (altitude), ESTIMATING (reporting point) AT (time).
(2) After initial contact, when a position report will be made, the pilot should give the controller a complete position report.
EXAMPLE− (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), (position), (time), (altitude), (type of flight plan), (ETA and name of next reporting point), (the name of the next succeedingreporting point), AND (remarks).

[BEagle]

Personally I'd bin the 'dangerous dative'! As in 'to or for'. Thus 'Climbing FL280' rather than 'climbing to 280'. Was that 280 or 220? Similarly, was that 'for' or 'four'?

'XXXair passing FL 220 climbing FL 280' or 'XXXair maintaing FL320' or 'XXXair passing FL320 descending FL220, ready for lower when able' seems simple enough.

But we really don't need to get too fussy....

[philbky]

As a non pilot but someone who has been listening to HF comms since the late 1950s and VHF since around 1963 in various parts of the world, as well as having spent many hours riding jump seats before 9/11, I've heard many different ways of delivering and reading back clearances and have been able to observe first hand the reaction of crews to non standard terminology. I've also read too many accident reports where non standard phraseology has played a part because of the confusion caused.

I spent a good few years facilitating discussions between various national ATC providers including the North Americans, regarding training and standards and have seen the way certain European providers train their own candidates, as well as those of other nations. Seeing the way training was done in the US, in the 1990s, highlighted a good number of differences in approach which came as an eye opener, even after years of listening to the usual rapid fire delivery of the graduates and watching traffic at various US airports.

From a non professional but well informed observer's point of view, standardisation and clarity should be paramount in an environment which is growing exponentially and where far greater numbers of flights are flying through a wider range of national airspaces with a variety of ATC accents, crewed far more frequently by a two man team, often almost strangers to each other and ever more frequently of differing nationalities.

I've heard some excellent and some appalling RT over the years but the worst still has to be one heard years ago in the southern US, approaching a very busy hub airport.

An airliner based at the hub was instructed to descend to 180, and turn right 20 degrees and report the heading.

If memory serves the read back was "OK, xx xxx down to south and go west.". The controller came back with two clicks of the mike button.

Fortunately such ridiculous shorthand is rare.

[Basil]

Lonewolf_50, CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO
I'd agree with Beagle. ISTR when I last flew, about seven years ago, we dropped the 'to' lest it be mistaken for 'two'.

[West Coast]

Hopefully the sports score are on the decline with the preponderance of ACARS.

[ehwatezedoing]

As we were rolling out about 90kn, ATC decided to pass us our taxi clearance at machine gun speed. I ignored the transmission until we'd cancelled reverse and then called for a repeat, remarking that it would be better to have left it until we'd finished our landing.


Talk about that!
When I'm on the DC3T some don't even wait to see our tail wheel down & rolling behind before calling (we usually set it around 60/50kts)
I would like to thanks the smarts ones who do though..:ok:
The others just get a "Say again?" when we vacate.

I knew guys who flew pistons DC3s and they all said that ATC in those time would never call, unless any kind of emergency of course, before your tail wheel was down and....More important, things under control! Tower may have been less busy then but it doesn't justify it.


Waiting for a landing to be completed before giving a radio call is a lost practice.

:(

[gb346]

Non-Standard RT is everywhere. It's the slang and/or speed of the RT that confuses pilots who are not familiar with the local accent or local slang.

Inbound for Atlanta, I heard this exchange between Jacksonville Centre and one of the local airlines -

ATC : XXXX435, can you accept FL330?

A/C : Standby

waited a little . . . .

A/C : Uuuhhhhh, yeah Jack Centre, Cap'n says we can do 3 3 oh for ya.

I don't agree that we have to be perfect in our RT at all times but that is the worst RT I've ever heard. Bypassing ICAO RT for expediency is one thing, trashy slang on a quiet frequency is just unprofessional.

[NG_Kaptain]

A pet peeve of mine is reading back a clearance and ending it with the word "confirm". In the area I fly the worst offenders are pilots from India, Philippines and most of the Arab countries. One of my recent JFK flights a Royal Air Maroc was given a clearance, he read it back correctly but ended with the word "confirm". The New York controller answered him "Ya either got the clearance or ya didn't, got no time to confirm". The answer if you can't cope is to "Say Again".

[obgraham]

that is the worst RT I've ever heard. Really GB? I get that you don't like it and think it's hayseed-speak, but what part of it isn't understood?

[Trackdiamond]

Does the old ICAO school of pronouncing every digit on altimetric clearances below ten tousand feet stl prevail..."descend to seven I've zero zero feet" heard that amidst a busy controller in Nairobi

[Gusz]

Whats wrong with a friendly soccer update on 123.45.....
C'mon guys chill !!!!

[Megaton]

Whats wrong with a friendly soccer update on 123.45.

Because we're supposed to be professionals.

Because we are already listening to two other operational frequencies and the last thing we need is the distraction of inane chatter on a third.

[cwatters]

Just for the OP..

ICAO Releases Phraseology Study Results | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainsafety/2012-08-20/icao-releases-phraseology-study-results)

Of 526 pilots who reported operating primarily in North America, 27 percent reported cases of non-standard phraseology, more than any other region. Of 435 European-based pilots, 22 percent reported that region as where the most problems with phraseology occurred.

So not much difference between North America and Europe.

[beardy]

The full ICAO report makes interesting reading. in the summary of the most common conditions reported by Pilots in which they identified confusion, especially when frequencies were busy, had a weak signal or static.

The lack of standardization in communications was the second most frequently mentioned condition and included reference to the use of slang, the use of a local holding area which was not on the airport diagram, improper usage of the phonetic alphabet (e.g., “Nectar” instead of “November”) and the use of call signs where ICAO standard terminology was not used. This condition was most commonly noted in communications within the US.

It's not just me.:mad:

[BEagle]

I used to wonder why 'ride reports' were so frequent in the US. Then someone advised me that it was all to do with ambulance-chasing legal parasites. If an airliner captain had turned the belts signs off and they encountered a little chop, some greedy unsecured passenger might try to sue the airline....:rolleyes:

One excellent 'ride report' I heard came from a plummy-voiced ba 747 captain:

"Speedbird XXX, it's verrrrrrrrrryy smooooooooooooth. As one would quite naturally expect!"

.....improper usage of the phonetic alphabet (e.g., “Nectar” instead of “November”)

Probably someone trying to show that he'd been flying before 1957? That was the year that 'Coca' changed to 'Charlie', 'Nectar' changed to 'November' and 'Xtra' changed to 'X-ray'.

I understand that 'Whiskey' causes issues in certain parts of the Middle East?

[Uplinker]

Landing at Honolulu the crew was told "Next available, Ground point 9 when off". To me, sitting on the jump seat, that was blindingly obvious; take the next exit, then call Hono' Ground for taxying instructions on the VHF ground frequency which ends in .9. But no, the crew blundered off onto the next exit, then turned straight onto the taxiway without calling Ground, causing a 747 to come to rather a rapid halt, then struck up a conversation with the busy local controller...

Some 'slang' terms and phrases may very well be better than the current ICAO language, but the point is unless they are standardized, some people may not understand them, as the above example shows. Had standard phraseology been used, the crew in the example above would have known exactly what to do and which frequency to call. As it was, they weren't told whether to take a left or right exit, (I am unfamiliar with Honolulu), and they weren't told to vacate then hold position while contacting ground.

So what might be 'blindingly obvious' to one person might be totally confusing to another, and it is the latter that will cause an incident or an accident one day. That's really the point, I think.

Another point is if controllers are having to resort to their own slang and verbal shortcuts because they are so busy - then they are too busy!. They need to file a report of some kind to get more controllers for that sector or whatever needs to happen. Doing their own thing with their own invented phrases might actually be dangerous, and the one occasion when someone doesn't understand a non-standard phrase and taxis into the aircraft taking off or whatever, simply doesn't bear thinking about.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf_50,
CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO

I'd agree with Beagle. ISTR when I last flew, about seven years ago, we
dropped the 'to' lest it be mistaken for 'two'.
Really? To each his own I suppose.* (AIM does use "should" rather than "shall" so I suppose it's not a directed format ...) but I had an idea that we were discussing standardization. ;)

I can see why one would prefer that -- and I prefer brevity -- but is dropping the preposition in accordance with ICAO standards?
With FAA standards?
That seems to be the topic of the thread. :}:E
Standardization.

[Basil]

but is dropping the preposition in accordance with ICAO standards?
No idea.
I tried to get a look at ICAO Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony but they want to charge for the privilege. I therefore presume that their ICAOships don't particularly care whether we have access to standard RT or not.

FWIW, the UK CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual gives the following examples:

descending to height 1000 feet

climbing to height 2000 feet

climbing to altitude 2500 feet

climbing FL280

descending FL90

They don't make it easy :ugh:

[fmgc]

Those who bemoan the ICAO phraseology probably don't realise how scientifically work out it is.

The US system leaves so much open to being misunderstood, or half heard calls that could be interpreted in different ways. I does need to change.

HOWEVER, when I fly in the USA I do my upmost to use the standard US terminology. However it would seem the US Pilots do not make the effort when outside of the USA.

[Lonewolf_50]

I tried to get a look at ICAO Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony but they want to charge for the privilege. I therefore presume that their ICAOships don't particularly care whether we have access to standard RT or not.
Heh. OP is rendered somewhat moot if your presumption is on track. :E:8:}

FWIW:
I am taking a peak at the 2007 version of 9432, and find the who, where what model to be badly missed in the instructions version. ICAO, IMO, collectively have it dead wrong in terms of language logic. The core sequence around which radio comms are built is
who, where, what.
Putting what before who is arse backwards. (I refer to examples 3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.2.)

With that said, I have heard it done that way before, and I understand how it works.

To answer the question: It does not appear that the preposition is all that important in the ICAO example responses from the aircrew.

[Basil]

A kind gentleman assisted and it appears that the ICAO Doc says "Climb/descend to . . "

[BEagle]

"xxxAir, descend to eight zero".

If you are leaving FL320 in a nation with a 6000ft TA, does that mean descend to FL280 or descend to FL80?

[Una Due Tfc]

Where I work, the procedure when giving a level change is "climb/descend flight level 360, cross waypoint x level" . This has resulted in non english speakers climbing after said waypoint despite giving a good readback of the clearance. I would be much happier if it was "climb now" or "be level before waypoint x" or "be level by time x". Sometimes the standard RT ain't perfect

[bubbers44]

Not a problem in US but never had a problem internationally either in 23,000 hrs of flying. I think it is over stated since no one else has had a problem either.

[bubbers44]

No controller in the US says to descend to 80 or any other country I have flown into. Where did you fly?

[aterpster]

This thread is much to do about nothing....except perhaps for the PC simulator folks.

[silverhawk]

No it is not

Standardised RT stops crashes.

Saying to, too, two is an accident in waiting.

This is why we NEVER use the words take off, until actually cleared take off.

It may same anal, ask Asiania why standards are required............oops

[The Blu Riband]

This thread is much to do about nothing

I think it is over stated since no one else has had a problem either.

The phrase "sets low standards and still fails to achieve them" springs to mind.

Surely if numerous fellow professionals say there is a problem (and not just "them pesky foreigners") then maybe there is, in fact, a problem.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Having been retired awhile I'm not conversant with current procedures. Hiowever, when I was working my Local Competency Examiner would listen to tapes of my R/T and telephone technique at regular intervals and bring to my attention and transgressions. Does this happen in the USA?

[cavver]

Usually an atc or an atis will provide you with the transition level. Anyway an atc will not clear you for an altitude in feet above the transition altitude. So you should interpret this instruction as to descend to flight level 80

[cossack]

HD wrote:
when I was working my Local Competency Examiner would listen to tapes of my R/T and telephone technique at regular intervals and bring to my attention and transgressions. Does this happen in the USA?
Don't know about the USA but it happens in Canada, every 6 months.:ok:

[bubbers44]

Descend to FL 80 is the only term I have heard. Descend to 80 has never happened in my 30 year career. Just leave everything as it is because it works just fine. Don't fix a system that isn't broke.

[Tomescu]

The topic is about US Airspace where transition level is FL180. I highly doubt it you heard US ATC saying "FL80 or 080" or any other flight level below 18000 feet.

[LeadSled]

would have known exactly what to do and which frequency to call.

Uplinker et al,

"call ground .X" is listed in the FAA documentation/AIP/AIM as meaning "call ground 121.X", if the ground frequency is not in the 121. range, the full frequency will be given.

There are a number of minor differences with US v. ICAO, all notified to ICAO, but nothing like the number of differences notified by Australia.

"next available" is usually pretty obvious, as to whether it is left or right, in all my years flying in and out of the US, I do not recall any doubts.

As far as I am concerned, European countries that conduct ATC conversation part in English and part in the local language are a far greater threat to safe operations, than the ATC English in the US.

[The Blu Riband]

Just leave everything as it is because it works just fine. Don't fix a system that isn't broke.

But your fellow pilots are saying there is a problem, and that it can be fixed and improved.

I am shocked that you have no interest in becoming a better pilot.
You must be perfect!

In my experience arrogance and overconfidence are the most dangerous attributes in a pilot .

[anengineer]

Speaking as a paying passenger, I'm rather shocked to see twelve pages of rather churlish handbag-swinging on the subject of whether it's ok for US pilots & controllers to use their own 'relaxed' version of aviation english. The bottom line is you only exist to ferry me and my kin (or my latest ebay order) from a to b, and I want that done in the safest possible way. If my safety is being compromised because half of you are insisting on using non-standard terms then that's not acceptable. Standards exist everywhere and they are there for a reason - so everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet and everyone understands what's going on.

Arrogantly insisting on using local (US) slang that doesn't adhere to ICAO standards is tantamount to deliberately making an extra hole in the 'swiss cheese'. That is completely unacceptable.

[fmgc]

Is it not (in Europe):

Descend Flight Level 280 (note no "to")
Descend to altitude 8000 feet

[aterpster]

fmgc:

Is it not (in Europe):

Descend Flight Level 280 (note no "to")
Descend to altitude 8000 feet

The way they used to do it when I was flying in the Wild West, "Descend and maintain flight level two eight zero."

[flyboyike]

I don't know why this issue would have come up in the Asiana thread, that crash had nothing to do with ATC terminology.

[misd-agin]

It's frustration about U.S. English. It's been an issue for 237 yrs and counting.

[aa73]

All y'all Euros need to chill, 'namsayin?

Now tell ya what... Speedbird Two Sixty Spandex, turn left to North, climb it like ya stole it up to Two Three Oh, and call the Center on twenny-eight forty two. He'll have higher for ya. Have a good one now. ;)

Seriously, Mateys... it ain't that hard. Just as you all need to make an adjustment entering US airspace, so do we when we come paying y'all a visit. Eurocontrol sounds pretty dang foreign to us as well (and not very "standard" at times.) The important part is keeping it all in perspective... if we're gonna argue about syllables and decimals, we've got major issues.... nobody here is better than anyone else... group hug... kumbaya!

[root]

A major issue for European pilots is that the majority does not have English as their native language.

American English, especially with strong accents, can be difficult to understand over bad VHF because it differs a lot in some regards to what most Europeans learned in school.

Likewise, Europeans will always have some form of accents either weak or strong. I feel it is up to the Americans to accommodate this when European traffic enters the US. Lead by example.

In reverse, I find it highly annoying that Eurocontrol still allows non-English communications. While most Europeans will get the hang of this, for American pilots it must be terrible.

In general, I am of the opinion that the "hosting" party should do their best to accommodate the "visiting" traffic.

[Basil]

aa73,
But that's easy! One would, of course, have to read back in English ;)

[742]

American English, especially with strong accents, can be difficult to
understand over bad VHF because it differs a lot in some regards to what most
Europeans learned in school.



root --

Every tried to fly in Scotland? :)