Teneriffe passes it's 'Use By' date?

[Mach Jump]

I see that the latest issue of CAP413 reccommends the use of the phrase 'Taking Off' when departing from a non ATC airfield. :uhoh:

Have we forgotten about Tenerife? :(

[fireflybob]

Where have you been? That phraseology for airfields with no ATSU has been standard and in the CAP for years - quite different to Tenerife as clearance for take off not required at such airfields!

[Mach Jump]

''That phraseology for airfields with no ATSU has been standard and in the CAP for years - quite different to Tenerife as clearance for take off not required at such airfields!''

:rolleyes:I know that.

After Tenerife it was decided that no pilot would refer to 'takeoff' or 'taking off' except when reading back a takeoff clearance.

As you you correctly state, at uncontrolled airfields, a takeoff clearance cannot be given, so 'takeoff' and 'taking off' should never be heard at such airfields. 'Departure' or 'departing' should be used.

MJ

[BizJetJock]

Surely it's exactly the same logic as at a controlled airfield? If you hear the words "take off" or similar, it lets you know that someone is actually doing that rather than just thinking about it. You use "departure" for everything else to differentiate.
Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Mach Jump]

Hmmmmm :hmm: Maybe its just me then.

My understanding was that the whole point of the change was to reduce the pilots' use of the phrases 'takeoff' and 'taking off' to just the one occasion where you were reading back a positive clearance, so that it's use couldn't be misinterpreted as anything else.

MJ

[Duchess_Driver]

And as already been stated, to all intents and purposes the phrase

Taking Off

is the same as

where you were reading back a positive clearance,


The fact that no-one has the authority to give that clearance is mute ...

it's use couldn't be misinterpreted as anything else.

Does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Mach Jump]

Guess it is just me then. :sad:

[Fostex]

Yup... :ok:

[Mickey Kaye]

"clear of the active"

[Whopity]

What we are seeing here is the result of two documents being merged. CAP 413 did not contain this piece of phraseology until CAP 510 was incorporated into it. The Phraseology committee would never have sanctioned the inclusion of "Taking Off" as a phrase had it been proposed in isolation as an addition to CAP 413 but, it was already in the CAP 510 following a review of FISO phraseology when they were concerned about the transition from Information to Control on the manoeuvering area. CAP 510 introduced the phrase as one of a number of alternatives when taking off where there was no ATC and I am sure was not subject to review by the Phraseology Committee. Some years later the two books were combined and I doubt there was any further review of the content at that time either.

I have always trained students not to use the words "Take Off" except in response to a clearance to take off, in line with the original recomendation. If we don't do it, there can be no confusion.

[Mach Jump]

''I have always trained students not to use the words "Take Off" except in response to a clearance to take off, in line with the original recomendation. If we don't do it, there can be no confusion.''

So what do you say instead, Whopity? When we were left to our own devices, I used to teach 'Lining up for immediate departure Rwy##' , then later shortened it to 'Departing Rwy##'

Ps. Mickey, :eek: Don't get me started on that one! Hahaha


MJ

[BigEndBob]

But can't "departing runway" be confused with vacating or having left the ground?

I have always taught "taking off" from any airfield, be it a/g, afis or in case of controlled "Cleared for takeoff".
It implies that something is on the runway departing, no confusion.

Far better than used to be suggested in CAP413 for afis, reply was callsign only.

[RTN11]

Don't think I've ever used the phrase "take off" at an uncontrolled field in the UK, generally you say ready for departure, and all they pass is the wind, or if they had FISO, "take off at your discresion"

Ultimately the phrase "take off" should probably be passed on the radio when someone is taking off, at a controlled airfield this is obviously instigated by ATC, but at an uncontrolled airfield, perhaps it would be a good idea to state "taking off" so anyone in the circuit is absolutely clear as to what you're doing.

There is the often heard phrase "rolling" which isn't exactly standard, but does fill this gap, but all you'd need is an occasional flyer, or a non-native speaker, and a non-standard phrase can cause a whole world of problems.

[Whopity]

So what do you say insteadAs the phrase "ready for take-off" was replaced by "Ready for Departure" I use the word "Departing" RW XX along with Entering, Backtracking and Runway Vacated; all of which are to inform anyone at an uncontrolled aerodrome that you are using a particular runway. "Rolling" is military phraseology. I well recall Tenerife and the changes that followed soon afterwards, it hwas hammered in at the time and has prompted an automatic response ever since.

Thinking back to the incident, it was the word "Cleared" i.e. "have you cleared the runway" to the other aircraft that is believed to have contributed to the incident. Had the departing aircraft said "Ready for Departure" the same mistake could have been made! As I recall it, there were no ATC tapes to know what was actually said.

[Mach Jump]

I believe the KLM crew also used the term 'At takeoff' to indicate that they were in the process of taking off.
This was initially assumed to mean 'At the takeoff position', that is to say, lined up and holding position.

MJ

[BizJetJock]

The Phraseology committee would never have sanctioned the inclusion of "Taking Off" as a phrase
Why not? It seems by far the most sensible phraseology.
At a controlled airfield, the only time you (should) hear the words "take off" are the clearance and the readback, therefore everyone knows that if they hear it someone is accelerating along the runway.
At an uncontrolled airfield, there is no-one to issue the clearance. If there is an AFISO he says "at your discretion", either way, an aircraft announcing "taking off RWXX" is absolutely clear about what is happening to keep everyone else informed.
Unfortunately the Phraseology committee does come out with some absurdities that make the UK a nightmare for visitors, like the UK being the only country in the world where you don't get "cleared for the ILS". Therefore quoting them as an authority on what is best practice is not a guarantee of people taking their view seriously.

[Big Pistons Forever]

At a controlled airfield, the only time you (should) hear the words "take off" are the clearance and the readback, therefore everyone knows that if they hear it someone is accelerating along the runway.
At an uncontrolled airfield, there is no-one to issue the clearance. If there is an AFISO he says "at your discretion", either way, an aircraft announcing "taking off RWXX" is absolutely clear about what is happening to keep everyone else informed.
.

This is exactly what I teach my students and is IMO the safest and best practice.

[ExSp33db1rd]

What do you guys think about the term "rolling" when taking off from an uncontrolled airport?

Good.

I operate from an uncontrolled airfield in NZ, and always advise "XXX Line up and wait " ( I understand " Line up and Hold" was changed by ICAO awhile back ?) and then "Rolling 33 remaining in the circuit," or departing, as appropriate.

I think "departing" alone gives the impression of being airborne.

[Duchess_Driver]

Still can't see what's wrong with "Taking Off". A clear unambiguous statement of fact.

I think there are much better ways we as instructors can be focusing our time with respect to RT - such as drumming into them "Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity" when giving position reports, or correct use of the term "Contact" for example ;)

[fireflybob]

Still can't see what's wrong with "Taking Off". A clear unambiguous statement of fact.

Duchess Driver, me neither - that's the way we've been doing it for years at my local airfield (No ATC just A/G) just like it says in the CAP and we haven't had any problems....

The Tenerife accident had many holes in the Swiss cheese and RT was one of them.

[BigEndBob]

The word "Rolling" should never be used, it could be confused with"Holding", especially if non English speaking.

Reason why "Line up and hold" not used, can be confused with "Line up and roll".

Flying is an activity where we have to be very careful what we say, remember the Captain asking for "Takeoff power" when aborting a landing, so the copilot closed the throttles :hmm:

And the instructor at an intersection takeoff asking the student to use the full length of runway, so enters and holds the aircraft down to the upwind end before lifting off.

[Flyingmac]

G-XX Line up and wait.
Line up one eight. G-XX
G-XX Negative. Tractor rolling one eight. Line up one five and wait.
Line up one five and wait for departing traffic. G-XX.
G-XX Squawk 4231.
Say again squawk G-XX
Squawk.

[BigEndBob]

ATC "Caution sink on short final"
Me "Would that be ceramic or stainless sink".

[Whopity]

The two recomendations that came out of Tenerife were: Do not use the phrase "Clear" in relation to a runway and only use the phrase "Take-off" in response to a clearance to do so. If there is no clearance then there is no reason to use it at all. Once you are on the runway, it makes little difference what you say if someone else is on that runway! Its all down to see and avoid.

I recall ligning up in a twin at an Ex military airfiled with a large hump in the runway. I did the run-up and anounced Callsign departing RW xx at Airfield. As I rolled a voice was heard on the radio shouting Stop Stop Stop. I did so not knowing what it was about and at that point saw a microlight backpeddaling over the top of the hump! No phraseology would have changed the situation.

The Tenerife recomendations related to controlled aerodromes with ATC who make decisions for you. Not using certain phrases is only a way of miimising the likeleyhood of misinterpretation, it is no guarantee however; if you adopt the recomendation of not using those phrases at all, then the probability of using them inadvertantly at a controlled aerodrome is less than if you apply different rules at different locations.

[BizJetJock]

Hmm, interesting. That is exactly the logic, in my mind, for using it at an uncontrolled airfield as well. Whether it's in response to a clearance or off your own discretion, you always use the phrase "takeoff" to refer to accelerating along the runway and for nothing else. You do not apply different rules at different locations, which is what you are advocating.

I think your example would have had the same outcome if you had called "taking off", and arguably might not have if he heard you and thought you referred to just preparing for departure. Therefore it is not any support to your case.

[Mach Jump]

Well, It seems that, as far as the Ppruners are concerned, there's Whopity and I still sticking to what we were told after Tenerife, and avoiding the use of the words 'clear' and 'take-off', but the majority going with CAP413 and using/teaching 'taking off'. I'm discounting the term 'Rolling' for the reason stated by previous posters in that it can too easily be misheard as 'Holding'

The possible misunderstandings I can think of with each of these are;
1. 'G-AB Taking off Rwy.XX' could be misheard by another aircraft with a similar call-sign as a clearance for him/her to take-off, and I have heard this happen,
and;
2. 'G-AB Departing Rwy.XX' might not be understood by some pilots as an intention to take off at all, particularly as 'Taking off' is now in CAP413.

So, I have to ask myself if I'm right and most others are wrong, or, am I getting to be like the CAA in my old age, refusing to recognise that things have changed, eg. 'Cleared for the ILS' ?? Certainly with you on that one BJJ!

I think, in the end I'll probably go with the majority/CAP413 and change to 'Taking off'

MJ

Ps. Thanks for the comments everyone. :ok:

[Mickey Kaye]

What did it use to say in the old CAP413?

I'm sure it didn't say Taking Off.

[Level Attitude]

Callsign departing RW xx at AirfieldThat could very easily be interpreted as "Callsign" is turning
off the Runway (eg on to a Taxiway) - and that, therefore the
Runway is now empty and ready for use.

A long time ago I asked a senior CAA Examiner who told me that the
point was, at uncontrolled airfields, to state, unambiguously what
you were about to do so that other aircraft knew your intentions.

Holding Short, Lining Up, Taking Off, Vacating Left, etc
(preferably with Rwy designators if deemed it would help)

NB: Rolling could mean Taking Off, or could mean rolling to the end
of the Runway

[Mach Jump]

"What did it use to say in the old CAP413?"

Mickey.
The old CAP413 gave no indication what you should say in this situation, but as 'Ready for take-off' had been replaced by 'Ready for departure' then it seemed logical to replace 'Taking off' with 'Departing' if we weren't to use 'Take-off/Taking off'

''A long time ago I asked a senior CAA Examiner who told me that the
point was, at uncontrolled airfields, to state, unambiguously what
you were about to do so that other aircraft knew your intentions.''

Level Attitude
I did exactly the same back then and I was advised that 'Departing' was the correct thing to say!

MJ

[BigEndBob]

I've heard some terrible r/t from CAA examiners and they were also conducting FI courses!

Remember when HMSO published CAP413 in the 70's, it was about 20 pages.
And nothing as really changed.

What annoys me is one of my students being picked up on a r/t exam for saying 123.50 instead of 123.5.
Illogical, what if the frequency should have been 123.55, by saying 0 implies nothing is missing.

[Mach Jump]

Just a thought:

I believe we are the only country in EASA who insist on an RT practical test?

Gold plating????

MJ

[Big Pistons Forever]

I've heard some terrible r/t from CAA examiners and they were also conducting FI courses!

Remember when HMSO published CAP413 in the 70's, it was about 20 pages.
And nothing as really changed.

What annoys me is one of my students being picked up on a r/t exam for saying 123.50 instead of 123.5.
Illogical, what if the frequency should have been 123.55, by saying 0 implies nothing is missing.

WOW the level of radio pedantry in the UK never ceases to amaze me. Fortunately us ignorant savages in North America would just say
'TwentyThree Five" and everybody would know what they meant :ok:

[fireflybob]

WOW the level of radio pedantry in the UK never ceases to amaze me. Fortunately us ignorant savages in North America would just say
'TwentyThree Five" and everybody would know what they meant

And the lack of pedantry in USA accounts for why many whose natural language isn't English have difficulty understanding what is being said!

[Mach Jump]

I think that perhaps, here in Europe, we are, of necessity, more concious of the large number of different native languages around us, and give a bit more thought to how people with very different languages will be able to pronounce and understand critical aviation phrases.

Having said that, I will never know, how on earth we ever came up with the term 'Deconfliction Service'! :confused:

....us ignorant savages in North America Nice to see you recognise your place in relation to the Mother Country! ;)

[fireflybob]

Deconfliction Service

Probably drafted by a lawyer, Mach Jump!

[ExSp33db1rd]

would just say 'TwentyThree Five"Agreed, I fly from an untowered airport, and have to get the altimeter setting ( if I'm leaving the area, otherwise the field height is good enough for circuit work ) from a distant FIS who monitor many frequencies, so I just say "on twenty four one " No one has ever complained.

NB: Rolling could mean Taking Off, or could mean rolling to the end
of the Runway So what's wrong with that, one is rolling to the end of the runway, so it is unavailable for anything else, it's just that most times one gets airborne before the end!

If I were to be 'rolling' down the runway I'd say backtracking the reciprocal heading, i.e. if rolling down rwy. 33 I'm backtracking rwy. 15.

Captain asking for "Takeoff power" when aborting a landing, so the copilot closed the throttles http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif


And another Captain, noticing his glum looking co-pilot, said "Cheer up"
Guess what happened ?

[Level Attitude]

The possible misunderstandings I can think of with each of these are;
1. 'G-AB Taking off Rwy.XX' could be misheard by another aircraft
with a similar call-sign as a clearance for him/her to take-off, and I
have heard this happen,Clearance = Controlled Afd.
Are we not discussing here terminology at Uncontrolled Afds?

Is "Take Off" used by anyone else at Uncontrolled Airfields?
Answer = Yes: FISO "Take Off at your discretion"

If the Pilot responds with "Taking Off" it tells everyone else that they
will be Lining Up and commencing their Take Off Roll immediately, or
at least with minimal delay.

Too often, particularly at training airfields, I hear aircraft responding
to "Take Off at your discretion" with "Taking Off" but then Lining Up
and spending several minutes without moving whilst the Instructor
explains various items/procedures to the student. They should have
responded with "Lining Up" - since that is what they intended to do.

NB: Rolling could mean Taking Off, or could mean
rolling to the end of the RunwaySo what's wrong with that, one is rolling to the end of the
runway, so it is unavailable for anything else, it's just that
most times one gets airborne before the end!An aircraft on Base Leg notes another aircraft stationary at the Threshold.
On turning Final the aircraft calls "G-xx Final". Aircraft at Threshold
commences moving and "G-yy Rolling" is heard over the radio.

Is G-yy rolling to the end? In which case G-xx can decide on an early
Go Around. Is G-yy rolling to Take Off? In which case G-xx can continue,
in the expectation that the Rwy will soon be unoccupied and that, possibly,
an early Go Around would actually put them in conflict with a recently
airborne G-yy.

Additional explanations added to a radio call could be used, and are always
welcome whenever there is the possibility of doubt/confusion - but, for
good reasons radio calls should be as short, succinct and unambiguous
as possible.

In the vast majority of cases of (slightly) non-standard phraseology it will
be obvious which aircraft is transmitting, and what their intentions are
So no confusion or problems would arise.

However Standard Phraseology (as per CAP413), which should be known
by all pilots, was designed to be used every time, so that there is (hopefully)
never any confusion.

[Mach Jump]

Probably drafted by a lawyer

An accountant more likely! :*

MJ:ok:

[fireflybob]

Sometimes I think we'd be better off without radio at uncontrolled airfields and pilots looked out of the window a bit more!

[Mach Jump]

Sometimes I think we'd be better off without radio at uncontrolled airfields and pilots looked out of the window a bit more!

Interesting thought Bob. A lot to be said for that! :)

MJ:ok:

[Level Attitude]

Sometimes I think we'd be better off without radio at uncontrolled
airfields and pilots looked out of the window a bit more!These are not mutually exclusive. Radio should add to pilots' situational
awareness, not replace any of their lookout.

[fireflybob]

These are not mutually exclusive. Radio should add to pilots' situational
awareness, not replace any of their lookout.

Of course not but some pilots seem to be busy blathering on the radio to the detriment of lookout.

Also I hear some A/G operators lapsing into some sort of pseudo control service giving a false impression of "security" to aircraft on the frequency, some of whom also seem to be unaware of the status of the "facility".

[Level Attitude]

I do understand your point, but I cannot agree with it:
If there is radio you can "tune it out" (either mentally, or actually) - what
you cannot do is "tune something in" which is not there - and you'll never
know whether you needed it.
some of whom also seem to be unaware of the status of the "facilityAnd these are the same pilots who you trust to abide by the
correct non-radio procedures?

[fireflybob]

And these are the same pilots who you trust to abide by the
correct non-radio procedures?

Level Attitude, as an experienced aviator I do not trust anyone! (But of course pilots should know such procedures).

You seem to be under the impression that I think airfields should not have or use A/G (or Information) - this is not the case.

But what I am pointing out is that, in my opinion, some pilots rely too much on radio these days rather than using basic airmanship and looking out correctly.

The discussion on this thread has revolved around lots of theory about phraseology which is all well and good, some of which is a matter of opinion.

I am saying that there are more important basic matters such as lookout and how to fit into the traffic pattern.

[Mach Jump]

Sometimes I think we'd be better off without radio at uncontrolled airfields and pilots looked out of the window a bit more!

Don't get too excited guys. I think Bob's suggestion was somewhat rhetorical.

MNRATZs though? :hmm: It's an interesting concept.


MJ:ok:

[fireflybob]

Don't get too excited guys. I think Bob's suggestion was somewhat rhetorical.

MJ, thankyou - it was - like father like son!

[Level Attitude]

Aviate - Navigate - Communicate
I agree that some pilots will concentrate so much on the C that
they lose something in the A and N (including the required Lookout).

That does not mean that C should disappear - which is what I believed
fireflybob to have indicated.

I now give myself a C minus for my own C and go off to do some A :O

[Mach Jump]

Aviate - Navigate - Communicate

I think we all agree here really, but sometimes I also wonder how much sharper people's lookout and non-radio procedures would be if that was all they had to avoid each other!


like father like son!


Indeed! ;)


MJ:ok:

[fireflybob]

I now give myself a C minus for my own C and go off to do some A

Level Attitude, Enjoy - will promise to listen out and also lookout for you!

[nick14]

It would also be a great improvement to flight safety if people actually followed the ANO wrt joining an uncontrolled field. Too many times have I been cut up by a sky god joining straight in on a busy circuit or performing the most blind visual join......,

[Mach Jump]

Too many times have I been cut up by a sky god joining straight in on a busy circuit or performing the most blind visual join......,

The problem here is that everyone seems to have their own ideas how to join the circuit, and what is and isn't allowed.

There is nothing wrong with the Standard Overhead Join (SOJ) nor is there anything wrong with joining directly onto any of the legs at circuit height, including 'straight in' approaches.

The main principle to remember, is that the onus is on the joining aircraft to adjust speed and/or position to 'fit in' with aircraft already established in the circuit. This is particularly difficult when joining 'straight in' and pilots doing so have to accept that, by the time they realise that they are going to conflict with an aircraft on base leg, there may be little option but to go around.

OK, now back to the real world. :uhoh: The fact is that, at many uncontrolled airfields the circuit is little better than anarchy, with people joining right base in left hand circuits, descending on the live side, doing American style joins at 45 degrees to the downwind leg, barging straight in and expecting established aircraft to get out of their way, and the one I love the most, the pilot who is ideally positioned to join straight in but thinks this is not allowed. He/she then flies the wrong way, back up the downwind leg, then does a U tun and calls 'Downwind'! :eek:

Other than try to set a good example ourselves, I don't really know what we can do about it. The ANO is very confusing, with the rules for colision avoidance often conflicting the ones for flight near an aerodrome, and the CAA don't help by taking their usual, head in the sand view that the only way to join a circuit is via the SOJ, as if radio had never been invented! :ugh:


MJ:ok:

[fireflybob]

OK, now back to the real world. The fact is that, at many uncontrolled airfields the circuit is little better than anarchy, with people joining right base in left hand circuits, descending on the live side, doing American style joins at 45 degrees to the downwind leg, barging straight in and expecting established aircraft to get out of their way, and the one I love the most, the pilot who is ideally positioned to join straight in but thinks this is not allowed. He/she then flies the wrong way, back up the downwind leg, then does a U tun and calls 'Downwind'!


MJ, where I fly that is not the case at all. Apart from the (very!) odd visitor the standard of circuit discipline is quite good!

[multycpl]

"clear of the active"


Ahh that one..........gotta love it

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes, I'm not sure where MJ flies either. I've spent a lot of time flying from many uncontrolled airfields, and don't recognise the anarchy he describes. I'm not saying they're perfect, but nor are most controlled fields.

Generally speaking pilots are sensible and follow good practice and published procedures.


Incidentally in my opinion there are numerous reasons to fly an OHJ, with or without radio. For example:-

- Maintaining good height until in gliding distance of the runway
- Looking at the windsock myself
- Having a good look at the airfield, surface, what's parked close to the runway, and so-on.
- Keeping noise complaints down locally.

Not the only way to do things, but I like OHJs.

the pilot who is ideally positioned to join straight in but thinks this is not allowed. He/she then flies the wrong way, back up the downwind leg, then does a U tun and calls 'Downwind'!

Can't say that I've ever seen that either. I've seen deadside joins, but there is a difference.

G

[Mach Jump]

....and don't recognise the anarchy....

Ok,ok, :O I exaggerated a little bit in that I don't see all those things everywhere I go every day.

Some places are better than others as you say, but my perception is that a combination of misunderstanding, ignorance and people from other areas of aviation bringing their practices with them (eg. American style joins) is causing a gradual deterioration in circuit discipline, especially when airfields get busy.


MJ:ok: