Do we mumble on the radio in Oz?

[Brisbane Sinner]

A mate of mine who flies freight into Oz from the US told me that he finds Aussie pilots to be the worlds laziest on the radio. Instead of of filtering out the usual 'okay', 'sure why not', 'yeah, no problem', 'with you this time', slang, that he sees in the US, he reported that our required transmissions are often rushed, garbled or mumbled both by pilots and controllers. I hadn't really noticed it until I listened for it.
"Flill" = flight level
"Daah" = delta
Registration readbacks as one garbled, mumbled yawn.

It hit home when I watched a turboprop land at Brisbane recently. The pilots readback of his landing clearance only made sense because I had heard his rego said clearly from the tower. If not, I would have heard nothing short of burpy,blurpy,daah. Are we that busy and rushed that we are forgetting how to talk properly?

[megle2]

Yes agreed there is room for improvement and some of the personalised call signs / clashing numerals don't help

[DeafStar]

Compared to the very low level of 'English' used by some Asian carriers I don't think Aussie pilots have an issue. I think this industry has far bigger problems than the odd mumbled call sign.

[framer]

I find the Australians to talk faster . I'm going to Sydney tonight so will listen out for mumbles amongst the staccato twang.

[rjtjrt]

One of my pet bugbears.
Seems some/a lot of pilots think it sounds more professional to very rapidly mumble the calls, slurring and running their words together, to the point that they are unintelligible.
Slow, clear and concise is much more professional.

[Nautilus Blue]

Thinking about it I'm probably guilty sometimes, more the slurring/dropping syllables though. By 3am it's become Vloss-tee and Em-rates etc.

The thing I really notice when speaking to a US pilot is that one of us pronounces PAPA wrong, and neither are going to change.

[Mail-man]

*are we forgetting to speak properly
;)

[Tarq57]

We get quite a few Aussie pilots through Wellington - don't remember ever having an issue with any of their R/T.

Clear as.
(edited to add: As a member of the English-speaking country that has an accent that is sometimes described as 'borderline retarded', perhaps the comment should be taken with a punch of salt. 'Pinch' for the non-Kiwis.)

[neville_nobody]

Your mate's kidding himself.:}

[Humbly Reserved]

I totally agree that a lot of Aussie pilots rush their R/T calls and unless you are 100% focused on what they are saying you'll find it impossible to decipher. Which can lead to a loss of SA, something that i'd wish would improve.

However having just returned from the US recently, I'd have a thing or to to say about their conduct on the radio. (Despite being very clear and concise :) ) I found a higher than normal amount of tower controllers and some pilots for that matter disregarding std phraseology in favor of telling their entire life story. :cool:

Its interesting to say the least

HR

[Pinky the pilot]

I do a bit of flying in Japan occasionally and the main comment I get is to speak a little slower.

And I never have problems with understanding Japanese Pilots speaking English over the radio, or elsewhere for that matter.:hmm:

[haughtney1]

Naaaaah, Ozzies don't mumble…they moan and whinge…and tell on each other :}

Ozzie RT standards are generally very good IMHO, yes there are some dumbass local interpretations…"Daaaayseemaal" (but they exist all over).
The only serious thing I've ever noticed personally is the speed of the read backs at time. I reckon if anyone thinks people mumble on the radio, its most likely due to poor technique with the boom mic.

[Derfred]

DAY-SEE-MAL is correct. Look it up.

NATO phonetic alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet)

I'd say Australians have some of the best standard R/T around. Yes they speak quickly to each other (and are rarely misunderstood), they also speak slower and more clearly when in other parts of the world in my experience.

[DeltaT]

Yeah seems to be the notion in Oz that talking as fast as possible is the way it's meant to be done. :=

[4Greens]

Fly to the US and you will find that our allies speak so fast it is almost impossible to understand. Its partly due to the greater volumes of traffic.

[Tee Emm]

I'd say Australians have some of the best standard R/T around


Just a shame that they have copied what just about every other international pilot does with good mornings, good afternoons, giddays, good evenings, see youse laters, thanks very much's as well as superfluous reading back of items not required to be read back.

[maggot]

A seppo complaining about rt? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::rolleyes:

[scumbag]

Gidday! :ok:

[Nikki_in_oz]

Yes, we mumble on the radio at times, but so does every other nationality. Ever heard a Texan on the radio? Some are crystal clear, some sound like John Wayne.

Why do Canadians and Americans pronounce one of the LHR holds Bovington? (with a T, when it's Bovingdon with a D)

Why does JFK ATC insist on speaking so quickly that many Nationalities ask them to repeat the instruction or clearance?

Australians are not perfect, but there again, no-one else is either.

[halas]

Try south america for accent/mumble/non-standard phraseology, especially Brazil.
You know your ears are working there to decipher WTF is going on.

halas

[sleeve of wizard]

The Chinese would have to take the cake, they sound like they are mumbling with marbles in their mouth. :oh:

[Sunfish]

For some reason helicopter pilots are the worst offenders...... Something about moving and talking at the same time.

Seriously, I first ran across the speed fetish when dealing with artillery; "fimisson grid oneseveny blahblah" and its an affectation that is relatively harmless when both you and the intended recipient know what to expect from each other.

However if you are asking others to listen to your broadcast for the purpose of maintaining situatoinal awareness then some pilots are asking for trouble.

[Ascend Charlie]

It was only local knowledge of the pilots that enabled the ATC to understand
"Partelisky" as Papa Hotel Whisky (Chucky), and
"Brartelform" as Bravo Hotel Uniform (Captain Crackers).

Both those pilots no longer in circulation.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
What Cynical has hit on is that, by and large, Australian domestic "professional" pilots do not communicate, they perform radio procedures, largely for the purpose of having a "tick in the box".
This is largely as a result of Australian "training", I often hear the expression "radio work" --- with nary a glimmer of understanding that it should be about communications. Compliance is all, whether other airspace users understand or not doesn't seem to matter.
Apart from that, Australians on the radio ( and generally) talk far too fast and do not enunciate clearly --- running words together, as already mentioned.
Tootle pip!!

[VH-XXX]

Some would argue that it's not the words that are important, but the numbers :ok:

eg.
- Freqencies
- Read-backs
- FL's
- Transponder codes

[Capn Bloggs]

The worst thing on the radio by a country mile though is people doing RNAV approaches into CTAFs and giving their calls by relation to a series of letters. How is Joe Bloggs in his 172 doing circuit training going to not what on Earth Captain Embraer is doing?

Captain Embraer should read CAAP 166:

Pilots who wish to conduct practice instrument approaches in VMC conditions should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the circuit so as to avoid impeding the flow of traffic.

IFR pilots should give position reports in plain English to be easily understood by VFR pilots who generally have no knowledge of IFR approach points or procedures, e.g. positions should include altitudes and distance and direction from the aerodrome.

Providing position reports to VFR pilots that contain outbound/inbound legs of the approach or RNAV fixes will generally be of little assistance to establish traffic separation.

[VH-XXX]

Someone should let the Roulettes know that :ok:

26 DME East Sale on the 314 radial doesn't mean much to the local trike pilots :ouch: At 200+ knots by the time they work out what leader said, they are long gone.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Who better qualified to say G'day than an Aussie??:D:D:D

Seriously, though, the people who use the phrase "With You" really need to realise that it isn't even standard phraseology in the FAA system!:rolleyes:

[scumbag]

Cherio! :)

[cattletruck]

We aren't all that bad. I even received a compliment once, but then again I used to be a regular guest on my friends radio show so had the "voice" down pat.

I changed my ways when I recalled as a kid I used to listen in on the scanners trying to learn the procedures. So now when I press that Tx button I think of this special audience and speak as clearly and as professionally as I can.

[tecman]

Admirable, CT. I can't claim anything as exalted as professional radio training but a geeky youth spent in HF ham radio helped me get the intelligibility quotient up a little bit. At least in the GA environment, I think we're just OK in Australia. The place that impressed me most was South Africa: in the areas I flew, everyone was particularly crisp and professional, and it was clear no nonsense was tolerated.

As LeadSled says though, it's ultimately about getting the message across. We may have a quiet chuckle about some clunky technique or poor diction but, in the end, much better that they have a go and let you know they're out there. I must say that I haven't found the US GA scene very different to Australia. No doubt the locals know they have a foreign devil on their hands but it's all pretty easy to work out.

(Tucson Tower instructing "Y'all mind the F14s mid-field" some years ago gave pause for thought but no drama...although my "traffic sighted" caused them some obvious amusement).

Still, like others here I have a few local pet hates. After several years in WA, I suppose the place that they do the para-jumping is "Brookton". But listening to Centre and the locals, I still can't pick it in the transmissions. For years I was looking from somewhere like "Brooklyn" but, by practicing swallowing a consonant or two, I think I've worked it out.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

XXX,
You are joking right??? A radial and range too hard for a pilot to understand??
I didn't check the date you posted, so if it was 1st April, you got me!!

[Sunfish]

way back in army days, we played the gam e of sending a message around the room. The garbelling was wonderful to see..

The classic joke: "send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance" anyone military will remember the original message.

[Cessna 180]

Tee Emm said

'Just a shame that they have copied what just about every other international pilot does with good mornings, good afternoons, giddays, good evenings, see youse laters, thanks very much's as well as superfluous reading back of items not required to be read back.'

G'dAy

What is wrong with saying hello and thankyou to someone in centre or in a tower?
Surely that is just common courtesy?

Although I did work with one rooster who used to insisit on saying "a very good morning" to an empty ctaf. Now that was odd!

On another note, how does one copy someone elses phrase so it comes up in blue?
Thanks

[LeadSled]

What is wrong with saying hello and thankyou to someone in centre or in a tower?
Surely that is just common courtesy?AaaaaahhhH!!!, the good old days?? I got my very first 225 ( and if you don't know what that is, ask any gray haired pilot) for saying "goodnight and thanks" at ASBK (now YSBK) ---- not standard phraseology, you know.
Seriously, cut the cackle when the frequency is busy (which is now never at YSBK), but if it's quiet, what's the harm.
Tootle pip!!

PS: What with "professional", there is no differentiation between communications procedures for "professionals" and others, and some of the worst examples of poor communications are from working commercial pilots, who undoubtedly style themselves as "professional" because they have a CPL or higher license.

[Howard Hughes]

*big inhale*
GreatthreadIdon'tthinkit'sveryonebutwesuredohaveafewwhomumbl eontheradionottomentiontheoneswhorunonwithonebiglongsentence thankGodtheyarenotATC's!! *big exhale* ;)

[Capt Chambo]

The classic joke: "send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance" anyone military will remember the original message.

Send reinforcements we are going to advance. :)

[VH-XXX]

XXX,
You are joking right??? A radial and range too hard for a pilot to understand??
I didn't check the date you posted, so if it was 1st April, you got me!!

Not easy for a trike pilot who has to get his map and ruler out.

Something like 5 miles west of Maffra might be the go for local ops.

[Capn Bloggs]

Something like 5 miles west of Maffra might be the go for local ops.
And WTF is Maffra?? :ouch: I can imagine the knucklehead pulling out his electronic Gregorys on his phone to find landmarks that car (oops trike) drivers can understand... :)

[mcgrath50]

Something like 5 miles west of Maffra might be the go for local ops.

Is "10 miles to the west of East Sale on the 260 bearing" acceptable? Gives the trike driver a vague idea (the west) and anyone a bit more concerned about accuracy my exact location.

Speaking of inbound to CTAFs I've heard students who are so caught up about making the "mandatory" calls found in the CAAPs that if they miss the 10 mile call by a minute will still say "10 miles" rather than 8 as they are scared they will get in trouble!! :ugh:

[allthecoolnamesarego]

How about we stick to the standard distance/bearing/altitude.

If a pilot doesn't know that the 260 radial is in the general direction of 'West', and how far a mile or 26 is, then we have bigger problems at play here. If the the Trike pilot (or anyone else) who can't 'mentally draw' a position in their head (without the need for a ruler and paper) needs more info, then how about using the novel idea of asking for clarification.

The default should be the proven standard. Everyone SHOULD be able to work out distance/bearing. If they can't, then spend some time at home practicing!
How dumb do we need to make aviation? A little study and 'hard work' in preparing for flight never hurt anyone.

[Username here]

allthecoolnamesarego, very well said mate!

[VH-XXX]

allthecoolnamesarego, very well said mate!

Perhaps... but....

Here is a classic example of why a radial is a bad idea.... McGrath50 has just turned it around (be it by accident or just for the purposes of the conversation) and used the term "on the 260 bearing." Is the high speed PC9 on a 260 bearing, heading west, or is he inbound on the 260 radial?

Is "10 miles to the west of East Sale on the 260 bearing" acceptable? Gives the trike driver a vague idea (the west) and anyone a bit more concerned about accuracy my exact location.

Unless things have changed, they don't teach radials in the RA-Aus or HGFA syllabus.

[Username here]

Because of the context mate. If it was in an inbound report or preceded by the words "inbound on the.... " That would give it away...

Your mate in his trike needs to build a better SA picture...

[wishiwasupthere]

Unless things have changed, they don't teach radials in the RA-Aus or HGFA syllabus.

Surely that says more about RA-Aus and HGFA (not sure what that is) than anything else?

Position reporting should be given reference a known point such as a navaid or airport, not some obscure local landmark. I would have though that radials and bearings would be fundamental knowledge for anybody flying a craft in the sky, the concepts aren't overly difficult.

[Nautilus Blue]

GreatthreadIdon'tthinkit'sveryonebutwesuredohaveafewwhomumbl eontheradionottomentiontheoneswhorunonwithonebiglongsentence thankGodtheyarenotATC's!!

When I did my ATC training (depressingly long enough ago now to qualify as in 'the good old days') the emphasis was vey much on maximum information in minimum transmissions. If you had three or four things to pass, do it all in one transmission to save time. The last CBT we had to sit through (instead of useful refresher training) shows the thinking has changed. Breaking up transmissions into easily digested chunks is now the way to go.

I'd probably have to cop a guilty ole on mispronouncing place names too. I'd been rated in my current position for six months before I realised BIU doesn't have a 'j' in it :O

In defence, some of our 5 letter positions seem to come pre slurred, BADJA, RANGR, HAMTN, HARMN etc

[Capn Bloggs]

Breaking up transmissions into easily digested chunks is now the way to go.
Finally! :D

I'd been rated in my current position for six months before I realised BIU doesn't have a 'j' in it
Typical easterner. Of course it does!

Try going there and saying to the locals "I quite like Ballidoo". :}

And it's not PinJELLY either! :}:}

I know the purists would protest, but the concept of radials, VOR/NDB or not, reduces the confusion arising from bearing to/from/inbound/outbound calls. I have resorted to "Are you southwest or sortheast of Broome?" when trying to work out where someone actually is.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

I think it is important that we keep things as standard as possible. Sure people will add little bits here and there when not necessary....

ENR 1.1-46 gives a summary of broadcasts.
It clearly states that:
Broadcast must include: location, aircraft type, call sign, position/intention, location.

So I would assume (never assume....) that the Roulettes would have said something like:
"Traffic East Sale, Roulttes, a formation of 7 PC9's, on the 260 radial at 26 nm, 5000'. Inbound, estimating the circuit time 25. East Sale"

This clearly means they are out to the West and heading TOWARDS East Sale.
Bearing/radial definitions are really not important in this context.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Indian controllers can be almost impossible to understand. They tend to speak at Mach 1.

I find the Scottish accents hardest to understand.

[dodo whirlygig]

"Indian controllers can be almost impossible to understand. They tend to speak at Mach 1."


I wish ATC at GUAM would speak that slowly. Ever tried to copy a clearance from them ................ delivered at the speed of light!!!!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Some of you must fly in different Ozzie airspace from me!

Very occasional ATC who wants to show how fast he can talk, and the odd hotshot who drawls slow and deep cause they think it sounds cool, but the vast majority of calls I hear are concise and professional.

OK. so I am discounting old mate in the Jabiru who blocks the airwaves for 5 minutes telling the whole world that he is somewhere, doing something!

Dr :8

[tio540]

The call "Traffic East Sale..." does not exist in the AIP, anywhere.

[gerry111]

FTDK, Does your Jabiru mate fly out of YMIA?

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Tio540,
You seem to be correct. I recall a few years ago the call was changed to say 'Traffic (location)...'
It appears it is now back to the old way '(location) Traffic'.
I stand corrected and will change my R/T format appropriately.

ENR 21.1.13
(Location) traffic
(Aircraft type)
(Callsign)
(Position/intention)
(Location)

[tecman]

The periodic change in recommended broadcast format is a prime example of the nonsense we put up with. I include all the required info in calls but I've been using 'Traffic XXX, .... XXX" for years and don't propose to change. Over the past 30 years, I've been in fashion, out of fashion, .... One reason I prefer my adopted format is that some comms systems clip the start of the transmission and having 'traffic' as the first word gets the listener a double shot at hearing clearly the location referenced.

Things do need to change from time to time and I don't have an issue with that when a change in message content is needed. But the endless fanging around with trivia....Geez.

[Tankengine]

Agree with Tecman, "mumble East Sale - blah" is way better than "mumble mumble traffic - blah":ugh:

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Tecman and Tankie,

I agree completely. From memory, the change to 'Traffic....' Was for the very reason you say, so as to get the name of the airfield should the first part of the Tx be cut off.

I wish 'they' would settle on one format and leave it be!
:ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Perhaps that is why the location is said again at the end of the transmission?:8

[Nautilus Blue]

I thought the same when they moved the call sign to the end of read backs.

"...ntas123 one zero thousand" verses "... ero thousand Qantas123"

Plus it just seemed more logical to me to hear the call sign - check you have the right aircraft label, then hear level - check CFL in label and 'tick' it. Nowadays its hear level - check CFL in label but do nothing with it, hear call sign - check its the right label and then 'tick' CFL. (That could be just me though.)

[tio540]

First, I will confess to being pedantic.
The radio call was never "Traffic Bendigo..." in the 30 years I have read the AIP.
It was once, "All stations Bendigo..", then was changed to "Bendigo traffic...".
No doubt it will be changed again some day.
I encourage juniors to maintain standard phraseology, to their dismay, if only to make life easier when they jump into a shiny big jet. Silly me!

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Tio,

Not that it is a big deal, but you will find it was once "Traffic..." .
I remember clearly (as I was once more pedantic than I am now) when instructing, trying to get my students do 'do it right'.

Just as I have missed the reversion to '.... Traffic' , perhaps you might have missed it also.

Anyone have any documental evidence of the change??

[Capt Fathom]

Depends on how far back you go.

It was certainly "All Stations ...... " when I was a boy!

[tecman]

You're right CF but in fact "Traffic XXX..." preceded, or at least co-existed with,the widespread "All stations..." era. I've reached the end of my aviation history (mid-80s) but seem to recall that, while "Traffic XXX.." was not universal, it was widely used and obviously well tolerated in an era where people were generally more anal about such things than they are now.

Flying in the US in the early 90s I remember being impressed with the idea of also adding the CTAF (or whatever it was called there at the time) location to the end of the broadcast, the redundancy making for better communication on crowded frequencies. That was a later change for the better here.

We're in danger of having the thread re-titled "communications trivia" or some such :)

[tio540]

The current proliferation of non standard radio phraseology packed with 'currently', 'traffic south of the equator' and 'inbound from Los Angeles' (who cares where you were 14 hours ago, where are you now?) is the worst I can remember, and just clogs the airways. Sadly the AIP has much of the information removed, and replaced with bunkum.
'Currently' is not in he AIP either, but has been adopted as a standard.

[FokkerInYour12]

If you cannot make out a transmission and have no idea who said it, but have an inkling it might be relevant to you, what's a nice way of asking "Last transmssion, WTF did you say?"

[VNAV_PTH]

VH-XXX:

Perhaps... but....

Here is a classic example of why a radial is a bad idea.... McGrath50 has just turned it around (be it by accident or just for the purposes of the conversation) and used the term "on the 260 bearing." Is the high speed PC9 on a 260 bearing, heading west, or is he inbound on the 260 radial?

A "high speed PC9" would not make such a ridiculous call. He/she would say "inbound on the 260 RADIAL". It's not rocket science. If the airport had an NDB instead, he/she would say "inbound on the 260 BEARING".

A radial is ONLY applicable to a VOR. Another common, incorrect use of phraseology.

[VH-XXX]

Correct you are vnav.... The point was that as soon as I mentioned a radial, the other poster reversed it and seemingly confused with a bearing, either intentionally or not. For those not briefed in the specifics, both are easily confused.

[tio540]

Couldn't agree more.

[mcgrath50]

Late night PPRuNeing strikes again! You are right, I used bearing when you said radial. How about its an airport with both an NDB and VOR and my plane is only ADF equipped? :E

I also abbreviated the correct call, let's try "East Sale Traffic, ABC, PC9, 32 miles to the west inbound on the 260 radial (or bearing, would be just about the same give or take a few degrees)"

Should probably throw in an altitude there. Now we have the pedantry out of the way (I seriously hope I got it correct this time), what is so hard for a first solo nav student to understand? If he catches 32 miles to the west but doesn't understand the radial and there's conflict, speak up and ask. I know I didn't have a grasp on bearings and radials on my first solo nav, but my gosh I should have, it's not difficult if someone takes 5 mins to explain it to you!

One thing my instructor did instill in me though before I blasted off was if someone makes a call you don't understand better to ask them, in plain english if necessary. We've all been the solo student coming face to face with a dash on an IFR approach you've never heard of. No (good) pilot is going to think any less of you for speaking up. It's the guys who don't that cause problems.

[Ascend Charlie]

I support the "Traffic Oodnagalahby,..." instead of placing the name first - because when the fumble-fingered switch flicker cuts off half of his first word, we will still know where he is, instead of having to wait until the end of his call for him to repeat the place name.

Also for the IFR people to include VFR descriptions:

"Traffic Kingaroy, Cessna Whisky Delta Echo, 6 miles northwest at 3700', turning inbound on the NDB, traffic Kingaroy"

"Traffic Hervey Bay, helicopter Hotel Echo Gecko, 10 miles northwest approaching Whisky Foxtrot for straight-in approach runway 11 Hervey Bay"

[VNAV_PTH]

Late night PPRuNeing strikes again! You are right, I used bearing when you said radial. How about its an airport with both an NDB and VOR and my plane is only ADF equipped?

So you're navigating with reference to the NDB - say 'bearing'. I get your point, although I've heard many people say 'radial' at an NDB only equipped aerodrome. And, not just light aircraft!

I know I didn't have a grasp on bearings and radials on my first solo nav, but my gosh I should have, it's not difficult if someone takes 5 mins to explain it to you!

Agreed. :ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

'Currently' is not in he AIP either, but has been adopted as a standard.


So agree with (and hate) that one!!!

Are you there now or not?!?? :ugh:

Ps, the word "time" shouldn't be used either.:8

This thread is starting to remind me of a Rod Stewart song....not just drifting, but
"We are sailing....we are sailing....":E

[Hempy]

Some would argue that it's not the words that are important, but the numbers :ok:

eg.
- Freqencies
- Read-backs
- FL's
- Transponder codes

Flight Number Callsigns....

[tio540]

Makeithappencaptain, to clarify my position. 'Currently' does not exist, and has never existed to my knowledge in the AIP, but is used universally because some clown thought it sounds good. My position on the word - 'currently' - non standard and rubbish.

Ascend Charlie, you are part of the problem. Create you own non standard phraseology, having not correctly transitioned to the new format and then advocate this on a professional forum.

TIO 540 has been in hibernation for many years, and is now returning to the cave. Safe flying!

[seneca208]

What's everyone's thought on "IFR Taxi" and "IFR Departure". The AIP doesn't say much about those either, does it just come down to a courtesy?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

TIO540

I am agreeing with you 100%.
You can have "departed (location) (time in minutes)", be "estimating (first or next reporting point) at (time in minutes)", but I ain't never seen no "currently" (not to mention "this time").:=

Seneca208

As for "IFR departure/taxi", didn't you submit a flight plan?
Aren't they expecting a call from you?
When you were given a code and traffic (which should NOT need to be "requested") didn't that start a sarwatch of ten minutes for your departure?

The only iFR call that needs a notification/announcement is a position report.

Yo ho ho...

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Seneca,

The AIP used to state that IFR was to be included in the taxi call. Like many of the calls we are discussing here, the AIP has changed many of them, and a lot of us are not keeping up with the changes :)

[Capn Bloggs]

What's everyone's thought on "IFR Taxi" and "IFR Departure". The AIP doesn't say much about those either, does it just come down to a courtesy?
NO! It clogs up the airways with extra calls. If ATC wanted us to give them a "warning", then AsA would put it in the book. And obviously, "standing by" to give your departure report is silly because it also serves as a broadcast to Dick and his VFR mates who may be in the vicinity.

"IFR Taxi" "Taxi? I don't see any taxis around here, let alone an IFR one".

[Pontius]

I think I almost got a full house of ****e radio calls when listening to a recent soliloquy:

"Traffic XXXXX, IFR King Air, 40 DME GPS South of the field, descending from airways on descent to 3000, estimating the circuit at time 35, traffic XXXXX"

Clearly Little Man syndrome, who wanted to impress us lowly local traffic with details of his equipment, including its installation, the fact that he'd been flying SO high (because he can) and to top his ineptitude with 'time'. I think I'll start ending my calls with an estimate in bananas; it's an extraneous and bulls*#t transmission so maybe it'll catch on :rolleyes:

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Seneca,

Re IFR in the taxi call. It's still there, GEN 3.4-49.
It is in square parenthesis [option additional info].

Add it or not? Maybe that is your question.


Cheers

[Capn Bloggs]

It is in square parenthesis [option additional info].
That means if you are IFR, say it (only to Centre, of course, not to the CTAF).

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Capt,

I think the AIP makes it 'fuzzy' when it talks about the IFR call WRT making it to ATC or as part of the taxi call. The GEN 3.4-49 calls 'for a departure at non controlled aerdorome' could easily be read as calls to the aerodrome traffic, rather than to ATS.

It would be great if 'they' would make it a lot clearer for us anally retentive types:}

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Allthecool...

The question referred to whether or not you precede the taxi call or departure report to Centre with "BN/ML Centre, ABC, IFR Taxi/Departure" to give them notice of the impending report. The answer is NO.:=

As for broadcasting on ATS or a CTAF, both are required.
ENR 1.1 46
Summary of Reports - All IFR in Class G and
Summary of Broadcasts - All Aircraft at Non-Towered Aerodromes respectively.:ok:

Bloggs
Not trying to appear as a dickywhacker here, but I would probably tend to include IFR after the callsign on a CTAF call if only to make any traffic aware you may be emerging from cloud shortly. There is nothing in the rules either way here, but an "operating clear of cloud" call is required if that is the separation being maintained, so why not alert any VFR traffic that you are coming down and may not have the margin to see and avoid that 1000'/1500M provides? If anything, it may prompt a position call from the said VFR traffic? Obviously wouldn't need the IFR bit if it is SKC...

[TheBigD]

You guys are fine. Yank pilots and ATC understand you perfectly. I think it's us that the rest of the world can't understand (sarcasm). There was a thread on PPRUNE started by some Euro's wondering if non standard US R/T lead to the Asiana crash in SFO.......I'm surpised that non standard US r/t wasn't blamed on all of the Lion Air mishaps as well......

[ANCPER]

"All Stations" when I started and as far as I'm concerned it still is, and the radio is never too busy to say Good Morning/day.

As to US controllers is that they generally treat all as locals and speed read their instructions, otherwise generally pretty good. Americans are mainly interested in getting the info across, Australians that it's according to the book.

[Oriana]

The hardest thing about RT in Orstrayliaa is resisting the compulsion to swear every second sentence.:eek:

[mcgrath50]

I acknowledge it does get confusing when someone is tracking 090 on the 270 bearing if you can't make the mental picture happen but rather than dumbing down our calls better education is my preference. :ok:

[Trent 972]

MIHC saidThe only iFR call that needs a notification/announcement is a position report.
Is that in accordance with AIP GEN 3.4 - 12 (4.3 Transmission Format - 4.3.1 and 4.3.2)?