Phraseology 1.0

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Dear pilots,
I have noticed in my day to day operation some "changes" that may interfere ( significantly) with safety ( direct ) of our operations.
example ,


ATCO:triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000
pilot: passing 6000
ATCO: ???


It is not one crew, one company or one CAA (that approves training centers ) .It seems that such answer became standard.


So if it is standard , please tell us ICAO document that you refer in such circumstances, We will accept it and change our knowledge and expectations.


or if there is no such document, please refer to
DOC 4444 ATM/501 Procedures for ANS Chapter 4.5.7.5 READBACK OF ATC CLEARANCES and Chapter 12 PHRASEOLOGIES


Also, DOC 9432 MANUAL OF RADIOTELEPHONY with the special emphasis to given question- read back of level instruction
Chapter 3 3.3 Level instruction
as you could see in those pages example,


G-AB report passing FL 80
G-AB WILCO
G-AB PASSING FL 80


and that is point , you may answer with WILCO ( although it is a little bit contrary to read back instructions ) but you can not answer with passing before actually passing that assigned ( or otherwise restricted ) level.
It is not safe, it is not under international standard, and may confuse ATCOs ( rare- because we know that you aren't Spaceshuttle so can't climb 10 000 feet in a second ) but other pilots -very often and it is real danger.


It is not only restricted to level instructions but to other instruction and read back procedures as well, so stick it to rules and common sense, and World will be better place at the end of the day.

[DIBO]

(I wonder whether ATC Issues isn't the better thread to start this i.o. R&N)

Just for my understanding and better situational awareness :) was it something like this:
00:00:00 A/C just airborne
00:00:30 ATCO: triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000
00:00:35 pilot: passing 6000 _____ <== so: omitting to acknowledge the most important element safety wise; no callsign
00:00:38 ATCO: ??? ______________ <== ATCO being puzzled, but remaining puzzled??

And this was not the rest of the transcript??
00:00:42 ATCO: triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000
00:00:38 pilot: passing 6000
00:00:45 ATCO: triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000. READ BACK
00:00:55 pilot: …

Surely, you can’t let them get away with this, can you? Not strictly by the book is one thing, but sloppiness with an incontestably safety aspect :=

[Centaurus]

Some years ago in Australia, if ATC told you to (say) "Descend to flight level 130" you were required to report leaving your present level. The pilot would say "Left flight level 350" (the height he was currently flying at) Clearly there was no doubt in ATC's mind the pilot was actually descending since he had reported that he had departed 350.

Then that was changed because of an ICAO directive and the pilot instead would reply "Leaving flight level 350." This led to doubts that the pilot had not yet left 350. Or was it he had received the instruction and intended to leave 350 since the requirement in this situation was the pilot must vacate that altitude within one minute. So now the current situation exists that there is a modicum of doubt that the aircraft has physically vacated since the word "Leaving" signifies an intention but not necessarily that it has happened.

There were slack-arses who would also reply to an ATC instruction to descend to flight level 210 by saying "Flight level 210, left 350" when there was no way the aircraft had commenced the descent in the 3 seconds it took to reply.

[peekay4]

"Left 350" could be misinterpreted as an intent to turn left instead of an intent to leave an altitude.

[Chris Scott]

Centaurus,
Many years ago, it was common to hear descending pilots calling "... out of flight-level three-five-zero." That was open to interpretation.

"... leaving ..." means you have properly initiated the descent or climb, and commits you thereafter to a certain minimum average VS as laid down in some ICAO document (I forget which).

[LeadSled]

Centaurus,
It was never an "ICAO directive", it was Australia conforming to ICAO SARPs (PANS/RAC 4444 and Annex X, Vol.II, from memory) at long bleeding last, after a string of serious incidents cause by Australian unique "radio procedures". It was over much resistance from a number of Australian domestic pedant pilots, to whom bar room barrister strict grammatical construction was more important than effective and clear minimum risk (aka safe) aeronautical communications.

Left (and right) had always been directions of turn, both militarily, and in civil use elsewhere but Australia. As you probably remember, turn instructions, up to that time, were not read back, again introducing ICAO conforming read-back rules also encountered great resistance in Australia.

Seeing that I was well acquainted with the authors of the submissions on the subject for BAR, AATA, Qantas separately, Ansett likewise, AIPA, AOPA and RFACA, who all agreed, I can remember it all too well. AFAP was thoroughly outvoted.

Chris Scott and peekay4 are pretty much on the money.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Just for my understanding and better situational awareness was it something like this:
00:00:00 A/C just airborne
00:00:30 ATCO: triple X, climb to FL 170 report passing 6000
00:00:35 pilot: passing 6000 _____ <== so: omitting to acknowledge the most important element safety wise; no callsign
00:00:38 ATCO: ??? ______________ <== ATCO being puzzled


not 00:00:35 but 00:00:31 :}

Exactly, without call sign, without cleared level, it sounds like it has already passed inter level ,
and happened regularly these days( and I did numerous corrections but now I believe that something has been changed in pilot training without informing ATC system )

that is the reason for posting on these pages. And I thought that it was more appropriate here rather than ATC chapter.
:ok:

[Astra driver]

I always report "XXX Vacating Flight Level 350, descending Flight level 180"

[misd-agin]

Astra - it's in the AIM. Many ignore the requirement.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes, yet another Ledsled ideological rant.

As for reading back "report...", you don't! :ok:

[Flytdeck]

I was dismayed how Australian R/T procedures by pilots had changed for the worse. AIP read-backs had increased significantly but worse was the arrival of the greeting age. R/T transmissions by pilots now included superfluous bonhomie greetings just like the babble in Europe. G'Days, cheers, see youse later, good morning, afternoon, evening became the norm. Even ATC were drawn into this nonsense.

Though outside the defined ATC lexicon, words of civility, respect, and even the occasional humour reminds everyone in this increasingly automated profession that on the other end of that faceless transmission is a living, breathing, fallible human being. This is NOT nonsense. This is inserting a moment of humanity into the rigid discipline of aviation.

Good day sir.

[Gordomac]

Astra : correct. Flytdeck ; endearing. Recalling heady days of bombing into LHR in the tripot, an ATCO had an immediately distinguishable "Sarf Landon" accent and in response to our "Good Morning" would reply "Maunin" ! I was never held to book when leaving a frequency, as instructed, with a "Cheers mate.............nice one !" ! Aaaaah, but that was in the good ole days.

[LeadSled]

Yes, yet another Ledsled ideological rant.Bloggs,
Or a statement of fact, depending on your point of view.
We all know your point of view ---- the sainted Australian domestic pilot knows it all, and the rest of the world wouldn't have a clue.
It must be a wonderful world to live in, never to have your prejudices troubled by the facts.

PS: Folks, please stick with ICAO standard phraseology, no personal embellishment, isms or fashions de jour. The guy at the other end of the conversation, or other pilots, may not have English as the mother tongue, but will most likely understand ATC English. At least, in this day and age, it is easily available, on the net, or invest in a copy of UK CAA CAP 413.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Folks, please stick with ICAO standard phraseology, no personal embellishment, isms or fashions de jour.

it should be written in line with pprune logo, instead of advertisement ( and than ask ICAO for money difference )
There is no any benefit omitting correct read back procedures, call signs ( very often these days ) and similar "state -of the- art" features.

sky is busy, but no so busy to avoid safe ( well documented and backed ) procedures.
thank you

[jmmoric]

The pilot is supposed to read back his climb clearance, so as far as I can tell he has to readback the "climb to FL170", whether or not he wants to reply to the instruction of report passing 6000 feet with a complete readback, or a "wilco", is more or less up to him.

It is also stated that once two-way communication is established between a ground station and an aircraft, you can omit the callsigns. So if you're already communicating, and the communication hasn't been interrupted, the "passing 6000 feet" would suffice. But if the transmission is "paused" for a while, I'd be puzzled as well is someone just said "passing 6000" without a callsign?

[LeadSled]

jmmoric,
You still terminate the transmission with the aircraft callsign, so ATC knows who is replying.
Remember (see Annex X, Vol. II) in this case the use of the call sign is the accepted substitute for "over" or "over and out", phrases that many current pilots would never have heard used.
Use of the "callsign" in this case should not be confused with the use of the callsign in initiating or responding to an initial pilot/controller contact.

[evil7]

Just the two cent of a rotor driver.

Why wouldn´t you read back .......climb to FL170, next report passing 6000?

[Derfred]

Omitting your callsign would have to be the biggest threat to modern R/T. There is always the possibility that you have inadvertantly responded to a clearance given to another aircraft, or that another aircraft has inadvertantly responded to a clearance given to you. Omitting your airline designation associated with a flight number, such as "619" instead of "Flyright 619" is also a threat as there may be more than one aircraft on frequency with the same flight number.

[Lonewolf_50]

Hear hear!
The three fundamental elements of a radio call:
Who is Where doing/wanting/requiring/requesting What
That info helps everyone on the freq.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Fair dinkum! "I'm better at R/T than you are"... strewth...

I've never had a flight, anywhere in the world, where pucker ICAO phraseology was used. I thought the point of comms is clear communication over radios even with poor reception to ensure flight safety. If ATC don't understand the response or aren't happy with it they say so - same the other way around. So if both parties are happy, what's the big deal? Sure, on congested freq you should stick to the basics and keep it professional - if nothing else, it minimises the chance of misunderstanding leading to a second call.

There were slack-arses who would also reply to an ATC instruction to descend to flight level 210 by saying "Flight level 210, left 350" when there was no way the aircraft had commenced the descent in the 3 seconds it took to reply.

You'd have to ask Mrs Trash if I'm a "slack-arse", but there were plenty of times I was held up by ATC so when the clearance finally came, I was descending in the 3 seconds they took to finish their call so I could get down to stabilise my approach prior to the final fix.

Very much depends on what is said, where and when. Airmanship will guide you...

[Una Due Tfc]

Last year I had 2 aircraft on my freq both requesting the same level, both were 2 of the big US 3, they had the exact same flight number. I advised them both of similar callsign on freq when the second aircraft checked in. The following occured:

"ABC123 request climb FL370"

He was approaching my boundary with the next FIR so I had to tell him to standby while this was coordinated.

A minute or so later:

"XYZ123 request climb FL370"

No traffic or restrictions to effect

Me: "XYZ123 control, climb FL370"

"ABC123 climbing FL370"

Me: "ABC123 negative negative, maintain FL350, previous clearance was for another aircraft"

The only reason I spotted this was because he used his callsign.

Now earlier this year, another of the US big 3:

"ABC456 request climb FL370"

Me:"ABC456 climb FL370

"Here we go"

[Nicolaus Silver]

Gee willickers mate can empathise with Trash n nav reluctance in the old dart after the Tests but do ya best.

But woh really mahhers guv is we bofe geh ih ryhh sa nuffink bad appens...know woh I mean like....

[Cornish Jack]

All very simple, really. Re-introduce PROFESSIONAL Radio Officers whose licences (and livelihood) depended on professional standards constantly checked by the IRIS team!!:E

[Big Pistons Forever]

So if those US airlines exhibit such unprofessional RT why do they have a superior accident record to any European airline ?

Maybe instead of concentrating on mastering radio pedantry and memorizing a mass of aviation trivia that has no practical value to get an ATPL; mainline US operators want their new hires to show up with a lot of time actually flying an airplane ( the average new hire has 3500 + hrs).......

The US has upped the bar with the requirement that EVERY airline crew member has a minimum of 1500 hours. At the same time European airlines are racing to adopt the MPL. Zero to right seat jet airliner with passengers and 60 hours of flight time. :ugh:

[Una Due Tfc]

Wasn't meant as a dig at US airlines per se, but when the accents of the 2 different aircraft are similar, it might make an error harder to spot when you're busy. "That sounds like the guy I cleared".....

Of course you should always double check, but it's one more hole in the cheese so to speak

[Exnomad]

Long time ago since I did it, but I was told to repeat tower messages in full.

[2 sheds]

So if those US airlines exhibit such unprofessional RT why do they have a superior accident record to any European airline ?
Perhaps it raises the ATC wariness threshold.

Long time ago since I did it, but I was told to repeat tower messages in full.
D'oh...! :ugh:

[LeadSled]

Exnomad,
Did/has it ever occurred to you to look up what you are supposed to read back, and how to read it back, and just do that.
What you have said in your post is wrong, another example of perpetuation of error by ignorance.
There is nothing like the facts to get your facts straight.
At least, in this day and age, all such information is easily accessible, so that is no excuse.
Tootle pip!!

[Gordomac]

Lead ; Lighten up. Without some colour life would be really dull- eh ? Cheers mate, nice one ! Ooooops, what freq did he say ?

[jmmoric]

The good thing about standards is everyone understands it. Must admit I've had some nationalities comming through that honestly didn't understand what I was trying to tell them/ask them about (some nonstandard about openings and so on), but when it came to the normal "taxi, climb, turn...." and so forth, everything went smooth.

So yes, knowing your standard phraseology really helps a lot, and the better we all are at it, the less risk for misunderstandings ;)

And if you really want to go at it, with americans and englishmen alike doesn't need to learn it, cause it's their native tongue, remember how the community is about french, italian, spanish and all the other national languages.... Speaking on the frequency without using the ICAO standard phraseology is comparable to using said languages, some actually doesn't understand you, and it hurts safety ;)

[LeadSled]

Gordonmac,

The bain of my existence, over many years, has been the student/candidate whose answer as to why hew/she was way of base was " I was told by" an instructor/Captain/Check and Training/IRE-TRE/ description of choice"

It is a great way to perpetuate errors, some of then very basic.

The idea of actually reading the source material (the AFM, or Annex II, or Annex X, Vol. II say) seem completely foreign to so many pilots, including very experienced pilots. This is NOT limited to communication. Jusr reading the "training notes" is not good enough.

At least, in this part of the world, CPDLC has reduced the occasions of Australian "trained" pilots who cannot even transmit a position report or full AIREP accordance with ICAO SARPs.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Just a couple of non-comms examples from memory, there are many more:
(1) Seriously wrong rotation and initial climb techniques, revealed when the fleet was fitted with quick access flight recorders. Until then, those of us who complained were ignored.
(2) Incorrect use of engine anti-ice, resulting in a history of engine damage, until the penny dropped. Until then -- see (1)

[Derfred]

Leadsled,

Australian "trained" pilots who cannot even transmit a position report or full AIREP accordance with ICAO SARPs

1. Does anyone report wind & temp with a position report anymore?
2. Is it useful information?
3. Do ATC even write it down and send it to anyone?
4. If they do, do the people they send it to care?

Or... Are most pilots of the opinion that this practice is long antiquated and redundant?

Genuine questions. :)

[LeadSled]

Derfred,
In theory, at least, a full airep should be transmitted if the symbol is on a chart.

As for "writing it down", many moons ago in AU, there was a union directive that, if the pilot did not precede the transmission with "airep" or "airep special", as required by AIP "radio procedures", the ATC person would not write down the wind and temperature and any other remarks.

As to what happened to airep information once transamitted, on the flightdeck, that was always a matter of great speculation, not all of it repeatable in polite company.

What was done with it?? It certainly never seemed to have much influence on forecasts, and I suspect BoM treated it as "unapproved information".

Was it useful, too bleeding right, it was real info., as opposed to a (particularly) wind forecast from BoM computers. Is it still ???

It is true that there has been a huge improvement in almost real time met. in the last 20 years, in the real world I rather think an airep is a historic anachronism, except when you are doing ATP Air Law.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Long time ago since I did it, but I was told to repeat tower messages in full.

I even heard better one pilot' explanation how read back works.

repeat all numbers

Than I asked : wind also ?
Of course, it is number.


N.B after that I meet some pilots on frequency repeating wind . So it means that some training missing link exists.

The safest, fastest and most effective way is applicable ICAO SARPs.

[Oakape]

In theory, at least, a full airep should be transmitted if the symbol is on a chart.

You can't rely on the 'M' symbol on the chart anymore. Both the Australian & NZ AIP state that AIREPS are not required anymore, due to the reports they receive from CPDLC equipped aircraft. The Fijian AIP seems to be silent on the matter, so I still report in that airspace. I can't comment on other parts of the world.

[Gordomac]

Ledsled ; Of course the technical aspects of your posts are faultless. Just advocating a little balance & colour helps make it enjoyable - eh ? In the happy days of whizzing through New York airspace from Bangor to Orlando, ATC said "We're gettin jammed up down here, need you to give me a 360 left, present position"! Geez, spilled me coke float & did, roughly , what was required. Rolling out on entry heading he said "liked that, give me another one" ! Love it. But, all, technically wrong, wrong, wrong -eh ? Led, you might have been lost for words in anger !

[LeadSled]

Gordonmac,
In fact I have always found operations in US very effective, and pleasant, because actual "communications" is good, as opposed to the rather anal Australian approach, "radio procedures" (in the AU AIP there is roughly 20 times as many "standard phrases" as ICAO SARPS require) where effective communication, as opposed to "compliance with published procedures" is often inhibited.

[Exnomad]

My pilot experience was only as a national service entrant in the 1950s. Operating out of small and not busy stations.
So tower messages simple only confirm runway direction QNH and wind strength.
Not difficult to repeat

[HDRW]

LeadSled:
Remember (see Annex X, Vol. II) in this case the use of the call sign is the accepted substitute for "over" or "over and out", phrases that many current pilots would never have heard used.

No! "Over" means "I am expecting a reply", "Out" means "I am not expecting a reply" - so the reason people haven't heard "over and out" on the air, except in badly-researched TV and films, is that it is two conflicting meanings: Wrong!!! :ugh:

Callsign substituting for "over" works fine.

When I got my PPL the radio course was separate, and ended with an exam to get the radio licence, which consisted of pretending to fly a series of routes while the examiner in the next room acted as ATC. Using the correct procedure (including not reading back items that were not mandatory, except for clarification) was necessary to pass the exam, and I see no reason to depart from what I learned then, any more than I would make up new ways to fly having got the PPL itself.

[LeadSled]

HDRW,

Don't be so quick to air your somewhat limited knowledge.

I haven't got time to give you a precise reference, but if you were to look up ICAO Annex X, Vol.2, you would find that what I said is exactly correct.

You may have given the definitions of the meanings of "over" and "(over and) out", as you understand them, but in the above Vol. 2 you will find the explanation and limitations of the use of the call sign to signify the end of a transmission. In voice working, it is assumed that it will be obvious from the context whether or not it is the end of a transmission with a reply expected, or the termination of the transmission.

As for PPL and a radio license, what you have described sound a bit like the old UK system, the level of knowledge at that level, to get a (usually to start) restricted radio license, restricted to VHF voice, was not great.

PS: I have just been reminded that the one place where "over", "out" and "over and out" is still used, from time to time, and the probably the last time I heard it used, was in US.

[Una Due Tfc]

Only people I ever hear say "Over" are military and private aircraft.

Only time I ever hear "out" is again military and some Americans, when being transferred to another sector, effectively saying "goodbye".

[Uplinker]

My tuppence worth:

Many pilots seem to forget or don't realise that what they speak into their microphone is NOT what is heard by ATC and other traffic. The voice channels of airplane radios are frequency limited to about 300-3000 Hz, which is similar to that of a domestic telephone. Also, distortions caused by not using windshields, dirty microphones, faulty electronics, geography and atmospheric conditions, mean that what might sound perfectly clear to the person doing the speaking can actually be significantly distorted and garbled to the listener.

This is one reason why standard phrases were chosen - to be safely readable and recognisable through distortion and static etc.

When a frequency is quiet, I see nothing wrong with occasional banter - as long as it's kept brief. And 'good morning' and 'good bye' seem perfectly acceptable pleasantries - when there is time to do so.

In busy TMA, where lots of clearances and re-clearances are being fired off in machine gun fashion, that is NOT the time for anything other than standard ICAO phrases. Taking up RT airspace with non standard phrases that require re-transmissions and readbacks is not neccessary and could lead to dangerous situations.

When countries invent a non ICAO way of speaking between pilots and ATC; that may seem fine because everyone understands each other right? But it is a bad habit because then you might get a 'foreign' airliner or even a 'foreign' pilot in a domestic airliner, who might not get the gist and confusions could arise.

Speaking to a person whose first language is not English is another reason to stick to standard phraseology. While 'foreign' ATC will recognise and be able to converse in standard phraseology, there is absolutely no point talking fast and using colloquialisms to a non english speaker. I find that slowing down, speaking clearly and using standard phrases reduces read-backs to almost zero. It might seem slightly anal to do so, but in busy airspace it is the only way really.

[Capn Bloggs]

HDRW, Don't be so quick to air your somewhat limited knowledge.

Pot calling the kettle black. "Over and Out" is NOT part of contemporary ICAO R/T (perhaps when you were flying but not now); as has been pointed out, it is totally contradictory. Perhaps spoken in your beloved land of America to sound cool... :cool:

[LeadSled]

"Over and Out" is NOT part of contemporary ICAO R/T (perhaps when you were flying but not now)
Bloggs,

Of course it bleeding well isn't, and hasn't been for gawd knows how long, approximately since VHF took over from HF as the primary voice communications --- but that's probably a bit before your time.

But--- the ICAO Docs. do explain the use of the aircraft call sign at the end of a transmission, and its derivation from 'Over" and "over and/out" --- and that, is the whole point of my comments, as any normal reader would understand.

You should try a bit of flying in the US, it might surprise you.

Aviation in Australia would be vastly better of if we emulated all the good things about aviation on the north American continent.

[super jet 100]

Doc 9432 has complete list of what instructions should be read-back in full.

But what if I read-back in full instructions that can be answered just by WILCO? Is it going to be a mistake?

[FlightDetent]

SJ100: Eeeerr ... yes. Be a pro, it helps things on both sides of the microphone :ok:

[parabellum]

From my experience, military and civil, on VHF, 'Over' is passing information that will require some kind of acknowledgement, hardly used these days though but "Over" still widely used on HF."Over and Out" is for bad films only! ;)


In the late seventies I was flying with a lot of Australians, a mixture of recently ex military and long time civil. When with one of the recently ex military pilots he asked me why I always read back the pressure setting, I told him that was how it was done in Europe and was mandatory, "Well we don't do it here in Australia" was the reply!
Any thoughts, Lead Sled and others?