CAP413 Phraeseology Change

[Broadlands]

I've been informed there is a slight change to approach phraseology from Thursday.


The callsign now precedes the reply to FISO/ATC whereas before it followed the reply and the runway and intentions are also included (I thought this was done anyway).


Any reason for the change?


CAP413 Ch4 page 42 refers.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Thanks for the info. Being outside UK, I am not acquainted with CAP413, actually I wouldn't know how or where to consult this document. Nor am I really curious to dig it up.

Still it would be nice to see an example.

And also I wonder: is this change the reflection of a change at ICAO? If so, where is that documented?

[alexbrett]

Interestingly it's only for FISO (if you look at P.23 it's unchanged for ATC).

The specific changes comparing old to new (based on the examples) are:

Old:
FISO: G-CD Land at your discretion, surface wind 050 10 knots
AC: Roger, G-CD

New:
FISO: G-CD land at your discretion, wind 250, 8 knots
AC: G-CD Roger, (Landing/Going Around)

FISO: G-CD touch and go at your discretion, wind 250, 8 knots
AC: G-CD Roger, touch and go

[Talkdownman]

Any reason for the change?
Can't get the staff these days?

413 has become inconsistent and messy. Perhaps it will be corrected in due course...

[fireflybob]

Can't understand that change!

Callsign should go at end of read back. Put it at the beginning and on a busy frequency this can be potentially confusing for other users monitoring who might be misled into thinking that FISO (or AG/ATC) are making the call rather than the a/c.

As a matter of interest Lufthansa, for reasons best known to themselves, always put call sign at beginning of the read back which is in contravention of ICAO R/T.

[Flyingmac]

Seems to me that putting the call sign at the front when addressing an aircraft, and the aircraft tailing his reply with his call sign has the least potential for confusion.?????


Who decided to fix what ain't broke? I'd like a word:=

[foxmoth]

Who decided to fix what ain't broke? I'd like a word

A bit like like the change to ATC services from "listening watch" "radar advisory" to "basic service" etc. And that was not even to fit in with other countries :rolleyes:

[Crash one]

What happens to a pilot who gets it the wrong way round? Does the a/c turn into a pumpkin? Who really cares? Isn't it time that the regulators stopped mucking about with trivia?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It seems common sense to head one's message with the call sign of the addressee, and end it with the call sign of the sender, and not just in aviation RT.

The addressee call sign at the beginning gets the addressee's attention on a busy frequency so they know that what follows is for them. They 'listen up' and hear the message.

[chevvron]

Interestingly it's only for FISO (if you look at P.23 it's unchanged for ATC).

The specific changes comparing old to new (based on the examples) are:

Old:
FISO: G-CD Land at your discretion, surface wind 050 10 knots
AC: Roger, G-CD

New:
FISO: G-CD land at your discretion, wind 250, 8 knots
AC: G-CD Roger, (Landing/Going Around)

FISO: G-CD touch and go at your discretion, wind 250, 8 knots
AC: G-CD Roger, touch and go
Actually it's 'G-CD land/go around/touch and go at your discretion runway 25*, instant** wind 250, 8 knots'.
* Runway designator must be included (even if there are not multiple runways available) unless CAA approved local instructions allow it to be omitted.
** 'Instant' if you don't have a 2 min average anemometer

[Talkdownman]

I blame the RTFPWG...

[MrAverage]

It's got to be a mistake. The vast majority of the conversation examples in the document have the a/c callsign at the end of the aircraft's reply, where it should always be. Apart from ensuring the ground station knows the full message was understood, by the a/c it was intended for, it also serves as a full stop so that everyone on frequency knows when that reply has come to an end! Of course the author could be one of the many pilots that regularly use incorrect R.T. at pretty much every G.A. airfield...................

[Mach Jump]

I refer the Honourable Gentlemen to a reply I gave earlier. (In another thread.)


Originally Posted by tmmorris:

Do you think that was deliberate or as MJ implied a cockup?

Quote:
Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.

— Bernard Ingham.


MJ:ok:

[BigEndBob]

Is this not an Amercanism, to stop the clipping of the callsign.

"So let's try it with AFIS and if all goes well, spread to ATC".

Well DON'T clip the transmission.

I won't be changing soon.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

... those couple of examples ... rest of the examples ...
Like I've said just the once or twice before, there are lots of ways of specifying a protocol, but you can't do it by example, it just doesn't work.

[Whopity]

Interestingly it's only for FISO In which case its not a Clearance so there is no requirement to readback anything; simply giving ones callsign shows the transmission has been received and is all that is required.

Being outside UK, I am not acquainted with CAP413 ---
Still it would be nice to see an example.

And also I wonder: is this change the reflection of a change at ICAO?
Jan
ICAO Doc 9432 was actually a copy of CAP413 Edition 1. They are now on Edition 21 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413v21_6.pdf) and ICAO has not changed.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Not the first kindness you've shown me, sir, thanks indeed!

[Katamarino]

Thank goodness the CAA are busy with the really important stuff.

[Talkdownman]

In which case its not a Clearance so there is no requirement to readback anything
From https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20797%20SI%2003_2015.pdf

3.1 At a meeting of the CAA’s RTFPWG in February 2015 it was highlighted that CAP 413 makes no provision for pilots to report their intentions to an AFISO, having been advised ‘land at your discretion’ or ‘runway occupied’. This meant that an AFISO can have insufficient information as to the aircraft’s intentions and, importantly, it restricts the development of situational awareness for all aircraft operating on the ground and within the traffic circuit. There was a consensus amongst members that a pragmatic solution would be for the CAA to develop and propose phraseology which required pilots to advise their intentions.

3.2 At a subsequent meeting of the RTFPWG in July 2015, exemplar phraseology was proposed to and accepted by the WG. This will be published in CAP 413 Edition 21 Amendment 6 on 6 November 2015 and become effective on 10 December 2015.
The above information is, of course, published for AFISOs. I've yet to find where it is published as information for Aircrew...

[chevvron]

This may all stem from my pursuing the use of the words 'final for the option' by pilots trained in the USA at some UK airfields which was not covered in CAP 413, the words 'the option' not conveying sufficient information to the FISO/ATCO as to the pilot's actual intention.

[Silvaire1]

In knocking on for three decades as a pilot, I've always understood that on final approach one is likely to land, but may possibly go around.

When the pilot has explicitly requested a touch and go or low pass, the controller may wish to communicate clearance for that request without removing the option to make a full stop landing should unplanned circumstances require it. The pilot then knows that ATC will have pre-cleared his path so that calling either a change of plans to a full stop landing or calling the go around will be unnecessary. He can then just get on with flying the plane, with no further communication to ATC while he is in either critical phase of flight.

[Jan Olieslagers]

In my young days as a spotter, I heard the "cleared for the option" only, but then often, at EBAW, to planes/pilots training IFR approaches. I always wondered, but now understand it meant "cleared for the approach and low pass, and should you need/want to land, you can". It was always followed by an instruction about what to do after the low pass.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

When the pilot has explicitly requested a touch and go or low pass, the controller may wish to communicate clearance for that request without removing the option to make a full stop landing should unplanned circumstances require it.
If I'm cleared for touch-and-go it's never occurred to me that I wouldn't be allowed to call "stopping" and stop if some good reason arose, just like I could call "going around" and go around on a clearance to land.

OTOH if I'm cleared for "low pass not below 400'" it would have to be an emergency before I landed without seeking further permission.

[Silvaire1]

If I'm cleared for touch-and-go it's never occurred to me that I wouldn't be allowed to call "stopping" and stop if some good reason arose, just like I could call "going around" and go around on a clearance to land

Sure, but the difference with 'cleared for the option' is that you don't have to call anything. It's already sorted out either way, and you can just fly the plane without talking on the radio.

Where I fly, if I'm cleared for a touch and go (not for the option) and then call to annouce I'll be stopping the inevitable next call on frequency is going to be "123AB go around", directed by ATC to the aircraft behind me. Then number three starts thinking about his fate...

[chevvron]

'The option' is not covered in CAP 413 and I'm told even in the USA where it originated, the procedure must be approved by the FAA for each individual airfield which wishes to use it and even then, ATC can reply 'negative option'.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Where I fly, if I'm cleared for a touch and go (not for the option) and then call to annouce I'll be stopping the inevitable next call on frequency is going to be "123AB go around", directed by ATC to the aircraft behind me.
Yes of course. One would need an actual reason for doing that, not just a whim.

[BigEndBob]

I always teach to reply with intention. Why make things complicated.
It's the logical thing to do.

"G-xx land your discretion, wind xxx/xx"
reply
"Landing G-XX"

or "G-xx runway occupied"
reply
"Continuing G-XX"

Been doing this the last 25 years.

What's with all this "with the option" nonsense.

Cut the chat.

And why do our AFISO after our downwind call reply by asking us to report final?
It's standard to call final, don't ask us, cut the chat, it blocks busy frequency.

Years ago our AFISO would go to lunch one till two.
Best hour of the day with pilots stating their positions downwind, base and final.
Hardly know there was four in the circuit.
Worked well.
Then AFISO would come back on at two. :(

[Talkdownman]

What's with all this "with the option" nonsense.
Cut the chat.
And why do our AFISO after our downwind call reply by asking us to report final?
It's standard to call final, don't ask us, cut the chat, it blocks busy frequency.
Yes, absolutely, let's get back to information rather than instructions.
What's happened to the required 'specific and updated traffic information'. That seems to have become a secret.
Best hour of the day with pilots stating their positions downwind, base and final.
Some AFIS places don't need it. AFIS for the sake of AFIS, instead of A/G...

[India Four Two]

"Cleared for the option"
ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so that an instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing situations. Source: FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary

Very useful during training. The instructor can spring a surprise "Go around!" on the student or change a touch-and-go into a full stop, without contacting the tower. It is used in Canada as well as the US.

[chevvron]

"Cleared for the option"


Very useful during training. The instructor can spring a surprise "Go around!" on the student or change a touch-and-go into a full stop, without contacting the tower. It is used in Canada as well as the US.
But its use has to be specifically approved by the national authority for each individual airport and it's not approved in the UK.

[Talkdownman]

Every approach is to a go-around…

I'm with BEB. Cut the cra…er…chat...

[2 sheds]

Every approach is to a go-around…
...or to a potential missed approach ;)

[Silvaire1]

The primary effect of the tower clearing an aircraft for the option is to reduce the amount of subsequent radio communication. The landing plane either goes around or exits the runway, and no additional radio communication necessary in either case.

[chevvron]

The primary effect of the tower clearing an aircraft for the option is to reduce the amount of subsequent radio communication. The landing plane either goes around or exits the runway, and no additional radio communication necessary in either case.

Understood however the airport's ATC must be approved by the FAA to use this procedure and THEY have the 'option' to say 'negative option.'

[Silvaire1]

Yes, that's right. In the US the pilot doesn't generally request 'the option', it's more often introduced by the tower when issuing the clearance. The pilot (or instructor) hears it and takes note, understanding that the plane can now execute any kind of landing without further radio communication, either before or after. FWIW.

[Whopity]

THEY have the 'option' to say 'negative option.' I once heard that in Vietnam, Steer 160 Eject!

[leavingonajetplane]

The placement of the callsign is irrelevant. Where it appears in a message, other than a mandated readback, is not the relevant change here, it is the statement of the Pilot's intentions which is the relevant factor.

[MrAverage]

leavingonajetplane !

The placement of the callsign certainly is relevant, in any reply - whether mandatory or not - see my post #12.

[Whopity]

The placement of the callsign certainly is relevant, Agree, by convention callsigns are placed in a certain order to convey a message. Clearly lost on some.

[leavingonajetplane]

When I said the placement of the callsign is irrelevant, I meant in this particular example, it is not relevant, what is relevant is the change to encourage pilots to state their intentions which the previous example did not do.

As for placement of callsign, please share where you believe this is mandated? := Because it isn't.

There is only one 'rule' defining the placement of callsign which is in PANS ATM at 5.2.1.9.2.2 — ''An aircraft station should acknowledge receipt of important air traffic control messages or parts thereof by reading them back and terminating the readback by its radio call sign. (Please note, it states 'should' not 'shall' so it is therefore NOT mandated, and, as yet, ICAO is not fully transposed into law).

[oggers]

leavingonajetplane:

There is only one 'rule' defining the placement of callsign which is in PANS ATM at 5.2.1.9.2.2 — ''An aircraft station should acknowledge receipt of important air traffic control messages or parts thereof by reading them back and terminating the readback by its radio call sign. (Please note, it states 'should' not 'shall' so it is therefore NOT mandated, and, as yet, ICAO is not fully transposed into law).

Have a look at CAP413 and you will find this:

Continuation of Communications

2.47 The placement of the callsigns of both the aircraft and the ground
station within an established RTF exchange should be as follows:

2.48 Ground to Air: Aircraft callsign – message or reply.
Air to Ground:
1. Initiation of new information/request etc. – Aircraft callsign then
message.
2. Reply – Repeat of pertinent information/readback/acknowledgement
then aircraft callsign.

...which should not come as a surprise seeing as most of us use precisely that procedure.