Squawk [code] "coming down!"

[Superpilot]

It appears some of my colleagues, including those who fly the same modern airliner as me, still have in their cockpits, transponders with great big levers that they have to pull down and then announce "coming down!" (poor buggers, must take some effort).

Seriously, what is the origin of the phrase "coming down"? Am I the only one who has never seen a transponder more archaic than this one?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/CessnaARC-RT-359ATransponder04.jpg

[Speedwinner]

Most of the big machines have the transponder on the center pedestal. So they put the code down. What's the problem with that?

[zerozero]

I always thought this sounded quite amateurish to be quite honest, along with the "flash" when asked to IDENT.

[hph304]

just like "[code] in the box"

[testpanel]

By zerozero:

I always thought this sounded quite amateurish to be quite honest, along with the "flash" when asked to IDENT.

As of you guys and girls in the USofA sound "professional" on te radio..:ugh:

[ShyTorque]

It can be countered by ATC telling you to "strangle your parrot" when changing to your en-route frequency.

[RAT 5]

Seriously, what is the origin of the phrase "coming down"?

To, seriously, answer the question with what IMHO has some merit of belief:

ATC asks you, in the air way above mother earth, to send them a signal telling them where and who you are. It is sent from on hi to down below. I've not heard any better explanation.

[FE Hoppy]

It's just poor RT. A sign of the times.

[CrazyEddy]

I prefer the correct terminology: "5422 - Comin' atch ya - Cleopatra!"

[ImbracableCrunk]

I always thought this sounded quite amateurish to be quite honest, along with the "flash" when asked to IDENT.
Flash is controller jargon, I believe. Along with "snap" for direct, etc.

[Cazalet33]

It can be countered by ATC telling you to "strangle your parrot"

Never to be confused with "choke you chicken"!

[Capn Bloggs]

Flash is controller jargon
It was used in the air force many moons ago, probably before zerozero was One...

[LeadSled]

Folks,
"Coming down" was an affectation of British European Airways (BEA) starting back in the 1960s, and was, unfortunately, emulated by the impressionable, in the mistaken belief, in the UK, that the British "Corporations" were the height of professionalism.
On would have thought that the heaps of scrap aluminium they (BEA and BOAC) left around the landscape in those days, might have given pause for thought on that score.
Mercifully, it is only occasionally heard in this day and age.
Tootle pip!!

[Uplinker]

A bit like "Xx center, Acorn three too won comin' down too too oh passing three won oh smooth" (spoken rapidly as if speaker's hair is on fire)

Probably only sounds cool to the person speaking it. Why not simply say "squawk xxxx"?

Saying "coming down" might give the controller a heart attack!

[ShyTorque]

Talking of annoying r/t isms, why do certain airline pilots prefix their call sign with "The"? Obviously, it makes them sound stupid to everyone else but do they think it give them extra kudos or priority?

[Centaurus]

It can be countered by ATC telling you to "strangle your parrot" when changing to your en-route frequency.

Or ATC clearance "Climb to Angels 330 - buster to Angels 120":ok: Or heard at Guam in the 1950's as a formation of F86 Sabres commenced their initial approach "Six out with six swords clearance to buzz and break the hot strip. And on final "On final, boots on and laced"

[oicur12.again]

what is the origin of the phrase "coming down".

Probably the US

As a non American flying domestic in the US, every day I chuckle at the rubbish spoken on the radio.

"comin down" is common for a transponder code.

"Like to go on request for FLxxx" when simply "request FLxxx" would be much quicker.

"best forward speed" cracks me up every time.

"climb to and maintain" is my fave, like we are going to climb to 7000' and then just keep on climbing????

[gatbusdriver]

Checked CAP413, can't find any reference to it!

Regards,

GBD

[RVF750]

Drives me mad hearing this crap nowadays. must be getting old.....

[oicur12.again]

They could all talk a little slower on the radio in the US if they just got to the point instead of all the froth and bubble crap thats not needed.

[Escape Path]

It's always amazed me how US pilots talk on the radio, even airliners in foreign non-English speaking countries. Top in my book are an AA 737 pilot who told an ATCO in a South American country they were "low on gas". Jesus...

And there was this guy who read back the altimeter setting 30.00 as "all balls on the altimeter".

Seriously, where do they get this stuff from?

[ImbracableCrunk]

what is the origin of the phrase "coming down".

Probably the US

As a non American flying domestic in the US, every day I chuckle at the rubbish spoken on the radio.

"comin down" is common for a transponder code.



Never once heard that in the US.

But, "We'd like to put a request in for FL340, if available," drives me nuts. This isn't Mother, May I?

[OK4Wire]

And there was this guy who read back the altimeter setting 30.00 as "all balls on the altimeter".


I like to call that "2 foot 6"!

[Check Airman]

Apart from the usual garbage RT here in the US, this annoys me:

Center, ABC123...

ABC123, Center, go ahead

ABC123 would like to put FL380 on request

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Who teaches this nonsense? Is it that some people get paid for superfluous transmissions?

[Wageslave]

Some people like to customise their language and just like customising cars it seldom works aesthetically except in the eye of the perpetrator and makes everyone else laugh or cringe.

Adding superfluous words to big up simple phrases is rife in all walks of life, vide "onward journey", an utter nonsense phrase if ever there was one as you can't perform a journey backwards. Cabin crew often use the appallingly inappropriate "final destination" - which is the grave of course, where you are going is simply your destination. Some train lines use the excruciating expression "station stop" instead of "station" and "terminate" their trains at the end of the line which is surely a shocking waste of a perfectly good train. Most modern (over)use of "absolutely" is completely unnecessary, as is the appalling "like".

Just human nature I guess.

Shame some pilots aren't like a bit more, like, Professional about it though...

[Chesty Morgan]

Absolutely.

[Jwscud]

My personal pet hate is anyone going "direct the Park" in the London TMA.

That and people identing without request...

[Chesty Morgan]

Reading back squawk ident is mandatory isn't it? How do ATC know if the correct person is squawking otherwise.

Jwscud, you bugger, you edited!

[barit1]

Not only in the cockpit:

On descent a few decades ago, F/A says - "The captain has eliminated the no smoking light"

and

"Welcome to Boston Logan airport, or wherever your final destination may take you" (think about it...)

[Centaurus]

Often heard "We would ask you to fasten your seat belts.: "Would"? :rolleyes:

[RAT 5]

JFK. "XYZ call ILS established."
XYZ. "we're on the glide and starting to slide."

[Togue]

That's a gem RAT 5

[oicur12.again]

Stuff from the cabin that gets up my nose:

"At this time...." tray tables away etc.

and

"put THAT tray table away" and "THAT seatbelt sign" etc.

And in the terminal:

"Last and final boarding call". WTF????

[Escape Path]

Mind you we're not doing so great in my Spanish speaking country. For some reason ATC needs to constantly tell every pilot they are "correct" when they readback every single instruction.

- ATC: ABC123 turn left this heading
- ABC123: Turn left this heading
- ATC: Correct

Jeez..

And then there's the ground controllers instructing aircraft to taxi via "diagonal" X and "parallel" Y... For some reason we like to make things a bit more difficult than they are...

[stilton]

Can't beat the 'practice pan' in the UK for sheer inanity.


Transmitting over guard and using this frequency for a pretend emergency, compromising it for those that really have one is allowed is beyond me.

[RAT 5]

Can't beat the 'practice pan' in the UK for sheer inanity.

Before this takes off again into an extended rant this topic has been done to death on '121.5 morons' topic.


JFK ATC, "XYZ cleared for takeoff RW XX."

XYZ. "OK, here we go, see ya."

I kid you not; as was the slidy GP comment.

[Jwscud]

RAT 5 sorry - had a brain fart and didn't think about what I was writing!

[ChickenHouse]

Maybe "coming down" is left over from the days before radio and transponders? When they wrote their designation on a piece of paper (for the younger once: paper is an ancient analog version of an ipad with no touch screen), put it in a small gunnysack and bucked off over a reporting station? ;-)

[lexxie747]

talk about cringing...i get flashes when in the cabin the rather stupid announcement is made,inevitable from nigel : on behalf of myself and the crew... duhhhhhhh

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

Yes, sadly, the vast majority of extraneous, verbose RT does seem to be heard in the USA, or from US crews elsewhere in the world. Some of the jargon used seems to have a military origin, often unsuited to the civil RT environment.

In those parts of the world where English is not in common use, both the verbosity and jargon sometimes result in cringeworthy RT exchanges that could easily be avoided if brevity and standard ICAO phrasing were adhered to. Ho hum.

[misd-agin]

Flash and snap have military origins.

[LeadSled]

what is the origin of the phrase "coming down".
Probably the US
oicur12.again,
Don't blame the Yanks for this one, it is one piece of nonsense where the original perpetrators are clear --- I know, I was there (flying in UK) at the time --- where an ATC transponder was a newfangled "thingie" for day to day use.
British European Airways -- BEA, see my original post.
Tootle pip!!

[FlightDetent]

Once upon a time, on an airfield where XPDR code is assigned only during taxi, think it was Sheremetyevo: "AFL123, squawk 3425 coming up!" ;) Makes sense, doesn't it?

[Superpilot]

Wait for it. Wait for it....

"We're FULLY ready!"

;)

[Check Airman]

Wait for it. Wait for it....

"We're FULLY ready!"

http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

I meant to ask about that. What's with the Brits and being "fully ready" or "fully established". You're either ready, or you're not.

[Minnie Burner]

ARTHUR (into cabin address): Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see, our onboard transit process today has now reached its ultimate termination.
CAROLYN: He means we’ve landed.
ARTHUR: Yes. So, as yourselves prepare for disemboarding, if I could kindly ask you to kindly ensure you retain all your personal items about your person throughout the duration of the disembarkation.
CAROLYN: He means take your stuff with you.
ARTHUR: In concluding, it’s been a privilege for ourselves to conduct yourselves through the in-flight experience today, and I do hope you’ll re-favour ourselves with the esteem of your forth-looking custom going forward.
CAROLYN: … No idea.

Oh! And Australians: QNH. Cue...Enn...Hhhhhaitch!!!!!!

[LeadSled]

arOh! And Australians: QNH. Cue...Enn...Hhhhhaitch!!!!!!
Folks,
That shows the "benefit" of a Christian Brothers or a Marist Brothers education on the other end of the mic.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Christian Brothers or a Marist Brothers education

I always thought there was something odd about you, Sleed...

[RAT 5]

ATC: XYZ are you ready for takeoff?
XYZ: We're nearly ready. (are you nearly pregnant?) it's a yes/no situation, duh!

CA: the captain tells me our flight time is approximately 1hr & 39 mins.

That sounds very precise to me: so why not "about 1.40"?

[Capt Scribble]

Grr.. Request FLxxx if available. He's not going to give it if it aint.

[ShyTorque]

Wait for it. Wait for it....

"We're FULLY ready!"

;)
These are often the ones who get cleared for takeoff and then, having lined up, spend another three minutes blocking the runway while they get fully, fully ready.

[Uplinker]

Mind you we're not doing so great in my Spanish speaking country. For some reason ATC needs to constantly tell every pilot they are "correct" when they readback every single instruction.

Yes ! A real pain. In some parts of the Caribbean, after every ATC instruction: We read it back and then action it and say to each other in the cockpit "Mach descent 310 blue" "check 310 blue" or whatever it is. But as we are saying that; ATC then says something else 'stepping' on us and interrupting what we are doing. "What did she say?" "xxx say again" "xxx I said correct". Oh. Well whoopy do. Right, where were we? , what were we doing?

Mind you, Gibralter do this as well - they don't say 'correct', but they do issue another instruction straight after we have read back the previous one, 'stepping' on us.

(ATC, please give us a moment to do what you previously asked before talking to us again. We don't have an extra radio operator in the cockpit !)

[Ian W]

"climb to and maintain" is my fave, like we are going to climb to 7000' and then just keep on climbing????

Unfortunately, from bitter experience controllers have found that it is not uncommon for the aircraft to climb to the level that they really wanted rather than the intermediate clearance.
If you request a climb using CPDLC in oceanic, you will normally receive a compound message with:
1. MAINTAIN LEVEL
2. AT [fix or time] CLIMB 310
3. REPORT REACHING 310

The initial MAINTAIN LEVEL is because on numerous occasions the aircraft climbs immediately rather than waiting till the position or time. Controllers are also wary of providing a clearance to climb at a time that is more than 10 minutes away as the aircraft 'forgets' to climb. Nowadays with more aircraft carrying ADS-C the automatic reports at least warn the controllers what is happening.

[Uplinker]

Must be bloody annoying I grant you.

Trouble is, if ATC keep covering for pilots' mistakes, then eventually the airwaves become saturated.

Not so much of an issue with CPDLC of course, but we already have things like "turn heading xxx to intercept the localiser. When established on the localiser, descend on the glide.", all of which we are expected to read back, instead of simply "intercept the ILS". It is up to pilots to know that they must not descend on the glide before being established on the localiser. "Climb and maintain" is another example.

ATC is all taped is it not, so any transgressence by an airplane could be proven, and a prosecution or wrist slapping issued rather than clogging up the already busy airwaves with arse covering statements?

.

[Ian W]

ATC is all taped is it not, so any transgressence by an airplane could be proven, and a prosecution or wrist slapping issued rather than clogging up the already busy airwaves with arse covering statements?

.

You say that till you have a chat with someone who has had a 'not their fault' accident on their frequency. The controllers in those instances spend a lot of time soul searching that perhaps had they said something differently...... like adding 'and maintain'. The problem with these cautionary words is they can tend to become 'noise words' and not be listened to. Although they act as an CYA phrase when the impounded tapes are transcribed, the controller will still be thinking perhaps if they had said something differently or with more emphasis.

Much of this will disappear in a decade or so, hearing someone talk on the RT may become a relative rarity and only be in an urgent exception. RT could well be going the way of flare pistols and Aldis lamps. No - don't hold your breath - but the changes are already being made in that direction. Data link and graphical displays will be taking over.

[galaxy flyer]

"CLIMB AND MAINTAIN" used to be in the FAA AIM, when it was an AIRMAN's information manual.

GF

[LeadSled]

I always thought there was something odd about you, Sleed...Bloggs,
Your thoughts on anything I say is hardly a surprise to anybody else on pprune, but my statement as to the mentioned pronunciation is nevertheless correct, and mentioned in more than one academic work on "English as she is spoke" in Australia, and, for one, the humorous recollections of Clive James.
Tootle pip!!

[Derfred]

I don't know if this is just an Australian thing, but "Climb and Maintain 7000" means climb to 7000 and expect a delay at that level, whereas "Climb to 7000" means expect no delay for further climb.

Similarly, the difference between "Line up" and "Line up and Wait" - the latter implying a delay in the lined up position prior to takeoff clearance.

[RexBanner]

The continentals annoy me at times with their "Speedbird 345 maintain FL180 on reaching, traffic 1000 above". If they're suggesting you reduce your rate of climb, which is fair enough and good airmanship nonetheless, then only the "traffic 1000 above your cleared level" is required. We've already confirmed the climb clearance so I'd like to ask the controllers about all these pilots that seem to have worried them by alt busting deliberately.

(Ian W have you tried to use CPDLC recently? There's no way it's replacing Radio Transmissions within the next ten years, twenty would also be a stretch.)

[Piltdown Man]

I refuse to use the term "fully" ready. So I'll be "totally ready", "absolutely ready", "completely ready" or any other pointless description. I might even just say I'm "ready". The "fully" prefix is not required to describe a binary status.

PM

[Capn Bloggs]

Definitely!

[Mansfield]

It has always seemed to me that you needn't read back the new transponder code at all; ATC will see it in about three seconds...on the other hand, some acknowledgement is useful to pre-empt a second transmission of the same instruction.

I am in complete agreement regarding putting anything "on request"; drives me nuts as well, along with another favorite, "any chance of direct XYZ?"

Most of the wasted transmission time in the States could be eliminated in two ways: first, spend millions to install repeaters on ATC communications systems, so that everyone talking to that controller, regardless of frequency, can hear everyone else. Second, a two-step process for controllers to use with every transmission: first, don't move your lips before you push the button...second, after you push the button, move your lips. (This always gets an understanding chuckle from the controllers I remind personally when they are on my jumpseat.)

And none of you hit on my all-time favorite phrase that must be universally targeted for elimination: the incessant and ridiculous use, in PA announcements in the cabin and especially in the terminal, of the phrase "once again". Count them next time you fly. It seems this phrase must be part of every sentence used on a PA system. Now that drives me absolutely bonkers, particularly when combined with another favorite phrase..."once again, this will be the last and final boarding call"....:ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

At start of my PA "Welcome aboard". At end of PA, "Once again, welcome aboard". You mean I have to change my after 30 years? :{

[Uplinker]

first, spend millions to install repeaters on ATC communications systems, so that everyone talking to that controller, regardless of frequency, can hear everyone else.

That should not cost millions. All that is needed is for the receive audio from each receiver in a group to be fed to every transmitter in a group, along with a PTT signal derived from the presence of audio from any receiver. We used to rig a similar facility in television outside broadcasting, especially on Golfs, so that everyone listening to the director could also hear everyone else calling in.

a two-step process for controllers to use with every transmission: first, don't move your lips before you push the button...second, after you push the button, move your lips....

Good advice for all of us, and to be fair, I find it is usually us pilots who are much worse than the controllers. An RT set will not transmit instantly; it will take a fraction of a second to check its frequency is correct and stable before transmitting, so if you start to talk at the same instant that you press the PTT, your first word will be clipped, leading to "station calling?" and having to repeat it all again or simply being ignored.



.

[Ian W]

The continentals annoy me at times with their "Speedbird 345 maintain FL180 on reaching, traffic 1000 above". If they're suggesting you reduce your rate of climb, which is fair enough and good airmanship nonetheless, then only the "traffic 1000 above your cleared level" is required. We've already confirmed the climb clearance so I'd like to ask the controllers about all these pilots that seem to have worried them by alt busting deliberately.

(Ian W have you tried to use CPDLC recently? There's no way it's replacing Radio Transmissions within the next ten years, twenty would also be a stretch.)

My actual statement was:
Much of this will disappear in a decade or so, hearing someone talk on the RT may become a relative rarity and only be in an urgent exception. RT could well be going the way of flare pistols and Aldis lamps. No - don't hold your breath - but the changes are already being made in that direction. Data link and graphical displays will be taking over.

I would agree that CPDLC will not be taking over totally from voice although FANS 2/B over VHF data link will be in more common use for normal en-route aircraft in Europe and the United States in around 10 years. However not long after that expect to see aircraft systems linking to ground systems and graphical displays rather than CPDLC stylized language displays. The first uses of ADS-C EPP are already being trialed,
If you are interested further see http://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/WorkingPapers/ANConfWP56.5.2.EN.pdf
As I said don't hold your breath but the way aircraft will be managed is changing and less and less will be done over RT.

[Mansfield]

I'll add two more thoughts, although they are not relevant to the original question. First, I am amazed at how many pilots I fly with who switch ATC frequencies and immediately transmit. It helps...immensely...to wait a few seconds and see who you may be stepping on. Second, when reading back a frequency, I always insert a brief pause where the decimal is... "128....25" or such. That seems to help catch errors by allowing the guy or gal on the other end to process what I just said.

Uplinker, you are confusing large amounts of money with complicated work. I'm sure it would be pretty simple, but I do contract work for the FAA, and I know that the actual process would require enormous expenditures of manpower because they can't do it any other way...as one friend used to quip during ARAC meetings, working with the FAA is akin to Paul Revere riding through Boston shouting, "a glacier is coming, a glacier is coming"... ;)

[piratepete]

PLEASE.
121.5 is "one two one decimal five" not GUARD
When briefing its the FMC not "box"
A go around is in fact a MISSED APPROACH procedure not the "MISSED"
In general, and I understand im a little old school having been an Aviator since 1974, but would many of you younger guys PLEASE use standard R/T, USA or other places ALL THE BLOODY SAME, and its getting worse.Oh and if you fly around Asia please remember IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO REPORT REACHING OR LEAVING A LEVEL unless specifically asked to do so! Pete.

[M-ONGO]

PLEASE.
121.5 is "one two one decimal five" not GUARD
When briefing its the FMC not "box"
A go around is in fact a MISSED APPROACH procedure not the "MISSED"
In general, and I understand im a little old school having been an Aviator since 1974, but would many of you younger guys PLEASE use standard R/T, USA or other places ALL THE BLOODY SAME, and its getting worse.Oh and if you fly around Asia please remember IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO REPORT REACHING OR LEAVING A LEVEL unless specifically asked to do so! Pete. That's a big 10-4 Pete. Now, I've gotten the field in my shield and i'm 'comin on in buddy with the dunlops dangled.

Over and out.

[Uplinker]

Uplinker, you are confusing large amounts of money with complicated work. I'm sure it would be pretty simple.........

No, I was talking about the actual technicallities of engineering what we used to call "talk through", which is actually fairly simple to achieve and would consist of a box of electronics costing a few hundreds. (I could make one for you if you want). You did not mention the FAA until just now.

I agree with your first point though; about waiting for a few seconds before transmitting on a new frequency. I have watched guys on the other side of the cockpit tread all over other people's transmissions and then get themselves in a right mess of "station calling?" "two stations" "say again" etc., and having to repeat themselves several times because they did not wait just a couple of seconds to check whether anybody was in the middle of a conversation.
.

[RAT 5]

then get themselves in a right mess of "station calling?" "two stations" "say again" etc.,

and then the realisation of being rude kicks in; followed by the first to the PTT "awfully sorry, after you." "No, that's OK. It was my fault, after you ol'boy." "No no I insist. You were the first. Go again." From a 3rd. "Oh do get on with it." ��

[Ian W]

No, I was talking about the actual technicallities of engineering what we used to call "talk through", which is actually fairly simple to achieve and would consist of a box of electronics costing a few hundreds. (I could make one for you if you want). You did not mention the FAA until just now.

I agree with your first point though; about waiting for a few seconds before transmitting on a new frequency. I have watched guys on the other side of the cockpit tread all over other people's transmissions and then get themselves in a right mess of "station calling?" "two stations" "say again" etc., and having to repeat themselves several times because they did not wait just a couple of seconds to check whether anybody was in the middle of a conversation.
.

Already been done, but nobody cares to implement it. We had a non-step-on system that would allow only the first received aircraft to continue transmitting the second aircraft would receive the first's transmission and not be able to hear their own. Controller could transmit over any aircraft transmission(s) so even 'stuck transmit' would not prevent controller transmitting to that aircraft. Aircraft could be transferred to the next controller and that would also transfer the aircraft RT with no change of frequency required.
Lots of things are possible with voice over data link, but there is no point implementing as voice comms are going to be considerably reduced in future. In many sectors RT workload is the limiting factor on traffic so expect to see changes in the next decades.

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

ATC is all taped is it not, so any transgressence by an airplane could be proven, and a prosecution or wrist slapping issued rather than clogging up the already busy airwaves with arse covering statements?
Uplinker, are you sure you wanted to write "transgressence"? 'Trangression' is a real word, that would work well in your sentence, but "transgressence"? ;)

[chaz88z]

I were wrong all these years saying: "XXXX coming UP !" :ok:

Ahahah! this thread would be to aviation what "grammar-nazis" are to the internet !

Of course we need radiotelephony standards, when busy or when cultural backgrounds (accents/knowledge of english) do not allow else.

But we are as well human-beings, not machines!

If time / workload / frequency occupation allows, going slightly off standards comms may as well improve synergy and implication of the group of human involved in our daily ops. Imo...

[oicur12.again]

"three five OH" gets up my nose every time.

[Sleeve Wing]

Let’s go back to the beginning as I’ve just found this thread………..I know, late again.

>>>Seriously, what is the origin of the phrase "coming down"? Am I the only one who has never seen a transponder more archaic than this one? <<<

Nope, I’ve used an OLDER one !
As an "old and bold”, I remember when the new fangled TXDR was a mere IFF Mk.1 (Identification Friend or Foe), way before it was released upon an unsuspecting civvy aviation world.
It’s NATO designation code was, in fact, PARROT; hence one ”SQUAWKED” High, Low or Emergency ! What ?? Yep, just three possible modes with this secondary radar could announce to the Controller where and who the hell we were.
Of course,with being so limited in it’s scope, it had to be rapidly updated by a more capable version. This ended up as the IFF Mk10. with (IIRC) 4096 modes, similar to the one we are using now and also showing how the system limitation can still be overloaded. The four digits were at that time used to identify Task Force, Ship, individual aircraft and even pilot ! Cunning gadget…….

Well, of course, the civvy aviation world thought that this was far too good a machine to be left solely with the military ! So, as so many airline crews were becoming unsure of where they were, it was a really good idea to let them play with it to stop them bumping into each other.

That’s when the rot set in and all kinds of silly R/T phrases were conjured up to establish some sort of verbal aerial hierarchy of the “haves” and “have nots” !
Yes, you’re right. Some did start with the military in a vain attempt to keep the R/T to the least/shortest possible transmission. Then, as with everything where there is a degree of apparent competition, somebody always tries to come up with something smarter. Ho hmm. :cool:

[oicur12.again]

"....attempt to keep the R/T to the least/shortest possible transmission"

I once asked a guy he would request "35 oh" instead of "35 zero" and his answer was that its quicker.

But which is quicker:

"reguest 35 zero"

or

"we would like to go on request for 35 oh if available"

I just kept my gob shut.

[Pizza Express]

ready on reaching ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[LeadSled]

first, spend millions to install repeaters on ATC communications systems, so that everyone talking to that controller, regardless of frequency, can hear everyone else.

For Gawwwds sake, are you serious? Or have I missed something?
Such "rebroadcast" is common in Australia, it is a nightmare (like a few other things CNS/ATM in Australia)
Tootle pip!!

[Uplinker]

Uplinker, are you sure you wanted to write "transgressence"? 'Trangression' is a real word, that would work well in your sentence, but "transgressence"?

Ha ha ! Fair enough, I stand corrected. Put it down to fatigue or stupidity on my part ! :ok:

(but I guess you meant transgression?)

[Uplinker]

ready on reaching ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

What is wrong with that? Q "Are you ready?" A "ready on reaching" = No not at the moment, but we will be ready by the time we reach the holding point eg, waiting for engine warm-up time to elapse. In other words, I am being honest with you but please don't bounce us down the queue of departures.

[Contact Approach]

Wow some of you guys desperately need a hobby...

[MarkerInbound]

"CLIMB AND MAINTAIN" used to be in the FAA AIM, when it was an AIRMAN's information manual.

It's still there.

MAINTAIN.

a. Concerning altitude/flight level, the term means to remain at the altitude/flight level specified. The phrase “climb and” or “descend and” normally precedes “maintain” and the altitude assignment; e.g., “descend and maintain 5,000.”

Just reinforces that you're not on a "Cruise" clearance. :cool:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Markerinbound make a very good point, he has touched on an area where US files a difference with ICAO Annex X, Vol. 2.
This, to an aircraft at FL350, the ATC instruction to " XYZ maintain 5000" is an unrestricted clearance, at pilots discretion as to TOD, to descend to 5000".
There are three phraseology differences, be aware.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

"XYZ maintain 5000"

far more logical than

"XYZ when ready, descend to 5000".

[Chris Scott]

In the early days of civil secondary-radar, when ATC had requested a flight to "squawk 2345," a common response once it had been selected was "...2345 coming down." The reliability and routine use of transponders later meant that, having acknowledged the new squawk, it was unnecessary for a crew to assure ATC that it was actually selected because they would soon tell you if it wasn't.

Hesitate to intrude into the conversation on R/T protocols because it's a long time since I retired but, in the 1980s and '90s, there were various efforts to try and eliminate the kind of R/T misunderstandings that - particularly when the reception of an ATC instruction was partially interrupted by transmission difficulties or being "stepped-on" - could lead to accidents like the one at Tenerife North in 1977. Thus "...line up and hold after the landing aircraft" was replaced by "...behind the landing Concorde line-up and wait," and the Dutch and Belgians would even add the word "behind" a second time at the end of the sentence.

They also addressed the ambiguity between the spoken words "to" and "two" in English. Thus "descend to seven zero", the sort of phrase commonly used by pilots in acknowledgment, was no longer acceptable, being replaced by "descend flight-level seven zero." For consistency, an instruction to climb or descend to an altitude would be delivered and acknowledged as, for example, "descend altitude five-thousand..."

Of course the U.S., as always, practises variations from ICAO protocols.

[RAT 5]

Of course the U.S., as always, practises variations from ICAO protocols.

Solution: move ICAO to USA, but that would bring tears to the Canadians, and they love to stick it in the eye of their neighbours. OTOH the yanks can speak as they want west of 10W, but once they enter our back yard they should obey the 'do as the romans' rule.

[Le Chevalier Noir]

Oohh gosh - so many disturbing calls.
"Have him on TCAS"
"Fully ready" Often made by those annoying brits..
"Reduce/increase" something without a value - I'm only an humble pilot, can't read your thoughts.
Generally speaking brits on a loco call sign seems to piss me off. They sounds so proud of their immense bank debt.
And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!

Allways smile when I check in and hear "Continue approach" Ohh noo, not the random, unexpected go around that I planned to execute for no apparent reason.

[Capn Bloggs]

And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!

What should have they said?

[galaxy flyer]

Funny, in the US, eons ago, i was taught to insert the code without reply. ATC can see the code change and, if incorrect, make a radio call. Theres no need to say anything, just put the code on.

I dont think "cruise clearances" are used, or have an equvalent, outside the FAA.
GF

[RAT 5]

"Reduce/increase" something without a value - I'm only an humble pilot, can't read your thoughts.

Spoken as if a reaction to an ATC msg.

Regarding non-working telepathy; in the sim the common call by a pilot, "we have a problem and need long finals." That begs 2 questions and transfers the decision to a non-qualified ground waller. Agh!.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from galaxy flyer:
"Funny, in the US, eons ago, i was taught to insert the code without reply. ATC can see the code change and, if incorrect, make a radio call. Theres no need to say anything, just put the code on."

Sure that will work fine if their screen was reasonably uncluttered, but otherwise they might not notice that the wrong a/c had picked up the call and changed codes. Also - and I'm way out of date on this - if a number of a/c are coming in from oceanic simultaneously and all squawking (say) 2000, the same error is likely to happen sooner or later. Think it's fair to say that ICAO R/T works on the principle that ATC instructions must be acknowledged, and the latter must include the a/c callsign. If everyone is in practice and on the ball the air time taken is minimal.

[Togue]

Same goes for "Aircraft XYZ, ident". There's no need to read back, just ident and the ATC will get back to you.

[Chesty Morgan]

Actually under CAP 413 squawk ident is a mandatory read back.

[Chris Scott]

Okay Togue,

So what happens if the wrong a/c squawks ident, and the crew of the right a/c nearby has missed the ATC request to do it?

[ShyTorque]

This is becoming a bit like motorway driving. Everyone has found their own interpretation of what the rules are.

If in doubt, read the rule book!

[LeadSled]

Chesty,
CAP 413 is almost straight Annex X, Vol. 2, the differences UK files with ICAO like the US differences, ( and unlike Australia, with lots) are very limited in number.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

and unlike Australia, with lots
Give some examples of Australia's lots of R/T differences, LedSled.

[ex_matelot]

BUSTER & FLASH are military brevity codewords.

"Buster 180" would mean fly safety / escape heading 180 at best possible speed.
"Flash Flash Flash" would precede a message indicating that it's a priority message.

Used in the Royal navy / NATO.

[oggers]

So what happens if the wrong a/c squawks ident, and the crew of the right a/c nearby has missed the ATC request to do it?

..then ATC will see that the wrong a/c is identing because it will be the wrong code? Whilst it is mandatory in blighty in the US it is not mandatory to read back transponder instructions in airborne comms:

"Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification." FAA AIM.

I was taught - when in the US - to simply go ahead and set the code and ident rather than wasting a call reading back something that ATC are about to verify on their screen anyway. Nonetheless it seems that many - perhaps even most - pilots in the US do readback.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from oggers:
..then ATC will see that the wrong a/c is identing because it will be the wrong code? Whilst it is mandatory in blighty in the US it is not mandatory to read back the code in airborne comms:
"Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification." FAA AIM.

That seems fine if a code has been established earlier. During initial assignment, however, perhaps when coasting in from Oceanic and on the edge of VHF reception (see my previous post (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/581433-squawk-code-coming-down-5.html#post9451547)), the ATC instruction to squawk a given code could be picked up by the wrong crew. The absence of a callsign in their acknowledgment would hide the error. Unless I'm missing something, squawking ident would not reveal the problem.

[oggers]

perhaps when coasting in from Oceanic and on the edge of VHF reception (see my previous post), the ATC instruction to squawk a given code could be picked up by the wrong crew

Yes definitely better to readback then.

[Uplinker]

And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!

what should they have said?

I don't speak German, but I think their sentence construction is 'backwards' compared to English?

So when they respond to an ATC clearance, they sound as though they are giving a command rather than a read-back, because they put their call sign first instead of last as CAP 413 dictates.

Any German speakers who could verify this?

[Jwscud]

Not sure about the German syntax, but the Lufty stubbornness over doing it "their way" is not ideal. Their way of reading back instructions contributed to a nasty airprox over Scotland a few years back.

[Check Airman]

I was taught - when in the US - to simply go ahead and set the code and ident rather than wasting a call reading back something that ATC are about to verify on their screen anyway. Nonetheless it seems that many - perhaps even most - pilots in the US do readback.

You were taught incorrectly, or your information is out of date.

AIM 4-1-20

d. Transponder IDENT Feature

1. The transponder must be operated only as specified by ATC. Activate the “IDENT” feature only upon request of the ATC controller.

[LeadSled]

Give some examples of Australia's lots of R/T differences, LedSled.

Bloggsy,
Badly phrased on my part, I was referring to the Australian propensity for "difference", usually for difference sake. We do not even have an accurate count on ICAO differences recognized and filed, somewhere between 1600 and 2200, let alone unrecognized differences.

Indeed, there is a really good reason why there is an absence of differences in this area, and it goes to the political decision of the Minister of the day, an easy decision, as the position papers supporting standardization with ICAO Annex X, Vol. 2 (after some really serious near hits cause by "unique" Australian usage of the day) from Qantas, Ansett, AOPA, AIPA and ASAC put a unified position. And a very sensible CASA DAS, Leroy Keith, was in full support, as was the CASA/PAP Review team.

The position papers were virtually identical, mostly only the covering letter from each proponent was different.This was hardly surprising, as the AIPA person wrote the drafts for all of the above.

There was the usual and forecast objection from AFAP, which was ignored, some objections from RAPAC/NAPAC, which were rejected, and some more muted objection from Civilair.

Unusually, and thankfully, despite some attempts that have been "headed off at the pass", ICAO compliance has been maintained.

Here endeth the history lesson.
Tootle pip!!