Radio standard?

[gerardflyagain]

Hi

I used to take lessons with Denham Aerodrome, and they provided a short radio telephony guide. I'm not able to fly any more now but I would like to fly sims and still practice real world things. Can anyone explain why the standard used for communication seems different in PilotEdge (A virtual ATC) service please? Or maybe it isn't and I'm missing something.

Here are extracts from the Denham guide (attached) and from PilotEdge (https://www.pilotedge.net/pages/first-flight) for landing.

PilotEdge: “San Luis tower, Cessna 123AB 6 miles south, landing with [atis code]”
Denham: "G-XX FINAL"

Is it possible there is a difference for the Denham guide because it is just a local circuit? Or difference because it's UK and PilotEdge is US?

Thanks

[chevvron]

UK phraseology differs in many respects from US phraseology; take a look at CAP 413 for the UK version.

[BackPacker]

I have not reviewed those guides, but those calls are from different parts of the circuit.

The PilotEdge call is the initial call when somebody is fairly far away and wants to establish contact with the tower. So they pass information with full callsign, their location, intentions and the ATIS code. Tower can then issue them instructions for joining the circuit. A possible response could be "proceed to XXX, expect right hand circuit runway 24, descend 1000"

The Denham call is the last call in the sequence. It's there to inform the tower (or other traffic in case of A/G or AFIS) that the aircraft is now established on final. Since there was previous contact already, we're now using abbreviated callsigns, and since we have already established that we're talking to the tower, there's no need to address them specifically anymore. The normal response would be "G-XX cleared to land 24".

[Jan Olieslagers]

I rather think there is a difference between being on final and being six miles away. Besides, a pilot reporting "landing" while still so distant might well be on straight in, otherwise they'd say "approaching" so it might well be an IFR flight.

That said: radio phraseology is under ICAO normalisation, but the US have always kept a distance from those standards. As already stated above.

[gerardflyagain]

Great, thanks all!

[Whopity]

PilotEdge: “San Luis tower, Cessna 123AB 6 miles south, landing with [atis code]” The pilot does not tell ATC he is landing. If he receives a clearance to land, then he should read it back. This sounds like a good example of media garbage. Like TV cops who say "ETA 3 minutes" which is an ET not an ETA.

The UK uses CAP 413 the Radio Telephony Manual, a book amended over the years and now in its 22nd edition.
The basis of the Denham guide.

ICAO copied CAP413 and produced ICAO Doc 9432 but it has never been amended and differs considerably.

The US has always considers that as it speaks "English" everyone will understand you and doesn't need any manuals.

Some years ago there was an accident at Northholt where an aircraft finished up on the A40. At the enquiry they discovered that there were no less that 5 different versions of RT phraseology in use in the UK.

CAP 413 (UK Civil Phraseology)
ICAO Doc 9432 (ICAO Civil Phraseology)
JSP318 (UK Military)
NATO
NATO (Europe)

[MarkerInbound]

The pilot does not tell ATC he is landing. If he receives a clearance to land, then he should read it back.

Actually over here that is what the aircraft would say. They are advising the tower they are inbound for landing. I would add "inbound" to clarify I'm not just transiting their airspace. Otherwise how does the tower know they're not "inbound for touch and go" or "inbound for low approach?"

[chevvron]

Actually over here that is what the aircraft would say. They are advising the tower they are inbound for landing. I would add "inbound" to clarify I'm not just transiting their airspace. Otherwise how does the tower know they're not "inbound for touch and go" or "inbound for low approach?"

Err at the risk of 'thread creep', because in the UK they're supposed to notify their intentions in advance, what's known in the UK as booking 'PPR'.

[chevvron]

The pilot does not tell ATC he is landing. If he receives a clearance to land, then he should read it back. This sounds like a good example of media garbage. Like TV cops who say "ETA 3 minutes" which is an ET not an ETA.

The UK uses CAP 413 the Radio Telephony Manual, a book amended over the years and now in its 22nd edition.
The basis of the Denham guide.

ICAO copied CAP413 and produced ICAO Doc 9432 but it has never been amended and differs considerably.

The US has always considers that as it speaks "English" everyone will understand you and doesn't need any manuals.

Some years ago there was an accident at Northholt where an aircraft finished up on the A40. At the enquiry they discovered that there were no less that 5 different versions of RT phraseology in use in the UK.

CAP 413 (UK Civil Phraseology)
ICAO Doc 9432 (ICAO Civil Phraseology)
JSP318 (UK Military)
NATO
NATO (Europe)
Only one phraseology 'bible' in the UK now; CAP 413 is applicable to both civil and military operations and contains additional phraseology only applicable to military aircraft operations eg use of braking parachutes and arrestor gear.

[MarkerInbound]

Err at the risk of 'thread creep', because in the UK they're supposed to notify their intentions in advance, what's known in the UK as booking 'PPR'.

Over here there's no PPR unless it's a military field or Washington Reagan so for a VFR flight it is quite likely ATC's first contact with an aircraft would be a call just outside the class D saying we're coming in. Class C and B would most likely going through approach first so the tower would know they're coming and their intentions. To get back on the thread the PilotEdge guide probably isn't a good guide for UK operations, just as the Denham guide phraseology would have folks scratching their heads here.

[VFR-Seek and Destroy]

The normal response would be "G-XX cleared to land 24".

A good number of pilots in the UK believe that would be the normal response, however.....

CAP 413

"4.36 In addition, any instruction to use a runway shall include the designator of the runway. When passing the clearance, the runway designator should be stated first, i.e. (Callsign) runway 06, cleared for take-off. See also 10.15."

.........

"4.52

✈️ G-CD, Final
�� G-CD, runway 34 cleared to land surface wind 270 7
✈️ Runway 34 cleared to land, G-CD"

But to muddy the waters

"4.18 ....This is to avoid any misunderstanding in the granting or acknowledgement of take-off clearances (and indeed any instruction to use the runway i.e. Line-up) and the serious consequences that could result. In addition, any instruction to use a runway shall include the designator of the runway. When passing the clearance, the runway designator should be stated first, i.e. (Callsign) Runway 06, cleared for take-off."

There is numerous examples in CAP 413 of

"�� G-CD, line up runway xx"

[BackPacker]

But to muddy the waters

I agree that the order of the elements of the message is not always consistent or logical. In a "cleared to land" message, there's only few elements so who cares, but in a "departure clearance" message, it still amazes me that the order is NOT chronological. I think the official phrase would be "G-XX Mike departure 1000 feet, wind 250 at 8, cleared take-off 24", while a more chronological order would be "cleared take-off 24, Mike departure 1000 feet, wind 250 at 8".

I don't know if it's correct or not, but I try to visualise the whole departure and then read it back in chronological order. "Cleared take-off 24 with a Mike departure 1000 feet, G-XX". Works for me.

[chevvron]

I agree that the order of the elements of the message is not always consistent or logical. In a "cleared to land" message, there's only few elements so who cares, but in a "departure clearance" message, it still amazes me that the order is NOT chronological. I think the official phrase would be "G-XX Mike departure 1000 feet, wind 250 at 8, cleared take-off 24", while a more chronological order would be "cleared take-off 24, Mike departure 1000 feet, wind 250 at 8".

I don't know if it's correct or not, but I try to visualise the whole departure and then read it back in chronological order. "Cleared take-off 24 with a Mike departure 1000 feet, G-XX". Works for me.
The departure procedure (Mike departure 1000ft) should be passed with either start (if applicable) ot taxy clearance; to pass it with takeoff clearance is unprofessional as it loads the crew with too much information at once. Even if it is necessary to pass an amendment to the departure, it should be passed separately and acknowledged by the crew before takeoff clearance is given.

[BackPacker]

As far as IFR is concerned, I agree. In this case the Rotterdam "Mike" departure is a VFR departure that was filed in the flightplan, confirmed with Delivery, and then once again confirmed with Tower. So it's not really a surprise at this stage, just confirmation.

[Whopity]

Only one phraseology 'bible' in the UK now; CAP 413 Unfortunately thats not true, the EASA Communications Exam is based upon the ICAO RT procedures given in ICAO Doc 9432, so the FRTOL practical test is the only check of a commercial pilot's knowledge of CAP 413 and UK procedures!

[TheOddOne]

..and even if it weren't, there are several things that have changed since 2014, the last time the exam was updated.
Thread creep: where are the new exams? I thought 'industry' was being invited to write some more sensible ones.
TOO

[Whopity]

2014, the last time the exam was updated Sadly thoese exams are largely worthless whether in or out of date leaving it to the RTF Examiner to see if the candidate has any hope of passing before beginning the test. Some examiners are just chatting to candidates over the table and signing them up. No wonder RT never improves.