Radio/ATC etiquette and professionalism

[jasonrf]

Random topic up for discussion or your views would be appreciated

What do you think makes the airline industry have amazing radio etiquette and professionalism?

Would it be the training provided? The professionalism/ideology held in aviation? Comes down to the person?

And do you think if you aren't professional on the 2-way how can it be instilled into a person?


Thank you

[parishiltons]

Random topic up for discussion or your views would be appreciated

What do you think makes the airline industry have amazing radio etiquette and professionalism?

Would it be the training provided? The professionalism/ideology held in aviation? Comes down to the person?

And do you think if you aren't professional on the 2-way how can it be instilled into a person?


Thank you
Clearly you're not referring to practice in the USA.

More seriously, it's safety. Using ICAO standard phraseology gives a better chance of everyone understanding each other, including people who use English as a second or professional language.

Also with the increasing use of CPDLC, voice comms are gradually reducing and most datalink messages are preformatted to ICAO standard, with limited freetext.

[maggot]

Behind, line up behind, behind.

Checked.

[Gne]

Clearly you're not referring to practice in the USA.

More seriously, it's safety. Using ICAO standard phraseology gives a better chance of everyone understanding each other, including people who use English as a second or professional language.

Also with the increasing use of CPDLC, voice comms are gradually reducing and most datalink messages are preformatted to ICAO standard, with limited freetext.
When we were working on the initial message sets for CPDLC (South Pacific FANS1 1993-96) the most exciting part was that, at last, there would be a standard set of phraseology that could not be "tailored" for personal wishes. Of the four airlines involved (NZ, UA, QF and CX) guess which one voiced concern the the free text option was difficult to access.

Gne

[CaptCloudbuster]

What do you think makes the airline industry have amazing radio etiquette and professionalism?

What’s with all the East Coast clowns making sheep noises constantly on 121.5?

[Clare Prop]

I hear some pretty bad RT, one of my pet hates is "Affirmative" and people broadcasting in the third person "ABC lines up" etc


It's not difficult to learn and all in the AIP.

[SixDemonBag]

Meow.

:ugh:

[TimmyTee]

VIA THE STAR DAMNIT

[BraceBrace]

Comes down to the person?

People are copycats. If only one generation starts to be "correct", the next generation will follow. So as long as American instructors are "coming down" with the transponder and "howzdaride-ing", American students will copy the cool instructors and captains without hesitating. He's cool, he's doing it, I'm doing it, now I'm cool as well.

Doesn't take out the personality psychology: some people just like standards less than others.

Not meaning to bash on the American culture specifically by the way, every culture has their "I'm part of the gang"-slang.

[Equivocal]

Many years ago I used to do ATC. I will admit to being a bit 'relaxed' on the radio on occasions when I knew it would not cause any problems for anyone and was equally happy if those on the other end of comms were similarly relaxed at times. Life without a little bit of variation or fun can be decidedly dull.

However, when it got busy, there were non-native speakers on frequency or someone had a problem, I went 100% standard phraseology as did the vast majority of others on frequency. For me, it's a matter of professionalism - knowing when it has to be done right....and doing it right. Some may differ and believe that it should be done right all the time, and I really couldn't argue with that position. But not recognising when it need to be done right, or simply never doing it right, is unprofessional.

BraceBrace has it correct when it comes to monkey see, monkey do, and if someone never learns what is correct in the first place, they will never be able to demonstrate professionalism when it is absolutely necessary.

[Chronic Snoozer]

It's not difficult to learn and all in the AIP.

Even the sheep noises?

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

What do you think makes the airline industry have amazing radio etiquette and professionalism?

Would it be the training provided? The professionalism/ideology held in aviation? Comes down to the person?

Firstly, professional flyers will (should!) have had formal training and testing, so that is the foundation. Secondly, I believe, it is because there is an international, standardised phraseology and structure. Simultaneous two-way conversations aren't possible, so practicality (and etiquette?) necessitates one transmission needs to clearly finish before the other half of the conversation can respond.

As has already been hinted at here, a notable number of the radio users of one nation don't seem to be capable of sticking to standard phraseology or brevity. They remind me of people hunched over a bar counter, yapping excessively and mindlessly. Such verbiage is often replete with truncated phrases and colloquialisms, that often need effort to decipher, and this can certainly hamper those whose first languge is not English!

Some of the ATCOs of the same nation also appear to revel in trying to talk at the speed of light, creating a difficult time for those on the receiving end of the transmissions. Once again, it creates an issue for many, and a real problem for second-language aviators.

I accept that there will be occasions when a situation demands going outside the standard phraseology, perhaps in an effort to clarify intent behind an instruction, or resolving a particularly unusual situation. Sometimes a measured, calm, conversational, plain English sentence or two can provide comfort to someone in peril. But the majority of transmissions should really use ICAO standard words, phrases and structure, so that all on the frequency can modify their situational awareness, as required.

I won't get started on another nation that appears to believe that it's citizens can dispense with waiting their turn, continually butting in to transmissions already in progress.

[cLeArIcE]

Many years ago I used to do ATC. I will admit to being a bit 'relaxed' on the radio on occasions when I knew it would not cause any problems for anyone and was equally happy if those on the other end of comms were similarly relaxed at times. Life without a little bit of variation or fun can be decidedly dull.

However, when it got busy, there were non-native speakers on frequency or someone had a problem, I went 100% standard phraseology as did the vast majority of others on frequency. For me, it's a matter of professionalism - knowing when it has to be done right....and doing it right. Some may differ and believe that it should be done right all the time, and I really couldn't argue with that position. But not recognising when it need to be done right, or simply never doing it right, is unprofessional.

BraceBrace has it correct when it comes to monkey see, monkey do, and if someone never learns what is correct in the first place, they will never be able to demonstrate professionalism when it is absolutely necessary.
Now now.... Surely you're not suggesting that we all apply a bit of commen sense to our daily operations.... and suggesting that at times it's okay to be relaxed , enjoy our work but, (obviously) there are times when that's not appropriate???
Sir (mam)..? umm .. There is nothing written in my space shuttle launch manual for what you describe.

[inbalance]

What do you think makes the airline industry have amazing radio etiquette and professionalism?
Not all of them.
Most of the guard police are airline pilots.
That behavior is unprofessional and Superfluous

[Rick2023]

“Roll the trucks”. What the actual phuck? Anytime I hear some moron say that during an emergency I think “what kind of airline industry allows that sort of clown culture to exist?”

‘Murica. ‘Nuff said yanks.

[KRviator]

Random topic up for discussion or your views would be appreciated

What do you think makes the airline industry have amazing radio etiquette and professionalism?

Would it be the training provided? The professionalism/ideology held in aviation? Comes down to the person?

And do you think if you aren't professional on the 2-way how can it be instilled into a person?


Thank youI'd say the ongoing sim checks and standardisation. Try some of the truckie UHF banter on a sim check and see how well you do. If you wouldn't do it in the box, you won't do it on the line. Usually. Pilots are usually fairly sensible and safe operators by their nature, and when told to do something 'for safety reasons' (ie standardised radio phrases and the like), readily accept that as part of their SOP's.

That being said, there is a place for a 'relaxed but not unsafe' culture on the radio where situations permit, but it needs to be tempered with caution, in my experience. Those ATC'ers are usually a damn sight faster-thinking than yours truly, so it's pretty hard to get one over on 'em if you're gonna have a lark, but simple politeness "BN CTR, good morning Alpha Bravo Charlie maintaining FL170" costs nothing except an extra second of airtime, even though it's not in the AIP. "Center on 123.75, 'ave a good one, g'day" likewise. "BN CTR Alpha Bravo Charlie request...." again, not strictly in accordance with the AIP, but it lets the ACTO get ready for a 'non-standard' phrase about to come their way and can avoid you having to repeat it, and if your request is granted, a thank you with your acknowledgement is deserved. Again, not per the AIP, but it takes all of 1 second and lets the lass/lad at the other end know you're appreciative of their efforts.

The concern I have is if they're not professional enough on the radio, what else in their role aren't they taking seriously - and how do you police it? The ATCO's don't have the time to 'dob in' every unprofessional weekend warrior on the radio, and even in a two-crew operation, no one wants to be 'that person' who dobs in their fellow crewmember.

[C441]

Of the four airlines involved (NZ, UA, QF and CX) guess which one voiced concern the the free text option was difficult to access.
Sometimes the text option can be handy….. The default option only gives you answers relevant to the question.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1105/img_1813_8166e8330f2ca965e31d3c98288c3d544a0af90b.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x962/img_1814_6111d88e0c2d14a41d27cb455252446e8583e2d0.jpg

[NGsim]

“United 941, Qantas 429 on guard…..”
”You’re on guard” 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[ACMS]

“United 941, Qantas 429 on guard…..”
”You’re on guard” 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️


Ummmm there’s a reason it’s said that way and if you got down off your high horse you’d see it.


pssst…we can me monitoring 3 VHF frequencies at once and it’s handy to know which one they are calling on isn’t it :D

[ACMS]

What is it about the NSW and QLD areas with all the stupid Cat and Sheep calls on 121.5………sounds like a turboprop aircraft radio to me…….come on grow up people…….

apologies this has been covered above but it really pisses me off the stupidity and childishness of some “professional Pilots”

Stop it, you know who you are.

[Capt Fathom]

Ummmm there’s a reason it’s said that way and if you got down off your high horse you’d see it.

I think you missed it ACMS!

[ACMS]

The way I read it he was poking fun at the QF guy for transmitting on guard and saying “on guard”, he was implying it wasn’t a needed comment hence he put the slapping face emoji in there……..
I don’t agree with his assessment and I’ve stated why.

he is being a smart ass basically.

[NGsim]

Well you read it very very wrong.

[Una Due Tfc]

Best bit of advice I got from my on the job instructor when doing my initial ATCO training was "the busier the sector, the slower you need to speak. It reduces repeats/corrections, and gives you time to think".

[Rick2023]

Also sticking the microphone inside your throat or up against your lips may feel comforting but it just results in comms that are overloaded with interference and basically unintelligible.

Ever seen someone push the mic closer to their mouth and exasperatedly exhort their precious words even more badly?

That's hhwwhaaat I'm talking about.

[ACMS]

Well you read it very very wrong.

Well then you need to express yourself a little better I’d say.

[NGsim]

Well then you need to express yourself a little better I’d say.

Cpt. Fathom seemed to pick up what I was saying with relative ease.
But correct, it’s all me good sir……

[421dog]

Just flew across the central third of the US today (about 930 mi) with a bit of weather diversion) on a single leg, and heard what sounded like the same guy say “On guard” three times while I was monitoring 121.5 when I wasn’t doing anything else over the 3.5 hr flight.
Radio works fine, never heard any other Guard transmissions, center didn’t seem to be looking for anybody.
(Truly, the biggest reason I monitor [other than regs] it is to help center find the RJ’s that miss their handoffs)

Should we consider the term “Radio Karens”?

[421dog]

Parenthetically,
i would Postulate that “Position and Hold”

(After stating “ready for takeoff”)
is more descriptive than “Line up and Wait” (which might indicate to the uninitiated to do something else before getting out on the runway as instructed)

[Captain Dart]

Got called by an Asian Air Defence controller in a reasonably sensitive area on Guard one day. I started to respond with position and details (all legit). Could hardly get a further word in edgeways after the Guard Police erupted 🙄.

[ChrisJ800]

Always used to recognise Niki Lauda when he flew into Sydney...

[Lead Balloon]

Parenthetically,
i would Postulate that “Position and Hold”

(After stating “ready for takeoff”)
is more descriptive than “Line up and Wait” (which might indicate to the uninitiated to do something else before getting out on the runway as instructed)I thought the FAA changed from "Position and Hold" to "Line up and Wait" over a decade ago because the former phraseology was causing confusion. For my part, "Line up and Wait" makes a lot more sense than "Position and Hold".

[421dog]

I thought the FAA changed from "Position and Hold" to "Line up and Wait" over a decade ago because the former phraseology was causing confusion. For my part, "Line up and Wait" makes a lot more sense than "Position and Hold".

They did, presumably because of the confusion it was causing the non-FAA pilots who were coming over and flying in our airspace 😎

They also took away our succinct flight plan forms (for domestic use) and imposed universal ICAO idiocy about the same time.

[Lead Balloon]

I'm not saying ICAO is perfect - far from it - but...

When we analyse basic grammar, the words "position" and "hold" are capable of a variety of meanings - they can be nouns and verbs - but the words "line up" and "wait" have fewer meanings. English-speaking countries are generally the worst at it, these days.

[421dog]

I'm not saying ICAO is perfect - far from it - but...

When we analyse basic grammar, the words "position" and "hold" are capable of a variety of meanings - they can be nouns and verbs - but the words "line up" and "wait" have fewer meanings. English-speaking countries are generally the worst at it, these days.

yep.
But we have more ops than the rest of you guys combined, and somehow “english” ended up as the international language of aviation, and everybody wants to fly in our airspace, so we’ll do our best to accommodate you.

[Lead Balloon]

This is where people from English-speaking countries would say: "I couldn't care less", because the rules about aviation air-to-air- phraseology turn out to be what they happen to be from time to time and we'll all just get on with complying with them.

But in the good ol' USA, I'm apparently supposed to say: "I could care less", in order to convey my intention that I couldn't care less. Go figure.

[Eric T Cartman]

Potential for error if used casually ?
Position and hold > Position and roll
Line up and hold > Line up and roll
Line up and wait > Line up zero eight

[Mogwi]

One of the worst cases of R/T indiscipline I heard was one dark and busy night at JFK when the ground controller shouted
“OK, EVRYBODDYSHADDUP!!!!!!”
Said it all really.

Mog

[Katamarino]

Well then you need to express yourself a little better I’d say.

I think the problem is with you. What he wrote was perfectly clear.

[ehwatezedoing]

yep.
But we have more ops than the rest of you guys combined, and somehow “english” ended up as the international language of aviation, and everybody wants to fly in our airspace, so we’ll do our best to accommodate you.
Nah! The other way around, it's the rest of the world who is trying to accommodate you by using English as international language :p

[Xeptu]

One of my personal favourites was when a German pilot was requesting an airways clearance on the ground in German. The German controller came back with "in English please" the pilot replied in English with "I am German, in a German aircraft in Germany, why would I speak English". A voice in breaks into the conversation and says, " because ya lost the war mate"

[Rataxes]

“United 941, Qantas 429 on guard…..”
”You’re on guard” 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
Well technically you're both wrong. "Guard" is a function not a frequency. The frequency to which you're probably referring is known as the International Distress Frequency, Aircraft Emergency Frequency, and so on. Only in slang is 121.5 known as "guard" which you'd be interested to know as this thread is about precision and clarity and the avoidance of slang. The term has become bastardised over the years to its current form.

"Guard" is a function of some transceivers wherein the set has transceiver capability ("Manual") on one frequency and also receiver-only ("Guard") on a second frequency, generally intended to be an emergency frequency such as 121.5 or 243.0. This second frequency is "guarded" in case someone is in distress and transmitting on it and the function is called Guard.

Here's an old set with a guard selection:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/447x393/uhf_406451569fc0444f547adb5054f9d29f0fe089cf.png

[Lead Balloon]

Yes: The guard 'function' allowed you to monitor the guard frequency while transmitting and receiving on a different frequency. Just note that when the controller of the system you posted was set to the 'GUARD' position, the system transmitted and received only one frequency (https://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TM-55-1510-220-10/css/TM-55-1510-220-10_118.htm): 243MHz.

[Rataxes]

This is where people from English-speaking countries would say: "I couldn't care less", because the rules about aviation air-to-air- phraseology turn out to be what they happen to be from time to time and we'll all just get on with complying with them.

But in the good ol' USA, I'm apparently supposed to say: "I could care less", in order to convey my intention that I couldn't care less. Go figure.
It's a cultural thing. We must try to be accepting of other cultures and a little less xenophobic. "I could care less" is an American example of something we refer to as "sarcasm." The phrase is best understood in the spoken form while in the written form will tend to confuse the less discerning reader.

[Rataxes]

Yes: The guard 'function' allowed you to monitor the guard frequency while transmitting and receiving on a different frequency. Just note that when the controller of the system you posted was set to 'guard', the system transmitted and received only one frequency (https://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TM-55-1510-220-10/css/TM-55-1510-220-10_118.htm): 243MHz.
Yes, I couldn't find an image of the set I was referring to but hopefully the image above shows the concept of the guard function for the purpose of the discussion - the original meaning of "guard" versus today's slang and mis-used terminology.

[Lead Balloon]

Yeah nah. Americans don't 'do' sarcasm very well. I subscribe to these theories (https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-does-i-could-care-less-mean.htm).

[Lead Balloon]

Yes, I couldn't find an image of the set I was referring to but hopefully the image above shows the concept of the guard function for the purpose of the discussion - the original meaning of "guard" versus today's slang and mis-used terminology.
The picture actually confuses the point you're trying to make, because it includes a selector switch with a "GUARD" position.

The guard 'function' to which you referred is the consequence of a separate, dedicated receiver tuned to the distress frequency. For example, the transceiver in the system which includes the controller of which you posted a picture - the AN/ARC164 - there is a separate, dedicated receiver tuned to 243MHz. You will hear transmissions on 243MHz in that system, irrespective of whether the function switch is set to "MANUAL" or "PRESET" or "GUARD". That separate receiver is 'guarding' the distress frequency, full time. Switching that controller to "GUARD" means the 'main' transceiver will then transmit and receive on 243MHz.

[megan]

"Guard" is a function not a frequencyIt is both, VHF 121.5, UHF 243, the military sets I'm familiar with the guard frequency was not one you could change, the frequencies have been ever thus, LB has explained the usage well.

[parishiltons]

Parenthetically,
i would Postulate that “Position and Hold”

(After stating “ready for takeoff”)
is more descriptive than “Line up and Wait” (which might indicate to the uninitiated to do something else before getting out on the runway as instructed)
P&H reads as meaningless. Position what? and where?. Line up means exactly that. 'Hold' is phraseology instruction for entering a holding pattern - saying that to an ESL pilot on a runway is potentially really confusing.

The 'Ready' call is just "Ready". Otherwise what else would you be ready for.

This is why we have ICAO standard phraseologies. To avoid local colloquialisms.

[parishiltons]

yep.
But we have more ops than the rest of you guys combined, and somehow “english” ended up as the international language of aviation, and everybody wants to fly in our airspace, so we’ll do our best to accommodate you.
I think that the USA was one of the primary initiators of everything ICAO. Isn't it called the Chicago Convention?

[Chronic Snoozer]

"Guard" is a function of some transceivers wherein the set has transceiver capability ("Manual") on one frequency and also receiver-only ("Guard") on a second frequency, generally intended to be an emergency frequency such as 121.5 or 243.0. :

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/447x393/uhf_406451569fc0444f547adb5054f9d29f0fe089cf.png

What LB said. The functionality of which you speak is provided by selecting BOTH on the left switch. (Main and Guard receiver).

This is an amusing tale about the misuse of "Guard". Scarcely believable.

Chatter on Guard (https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30865-indigo-pilots-investigated-for-emergency-frequency-misuse)

[Fluke]

I think flying the North Atlantic prior to FANS and RVSM sharpened my R/T. Flew with many nationalities and cockpit personalities and our calls to Shanwick, Gander, New York had to be timely and precise. Most airlines provided detailed instructions and I think the position report was the same structure as the page 2 on the FMS.
These days I am taken back by the basic misunderstanding of many supposed level 6 English speakers ( mostly ex military Commanders who have promoted rapidly from domestic operations without international experience ). Failing to climb/descend to a level before crossing a Longitude when requested is often excused as confusing English. WTF
These issues are not fixed in simulators and flight operations debriefings. They try to get about the problem with SOP's like not accepting clearances without 2 people on flight deck or rostering special F/O's to take care of the radio.
Anyway I am rambling. While I am all for flexible R/T ( time and place), polite, clear and correct R/T makes me feel safer in the air.

[Mogwi]

To be picky ….. Ready for take-off also went out of the window many years ago and was replaced with “Ready for departure”. That way, the information call could not be confused with a take-off clearance.

Mog

[Stranraer]

I hear some pretty bad RT, one of my pet hates is "Affirmative" ...
It's not difficult to learn and all in the AIP.

I presume you hate it because it is not the correct terminology in your part of the world:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1026x870/affirm_8329dd0c39cbadc7059bbf7f66f5b2a10da7d44d.jpg

I wouldn't classify it as "pretty bad RT" - it's understandable and in some parts of the world - mine for example :) - it's standard:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1426x566/affirmative_09c69a5151edf3d459393c9638f85e59172ad1f7.jpg


Does anyone know why "AFFIRM" was adopted in some countries? Was it possibly to avoid confusing "AFFIRMATIVE" with "NEGATIVE"?

I must say I always find this response amusing: "Yes, affirmative."

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

:
Does anyone know why "AFFIRM" was adopted in some countries? Was it possibly to avoid confusing "AFFIRMATIVE" with "NEGATIVE"?

Exactly that...stops the "punchy" :ugh: clipped "...ative" reply.

[Lead Balloon]

Back in the good ol’ days, there was discipline around correct pronunciation as well as the correct terminology. Both contribute to clarity and, therefore, safety.

A topical example: The correct pronunciation of “affirm” in aeronautical comms is AY-firm, not afferrm, with emphasis on the “AY”. (We would have kept AY-firmative if we’d maintained discipline of pronunciation.)

[43Inches]

They try to get about the problem with SOP's like not accepting clearances without 2 people on flight deck or rostering special F/O's to take care of the radio.

Requiring two crew on an airliner to receive and acknowledge a clearance is pretty much a SOP in all modern airlines now, as well as writing it down. Which is why you hear a lot on the radio "for crew coordination say again XXX" as one of them probably wrote down something different to the other or didn't set the altitude on receipt.

As for more accomplished speaking FOs and the such, it happens, however crews on international flights now have captains that were those FOs and so on, so it's far less of an issue. They still speak local lingo when in country at non international ports, so when outside the country they just need somebody who can reliably speak on the radio and translate.

As for modern radio phraseology, it's more like a Victorian era English teacher has taken over writing and it's waffle that adds nothing to safety. "ABC Line-up behind the Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah-Blaaaaah Airlines Boeing 747 Behind and wait, number two to a BLah-Blah-BLAH-BLAAAH Airlines 737 departing on the crossing runway" No mention of runway you are cleared to enter or such, giving overly descriptive terms for traffic at night, so that a similar callsign on the other runway reads back at the same time and you both line up. By the time you sort out the radio mess with further long winded waffle you've missed several arrival and departure slots.

Why do I have to say "climbing TO" or "descending TO". I mean its just unwarranted waffle. If you want to achieve better radio efficiency stick to the main words, it's not a Shakespeare recital. I would have the call as just "ABC Climb Level 320" - "Climbing Level 220 ABC". Even adding "flight" is really not required, it adds no more clarity and lengthens the call.

[PiperCameron]

Why do I have to say "climbing TO" or "descending TO". I mean its just unwarranted waffle. If you want to achieve better radio efficiency stick to the main words, it's not a Shakespeare recital. I would have the call as just "ABC Climb Level 320" - "Climbing Level 220 ABC". Even adding "flight" is really not required, it adds no more clarity and lengthens the call.

Agree 100%.

I can't say I've ever heard anyone without an examiner sitting alongside say "climbing TO" or "descending TO" (and suggest it's a great way to inform ATC you're under instruction without actually saying so! :O ). Many calls abbreviated in practice, including "..passing 6000, climbing 8000" and "..base 03 full stop" still convey significant meaning on a busy frequency without perhaps being as precise as the AIP would like.

[parishiltons]

I presume you hate it because it is not the correct terminology in your part of the world:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1026x870/affirm_8329dd0c39cbadc7059bbf7f66f5b2a10da7d44d.jpg

I wouldn't classify it as "pretty bad RT" - it's understandable and in some parts of the world - mine for example :) - it's standard:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1426x566/affirmative_09c69a5151edf3d459393c9638f85e59172ad1f7.jpg


Does anyone know why "AFFIRM" was adopted in some countries? Was it possibly to avoid confusing "AFFIRMATIVE" with "NEGATIVE"?

I must say I always find this response amusing: "Yes, affirmative."
Has Canada registered a difference from ICAO about this? From Doc 9432:


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1172x342/screen_shot_2023_08_14_at_11_22_42_e771c03e2916b41dbc61c6cec 1183cac3d296c78.png

[parishiltons]

To be picky ….. Ready for take-off also went out of the window many years ago and was replaced with “Ready for departure”. That way, the information call could not be confused with a take-off clearance.

Mog
No, it's just "Ready". ICAO Doc 9432:


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1160x416/screen_shot_2023_08_14_at_11_28_46_3c844ef29ff63987a8e351cb4 41710b899a996cb.png

[Mach E Avelli]

I presume you hate it because it is not the correct terminology in your part of the world:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1026x870/affirm_8329dd0c39cbadc7059bbf7f66f5b2a10da7d44d.jpg

I wouldn't classify it as "pretty bad RT" - it's understandable and in some parts of the world - mine for example :) - it's standard:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1426x566/affirmative_09c69a5151edf3d459393c9638f85e59172ad1f7.jpg


Does anyone know why "AFFIRM" was adopted in some countries? Was it possibly to avoid confusing "AFFIRMATIVE" with "NEGATIVE"?

I must say I always find this response amusing: "Yes, affirmative."
"Affirmative" was replaced with "affirm" in ICAO-speak at least 15 years ago. But it takes some people a long time to break old habits. One of the classic Oz confusions for foreigners was the use of "left" when vacating or passing a level or altitude. They would hear "left 180" and wonder why the other guy was suddenly flying south. Even when it got changed, the old 'left..." hung around for years.
Local variations still creep in to R/T. Our local volunteer marine coastwatch mob love "Romeo" for 'Yes' - as in "is that a Romeo?" I can't bring myself to respond with anything other than "affirm",although I should really say "yes" as that is standard in the marine world, as is "no" - though that has potential to confuse the Greeks!

[parishiltons]

To be picky ….. Ready for take-off also went out of the window many years ago and was replaced with “Ready for departure”. That way, the information call could not be confused with a take-off clearance.

Mog
No, it's just "Ready". ICAO Doc 9432:


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1160x416/screen_shot_2023_08_14_at_11_28_46_3c844ef29ff63987a8e351cb4 41710b899a996cb.png

[Rataxes]

It is both, VHF 121.5, UHF 243, the military sets I'm familiar with the guard frequency was not one you could change, the frequencies have been ever thus, LB has explained the usage well.
That's funny, I remember the Guard freq being user-selectable and often set to "company" freq which then became the guarded freq. Thus the usage of the term. Must've been a different set to the ones you used.

[ChrisJ800]

"Affirmative" was replaced with "affirm" in ICAO-speak at least 15 years ago. But it takes some people a long time to break old habits. One of the classic Oz confusions for foreigners was the use of "left" when vacating or passing a level or altitude. They would hear "left 180" and wonder why the other guy was suddenly flying south. Even when it got changed, the old 'left..." hung around for years.
Local variations still creep in to R/T. Our local volunteer marine coastwatch mob love "Romeo" for 'Yes' - as in "is that a Romeo?" I can't bring myself to respond with anything other than "affirm",although I should really say "yes" as that is standard in the marine world, as is "no" - though that has potential to confuse the Greeks!

Romeo means Received eg Message Received, similar to Roger. It does not necessarily mean Yes.

[C441]

Why do I have to say "climbing TO" or "descending TO". I mean its just unwarranted waffle. If you want to achieve better radio efficiency stick to the main words, it's not a Shakespeare recital. I would have the call as just "ABC Climb Level 320" - "Climbing Level 220 ABC".

From memory the word "to" in a clearance to climb or descend was dropped as a result of a Flying Tiger freighter accident on landing in Kuala Lumpur in the late 80's.
This extract from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tiger_Line_Flight_66) says it as well as I can:

(ATC) radioed to the flight, "Tiger 66, descend two four zero zero (about 2,400 ft (730 m)), cleared for NDB approach runway 33." Captain Halpin, who interpreted it as "descend to four zero zero" replied with, "Okay, four zero zero" (meaning 400 ft (120 m) above sea level, which was 2,000 ft (610 m) too low). The CVR[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tiger_Line_Flight_66#cite_note-patricksaviation1-9) also revealed several communication errors made by the flight crew prior to this miscommunication and a general casual nature of the captain, who was the pilot-not-flying on this particular leg of the trip.

The aircraft flew into the ground at 437ft above sea level and well short of the runway, despite numerous GPWS warnings on the approach.

[Mach E Avelli]

Romeo means Received eg Message Received, similar to Roger. It does not necessarily mean Yes.
Ah, so Romeo was a sailor and Roger was a pilot. That explains why I was told that I would have to buy the beer if I said “Roger” on the boat radio. I have learned something new today.. Thank you.
I also learned something else today. Although “over” and “out” are not normally used in aviation VHF comms, it seems that these terms may still be applicable to HF. ICAO Annex 10 Vol II implies this. Though I imagine such use in our part of the world would bring forth sheep noises, and worse.

[PiperCameron]

From memory the word "to" in a clearance to climb or descend was dropped as a result of a Flying Tiger freighter accident on landing in Kuala Lumpur in the late 80's.
This extract from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tiger_Line_Flight_66) says it as well as I can:

Well, I guess Airservices didn't get that memo, 'cause the word "TO" is right through AIP GEN:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/541x209/screenshot_2023_08_14_180736_aeaf98889666aa0591c22573b9b5774 a8990e28d.png

[43Inches]

I feel the extra waffle was introduced with no intention of increasing safety, more so to apply legal standing to the instruction. "Climb via Sid" "Line up and wait" "Hold short of Runway XX". All tell you what you already should know, however now that it's reiterated several times as well on the radio you can't say you did not understand what is a rule anyway. The rules state that I have to comply with all of SID procedure when cleared via one, why do I need to be told again to comply with the altitudes, I know a line up instruction is not a clearance to taxi or take-off on the runway, so why do I need to be told to wait, I know I can not enter a runway without a clearance, so why do I need to be told to hold short of one until instructed so... The reason, so they can listen to the tapes and conform that you acknowledged your legal responsibility, not one drop of safety in it. These extras are just as bad as the "pending clearance" brigade and guard Nazis.

[Mach E Avelli]

I feel the extra waffle was introduced with no intention of increasing safety, more so to apply legal standing to the instruction. "Climb via Sid" "Line up and wait" "Hold short of Runway XX". All tell you what you already should know, however now that it's reiterated several times as well on the radio you can't say you did not understand what is a rule anyway. The rules state that I have to comply with all of SID procedure when cleared via one, why do I need to be told again to comply with the altitudes, I know a line up instruction is not a clearance to taxi or take-off on the runway, so why do I need to be told to wait, I know I can not enter a runway without a clearance, so why do I need to be told to hold short of one until instructed so... The reason, so they can listen to the tapes and conform that you acknowledged your legal responsibility, not one drop of safety in it. These extras are just as bad as the "pending clearance" brigade and guard Nazis.

I partly agree and partly disagree. The “pending clearance” and guard nazis are embarrassing. The former need to engage brain before mouth and the latter need to get a life.
Extra ‘waffle’ may be a pain in the derrière for those of us with English as our first (and usually only) language. But safety is an issue. ATC must deal with many whose licence may state English Level 4, but in reality their English comprehension is often marginal. As far as possible comms need to be kept simple, with repetition as necessary - something like one would instruct an 8 year old.
ICAO update phraseology as lessons are learned. Australia as a signatory to ICAO should adopt their standards, and for the most part, we do.

[Al E. Vator]

Grumpy old man alert: some f’ing **** repeatedly doing his stupid meow **** the other day.
Someone tells him (QF I think - and quite rightly) to grow up.
Of course the moron takes that as a challenge to do it again, even longer.
Doing that, he blocked an ATC new heading call to us.
After a delay, right when you don’t want it, ATC had to repeat the instruction. ******** does it again. Fortunately got the assigned heading this time.
Really wish there was some VHF modulation identifier or something to enable ATC to home in on the juvenile f’wit and name and shame.

[Dan Dare]

Really wish there was some VHF modulation identifier or something to enable ATC to home in on the juvenile f’wit

In the UK we have auto=triangulation on 121.5 (and 243?) and D&D cell have been known to pass details to the authorities on these miscreants. Unfortunately I see that there is currently consultation on the possibility removing this anomalous deviation from ICAO and leaving us like the rest of the world.

[Lead Balloon]

The "ADF" function of AN/ARC164 system whose controller is in the photo earlier in the thread enabled ADF of 121.5 and 243. Those frequencies are harmonics as a matter of design choice, not coincidence.

Making cat noises on the distress frequency? Just goes to show that even the brainless can use a radio. I'd be letting Centre know when those transmissions are received, the signal strength and my current location. Patterns will eventually emerge...

[brokenagain]

Patterns will eventually emerge...

The pattern of them emanating from the aircraft of a particularly large Saab operator?

[Captn Rex Havack]

Broeknagain......evidence to support you contention?? Remember it could even be some muppet on the ground with a handheld.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Has anyone considered it might actually be a cat in trouble? Trapped in their overturned litter box desperately hoping someone comes to their aid?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Schrödinger’s cat?

[Lead Balloon]

I want to, but can’t, give you a second ‘like’ for adding the umlaut, CS. As I observed earlier, correct pronunciation can be just as important as correct terminology in aviation comms.

[kitchen bench]

From memory the word "to" in a clearance to climb or descend was dropped as a result of a Flying Tiger freighter accident on landing in Kuala Lumpur in the late 80's.


I think it was more the case that four digits for an altitude (e.g. "descend two four zero zero" in this case) was eventually changed to "descend to two thousand four hundred".

As previous posters have pointed out, "TO" is still correct phraseology and hasn't been dropped.

The Flying Tigers F/O did not have an approach chart available where 2400' on it would have been patently obvious and may have saved the day despite the "descend two four zero zero" transmission.

[Renton Field]

The 'Ready' call is just "Ready". Otherwise what else would you be ready for.
.

Agreed.I’m most amused by the many permutations of the ready call:
Ready
Ready in turn
Ready on reaching
Fully Ready
Ready for departure
Ready immediate

Be great to roll them all into one ‘mega-ready’call…👍

[Lead Balloon]

‘Absolutely’ Ready?

Ready ‘One Hundred Percent’?

In the theme of ‘ABC Turns Base’, ‘ABC Joins Downwind’, ‘ABC Rolls Runway 24’, maybe: “ABC Readies’.

[Chronic Snoozer]

“Literally Ready”. Of course. R/T should follow the zeitgeist.

[Chronic Snoozer]

To be picky ….. Ready for take-off also went out of the window many years ago and was replaced with “Ready for departure”. That way, the information call could not be confused with a take-off clearance.

Mog

It’s always been my understanding that this was triggered by the Tenerife disaster. Recommendation 3 from the final report:

‘3.3. Avoidance of the word “TAKE OFF” in the ATC clearance and adequate time separation between the ATC clearance and the TAKE OFF clearance.’

http://www.project-tenerife.com/engels/PDF/Tenerife.pdf

[megan]

I remember the Guard freq being user-selectableOut of interest what aircraft/radio set up Rats?

[43Inches]

It’s always been my understanding that this was triggered by the Tenerife disaster. Recommendation 3 from the final report:

‘3.3. Avoidance of the word “TAKE OFF” in the ATC clearance and adequate time separation between the ATC clearance and the TAKE OFF clearance.’

http://www.project-tenerife.com/engels/PDF/Tenerife.pdf

I think it goes further in that the words "take-off" or "land(ing)" should not be used unless during the issue of a take-off and landing clearance, and the entire phrase "XXX Cleared to Land/for Take-off" must be heard . So phrases like "after take-off expect a right turn" are avoided. Which is why I can not understand why conflicting words like "Climb TO" are used when the "TO" can be confused for a number or such when clipped. Even phrases that mean well like "ABC Taxi A, B, C, Hold short of RWY 35" could be clipped so that the hold short gets confused for "cross rwy35" under the right circumstance, so there is no safety benefit in having said it. Yes, in a perfect world you would seek clarification if there was over-transmits, but in the real world people can assume when under the pump. It's better not to mention any runway until you are actively cleared to enter it or cross it, then it's clear you don't have clearance until such time you receive it. A better taxi procedure would be simply "ABC taxi via A, B, C, C holding point". Runway is assigned in the clearance so why say it again. And with all this talk, runway incursions still happen regularly, even at airline level, so the system is far from perfect.

[Lookleft]

On the other side of the ready call, why does ATC ask if we are ready immediate? If I have called ready then of course I am ready immediate. In addition if you want me to be ready to depart immediately, then don't wait until I have lined up and parked the brakes before clearing me for an immediate departure.

[43Inches]

On the other side of the ready call, why does ATC ask if we are ready immediate? If I have called ready then of course I am ready immediate. In addition if you want me to be ready to depart immediately, then don't wait until I have lined up and parked the brakes before clearing me for an immediate departure.

I agree, from a pilots perspective all take-offs should be performed without delay. ATC should be able to assume this will be the case unless notified otherwise. I think the problem has been that some pilots do seem to dither unless instructed to move it. Once you call ready it's says to the tower you have nothing left to do except line up and roll. If you need 10,20,30 seconds lined up or such for whatever reason the pilots need to say this when calling ready.

[Awol57]

I agree, from a pilots perspective all take-offs should be performed without delay. ATC should be able to assume this will be the case unless notified otherwise. I think the problem has been that some pilots do seem to dither unless instructed to move it. Once you call ready it's says to the tower you have nothing left to do except line up and roll. If you need 10,20,30 seconds lined up or such for whatever reason the pilots need to say this when calling ready.
If only this was the case....

[Chronic Snoozer]

I think it goes further in that the words "take-off" or "land(ing)" should not be used unless during the issue of a take-off and landing clearance, and the entire phrase "XXX Cleared to Land/for Take-off" must be heard . So phrases like "after take-off expect a right turn" are avoided. Which is why I can not understand why conflicting words like "Climb TO" are used when the "TO" can be confused for a number or such when clipped. Even phrases that mean well like "ABC Taxi A, B, C, Hold short of RWY 35" could be clipped so that the hold short gets confused for "cross rwy35" under the right circumstance, so there is no safety benefit in having said it. Yes, in a perfect world you would seek clarification if there was over-transmits, but in the real world people can assume when under the pump. It's better not to mention any runway until you are actively cleared to enter it or cross it, then it's clear you don't have clearance until such time you receive it. A better taxi procedure would be simply "ABC taxi via A, B, C, C holding point". Runway is assigned in the clearance so why say it again. And with all this talk, runway incursions still happen regularly, even at airline level, so the system is far from perfect.

It's in MATS.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mats/docs/nos-saf-2000.pdf

[43Inches]

Put it this way, ATC monitors the average time each airline takes to line up and roll, there are certain operators that are well known to be slow, and they will get the 'be ready immediate' more often than others. And its not to do with line up procedures as within the same airline on same types there can be significant variation.

[prickly]

Interesting how a firm grip of non essential trivia is how professionalism is judged these days. The job has become so easy that all reality is lost. Can't imagine anyone getting worked up over hearing "affirmative" on the radio.

[Lead Balloon]

...until it turns out that "affirmative" was not the word actually transmitted.

[mahogany bob]

COMMS

Has anyone ( besides me ) ever had (usually after a long layoff or when flying to a country for the first time ) a really bad day on the radios ?

Or had problems reading back a rapid fire clearance somewhere ( USA !)when local accents /terminology abounds?

SUGGEST some clever person comes up with some simple reactive training recordings of ATC chat from ‘difficult’ parts of the globe which can be listened to at your leisure prior to departure and enable you to practice your patter.

Might save some major embarrassment (FS hazard) later?

[Mach E Avelli]

COMMS

Has anyone ( besides me ) ever had (usually after a long layoff or when flying to a country for the first time ) a really bad day on the radios ?

Or had problems reading back a rapid fire clearance somewhere ( USA !)when local accents /terminology abounds?

SUGGEST some clever person comes up with some simple reactive training recordings of ATC chat from ‘difficult’ parts of the globe which can be listened to at your leisure prior to departure and enable you to practice your patter.

Might save some major embarrassment (FS hazard) later?
That’s not a bad idea.
Generally I am OK with accents and can even cope with the fast talking Yanks, by writing the anticipated clearance down, then modifying it as necessary. I think that is how most visitors to the USA do it, at least until they have more familiarity.
But there was a female controller at Surat Thani in Thailand who had me totally defeated.
All I could do was read back the clearance I had written down beforehand and hope that it was correct, because there was no way I could pick up anything beyond our call sign and a few numbers.

[prickly]

...until it turns out that "affirmative" was not the word actually transmitted.
I rest my case. Trivia rules. Time for a hobby.

[Lead Balloon]

You're overlooking the safety basis for the change in terminology from "affirmative" to "AY-firm".

It's not trivia. It's to reduce the scope for confusion about what was said and, therefore, what was meant.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Slight 'Drift'......

Many 'Moons ago' a particular 'lightie' was enroute Griffith to Hay, NSW, and was 'pushing' last light.
The SY FSO had tried 'tactfully' to ask the pilot to confirm his ETA.
Eventually, he turned around to face the FSCentre room, and in his best 'authoritive' (theatrical) voice, simply asked the pilot,

"ABC, are you able to make Hay while the sun shines"?

Brought the 'house' down it did.....and got the appropriate response from the pilot.

No 'confusion' there.........

Troo story.

[Mach E Avelli]

I rest my case. Trivia rules. Time for a hobby.
Clear and standardised communication in a dynamic environment is hardly trivial. Even less trivial when you add those with poor English to the mix.
‘Flap’ versus ‘flaps’ is trivial. ‘Check’ versus ‘checked’ is trivial. Some airlines love that ****.
For a firm grip of the non essential there’s also plenty among certain examiners. An example: on an IPC the GA Examiner asked me what the difference was when identifying a TACAN versus a VOR. I knew he was after the timing interval, because he was a good 25 years my junior and thus was unlikely to have much Morse code, if any. But I was not about to give him the pleasure of the answer he wanted (he really wanted “I don’t know”).
A trivial question deserved a trivial answer, which was “the Morse sounds different, one is more squeaky than the other, and by the way can YOU read Morse at 10 words per minute? “ That shut him down.

[Rataxes]

Out of interest what aircraft/radio set up Rats?
I will send you a PM.

[EXDAC]

You're overlooking the safety basis for the change in terminology from "affirmative" to "AY-firm".

It's not trivia. It's to reduce the scope for confusion about what was said and, therefore, what was meant.

I was wondering if I had missed some change in FAA requirements but, no, I hadn't. Current on-line versions of "Pilot/Controller Glossary" and "Aeronautical Information Manual" both state that "affirmative" should be used.

I'm in favor of standardization but will continue to use the terminology required where I fly.

[parishiltons]

I was wondering if I had missed some change in FAA requirements but, no, I hadn't. Current on-line versions of "Pilot/Controller Glossary" and "Aeronautical Information Manual" both state that "affirmative" should be used.

I'm in favor of standardization but will continue to use the terminology required where I fly.
Perhaps if the USA adopted ICAO phraseology and enforced it, it would be a better place to fly, particularly for ESL pilots.
Has the US registered a difference with ICAO for this nonstandard phraseology?

[Mach E Avelli]

Perhaps if the USA adopted ICAO phraseology and enforced it, it would be a better place to fly, particularly for ESL pilots.
Has the US registered a difference with ICAO for nonstandard phraseology?
For the USA to file nonstandard phraseology differences with ICAO would fill a volume as thick as a telephone directory.
It’s unfortunate enough that they persist with feet and statute miles for visibility, pounds and ounces, US quarts and gallons, and inches Hg for altimeter settings, but they reckon they have a right to those things because (to misquote that wonderfully politically incorrect song), “they got the bomb”.

[parishiltons]

For the USA to file nonstandard phraseology differences with ICAO would fill a volume as thick as a telephone directory.
It’s unfortunate enough that they persist with feet and statute miles for lengths, US quarts and gallons, and inches Hg, but they reckon they have a right to those things because (to misquote that wonderfully politically incorrect song), “they got the bomb”.
You're right about the length! I looked up the US AIP and the formal list of differences is huge. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aip_html/part1_gen_section_1.7.html. And affirm/affirmative does not even get a mention, so who knows how many other differences there are...

[India Four Two]

For the USA to file nonstandard phraseology differences with ICAO would fill a volume as thick as a telephone directory.
It’s unfortunate enough that they persist with feet and statute miles for visibility, pounds and ounces, US quarts and gallons, and inches Hg for altimeter settings,

There are about 210,000 aircraft in the USA and 97% are GA. Almost all the GA aircraft will have altimeter sub-scales in inches Hg only. Add in about 30,000 Canadian aircraft plus a few hundred (?) more from Mexico and Colombia and you can see why North America will never switch to HPa.

The other units mentioned will also never change - there is too much entrenched infrastructure that uses those units.

[megan]

The other units mentioned will also never change - there is too much entrenched infrastructure that uses those unitsYou won't see any metric structural hardware on your aircraft either.

[43Inches]

Don't forget that China uses meters for altimetry and Russia below flight levels is in meters. Considering a very big percentage of the worlds pilots are from the USA, China and Russia, you can safely say that overall standardization of the majority of pilots on one system is still a while away.

[PiperCameron]

Don't forget that China uses meters for altimetry and Russia below flight levels is in meters. Considering a very big percentage of the worlds pilots are from the USA, China and Russia, you can safely say that overall standardization of the majority of pilots on one system is still a while away.

In any case, no one I know seems particularly fussed. Toss a few warbirds, vintage and just plain old aircraft into the mix and to be a competent pilot these days unit conversions of all kinds are just part of the training.

What isn't are the ATC procedures - and if YT videos are any guide, as far as I'm concerned, the USA are welcome to theirs and good luck to them.