Intial call to french ATC

[sabenaboy]

Very often when you check in with a French ATC-facility the conversation goes like this:

Plane: "Marseille, Bonjour, Airliner123, FL360 to ATN"
ATC: "Airliner123, bonjour, maintain Fl 360, proceed direct to ATN"

Since his reply is an instruction I have to reply again:
"Airliner123, maintaining FL360 to ATN"
(Exactly what I already told him in my initial call)

This causes unnecessary frequency occupation.
This is something typically French. In almost all other countries the ATC will reply with "airliner123, good morning, radarcontact" (or similar) when they don't issue a new instruction and this doesn't need acknowledgment from my side.

Sometimes I will reply to such a French ATC facility by saying.

"Yes, I confirm, we were already enroute to ATN at FL360"

I don't know what the reason for this French procedure is, but if it is a requirement for the controller to do so... they should change the procedure in my opinion.

Any french air traffic controller here that cares to comment?

Sabenaboy

[Localiser]

Glad it's not just me - I've notice it too! Most irritating.

Almost as if they haven't bothered listening to you properly!

[songbird29]

Could it be that the difference lies in the word 'direct' to ATN. Were you flying direct to ATN before entering Marseille airspace or was it in fact a reclearance to fly direct instead of via some waypoint(s)?

[Farrell]

It is because zey are French, and zat is just ze way it is over ere.

You should rent a Cessna 172 and fly out of oh....Lyon Bron......and check out the RT there ha ha!

[ZRH]

Swiss ATC is the same. I think that they feel they have to issue you with a route clearance when you have established radio contact......there are a few folks who say "identified / radar contact", but as I say, they are few.

Is it necessary? Is the pilot going to change his level or route without a clearance? Do you need to say "maintain FL360 continue to ATN" on first contact? Where else would he fly to, except stay on flight planned route and last cleared flight level?

[sabenaboy]

Can somebody give me an email of a french ATC-facility (upper airspace)?

(I googled, but didn't find any)

I'll mail them and ask for the reason of this RT procedure.

[126,7]

Try the department of transport.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

I'll be honest and say that I can live with this nuance of French ATC. One thing that I do dislike and I think should be changed is the LAST call from French ATC (and incidentally some American and more disappointingly UK ATC).

Frequently (no pun intended) we are given a level change and a frequency change in the same transmission. Brest and Bordeaux are particularly keen on this procedure. I can't help wondering if this may lie behind some of the "loss of R/T contact" problems the French have. I would also suspect that it may cause level busts, but I have no data to prove this.

One aspect of this that may be interesting for ATCOs to know is that on anumber of occassions I have seen the frequency and the level read back perfectly correctly, but when it comes to dialing them in to the equipment, both flight crew have forgotten which digits go where.

I say let them have their re-reading of the route clearance, but remove level change and QSY in the same TX!

G W-H

[missioncontrol]

Alternatively....

Just give your callsign on initial contact, nothing else.

Once they give you the routeing and flight level which you are currently at, you can read it back.

This way you don't have to repeat yourself.

[eyeinthesky]

For the UK, check the AIP Gen Section 3. It gives all the required information. It includes callsign and current level. When changing from London to Scottish etc, you must also include cleared level.

[Scott Voigt]

If ya kept a pad of paper and pen with you and wrote everything down you might not have a problem with more than one transmission <G>. Works for me when flying GA stuff. But that said, if pilots would ENSURE that they are talking with someone when they try to check on and knew the LAST frequency maybe not talking to someone wouldn't become so much of an issue. Just because you are flying enroute doesn't mean that you shouldn't listen just as hard as when you are in the terminal area. It is BUSY up there too and if we have to turn you for traffic we sometimes need to turn you NOW and not on the fourth of fifth call...

regards

Scott

[alexban]

The required info at contact is callsign and level.
But,even if you say what youre saying,and they reply the way they do,why don't you just reply with your callsign only?
You keep your RT book with you,or you fly with a cpt who has one,and bind you to it?
I find talking with french ATC pleasant,except of course the use of french language in terminal areas and on the a/p.Fortunately ,I do understand french,and manage to stay in the picture,but it's a bit dificult though,compared to english speaking only.

[pukeko]

Swiss controllers are required by their own internal procedures to issue a full route (re)clearance through their airspace.
I've asked and it seems to be a historical thing that dates from the days when the routes in the system weren't always what the flightdeck had.

But what really annoys me is the lack of RTF discipline by francophones - especially with numbers!!

I try to follow the transmissions in French, just for situational awareness - but it's nearly impossible when they'll say "cent quatre-vingt-quinze" instead of "un neuf cinq".

Surely it can't be ICAO standard, and it's not error tolerant - why are they doing it??!!

[cancel_mayday]

Same story is in Russia, sabenaboy. We say many unnecessary words

[makosa]

Hi guys

I'll be able to answer your question since I work in Paris ACC (we're handling the ATN - BRY - CLM and UM733 routes for instance). If you work by the book, you HAVE to say "Airline 123 bonjour, maintain FL360, route ATN, CLM".

Now, practically, I think it's useless if you already said your route and cleared level on first contact, therefore I'd just say "identified" in your case. (by the way, is the word identified OK with you?). As you said, it caused unnecessary freq occupation, and when there's just too much traffic we just say "identified" ;-)

[Ziggy]

How about this one:

ATC: Airliner123, say your heading.
Plane: Our heading is 185 degrees, Airliner123
ATC: Roger


.....5 minutes later......


ATC: Airliner123, no more heading restriction, direct to ATN.


This only happens in France as well........ever since I noticed this happening frequently I always wait 10 seconds and then ask: Confim you want us to maintain this heading?
Usually the answer is yes!

Or this one, after having been told to maintain our present heading ATC just says:
Airliner123, no more heading restriction.

So what now? Can I start making steep turns or fly direct to my destination or what???

[makosa]

If we want you on a close parallel track with another a/c or to make a precise close crossing (i.e 5 miles) we have to "lock" headings of both aicraft; that's a mandatory rule. I understand it may look odd but that's mandatory in the procedures (and I guess that's european procedure).

[porra]

makosa

"... (and I guess that's european procedure)...."

Not true, very few(if any) procedures are "european".

[Ziggy]

Makosa,

your missing my point.....I understand that you would need me on a heading for seperation purposes.
But anywhere else in Europe it would be something like:
ATC: Airliner123, say your heading.
Plane: Our heading is 185 degrees, Airliner123
ATC: Roger, Airliner123, maintain that heading, please.

In France to my surprise, almost every time, I found 5 minutes later that he meant for me to maintain that heading without specifically telling me to.
I expect to get an unambiguous clearance, first to maintain a certain heading (or my present heading off course) and later on to be cleared to navigate to ATN again, not merely "no more heading restriction".
It's not a problem, just noticably only in France.

Ziggy

[makosa]

Caudillo:

Actually I don't mind switching back and forth between the 2 languages..however I agree if we were all speaking english on the radio that would help pilots having a "picture" of the situation..although I'm not sure it would help in the enroute phase..
There had been an experiment carried out in CDG in 2000 (or 2001?): everybody had to speak english on the radio, it turned out to be a big mess (some AFR pilots have a terrible level of english) and nobody was properly prepared actually..
However I'm sure it's not Académie business :-)

Ziggy:

In this particular case, if the ATC wanted you to maintain your heading, he should have told you so. Shouldn't happen many times...
The "no more heading restriction to.." is old-school phraseology I guess and not a lot of ATC use that...
Personally I prefer to use "own navigation to ..."