Non-standard R/T
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr. Bitsy, just accept it. You are not supposed to listen to ATC frequencies. At present, and for as long as anyone I know can remember, the relevant authorities do not take action against someone who listens to the frequencies out of interest or other innocent reasons. But it is not a right under the UK legislation as it appears to be interpreted by OFCOM and, I presume, the British courts for the time being.
People who use receivers, and worse, transmitters, on ATC frequencies for nefarious purposes or who create interference on the frequencies are deservedly tracked down by the authorities.
If all you want to do is listen in to improve your skills or whatever, just do it and keep quiet. But accept that it is probably not lawful for you to do so.
People who use receivers, and worse, transmitters, on ATC frequencies for nefarious purposes or who create interference on the frequencies are deservedly tracked down by the authorities.
If all you want to do is listen in to improve your skills or whatever, just do it and keep quiet. But accept that it is probably not lawful for you to do so.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spitoon
Mr. Bitsy, just accept it. You are not supposed to listen to ATC frequencies. At present, and for as long as anyone I know can remember, the relevant authorities do not take action against someone who listens to the frequencies out of interest or other innocent reasons. But it is not a right under the UK legislation as it appears to be interpreted by OFCOM and, I presume, the British courts for the time being.
People who use receivers, and worse, transmitters, on ATC frequencies for nefarious purposes or who create interference on the frequencies are deservedly tracked down by the authorities.
If all you want to do is listen in to improve your skills or whatever, just do it and keep quiet. But accept that it is probably not lawful for you to do so.
People who use receivers, and worse, transmitters, on ATC frequencies for nefarious purposes or who create interference on the frequencies are deservedly tracked down by the authorities.
If all you want to do is listen in to improve your skills or whatever, just do it and keep quiet. But accept that it is probably not lawful for you to do so.
, so that could be interpreted by many as a go to listen in.What about the positive side of listening in - everytime the press print one of the silly "near miss" stories, I have the knowledge to defend the ATC guys to friends and family
RK.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gonzo
Ah yes, and where do the press find out about the 'jumbo jets seconds from disaster'? I wonder.
Could it be people listening in to the R/T?
No, of course not.
Could it be people listening in to the R/T?
No, of course not.
I bet far more positive comes out of listening in.
RK
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sea Level
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non Standard RTF
Perhaps everyone should look at CAP 413 every so often its now available on the web free download even ! Perhaps the powers that be should look at perhaps more checks on pilots, as has already been stated ATC & FISO's are subject to regular checks by SRG and require to display good RTF to them. Pilots don't do regular RTF checks themselves unless on a check ride which encompasses many varied things. The FRTOL licence exam is a one of exam still with a written and practical. However after the exam no further exam in required, should this be the case ? Hope I've got my facts right if not I look forward to being corrected.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Rosewich - of course, I stand corrected re. CAP 413. I didn't bother to go upstairs to double-check the cover before posting! FYI, my point on starting this thread has not been to score points or show off but simply to underline a trend.
CAP493 - I agree with your assessment that there might be three levels of R/T, but non-standard R/T has the capacity, given the right (wrong?) circumstances, to be ambiguous.
ATC Babe - my point was that if there are more than one aircraft of a given type on approach, an incomplete readback may not tell the ATCO whether the aircraft he/she refers to is actually the one identified by the crew holding short - or am I seeing too much into this?
The point of this thread (at least at first) wasn't to discuss the legality of airband scanners or the R/T proficiency of private pilots, but to reflect on whether or not professionnal R/T standards are slipping. Of course I understand those that say "get real", but accepting that the standard is "good enough" maybe just isn't good enough...
Cheers
CAP493 - I agree with your assessment that there might be three levels of R/T, but non-standard R/T has the capacity, given the right (wrong?) circumstances, to be ambiguous.
ATC Babe - my point was that if there are more than one aircraft of a given type on approach, an incomplete readback may not tell the ATCO whether the aircraft he/she refers to is actually the one identified by the crew holding short - or am I seeing too much into this?
The point of this thread (at least at first) wasn't to discuss the legality of airband scanners or the R/T proficiency of private pilots, but to reflect on whether or not professionnal R/T standards are slipping. Of course I understand those that say "get real", but accepting that the standard is "good enough" maybe just isn't good enough...
Cheers
Originally Posted by MrBitsy
I do accept it's illegal - just pointing out that all frequencies are published and available to all , so that could be interpreted by many as a go to listen in.
What about the positive side of listening in - everytime the press print one of the silly "near miss" stories, I have the knowledge to defend the ATC guys to friends and family
RK.
, so that could be interpreted by many as a go to listen in.What about the positive side of listening in - everytime the press print one of the silly "near miss" stories, I have the knowledge to defend the ATC guys to friends and family
RK.
The frequencies are published in specific documents and indicate the service available on each. Therefore, unless you are participating in that service, it is not a "free for all". Because of the nature of radio waves and the simplex frequencies employed, it is impossible to prevent non-participants monitoring; however, they should realise that they are putting their ears to the keyhole of what is essentially a private exchange. By comparison, how would you view someone putting a telephone tap on an inter-unit landline? Or on your BT telephone line at home?
With respect, you do not have the knowledge to defend any ATC "guys" in the case of an alleged incident and it is not your place to do so, using, probably wrongly, any information you might have gleaned through illegal monitoring. That is no more sensible or legal than the press "shock horror" stories gained from similar sources. The facts and factors contributing to any incident are usually many and complex and are not apparent merely from one overheard RTF exchange.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2 sheds
Mr Bitsy.
The frequencies are published in specific documents and indicate the service available on each. Therefore, unless you are participating in that service, it is not a "free for all". Because of the nature of radio waves and the simplex frequencies employed, it is impossible to prevent non-participants monitoring; however, they should realise that they are putting their ears to the keyhole of what is essentially a private exchange. By comparison, how would you view someone putting a telephone tap on an inter-unit landline? Or on your BT telephone line at home?
The frequencies are published in specific documents and indicate the service available on each. Therefore, unless you are participating in that service, it is not a "free for all". Because of the nature of radio waves and the simplex frequencies employed, it is impossible to prevent non-participants monitoring; however, they should realise that they are putting their ears to the keyhole of what is essentially a private exchange. By comparison, how would you view someone putting a telephone tap on an inter-unit landline? Or on your BT telephone line at home?
However, with the information freely available to all, it is hardly surprising it is seen as legal by many.I hardly think listening in to a private telephone conversation, is as intrusive as listening to the civil airband
Originally Posted by 2 sheds
With respect, you do not have the knowledge to defend any ATC "guys" in the case of an alleged incident and it is not your place to do so, using, probably wrongly, any information you might have gleaned through illegal monitoring. That is no more sensible or legal than the press "shock horror" stories gained from similar sources. The facts and factors contributing to any incident are usually many and complex and are not apparent merely from one overheard RTF exchange.
Putting peoples misconceptions right about UK airspace in conversation is not as bad as a press "shock horror" stories.
RK
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 24
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FM, nobody suggested this was a point scoring exercise, and as you can see from the above there seems to be some lively debate.
The fact is there are so many publications out there that many pilots don’t read on a regular basis because it is nearly impossible. Many will concentrate their efforts on the aircraft library, updates and CAP 371 as well as the 5 or so memo’s that seem to come out of my company on a daily basis. However documents like The ANO, UK AIP, CAP 413 and the many others that exist aren’t studied so closely.
By you own admission “I didn't bother to go upstairs to double-check the cover before posting!” well, you may then understand to ere is human.
With time, route familiarity and fatigue RT standards do slip, and yes we are checked on a yearly basis but that doesn’t mean the RT is formally assessed against the standard of CAP 413.
None of this is an excuse but there are other battles to fight, such as aircraft doing 300kts in Class E or pointing out what the difference between light and severe turbulence is. (Definition in UIK AIP BTW).
However I agree that in some cases RT discipline needs to be addressed and perhaps it should be part of our annual line check.
The fact is there are so many publications out there that many pilots don’t read on a regular basis because it is nearly impossible. Many will concentrate their efforts on the aircraft library, updates and CAP 371 as well as the 5 or so memo’s that seem to come out of my company on a daily basis. However documents like The ANO, UK AIP, CAP 413 and the many others that exist aren’t studied so closely.
By you own admission “I didn't bother to go upstairs to double-check the cover before posting!” well, you may then understand to ere is human.
With time, route familiarity and fatigue RT standards do slip, and yes we are checked on a yearly basis but that doesn’t mean the RT is formally assessed against the standard of CAP 413.
None of this is an excuse but there are other battles to fight, such as aircraft doing 300kts in Class E or pointing out what the difference between light and severe turbulence is. (Definition in UIK AIP BTW).
However I agree that in some cases RT discipline needs to be addressed and perhaps it should be part of our annual line check.
Take me downwind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: FCO
Age: 54
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard R/T then Plane-Plain English-leave the non standard stuff at the bar
Originally Posted by Mike Rosewhich
However I agree that in some cases RT discipline needs to be addressed and perhaps it should be part of our annual line check.
It may very well become part of your line check. ICAO new standards being adopted by JAA/EASA may have a way for this to be implemented in your bi-annual checks. It all depends on how each Member State interprets and implements these new standards.
Regarding use of R/T standard and not: I teach aviation personnel (ATC and Pilots, amongst other non-flying staff) in the "plain" language to be used when the Standard phraseologies do not suffice. A large majority of my time teaching non-native English speakers is spent giving listening exercises in class to help them understand what they will really hear on the radio while wa/ondering through the clouds.
These new standards are for the language that pilots and ATC must use in abnormal situations when the R/T phraseologies can not communicate needs and requirements otherwise. (For example, a lost pilot or landing gear problems.)
Studies were conducted on over 27,000 incidents and accidents. Many had communication as a factor as part of their cause. However, if we look at the actual incidents and accidents that have communication as a factor only a percentage are actually due to insufficient proficiency. Many were due to use of non-standard R/T, incorrect or no read back, etc. For ineffective communication one does not have to be low in their proficiency. Incidents and accidents have happened as a result of mis-communication between two proficient, native speakers.
If monolingual ATC and pilots using the radio would use standard R/T all the time and an International English in those situations where there is no sufficient phraseology incidents and accidents would happen less often. It would also be a relief to those who speak English as a second/foreign language.
Regardless, the emphasis must be first on using your standard phraseology and then when in situations regarding more communication, using a clear, concise and non-colloquial language.
What do you all think?
Plane English
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stand up - speak up - shut up,that's all you have to do...
There's no harm in a bit of brevity when it's quiet, but when you are busy, and/or dealing with aircrew who may be inexperienced/a bit wary of the radio or whose first language is not English, just get on with it and don't **** around with non standard phraseology.
There's no harm in a bit of brevity when it's quiet, but when you are busy, and/or dealing with aircrew who may be inexperienced/a bit wary of the radio or whose first language is not English, just get on with it and don't **** around with non standard phraseology.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scanning
Listening to Airband comms isnt illegal - thats what the FRTOL is for. Using radio equipment with a SCANNING facility is! Whether airband or not.
--Edited for poor punctuation--
--Edited for poor punctuation--
Location, Location, Location
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arn,
Listening to RT without a licence or while not engaged in an activity requiring that you to monitor or communcate on said frequencies using the rights conferred by your licence IS illegal; since you are monitoring what OFCOM have defined as 'restricted communications'
I believe that you will find that even if you are in possession of a FRTOL you are only entitled to listen to airband transmission while in the course of your duties/aerial activity:
ie: your licence covers you for listening/using the frequencies while actively flying or controlling. It does NOT cover you for listening outside of the environment for which you have been licenced.
Using scanning equipment is, in itself, NOT illegal; it is the unauthorised monitoring of 'restricted communications' that is illegal.
Listening to RT without a licence or while not engaged in an activity requiring that you to monitor or communcate on said frequencies using the rights conferred by your licence IS illegal; since you are monitoring what OFCOM have defined as 'restricted communications'
I believe that you will find that even if you are in possession of a FRTOL you are only entitled to listen to airband transmission while in the course of your duties/aerial activity:
ie: your licence covers you for listening/using the frequencies while actively flying or controlling. It does NOT cover you for listening outside of the environment for which you have been licenced.
Using scanning equipment is, in itself, NOT illegal; it is the unauthorised monitoring of 'restricted communications' that is illegal.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
