Non-standard R/T
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-standard R/T
... my pet hate!
Practicing R/T in my current job (and sometimes listening on a scanner to improve my R/T practice), I am surprised by the amount of non-standard R/T coming from aircrew who should know better. Just try it: read CAP 371 (again) then listen to R/T exchanges between aircraft and radar/approach/director/tower etc. Amazing!
While ATC here at BHX is just about always spot on standards-wise, even adapting their speech rate for foreign (sounding) aircrew, dividing their instructions in several transmissions and even anticipating problems with unfamiliar aircrew, some of the replies from aircraft either on the approach, on departure or on the ground beggar belief.
The most surprising is that most of this non-standard R/T comes from... British aircrew, and sometimes from seasoned pilots (recently-qualified ones tending to stick closely to what they have learned or not having had the time to forget the salient points of CAP 371 over the years). Foreign crew also seem to keep more closely to standard R/T (they are probably trying hard enough in a language that is not their own). When one knows the high regard in which British commercial pilot training is (rightly) held over the world, I find this R/T issue surprising.
Examples? Not ending an R/T exchange with the callsign EVERY TIME (sometimes only the flight number being used, sometimes nothing at all when there is APPARENTLY no risk of confusion); not reading back a full instruction (generally on approach); not calling radar on departure with the FOUR basic bits of info (callsign, passing altitude, cleared level, SID); crew reading back information (such as wind velocity, number in sequence or position in the circuit); crew not reading back conditional clearances fully (i.e. ATC: "Bloggs Air 167, after the landing BritFly 737, line up and wait runway 33". Bloggs Air: "After the landing 737, line up and wait, Bloggs Air 167"). I don't call that a positive ID of the landing aircraft - it's as if some crew were reluctant to be heard mentioning a competitor's name on the R/T.
We all know what that means: more R/T congestion as ATC will sometimes ask for clarification; potential for decreased flight safety at a critical time (taxi, approach/finals, departure); decreased situational awareness for other crew listening in; basically plain bad airmanship.
OK, so I might not be flying much (yet), but I always endeavour to use standard R/T and sound professionnal - and flying around in a GA aircraft for proficiency, I sometimes sound more professionnal with ATC than some aircrew on the same frequency! OK, so they might be at the end of a long four-sector day, or might be on an approach with a max x-wind or with very limited RVR, but I'm not quite sure that's an excuse - that's precisely when R/T should be at its most accurate.
Your thoughts?
Cheers
Practicing R/T in my current job (and sometimes listening on a scanner to improve my R/T practice), I am surprised by the amount of non-standard R/T coming from aircrew who should know better. Just try it: read CAP 371 (again) then listen to R/T exchanges between aircraft and radar/approach/director/tower etc. Amazing!
While ATC here at BHX is just about always spot on standards-wise, even adapting their speech rate for foreign (sounding) aircrew, dividing their instructions in several transmissions and even anticipating problems with unfamiliar aircrew, some of the replies from aircraft either on the approach, on departure or on the ground beggar belief.
The most surprising is that most of this non-standard R/T comes from... British aircrew, and sometimes from seasoned pilots (recently-qualified ones tending to stick closely to what they have learned or not having had the time to forget the salient points of CAP 371 over the years). Foreign crew also seem to keep more closely to standard R/T (they are probably trying hard enough in a language that is not their own). When one knows the high regard in which British commercial pilot training is (rightly) held over the world, I find this R/T issue surprising.
Examples? Not ending an R/T exchange with the callsign EVERY TIME (sometimes only the flight number being used, sometimes nothing at all when there is APPARENTLY no risk of confusion); not reading back a full instruction (generally on approach); not calling radar on departure with the FOUR basic bits of info (callsign, passing altitude, cleared level, SID); crew reading back information (such as wind velocity, number in sequence or position in the circuit); crew not reading back conditional clearances fully (i.e. ATC: "Bloggs Air 167, after the landing BritFly 737, line up and wait runway 33". Bloggs Air: "After the landing 737, line up and wait, Bloggs Air 167"). I don't call that a positive ID of the landing aircraft - it's as if some crew were reluctant to be heard mentioning a competitor's name on the R/T.
We all know what that means: more R/T congestion as ATC will sometimes ask for clarification; potential for decreased flight safety at a critical time (taxi, approach/finals, departure); decreased situational awareness for other crew listening in; basically plain bad airmanship.
OK, so I might not be flying much (yet), but I always endeavour to use standard R/T and sound professionnal - and flying around in a GA aircraft for proficiency, I sometimes sound more professionnal with ATC than some aircrew on the same frequency! OK, so they might be at the end of a long four-sector day, or might be on an approach with a max x-wind or with very limited RVR, but I'm not quite sure that's an excuse - that's precisely when R/T should be at its most accurate.
Your thoughts?
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FougaMagister. Firstly, you are breaking the law by listening to a scanner.
Having spent my life as a controller (two international airports, 1 ATCC and two light aircraft fields) I would agree that there are occasional lapses on both sides. However, the vast majority (99.999%) of professional airline/ helicopter/ air taxi pilots I dealt with were very good and kept to standard phraseology. Let's face it, in a very busy environment you have to! However, the R/T from many private pilots could have done with improvement. Maybe this stems from a) poor training (do any potential PPLs get simulator time before operating live R/T?) and b) poor R/T from their home "ATC" unit. I have heard terrible R/T from some AFISOs and ATCOs at small training airfields, yet these are the people who should be ultra-strict with their procedures so that trainee pilots learn correct R/T from square 1.
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked so they are encouraged to "stay-standard".
Having spent my life as a controller (two international airports, 1 ATCC and two light aircraft fields) I would agree that there are occasional lapses on both sides. However, the vast majority (99.999%) of professional airline/ helicopter/ air taxi pilots I dealt with were very good and kept to standard phraseology. Let's face it, in a very busy environment you have to! However, the R/T from many private pilots could have done with improvement. Maybe this stems from a) poor training (do any potential PPLs get simulator time before operating live R/T?) and b) poor R/T from their home "ATC" unit. I have heard terrible R/T from some AFISOs and ATCOs at small training airfields, yet these are the people who should be ultra-strict with their procedures so that trainee pilots learn correct R/T from square 1.
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked so they are encouraged to "stay-standard".
< Firstly, you are breaking the law by listening to a scanner. >
HD, I have enormous respect for what you achieved during your career but I wish you wouldn't be quite so pompous about air band listening. Yes, it is technically illegal but FM is using it as a tool to improve his R/T and harming no-one thereby. A lot of PPLs could learn in the same way if they could be bothered and we wouldn't have to put up with so much rubbish R/T!
HD, I have enormous respect for what you achieved during your career but I wish you wouldn't be quite so pompous about air band listening. Yes, it is technically illegal but FM is using it as a tool to improve his R/T and harming no-one thereby. A lot of PPLs could learn in the same way if they could be bothered and we wouldn't have to put up with so much rubbish R/T!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEATHROW DIRECTOR - I agree that a number of PPLs etc. could do with more R/T practice; as you correctly mention, some simulator time might come in handy in that respect - but I guess that's another problem!
I was reflecting only on commercial R/T standards; checking aircrew R/T standards as part of the OPC for instance, would ensure that they stay up to scratch. Unfortunately, because the 6-monthly sim check rides can be so intensive with all the SOPs/emergencies etc. thrown in, R/T phraseology is rarely checked after licence issue.
An extreme example of the consequences of non-standard R/T can be found in the Flying Tigers 747 accident in Kuala Lumpur on 18 February 1989. I agree that most of the points I have highlighted will thankfully not come to that, but it does show a trend which, left unchecked, could one day contribute to another tragic outcome.
Cheers
P.S.: as for the legality of airband scanners, I use mine for professionnal reasons (and it has probably improved my R/T standards). If OFCOM was serious about prohibiting scanners, then they shouldn't be legally sold in most pilot shops.
I was reflecting only on commercial R/T standards; checking aircrew R/T standards as part of the OPC for instance, would ensure that they stay up to scratch. Unfortunately, because the 6-monthly sim check rides can be so intensive with all the SOPs/emergencies etc. thrown in, R/T phraseology is rarely checked after licence issue.
An extreme example of the consequences of non-standard R/T can be found in the Flying Tigers 747 accident in Kuala Lumpur on 18 February 1989. I agree that most of the points I have highlighted will thankfully not come to that, but it does show a trend which, left unchecked, could one day contribute to another tragic outcome.
Cheers
P.S.: as for the legality of airband scanners, I use mine for professionnal reasons (and it has probably improved my R/T standards). If OFCOM was serious about prohibiting scanners, then they shouldn't be legally sold in most pilot shops.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK guys.. I was merely stating the FACTS. OK? I'm was not being pompous about anything Atcham. You say you respect what I've done so why don't you respect the radio regulations? I KNOW that thousands of people use scanners, like thousands of people break the speed limits; it doesn't make it any more legal. I have high respect for radio regs both as a professional and hobbyist. As a professional I have experienced at first hand the result of the lack of policing of the radio regs in the UK and the consequent illegal use of radio gear. As I said, I know people do it, but suggest it is unwise to discuss it on here or other forums.
FougaMagister. Air traffic controllers also have "check rides" when emergencies and other procedures are practised. Additionally, R/T recordings are passed to specially appointed colleagues for assessment and discussion with the controller concerned. When I obtained my Flight R/T Licence some 40+ years ago, long before I was a controller, I had to undergo an examination in a simulator followed by oral questioning. It was pretty scary stuff! Guess standards are not so rigorous nowadays?
FougaMagister. Air traffic controllers also have "check rides" when emergencies and other procedures are practised. Additionally, R/T recordings are passed to specially appointed colleagues for assessment and discussion with the controller concerned. When I obtained my Flight R/T Licence some 40+ years ago, long before I was a controller, I had to undergo an examination in a simulator followed by oral questioning. It was pretty scary stuff! Guess standards are not so rigorous nowadays?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is still a practical R/T exam and I recall doing mine in a simulator (which looked like a booth for a translator at the UN!). This is done at PPL level, and then... that's it!
I got an R/T licence issued with the PPL, with a "VHF only" mention. Then I undertook the VFR and IFR comms exams for the ATPL, and... ta da! my (commercial) R/T licence now mentions "no restrictions", which means I can do HF as well (even though I only know HF theory).
That's about it. All the rest, as you say, is picked up when actually flying (which is why some GA pilots don't get enough exposure to a busy, commercial, R/T environment. I guess it must be frustrating to deal with an unsure GA pilot asking for Flight Information Service in the middle of your airline traffic). I see that R/T standards are taken very seriously by NATS; I think there should be something similar for aircrew; maybe training captains/TREs should simply make a point of insisting on correct R/T phraseology during OPCs/check rides.
Cheers
I got an R/T licence issued with the PPL, with a "VHF only" mention. Then I undertook the VFR and IFR comms exams for the ATPL, and... ta da! my (commercial) R/T licence now mentions "no restrictions", which means I can do HF as well (even though I only know HF theory).
That's about it. All the rest, as you say, is picked up when actually flying (which is why some GA pilots don't get enough exposure to a busy, commercial, R/T environment. I guess it must be frustrating to deal with an unsure GA pilot asking for Flight Information Service in the middle of your airline traffic). I see that R/T standards are taken very seriously by NATS; I think there should be something similar for aircrew; maybe training captains/TREs should simply make a point of insisting on correct R/T phraseology during OPCs/check rides.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 24
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be pedantic but CAP 371 is Avoidance Of Fatigue in Air Crews or are you saying the rubbish RT is because everyone is tired!
Try CAP 413, a right riveting read and very good for point scoring, especially when having taunted your subject for some time you justify you position of pious righteousness by producing a copy form your nav bag (or PDA).
MR
Try CAP 413, a right riveting read and very good for point scoring, especially when having taunted your subject for some time you justify you position of pious righteousness by producing a copy form your nav bag (or PDA).
MR
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FougaMagister
I think there should be something similar for aircrew; maybe training captains/TREs should simply make a point of insisting on correct R/T phraseology during OPCs/check rides.
Cheers
Cheers
RT discipline is entirely down to the individual, and while I take your point, a lot of the abbreviations will be from pilots who operate in and out of the same airfield everyday and have become somewhat familiar with making the same calls day in day out. In these circumstances it is easy to let some of the squeaky clean disciplined RT we all start off with slip. Thankfully we are provided with an excellent standard of ATC in the UK that usually makes up for any short comings!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankfully we are provided with an excellent standard of ATC in the UK that usually makes up for any short comings!
Yes, it does.
No, it shouldn't have to.
R/T discipline, both on the part of flight crew and ATC is getting worse in my experience. A lot of the problems in this matter are due to commercial pressure. We all need to work together to raise R/T phraseology to the highest standards.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR
FougaMagister. Firstly, you are breaking the law by listening to a scanner.
Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR
Having spent my life as a controller (two international airports, 1 ATCC and two light aircraft fields) I would agree that there are occasional lapses on both sides. However, the vast majority (99.999%) of professional airline/ helicopter/ air taxi pilots I dealt with were very good and kept to standard phraseology. Let's face it, in a very busy environment you have to! However, the R/T from many private pilots could have done with improvement. Maybe this stems from a) poor training (do any potential PPLs get simulator time before operating live R/T?) and b) poor R/T from their home "ATC" unit. I have heard terrible R/T from some AFISOs and ATCOs at small training airfields, yet these are the people who should be ultra-strict with their procedures so that trainee pilots learn correct R/T from square 1.
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked so they are encouraged to "stay-standard".
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked so they are encouraged to "stay-standard".
I have completed 34 hours of the PPL flying out of Elstree and my RT procedure has been commented on many times. One of my instructors is an ex BA first officer who says I sound like a professional over the radio - very fluent and strict to correct RT phraesology
So, instead of being one of those lazy private types, my RT is good, BECAUSE of listening to scanners 
Ray Keattch
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FougaMagister
That's about it. All the rest, as you say, is picked up when actually flying (which is why some GA pilots don't get enough exposure to a busy, commercial, R/T environment. I guess it must be frustrating to deal with an unsure GA pilot asking for Flight Information Service in the middle of your airline traffic).
Cheers
Cheers
Airspace, RT procedure, circuit calls, zone crossings etc were all second nature to me on the first lesson. I knew all about the London TMA, SIDS & STARS from my scanner hobby.Yep, there are idiots out there who misuse equipment, but for most people there is no harm in them listening in. Actually, I now have one of the Kinetic SBS units so I can also see the traffic live on screen - does even more wonders for learning about airspace and the way ATC works
If you want better private pilots, you should be encouraging scanners and SBS use
RK
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL
learn the 5 W's
Easy
What you are
Where your from
Where your going
What height
What you want
Keep to that and your quids in and not going to get a "stay clear of controlled airspace"
learn the 5 W's
Easy
What you are
Where your from
Where your going
What height
What you want
Keep to that and your quids in and not going to get a "stay clear of controlled airspace"
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure about that?
The Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 123).
See the sticky topic at the top of this forum.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Particularly the last sentence (or should that be 'prison term'? )
- not that anyone would do that - even 'anonymously' - of course.
)
However, if you pass on information from what you hear, through Bulletin Boards, the press, or by setting up a live feed, then it's entirely feasible to feel Ofcom's hand on your collar and an appointment before the beak.
PPRuNe's favourite BABE!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under the duvet!!!!
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs Air: "After the landing 737, line up and wait, Bloggs Air 167"). I don't call that a positive ID of the landing aircraft
I agree with standard rt although it is not always posssible to stictly use it to the letter. But please am I the only one here thinking get a life???
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lastly, professional ATCOs (I don't know about AFISOs) have their R/T procedure regularly checked
The vast majority of TREs/LTCs do.
In the UK, NATS is also adopting a more proactive approach to poor flight crew R/T standards (having already instigated a mandatory sampling process for all its ATCOs).
Personally, I don't think we should get too hung up about purely 'non-standard' R/T.
In my view there are three categories of R/T exchange:
1. Standard
2. Non-standard but not ambiguous, confusing or verbous
3. Non-standard and ambiguous and/or confusing and/or verbous.
It's only # 3 that we need to address and eradicate - on both sides, ATC and the flight deck/cockpit.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gonzo
Afraid so.
The Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 123).
See the sticky topic at the top of this forum.
The Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 123).
See the sticky topic at the top of this forum.
RK
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sticky topic mentions "published" frequencies as ok to listen to - I certainly don't have to look far to find London ATC frequencies.
Otherwise the officially published frequencies to which I assume you refer (AIP, AICs etc) are for operational use.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gonzo
When it talks about 'published frequencies', OFCOM means officially published frequencies for public use (i.e. at an airshow, as explained).
Otherwise the officially published frequencies to which I assume you refer (AIP, AICs etc) are for operational use.
Otherwise the officially published frequencies to which I assume you refer (AIP, AICs etc) are for operational use.
RK
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does it need to be hidden? It's illegal.
I say again, for operational use.
From the AIS website:
I say again, for operational use.
From the AIS website:
This information is supplied for Pre-flight planning purposes only