"Standby for..."
Thread Starter
That's what I thought. Here's the scenario departing Rotterdam this morning:
Ground cleared me to destination on a REFSO2B departure from Rwy 24, which consists of a climb straight ahead to RTM 2.8d and then a right turn to intercept an outbound track from RTM.
When lined up, Rotterdam Tower said (in the same transmission as the
take-off clearance):
"After departure, standby for right turn to REFSO".
I interpreted this as
"Expect an instruction to make an early right turn to REFSO shortly after departure."
Passing RTM 2.8d I turned right for REFSO according to the SID. Tower queried this. He expected me to maintain runway track. He had intended the instruction to mean:
"Climb straight ahead and do not turn right until advised."
I suggest that the words "standby for.." are ambiguous and should not be used in an attempt to modify an existing clearance. The instruction must be positive e.g. "After departure, climb straight ahead until advised."
Thoughts? Is "standby for..." regularly used in that way?
Ground cleared me to destination on a REFSO2B departure from Rwy 24, which consists of a climb straight ahead to RTM 2.8d and then a right turn to intercept an outbound track from RTM.
When lined up, Rotterdam Tower said (in the same transmission as the
take-off clearance):
"After departure, standby for right turn to REFSO".
I interpreted this as
"Expect an instruction to make an early right turn to REFSO shortly after departure."
Passing RTM 2.8d I turned right for REFSO according to the SID. Tower queried this. He expected me to maintain runway track. He had intended the instruction to mean:
"Climb straight ahead and do not turn right until advised."
I suggest that the words "standby for.." are ambiguous and should not be used in an attempt to modify an existing clearance. The instruction must be positive e.g. "After departure, climb straight ahead until advised."
Thoughts? Is "standby for..." regularly used in that way?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very poor phraseology from the tower man - "Change to your clearance, continue straight ahead until advised, climb FL......" would have been a better, safer, unambiguous way to do it.
Thread Starter
However, I've written to Rotterdam ATC suggesting a review of the phraseology used in those circumstances. If they reply and permit it, and assuming that I don't end up in a Dutch jail, I'll report back.
Thanks for all the replies.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either the controller used non standard RT or the RT should be modified to align with ICAO. The word standby has a clear (aviation) meaning.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a controller at Rotterdam, but as a controller in general i think it was an ambiguous clearance.
You were given a SID, that is what you fly. If he didn't want you to turn right until later than on the SID he should said something like: "Revised clearance, after dep, climb straigh ahead, climb alt xxx." Then once airborne tell you when to turn to REFSO.
My two cents...
C
You were given a SID, that is what you fly. If he didn't want you to turn right until later than on the SID he should said something like: "Revised clearance, after dep, climb straigh ahead, climb alt xxx." Then once airborne tell you when to turn to REFSO.
My two cents...
C
Thread Starter
To close this, I received a constructive reply from Rotterdam ATC in response to my note. I'm not sure if I've persuaded them that "stand-by" in this context should be entirely avoided, but they do agree that a positive instruction would have been better. We also agree that I should have asked for clarification, which is undoubtedly true.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EBSL / EDYY
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stanby for...
Alters nothing of your clearance received. It just prepares you to expect a certain clearance.
---
There are a lot of options to make the point the ATCO wanted in an unambigious way.
**Continue RWY-hdg, standby for REFSO**
We use it quite often to already prepare you to prepare the FMS for the route/direct you are about to receive.
(To give an idea why you don't get the route/direct straight away, might be coordination civil/civil, civil/military or to wait until clear of military airspace)
Alters nothing of your clearance received. It just prepares you to expect a certain clearance.
---
There are a lot of options to make the point the ATCO wanted in an unambigious way.
**Continue RWY-hdg, standby for REFSO**
We use it quite often to already prepare you to prepare the FMS for the route/direct you are about to receive.
(To give an idea why you don't get the route/direct straight away, might be coordination civil/civil, civil/military or to wait until clear of military airspace)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Cloggy says, it was, I'm afraid to say, simply poor R/T from which we have all learnt. The trouble with
is that you have to have doubts in order to query.
We also agree that I should have asked for clarification, which is undoubtedly true.
Thread Starter
Exactly BOAC. The dangerous one is not the instruction that is unclear. It is the one that both pilot and controller find perfectly clear but interpret in different ways!
