Annoying RT
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: up north
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French controllers and their way of always using the names of the nav stations instead of using letters. That really annoys me...
ATC: xxx, you are cleared to Montdidier
A/C: say again
ATC: xxx, direct Montdidier
A/C: confirm MTD
ATC: affirm
ATC: xxx, you are cleared to Montdidier
A/C: say again
ATC: xxx, direct Montdidier
A/C: confirm MTD
ATC: affirm
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Somewhere on the ND
Age: 84
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oiga,
99% of the time you only get directed to VORs on your flight plan. Is it really too difficult to a) know which VOR's you're planned via and b) to know the names of said VOR's as well as the ident? Hint: they're in the charts.
99% of the time you only get directed to VORs on your flight plan. Is it really too difficult to a) know which VOR's you're planned via and b) to know the names of said VOR's as well as the ident? Hint: they're in the charts.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Somewhere on the ND
Age: 84
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to dig up something for earlier in this thread: holding short of the runway.
I'm slightly baffled as to where there is any ambiguity here.
As far as I'm concerned, every taxi instruction has its limit at whichever point/taxiway/etc is the last one mentioned.
i.e. "Taxi A, B and C" means taxi as far as the point where C becomes something else (which should be de-lineated by a mark on the ground or a sign - if there's ambiguity, just ask).
In the same fashion, any taxi instruction automatically is limited by a runway holding point unless specific crossing/lining up instructions are received. So in that sense the very instruction "hold short of the runway" is redundant as the default reaction is always to hold short. Now obviously it makes good sense to reinforce the hold short by verbalising it.
So far so easy. So why the big fuss about the holding point? It's very damn simple really. There are painted lines on the ground, either cat 1 or cat 2/3 and depending on conditions, you stop at the correct line and thus are holding short.
I'm slightly baffled as to where there is any ambiguity here.
As far as I'm concerned, every taxi instruction has its limit at whichever point/taxiway/etc is the last one mentioned.
i.e. "Taxi A, B and C" means taxi as far as the point where C becomes something else (which should be de-lineated by a mark on the ground or a sign - if there's ambiguity, just ask).
In the same fashion, any taxi instruction automatically is limited by a runway holding point unless specific crossing/lining up instructions are received. So in that sense the very instruction "hold short of the runway" is redundant as the default reaction is always to hold short. Now obviously it makes good sense to reinforce the hold short by verbalising it.
So far so easy. So why the big fuss about the holding point? It's very damn simple really. There are painted lines on the ground, either cat 1 or cat 2/3 and depending on conditions, you stop at the correct line and thus are holding short.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC what if the controller said "after the landing Easyjet....", would you still read it back as "after the landing aircraft..."? I still don't understand why you would want to create a deliberate Swiss Cheese hole by intentionally reading back a more vague instruction than you had just received.
PaulW I too am a member of the anti-"Copied" club though we are a very small community. The correct answer to "G-CD clearance" (or similar) is "pass your message" not "ready to COPY.....ie Breaker Breaker One Nine what's your Twenty?"
CAP413, as you say, makes reference to using just your callsign in a transmission to acknowledge information. But as we have all come to realise over the years, even though CAP413 is in its 50 millionth edition, it still contains utter, utter rubbish that contradicts much of the Manual of Air Traffic Services. CAP413 must be the all time greatest CAA Publication from the Dept. of Not Really Interested.
In such a situation I continue to use the phrase "Acknowledged, G-CD." Many years ago ROGER stood for "message received and understood." Some years ago it changed to "I have received all of your last transmission."
What does it mean now out of interest?
Oh and by the way, Transavia B738 in CHQ on Tuesday morning, what an utterly massive c**t you sounded on the radio with your laid back "style" of RT. Why do you think the Greek controller asked for a second readback of "1234 IN THE BOX" as you so put it.....twice in succession? Does not saying the word SQUAWK make you cooler than the rest of us? We followed you north-westbound and had to listen to your "COMING DOWN" crap much of the way home.
And I agree with Oiga using local names for VORs is a pain in the neck. The UK is just as bad though asking foreigners to route to places like Stornoway when they haven't a clue where that is. There is rarely any doubt as to the location of Sierra Tango November though.
A previous poster mentioned a German airline begins every readback with their callsign at the beginning of the transmission. Having read this on Pprune and went flying the next day, I noticed every German callsign was doing it........another new annoyance to contend with! Bah!!!
PaulW I too am a member of the anti-"Copied" club though we are a very small community. The correct answer to "G-CD clearance" (or similar) is "pass your message" not "ready to COPY.....ie Breaker Breaker One Nine what's your Twenty?"
CAP413, as you say, makes reference to using just your callsign in a transmission to acknowledge information. But as we have all come to realise over the years, even though CAP413 is in its 50 millionth edition, it still contains utter, utter rubbish that contradicts much of the Manual of Air Traffic Services. CAP413 must be the all time greatest CAA Publication from the Dept. of Not Really Interested.
In such a situation I continue to use the phrase "Acknowledged, G-CD." Many years ago ROGER stood for "message received and understood." Some years ago it changed to "I have received all of your last transmission."
What does it mean now out of interest?
Oh and by the way, Transavia B738 in CHQ on Tuesday morning, what an utterly massive c**t you sounded on the radio with your laid back "style" of RT. Why do you think the Greek controller asked for a second readback of "1234 IN THE BOX" as you so put it.....twice in succession? Does not saying the word SQUAWK make you cooler than the rest of us? We followed you north-westbound and had to listen to your "COMING DOWN" crap much of the way home.
And I agree with Oiga using local names for VORs is a pain in the neck. The UK is just as bad though asking foreigners to route to places like Stornoway when they haven't a clue where that is. There is rarely any doubt as to the location of Sierra Tango November though.
A previous poster mentioned a German airline begins every readback with their callsign at the beginning of the transmission. Having read this on Pprune and went flying the next day, I noticed every German callsign was doing it........another new annoyance to contend with! Bah!!!
Last edited by Kiltie; 19th Aug 2010 at 15:31.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Somewhere on the ND
Age: 84
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transavia B738
And I agree with Oiga using local names for VORs is a pain in the neck.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VORs do have three letter codes and only those are used in our OFPs nowadays. Gone are the days where the frequency and full name was in there too. Maps are a thing we are not required to use anymore either as the authority assures us that 2 operating FMC are enough. We do have them, somewhere in our EFB but if I have to look the name simply because a French controller can't be bothered to use the TLC o the second try like the rest of the world does would probably take around 10 minutes (booting up the EFB, starting the correct program, loading the route, zoom in far enough to get VOR names, pan to the correct part of the world).
@Kiltie, it might be an easyjet to you, but looks pretty much like an Icelandair to the rest of us, same for many other airlines tha exchange aircraft between them. Over here it could be an Air Berlin to the controller, but it's a flyniki or tuifly for us. It is actually enough if we pilots acknowledge that after the next landing we can cross or line up, aircraft type and airline can be very misleading.
@Kiltie, it might be an easyjet to you, but looks pretty much like an Icelandair to the rest of us, same for many other airlines tha exchange aircraft between them. Over here it could be an Air Berlin to the controller, but it's a flyniki or tuifly for us. It is actually enough if we pilots acknowledge that after the next landing we can cross or line up, aircraft type and airline can be very misleading.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC what if the controller said "after the landing Easyjet....", would you still read it back as "after the landing aircraft..."? I still don't understand why you would want to create a deliberate Swiss Cheese hole by intentionally reading back a more vague instruction than you had just received.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do have them, somewhere in our EFB but if I have to look the name simply because a French controller can't be bothered to use the TLC
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
So what would you do if you were waiting to cross at the midpoint; one aircraft had just touched down but was yet to pass you, there was another 2.5nm out on approach, and I'd just given you an 'after the landing, cross......' clearance. Would you know I meant after the at 2.5nm, beacuse that's what MATS Part 1 says? Would I be safe to assume all pilots are as familiar with that document?
I would look out my window and see that you had provided an unsafe clearance.
So what would you do if you were waiting to cross at the midpoint; one aircraft had just touched down but was yet to pass you, there was another 2.5nm out on approach, and I'd just given you an 'after the landing, cross......' clearance. Would you know I meant after the at 2.5nm, beacuse that's what MATS Part 1 says? Would I be safe to assume all pilots are as familiar with that document?
I would look out my window and see that you had provided an unsafe clearance.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why would you come to that conclusion? Why wouldn't you cross after the 'aircraft' that had just touched down? Would all pilots react that way?
I would query the clerance.
If I was not happy then I would sit where I was - not breaking any rules and 100% safe. Pilots should remember that they are the ones that have the final decision (and responsibility) as to accepting a clearance and are entitled to refuse it and ask for a better (safer) one.
While they wait for the new one they can moan to the passengers about ATC delays!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Basingstoke, Hampshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiltie
As one who has operated extensively using Morse Code, I believe that the use of "R" originates from operations in that mode. "R" as sent by a Morse operator means "I have successfully received and decoded all of your last transmission", i.e with no charaters lost by QRM or QSB (fading). It thereby implies that the message has been received correctly. However if the operator is receiving coded messages he or she has no way of knowing that the message has actually been copied correctly and therefore has to rely upon skill and training to make a best judgement. If there were any doubts then "AA" (All after . . ) or QSL? (Please confirm I have received this correctly) would be used, and in the case of QSL then the received data would be transmitted back - heavy going in Morse! The use of "R" (i.e. Roger) in voice communication is rather meaningless in my view, as only a readback can guarantee 100% accuracy. That is obviously impossible for every message exchange, so leaves the meaning of "Roger" down to trust, like "Wilco"! After all, one can easily understand a message but actually hear the wrong thing!
Regards
OM
As one who has operated extensively using Morse Code, I believe that the use of "R" originates from operations in that mode. "R" as sent by a Morse operator means "I have successfully received and decoded all of your last transmission", i.e with no charaters lost by QRM or QSB (fading). It thereby implies that the message has been received correctly. However if the operator is receiving coded messages he or she has no way of knowing that the message has actually been copied correctly and therefore has to rely upon skill and training to make a best judgement. If there were any doubts then "AA" (All after . . ) or QSL? (Please confirm I have received this correctly) would be used, and in the case of QSL then the received data would be transmitted back - heavy going in Morse! The use of "R" (i.e. Roger) in voice communication is rather meaningless in my view, as only a readback can guarantee 100% accuracy. That is obviously impossible for every message exchange, so leaves the meaning of "Roger" down to trust, like "Wilco"! After all, one can easily understand a message but actually hear the wrong thing!
Regards
OM
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiltie although I've not been around as long as Old Mac, IIRC "Ready to copy the clearance" has been in use for many years, certainly in the 1960s in the UK; long before CB.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mount Juliet TN
Age: 68
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the B737 line up and wait (whether or not there is a string of B737's on final), after the 757 cross runway 17, are conditional clearances and in the U.S it is illegal to issue a conditional clearance.
I can't believe that conditional clearances like the two above would be legal anywhere, the potential for a serious error is huge.
I can't believe that conditional clearances like the two above would be legal anywhere, the potential for a serious error is huge.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Basingstoke, Hampshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Morse experience is maritime and amateur - I'm not quite old enough to have operated Morse in an aviation environment apart from reading fluent VOR and NDB, although I knew many of the Communicator grade at LATCC who did. Interestingly I also know someone who has a severe stammer but sends perfectly fluent Morse!!
OM
(EIEIO)
OM
(EIEIO)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Mac, I agree with you. Some seem to think that the pronunciation of a letter must include that letter. When I put that argument to them it is met with blank expression. A similar offence is the pronunciation of the letter J as "j-eye", which I can only assume is because it follows the letter I ("eye").
I am having a bit of a Victor Meldrew Sunday today.
I am having a bit of a Victor Meldrew Sunday today.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Basingstoke, Hampshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A for 'orses, B for mutton, C for sailors Oh dear I'm showing my age!
Whilst on a visit to meet some engineers from the FAA I was accused of "having a respect for the language" and having a "British accent". Had to advise that "this is how English sounds when spoken properly and it is you who have the accent" . A subsequent communique from the nits advises that they are suitably picked.
I also get stroppy on roundabouts when people think that they don't have to indicate their chosen exit or indicate one exit too early. Maybe I should stop flying in case I get upset by "hold for the landing flying saucer at 2.5 nm" ....
Whilst on a visit to meet some engineers from the FAA I was accused of "having a respect for the language" and having a "British accent". Had to advise that "this is how English sounds when spoken properly and it is you who have the accent" . A subsequent communique from the nits advises that they are suitably picked.
I also get stroppy on roundabouts when people think that they don't have to indicate their chosen exit or indicate one exit too early. Maybe I should stop flying in case I get upset by "hold for the landing flying saucer at 2.5 nm" ....
