Annoying RT
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sunny South
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading through this thread with interest and as a lowly trainee controller, I would like to ask our pilot friends to spare a thought for the trainee when using non standard rubbish RT. As a trainee we are held responsible for your every mistake and will face a grilling for not challenging you, here are a few examples:
Lowly trainee: ***123, Contact *****, 123.45
Pilot: Roger over to ******, See ya.
(Now I have to either get you to read back the frequency before you flick the switch, or waste my time and the next sector controllers time by making a phone call to ensure you went to the correct sector)
Lowly trainee: ***123, taxi via A and B to stand **
Pilot: Roger, stand **
(Now I have to read the whole clearance again to get you to read it back, wasting 2 transmissions in the process)
After being told to hold short of a link or apron
Pilot: ***123 approaching ***
(Whilst I understand why this is done, and sometimes it can be useful, if the frequency is busy then it just clogs up valuable RT time. It also seems to spread like a virus, as after 1 or 2 of these transmissions every pilot feels the need to say it)
One final bugbear is pilots stepping on each other. Why not select the frequency and listen for 10-15 secs before transmitting. That way you dont request your clearance in the middle of someone else's, or ask for taxi while your colleague on another flight is reading his instructions back.
I know you guys are under pressure to achieve on time departures and cram in multi sector days, but no-one gets anywhere any faster when i have to say everything twice.
So please spare a thought for us trainees. We dont have years of experience to fall back on, may not always give you what you want straight away, but we are trying hard.
Rant over
P.S all donations to the lowly trainee controller fund are greatly appreciated, we accept cash, cheque, alcohol or even pizza as we dont get paid much.
Lowly trainee: ***123, Contact *****, 123.45
Pilot: Roger over to ******, See ya.
(Now I have to either get you to read back the frequency before you flick the switch, or waste my time and the next sector controllers time by making a phone call to ensure you went to the correct sector)
Lowly trainee: ***123, taxi via A and B to stand **
Pilot: Roger, stand **
(Now I have to read the whole clearance again to get you to read it back, wasting 2 transmissions in the process)
After being told to hold short of a link or apron
Pilot: ***123 approaching ***
(Whilst I understand why this is done, and sometimes it can be useful, if the frequency is busy then it just clogs up valuable RT time. It also seems to spread like a virus, as after 1 or 2 of these transmissions every pilot feels the need to say it)
One final bugbear is pilots stepping on each other. Why not select the frequency and listen for 10-15 secs before transmitting. That way you dont request your clearance in the middle of someone else's, or ask for taxi while your colleague on another flight is reading his instructions back.
I know you guys are under pressure to achieve on time departures and cram in multi sector days, but no-one gets anywhere any faster when i have to say everything twice.
So please spare a thought for us trainees. We dont have years of experience to fall back on, may not always give you what you want straight away, but we are trying hard.
Rant over
P.S all donations to the lowly trainee controller fund are greatly appreciated, we accept cash, cheque, alcohol or even pizza as we dont get paid much.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not select the frequency and listen for 10-15 secs before transmitting.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello
It think this is a very interesting topic. I started my professional career 2.5 years ago in biz aviation and up to now i must say that ATC can be for me the most frustrating item.
When i finished my line check the line training captain told me that my atc was good, as long if it was standard. This means when twr/app was talking non standard i was really out of the blue. In addition they were sometimes hard to understand, speaking so fast english with a foreign accent (germans, egyptian, spanish)and this in stressy situations, i felt i was a loser. 2.5 years later (now) things are a bit better.
That'swhy i really think that both parties (pilots and atc) should stick to phraseologie and speak in a understandable way. No more no less. And to be honest i think there are a lot of guys outhere in same situation as me.
My opinion.
It think this is a very interesting topic. I started my professional career 2.5 years ago in biz aviation and up to now i must say that ATC can be for me the most frustrating item.
When i finished my line check the line training captain told me that my atc was good, as long if it was standard. This means when twr/app was talking non standard i was really out of the blue. In addition they were sometimes hard to understand, speaking so fast english with a foreign accent (germans, egyptian, spanish)and this in stressy situations, i felt i was a loser. 2.5 years later (now) things are a bit better.
That'swhy i really think that both parties (pilots and atc) should stick to phraseologie and speak in a understandable way. No more no less. And to be honest i think there are a lot of guys outhere in same situation as me.
My opinion.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ready to be fully shot down here
Having flown in US the last year and a half it amazes me how poor the standard R/T is. Most time spent in SoCal area and yes... they push a lot of tin and they can be really efficient, but mostly at the expense of ambiguous clearances and a lot of bashing for not doing what ATC wanted!!
Other examples, starred by pilots
"OK....errr...Roger, we'll go down to 3 and join the LOC, thank you sir" = WTF???
"Ready for take-off" = Heard by anyone from tyro pilot to flight instructors and professional pilots
"Here we go/We're on the roll" = And other standard take-off clearances
"Tally Ho/No joy" = took me about 6 months to figure out what it meant
"Roger when it should be Wilco, Yes that's right sir when it should be Affirm" etc.
"Turn left on A, proceed straight ahead and make it second right onto D, then follow the taxiway to the end" = When simply "taxi A, D" would do it..... a lot less confusing, too.
If some kind of standard phraseology could be worked out maybe they could cut all the useless information on the ATIS as well like "read back all hold short instructions" DOH!!!
Rant over
Having flown in US the last year and a half it amazes me how poor the standard R/T is. Most time spent in SoCal area and yes... they push a lot of tin and they can be really efficient, but mostly at the expense of ambiguous clearances and a lot of bashing for not doing what ATC wanted!!
Other examples, starred by pilots
"OK....errr...Roger, we'll go down to 3 and join the LOC, thank you sir" = WTF???
"Ready for take-off" = Heard by anyone from tyro pilot to flight instructors and professional pilots
"Here we go/We're on the roll" = And other standard take-off clearances
"Tally Ho/No joy" = took me about 6 months to figure out what it meant
"Roger when it should be Wilco, Yes that's right sir when it should be Affirm" etc.
"Turn left on A, proceed straight ahead and make it second right onto D, then follow the taxiway to the end" = When simply "taxi A, D" would do it..... a lot less confusing, too.
If some kind of standard phraseology could be worked out maybe they could cut all the useless information on the ATIS as well like "read back all hold short instructions" DOH!!!
Rant over
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully Ready
As per usual on these kinds of threads, the issue of "Fully Ready" raises its head. The reason this comes about is because standard RT doesn't cover the situation when start delays are long and tugs are limited and you get this situation:
1. Can't have a tug because you aren't in the queue.
2. Can't be in the queue because you can't declare yourself ready.
3. Can't declare yourself ready because you don't have a tug.
1. Can't get a tug because... [repeat ad infinitum]
The only way to break the loop is to say something 'non-standard' or just lie.
I can either say "Ready" and wait for the sarcastic comment from the tower "oh is your tug invisible" or some such bollocks. Or I can say "Ready apart from a tug" in the sure and certain knowledge that the denizens of this forum are at risk of a stroke as their collective blood pressure ratchets up before shooting "well, you aren't ready then are you". Or I can call "Please can I be in the queue for start even though I am not strictly ready because you know and I know start is 45 mins away and if you let me in the queue I can then go on the list for tug which will certainly be less time than that". At which point ATC usually agree... and then ask me to report "fully" ready.
The point being that whilst precise RT use is highly desireable, pro-words are there to be our servants, not our masters. In the case of start clearance, the vocabulary is deficient and is overdue for a rewrite. In the mean time grin and bear it or start taking some valium 'cos I swear some of you guys sound ready to have a stroke.
pb
1. Can't have a tug because you aren't in the queue.
2. Can't be in the queue because you can't declare yourself ready.
3. Can't declare yourself ready because you don't have a tug.
1. Can't get a tug because... [repeat ad infinitum]
The only way to break the loop is to say something 'non-standard' or just lie.
I can either say "Ready" and wait for the sarcastic comment from the tower "oh is your tug invisible" or some such bollocks. Or I can say "Ready apart from a tug" in the sure and certain knowledge that the denizens of this forum are at risk of a stroke as their collective blood pressure ratchets up before shooting "well, you aren't ready then are you". Or I can call "Please can I be in the queue for start even though I am not strictly ready because you know and I know start is 45 mins away and if you let me in the queue I can then go on the list for tug which will certainly be less time than that". At which point ATC usually agree... and then ask me to report "fully" ready.
The point being that whilst precise RT use is highly desireable, pro-words are there to be our servants, not our masters. In the case of start clearance, the vocabulary is deficient and is overdue for a rewrite. In the mean time grin and bear it or start taking some valium 'cos I swear some of you guys sound ready to have a stroke.
pb
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: southeast england
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excellent points raised by Capt. Pit Bull.
Personally, when there are start delays I'm more than happy to put you in the queue when you have pax on board, fuelled etc. and then get you to report "fully" ready with a tug. If your turn comes up before the tug arrives you'll just "hold" your position until it does i.e. as soon as the tug is with you you become number 1.
However, I won't put you in the queue when you report ready with pax still climbing the steps, baggage ramps still attached, or the BP vehicle still plugged in!!!
Personally, when there are start delays I'm more than happy to put you in the queue when you have pax on board, fuelled etc. and then get you to report "fully" ready with a tug. If your turn comes up before the tug arrives you'll just "hold" your position until it does i.e. as soon as the tug is with you you become number 1.
However, I won't put you in the queue when you report ready with pax still climbing the steps, baggage ramps still attached, or the BP vehicle still plugged in!!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fully ready"
"Charlie charlie"
Ending every readback with the word "Confirm"? Yes, we know you like to make in impact on the airwaves, but if you have to confirm every clearance then perhaps you need more work on your listening watch or be ready to write things down the first time.
Any queries in a radar environment under positive control of ATC that relates to "track miles". Just do what you're told, fly your aircraft, check your TCAS to see where you fit into the sequence if you're that interested, and shut up.
In a radar environment, after they've been givin a final intercept turn and "Cleared for the ILS Rwy XX approach" , pilots reporting they're "established on the localizer" (which usually forces the controller to respond with an equally useless "continue approach"), or even worse, querying if they're cleared to "descend on the glide". Yes, being "cleared for the ILS approach" means you are also cleared to intercept and descend on the glideslope, and you DON'T have to report established in a radar environment unless asked by ATC to "report established". THey can see you turning to establish yourself. Seeing you doing things is the whole point of having ATC radar.
Controllers who you think may have cleared you to fly direct to a waypoint, but don't use the word "direct", forcing us to question if that's what they really meant.
Controllers who have a runway exit plan for you after touchdown, but keep it as a closely-guarded secret until on the landing roll.
"Charlie charlie"
Ending every readback with the word "Confirm"? Yes, we know you like to make in impact on the airwaves, but if you have to confirm every clearance then perhaps you need more work on your listening watch or be ready to write things down the first time.
Any queries in a radar environment under positive control of ATC that relates to "track miles". Just do what you're told, fly your aircraft, check your TCAS to see where you fit into the sequence if you're that interested, and shut up.
In a radar environment, after they've been givin a final intercept turn and "Cleared for the ILS Rwy XX approach" , pilots reporting they're "established on the localizer" (which usually forces the controller to respond with an equally useless "continue approach"), or even worse, querying if they're cleared to "descend on the glide". Yes, being "cleared for the ILS approach" means you are also cleared to intercept and descend on the glideslope, and you DON'T have to report established in a radar environment unless asked by ATC to "report established". THey can see you turning to establish yourself. Seeing you doing things is the whole point of having ATC radar.
Controllers who you think may have cleared you to fly direct to a waypoint, but don't use the word "direct", forcing us to question if that's what they really meant.
Controllers who have a runway exit plan for you after touchdown, but keep it as a closely-guarded secret until on the landing roll.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: moved to somewhere green & wet
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold Short --- is not good R/T
Hi criss,
see I am not the only one who thinks "Hold Short" is not that good.
Standard Noise
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Where the singing aardvarks told me I should be but when they stop singing I'm gonna escape
Posts: 1,125
No ATCO should ever say 'hold short of runway xx'. Don't give a toss what any book says, it's bad practice and will lead to a runway incursion. I've seen this very thing happen at my unit in the last 12 months. The ATCO involved had a talking to from me afterwards.
Should you ever be given an instruction telling you to 'hold short of runway xx', you should ask for clarification of exactly where you are to hold.
SN,
Unit Competancy Examiner,
Out-in-the-sticks International
Can think of much R/T that had been added, changed and removed from the good book of R/T. Just because its in the good book of one country or used by people in another country, it does not mean its good R/T.
Dont care what they say at LHR, listen to the BBC TV series East Enders and you'll see that they dont talk to good anyway.
Remember, if there is room for a missunderstanding to become an error, it will become an accident, sooner or later. Just hope I am not a passenger on that airplane. I like to arrive on my feet and not in a bag.
see I am not the only one who thinks "Hold Short" is not that good.
Standard Noise
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Where the singing aardvarks told me I should be but when they stop singing I'm gonna escape
Posts: 1,125
No ATCO should ever say 'hold short of runway xx'. Don't give a toss what any book says, it's bad practice and will lead to a runway incursion. I've seen this very thing happen at my unit in the last 12 months. The ATCO involved had a talking to from me afterwards.
Should you ever be given an instruction telling you to 'hold short of runway xx', you should ask for clarification of exactly where you are to hold.
SN,
Unit Competancy Examiner,
Out-in-the-sticks International
Can think of much R/T that had been added, changed and removed from the good book of R/T. Just because its in the good book of one country or used by people in another country, it does not mean its good R/T.
Dont care what they say at LHR, listen to the BBC TV series East Enders and you'll see that they dont talk to good anyway.
Remember, if there is room for a missunderstanding to become an error, it will become an accident, sooner or later. Just hope I am not a passenger on that airplane. I like to arrive on my feet and not in a bag.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF
Suggest you check out some accident reports - after Crossair Flight 3597 and several others, it bacame mandatory in a lot of places to confirm established before transfer to tower.
Guy.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beginning of rant
"XXXX fully ready for take off". Now can you be half ready? And even if you can, what difference does that make?
"XXXX Request FL350 if available". Well if 350 is bloody available then the controller will be able to assign it to you.
Useless yapping more to sound ubercool than for a reason. The standards of RT work have gone to sh.its in the last 5 years. A marked difference with the surge of inexperienced pilots flooding in when the times where good.
Another thing that I get annoyed is with a FO giving a TO/Dep briefing and telling me that in case of a problem we must perform a "Re-Landing" ( What in the God's name is a Re-Landing???) urgh. Makes me squirm
End of rant
"XXXX fully ready for take off". Now can you be half ready? And even if you can, what difference does that make?
"XXXX Request FL350 if available". Well if 350 is bloody available then the controller will be able to assign it to you.
Useless yapping more to sound ubercool than for a reason. The standards of RT work have gone to sh.its in the last 5 years. A marked difference with the surge of inexperienced pilots flooding in when the times where good.
Another thing that I get annoyed is with a FO giving a TO/Dep briefing and telling me that in case of a problem we must perform a "Re-Landing" ( What in the God's name is a Re-Landing???) urgh. Makes me squirm
End of rant
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RHAG Hold Short --- is not good R/T
No ATCO should ever say 'hold short of runway xx'. Don't give a toss what any book says, it's bad practice and will lead to a runway incursion. I've seen this very thing happen at my unit in the last 12 months. The ATCO involved had a talking to from me afterwards.
Should you ever be given an instruction telling you to 'hold short of runway xx', you should ask for clarification of exactly where you are to hold.
SN,
Unit Competancy Examiner,
Out-in-the-sticks International
Can think of much R/T that had been added, changed and removed from the good book of R/T. Just because its in the good book of one country or used by people in another country, it does not mean its good R/T.
Dont care what they say at LHR, listen to the BBC TV series East Enders and you'll see that they dont talk to good anyway.
Remember, if there is room for a missunderstanding to become an error, it will become an accident, sooner or later.
No ATCO should ever say 'hold short of runway xx'. Don't give a toss what any book says, it's bad practice and will lead to a runway incursion. I've seen this very thing happen at my unit in the last 12 months. The ATCO involved had a talking to from me afterwards.
Should you ever be given an instruction telling you to 'hold short of runway xx', you should ask for clarification of exactly where you are to hold.
SN,
Unit Competancy Examiner,
Out-in-the-sticks International
Can think of much R/T that had been added, changed and removed from the good book of R/T. Just because its in the good book of one country or used by people in another country, it does not mean its good R/T.
Dont care what they say at LHR, listen to the BBC TV series East Enders and you'll see that they dont talk to good anyway.
Remember, if there is room for a missunderstanding to become an error, it will become an accident, sooner or later.
Hold lines delineate the taxiway side from the runway side, and are usually co-located with white on red signage drawing your attention to the fact that anything past those indicators is "runway". No part of the aircraft should cross the hold lines onto the runway side until a runway clearance is issued. That's exactly where you should hold. There is no fuzzy no-man's-land area after the hold lines...it's considered runway. Go past them without clearance, and it's an incursion.
"Hold short of Twy xx" is hardly "bad practice". On the contrary, unless there's a failure on the part of the pilot to understand basic pavement markings (quite frankly, PPL stuff) or the markings or signage are nonexistant, it's a perfectly clear, acceptable, and unambiguous instruction. If there's any misunderstanding, it sounds more like a local unit problem of not opening the books.