Annoying RT

[criss]

RHAG, and your point is? One can argue that any "by the book phraseology" is bad, but without substantiating, it simply remains a private opinion.

[Agaricus bisporus]

"Fully" anything. Meaningless bollix. You either are or you aren't. No fully or partially involved. Ever.

"Filthy 1234, are you ready?". "No, waiting on the cabin" AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!! What's wrong with the correct "Negative"? What kind of idiotic gloop-speak is "waiting on the cabin"? Are you serving the cabin tea? Do cabins even drink tea? Just "Waiting for the cabin" would be bad enough, but on it?

Telling the fella your heading after he's told you to maintain it, he'll ask "and report it" if he wants to know.

Asking closed-loop questions " Confirm cleared FLXXX" Instead of "Confirm cleared level" Basic Human factors stuff.

Hitting the ident after departure "because they always ask for it"

Briefing taxi routes and parking positions before you've recieved them,or when there is only one way possible (a particular bugbear in my company). What, are you psychic or something? Why/how can you just assume that? Or why waste breath briefing the self-evident?

Spouting a great unasked-for frequency-blocking spiel on contacting Approach reporting type, variant, heading, speed, altitude, ATIS ident and QNH everywhere you go just because the unique procedure at home base seems to need this, yet not noticing that it doesn't happen elsewhere cos it isn't necessary or wanted.

Spouting unnecessary detail about minor tech problems that can only result in overreaction by those who aren't allowed the discretion to disregard such details.

Spouting details of non-critical tech problems on "company". Manna for the media maggots.

"Repeat" for "say again".

ie, just not engaging brain before using the radio.

[Defruiter]

Completely agree with that ident comment. Incredibly annoying. If any crews are reading this, don't push the ident button before being asked to do so. Technically, the aircraft can only be identified with the ident method when instructed to "squawk ident". From the book:

When using Mode A to identify aircraft, one of the following methods is to be
employed:
c) Observing an IDENT feature when it has been requested. Caution must be
exercised when employing this method because simultaneous requests for SPI
transmissions within the same area may result in misidentification. Aircraft
displaying the conspicuity code 7000 are not to be identified by this method."

Pedantic I know, but them's the rules!

Another one of my pet hates is aircraft that fail to readback a speed instruction properly, if at all. Speed is a mandatory readback. Full list from the book:

5.3.1 Pilots/drivers are required to read-back in full messages containing any of the
following items:
•Taxi/towing instructions;
• Level instructions;
• Heading instructions;
• Speed instructions;
• Airways or route clearances;
• Approach clearances;
• Runway-in-use;
• Clearance to enter, land on, take-off, backtrack, cross or hold short of any active
runway;
• SSR operating instructions;
• Altimeter settings;
• VDF information;
• Frequency changes;
• Type of ATS;
• Transition levels.

If you were instructed as a pilot to "Descend FL120", you wouldn't respond with "Roger", "Wilco", "Starting that descent now", "already descending" or some of the other rubbish we get, so why do it with a speed? Speed is just as important as anything else.

Food for thought anyway...

[On the beach]

My pet hate

XYZ "Minimum fuel"

To which my response is always: "Are you declaring an emergency?"

And to which the answer invariably is "Errrrr, no"

So what is the actual problem?

As far as I'm aware, minimum fuel means you have enough fuel for an approach, followed by a missed approach and a diversion to your nominated alternate. It's what every aircraft has to carry. You don't need to tell us unless you can't do any of the above.

If you are genuinely at the bare minimum fuel and have only enough to reach your destination then prefix the call with "Mayday" and I guarantee you that you will get our undivided attention and will be number one to the closest airfield available.

On the beach

[5LY]

It's been mentioned already, but have to beat on it some more. They guy who before every altitude change says "Big Town Control, Too cool 123 request..... and the controller has to say Too cool 123 go ahead, and Too cool 123 says 'Too cool 123 reqest FL350.

When I hear some w'ker do that I expect the request to be something amazing like "can we go down and fly under that bridge inverted and then rejoin the airway?" Just ask for your blinkin' FL and stop imagining you're staring in your own movie.

And further on someone's whinge about ATC exit instructions: When I'm bouncing down your runway at 90 knots, I can't read the chart, and I haven't memorized all of the taxiway names. At best, I know I'm shooting for the first or 2nd high speed on the left or whatever (really I do have a plan) but telling me to exit B or somesuch is going to cause me consternation unless I happen to be fully familliar with your layout.

Mostly we love you guys. Thanks for the handholding all these years.

[fireflybob]

On the ground at an airport with no ATIS and a/c calling for the "Weather" when it should be "Departure Information"!

[one dot right]

And further on someone's whinge about ATC exit instructions: When I'm bouncing down your runway at 90 knots, I can't read the chart, and I haven't memorized all of the taxiway names. At best, I know I'm shooting for the first or 2nd high speed on the left or whatever (really I do have a plan) but telling me to exit B or somesuch is going to cause me consternation unless I happen to be fully familliar with your layout

. Heard this at Liverpool one night, some poor b*gger in a chieftain had just broken out of the overcast at around 300' and was in the flare when he was given "G-XYZ vacate at A take taxiway B parking C". Single crew, unfamiliar with airfield layout, the guy just said 'er, i'm single crew, when I get it stopped and off the runway i'll have a look at the plate"

ATC can be too slick for their own good sometimes!

[blissbak]

@On the beach
In Italy minimum fuel is a priority request, this means no delay then, 'cause they haven't much endurance to follow the phases you talked about before, moreover, if you give them too much delay and in the worst situation they later need to go around, it will probably turn into emergency/critical fuel.

[Max Angle]

So what is the actual problem?

No problem at all if you are sitting in a nice cosy and warm ATC suite where your ass will remain safe no matter what happens.

[criss]

Reading/understanding problem?

[On the beach]

OK Max Angle, here's the problem I was faced with a few years ago. I had 9 aircraft inbound, all trans-oceanics, 6 of whom on first contact stated "minimum fuel", because of either adverse winds or bad planning. Now, 5 of these inbounds on minimum fuel aren't going to be number one and from the statement "minimum fuel", I cannot tell who has the least fuel of the 6. So, I have to ask all in turn if they are "declaring an emergency". And the answer from all 6 was NO. So I'm back to my original problem of sequencing, except that I now know that someone up there probably is genuinely low on fuel or will be if they are made number 6 in the sequence or have to hold. Now, not one of these minimum fuel aircraft declared an emergency even though 5 of them had to be vectored or speed controlled.

Many years ago if a Captain was in the same situation he would have said something along the lines of "We're low on fuel and don't have enough reserves left for holding. If there's any holding we need to divert". In which case ATC know exactly what the situation is and will ensure that, subject to weather and other emergencies that particular aircraft gets in ahead of others who may have to hold or will be told of the ATC situation which makes it impossible. There seems to be an increasing reluctance among the younger Captains these days to declare a fuel emergency for fear of jeopardising their future.

I appreciate that in this day and age commercial pressures play an increasing role in the way many fleets are operated and the luxury of the Captain getting the refuellers to "put a little extra in for Mum and the kids" no longer exists. Sadly, though many operators are taking off with not much more than is the absolute legal minimum fuel requirement.

However, the use of the phrase "minimum fuel" seems to be becoming more prevalent and if it is used by all operators then the whole system is at risk.

I'm sure you are aware of Avianca Flight 52 which crashed near New York back in 1990 after running out of fuel. It was only after 75 minutes holding that the crew declared that they were "running out of fuel". The point here being that they were probably close to "minimum fuel" when they entered the hold but they only decided to tell ATC after 75 minutes of holding. A "minimum fuel" call would have been meaningless as due to the weather I'm sure most of the other aircraft holding were in the same situation.

The NTSB report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per IATA guidelines.

The pertinent word here being "emergency". So that's what the actual problem is and why not only is it annoying R/T saying "minimum fuel" but is also meaningless to ATCOs. I hope this clarifies the situation.

On the beach

[blissbak]

I'm not aware about other countries, in Italy we have "minimum fuel" reported in our manuals and in our national AIP.
About the case you referred, you just had to give them delay as less as possible as of everyone else around but everyone who declared the minimum fuel, they can still fly normally, so it's like a PAN call (underlining the "like").
To avoid the problems there were in the past (cheating pilots ), someone should check them when on the ground.

[Navigator33]

With all due respect but I have the feeling there are more "procedures" and "calls" written in Italian manuals and AIPs that make no sense whatsoever to the rest of the world

Standing by to stand by...

[blissbak]

I've never talked about our procedures as the best in the world,
I just said that when you're flying throw the worst airspace in the world,
just in case your fuel is not that much but still ok to continue almost safely, in that case I'll try to give you no delay, 'cause I don't like to wait till the real emergency.
In the event you're burning like a big fire ball, I'll give you special assistance even if you don't call a mayday
Cheers

[Brie]

Another thing that frustrates me as a pilot: atc talking so fast that they are really unreadable (and im not talking about africans). Ok i understand that sometimes it has to go fast but please pronunciate clearly so i don't have to ask five times "say again".

My advice is : keep it short and clear.

[DFC]

2) don't understand the end of the taxiway end and runway beginning is defined by the hold lines,

Small point but I think that you will find that the end of a taxiway is where the taxiway and the runway join i.e. at the physical edge of the runway.

Taxiway holding positions (holding points) are designated (marked) to ensure that the largest aircraft for which the aerodrome is designed holding at the most adverse angle does not infringe a myriad of obstacle and / or signal critical areas.

Asking a pilot to hold short of runway(nn) assumes that the pilot knows the design standard of the aerodrome, the aerodrome category, the physical limitations and the signal in space limitations not to mention the wingspan of the aircraft about to roll combined with the pilot's ability to maintain the centerline.

Bit of a big ask!!

Hence the reason for holding points (position).

"Filthy 1234, are you ready?". "No, waiting on the cabin" AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!! What's wrong with the correct "Negative"? What kind of idiotic gloop-speak is "waiting on the cabin"? Are you serving the cabin tea? Do cabins even drink tea? Just "Waiting for the cabin" would be bad enough, but on it?

Ah Ha, I can see that in expecting you to have a basic understanding of the issues involved in getting a commercial flight in the air, I have been placing your understanding on too high a level.

Please think of "just waiting for the cabin" to mean that we have the tug, driver, engineer, release from ops and you might see that everything has been removed from the aircraft including the airbridge but we are not yet ready because.......so even if you don't know how long that is going to take if you tell the aircraft waiting for this stand what we said then atleast they will understand.....................just like when we say "request FL380" and you respond with "NO".........in a team environment, it helps to know why i.e. we do not object to (we prefer) "FL380 not available doe traffic" or "FL380 not available due to military restriction" etc.

[criss]

Any ATC instruction/clearance ASSUMES crew is able to fly their a/c, know regulations and have licences (sometimes a big ask in fact, as someone managed to fly for 13yrs without a licence). If you clear them for take-off, you assume they know the correct flap setting and when to pull up. What's the point in having regulations if we assume crews don't know them and treat them like idiots?

[AMF]

DFC Quote:

Small point but I think that you will find that the end of a taxiway is where the taxiway and the runway join i.e. at the physical edge of the runway.

It's no small point to not know where being guilty of a runway incursion is, and the definition you give (join at the physical edge of the runway) is most certainly your own and other misinformed souls when it comes to a taxi limit that doesn't include a runway clearance. I would fail any PPL candidate that didn't know this very very basic and very very vital/safety-related definition.

Taxiway holding positions (holding points) are designated (marked) to ensure that the largest aircraft for which the aerodrome is designed holding at the most adverse angle does not infringe a myriad of obstacle and / or signal critical areas.

You are speaking to why hold lines may be where they are...it doesn't matter to a pilot why they are where they are, but the pilot must know those lines deleniate the taxiway side vs. the runway side. Being hooked on your own erroneous definition (where the pavement joins), or being over-interested in why hold lines perhaps are different distances from the centerline, have you wrapped around the axle, so to speak.

Asking a pilot to hold short of runway(nn) assumes that the pilot knows the design standard of the aerodrome, the aerodrome category, the physical limitations and the signal in space limitations not to mention the wingspan of the aircraft about to roll combined with the pilot's ability to maintain the centerline.

Bit of a big ask!!

It assumes no such thing, and nobody's asking it of you as a pilot. What's asked of you as a pilot is to understand basic pavement markings and obey them, since they are so you can obey the instruction. Only not understanding would lead you to think an instruction for you to "hold short" is as large and convoluted as you're making it out to be.

Hence the reason for holding points (position).

The reason for hold lines is to define taxiway side and the runway side of pavement. Learn this...please. You're confusing yourself. You're trying to build a watch when someone asks you what time it is, except watch-building in this case is a detriment to safety.

[AMF]

Guy D'ageradar quote

AMFSuggest 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.

If such reporting is mandatory in certain locales, it will either be published or the mandate will be met by ATC giving instructions for each aircraft to do so, which is usually the case.

And don't toss "read accident report" suggestions at me when the question is extraneous R/T, because I can toss as many back regarding accident/near accidents due to bogged-down airwaves and missed communications because some just want to hear themselves talk.

[AMF]

Agaricus bisporus

"Filthy 1234, are you ready?". "No, waiting on the cabin" AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!! What's wrong with the correct "Negative"? What kind of idiotic gloop-speak is "waiting on the cabin"? Are you serving the cabin tea? Do cabins even drink tea? Just "Waiting for the cabin" would be bad enough, but on it?

Since the expectation is for turbine aircraft is to be ready upon reaching the hold lines, most of the time you hear "cabin not ready" (or some derivative) as an explanation as to why a takeoff clearance or line-up and wait instruction is refused. We do this all the time, and sometimes an explantion is required..."Unable high speed due to turbulence", "Unable FL ..... due to weight", "Negative RVSM due to equipment", "Unable 250 degree heading due to weather" etc. etc. Because of the expectation by ATC that aircraft are ready upon reaching the hold lines, explaining the reason for refusing further clearance is appropriate.

Responding to the much-less-frequently occuring question "Are you ready" with a "Negative due to cabin", instead of "Negative" (with no explanation) is technically extraneous but understandable, because in the pilot's mind he's essentially refusing the clearance he would expect next if he answers in the affirmative.