What are your pet hate non-standard phraseologies?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at it another way, if I were to assume every time I called you that you were about to demonstrate the worst standard of controlling that I had ever experienced in over 35 years of flying, that would hardly be a good start, would it? Furthermore, you might well object - and rightly so. So please don't do this to me when I call you and you are too busy to fully answer my call.
There is a very significant difference between you being concerned about a potential incursion, which is part of your professional responsibility, and making the assumption that every pilot who calls you is an irresponsible numpty.
JD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Remain outside controlled airspace ..."
PPRuNe Radar, et al, maybe we can nail this one, once and for all ...
I find that MATS Part 1 is definitive about this and says under Section 3 (Approach Services), Chapter 1 (Approach Control), para 21 (p.15):
It seems therefore that, after the initial call, if ATC does not have the time to respond more fully, there are two options:
JD
PPRuNe Radar, et al, maybe we can nail this one, once and for all ...
I find that MATS Part 1 is definitive about this and says under Section 3 (Approach Services), Chapter 1 (Approach Control), para 21 (p.15):
21 Joining and Overflying Aircraft
When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.
When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.
It seems therefore that, after the initial call, if ATC does not have the time to respond more fully, there are two options:
1. If there is a stated or implied request to enter CAS, the reply should conform fully to the above and include a time of expected clearance and a time check ... or,
2. If there is no stated or implied request to enter CAS, a simple "Stand-By" should suffice.
... nuff said?2. If there is no stated or implied request to enter CAS, a simple "Stand-By" should suffice.
JD
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems therefore that, after the initial call, if ATC does not have the time to respond more fully, there are two options:
1. If there is a stated or implied request to enter CAS, the reply should conform fully to the above and include a time of expected clearance and a time check ... or,
2. If there is no stated or implied request to enter CAS, a simple "Stand-By" should suffice.
... nuff said?
1. If there is a stated or implied request to enter CAS, the reply should conform fully to the above and include a time of expected clearance and a time check ... or,
2. If there is no stated or implied request to enter CAS, a simple "Stand-By" should suffice.
... nuff said?
There is no assumption needed if the pilot states on his first call what his reqeuest actually is, as per the CAP413, i.e. flight information service (no request to transit CAS is needed), joining instructions (requesting permission to enter controlled airspace to land at an airfield within it), or a controlled airspace transit. In the latter two cases, the arse covering is required if an immediate clearance to enter can't be given, in the former I would think that ATC could intelligently omit the phrase. In my experience when operating as GA pilot, this is more often than not the case.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well ... almost ... but not quite - certainly your explanation seemed to me more about your own "arse-covering" than about approved procedure from MATS Part 1. Also, you omitted to mention that the "remain outside CAS" request should be accompanied by 1) an indication when to expect clearance and 2) a current time check - both of which are required by CAP493.
Can you not see that it is the frequent use of this phrase on its own as a holding response to an initial call that makes one feel as if one is being pre-judged by ATC to be a naughty little boy? I'm sure this is not what you wish to convey and I still feel that such usage is counter-productive.
JD
Can you not see that it is the frequent use of this phrase on its own as a holding response to an initial call that makes one feel as if one is being pre-judged by ATC to be a naughty little boy? I'm sure this is not what you wish to convey and I still feel that such usage is counter-productive.
JD
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
GunkyTom,
Firstly, be aware that sometimes I post here with my tongue firmly in cheek (but there is no tongue in cheek smiley).
Sometimes I post to generate a response and further discussion. It's worked but so far you haven't answered the question you are apparently criticising me for asking.
As I said, airspace infringements usually happen because a pilot is uncertain of position, not because he thinks he can enter without clearance. Telling a lost pilot to avoid will likely as not make absolutely no difference; in fact you'll be lucky if the errant one is on frequency.
No, I have never held a PPL. However, I do get checked once a year, until recently twice a year (still two medicals).
If ATC say to me "Standby", I know to remain clear / go round the airspace. It's not rocket science, just the ANO. Every pilot must pass the exam on it before solo.
Sorry, but I regard a "standard response" to "remain clear" in the same vein as the recent trend of security folk "spotting" someone not wearing a hi-vis vest from the other side of the airfield and dashing up, lights flashing to berate them, telling it's for their own good, so they can be seen when on an airfield......
Perhaps in future I'll just say "Callsign, Approaching your airspace NOW", then the "standard" answer will carry some weight.
Btw, please, if you are going to quote me, at least use the copy / paste facility so I don't get credited with spelling mistakes I didn't make (I never wrote iincursion, certainly not with two "i"s at the beginning).
Firstly, be aware that sometimes I post here with my tongue firmly in cheek (but there is no tongue in cheek smiley).
Sometimes I post to generate a response and further discussion. It's worked but so far you haven't answered the question you are apparently criticising me for asking.
As I said, airspace infringements usually happen because a pilot is uncertain of position, not because he thinks he can enter without clearance. Telling a lost pilot to avoid will likely as not make absolutely no difference; in fact you'll be lucky if the errant one is on frequency.
No, I have never held a PPL. However, I do get checked once a year, until recently twice a year (still two medicals).
If ATC say to me "Standby", I know to remain clear / go round the airspace. It's not rocket science, just the ANO. Every pilot must pass the exam on it before solo.
Sorry, but I regard a "standard response" to "remain clear" in the same vein as the recent trend of security folk "spotting" someone not wearing a hi-vis vest from the other side of the airfield and dashing up, lights flashing to berate them, telling it's for their own good, so they can be seen when on an airfield......
Perhaps in future I'll just say "Callsign, Approaching your airspace NOW", then the "standard" answer will carry some weight.
Btw, please, if you are going to quote me, at least use the copy / paste facility so I don't get credited with spelling mistakes I didn't make (I never wrote iincursion, certainly not with two "i"s at the beginning).
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: LHR/Surrey
Age: 39
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you save one potential incursion but in the process antagonise a large number of the rest of your "customers", is that really a success?
Preventing any potential Aeromexico disaster is far more important than annoying people who really should just realise it's a safety-first attitude and not be so sensitive about it.
The same reason that at some aerodromes, controllers repeat "hold short runway XX" all the time. Of course when you give a pilot/tug/vehicle a taxi instruction to a holding point before a runway, they're not going to enter the runway.. But experience shows that they do, so you add that on so maybe it will stop that one runway incursion that would have happened otherwise?
It makes perfect sense to me.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: LHR/Surrey
Age: 39
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also a first hand witness to the way some pilots act related to this.. I was flying as a passenger in a light aircraft on a trip to france about a year ago now and we called up XX radar (major UK airfield) for FIS. It was quite busy around, summer weekend rush and lots of stuff going on.
On board was pilot (CPL), his friend (PPL) (neither of whom I knew), both in the front, and me (PPL) in the back. As it happened my headset microphone wasn't working so I could only hear, not speak.
This pilot was a CPL 600+ hours and doing his instructor rating.
Pilot: XX radar, G-XX request FIS
ATC: G-XX standby I'll call you..
2 mins later
ATC: G-XX, pass your message
Pilot: G-XX from blah to blah currently at blah routing XYZ request FIS.
(The routing he had given if flown directly would infringe the CAS by about 1nm)
ATC: G-XX roger FIS, QNH 1013, remain *outside* controlled airspace - let me know if you need to come through
Pilot: G-XX roger.
The pilot and his friend then discussed whether they could take the direct route. He then made the turn cutting straight through the CAS. I saw this happening and tapped them on the shoulder, shook my head and pointed at the map but they weren't interested in what I was saying and I couldn't speak to them.
They chatted to each other for a bit about the fact they were transitting the CAS without a clearance, the pilot saying "yeah but he knows where we are and who we are - and we're not going in by much so it'll be fine".
Next thing that happens:
ATC: G-XX squawk 7206
G-XX: 7206 roger
ATC: G-XX you are inside my controlled airspace by 2nm, make the turn left now heading 090 degrees. I suggest you navigate more carefully in future.
So they turned, got out and the pilot was visibly upset by this - his pride dented - and was getting very distracted and kept talking about it, saying "f***ing asshole controller" etc.
I had the event logged on my PDA/GPS map and I took it home later in the day to discover that at our altitude we had flown straight through the SID tracks out of the airfield.
So this just goes to show that although I am sure most pilots would not have done this, some do. And even despite it being emphasised not to enter the airspace, they still had no problem doing so. In this case it seems that even the verbal warning was not enough to stop it happening.. it's events like this that keep the controllers saying it. As PPrune Radar said - if nobody did it - they wouldn't need to say it at all.
On board was pilot (CPL), his friend (PPL) (neither of whom I knew), both in the front, and me (PPL) in the back. As it happened my headset microphone wasn't working so I could only hear, not speak.
This pilot was a CPL 600+ hours and doing his instructor rating.
Pilot: XX radar, G-XX request FIS
ATC: G-XX standby I'll call you..
2 mins later
ATC: G-XX, pass your message
Pilot: G-XX from blah to blah currently at blah routing XYZ request FIS.
(The routing he had given if flown directly would infringe the CAS by about 1nm)
ATC: G-XX roger FIS, QNH 1013, remain *outside* controlled airspace - let me know if you need to come through
Pilot: G-XX roger.
The pilot and his friend then discussed whether they could take the direct route. He then made the turn cutting straight through the CAS. I saw this happening and tapped them on the shoulder, shook my head and pointed at the map but they weren't interested in what I was saying and I couldn't speak to them.
They chatted to each other for a bit about the fact they were transitting the CAS without a clearance, the pilot saying "yeah but he knows where we are and who we are - and we're not going in by much so it'll be fine".
Next thing that happens:
ATC: G-XX squawk 7206
G-XX: 7206 roger
ATC: G-XX you are inside my controlled airspace by 2nm, make the turn left now heading 090 degrees. I suggest you navigate more carefully in future.
So they turned, got out and the pilot was visibly upset by this - his pride dented - and was getting very distracted and kept talking about it, saying "f***ing asshole controller" etc.
I had the event logged on my PDA/GPS map and I took it home later in the day to discover that at our altitude we had flown straight through the SID tracks out of the airfield.
So this just goes to show that although I am sure most pilots would not have done this, some do. And even despite it being emphasised not to enter the airspace, they still had no problem doing so. In this case it seems that even the verbal warning was not enough to stop it happening.. it's events like this that keep the controllers saying it. As PPrune Radar said - if nobody did it - they wouldn't need to say it at all.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blocked
Is this really so bad? If I am desparate to get a word in on a really busy, SE UK frequency and the controller's transmission is blocked by another I don't want the controller to wait until sure no reply is going to come, leaving dead time I cannot interrupt (but a newcomer on the frequency might unknowingly do, and extend the confusion and jump in where I am waiting politely). Why not someone just say that the transmission has been blocked and is not going to be acknowledged, so the call can be repeated? Why is a callsign needed?
I accept there might be a downside to this, and so have never called it myself, but it has always been useful when I have heard it
Descend FLXX0, turn right heading XXX, report that heading to AB Control on 1xx.xxx
To turn it onto the controllers, this is one of my pet hates. If there is a junior pilot on the radio and the captain is busy, or if there is only one pilot in the aircraft (or on the flight deck at that time) then multiple instrctions are tricky but not too bad. Multiple instructions and a frequency change are really hard. It wastes air time if we have to check the frequency or if we get something wrong. At worst we could read back and note the wrong level or heading, then change frequency before you can correct it. I know we're supposed to wait, but we all know we sometimes don't especially when busy rebriefing for an approach to the new runway, say.
timelapse
I hope I never have to fly with either of them! Even the PPL cannot be excused that sort of stupid behaviour, except that he was presumably not captain.
Is this really so bad? If I am desparate to get a word in on a really busy, SE UK frequency and the controller's transmission is blocked by another I don't want the controller to wait until sure no reply is going to come, leaving dead time I cannot interrupt (but a newcomer on the frequency might unknowingly do, and extend the confusion and jump in where I am waiting politely). Why not someone just say that the transmission has been blocked and is not going to be acknowledged, so the call can be repeated? Why is a callsign needed?
I accept there might be a downside to this, and so have never called it myself, but it has always been useful when I have heard it
Descend FLXX0, turn right heading XXX, report that heading to AB Control on 1xx.xxx
To turn it onto the controllers, this is one of my pet hates. If there is a junior pilot on the radio and the captain is busy, or if there is only one pilot in the aircraft (or on the flight deck at that time) then multiple instrctions are tricky but not too bad. Multiple instructions and a frequency change are really hard. It wastes air time if we have to check the frequency or if we get something wrong. At worst we could read back and note the wrong level or heading, then change frequency before you can correct it. I know we're supposed to wait, but we all know we sometimes don't especially when busy rebriefing for an approach to the new runway, say.
timelapse
I hope I never have to fly with either of them! Even the PPL cannot be excused that sort of stupid behaviour, except that he was presumably not captain.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They chatted to each other for a bit about the fact they were transitting the CAS without a clearance, the pilot saying "yeah but he knows where we are and who we are - and we're not going in by much so it'll be fine".
"It's only only 100ft below the minima, I know the runway is there, we're not going below the minima for the approach by much, so it'll be fine"
Cheers,
NFR.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Timelapse, I take it you ensured the pilots guilty of that infringement were reported to the CAA?
"Remain outside, standby" as a standard response.... is like calling an insurance company to renew your car insurance. You get put on hold with the message "do not drive without car insurance" being repeated in your ears........
"Remain outside, standby" as a standard response.... is like calling an insurance company to renew your car insurance. You get put on hold with the message "do not drive without car insurance" being repeated in your ears........
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Remain outside, standby" as a standard response.... is like calling an insurance company to renew your car insurance. You get put on hold with the message "do not drive without car insurance" being repeated in your ears........
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Crapaud land
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, airspace infringements usually happen because a pilot is uncertain of position, not because he thinks he can enter without clearance. Telling a lost pilot to avoid will likely as not make absolutely no difference; in fact you'll be lucky if the errant one is on frequency.
If ATC say to me "Standby", I know to remain clear / go round the airspace. It's not rocket science, just the ANO. Every pilot must pass the exam on it before solo.
Sorry, but I regard a "standard response" to "remain clear" in the same vein as the recent trend of security folk "spotting" someone not wearing a hi-vis vest from the other side of the airfield and dashing up, lights flashing to berate them, telling it's for their own good, so they can be seen when on an airfield......
Perhaps in future I'll just say "Callsign, Approaching your airspace NOW", then the "standard" answer will carry some weight.
Btw, please, if you are going to quote me, at least use the copy / paste facility so I don't get credited with spelling mistakes I didn't make (I never wrote iincursion, certainly not with two "i"s at the beginning).
Sorry, I am but a lowly controller and struggle to Cut + Paste and also type but I will try harder
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
And yet some people do.....
My point is that the call (and that phone message) is probably targetted at the wrong audience.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair to the ATC folk with there remain clear of controlled airspace I have sat with multiple people who should have known better who have though it perfectly acceptable to cross P600 from St Abb's direct INS sub FL200 without a crossing clearance and thier excuse is that they haven't been told to remain clear.
It didn't help that whenever I pushed the point and asked for a clearance a confused sounding clearance was given as if the controller had presumed we were cleared as well. If I was a SEP I think I would have been told to remain clear (mainly because the suckling had asked for start in city and Dundee had started clearing the airspace within 50 miles). Or because PPrune Radar was behined the controller and had informed them that G-LP had a dodgy VOR and by any stretch of the imagination wasn't airways IFR equiped.
It didn't help that whenever I pushed the point and asked for a clearance a confused sounding clearance was given as if the controller had presumed we were cleared as well. If I was a SEP I think I would have been told to remain clear (mainly because the suckling had asked for start in city and Dundee had started clearing the airspace within 50 miles). Or because PPrune Radar was behined the controller and had informed them that G-LP had a dodgy VOR and by any stretch of the imagination wasn't airways IFR equiped.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ireland
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
getting side-tracked
Pilots trust ATC to give them competent instructions. ATC trust pilots to give them competent info. and compliance with instructions.
No two people are ever on the same wavelength despite standardisation across the board in both jobs.
As a controller I often give what seems to be "obvious and unnecessary instructions" from a pilots point of view, but believe me I have a reason at the time. So if I ask you to remain clear of controlled airspace, I not only expect you to comply, I also expect you (as a competent pilot) to understand all my actions have reasons.
The instructions are the same wether you are a suspected "numpty" or not. I might be giving you said intruction because the controller sharing the sector with me is a suspected numpty, or other numpty pilots are on freq..
.................. or then again I might be the numpty!
I don't harrangue my shoe salesman because he measures my feet before he sells me shoes. Your Airline is paying for a service you are receiving. Please receive it.
No two people are ever on the same wavelength despite standardisation across the board in both jobs.
As a controller I often give what seems to be "obvious and unnecessary instructions" from a pilots point of view, but believe me I have a reason at the time. So if I ask you to remain clear of controlled airspace, I not only expect you to comply, I also expect you (as a competent pilot) to understand all my actions have reasons.
The instructions are the same wether you are a suspected "numpty" or not. I might be giving you said intruction because the controller sharing the sector with me is a suspected numpty, or other numpty pilots are on freq..
.................. or then again I might be the numpty!
I don't harrangue my shoe salesman because he measures my feet before he sells me shoes. Your Airline is paying for a service you are receiving. Please receive it.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a controller who used to do some PPL flying,it didn't bother me to get a remain clear of CAS call.It's a standard R/T phrase,and is used for good reasons.When flying I just did as I was told,readback the things I needed to,and never had a problem.I have flown holds at VRP's because of volume of traffic,and it didn't bother me either.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
and thier excuse is that they haven't been told to remain clear.
NO!
Like trying to spot a high vis jacket in a box full of high viz jackets. Sometimes it's better to wear black.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sunny south now....
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so many to choose from.....
" request further descent........"
when they are at min stack say FL70 with 45nm to go and any further decent would take them outside controlled airpace....
all in good fun....
when they are at min stack say FL70 with 45nm to go and any further decent would take them outside controlled airpace....
all in good fun....
