What are your pet hate non-standard phraseologies?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I particularly enjoy ones on the variation of Stand By
Jokejet123: standingby for lower
You wouldn't go to McDonlands and place your order with "I'm waiting for a Big Mac" now would you? Just ask for it.
Jokejet123: Looking for lower
Most likely beneath you. Do you want a descent?
Control: Jokejet123, Standby
Jokejet123: Standingby
Great to know, thanks. Because otherwise you would've switched off the radio?
Germanjet: You're on gaard
Germanjet2: You're on gaard
Usually repeated ad nauseum until everybody in Bavaria has had their go. Points given for those to point out the infraction within 2 seconds. I'd say it's likely the error will be noticed by the pilot himeself when he doesn't get an acknowledgement from the controller. But nice of you to help nonetheless, because you were being helpful rather than hectoring weren't you?
Skygod 1: Uuuuuuuuh, London, Skygod 1 descending etc
Conjures up the image of self importance or being a slack-jawed hillbilly. Do try to keep your mouth closed when you eat Cletus, there's a good boy.
Skygod 1: London, the Skygod 1, requesting descent.
Oh, the Skygod early afternoon flight in from Alicante. The definite article is genuinely used for such, rather than your two-bit flight in from the costas. Reserve for something noteworthy.
Jokejet123: standingby for lower
You wouldn't go to McDonlands and place your order with "I'm waiting for a Big Mac" now would you? Just ask for it.
Jokejet123: Looking for lower
Most likely beneath you. Do you want a descent?
Control: Jokejet123, Standby
Jokejet123: Standingby
Great to know, thanks. Because otherwise you would've switched off the radio?
Germanjet: You're on gaard
Germanjet2: You're on gaard
Usually repeated ad nauseum until everybody in Bavaria has had their go. Points given for those to point out the infraction within 2 seconds. I'd say it's likely the error will be noticed by the pilot himeself when he doesn't get an acknowledgement from the controller. But nice of you to help nonetheless, because you were being helpful rather than hectoring weren't you?
Skygod 1: Uuuuuuuuh, London, Skygod 1 descending etc
Conjures up the image of self importance or being a slack-jawed hillbilly. Do try to keep your mouth closed when you eat Cletus, there's a good boy.
Skygod 1: London, the Skygod 1, requesting descent.
Oh, the Skygod early afternoon flight in from Alicante. The definite article is genuinely used for such, rather than your two-bit flight in from the costas. Reserve for something noteworthy.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread! Bit sad in some ways, but some useful info to boot. As a pilot I was keen to pick up some tips, and I got a few. The last thing I want to do is irritate very busy controllers.
I must admit to being very irritated myself with "keep outside controlled airspace" regularly offered advice which is usually totally irrelevant and unhelpful. If you guys want to reduce the amount of talking, you could cut this one out most of the time.
"Ready in turn" shouldn't upset anyone. It is not meant to be pushy, just a polite way of saying "ready" when you are not at the front of the Q.
"Got him on TCAS" is really the same as "I have him visual", and shouldn't really irritate anyone. Once again the pilot is passing some reassuring info the the ATCO, keeping him/her informed of what might be marginally relevant.
I appreciate that there are pedants in ATC, and it is hard to argue against it in the current "liability" climate, but personally I wish neither the pilot nor the ATCO would get wound up about imperfections that don't actually cause any problems. We are both working together to achieve an end.
I must admit to being very irritated myself with "keep outside controlled airspace" regularly offered advice which is usually totally irrelevant and unhelpful. If you guys want to reduce the amount of talking, you could cut this one out most of the time.
"Ready in turn" shouldn't upset anyone. It is not meant to be pushy, just a polite way of saying "ready" when you are not at the front of the Q.
"Got him on TCAS" is really the same as "I have him visual", and shouldn't really irritate anyone. Once again the pilot is passing some reassuring info the the ATCO, keeping him/her informed of what might be marginally relevant.
I appreciate that there are pedants in ATC, and it is hard to argue against it in the current "liability" climate, but personally I wish neither the pilot nor the ATCO would get wound up about imperfections that don't actually cause any problems. We are both working together to achieve an end.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Got him on TCAS" is really the same as "I have him visual",
Riverboat, that's exactly the point; it's not!
Controllers may be able to offer a new opportunity for the following pilot to maneouvre behind the preceding aircraft if he has visual contact with the one ahead in an approach situation; thereby reducing the usual IFR separation hindrance required. Knowledge of TCAS contact doesn't create any advantage to a controller's work unless it is of course in an RA situation.
What is pertinent in this day and age is clutter of R/T frequencies. If everyone responded "Roger, Flyguy 123" instead of "Copied, we see that traffic on TCAS, Flyguy 123", the seconds saved would add up to useful useable frequency space during the working day. This is where we can all work together to enhance a safer flying environment.
I do however agree with you that we are all working toward the same end of enhancing safety, but sometimes kindhearted pilot's extra "reassurance" is not required when the controller is not trying to imply a risk of collision in the first place.
Riverboat, that's exactly the point; it's not!
Controllers may be able to offer a new opportunity for the following pilot to maneouvre behind the preceding aircraft if he has visual contact with the one ahead in an approach situation; thereby reducing the usual IFR separation hindrance required. Knowledge of TCAS contact doesn't create any advantage to a controller's work unless it is of course in an RA situation.
What is pertinent in this day and age is clutter of R/T frequencies. If everyone responded "Roger, Flyguy 123" instead of "Copied, we see that traffic on TCAS, Flyguy 123", the seconds saved would add up to useful useable frequency space during the working day. This is where we can all work together to enhance a safer flying environment.
I do however agree with you that we are all working toward the same end of enhancing safety, but sometimes kindhearted pilot's extra "reassurance" is not required when the controller is not trying to imply a risk of collision in the first place.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where the boss is
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and "we have it on TCAS" can be mistaken for an other trafic that the TCAS maybe doesn't have, and it's not 100% sure you're talking about the same one...be carefull, I know it's easy to say that, even me saying this I've done it many times, but ever after realised that it's wrong to do it.
For the thing of doing it non standard as in approach control, I really think that saying the level passing, the level cleared to, the information and maybe if you feel good the aircraft type is well enough and save sooooo much RT space, imagine, EVERY airplane telling the whole story on a charter saturday in Geneva...(anybody experienced that already??!!, I've done...on both side of the radar screen so believe me on this one...), it's a pain
Why do you think when passing to the final controller (or director..) you just say your callsign? To minimize RT, let the controller sequence correctly his aircraft and that's it, so why using time for nothing on the approach frequency when maybe no final is open but still a lot of trafic flies? I'd rather have a 3NM spacing, speed stabilized approach or 6Nm when departures ahead than a 200kts approach, with 2.8NM spacing and finally a go around because somebody use too much controller's brain just by saying too much (and actually believe me or not, they couldn't care less about you saying "information O" when "P is current...just a few check this, the others not
)
Checked?!
Thank you
For the thing of doing it non standard as in approach control, I really think that saying the level passing, the level cleared to, the information and maybe if you feel good the aircraft type is well enough and save sooooo much RT space, imagine, EVERY airplane telling the whole story on a charter saturday in Geneva...(anybody experienced that already??!!, I've done...on both side of the radar screen so believe me on this one...), it's a pain
Why do you think when passing to the final controller (or director..) you just say your callsign? To minimize RT, let the controller sequence correctly his aircraft and that's it, so why using time for nothing on the approach frequency when maybe no final is open but still a lot of trafic flies? I'd rather have a 3NM spacing, speed stabilized approach or 6Nm when departures ahead than a 200kts approach, with 2.8NM spacing and finally a go around because somebody use too much controller's brain just by saying too much (and actually believe me or not, they couldn't care less about you saying "information O" when "P is current...just a few check this, the others not
)Checked?!
Thank you
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The World, although sometimes I wonder
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots that say FULLY READY!!
Whats the difference between READY and FULLY READY?
Surely u are ready and "fully" is ssuperflous fancy rubbish talk.What pees me off even more is ATCs that tell a/c to report fully ready!!
Whats the difference between READY and FULLY READY?
Surely u are ready and "fully" is ssuperflous fancy rubbish talk.What pees me off even more is ATCs that tell a/c to report fully ready!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lear Jockey
I think you missed my point, which was why are you saying that the passing level should be mentioned to the approach controller? 
PP
For the thing of doing it non standard as in approach control, I really think that saying the level passing, the level cleared to, the information and maybe if you feel good the aircraft type is well enough and save sooooo much RT space
PP
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Yesterday, Brussels Approach:
XXX Airline descend to 3000 feet
XXX Airline descend to 2500 feet
all the Airplanes respondet in the correct way: descending Altitude 3000.....
but the Lady continued that way. Seems to be her standard
inbalance"
It might be incorrect with CAP413 or your standard phraseology, but its how thing goes in my copy of 4444.
XXX Airline descend to 3000 feet
XXX Airline descend to 2500 feet
all the Airplanes respondet in the correct way: descending Altitude 3000.....
but the Lady continued that way. Seems to be her standard
inbalance"
It might be incorrect with CAP413 or your standard phraseology, but its how thing goes in my copy of 4444.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where the boss is
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes pp, when passing to an other controller you always have to say the level passing before the level you are cleared to in order to verify the mode C..., tell me if I'm mistaking that one
And it is a british thing to add the word "altitude", not ICAO. Same as giving turns in degrees with normally a "5" at the end ("..turn right heading 125 degrees"), that's to make sure the airplane doesn't climb or descend to such a flight level, but it's not ICAO standard!
And it is a british thing to add the word "altitude", not ICAO. Same as giving turns in degrees with normally a "5" at the end ("..turn right heading 125 degrees"), that's to make sure the airplane doesn't climb or descend to such a flight level, but it's not ICAO standard!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maastricht, NL
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC: "Airline turn left 5 degrees"
P: "Could you state the reason of the heading, why do we need to turn???"
Especially nice when you've got 23 a/c on the frequency...
P: "Could you state the reason of the heading, why do we need to turn???"
Especially nice when you've got 23 a/c on the frequency...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat
"Remain outside controlled airspace" is not a piece of irelevant advice but an instruction to do just that. The reason why controllers feel obliged to say this is because when pilots have accidentally infringed controlled airspace that have inevitably said - " well we weren't TOLD to remain OCAS"!!!
As for the rest of your post - Kiltie -couldn't agree more with your response.
And "ready in turn " - why not just "ready"? I decide the dep order, depending on routes/slots/sector restrictions which crews will not know about/various other reasons that are not apparant to the the flight deck.
louby
As for the rest of your post - Kiltie -couldn't agree more with your response.
And "ready in turn " - why not just "ready"? I decide the dep order, depending on routes/slots/sector restrictions which crews will not know about/various other reasons that are not apparant to the the flight deck.
louby
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you must be an ATCO Louby, and not a pilot. You are making an assumption that when a controller states "remain outside controlled airspace", they are 1) controlling you, and 2) they have some jurisdiction over the airspace in which you are flying or into which you are going to fly.
I regularly fly from Northern England to Brittany and the Channel Islands. Sometimes airways sometimes in the FIR. Quite often Brize, when called fo a radar service will say "Remain clear of Brize Zone, Stand By." OK, I take the point, but I will be at FL 060 and their zone goes up to 3500 ft. I might not even be flying that near to it.
Then further south, Bournemouth have a habit of barking this instruction at you "Remain outside controlled airspace.Stand by". I might well in IN controlled airspace. Or, more likely, I am going to overfly their airspace well above CA.
It is all very well suggsting that pilots say too much on the air, but the system in the UK requires so much more to be said. The controllers asking you to keep clear haven't made this instruction up themselves: I am sure they have been instructed to say it, because SOMEONE somewhere has decided that as some aircraft do inadvertently enter CA without permission, this might help to stop it.
Well it might. But it also adds more talk And this SOMEONE is coming up with all sorts of arcane and special UK R/T requirements. Years ago we were striving (I thought) for commonality with our foreign friends. Now the British keep coming up with all sorts of sometimes bizarre changes to R/T procedures in order, it is suggested, to prevent some allegedly possible confusion from arising.
I know you will argue, Kiltie. You'll say that anything that can be done that will help prevent any sort of incident whatoever should be done, etc etc. But I think it is time to call a halt to all these British R/T add-ons which often just sound plain daft.
Re. the "have him on TCAS" bit. OK, fair point. I must admit that I wasn't thinking of approach control at the time, and I can see that the response is a bit pointless under those circumstances. Sometimes, though, you just respond in a manner that's common without actually thinking about what you are saying. Maybe the controller shouldn't bother saying anything in the first place if the pilot is not expected to respond with anything other than Roger?
RB
I regularly fly from Northern England to Brittany and the Channel Islands. Sometimes airways sometimes in the FIR. Quite often Brize, when called fo a radar service will say "Remain clear of Brize Zone, Stand By." OK, I take the point, but I will be at FL 060 and their zone goes up to 3500 ft. I might not even be flying that near to it.
Then further south, Bournemouth have a habit of barking this instruction at you "Remain outside controlled airspace.Stand by". I might well in IN controlled airspace. Or, more likely, I am going to overfly their airspace well above CA.
It is all very well suggsting that pilots say too much on the air, but the system in the UK requires so much more to be said. The controllers asking you to keep clear haven't made this instruction up themselves: I am sure they have been instructed to say it, because SOMEONE somewhere has decided that as some aircraft do inadvertently enter CA without permission, this might help to stop it.
Well it might. But it also adds more talk And this SOMEONE is coming up with all sorts of arcane and special UK R/T requirements. Years ago we were striving (I thought) for commonality with our foreign friends. Now the British keep coming up with all sorts of sometimes bizarre changes to R/T procedures in order, it is suggested, to prevent some allegedly possible confusion from arising.
I know you will argue, Kiltie. You'll say that anything that can be done that will help prevent any sort of incident whatoever should be done, etc etc. But I think it is time to call a halt to all these British R/T add-ons which often just sound plain daft.
Re. the "have him on TCAS" bit. OK, fair point. I must admit that I wasn't thinking of approach control at the time, and I can see that the response is a bit pointless under those circumstances. Sometimes, though, you just respond in a manner that's common without actually thinking about what you are saying. Maybe the controller shouldn't bother saying anything in the first place if the pilot is not expected to respond with anything other than Roger?
RB
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all BA pilots do the same
Aapproach, callsign, passing flight level 200, descending to FL160, information S
.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat
If I give the instruction "remain outside controlled airspace" it is precisely because I DO NOT wish to control that aircraft, that the aircraft is outside controlled airspace and therefore not under a CONTROL service. This is not to be confused with FIS/RIS/RAS.
Your further point confuses me though - when Bournemouth "bark" at you to remain outside controlled airspace - how could you be in controlled airspace already at this point without a clearance and indeed a control service? I didn't think there was any class E airspace around Bournemouth.
Phraseology has been and is being developed constantly following from various incidents in order to avoid confusion and to reduce to probability of it happening again. I accept that it may be perceived to be a pain, but frankly if it means we can all avoid paperwork then I'm all for it!
louby
louby
Your further point confuses me though - when Bournemouth "bark" at you to remain outside controlled airspace - how could you be in controlled airspace already at this point without a clearance and indeed a control service? I didn't think there was any class E airspace around Bournemouth.
Phraseology has been and is being developed constantly following from various incidents in order to avoid confusion and to reduce to probability of it happening again. I accept that it may be perceived to be a pain, but frankly if it means we can all avoid paperwork then I'm all for it!
louby
louby
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is all very well suggsting that pilots say too much on the air, but the system in the UK requires so much more to be said. The controllers asking you to keep clear haven't made this instruction up themselves: I am sure they have been instructed to say it, because SOMEONE somewhere has decided that as some aircraft do inadvertently enter CA without permission, this might help to stop it.
VFR flight calls up and reports it's route as from A to B (a point on the southern control zone boundary) and then to C (a point on the northern control zone boundary) and on to another point. A straight line from B to C taking the flight through the control zone.
The controller said nothing in particular to the flight until it was inside the zone. The result was an argument as to did the flight request clearance for the route and if the controller simply acknowledged the proposed routing and asked to the pilot to report passing C (the exit from the zone) was this absence of a clear instruction not to enter controlled airspace somehow seen as an approvale for the proposed route through controlled airspace.
Take that to a bigger scale and in many cases, when flights report routing from xyz (small village) to abc (another small village) the controller or the FIS provider have no real idea if the proposed route takes the flight via controlled airspace or not - hence the ass covering statement required.
Far simpler I believe to remind pilots that a clearance is required and that acknowledgement of a proposed routing (the filing of a flight plan) does not provide clearance.
---------------
Here is one often heard;
ABC123 do this that and the other
no response
ABC123 did you receive my transmission
Say again ABC123
ABC123 do this that and the other
How about simply replacing the ABC123 did you receive my transmission with "ABC123 London"
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West of London
Age: 61
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remain Outside Controlled Airspace
Whilst I tend to agree that it does niggle to be reminded to Remain Outside Controlled Airspace - particularly by London Information, my pet hate is not being given a positive clearance into controlled airspace. Particularly true of the occasional UK Military and all French ATC.
"XXXX approach, G-XXXX bonjour"
"G-XXXX pass your message"
"G-XXXX <insert life history here> request cross your zone direct XXXX"
"G-XXXX Squawk 1234"
"Squawk 1234 G-XXXX"
... and then nothing. No "identified", cleared to enter controlled airspace, maintain VFR or whatever. Which is of course met with:
"XXXX approach, G-XXXX confirm clear to enter controlled airspace at altitude/level".
The response to which is usually "Affirm" and an all to audible gallic shrug.
But the best example of good R/T was joining the circuit a Quiberon in Southern Brittany a few years ago. It's air-to-air in French, so I had learnt all my French R/T and was doing all my calls in the correct local language, with about three other local French aircraft in the circuit. A german registered aircraft called up to join the circuit in perfect English. The three French pilots immediately switched to doing all their calls in English. Rather impressive.
"XXXX approach, G-XXXX bonjour"
"G-XXXX pass your message"
"G-XXXX <insert life history here> request cross your zone direct XXXX"
"G-XXXX Squawk 1234"
"Squawk 1234 G-XXXX"
... and then nothing. No "identified", cleared to enter controlled airspace, maintain VFR or whatever. Which is of course met with:
"XXXX approach, G-XXXX confirm clear to enter controlled airspace at altitude/level".
The response to which is usually "Affirm" and an all to audible gallic shrug.
But the best example of good R/T was joining the circuit a Quiberon in Southern Brittany a few years ago. It's air-to-air in French, so I had learnt all my French R/T and was doing all my calls in the correct local language, with about three other local French aircraft in the circuit. A german registered aircraft called up to join the circuit in perfect English. The three French pilots immediately switched to doing all their calls in English. Rather impressive.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Crapaud land
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat
'Roger' is not the only reply expected. 'Visual' is another which would allow the respondee to follow the one ahead if that is the purpose of the traffic info.
Maybe the controller shouldn't bother saying anything in the first place if the pilot is not expected to respond with anything other than Roger?
'Roger' is not the only reply expected. 'Visual' is another which would allow the respondee to follow the one ahead if that is the purpose of the traffic info.
Last edited by GunkyTom; 31st Mar 2008 at 16:14.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: South
Age: 42
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RiverBoat...has Bournemouth upset you at some point? Only Brize "say rocas" and yet Bournemouth "bark remain ocas"???
Its cautionary as many have mentioned to say to an a/c remain outside controlled airspace until we're able to get back to that a/c with a clearance to cross through, subject many things..traffic, weather, emergencies etc. If it said in the transmission along with pass your message then yes, waste of time!
Its cautionary as many have mentioned to say to an a/c remain outside controlled airspace until we're able to get back to that a/c with a clearance to cross through, subject many things..traffic, weather, emergencies etc. If it said in the transmission along with pass your message then yes, waste of time!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where the boss is
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Pontius, "Descend to Flight Level" same as "Descend to 3000 feet", and if ever you want it, I can scan you the ATM ,the swiss one, not the american one by the way
Strange I know, would be better to avoid that word, but still, I do not tend to lecture you on how to do stuff, but that's the way it is!
And yes, maybe not all BA pilots do the same, yet I still find it useless to have this:
--"Delivery callsign stand A2, B737-800, request clearance Information Oscar, QNH 1004"
--"callsign delivery, cleared to EGLL, via (SID), squawk 5773"
--"readback of clearance"
--"Callsign, correct, QNH 1004, for start-up contact apron on 121,750"
The QNH is anyway said again from ground or delivery, so...
Better have some more words but be sure to have all infos than missing some by the way, as long as the one speaking doesn't seem to be sleeping on the radio!!
Take care and fly safe
Strange I know, would be better to avoid that word, but still, I do not tend to lecture you on how to do stuff, but that's the way it is!
And yes, maybe not all BA pilots do the same, yet I still find it useless to have this:
--"Delivery callsign stand A2, B737-800, request clearance Information Oscar, QNH 1004"
--"callsign delivery, cleared to EGLL, via (SID), squawk 5773"
--"readback of clearance"
--"Callsign, correct, QNH 1004, for start-up contact apron on 121,750"
The QNH is anyway said again from ground or delivery, so...
Better have some more words but be sure to have all infos than missing some by the way, as long as the one speaking doesn't seem to be sleeping on the radio!!
Take care and fly safe
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Louby, [I] mean no disrespect. This is thread about calls that irritate one, and I am regularly irritated by the completely unnecessary call for me to remain clear of controlled airspace when I have no intention of ever going near it! But I accept that the ATCO was just saying what he or she was supposed to say. I don't blame them, and, in a sense, I blame the system, hence my comments about specialised UK phraseology.
I suppose it is just "dumbing down" if DFC's explanation is to be believed. Pity.
Gunky Tom - fair point!
As regards Bourneouth ATC - let's just say "patchy"!
RB
I suppose it is just "dumbing down" if DFC's explanation is to be believed. Pity.
Gunky Tom - fair point!
As regards Bourneouth ATC - let's just say "patchy"!
RB
