"break, Break"
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LAX
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed! Many years ago, I was working at a busy light aircraft field and used "Break, break" in a transmission. The first aircraft addressed screeched to a halt just short of an (inactive) cross runway. It took me a few seconds to realise that he had taken it as "Brake, brake!". I've never used it since!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Oz
Age: 67
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone enlighten me why there is 2xBreak instead of just one like I seem to recall the yanks use? Too smooth for European use?
"Break break" is used when changing from one aircraft to another. For instance, you acknowldege an aircraft and then move immediately to a second aircraft with an instruction instead of taking you hand off the mike key.
ICAO phraseology nominates "Break" to indicate a gap between transmissions. It used to (maybe still does?) nominate "Break, break" for the same meaning, but in busy traffic situations. The logic of this escapes me because it's an extra syllable! Anyway, I thought it had died out - in the UK at least - like that other odd little phrase "That is coco", for "that is correct".
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Davecr.
I'm a french ACC controller at Paris ACC and your post is interesting : some of us in my team recently asked about this expression because we had opposite views of the use of it... But finally after a check in the icao rules none of us was right ! For sure i must admit it's something we never learned and finally all trainees use it in the same way the fully qualified controlers do.
That's true in your example the controller should have said:
" G-XXX , break break , AF 356 direct...."
and then "G -XXX, good day,pass your message".
In fact we never say G-XXX before break break BUT in most cases we remember who called us and we don't ask "station calling ?" , we say "G-XXX pass your message".
But finally you're right and I try to explain to other how to use this expression correctly...
I'm a french ACC controller at Paris ACC and your post is interesting : some of us in my team recently asked about this expression because we had opposite views of the use of it... But finally after a check in the icao rules none of us was right ! For sure i must admit it's something we never learned and finally all trainees use it in the same way the fully qualified controlers do.
That's true in your example the controller should have said:
" G-XXX , break break , AF 356 direct...."
and then "G -XXX, good day,pass your message".
In fact we never say G-XXX before break break BUT in most cases we remember who called us and we don't ask "station calling ?" , we say "G-XXX pass your message".
But finally you're right and I try to explain to other how to use this expression correctly...
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys don't waste your breath!
The common language thing has been argued on here again and again, studies have found again and again that two languages on the one frequency does reduce situational awareness of some pilots and has been one of the main contributory factors into at least one major accident, but more likely multiple accidents.
95% of the worlds aviation community realise this, whereas the other 5% will continue to argue their case and will never admit defeat.
I would suggest that next time you are flying in Quebec or France and you hear a waypoint in a french R/T call that you are also flying to, request the information of that flight, that is, what level are they and when are they getting there, and explain that you are asking for this information because you were unable to understand the previous call. If enough pilots did this maybe the practice would reduce. Probably not, but it might make the point required.
Singapore whatever your name is, it's not about a lack of respect for a culture or a language. It's purely about safety. Maybe they should have made everyone learn Swaheli, and then made that the standard aviation language. The point is it is safer for a pilot to hear on his frequency all calls and know what is being said, for example XXXX cleared to land RWY30 Left. This will certainly get his attention if he has also been cleared to land RWY 30 Left. Not a great help though if that call is made in Russian or French and the other pilot doesn't speak those languages.
As I said before, this has been argued on here over and over again, and the minority will never concede their way is less safe than the rest of the world so I guess I have just wasted my breath.
95% of the worlds aviation community realise this, whereas the other 5% will continue to argue their case and will never admit defeat.
I would suggest that next time you are flying in Quebec or France and you hear a waypoint in a french R/T call that you are also flying to, request the information of that flight, that is, what level are they and when are they getting there, and explain that you are asking for this information because you were unable to understand the previous call. If enough pilots did this maybe the practice would reduce. Probably not, but it might make the point required.
Singapore whatever your name is, it's not about a lack of respect for a culture or a language. It's purely about safety. Maybe they should have made everyone learn Swaheli, and then made that the standard aviation language. The point is it is safer for a pilot to hear on his frequency all calls and know what is being said, for example XXXX cleared to land RWY30 Left. This will certainly get his attention if he has also been cleared to land RWY 30 Left. Not a great help though if that call is made in Russian or French and the other pilot doesn't speak those languages.
As I said before, this has been argued on here over and over again, and the minority will never concede their way is less safe than the rest of the world so I guess I have just wasted my breath.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may well be inapplicable to say, long haul guys, those who fly outside of europe, etc etc - but how about this? Many of us here fly from the UK to Europe. We all know where local languages are most often spoken. Take Spain or France, many of us fly there a great deal - how about the 95% of us who do realise this, if we are serious about safety, make some effort to understand some aviation Spanish or French whilst we continue pushing for English-only? Not a bad idea is it?
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question regrading multilingual frequency use.
Why only YMX ACC? Why not YQM, YQX, YYZ, YWG, YEG, YVR?
I'm familiar with the Official Languages act, and what it says. I find it curious though, especially when you look at the %ge of the population in the Provinces that are "Francophone"....especially New Brunswick!
Why only YMX ACC? Why not YQM, YQX, YYZ, YWG, YEG, YVR?
I'm familiar with the Official Languages act, and what it says. I find it curious though, especially when you look at the %ge of the population in the Provinces that are "Francophone"....especially New Brunswick!
Last edited by Jerricho; 3rd May 2008 at 19:14.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: At home
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three quick comments:
1) "Break break" is something out of an old B movie, when 'radio communications' was an oxymoron. Never had to use it in all my years.
2) Bilingual com.: Although it seems ridiculous to the casual observer, it has worked for the last 30 years, without problem, in certain 'distinct' parts of Canada.
3) Jerrico: Where on earth is YMX ACC?
Addendum: C'est beau Felix...
1) "Break break" is something out of an old B movie, when 'radio communications' was an oxymoron. Never had to use it in all my years.
2) Bilingual com.: Although it seems ridiculous to the casual observer, it has worked for the last 30 years, without problem, in certain 'distinct' parts of Canada.
3) Jerrico: Where on earth is YMX ACC?
Addendum: C'est beau Felix...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canoehead: "Break Break" is quite common on French ATC frequencies, although it is not often heard in other parts of Europe (the exception being very busy frequencies around LHR/LGW/AMS etc).
FrenchATCO: Thank you for your reply, very interesting. I would be much happier if the callsign was used before the Break Break, because if it isn't I have no idea that my call has been heard or understood. This could cause me to call again causing confusion and blocking the frequency when there is no need to do so. In my mind, you could just as well have said "break break" to another aircraft which happened to transmit at the same time.
FrenchATCO: Thank you for your reply, very interesting. I would be much happier if the callsign was used before the Break Break, because if it isn't I have no idea that my call has been heard or understood. This could cause me to call again causing confusion and blocking the frequency when there is no need to do so. In my mind, you could just as well have said "break break" to another aircraft which happened to transmit at the same time.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aww crap......I meant YUL.
Sorry, all them French places sound the same
Yeah, that doesn't look right, does it. Still, the answer to my question is?
Sorry, all them French places sound the same
Yeah, that doesn't look right, does it. Still, the answer to my question is?
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-XXX , break break , AF 356 direct...."
and then "G -XXX, good day,pass your message".
and then "G -XXX, good day,pass your message".
and then "G -XXX, go ahead".
would be more correct?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davecr,
You fly to France a lot? Here it is in french:
"AFxxxx autorisé à atterrir piste ZZ."
Voilà! How difficult is that?
AirNoServiceAustralia,
Sorry but your request that the controller let you know where everybody is that doesn't speak your language is not only childish but itself even more dangerous. I keep reading on this site about how frequency congestion is an accident waiting to happen and you propose to add to it to make a point? I see you're truuuuuly concerned about safety.
I KNOW: Next time you fly into Heathrow, or Sydney, request to know where everybody is. As you arrive, demand to know where all the departures are and where they are going. After all, they might fly close to you and, never mind another language, they're not even on the same frequency as you! That has got to be more dangerous, right?
Is that where we are headed? Working Heathrow and all international terminals on ONE SINGLE FREQUENCY so that everybody knows where everybody else is?
Toronto, has two parallel ILSs worked on two separate frequencies. Should we revise that? Being on different freqs has to be even more dangerous than speaking two languages, right?
Canoehead.... Je pense que je te connais.... initiales?
And for ANSA:
Canoehead... I think I know you... initials?
You fly to France a lot? Here it is in french:
"AFxxxx autorisé à atterrir piste ZZ."
Voilà! How difficult is that?
AirNoServiceAustralia,
Sorry but your request that the controller let you know where everybody is that doesn't speak your language is not only childish but itself even more dangerous. I keep reading on this site about how frequency congestion is an accident waiting to happen and you propose to add to it to make a point? I see you're truuuuuly concerned about safety.
I KNOW: Next time you fly into Heathrow, or Sydney, request to know where everybody is. As you arrive, demand to know where all the departures are and where they are going. After all, they might fly close to you and, never mind another language, they're not even on the same frequency as you! That has got to be more dangerous, right?
Is that where we are headed? Working Heathrow and all international terminals on ONE SINGLE FREQUENCY so that everybody knows where everybody else is?
Toronto, has two parallel ILSs worked on two separate frequencies. Should we revise that? Being on different freqs has to be even more dangerous than speaking two languages, right?
Canoehead.... Je pense que je te connais.... initiales?
And for ANSA:
Canoehead... I think I know you... initials?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are not listening Say Again.
Going into Sydney there will be no need to ask what the aircraft aroud you are doing, because they are all speaking a language everyone can understand. That along with referring to the TCAS, allows the good pilots out there to maintain a level of situational awareness that is broken down where calls cannot be understood by all pilots in that piece of sky.
As I said before, you will argue this no matter what, so there is no point even trying. The bottom line is, whether you think situational awareness of pilots is important or whether you think pilots should just blindly only listen to calls for them and nothing else, you won't change your mind because this for you is not about aviation and the safety of aviation, this all comes down to being French (sorry French Canadian) and being allowed to speak that language if you choose. The reality is the rest of the world has accepted that English is the common international aviation language and is the common denominator of all units all over the world.
The thing that amazes me is you object to a pilot querying where another aircraft is due to the call being made in a language he can't understand. I would have thought that it is his right as a customer whose backside is on the line if it all goes bad to ask such a question. If I get asked such a question I will always workload and frequency congestion permitting, answer the question. Won't you?
Going into Sydney there will be no need to ask what the aircraft aroud you are doing, because they are all speaking a language everyone can understand. That along with referring to the TCAS, allows the good pilots out there to maintain a level of situational awareness that is broken down where calls cannot be understood by all pilots in that piece of sky.
As I said before, you will argue this no matter what, so there is no point even trying. The bottom line is, whether you think situational awareness of pilots is important or whether you think pilots should just blindly only listen to calls for them and nothing else, you won't change your mind because this for you is not about aviation and the safety of aviation, this all comes down to being French (sorry French Canadian) and being allowed to speak that language if you choose. The reality is the rest of the world has accepted that English is the common international aviation language and is the common denominator of all units all over the world.
The thing that amazes me is you object to a pilot querying where another aircraft is due to the call being made in a language he can't understand. I would have thought that it is his right as a customer whose backside is on the line if it all goes bad to ask such a question. If I get asked such a question I will always workload and frequency congestion permitting, answer the question. Won't you?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: belgium
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to visit some nice little airfields in france with my Cessna. But how big was the dissapointment when I saw the sentence "french R/T only allowed" in their AIP. I will not visit these airfields because I find it unsafe to fly in such an environment. Such a pity 
. I do speak dutch as native language, also french and english, but I find it normal to speak english over the radio and I don't understand why the french refuse to do this.
I also work as engineer on some french airplanes, and I also don't understand why they write technical problems in french. Impossible for my english colleagues to understand (thus fix) these problems.
French and German people are terrible on that, they translate airplane manuals, maintenance manuals etc... in their own language.
. I do speak dutch as native language, also french and english, but I find it normal to speak english over the radio and I don't understand why the french refuse to do this.I also work as engineer on some french airplanes, and I also don't understand why they write technical problems in french. Impossible for my english colleagues to understand (thus fix) these problems.
French and German people are terrible on that, they translate airplane manuals, maintenance manuals etc... in their own language.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to set the story straight:
Just for info, this is nothing to do with either AF pilots or CDG controllers. A few years ago, after that famous incident which very nearly resulted in a catastrophe, one of the safety recommendations put out by the BEA (French AAIB) and accepted by the DGAC was to make Charles de Gaulle English speaking only. Unfortunately some fringe extreme right group (not even the FN 
), and some minority labour union caught onto that, kicked up a stink which reached the popular/populist press and from that point on it was all down to politics, bugger safety and everything else.
So please, whatever your thoughts on the issue of multilingual R/T, and however much you may love to hate the French, blame the politicians and other uneducated opportunists for this particular issue, not French pilots, nor ATC, nor the aeronautical authorities.
Now I'm outta here. Bye and happy rants
but a big international airfield like CDG is no place for 2 languages. All AF pilots speak "good" english [....] they just prefer not to. Again, this only implies one thing: Rather proud than safe.
), and some minority labour union caught onto that, kicked up a stink which reached the popular/populist press and from that point on it was all down to politics, bugger safety and everything else.So please, whatever your thoughts on the issue of multilingual R/T, and however much you may love to hate the French, blame the politicians and other uneducated opportunists for this particular issue, not French pilots, nor ATC, nor the aeronautical authorities.
Now I'm outta here. Bye and happy rants
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirNoServiceAustralia,
I am listening... are you?
I do indeed believe that a pilot's situational awareness is extremely important. Please do not make me say things I'm not. As far as my being only concerned about my right to speak French and not safety, well I could turn that right back at you.
If you re-read my previous posts, you will see that I argue about the safety of having a clear pilot-ATC channel. I think THAT is safe more often than relying on a pilot's SA, even though I agree that it is important. As a controller, my SA is actually important too! I'm willing to trade a bit of yours for a bit of mine.
My point about Sydney was obviously poorly made. Are departures on a different frequency than arrivals? If not then never mind. If they are re-read my posts about two airplanes in close proximity on different freqs.
One thing we agree on though: the point as been made again and again and some people will never agree.
I apologize for hi-jacking the thread. This is my last post on the issue.
I'll now go back to almost killing people by using two languages.
If you're ever on the other side of the planet, our side, let me know. I'll do my best to use english then we can duke it out in some parking lot!
Cheers,
SAO
CYOW TCU
I am listening... are you?
I do indeed believe that a pilot's situational awareness is extremely important. Please do not make me say things I'm not. As far as my being only concerned about my right to speak French and not safety, well I could turn that right back at you.
If you re-read my previous posts, you will see that I argue about the safety of having a clear pilot-ATC channel. I think THAT is safe more often than relying on a pilot's SA, even though I agree that it is important. As a controller, my SA is actually important too! I'm willing to trade a bit of yours for a bit of mine.
My point about Sydney was obviously poorly made. Are departures on a different frequency than arrivals? If not then never mind. If they are re-read my posts about two airplanes in close proximity on different freqs.
One thing we agree on though: the point as been made again and again and some people will never agree.
I apologize for hi-jacking the thread. This is my last post on the issue.
I'll now go back to almost killing people by using two languages.
If you're ever on the other side of the planet, our side, let me know. I'll do my best to use english then we can duke it out in some parking lot!
Cheers,
SAO
CYOW TCU
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hot & Sunny
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Break Break
There appears to be a lot of confusion out there regarding "Break, Break" together with quite a few incorrect interpretations.
ICAO Annex 10 is very clear on this.
"Break" should be used to indicate a natural break or separation of information being passed in a message. It is analogous to the term STOP in a TELEGRAM.
Knackers use of the term to allow the 'sharp end' to catch up is a good idea but is still technically incorrect since Knackers chooses when to insert Break, rather than insert it at specific points in a long message.
Atcham Tower is also incorrect in asserting it means a gap between transmissions. Break refers to the message content and is used within a transmission. If you need to put a pause in a transmission you should use "Standby".
"Break, Break" should be used to prioritize calls in a busy environment. It informs ALL listeners that you are stopping talking to one aircraft and will start-restart talking to another immediately, without as Knackers correctly says, breaking transmission. Break, Break is a wakeup call to the 'sharp end' to alert them to a possible call.
Since "Break, Break" is used to interrupt one transmission for another it implies that the controller will revert to the original aircraft when he is finished with the second, without the 'sharp end' having to call again, i.e. the 'sharp end' should be listening out for a resumption.
If Canoehead thinks it is out of an old B movie then clearly he has never worked in a busy environment.
"Standby" is used to temporarily break off a transmission, but not to immediately call another aircraft. It is used to insert a delay in communications while the controller does something else such talk to the supervisor, tie his shoelace, finish the crossword etc.
Whilst some can think it OK to use "Standby" instead of "Break, Break" there is a subtle difference. "Standby" implies a break on indeterminate length, such to the extent that the 'sharp end' may feel he has been forgotten about (as if!) and can call again. "Break Break", implies 'I will get back to you straight away'.
But I stand to be corrected (as I am sure I will be)!
ICAO Annex 10 is very clear on this.
"Break" should be used to indicate a natural break or separation of information being passed in a message. It is analogous to the term STOP in a TELEGRAM.
Knackers use of the term to allow the 'sharp end' to catch up is a good idea but is still technically incorrect since Knackers chooses when to insert Break, rather than insert it at specific points in a long message.
Atcham Tower is also incorrect in asserting it means a gap between transmissions. Break refers to the message content and is used within a transmission. If you need to put a pause in a transmission you should use "Standby".
"Break, Break" should be used to prioritize calls in a busy environment. It informs ALL listeners that you are stopping talking to one aircraft and will start-restart talking to another immediately, without as Knackers correctly says, breaking transmission. Break, Break is a wakeup call to the 'sharp end' to alert them to a possible call.
Since "Break, Break" is used to interrupt one transmission for another it implies that the controller will revert to the original aircraft when he is finished with the second, without the 'sharp end' having to call again, i.e. the 'sharp end' should be listening out for a resumption.
If Canoehead thinks it is out of an old B movie then clearly he has never worked in a busy environment.
"Standby" is used to temporarily break off a transmission, but not to immediately call another aircraft. It is used to insert a delay in communications while the controller does something else such talk to the supervisor, tie his shoelace, finish the crossword etc.
Whilst some can think it OK to use "Standby" instead of "Break, Break" there is a subtle difference. "Standby" implies a break on indeterminate length, such to the extent that the 'sharp end' may feel he has been forgotten about (as if!) and can call again. "Break Break", implies 'I will get back to you straight away'.
But I stand to be corrected (as I am sure I will be)!
Barf, you are right about Annex 10 relating to the use of BREAK. However, CAP413, the UK RT Phraseology manual (downloadable off the CAA website) says that BREAK indicates "the separation between messages". BREAK BREAK is still in use - theoretically - and indicates "the separation between messages transmitted to different aircraft in a busy environment."
As a UK controller, CAP413 is what I am supposed to adhere to.
I don't use BREAK very often but it's useful in certain circumstances such as "Read-back correct, break, Ryanair 449 enter the apron via Uniform, Stand 3."
This would happen when an aircraft has requested and received his airways clearance but I have just become aware that an inbound has vacated the runway earlier than expected and is eager to know where he goes next. (Why did I use Ryanair as an example?)
As a UK controller, CAP413 is what I am supposed to adhere to.
I don't use BREAK very often but it's useful in certain circumstances such as "Read-back correct, break, Ryanair 449 enter the apron via Uniform, Stand 3."
This would happen when an aircraft has requested and received his airways clearance but I have just become aware that an inbound has vacated the runway earlier than expected and is eager to know where he goes next. (Why did I use Ryanair as an example?
)