The "fully" Plague on RT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "fully" Plague on RT
Where did this dreadful habit come from?
Two years ago we never heard it, now it seems everyone (including ATC) are doing it!
I'm talking about using the word "fully" in RT transmissions.
THe correct phraseology for intercepting an ILS is "Localiser Established" and/or "Established", not "Fully Established". Equally you are either "Ready for Departure" or "Not Ready". After all, you cannot be "partially established" or "partially ready" and (I hope) would not be so shoddy or confused as to use those expressions.
So why say "Fully??????"
Clearly any verbal habit may be caught, perhaps unintentionally, by mimicing other people, as in "I was like..." instead of "I said", or the pompous and grating use of "the" in front of a callsign, but slipshod habits should not be used on our RT, especially with the confusion already existing with some nationalities' RT standards - as in parts of Europe.
Yesterday I heard on a Spanish ground freq "##### report engines fully started..." and tried to imagine how or why anyone might report half way through an engine start. Like a plague, it is spreading.
It's illogical, incorrect, unprofessional and unnecessary, and our newer colleagues are growing into a world where it is becoming the norm, and some genuinely appear to know no better!!!
Please help discourage it?
Two years ago we never heard it, now it seems everyone (including ATC) are doing it!
I'm talking about using the word "fully" in RT transmissions.
THe correct phraseology for intercepting an ILS is "Localiser Established" and/or "Established", not "Fully Established". Equally you are either "Ready for Departure" or "Not Ready". After all, you cannot be "partially established" or "partially ready" and (I hope) would not be so shoddy or confused as to use those expressions.
So why say "Fully??????"
Clearly any verbal habit may be caught, perhaps unintentionally, by mimicing other people, as in "I was like..." instead of "I said", or the pompous and grating use of "the" in front of a callsign, but slipshod habits should not be used on our RT, especially with the confusion already existing with some nationalities' RT standards - as in parts of Europe.
Yesterday I heard on a Spanish ground freq "##### report engines fully started..." and tried to imagine how or why anyone might report half way through an engine start. Like a plague, it is spreading.
It's illogical, incorrect, unprofessional and unnecessary, and our newer colleagues are growing into a world where it is becoming the norm, and some genuinely appear to know no better!!!
Please help discourage it?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree totally. However with regard to Spanish aircrews.....they do seem to call ready for push and start and still have steps attached ...doors open(on many occasions they spend a full 15 minutes before they actually ARE ready to push)...so perhaps they qualify for the use of the word FULLY?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never caused me any concern at all.. When we told pilots to establish on the localiser and, later, to descend on the ILS... "Fully established" let me know that they were on the glide too.
Now what used to really, REALLY, REALLY get up my nose were the idiot pilots who would not read back the speed on final approach - and I didn't have all day to keep on and on and on at them.. The conversation would go something like:
Me: Descend on the ILS, 160 kts to 4 DME".
Pilot: "Descend on the ILS, roger on the speed".
Me: "Confirm 160 kts to 4 DME"
Pilot: "Yes, we got the speed OK"
Me: "160 kts confirm"
Pilot "Confirmed"
99% of the time it was Brits. Foreign pilots were very good at readbacks. I hope things have changed....
Now what used to really, REALLY, REALLY get up my nose were the idiot pilots who would not read back the speed on final approach - and I didn't have all day to keep on and on and on at them.. The conversation would go something like:
Me: Descend on the ILS, 160 kts to 4 DME".
Pilot: "Descend on the ILS, roger on the speed".
Me: "Confirm 160 kts to 4 DME"
Pilot: "Yes, we got the speed OK"
Me: "160 kts confirm"
Pilot "Confirmed"
99% of the time it was Brits. Foreign pilots were very good at readbacks. I hope things have changed....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director, with a handle like yours I'm surprised at you!
This is exactly what I am talking about - and you should know better than anyone. "Established" means on the localiser and glide, by definition - nothing else - there's no "fully" about it! You don't expect "Established, on localiser and glidepath" - why not take it further and say "Fully established, on localiser and glidepath" - and say it three times over just to be sure? Why not "cleared land and to put my wheels on the runway"
Putting gash words in front of the correct ones merely serves to dilute the meaning of the correct one - the suggestion of "fully ready to push" "is making it cleare" is going down the same rocky road as Heathrow Director in deliberately failing to understand and act on correct RT, and surely we can all see that hazards of that.
The answer on the pushback scenario is just to keep them waiting another 10 minutes if they pull that one, and then explain why. That would soon stop it.
Why not just stick to correct RT?
(I haven't heard "ready for take off" in many years - thankfully)
This is exactly what I am talking about - and you should know better than anyone. "Established" means on the localiser and glide, by definition - nothing else - there's no "fully" about it! You don't expect "Established, on localiser and glidepath" - why not take it further and say "Fully established, on localiser and glidepath" - and say it three times over just to be sure? Why not "cleared land and to put my wheels on the runway"
Putting gash words in front of the correct ones merely serves to dilute the meaning of the correct one - the suggestion of "fully ready to push" "is making it cleare" is going down the same rocky road as Heathrow Director in deliberately failing to understand and act on correct RT, and surely we can all see that hazards of that.
The answer on the pushback scenario is just to keep them waiting another 10 minutes if they pull that one, and then explain why. That would soon stop it.
Why not just stick to correct RT?
(I haven't heard "ready for take off" in many years - thankfully)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: At work!!!
Age: 41
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ready for take-off or number one ready.
I love getting this one "XXX is ready,number one" when they clearly see the other guy on short final. It really pisses me off cuz i always have to reply so they don't think the radio is broke or sth. What i wanna say is look out the window and try it again hehe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woking, Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also wanted to say that the FISOs at an airfield near London that I fly from regularly have the habit of asking "report finals"... that drives me mad! I might start reporting "downwinds". 
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AB
"Established" means on the localiser and glide, by definition
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of when Alan Partridge called the 9-year-old-child-prodigy on his radio show "very unique", only to be corrected by the child that "one cannot have gradations of uniqueness, one is either unique or not".
By the end of the show, Alan had hit the child.
Maybe ATCOs should reply to "fully ready" that the aircraft is "cleared to fully push and fully start" ?
By the end of the show, Alan had hit the child.
Maybe ATCOs should reply to "fully ready" that the aircraft is "cleared to fully push and fully start" ?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ab
I'm with BOAC on this one. How else do explain the innumerable threads on this board over the last 10 years over the necessity of being cleared for the ILS but being told to report 'LOCALISER established' so that we can then be given the seperate clearance to descend on the glide. Its ATC that drive this distinction, not flight crew.
The reality is that radio pro-words are intended to have standard meanings, but as the nature of the operation changes the formal definition may not mean exactly what we want to say and it therefore becomes necessary to add additional words to clarify what we want.
Pro-words are supposed to be our servants, not our masters, it is perfectly reasonable to add a word or two for emphasis when the situation warrants it.
And incidentally, the 'ready for push' versus 'fully ready for push' is another thing driven by the realities of the situation; vis-a-vis ground ops allocation of a tug versus the start queue, versus allocation of a place in the start queue. The chicken and egg situation. At some places you can't get a tug until you have a place in the start queue; this collides head on with the need to be ready before calling for start.
Consequently the concept of being 'ready' but not being 'fully' ready is valid!
Now, if you'd like a new pro-word that means "The aircraft is fuelled, loaded and ready for pushback in all respects apart from having a tug" I'd be the first to support it.
Now then Dizzee. Did the pilot actually report ready? No? Why clear him for it then? Most likely, he's waiting on cabin security, so any time passed is a guesstimate of something he doesn't directly control.
OK, I admit, if I'd been in his shoes I'd have said 'ESTIMATE 2 mins" or similar but there no need to bust his balls for trying to give you some information to help your planning
The alternative is we say nothing, (and of course if the freq is busy that might be the best option).
pb
(though I only fly a desk these days so what do I know)
This is exactly what I am talking about - and you should know better than anyone. "Established" means on the localiser and glide, by definition - nothing else - there's no "fully" about it! You don't expect "Established, on localiser and glidepath" - why not take it further and say "Fully established, on localiser and glidepath" - and say it three times over just to be sure? Why not "cleared land and to put my wheels on the runway"
The reality is that radio pro-words are intended to have standard meanings, but as the nature of the operation changes the formal definition may not mean exactly what we want to say and it therefore becomes necessary to add additional words to clarify what we want.
Pro-words are supposed to be our servants, not our masters, it is perfectly reasonable to add a word or two for emphasis when the situation warrants it.
And incidentally, the 'ready for push' versus 'fully ready for push' is another thing driven by the realities of the situation; vis-a-vis ground ops allocation of a tug versus the start queue, versus allocation of a place in the start queue. The chicken and egg situation. At some places you can't get a tug until you have a place in the start queue; this collides head on with the need to be ready before calling for start.
Consequently the concept of being 'ready' but not being 'fully' ready is valid!
Now, if you'd like a new pro-word that means "The aircraft is fuelled, loaded and ready for pushback in all respects apart from having a tug" I'd be the first to support it.
"Report ready for departure".
"Ready in 2 minutes".
2 minutes later after organising other traffic.
"Cleared for take-off".
"We need another minute
"Ready in 2 minutes".
2 minutes later after organising other traffic.
"Cleared for take-off".
"We need another minute
OK, I admit, if I'd been in his shoes I'd have said 'ESTIMATE 2 mins" or similar but there no need to bust his balls for trying to give you some information to help your planning
The alternative is we say nothing, (and of course if the freq is busy that might be the best option).
pb
(though I only fly a desk these days so what do I know)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In the CRC
Age: 49
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift, but I think that RT phraseology in general is becoming worse - myself included. I find that in certain parts of the world, it's too confusing for the controllers if you use the correct terms, so I abbreviate (mostly in the Indian region). But in other areas, you are expected to use the correct form.
So, when I'm on a flight that takes in Australian airspace (correct use) , Indian airspace (abbreviated), and Middle Eastern airspace (depends on the controller, but generally correct use), I just use the terminology that gets the job done with few corrections as possible. If I'm in any way unsure of the clearance or instruction, I'll always ask again.
Back to thread - I don't like 'fully ready' I'm either ready, or I'm not. Simple
So, when I'm on a flight that takes in Australian airspace (correct use) , Indian airspace (abbreviated), and Middle Eastern airspace (depends on the controller, but generally correct use), I just use the terminology that gets the job done with few corrections as possible. If I'm in any way unsure of the clearance or instruction, I'll always ask again.
Back to thread - I don't like 'fully ready' I'm either ready, or I'm not. Simple
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I've lifted the correct phrase from CAP 413
It doesn't exactly spring off the tongue, fully or not. 
Ps. Echoing someone else's comment, if I was a highly paid ATCO I'm not sure I would be getting my knickers in a twist about this one.
BIGJET 347 12 miles from
touchdown turn right heading 240
degrees closing localiser from the
right. When established on localiser,
descend on glidepath QNH 1011
touchdown turn right heading 240
degrees closing localiser from the
right. When established on localiser,
descend on glidepath QNH 1011
Ps. Echoing someone else's comment, if I was a highly paid ATCO I'm not sure I would be getting my knickers in a twist about this one.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rarely can there have been such a condescending thread on PPRUNE.
I am all for the "stand up, speak up and shut up" school of R/T, but the vast majority of the criticism seems to be aimed at foreign pilots, most of whom will have learnt their R/T English by flying.............. mostly in the UK.
They try a lot harder than the vast majority of English pilots and ATCOs to make themselves understood and are a lot better at achieving it.
When any UK ATCO can speak Spanish, Greek, German, Dutch etc as part of their job, as fluently as all these can speak English, then you have a right to criticise.
Very few of you, if any, ever will, so either speak up or shut up
I am all for the "stand up, speak up and shut up" school of R/T, but the vast majority of the criticism seems to be aimed at foreign pilots, most of whom will have learnt their R/T English by flying.............. mostly in the UK.
They try a lot harder than the vast majority of English pilots and ATCOs to make themselves understood and are a lot better at achieving it.
When any UK ATCO can speak Spanish, Greek, German, Dutch etc as part of their job, as fluently as all these can speak English, then you have a right to criticise.
Very few of you, if any, ever will, so either speak up or shut up