Simple question re. readbacks
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
callsign should NOT come at the end
Originally Posted by CAP413
1.11.1 The placement of the callsigns of both the aircraft and the ground station within an established RTF exchange should be as follows:
Ground to Air: Aircraft callsign – message or reply.
Air to Ground:
a) Initiation of new information/request etc. – Aircraft callsign then message;
b) Reply – Repeat of pertinent information/readback/acknowledgement then aircraft
callsign.
Ground to Air: Aircraft callsign – message or reply.
Air to Ground:
a) Initiation of new information/request etc. – Aircraft callsign then message;
b) Reply – Repeat of pertinent information/readback/acknowledgement then aircraft
callsign.
Last edited by Glamdring; 15th Nov 2012 at 19:42.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yikes… what a mess!
One pulls out the AIM.. next one fires back with CAP413.
Non is relevant to where I spend most of my airborne hours
"not use to"
"callsign first"
"say heading with degrees"
"point or decimal"
The variations are endless… there is no such thing is standard phraseology in my opinion. Just do as good as you can...
One pulls out the AIM.. next one fires back with CAP413.
Non is relevant to where I spend most of my airborne hours
"not use to"
"callsign first"
"say heading with degrees"
"point or decimal"
The variations are endless… there is no such thing is standard phraseology in my opinion. Just do as good as you can...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple question re. readbacks
Where I come from the definition of WILCO is 'I have understood your message and will comply with it'. It is used in circumstances NOT requiring a readback.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As 172_driver points out, the only standard that really matters is the one that applies where you happen to be flying. Controllers, being the flexible and versatile souls that they are, will normally cope with pilots using variations that are used elsewhere but will stick to the local standard themselves.
ICAO provides a baseline of phraseology and terminology in Annex 10 and PANS-ATM and offers guidance in the Manual of Radiotelephony which gives examples of how the phraseology is used in a variety of practical situations. ICAO recognises that these phraseologies will not suit every situation and in Doc 4444 says
The Manual of Phraseology also says
The variations in phraseology, such as where the callsign goes, is far less important than communicating effectively. It is sometimes frustrating to see people struggling to find some standard phrase (or arguing about which should be used) to cover a non-standard situation which they ultimately fail to explain - and when plain language might have been far better.
ICAO provides a baseline of phraseology and terminology in Annex 10 and PANS-ATM and offers guidance in the Manual of Radiotelephony which gives examples of how the phraseology is used in a variety of practical situations. ICAO recognises that these phraseologies will not suit every situation and in Doc 4444 says
They [the examples] are not intended to be exhaustive, and when circumstances differ, pilots, ATS personnel and other ground personnel will be expected to use plain language, which should be as clear and concise as possible....
ICAO phraseologies are developed to provide maximum clarity, brevity, and unambiguity in communications. Phraseologies are applicable to most routine situations; however, they are not intended to cover every conceivable situation which may arise. The success and widespread adoption of the ICAO phraseologies has given rise, to some degree, to an expectation on the part of some users that phraseologies alone could suffice for all the communicative needs of radiotelephony communications. ICAO provisions related to the use of language adopted by the ICAO Council in 2003 better clarify that, while ICAO phraseologies should always be used whenever they are applicable, there also exists an inherent requirement that users also have sufficient "plain" language proficiency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
the AIM for the USA is available as a PDF on the internet for free...I'm sure it is very close to the ICAO standards, with the only difference being: we say POINT instead of DECIMAL...and a few others
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
maybe it is the way you do it on your side of the atlantic
it doesn't say that in the AIM
it doesn't say that in the AIM
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the UK and ICAO you should always readback/ackknowledge the instruction before saying your callsign eg (taken from ICAO phraseology reference guide)
-Big Jet 345, cleared to land, runway 27 Right, wind 270 degrees ten knots
-Cleared to land runway 27 Right, Big Jet 345
cleared to land in a mandatory readback in the UK, it might be worth checking out Cap 413 (GA) for more info
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Aviatio...917_LOCKED.pdf
-Big Jet 345, cleared to land, runway 27 Right, wind 270 degrees ten knots
-Cleared to land runway 27 Right, Big Jet 345
cleared to land in a mandatory readback in the UK, it might be worth checking out Cap 413 (GA) for more info
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Aviatio...917_LOCKED.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamdring
what's in the "AIM" is completely irrelevant
Tolerance buddy! It's a cool attribute in a pilot.
after you readback the clearance,OVER
Wilco is really useful to avoid confusion with responses to requests, as others have said. I have another example:
"Speedbird 6, report ready for departure."
"[mumble] ready, Speedbird 6."
Usually the bit I haven't heard will be 'fully', but if it's difficult to hear, you often have to confirm whether they're reading back the request to report, or actually reporting. In this case, 'Wilco' solves that issue. The other thing that would stop the uncertainty would be not saying 'fully'. After all, you're either ready or you're not - it's not a sliding scale
"Speedbird 6, report ready for departure."
"[mumble] ready, Speedbird 6."
Usually the bit I haven't heard will be 'fully', but if it's difficult to hear, you often have to confirm whether they're reading back the request to report, or actually reporting. In this case, 'Wilco' solves that issue. The other thing that would stop the uncertainty would be not saying 'fully'. After all, you're either ready or you're not - it's not a sliding scale
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Durban
Don't you think that's a rather narrow view to take? The original poster may well find himself flying in the US, and other countries, where the AIM is the Radio Bible. Lufthansa, for example, use the AIM phraseology irrespective of where they fly, as do all those North American pilots flying in all the same airspace as the rest of you.
Tolerance buddy! It's a cool attribute in a pilot.
Tolerance buddy! It's a cool attribute in a pilot.
But point taken and agreed. You have also uncovered a fact that has always annoyed me; Why Lufthansa pilots always say their callsign first in readbacks. I thought they were just being silly, but now I know.
I would suggest that regardless of what the AIM says virtually all North American airlines put their call sign at the beginning of a call to ATC and put the call sign at the end of the transmission when replying to ATC.
One very large advantage to this practice is when things are busy the very first bit of a call is the most likely to get obscured.
Therefore if you hear "Crackle urn right heading 290 Airliner 1234", everyone who is not airliner 1234 can ignore the call and if ATC instruction is in fact only a turn to 290 they can be confident that the clearance has been read back by the right aircraft.
However if you put your call sign at the front in the same circumstance you get
"Crackle four turn right heading 290". Now nobody in the air knows if that call was for them and ATC can't be sure the read back was from the right airplane.
One very large advantage to this practice is when things are busy the very first bit of a call is the most likely to get obscured.
Therefore if you hear "Crackle urn right heading 290 Airliner 1234", everyone who is not airliner 1234 can ignore the call and if ATC instruction is in fact only a turn to 290 they can be confident that the clearance has been read back by the right aircraft.
However if you put your call sign at the front in the same circumstance you get
"Crackle four turn right heading 290". Now nobody in the air knows if that call was for them and ATC can't be sure the read back was from the right airplane.
