Why does UK ATC not use ICAO phraseology
Thread Starter
Why does UK ATC not use ICAO phraseology
There is a UK CAA ATC Phraseology handbook kicking around which uses phrases and terms that are very different from ICAO standard. As it happens I think the UK document (and procedures) is/are better. But I'm interested to know why the UK CAA doesn't follow ICAO standard. Anyone able to clarify?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which particular phrases are you concerned about?
Have a look at this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP4132...0117928206.pdf
Have a look at this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP4132...0117928206.pdf
Never heard this in the UK:"BIGJET 347, cleared ILS approach runway 28, descend to altitude 3000 feet QNH 1011, report established on the localizer".
It's always: "Report established on the localizer" when that is done, then it's: "Descend with the glide".
It's always: "Report established on the localizer" when that is done, then it's: "Descend with the glide".
Thread Starter
I have two main examples which bug me. The UK CAA instruction for Climb/Descent to a FL, and same for Climb/Descent to an Altitude.
For example - in the UK - "Cleared Climb Fl150".
In ICAO "Cleared to FL150".
Risk of confusing the word To with the number Two.
Then - in the UK- "Cleared Descend Altitide 4,000ft"
In ICAO - " Cleared Descent to 4,000ft"
Same risk of confusion.
Also, the UK document refers to Hectopascals, while ICAO still sticks to Mb.
For example - in the UK - "Cleared Climb Fl150".
In ICAO "Cleared to FL150".
Risk of confusing the word To with the number Two.
Then - in the UK- "Cleared Descend Altitide 4,000ft"
In ICAO - " Cleared Descent to 4,000ft"
Same risk of confusion.
Also, the UK document refers to Hectopascals, while ICAO still sticks to Mb.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK changed to hPA to get in line with the rest of europe who has used hPA for years (or so I'm told).
The UK climb/descent phraseology is
"Descend flight level seven-zero"
"Descend to altitude four-thousand feet [QNH "number" [hectopascals]]"
Whereas I believe ICAO uses
"Descend to flight level seven zero"
"descend to four-thousand feet [QNH "number"]"
The UK uses the word "altitude" to make sure something like two "garbel" thousand is not misunderstood (garbel being say "five"). Instad you would in the UK get
"Descend to altitude "garbel" feet", which should make it clear the transmission was unreadable.
The removal of "to" before flight-levels is to further differentiate between an altitude and a flight level.
I prefer the UK way personally, but some would say I am biased
The UK climb/descent phraseology is
"Descend flight level seven-zero"
"Descend to altitude four-thousand feet [QNH "number" [hectopascals]]"
Whereas I believe ICAO uses
"Descend to flight level seven zero"
"descend to four-thousand feet [QNH "number"]"
The UK uses the word "altitude" to make sure something like two "garbel" thousand is not misunderstood (garbel being say "five"). Instad you would in the UK get
"Descend to altitude "garbel" feet", which should make it clear the transmission was unreadable.
The removal of "to" before flight-levels is to further differentiate between an altitude and a flight level.
I prefer the UK way personally, but some would say I am biased
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't even mention the "Behind the landing [A/C type] via [Holding point] line up [rwy designator] behind". 
Have to think really hard about this, but we can use the old phraseology on ground. Very confusing for an aging ATCO.
Have to think really hard about this, but we can use the old phraseology on ground. Very confusing for an aging ATCO.
Thread Starter
Yes I fully agree the AUK version is better.
What I'm asking is - how does the UK opt out of ICAO? Or has it? Is the UK terminology an EASA/JAA standard? Or is the UK just going it alone?
What about ATC Standardisation?
What I'm asking is - how does the UK opt out of ICAO? Or has it? Is the UK terminology an EASA/JAA standard? Or is the UK just going it alone?
What about ATC Standardisation?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I fully agree the AUK version is better.
What I'm asking is - how does the UK opt out of ICAO? Or has it? Is the UK terminology an EASA/JAA standard? Or is the UK just going it alone?
What about ATC Standardisation?
What I'm asking is - how does the UK opt out of ICAO? Or has it? Is the UK terminology an EASA/JAA standard? Or is the UK just going it alone?
What about ATC Standardisation?
The mandatory ones you have to follow to be a member (I think this would be the standards), the recommended ones you can opt out of but then you have to publish a difference to ICAO, you will find a lot of countries have these. They vary from Norway using yellow paint on runways to the UK having a load of them including phraseology. If you go in the UK AIP there is a list of the UK differences and there is also an ICAO document somewhere that lists all the countries and their differences.
Regarding standardisation some is being changed, such as "after" changed to "behind, behind". However in some cases it will stay because the CAA are convinced they are safer, and I think I have seen somewhere that eurocontrol made a study on wake turbulence and said that a system with more categories (like the UK one) was just as safe but more efficent. It's probably on skybrary somewhere if you're interested, I don't have the link unfortunately.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<"after" changed to "behind, behind".>>
That's one that really baffles me. It was changed to "after" about 40 years ago when a light aircraft taxiied onto the runway behind a departing jet and god badly bown about.
That's one that really baffles me. It was changed to "after" about 40 years ago when a light aircraft taxiied onto the runway behind a departing jet and god badly bown about.
Two points, HD. First, it is far better to be in line with the rest of the world; we are talking runway safety. Second, what does "after the ..." mean? After it has done what? It does not make sense in English.
And if, once, some silly beggar taxied his aeroplane too close to another, whose stupid fault is that?! Typical UK knee-jerk reaction.
2 s
And if, once, some silly beggar taxied his aeroplane too close to another, whose stupid fault is that?! Typical UK knee-jerk reaction.
2 s