correct RT phraseology
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correct RT phraseology
Hello!
What is the correct RT phraseology with the word "to"? I know that "to" must be used with FL (either climbing or descending).
"Climb to FL 410"
Has "to" to be omitted with the term altitude? If so, must the term "altitude" be used before the altitude?
"climb (to) altitude 3000"
or
"climb 3000"?
Sorry to post such a banal question, but I haven't flown much in UK airspace recently, and I cannot locate my CAP ... 413 (?).
Thanks
What is the correct RT phraseology with the word "to"? I know that "to" must be used with FL (either climbing or descending).
"Climb to FL 410"
Has "to" to be omitted with the term altitude? If so, must the term "altitude" be used before the altitude?
"climb (to) altitude 3000"
or
"climb 3000"?
Sorry to post such a banal question, but I haven't flown much in UK airspace recently, and I cannot locate my CAP ... 413 (?).
Thanks
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: pub(i wish)!
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedFour, only a query, isnt height QFE? as my company uses Qnh for landing Weve only ever being given "descend Altitude i.e.3000feet"
We used to use QFE which I always thought was better as it gives u a better clue as to ure height above threshold especially in marginal weather conditions.
And theres another one, landing on QNE which the controller will give you the height reading in feet or metres at touchdown with 1013 set. Think its only ever used when Qnh is below 950hPa or above 1050hPa
We used to use QFE which I always thought was better as it gives u a better clue as to ure height above threshold especially in marginal weather conditions.
And theres another one, landing on QNE which the controller will give you the height reading in feet or metres at touchdown with 1013 set. Think its only ever used when Qnh is below 950hPa or above 1050hPa
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
happy-clappy
Yes, Height=QFE, Altitude=QNH.
If at a FL and you are then descended to an altitude, then the QNH should also be included in that transmission. Likewise, when at an Altitude and you are decended to a height (assuming you are one of the few who still flies approaches on QFE), then the appropriate QFE should be included in that transmision.
If it is known you fly the approach on QNH, then the Threshold/Aerodrome elevation should also be passed to you at some stage during the the approach.
Yes, Height=QFE, Altitude=QNH.
If at a FL and you are then descended to an altitude, then the QNH should also be included in that transmission. Likewise, when at an Altitude and you are decended to a height (assuming you are one of the few who still flies approaches on QFE), then the appropriate QFE should be included in that transmision.
If it is known you fly the approach on QNH, then the Threshold/Aerodrome elevation should also be passed to you at some stage during the the approach.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: inorout
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my first airline flights under supervision, one of the check pilots told me I should not say "to" or "for" because these could obviously be misunderstood as "two" and "four".
Thats why I say "(callsign) level 240 climbing level 280" or "(callsign) level 280 descending level 220".
"To" and "for" should be taboos in R/T.
Regards, Pete
Thats why I say "(callsign) level 240 climbing level 280" or "(callsign) level 280 descending level 220".
"To" and "for" should be taboos in R/T.
Regards, Pete
Omitting the 'to' with reference to FL's is correct. But as already stated, it should be included in instructions for climb or descent to an Altitude or Height.
Suppose a pilot flying at 5000' was instructed to "descend altitude 3000' - would he then descend 3000' and fly at 2000', or descend to altitude 3000' ? The word 'to' is always followed by Altitude or Height, before giving the numbers, to avoid confusion with '2'.
I guess no phraseology will ever be perfect for every situation, but this is my understanding of the reasons behind the current UK CAA approved R/T.
Suppose a pilot flying at 5000' was instructed to "descend altitude 3000' - would he then descend 3000' and fly at 2000', or descend to altitude 3000' ? The word 'to' is always followed by Altitude or Height, before giving the numbers, to avoid confusion with '2'.
I guess no phraseology will ever be perfect for every situation, but this is my understanding of the reasons behind the current UK CAA approved R/T.
Last edited by spekesoftly; 18th May 2002 at 14:17.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: underground
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one has been flogged to death many times on PPRuNe.
No matter what you may, or may not think is a good idea,
the rules are quite clear.
Climb or Descend.....FL***
Climb or Descend to ALTITUDE *****Ft
Thats it.....Simple .
Puts on flack jacket and retires to await first salvo.
No matter what you may, or may not think is a good idea,
the rules are quite clear.
Climb or Descend.....FL***
Climb or Descend to ALTITUDE *****Ft
Thats it.....Simple .
Puts on flack jacket and retires to await first salvo.
Moley, oh that it were that simple ! In the UK, perhaps, but have you looked at some of the posts on the 'Maintain Flight Level' thread? Pilots and Controllers from The USA and Canada may not so readily agree with you.
The reasoning for the difference in the use/non-use of 'to' is that apparently in the past, when 'to' was not used at all, some aircraft instructed to, for example, "Descend altitude three thousand feet" didn't descend to 3000 feet, but descended by 3000 feet, and the similar error for the climb has been made in the past. It was felt that this error would not arise for FLs, so 'to' is not used.
Another post is also correct in that, in general, 'to' and 'for' should not be used at all, eg it's "Clear take-off", "Clear land" etc; however, for the reason given above, 'to' is used for altitude and height climb/decend instructions to minimize the risk of a more serious error.
Another post is also correct in that, in general, 'to' and 'for' should not be used at all, eg it's "Clear take-off", "Clear land" etc; however, for the reason given above, 'to' is used for altitude and height climb/decend instructions to minimize the risk of a more serious error.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read that this subject has appeared before,sorry if I cover old ground.
Several years ago on a busy frequency,c'sign 225 and 2225 were being vectored TO r/w25,one aircraft was instructed 'descend to 5000',unfortunately this was taken as' decend TO 2500',straight through traffic at 4000',no SSR at this time.
As usual in such incidents there were many casual factors,but the phraseology and use of 'to/two/2' in English was recognised as a contributory factor.Not long after this incident phraseology did change,and that is why 'altitude/height' were inserted in front of 'to' to try and prevent an example as shown above happen again,and why it was deleted from use with Flight Levels.
Several years ago on a busy frequency,c'sign 225 and 2225 were being vectored TO r/w25,one aircraft was instructed 'descend to 5000',unfortunately this was taken as' decend TO 2500',straight through traffic at 4000',no SSR at this time.
As usual in such incidents there were many casual factors,but the phraseology and use of 'to/two/2' in English was recognised as a contributory factor.Not long after this incident phraseology did change,and that is why 'altitude/height' were inserted in front of 'to' to try and prevent an example as shown above happen again,and why it was deleted from use with Flight Levels.
The most costly example of this was probably the Flying Tigers accident in Malaysia in 1989.
The crew misinterpreted an ATC instruction "descend two four zero zero feet" as "descend to four zero zero feet" and ended up hitting a ridge at 600 ft.
My recollection is that the word "altitude" was introduced to the phraseology not long after that incident.
The crew misinterpreted an ATC instruction "descend two four zero zero feet" as "descend to four zero zero feet" and ended up hitting a ridge at 600 ft.
My recollection is that the word "altitude" was introduced to the phraseology not long after that incident.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've said, on other threads, I'm trying to put together a PowerPoint presentation of R/T (done the CAA, CAP413 way - be it eiother right or wrong [different question])....to present to JAA student pilots training in the USA.
Was very interested to read the Flying Tigers report from bookworms link...would very much appreciate some more examples of R/T based confusion (links or free hand typing) - especially with pictures.
Whilst on the subject - would also apreciate any other known links to relevant materials (Thanks to Pie-Man for the LARS and D&D presentations).
Was very interested to read the Flying Tigers report from bookworms link...would very much appreciate some more examples of R/T based confusion (links or free hand typing) - especially with pictures.
Whilst on the subject - would also apreciate any other known links to relevant materials (Thanks to Pie-Man for the LARS and D&D presentations).
