Charlie charlie?
 

I know what it means, but where does the expression come from? Certainly not from my copy of CAP413.

Under ITU rules (which apply in a general way to all forms of radio communication) the code letter "C" (charlie) means "yes/affirmative/the siginificance of the previous group should be ready in the positive".

Although it doesn't figure in UK legislation, the term "charlie charlie" is widely used internationally in the same way as the UK term "affirm".

See also the separate discussion of the use of "securite", another ITU expression used widely internationally but not really seen in the UK aeronautical world.

It's a slap dash R/T expression used by slap dash pilots (and occassionally atcos) who can't be arsed to use proper R/T procedures.

Use it on my frequency and I'll send the boys round.....:E

Quite right too, I say, G-CC.

What a petty and pompous attitude niknak. Personally I find it perfectly clear and unambigious. Oh sorry, if it's not British it can't be any good!:p

But not as slapdash as saying "fox" because they can't be arsed to manage the extra syllable in "foxtrot"!!

I guess you don't use HF then.... ;)

He meant UK aeronautical VHF R/T; didn't you, niknak?!

Charlie Charlie

C C

Si Si

Yes Yes

And just for niknak,

Affirm I say again Affirm

I thought it came from the nautical alphabet, the flag for the letter C meaning "yes".
One should know what CC means, being a controller.
An Aeroflot pilot has been asked recently whether his destination was Uniform Uniform Echo Echo.
His answer was: Charlie Charlie

Then his flightplan was changed by the controller to UUCC.

He might still be wondering!

I thought it meant a pair of breasts . . . . or have I missed the point :confused:

what about TX ended by "over" ? It's sounds too old fashioned to me. Only used by few atcos & crews.

The funny thing is
 

...Its interesting to see where the priorties lie in Uk ATC.
Niknak is worried about the slap-dash-whoops-hows-your-father use of Charlie Charlie but the minor issues of separation of traffic, and coordination, passing estimates etc... well we wont worry about those will we .....


TT :sad:

Now that really is funny....
 

.... a Maastricht controller trying to take the moral high ground on "the minor issues of separation of traffic".

:D :D :D :D :D :D

If I only had a pound (that fine British currency) for every time Maastricht gave me traffic that wasn't separated, I'd be able to comfortably retire from ATC on the ensuing windfall.

LTP

We could comfortably afford to double that stake LTP and be quite sure of being wealthy. They do exactly the same to us in that nasty wee corner of sector 10/11 where they chuck us the traffic in your airspace without co-ordinating with either you or us ... and we have the minor matter of not having half of the traffic identified because it is on a squawk which converts to something already in NAS. :ugh: :ugh:

And TrafficTraffic doesn't even drink beer ...... big girls blouse :):p ;)

LMAO

lets see...

Kettle .... Black..... Calling .....Pot not in that order...

Or something to do with glass houses but cant remeber exactly what...



Arrans view - I agree with you 100% that is a nasty corner and handled poorly.

Is that traffic not seperated on your (new electronic) strips or on radar? (it sometimes helps to look at the radar)

This thread started with the discussion about the meaning of "CC", if I recall ... why are we (?) discussing poor atc practices ?

I often get CC as an affirmative answer and sometimes only C and knowing what it means, accept it ...

But I do try not to use it.

In 34 years of Aussie ATC I cannot recall hearing CC for "yes", though I've never worked HF. Must be a European thing.

Here we are strict users of "Affirmative", the aviation abbreviation for "yes", itself abbreviated in AIP to "Affirm", and "Negative", the aviation abbreviation for "no". For some reason AIP has not reduced that to "neg":E

AA