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
|
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. 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 |
Hey Ausatco, When I worked an extremely large non radar sector in Oz, a few years back, I heard a couple of the asian pilots use CC. Now over in the Middle East, I hear it alot. It isn't any quicker than "affirm", but it is clear what is intended by the response so I have no problem with it being used. Generally Australia is, from what I have seen in a very multicultural ATC Centre here, the most regimented and strict RT wise, and sticks to the book more than anyone else I have seen. Initially coming here the relaxed RT freaked me out, and I fought against it, but you hit your head against a brick wall long enough, you just give yourself a sore head. Once you get over that, the relaxed RT generally works just as well, and I think Oz could learn a bit from the rest of the world and take a chill pill.
I still remember the look I got when I "concurred" to a level change. The other controller was sure I was a horses hoof!!! |
Ah the slippery-slope...
So long as phraseology doesn’t degenerate to the point where approach clearances go something like, “five from it, three thousand till it, cleared for it, call the tower at it….” You know who you are, and you know damned well it's wrong. :rolleyes: |
Who came up with affirm and negative anyway?
What's wrong with "Yes" and "No"? Short, concise, easily distinguishable and the two most understood words in the world. |
The police get along quite happily in the UK with 'Yes, yes' and 'No, no' to make themselves clearer.
Tim |
"Charlie Charlie" has been used since the dark ages...and it's like a cockroach, not even a nuclear winter will kill the expression.:}
But really, who cares? Ausatco, I worked in Oz for over 15 years...used to hear it all the time. The one that really annoys me is...."mumble mumble mumble...interogative?" Cheers |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.