ATC phraseology pedants know that we don't use the phrase Channel (or Canal in French) in RT anymore ;)

I can see it from both sides. When a pilot checks in on my (tower) frequency and I can't (or won't) clear him to land, "continue approach" emphasises I want him to continue normally. Roger is just a bit vague - but you of course can acknowledge my "continue approach" with "wilco", or just "continue". If there's a reason I want you to "continue", I'll give it, i.e. "Continue approach, one to depart" or similar. If there's an issue, then I'll also state it, along with any action - such as "reduce to minimum safe approach speed", to prepare the pilot for what may end up being a missed approach. This is becoming more regular now we cannot depart anything after a reported birdstrike (or suspected birdstrike) - and it always happens when it's tight and you've given the one at the hold a conditional line up clearance...

Finally on this subject - my bugbear! If we're quiet, you check in at 10 miles, nothing's going on...you will probably get a "continue approach", not a landing clearance. Why? Because at 2 miles, you'll ask "can you confirm we are cleared to land". Thanks for getting confirmation - I'm not against that at all, but invariably it gets us jumping up with binoculars wondering what you've seen on the runway! If I just give you a continue, then a clearance at 4 miles, I don't get the raised heart rate! I often wonder why the flight deck get a placard for the cabin crew to set "cabin ready take off / landing", but there isn't one to say "cleared to land" when landing clearance is received...

OK, try this fairly common scenario...

"XXX, continue approach, 1 to depart. After landing vacate at the end, your stand occupied".
"YYY cleared for takeoff"
"XXX cleared to land, wind blah"

A/c now at around 1/2 mile, stand screen flashes into life with a new stand, or GMC start the one on your stand.

"XXX no need to acknowledge, you may vacate at C1, stand changed"

To a pilot, is that useful, or not? Bear in mind, I've not had anyone ignore it and roll to the end anyway :\

Not even with 8.33 spacing?

In the land of retirement now, but was quoting last ICAO doc I had available

Hi Lon,

Hope retirement is fun :ok:

It was the case that ''Channel' was in the phraseology, but it was removed when everyone went to using 6 digits for frequencies. For most of the civilised world, this was in November 2005. For the UK, it was May 2006.

Things change quickly. that was a suggestion made on day 1 of 8.33 ops. I didn't think it would ever make it through Montreal.
On the whole. Still miss the people and the actual job. NOT the b/s I was supposed to distribute on behalf of management.

Slink:

With more and more airfields busy with traffic and the TWR controller unaware of anything that occurs on the apron, I always appreciate the times when an extra effort is made with regard to taxying / parking!:ok:

Hold Short ?
 

Time to get this thread going again ;)

"Hold Short"

This crops up in central europe, mostly german & french speeking countries.

ATC: "Hold short runway 28"
(given to an aircraft cleared to the holding point 28)

How short is short. 3 meters or 30 meters. Is it permission to move past the holding point surface markings and get a little bit closer to the runway?

ATC: "Hold short taxiway Lima"

Same again. OK I'll keep 3cm short of the taxiway.

Its bull**** :ugh:

Then there is ...

ATC: "Standby short" (mostly heard in switzerland and germany)

OK - what does this mean ???
Maybe we should define how long a standard "standby" is and what units we measure it in. Minutes, fuel burn or $ or £ or euro-things.
Then when we know how long a standard standby is, then we could usefully work out how long "Standby short" is.

ATC please stop using local rubbish and keep it standard :D

which spacing or channel ????
There s an ICAO phraseology for that

*Advise 8.33 eqipped * ,he replies- *Affirm 8.33* or *Negative 8.33*or exempted ....

Same for RVSM you say

*Confirm RVSM approved*,pilot replies* Affirm or Negative RVSM *

Really annoying to listen to*advice 8.33 spacing capability*and the pilot goes *say it again?*,and again and again...:ugh:

RHAG - Uh!??

I'll have some of whatever he's using!

In what way is "hold short" non-standard rubbish? Or do you mean it's the lack of "of" that annoys you?

Hold Short --- How short is short ?
 

Read the origional text :)

So the ATC says hold short runway 36.

I elect to hold 3 meters from the runway edge.
That’s short of the runway :ok:

I am NOT told this will not give enough wing tip clearance from the aircraft using the runway, which may not stay on the centerline, and may veer to one side, who's wing may then hang over the runway edge by more than 3 meters.

Bang!
That’s the sound the wing tip makes as it slices through my cockpit.:eek:

As a pilot the only thing I need to know is that I am as instructed "holding short of the runway":)

So how short is short ?
Its just not good R/T and there are many pilots out there that will not know how close they are allowed to get to the runway.

How short is short?
 

Read the question :)

How short is short ?
Is 3 meters from the runway edge OK ?
Seems far enough to me :ok:

Its just bad R/T.

No it's not.

When you are told to hold short of Echo you hold short of the sign that tells you you are about to cross Echo.

When you are told to hold short of Runway 27L you hold short of the sign that says '27L', where the wigwags/guard ambers are, if you've not been told to hold at a specific point.

It's all in ICAO PANS/ATM Doc4444.

I read your question and referred to it. As Gonzo says, there is plenty of hold short in ICAO DOC 4444, so it seems rather lack of knowledge than poor RT. One can advocate that it is a poor phraseology to have and that ICAO should change it, but not that it's poor RT to use while rules are as they stand ATM.

Troll alert. :=

use of 'Channel'
 

Maybe not in civvy life, but is 'channel' not still used for military aircraft which are 'studded' for home base.

Channel 1 - Ground
Channel 2 - TWR
Channel 3 - App etc

For me, one of the most irritating and totally unnecessary word is " fully ready". Still hear it all the time both from ATC and crew. Listen guys, you are either ready or not. If you report "ready" that should mean nothing else than that you are ready! Get rid of the "fully"!

"FULLY ready" is a heap of habitual nonsense as Avman says. "FULLY ready" with the doors wide open and the tug not connected is doubly crap, not least naive. Look to your left and right guys as we on adjacent stands are shaking our heads in disbelief:rolleyes:


"4321 THE squawk" ....thats another embarrassing attempt to sound "cool". Being asked to squawk is an instruction, but many pilots don't want to read it back as "squawk 4321 G-ABCD." Why?

"G-ABCD WITH YOU" = stating-the-obvious crap.

"COPIED / ready to COPY G-ABCD" = CB radio crap.

"OK, join left base etc." = over-relaxed crap.

"To tower eighteen one, G-ABCD" = cringeworthy crap.

"G-ABCD ready." = ready for what? cryptic crap.

"Tower G-ABCD WITH YOU (:ugh:) FULLY ESTABLISHED ON THE GLIDE ( :ugh:) at erm.....errrr....four point five DEE :ugh:" = long winded unnecessary crap.

"LAND G-ABCD" = over stern crap. (this is a clearance and should be read back as such including the words CLEARED TO..., it's not a demand from ATC that you must land at all costs.)

"We have him on TCAS" = useless crap.:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk: God why do these n**bers think this makes any difference to the controller?


RT is surely one of the most repetitive and therefore easiest part of a commercial pilots life so why do so many people disregard it as secondary to just about everything else? In the last two UK airlines Ive worked for the TRI / TRES have demonstrated some of the worst RT I have ever heard! If good RT practice cant be demonstrated from the top of the trainig tree in airlines then Im afraid controllers its never going to get any better. The fact is preccious few pilots care and those that do are tarred with the nit picking brush.

anotherthing, not sure if that also changed with the intro of "channel" for 8.33 as the last few Boscome's we've had went to "Stud 6" instead. Can't find any documents to support though....

I agree with everything else that Dreadful wrote but I think that 'ready' is ICAO standard phraseology and has the same meaning as 'ready for departure'.

I have been reading through this thread with interest and as a lowly trainee controller, I would like to ask our pilot friends to spare a thought for the trainee when using non standard rubbish RT. As a trainee we are held responsible for your every mistake and will face a grilling for not challenging you, here are a few examples:

Lowly trainee: ***123, Contact *****, 123.45
Pilot: Roger over to ******, See ya.
(Now I have to either get you to read back the frequency before you flick the switch, or waste my time and the next sector controllers time by making a phone call to ensure you went to the correct sector)

Lowly trainee: ***123, taxi via A and B to stand **
Pilot: Roger, stand **
(Now I have to read the whole clearance again to get you to read it back, wasting 2 transmissions in the process)

After being told to hold short of a link or apron
Pilot: ***123 approaching ***
(Whilst I understand why this is done, and sometimes it can be useful, if the frequency is busy then it just clogs up valuable RT time. It also seems to spread like a virus, as after 1 or 2 of these transmissions every pilot feels the need to say it)

One final bugbear is pilots stepping on each other. Why not select the frequency and listen for 10-15 secs before transmitting. That way you dont request your clearance in the middle of someone else's, or ask for taxi while your colleague on another flight is reading his instructions back.
I know you guys are under pressure to achieve on time departures and cram in multi sector days, but no-one gets anywhere any faster when i have to say everything twice.

So please spare a thought for us trainees. We dont have years of experience to fall back on, may not always give you what you want straight away, but we are trying hard.

Rant over

P.S all donations to the lowly trainee controller fund are greatly appreciated, we accept cash, cheque, alcohol or even pizza as we dont get paid much. :ok:

Been there, done that, several times only to find somebody else was doing (or maybe NOT doing) exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. :\ :uhoh:

ATC: "cleared dct [fix]"
American pilot: "UNDERSTAND, cleared dct [fix]"

Hello

It think this is a very interesting topic. I started my professional career 2.5 years ago in biz aviation and up to now i must say that ATC can be for me the most frustrating item.

When i finished my line check the line training captain told me that my atc was good, as long if it was standard. This means when twr/app was talking non standard i was really out of the blue. In addition they were sometimes hard to understand, speaking so fast english with a foreign accent (germans, egyptian, spanish)and this in stressy situations, i felt i was a loser. 2.5 years later (now) things are a bit better.

That'swhy i really think that both parties (pilots and atc) should stick to phraseologie and speak in a understandable way. No more no less. And to be honest i think there are a lot of guys outhere in same situation as me.

My opinion.

Personally;

ATC 'FASTJET 01 SQUARK 1234'

A/C '1234 coming down FASTJET 01'
:}

"Fully visual" - when asking for a visual approach really gets me. :ugh:

Ready to be fully shot down here

Having flown in US the last year and a half it amazes me how poor the standard R/T is. Most time spent in SoCal area and yes... they push a lot of tin and they can be really efficient, but mostly at the expense of ambiguous clearances and a lot of bashing for not doing what ATC wanted!! :ugh:

Other examples, starred by pilots

"OK....errr...Roger, we'll go down to 3 and join the LOC, thank you sir" = WTF???

"Ready for take-off" = Heard by anyone from tyro pilot to flight instructors and professional pilots :=

"Here we go/We're on the roll" = And other standard take-off clearances

"Tally Ho/No joy" = took me about 6 months to figure out what it meant :yuk:

"Roger when it should be Wilco, Yes that's right sir when it should be Affirm" etc.

"Turn left on A, proceed straight ahead and make it second right onto D, then follow the taxiway to the end" = When simply "taxi A, D" would do it..... a lot less confusing, too.

If some kind of standard phraseology could be worked out maybe they could cut all the useless information on the ATIS as well like "read back all hold short instructions" DOH!!!

Rant over

ATC "Callsign confirm position..."
Pilot "....at this time.....2nm west of ..."

Forgive me if I repeat someone else's posts, but I don't wanna read through the whole lot..........

Americans stop saying "UNDERSTAND" after every instruction you get.
Out.

RT
 

what happened to bravityand clarity

And spelling? :8

Maybe you do need a certain amount of 'bravity' to fly around in the SOCAL locality. :}

Regards,
BH.

slip of the finger. LOL

Fully Ready
 

As per usual on these kinds of threads, the issue of "Fully Ready" raises its head. The reason this comes about is because standard RT doesn't cover the situation when start delays are long and tugs are limited and you get this situation:

1. Can't have a tug because you aren't in the queue.
2. Can't be in the queue because you can't declare yourself ready.
3. Can't declare yourself ready because you don't have a tug.
1. Can't get a tug because... [repeat ad infinitum]

The only way to break the loop is to say something 'non-standard' or just lie.

I can either say "Ready" and wait for the sarcastic comment from the tower "oh is your tug invisible" or some such bollocks. Or I can say "Ready apart from a tug" in the sure and certain knowledge that the denizens of this forum are at risk of a stroke as their collective blood pressure ratchets up before shooting "well, you aren't ready then are you". Or I can call "Please can I be in the queue for start even though I am not strictly ready because you know and I know start is 45 mins away and if you let me in the queue I can then go on the list for tug which will certainly be less time than that". At which point ATC usually agree... and then ask me to report "fully" ready.

The point being that whilst precise RT use is highly desireable, pro-words are there to be our servants, not our masters. In the case of start clearance, the vocabulary is deficient and is overdue for a rewrite. In the mean time grin and bear it or start taking some valium 'cos I swear some of you guys sound ready to have a stroke.

pb

Some excellent points raised by Capt. Pit Bull.

Personally, when there are start delays I'm more than happy to put you in the queue when you have pax on board, fuelled etc. and then get you to report "fully" ready with a tug. If your turn comes up before the tug arrives you'll just "hold" your position until it does i.e. as soon as the tug is with you you become number 1.

However, I won't put you in the queue when you report ready with pax still climbing the steps, baggage ramps still attached, or the BP vehicle still plugged in!!!

:ok:

"Fully ready"

"Charlie charlie"

Ending every readback with the word "Confirm"? Yes, we know you like to make in impact on the airwaves, but if you have to confirm every clearance then perhaps you need more work on your listening watch or be ready to write things down the first time.

Any queries in a radar environment under positive control of ATC that relates to "track miles". Just do what you're told, fly your aircraft, check your TCAS to see where you fit into the sequence if you're that interested, and shut up.

In a radar environment, after they've been givin a final intercept turn and "Cleared for the ILS Rwy XX approach" , pilots reporting they're "established on the localizer" (which usually forces the controller to respond with an equally useless "continue approach"), or even worse, querying if they're cleared to "descend on the glide". Yes, being "cleared for the ILS approach" means you are also cleared to intercept and descend on the glideslope, and you DON'T have to report established in a radar environment unless asked by ATC to "report established". THey can see you turning to establish yourself. Seeing you doing things is the whole point of having ATC radar.

Controllers who you think may have cleared you to fly direct to a waypoint, but don't use the word "direct", forcing us to question if that's what they really meant.

Controllers who have a runway exit plan for you after touchdown, but keep it as a closely-guarded secret until on the landing roll.

Hold Short --- is not good R/T
 

Hi criss,

see I am not the only one who thinks "Hold Short" is not that good.

Standard Noise
StandupfortheUlstermen

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Where the singing aardvarks told me I should be but when they stop singing I'm gonna escape
Posts: 1,125


No ATCO should ever say 'hold short of runway xx'. Don't give a toss what any book says, it's bad practice and will lead to a runway incursion. I've seen this very thing happen at my unit in the last 12 months. The ATCO involved had a talking to from me afterwards.

Should you ever be given an instruction telling you to 'hold short of runway xx', you should ask for clarification of exactly where you are to hold.

SN,
Unit Competancy Examiner,
Out-in-the-sticks International


Can think of much R/T that had been added, changed and removed from the good book of R/T. Just because its in the good book of one country or used by people in another country, it does not mean its good R/T.
Dont care what they say at LHR, listen to the BBC TV series East Enders and you'll see that they dont talk to good anyway.

Remember, if there is room for a missunderstanding to become an error, it will become an accident, sooner or later. Just hope I am not a passenger on that airplane. I like to arrive on my feet and not in a bag.

,

Suggest you check out some accident reports - after Crossair Flight 3597 and several others, it bacame mandatory in a lot of places to confirm established before transfer to tower.

Guy.

Beginning of rant

"XXXX fully ready for take off". Now can you be half ready? And even if you can, what difference does that make?

"XXXX Request FL350 if available". Well if 350 is bloody available then the controller will be able to assign it to you.

Useless yapping more to sound ubercool than for a reason. The standards of RT work have gone to sh.its in the last 5 years. A marked difference with the surge of inexperienced pilots flooding in when the times where good.

Another thing that I get annoyed is with a FO giving a TO/Dep briefing and telling me that in case of a problem we must perform a "Re-Landing" ( What in the God's name is a Re-Landing???) urgh. Makes me squirm

End of rant :}

If hold lines are present, why on earth would anyone need to clarify where a pilot should "Hold short of Rwy XX" while they are on a taxiway unless they've; 1) neglected to learn what pavement markings mean, 2) don't understand the end of the taxiway end and runway beginning is defined by the hold lines, and 3) those lines coincide with their taxi clearance limit?

Hold lines delineate the taxiway side from the runway side, and are usually co-located with white on red signage drawing your attention to the fact that anything past those indicators is "runway". No part of the aircraft should cross the hold lines onto the runway side until a runway clearance is issued. That's exactly where you should hold. There is no fuzzy no-man's-land area after the hold lines...it's considered runway. Go past them without clearance, and it's an incursion.

"Hold short of Twy xx" is hardly "bad practice". On the contrary, unless there's a failure on the part of the pilot to understand basic pavement markings (quite frankly, PPL stuff) or the markings or signage are nonexistant, it's a perfectly clear, acceptable, and unambiguous instruction. If there's any misunderstanding, it sounds more like a local unit problem of not opening the books.