RHAG, and your point is? One can argue that any "by the book phraseology" is bad, but without substantiating, it simply remains a private opinion.

"Fully" anything. Meaningless bollix. You either are or you aren't. No fully or partially involved. Ever.

"Filthy 1234, are you ready?". "No, waiting on the cabin" AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!! What's wrong with the correct "Negative"? What kind of idiotic gloop-speak is "waiting on the cabin"? Are you serving the cabin tea? Do cabins even drink tea? Just "Waiting for the cabin" would be bad enough, but on it?

Telling the fella your heading after he's told you to maintain it, he'll ask "and report it" if he wants to know.

Asking closed-loop questions " Confirm cleared FLXXX" Instead of "Confirm cleared level" Basic Human factors stuff.

Hitting the ident after departure "because they always ask for it"

Briefing taxi routes and parking positions before you've recieved them,or when there is only one way possible (a particular bugbear in my company). What, are you psychic or something? Why/how can you just assume that? Or why waste breath briefing the self-evident?

Spouting a great unasked-for frequency-blocking spiel on contacting Approach reporting type, variant, heading, speed, altitude, ATIS ident and QNH everywhere you go just because the unique procedure at home base seems to need this, yet not noticing that it doesn't happen elsewhere cos it isn't necessary or wanted.

Spouting unnecessary detail about minor tech problems that can only result in overreaction by those who aren't allowed the discretion to disregard such details.

Spouting details of non-critical tech problems on "company". Manna for the media maggots.

"Repeat" for "say again".

ie, just not engaging brain before using the radio.

Completely agree with that ident comment. Incredibly annoying. If any crews are reading this, don't push the ident button before being asked to do so. Technically, the aircraft can only be identified with the ident method when instructed to "squawk ident". From the book:

When using Mode A to identify aircraft, one of the following methods is to be
employed:
c) Observing an IDENT feature when it has been requested. Caution must be
exercised when employing this method because simultaneous requests for SPI
transmissions within the same area may result in misidentification. Aircraft
displaying the conspicuity code 7000 are not to be identified by this method."

Pedantic I know, but them's the rules!

Another one of my pet hates is aircraft that fail to readback a speed instruction properly, if at all. Speed is a mandatory readback. Full list from the book:

5.3.1 Pilots/drivers are required to read-back in full messages containing any of the
following items:
•Taxi/towing instructions;
• Level instructions;
• Heading instructions;
• Speed instructions;
• Airways or route clearances;
• Approach clearances;
• Runway-in-use;
• Clearance to enter, land on, take-off, backtrack, cross or hold short of any active
runway;
• SSR operating instructions;
• Altimeter settings;
• VDF information;
• Frequency changes;
• Type of ATS;
• Transition levels.

If you were instructed as a pilot to "Descend FL120", you wouldn't respond with "Roger", "Wilco", "Starting that descent now", "already descending" or some of the other rubbish we get, so why do it with a speed? Speed is just as important as anything else.

Food for thought anyway...

My pet hate
 

XYZ "Minimum fuel" :ugh:

To which my response is always: "Are you declaring an emergency?"

And to which the answer invariably is "Errrrr, no"

So what is the actual problem?

As far as I'm aware, minimum fuel means you have enough fuel for an approach, followed by a missed approach and a diversion to your nominated alternate. It's what every aircraft has to carry. You don't need to tell us unless you can't do any of the above.

If you are genuinely at the bare minimum fuel and have only enough to reach your destination then prefix the call with "Mayday" and I guarantee you that you will get our undivided attention and will be number one to the closest airfield available.

On the beach

It's been mentioned already, but have to beat on it some more. They guy who before every altitude change says "Big Town Control, Too cool 123 request..... and the controller has to say Too cool 123 go ahead, and Too cool 123 says 'Too cool 123 reqest FL350.

When I hear some w'ker do that I expect the request to be something amazing like "can we go down and fly under that bridge inverted and then rejoin the airway?" Just ask for your blinkin' FL and stop imagining you're staring in your own movie.:ugh:

And further on someone's whinge about ATC exit instructions: When I'm bouncing down your runway at 90 knots, I can't read the chart, and I haven't memorized all of the taxiway names. At best, I know I'm shooting for the first or 2nd high speed on the left or whatever (really I do have a plan) but telling me to exit B or somesuch is going to cause me consternation unless I happen to be fully familliar with your layout.

Mostly we love you guys. Thanks for the handholding all these years.:ok:

On the ground at an airport with no ATIS and a/c calling for the "Weather" when it should be "Departure Information"!

:D . Heard this at Liverpool one night, some poor b*gger in a chieftain had just broken out of the overcast at around 300' and was in the flare when he was given "G-XYZ vacate at A take taxiway B parking C". Single crew, unfamiliar with airfield layout, the guy just said 'er, i'm single crew, when I get it stopped and off the runway i'll have a look at the plate"

ATC can be too slick for their own good sometimes!

@On the beach
In Italy minimum fuel is a priority request, this means no delay then, 'cause they haven't much endurance to follow the phases you talked about before, moreover, if you give them too much delay and in the worst situation they later need to go around, it will probably turn into emergency/critical fuel.

No problem at all if you are sitting in a nice cosy and warm ATC suite where your ass will remain safe no matter what happens.

Reading/understanding problem?

OK Max Angle, here's the problem I was faced with a few years ago. I had 9 aircraft inbound, all trans-oceanics, 6 of whom on first contact stated "minimum fuel", because of either adverse winds or bad planning. Now, 5 of these inbounds on minimum fuel aren't going to be number one and from the statement "minimum fuel", I cannot tell who has the least fuel of the 6. So, I have to ask all in turn if they are "declaring an emergency". And the answer from all 6 was NO. So I'm back to my original problem of sequencing, except that I now know that someone up there probably is genuinely low on fuel or will be if they are made number 6 in the sequence or have to hold. Now, not one of these minimum fuel aircraft declared an emergency even though 5 of them had to be vectored or speed controlled.

Many years ago if a Captain was in the same situation he would have said something along the lines of "We're low on fuel and don't have enough reserves left for holding. If there's any holding we need to divert". In which case ATC know exactly what the situation is and will ensure that, subject to weather and other emergencies that particular aircraft gets in ahead of others who may have to hold or will be told of the ATC situation which makes it impossible. There seems to be an increasing reluctance among the younger Captains these days to declare a fuel emergency for fear of jeopardising their future.

I appreciate that in this day and age commercial pressures play an increasing role in the way many fleets are operated and the luxury of the Captain getting the refuellers to "put a little extra in for Mum and the kids" no longer exists. Sadly, though many operators are taking off with not much more than is the absolute legal minimum fuel requirement.

However, the use of the phrase "minimum fuel" seems to be becoming more prevalent and if it is used by all operators then the whole system is at risk.

I'm sure you are aware of Avianca Flight 52 which crashed near New York back in 1990 after running out of fuel. It was only after 75 minutes holding that the crew declared that they were "running out of fuel". The point here being that they were probably close to "minimum fuel" when they entered the hold but they only decided to tell ATC after 75 minutes of holding. A "minimum fuel" call would have been meaningless as due to the weather I'm sure most of the other aircraft holding were in the same situation.

The pertinent word here being "emergency". So that's what the actual problem is and why not only is it annoying R/T saying "minimum fuel" but is also meaningless to ATCOs. I hope this clarifies the situation.

On the beach

I'm not aware about other countries, in Italy we have "minimum fuel" reported in our manuals and in our national AIP.
About the case you referred, you just had to give them delay as less as possible as of everyone else around but everyone who declared the minimum fuel, they can still fly normally, so it's like a PAN call (underlining the "like").
To avoid the problems there were in the past (cheating pilots :E ), someone should check them when on the ground.

With all due respect but I have the feeling there are more "procedures" and "calls" written in Italian manuals and AIPs that make no sense whatsoever to the rest of the world :ugh:

Standing by to stand by...

I've never talked about our procedures as the best in the world,
I just said that when you're flying throw the worst airspace in the world,
just in case your fuel is not that much but still ok to continue almost safely, in that case I'll try to give you no delay, 'cause I don't like to wait till the real emergency.
In the event you're burning like a big fire ball, I'll give you special assistance even if you don't call a mayday :hmm:
Cheers

Another thing that frustrates me as a pilot: atc talking so fast that they are really unreadable (and im not talking about africans). Ok i understand that sometimes it has to go fast but please pronunciate clearly so i don't have to ask five times "say again".

My advice is : keep it short and clear.

Small point but I think that you will find that the end of a taxiway is where the taxiway and the runway join i.e. at the physical edge of the runway.

Taxiway holding positions (holding points) are designated (marked) to ensure that the largest aircraft for which the aerodrome is designed holding at the most adverse angle does not infringe a myriad of obstacle and / or signal critical areas.

Asking a pilot to hold short of runway(nn) assumes that the pilot knows the design standard of the aerodrome, the aerodrome category, the physical limitations and the signal in space limitations not to mention the wingspan of the aircraft about to roll combined with the pilot's ability to maintain the centerline.

Bit of a big ask!!

Hence the reason for holding points (position).

Ah Ha, I can see that in expecting you to have a basic understanding of the issues involved in getting a commercial flight in the air, I have been placing your understanding on too high a level.

Please think of "just waiting for the cabin" to mean that we have the tug, driver, engineer, release from ops and you might see that everything has been removed from the aircraft including the airbridge but we are not yet ready because.......so even if you don't know how long that is going to take if you tell the aircraft waiting for this stand what we said then atleast they will understand.....................just like when we say "request FL380" and you respond with "NO".........in a team environment, it helps to know why i.e. we do not object to (we prefer) "FL380 not available doe traffic" or "FL380 not available due to military restriction" etc.

Any ATC instruction/clearance ASSUMES crew is able to fly their a/c, know regulations and have licences (sometimes a big ask in fact, as someone managed to fly for 13yrs without a licence). If you clear them for take-off, you assume they know the correct flap setting and when to pull up. What's the point in having regulations if we assume crews don't know them and treat them like idiots?

It's no small point to not know where being guilty of a runway incursion is, and the definition you give (join at the physical edge of the runway) is most certainly your own and other misinformed souls when it comes to a taxi limit that doesn't include a runway clearance. I would fail any PPL candidate that didn't know this very very basic and very very vital/safety-related definition.

You are speaking to why hold lines may be where they are...it doesn't matter to a pilot why they are where they are, but the pilot must know those lines deleniate the taxiway side vs. the runway side. Being hooked on your own erroneous definition (where the pavement joins), or being over-interested in why hold lines perhaps are different distances from the centerline, have you wrapped around the axle, so to speak.

It assumes no such thing, and nobody's asking it of you as a pilot. What's asked of you as a pilot is to understand basic pavement markings and obey them, since they are so you can obey the instruction. Only not understanding would lead you to think an instruction for you to "hold short" is as large and convoluted as you're making it out to be.

The reason for hold lines is to define taxiway side and the runway side of pavement. Learn this...please. You're confusing yourself. You're trying to build a watch when someone asks you what time it is, except watch-building in this case is a detriment to safety.

If such reporting is mandatory in certain locales, it will either be published or the mandate will be met by ATC giving instructions for each aircraft to do so, which is usually the case.

And don't toss "read accident report" suggestions at me when the question is extraneous R/T, because I can toss as many back regarding accident/near accidents due to bogged-down airwaves and missed communications because some just want to hear themselves talk.

Since the expectation is for turbine aircraft is to be ready upon reaching the hold lines, most of the time you hear "cabin not ready" (or some derivative) as an explanation as to why a takeoff clearance or line-up and wait instruction is refused. We do this all the time, and sometimes an explantion is required..."Unable high speed due to turbulence", "Unable FL ..... due to weight", "Negative RVSM due to equipment", "Unable 250 degree heading due to weather" etc. etc. Because of the expectation by ATC that aircraft are ready upon reaching the hold lines, explaining the reason for refusing further clearance is appropriate.

Responding to the much-less-frequently occuring question "Are you ready" with a "Negative due to cabin", instead of "Negative" (with no explanation) is technically extraneous but understandable, because in the pilot's mind he's essentially refusing the clearance he would expect next if he answers in the affirmative.

Here's a new version of the 'Fully Ready' chestnut I got tonight: 'Hello tower, Bigjet 1234 on Stand 5, we're nearly fully ready for push'. :mad::mad:

If an aircraft near a departure holding point tells me he's not ready for departure, I'd like to know the reason: If it's for the cabin then I can reasonably expect it to be ready in the next few minutes, if it's for final figures then I might consider moving it out the way to another holding point to enable a/c behind to get to the runway. Likewise for a technical issue or possible bag discrenpancy, also in those cases I might warn Ground that the aircraft might be returning to the terminal.

Hold short of ... is standard phraseology,the only problem is that 70% of pilots do not know what the he.. that means,therefore, I am not using that phrase,because YOU DON'T KNOOOOW ! Education ,RHAG,education ...

Heard this the other day...

ATC: Propflier 9876 expect further climb in about 10 miles due crossing traffic descending to 1000ft above.
Propflier: Roger, expecting further climb due ... err ... in 10 miles ... for crossing traffic ... um ... 1000ft above us Propflier 9876.

Meanwhile we are about to hit our clearance limit waiting to call in on the frequency.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

As an aside Jeppesen says the following about calling for P/S in Heathrow:
S.

Is that an example of the controller not knowing that if the base of controlled airspace is FL65 then an aircraft at FL65 is in uncontrolled airspace. i.e. Where a higher class of airspace overlies a lower class then ther dividing level is taken to be the lower class?

Clearly in that case the N pilot was more aware of the situation than the controller!! :D

Any idea where this is published? It would make my life a bit easier if I could use it when aircraft are bumping along at 2500' underneath the TMA.

Annex 11, 2.6:
"Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc."

2 s

I think in the US "Squawk mode Charlie Charlie on the xpndr" is valid but why one controller insists on telling me that all the time is a mystery as I always put on the xpndr in mode C and they don't have ground radar,..:rolleyes:

what really hate is when after touchdown and you are occupied the same twr controller gives fast turnoff instructions,...causes many students [solo] to stop on the runway only to be berated loudly,... :ugh: in fact there's a youtube of this behavior
I don't know the guy in the Mooney,...but I know the Mooney involved

airport involved FRG

Babotika ..... good spot!

However, if Jeppesen are promoting the use of "fully ready", we are all f***ing doomed in the cesspit of acceptance of non-standard rubbish:mad:

WRT the 'fully ready' debate.

In the Geneva plates, it states that you should only ask for start when 'Fully Ready'.

Also, what about 'fully established'? you're either established on the localiser only or established (on the ILS).

When I hear "fully established" I understand that as "established both on localizer and glide"... "Established inbound" I consider localizer-only.

2cent.

Whenever I hear a pilot or one of my colleagues start a transmission with the word AND, I die a little inside

I die a little when I hear people start their sentences with the word "so"!!:ugh:

@ Shrimp42;

I understand where your coming from with the "AND" phrase when using RT - i freely admit it is wrong, i will also admit i am one of the offenders of using it - i always think afterwards "why did i do that ?" and for some reason i can only conclude it is because it felt natural to me, albeit totally wrong for me to do so of course !! anyone else ??

Even more annoying is footballers stsrting every sentence 'ya know'.

Button-holders, whilst quite rare, are acutely irritating. When is someone in the training department of a Scottish regional airline that's been operating for 40 years, that now has Swedish aeroplanes, going to tell one of their Captains of the chaos he creates whenever he lingers over the PTT switch after he's finished speaking?

Busy ATC: "xxx123 climb FL 125"
xxx pilot: "climb FL125 xxx123.......pause....linger...(finally release switch)"
Busy ATC: "....tish Control 124.5"
xxx pilot silence..............
Busy ATC: "xxx123??"
xxx pilot "Go ahead xxx123..........pause....linger...(finally release switch)"
Busy ATC: "......oo four decimal five."
xxx pilot "Sorry was that for xxx123 contact 124.5?...(pause....linger etc.)"
Busy ATC: ....did reply but have finished the acknowledgement.

Meanwhile the rest of us have our ears fried by the constant two-stations-at-once DYOOOOOOOOOOO noise....:ugh::ugh:

A couple of pet hates from "downstairs"

The controller who replies "correct" after every readback of a clearance from the pilot.

The London controllers who tell you on first contact, "ABC123 make your present heading a radar heading and after the vectors route REFSO, LAM, CPT for the BRS1C."

This has caused several problems with inexperienced crews unfamiliar with this type of clearance- why not just omit the "after the vectors" bit and when we are released from the vectors, just say "route direct LAM, CPT BRS1C etc?" We don't know at what point you are going to release us- it might be somewhere near CPT- we don't know. You will be surprised how many will miss the 'Radar Heading' bit and type in DCT LAM before being challenged by the Almighty!

Oh and I won't even get started on the "When established on the localiser, descend with the glidepath" which for a non-native speaker is like gobbledegook (believe me- I work with them- and they mostly struggle with this phrase). That is why you will often get the "cleared for the approach" reply to that one!

And in France, aircraft checks in on quiet frequency...

Controller responds...

"ooh es callinnnggg??":ugh:

Four rules for VHF VP.

1. Speak slightly more loudly
2. Speak slightly more slowly
3. Speak in a slightly higher pitch if you can
4. If possible, introduce a natural rhythm to your speech.

Anyone knows where that comes from?


And LISTEN OUT, before TX ing:ok:

Request any direct
 

For me the most annoying transmissions are along the lines of: "Request any direct!" or "Any shortcut available today?", simply because one gets to hear those so often every day.

It's as if pilots believe ATCOs rejoice in not providing the shortest possible track the circumstances permit. :ugh:

Also...quite irritating...seriously bad weather (e.g. heavy thunderstorms in the entire TMA, or runways not available due to heavy snowfall), and pilots asking..."Report reason for delay!"

One time one of my co-workers answered "Reason for delay is turtle race on the runway". :p I know I know...not very professional, but all of us were struggling with massive traffic loads and dozens of aircraft in the holdings...