"Blocked" is fine.

"London Fastjet123 request" is the way i'd prefer it. It gives me the option of choosing when to answer.

In a busy RT environment, i'd rather pilots did that than launching into their request straight off. a) i probably won't be expecting it and then miss either the callsign or the request and b) it'll probably happen right when i need to do something and screw up my plans.

If i can answer when i want then it'll enable me to control the RT much more effectively, which makes for a better service all round. :ok:

"As commander sometimes one is not in complete control of the R/T! I have had a couple of occasions fairly recently where my colleague has asked (without reference to me!) "Do you still require us on this heading?" and also "Are there any level restrictions at XXX today?" - one doesn't want to spoil the decorum on the flight deck but not consulting with the commander before making superfluous R/T calls is also one of my pet hates, notwithstanding CRM!"

Though it may be the commanders privilege to say whatever he wants on the radio, I must say it works both ways. It can be quite an embarrasement when the guy who's supposedly in charge can't hack the R/T... As for asking things to ATC before consulting the other crewmember, I think the worst one is: "field in sight"...

/LnS

Have to agree with fireflyBob. He did condition his argument by mentioning superfluous R/T. I can't stand being in command of a flight when an FO makes a superfluous call without asking me and the controller comes back and rebukes him. Similarly, transmitting "standing by for descent":yuk: without asking me if that's what I want, when clearly the controller has traffic blocking us below and 60 seconds of patience will see descent instructed by ATC anyway.

Low'n'slow if one crewmember calls field in sight to ATC and requests a visual approach without asking first his colleague if he agrees, that is certainly poor show.

Interesting CAA Safety Leaflet I was reading on britflight;

http://www.britflight.com/wingfiles/...iplinegood.pdf

Especially relevant to this thread are the required elements for initial call and frequency handover on pages 2 and 3;
PP

Kiltie.
Concur completely with your last sentence. However

Different jurisdictions have different rules. In my neck of the woods
the AIP EN-RT 5.7.1 (j) requires us on approach to report " When the ground or water becomes continually visible and flight by instruments is no longer required." (Honoured more in the breach than in compliance, but that's another story.)

No specific phraseology is given, though "Barnburner XYZ, visual" is common. I don't know that this particularly helps the Tower folks, though. Do they need "Request visual approach" in this case, or does "visual" allow them to free up some missed approach airspace?

I'm one of the pilots guilty of using "radar heading". I use it in an intial call when I've been assigned a heading by another controller.

I appreciate it might not be standard, however I hear it on a daily basis from controllers.

An example:

"Callsign, make your heading a radar heading, and report that heading" I get this nearly everyday.

Another one is the instruction to fly "radar heading xxx".

I have a pet hate that some of my fellow controllers use.

"Maintain high speed"

WTF does that mean? Either give a specific speed or don't bother.:ugh:

I watched someone use it 5 or 6 times in a half hour and every pilot came back to confirm what speed he wanted them to fly. So he had to tell them. Reducing RT congestion my .....

:= Just reporting, "Visual" does not entitle a pilot on an IFR flight in controlled airspace to carry out a Visual Approach. There may be other conflicting aircraft in the vicinity e.g. the pilot stating he is "visual" may be number 3 or 4 or more in the actual approach sequence. He cannot 'jump the queue'.

For a Visual Approach Procedure In Controlled Airspace, ATC may clear an IFR flight a Visual Approach if
1. the pilot specifically states, "Request Visual Approach", and
2. the pilot must be able to maintain visual reference to the terrain, and
3. the reported ceiling is not below the approved initial approach level for the aircraft so cleared, or the pilot reports, at the initial approach level or at any time during the instrument approach procedure, that the meteorological conditions will permit a visual approach and that there is a reasonable assurance that the landing can be accomplished.

When cleared by ATC for a visual approach further descent is unrestricted except that ATC may impose further restriction or requirement included with the clearance. Any ATC altitude restriction remains in force until specifically cancelled.

An aircraft operating under IFR and making either a visual approach or a visual arrival procedure remains an IFR flight and is subject to ATC clearances for the purpose of providing separation. For example ATC may issue a clearance like, "Crudbuster 123 Cleared for Visual Approach. Follow B777 4nm final. Maintain 3000 feet. Contact XYZ Tower on 123.45."

I think on a busy frequency 'request' should be used - then I can decide when I want the pilot to ask me something. If I am busy, you will have to wait. Controllers do a myriad of other things as well as transmitting on R/T... simply blurting out a request (which will probably involve some non standard R/T) will probably lead to the controller saying "Station calling XXX say again, I was on the phone (etc)"

055166k using "go ahead request" is not good (nor safe) R/T practice, "pass your message" is the correct response (and safe)!!:ok:

BaldEd - your post is entirely correct, but in my experience there are precious few UK pilots out there who appreciate that and still insist on calling "NobJet 123 visual".:rolleyes:

Kiltie, Bald et al:
What you seem to be saying is that if we happen to be or become visual you don't want to know about it, presumably unless you have said "report established xyz approach procedure or visual". If you haven't asked us to report visual we are to assume you are too busy (which, with more time on your frequency, we will eventually deduce ourselves, workload permitting) - correct? Telling you we are visual (or as is often heard "visual if it helps") is in fact no help at all, am I right?

UK perspective only:

My controller friends tell me that sometimes a visual approach does help increase flow. On the other hand they rightly remark that asking for a visual approach when it is blatantly obvious you are being vectored around a pattern with half a dozen others in front is irritating and highly unlikely to be honoured.

However, merely stating that one is "visual" doesn't tell the controller what you want! This could lead to misunderstandings from both participants. Visual with what? Do you want to continue with the vectors / non-precision procedure / ILS or are you saying you can see the other traffic around you?

The correct transmission is "request visual approach", (a VISUAL APPROACH is a recognised definition), and now the controller knows in no uncertain terms that you wish to continue the approach with your own navigational visual reference rather than that of an instrument procedure, but he still has the duty of providing IFR separation around you (NB a "Visual Approach" is not VFR; you haven't cancelled your IFR flight plan.)

1985 - your reference to those who ask you to "maintain high speed" is indeed annoying. Until when? What about our FL100 250kts restriction outwith Class A airspace? Am I going to cock up the controller's plan if he assumes I am going to keep 320kts all the way in and I can't? This is why, like you, I ask "what speed would you like?" which sometimes can sound unintentionally sarcastic but it's a valid question.

anotherthing - "pass your message" unfortunately seems to have been replaced by "ready to copy":yuk:

To digress, my local airport's approach frequency has started the unrequested rubbish of "Nobjet 123 this will be vectors to a visual approach for runway 36.." when there is a fully serviceable ILS radiating! To put pressure on a pilot to maneouvre visually in to an airport he is not familiar with is a right as far as I am aware that controllers don't have, and the request for visual approach should only be instigated by the pilot when he (and his colleague) are absolutely assured it will work safely. Discuss.....

In Oz the term 'visual' means that the pilot is able to maintain visual reference to ground or water to the field and is therefore able to accept a visual approach. It may not be forthcoming.

No Country Members

The NZAIP states, under the heading Position reporting during instrument approach at a controlled aerodrome, that a pilot MUST (among other things) report "when the ground or water becomes continuously visible and flight by reference to instruments is no longer required.

I would imagine that most, if not all, other countries have the same requirement in their publications.

Oh yes, rest assured that the air traffic controller does want to know when you are visual. It is helpful to know the actual flight conditions that the pilot is experiencing - remember the approach radar controller is probably sitting in a dark room, possibly many hundreds of miles away from the aerodrome (as is the case in NZ).

In in order to enable the controller to expedite the traffic flow the pilot has to voluntarily "Request Visual Approach". The controller needs to hear those 'magic' words before he can issue a "Cleared Visual Approach" instruction. A controller is not permitted to badger the words from the pilot.

Kiltie, the answer surely is simple: "Nobjet 123 request vectors for ILS Runway 36"

It responds to and rejects the unrequested clearance and would achieve the required service and approach.

I agree that the controller should not assume that the preferred approach is always a visual one.


JD
:)

We fly a rangey aircraft not very far and inevitably have a lots of climb performance. Anybody got issues with us checking in with having a good roc available.

Thanks everyone for the smiles you gave me. I enjoy being a controller and try to get along with all the pilots. Do pilots and controllers say dumb things? Sure all the time, but we are all having fun and laughing at each other too. Please don't take everything to personal, because five minutes later it's forgotten. I enjoy joking with pilots when it's slow and I hope they enjoy it too. Believe me I get a lot more upset with other controllers then any pilot.

"Report Finals"

"Roger, currently downwindS" gets them thinking:E

In that case he or she should specify a min speed for the one in front and a max speed for the one behind.

If that is the case then standard phraseology "no speed restriction" should be used. Its understood by all unlike "maintain high speed".

That might be true but one pilots high speed is anothers normal speed.

The phrase "maintain high speed" is rubbish phraseology that unfortunately a number of my controller brethren use. 99 times out of 100 the pilot asks "just confirm what speed you want?" and so the controller uses up double the amount of RT time probably when he/she most needs it.:ugh: If you need to say it then you need to specify a speed, so why not give one?

so what speed do I specify? speeds pilots are happy to fly differ for each B738 I talk to nevermind other types.