"Charlie Charlie"

and

Heard quite often from a certain Irish low cost carrier: "London, we're routing direct to point XXX, can you tell us the next waypoint on our flightplan after point XXX". (Why ask ATC? Why don't you check what it says on your own copy of the flightplan? I mean, you do have a copy with you, don't you?):E

Where is the error in "C/S, passing 3,200, climbing to FL90"? That is required in the US to verify the Mode C report on the radar. Has been since the '70s.

Question for ATCOs, do you expect a report when actually leaving a level/altitude when you have issued a "when ready" (US: pilot's discretion) clearance? The US AIM requires it in Chap 5, I think, as mandatory report.


GF

mad jock,

you're absolutely correct to check if not 100% sure - I would never discourage anyone from confirming a clearance. And I have no problem with anyone using this particular piece of phraseology.

But it always makes me jump! I suppose tower controllers all eventually become neurotic...

left bass

Have to comment on a few points raised. Overall, some of the comments raised here seem to show a lack of understanding regarding SOPs - Elemts of the Operations Manual that are approved by the CAA - the same CAA that publishes the R/T Manual.

An example being;

ATC - (Callsign) Descend FL200

A/C - Descend FL200 (Callsign) CONFIRM.

Many commercial operators using multi crew have very specific Ops manual requirments regarding who replies to the R/T, who sets the cleared level in the altitude window and what callouts and responses are made. Thus you have a 3 person crosscheck - the controller and both pilots

When the other crewmember is on the other radio - often obtaining the ATIS - a single crewmember is left as Pilot Flying, Radio operator and the sole person who acknowledges the clearance and sets the altitude window.

Relying on the lack of a correction to a mistaken call is not seen as being suficiently robust and double confirmation is required as per the CAA approved ops manual.

Thus, you have the "Descend FL200 (Callsign) CONFIRM to which ATC simply say - AFIRM. Simple short very safe check in the absence of the normal crosschecking procedures.

---------

Callsign passing FL140 Climbing FL160 (when passing level not requested)

Is often translated as - we are climbing at 2000ft per minute - if you want us to keep going give us higher otherwise we are going to have to reduce that to 1000ft per minute or less - Ops manuals require 1000ft per minute or less in last 1000ft.

Also linked to the many European ATC units where you are for example cleared climb to fl270. Nothing happens until a few seconds after leveling you report so and you are either given further climb or you are transferred to the next sector who immediately issue climb.

------------

Often happens when the point we are going direct to is not on the flight plan.

Pilots do not want to do legs 5nm long at 90 degrees to the direction of travel simply because the next position in our flight plan is almost abeam the point ATC sent us to.

A very good example - since when has LAM become part of the London City Arrival route...................vectors and then "direct LAM to leave on a heading of xxx"

Perhaps ATC would prefer..........do you have our flight plan? do you know the points on the XXX arrival..........or simply LAM not on our flight plan response?

Most of the other points I agree with but as I said, some of the complaints display a lack of knowledge of what the CAA has operators put in the ops manual.

Regards,

DFC

Very similar to post No.40, but with alternative suitably cheeky ripostes proposed.

A transmission often heard in UK airspace, usually emanating from propellor-driven commuter aircraft.

"Er we're running a bit late this evening and would appreciate any short-cuts available"

Suggested solutions to this chronological dilemma:-

1 Endeavour to get airborne on time in future.:E or
2 Buy a jet. :}

When there are a few at the holding point, aircraft approaching the end of the queue; "XXX Ready in turn"

Jung

DFC, as I am the person who posted the "confirm" whinge- I have to say; your post is a load of crap.
When this topic was previously raised on this forum, it was mentioned that some operators have required both pilots to confirm altitude clearances. Those SOPs do NOT ask the pilot TO SAY THE WORD CONFIRM if both pilots did not hear. They ask the pilot to confirm the clearance. The approved method to have things confirmed, is to say "say again".
If you advocate changes to regulated procedures being done by company SOPs and pilot-driven interpretation of those SOPs, then I will have to take issue. Why have a regulator?


Anyway, MY whinge is directed at pilots from a certain geographical area, who say "confirm" at the end of every clearance, not due to SOPs, but purely because they dont have the confidence either in themselves to get it right in one try, or the confidence in controllers in their homeland to listen to readbacks (as revealed by pilots from that area).

I hope I have cleared up your lack of understanding on that particular topic. As for your IAA rants.....:hmm:

Something that has become very common (among pilots) is adding the words "IF AVAILABLE" to a request.
This takes up valueable air time for no valid reason.
If it isn't available, you won't get it!

One thing that really annoys me is people who stick their non-spitcap fitted headset mike into their mouths before transmitting.

It sounds horrible and are obvious to anyone but themselves. It also wastes a lot of airtime when the controller (or even his fellow pilot!) has to ask for confirmation.

What is wrong with placing the boom mike in such a position so that you can´t hear your own "S", "T" and other classical mic sounds?

ferris,

As long as the procedure is in CAA approved JAR-OPS compliant ops manual then those pilots operating in accordance with the CAA approved ops manual will continue to do as I said in my post.

You seem to forget that the response to confirm is simply "afirm" when the proposed information is correct. If one was to use "say again" then that would require you to repeat all the information again. Also say again is appropriate when all or part of the message was missed which is not the case and of course, the ops manual would still require the "confirm" at the end.

Perhaps you would prefer that both pilot remained on frequency and you passed the ATIS on your frequency? ;)

Not advocating the use of the term on calls when both pilots are in the loop but as a tool to prevent level busts in situations where only on pilot is in the loop it is a useful tool which uses very little R/T time.

If you get it all the time it could be that the other pilot is out of the loop for the whole period that flight is in your sector. If that aircraft is below 10,000 and/ or it is a busy terminal area then you could have an argument for it not being a good time to be getting the ATIS etc.

Regards,

DFC

My tuppence worth...
 

1. "Twr, EIZZZ, ready in turn..." (while No3 in the taxi Q):=

2. "Twr, I have the No1 in sight , request glide approach with a go round...":uhoh:

3. "Twr, EIZZZ joining overhead (Speed 200kts), where's the circuit traffic...?":{

4. Twr, yes I am familiar with the DP, can you just run it by me...":rolleyes:

I'm going on shift, will have some more beauties when I get back...:ok:

Sylvester

Also unfortunately ignores the fact that a controller simply can not require a VFR flight to remain outside all controlled airspace.

Regards,

DFC

Serious pet-hate
 

Absolutely hate any use of the words "Climb" or "Descend/Descent" unless a level change is actualy being issued.
e.g.
"stand by for climb"
"stand by for climb to 330"
"are you requesting climb to 330"
etc.

any of these transmissions have the potential to cause disaster if they get clipped, stepped on or just mis-interpreted.

Pilots at the holding point asking what the delay is.The sky is full of aircraft,yet they take up valuable time with pointless calls.Even get it from training aircraft who are miles down on the priority list.I just answer unknown.

DFC,
I strongly suggest that any pilot told to remain clear of CAS does just that.You could find a pretty heavy book aimed at you if you don't.:)

I presumed that ! Left bass

I was just trying to explain why we do it. I can completely understand why it gives you a fright. And if we are lucky we can time it just as you have a mouthfull of tea :p.

For us its a bit like when we have taken a climb clearance while still climbing and just as we get +300ft through the previous cleared level the controller then gives the climb clearance again.

It never fails to make my bum twitch "have we just level busted, I am sure he cleared us for that already, did we take the wrong call." etc etc

And don't worry if there is something on the runway or something we don't like we will say a bit more than "say again clearance" which is the way I ask.
Leading questions and all that good stuff about not using the T or L word unless it is a clearance.

If their "aim is ****e" or they are uncertain of position when they call ATC it might make little difference in that respect. Some controllers now seem to routinely use the expression as their initial reply every time someone free calls them. While I understand the ATC concerns, after a while it becomes less meaningful. In effect, then controller is telling all pilots to meet their responsibilities with regard to the ANO.

BTW, ATC don't routinely tell scheduled aircraft to stay inside controlled airspace on the first call. ;)

mad jock

:} lol, have to confess I'm a known offender in that regard.

I've never considered what effect it has on pilots' nerves before.

Maybe I could start doing it deliberately now for entertainment! ;)

left bass

But he can for all airspace that requires a ATC clearance to enter. ie Class D upwards. Class E i'll give you but why are you asking anyway?

My top pet hate: flight crew who just talk to much on the R/T, e.g. "Control, sorry to be a pain, but would it be possible for you to..." :rolleyes: When they should transmit "Control, xxx request..." :ok:

Do they really think that by being obsequious they will have their way? The ATCO will try to accomodate their request if he/she can. Whatever happened to standard R/T? :{

Cheers :cool:

Crews that use a hand held mike to get the clearance , giving me earache from the feed back.

Refusal to read back the QNH and merely repeating the ATIS letter (one guy did this 4 times before reading it back)

Crews that ask if I know what the order for departure is - when I am doing departures :confused: Sadly the order that you get to the holding point does not confer the order for departure in the grand scheme!

And the usual - what's the reason for the delay - my reply - if it's blindingly obvious what the reason is, is a terse "traffic"!

But I have no problem if crews check a landing clearance - even if it is Mad Jock! :p

louby

1. Transit of class E prior to entering class D. Standard initial call of remain outside controlled airspace fails to recognise that for VFR flight, Class E is controlled but no clearance is required.

2. As can happen in the UK - one unit says remain outside controlled airspace but other unit being worked says cleared to join at xxx FL xxx.

3. Remain outside controlled airspace rom a unit that provides FIS only and ignoring the fact that there is an airway in my 12 O'Clock 5nm that is class E.

If the argument goes that pilot could enter unless specifically told not to then why is the call limited to controlled airspace. Does entering Restricted, Prohibited Danger and Temporary Notamed airspace not have similar risks to the flight being talked to?

--------------

throw a dyce,

Perhaps you should read the class E airspace controlled airspace requirements in that big heavy book. ;)

Regards,

DFC

DFC.....

I have to correct you, every, and I repeat every, response from a controller or pilot requires the use of "CALLSIGN" and not just affirm. Something that is sadly lacking from the supposed sharp end in this part of the world.:sad::ugh:

Someone should print this thread out and take it to the next TRM session!

Name your airport Left Bass we will see who gets fed up first :ok: ;)

Cheers louby :) and your forgivenfor putting us through the localiser so often :p

I still remember telling that Captain what was so special about Tuesdays and you confirming it.

control...that was too close for our confort

:O

This thread is a real eye opener.

I always hear controllers on the air and they seem very pleasant, and even seem to be having a good time with the occasional back and forth banter. Now I am wondering if they are all constantly secretly annoyed with my R/T, and the moment the mike is un-keyed they roll their eyes with their co-workers.

Almost seems that at some point, once we are all at 100% standard phraseology that too much voice inflection will be discouraged, and we will be listening to a monotone voice reading a clearance.

Honestly not trying to be a troll, just the amount of annoyance shown here by controllers really has been eye opening.

(If it makes a difference I am a PPL, but I do almost always fly IFR so I can play along in the SoCal system)

You cheeky menace Mad Jock! :p
Coz - we mostly are all pleasant types - to be honest - most of these "gripes" are about professional pilots - not the GA guys.

louby

I did not specify callsign because as far as I am concerned it should be a given that the callsign would be used appropriately in all transmissions. I do agree that many people at the pointy end need assistance with this important issue.

However, if you want to be 100% correct you will see in the rules that once an R/T conversation has been established between two stations the two stations concerned can drop their callsigns. :D

Regards,

DFC

Today at Leeds the TWR guy took an extensive briefing of all the options to a certain A/C about flying through their filed IFR flightplan or take a more direct routing with FIS. On which the A/C replied "say again" whereafter TWR gave an even more extensive brief on the options, eventually stating "do you wish to proceed controlled or uncontrolled". Which finally made the point.
The last 4 mins of the transmission we where standing with engines running waiting to taxi...
If the TWR guy had just started with that final sentence it would have saved 5 mins of blattering around on TWR frequency, or just invite the guy to the tower for a cup of coffee.

Also annoying the terrible quality of transmission of most UK controllers compared to german/scandinavian/dutch. Especially when you can hear other aircraft replying very crisp and clear (and much louder...)

Shy torque,
Not all countries are the same, in the land of touques and poteen just establishing two way comms allows aircraft to enter controlled airspace.

DFC,
How would you like me to put it then, "Remain clear of controlled airspace that you require a clearance to enter." or "standby, I'll get back to you but don't just continue on into the zone I'm controlling without a specific clearance from me." But I do take your point on board and will bear it in mind when talking to a/c in the vicinity of class E. Oh, I think Ferris was referring to certain airlines who always say 'confirm' in response to anything and sometimes with both crew members trying to speak at once!!

FT

Bittertwisted,

Here are the two relevant parts from ICAO Annex 10;

5.2.1.7.3.3.2 After contact has been established, continuous
two-way communication shall be permitted without further
identification or call until termination of the contact.

5.2.1.7.3.3.3 In order to avoid any possible confusion,
when issuing ATC clearances and reading back such clearances,
controllers and pilots shall always add the call sign of
the aircraft to which the clearance applies.

The above means that when a clearance is issued, the callsign must be included. However, the first paragraph says that the following conversation is perfectly correct;

ABC123 Seaton Control Cleared direct ZZZ FL350

Cleared direct ZZZ FL350 ABC123

Can you accept FL390

Is direct YYY available at FL390

Afirm

Roger we can accept FL390

ABC123 maintain FL350 expect further higher in 5 minutes

Maintain FL350 ABC123

--------------

I see that some on here have a pet hate of;

London ABC123 request

ABC123 pass your message


I think that while the word "request" may be incorrect, the use of "London ABC123" is perfectly correct when it is desired to confirm that the station the message is directed to is ready to receive the message;

ICAO Annex 10;

5.2.1.7.3.2.5 Communications shall commence with a call
and a reply when it is desired to establish contact, except that,
when it is certain that the station called will receive the call,
the calling station may transmit the message, without waiting
for a reply from the station called.

So if I want to say something and do not want the "Sorry I was on the telephone" response I think that "London ABC123" is very appropriate.

Since the UK publishes no difference to the above ICAO standards there is nothing wrong with their use.

Regards,

DFC

DFC, your knowledge of ICAO Annex 10 makes me horny.

Agree 100% and you will probably agree that in practice the callsign is used more often than ICAO say it is necessary. There are a few notables who use it less also!

However, one can not complain when people do what the book says.

Regards,

DFC

NATS 'Best Practice' in the UK is not to include the actual Flight Level if using the phrase 'Maintain'. This is because there is a chance the wrong level might be mentioned (human error is always a possibility) and in some States the pilot can take the 'Maintain' to be a clearance to change level.

Plug the Swiss Cheese holes :ok:

As one in the 'pointy end', my pet hate is pilots asking "any chance of.....?". The reply ,of course, should always be "No f*****g chance whatsoever!" But naturally, you chaps/esses are much too polite.
Off topic, there was a soccer team some years ago apparently called "Norfolk Enchants"!
Best not to be too anal-retentive with R/T -humour is what the world turns on.

"Over and out!!!"

self explanatory.

But i heard this only once from a professional,i reckon it was maybe jetlag.:E

But hear it on many occasions from non-professionals.

Sorry chaps and chapettes of LHR & LGW but you may be hearing a few more 'fully ready' calls and a lack of ATIS letters. The quote above is taken from our briefing matter and shows why BAW may be guilty of the aforementioned sins.

As for me, most of my pet hates have already been mentioned:
'London, ABC123 Request'....you know the rest
'If available'
US carriers and their constant whining about ride reports and freakin' 'light chop'....NOBODY CARES
XPDR codes 'coming down' or 'with a flash'....give me strength
Australians are always 'on climb' or 'on descent'. Why is everybody else in the World 'climbing' or 'descending'?

Okay, back to my chanting exercises before braving US airspace again later ;)

"Zis is the guard frequency!"
"You're on guard."
"Can't you do this on another frequency!?"

All from commercial pilots during GA practise Pans on 121.5................which is permitted in the UK.

If you don't like it, lobby NATS to provide a VHF frequency for practise Pans - the military have a UHF one.

NATS don't provide the Distress and Diversion service, the UK MoD does. You'd be better lobbying them or the CAA.

NATS only provides the D&D equipment and facilities under contract to the MoD.

Whoever you lobby, don't do it on 121.5!
:ok: