"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