State your recovery...
 

Yesterday whilst en-route, Brize Radar asked me to "state my recovery".

As I wasn't hearing them especially well I asked them to repeat, and satisfied myself that was what they were indeed saying. I had no idea what it meant.

I didn't think jokes about the AA or RAC would have gone down well, so I simply replied that I didn't understand the question.

The chap then just asked me if I was VFR or IFR. I replied VFR. He seemed satisfied.

Is this military terminology?

Usually directed to an inbound aircraft to determine what sort of approach was required. At least, that's what it used to mean!! Maybe somebody wearing a blue suit will provide a better answer.

Very retired blue 'suit' but it means nothing to me - where were you planning to land?

EGTK, and did so.

If you're flying into EGTK and speaking with Brize they will usually ask you whether you are VFR or IFR into Oxford. This is because, if you are IFR, they need to request a procedural level for the OX from OX APPROACH as EGTK work procedurally only. No radar yet.

If you are recovering VFR into EGTK Brize will usually prenote you inbound and, when there is nothing known to affect you, send you enroute.

Thanks. Guess it's just a vocab thing then - I wasn't aware the military referred to 'arriving' as 'recovering'.

Our brown and blue jobs(Army and RAF) often tell me that want an IFR or VFR recovery back to Aldergrove.

I expect thats what he was asking....in a bit of a roundabout way

Mil LARS will often ask what type of recovery to give a pre-note to the recovering aerodrome. If recovering to a military aerodrome it is often practice to ask what type of recovery as there's a fair choice, PAR, SRA, ILS, TAC-ILS, Radar to initials, straight in approach etc

In Spain, we use "recovery" just for military aircrafts, as far as i know. I´ve never used that phraseology for civil flights. I would rather go for "type of approach", "rules of flight" or something alike.

Best.

To me it is so simple- it was the wrong phraseology by the controller.
- esatern has it in one. It is an expression used when an aircraft is returning to its base from which it departed for a recovery, and was 'standard' R/T in my days in slippery things. Look up 'recovery'. (Actually the word 'back' is redundant). It was not appropriate to a 'route' flight landing at a different airfield and was just a slip of the tongue.

If it happens again, niceday, try "Visual for run and break" and see what happens. :)

Thats correct as there could be many different options for joining instrument approaches or visual circuits, as already stated radar to ILS, or short pattern ILS, PAR, SRA, visual circuit via run and break, over head join with a PFL from high or low key, landing or touch and go, cable up or down and if you where getting a hand over from Lon Mil it was a prenote to ATC, those where the days.

The controller was probably just trying to sound punchy by abbreviating the correct phraseology...They should have asked "What type of recovery do you require at Oxford" and that should have been preceded by asking you if you had copied the Oxford weather and providing it, if not.

Perhaps the controller was working two or three other frequencies at the same time, had quite a high (unheard) workload and erroneously missed the words 'type' and 'of'.

To the Brize Controller the only thing that matters to them is whether aircraft inbound to Oxford is IFR or VFR. VFR means the aircraft will be pre-noted and released when the controller considers it appropriate. IFR means the controller will obtain a level Oxford ATC require the aircraft to be level at for the OX (all IFR inbounds route via the OX procedurally. ILS or NDB, makes no odds to Brize.

Well if he had not erroneously forgotten the correct words he wouldn't have had to listen to the pilot asking for him to repeat his question and then having to do so, thereby decreasing his workload and increasing his workrate and allowing him to deal with his band-boxed frequencies...simples!

AmexGull

In theory, yes, simples! I guess you're 100% perfect all of the time? In fact, don't bother answering.:ugh:

I was merely explaining to the OP what the full and correct phraseology should have been - I was not trying to come up with theoretical mitigations as to why he may have abbreviated the RT other than stating he may have been trying to sound punchy...I'll retract that bit if it makes you happy...:rolleyes:

FWIW Military ATC will always use 'what type of recovery?' rather than the more correct 'what type of approach?'. This is standard military phraseology. Although each military unit uses slightly different variations of the same phrase :confused:

Some controllers do the same lol