Why does UK ATC not use ICAO phraseology
 

There is a UK CAA ATC Phraseology handbook kicking around which uses phrases and terms that are very different from ICAO standard. As it happens I think the UK document (and procedures) is/are better. But I'm interested to know why the UK CAA doesn't follow ICAO standard. Anyone able to clarify?

Which particular phrases are you concerned about?

Have a look at this:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP4132...0117928206.pdf

Any specific instances you would like to quote? The UK is steadily moving towards 'Standard ICAO'.

Never heard this in the UK:"BIGJET 347, cleared ILS approach runway 28, descend to altitude 3000 feet QNH 1011, report established on the localizer".

It's always: "Report established on the localizer" when that is done, then it's: "Descend with the glide".

and I see why in the mentioned paper. :-)

I have two main examples which bug me. The UK CAA instruction for Climb/Descent to a FL, and same for Climb/Descent to an Altitude.

For example - in the UK - "Cleared Climb Fl150".
In ICAO "Cleared to FL150".

Risk of confusing the word To with the number Two.

Then - in the UK- "Cleared Descend Altitide 4,000ft"
In ICAO - " Cleared Descent to 4,000ft"

Same risk of confusion.

Also, the UK document refers to Hectopascals, while ICAO still sticks to Mb.

The UK changed to hPA to get in line with the rest of europe who has used hPA for years (or so I'm told).

The UK climb/descent phraseology is
"Descend flight level seven-zero"
"Descend to altitude four-thousand feet [QNH "number" [hectopascals]]"
Whereas I believe ICAO uses
"Descend to flight level seven zero"
"descend to four-thousand feet [QNH "number"]"

The UK uses the word "altitude" to make sure something like two "garbel" thousand is not misunderstood (garbel being say "five"). Instad you would in the UK get
"Descend to altitude "garbel" feet", which should make it clear the transmission was unreadable.

The removal of "to" before flight-levels is to further differentiate between an altitude and a flight level.


I prefer the UK way personally, but some would say I am biased

Crazy Voyager sums it up nicely and proves the UK variation is safer!!

I suppose I never "cleared" an aircraft in flight; I always issued instructions, e.g. "Descend FL90", "Descend to altitude 3000 feet", etc.

Don't even mention the "Behind the landing [A/C type] via [Holding point] line up [rwy designator] behind". :yuk::yuk::yuk:

Have to think really hard about this, but we can use the old phraseology on ground. Very confusing for an aging ATCO.

Please set your altimeter to two niner niner two to get the correct indication. Set the other one to two niner niner two,too.

Good old ICAO.

Yes I fully agree the AUK version is better.
What I'm asking is - how does the UK opt out of ICAO? Or has it? Is the UK terminology an EASA/JAA standard? Or is the UK just going it alone?
What about ATC Standardisation?

Change the transition altitude to blanket 10,000" and you lose most of the level terminology issues.

UK ATC Handbook
 

Hi Killaroo..any possibility of sending me a copy of the UK handbook.
Thanks in advance:ok:

Search for "cap413" on any search engine and it should result in a PDF of the required document from the UK CAA website.

Have a look at message #2 above - where I provided the ling to the CAP.

HD, that link is indeed good for the full booklet, but the CAA also produce a shorter version. I have a copy here someplace. I'll dig it out, after work!

If I remember my law correctly ICAO publishes different types of instructions, some are mandatory and some are recommendations. I think these are the SARPS, standards and recommended practices.

The mandatory ones you have to follow to be a member (I think this would be the standards), the recommended ones you can opt out of but then you have to publish a difference to ICAO, you will find a lot of countries have these. They vary from Norway using yellow paint on runways to the UK having a load of them including phraseology. If you go in the UK AIP there is a list of the UK differences and there is also an ICAO document somewhere that lists all the countries and their differences.

Regarding standardisation some is being changed, such as "after" changed to "behind, behind". However in some cases it will stay because the CAA are convinced they are safer, and I think I have seen somewhere that eurocontrol made a study on wake turbulence and said that a system with more categories (like the UK one) was just as safe but more efficent. It's probably on skybrary somewhere if you're interested, I don't have the link unfortunately.

<<"after" changed to "behind, behind".>>

That's one that really baffles me. It was changed to "after" about 40 years ago when a light aircraft taxiied onto the runway behind a departing jet and god badly bown about.

Two points, HD. First, it is far better to be in line with the rest of the world; we are talking runway safety. Second, what does "after the ..." mean? After it has done what? It does not make sense in English.

And if, once, some silly beggar taxied his aeroplane too close to another, whose stupid fault is that?! Typical UK knee-jerk reaction.

2 s