UK RT Discipline - your gripes ?
 

Hi All,

I am currently sitting on a UK industry group looking at UK Radio discipline (for both pilots and ATC) so that we can try and do something to maybe raise awareness and improve it.

So at the risk of being swamped, can you let me know what things about pilot's general UK RT, either in technique or phraseology really bug you. For example in technique, you probably hate guys who don't give you all the information required in a readback. Poor phraseology such as "descending to six zero" (does he mean FL60 or FL260 ?) might be the sort of thing in phraseology. I'm sure you get the idea.

So feel free to let me know and I'll take the comments forward to the group. If you don't want anyone to know that you're getting at our aircrew friends then you can e-mail me privately, but don't be shy.

A similar request will appear on the Rumours Forum to catch the other side of the mike !!

TIA



------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595

my biggest gripe is pilots not listening out, which can create a major increase in workload.
but, I'm sure we all do/say things which cause problems

10w,

RE the "descend to", I've heard some of the controllers here use "descend and maintain", or "climb and maintain", which avoids that problem, and hopefully is not ambiguous.

Hi Irish Steve,

I agree that the phrases using "maintain" are unambiguous but so would omitting the word "to", i.e. descend Flight Level 330, climb altitude 3000 feet.

I'm afraid I always find the phrase "maintain" irritating though since if I give a clearance why would the pilot do anything other than maintain the level on reaching !!

Probably due to the education I received in grammar and english, it also grates me when it is used as an instruction, mostly heard in the US, e.g "maintain FL330". This being given to get the aircraft to climb or descend from it's present level to that new level. Maintain to me implies keeping the status quo, i.e. your current level !! But then the UK and the USA are two nations separated by a common language :)

In fact this latter point was the cause of an Airprox last year with (I think from memory) a US corporate jet over the North Sea. The aircraft was at (for example) FL330 but the controller misread the strip and on it's first call the pilot was instructed to "maintain FL370" which was it's filed cruise level. Of course the pilot then took that as a clearance to climb and clanged with somebody in the intervening level.

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595



[This message has been edited by 10W (edited 17 June 1999).]

Correct 10 W. In fact there is currently within IFATCA a long discussion on ( or I should say against ) the use of "maintain"in R/T.
In ICAO R/T maintain is used in the phraseology to pass on essential traffic information.
While in the FAA (US) phraseology it is used to clear aircraft to change altitude.
there have been numerous incidents with US pilots in Europe and NAT already,similar to the ones you mention that it proned the debate. ICAO was advised of the potential danger , we are awaiting the answer. Their are never very quick though...

I haven't got the relevant documentation at hand, but why do we have to instruct aircraft to "continue" a heading when pilots invariably reply "roger, maintain heading.....".

With the maintain heading stuff I personally think the sequence should go like this....

ATC --- Super Scud 561 maintain heading....

ACFT --- Super Scud 561 maintain heading 150....

Short sweet and to the point.....

How about this:

ATC: ABC123 fly present heading for radar vectors etc.

ACFT: present heading 150 degrees for vectors ABC123.

I also do not like to use the word "maintain" although if it must be used what about the following "climb to and maintain FLXXX"

Just my thoughts from the west side of the pond.

Cheers

------------------
Keep the shiny side up and the dirty side down.

Canuck Av8r
ICQ 26305263

Hi everyone,

Thanks for joining in and giving me lots of good ideas and points to raise. I appreciate it all. Here are responses to your individual submissions where there were suggestions made.

bill (15 June)
"Listening out" is featured in draft document.

Avman (18 June)
I think the use of "continue" as opposed to "maintain" is intended to provide a cue by having a different phrase for heading and level instructions. Obviously a cue which doesn’t work too well in some instances.

Eyedropsincoffee (20 June)
I have put this forward for consideration albeit using the phrase "continue" instead of "maintain".

Canuck_AV8R (28 June)
Pretty similar to what I’ve suggested.

Although the thread can remain open, I've done all the work now so you're probably too late if you haven't spoken up already :)



------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595

I still think that:

'ABC123 Assign Heading'

'ABC123 Radar heading 123'

would be short, sweet, unambiguous, and to the point!

Thanks Capt H Peacock,

Although as several posters over on the aircrew side pointed out, what is a radar heading ? No such animal :) What we actually want is the aircraft to follow a track over the radar. On a constant heading that track will of course change with speed, height, and wind, as the aircraft progresses.
Now of course with FMS aircraft we can assign an offset or tell it to follow the centreline and it will flawlessly do so (subject to finger trouble of course !!). Maybe we need "fly FMS heading" ;)

But back to the RT

ATC: ABC123 continue present heading.

Pilot: ABC continuing present heading 150

How about that as a compromise ? (only one more word in the dialogue compared to yours and that's by ATC ;))

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595

I can live with that, I'm sure that the CAA can publish it in the Radio Manual as an instruction requiring that response.

I have once or twice in the recent past been asked by overseas agencies, if we can fly an FMS offset to assist in spacing and level sharing, and I'm sure that most FMS's provide that facility. It has to be in an area of good DME coverage though, or good GPS cover when the ministry makes up its mind!

Can I add my two pennies worth...??

The one thing that I find to be a little misleading is 'say present heading'.. you say it, then get no response (admittedly this is more for those across the channel, but still does happen).

Whilst I appreciate that there has been no instruction to maintain this heading, it would be helpful, in my opinion, to say as previously cleared or something similar.. as in some ways it sometimes seems as though you should have been on a heading already, rather than a direct to... just causes a little confusion occasionally (as no doubt the heading will change along track cos of the changing winds).

Time and again flying in to LGW you get a clearance to descent to a certain level followed by the coment to expect XXX level by Bexil, GWC, etc. I have heard many foreign crews reply that they were descending to the expected level rather than the cleared level.

I appreciate that it must be crucial that we are at the required level by these waypoints
but I feel that this type of clearance causes extra talk time and more confusion potential.

Quite right GMS. I don't see what advantage it has to inform you to expect level xxx by a given point since you can't do anything about it until you are actually cleared to that level. It is best to just leave it to a "be level at XXXXX" when giving that further level change.

Quite agree that this can cause confusion, especially for the non native english speaking crews (maybe I should include the USA here too :) ). In my view, the descent planning info should be published on the chart. That way we don't need to tell anyone about what to expect, they should already know. I think this approach has been agreed in principle and it should start to appear on the UK STAR charts from now on. It certainly does for GLA and EDI. I'm not sure how far LATCC have got yet with their programme of revised charts though, they do have quite a number to get through ;)

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595

Sorry to keep barking up this tree but the ommission of "Flight Level" or "Altitude" in both clearences & readbacks is now of epidemic proportions. I fly out of Italy & am P*** off with having to constantly ask my #2 to include this in his readbacks. No help when the en-route controllers do same- Ok, we are above 10,000 so no ambiguity but how about this one-"AB123 descend 270, heading 310 speed 290" Gee, was that descend FL310,
heading 290 degrees,speed 270 kts.All cool stuff but a tired crew on a dark & dirty night does not need this level of ambiguity.

10W - excellent topic, loads of discussion material. However, I have to agree to disagree on you r descent profiles on the plates. They might be fine for a total R/T fail, but, to take GLA, the various alt constraints are very rarely applied. Now this might not matter in some cases, but if I plan to be at LANAK at 70 (I think it is - sorry , don't have the plates with me) then I will be mega low for an approach to 05 - requiring fuel, time and noise. So why can't we have 'realistic' approach (or departure) profiles depicted on the plates?
Sorry to be a bit stroppy - but I think it is a valid point.

Molesworth,

The level at LANAK is not really part of the Approach, it gets you to the terminal holding fix. As with most things in life, the profile is a compromise. In this case the most efficient descent profile is sacrificed so that the ATC capacity can be increased. By crossing LANAK at the FL equivalent of 7000', there is no need for co-ordination between the inbound controller and the outbound controller - they can operate autonomously. Capacity is what the customers (at the corporate level) seem to want. Unfortunately it seems that their philosophy very rarely filters down to the guys at the pointy end http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif By publishing the expected levels, the aim is in part to allow better fuel planning and in part to give crews the ability to have the altitude restrictions set up in the FMS in advance. Tactically ATC will usually try to improve on those profiles if they can.

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
ICQ 18043595



[This message has been edited by 10W (edited 16 July 1999).]

New tack but same subject. check out the topic of RT discipline to save me writing it again.

For all of those concerened i still believe that we in ATC should never issue more than two instructions in the same transmission. i.e. level and speed or heading and speed, trying more is a recipe for disaster and leaves us all open for loads more cliches along the same lines. While on that one a freq change should come on it's own, just to make sure what would have been a wrong readback is not now on a different freq.

Keep smiling though