I particularly enjoy ones on the variation of Stand By

Jokejet123: standingby for lower

You wouldn't go to McDonlands and place your order with "I'm waiting for a Big Mac" now would you? Just ask for it.



Jokejet123: Looking for lower

Most likely beneath you. Do you want a descent?



Control: Jokejet123, Standby

Jokejet123: Standingby

Great to know, thanks. Because otherwise you would've switched off the radio?



Germanjet: You're on gaard

Germanjet2: You're on gaard

Usually repeated ad nauseum until everybody in Bavaria has had their go. Points given for those to point out the infraction within 2 seconds. I'd say it's likely the error will be noticed by the pilot himeself when he doesn't get an acknowledgement from the controller. But nice of you to help nonetheless, because you were being helpful rather than hectoring weren't you?



Skygod 1: Uuuuuuuuh, London, Skygod 1 descending etc

Conjures up the image of self importance or being a slack-jawed hillbilly. Do try to keep your mouth closed when you eat Cletus, there's a good boy.




Skygod 1: London, the Skygod 1, requesting descent.

Oh, the Skygod early afternoon flight in from Alicante. The definite article is genuinely used for such, rather than your two-bit flight in from the costas. Reserve for something noteworthy.

Interesting thread! Bit sad in some ways, but some useful info to boot. As a pilot I was keen to pick up some tips, and I got a few. The last thing I want to do is irritate very busy controllers.

I must admit to being very irritated myself with "keep outside controlled airspace" regularly offered advice which is usually totally irrelevant and unhelpful. If you guys want to reduce the amount of talking, you could cut this one out most of the time.

"Ready in turn" shouldn't upset anyone. It is not meant to be pushy, just a polite way of saying "ready" when you are not at the front of the Q.

"Got him on TCAS" is really the same as "I have him visual", and shouldn't really irritate anyone. Once again the pilot is passing some reassuring info the the ATCO, keeping him/her informed of what might be marginally relevant.

I appreciate that there are pedants in ATC, and it is hard to argue against it in the current "liability" climate, but personally I wish neither the pilot nor the ATCO would get wound up about imperfections that don't actually cause any problems. We are both working together to achieve an end.

"Got him on TCAS" is really the same as "I have him visual",

Riverboat, that's exactly the point; it's not!

Controllers may be able to offer a new opportunity for the following pilot to maneouvre behind the preceding aircraft if he has visual contact with the one ahead in an approach situation; thereby reducing the usual IFR separation hindrance required. Knowledge of TCAS contact doesn't create any advantage to a controller's work unless it is of course in an RA situation.

What is pertinent in this day and age is clutter of R/T frequencies. If everyone responded "Roger, Flyguy 123" instead of "Copied, we see that traffic on TCAS, Flyguy 123", the seconds saved would add up to useful useable frequency space during the working day. This is where we can all work together to enhance a safer flying environment.

I do however agree with you that we are all working toward the same end of enhancing safety, but sometimes kindhearted pilot's extra "reassurance" is not required when the controller is not trying to imply a risk of collision in the first place.

Yes, and "we have it on TCAS" can be mistaken for an other trafic that the TCAS maybe doesn't have, and it's not 100% sure you're talking about the same one...be carefull, I know it's easy to say that, even me saying this I've done it many times, but ever after realised that it's wrong to do it.

For the thing of doing it non standard as in approach control, I really think that saying the level passing, the level cleared to, the information and maybe if you feel good the aircraft type is well enough and save sooooo much RT space, imagine, EVERY airplane telling the whole story on a charter saturday in Geneva...(anybody experienced that already??!!, I've done...on both side of the radar screen so believe me on this one...), it's a pain:mad:
Why do you think when passing to the final controller (or director..) you just say your callsign? To minimize RT, let the controller sequence correctly his aircraft and that's it, so why using time for nothing on the approach frequency when maybe no final is open but still a lot of trafic flies? I'd rather have a 3NM spacing, speed stabilized approach or 6Nm when departures ahead than a 200kts approach, with 2.8NM spacing and finally a go around because somebody use too much controller's brain just by saying too much (and actually believe me or not, they couldn't care less about you saying "information O" when "P is current...just a few check this, the others not :E)

Checked?!

Thank you

Pilots that say FULLY READY!!

Whats the difference between READY and FULLY READY?

Surely u are ready and "fully" is ssuperflous fancy rubbish talk.What pees me off even more is ATCs that tell a/c to report fully ready!!

Lear Jockey I think you missed my point, which was why are you saying that the passing level should be mentioned to the approach controller? :confused:

PP

"Yesterday, Brussels Approach:

XXX Airline descend to 3000 feet

XXX Airline descend to 2500 feet

all the Airplanes respondet in the correct way: descending Altitude 3000.....
but the Lady continued that way. Seems to be her standard




inbalance"

It might be incorrect with CAP413 or your standard phraseology, but its how thing goes in my copy of 4444.

yes pp, when passing to an other controller you always have to say the level passing before the level you are cleared to in order to verify the mode C..., tell me if I'm mistaking that one:ok:
And it is a british thing to add the word "altitude", not ICAO. Same as giving turns in degrees with normally a "5" at the end ("..turn right heading 125 degrees"), that's to make sure the airplane doesn't climb or descend to such a flight level, but it's not ICAO standard!

ATC: "Airline turn left 5 degrees"
P: "Could you state the reason of the heading, why do we need to turn???"

Especially nice when you've got 23 a/c on the frequency...

Riverboat
 

"Remain outside controlled airspace" is not a piece of irelevant advice but an instruction to do just that. The reason why controllers feel obliged to say this is because when pilots have accidentally infringed controlled airspace that have inevitably said - " well we weren't TOLD to remain OCAS"!!!

As for the rest of your post - Kiltie -couldn't agree more with your response.

And "ready in turn " - why not just "ready"? I decide the dep order, depending on routes/slots/sector restrictions which crews will not know about/various other reasons that are not apparant to the the flight deck.

louby

I think you must be an ATCO Louby, and not a pilot. You are making an assumption that when a controller states "remain outside controlled airspace", they are 1) controlling you, and 2) they have some jurisdiction over the airspace in which you are flying or into which you are going to fly.

I regularly fly from Northern England to Brittany and the Channel Islands. Sometimes airways sometimes in the FIR. Quite often Brize, when called fo a radar service will say "Remain clear of Brize Zone, Stand By." OK, I take the point, but I will be at FL 060 and their zone goes up to 3500 ft. I might not even be flying that near to it.

Then further south, Bournemouth have a habit of barking this instruction at you "Remain outside controlled airspace.Stand by". I might well in IN controlled airspace. Or, more likely, I am going to overfly their airspace well above CA.

It is all very well suggsting that pilots say too much on the air, but the system in the UK requires so much more to be said. The controllers asking you to keep clear haven't made this instruction up themselves: I am sure they have been instructed to say it, because SOMEONE somewhere has decided that as some aircraft do inadvertently enter CA without permission, this might help to stop it.

Well it might. But it also adds more talk And this SOMEONE is coming up with all sorts of arcane and special UK R/T requirements. Years ago we were striving (I thought) for commonality with our foreign friends. Now the British keep coming up with all sorts of sometimes bizarre changes to R/T procedures in order, it is suggested, to prevent some allegedly possible confusion from arising.

I know you will argue, Kiltie. You'll say that anything that can be done that will help prevent any sort of incident whatoever should be done, etc etc. But I think it is time to call a halt to all these British R/T add-ons which often just sound plain daft.

Re. the "have him on TCAS" bit. OK, fair point. I must admit that I wasn't thinking of approach control at the time, and I can see that the response is a bit pointless under those circumstances. Sometimes, though, you just respond in a manner that's common without actually thinking about what you are saying. Maybe the controller shouldn't bother saying anything in the first place if the pilot is not expected to respond with anything other than Roger?

RB

No they don't. Delivery get told the QNH I have, Director gets told the ATIS letter and aircraft type.

Oh dear! In your quest to free up airtime, how about leaving out the "passing flight level" bit. The UK is not the USA and this 'extra' icall of yours is unnecessary. Similarly, if you say you're descending "to" a flight level then you really should go and get the books out before lecturing us on how it should be done :rolleyes:.

Riverboat
 

If I give the instruction "remain outside controlled airspace" it is precisely because I DO NOT wish to control that aircraft, that the aircraft is outside controlled airspace and therefore not under a CONTROL service. This is not to be confused with FIS/RIS/RAS.

Your further point confuses me though - when Bournemouth "bark" at you to remain outside controlled airspace - how could you be in controlled airspace already at this point without a clearance and indeed a control service? I didn't think there was any class E airspace around Bournemouth.

Phraseology has been and is being developed constantly following from various incidents in order to avoid confusion and to reduce to probability of it happening again. I accept that it may be perceived to be a pain, but frankly if it means we can all avoid paperwork then I'm all for it!

louby


louby

It has been explained to me that oft said phrase came about as a result of an aircraft doing the following at I think Belfast;

VFR flight calls up and reports it's route as from A to B (a point on the southern control zone boundary) and then to C (a point on the northern control zone boundary) and on to another point. A straight line from B to C taking the flight through the control zone.

The controller said nothing in particular to the flight until it was inside the zone. The result was an argument as to did the flight request clearance for the route and if the controller simply acknowledged the proposed routing and asked to the pilot to report passing C (the exit from the zone) was this absence of a clear instruction not to enter controlled airspace somehow seen as an approvale for the proposed route through controlled airspace.

Take that to a bigger scale and in many cases, when flights report routing from xyz (small village) to abc (another small village) the controller or the FIS provider have no real idea if the proposed route takes the flight via controlled airspace or not - hence the ass covering statement required.

Far simpler I believe to remind pilots that a clearance is required and that acknowledgement of a proposed routing (the filing of a flight plan) does not provide clearance.

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

Here is one often heard;

ABC123 do this that and the other

no response

ABC123 did you receive my transmission

Say again ABC123

ABC123 do this that and the other

How about simply replacing the ABC123 did you receive my transmission with "ABC123 London"

Regards,

DFC

Remain Outside Controlled Airspace
 

Whilst I tend to agree that it does niggle to be reminded to Remain Outside Controlled Airspace - particularly by London Information, my pet hate is not being given a positive clearance into controlled airspace. Particularly true of the occasional UK Military and all French ATC.

"XXXX approach, G-XXXX bonjour"
"G-XXXX pass your message"
"G-XXXX <insert life history here> request cross your zone direct XXXX"
"G-XXXX Squawk 1234"
"Squawk 1234 G-XXXX"

... and then nothing. No "identified", cleared to enter controlled airspace, maintain VFR or whatever. Which is of course met with:

"XXXX approach, G-XXXX confirm clear to enter controlled airspace at altitude/level".
The response to which is usually "Affirm" and an all to audible gallic shrug.


But the best example of good R/T was joining the circuit a Quiberon in Southern Brittany a few years ago. It's air-to-air in French, so I had learnt all my French R/T and was doing all my calls in the correct local language, with about three other local French aircraft in the circuit. A german registered aircraft called up to join the circuit in perfect English. The three French pilots immediately switched to doing all their calls in English. Rather impressive. :)

Riverboat


'Roger' is not the only reply expected. 'Visual' is another which would allow the respondee to follow the one ahead if that is the purpose of the traffic info.

RiverBoat...has Bournemouth upset you at some point? Only Brize "say rocas" and yet Bournemouth "bark remain ocas"???

Its cautionary as many have mentioned to say to an a/c remain outside controlled airspace until we're able to get back to that a/c with a clearance to cross through, subject many things..traffic, weather, emergencies etc. If it said in the transmission along with pass your message then yes, waste of time!

Yes Pontius, "Descend to Flight Level" same as "Descend to 3000 feet", and if ever you want it, I can scan you the ATM ,the swiss one, not the american one by the way:8

Strange I know, would be better to avoid that word, but still, I do not tend to lecture you on how to do stuff, but that's the way it is!

And yes, maybe not all BA pilots do the same, yet I still find it useless to have this:

--"Delivery callsign stand A2, B737-800, request clearance Information Oscar, QNH 1004"

--"callsign delivery, cleared to EGLL, via (SID), squawk 5773"

--"readback of clearance"

--"Callsign, correct, QNH 1004, for start-up contact apron on 121,750"

The QNH is anyway said again from ground or delivery, so...

Better have some more words but be sure to have all infos than missing some by the way, as long as the one speaking doesn't seem to be sleeping on the radio!!

Take care and fly safe

Louby, [I] mean no disrespect. This is thread about calls that irritate one, and I am regularly irritated by the completely unnecessary call for me to remain clear of controlled airspace when I have no intention of ever going near it! But I accept that the ATCO was just saying what he or she was supposed to say. I don't blame them, and, in a sense, I blame the system, hence my comments about specialised UK phraseology.

I suppose it is just "dumbing down" if DFC's explanation is to be believed. Pity.

Gunky Tom - fair point!

As regards Bourneouth ATC - let's just say "patchy"!

RB

Pilots requesting "full procedure approach"..... Is there a half procedure....?:ugh:

Not so much phraseology but poor RT eg:

1. The old chestnut of giving someone a frequency change and they go without acknowledging

2. You ask them a question and no response so you ask them again and you realise that all the time they were working on a response - why don't they say 'standby' so you know they've heard you the first time?

3. Supposedly cool phraseology like "PD to 350" = "Pilot's discretion to FL350" etc

No guesses for the nationality producing the bulk of the above :ugh:

Pedant ON
Pedant OFF


JD
:)

Yes. When radar vectors the aircraft to the final approch and the aircraft does not fly the initial or intermediate portions of the published approach procedure.

Regards,

DFC

True, in which case maybe we should be asking the pilot to confirm he will be remaining outside ... which is a request for information, not an instruction. That said, how can I instruct you to join if you are in Class G as I can't give you any Air Traffic Control instructions by your reckoning ??

Alternatively, ATC say nothing, let the infringement occur and leave it to the magistrates court to deal with, no doubt with the CAA eventually becoming sick of GA and putting in some draconian rules which will hurt all GA pilots.

Am I missing something here ? Early in this thread (haven't read them all I admit)... it seems that some (inc Pprune Radar) take exception to hearing it.. It's been a very long time since doing my IR training but I seem to remember that on hand-over we were supposed to inc the phrase and heading to the next controller... just by way of a back-up..., not unlike confirming that one is climbing/descending to a cleared level is that wrong ?

Mungo

I think the point is that you are on a HEADING, is there any other form of heading other than a RADAR HEADING? I don't think the word RADAR is required.

PP

Lear

I was under the impression that you only have to say your passing level in the initial contact to the radar controller AFTER DEPARTURE, when the mode C is verified and then drop it for the rest of the flight? Or is that just a UK thing? Anyone?

PP

At EGNT yesterday heard the following by a familiar german airline:

a/c: Newcastle Tower, jet123 ready
twr: Jet123 call back when 'fully ready'
a/c: Newcastle Tower, jet123 FULLY READY
twr: Jet123 your still loading passengers, advise when fully ready
a/c: We are fully ready, we are closing the door in 10 seconds.
twr: Jet123 call me when your fully ready.

Agree - "FULLY" in any shape or form. Thoroughly gash. Even ATC are starting this horrible habit now.

"At this time..." How unnecessary is that? In the unusual event of a forward estimate being given standard RT makes this clear.

And worst of all for pomposity, "THE..." before a callsign.

PPRuNE, you miss the point:

You write: "True, in which case maybe we should be asking the pilot to confirm he will be remaining outside ... which is a request for information, not an instruction. That said, how can I instruct you to join if you are in Class G as I can't give you any Air Traffic Control instructions by your reckoning ??"

You are assuming that every time aircraft call you they are going to ask to enter your controlled airspace! If you are (for example) flying 20 miles west of BOH and just giving them a courtesy call, you might still get the "Remain outside controlled airspace. Stand By" response, when you have no intention whatsoever of going into CA and all you are doing is trying to let them know who you are and what you are doing.

Of course, if Bournemouth ATS are happy to have aircraft overfly (above CA) or pass close to their general area without these aircraft making any call, OK. But I think they'd rather know what was going on.

Or there are occasions one might already be IN controlled airspace, and you are calling BOH for some reason unconnected to your immediate flight, such as asking when you are closing tonight.

There is no point in being pompous and saying that 1) most times the first isn't happening, and 2) you should call by telephone to find out closing time, etc., because although you may be right, the fact is, there is a percentage of times when being told "Remain outside controlled airspace" is totally inappropriate, hacks you off, and the more it happens the more it hacks you off!

How many other instructions do ATC give that can be totally inappropriate?

This is a thread about "pet hates"! The fact that a few posters have mentioned it shows that it does qualfy as a pet hate.

By the way, Brize is a greater offender than Bournemouth. I use these examples only because I am pretty familiar with them. Other ATSs may be even worse.

RB

PPRuNe Radar, you would not be "instructing me to join" - you are merely giving approval for me to join at my request, albeit possibly placing certain restrictions (in the form of a clearance) but which will and can only apply after I have entered CAS.

..."let the infringement occur" ... !!! Oh, PPRuNe Radar, you are assuming that every pilot calling you is so ignorant of his own responsibilities that he will burgle your airspace in a trice unless you specifically forbid him from doing so. Life is not like that. You have your responsibilities, we have ours. You know you do not control aircraft which are in Class G airspace - you should realise that acting as if you do is bound to get up our informed noses.



JD
:)

Absolutely. We never used to say it in Oz. It came in a few years ago as a response to incursion after incursion after incursion.

It is an unfortunate trend that the rules are changing and continue to change to meet 'arse covering' requirements - to protect ourselves from the lowest common denominator (on both ends of the AGA).

It is a reflection of society's trend in the reduction of personal accountability, IMHO. Instead of having a rule (eg don't enter CTA unless you have a clearance) and then punishing the breakers of said rule (eg here's a fine or Yoink, there goes your licence) a redundant phrase is introduced as a tin plate exercise.

PPRuNe Radar,

As I suggested in my original post on that issue, I'm calling because I know my responsibilities with regard to obtaining a clearance to cross airspace. To assume that unless ATC tells me not to enter controlled airspace I WILL infringe, is a bit of a slur on my professionalism; that's why I don't like the phrase.

If I'm simply told to "Standby" and receive no clearance in good time, I'll go round the airspace or make other arrangements. I can often tell from listening to the ATC r/t load before my call, whether or not to ask for a crossing in the first place; a classic example is the western end of the Luton CTR. I plan an alternative and if told to "Standby" will immediately put plan B into action and go round / under the CTA.

I can understand that infringements have taken place where an (inexperienced, or badly trained?) pilot has blundered on having called right on the boundary, or perhaps already inside - but in many of those cases, I would suggest the pilot was uncertain of his position, rather than uncertain of his responsibility. :)

Shytorque, Riverboat + Jumbodriver

The unfortunate fact is that there is a growing number of controlled airspace infringements.

"Remain outside controlled airspace" is not aimed at the majority of GA pilots who know what they are doing, where they are and their responsibilities regarding avoiding CAS. It is a phrase aimed at the lowest common denominator. Ie the few idiots that do infringe.

The problem ATC have is that we don't know if you are ultra proffessional or a numpty when you call, therefore you get the stock numpty phrase. It may be irritating but bear with us it is said for a good reason. If it helps to avoid one potential airprox a year then its worth it.

And vice versa, likewise. ;)

But how DOES it prevent an infringement?

Ready for base / ready for the turn

Seems to get more popular by the day. A good swift "Roger" (over the RT of course :rolleyes:) tends to do the trick, unfortunately not always.

I don't know where pilots get this myth that controllers really want to spoil their day and eek out their time on frequency for as long as we can. Whilst inkeeping with providing the best service etc, I want to get rid of you as soon as I can, so 99% of the time i'm not keeping you on downwind for my own pleasure, it's due to reasons that you won't necessarily be able to see on your sacred TCAS.

Unless of course some totty has appeared in Radar and concentration on radar becomes momentarily diverted :p

Unfortunately not at my unit...

Mungo P

It's not in the CAP413 or the controller's Manual, so it's not standard phraseology, and it's precise meaning is therefore not defined anywhere. That makes it meaningless and superfluous. On handover you certainly should pass your heading if you have been assigned one, but by stating the heading you are flying in terms of degrees.

Riverboat

There is no assumption needed if the pilot states on his first call what his reqeuest actually is, as per the CAP413, i.e. flight information service (no request to transit CAS is needed), joining instructions (requesting permission to enter controlled airspace to land at an airfield within it), or a controlled airspace transit. In the latter two cases, the arse covering is required if an immediate clearance to enter can't be given, in the former I would think that ATC could intelligently omit the phrase. In my experience when operating as GA pilot, this is more often than not the case.

The need has come about historically and is one of the many layers put in place to prevent incidents happening. If there had never been infringements by aircraft who had simply been told to stand by, we probably wouldn't need it. But as they have actually occurred in the past, safety measures are taken to reduce the possibility of a reoccurrence. It's not a guarantee it can't happen of course, nor is it a statement that 100% of GA pilots can't be trusted. It's simply a little thing which might prevent someone from making an error.

You also have to remember that non UK licenced pilots also operate in the airspace and their 'local' rules for entry might be vastly different (US and Canada for example), so it's another reason for making the distinction that entry to controlled airspace has not yet been granted. These foreign licence holders might be flying in G reg aircraft, or might be UK nationals trained outside the UK flying any manner of registered aircraft, so ATC can't simply assume that a local aircraft or a local sounding pilot are au fait with the UK rules.


Jumbo Driver

No such assumption is made, however how can I know that you are not one of the pilots who contributed to the 699 infringements which took place in 2007 (46 were medium risk and 7 were high risk ) or 1 of the 80 which have occurred so far this year (7 medium risk) ? Quite simply I can't, and my role is not one of a traffic policeman checking your qualifications and competence before tailoring my advice to you to remain outside until I have given you a clearance. The CAA, with the support of the ATC agencies and working groups such as the excellent Flyontrack, try to think of measures to pre-empt the danger posed by unauthorised airspace incursions. The reminder phraseology is just part of that work. It may annoy you but it's not there for that purpose. It's there to try and enhance safety.

If you read Chickenlips' post, you will also see that the UK is not alone in experiencing infringements, nor alone in bringing phraseology to help prevent them where it can.

Shy Torque

But it's not a slur. It's as I have explained above. A tool which ATC use to try and prevent the incursion by those who may have infringed (for whatever reason) had they not been given the 'heads up' warning. We can't identify those that know the rules, and those that don't, simply from a RT call. So as someone else said, we have to cater for the lowest piloting skill and experience level.

But I've never heard ATC tell an airline pilot to "Standby, remain inside controlled airspace".... :}

You're assuming airline pilots would know there is a controlled airspace boundary ;)

ShyTorque, Having read many of your posts, I am confused as I credited you with more knowledge/understanding than the above comment and the Airline pilot ref would imply. Firstly, the 'professional' slight. Yes, we are not all the same standard but we are regulated and tested on a regular basis (quarterly) to confirm standards do not fall below what is acceptable, are you? (I am referring to PPLs) By telling a/c to remain OCAS, you are more likely to prevent incursion than if you don't. Finally, how many airline pilots call from outside CAS to join? In my experience, any pilots OCAS are under a RAS and are handed over by the previous unit.