PPRuNe Radar, do you not understand that many will find this immensely irritating, being told that, but for a reminder by ATC, they were expected to have proceeded without any clearance and infringed CAS? Furthermore, you seem to be employing an "it's for your own good" argument and that simply won't wash.

You cannot know - but on the other hand you shouldn't assume that I am. It is just not good interpersonal skills to make the assumption that every caller will be a miscreant, unless you pre-emptively stop them. That may be fine for your own protection - but talking to them as if they are guilty before the event is bound to irritate a significant number. In my book, it is just not a good professional attitude; if you save one potential incursion but in the process antagonise a large number of the rest of your "customers", is that really a success?

Look at it another way, if I were to assume every time I called you that you were about to demonstrate the worst standard of controlling that I had ever experienced in over 35 years of flying, that would hardly be a good start, would it? Furthermore, you might well object - and rightly so. So please don't do this to me when I call you and you are too busy to fully answer my call.

There is a very significant difference between you being concerned about a potential incursion, which is part of your professional responsibility, and making the assumption that every pilot who calls you is an irresponsible numpty.


JD
:)

"Remain outside controlled airspace ..."


PPRuNe Radar, et al, maybe we can nail this one, once and for all ...

I find that MATS Part 1 is definitive about this and says under Section 3 (Approach Services), Chapter 1 (Approach Control), para 21 (p.15):

21 Joining and Overflying Aircraft

When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.

It seems therefore that, after the initial call, if ATC does not have the time to respond more fully, there are two options:
... nuff said?



JD
:)

Err, that's what I said .... (highlighted below)

Well ... almost ... but not quite - certainly your explanation seemed to me more about your own "arse-covering" than about approved procedure from MATS Part 1. Also, you omitted to mention that the "remain outside CAS" request should be accompanied by 1) an indication when to expect clearance and 2) a current time check - both of which are required by CAP493.

Can you not see that it is the frequent use of this phrase on its own as a holding response to an initial call that makes one feel as if one is being pre-judged by ATC to be a naughty little boy? I'm sure this is not what you wish to convey and I still feel that such usage is counter-productive.


JD
:)

GunkyTom,

Firstly, be aware that sometimes I post here with my tongue firmly in cheek (but there is no tongue in cheek smiley).

Sometimes I post to generate a response and further discussion. It's worked but so far you haven't answered the question you are apparently criticising me for asking.

As I said, airspace infringements usually happen because a pilot is uncertain of position, not because he thinks he can enter without clearance. Telling a lost pilot to avoid will likely as not make absolutely no difference; in fact you'll be lucky if the errant one is on frequency.

No, I have never held a PPL. However, I do get checked once a year, until recently twice a year (still two medicals).

If ATC say to me "Standby", I know to remain clear / go round the airspace. It's not rocket science, just the ANO. Every pilot must pass the exam on it before solo.

Sorry, but I regard a "standard response" to "remain clear" in the same vein as the recent trend of security folk "spotting" someone not wearing a hi-vis vest from the other side of the airfield and dashing up, lights flashing to berate them, telling it's for their own good, so they can be seen when on an airfield......

Perhaps in future I'll just say "Callsign, Approaching your airspace NOW", then the "standard" answer will carry some weight.

Btw, please, if you are going to quote me, at least use the copy / paste facility so I don't get credited with spelling mistakes I didn't make (I never wrote iincursion, certainly not with two "i"s at the beginning).

Quite frankly, yes. Or would you rather wait for more people to die before it becomes a standard course of action to tag the "remain outside" on the end?

Preventing any potential Aeromexico disaster is far more important than annoying people who really should just realise it's a safety-first attitude and not be so sensitive about it.

The same reason that at some aerodromes, controllers repeat "hold short runway XX" all the time. Of course when you give a pilot/tug/vehicle a taxi instruction to a holding point before a runway, they're not going to enter the runway.. But experience shows that they do, so you add that on so maybe it will stop that one runway incursion that would have happened otherwise?

It makes perfect sense to me.

I'm also a first hand witness to the way some pilots act related to this.. I was flying as a passenger in a light aircraft on a trip to france about a year ago now and we called up XX radar (major UK airfield) for FIS. It was quite busy around, summer weekend rush and lots of stuff going on.

On board was pilot (CPL), his friend (PPL) (neither of whom I knew), both in the front, and me (PPL) in the back. As it happened my headset microphone wasn't working so I could only hear, not speak.

This pilot was a CPL 600+ hours and doing his instructor rating.

Pilot: XX radar, G-XX request FIS
ATC: G-XX standby I'll call you..

2 mins later

ATC: G-XX, pass your message
Pilot: G-XX from blah to blah currently at blah routing XYZ request FIS.

(The routing he had given if flown directly would infringe the CAS by about 1nm)

ATC: G-XX roger FIS, QNH 1013, remain *outside* controlled airspace - let me know if you need to come through
Pilot: G-XX roger.

The pilot and his friend then discussed whether they could take the direct route. He then made the turn cutting straight through the CAS. I saw this happening and tapped them on the shoulder, shook my head and pointed at the map but they weren't interested in what I was saying and I couldn't speak to them.

They chatted to each other for a bit about the fact they were transitting the CAS without a clearance, the pilot saying "yeah but he knows where we are and who we are - and we're not going in by much so it'll be fine".

Next thing that happens:

ATC: G-XX squawk 7206
G-XX: 7206 roger
ATC: G-XX you are inside my controlled airspace by 2nm, make the turn left now heading 090 degrees. I suggest you navigate more carefully in future.

So they turned, got out and the pilot was visibly upset by this - his pride dented - and was getting very distracted and kept talking about it, saying "f***ing asshole controller" etc.

I had the event logged on my PDA/GPS map and I took it home later in the day to discover that at our altitude we had flown straight through the SID tracks out of the airfield. :D

So this just goes to show that although I am sure most pilots would not have done this, some do. And even despite it being emphasised not to enter the airspace, they still had no problem doing so. In this case it seems that even the verbal warning was not enough to stop it happening.. it's events like this that keep the controllers saying it. As PPrune Radar said - if nobody did it - they wouldn't need to say it at all. :ugh:

Blocked

Is this really so bad? If I am desparate to get a word in on a really busy, SE UK frequency and the controller's transmission is blocked by another I don't want the controller to wait until sure no reply is going to come, leaving dead time I cannot interrupt (but a newcomer on the frequency might unknowingly do, and extend the confusion and jump in where I am waiting politely). Why not someone just say that the transmission has been blocked and is not going to be acknowledged, so the call can be repeated? Why is a callsign needed?

I accept there might be a downside to this, and so have never called it myself, but it has always been useful when I have heard it

Descend FLXX0, turn right heading XXX, report that heading to AB Control on 1xx.xxx

To turn it onto the controllers, this is one of my pet hates. If there is a junior pilot on the radio and the captain is busy, or if there is only one pilot in the aircraft (or on the flight deck at that time) then multiple instrctions are tricky but not too bad. Multiple instructions and a frequency change are really hard. It wastes air time if we have to check the frequency or if we get something wrong. At worst we could read back and note the wrong level or heading, then change frequency before you can correct it. I know we're supposed to wait, but we all know we sometimes don't especially when busy rebriefing for an approach to the new runway, say.

timelapse

I hope I never have to fly with either of them! Even the PPL cannot be excused that sort of stupid behaviour, except that he was presumably not captain.

Unbelievable.......:ugh:

"It's only only 100ft below the minima, I know the runway is there, we're not going below the minima for the approach by much, so it'll be fine"

Cheers,

NFR.

Timelapse, I take it you ensured the pilots guilty of that infringement were reported to the CAA?

"Remain outside, standby" as a standard response.... is like calling an insurance company to renew your car insurance. You get put on hold with the message "do not drive without car insurance" being repeated in your ears........ :ugh:

And yet some people do.....

If he isn't on freq, then he won't be calling, if he is and he is lost, then he should advise that and we will deal with it.


Obviously not everyone does remain clear otherwise we wouldn't need the phrase and we wouldn't be having this discussion

It was at Manchester that a pilot was fatally injured on the airfield and it was thought to be a contributing factor that he wasn't wearing a vest, who knows? If it saves 1 life, it is worth it. H+S is everywhere.

Don't try it, why lower what you consider to be a professional standard to make a point-badly!

[/QUOTE]


Sorry, I am but a lowly controller and struggle to Cut + Paste and also type but I will try harder

Yes, of course they do - but not the ones who ring up to renew their policy.

My point is that the call (and that phone message) is probably targetted at the wrong audience.

To be fair to the ATC folk with there remain clear of controlled airspace I have sat with multiple people who should have known better who have though it perfectly acceptable to cross P600 from St Abb's direct INS sub FL200 without a crossing clearance and thier excuse is that they haven't been told to remain clear.

It didn't help that whenever I pushed the point and asked for a clearance a confused sounding clearance was given as if the controller had presumed we were cleared as well. If I was a SEP I think I would have been told to remain clear (mainly because the suckling had asked for start in city and Dundee had started clearing the airspace within 50 miles). Or because PPrune Radar was behined the controller and had informed them that G-LP had a dodgy VOR and by any stretch of the imagination wasn't airways IFR equiped.

getting side-tracked
 

Pilots trust ATC to give them competent instructions. ATC trust pilots to give them competent info. and compliance with instructions.

No two people are ever on the same wavelength despite standardisation across the board in both jobs.

As a controller I often give what seems to be "obvious and unnecessary instructions" from a pilots point of view, but believe me I have a reason at the time. So if I ask you to remain clear of controlled airspace, I not only expect you to comply, I also expect you (as a competent pilot) to understand all my actions have reasons.

The instructions are the same wether you are a suspected "numpty" or not. I might be giving you said intruction because the controller sharing the sector with me is a suspected numpty, or other numpty pilots are on freq..

.................. or then again I might be the numpty!

I don't harrangue my shoe salesman because he measures my feet before he sells me shoes. Your Airline is paying for a service you are receiving. Please receive it.

As a controller who used to do some PPL flying,it didn't bother me to get a remain clear of CAS call.It's a standard R/T phrase,and is used for good reasons.When flying I just did as I was told,readback the things I needed to,and never had a problem.I have flown holds at VRP's because of volume of traffic,and it didn't bother me either.

Yup! So controllers, by routine over-use of this phrase have unfortunately made a rod for their own backs.... if the phrase isn't now used on EVERY initial call, you're cleared?

NO!

Like trying to spot a high vis jacket in a box full of high viz jackets. Sometimes it's better to wear black. :rolleyes:

so many to choose from.....
 

" request further descent........"

when they are at min stack say FL70 with 45nm to go and any further decent would take them outside controlled airpace....

all in good fun....

a couple more ...
 

"Request QSY" ... or just "QSY", if I'm feeling even more pedantic than usual ;)

"Roger Wilco" - this one actually appeared briefly in CAP413 (Sep04)


JD
:)

Kabuna
 

Many years ago, requested the pilot to "Report your position reference Kabuna" (PNG)

Pilot's responce: "we're 10 miles this side of Kabuna"

Side with me!!!!!!!!!!:sad:

126.825

At 45 nm and FL70 I might well need descent fairly soon (my ideal from 7000' aal is 50 track miles, if QNH is high and the airfield not high then I might need 35 nm as an absolute minimum to descend safely), and it is perfectly acceptable to leave controlled airspace. At many airports I go to I need to at some stage anyway, because the airport itself is outside controlled airspace. Unpressurised aircraft have a limit to the rate of descent, especially if they have passengers on board. Some light twins can be very difficult to slow down without damaging the engines once a certain descent gradient is needed.

So while the call might be non-standard, the aircraft is also non-standard and the request is perfectly compliant with all relevant rules.

In fact, one of my pet hates is being told I can't descend because it would take me into uncontrolled airspace, I must wait x miles which means I am going to have to request extra track miles (or if I am flying without pax I have to use excessive rate of descent). Some controllers allow me to descend, so it isn't unheard of; that is why I ask.

Perhaps a "...request to leave and re enter [if you do re enter] controlled airspace on descent" might work?

ATC are obliged to provide descent that will keep you in CTA (and provide terrain protection), except in a couple of circumstances.

Though many ATC are aircraft enthusiasts not every one will know intimately the limitations on your particular aircraft. So without a reason or request otherwise, they will keep you in CTA.

This is a great example where visits and or phone calls will help grow understanding on both sides. If you had rung your local ATC shop and said "hey you know when I usually ask for descent before the next CTA step you guys always say no. I really need descent 'cause of my acft config, is there a way I can ask so that it will allow you guys to issue the clearance?" They may well have said sure just say ..., or given reasons why they CAN'T, not won't.

It is all about communication folks.....

"QSY" is a pretty quick way of asking to change frequency - it is a pity it is not used all the time. I know it is incorrectly pronounced "Kwew-ess-why" which a pedant will probably say should be Quebec Sierra Yankee, but it wouldn't be short and sweet if said that way.

"QSY Exeter" - sounds good!

I fly an unpressurised twin turbine, my normal track to my home airport is pretty much on the Loc for the main runway. normally the controller wont let me descent from my cruising level FL70 25 miles so im pretty on slope at that point. So if i maintian 220 kts IAS to 6 miles im gonna have a RoD of about 1300ft which is normally ok since im on my own but occasionally i have 9 PAX so i slow down. Travel slower RoD reduces. By slowing down 60 odd kts its going to reduce Rod to closer to 800fpm. Going to take extra 2 minutes to get on the ground, oh well, if controller wants to know why you have slowed down and stuffed his pattern let him know.

By the way QSY is used quite a bit up in scotland, the bond guys use it all the time

newcomer -

Top marks to you for considering those passenger's ears! The reason a controller can't give you a glideslope intercept from over 25 miles out is that a localiser is only legally promulgated to 25nm, and the glideslope to 10nm. Outwith this you are subject to ATC's MSAs within certain ranges or the minimum radar descent altitude printed on your Radar Vectoring Area plate.

I still use QSY, which has been forbidden for years, in favour of the more correct "request frequency change to...." I've yet to be chastised for it!

You are unlikely to stuff a controller's pattern in an F406. Their speed flexibility is legendary.

My pet hate is "squawk Alpha 1234" since Charlie is the correct term for Alt on the transponder. I know its a small thing but hey they always tell me off if i say "Radar Information Service". when I was supposed to say "limited Radar Information service due to low radar coverage"

Alpha1234 is the correct terminology. The Alpha part does not bear reference to the modes A or C available on your transponder; though I forget what it actually means!

Kiltie,

I know Im not crazy, So I just had a very interesting read of CAP 413, Page 97 of 198 states very clear

Phase "Squawk Charlie"
Meaning " Select altitude reporting feature"

There is no mention at all about squawking Alpha .

You're quite correct newcomer, but you refer to a totally different instruction, where the controller has specifically asked you to manipulate the "C" facility of your transponder. The "A" prefix you mention previously does not mean "mode A" on your transponder, it refers to something else of which the definition escapes me right now without the books handy. You won't find it in CAP413, it is more likely to be found in MATS. Perhaps someone else would elaborate with a definition.

In the meantime, if it helps, think of the instruction "squawk A1234" as "squawk A1234 with mode Charlie".

Controllers rightly expect that good airmanship will dictate squawking mode C at all times and should rarely require instruction to the pilot.

"Cleared to lock on"
when cleared for the localiser. Supposed to make speaker sound Top Gun cool perhaps, but merely sounds like an aerosexual pratt.

"Thank you"
when every readback. Just sounds stupid, the ATCO ain't doing you a favour with every clearance, it's just his job.

"Standing-by" or some other reply
when told to standby. "Standby" means "shut the f**k up, say nothing and i'll call you back" :rolleyes:

"XYZ123, standing by for further climb please when you have it"
Are you paid by the word?? Correct phraseology is "XYZ123, request climb", if you must say anything, most likely you'll get it when that traffic plainly visible 1000' above you is clear.

"Standing by for ......."
If you're standing by, you should be saying nothing. Why not just request whatever it is you want. Don't worry, the controller won't be offended by a direct request.

"We're late, request direct ABC"
So what, the controllers gonna vector everyone else out of your way to accommodate your inability to run a schedule? If you can, you'll get it anyway, if you can't, you won't.

"At this time", "currently", "today"
Thanks for pointing this out, otherwise the controller may think that your request, or speed report or whatever, refers to a different sector you did last week.

"On guuuaaarrrrdddd"
SHUT. THE. F*/K. UP. PLEASE.

Ryanair pilots
Half of them can't speak English, the other half talk too much and are the worst bulls*it phraseology offenders (and are responsible for most of the above, except "on guard" which seems to be the preserve of Nigel's or Heinz's).

Well done Visual Calls for getting the thread back on track! I share all those pet hates!

STANDING BY for more annoying transmissions!!!

Interesting thread.
May I borrow some space for a couple of questions related to this?

Confirm cleared FL? I use this when I get a bad feeling about what's set on the APA. I can't say "say again" because it was probably some time since the clearance was given and I don't want to include the actual level so as to make it easy for the controller just to say "affirm". That is, I don't want to give the answer within the question. Is this ok?

Sweden, C/S, FL XX climbing FL XXX. I've seen here some object to stating the level being passed aswell as the cleared level. What's right or wrong regarding the first call on a new frequency?

And now for some critique from my side: The worst clearance I've ever been given:

C/S, Descend to FL 80, TL 80, QNH XXXX Result: Uhhh?!

Other funny things ATC say to me (mostly in a wide norwegian accent): It's aaaaaallmost CAVOK, broken fog. And for some strange reason, the phrase "Radar contact" in norway translates into "roger". Strange place.

LnS

Kiltie, you say that it is correct to ask someone to sqwark Alpha 1234, even though they are not referring to the Alpha mode, but to something you can't remember.

Now, I know I am being a bit picky, but some of you controllers come over so precious! What the heck are you on about? There should never be an instruction given that is not clear and obvious, that is the whole rationale for our bastardised UK phraseology. CAP 413 has been made into somewhat of a mess in an effort to avoid ambiguity. So are you really trying to tell us that the instruction to sqwark alpha 1234 makes any sense when it has (if you are correct) nothing to do with mode alpha?

If no one, including you, knows what this "alpha" bit is for, it strikes me that it should be expunged as soon as possible.

You controllers go on about cutting out unnecessary verbage, but you do it yourselves and even stick up for it!

Lifes a beech

Polite question wtf are u flying that sounds like a gradient of about 1.5%, over 6 times your height in distance?

Unpressurised twin at say 180kts should give you a thousand feet a minute and the old 421 could do 1500fpm at TOD with a few inches left on to keep the gitsos warm.

Just curious

"Polite" and "wtf" in the same phrase: not so very polite.

Why don't you read "life's a beech's" post again? Doesn't unpressurized and pax onboard ring a bell? Do you think your pax (and their ears) would appreciate going down at 1000 ft/min?

Riverboat, that's a bit harsh.

The reason I can't remember what the Alpha bit means is because my reference books are a hundred miles away; I am a pilot stuck in a hotel room, not a controller!! I knew the answer once but it has long since vanished in my shrinking memory.

There have been annoying differences between CAP413 and MATS for many years, but I think you'll find that's not my fault. My invitation still stands for someone to elaborate on this issue, not chew my f***ing head off, to solve newcomer's query.

low n slow
Yes this is fine. More than fine. If you are unsure ask. I'd rather you asked than had an airmiss with the one a thousand feet above your cleared level because you didn't.

Sorry Kiltie. It did come out a bit harsh, and I apologise. I have always felt that you were very knowledgable, and generally had an answer for most things, so the last thing I should have done was seemingly get irritated with you! I was trying to make a point, but rather overcooked it!

I criticised some ATCOs for being precious and pompous. Uncalled for. There are lots of pilots who are as bad or worse, and the same goes for every other profession, I guess. I have plenty of ATCO friends, and they are great blokes.

Pet hate: Tower gives you ur clearance to direct somewhere at FL100.

I get airborne clean the dirty plane up, set up the engines, ATO checklist then set QNH to 1013. I then get told to change to radar. I tell him passing FL30 cleared FL100. Im then told what is your passing altitude. This doesnt happen with every controller. Ive been cleared to a FL so arent i supposed to be using 1013. And plus if he knows my FL doesnt he know my Alt?

Very confused

Confused Newcomer

You're in Scotland, I'm in Australia. I know nothing of your rules and procedures.

However, here in Aus, the AIP directs one to change to 1013.2 AT or AFTER passing the Transition Altitude.

I'd be guessing that if you've set 1013.2 and then call "passing FLxxx" you're giving him/her a FL when s/he wants an altitude, thus s/he can't verify the accuracy of your altimeter or his/her radar readout of same.