"London, callsign request" (on VHF).


I wasn't aware ATCO's dislike this. I always use it before an "out of the ordinary" request, just in case you're doing something, and are not a little startled at whatever I want to do. Should I stop?

It's in our line up checklist, so we gotta do it. Also some of the damn things overheat if we turn 'em on early, before we line up. Alternatively I can't tell you I am ready until after you have cleared me to line up, so I am stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Capt Claret, Im very aware of the rules and regs in Australia, as I started my flying career there. Everything is in black at white, trans at 10,000 at all times. Set 1013 passing Trans alt set QNH passing trans level. But in the UK It cant be that simple. Controlled 6000, uncontrolled 3000 or what ever it says on the plate. But there is no simple diagram like there is in the Aus jeps. In my operations manual it say when you cleared to a flight level set 1013 and when your cleared to alt set a QNH.

Amsterdam yesterday:

Us: Tower, good morning, Callsign 41AM established ILS 18R.
Amsterdam Tower: Hi De Hi

which led to much juvenile and uncontrolled giggling on the flt deck.

After recovering from our first encounter with tower, ground was equally brief with nothing more than "Toodle Oooo."

After reading this thread I've become paranoid and have stopped using the phrase "radar heading" instead shortening it to just "heading."

Surely radar heading is more clear. On that heading it's your instruction and I'll stick to it.

If I just report the heading I happen to be using to make my track, well I might change it soon, although I'll keep the track. Sometimes I just blow in the wind, I can be so indecisive.

No probs Riverboat! I am bemused as to why one of our controller friends hasn't answered the question though...

Squawk Alpha 1234
 

Kiltie, I believe "Squawk A1234" does refer to the "Alpha" Mode (technically Mode 3/A) element of the SSR squawk, which is that portion of the code that you manually select. The Mode C element, which can only be selected ON or OFF, provides the altitude reporting content of the SSR response. Mode S (when fitted) is another more recent (and far more informative) part of the response.

So to say "Squawk A1234" is technically correct, although "Squawk 1234" must surely be perfectly adequate as there is little if any chance of ambiguity between the two requests.

newcomer, "Squawk" effectively means "Squawk Alpha" because by simply turning the Transponder to "On", you are asking it to respond to any Mode A interrogation received. You cannot inhibit Mode A except by switching the unit to STBY or OFF whereas Mode C (or Mode S when fitted) may be selectively activated or suppressed. Hence the "Squawk Standby" and "Stop Squawk Charlie" instructions.


For anybody still awake ;), a far more detailed technical treatise on Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) can be found here ...



JD
:)

But why would you 'say anything' about your heading if you are under your own nav; unless asked? The context was about whilst being vectored. "Heading 280" is the same meaning as "Radar Heading 280" so why use the word RADAR in that context; was the concept.

I guess because 'out of the ordinary' has not obvious definition, I'd rather you just jumped into the request. If I think it's unusual or I can't answer immediately or I don't understand, I'll be asking you to standby, saying yes/no, or saying to say again anyway, prepared for the request or not. So from my point of view just request away please.

SM4 Pirate

I agree entirely. On VHF you have already established two-way comms, the frequency is usually fairly readable and therefore making a 'request' transmission just adds more radio traffic, when the idea is to keep it to a minimum.

Request comes from HF transmissions I believe, when all the above is a little different.....

A personal interpretation of 'something out of the ordinary' is a personal definition and a case of making up your own phraseology contrary to CAP413. I am as guilty as the next man of having started to copy others non standard phraseologies that I had heard on the radio.....I went through a stage many years ago as an F/O of using the 'with you' saying on initial contact. I now barff at the thought of it! These things come and go as trends and that is the danger, how will someone 'not from round these parts' understand local gingoisms?

PP

I had an interesting one yesterday.

Cleared to descend FL90, direct to waypoint x, information is 'Yankee' QNH992mb.

I guess MATS would advise against clearing descent to a FL and then mentioning the QNH in the same transmission. I think it was in response to my call stating that we had information X-Ray. The QNH had changed from 991mb and the controller wanted to advise us of the change. I must admit I almost felt I detected a hint of 'I shouldn't have added that on' just as the controller said 'Information is Yankee, QNH....992mb'! I made a point of emphasising my cleared FL and the fact that I had copied the QNH as 992. Probably non standard in the way I did it!!!:rolleyes:

PP

You're right, and I shouldn't, but can't help but argue (albeit less flippantly now). I think it's because all those years ago "Radar Heading" is what I was taught. I guess it is just stuck now.

However as a weak answer to your above question: "Position, Heading Altitude" was always a good opener, but I'll admit a VFR one. Somehow Radar Heading seems to satisfy a percieved requirement of a discrepancy (in my mind - but I'll bet I am not the only one). Also I'll report my heading (even if it is not an instructed radar heading) because I know you are about to tell me to turn right 20 degrees and report the new heading - and I can't do simple mathematics when I am flying, so it saves embarrassment later - you have to do the sums now not me!

Still, this thread is about pet hates, and clearly this is one for many controllers. That is indisputable.

"turn left 20 degrees you are number two for xxxx"

one minute later

"do you need us on this heading?"

"affirm you are number two"

one minute later

"confirm you need us on this heading?"

"affirm number two"

why ask? what's the point? i've explained you are number two, i haven't forgotten :ugh:

Chickenlips

Thanks for the advice on phraseology. Unfortunately I am not sure how much good a visit would do as it is usually area control centres that I am dealing with, and often not my nearest centre.

I realise that my aircraft is unusually sensitive to this issue, and controllers are unlikely to know that (it is a rare type). However it is somewhat of an issue with all light piston twins. I do try and inform controllers of this!

G-SPOTs Lost

Not too far out with the 421. However I was taught (by a very experienced 421 pilot, as it happens) to keep cruise power in the descent to avoid engine damage. Ideally I will use 500 fpm for the descent, being unpressurised, giving 180 - 190 KIAS. If descent rate gets too high then speed comes up, and when I do power back I was taught to start the process at a reasonable IAS, preferably level at 3000 feet or below. So far it seems to work, with few engine problems.

High rates of descent close to terrain are unwise in IMC, but single-crew with no altitude select on the autopilot high rates of descent in a busy time of flight are best avoided if possible even well above MSA.

Hey Life...its a beach...for us too....just do your thing...
I hate pilots that don`t listen....and ask "confirm this or that " ok maybe its a safetry thing...but geez...
did`nt you listen the first time...? especially after you read it back !!!

Oh yeah...I have to listen to you...so hey...listen to me...ok ... !!

Big man, I hope you are just having a bad day. Or that you are not really ATC.
:}

Pilot Pete shares my view which unfortunately appears to be only valid for 50% of the pilot populus. Saying "REQUEST" leads to a painfully long-winded ear-ache of RT time. How about one of those sticky thread vote things at the top of this page, entitled......

"All ATCOs say YAY or NAY to wanting to hear "FastBird 123 REQUEST" before spitting out the bl**dy question?"

PS I also agree saying "with you" DOES MY HEAD IN.

Some interesting points in this thread.

I must confess it is a while since I read CAP 413 but rather than "Confirm Cleared Flight Level" should it not be "Verify Cleared FL"?

As commander sometimes one is not in complete control of the R/T! I have had a couple of occasions fairly recently where my colleague has asked (without reference to me!) "Do you still require us on this heading?" and also "Are there any level restrictions at XXX today?" - one doesn't want to spoil the decorum on the flight deck but not consulting with the commander before making superfluous R/T calls is also one of my pet hates, notwithstanding CRM!

Check Airman
 

I quite like...."request".....and...."blocked".
Couldn't care less whether its right or wrong....it works for me!
"Request".....I pay extra attention because you have pre-warned me that you're going to ask something.......I normally respond "go ahead request" so you know I'm ready.
"Blocked".....don't need your callsign or life history....a simple one word "blocked" alerts me to a possible need to repeat or clarify last transmission.....doesn't matter who said it..... I am aware that not all A/C carry blocking detection...and I don't think a lot of controllers understand either.
On a busy frequency, which is most of the time at London [Swanwick] Centre, I have found "request" and "blocked" to be ideal.

Eh! :confused: Name me One.

"Blocked" is fine.

"London Fastjet123 request" is the way i'd prefer it. It gives me the option of choosing when to answer.

In a busy RT environment, i'd rather pilots did that than launching into their request straight off. a) i probably won't be expecting it and then miss either the callsign or the request and b) it'll probably happen right when i need to do something and screw up my plans.

If i can answer when i want then it'll enable me to control the RT much more effectively, which makes for a better service all round. :ok:

"As commander sometimes one is not in complete control of the R/T! I have had a couple of occasions fairly recently where my colleague has asked (without reference to me!) "Do you still require us on this heading?" and also "Are there any level restrictions at XXX today?" - one doesn't want to spoil the decorum on the flight deck but not consulting with the commander before making superfluous R/T calls is also one of my pet hates, notwithstanding CRM!"

Though it may be the commanders privilege to say whatever he wants on the radio, I must say it works both ways. It can be quite an embarrasement when the guy who's supposedly in charge can't hack the R/T... As for asking things to ATC before consulting the other crewmember, I think the worst one is: "field in sight"...

/LnS

Have to agree with fireflyBob. He did condition his argument by mentioning superfluous R/T. I can't stand being in command of a flight when an FO makes a superfluous call without asking me and the controller comes back and rebukes him. Similarly, transmitting "standing by for descent":yuk: without asking me if that's what I want, when clearly the controller has traffic blocking us below and 60 seconds of patience will see descent instructed by ATC anyway.

Low'n'slow if one crewmember calls field in sight to ATC and requests a visual approach without asking first his colleague if he agrees, that is certainly poor show.

Interesting CAA Safety Leaflet I was reading on britflight;

http://www.britflight.com/wingfiles/...iplinegood.pdf

Especially relevant to this thread are the required elements for initial call and frequency handover on pages 2 and 3;
PP

Kiltie.
Concur completely with your last sentence. However

Different jurisdictions have different rules. In my neck of the woods
the AIP EN-RT 5.7.1 (j) requires us on approach to report " When the ground or water becomes continually visible and flight by instruments is no longer required." (Honoured more in the breach than in compliance, but that's another story.)

No specific phraseology is given, though "Barnburner XYZ, visual" is common. I don't know that this particularly helps the Tower folks, though. Do they need "Request visual approach" in this case, or does "visual" allow them to free up some missed approach airspace?

I'm one of the pilots guilty of using "radar heading". I use it in an intial call when I've been assigned a heading by another controller.

I appreciate it might not be standard, however I hear it on a daily basis from controllers.

An example:

"Callsign, make your heading a radar heading, and report that heading" I get this nearly everyday.

Another one is the instruction to fly "radar heading xxx".

I have a pet hate that some of my fellow controllers use.

"Maintain high speed"

WTF does that mean? Either give a specific speed or don't bother.:ugh:

I watched someone use it 5 or 6 times in a half hour and every pilot came back to confirm what speed he wanted them to fly. So he had to tell them. Reducing RT congestion my .....

:= Just reporting, "Visual" does not entitle a pilot on an IFR flight in controlled airspace to carry out a Visual Approach. There may be other conflicting aircraft in the vicinity e.g. the pilot stating he is "visual" may be number 3 or 4 or more in the actual approach sequence. He cannot 'jump the queue'.

For a Visual Approach Procedure In Controlled Airspace, ATC may clear an IFR flight a Visual Approach if
1. the pilot specifically states, "Request Visual Approach", and
2. the pilot must be able to maintain visual reference to the terrain, and
3. the reported ceiling is not below the approved initial approach level for the aircraft so cleared, or the pilot reports, at the initial approach level or at any time during the instrument approach procedure, that the meteorological conditions will permit a visual approach and that there is a reasonable assurance that the landing can be accomplished.

When cleared by ATC for a visual approach further descent is unrestricted except that ATC may impose further restriction or requirement included with the clearance. Any ATC altitude restriction remains in force until specifically cancelled.

An aircraft operating under IFR and making either a visual approach or a visual arrival procedure remains an IFR flight and is subject to ATC clearances for the purpose of providing separation. For example ATC may issue a clearance like, "Crudbuster 123 Cleared for Visual Approach. Follow B777 4nm final. Maintain 3000 feet. Contact XYZ Tower on 123.45."

I think on a busy frequency 'request' should be used - then I can decide when I want the pilot to ask me something. If I am busy, you will have to wait. Controllers do a myriad of other things as well as transmitting on R/T... simply blurting out a request (which will probably involve some non standard R/T) will probably lead to the controller saying "Station calling XXX say again, I was on the phone (etc)"

055166k using "go ahead request" is not good (nor safe) R/T practice, "pass your message" is the correct response (and safe)!!:ok:

BaldEd - your post is entirely correct, but in my experience there are precious few UK pilots out there who appreciate that and still insist on calling "NobJet 123 visual".:rolleyes:

Kiltie, Bald et al:
What you seem to be saying is that if we happen to be or become visual you don't want to know about it, presumably unless you have said "report established xyz approach procedure or visual". If you haven't asked us to report visual we are to assume you are too busy (which, with more time on your frequency, we will eventually deduce ourselves, workload permitting) - correct? Telling you we are visual (or as is often heard "visual if it helps") is in fact no help at all, am I right?

UK perspective only:

My controller friends tell me that sometimes a visual approach does help increase flow. On the other hand they rightly remark that asking for a visual approach when it is blatantly obvious you are being vectored around a pattern with half a dozen others in front is irritating and highly unlikely to be honoured.

However, merely stating that one is "visual" doesn't tell the controller what you want! This could lead to misunderstandings from both participants. Visual with what? Do you want to continue with the vectors / non-precision procedure / ILS or are you saying you can see the other traffic around you?

The correct transmission is "request visual approach", (a VISUAL APPROACH is a recognised definition), and now the controller knows in no uncertain terms that you wish to continue the approach with your own navigational visual reference rather than that of an instrument procedure, but he still has the duty of providing IFR separation around you (NB a "Visual Approach" is not VFR; you haven't cancelled your IFR flight plan.)

1985 - your reference to those who ask you to "maintain high speed" is indeed annoying. Until when? What about our FL100 250kts restriction outwith Class A airspace? Am I going to cock up the controller's plan if he assumes I am going to keep 320kts all the way in and I can't? This is why, like you, I ask "what speed would you like?" which sometimes can sound unintentionally sarcastic but it's a valid question.

anotherthing - "pass your message" unfortunately seems to have been replaced by "ready to copy":yuk:

To digress, my local airport's approach frequency has started the unrequested rubbish of "Nobjet 123 this will be vectors to a visual approach for runway 36.." when there is a fully serviceable ILS radiating! To put pressure on a pilot to maneouvre visually in to an airport he is not familiar with is a right as far as I am aware that controllers don't have, and the request for visual approach should only be instigated by the pilot when he (and his colleague) are absolutely assured it will work safely. Discuss.....

In Oz the term 'visual' means that the pilot is able to maintain visual reference to ground or water to the field and is therefore able to accept a visual approach. It may not be forthcoming.

No Country Members

The NZAIP states, under the heading Position reporting during instrument approach at a controlled aerodrome, that a pilot MUST (among other things) report "when the ground or water becomes continuously visible and flight by reference to instruments is no longer required.

I would imagine that most, if not all, other countries have the same requirement in their publications.

Oh yes, rest assured that the air traffic controller does want to know when you are visual. It is helpful to know the actual flight conditions that the pilot is experiencing - remember the approach radar controller is probably sitting in a dark room, possibly many hundreds of miles away from the aerodrome (as is the case in NZ).

In in order to enable the controller to expedite the traffic flow the pilot has to voluntarily "Request Visual Approach". The controller needs to hear those 'magic' words before he can issue a "Cleared Visual Approach" instruction. A controller is not permitted to badger the words from the pilot.

Kiltie, the answer surely is simple: "Nobjet 123 request vectors for ILS Runway 36"

It responds to and rejects the unrequested clearance and would achieve the required service and approach.

I agree that the controller should not assume that the preferred approach is always a visual one.


JD
:)

We fly a rangey aircraft not very far and inevitably have a lots of climb performance. Anybody got issues with us checking in with having a good roc available.

Thanks everyone for the smiles you gave me. I enjoy being a controller and try to get along with all the pilots. Do pilots and controllers say dumb things? Sure all the time, but we are all having fun and laughing at each other too. Please don't take everything to personal, because five minutes later it's forgotten. I enjoy joking with pilots when it's slow and I hope they enjoy it too. Believe me I get a lot more upset with other controllers then any pilot.

"Report Finals"

"Roger, currently downwindS" gets them thinking:E

In that case he or she should specify a min speed for the one in front and a max speed for the one behind.

If that is the case then standard phraseology "no speed restriction" should be used. Its understood by all unlike "maintain high speed".

That might be true but one pilots high speed is anothers normal speed.

The phrase "maintain high speed" is rubbish phraseology that unfortunately a number of my controller brethren use. 99 times out of 100 the pilot asks "just confirm what speed you want?" and so the controller uses up double the amount of RT time probably when he/she most needs it.:ugh: If you need to say it then you need to specify a speed, so why not give one?

so what speed do I specify? speeds pilots are happy to fly differ for each B738 I talk to nevermind other types.