QF 737 Radio Calls OCTA / MBZ's

[Aussiebert]

If all else fails:

who
what
where
when
why

sure its not 'right' but it is quick, to the point and easy to understand. The only thing worse than getting it a bit wrong is tieing up a fquency stuttering while trying to get it right

or is that stupid? it just what i used to do when tounge tied, seemed to work out fine

[Ref + 10]

Aussiebert - many different forms of this one and they are all good. I used to use PTATE: position, time, altitude, track, estimate. Covers all the required info and if anyone wants to know more they can ask.

Triadic - I certainly wouldn't write the book for fear of being torn to shreds on these threads. I must admit to never seeing the drop the link word. Those couple of examples you gave are fair enough but I haven't yet been rushed when making a first call after changing frequency and my pedanticism makes me think that "climbing to" sounds better than "climbing". If it is in the book though, I ain't saying either way is better than the other.

[Hugh Jarse]

Ref + 10

Hugh Jarse: Are you kidding? Being in a multi-crew enviroment doesn't mean that the calls go plural! "Maintaining", "changing to" and "joining" are the terms. Not your "modern" crap. If it was the modern way, thenit would be in the books!

Mate, read the smilies.....It was tongue-in-cheek.

Now, go and have a Bex and a good lie down....

[Dehavillanddriver]

OK Ref +10,

I have had a look at the Jepp version of AIP and find that it is climbing to for departure reports (Jepp ATC AU-928), but find NO reference to "on descent".

Having said that the MET section has a section on position reports (Jepp Met Au-39) that says "climbing/descending to"

So I reckon that "on descent" is an incorrect phrase.

Pendantic I know - but that is the point of the thread!

I think we all agree that it would be better if AIP were to have all the calls in one spot rather than scattered throughout the text, and made it quite clear what the "standard" was....

It will make life considerably easier for training and check pilots - at least we can then point to a bit of text that lays it all out..

[Ref + 10]

HJ, had a few beers and a nap. Feeling much better now thanks

[MoFo]

My favorite is:
"xxx tower, ABC ready in turn."
As if you'd be ready out of turn. Jeeeez.

[Ivan Urge]

Or; "XYZ Tower, ABC on your freqency" . Now just how could someone possibly call up not on your frequency??

[ITCZ]

The whole point of the original post though is that people who are being paid a minimum of $80k to $250k are not making the correct radio calls. The environment is not operationally unusual and there is no particular stress of weather or flight emergency. The stuff they are getting wrong is very easily read from Jepps. It is frustrating for we 'lesser' pilots, and one wonders what sort of discipline they bring to their other aspects of professional flying

[Bronte]

MoFo

"ready in turn" is used when there are other aircraft at the holding point and you don't know if they've called "ready" yet or not. I hear it and use all the time, many times per day.

[Mike Huntaches]

example call

"all stations ________ MTAF, multi-crew IFR Boeing 737-400 IFR jet Tango Juliet Golf taxying at _________ for ________ on runway 14 and shortly when the runways clear we'll be entering and backtracking for a departure to the south east and climbing initially to FL200 pending a clearance for FL280" -TJG" - "backtracking now" - "over and out" he he

[Capt Claret]

Bronte

What does it matter if another aircraft is in front of you and not yet called ready? ATC are hardly likely to clear you to taxi over them to get on the RWY.

ATCOs

I'd be interested in your input here.

If a pilot calls "ready on line up" do you assume that the aircraft is ready now but still requires line up, or do you assume that the aircraft expects to be ready by the time it lines up?

For my money, if requiring a backtrack (and ACD/GND/TWR notified of such) then the call should just be "ready", so that the TWR knows you are ready and there's no confusion, or hope that readiness will be achieved by the lined up position.

[AMRAAM]

The Point & The Book

The point of SP original post, done in a somewhat caustic way was to highlight to the QF guys and all who care to read here, that its time to do some quick reading/study on the appropriate radio calls in an MBZ. I must imagine that they do just fine in Class G airspace.

(PS Everybody seen the SUP for MULTICOM PROCEDURES, everywhere CTAF's)

Though SP's post did'nt start it, most of the rest have concluded that the standard of radio REPORTS and BROADCASTS in Australia SUCK. And you are all very correct.

I don't think I can agree with CENTURAUS about the AIP/Jeeps bieng clear when describing the radio procedures to be used. Personally I think it is very dificult to read, frequently confusing, and not writen for PILOTS to read but for ATC. Several people have shown good examples of the inconsistancies with this section, my personal fav is the use of the word RECIEVED when taxing (CTA or GAAP) and the word INFORMATION when inbound, I don't see the reason for it bieng different. maybe once again some ATC reason but very poorly presented in the operational documents.

Yep there is a lot of me'isims or not from the book calles used out there, in most cases I say "well I got the message and it was short and to the point" and I am happy!!.

I don't belive that bieng word for word is the only way of bieng a pro on the radio, but it sure does help. the standard phrases are there for a reason, even though they are hard to read, and place in situations from the AIP, but even the BOOK makes the example of using COMMON language to get the message across.

Some of my personal favs, heard on the radio.

Reply to an acknowledgment, ie
"abc, landed XYZ, cancel sartime", ABC XYZ SARTIME, canceled" "ABC" ???? (why)

Reading back everything heard, ie you don't readback anything prefixed "report". (yea I have only picked one example from readbacks, but there are plenty)

For Darwin ATC, you don't have to read back a Visual Approach, as its not a clearance, its a procedure (have a read).

And some of my isims :
I always repeat the MBZ or CTAF name at the end of a BROADCAST as well as in the text.

I always report my level bieng maintained after Freq change, even though its the same controller.

[Ray Dar]

This topic will always cause grief. Every Aviator has the opinion that they do it correctly and everyone else is wrong !

I was always taught that if you or your aircraft sounds bad on the radio then it paints a picture of you and your company.

Having recently returned to the Military fold in a training role, I have insisted that it is simple. If it is word perfect out of the book then it is the only way to do it. Unnecessary waffle is not only a joke to listen to but it clogs up the airwaves and can be very painful ! The recent change wrt calling for area QNH is an example.

However after using Jepps for some time, and DAP/AIP before that, I am now using Military FLIP Pubs again. Athough they are all supposed to be the same, they are very different in their structure and they do nothing to make it simple in the transfer of information.

Many Military flights OCTA are on training flights and have very junior people onboard "learning the ropes" As someone said earlier if the "teachers" are up to speed and insist on 100% accuracy, maybe some of it will rub off !!

[Stick Pusher]

Again we are getting sidetracked with regard to my post (except for ITCZ and AMRAAM, cheers).

IT's pretty standard, simple calls that QF need to learn for OCTA ops.
- The "all stations" call proir to leaving CTA on the area freq.

- Changing to MBZ call

- The inbound MBZ call

- The joining circuit call

- Cancelling Sartwatch call

Then

- Taxi call MBZ

- Taxi call on area

- Departure call on area (and MBZ if required re traffic)

Clearance into CTA

Then it's back to the comfort zone they are use to...

That's all...

Is it too much to ask...?

[Dan Kelly]

Sticky,

Has there ever been a PPRuNe thread that hasn't charted a wobbly line to its destination?

[harrowing]

AMRAAM
I must agree.
Your two isims mentioned are exactly by the book, I think, although sometimes to do that is an individual point of pride.
Re: ready when a backtrack is required : even though implied, or even stated, in the taxi call, does that info always get passed from SMC to tower?
Re: visual approach readback requirement; are you now "cleared" to make a procedural approach, hence the removal of an altitude restriction implying a mandatory readback? I have been round this loop a few times!
Is that glass half full or half empty?
The subtleties/nuances of the AIP and our language.
I forget who used to have the signature block:

"and copied the requirement not to read back everything you said"

Cheers:

[triadic]

Geeez we have done this to death already...in other posts..


"Make Visual approach" is the cancellation of a restriction (the previous assigned level and tracking).

Cancellation of restrictions are NOT a read back item.



AMRAAM

Agree with your post. Your isims seem fine, but then I guess we all have some little thing we like to make a thing of. Place name twice in MBZ/CTAF calls is the way to go, but why do some pilots say "all stations xyz " at the end of the call as well as the begining? And on the freq change, if the sectors are split different one day, it may well be another controller, so what you do is correct.

Rule 2: You don't acknowledge and acknowledgement. (and that means when you cancel SAR, ATS have the final say full stop).

stick pusher

Yes, if everyone could just get those calls right we would have made a step forward.

[hmm...]

me thinks its not so much the radio calls but more a QF bashing!

I'm up for that!!!

[#1AHRS]

One of the facinating things that I observed when arriving on the Australiation aviation scene, after Europe and NZ, was the absolute pedantic detail and energy that was spent in getting the radio work word perfect as per the AIP. My previous 10 years in ANSETT NZ, which absorbed a lot of the AN (Aust) SOP's had allready had me wondering (tongue in Cheek) if the australian aviation culture was really based on a Communicate, Aviate then Navigate basis. I think that some of you guys put too much emphasis on the "Quacking" to very little gain. Tune into any European airport and you will hear a myriad of accents and callsigns with their own individualities and yet the busy ones, for example, LHR or CDG seem to work ok and the incorrect sequence of a word or two seems to have little effect on the way things happen. The use of "To" (easily mistaken as Two) or "For" (easily mistaken as Four) and the term "left" which is usually accepted as an indication of direction change rather than a level change are commonly misused words around australia whilst people tie themselves in knots trying to parrot the AIP. Perhaps a little bit of training on how to communicate rather than what to communicate will add some balance here. A point to ponder on is that when speaking amongst those within your own culture and language it is very easy to communicate so therefore coloquial english can creep in (hence the 2 & 4 brigade) and go unnoticed and this is a good arguement for sticking to standard phraseology but as I am sure a lot of us have found when communication breaks down when speaking to a foriegn controller (who is used to hearing and useing different standard phrases) that the ability to accuratly communicate advise, request and, if unsure, query in good clear language is what will get you what you want. I also go along with the pet hates of "Ready in Turn" or "Ready on Reaching"! Really how ready is ready and when you are ready...Guess what you should say?

[Mike Huntaches]

#1AHRS

good points indeed. The bottom line of all this is that any self respecting pilot flying in and out of MBZ's should now the basic requirements and/or calls to be made. It is outrageous that one can't fly into an MBZ at times and not feel comfortable when you know a Q 737 is lurking and the drivers can't 'talk the talk'. This may seem all a bit silly but it just isn't. These guys are meant to be professional and when it becomes all too hard to make a basic radio call you have to wonder. They are like ducks out of water at times, which given they're nearly always CTA is fine, but how hard is it to sit in the cruise one day and actually read the AIP/Jepps?

The next topic will cover why these same drivers can't easily change their approach course/levels/speed/just about anything while they are on descent inbound and when within 30 miles. They still seem to think they're doing some sort of unrestricted s/in approach in CTA and that anyone within 100 miles will hold/alter their track or plans until the redtail is on the deck.