QF 737 Radio Calls OCTA / MBZ's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Planet Earth, Down Under
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF 737 Radio Calls OCTA / MBZ's
I am enquiring to those QF drivers who are, and have been flying around our country for sometime now (years) and still do not know the basic radio calls and procedures OCTA and in MBZ's.
Why is it that everyday (and i and talking in particular WA, but I'm sure it occurs elsewhere) I hear the worst call from people who are suppose to be in the safest airline in the world, who are suppose to be so professional and get paid the biggest bucks in the land to know there stuff? It's not hard. I know if I haven't operated into an area before, or a 'foreign' airspace region, I take the time to look at the charts, maps, procedures etc. It's just basic airmanship. Today, to prove a point, I even looked at where I was going today en-route at what calls and procedures I had to to going from CTA to OCTA, and MBZ calls and procedures. It wasn't hard and it didn't take much time. If it's in your field of operation then you should know all about it.
I hope that whoever is in charge of 737 ops with QF address this problem. I've written many reports, and I'm not going to list them all and get into the details, but believe me there have been some absolute shocking and shoddy work I'm afraid to say. Some of them make the China Southern trainees look good!
Come on guys, those of you know it is appauling the standard, and I wouldn't just say all of this just for the odd occurance, but this happens daily, all the time.
Hope those of you who don't know what they are doing out there realise that they need to do something about it.
Cheers,
SP
Why is it that everyday (and i and talking in particular WA, but I'm sure it occurs elsewhere) I hear the worst call from people who are suppose to be in the safest airline in the world, who are suppose to be so professional and get paid the biggest bucks in the land to know there stuff? It's not hard. I know if I haven't operated into an area before, or a 'foreign' airspace region, I take the time to look at the charts, maps, procedures etc. It's just basic airmanship. Today, to prove a point, I even looked at where I was going today en-route at what calls and procedures I had to to going from CTA to OCTA, and MBZ calls and procedures. It wasn't hard and it didn't take much time. If it's in your field of operation then you should know all about it.
I hope that whoever is in charge of 737 ops with QF address this problem. I've written many reports, and I'm not going to list them all and get into the details, but believe me there have been some absolute shocking and shoddy work I'm afraid to say. Some of them make the China Southern trainees look good!
Come on guys, those of you know it is appauling the standard, and I wouldn't just say all of this just for the odd occurance, but this happens daily, all the time.
Hope those of you who don't know what they are doing out there realise that they need to do something about it.
Cheers,
SP
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In defense of these crews, they spend very little of their working life OCTA, but of course that is no reason not to be up with the appropriate procedures. This type of training seems to filter very s l o w l y into the airline environment and because it is only a very small part of their scene it takes even longer. Back in the '60's when Flight Service replaced Aeradio, many airline pilots were still calling Aeradio for well over ten years after the change. So the MTAF example is not new. Up until the new services in WA the QF 737 only went to the Rock and I understand some rosters might see pilots never go there and others only perhaps once or twice a year. Nevertheless that’s no excuse. I quote from a recent post of mine on the GA forum re MBZs and CTAFs.
and
Many use the Airlines and the Military as examples of people that do it "right" but I would suggest that this is not necessarily the case. And who do you ask if your CFI or Training Captain has it wrong? But then if he/she thinks it is right then that is ok, but is it really??
It has got to the stage now were even some schools and CFIs are in fact teaching use of radio based on their own lack of training. Tell me where this is in any syllabus and where it is examined... it is not there, and it is not examined. So I therefore suggest with respect that what is taught is not necessarily correct. Even many airline pilots get it wrong, and perhaps don't even know it. Of course Johnnie PPL hears all this from the airlines/regionals/RAAF etc and thinks it must be right… and there we go again.
I believe the training in radio usage is very poor and has been so for some years. With each generation of instructors something gets changed or someone's bright idea is inserted and we develop our own set of standards. Nobody, but nobody seems to want to address this mess and as the years go by, it only gets worse. Readbacks is a good example!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outer Space
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only a little thing, where does joins, maintains and lines up come from.
The terminology is joining, maintaning and lining up.
Oh and my other personal favourite, "shortly joins a five mile final for runway 1-1".
Are you or are'nt you on a five mile final?
Cause if I'm on downwind I'm going number 1!
The terminology is joining, maintaning and lining up.
Oh and my other personal favourite, "shortly joins a five mile final for runway 1-1".
Are you or are'nt you on a five mile final?
Cause if I'm on downwind I'm going number 1!
Maybe a solution is to have one LOFT simulator exercise OCTA each 12 months. Being a simulator exercise a culture can quickly be created as all the 737 pilots will complete the training.
The Ansett programme invoved 4 simulator sessions a year. At least two LOFTs were OCTA. Flying into Kalgoolie or Launceston at night, in emergency electrical configuration or after a depressurisation, and being graded on your radio procedures aswell as your management of the not so familar OCTA dealings- turning on rwy lights, traffic ect.
Trouble with the above though, the F/Os managed the radios so Captains didn't really get much direct exposure. So bad and embarassing some Capts OCTA standards, it was a good idea for F/Os to do all the sectors as the non-handling pilot.
Of course, we had TJ from QF blow in, slash the sims to once every six months and create a cumbersome an ineffctive training programme. TJ reduced the training but increased the petty operational changes. Hope he is in a dark office somewhere, out of harms way!
The Ansett programme invoved 4 simulator sessions a year. At least two LOFTs were OCTA. Flying into Kalgoolie or Launceston at night, in emergency electrical configuration or after a depressurisation, and being graded on your radio procedures aswell as your management of the not so familar OCTA dealings- turning on rwy lights, traffic ect.
Trouble with the above though, the F/Os managed the radios so Captains didn't really get much direct exposure. So bad and embarassing some Capts OCTA standards, it was a good idea for F/Os to do all the sectors as the non-handling pilot.
Of course, we had TJ from QF blow in, slash the sims to once every six months and create a cumbersome an ineffctive training programme. TJ reduced the training but increased the petty operational changes. Hope he is in a dark office somewhere, out of harms way!
Back in the early Seventies a DCA DC3 engaged on calibrating Sydney 07 ILS put in an incident report on an inbound Qantas flight that was on tower frequency and who was blocking the airwaves with unnecessary waffle-on.
There were very few required read-backs in those days but the Qantas aircraft read back every single transmission - and more- in a plummy accent. Several aircraft on the same frequency made caustic comments as well.
Full marks to Qantas management though. They were embarrassed after hearing the ATC tapes and took appropriate action. They advised DCA that in future the tapes would be used as a training aid to their crews as an example of poor radio discipline.
Around 1953 I was in the circuit area at Darwin flying a Lincoln bomber. In those days, Qantas inbound Constellations would order their catering requirements for the next leg when on tower frequency. Naturally it blocked the frequency sometimes but I guess it was accepted as being part of the brotherhood of pilots.
The Qantas pilot finished his request of beer, soft drinks, toilet rolls etc with a request for 80 ham sandwiches. As he he said the final word "sandwiches", a wit in an unknown GA aircraft pressed his transmit button and added "with mustard".
The tower bloke then read back the order to the Qantas aircraft including the 80 ham samboes with mustard.
"Negative mustard" replied Qantas - "we just need 80 ham sandwiches. Quick as a flash the GA pilot hit the tit again and again transmitted "with mustard". The Qantas guy spat the dummy and told the tower "I said we don't need damned mustard!'
ATC got all snakey with Qantas as confusion reigned supreme.
We nearly wet ourselves with laughter in the Lincoln.
There were very few required read-backs in those days but the Qantas aircraft read back every single transmission - and more- in a plummy accent. Several aircraft on the same frequency made caustic comments as well.
Full marks to Qantas management though. They were embarrassed after hearing the ATC tapes and took appropriate action. They advised DCA that in future the tapes would be used as a training aid to their crews as an example of poor radio discipline.
Around 1953 I was in the circuit area at Darwin flying a Lincoln bomber. In those days, Qantas inbound Constellations would order their catering requirements for the next leg when on tower frequency. Naturally it blocked the frequency sometimes but I guess it was accepted as being part of the brotherhood of pilots.
The Qantas pilot finished his request of beer, soft drinks, toilet rolls etc with a request for 80 ham sandwiches. As he he said the final word "sandwiches", a wit in an unknown GA aircraft pressed his transmit button and added "with mustard".
The tower bloke then read back the order to the Qantas aircraft including the 80 ham samboes with mustard.
"Negative mustard" replied Qantas - "we just need 80 ham sandwiches. Quick as a flash the GA pilot hit the tit again and again transmitted "with mustard". The Qantas guy spat the dummy and told the tower "I said we don't need damned mustard!'
ATC got all snakey with Qantas as confusion reigned supreme.
We nearly wet ourselves with laughter in the Lincoln.
Last edited by Centaurus; 6th Nov 2002 at 23:03.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mork from ork
I agree with your comments on terminology. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to do it properly.
Just one thing.
I think you need to do some study. 
Since QF have been flying into MBZs in WA I have heard numerous pilots refer to MBZs as MTAFs.
I agree with your comments on terminology. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to do it properly.
Just one thing.
Cause if I'm on downwind I'm going number 1!
Since QF have been flying into MBZs in WA I have heard numerous pilots refer to MBZs as MTAFs.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it is nice to dot the i's and cross the t's, no need to get anal about it. We all make not quite AIP perfect radio calls at times. A radio call is to communicate, i'm sure you're not in doubt of what the other a/c is doing if they "maintains 5000" or "joins final". I've certainly never had to ask any RPT aircraft exactly what they meant by their transmission. As for the comment on safety... 1..Aviate, 2..Naviagate,3..COMMUNICATE 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much Has Changed, Centaurus...
Except there are more of them
"Maintains", "Changes", "Joins". Easy...That is the new terminology, spoken in the plural when in a multi-crew aircraft.
I first heard it (regularly) in the 90's and it seemed to be an Airbus cultural thing. Sort of like the readback "Take-off/Landing Clearance" instead of "Clear To Land", which was also an Airbus thingy....
Go figure
"Maintains", "Changes", "Joins". Easy...That is the new terminology, spoken in the plural when in a multi-crew aircraft.
I first heard it (regularly) in the 90's and it seemed to be an Airbus cultural thing. Sort of like the readback "Take-off/Landing Clearance" instead of "Clear To Land", which was also an Airbus thingy....
Go figure
Turbo fan Tool.
My old instructor told me to always try for excellence. Slack and gimmicky radio procedures usually means the pilot is slack in other areas of vital importance. The AIP is quite clear on R/T phraseology. There is nothing anal about that.
My old instructor told me to always try for excellence. Slack and gimmicky radio procedures usually means the pilot is slack in other areas of vital importance. The AIP is quite clear on R/T phraseology. There is nothing anal about that.
Well actually I don't believe that the AIP IS quite clear these days.
Correct me if I am wrong, but many of the phrases that we use daily have been removed.
Is it ABC descending to F120 or ABC on descent to F120 for example.
There are many others that we commonly use such as "on climb F400" and "climbing to F400" - which is correct?
The use of standard calls/phrases implies that there is a standard - which in many cases I don't believe that there is.
Maybe they should stick all the old phrases back into AIP
I have Jepp by the way not the AsA AIP.
Correct me if I am wrong, but many of the phrases that we use daily have been removed.
Is it ABC descending to F120 or ABC on descent to F120 for example.
There are many others that we commonly use such as "on climb F400" and "climbing to F400" - which is correct?
The use of standard calls/phrases implies that there is a standard - which in many cases I don't believe that there is.
Maybe they should stick all the old phrases back into AIP
I have Jepp by the way not the AsA AIP.
Hate to say it, BUT, it in the company I work for, it is the training and check pilots that suggest some of these non standard procedures are the correct ones.
You won't find it in AIP, "its a local procedure". yeah right
The general standard is atrocious. There is another thread re training pilots and instructors. To become a training pilot/captain you have to have no more skill/expereince or ability than sucking up to or being liked by the appropriate person, completing a couple of days at the most of principles of instruction course, same for pilots and F/A's. Basically any moron can sleep through one, and then pass on your personal likes and dislikes to your trainee. Until this changes and there is some form of formal training and recognition of training pilot/captain you will get them with all sorts of ideas and phobias.
You won't find it in AIP, "its a local procedure". yeah right
The general standard is atrocious. There is another thread re training pilots and instructors. To become a training pilot/captain you have to have no more skill/expereince or ability than sucking up to or being liked by the appropriate person, completing a couple of days at the most of principles of instruction course, same for pilots and F/A's. Basically any moron can sleep through one, and then pass on your personal likes and dislikes to your trainee. Until this changes and there is some form of formal training and recognition of training pilot/captain you will get them with all sorts of ideas and phobias.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic, with regards to your comment "It has got to the stage now were even some schools and CFIs are in fact teaching use of radio based on their own lack of training. Tell me where this is in any syllabus and where it is examined... it is not there, and it is not examined."
Try the DAY VFR SYLLABUS Unit 2 for PPL and Unit 15 for CPL. Read The Australian National Competency Standards as well for Elements, Performance criteria, Key competencies, Range of Variables, Evidence Guide and Assessment Guide.
It's all there, people are just too lazy to do it or they don't care.
Try the DAY VFR SYLLABUS Unit 2 for PPL and Unit 15 for CPL. Read The Australian National Competency Standards as well for Elements, Performance criteria, Key competencies, Range of Variables, Evidence Guide and Assessment Guide.
It's all there, people are just too lazy to do it or they don't care.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that half the problem is that some pilots don't really know what they want to say and why. Then they get understandably confused when it comes to how they say it. Instructors in the US have a nice way of advising pilots in working out what and how to transmit on the radio. They generally recommend that pilots use the correct terminology if possible, but if the exact words escape the pilot, it is far more important that the message get understood. Stick to a set format as appropriate, state:
- Where are you now?
- Where are you going?
- How do you want to get there?
Works for me.
- Where are you now?
- Where are you going?
- How do you want to get there?
Works for me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Planet Earth, Down Under
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't heard much from the QF camp on this one...
But on another point of late that which is as enoying as hell, and I know it ticks off others, is the occurance more and more of people using their callsign at the begining of their transmission and at the end of it as well! (ie "XXX maintaining FL160 XXX")
Forgotten who you are or if you said your callsign? Forgotten the correct phrasing? Or want ATC and others to know exactly who you are in case they forgot your callsign that you said 2 seconds previously?
This seems to be occuring more and more these days. I seem to be hearing it alot from GA drivers in the west of late. Why don't their C&T guys pull them up on their poor radio calls...?
But on another point of late that which is as enoying as hell, and I know it ticks off others, is the occurance more and more of people using their callsign at the begining of their transmission and at the end of it as well! (ie "XXX maintaining FL160 XXX")
Forgotten who you are or if you said your callsign? Forgotten the correct phrasing? Or want ATC and others to know exactly who you are in case they forgot your callsign that you said 2 seconds previously?
This seems to be occuring more and more these days. I seem to be hearing it alot from GA drivers in the west of late. Why don't their C&T guys pull them up on their poor radio calls...?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only restricted to QF traffic guys!
Radio calls in GA are exactly the same.
Problem is people don’t know what to repeat.
Maybe a clearer understanding could be put forward by CASA so EVERYONE knows what to say (please guys, don’t tell me to read the regs).
Or you could do what RMIT do at YMPC; make up your own radio calls!
Radio calls in GA are exactly the same.
Problem is people don’t know what to repeat.
Maybe a clearer understanding could be put forward by CASA so EVERYONE knows what to say (please guys, don’t tell me to read the regs).
Or you could do what RMIT do at YMPC; make up your own radio calls!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South O Equator
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howdy all,
This is a real can of worms cause it's an on-going thing. From my point of view, a couple of the posts need replying to.
Stick Pusher: I've heard everyone doing the double callsign, not just QF or Joe in his ultralight. People from the many varying types do this. Doesn't make it right but don't pick on the QF guy alone.
Dehavillanddriver: It is "climbing to" abd "on descent". Clearly stated in both Jepp's and AIP's. I agree that the books can be confusing but it depends on how much time you want to spend getting it right. Read and study enough and the answers present themselves. The problem is, most others out there don't do it the way the book says and you sound the odd one out.
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!
After sprouting on for a bit I also want to say that I agree with Turbofan Tool. If you don't know the correct way of saying what you want to say, use normal english to make it clear to those who need to know. Aviation is all about safety and it's certainly safer knowing what everyone is doing even if it takes three seconds longer on the MBZ.
Ref
This is a real can of worms cause it's an on-going thing. From my point of view, a couple of the posts need replying to.
Stick Pusher: I've heard everyone doing the double callsign, not just QF or Joe in his ultralight. People from the many varying types do this. Doesn't make it right but don't pick on the QF guy alone.
Dehavillanddriver: It is "climbing to" abd "on descent". Clearly stated in both Jepp's and AIP's. I agree that the books can be confusing but it depends on how much time you want to spend getting it right. Read and study enough and the answers present themselves. The problem is, most others out there don't do it the way the book says and you sound the odd one out.
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!
After sprouting on for a bit I also want to say that I agree with Turbofan Tool. If you don't know the correct way of saying what you want to say, use normal english to make it clear to those who need to know. Aviation is all about safety and it's certainly safer knowing what everyone is doing even if it takes three seconds longer on the MBZ.
Ref
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio Calls
I always tried to wrap my head around the correct radio call for the appropriate situation when training. Saying the correct phrase and saying it without stumbling not only makes you sound more professional but provides the correct information more efficiently and accurately.
The AIP is hazy at best, and GEN 3.4 really provides no actual help at all. Try teaching students their Radio Operators Licence when the AIP doesn't provide much help and books like Trevor Thoms' Flight Radio for Pilots not only mixes and matches phraseology but actually contradicts the AIP, to make it even worse the students hear the "local" procedures and get even more confused.
Why doesn't some organisation create a proper book outlining the absolute correct calls for VFR and IFR then submit it to Airservices for their scrutiny, or even better why doesn't Airservices create something like this that is of a more operational nature than GEN 3.4. It would make a very large difference, and "eventually" everyone would make the same non-ambiguous radio calls.
My 2 cents worth.
Cheers All
The AIP is hazy at best, and GEN 3.4 really provides no actual help at all. Try teaching students their Radio Operators Licence when the AIP doesn't provide much help and books like Trevor Thoms' Flight Radio for Pilots not only mixes and matches phraseology but actually contradicts the AIP, to make it even worse the students hear the "local" procedures and get even more confused.
Why doesn't some organisation create a proper book outlining the absolute correct calls for VFR and IFR then submit it to Airservices for their scrutiny, or even better why doesn't Airservices create something like this that is of a more operational nature than GEN 3.4. It would make a very large difference, and "eventually" everyone would make the same non-ambiguous radio calls.
My 2 cents worth.
Cheers All
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly
Well I had a look but I still have to say that the detail is not there at all. Certainly all the detail about what has to be taught is there, but the nuts and bolts are not and by default that would seem leave that up to the instructor. Now please advise who teaches him/her? And who taught that instructor? etc.. etc...etc...! Even if they are not lazy and do care - who teaches the instructors and provides any standardization?
The trouble is that at the training stage there is no standardization whatsoever. It is just up to the instructors/school to do what they believe is the right thing. And from this discussion it would seem there is absolutely no standardization. Once upon a time there was standardization, but if I recall it was taken from the syllabus at the request (demand) of the flying training industry. It fell off the truck the next day and now we see the results.
Unless there are specifics in the syllabus and it is examined, you can bet it will not be taught, no matter what is in the above quoted syllabus.
I agree with the comments that we should all try and say/do the right thing. Obviously it is professional so to do, but another significant reason is the airlines/military etc are copied by others (mainly GA) as examples of those that "must be doing it right". Of course if they don't the chances that those that copy won't know the difference one way or the other. And guess where those GA pilots will be in 5 or 10 years time - it just gets worse.
ref+10 I agree with what you say and plain English should be the back up if all else fails. Even tho the AIP says what you quote, there is another little gem in the bowls (I think) of the ICAO docs that says that "link" words may be omitted. That to me means you can drop the "to" "for" etc., in "climbing F240" and "clear land 27" "clear takeoff 27" etc. May not seem much, but in a days talk saves a lot of words and air time and does not I believe change the meaning of what is said.
A book would be good, but who would write it?
Try the DAY VFR SYLLABUS Unit 2 for PPL and Unit 15 for CPL. Read The Australian National Competency Standards as well for Elements, Performance criteria, Key competencies, Range of Variables, Evidence Guide and Assessment Guide.
It's all there, people are just too lazy to do it or they don't care.
It's all there, people are just too lazy to do it or they don't care.
The trouble is that at the training stage there is no standardization whatsoever. It is just up to the instructors/school to do what they believe is the right thing. And from this discussion it would seem there is absolutely no standardization. Once upon a time there was standardization, but if I recall it was taken from the syllabus at the request (demand) of the flying training industry. It fell off the truck the next day and now we see the results.
Unless there are specifics in the syllabus and it is examined, you can bet it will not be taught, no matter what is in the above quoted syllabus.
I agree with the comments that we should all try and say/do the right thing. Obviously it is professional so to do, but another significant reason is the airlines/military etc are copied by others (mainly GA) as examples of those that "must be doing it right". Of course if they don't the chances that those that copy won't know the difference one way or the other. And guess where those GA pilots will be in 5 or 10 years time - it just gets worse.
ref+10 I agree with what you say and plain English should be the back up if all else fails. Even tho the AIP says what you quote, there is another little gem in the bowls (I think) of the ICAO docs that says that "link" words may be omitted. That to me means you can drop the "to" "for" etc., in "climbing F240" and "clear land 27" "clear takeoff 27" etc. May not seem much, but in a days talk saves a lot of words and air time and does not I believe change the meaning of what is said.
A book would be good, but who would write it?