Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Standard RT...or not!

Old 28th May 2016, 22:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Standard RT...or not!

Some of the RT one hears is pretty appalling these days but not just from aircraft.

Call a local military airfield today which gives us an excellent service for a basic service and ATC reply "State position, heading and altitude" rather than "Pass your message" which confuses student. Then later we get asked "What's your destination?". Don't get me wrong I realise one size does not always fit all and there is sometimes a need to be flexible but...!

Also much confusion from another a/c when LARS say "Advise XXXX in sight, happy to change". Why not just say "Advise XXXX in sight"?

Then a couple of weeks ago a local civil ATC calls and says "Leaving XXXX airspace, squawk 7000, advise going enroute (which is a military expression) and student says "What does than mean?".

That's before we mention the verbal diarrhoea on the local A/G frequency both from a/c and the A/G operator, latter trying to macro manage the situation and providing (and some a/c seem to be expecting) a pseudo control service.

Rant mode OFF!
fireflybob is offline  
Old 29th May 2016, 06:01
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,582
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Some years ago following an accident where a landing aircraft at Northolt finished up in the middle of the A40, it was recognised that there were 5 different RT standards practiced within UK airspace.
CAP413
ICAO
UK Military
NATO
NATO Europe
Then later we get asked "What's your destination?"
I recall Birmingham ask my American student: "What is you point of departure?"; the student did not understand so the controller rephrased it, "Where do you come from?" whereupon the student replied: "Colorado" !
Whopity is offline  
Old 29th May 2016, 19:05
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,225
Received 135 Likes on 62 Posts
I read Pilot magazine every month and every month the accidents section has reports of bent airplanes caused by a profound lack of fundamental flying skills including busted off nose wheels after wheel barrowing, loss of directional control when landing/takeoff in a crosswind, runway over runs after a too fast too high approach, engine failures due to carb icing etc etc

I would suggest that maybe more time should be spent on emphasizing basic flying skills and less on radio pedantry.

The test of a good radio call: " was useful information transmitted in a logical and efficient way "

The four "W's" works for just about every possible radio transmission

Who: are you talking to
Who: are you ( ie your cal sign )
Where: are you
What: do you want or what are your intentions.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 29th May 2016, 20:11
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I would suggest that maybe more time should be spent on emphasizing basic flying skills and less on radio pedantry.
I agree and I do!!
fireflybob is offline  
Old 30th May 2016, 07:30
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know they are trying to be efficient but MATZ penetration ATC initial reply;
"G-XX squawk 1234 QNH/QFE 1034 pass your details"

Why not pass your details then give squawk and QNH/QFE.
Would help keep things standard.
Because next they start asking what your position, height etc all non standard.
BigEndBob is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 14:09
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you set the squawk then can then start looking for you while you give your details - and if you give your details properly they will not need to then ask you for your position, height etc because you have told them that!
foxmoth is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2016, 21:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The problem is it's ok for a experienced pilot that can reach across and set a squawk, but for a student that may write the squawk down, then reach across to set, then fiddle with the altimeter, all the time there's radio silence where everyone is waiting to hear a reply.

Or read back the squawk and pressure, then standard reply, then set squawk...what time has been saved, especially when given a shared squawk.

If anyone remembers the Upper Heyford method, seemed to work well.
Call, given squawk.....pause, then just asked destination, everything else was seen on the screen.
I think they could tell we weren't a F111.
BigEndBob is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2016, 19:09
  #8 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
RTF

UK pilots need look no further than CAP413 as the definitive document.

When FIs revalidate / renewal this would be the opportunity to discuss best practice.

FIEs need to be punctilious and preferably be up to the standard required to conduct the R/T test. I would exempt ex ATCOs ��

Perhaps a visit to ATC / ACC and plug in for a while?

There will no doubt be other suggestions as to how the standard can be raised.

"OVER AND OUT"

Last edited by parkfell; 15th Jun 2016 at 06:45.
parkfell is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2016, 08:15
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,582
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
FIEs need to be punctilious and preferably be up to the standard required to conduct the R/T test.
Only RTF Examiners are qualified and authorised to conduct RT Tests! And our now disfunctional CAA has totally lost control of that function!
Whopity is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2016, 13:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 687
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
parkfell,

I took your advice and looked in CAP413 (I highly recommend it!), but "over and out" confused me.

OUT - This exchange of transmissions is ended and no response is expected.
OVER - My transmission is ended and I expect a response from you.

So which one one is it?
Dan Dare is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2016, 13:58
  #11 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"Over & out" is a contradiction in terms as you have alluded to. Even a joke on my part perhaps?

It was however still being heard by those flying from Blackpool in the 1970s.
Clearly the teaching of RT procedures (then based on CAP46) had a lot to be desired.

I think I said FIEs in essence need to be competent, and not that a FIE qualification automatically confers RTF examiners authority? Although some I know are dual qualified.
parkfell is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.