HKG ATC out of control

[BuzzBox]

Bell crank - if a controller wanted an aircraft to climb to FL290, why would he or she instruct that aircraft to 'climb two-niner thousand' when the transition altitude is at 9,000 ft?

Are people really that dumb??

Just askin'...

[bekolblockage]

Mr Crank

Why does HK insist on continuing to use this flawed phrase?

1. Its ICAO. Whether you think its naff or not to follow ICAO, smarter people than you and me have deliberted on the subject for decades and still come to the conclusion that inclusion of the word "to" in the standard phraseology is recommended. If you know your standard phraseologies then there can be no confusion. A quick glance shows that even NavCanada's (where you state you are from) standard phraseology includes the word "to".

2. I'm not aware of anywhere that has a transition level above 29,000 ft, so, as BuzzBox points out, any reasonable pilot would expect to hear "Climb to Flight Level Two Niner Zero if that was the case (with or without the "to" if you prefer).

3. On more than one occasion here in HK, we have had pilots take a descent clearance "Descend six thousand feet" as exactly that - and descended a difference of 6,000 ft from their previous altitude. Stupid people do stupid things. No matter how some try to remove the ambiguity someone will befuddle us.

Me thinks you are the dope who insists on it's use by HK controllers.

Please, you flatter me with your perception of my authority over other HK ATCOs.

[Scoreboard]

Example of Poor ATC,

ATC : Cathay XXX, are you maintaining 230 knots
CathayXXX : Cathay XXX Affirmative.
ATC : (berating) When I ask a question CathayXXX, I expect you to answer! Are you maintaining 230 knots?
CathayXXX : Cathay XXX Affirmative.
ATC FLIP OUT)*&#)( &%^^(%*^ ......... are you maintaining 230 knots
CathayXXX : Affirmative means "YES" under ICAO standard phraseology. So I say again AFFIRMATIVE! WE ARE MAINTAINING 230 KNOTS.
ATC : OPEN MIC..>AHHH and then dead silence.

[Girlfriend in Akoma]

Affirm

Scoreboard, I think you'll find the correct ICAO phrase for 'yes' is AFFIRM, to avoid confusion between Affirmative and Negative... Hence the errr, confusion.

[throw a dyce]

Uk phraseology is to use ''to'' when referring to altitude.
Cathy xxx descend to altitude 3000ft.
When referring to Flight level we omit ''to''.
Cathy xxx climb Flight Level 250.

Might help but could be seen as long winded by some.We have found it pretty clear over the last few years.
Hear there are 14 retirements due soon,both local and Gweilo.
Looks like fun out at CLK next year.

[barrold]

Mutual respect

[I[I]]ATC : Cathay XXX, are you maintaining 230 knots
CathayXXX : Cathay XXX Affirmative.
ATC : (berating) When I ask a question CathayXXX, I expect you to answer! Are you maintaining 230 knots?
CathayXXX : Cathay XXX Affirmative.
ATC FLIP OUT)*&#)( &%^^(%*^ ......... are you maintaining 230 knots
CathayXXX : Affirmative means "YES" under ICAO standard phraseology. So I say again AFFIRMATIVE! WE ARE MAINTAINING 230 KNOTS.
ATC : OPEN MIC..>AHHH and then dead silence.

Affirm or Affirmative notwithstanding, that sounds out of order. Submit a captain's report to your safety guy. It shall be referred to HK ATC. You wil receive a response. It's a two way street... mutual respect.

[Bedder believeit]

Mutual respect MK II

Barrold, why would Scoreboard submit a "Captain's report", when you probably don't even know if he/she is a Captain - or do you? Also, I find it extremely unlikely that what Scoreboard says is at best only partially a reasonably close approximation of what was really said by ATC (after all, define all the supposed "swear" words italicised in uppercase in Scoreboard's post), and that if a report was submitted, it would probably rebound on him/her! There's so much unsubstantiated rubbish posted here at times. People say what they like and all the idiots trail along behind believing anything!

[bigjames]

i find that story hard to believe as well. i have never had any trouble with ATC misunderstanding "A-firm!" never used "affermative" tho

[barrold]

Let's find out

[I]I find it extremely unlikely that what Scoreboard says is at best only partially a reasonably close approximation of what was really said by ATC (after all, define all the supposed "swear" words italicised in uppercase in Scoreboard's post), and that if a report was submitted, it would probably rebound on him/her!

Totally agreed. That was my less than hidden agenda. If the report is submitted, it shall be investigated and the truth will out. So, Scoreboard... please put the report in.

[jonathon68]

Yawn.

Affirmative went out >20 years ago. Now it is Affirm vs Negative. Affirmative and Negative are too similar.

I remember the early 90's flying in Europe trying to understand the Controllers Franglais.

Q"Request runway in use"
A"Expect w-e-sterly landing at De Gaulle"
Q"Please confirm Easterly runway at de Gaulle??"
A"I said n-a-firmative, w-e-sterly at de Gaulle!!"

and so on.

[Pucka]

and here's another one...

Cebu Pacific request for .."is FL 380 available?"...female voice intoned with hubris...reply.."did you ask for FL380 on the ground?"...No ma'am..."negative..ask on ground next time, FL340 now only level avail"...wtf!!!!

[LapSap]

Goin to Pucka???

You're right. Poor phraseology all round.

"Request F380"
"Not available"

How hard was that?