CAP 413
Chapter 3 - General Phraseology

1.2.3
"However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not generated as
a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases of flight. For
example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or flight levels according to the
phase of flight and the altimeter setting. Therefore, when passing level messages,
the following conventions apply:
a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
b) All messages relating to an aircraft’s climb or descent to a HEIGHT or ALTITUDE
employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or ALTITUDE.
Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will also include the
appropriate QFE or QNH."

ES

I'm sorry but is this CAP 413 a HKCAD regulation?

I guess Edmund forgot to read the Foreword of CAP413:

My emphasis added. So all you radio police, the aim of communication is to get the message across safely. There are many guides, and they all contain good and useful info. But every local area has their own rules and how they play. If there is a potential for issues, fine, bring it up. Otherwise, you are just being a pedantic prick.

:oh:

The bigger picture
 

According to ICAO Doc. 4444 Pans-ATM, the following is shown in 12-2 "Phraseologies" 12.3.1.2 "Level changes, reports and rates"

"CLIMB (or DESCEND)
followed as necessary by:

1) TO" (level)

Would some of you keen F/Os stop asking me to request lower every time we reach our flight level during step descents in a busy airspace..:mad::mad: There is a reason why the controller has given us that flight level.....we're not the only airplane in the sky!!!! Let him/her get on with his/her job without nuisance and stupid requests....if you end up slightly high big ****!ng deal....I kid you not this one guy was like an automated altitude alerting system, at every 1000' above our cleared flight level..."request lower"....hey Chuck Yeager....you see that crossing traffic on TCAS 2000' below us right????? :ugh::ugh:

Sounds to me like some trainers (&/or line captains) are pushing that. Why else would the FOs be asking?
Suggest taking it up with the training department and get a fleet notice out.

"Clear right"

Jetset

What we have to consider about UK is the low transition level. Having been holding at LAM at FL70 it makes good sense to include the word "altitude" in the descent instruction along with the QNH as this will (should) minimise the chance of error. I can't recall what would be a typical number of step descents below the holding level but I seem to recall it's not that many - standing by to be corrected.

In other parts of the world, Hong Kong for example, the number of step clearances below the (high) transition level tends to be more than LHR from memory. If "altitude" were to be included in each of these step clearances it would equate to over 100 minutes worth of RT usage based on 40 movements an hour for 16 hours and 5 step climb/descent instructions/movement (assuming no repeat instructions) - this in an already busy RT environment.

I tend to use the 'if the controller says "altitude" in an instruction then I'll read back "altitude"' method - it seems to work fine.

STP

Jetset

Another issue in Hong Kong is that we (ATC and flight crews) are mixing conflicting traffic, some using "Imperial feet" and others using (Chinese) Metric altitudes.
Has your "UK" threat and error management group taken this particular issue into consideration? I doubt it.

Phraseologies
 

3.3 The use of metric altitudes and levels in some airspace adjacent to Hong Kong
FIR requires the use of both Standard (feet) and Metric (metres) units within Hong Kong
airspace. To avoid any confusion with level information the following standard
phraseology shall be applied :
a) when referring to an ALTITUDE the unit shall always be specified,
e.g. ‘descend to six thousand feet’ or ‘climb to two thousand seven
hundred metres’;
b) when referring to FLIGHT LEVELS only the METRIC unit shall be
specified, e.g. ‘descend to Flight Level one five zero’ or ‘climb to Flight
Level eight thousand four hundred metres’.

Some better standardisation of terminolgy would have prevented an exchange on the RT I heard about 18 months ago that went something like this:

Connie 123: "Departure, this is Connie 123 with you climbing five".

ATC: "Connie 123, climb to niner thousand feet".

Connie 123: "Climb twenty nine thousand feet Connie 123".

ATC: "Negative, climb to niner thousand feet".

Connie 123: "Roger, climbing to twenty nine thousand".

ATC: "I say again, climb to niner thousand feet".

Connie 123: "Ok, we're climbing to two niner thousand feet, Connie 123."

CX456: "Connie 123, this is CX456. She means climb to altitude nine thousand feet".

Connie 123" "Ah, now we've got it!. Climbing nine thousand feet".

The CX voice was a Brit who was crossing TD inbound at FL110 who obviously didn't want an RA! Admittedly, the Connie aircraft was pretty dull not realising that he shouldn't be cleared to an altitude above transition level, but the whole situation and the threat could have been negated by using standard terminology.

This post is turning to the ridiculous!

For a pilot to not realize that "Climb to" is an instruction, not an altitude seems much more than a "little dull"... When are you ever cleared to climb 25,000 feet upon departure (or arrival) from a busy international airport? Around HK, arrivals are more often descended 2,000 meters at a time starting 150 miles out...

Regarding the calls for standardization, everyone wants two standardize, but they all want everyone else 2 standardize in the manner they are accustomed too. I've watched a few Brits flip out when told "Ground .9 when off" yet Americans understand perfectly. Whose standard shall we pick?

Yes, I do understand the three variants of the word sounding "To" I trust you do two...

Count yourself lucky, Arriving two HK is a treat compared 2 here in DXB!

FR

I always thought Duxby was easy. CLK not too bad but just a little on edge wondering what would happen next - and what the CX board of enquiry would say if it got to that :rolleyes:

I do think the the word 'to' should be dropped.
( . . except when giving a QNH (altimeter) in inches ;) )

WoW:ok:Didn't expect such a response from this post....
Guess I'm not the only one:ugh::ugh::ugh:doing this!

Another comment...
Why does Arrivals and Departures all goto TD....??
Also...After being cleared to 9000 feet, the radio is cluttered enough but to be then told "maintain 9000 feet as traffic above!"...Like no ****!!,,How often do aircraft keep climbing??
Same goes for descent to FL110.....Not long after ATC jams the radio with another pointless call "Maintain FL110 as traffic below!"...Again..no ****!!.U cleared me to this, so I will be a good lil boy and do what u said:mad::mad:

"Emilates 9880, clear for takeoff 07 righ, win 050 at 3 knot, caution NO WINDSHEAR reported"

WTF? :bored: :confused:

All the while Bitching Betty is yelling at us "On RWY 07 right 3200 metres remaining"

halas

Didn't this all come about due to the CFIT near KL quite a few years ago by a cargo operator (Flying Tigers, I think)? Must have been late 80's or early 90's.
"Descend two four hundred feet" was mis-understood to be "Descend to four hundred feet!" If memory serves, it was a highly "experienced" crew who took the offer of an unexpected non-precision approach at the last minute without an adequate brief. Seems incredible that they would have descended to 400 feet QNH when they really had no idea where they were. I haven't revisited the accident report so I am not completely sure of my facts but I seem to remember that it was about then that the standard phraseology was completely re-written.
Hence the dreaded 'altitude' word.
Hardly ideal but is there a better standard we should use?
ES

The Flying Tigers 747 freighter hit the hill where the KL NDB is located on the way into Kuala Lumpur Subang. You can still see where it impacted. There were a lot of factors which led to the accident, but non standard terminology was significant among them.

How about ''Climb to maintain 9000 ft?

My 2c worth:

Climb altitude 9000

Climb FL150