EK recruitment Stop
Join Date: May 2005
Location: dubai
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there you go... I always thought it was ICAO Standard RT.
You make a good point though, this reference material is long overdue at EK. Apparently this document is 'in the works' right now. This is what I am told and it is happening because there has been a decline in standard RT by pilots. (regionally and by EK pilots)
To be honest, I don't care if ICAO or CAP413 had stipulated Yank slang as standard either. What I think is important is conformity and standardization. If ICAO/CAP413 decrees that a clearance to squawk 6429 should be read back as ''6429 coming down'', then so be it.
I once read an ICAO document explaining in no uncertain terms correct RT. I was amazed at how many mistakes I had been making and for that reason I made an attempt to fix them. It took about 30 minutes by the way, although I probably still make some improper RT.
In fairness to everyone, pilots are never taught proper RT, except the basics. It is learned by osmosis. You learn from what you hear on the radios, which can vary greatly depending on region. ATC on the other hand is taught proper RT and for good reason, it works best !
And by the way, it is not ''This is Emirates 123, or The Emirates''. There is a reason it is callsign with nothing preceding it. Many different callsigns would begin to sound the same if preceded by ''This is.....or The'' In other words, ATC can more easily pick up on the callsign.
Sorry to hijack the thread, my apologies. I realize some people think it is pedantic and trivial, but I believe it is important. Worst case scenario... I am wrong and improper RT never has and never will contribute to an accident... I still argue that it is so easy to learn proper RT we should do it. I truly hope EK is publishing a suitable document, even though I'm sure a few pilots will disparage it because they believe it is beneath them.
I am aware that some regions use a few variations to standard RT, such as the proper wording to declare a fuel 'urgency vs emergency' state. These variations are published somewhere but overall most of the world complies with ICAO. I do not know for certain, but I would guess CAP413 is almost identical to ICAO.
I cannot think of one valid reason to use NON-standard RT. I can think of one very good reason to use it.... FLIGHT SAFETY. It is the same reasoning behind SOP's and standard calls made within the cockpit.
You make a good point though, this reference material is long overdue at EK. Apparently this document is 'in the works' right now. This is what I am told and it is happening because there has been a decline in standard RT by pilots. (regionally and by EK pilots)
To be honest, I don't care if ICAO or CAP413 had stipulated Yank slang as standard either. What I think is important is conformity and standardization. If ICAO/CAP413 decrees that a clearance to squawk 6429 should be read back as ''6429 coming down'', then so be it.
I once read an ICAO document explaining in no uncertain terms correct RT. I was amazed at how many mistakes I had been making and for that reason I made an attempt to fix them. It took about 30 minutes by the way, although I probably still make some improper RT.
In fairness to everyone, pilots are never taught proper RT, except the basics. It is learned by osmosis. You learn from what you hear on the radios, which can vary greatly depending on region. ATC on the other hand is taught proper RT and for good reason, it works best !
And by the way, it is not ''This is Emirates 123, or The Emirates''. There is a reason it is callsign with nothing preceding it. Many different callsigns would begin to sound the same if preceded by ''This is.....or The'' In other words, ATC can more easily pick up on the callsign.
Sorry to hijack the thread, my apologies. I realize some people think it is pedantic and trivial, but I believe it is important. Worst case scenario... I am wrong and improper RT never has and never will contribute to an accident... I still argue that it is so easy to learn proper RT we should do it. I truly hope EK is publishing a suitable document, even though I'm sure a few pilots will disparage it because they believe it is beneath them.
I am aware that some regions use a few variations to standard RT, such as the proper wording to declare a fuel 'urgency vs emergency' state. These variations are published somewhere but overall most of the world complies with ICAO. I do not know for certain, but I would guess CAP413 is almost identical to ICAO.
I cannot think of one valid reason to use NON-standard RT. I can think of one very good reason to use it.... FLIGHT SAFETY. It is the same reasoning behind SOP's and standard calls made within the cockpit.
I can confirm that we adhere to the Oxford dictionary and the CAP413.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is "Insh' Allah" part of CAP413 or ICAO standard? - Just to show that shoddy R/T is not a American particularity when talking about pre-suff and affixies.
What beats me is the number of "unstable approaches" (in EK terms) at our home base. To shove it off onto ATC or the airport layout would be too easy. There is a greater portion of FOs at controls inbound (mostly their own choice), so this would point to a specific direction: Previous experience, adaption difficulties or inadequate training of necomers. To my experience it is not only Americans, it's their higher actual number that strikes. I think it's the average background that doesn't adequately match our environement or the short-cut training is too stereotype, too sop-bound.
What beats me is the number of "unstable approaches" (in EK terms) at our home base. To shove it off onto ATC or the airport layout would be too easy. There is a greater portion of FOs at controls inbound (mostly their own choice), so this would point to a specific direction: Previous experience, adaption difficulties or inadequate training of necomers. To my experience it is not only Americans, it's their higher actual number that strikes. I think it's the average background that doesn't adequately match our environement or the short-cut training is too stereotype, too sop-bound.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS put out a memo , maybe FCI, a couple of years ago stating EK offical RT ref is CAP 413 and not ICAO.
I think the US pilots have been bashed enough, those that had trouble all know who/where they came from. Thats over now and I think that experiment is done you might say.
I think the US pilots have been bashed enough, those that had trouble all know who/where they came from. Thats over now and I think that experiment is done you might say.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting knickers in a twist over slack R/T discipline seems a bit misplaced when a large proportion of the folks you talk to over certain vast regions are barely capable of speaking English...period.
ICAO Level 6, my arse.
Yes, yes, more of an argument in favour or standardization than against it, I know. But when someone is barely comprehensible due to their poor grasp of the language, thick accent, and insistence on compensating by speaking at a ridiculously fast rate, my worries are a little more fundamental than wondering if they're using "CAP13 or ICAO".
More like WTF ARE YOU SAYING, talk slower, move the microphone closer (or further, depending) and LEARN THE DAMN LANGUAGE!
ICAO Level 6, my arse.
Yes, yes, more of an argument in favour or standardization than against it, I know. But when someone is barely comprehensible due to their poor grasp of the language, thick accent, and insistence on compensating by speaking at a ridiculously fast rate, my worries are a little more fundamental than wondering if they're using "CAP13 or ICAO".
More like WTF ARE YOU SAYING, talk slower, move the microphone closer (or further, depending) and LEARN THE DAMN LANGUAGE!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 60
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All good stuff mentioned by all above - just as a matter of interest, if you use 210KIAS @ 3000 feet as a limit point you almost never end up with an unstable approach - on any aircraft ... funny how this is actually SOP for several other operators I know, or have worked for... try it some time.. works a lot better than the 1500 ' thingy we have now...
Also used to be ....and maybe still is... a rule in some CTR's anyway...
Saves the DAMASCUS ONE arrival problem I think... sorry hijacked thread a little but sort of SOPS stuff..W
Also used to be ....and maybe still is... a rule in some CTR's anyway...
Saves the DAMASCUS ONE arrival problem I think... sorry hijacked thread a little but sort of SOPS stuff..W
