RT
Thread Starter
RT
At risk of being flamed by the usual suspects I would like to ask you fine people a question.
In your official literature (Is it JSP 552 these days?) does it state that you should call 'Final' or 'Finals'? Where I work some visiting Mil aircraft call final and others finals. In the civi world there is no 'S' as it's obviously derived from 'Final Approach'......any answers are gratefully received!
In your official literature (Is it JSP 552 these days?) does it state that you should call 'Final' or 'Finals'? Where I work some visiting Mil aircraft call final and others finals. In the civi world there is no 'S' as it's obviously derived from 'Final Approach'......any answers are gratefully received!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
It's the little things that annoy the most...
High Expect,
I don't know why, really, but this little matter really winds people up. Perhaps more serious is the difference between waiting until aligned with the runway centreline before making the call (normal in civvy aviation) and making the call turning from downwind onto base 'leg'. I believe the argument surrounds the nature of the circuit flown by some military pilots.
'When in Rome...'
Cheers,
TheOddOne
I don't know why, really, but this little matter really winds people up. Perhaps more serious is the difference between waiting until aligned with the runway centreline before making the call (normal in civvy aviation) and making the call turning from downwind onto base 'leg'. I believe the argument surrounds the nature of the circuit flown by some military pilots.
'When in Rome...'
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Thread Starter
Blimey......only a simple question, which you's think would generate a simple answer, the issue doesn't wind me up BTW. Do I assume that neither of you know the answer then?!
Presumably the correct phraseology is in whatever JSP318A is called these days?
The requirement for 'gear down' escaped many for years. Before then it was anything from '3 greens', '3 wheels', '4 greens', 'gear checked' depending on the aircraft type. It is a RAF requirement for the ATCO to confirm that the landing gear is down. So those C-130 people who still call 'gear checked' can expect to be asked to confirm that their landing gear is down when landing at Brize.
A while ago I submitted a CHIRP report after an ATCO cleared a heavy jet to line-up after I had been given clearnace to land and was at about 100 ft. The purple idiot at whatever IFS is called these days seemed more interested in castigating the controller than solving the cause - failure of the RAF to adopt conditional clearances ("after landing traffic, line up and wait")......
It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long!
The requirement for 'gear down' escaped many for years. Before then it was anything from '3 greens', '3 wheels', '4 greens', 'gear checked' depending on the aircraft type. It is a RAF requirement for the ATCO to confirm that the landing gear is down. So those C-130 people who still call 'gear checked' can expect to be asked to confirm that their landing gear is down when landing at Brize.
A while ago I submitted a CHIRP report after an ATCO cleared a heavy jet to line-up after I had been given clearnace to land and was at about 100 ft. The purple idiot at whatever IFS is called these days seemed more interested in castigating the controller than solving the cause - failure of the RAF to adopt conditional clearances ("after landing traffic, line up and wait")......
It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long!
Thread Starter
Diddley Dee & BEagle, thanks for you replies.
I couldn't agree more!
It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long!
Last edited by 360BakTrak; 24th Mar 2007 at 09:12.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triv, the norm on Pprune!!
This is an amazing triviality, civil-mil, who cares. Don't hit each other and don't get your knickers in a twist - much better things to worry about like when the next rocket is needing to be avoided, Oh not on the civi radar I guess. Man up chaps and look into world poverty, or is that poverties.
PS mine is welded so I don't give a monkeys what they ask, they all sound stupid to me!!
PS mine is welded so I don't give a monkeys what they ask, they all sound stupid to me!!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taught many years ago that the call "Finals" was derived from the old 'funnels' approach lights system - a funnel shaped array of lights leading in to the landing threshold from about half a mile out.
The call was apparently made when inside said funnel of lights.
I am not totally convinced about the validity of the story but a QFI would surely never be wrong!!!
The call was apparently made when inside said funnel of lights.
I am not totally convinced about the validity of the story but a QFI would surely never be wrong!!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S'right- "Finals" is mil & "final" is civ.
Remember an old(er!) ATSA/master sim at the College of Knowledge at Bournemouth growling "Finalsssss??? Just how many landingssss will you be making off this approach, then?"
Such frantic semantics!
ap
Remember an old(er!) ATSA/master sim at the College of Knowledge at Bournemouth growling "Finalsssss??? Just how many landingssss will you be making off this approach, then?"
Such frantic semantics!
ap
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: off me 'ead
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the point of calling 'Finals' in the turn instead of when you are lined up on the centre-line is to get a clearance to land before the other bloke.
Or is that just me?
Or is that just me?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beags, you mention the land/roll/touch and go/overshoot stuff. Personally I like the 'option' - do what you want, from an ATC perspective I don't really care. If I can't give you the 'option', then I will tell you what I can give you (ie 'overshoot only not below ... etc).
Of course, suggestions like that will take until the next millenium to be staffed.
Of course, suggestions like that will take until the next millenium to be staffed.
The call isn't for the benefit of the Air Trafficker alone, it is to help others plan their circuit. For example, if I've just climbed away on take-off and have heard someone else call 'downwind to land', then I may need to extend upwind to ensure that I don't get balked on the approach by an aircraft still on the RW after landing if I plan to fly a touch and go.
Aircraft in the visual circuit should plan their own activity without interference from the visual controller. There is nothing worse than being ordered about by some well-meaning controller who does not understand the effect of wind on slow aircraft, for example.
And as for those who think a 'visual straight in' takes priority over traffic already in the visual circuit.... I was Duty Dog at Benson once when a Queen's Flight 146 announced he was straight in to land. "No he isn't", I told the visual controller, "Tell him to join on the deadside as there are 3 aircraft in the visual circuit ahead of him!". Which he did; when he tried to whinge to the CFI afterwards he was told to go and read the FOB!
Aircraft in the visual circuit should plan their own activity without interference from the visual controller. There is nothing worse than being ordered about by some well-meaning controller who does not understand the effect of wind on slow aircraft, for example.
And as for those who think a 'visual straight in' takes priority over traffic already in the visual circuit.... I was Duty Dog at Benson once when a Queen's Flight 146 announced he was straight in to land. "No he isn't", I told the visual controller, "Tell him to join on the deadside as there are 3 aircraft in the visual circuit ahead of him!". Which he did; when he tried to whinge to the CFI afterwards he was told to go and read the FOB!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT
Diddley Dee & BEagle, thanks for you replies.
Quote:
It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long!
I couldn't agree more!
Quote:
It is high time that the RAF, the minority user of UK airspace, aligned its basic RT to that used at every other aerodrome, but with the addition of specific military terms such as 'Initial' and 'Break'. The touch-and-go/roll/overshoot/go-around nonsense has been with the RAF for far too long!
I couldn't agree more!
Cue change to 'line up and hold/wait'
"We don't need to be told to hold we know were not cleared for take off"
ATC retreat and mandatory report all take off without clearance....
6 months later, over 2 dozen occurrences and a rapid backtrack inbound.....probably NOT!!
Grenade!!
Fred