This is true - or I've been wound up!!
 

On a Sunday transit from Prestwick to Culdrose several years ago - via the scenic Irish Sea route!! Contacted London Info for a FIS just to be able to talk to someone and heard the following as we were listening out. Not sure where the aircraft in question was (somewhere in the SE) - come to think of it though, neither did he:ugh:

Puddle jumper: London Info this is G-**** out of XXXX en-route to YYYY requesting FIS.
London: You are aware that YYYY is closed on a Sunday?
PJ:No!!
London: Do you have an alternative?
PJ: Err No. Not sure what airfields are open near here.
London: Are you able to return to XXXX?
PJ: Err no. I don't think I have the fuel.
London (voice levels raised a few octaves): I have your location, stand by sir and I'll try and get you to the closest aerodrome. What is your endurance?

You don't want to know the answer; suffice to say he made it to his alternative destination. This happened about 10 years ago, so I've forgotten much of the detail (c/s, airfields, etc) but the general thread is true. Four of us sat and listened with some amusement and a little trepidation as to whether or not he was going to make it.
It was definitely not April 1st!!

Bet you didn't get a word in edgeways either with that lot going on!

Don't any of you come and fly Down Under if you don't like R/T: lots of it! The ability to look out of the clear glass/plastic bit around the cockpit has been replaced with an overriding requirement to make and listen to position calls, all the way round the circuit, for every aircraft :yuk:

RPT won't even operate into a field unless it has a 20nm CTAF(R), and woe betide the aviator who fails to make appropriate calls, preferably as long and as boring as possible, with lots of chit chat from other aircraft establishing just how far they are away from not being involved at all.

NFI, the lot of them :=

yes there are some civvies & mil who waffle - but why do mil ATC refuse to come in line with ICAO phraseology? given that lack of clarity/understanding is a major cause of accidents, does it help to have words such as 'overshoot', 'go-around' etc mean significantly different things depending on whether you are at a civ or mil a/f? a brit mil pilot visiting a civilian a/f runs the risk of looking like a complete prat if he sticks with the words he usually uses back at homeplate! - and they won't even let you in the grown-ups airspace if you don't sound like you know what's going on!! sorry if this is the wrong thread for this rant - anyone else out there agree?

If MIL R/T is so terse, why has this thread got to 3 pages?

(tinhat, incoming, etc)

boswell bear, i couldnt agree more. i think iv heard him once or twice. standard stuff, boring, pointless.
oh yer, its gone to 3 pages because people have lots of things to say about it, funny stories and such, so shut yer trap and complain somewhere else.

"yes there are some civvies & mil who waffle - but why do mil ATC refuse to come in line with ICAO phraseology?"

Well said! After a particular incident (pilot under test was a RW Staneval bloke doing his PPL), I put in a CHIRP. Basically the tower controller had cleared a 4-jet to line up after having cleared us to land - even though we were still airborne at 200 ft on the approach. Fortunately the 4-jet mate said 'Negative'.

The response to the CHIRP was dismal. All they were interested in was 'hanging the guilty barsteward'. Whereas the reason we put the CHIRP in was to highlight the limitations of military ATC procedures - in the civil world it would have been "After landing PA28, line up and wait" or somesuch - but spotty Plt Off ATCOs aren't allowed such flexibility with conditional clearances. I rang Farnborough - who stated that they thought that feedback from the military had gone really downhill "Ever since IFS folded and we now have to deal with Army helicopter pilots who haven't a clue about what they're talking about" as they put it.

Don't forget that lots of civvie pilots are amateurs, not professional pilots. If they only fly a few hours per year, it's hardly surprising that their R/T seemingly isn't as good as that of the professionals! But at least they've all taken R/T exams!

But then we have the gashness of much military R/T. Poor clearance readbacks, abysmal understanding of Air Traffic Services Outside Regulated Airspace...shall I go on? Funnily enough, when I was a ME QFI I found that it was often easier to correct the R/T procedures of ex-MELIN co-piglets than that of chopped FJ AFTS students - or 'experienced' RW pilots... 'nuff said?

The standard of many (though not all, I hasten to add) military tower ATCOs is not really that good, I find. All of them should be made to attend a few sessions at a basic FISO aerodrome to learn how pilots can make their own judgements in the circuit. Even amateur PPL spamcan drivers... Then attend a few sessions at a really busy place which copes with civil FIS, approach control etc all on the same frequency. By 'busy' I don't mean one TriStar on 20 mile final and a VC10 in the visual circuit, plus a Herc due in 20 minutes.....

Any of you who end up in civvie street will soon learn how good UK civil ATCOs are!

Remember - "Who you are, where you are, what you want". Anything else the air traffickers can always ask you for!

If you want a busy atc tune into Cranfield over the w/end, at times it's just non stop

BEagle, I agree with a number of your points but please remember that,as has been pointed out already on this thread, you get cr*p RT all over. Mil, civil, aircrew or ATC, it doesn't tend to make a distinction as far as the standard of rt is concerned.

And the cock-up with the line-up vs take-off instruction was just that, a cock-up, not a problem caused by poor RT. Would it be nice to be able to have a procedure as you suggested as our civ colleagues do-yes! In fact individual units could probably produce a local procedure to do it with station based ac. On a blue-blue day the aircrew would love that kind of flex, but what happens when you have the procedure, it's YLO2 and the spotty oik cocks it up? There isn't much in the way of experienced controllers in towers at the moment!

The point you raised about the CHIRP was spot on though. I remember a number of years ago the stn was having it's post Christmas welcome back flt safety stand-down day and people were talking about filling in paperwork and the stn FSO pointed out the awful record of atcos filing HFORs. One brave atco stood up and pointed out that people previously filing said reports through their SATCOs had been investigated and many had been 'hung like guilty bar stewards' hence the reluctance.

Our OC Ops, very nice chap too-ex Tonka mate don't know where he went, stood up and basically said "chaps if you've been stupid and deserve a roasting then you'll get one. However no-one is going to be hunted down for minor instances and certainly not through filing an HFOR."

Which was all jolly decent because 2 weeks later when I made a god almighty co*k up, we all sat down and had a very adult 'what can we learn from this' session. I think they're trying to instill that kind of a message in the guys from an early stage now, but from what's getting into the "front line" now I wouldn't be too sure. Any ideas Beags?

Nah, I can't believe I read that ;)

Seriously though, multi engined RAF blokes are generally spot on. Fast jet blokes are probably average, except it would be great if they didn't sound like Darth Vader all the time :p

Civvies are a mixed bag, which when you factor in US Mil, makes the score even :ok:

The reason I put the CHIRP in was to ask why conditional clearances aren't used by mil ATCOs. The fact that the tower controller said the wrong thing was an error, but not a serious one. He couldn't say "After landing PA28, line up and wait" - the rules don't allow it - and for some reason (intimidation?) didn't want to say "Hold" to the 4-jet.

It wasn't his small error which was the issue, it was the inflexibility and unreasonable differences between civil and military R/T. But the useless purple apologist merely sought to crucify him.

Personally I think that there should be a common core standard - and that purely military procedures (VRIAB, snake climbs, SKE departures etc) should be additional to those.

I can see no reason why 'overshoot' and 'go-around' should not be harmonised.

Or is it just that there's no-one available to staff the harmonisation of civil and miltary R/T?

Blimey BEagle - asking the UK Military to come in line with the rest of the world's R/T phraseolgy !! Whatever will you propose next? Perhaps getting rid of the ridiculous practice of using QFE?

Military R/T has its moments too; I remember hearing a mate on my Provost (Piston variety) course call “Changing to 121.5”. Out of interest I switched in time to hear his:

“Practice Pan, Practice Pan, Practice Pan, this is ABCD”. His timing wasn’t good, though, the reply he got was:

“ABCD this is XXXX, no Practice Pans this morning, there is a Royal Flight in progress”.

Next call was: “Practice Mayday, Practice Mayday, Practice Mayday, this is ABCD...”

My mate however made Air Vice Marshal before retiring, I didn’t.

A few weeks ago I heard the following conversation on a busy departure frequency in the USA:

Delta Airlines Pilot: "Hey Houston, do you think we can fly a heading of 310 so I can have a look at my house?"
Houston Controller: "OK ... errr ... who was that calling?"
Delta Airlines Pilot: "Delta xxxx"
Houston Controller: "Yeah ... I guess so ... it should be OK ... I cant see a problem with that"
Delta Airlines Pilot: "Gee ... errr ... thanks a lot"
Houston Controller: "Yeah well ... that's OK"

Ouch Beag's!!

Blimey that was a bit of a 'Ben Thatcher on Pedro Mendez' moment regarding Mil ATCOs!!:ouch:

I have done the transition from Mil to Civvy ATC. I concur that there is a lot of scope for coming into line with civvy R/T phraseology. However, there are some who wish to see conditional line-ups die a death. Some believe that there is too much scope for pilot/ATC misunderstanding. Me? I think they work, but you have to be careful who you are giving them to!

Sorry, got to go and take over at console. The radar controller getting overloaded by GA traffic calling with their life story. That was a joke by the way my GA freinds!!;)

Oz - pre November 2005:
All stations xx, Cessna 172 Papa Golf Alpha, downwind to land one-four

Oz - post November 2005
xx traffic, Cessna 172 Papa Golf Alpha, turning crosswind, one- four, xx,
xx traffic, Cessna 172 Papa Golf Alpha turning downwind, one-four, xx.
xx traffic, Cessna 172 Papa Golf Alpha downwind to land one-four, xx.
xx traffic, Cessna 172 Papa Golf Alpha turning base, one-four, xx.
xx traffic, Cessna 172 Papa Golf Alpha turning finals to land one-four, xx


The rules state "Pilots should begin their broadcast by stating the name of trhe aerodrome followed by the aircraft type and call sign. State position, intentions and end the broadcast by repeating the name of the aerodrome. Pilots should make circuit broadcasts just before making a turn because banking aircraft are easier to see"

:eek: :confused:

While under training in the RAF, my QFI wrote on one of my Sortie Report Forms after an IF trip where my RT had obviously been moving, eloquent and poetic - but not brief,

'Remember that an aircraft flys thanks to a principle discovered by Bernoulli and not Marconi'.

Does anyone else make a point of inhailing loudly into their oxy mask when speaking on civie freqs?? I'll get my coat (and Tie Fighter!!)...