"Leaving" or "Left" Altitudes (ATC'ers pls)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus2001
You don’t seem to get it ! As a pilot who:
I would expect that you have procedures and checklists etc that you are obliged to follow. Do you add bits here and there because you believe it might:
I think not, otherwise your might come fowl of your C&T Captains… No?
In the same way we have procedures which in the Australian case are quite prescriptive and detailed in AIP/JEPPs. In general terms for all normal situations we really are obliged to use these terms.
I would be the first to agree that CASA have failed in some areas to write various sections that are not open to a variety of interpretations, but I think to some extent that has been the case since the beginning of time. This subject is perhaps one example of such a variance in interpretations, and I might add has been so for some years, but then if you have been about for a while you will know how difficult and how long it takes to process any change whatsoever through ICAO.
The working group that processed the R/T phrases changes back in 1997 said that the new procedures should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. It was then agreed that if they were not the default position of those that either did not know or did not care would be to just read everything back…! Think about it. When you go flying – listen - how many do just that? like reading back weather, traffic info etc and other lots of words that do nothing but jam up the airwaves. (we can blame that on the CASA AIP writers of the day)
Part of the big problem with this subject is that in some countries these requirements are different and one’s procedures must cover off such anomalies to the satisfaction of the locals, wherever that might be. The differences in North America and the UK/EUR and some small 3rd world counties are usually quite obvious.
We are lucky in Oz as we have only one language to deal with (domestically) and to a large extent we were able to review (back in 1997) much of the ICAO phrases and standards and as a result many are not included in the AIP. The problem was/is that CASA have failed to provide appropriate education to that change and now many instructors and check pilots lack a standardised approach to the subject.
The bottom line in this is, that like your internal SOPs, there is a process to change the AIP and that if you are of the belief that saying these extra words is both necessary for safety and efficiency then put up a case for them to be included in the AIP. I am sure that if Controllers believed such words were necessary they would have done that already. There are no obvious proposals for such in the wind as far as I know and in fact if many of the controllers that I know had their way, some of the existing readback requirements would be removed. What you also don’t seem to appreciate is that if the non existence of a phrase or readback has the effect of defaulting “safe” then why should we bother. In your case, (as said by other scribes) you can descend when ever you like - it does not matter and the controller will always be prescriptive if he/she wants otherwise. As for:
I used to say that once as I thought like you it helped, but helped who? You are not the one that decides the take-off sequence (turn) and if you call ready you should in fact be ready to line up and go.
Think about it and try not to waste your breath, trying to sound professional when you don’t !!
Rant off !......I’m leaving… no left !!
You don’t seem to get it ! As a pilot who:
………. is that as I fly from coast to coast……..
……….helps oil the wheels…
In the same way we have procedures which in the Australian case are quite prescriptive and detailed in AIP/JEPPs. In general terms for all normal situations we really are obliged to use these terms.
I would be the first to agree that CASA have failed in some areas to write various sections that are not open to a variety of interpretations, but I think to some extent that has been the case since the beginning of time. This subject is perhaps one example of such a variance in interpretations, and I might add has been so for some years, but then if you have been about for a while you will know how difficult and how long it takes to process any change whatsoever through ICAO.
The working group that processed the R/T phrases changes back in 1997 said that the new procedures should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. It was then agreed that if they were not the default position of those that either did not know or did not care would be to just read everything back…! Think about it. When you go flying – listen - how many do just that? like reading back weather, traffic info etc and other lots of words that do nothing but jam up the airwaves. (we can blame that on the CASA AIP writers of the day)
Part of the big problem with this subject is that in some countries these requirements are different and one’s procedures must cover off such anomalies to the satisfaction of the locals, wherever that might be. The differences in North America and the UK/EUR and some small 3rd world counties are usually quite obvious.
We are lucky in Oz as we have only one language to deal with (domestically) and to a large extent we were able to review (back in 1997) much of the ICAO phrases and standards and as a result many are not included in the AIP. The problem was/is that CASA have failed to provide appropriate education to that change and now many instructors and check pilots lack a standardised approach to the subject.
The bottom line in this is, that like your internal SOPs, there is a process to change the AIP and that if you are of the belief that saying these extra words is both necessary for safety and efficiency then put up a case for them to be included in the AIP. I am sure that if Controllers believed such words were necessary they would have done that already. There are no obvious proposals for such in the wind as far as I know and in fact if many of the controllers that I know had their way, some of the existing readback requirements would be removed. What you also don’t seem to appreciate is that if the non existence of a phrase or readback has the effect of defaulting “safe” then why should we bother. In your case, (as said by other scribes) you can descend when ever you like - it does not matter and the controller will always be prescriptive if he/she wants otherwise. As for:
but I also call "ready in turn" when it is not required
Think about it and try not to waste your breath, trying to sound professional when you don’t !!
Rant off !......I’m leaving… no left !!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BN Centre, good morning
So if we're going to be a bit anal about
what about the use of "lubricating" words like "good morning/afternoon/evening" on first contact with each freq change and "see ya" / "hooroo" / " good-bye" on last contact when given frequency change approval? Not to mention "thank you".....
We all hear it every day by pilots and ATC alike, from GA to heavy and have for years. I do it too - as it just sounded rude when I tried for a few days without. Should we eliminate this "operationally superfluous" stuff from our transmissions too, in the interest of limiting unnecessary transmissions and in the interest of conformance with AIP and ICAO?? Or should we just get a life.....
lots of words that do nothing but jam up the airwaves.
We all hear it every day by pilots and ATC alike, from GA to heavy and have for years. I do it too - as it just sounded rude when I tried for a few days without. Should we eliminate this "operationally superfluous" stuff from our transmissions too, in the interest of limiting unnecessary transmissions and in the interest of conformance with AIP and ICAO?? Or should we just get a life.....
Grandpa Aerotart
In my view there is a big difference between courtesy and bad RT discipline. Good radio discipline would suggest ditching the 'good mornings' etc at busy times.
In my company good RT is very heavily pushed by the C&Ting department...and as we are a JAROPS compliant airline operating under the Brit CAA we must reference CAP 371 (I think it is).
Local standards do vary because everywhere has their own differences from ICAO (including CAP 371) but basic airmanship suffices in all situations.
When I am getting ready to call for clearance I look up the Jepps (usually in 10-9) and give them exactly what they need in exactly the order asked. After that it is always the minumum amount of words.
Examples;
"Cleared xyz, tonvo 1 delta, sqauwk 2245 blah69" In the real world stop altitudes are on the SID and do not nead to be read back...you are never cleared above that altitude prior to changing to departures and it greatly simplifies things...Oz ATC please note.
XYZ grnd Blah69, recieved xray, stand bravo 9, request push and start.
Clear to push, face west blah69
xyz grnd blah69 request taxi clearance.
Juliet1, Yankee, Kilo, Mike 14, hold short 30R blah69
xyz twr blah69 ready for departure (never 'ready in turn')
30 right clear for takeoff 124.45 blah69
xyz control request FL 370 (never add 'if available', if it isn't you wont get it...simple)
when cleared onto a new heading "right heading xyz, blah69" I have occassionally been cleared the long way to a heading...'confirm left heading xyz?" "negative blah69, right heading xyz, sorry"
When changing frequencies always "xyz control blah69 maintaining/climbing/descending FLxyz or 'altitude' X000"...never put 'to' in..and yes that is standard practice in Australia but were I am we get in trouble for it...I personally think it's paranoid, by I don't get a vote.
When cleared to descend "When ready" just read back the altitude...it's pretty bloody obvious most of the time...if you're miles from your planned descent point and he doesn't say "when ready" querry it.
If told "blah69 call departures now 124.45" You DO NOT ready back "Call departures now 124 decimal 45, blah69"...a simply "124 decimal 45, blah69" is all that is required.
When leaving an assigned altitude it is " XYZ control blah69, Left FL 370, descending altitude 8 thousand". It's the last chance to catch mistakes...in many parts of the world...you are supposed to wait until you have LEFT the level/alt because ATC won't necesarily pick up on their scopes until you have actually changed level/alt by 300' (I think it is) Leaving is a very vague term...leaving now or leaving in 30 seconds...LEFT is unambiguous
Bottom line is it is VERY important to get your voice on the tape clearly for the investigation that might follow .
The list of must read back items is so incredibly short it is beyond me why there is this, seemingly, insurmountable problem.
Frequencies,
Altitudes,
Headings,
Clearance limits,
Taxi routes,
route designators,
runways.
If you are recleared "blah69, Sydney, recleared direct xyz, then W123 shelleys, descend when ready FL150". Do you read back every word or is it simply "Direct xyz, whiskey 123 shelleys, FL150 blah69"?
Similarly when requesting direct routing never say "Request 'present position' direct xyz" Where the hell else are you going to track direct from if not present position?
Sydney, blah69 request direct Griffith"
Why so hard?
In my company good RT is very heavily pushed by the C&Ting department...and as we are a JAROPS compliant airline operating under the Brit CAA we must reference CAP 371 (I think it is).
Local standards do vary because everywhere has their own differences from ICAO (including CAP 371) but basic airmanship suffices in all situations.
When I am getting ready to call for clearance I look up the Jepps (usually in 10-9) and give them exactly what they need in exactly the order asked. After that it is always the minumum amount of words.
Examples;
"Cleared xyz, tonvo 1 delta, sqauwk 2245 blah69" In the real world stop altitudes are on the SID and do not nead to be read back...you are never cleared above that altitude prior to changing to departures and it greatly simplifies things...Oz ATC please note.
XYZ grnd Blah69, recieved xray, stand bravo 9, request push and start.
Clear to push, face west blah69
xyz grnd blah69 request taxi clearance.
Juliet1, Yankee, Kilo, Mike 14, hold short 30R blah69
xyz twr blah69 ready for departure (never 'ready in turn')
30 right clear for takeoff 124.45 blah69
xyz control request FL 370 (never add 'if available', if it isn't you wont get it...simple)
when cleared onto a new heading "right heading xyz, blah69" I have occassionally been cleared the long way to a heading...'confirm left heading xyz?" "negative blah69, right heading xyz, sorry"
When changing frequencies always "xyz control blah69 maintaining/climbing/descending FLxyz or 'altitude' X000"...never put 'to' in..and yes that is standard practice in Australia but were I am we get in trouble for it...I personally think it's paranoid, by I don't get a vote.
When cleared to descend "When ready" just read back the altitude...it's pretty bloody obvious most of the time...if you're miles from your planned descent point and he doesn't say "when ready" querry it.
If told "blah69 call departures now 124.45" You DO NOT ready back "Call departures now 124 decimal 45, blah69"...a simply "124 decimal 45, blah69" is all that is required.
When leaving an assigned altitude it is " XYZ control blah69, Left FL 370, descending altitude 8 thousand". It's the last chance to catch mistakes...in many parts of the world...you are supposed to wait until you have LEFT the level/alt because ATC won't necesarily pick up on their scopes until you have actually changed level/alt by 300' (I think it is) Leaving is a very vague term...leaving now or leaving in 30 seconds...LEFT is unambiguous
Bottom line is it is VERY important to get your voice on the tape clearly for the investigation that might follow
.The list of must read back items is so incredibly short it is beyond me why there is this, seemingly, insurmountable problem.
Frequencies,
Altitudes,
Headings,
Clearance limits,
Taxi routes,
route designators,
runways.
If you are recleared "blah69, Sydney, recleared direct xyz, then W123 shelleys, descend when ready FL150". Do you read back every word or is it simply "Direct xyz, whiskey 123 shelleys, FL150 blah69"?
Similarly when requesting direct routing never say "Request 'present position' direct xyz" Where the hell else are you going to track direct from if not present position?
Sydney, blah69 request direct Griffith"
Why so hard?
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 9th Sep 2006 at 13:39.
Roger S - maybe you should consider the case when one would like to stay at ones cruising level for more than the one minute permitted by the AIP after an instruction to climb or descend.
That's when it is important to confirm the "when ready" aspect.
Now for my own personal gripe - people who say "ABC maintains FLXXX". I believe it has something to do with an incorrect form of the verb "to maintain". Ditto for "ABC descends FLXXX" and "climbs".
Why can't people just stick to what's in the book (ie "maintaining", "descending" or "climbing") rather than trying to invent their own radio techniques? Now that was a rhetorical question, but I expect some here will take it literally.
That's when it is important to confirm the "when ready" aspect.
Now for my own personal gripe - people who say "ABC maintains FLXXX". I believe it has something to do with an incorrect form of the verb "to maintain". Ditto for "ABC descends FLXXX" and "climbs".
Why can't people just stick to what's in the book (ie "maintaining", "descending" or "climbing") rather than trying to invent their own radio techniques? Now that was a rhetorical question, but I expect some here will take it literally.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Roger Standby on this one.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
), and as much as you like being at your cruising level I'd consider it prudent to comply ASAP.If you are requesting descent, most controllers would assume that you want descent now, hence giving you the clearance. If you want descent in 2 minutes, a simple "ABC, TOD in 2 minutes" would suffice I imagine, and unless there was lower traffic restricting your descent, I'm pretty sure you would get your "when ready".
If you want descent in 2 minutes, a simple "ABC, TOD in 2 minutes" would suffice
Fullreverse reversed,
Why can't people just stick to what's in the book (ie "maintaining", "descending" or "climbing")
Hempy and NFR
I was referring to the situation where ATC issue a clearance (without request from the crew) for descent 5, 10, 15 minutes or more before one wishes to descend. This is what happens more often than not in my world (RPT), should ATC not to clarify it as "when ready", it can only be interpreted as an instruction and consequently descent must be commenced within 1 minute. (nb - this happens quite commonly)
That is unless you can clarify, with ATC, that the intent of the clearance was "when ready". This may seem to be arguing semantics, however that is exactly what will happen in the court room should you be unfortunate enough to end up there!
Personally, I will not make a request for descent unless planning to do so within the next minute.
Capt Bloggs - I never did make a case for "descending to FLxxx", I think you'll find the correct phraseology is simply "descending FLxxx" - although "descending to" does not grate nearly as much as "descends".
I was referring to the situation where ATC issue a clearance (without request from the crew) for descent 5, 10, 15 minutes or more before one wishes to descend. This is what happens more often than not in my world (RPT), should ATC not to clarify it as "when ready", it can only be interpreted as an instruction and consequently descent must be commenced within 1 minute. (nb - this happens quite commonly)
That is unless you can clarify, with ATC, that the intent of the clearance was "when ready". This may seem to be arguing semantics, however that is exactly what will happen in the court room should you be unfortunate enough to end up there!
Personally, I will not make a request for descent unless planning to do so within the next minute.
Capt Bloggs - I never did make a case for "descending to FLxxx", I think you'll find the correct phraseology is simply "descending FLxxx" - although "descending to" does not grate nearly as much as "descends".
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
esreverlluf,
There may be a bit of confusion here, but from my original quote, it was implied that the crew had asked for descent. I would be hard pressed to think of any enroute controller who would not say "when ready" unless there was a need to get an immediate level change.
Cheers.
There may be a bit of confusion here, but from my original quote, it was implied that the crew had asked for descent. I would be hard pressed to think of any enroute controller who would not say "when ready" unless there was a need to get an immediate level change.
Cheers.
Roger Standby - sorry if I came in a little late on the conversation and maybe it doesn't happen on your shift, but quite often I have to clarify the clearance as described above. I will continue to do so as long as there is any possible ambiguity (as I'm sure you would do from the other side of the wireless link).
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu mentioned something that is important with RT as it is with other aspects in aviation - order and predictability.
As with pilot processes (checklist, approach assignment (!!) etc) this improves error detection and reduces workload for ATC. Regardless of whether a controller is using procedural or a high level automation system (TAAATS/ADATS etc) the order of RT assists with the mechanical aspects of feeding the processes that ATC must carry out (feeding the animal - the manual or automatic system).
So any RT calls should be in the 'normal' order with the predictable stuff first and the variables last. ATC would normally respond with the normal stuff first and then deal with the extraordinary later. Basic, I know but not everyone has 30K hours up.
As with pilot processes (checklist, approach assignment (!!) etc) this improves error detection and reduces workload for ATC. Regardless of whether a controller is using procedural or a high level automation system (TAAATS/ADATS etc) the order of RT assists with the mechanical aspects of feeding the processes that ATC must carry out (feeding the animal - the manual or automatic system).
So any RT calls should be in the 'normal' order with the predictable stuff first and the variables last. ATC would normally respond with the normal stuff first and then deal with the extraordinary later. Basic, I know but not everyone has 30K hours up.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTB RFN,
TAAATS is actually arse-about from what we hear. The readbacks now days have the callsign at the end, so we hear the level/heading/etc first and then the callsign. Easy when ticking a strip, but not so for TAAATS when you need to click the level and then check it was the right callsign. Have been a number of incidents where this 'wrong way round' RT has been a contributing factor (me included).
Cheers,
NFR.
TAAATS is actually arse-about from what we hear. The readbacks now days have the callsign at the end, so we hear the level/heading/etc first and then the callsign. Easy when ticking a strip, but not so for TAAATS when you need to click the level and then check it was the right callsign. Have been a number of incidents where this 'wrong way round' RT has been a contributing factor (me included).
Cheers,
NFR.
With refersece to taxiing, I believe the call is "ready" not "ready in turn" or "ready for departure." For reading back a turn to a heading, heading is not used. The readback for a left turn to a heading of 210 would be "left 210."
Anyone who believes that the AIP does a good job of describing radio procedure must either work for CASA or live in lala land. This post would not have endured for over a year if the answers were in the book.
Anyone who believes that the AIP does a good job of describing radio procedure must either work for CASA or live in lala land. This post would not have endured for over a year if the answers were in the book.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts