Tree Fife Niner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tree Fife Niner
I am the first to admit I hate a lot of the rubbish that is used on the radios eg. "this time", "call you on the ground" etc. I do however say G'day to just about every aircraft that I handoff to the next sector, so I can't complain too much.
My plead to the piloting community and to ATC's is that if you can bring yourself to change just one thing you say over the air, please, please, stop saying "Nine" and use the term "niner". Not because it annoys me, but for safety sake. I'm not so anal that I expect everyone to use fower and tree or even fife, but "nine" just sounds too close to "5".
A090 is a common level used in CTA as "paperstop" levels between sectors. Controllers have been stood down, myself included awhile back, for assigning A090 and hearing "Nine" as a response only to later find out the pilot had possibly read back "Five" (15 min of intensive listening to the tapes resulted in "sounded like 9, could have been 5"). I have since had reason to ask pilots up to 3 times "confirm assigned niner thousand" and received"affirm, nine thousand". After the third time you're banging your head and assuring yourself that you did in fact hear "nine".
It just shouldn't have to happen.
On a side note, I am sure that the extra 120ft on the altimeter would be preferred when conducting approach to the minima in IMC as well.
Cheers,
R_S.
My plead to the piloting community and to ATC's is that if you can bring yourself to change just one thing you say over the air, please, please, stop saying "Nine" and use the term "niner". Not because it annoys me, but for safety sake. I'm not so anal that I expect everyone to use fower and tree or even fife, but "nine" just sounds too close to "5".
A090 is a common level used in CTA as "paperstop" levels between sectors. Controllers have been stood down, myself included awhile back, for assigning A090 and hearing "Nine" as a response only to later find out the pilot had possibly read back "Five" (15 min of intensive listening to the tapes resulted in "sounded like 9, could have been 5"). I have since had reason to ask pilots up to 3 times "confirm assigned niner thousand" and received"affirm, nine thousand". After the third time you're banging your head and assuring yourself that you did in fact hear "nine".
It just shouldn't have to happen.On a side note, I am sure that the extra 120ft on the altimeter would be preferred when conducting approach to the minima in IMC as well.
Cheers,
R_S.
Last edited by Roger Standby; 29th Aug 2006 at 15:10.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No wonder I am no good at cryptic crosswords.
The original point is worth raising (yet again) however. Having 5000 as a paper stop level on departure seems a little bit 'loaded' as well. Brisbane uses 6000.
The point about getting pilots to repeat the readback is true from experience - but also because the transmissions are clipped. I know that everyone pushes the PTT before talking (right?) but there is also a slight (very slight) processing lag - as I understand it the VHF reply is digitised at the Antenna site, then packet-switched (like the internet), sent by various means (VHF, Microwave, Fibre-Optic, Sat etc.), re-assembled at the receiver centre, and then comes out through the digital VSCS. This all happens very quickly, but I sense that not quick enough for the trigger-happy PTT user sometimes.
The result -
ATC: AIRLINER 958 DESCEND FOUR THOUSAND
PILOT: -R THOUSAND AIRLINER 958
ATC: AIRLINER 958 CONFIRM DESCEND FOUR THOUSAND
PILOT: -R THOUSAND AIRLINER 958
And on it goes. Many of you will say, why don't we read back the callsign first? I agree. It used to work just fine.
The original point is worth raising (yet again) however. Having 5000 as a paper stop level on departure seems a little bit 'loaded' as well. Brisbane uses 6000.
The point about getting pilots to repeat the readback is true from experience - but also because the transmissions are clipped. I know that everyone pushes the PTT before talking (right?) but there is also a slight (very slight) processing lag - as I understand it the VHF reply is digitised at the Antenna site, then packet-switched (like the internet), sent by various means (VHF, Microwave, Fibre-Optic, Sat etc.), re-assembled at the receiver centre, and then comes out through the digital VSCS. This all happens very quickly, but I sense that not quick enough for the trigger-happy PTT user sometimes.
The result -
ATC: AIRLINER 958 DESCEND FOUR THOUSAND
PILOT: -R THOUSAND AIRLINER 958
ATC: AIRLINER 958 CONFIRM DESCEND FOUR THOUSAND
PILOT: -R THOUSAND AIRLINER 958
And on it goes. Many of you will say, why don't we read back the callsign first? I agree. It used to work just fine.
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 30th Aug 2006 at 00:03.
Thank you for raising this issue again Roger. It's a pet hate of mine too.
It can be a problem with these coloquial flight number callsigns too.
"Qantas four thirty nine descend to niner thousand."
"Niner thousand, Qantas four thirty five"
How many of us would say "Four thirty nineR"?
Not enough I would suggest.
It can be a problem with these coloquial flight number callsigns too.
"Qantas four thirty nine descend to niner thousand."
"Niner thousand, Qantas four thirty five"
How many of us would say "Four thirty nineR"?
Not enough I would suggest.
You wouldn't believe the number of times TWO and THREE get misheard. This is especially noticeable when the number is repeated eg "Turn right heading two three zero" Readback as "Heading two two zero". It can also apply to flight levels of course.
Something goes missing in the conversion of human voice to RT.
I don't necessarily advocate the ""TREE", but clear and slower enunciation always helps on both sides.
Something goes missing in the conversion of human voice to RT.
I don't necessarily advocate the ""TREE", but clear and slower enunciation always helps on both sides.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R_S,
Completely agree. It has saved me countless times, asking a pilot "confirm assigned nin-ER thousand", as that is a level we assign a lot (base of E ).
I will bite and say that I am one of the few that uses "tree", but only in assigning FLs and frequency changes. I have found it does eliminate the majority of incorrect readbacks.
RT is definitely becoming slacker on both sides of the fence, and like you I will often be one to initiate a "G'day" on transfer. But for those pilots out there, if we ask you to "say again cleared level" or "clipped transmission, say again", don't get annoyed and readback "NIN-ER THOU-SAND, AIR-LINE TWO THIR-TY TWO"; it's not because we really love hearing your voice and wasting time, we are trying to protect us both!! (and save, at a minimum, an embarrasing stand-down and wrist slap, but what could be much worse....
). We're all playing the same game here!!
Blastoid.
Completely agree. It has saved me countless times, asking a pilot "confirm assigned nin-ER thousand", as that is a level we assign a lot (base of E
).I will bite and say that I am one of the few that uses "tree", but only in assigning FLs and frequency changes. I have found it does eliminate the majority of incorrect readbacks.
RT is definitely becoming slacker on both sides of the fence, and like you I will often be one to initiate a "G'day" on transfer. But for those pilots out there, if we ask you to "say again cleared level" or "clipped transmission, say again", don't get annoyed and readback "NIN-ER THOU-SAND, AIR-LINE TWO THIR-TY TWO"; it's not because we really love hearing your voice and wasting time, we are trying to protect us both!! (and save, at a minimum, an embarrasing stand-down and wrist slap, but what could be much worse....
). We're all playing the same game here!!Blastoid.
Have to agree about the similarity between "two" and "three", especially when used in sequence.
Can think of a number of times I have personally f*cked up or heard someone else f*ck up something like reading back a frequency - "One three two decimal eight" instead of "one two three decimal eight".
Can think of a number of times I have personally f*cked up or heard someone else f*ck up something like reading back a frequency - "One three two decimal eight" instead of "one two three decimal eight".
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 & 3
Transition Layer & jungmeister,
Completely agree. Up in my neck of the woods we use 123.0 (within range of 133.0), 133.0, 133.2, 133.8 and 134.4 (within range of another station 124.4). We are very careful to listen for frequency readbacks (hence also why I use TREE, especially with a number of foreign pilots in the area), and still some go to the wrong frequency!!
Completely agree. Up in my neck of the woods we use 123.0 (within range of 133.0), 133.0, 133.2, 133.8 and 134.4 (within range of another station 124.4). We are very careful to listen for frequency readbacks (hence also why I use TREE, especially with a number of foreign pilots in the area), and still some go to the wrong frequency!!
"Two" and "Three" on the Yank ATIS have been a pet hate of mine for years but nobody will listen...
The Australian way of callsign first was better to reduce the effect of clipping: "Foxtrot November Romeo nine (r) thousand" but then I suppose the serial speed-mouths would chop (no pun intended) off the "foxtrot"...
The Australian way of callsign first was better to reduce the effect of clipping: "Foxtrot November Romeo nine (r) thousand" but then I suppose the serial speed-mouths would chop (no pun intended) off the "foxtrot"...
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 30th Aug 2006 at 02:11. Reason: to make my post funnier/cleverer/smarter
From listening on my trusty hand held receiver I am very surprised at the amount of reading back by pilots of instructions that are not required by AIP to be read back. G'days, cheers, thanks, please, all these are superfluous yet are common on the air waves. These are only minor non-standards but other read backs are just nothing but lazy practices based on "when in doubt, read everything back and the bastards can't nail you".
Is the clarity of VHF transmissions in Australia so bad that reading back of practically everything is needed? What is good for ICAO is not necessarily good for Australia where the vast number of R/T transmissions are in Aussie accents.
Perhaps the number of excessive read backs could be reduced if ATC gave an instruction or clearance adding the words "Read Back" at the end of the message. No read back needed unless the controller asks for it. It would take a quantum change in radio procedure philosophy from ICAO recommended practices which are aimed primarily at the English second language (or third or fourth) operators.
After all, the last time I looked, the term "Read back" was still part of ICAO terminology. My bet is the steady increase over the years of additional read-backs published in AIP, is probably due more to arse-covering in the legal sense rather than a history of mis-understanding by pilots.
Is the clarity of VHF transmissions in Australia so bad that reading back of practically everything is needed? What is good for ICAO is not necessarily good for Australia where the vast number of R/T transmissions are in Aussie accents.
Perhaps the number of excessive read backs could be reduced if ATC gave an instruction or clearance adding the words "Read Back" at the end of the message. No read back needed unless the controller asks for it. It would take a quantum change in radio procedure philosophy from ICAO recommended practices which are aimed primarily at the English second language (or third or fourth) operators.
After all, the last time I looked, the term "Read back" was still part of ICAO terminology. My bet is the steady increase over the years of additional read-backs published in AIP, is probably due more to arse-covering in the legal sense rather than a history of mis-understanding by pilots.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, if you say 'two' and 'tree' they sound every bit as similar - perhaps even more so - as 'two' and 'three'.
Maybe the answer is for everyone to just stop bloody clipping, slurring, and rushing your R/T!
Nuff said.
Maybe the answer is for everyone to just stop bloody clipping, slurring, and rushing your R/T!
Nuff said.
Centaurus,
You bet wrong. Readbacks were generally much less than present (and much better documented) until ICAO R/T was introduced by the Dick Smith Internationalisation brigade a few years ago.
Nothing wrong with being friendly on the radio...as long as it doesn't "force" a perhaps busy controller to make an extra transmission to reply in kind.
My bet is the steady increase over the years of additional read-backs published in AIP, is probably due more to arse-covering in the legal sense rather than a history of mis-understanding by pilots.
Nothing wrong with being friendly on the radio...as long as it doesn't "force" a perhaps busy controller to make an extra transmission to reply in kind.
Fully agree with the importance of 'niner'.
Been hearing a few excessive readbacks lately (p'raps known to get a bit verbose myself, though I try not to) - the 'line up behind' one gets them.
I know ATC are supposed to say the word 'behind' twice, but there's a bit of readback creep sometimes and it gets read back twice as well.
I'd go back to saying the callsign first any day, not necessary to change it, I thought, and it just feels unnatural (shows I'm getting older I s'pose).
Been hearing a few excessive readbacks lately (p'raps known to get a bit verbose myself, though I try not to) - the 'line up behind' one gets them.
I know ATC are supposed to say the word 'behind' twice, but there's a bit of readback creep sometimes and it gets read back twice as well.
I'd go back to saying the callsign first any day, not necessary to change it, I thought, and it just feels unnatural (shows I'm getting older I s'pose).