R/T phraseology .... AGAIN!
Its called Professionalism
Russell says:
Opinions are like a*seholes, everyone has one. It does not matter whether you consider it justified, the fact is (not opinion) that it is incorrect terminology to use the term, 'Pending Clearance'.
Soulman asks:
I hope Krusty does not mind me answering for him, but the correct terminology is simply, "Climbing to FL???" In other words, your flight planned level, regardless of what class of airspace that level maybe. ATC will either deny you clearance, provide you clearance to that level or provide you with an intermediate level until your flight planned level becomes available.
Another bad habit that creeps in, or more that it is not properly taught at the instructing phase is continually calling the ATC station by their station name or just 'Centre' for every subsequent request. Eg - 'BN Centre, ABC maintaining FL???' A few minutes later, 'BN Centre (or Centre), ABC request .....', then shortly thereafter, BN Centre (or Centre) ABC request ...' and each subsequent request is still prefixed with 'BN Centre' or Centre.
Reference to the ATC station should be called only the one time on initial contact. After that it should just be 'ABC request ...' and so on for each subsequent request or other matter, until instructed to contact the following frequency.
JT
Re the "pending clearance" whinge, I can see why a pilot would use this phrase. When departing from an uncontrolled airport and climbing to, say FL220, use of this phrase stops ATC from replying with "remain outside controlled airspace etc." or similar, meaning don't climb above FL180 until you've got your clearance, which actually clutters up the radio more than simply saying "I'm climbing to FL220 pending clearance" does.
Soulman asks:
Re the "climbing FLXXX pending clearance" - what is the correct phraseology Krusty?
Another bad habit that creeps in, or more that it is not properly taught at the instructing phase is continually calling the ATC station by their station name or just 'Centre' for every subsequent request. Eg - 'BN Centre, ABC maintaining FL???' A few minutes later, 'BN Centre (or Centre), ABC request .....', then shortly thereafter, BN Centre (or Centre) ABC request ...' and each subsequent request is still prefixed with 'BN Centre' or Centre.
Reference to the ATC station should be called only the one time on initial contact. After that it should just be 'ABC request ...' and so on for each subsequent request or other matter, until instructed to contact the following frequency.
JT
Last edited by Jenna Talia; 6th Apr 2008 at 13:12.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boggabilla
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My favourites at the moment
"Centre, ABC airborne at YXXX standby for departure"
No worries tool - i'm sure centre's just pissing in anticipation.
Love the callsign at the beginning and end of each tx
On CTAF "QFxxxx an IFR 737 bla bla bla" - not to be confused with one of those VFR 737s out there
Sorry, just being cynical now
HF is fun at times also.Must people prefix every single fecking call with FLIGHTWATCH! FLIGHTWATCH! 6565?
"Centre, ABC airborne at YXXX standby for departure"
No worries tool - i'm sure centre's just pissing in anticipation.
Love the callsign at the beginning and end of each tx
On CTAF "QFxxxx an IFR 737 bla bla bla" - not to be confused with one of those VFR 737s out there
Sorry, just being cynical now
HF is fun at times also.Must people prefix every single fecking call with FLIGHTWATCH! FLIGHTWATCH! 6565?
Last edited by SmokingHole; 6th Apr 2008 at 13:27.
Bush pilot...nothing. In fact best to keep doing it. That practice hails back to the days when everyone flew full reporting with the requirement to give an estimate for each reporting point/destination + or- 2 minutes and before GPS was invented. These days most have GPS therefore arrival time can be given exactley. Problem is most of the drivers tooling around today know no different so estimates are a bit confusing for them.
Ofcourse I could throw in a mention of the old AFIZ and really confound them
So long as other drivers in the circuit know when and what direction you are arriving from that's fine.
Ofcourse I could throw in a mention of the old AFIZ and really confound them
So long as other drivers in the circuit know when and what direction you are arriving from that's fine.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Jenna - I've heard a few different takes on that one. "climbing FLXXX pending clearance" or "climbing OCTA requesting FLXXX" or just "climbing OCTA" and was keen to hear what the correct call was.
Ironically, it appears to be stemming from the top though.
Ironically, it appears to be stemming from the top though.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cairns
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On CTAF "QFxxxx an IFR 737 bla bla bla" - not to be confused with one of those VFR 737s out there
- For departure at a non-controlled aerodrome.
*"(aircraft type)[POB] [IFR(if operating IFR)]TAXIING (location) FOR (destination or intentions) RUNWAY (number)."
"Centre, ABC airborne at YXXX standby for departure"
No worries tool - i'm sure centre's just pissing in anticipation
No worries tool - i'm sure centre's just pissing in anticipation
-To intiate a SARWATCH when communications on the ground is not available.
*"AIRBORNE (location)"
Something about glass houses comes to mind.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it all matters nought if the pilot isn't even on the correct CTAF. THREE MONTHS after the effective changeover date!
RPT, Jet Charter, GA.... all as guilty as each other on that one.
RPT, Jet Charter, GA.... all as guilty as each other on that one.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately folks I can attest that after almost 30 years in aviation I have witnessed the gradual but continual demise of good R/T phraseology. Once upon a time people used to think that it was a sign of our professionalism to use a frequency with the correct and concise phrases as described in AIP.
The impact of this loss is a greater propensity to misunderstand or misinterpret calls made by ATC or other aircraft thereby reducing safety. Further, the busier it gets on the frequency the more important it becomes to ensure you only give the required readback otherwise frequency congestion can quickly occur with some dire consequences.
The solution lies with Instructors at flying schools knowing the correct phraseologies and teaching them and Check Officers enforcing professional R/T. Listen to the R/T at any GAAP aerodrome and you will find that a lot of Instructors (including CFI's) do not use the correct phraseology in the circuit and so the student learn's these bad habits. Hence the demise in R/T standards.
May I suggest useful analogy? Imagine that a readback is like a receipt to a financial transaction. ATC issues an instruction as per AIP and you respond with the correct readback as a receipt to the verbal transaction. Your correct readback confirms to the ATC that you have heard and understood the instruction and will comply. Also when ATC issues an instruction to another aircraft wait until that aircraft responds before jumping in with your call.
It isn't that hard is it?
The impact of this loss is a greater propensity to misunderstand or misinterpret calls made by ATC or other aircraft thereby reducing safety. Further, the busier it gets on the frequency the more important it becomes to ensure you only give the required readback otherwise frequency congestion can quickly occur with some dire consequences.
The solution lies with Instructors at flying schools knowing the correct phraseologies and teaching them and Check Officers enforcing professional R/T. Listen to the R/T at any GAAP aerodrome and you will find that a lot of Instructors (including CFI's) do not use the correct phraseology in the circuit and so the student learn's these bad habits. Hence the demise in R/T standards.
May I suggest useful analogy? Imagine that a readback is like a receipt to a financial transaction. ATC issues an instruction as per AIP and you respond with the correct readback as a receipt to the verbal transaction. Your correct readback confirms to the ATC that you have heard and understood the instruction and will comply. Also when ATC issues an instruction to another aircraft wait until that aircraft responds before jumping in with your call.
It isn't that hard is it?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I mention the number of superfluous instructions ATC issue?
I intend to consult mister Jepps on the "correctness" of these phrases, but regardless, I think we can agree the additional words carry no real meaning. Examples:
"Line up and wait RW 16R"
Was I going to do anything else after lining up?
ABC - "Tower, ABC ready"
Tower "ABC - Hold at the holding point"
Again, what else am I going to do?
Climb and maintain 5000'
But my current irk is people requesting airways clearance, taxi clearance etc. But I suppose "that's the way I've always done it!"
I know there's plenty out there who couldn't care less, but I like to think that a professional is someone who knows that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. That's why I'll be sticking my head in the books to make sure I get these right. Lead, follow, or get out of my way.
I intend to consult mister Jepps on the "correctness" of these phrases, but regardless, I think we can agree the additional words carry no real meaning. Examples:
"Line up and wait RW 16R"
Was I going to do anything else after lining up?
ABC - "Tower, ABC ready"
Tower "ABC - Hold at the holding point"
Again, what else am I going to do?
Climb and maintain 5000'
But my current irk is people requesting airways clearance, taxi clearance etc. But I suppose "that's the way I've always done it!"
I know there's plenty out there who couldn't care less, but I like to think that a professional is someone who knows that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. That's why I'll be sticking my head in the books to make sure I get these right. Lead, follow, or get out of my way.
Unfortunately, the AIP is no longer easy to interperate. Trevor Tomms used to write a book listing all radio phraseology in a manner that left nothing to question. Such a book is now sadly needed. If there is such a book currently available, could someone please post its' details. Neither the AIP or Jepps fit this description.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, all phraseology has recently been removed from MATS. Theoretically controllers and pilots should both be working from the same document when it comes to phraseology: AIP.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoking Hole:
Actually, as a controller, this makes sense. Hopefully most of you know that ATC start to initiate SAR if you fail to call a departure ten minutes after you give a taxi call. So, in effect the pilot is saying that "I know it's close to the time you'll start bugging me, I'm still here & alive, just airborne, I'll give you a call in a tick". At least that's what I have seen it used for.
Icarus53:
These are all examples of what we are now required to say. I believe the changes were to ensure people knew that yes, you are getting an instruction which usually gets a following one pretty quickly, but this may not be the case this time. Climb to an maintain means you can expect to level off at 5000, whereas climb to 5000 usually means that it's a level peg for my separation proving purposes, but I don't expect you to level off. I'm not saying I'm a fan, but it more of the old arse covering again.....
Cheers,
NFR.
"Centre, ABC airborne at YXXX standby for departure"
No worries tool - i'm sure centre's just pissing in anticipation.
No worries tool - i'm sure centre's just pissing in anticipation.
Icarus53:
"Line up and wait RW 16R"
"ABC - Hold at the holding point"
Climb and maintain 5000'
"ABC - Hold at the holding point"
Climb and maintain 5000'
Cheers,
NFR.
Actually, as a controller, this makes sense. Hopefully most of you know that ATC start to initiate SAR if you fail to call a departure ten minutes after you give a taxi call. So, in effect the pilot is saying that "I know it's close to the time you'll start bugging me, I'm still here & alive, just airborne, I'll give you a call in a tick". At least that's what I have seen it used for.
I once heard a QF B737 calling a five mile final at YPKA. "QFxxxx, 5 mile final runway 08 full-stop landing." I had to bite my tongue and didn't say, "so not doing a touch and go today then Qantas?"
"Pending clearance" doesn't achieve anything. If centre wants you to remain outside controlled airspace they still have to say it, and you still have to read it back. Just call climbing to same way you tell them you're tracking to a point within controlled airspace. You don't say "Tracking to YSSY pending clearance" do you?
"Standby for departure"
"Centre, ABC Airborne location" is all that is required in G if you want to make contact and start your SAR.
Can anyone enlighten this poor VHF pilot why at YMMB has "Gedday Moorabbin Tower Warrior XYZ ready 17 left for the circuit",
been replaced with "Cessna 172 ABC ready 17 left for the circuit dual with November?"
been replaced with "Cessna 172 ABC ready 17 left for the circuit dual with November?"