RADIO CALLS!
Ok, my two bobs worth.
I'm not sure why people can't come to terms with correct R/T. It really isn't that hard to read, understand and repeat.
With R/T, (as with many things in life), those that argue 'It's not that important', or 'as long as I get the general idea out there' are usually too lazy to try (and not brave enough to admit they're lazy) or lack the spare capacity to operate an aircraft AND make correct R/T at the same time.
The rules are rules, and as PROFESSIONAL pilots, we should, at the very least, ATTEMPT to make srandard and correct R/T.
A lot (notice it is A LOT and not alot
) of what we say on the radio is said in a particular fashion for a reason. If you think it is wrong, write a submission to CASA to have it changed.
Of all the things we as aviators face and are expected to do, making correct radio calls should be the easiest of the lot.
Read, remember, repeat.
As an old instructor of mine once said (talking particularly about formation - but it applies to flying in general) "look good coming over the base, and sound good on over radio".
Over and out😜
(yes I know that is wrong - I'm joking for god's sake )
I'm not sure why people can't come to terms with correct R/T. It really isn't that hard to read, understand and repeat.
With R/T, (as with many things in life), those that argue 'It's not that important', or 'as long as I get the general idea out there' are usually too lazy to try (and not brave enough to admit they're lazy) or lack the spare capacity to operate an aircraft AND make correct R/T at the same time.
The rules are rules, and as PROFESSIONAL pilots, we should, at the very least, ATTEMPT to make srandard and correct R/T.
A lot (notice it is A LOT and not alot
) of what we say on the radio is said in a particular fashion for a reason. If you think it is wrong, write a submission to CASA to have it changed. Of all the things we as aviators face and are expected to do, making correct radio calls should be the easiest of the lot.
Read, remember, repeat.
As an old instructor of mine once said (talking particularly about formation - but it applies to flying in general) "look good coming over the base, and sound good on over radio".
Over and out😜
(yes I know that is wrong - I'm joking for god's sake
)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we're at it
Doesn't exist any more. It's: Surveillance!
Ps. Duff Man's onto the leaving/left case to get it removed altogether. Waste of r/t in controlled airspace.
Radar
Ps. Duff Man's onto the leaving/left case to get it removed altogether. Waste of r/t in controlled airspace.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread subject comes up every year or so and is always interesting and has a few laughs!
However nobody seems to examine how these problems (if they are so) come about? If you go back to basic flight schools you will find that R/T is one of the few subjects that is not subject to a CASA exam. It is left to the flying school and the CFI to set the standards and provide the instruction etc by whatever method. This brings about what might be considered a lack of standardisation and we see this right thru the industry and have done so for the past 10 or 20 years. Even the C&T Captains at the top end of the market do the same and there is a failure to understand and teach what is correct. Some domestic RPT/Regional pilots are the worst offenders.....
Trouble is they don't know what they don't know and an understanding of ATC/ATS is not in the pilot syllabus. Those that have such an understanding are usually more proficient in their R/T use.
So what is the problem? Yes lets speak ICAO English and abide wherever possible with the AIP. However once again it is the interpretations of what is published that fail to provide the standardisation that is intended.
Whilst the AIP is published by ASA, it is CASA that is the author of the subject matter under discussion.
Why do pilots get it wrong? Instruction and standardisation is top of the list in my book and a failure by CASA to even understand the issues and provide the much needed standardisation....!
My pet hates include:
Many procedures changed when TAAATS was introduced so as to give the controllers time to get used to the new system. Sadly many of the then temporary procedures (?) are still in place. Do we really need them now?
By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.
Whilst I have the greatest respect for our controllers, there is a culture within that does not exist in other major aviation countries….. I remember an experienced international pilot saying once; Why is it that all over the world you are treated by ATC as a professional until you show yourself to be and idiot, but in Oz, on first contact, one is often treated as an idiot until you show you are a professional?
As is shown by the size of this thread, there is much interest in this subject, however everyone looks at it in a different way, and whilst they do, we will continue to have these discussions. As said previously, there is not much that can be done about it now.
However nobody seems to examine how these problems (if they are so) come about? If you go back to basic flight schools you will find that R/T is one of the few subjects that is not subject to a CASA exam. It is left to the flying school and the CFI to set the standards and provide the instruction etc by whatever method. This brings about what might be considered a lack of standardisation and we see this right thru the industry and have done so for the past 10 or 20 years. Even the C&T Captains at the top end of the market do the same and there is a failure to understand and teach what is correct. Some domestic RPT/Regional pilots are the worst offenders.....
Trouble is they don't know what they don't know and an understanding of ATC/ATS is not in the pilot syllabus. Those that have such an understanding are usually more proficient in their R/T use.
So what is the problem? Yes lets speak ICAO English and abide wherever possible with the AIP. However once again it is the interpretations of what is published that fail to provide the standardisation that is intended.
Whilst the AIP is published by ASA, it is CASA that is the author of the subject matter under discussion.
Why do pilots get it wrong? Instruction and standardisation is top of the list in my book and a failure by CASA to even understand the issues and provide the much needed standardisation....!
My pet hates include:
- Acknowledge and acknowledgment
- Too many readbacks
- Not including location in broadcasts on descent in G (ATC might know, but other pilots don't!)
- Too much "offering" (the practice of establishing coms prior to passing info) They don't do this o/s, so why in Oz? Are pilots and controllers not able to pick something up the first time - they used to be able to!]
Many procedures changed when TAAATS was introduced so as to give the controllers time to get used to the new system. Sadly many of the then temporary procedures (?) are still in place. Do we really need them now?
By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.
Whilst I have the greatest respect for our controllers, there is a culture within that does not exist in other major aviation countries….. I remember an experienced international pilot saying once; Why is it that all over the world you are treated by ATC as a professional until you show yourself to be and idiot, but in Oz, on first contact, one is often treated as an idiot until you show you are a professional?
As is shown by the size of this thread, there is much interest in this subject, however everyone looks at it in a different way, and whilst they do, we will continue to have these discussions. As said previously, there is not much that can be done about it now.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think every country has problems with RT standards, and as a recently arrival to Australia myself I've made my fair share of nonsense calls at regional ports.
Although I've read the relevant section of the AIP (twice), it seems to be written by people of a legal mindset rather than an instructional mindset. Some countries have introduced RT Guides for pilots. These are written in the style of a CAAP - that is, readable and simple with practical examples. Much like one or two of the posts here in fact!
I thought of writing something myself - to teach myself mainly, but also anyone else who wanted to read a practical RT guide. But I simply can't do it based on the AIP. There are too many missing bits and exceptions and too much that can't be interpreted correctly without extra explanation.
Although I've read the relevant section of the AIP (twice), it seems to be written by people of a legal mindset rather than an instructional mindset. Some countries have introduced RT Guides for pilots. These are written in the style of a CAAP - that is, readable and simple with practical examples. Much like one or two of the posts here in fact!
I thought of writing something myself - to teach myself mainly, but also anyone else who wanted to read a practical RT guide. But I simply can't do it based on the AIP. There are too many missing bits and exceptions and too much that can't be interpreted correctly without extra explanation.
Last edited by Oktas8; 17th Jan 2012 at 04:20.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.
Whilst I have the greatest respect for our controllers, there is a culture within that does not exist in other major aviation countries….. I remember an experienced international pilot saying once; Why is it that all over the world you are treated by ATC as a professional until you show yourself to be and idiot, but in Oz, on first contact, one is often treated as an idiot until you show you are a professional?
As is shown by the size of this thread, there is much interest in this subject, however everyone looks at it in a different way, and whilst they do, we will continue to have these discussions. As said previously, there is not much that can be done about it now.
So why do we have to read back QNH when we state we've already received the current ATIS?
By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.
Great to see that, now you are out in the big wide world, you have notice that ICAO/US/UK actually know what they are doing, and it all works, with about a tenth of the 'Standard Phrases" in the Australian AIP.
Where "communications" is the name of the game --- not "complying with procedures".
As to the question, why read back the QNH when it is on the ATIS --- dead bodies is why!! --- as a result of accidents that created said dead bodies ---- ICAO made it a SARP, and despite considerable opposition here at the time, it was adopted.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QNH
When the procedures and R/T were revamped in 1997, the QNH was discussed for hours. It got up, as it was an ICAO recommendation. One of the points that failed to be understood by the CASA rep on that working group was that "Area QNH" is information and as such should not be a readback. He did not really understand and now many read back the AQNH! Don’t know if that was the intent, but it certainly is the result. Everybody was just too busy to fully work thru the PIR of those changes.
READBACKS
Major problem is that many just don’t understand the system and what is needed, hence the default position of reading everything back. (which was warned of in the 97 working group discussions) Some even readback traffic info... give me a break! It is just not required!
ATC STAFF LEVELS
Have to agree that there is a problem in Oz, and the real problem started way back in the early 90s when we saw the bulk introduction and use of re-transmission. Many pilots don't understand the concept and sadly there are some controllers that can’t seem to use it efficiently. Once I thought it was the system, but on different days with different controllers it can be very different.
CULTURE
Like it or not there is a different culture in every countries ATC world. My quote is some years old, but there is nothing to suggest it has changed much. Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner. Maybe if the AG's Dept got out of writing many of Oz documents it might improve??
We can only do our best and work within the guidelines we have…..
When the procedures and R/T were revamped in 1997, the QNH was discussed for hours. It got up, as it was an ICAO recommendation. One of the points that failed to be understood by the CASA rep on that working group was that "Area QNH" is information and as such should not be a readback. He did not really understand and now many read back the AQNH! Don’t know if that was the intent, but it certainly is the result. Everybody was just too busy to fully work thru the PIR of those changes.
READBACKS
Major problem is that many just don’t understand the system and what is needed, hence the default position of reading everything back. (which was warned of in the 97 working group discussions) Some even readback traffic info... give me a break! It is just not required!
ATC STAFF LEVELS
Have to agree that there is a problem in Oz, and the real problem started way back in the early 90s when we saw the bulk introduction and use of re-transmission. Many pilots don't understand the concept and sadly there are some controllers that can’t seem to use it efficiently. Once I thought it was the system, but on different days with different controllers it can be very different.
CULTURE
Like it or not there is a different culture in every countries ATC world. My quote is some years old, but there is nothing to suggest it has changed much. Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner. Maybe if the AG's Dept got out of writing many of Oz documents it might improve??
We can only do our best and work within the guidelines we have…..
Folks,
As I have posted on a number of other threads on this subject, lousy training from the start is a major problem here ----- and with the unholy "compliance" mindset, we have the "pingya" credo.
Thus, to quote a well know CFI from the Sydney area:
"Read everything back, then they can't pingya".
Good communications doesn't get a look in with this kind of training, even if this CFI had some understanding of what proper communications are --- which he doesn't.
And, as we all know, what is learned first is learned best. Bad habits inculcated during the first few hours of training are hard to shift.
Tootle pip!!
As I have posted on a number of other threads on this subject, lousy training from the start is a major problem here ----- and with the unholy "compliance" mindset, we have the "pingya" credo.
Thus, to quote a well know CFI from the Sydney area:
"Read everything back, then they can't pingya".
Good communications doesn't get a look in with this kind of training, even if this CFI had some understanding of what proper communications are --- which he doesn't.
And, as we all know, what is learned first is learned best. Bad habits inculcated during the first few hours of training are hard to shift.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner.
As Leadsled says (good lord! Taking a good, long, hard look at myself) If it's learnt correctly from the start it'll be done properly. The school at Mangalore that does international students (Asian) obviously teach the students the correct calls...........because they are correct.............right from the start. I have not heard one of them utter 'Request traffic and code' when they are given IFR traffic they don't read all the superfluous garbage back, just their callsign.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day read the ATC section of the Jepps plus the Met section or the AIP and pronounce phrases as printed in black and white. This is what ATC and other pilots are expecting to hear. How often do you hear a controller making up there own calls? It just doesn't happen. The format passes the required info in a concise and predictable manner.
As stated, monkey see monkey do. One must be trained from the start. Take pride in your profession. Most of all, think before pressing the PTT.
As stated, monkey see monkey do. One must be trained from the start. Take pride in your profession. Most of all, think before pressing the PTT.
Unfortunately many local students who get taught the correct calls then start a GA journey that exposes them to dribble from other pilots.
Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner.
Triadic, most of your stuff is pretty good but ...what did you mean by that?? How do you communicate in a professional manner if you don't get it right by the book? Or are you suggesting that we be professional by doing our own thing? Maybe professional means using a deep voice? How about we 1/comply with the rules and then, if we don't like them, 2/Change them?
As ever, you simply don't understand. Having come from the land of compliance downunder, where parroting phrases "by the book" takes precedence over Annex X, Vol. 2, and such parroting is regarded by people like you as the "height of professionalism".
Ruled by rules, saves you having to think.
"Communications", as the rest of the aviation world understands it, doesn't get a look in with you, does it. Just follow the "rules". Sadly, so many of Australia's self confessed "professionals" sound like rank amateurs to those who actually know and understand the meaning behind the ICAO/UK/US/NZ etc., etc.practices, procedures and recommendations.
Pity you haven't been exposed, in any meaningful sense, to the world of aviation outside Australia, then you might have developed some understanding as those of us who have spent large parts of our aviation professional lives outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- particularly outside the Australian psychological 12 mile limit. understand.
Then you would understand what Triadic is saying.
Tootle pip!!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,967
Received 93 Likes
on
54 Posts
Pity you haven't been exposed, in any meaningful sense, to the world of aviation outside Australia, then you might have developed some understanding as those of us who have spent large parts of our aviation professional lives outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- particularly outside the Australian psychological 12 mile limit. understand.
One thing that struck me was that both ATC and Flight Service were total professionals (likewise all other pilot I had the pleasure of working with) and their radio communications were just that,Communications! Clear and precise.
There was however, one particular Female FSO who once used some non standard phraseology to me but that was because I..........
I completely agree with the author of the original post. The lack of standard phraseology is increasing.
For those who have said it's just a case of willy waving, and unimportant in the "big picture", have a look here:
http://www.pan-american.de/Desasters/Teneriff2.html
Before some of you jump up and down about accident theory, I understand there were a hell of a lot of holes in different pieces of cheese and that the KLM Captain's impatience was probably the over-riding factor. But this is a prime example where standard phraseology deteriorated into improvised radio rabble - and the end result was the world's largest single aviation accident.
The other surprising fact about many of the responses to the original post is that many people fail to make the connection between slack/lazy radio use, and overall operational professionalism. I can almost guarantee that a crew who make the effort to be accurate and compliant with AIP radio calls are more than likely to carry that professionalism through to other aspects of their flying. Fair enough, "pending clearance" or "IFR taxi" might not kill someone, but if a pilot is lazy enough to not give a sh*t about it, then tells me a lot about their attitude to other aspects of their profession.
You want some willy waving? Heard a guy make every CTAF call the other day with "SUPER King Air 350, ABC....". What a tool
I resisted the urge to say "Super Boeing 737-800 Series Next Generation" in my subsequent CTAF calls, but wasn't easy
.
For those who have said it's just a case of willy waving, and unimportant in the "big picture", have a look here:
http://www.pan-american.de/Desasters/Teneriff2.html
Before some of you jump up and down about accident theory, I understand there were a hell of a lot of holes in different pieces of cheese and that the KLM Captain's impatience was probably the over-riding factor. But this is a prime example where standard phraseology deteriorated into improvised radio rabble - and the end result was the world's largest single aviation accident.
The other surprising fact about many of the responses to the original post is that many people fail to make the connection between slack/lazy radio use, and overall operational professionalism. I can almost guarantee that a crew who make the effort to be accurate and compliant with AIP radio calls are more than likely to carry that professionalism through to other aspects of their flying. Fair enough, "pending clearance" or "IFR taxi" might not kill someone, but if a pilot is lazy enough to not give a sh*t about it, then tells me a lot about their attitude to other aspects of their profession.
You want some willy waving? Heard a guy make every CTAF call the other day with "SUPER King Air 350, ABC....". What a tool
I resisted the urge to say "Super Boeing 737-800 Series Next Generation" in my subsequent CTAF calls, but wasn't easy
.