Changes to departure reports
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the idea behind the initial position ref the departure aerodrome and the estimate is to give VFR guys in Class E some chance of working out where you are. For example YPPD, CTAF and class E to 180 but ADSB gets identified in the cct.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF - exactly - see and avoid dictates that someone needs to know where to look to avoid. May not work but it sure feels better!
As to ICAO - they are silent on "climbing to" or "on climb".
Jack - maybe you should seek out the correct unit to give your feedback and input - I can assure you it will be listened to.
As to ICAO - they are silent on "climbing to" or "on climb".
Jack - maybe you should seek out the correct unit to give your feedback and input - I can assure you it will be listened to.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu,
Fair point mate, obviously not much room for misinterpretation here, but consider the use of the word "to" when descending. Believe it or not, it has happened before where the word "to" has caused some confusion as to the cleared altitude. In one instance, for the unfortunate crew of an unfortunate 747, culminated in controlled flight into terrain.
"...ATC radioed to the flight, "Tiger 66, descend two four zero zero [2,400 ft]. Cleared for NDB approach runway three three." The captain of Tiger 66, who heard "descend to four zero zero" replied with, "Okay, four zero zero" (meaning 400 ft above sea level, which was 2,000 ft too low). The proper radio call from ATC, instead of "descend two four zero zero", should have been "descend and maintain two thousand four hundred feet". The captain read back "okay, four zero zero" where the proper read back should have been "Roger, descend and maintain four-hundred feet"...."
source: Flying Tiger Line Flight 66 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clearly this is an example of a prized f&*k-up, but if there is ambiguity to be had out of a phrase then a "standard phraseology" shall be employed, don't you agree?
I say "do away" with use of the word "to".
So, where in the world is to/two six thousand an altitude?
"...ATC radioed to the flight, "Tiger 66, descend two four zero zero [2,400 ft]. Cleared for NDB approach runway three three." The captain of Tiger 66, who heard "descend to four zero zero" replied with, "Okay, four zero zero" (meaning 400 ft above sea level, which was 2,000 ft too low). The proper radio call from ATC, instead of "descend two four zero zero", should have been "descend and maintain two thousand four hundred feet". The captain read back "okay, four zero zero" where the proper read back should have been "Roger, descend and maintain four-hundred feet"...."
source: Flying Tiger Line Flight 66 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clearly this is an example of a prized f&*k-up, but if there is ambiguity to be had out of a phrase then a "standard phraseology" shall be employed, don't you agree?
I say "do away" with use of the word "to".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
especially when dealing with a culture of sloppy and lazy R/T.
This is exactly where the problem lies.
And in the USA this is quite common. In fact correct R/T is rare.
For a professional pilot and ATC to make the same mistake requires a pretty special cock up.
This has all been created because of "high pressure" on (I assume) jet crews that can't handle low-level controlled airspace. May I suggest that a clearance be obtained when taxiing? This may not always be available, but when it is it would obviate the need for all this gnashing of teeth and abbreviated departure calls, which, as pointed out earlier, serve the very useful purpose of letting VFR know what is going on.
And in the USA this is quite common. In fact correct R/T is rare.
Europe, and the UK especially, use "to" in every climb/descent instruction - however they also require the word "altitude" when specifying altitudes and "flight level" for levels.
"Checkers 123 descend to altitude five thousand feet"
Personally, I omit "to" in my readbacks - but that's just my Australian habit.
"Checkers 123 descend to altitude five thousand feet"
Personally, I omit "to" in my readbacks - but that's just my Australian habit.
Adopt the UK/EU method
The Europe UK method of reporting a climb or descent gets my vote too....it is simple clear and provides a suitable subtle reminder to double check your Altimeter setting.
I also like that they also set QNH/Standard when cleared to altitudes/levels below or above the TL.
Lets get rid of the "to/two" confusion and dump it and while we are at it lose the "feet" in reports as well.
ATC - "Descend or climb altitude x thousand/flight level xx"
Pilot - "Climbing/Descending altitude x thousand/flight level xx"
Geez, couldn't be simpler or clearer than that CASA - Airservices!
I also like that they also set QNH/Standard when cleared to altitudes/levels below or above the TL.
Lets get rid of the "to/two" confusion and dump it and while we are at it lose the "feet" in reports as well.
ATC - "Descend or climb altitude x thousand/flight level xx"
Pilot - "Climbing/Descending altitude x thousand/flight level xx"
Geez, couldn't be simpler or clearer than that CASA - Airservices!
Nice to see they are concentrating on the really important stuff!!
I mean who gives a rats really??
This is designed by some smart assed bureaucrat with nothing better to do.
I say we remove the Australian AIP and use an ICAO one instead.
I mean who gives a rats really??
This is designed by some smart assed bureaucrat with nothing better to do.
I say we remove the Australian AIP and use an ICAO one instead.
Seriously who cares.
Just rattle off the important stuff then get on with it.
Its just not important
Just rattle off the important stuff then get on with it.
Its just not important
It starts with a radio call, finishes in the side of a mountain after you think something else is rubbish too.
There are operators who can comply with AIP phraseology, why can't everyone?
morno
Jack Ranga
Ouch, I'm hurt. But seriously, I do try and use both the phraseology and procedures that are in common use / work best for ATC. Partly because sounding like you know what you are doing yields better treatment and partly because what works best for you guys, generally results in a smoother ride through CTR space for Class G guys like me.
The point is that the commonly used phraseology doesn't seem to have a lot in common with the AIP. I certainly don't hear the airlines using it. I think "Go West" is closer to the mark in just concentrating on communicating the important details in a logical order, clearly and succinctly.
It seems to me that the major benefit of the changes in standard phraseology is to keep another whole workgroup occupied at CASA.
Our dogma on standard phraseology amuses me when I go to NZ or Thailand, both of whom seem to think the more words in a call the better.
A lot of IFR pilots cannot manage a taxy call let alone any new procedure.
The point is that the commonly used phraseology doesn't seem to have a lot in common with the AIP. I certainly don't hear the airlines using it. I think "Go West" is closer to the mark in just concentrating on communicating the important details in a logical order, clearly and succinctly.
It seems to me that the major benefit of the changes in standard phraseology is to keep another whole workgroup occupied at CASA.
Our dogma on standard phraseology amuses me when I go to NZ or Thailand, both of whom seem to think the more words in a call the better.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that many years ago it used to be that if you listened to the 'airlines' the RT procedure was always correct - unfortunately everyone, (including the 'airlines') now seem to be deciding what they think sounds best and a lot of others follow.
Agree 100% with Morno.
Agree 100% with Morno.
Last edited by hurlingham; 1st Jul 2012 at 08:03.
I used to think the main problem was change fatigue.
I now think the problem has evolved into change indifference.
New terminology or airspace grand plan? Meh, it’s all gonna change again, soon. Don’t worry. Just give it your best shot in plain English, near the position you think’s a good one, and all’s good.
I now think the problem has evolved into change indifference.
New terminology or airspace grand plan? Meh, it’s all gonna change again, soon. Don’t worry. Just give it your best shot in plain English, near the position you think’s a good one, and all’s good.
