"Left" or "Leaving"...What should I say?
Bloggs,
It would be "passing" FL250, NOT left. "Left" is a direction, period.
It would be "passing" FL250, NOT left. "Left" is a direction, period.
All this has nothing to do with "tense" and all to do with standard aviation phraseology.
Forget what you grew up with, there were some really dangerous gotyas
in Australia's "standard phraseology, until we adopted ICAO Annex IX, Vol. 11 on the subject.
Tootle pip11
Forget what you grew up with, there were some really dangerous gotyas
in Australia's "standard phraseology, until we adopted ICAO Annex IX, Vol. 11 on the subject.
Tootle pip11
interesting how such a fairly innocuous few words can lead to pages & pages of dialogue, keeps us amused I guess
Ah center BogunAir 234 where lookin' at some wx up ahead here ....ah request 20 L of trk..........seems to work every time & is riddled with common sense
Wmk2
Ah center BogunAir 234 where lookin' at some wx up ahead here ....ah request 20 L of trk..........seems to work every time & is riddled with common sense
Wmk2
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Di_Vosh
Thanks for nothing (for reminding me).
Australia, home of Capt and ATCO Pedant. Well, that isn't quite true, flt crew are 10 x worse that ATC.
Edit: Only here could you get an AIP on track/route, WTH!
Thanks for nothing (for reminding me).
Australia, home of Capt and ATCO Pedant. Well, that isn't quite true, flt crew are 10 x worse that ATC.
Edit: Only here could you get an AIP on track/route, WTH!
Leadsled, I almost agree with you 100%.
My only disagreement is that it's not Annex IX vol II. It's Annex X vol II
And the final nail in the coffin of the "left-ers" is in the ICAO radio telephony manual doc 9432.
My only disagreement is that it's not Annex IX vol II. It's Annex X vol II
And the final nail in the coffin of the "left-ers" is in the ICAO radio telephony manual doc 9432.
Last edited by compressor stall; 12th Jun 2014 at 11:19. Reason: clarity
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: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
Traffic PPrune; Pinky the pilot leaving `left or leaving` thread, for a less pedantic thread and another glass of red. 
Will report when bottle empty.
Will report when bottle empty.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Left" is a direction, period.
"Left" is only a direction when it is paired with the word "Turn" or I think even "Assigned Heading" for a SID (I don't have these in the back blocks where I bash around so am a little rusty) - you will find no reference to any instruction in the AIP where they just say "Left 200", it is always "Turn left 200", or after take-off "Left turn...."
While it isn't overly hard to know when to use certain phrases, I don't get Nazi over things like "left" or "leaving". I believe that the vast majority of English-to-English speakers do understand both.
How bout we just say "I'm not at FL250 any more, it doesn't matter that I've left it or im leaving it right now, I'm just not there, and im on my way up/down to (insert altitude/level here)"
It's not that they won't understand it. You and I both know what it means on a nice day.
It's for the time when there is some interference in a very busy RT environment and the "turn" is overridden and the receiver thinks he hears something else. You have one word that means two very different things but would need to be paired with another word to be interpreted correctly. Miss that paired word and all bets are off.
Using "leaving" for altitudes and "left" for headings removes this problem - and a layer in the accident chain.
Several hundred people would be alive today if the term, "We are at take-off" was uttered a different way.
It's for the time when there is some interference in a very busy RT environment and the "turn" is overridden and the receiver thinks he hears something else. You have one word that means two very different things but would need to be paired with another word to be interpreted correctly. Miss that paired word and all bets are off.
Using "leaving" for altitudes and "left" for headings removes this problem - and a layer in the accident chain.
Several hundred people would be alive today if the term, "We are at take-off" was uttered a different way.
Last edited by compressor stall; 13th Jun 2014 at 02:32.
Originally Posted by Ledlsead
Forget what you grew up with, there were some really dangerous gotyas
in Australia's "standard phraseology, until we adopted ICAO Annex IX, Vol. 11 on the subject.
in Australia's "standard phraseology, until we adopted ICAO Annex IX, Vol. 11 on the subject.
As for your ICAO radio telephony manual doc 9432, Compressor Stall, it hardly has any credibility when it contains this tripe:
ATC: "Fastair 345 when ready descend to FL 180"
Pilot: "Fastair 345 descending to FL 180 will report leaving FL 350 Fastair 345"
Even AIP is better than that nonsense.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... interpreted correctly. Miss that paired word and all bets are off.
Since when can the phrase "left two zero zero" be mistaken for a heading instruction? ATC will never give a heading that way. Headings are always given with the word "heading" before the numbers, e.g "turn left heading two zero zero". The pilot read back should also include the word "heading".
When a flight level is being referred to - by either pilot or ATC - the words "flight level" will always immediately precede the numbers, e.g "left flight level two zero zero".
If pilots and ATC are preceding the numbers with those terms then it is impossible for confusion to be created.
Stally, can you give an example of a set of RT exchanges where such confusion could arise? You can include any amount of over, or clipped transmissions, but you cannot omit any of those above key words.
Several hundred people would be alive today if the term, "We are at take-off" was uttered a different way.
The pilot readback does not include the word "heading", though perhaps it should and you will never be chipped by anyone other than a pedantic checkie for saying it.
There is the right radio call and then there is everything else. The fact that discussions like this continue only proves that the AIP does not cover radio transmissions adequately. CASA will not clear up your questions but merely refer you to your training department or flying school as the case may be and those people only have the same resources as you to determine word perfect radio procedure.
There is the right radio call and then there is everything else. The fact that discussions like this continue only proves that the AIP does not cover radio transmissions adequately. CASA will not clear up your questions but merely refer you to your training department or flying school as the case may be and those people only have the same resources as you to determine word perfect radio procedure.
CP,
Thanks for that, my error, it is most certainly Annex X.
Whether some like it or not, Australia adopted ICAO phraseology, and dropped our ratbag local ways (at least in theory), in the mid-1990s.
For those of you banging on about tense, ICAO usage takes precedence of "standard English" (whatever that is, these days).
Tootle pip!!
Thanks for that, my error, it is most certainly Annex X.
Whether some like it or not, Australia adopted ICAO phraseology, and dropped our ratbag local ways (at least in theory), in the mid-1990s.
For those of you banging on about tense, ICAO usage takes precedence of "standard English" (whatever that is, these days).
Tootle pip!!
Bloggs,
Download a copy of Annex X, Vol.11 for yourself and looks it up.
Your "If you don't show me, it ain't true" approach cuts no ice with me.
If you want to continue on in blind ignorance of what ICAO docs. actually say, bolstered by the Australian aviation aversion to change, that is your decision.
To me (and the rest of the aviation world outside Australia), the whole issue is quite clear, has nothing to do with tense or "standard English", the ICAO lists of standard words and phrases are mercifully short, compared to the Australian approach.
Indeed, ICAO "Aviation English" and standard English are two very different things, it is aviation English competence that pilots have to demonstrate, and you may have noticed that an increasing number of pilots, whose first language is not English, for many of these English "tense" is a meaningless concept, but they nevertheless ply the world's airways safely, communicating efficiently.
Australia is a very small (and getting smaller) part of the aviation scene.
As I have said, so many times before, the rest of the aviation world communicates, Australia has "radio procedures", whether "communications" results from voicing Australian "radio procedures", communications is not a necessary outcome of said "radio procedures".
Time for you to join the real world. The Australian move to ICAO compliance in this area was in the mid 1990s, supported by AATA, Ansett and Qantas individually, BARA, AOPA etc, don't you think it is time you caught up.
Tootle pip!!
Download a copy of Annex X, Vol.11 for yourself and looks it up.
Your "If you don't show me, it ain't true" approach cuts no ice with me.
If you want to continue on in blind ignorance of what ICAO docs. actually say, bolstered by the Australian aviation aversion to change, that is your decision.
To me (and the rest of the aviation world outside Australia), the whole issue is quite clear, has nothing to do with tense or "standard English", the ICAO lists of standard words and phrases are mercifully short, compared to the Australian approach.
Indeed, ICAO "Aviation English" and standard English are two very different things, it is aviation English competence that pilots have to demonstrate, and you may have noticed that an increasing number of pilots, whose first language is not English, for many of these English "tense" is a meaningless concept, but they nevertheless ply the world's airways safely, communicating efficiently.
Australia is a very small (and getting smaller) part of the aviation scene.
As I have said, so many times before, the rest of the aviation world communicates, Australia has "radio procedures", whether "communications" results from voicing Australian "radio procedures", communications is not a necessary outcome of said "radio procedures".
Time for you to join the real world. The Australian move to ICAO compliance in this area was in the mid 1990s, supported by AATA, Ansett and Qantas individually, BARA, AOPA etc, don't you think it is time you caught up.
Tootle pip!!
Seriously, I think you are overthinking this a little bit. Leaving or left!! Everyone will know what you mean. I remember getting repremanded by a checkie for saying 'gidday' to Sydney APP because that is 'not in the Jepps' and Sydney is too congested! Honestly if Heathrow and JFK can find time to say good morning and goodbye then Sydney can handle it. That was the day I realised aviation in Australia was to be taken in a 'different' light than the rest of the aviation world where most work to make your day out easier and more enjoyable, not full of people critisizing you for saying 'left 370'.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's time for a national summit, kind of like when Kevin Rudd got Australia's finest minds together. We could nut out these problems as a group, ICAO sanctioned of course. We could teach the gen y kiddies how to read AIP, we could teach ATC's how to interpret re-calcitrant American pilot terminology, even if Australian's use it. We could also teach ATC's how to ensure aircraft remain OCTA because they've used incorrect Airspace Class in their transmission.
Summit time
Summit time
Yes, I will come, can we hold it somewhere like Nadi, there are always strange government summits or conferences there. We might as well enjoy ourselves!!
Originally Posted by Leadslud
Download a copy of Annex X, Vol.11 for yourself and looks it up.
Your "If you don't show me, it ain't true" approach cuts no ice with me.
Your "If you don't show me, it ain't true" approach cuts no ice with me.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an Englishman, apart from sheer buggerousness (a wellknown Aussie trait 
) Why the hell would you wantto use a word which is ambiguous or context-dependent, when you have a clear, definitive alternative?
Left= departed or changed direction.
To = intended destination, adittionally (too) 1+1 (two)
superflous if correct unambiguous phraseology is used.
Right = okay, relative direction, immediacy.
"left to 110 right "....OK,it wouldn't be transmitted by even the most gormless, but it's possible, so why make holes in the cheese when you don't need to?
departed or vacated =clear and unmistakeable...left is open to misintrepretation.
to/two has caused accidents, that's easy to see why.
RT procedures were established when valve-radio on AM (Amplitude Modulation) was the only horse in town. It's deficiencies were largely mitigated by procedures which attempted to overcome the------ or the SCCCCHHHHHHH....
Why not just think about what you're saying and wether it could be said in a clearly-defined ,unambiguous way which a "foreigner" could not misinterpret.
This truly IS a safety issue which CASA could devote it's energies to ,instead of hounding colour-defecient pilots.....
CVD pilots =no accidents 20+years
Military night vision (monochrome) gogle pilots=no accidents
Misinterpreted/ not heard/faulty radio accidents....LOTS
why compromise safety when you don't have to?
) Why the hell would you wantto use a word which is ambiguous or context-dependent, when you have a clear, definitive alternative?Left= departed or changed direction.
To = intended destination, adittionally (too) 1+1 (two)
superflous if correct unambiguous phraseology is used.
Right = okay, relative direction, immediacy.
"left to 110 right "....OK,it wouldn't be transmitted by even the most gormless, but it's possible, so why make holes in the cheese when you don't need to?
departed or vacated =clear and unmistakeable...left is open to misintrepretation.
to/two has caused accidents, that's easy to see why.
RT procedures were established when valve-radio on AM (Amplitude Modulation) was the only horse in town. It's deficiencies were largely mitigated by procedures which attempted to overcome the------ or the SCCCCHHHHHHH....
Why not just think about what you're saying and wether it could be said in a clearly-defined ,unambiguous way which a "foreigner" could not misinterpret.
This truly IS a safety issue which CASA could devote it's energies to ,instead of hounding colour-defecient pilots.....
CVD pilots =no accidents 20+years
Military night vision (monochrome) gogle pilots=no accidents
Misinterpreted/ not heard/faulty radio accidents....LOTS
why compromise safety when you don't have to?
Bloggs,
Procedures change. There used to be a phrasing of "This is XYZ" to overcome any confusion wih crap radios. Not anymore. The reason for the phrasing of Leaving vs. Left has been explained and if you are too stubborn/ignorant/lazy to amend your procedures to fit in with what should be used then I don't know what to say. Does your vocabulary include such gems as "turns finals", "with you", "request code and traffic" and "out of"?
If you have actually operated in environments where ATC's english proficiency is about level two, then you will appreciate the value of proper communication.
It's not about cool, it's about standardisation to eliminate misinterpretation.
I've shown you where there is an example of "Leaving" (even if it isn't in the phrasing lists), yet you seem unable to reciprocate. Even your quoted Fastair example uses "Leaving".
Present something better or let it go.
Procedures change. There used to be a phrasing of "This is XYZ" to overcome any confusion wih crap radios. Not anymore. The reason for the phrasing of Leaving vs. Left has been explained and if you are too stubborn/ignorant/lazy to amend your procedures to fit in with what should be used then I don't know what to say. Does your vocabulary include such gems as "turns finals", "with you", "request code and traffic" and "out of"?
If you have actually operated in environments where ATC's english proficiency is about level two, then you will appreciate the value of proper communication.
It's not about cool, it's about standardisation to eliminate misinterpretation.
I've shown you where there is an example of "Leaving" (even if it isn't in the phrasing lists), yet you seem unable to reciprocate. Even your quoted Fastair example uses "Leaving".
Present something better or let it go.