Radio/ATC etiquette and professionalism
I presume you hate it because it is not the correct terminology in your part of the world:
I wouldn't classify it as "pretty bad RT" - it's understandable and in some parts of the world - mine for example
- it's standard:
Does anyone know why "AFFIRM" was adopted in some countries? Was it possibly to avoid confusing "AFFIRMATIVE" with "NEGATIVE"?
I must say I always find this response amusing: "Yes, affirmative."
I wouldn't classify it as "pretty bad RT" - it's understandable and in some parts of the world - mine for example
- it's standard:Does anyone know why "AFFIRM" was adopted in some countries? Was it possibly to avoid confusing "AFFIRMATIVE" with "NEGATIVE"?
I must say I always find this response amusing: "Yes, affirmative."
Local variations still creep in to R/T. Our local volunteer marine coastwatch mob love "Romeo" for 'Yes' - as in "is that a Romeo?" I can't bring myself to respond with anything other than "affirm",although I should really say "yes" as that is standard in the marine world, as is "no" - though that has potential to confuse the Greeks!
That's funny, I remember the Guard freq being user-selectable and often set to "company" freq which then became the guarded freq. Thus the usage of the term. Must've been a different set to the ones you used.
"Affirmative" was replaced with "affirm" in ICAO-speak at least 15 years ago. But it takes some people a long time to break old habits. One of the classic Oz confusions for foreigners was the use of "left" when vacating or passing a level or altitude. They would hear "left 180" and wonder why the other guy was suddenly flying south. Even when it got changed, the old 'left..." hung around for years.
Local variations still creep in to R/T. Our local volunteer marine coastwatch mob love "Romeo" for 'Yes' - as in "is that a Romeo?" I can't bring myself to respond with anything other than "affirm",although I should really say "yes" as that is standard in the marine world, as is "no" - though that has potential to confuse the Greeks!
Local variations still creep in to R/T. Our local volunteer marine coastwatch mob love "Romeo" for 'Yes' - as in "is that a Romeo?" I can't bring myself to respond with anything other than "affirm",although I should really say "yes" as that is standard in the marine world, as is "no" - though that has potential to confuse the Greeks!
Why do I have to say "climbing TO" or "descending TO". I mean its just unwarranted waffle. If you want to achieve better radio efficiency stick to the main words, it's not a Shakespeare recital. I would have the call as just "ABC Climb Level 320" - "Climbing Level 220 ABC".
This extract from Wikipedia says it as well as I can:
(ATC) radioed to the flight, "Tiger 66, descend two four zero zero (about 2,400 ft (730 m)), cleared for NDB approach runway 33." Captain Halpin, who interpreted it as "descend to four zero zero" replied with, "Okay, four zero zero" (meaning 400 ft (120 m) above sea level, which was 2,000 ft (610 m) too low). The CVR[9] also revealed several communication errors made by the flight crew prior to this miscommunication and a general casual nature of the captain, who was the pilot-not-flying on this particular leg of the trip.
The aircraft flew into the ground at 437ft above sea level and well short of the runway, despite numerous GPWS warnings on the approach.
The following users liked this post:
I also learned something else today. Although “over” and “out” are not normally used in aviation VHF comms, it seems that these terms may still be applicable to HF. ICAO Annex 10 Vol II implies this. Though I imagine such use in our part of the world would bring forth sheep noises, and worse.
From memory the word "to" in a clearance to climb or descend was dropped as a result of a Flying Tiger freighter accident on landing in Kuala Lumpur in the late 80's.
This extract from Wikipedia says it as well as I can:
This extract from Wikipedia says it as well as I can:
I feel the extra waffle was introduced with no intention of increasing safety, more so to apply legal standing to the instruction. "Climb via Sid" "Line up and wait" "Hold short of Runway XX". All tell you what you already should know, however now that it's reiterated several times as well on the radio you can't say you did not understand what is a rule anyway. The rules state that I have to comply with all of SID procedure when cleared via one, why do I need to be told again to comply with the altitudes, I know a line up instruction is not a clearance to taxi or take-off on the runway, so why do I need to be told to wait, I know I can not enter a runway without a clearance, so why do I need to be told to hold short of one until instructed so... The reason, so they can listen to the tapes and conform that you acknowledged your legal responsibility, not one drop of safety in it. These extras are just as bad as the "pending clearance" brigade and guard Nazis.
The following users liked this post:
I feel the extra waffle was introduced with no intention of increasing safety, more so to apply legal standing to the instruction. "Climb via Sid" "Line up and wait" "Hold short of Runway XX". All tell you what you already should know, however now that it's reiterated several times as well on the radio you can't say you did not understand what is a rule anyway. The rules state that I have to comply with all of SID procedure when cleared via one, why do I need to be told again to comply with the altitudes, I know a line up instruction is not a clearance to taxi or take-off on the runway, so why do I need to be told to wait, I know I can not enter a runway without a clearance, so why do I need to be told to hold short of one until instructed so... The reason, so they can listen to the tapes and conform that you acknowledged your legal responsibility, not one drop of safety in it. These extras are just as bad as the "pending clearance" brigade and guard Nazis.
Extra ‘waffle’ may be a pain in the derrière for those of us with English as our first (and usually only) language. But safety is an issue. ATC must deal with many whose licence may state English Level 4, but in reality their English comprehension is often marginal. As far as possible comms need to be kept simple, with repetition as necessary - something like one would instruct an 8 year old.
ICAO update phraseology as lessons are learned. Australia as a signatory to ICAO should adopt their standards, and for the most part, we do.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 16th Aug 2023 at 01:32.
The following 2 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
Grumpy old man alert: some f’ing **** repeatedly doing his stupid meow **** the other day.
Someone tells him (QF I think - and quite rightly) to grow up.
Of course the moron takes that as a challenge to do it again, even longer.
Doing that, he blocked an ATC new heading call to us.
After a delay, right when you don’t want it, ATC had to repeat the instruction. ******** does it again. Fortunately got the assigned heading this time.
Really wish there was some VHF modulation identifier or something to enable ATC to home in on the juvenile f’wit and name and shame.
Someone tells him (QF I think - and quite rightly) to grow up.
Of course the moron takes that as a challenge to do it again, even longer.
Doing that, he blocked an ATC new heading call to us.
After a delay, right when you don’t want it, ATC had to repeat the instruction. ******** does it again. Fortunately got the assigned heading this time.
Really wish there was some VHF modulation identifier or something to enable ATC to home in on the juvenile f’wit and name and shame.
The following 4 users liked this post by Al E. Vator:
Really wish there was some VHF modulation identifier or something to enable ATC to home in on the juvenile f’wit
The following users liked this post:
The "ADF" function of AN/ARC164 system whose controller is in the photo earlier in the thread enabled ADF of 121.5 and 243. Those frequencies are harmonics as a matter of design choice, not coincidence.
Making cat noises on the distress frequency? Just goes to show that even the brainless can use a radio. I'd be letting Centre know when those transmissions are received, the signal strength and my current location. Patterns will eventually emerge...
Making cat noises on the distress frequency? Just goes to show that even the brainless can use a radio. I'd be letting Centre know when those transmissions are received, the signal strength and my current location. Patterns will eventually emerge...
Patterns will eventually emerge...
Has anyone considered it might actually be a cat in trouble? Trapped in their overturned litter box desperately hoping someone comes to their aid?
The following 6 users liked this post by Traffic_Is_Er_Was:
The following 3 users liked this post by Chronic Snoozer:
I want to, but can’t, give you a second ‘like’ for adding the umlaut, CS. As I observed earlier, correct pronunciation can be just as important as correct terminology in aviation comms.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
From memory the word "to" in a clearance to climb or descend was dropped as a result of a Flying Tiger freighter accident on landing in Kuala Lumpur in the late 80's.
I think it was more the case that four digits for an altitude (e.g. "descend two four zero zero" in this case) was eventually changed to "descend to two thousand four hundred".
As previous posters have pointed out, "TO" is still correct phraseology and hasn't been dropped.
The Flying Tigers F/O did not have an approach chart available where 2400' on it would have been patently obvious and may have saved the day despite the "descend two four zero zero" transmission.
Ready
Ready in turn
Ready on reaching
Fully Ready
Ready for departure
Ready immediate
Be great to roll them all into one ‘mega-ready’call…👍
‘Absolutely’ Ready?
Ready ‘One Hundred Percent’?
In the theme of ‘ABC Turns Base’, ‘ABC Joins Downwind’, ‘ABC Rolls Runway 24’, maybe: “ABC Readies’.
Ready ‘One Hundred Percent’?
In the theme of ‘ABC Turns Base’, ‘ABC Joins Downwind’, ‘ABC Rolls Runway 24’, maybe: “ABC Readies’.