Below are extracts from both the AIP and JEPPS. They both refer to calls made associated with a frequency change when descent has already commenced. Some people now take this to mean that any time you leave an assigned level, the correct terminology is "leaving". When I am on centre maintaining one level whilst assigned another, should I say "leaving" or "left" when I start descent? I am after specific references either in the AIP or JEPPS for commencing descent in controlled airspace. I am not after opinions or English lessons, only specific references for this single case whilst still on the centre frequency that assigned the lower level.

'After any frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level: eg, "MELBOURNE CENTRE (CALLSIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO".'

Jeppesen

Air Traffic Control (page AU-705)

DESCENT AND ENTRY

1.9.1.4

eg: "MELBOURNE CENTER (CALL-SIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO"

Capt Claret

Most regional tower will have them by now!

Rule of thumb is...if there is useable radar coverage into the tower CTR steps then the tower should have a TSAD.

TSAD is only showing us what the Coops (TAARTS) have always seen in any case :ok:

Cannot charge for a service that does not happen or exist:E

left altitude
 

technically you should not call" left" a lower level until passing 100 feet above or below that level due tolerance of calibrationof the altimeter (+- 3 millibars)

I have also read my AIP regarding this extremely important matter.

My copy says:-

ENR 1.1-19, Paragraph 11.1.4

'After any frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level: eg, "MELBOURNE CENTRE (CALLSIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, SHALL HAVE BEEN LEAVING HAVING HAS LEFT FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO".'


I also heard some amateur on the radio call "TAXYING". We professionals know to actually call "TAXIING" or "TAXI-ING".

As many posters have already said, good radio calls are the mark of a true professional. Thank god there are no losers posting here.

Why would using the word LEFT cause any confusion when talking about a FL? :hmm:

Okay I have dug up this old thread to ask the ATCOs on here a question...

The AIP/Jepp used to say that pilots were required to call leaving/left a level they had been maintaing in CTA. This appears to have been removed, some time ago by the look of it. The only reference now is "after a frequency cahnge..." Jepp AU705 1.9.1.4

The other reference is AU-806 3.5.1.6

It appears many pilots still give this call, is it required anymore, particularly when radar identified?

eg. "ABC when ready descend to FL 130"

"when ready descend FL130 ABC"

then after a minute or two...

"ABC left/leaving FL230"

What is interesting is that as I fly from coast to coast there are some regional differences as to what is said and it appears also what is expected.

Comments from ATCOs would be appreciated.

Tut-tut Icarus, no requirement to read back "when ready" ;)

AFAIK, there has been no change to the AIP...

What has crept in more is "assigned FL130 left FL230"; really confusing if you clip it, or someone else is talking to me on a non VHF line. Would prefer "left FL230" only; otherwise I'm obliged to confirm the level you read to me when vacating, which might lead me (and does) to say "say again assigned level"... But we've already been there and done that when I originally gave you the level...

Some might say that they've been approaching 6000 since they started to taxi (if climbing)

Yes Report "Left"
 

Although I am not an ATCO, here is my tuppence worth.
The reference you quote states:
The equivalent reference in AIP is ENR 1.7 - 4.1.6
My view, based upon that reference, is that you are still required to report "left" a level. I say "left" as I once asked an ATCO, over VHF, whether they believed leaving or left was the correct term. After consulting with others he quoted this exact passage as the basis for "left" being the correct term.

Any synonym of "Left" works for me, "vacated", "leaving", "out of (American accent required)", "commenced descent", "departed", but "left" works well...

It's the advice that's important, not the words used, as long as there is no ambiguity.

I work in radar, lack of advice of leaving a level, tends to leave me getting an 'approaching FLXXX" call, (response to self well if you have said "left FLXXX" I'd have giving you lower...), response to you "descend FLZZZ" This is especially common when you've had a when ready descend advice and you take more than 5 minutes to descend; i.e. I don't need to look at you (in terms of next task) until you call "left FLXXX".

Icarus....



actually "FL130 ABC" is all that is required !!


It's now 9 years since all the readback changes - you would expect that most folk would get it right by now.

It is possible in Oz, in some very limited circumstances.

Given the variety of accents and the variations in English proficiency I encounter, I detest the word "LEFT" to report out of an altitude. It's not too big a stretch of the imagination for this to be misconstrued as a (compass) direction. I much prefer "OUT OF" since it does not refer to any other aviation thing.

Christ, ITCZ had it right months ago. Stick to what's in the book. Use the words 'Flight Level' and nobody will ever be confused. The End.

Great thread!

You ATC'ers seem to be saying that after you give an instruction like:

"ABC, when ready, descend to 7,000"

pilots should not read back the "when ready" words; i.e, we should just respond:

"ABC, 7,000".

But, if there is no read back of the "when ready" part, doesn't that open the door to the kind of uncertainty that the "left XXXX" is meant to resolve?

For example, consider this scenario where VH-ABC is given descent clearance "when ready" but doesn't hear the "when ready" words:

ATC: "ABC, when ready, descend to 7,000"

ABC: "ABC, 7,000"

But VH-ABC, having not heard the "when ready" words, commences descent immediately and as seems to be customary when given immediate climbs/descents, does not add the "left 7,000".

So, in this scenario, ABC is now on descent but ATC thinks he is still maintaining his original level. What if the ATC radar was to now fail?

In fact, isn't the whole reason for reporting having left a level so that ATC can update the manual record (formerly the "flight strip") for just in case the radar fails?

For AMPR:

Nope, you should read back, '7000, ABC'.:}

I give a 'when ready' instruction with descent to give YOU the flexibility to commence descent when YOU want to. Ultimately, I don't care exactly when you commence the descent. If I need you to commence descent I'll either leave out the 'when ready' or use something like 'descend to 7000, reach 7000 by XXX'.

Once I've assigned a level change to an aircraft I consider you to be at the previously assigned level, the new level or anywhere in between regardless of whether 'when ready' was used or not. Doesn't matter whether the pressure-altitude derived level info or ATS surveillance system is not working as I can always ask whether you have LEFT, are LEAVING, or are OUT OF (whatever) any particular level.:ugh:

APMR

In the scenario you paint, the correct read back,assuming one hasn't heard the "when ready" is; 7,000, left/leaving [cruise level], ABC

Just responding to a level assignment doesn't indicate the departure from the old level, hence the requirement to report left/leaving a maintained level.

Occasionally in the confusion, ATC will omit the usual "when ready", or we will miss the "when ready". If unsure it's simple to get clarification.

APMR, there is no manual record... it's TAAATS now, since 1998... one click deserves another...

I will always give 'when ready' unless I need you to go now, or you requested descent. I often here 'request descent', followed by 'confirm when ready to FLXXX', no actually you asked for it, I gave it, so no it's not when ready. If you want to program it in your box or get it in advance, say approaching descent point or TOD in XX trackmiles etc.

I agree with the others, once issued a descent clearance it's from where you are now to the level I chose, if there is something in the way, or between the levels that is my problem to resolve, ie control it. I don't care if you descend early, that's your problem. I of course try to avoid you descending late.

No need to readback, 'when ready'...

Thanks Pirate, aaargghhhhh. That is what I was after.

And a big thank you to *Lancer* and triadic for castigating me for being verbose and adding "when ready" to my read back. I will however continue to add this to differentiate my clearance to descend "when ready" from an instruction to "descend" now. Thanks all the same. Call me recalcitrant but I also call "ready in turn" when it is not required. It does seem to help the nice man in the tower as last week they lined one up and cleared the next in line to take off whilst he was at the holding point, "in turn" helps oil the wheels just as "when ready" oils the wheels and clarifies the clearance, as mentioned by APMR above.

What the en route and the TAR? Well as happened a couple of months ago in ML the whole system grinds to a halt.:sad:

I really did not want to get in to the left/leaving pedantry as even the people who write the bloody manuals can't be consistent. It is interesting that different TCUs around the country seem to operate slightly differently with regard to expecting a "left FL180" call.

Icarus2001

You don’t seem to get it ! As a pilot who:

I would expect that you have procedures and checklists etc that you are obliged to follow. Do you add bits here and there because you believe it might:

I think not, otherwise your might come fowl of your C&T Captains… No?

In the same way we have procedures which in the Australian case are quite prescriptive and detailed in AIP/JEPPs. In general terms for all normal situations we really are obliged to use these terms.

I would be the first to agree that CASA have failed in some areas to write various sections that are not open to a variety of interpretations, but I think to some extent that has been the case since the beginning of time. This subject is perhaps one example of such a variance in interpretations, and I might add has been so for some years, but then if you have been about for a while you will know how difficult and how long it takes to process any change whatsoever through ICAO.

The working group that processed the R/T phrases changes back in 1997 said that the new procedures should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. It was then agreed that if they were not the default position of those that either did not know or did not care would be to just read everything back…! Think about it. When you go flying – listen - how many do just that? like reading back weather, traffic info etc and other lots of words that do nothing but jam up the airwaves. (we can blame that on the CASA AIP writers of the day)

Part of the big problem with this subject is that in some countries these requirements are different and one’s procedures must cover off such anomalies to the satisfaction of the locals, wherever that might be. The differences in North America and the UK/EUR and some small 3rd world counties are usually quite obvious.

We are lucky in Oz as we have only one language to deal with (domestically) and to a large extent we were able to review (back in 1997) much of the ICAO phrases and standards and as a result many are not included in the AIP. The problem was/is that CASA have failed to provide appropriate education to that change and now many instructors and check pilots lack a standardised approach to the subject.

The bottom line in this is, that like your internal SOPs, there is a process to change the AIP and that if you are of the belief that saying these extra words is both necessary for safety and efficiency then put up a case for them to be included in the AIP. I am sure that if Controllers believed such words were necessary they would have done that already. There are no obvious proposals for such in the wind as far as I know and in fact if many of the controllers that I know had their way, some of the existing readback requirements would be removed. What you also don’t seem to appreciate is that if the non existence of a phrase or readback has the effect of defaulting “safe” then why should we bother. In your case, (as said by other scribes) you can descend when ever you like - it does not matter and the controller will always be prescriptive if he/she wants otherwise. As for:

I used to say that once as I thought like you it helped, but helped who? You are not the one that decides the take-off sequence (turn) and if you call ready you should in fact be ready to line up and go.

Think about it and try not to waste your breath, trying to sound professional when you don’t !!

Rant off !......I’m leaving… no left !!

:ugh: :ugh: :ok:

BN Centre, good morning
 

So if we're going to be a bit anal about what about the use of "lubricating" words like "good morning/afternoon/evening" on first contact with each freq change and "see ya" / "hooroo" / " good-bye" on last contact when given frequency change approval? Not to mention "thank you".....

We all hear it every day by pilots and ATC alike, from GA to heavy and have for years. I do it too - as it just sounded rude when I tried for a few days without. Should we eliminate this "operationally superfluous" stuff from our transmissions too, in the interest of limiting unnecessary transmissions and in the interest of conformance with AIP and ICAO?? Or should we just get a life.....:rolleyes:

In my view there is a big difference between courtesy and bad RT discipline. Good radio discipline would suggest ditching the 'good mornings' etc at busy times.

In my company good RT is very heavily pushed by the C&Ting department...and as we are a JAROPS compliant airline operating under the Brit CAA we must reference CAP 371 (I think it is).

Local standards do vary because everywhere has their own differences from ICAO (including CAP 371) but basic airmanship suffices in all situations.

When I am getting ready to call for clearance I look up the Jepps (usually in 10-9) and give them exactly what they need in exactly the order asked. After that it is always the minumum amount of words.

Examples;

"Cleared xyz, tonvo 1 delta, sqauwk 2245 blah69" In the real world stop altitudes are on the SID and do not nead to be read back...you are never cleared above that altitude prior to changing to departures and it greatly simplifies things...Oz ATC please note.:ugh:

XYZ grnd Blah69, recieved xray, stand bravo 9, request push and start.

Clear to push, face west blah69

xyz grnd blah69 request taxi clearance.

Juliet1, Yankee, Kilo, Mike 14, hold short 30R blah69

xyz twr blah69 ready for departure (never 'ready in turn')

30 right clear for takeoff 124.45 blah69

xyz control request FL 370 (never add 'if available', if it isn't you wont get it...simple)

when cleared onto a new heading "right heading xyz, blah69" I have occassionally been cleared the long way to a heading...'confirm left heading xyz?" "negative blah69, right heading xyz, sorry"

When changing frequencies always "xyz control blah69 maintaining/climbing/descending FLxyz or 'altitude' X000"...never put 'to' in..and yes that is standard practice in Australia but were I am we get in trouble for it...I personally think it's paranoid, by I don't get a vote.

When cleared to descend "When ready" just read back the altitude...it's pretty bloody obvious most of the time...if you're miles from your planned descent point and he doesn't say "when ready" querry it.:ugh:

If told "blah69 call departures now 124.45" You DO NOT ready back "Call departures now 124 decimal 45, blah69"...a simply "124 decimal 45, blah69" is all that is required.

When leaving an assigned altitude it is " XYZ control blah69, Left FL 370, descending altitude 8 thousand". It's the last chance to catch mistakes...in many parts of the world...you are supposed to wait until you have LEFT the level/alt because ATC won't necesarily pick up on their scopes until you have actually changed level/alt by 300' (I think it is) Leaving is a very vague term...leaving now or leaving in 30 seconds...LEFT is unambiguous:ok:

Bottom line is it is VERY important to get your voice on the tape clearly for the investigation that might follow:ok: .

The list of must read back items is so incredibly short it is beyond me why there is this, seemingly, insurmountable problem.:confused:

Frequencies,
Altitudes,
Headings,
Clearance limits,
Taxi routes,
route designators,
runways.

If you are recleared "blah69, Sydney, recleared direct xyz, then W123 shelleys, descend when ready FL150". Do you read back every word or is it simply "Direct xyz, whiskey 123 shelleys, FL150 blah69"?

Similarly when requesting direct routing never say "Request 'present position' direct xyz" Where the hell else are you going to track direct from if not present position?

Sydney, blah69 request direct Griffith"

Why so hard?

The one I love to hear is...

"ABC, request descent"

"ABC, descend to F130"

"Ahh, centre, confirm that's when ready descend to F130, ABC?":confused:

Roger S - maybe you should consider the case when one would like to stay at ones cruising level for more than the one minute permitted by the AIP after an instruction to climb or descend.

That's when it is important to confirm the "when ready" aspect.

Now for my own personal gripe - people who say "ABC maintains FLXXX". I believe it has something to do with an incorrect form of the verb "to maintain". Ditto for "ABC descends FLXXX" and "climbs".

Why can't people just stick to what's in the book (ie "maintaining", "descending" or "climbing") rather than trying to invent their own radio techniques? Now that was a rhetorical question, but I expect some here will take it literally.

Maybe one should consider only asking for descent within one minute of actually needing descent......hence, when the words "request descent" are heard by ATC, we say "descend to".

I'm with Roger Standby on this one.

:ugh:

Cheers,

NFR.

If you are instructed to descend, it's probably for a very good reason (noise abatement :}), and as much as you like being at your cruising level I'd consider it prudent to comply ASAP.

If you are requesting descent, most controllers would assume that you want descent now, hence giving you the clearance. If you want descent in 2 minutes, a simple "ABC, TOD in 2 minutes" would suffice I imagine, and unless there was lower traffic restricting your descent, I'm pretty sure you would get your "when ready".

Or my normal one for this situation: "ABC Approaching descent point". Almost always, I get "ABC, when ready, descend to..."

Fullreverse reversed,
Where in the book does it say "descending to"? Genuine question, not a windup.

Hempy and NFR

I was referring to the situation where ATC issue a clearance (without request from the crew) for descent 5, 10, 15 minutes or more before one wishes to descend. This is what happens more often than not in my world (RPT), should ATC not to clarify it as "when ready", it can only be interpreted as an instruction and consequently descent must be commenced within 1 minute. (nb - this happens quite commonly)

That is unless you can clarify, with ATC, that the intent of the clearance was "when ready". This may seem to be arguing semantics, however that is exactly what will happen in the court room should you be unfortunate enough to end up there!

Personally, I will not make a request for descent unless planning to do so within the next minute.

Capt Bloggs - I never did make a case for "descending to FLxxx", I think you'll find the correct phraseology is simply "descending FLxxx" - although "descending to" does not grate nearly as much as "descends".

esreverlluf,

There may be a bit of confusion here, but from my original quote, it was implied that the crew had asked for descent. I would be hard pressed to think of any enroute controller who would not say "when ready" unless there was a need to get an immediate level change.:eek:

Cheers.

Thread drift:

One of my favourites has come from AKL tower more than once,

"FNC1234 are you ready immediate?"

"FNC1234 Affirm"

"Roger, Line up and wait"

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Cheers,

Con:ok:

Roger Standby - sorry if I came in a little late on the conversation and maybe it doesn't happen on your shift, but quite often I have to clarify the clearance as described above. I will continue to do so as long as there is any possible ambiguity (as I'm sure you would do from the other side of the wireless link).

Can't argue with the logic that if you're unsure, ask. :ok:

Chimbu mentioned something that is important with RT as it is with other aspects in aviation - order and predictability.

As with pilot processes (checklist, approach assignment (!!) etc) this improves error detection and reduces workload for ATC. Regardless of whether a controller is using procedural or a high level automation system (TAAATS/ADATS etc) the order of RT assists with the mechanical aspects of feeding the processes that ATC must carry out (feeding the animal - the manual or automatic system).

So any RT calls should be in the 'normal' order with the predictable stuff first and the variables last. ATC would normally respond with the normal stuff first and then deal with the extraordinary later. Basic, I know but not everyone has 30K hours up.

RTB RFN,

TAAATS is actually arse-about from what we hear. The readbacks now days have the callsign at the end, so we hear the level/heading/etc first and then the callsign. Easy when ticking a strip, but not so for TAAATS when you need to click the level and then check it was the right callsign. Have been a number of incidents where this 'wrong way round' RT has been a contributing factor (me included).

Cheers,

NFR.

NFR
 

Hi caramber - that's insane; I didn't know that. You get what you pay for mate.

With refersece to taxiing, I believe the call is "ready" not "ready in turn" or "ready for departure." For reading back a turn to a heading, heading is not used. The readback for a left turn to a heading of 210 would be "left 210."
Anyone who believes that the AIP does a good job of describing radio procedure must either work for CASA or live in lala land. This post would not have endured for over a year if the answers were in the book.

Before anyone else pipes up, PPRune needs a spell checker and yes, I need typing lessons. For those in doubt, I meant to tyre "reference"

http://www.iespell.com/cms/

Spell checker for Internet explorer.

Thank you, I'm downloading it now.