My favourite, is the initial call to tower when approaching ....

should be " XXX Tower, ABC"

yet some "professionals" say , "XXX tower, ABC, on final, 7 miles rwy 23" or "XXX towere, ABC, extablished on the ILS for RWY 23"

I think that the tower KNOWS where you are, chaps.

still, 'let he who is without blame, cast the first stone"
. I am sure that I make some calls that are not ENTIRELY standard. I apologise in advance for this.

regards the "STANDBY FOR DEPARTURE", I use this, when departing an aerodrome where I cannot raise centre on taxi. It just gives THEM a heads up, and tells them that I am busy at the moment, and will get back to them shortly.

AIP ENR 1.1 58. TAXIING
58.1 Pilots of IFR flights operating from non-towered aerodromes must report to ATC on taxiing. If unable to establish contact, proceed in accordance with para 56.1.

58.2 Taxiing reports for IFR flights must include the following information:
a. aircraft type;
b. POB (for IFR flights other than RPT);
c. IFR my bold
d. location;
e. destination or departure quadrant or intentions; and
f. runway to be used.


A wise and professional pilot would know where to look in the AIP to confirm whether the information was correct.... it's available online http://www.airservicesaustralia.com....ations/aip.asp

I think its the difference between,

"centre ABC IFR taxi" brake and wait for acknowledement and off we go again and,
"centre ABC B747 300 POB (for IFR flights other than RPT) IFR, Goodooga for Argadargada runway 12.

hell what else are you going to be and why prefix it with taxi anyway, either just say it or if you must "centre ABC"

People,
Let's not forget that we are communicating in the English language and a bit of correct grammar doesn't go astray. The message should be easily understood and make sense.
If we keep on cutting out the "unnecessary" bits we will finish up with something like the ICAO MET abbreviations that can make METARS etc virtually impossible to understand when read verbatim! Or worse still, some Aussie version of Hollywood's "Pushing Tin" dialogue.
:)

jungmeister,

and an example is?

Ex Douglas Driver,
 

Yes, certainly, and I am aware of the extract you quoted, thank you for quoting it anyhow.

My query was whether the initial "make contact" call should be "Centre, ABC, taxi", or "Centre, ABC, IFR taxi", since, as your bold indicates, the requirement does exist to state that you're operating IFR.

Obviously I was not clear enough in my previous post.


520.

My oppinion only is that the first call should be your taxi call, I would just about bet money the ATcer is sitting at a console waiting for some one to say some thing!

Are you lot kidding around or are you that boring that a debate over whether you say IFR in your initial contact transmission or thereafter rates as a technical debate this evening:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

The above is much less painful:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

The same ATCer is often talking to someone else that you can't hear. Their response to you launching in to a taxi, postion, or departure call, is sometimes "ABC, say again."

Touchncloth, what would you like to discuss???
If you don't like our discussion, you can always find something more interesting. Feel free.

Possible, and also possible he is waisting time listening to some one saying twice as much as they need to. I have never and never will, (until it becomes a requirement) waist everybodies time with that call.

If its so important to que ATC for this call they can stick a phrase in AIP as they have for position reports.

e.g. "BN centre ABC position".

Until then they don't so just simply say it.

Ah yes, the old "in with a ground station" excuse.:)

to confuse, or not to confuse?
 

:} Used to hear "Upside Downwind" at YPJT a fair while ago - a Bellanca at on time - any one know what happened to Rob T (part time scuba instructor also)!!

Oh man, this is all getting a bit anal isn't it?

[BTW: The in with a ground station is legit - 90% of communication going on isnt on the VHF - but it is often at the same volume level - 'tuning' out is a skill quickly, and neccessarily learnt. This is something that - when pilots used to be bothered, or permitted, to do a proper ATC famils - they all came away saying: I didnt realise how much coord goes on in the background. So we are not ignoring you - we are just..... uhm, well, kind of ignoring you I suppose - but in a nice way!]

Thought I'd add my 2 cents. My pet hate is

"On climb too" when its "Climbing too"

gets me even more when this is said in a dep report

"On climb, not above xxxx" -> Your already "not above" any altitude even if your still on the ground. No need to climb to get "not above" an altitude.

Also, heard this one a few times at millitary AD's on VFR flights,

"ABC, Cleared for take off, right turn 290, visual"
I thought all VFR flights were visual ?!?! In one instance ATC required me to read back "visual".

Having said all this I know I make many mistakes myself.

Coander,

Visual in the context you have described is required to be read back to ensure that you know, the controller has assigned you the respnsibility of terrain/obstacle clearance. As opposed to you (the pilot) assuming that ATC will keep you clear of obstacles/terrain.

CC,
he said he was VFR. He is already resposnible for visual terrain clearance.
Coander, was it a military ATCér.

RENURPP,

Yes it was a military ATCér. My reply to the call was "V F R".

C

"Continue Approach"

I thought this was a requirement to be read back.....or was that an internal memo/ or company publication telling us we had to read it back?



Just as an aside, has anyone thought that some companies liase directly with ATC, to find out what they want to hear, and whilst this may go against whats in the AIP, the company then issues a directive to its pilots in an attempt to standardise procedures at particular aerodromes.......

I am not saying its right or wrong, but if the company makes it part of the SOPs then it tends to be prundent for its employees to follow their wishes...(of course other pilots will not hear about xxx companies changes, hence the "what the.... " when they hear it.)

Coander and RENURPP:
It matters not if it was a military ATC or not. The point is that the ATC must say to any VFR aircraft that is vectored off the runway "VISUAL" with the heading. It is just a rule that we have to do and that is that.
The MATS reference states:
3.2.8.2 When a departing aircraft is required to assume a heading immediately
following take-off, the appropriate controller shall determine the heading and advisethe tower controller as follows:
a. for VFR flights by day or for IFR flights by day in VMC not departing via
a SID "RUNWAY HEADING VISUAL or RIGHT/LEFT (degrees) VISUAL";
Yes, although this talks about what the departures controller says to the tower controller, rest assured that is what is said to the aircraft too. And as it is a heading instruction, it must be read back. I suppose it could be argued both ways as AIP only states that direction of turns and headings are readbacks. I will do a snap poll with the civil tower I work with and see if they chase the "VISUAL" readback.
Cheers all,
NFR.:ok:

Point taken,
If you are required to add "visual" to a VFR aircraft, (seems pointless) then I accept that reading it back is required by the pilot.

Actually after pondering this one a little longer I change my attitude slightly. I don't "recall" ever hearing this instruction given! Having said that it is not possible for me to know who is VFR and who is IFR. If I were VFR I wouldn't read it back, with out meaning to offend, I would expect a military controller to require the readback and otherwise common sense to prevail.