"...taxying Blonkity for Wonkity, request traffic and transponder code"
 

To which I would answer, "ABC, no reported IFR traffic (assuming there isn't any), squawk 1234."

On the other hand if the report was recieved as, "ABC, taxying Blonkity for Wonkity."

I would answer, "ABC, no reported IFR traffic (assuming there isn't any), squawk 1234."

Why do pilots request traffic on taxying and when changing level when we are required to issue the traffic statement (either "NRIT" or "Traffic is") when IFR aircraft taxy or change level, so will pass it anyhow?

Why do pilots bother their collective asses about codes also, surely that is our problem? If we haven't passed one (for a couple of reasons we might not) you can sqawk the generic.

Because they don't know any better. Next time, PLEASE, say something, the guy you advise will get the message, other guys listening will get the message and it will probably be bar talk that night and more people will get the message. We would all appreciate it.

Its like all these crazy readbacks that some ATC's want, particularly military, and some pilots simply do. Because they don't know any better

Ready in turn!

I prefer to call "Ready out of turn":} just to confuse the ATCO.

What about:
"Proposed descent"
"maintains" (plural for maintaining - a special R/T for multi-crew aeroplanes)
"THE xxxx"
"cruising one-five-zero-zero" (hillbilly still using his VFG from 1983)

or those who just read back everything because they're too lazy to pick up their AIP/JEPPS.

NEXT!:ugh:

there are about 10000 of these i'm sure:

what about "tracking 132, reference the NDB" during a departure report from a nontowered aerodrome. really is w*nkers trying to sound cool by adding the reference the NDB or omni - the navaid used to establish track is only required when passing a departure report to a class D tower.

pilots aren't all to blame, where the hell does "left (or right) exit approved" come from at BK? if ATC doesn't approve it, what stops you from doing it anyway, provided you exit the runway strip and stop short of any other runway strips?

my fav is "in turn contact centre", I believe it is the opposite of "at the same time contact centre" :ugh:

And then there are the.Taxiing this time..........
OH so that wasn't you taxiing 2hrs 43mins ago. Glad we sorted that out

Karrank

To answer the question. They were taught that way. And taught a bad habit from someone who was wrong. :=

We have one guy who continues this dogmatic mantra. I have asked him to stop and I have told him to stop. With no success. :ugh: :{

Please Karrank you can help us both. :D Tell these pilots to stop requesting code and traffic. Writing the words makes me cringe.

Goodluck:ok:

Not to forget the evergreen classic:

"Standby for departure":ugh: :yuk: :yuk:

What RENURPP & Jarse said.

The number of times one hears a plethora of unrequired bullsh!t read back, then the tower has to ask for the required bits that were missed! :{ :ugh:

Gawd 'elp us! :ugh: :ugh:

News you said

"To answer the question. They were taught that way. And taught a bad habit from someone who was wrong".

I think you are quite possibly correct.

A call I have heard at several QLD regional airports over the last year or so is;

"ABC taxying for the training area, ONE PLUS ONE."

I guess they are saying this so that ATC understands that there is an Instructer on board, but where does this appear in the AIP. Seems that some Flying Schools are making up their own radio calls and teaching this ability right from the beginning.

BTW what is the radio call when the Instructor is not on board,....ONE MINUS ONE!

Hugh - "Standby for departure" isn't such a bad thing. As an enroute controller, I go looking for an aircraft 10 mins after they call taxiing. If it has been a while, some pilots will give us "Centre, ABC, airborne YXXX, standby for departure" so we don't bug them for the departure.
RENURPP:
Let me guess, "Cleared Visual Approach". Are you ever going to let that one go????:ok: :E :}

Cheers all,

NFR.

NFR,
actually that is a requirement as of thursday, it SHOULD be read back, as should any clerarance for an instrument approach..

CC was in the jump seat a few days ago and we were having a laugh at ATC requiring some wierd readback, for the life of me i can't remember what it was.

The instructor obviously comes first, so the call would be "ZERO PLUS ONE"!!!

"standby for departure"
 

As an IFR instructor I've previously used this call on many occasions. Often I will be simulating a low cloud departure from an non-controlled aerodrome without the benefit of published SID's. It's highly likely in this scenario that you'll leave the CTAF area ( where separation is pilot to pilot ) before actually intercepting outbound track. In this case a " standby for departure" call alerts atc that they have me on frequency and can forward any relevant traffic since receiving my departure call.
Used to be a lot easier to decide just when to make this call when ctaf's had a boundary , now if operating single comms it's a bit of an educated guess particularly if your in something that gets to a reasonable altitude before 10 miles.

I've been asked to readback reporting requirements by Military ATC, which I was always under the impression was a no-no.

And yes, I read it back, because otherwise they wouldn't give me my clearance :rolleyes:

Another thing required with the new ammendments is to call maintaining altitude if not radar identified.

I remember when I first started instructing IFR I was hounded by the seniors at the time as to why I didn't teach things such as request traffic, code etc.

As I moved onto charter conducting multiple IFR sectors I learnt by experience that I didn't have to call ABC TOD request traffic then make yet another call telling them that I'm leaving....these days it's just ABC leaving altitude and I know I'll get traffic...plus you should have a good idea of who's around anyway with situational awareness.

The point is that the students i taught will do the request this and that and it is because I didn't know any better but with some experience I hope they'll know better.

Isn’t that a formation thing the Air Force do? 1+1 is the number of people in each aircraft in the formation. So 1+2+1 is a formation of 3 with 2POB in one of the Aircraft.

Comon' how about?

"Centre IFR Taxi!!"

'Scuse me, but aren't you supposed to provide 2 minutes notice of an intended level change OCTA? Or did that get scrubbed from AIP while I wasn't looking...

One minute to TOPD?

Mr. Gaspo, I thought your taxi call was sufficient to get you IFR traffic for departure. Failing that, "Airborne Uppercumbuktawest" was for if you couldn't establish comms on the ground. From memory that got you 5 mins to complete manoeuvring and get a departure call out.:)

....and that other gem:

"Warrior blah blah over the top, this time......." :rolleyes:

GOD that sh!ts me.

And thanks to Dickless So-and-So, we now get to listen to it all day long up in the flight levels of CTA. Fc*king priceless..... :ugh:

How about

"passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"

on CTAF's!!!!

'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! :ugh: Nobody cares otherwise.

TC

All true, but is it any wonder nobody knows what to say or readback these days, with the contonuous torrent of (often unexplained) changes that sneak in 13 times a year. Much of it to do with the continually buggering around with the airspace and CTAF's for god knows what reason.

A fair smattering of ATC's are in the same boat as pilots where they just don't know what the latest change is either - it's called change fatigue, and it is accellerating.

Many of the wunderkinden who come up with this bull**** don't appreciate they are making things less safe by always tinkering with it.

See, it's even effecting spelling...

(Yes, OK, I know...)

Erm, like just telling me that you will be on descent in 2 minutes. Dumb rule though.
Oops! Guilty. It won't seem natural but I'll try it without and see what happens.

Back to my whinge, I don't think I could bring myself to give online counselling to pilots when they do the "request traffic" thing. Still hate it but.

Mr K, whilst there is an ATCer in the house, can you answer me this? When I arrive at aerodrome with VHF on the ground and say "...landed Blah Blah cancel SAR" and you say "Blah Blah SARWATCH cancelled" am I supposed to reply with "ABC" (or whatever the callsign may be)?

I seem to remember reading somewhere, possibly JEPPS when I last opened them:uhoh: that you're not supposed to but I always do as: a) it seems like the polite thing to do, and b) it lets centre know that you heard them.

Your thoughts?

:ok: When was the last time you heard an international position report done as per the book?? Look it up and see if it sounds like what you have said / heard.

Is that new??

Actually, I find that information quite useful for arranging mutual separation.

This topic is of huge interest to me - not only do I request traffic for descent XXXX, I was of the distinct impression that those who didn't request traffic prior to 'leaving' were causing the enroute controller all sorts of grief by making him drop everything to find you traffic before you hit something.

Learn something every day!

I've altered the formatting so my post doesn't look as ugly as yours :).

I actually thought this was a requirement, but I can't find it. At any rate, it is far preferable to launching in to "Melbourne Centre, ABC C182 2 POB IFR taxiing Learmonth Port Hedland runway 36" only to recieve the reply, "ABC, you were in with a ground station, say again".

It is certainly a requirement to contact ATS 2 minutes prior to TOD (or any other level change) so they can pass traffic. The best way I've heard this carried out is,

"ABC 2 minutes top of descent"
"ABC, traffic is bla bla bla"

<<2 minutes later>>

"Centre and all stations Broome area, ABC 30 miles SW of Broome, leaving FL130 on descent, Broome at 32"

You get your traffic in good time, you then make the leaving call as well as alerting any VFR traffic in the area of where you are and what you are doing.

My interpretation

leave out the landed and no need to respond after he has responded with the cancelation.

Change fatigue is at full throttle !

Problem has always been training. Not only instructors at the flying schools but the training captains with the airlines. Very few know what is correct so they make it up along the way.

Once upon a time this change process was floated past the RAPACs for input and comment, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Many of these changes are from CASA who on past experience knee jerk to incidents where they think alternative words would be more appropriate. It would be good to know why some of these changes are implemented (other than "it's ICAO"). If you go back in time you will find changes that got scrubbed and are now back again! What about changes that are just short term (eg when TAAATS was introduced).. we still have them as there has been no review. Just where is the corporate history these days???

An old one, but there has NEVER been a requirement to acknowledge and acknowledgement. What ATS say to you in response is their acknowledgement, so there is NO, requirement to acknowledge further unless of course you like the sound of your own voice!

Not really dumb. Not only is the requirement to advise PRIOR to descent to enable ATS to review any known traffic, but to let the VFR chap 500 ft below you that you are about to start down! Another reason why you should say your position with the same call. ATS know where you are (usually) but the VFR below do not.

Nothing worse than: "ABC top of descent in 2 min" [top of descent where??]

If you want ATS to know you are in the air and contact was not possible on the ground then an airborne call is an option. As soon as ATS get that call they will start putting you in the system. Saying "standby for departure" is pointless... just what else are they going to do??

What about "Code 1234"
The use of the word "code" is not required at any time by either ATS or pilots. If you go back in time it was a misprint in the AIP when transponders first came in. In the bit where it said code there should have been [brackets] around the word code to indicate the insertion of other text - ie 1234, but the brackets were left out, hence it became an Oz practice for many years until audited against o/s practice.

Just who is responsible for the training?? CASA of course, but then they don't have much/any corporate history to be across this themselves and it is left up to those that have been around for some years to try and get the message across.... a bit like swimming upstream!! difficult to get anywhere!

:sad:

Ah, but the VFR should be applying the simple rules of See-And-Avoid as one luckless Dickless individual would have it.... :rolleyes:

ATS should know where the guy is. Location was never a part of the call as far as I was aware (way back then in my GA daze....) but what did I know???

Well, you are required to make two calls, one 2 minutes prior to TOD for traffic, and another when you leave the level. Position and intentions (for VFR traffic) could go at either call. If you make it when you call "leaving" then "2 mins TOD" is fine. ATC know where you are, everyone else who needs to know, will know in 2 minutes when you call "leaving." Which ever way you do it, it is the same amount of quacking.

:ok: :ok:

Hmmmm, now I know why I'm just a VFR person.

AerocatS2A

:ok: :ok:

Yes, I agree with you, and that is the way I have always done it.

Including the place name is, I believe, a good thing in the first call, as it helps with the situational awareness of others and even helps ATC as they know exactly where to look (especially in these days of huge sectors).

Trouble is not that many follow up with the second call !

It all goes back to training and an understanding of how the system works (or should work!)

The training and examination on airspace participation is just not good enough and there is certainly no standardisation of those that do the training!:(

Airmanship comes in this discussion as well... pity they don't teach that any more!!:( :(

would someone please explain the 2 minutes notice before changing level OCTA, i thought it was 1?

Well I'll be :mad: ed: they did scrub it from AIP while I wasn't looking...

AIP ENR 1.1 - 79

60.2 The pilot in command of an IFR flight must notify the intention to amend route, deviate from track or change level in sufficient time for ATS to advise traffic.

Having said that, the one that gets my goat is "Monitoring CTAF". Well, what am I supposed to do with that? Tell me you're changing to CTAF or don't say anything at all!