Great thread
 

It's good to see PPRuNe being used for good rather than evil.... and reducing radio diarrhoea is definately benefiting the world.
Just a small point- considering the way that the AIPs are written it is easy for someone (average GA newbie) to think that the position report format is simply a list of required items. The words used in between may be considered irrelevant- as some people here think.
This is of course incorrect and unless CASA starts dolling out penalties for incorrect use of the radio it's unlikely to change.
An easy solution would be for one of the major IFR study guide authors to include a section on correct radio phraseology. Al these 'pet peeves' just need to be put on paper and the problem would be much less significant.
:ok:

Zap

In the good-old-days, the R/T section of the AIP and VFG were quite easy to read. The examples started with calling for a clearance, through taxi, take-off, departure report, position report, descent, landing clearance, cancelling sarwatch, to taxi in. It was easy to find the relevant section to research requirements.

The current AIP Comms section is a hodge podge of unrelated verbage, difficult to follow, and is exacerbated the the need to change readback requirement to include more and more... :{

Radio Calls
 

Rcoit

Hi there. I initiated this discussion to express my concerns with the padding out of radio calls, with meaningless dribble. I believe this has increased in recent years. The AIP clearly states calls are in a required format. Although there is less phraseology content, in the AIP, than in the past. It also mentions clear and brief transmissions.

I have achieved my aim and hopefully enlightened some of the junior pilots, through all contributions here, as to the correct format.

Pprune is about being professional, and accurate radio transmissions demonstrate a pride in what we do. Concise radio traffic assists everybody. I stand by my belief that there is no need to add the words 'time', 'estimate' etc, as we all understand what is meant.

Thanks to all for their contributions. :)

You all need to get a life.

Bravo, CC, this is the crux of the matter. We can all debate ad infinitum about the word-for-word theories, but at the end of the day, the rules often just don't clearly state what's required, or there are contradictions, etc. This is why these threads come up all the time, and nothing is ever resolved, apart from how anal some people can be.

I think as long as we're all trying to be professional and keep things concise, then let's live and let live about a word here and there, hey? There are more important things in life, like flying your aircraft.

BTW, we've all flown with/around pilots whose radio work may sound exemplary, but who are very average operators in other respects, and vice versa. Just cos' Captain Awesome sounds like a pro on the radio, doesn't mean he's not cooking engines/ breaking CTA/ below LSALT or MSA / landing on wrong runway, etc. Alright, professional flying usually means professional radio, but we all know exceptions. Always remember THAT!:=

TD.
What he said!
BTW when I read your name I keep thinking of a fire breathing dragon with +MACH performance, goggles and a scarf.....

(what do they put in this beer?)

CC, TD - this has always been my problem. I fully endorse the sentiments of some posters: as professionals we should be making every effort to have our calls 100% up to scratch so that we won't create or add to confusion and everyone will be clear on what the next guy is doing. The rec pilots who get around in CTA or radar environments should also be aware of the responsibility that this comes with - I would not, therefore, be too quick to suggtest that people holding and encouraging high RTP standards should "get a life" etc.

To my original point, and noting my desire to become a high standard communicator, I find that the Jepps is little help in simply stating the required phraseology. I note the references of several users with specific requirements - no probs, but when it comes to the structure and phrasing of a particular report, you usually have to wade through reams of jibberish calls that seem the same or are not clearly stated before you find what might be relevant. I suggest this is the main reason that many newcomers (myself included) simply learn from instructors, colleagues, captains and never correct these minor (or major) errors.

Is there an easier reference??? I've got an AIP lying about somewhere (2-3 years out of date). Is its comms section any better than Jepps? The IFG has some of the simpler calls explained, but nothing in detail.

Can I get away with suggesting ATC are not entirely squeaky clean in this regard? I've heard a number of instructions recently that were non-standard, leaving the pilot in a bit of a spin as to what should and shouldn't be read back? Nobody's perfect I suppose.

Stay out of the sun.

No different. The AIP is the Australian legislation, so Jepps is required to reproduce it pretty well word-for-word, including the Comms, though in different paragraphs etc.

I have found the IFG to be excellent, though strangely enough a lot of the calls in it are not really absolutely "standard" either, and not always as up-to-date as it might be, so some purists still eschew it. However, if you stick to those calls you will have no problems at all, IMHO.