Whatever you say, say it S-L-O-W-L-Y

I've been know to transmit to some new pip-squeak CPL who thinks that the only way to be a 'professional' pilot is to rattle out their R/T as fast as they can, becoming totally incomprehensible as a result, and requiring a 'say again' - which wastes everybody's time - " If you fly as fast as you talk, I'm getting out of here"

So when ATC say "ABC disregard". Should you read back "disregard, ABC" or is it "disregarded, ABC" or even "disregardeded, ABC"? "disregard" is an instruction, so it must be read back, Not many do this though, why not?

"disregard" is present tense, but you are reading back your compliance to the instruction, so it then becomes past tense, so you should probably say "disregarded". But if you are reading back a compliance of disregarded, then you should say "disregardeded". Is that right?

Of course if you are a little slow and hadn't totally disregarded the instruction before you read it back, then surely it would be "disregarding, ABC"...:E

One more. When ATC say "in with a ground station" should you read that back so that ATC know that you know that they were in with a ground station and just didn't hear you because they were watching the cricket?

Out of all threads on proon I find the phraseology one's the most helpful and informative. Especially from all you international pilots telling us how good it is overseas, keep up the good work :ok:

You crack me up :D There were a lot of 'in with a ground station' when Clarkey scored his 300, I tell ya that for nuthin' ;)

And I generally find that if you read back everything i.e. an exact mirror of what ATC has just said saves more time overall than learning phraseologies from AIP :ok:

Yawn.

Really guys????

Whilst I'm all for doing and saying all the right things as PROFESSIONALS some of you really need to get a grip.

For goodness sake, BIG PICTURE STUFF.

Doesn't matter if you end up in a smoking hole just as long as you got the RT 100% correct!!!

Funny.

At the end of the day it's "communication" it doesn't really matter how you say it as long as it is UNDERSTOOD.

Nooooo, please Nits, I'd prefer if the gems keep comin'

And by the way, I'm lobbying ICAO, CASA, FAA, ASA etc to have:

'Request traffic & Squwark' included in taxy calls. (because most ATC's are dip****s and can't remember to give it to you)

You're and your. Is it so hard to distinguish the two? For people arguing over correct phraseology, correct grammar shouldn't be so difficult.

Leaving........this thread.

Who cares? So what if you come onto radar squawking 3000? :E

Nit, my RAAF instructor eons ago said that if your R/T is slack, the rest of your flying is probably slack too. Do (say) it by doing (saying) it right. :ok:

Blogggggs :ugh: I'd prefer if you were squawking 1200 when you depart so I can give you traffic on yourself..............gees mate?

I'm with the topic starter that we should make phone conversation the norm for radio speak.

"Yo atc mate how 'r you going? Can I get you some IFR stuff?"

And no we don't have radar coverage everywhere in Australia.

Was hoping this would be a funny thing you have heard of the radio thread.

Writing an email now to get it brought back in crash comic!:D

Here's one for an ATC type person...

AIP GEN 3.4 4.14.3
(ATC callsigns)
The name of the location or the service may be omitted provided that satisfactory communication has been established.

I would take this to mean that once you have made an initial contact,
(eg Sunshine Coast Tower, ABC, Maintaining 2 thousand 5 hundred
ABC, Sunshine Coast Tower, descend to 1 thousand 5 hundred
Descend to 1 thousand 5 hundred, ABC)
{No, it's not a complete example, I know...},

Every subsequent contact should begin with either Sunshine Coast or Tower?
(eg Tower, ABC maintaining 1 thousand 5 hundred
ABC, Tower.)

Bloggsy......yes I do agree BUT let's keep it real! Some here are being a tad pedantic.

It matters because 1) it's the correct way and 2) the reason they stipulate "leaving" not "left" is because of an incident where an incorrect read back using "left" not "leaving" caused a breakdown in separation. It was then mandated as "leaving".

"left" is too easily confused with a direction of turn as in "left 320" meaning a heading change rather than an altitude vacated.

So am I right in saying that even when you're radar identified in Ausi, upon every single frequency change you have to give either
a) the altitude you're maintaining
b) the altitude you're descending to
or
c) the altitude you're climbing to

Yes. Except tower, ground and clearance :-)

Folks,
As I have posted every time this thread, in various guises, pops up --- you could all do well to have a look at what ICAO requires, and traditional ICAO (as per, for example, NZ AIP or UK CAA R/T Handbook) ) R/T procedures.

If Australian student pilots were taught rudiments of standard R/T procedure, and the why and how they came to be what they are (except in Australia) we wouldn't need this thread again. Sadly, rote learning (from the grossly excessive "standard phrases in the AIP), rather than the principles of good R/T communication, is a core problem.

Trouble is, instructors who were taught by their instructors, who don't know either, and the anal Australian approach to compliance, at the cost of communication ---- and the problem has become self perpetuating.

As I have said so often, Australia has "radio procedures", the rest of the world communicates.

If you knew, inwardly digested, understood and followed ICAO SARPs on this subject (Annex X, Vol. 2, or PANS/RAC 4444) all the silly questions, including where some of you get tense about tense, and most of the other questions/complaints would just go away.

But, sadly, that's not the "Australian way".

Tootle pip!!

PS: And, please, only read back what is required.