PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   RADIO CALLS! (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/473706-radio-calls.html)

Shed Dog Tosser 13th Jan 2012 04:07

All right, I'm back, who ended up eating the SAO's ?.

Capn Bloggs 14th Jan 2012 04:47

Swaziland? It shows... :}

allthecoolnamesarego 14th Jan 2012 05:45

Ok, my two bobs worth.
I'm not sure why people can't come to terms with correct R/T. It really isn't that hard to read, understand and repeat.
With R/T, (as with many things in life), those that argue 'It's not that important', or 'as long as I get the general idea out there' are usually too lazy to try (and not brave enough to admit they're lazy) or lack the spare capacity to operate an aircraft AND make correct R/T at the same time.
The rules are rules, and as PROFESSIONAL pilots, we should, at the very least, ATTEMPT to make srandard and correct R/T.
A lot (notice it is A LOT and not alot :) ) of what we say on the radio is said in a particular fashion for a reason. If you think it is wrong, write a submission to CASA to have it changed.
Of all the things we as aviators face and are expected to do, making correct radio calls should be the easiest of the lot.
Read, remember, repeat.

As an old instructor of mine once said (talking particularly about formation - but it applies to flying in general) "look good coming over the base, and sound good on over radio".

Over and out😜
(yes I know that is wrong - I'm joking for god's sake :) )

Capt Claret 14th Jan 2012 06:18

What allthecoolnamesarego said. :ok:

SW3 16th Jan 2012 11:03

Agreed Hold Short. Standard phrases there for a reason so use them. Makes life much easier for all. Take pride in yor flying!

Duff Man 16th Jan 2012 20:14

While we're at it

Radar
Doesn't exist any more. It's: Surveillance!

Ps. Duff Man's onto the leaving/left case to get it removed altogether. Waste of r/t in controlled airspace.

triadic 16th Jan 2012 21:56

This thread subject comes up every year or so and is always interesting and has a few laughs!

However nobody seems to examine how these problems (if they are so) come about? If you go back to basic flight schools you will find that R/T is one of the few subjects that is not subject to a CASA exam. It is left to the flying school and the CFI to set the standards and provide the instruction etc by whatever method. This brings about what might be considered a lack of standardisation and we see this right thru the industry and have done so for the past 10 or 20 years. Even the C&T Captains at the top end of the market do the same and there is a failure to understand and teach what is correct. Some domestic RPT/Regional pilots are the worst offenders.....:=

Trouble is they don't know what they don't know and an understanding of ATC/ATS is not in the pilot syllabus. Those that have such an understanding are usually more proficient in their R/T use.:ok:

So what is the problem? Yes lets speak ICAO English and abide wherever possible with the AIP. However once again it is the interpretations of what is published that fail to provide the standardisation that is intended.

Whilst the AIP is published by ASA, it is CASA that is the author of the subject matter under discussion.

Why do pilots get it wrong? Instruction and standardisation is top of the list in my book and a failure by CASA to even understand the issues and provide the much needed standardisation....!

My pet hates include::=
  • Acknowledge and acknowledgment
  • Too many readbacks
  • Not including location in broadcasts on descent in G (ATC might know, but other pilots don't!)
  • Too much "offering" (the practice of establishing coms prior to passing info) They don't do this o/s, so why in Oz? Are pilots and controllers not able to pick something up the first time - they used to be able to!]

Many procedures changed when TAAATS was introduced so as to give the controllers time to get used to the new system. Sadly many of the then temporary procedures (?) are still in place. Do we really need them now?

By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.

Whilst I have the greatest respect for our controllers, there is a culture within that does not exist in other major aviation countries….. I remember an experienced international pilot saying once; Why is it that all over the world you are treated by ATC as a professional until you show yourself to be and idiot, but in Oz, on first contact, one is often treated as an idiot until you show you are a professional?:ugh:

As is shown by the size of this thread, there is much interest in this subject, however everyone looks at it in a different way, and whilst they do, we will continue to have these discussions. As said previously, there is not much that can be done about it now.

Oktas8 17th Jan 2012 04:09

I think every country has problems with RT standards, and as a recently arrival to Australia myself I've made my fair share of nonsense calls at regional ports.

Although I've read the relevant section of the AIP (twice), it seems to be written by people of a legal mindset rather than an instructional mindset. Some countries have introduced RT Guides for pilots. These are written in the style of a CAAP - that is, readable and simple with practical examples. Much like one or two of the posts here in fact!

I thought of writing something myself - to teach myself mainly, but also anyone else who wanted to read a practical RT guide. But I simply can't do it based on the AIP. There are too many missing bits and exceptions and too much that can't be interpreted correctly without extra explanation.

Jack Ranga 17th Jan 2012 04:26


By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.
Agree with you here so this is not having a crack, BUT it's the staffing that makes some of us busy. As I said in a previous post, when my group combines all of our sectors we are running 7 sectors/frequencies.


Whilst I have the greatest respect for our controllers, there is a culture within that does not exist in other major aviation countries….. I remember an experienced international pilot saying once; Why is it that all over the world you are treated by ATC as a professional until you show yourself to be and idiot, but in Oz, on first contact, one is often treated as an idiot until you show you are a professional?
Seriously mate, this is just so not the case. If a controller gives a bit of lip and it's reported, we are guilty, bit like copping a smack in a game of footy, if you retaliate, you cop the suspension. It's just not worth being a smartarse on the radio anymore.


As is shown by the size of this thread, there is much interest in this subject, however everyone looks at it in a different way, and whilst they do, we will continue to have these discussions. As said previously, there is not much that can be done about it now.
From my point of view, I'm not gonna get all anal on the sequence of what's in the read back, what does irritate the f@ck out of me is when you just make stuff up and reading back every single detail of a transmission because you don't know what's meant to be read back.

MakeItHappenCaptain 17th Jan 2012 11:40

So why do we have to read back QNH when we state we've already received the current ATIS?

LeadSled 17th Jan 2012 13:50


By world standards, Oz is not really a busy place and for example if our procedures/practices were introduced into the UK or USA the place would come to a standstill. Must be a message there somewhere.
Triadic,
Great to see that, now you are out in the big wide world, you have notice that ICAO/US/UK actually know what they are doing, and it all works, with about a tenth of the 'Standard Phrases" in the Australian AIP.

Where "communications" is the name of the game --- not "complying with procedures".

As to the question, why read back the QNH when it is on the ATIS --- dead bodies is why!! --- as a result of accidents that created said dead bodies ---- ICAO made it a SARP, and despite considerable opposition here at the time, it was adopted.

Tootle pip!!

triadic 18th Jan 2012 22:03

QNH

When the procedures and R/T were revamped in 1997, the QNH was discussed for hours. It got up, as it was an ICAO recommendation. One of the points that failed to be understood by the CASA rep on that working group was that "Area QNH" is information and as such should not be a readback. He did not really understand and now many read back the AQNH! Don’t know if that was the intent, but it certainly is the result. Everybody was just too busy to fully work thru the PIR of those changes.

READBACKS
Major problem is that many just don’t understand the system and what is needed, hence the default position of reading everything back. (which was warned of in the 97 working group discussions) Some even readback traffic info... give me a break! It is just not required!

ATC STAFF LEVELS
Have to agree that there is a problem in Oz, and the real problem started way back in the early 90s when we saw the bulk introduction and use of re-transmission. Many pilots don't understand the concept and sadly there are some controllers that can’t seem to use it efficiently. Once I thought it was the system, but on different days with different controllers it can be very different.

CULTURE
Like it or not there is a different culture in every countries ATC world. My quote is some years old, but there is nothing to suggest it has changed much. Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner. Maybe if the AG's Dept got out of writing many of Oz documents it might improve??

We can only do our best and work within the guidelines we have…..

LeadSled 19th Jan 2012 04:42

Folks,
As I have posted on a number of other threads on this subject, lousy training from the start is a major problem here ----- and with the unholy "compliance" mindset, we have the "pingya" credo.

Thus, to quote a well know CFI from the Sydney area:

"Read everything back, then they can't pingya".

Good communications doesn't get a look in with this kind of training, even if this CFI had some understanding of what proper communications are --- which he doesn't.

And, as we all know, what is learned first is learned best. Bad habits inculcated during the first few hours of training are hard to shift.

Tootle pip!!

Jack Ranga 19th Jan 2012 06:37


Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner.
Mate, we get checked 6 monthly plus a contextual report (attitude, yearly). We also get random voice sampled, which can (and has been found to) be embarrassing!

As Leadsled says (good lord! Taking a good, long, hard look at myself) If it's learnt correctly from the start it'll be done properly. The school at Mangalore that does international students (Asian) obviously teach the students the correct calls...........because they are correct.............right from the start. I have not heard one of them utter 'Request traffic and code' when they are given IFR traffic they don't read all the superfluous garbage back, just their callsign.

VH-FTS 19th Jan 2012 07:42

Unfortunately many local students who get taught the correct calls then start a GA journey that exposes them to dribble from other pilots.

SW3 19th Jan 2012 10:14

At the end of the day read the ATC section of the Jepps plus the Met section or the AIP and pronounce phrases as printed in black and white. This is what ATC and other pilots are expecting to hear. How often do you hear a controller making up there own calls? It just doesn't happen. The format passes the required info in a concise and predictable manner.
As stated, monkey see monkey do. One must be trained from the start. Take pride in your profession. Most of all, think before pressing the PTT.

Capn Bloggs 19th Jan 2012 11:45


Unfortunately many local students who get taught the correct calls then start a GA journey that exposes them to dribble from other pilots.
And that's the point of the thread. Almost all of our calls are p1ss-easy. The problem is the slackers can't be bothered doing the right thing, combined with a little bit of confusion caused by the rushed intro of ICAO R/T by the fundamentalists like Leedsleead. QNH. What dumbo wouldn't check the ATC-given QNH with the ATIS QNH?


Everyone is just too obsessed with procedures and getting it right by the book when really it is all about communicating in a professional manner.
Triadic, most of your stuff is pretty good but ...what did you mean by that?? How do you communicate in a professional manner if you don't get it right by the book? Or are you suggesting that we be professional by doing our own thing? Maybe professional means using a deep voice? How about we 1/comply with the rules and then, if we don't like them, 2/Change them?

LeadSled 19th Jan 2012 13:11


Triadic, most of your stuff is pretty good but ...what did you mean by that?? How do you communicate in a professional manner if you don't get it right by the book? Or are you suggesting that we be professional by doing our own thing? Maybe professional means using a deep voice? How about we 1/comply with the rules and then, if we don't like them, 2/Change them?
Bloggs,
As ever, you simply don't understand. Having come from the land of compliance downunder, where parroting phrases "by the book" takes precedence over Annex X, Vol. 2, and such parroting is regarded by people like you as the "height of professionalism".

Ruled by rules, saves you having to think.

"Communications", as the rest of the aviation world understands it, doesn't get a look in with you, does it. Just follow the "rules". Sadly, so many of Australia's self confessed "professionals" sound like rank amateurs to those who actually know and understand the meaning behind the ICAO/UK/US/NZ etc., etc.practices, procedures and recommendations.

Pity you haven't been exposed, in any meaningful sense, to the world of aviation outside Australia, then you might have developed some understanding as those of us who have spent large parts of our aviation professional lives outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- particularly outside the Australian psychological 12 mile limit. understand.

Then you would understand what Triadic is saying.

Tootle pip!!

Pinky the pilot 20th Jan 2012 00:52


Pity you haven't been exposed, in any meaningful sense, to the world of aviation outside Australia, then you might have developed some understanding as those of us who have spent large parts of our aviation professional lives outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- particularly outside the Australian psychological 12 mile limit. understand.
Well said LeadSled. I flew for a while in PNG and found it challenging and rewarding in many ways.:ok:

One thing that struck me was that both ATC and Flight Service were total professionals (likewise all other pilot I had the pleasure of working with) and their radio communications were just that,Communications! Clear and precise.

There was however, one particular Female FSO who once used some non standard phraseology to me but that was because I..........:E

Slippery_Pete 20th Jan 2012 01:37

I completely agree with the author of the original post. The lack of standard phraseology is increasing.

For those who have said it's just a case of willy waving, and unimportant in the "big picture", have a look here:

http://www.pan-american.de/Desasters/Teneriff2.html

Before some of you jump up and down about accident theory, I understand there were a hell of a lot of holes in different pieces of cheese and that the KLM Captain's impatience was probably the over-riding factor. But this is a prime example where standard phraseology deteriorated into improvised radio rabble - and the end result was the world's largest single aviation accident.

The other surprising fact about many of the responses to the original post is that many people fail to make the connection between slack/lazy radio use, and overall operational professionalism. I can almost guarantee that a crew who make the effort to be accurate and compliant with AIP radio calls are more than likely to carry that professionalism through to other aspects of their flying. Fair enough, "pending clearance" or "IFR taxi" might not kill someone, but if a pilot is lazy enough to not give a sh*t about it, then tells me a lot about their attitude to other aspects of their profession.

You want some willy waving? Heard a guy make every CTAF call the other day with "SUPER King Air 350, ABC....". What a tool :ok:

I resisted the urge to say "Super Boeing 737-800 Series Next Generation" in my subsequent CTAF calls, but wasn't easy :D.

Capn Bloggs 20th Jan 2012 04:28


Originally Posted by Ledslud
where parroting phrases "by the book" takes precedence over Annex X, Vol. 2, and such parroting is regarded by people like you as the "height of professionalism".

Classic. Don't do what the book says, do what you think Annex X Vol 2 wants you to say. Bla Bla bla!

Kelly Slater 20th Jan 2012 06:07

The thing that always comes out in threads like this is that the AIP is not readily interpreted by all. Pilots read the same section and continue to come up with different opinions on what is required. The book is simply not clear. Not all calls are covered and a complete list of ICAO radio calls is only available if you pay for it. A complete reference does not exist on the web for free. I haven't looked for 12 months so if anyone has a link to all calls please prove me wrong and post it.
Many moons ago, there was a Trevor Tomms publication that layed out the vast majority of radio calls needed to operate in Australia in an unambigous manner. Even I could read it and know exactly what I was supposed to say. This type of publication is needed, something that takes the guessing out of what the AIP means. For those of you that think they can define exactly what is required from the AIP, I guarantee that I can find at least one call where you will be unsure.

Tempo 20th Jan 2012 06:59

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

Who cares if the radio calls are not perfect out of the AIP. Most of us have other interests outside our jobs and do not spend every waking minute of the day rehearsing their calls.

What a joke.

YorkshireTyke 20th Jan 2012 07:38

All that matters is to say it S L O W L Y ( and clearly )

Having to " Say again?" wastes everybody's time.

VH-FTS 20th Jan 2012 07:55

Aviate, navigate, communicate huh? Communicate is still in that saying - just because it is a lower priority doesn't give you an excuse to do it incorrectly.

That's alright, keep thinking about your sail boat and don't worry about proper communications. Gives me something to laugh at when I hear your tripe on the radio. I have a really sad life anyway, only reading through the AIPs on weekends - so the laughing at your rubbish calls helps me prevent self- harm.

Wally Mk2 20th Jan 2012 09:31

Actually that's well put 'Tempo'. Some take the R/T too seriously.NOBODY does it perfectly ALL the time inc ATC so am amazed that this thread has lasted so long! I guess willy waving has become a sport here in Oz:)


Wmk2

Di_Vosh 21st Jan 2012 02:38

Well, it's amusing to see that this thread is still going. :zzz:

Travelator


You have accused Bloggs as being black or white yet you are also guilty by stating this is compliance vs productivity. You can be compliant and productive, they are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, I was simply returning the same kind of throwaway line back at Bloggs. Nothing more than that.


If you say taxis instead of taxiing then you are being productive, however if you say taxiing then you are both productive and compliant.
I agree! I try to do all my radio calls correctly. But if I get it wrong I'm not going to obsess about it. We all have our pet hates with what we hear on the radio, but apart from rolling my eyes at the time (like this: :rolleyes:), I move on.


As for the climbing to flight levels. Simply say the level you are climbing to, your flight planned level. If you want to change it then can do so with ATC and everybody knows what you are doing. I am at FL350 and you say flight levels, are you planning on climbing that high? Am I going have to make a radio call to see if we conflict? If you say your flight planned altitude then that covers everyone in between and excludes all else. Far more efficient and productive.
Not sure where you're going with this, as the point was mentioning "Climbing flight levels" on the CTAF.

Big picture stuff here. If you're at FL350 why are you listening to a CTAF? You do understand that at FL350 you're in Class A airspace, so no need to call me to arrange separation?

Not sure what distance your FCOM says to monitor CTAF if arriving at a non-controlled airport (ours is 30Nm). But even if it were TOD it wouldn't matter. As I said to Hold Short, if the departing aircraft is on anything like a reciprocal heading you're going to be potentially conflicting traffic if the departure aircraft is climbing to anything over 4000' AGL. So you're probably going to have to call and arrange separation in any event.


If you can't be bothered doing it the way it is set out in the AIP then that's fine by me, just don't try and justify it by being anything other than lazy and ignorant.
Big call there, fella. I love being called lazy and ignorant because I have a different OPINION than you. If all the calls were presented in an easy to understand, easy to reference, simple manner then I might agree.


Somebody else mentioned the old "aviate, navigate, communicate" chestnut. "Communicate" being the third priority is not an excuse to be sloppy.
Agree. But Communicate is the third priority for a reason. People shouldn't be concentrating on getting "Communicate" 100% correct 100% of the time at the expense of "Aviate" or "Navigate".


Still more gold in this thread:


The other surprising fact about many of the responses to the original post is that many people fail to make the connection between slack/lazy radio use, and overall operational professionalism.
Back this statement up? Of course not.

Why stop at r/t though? How about pilots who don't have shiny shoes or who don't wear a tie or a hat? They don't care about their appearance. If they don't care about their apperance then they probably don't care about other aspects of their aviation. How about pilots who get speeding tickets? If they are so casual about road rules then they probably break avaition rules as well? How many times have you read on Prune "How can you be a professional pilot if you can't spell properly?"

I've read all these opinions here on Prune before, and they all make about the same amount of sense :yuk:

Another gem


I can almost guarantee that a crew who make the effort to be accurate and compliant with AIP radio calls are more than likely to carry that professionalism through to other aspects of their flying.

Absolute rubbish! If they're accurate and compliant with their radio calls, the ONLY conclusion that you can draw is that they're accurate and compliant with their radio calls. ANY other conclusion base on r/t alone tells me that your decision making ability is faulty.

You don't have to look further than this thread to find examples from pilots who claim to have great r/t but have indicated that other aspects of their aviation could do with improvement.

DIVOSH!

P.S. Wally, and SDT :ok: :ok:

eocvictim 21st Jan 2012 04:12

I'm surprised there has been no complaints about the usage of "G'day". There's no mention of that in the AIP.

Slippery_Pete 21st Jan 2012 06:17


Back this statement up? Of course not.
That's my opinion from years of checking airline pilots, but if you don't agree that's none of my business and you are entitled to that opinion.
I've seen some pilots who are disciplined and accurate on the radio who were poor overall, and pilots with slack communications who were good overall. But they are the exception to the rule - in the vast majority of cases (>95%) the two go hand in hand.


Why stop at r/t though? How about pilots who don't have shiny shoes or who don't wear a tie or a hat? They don't care about their appearance. If they don't care about their apperance then they probably don't care about other aspects of their aviation. How about pilots who get speeding tickets? If they are so casual about road rules then they probably break avaition rules as well? How many times have you read on Prune "How can you be a professional pilot if you can't spell properly?"

I've read all these opinions here on Prune before, and they all make about the same amount of sense http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/pukey.gif
I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but it would to most pilots who treat flying as their profession, not their job.

Your profile says you are a 48 year old Dash 8 FO. I'm just curious, but is that accurate?


Big call there, fella. I love being called lazy and ignorant because I have a different OPINION than you. If all the calls were presented in an easy to understand, easy to reference, simple manner then I might agree.
It would probably take you less time to read that section of the AIP and become more compliant than to type your last post about how unimportant you think it is. :D

Capn Bloggs 21st Jan 2012 08:08

Travelator 1, Divosh 0.


Originally Posted by Divosh
Not sure what distance your FCOM says to monitor CTAF if arriving at a non-controlled airport (ours is 30Nm).

Appropriate for a C152 operation. :cool:

pistinaround 21st Jan 2012 08:12

May be they should introduce an exam here In OZ like in JAA land that requires you to conduct a VFR & IFR coms exam before you can be issued with an licence be it PPL or ATPL. ( it basically gives you 4 answers and you have to pick the correct answer for the situation given )

fujii 21st Jan 2012 20:16

People in glass houses.
 
This thread has dragged on long enough. The irony is that the majority of posts contain grammatical, punctuation, spelling or typing errors. If pontificating about others, first ensure your own house is in order.

Tempo 22nd Jan 2012 01:02


Aviate, navigate, communicate huh? Communicate is still in that saying - just because it is a lower priority doesn't give you an excuse to do it incorrectly.

That's alright, keep thinking about your sail boat and don't worry about proper communications. Gives me something to laugh at when I hear your tripe on the radio. I have a really sad life anyway, only reading through the AIPs on weekends - so the laughing at your rubbish calls helps me prevent self- harm.
Good on you FTS, a well thought out and intelligent reply. If you are in the industry as a professional you will realise that there is more to flying than sounding like the ace of base. I have flown with many people over the years and some of the most instinctive and practical pilots were not the best radio call wise. But really, give me a good operator who has excellent S/A and practical knowledge rather than some pain in the ass who picks you up every time you fart incorrectly. You keep studying that AIP if it makes you feel better and feel free to pick me up because I say the wrong thing. I have not looked at the AIP communications section for a long time and have no desire to either.The guys that I admire and respect are those who go about their business with eyes on the big picture, not this bull****.

It's the weekend so you better get back to that AIP. Have fun! I will go back to my imaginary sail boat.

VH-FTS 22nd Jan 2012 01:34

It was a well thought out reply.

Don't worry though, I won't be picking you up when you get it wrong. That's the job of your training and checking department. Hopefully they're doing their job properly. If you are a trainer or checkie, god help us all with an attitude like that.

I'm all for task management etc, but there's no excuse for getting R/T wrong. I'm not talking about "ing" vs "s" - that was never my argument, nor am I arguing that when the ****e hits the fan and you've reached the point of task saturation that you should still be able to communicate in a 100% error free manner. But when you hear an RPT operator who can't either get a CTAF call or departure report done properly, it says a lot them as a pilot. Not communicating properly can cause back-flow problems to navigating and aviating. At the very least it is time consuming when ATC or other pilots call them back. At the worst, accidents have happened.

How many controllers have replied to this thread saying "nah, it's cool when pilots don't give me the required info"? None! They're the ones processing the information we give them. The ones pulling their willies are the pilots who think they're too cool to research or go back through their procedures once or twice a year.

Di_Vosh 22nd Jan 2012 03:33

Ho Hum...
 
Where are we?

Oh yes.


Slippery Pete

Congratulations! Someone who can actually argue a point without resorting to name calling! :D


That's my opinion from years of checking airline pilots, but if you don't agree that's none of my business and you are entitled to that opinion.
I've seen some pilots who are disciplined and accurate on the radio who were poor overall, and pilots with slack communications who were good overall. But they are the exception to the rule - in the vast majority of cases (>95%) the two go hand in hand.
Well, that's your opinion based on your experience. I've an extensive training background (non-aviation) and one thing my experience has told me is that there are very few individuals who have excellent skills in their entire skill-set; most people have an Achilles heel in at least one area.

I don't have an extensive aviation background (only started flying 10 years ago) but once again my experience doesn't back up your claim. I've seen gifted aviators who struggle with radio calls. I've seen people with great radio skills who can't land without denting the runway or get lost within 50 miles of departure without a GPS! I've seen pilots who are crap at everything and a very few who are great at everything. Most pilots I've seen have a skills area which isn't as good as their other skills.

So my opinion is different to yours. But my opinion doesn't lead me to make unfounded assumptions based on nothing more than how someone makes a radio call! ;)


I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but it would to most pilots who treat flying as their profession, not their job.
Well, you were able to argue one point before posting some kind of smug, patronising reply. :(

or this one:


It would probably take you less time to read that section of the AIP and become more compliant than to type your last post about how unimportant you think it is.
Happy to discuss the issue, if you're capable of doing so.


Bloggs


Travelator 1, Divosh 0.

Very droll, and a typical "intelligent" contribution to the debate :hmm:

It was Slippery Pete and not Travelator who replied. Try to keep up, mate. :rolleyes:

FTS


How many controllers have replied to this thread saying "nah, it's cool when pilots don't give me the required info"? None!
Well, that's because the point of this thread isn't about missing information in a radio call; it's about pilots who give all the information but who get some of the words wrong like "Taxiing" instead of "Taxi's".

But there was a controller who appreciated the "Centre, ABC, IFR taxi" call so that he could prepare to receive info.


Not communicating properly can cause back-flow problems to navigating and aviating
You'll need to explain that one a bit better.

155 posts so far and it appears that there are two groups:

Group one (Bloggs, S_P, Hold Short, et al) who consider that 100% AIP compliance 100% of the time is the only acceptable outcome when on the radio.

Group two (Me, and a few others) know the calls, but accept that some people say the wrong word (e.g. "Left" instead of "Leaving"). They also acknowledge why some people may make a radio call such as (e.g. "Centre, ABC, IFR taxi") even though it's not in the AIP.

This group don't have an issue with this because they're aware that the pilot is still communicating effectively and that effective communication is more important than 100% AIP compliance.

I've heard non-compliant calls from every airline, the RAAF as well as ATC. I've never heard ATC ask for clarification when a pilot mentions "This time", "taxiing", "Pending Clearance", etc.

DIVOSH!

Slippery_Pete 22nd Jan 2012 03:47


If you are in the industry as a professional you will realise that there is more to flying than sounding like the ace of base.
This is exactly the point you are missing. The pilots who place importance on getting the radio work right sound boring - because it's the same every time - easier for other pilots, easier for ATC, easier for awareness in a multicrew environment.

If you think trying to "sound like the ace of the base" on the radio = accurate, compliant & safe radio you have utterly missed the fundamental point of the original post.


I have not looked at the AIP communications section for a long time and have no desire to either.
This epitomises everything that is wrong with Australian aviation today.

Please don't tell me that you were once a flying instructor or are planning on an instructing or training position - I can handle individuals with this attitude and accept that it probably won't change, but I shudder to think that this level of disregard might be passed on to others in the industry, particularly newbies.


It's the weekend so you better get back to that AIP. Have fun! I will go back to my imaginary sail boat.
It's not about spending every weekend reading the AIP as you have made it out to be. It's about spending a little bit of time, every now and then (such as on long sectors) making the effort to get a little bit better.

A pilot who doesn't want to get better in every area is an accident waiting to happen.

Tempo 22nd Jan 2012 04:44

Adios Amigos....

Pprune has deteriorated over the last 15 years to this crap.

Have fun.....I've had enough.

maehhh 22nd Jan 2012 05:41

This thread finally brings some light on how an actually relaxed country like Australia could develop something like CASA... :rolleyes:

Capn Bloggs 22nd Jan 2012 06:04


Originally Posted by Divosh
Travelator

Quote:
You have accused Bloggs as being black or white yet you are also guilty by stating this is compliance vs productivity. You can be compliant and productive, they are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I was simply returning the same kind of throwaway line back at Bloggs. Nothing more than that.


Originally Posted by Divosh

Bloggs

Travelator 1, Divosh 0.
Very droll, and a typical "intelligent" contribution to the debate

It was Slippery Pete and not Travelator who replied. Try to keep up, mate.

Very sorry Divosh, I thought you were directing your reply at Travelator. My mistake. Back to AIP-COMM and my C152.

LeadSled 22nd Jan 2012 06:06


Classic. Don't do what the book says, do what you think Annex X Vol 2 wants you to say. Bla Bla bla!
Bloggs,
Unlike you, I actually know and understand what Annex X, Vol 2 (or PANS/RAC 4444) says, including the history of it's development --- as well as the Australian AIP, and its great gaps in this area.

There is far more than just standard phrases, it's all about how to communicate --- including, for example, how you vary what you have to say, depending on the circumstances.

In complete contrast to the Great Australian One Size Fits All, rote repetition without too much (any??) thought at to what and why.

Thank goodness for spreading CPDLC position reporting, I am increasingly spared the agony of listening, too often, to many an Australian trained pilot trying to pass something as simple as a position report on a busy frequency --- and get it ICAO correct.

Why don't you do something smart, invest in a copy of UK CAA CAP413 (99.9% straight ICAO) and actually learn about "aviation communications". It is a great pity there is no similar CAAP here in Australia, it's a great training and reference tool.

Tootle pip!!


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:20.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.