"Temp' don't go this is like politics, it's them & us!:ok:

Me bin flyin' for over 30 yrs I don't let the goody two shoes out there get to me & I've bin in some ugly situations where comms are the last thing I want to do by the book!:)
As they say sticks & stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me:E



Wmk2

SP is right on the money. Well argued and reasoned.

Di Vosh, I dont think this is quite correct:

No one as far as I can tell, has said 100% compliance 100% of the time, what they are arguing is an attempt to get it right, and that a professional attempts to be PROFESSIONAL IN ALL ASPECTS of their chosen field.

Those that don't at least, occasionally, read AIP (and seem to wear it as a badge of honour) are not professional, but think that they are some how 'above all that trainee stuff - I'm a REAL pilot'.

R/T is an INTEGRAL part of our job, and deserves as much consideration as every other component of our job.

I am not getting personal, but I do find it strange that a person who purports to have an extensive background in training, can SEEM to be so blasé about about aspects of their chosen PROFESSION.

Oh for FFS. Isn't that what some of us have been saying here? A PR is p1ss easy: try it a few times (as per AIP) and you'll get it right thereafter. It ain't that hard!! If the AIP PR format is wrong, then get it changed!

Righto, put your money where your mouth is and give us an example of "varying what you have to say".

I've got better things to spend my money on. I am quite happy saying what's in the book which details what the rules in Oz are. If some ICAO-centric @#$% wants it changed, then go for it. Stop sledging those of us who take pride in getting right what really is pretty easy in the vast majority of situations, if you take the time to actually read the book.

Bloggs,
Your basic ignorance of "communications", as opposed to "radio procedures" is rather profound, is it not?
Given you many posts on this subject, and their collective contents, all you have done,continually and most effectively, is make the case, for Triadic, myself and other who have some understanding of the fundamentals -- and our views on what is wrong with R/T in Australia.
Tootle pip!!

Oh yaaawn....yaaawn....feckin.....yaaaaawn!

Get a life.....the lot of you....... Deliver the aluminum safely, get a safe message over the radio and above all else..... Mind your own damn business!


Bbbbbbbbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzzzzz

Yep, just as I expected, in now-typical Sled fashion. Theoretical mumbo jumbo but when specifically asked to stump up with an example of what you are talking about, you can't do it.

Hmmm...I have a number of mates who are C&Ting at various airlines in Oz and out.

ONE of their bigger whinges is "Gen Y cant be ar$ed getting the radio calls right - and it carries over into most of their flying"

I hear from one of them that VB had a 50% failure rate on a recent command course - not because they couldn't physically fly but because they couldn't be ar$ed making an effort to get in the books and display a high standard in the nitty gritty detail....like correct radio phraseology as just ONE example.

I see a fair bit of "so who cares? Near enough is good enough"on this thread - well if you want to spend your careers in the RHS you can bet the company won't care.

They will simply promote people who DO care.

My personal bug bear is read backs;

"XYZ call departures now"

"Call departures now XYZ" :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Alright, here we go.

Things that i don't like in radio calls:

-Pilots (And i'm not only looking at GA ones here) who don't include all required information on first contact, neccesitating numerous calls to deliver the required info. And i'm not being nit picky here, things like levels, ATIS, inflight conditions, all of which affect the way we can process you.

-Pilots who argue the toss about whether they need a departure report or not. Granted, it is not as clear now as it once was, but if in doubt, ask. And if the ATC requests your departure report, theres a fairly good chance you need to give one. Don't argue.

-Not reading back "Holding point" in taxy clearances. Required info people. For those who are in the "well he gets the gist of it in this readback" club, not good enough. ATC are routinely stood down because they didn't enforce this readback, and the aircraft entered the runway without a clearance. Guess what? They cop the kick for it. I'm not saying it's right, just saying that's the way the system is.

And i'm sure there's plenty more. If you think ATC are being pedantic, we are. We have to deal with a potential stand down if we miss a readback, so for our own longevity in our careers, unfortunately, this is what is has come to.

LeadSled, if you don't like our procedures, you can always go home.

If we went to the UK, you can be sure that we would have to comply with their procedures, so why don't you read the book on AUSTRALIAN procedures and whether you like them or not, comply with them.

No one is saying we have to be 100% correct 100% of the time. What we are saying, is that if you at least try and make the call as per the AIP, then it sure as hell sounds more professional than making up your own call.

It's not hard people, to have a read of the AIP and brush up on things you may not have read for the last 5 years. If this PPRuNer can do it and then apply it, so can you.

morno

I'm surprised this one hasn't popped up yet in this multitudinous page thread... Two little words: "planned route" in a route clearance readback. Seems to get missed more these days and more often than not, by airline pilots. One particular nice and professional Melbourne ATCer is regularly 'pinging' pilots on this one. I think the best comeback from him goes along the lines of, "Sorry sir, I need a 'planned route' after XXX. One day you will go from XXX direct to Perth and you will be in trouble and so will I!"

No doubt a simple oversight on occasions but one that does have significance in its meaning. As is so often the case in our profession, small errors can have results of major consequence.

Keep it professional but as this ATCer demonstrates, you can keep it fun and keep it real too!

PS - Perhaps one of the reasons we are so pedantic in Australia is because of the lack of radar coverage. ATC can't always 'see' what we are doing. They rely on accurate descriptions in our radio calls and procedures as per the example above. Standard phrases perhaps increase in importance as a result.

In a Multi crew environment we MUST use standard phrases and procedures for safety and to ensure everything is done correctly. One action signals another to begin. SOPs also allow it to be much easier to detect any abnormality. This concept is no different to radio procedures.
In short, follow the procedures, THEN revert to plain English if the message isn't coming across. Concise procedures may not seem a big deal but remember we all share the same airspace, no matter what you fly. An extra 15 seconds transmitting unnecessary calls can mean 1.0nm travelled for some.

Morno,
For your information, this is home, and "radio communications" is one aspect of aviation at which we do not excel, with the consequent safety implications.

Much like the rest of the world, UK by and large DOES NOT differ from ICAO. Anybody who has access to the Jepp. World Wide Text can easily determine the differences to ICAO filed by most countries, in the case of UK, US,NZ, CA to name but several, may have one or two minor differences. Last time I looked, in the US it was three, all to do with conditional descent clearances. Alternatively, most NAA AIPs are now online.

The Australian WW Text entry goes on for pages. Why is flying here so different --- it's not --- except for the Australian psychological 12 mile limit, that has such a stultifying effect on the thinking of you "little Australian(s)" who have no knowledge of, and apparently have no wish to have any knowledge of ---- what happens in the big wide world of aviation.

At least, in recent years, we have moved a little closer to the rest of the world, but not nearly far enough, in understanding the difference between "communicating" and just what is little more than rote recitation of set phrases, with little thought.

The most common examples of this occur around airfields in G, with Regionals and pilots of larger GA aircraft the main offenders against good communication. At least in controlled airspace there will be a somewhat frustrated controller demanding the gaps be filled in.

I sympathies with the lot of the controllers, their standards enforcement mob are very inflexible --- a bit like Australian "radio procedures", really.

Bloggs, I wouldn't even attempt to try and explain some of the nuances of position reporting to you, it would be a waste of time and effort.

Tootle pip!!

So far LeadSled, you haven't been able to show us any of the differences. Go on, try us, :hmm:.

I don't care whether we comply or don't comply with ICAO, these are the procedures, stick to them.

It'd be a bit like going to an airline and saying "No, you all do it the wrong way, I learnt this much better way at the last place I was at, stuff ya's, I'm going to do it that way". That just doesn't happen.

mono

Morno,

Strangely, every major Australian operator, including the one who employed me for so many years, has supported Australia complying with ICAO SARPs, rather than having unique Australian procedures.

At the time, some years ago now, when the policy decision was taken to move towards ICAO compliance in this area, it was significant that AIPA supported the proposition, but AFAP were vehemently opposed.

Another example of the difference between those with some knowledge of the big wide world of aviation, versus those mentally confined within our 12 mile limit.

Tootle pip!!

That's all good and well LeadSled, BUT, whether you like it or not, they're not the rules employed here in Australia.

I don't nessecarily disagree that we have some silly procedures here that probably don't comply with ICAO, but they are the rules and procedures under which we must operate. Why? Because when there's an incident or accident and you're answering the questions in that court room of "Why did you not comply with the procedures as set out in AIP?", with "Because I think ICAO is much better", I don't think it's going to get you anything other than the blame.

morno

Morno.

And there we have it in a nutshell ---- from the mouths of babes etc ---- Australian "compliance with procedures", on pain of criminal sanction, versus effective communication to get the best (air) safety outcomes.

"Compliance" takes precedence, regardless of the fact that there is quite a large body of study and analysis, proven valid (Hudson, Kern, Reason, Maurino et al) that shows why this approach does not, and cannot, produce the best achievable air safety outcomes.

A good example, even if unintended, of why Australia's air safety outcomes are nothing to write home about, and not nearly as good as we keep kidding ourselves they are --- seen through our 12 mile limit inspired rose tinted glasses.

Australian aviation regulation's dedication to complex prescriptive procedures, with criminal penalties, versus outcome based regulation, where the outcome is the best achievable air safety outcome.

Tootle pip!!

Problem solved
 

Had a spare hour so, foolishly read this thread. It's to easy boys and girls they solved it. Circa 1953. From the immortal Goon Show..

:D

Mutters never, not ever again. :ugh: Silly boy, buddy, silly.

It's like talking to a brick wall, :ugh:.

What other rules do you not comply with because you think they're a silly idea LeadSlead?

So what was a simple "Do your calls properly" thread has turned into yet another rant by Sleddie about the disgraceful state of aviation in Oz.

Nuances of a flippin' position report? Ya joking, aren't you? Talk about making something simple difficult! Heading North, hold mic in left hand and speak with gruff voice. Southbound, hold mic in right hand and squeal. Hang on, that'll be the effo's leg so better brief him what nuance applies then... Maybe we could implement PR nuance policy in Ops Manual. Better still, in AIP!! Then there wouldn't be any arguments. :{

...and Leady, the 'great communicator', what you excrutiatingly append each and every one of your posts with should be bloody
TOODLE pip! :ugh:


toodle pip - Wiktionary

I see my effort to get the thread back on track didn't work... :hmm:

Capt Dart :D

Lower-class Leddie in the presence of upper-class pruners. :}

Have you ever considered that maybe that is why we have the procedures we do, LeadSled? Someone buggered up.

Urban Dictionary: tootlepip

Jackass.

Come on boys & girls calm down this nonsensical thread is close to 200 posts, don't let the Mods win by closing it:)

Radio calls have been made incorrect since the 'Wrong Bros' started flying & tried to yell at people on the ground. Ya can't change, ya can't fix it despite the rules & regs 'tis human to err, the machines are the planes we fly you can make them all perfect not the drivers so accept it & get on with the actual flyin'!:ok:


Wmk2

Last time I saw LS he had hardly any hair (that was over 10 years ago). The "small animals" bit sounds interesting though. :}:}

Hey dood, CPDLC is only to be used outside of VHF coverage so you should be able to keep listening. :ok:

Sorry Jack, we use CPDLC ADS all the time all over Aust AND within VHF all of the time.:ok:

As do most other international Jets now days.

Jacks Statement responding to Leadsledis entirely correct.
AIP GEN3.4 6.3.2

Well ya shouldn't should ya?? You are a very naughty, naughty boy :=

I just thought Leadsled was up with AIP, CAO, CAR, ICAO, ASA, CASA, DAP, ERSA, EASA, FAA, FAR etc, was just trying to help him out :ok:

Splitting hairs Jack.
We login to YBBB or YMMM, send an initial position report using the thing then make the occasional freq change, some directed to via voice and some via data link message. ADS B is independantly connected and operational so no position reports required.

Nothing "naughty" about it, in fact we are required to log on, in fact some times if we are slow hitting "notify" ATC come up on voice and ask us to log on to YBBB/YMMM.

System works well.

Cheers

Identified?! :eek: Maybe that's why PRs are not required.

Yeah, ok then, whatever floats ya boat. I can give you reasons for all of the above but.............

My original post was taking the piss out of Leadsled, (coz he thinks he knows everything) maybe I should have stated that.

Ok :ok:..........

This thread is almost as entertaining as watching kangaroos punch and kick the crap out of each other on Discovery Channel specials about Oz. And I suppose I now know what they're fighting about. Carry on.

Cheers,

an amused Yank

(P.S. When constructing sentences, could the use of the word "whilst" please be kept to a minimum, or preferably avoided altogether? While it may seem proper, nobody really talks like that. Worse, it comes off as.....you know....British, which spoils the whole Oz-flavor thing for me. Thanks)

Well well well, a dog (Yank at that) lecturing us on the use of the English language. Whilst everybody is entitled their opinion, that is an EPIC FAIL!

Not really a challenge! :uhoh:

Had a star read back tonight that went something along the lines of:

'Expectin' tha B_ _ 6, 36 oh'

No Runway readback, the star isn't runway specific so anything could have gone into the FMS, should I get all anal and ask for the runway readback or just hope for the best? Coz after all we are pretty picky here in Australia eh!!

And no you're not 'expectin' the B_ _6 you were CLEARED the B_ _6, should I get all anal and insist on a proper readback or just hope that if he f@cks up and flys the wrong star that he did say he was 'expectin' not cleared the B_ _6?

Near enough is good enough?

Stuffed if I'm going to be part of any **** going through those holes in the cheese!

Yer it can be a bit ordinary jack.

Heard a ripper on ML CEN tonite, student, tho (not picking on him). The controller called him 3 times, and gave hints for the readback. The guy was clearly asian, and his replies were very clear and concise, if only lacking the req'd info.

Kudo's to the Controller, who was patient and guiding for the student. :ok:

Pity the poor instructor who on the 4th try from the controller came over the top and rattled if off like an angry copperhead and got it all wrong.

The controllers reply had me curled up in the seat. " XXX ask your student what he said and add the bits he missed, then maybe we can continue"

Positively plum! :ok:

Punkindog
 

Not half as entertaining as watching quality yankee tv like Swamp People, where we get to watch half educated seppo's wrestle 'gators in the hope that one might actually bite back and make it really entertaining.

Did you look in the mirror?

Whilst, I have no desire to sound British, I'd also rather not sound like a yank. I am also grateful that I have adequate schooling that I can spell correctly when I choose too, and also speak correctly with distinction at the same time.

Lets face the fact.
The British are the best at massacring the English language.
The Skips and Kiwi's attempt to hold it to its originality.
The yanks tried to re-write it.

Ya'll have fun when you realise the colour is actually red http://www.mustangtech.com.au/images...con_dance2.gif

On ya bike old bean