Standby
 

Please, as an ATC here, if you are asked to “standby” please don’t read that back to us, just keep quiet haha
we are generally attending to another matter like telephone cooordination or working out separation, which is interrupted every time there’s a transmission, including the response “standing by”. A read back of this sort causes much vexation And higher likelihood that the return of your call goes further down the list of things to do 😂😂

Roger that, standing by.

Acknowledge your standby, request expected time of next call.

Say again?

Maybe you blokes should remember that you guys are there to assist us and not us assist you. If there where no pilots your job would be obsolete.

Also, in my opinion I think Perth ATC should take a leaf from east coast guys. The difference between service is remarkable.

Careful what you wish for
 

Perth Approach or Pearce Approach:yuk:?

Thanks Rotorblade,
You are trying to provide the best service and to that end you need pilots to be aware of their read back responsibilities, in my experience far too many of my colleagues are unsure and so parrot back everything, taking time and blocking the frequency.
Unlike another poster on this thread I appreciate what you do for us.

A request for all controllers from the pilots.

Provided the weather is good (indicated by a lack of diversions by other pilots on frequency) if my flight planned track is not a straight line from origin to destination I ALWAYS want track shortening.

Thanks.

Thanks Rotorblade - good request. It's one of my pet hates too (although probably close second to people reading back "expect" information...).

Pretty poor form that Skippy69 had to use your well intentioned request / dialogue as a chance to put the boot into ATC. :mad:

Fixed it for ya Skippy.
PS: We need each other, the OP is merely pointing out what can be an embuggerance to him/her providing a service.

Fixed it for you, Megan...

Have heard "ABC report position" which was responded to with "report position, ABC".

"ABC say level passing"



"...level passing, ABC"

“ABC, say heading.”

”heading, ABC.”

“ABC! say heading.”

”heading, ABC.”

”ABC, say cancelling IFR.”

”heading 135, ABC.”

Maybe not that many readers will remember, back in 1997 there was a change in procedures including readbacks. Prior to that there was only about 5 items that had a mandatory read back. The proposed changes (to bring Oz into line with ICAO) were agreed at a two day industry/AirServices/CASA meeting in CBR which had a large attendance. The problem was that the education that followed was almost non existent and we now have the problem outlined at the start of this thread.
Sadly CASA has taken little interest in radio phraseology ever since and those responsible in industry all seem to have different views on what to say and when. Readbacks are but one area that is poorly understood by many pilots from GA to RPT.(including CASA examiners!)

Someone please tell me this is a piss-take, or that Skippy is drunk.

Sounds perfectly accurate to me. Pilots and aeroplanes don't exist just to give ATC something to do. ATC exists to orchestrate proceedings and assist pilots.
I used to say this to new pilots "ATC is down their for your benefit, you are not up there for theirs." And it's true.

ATC exists so that Pilots can have Heroes too.

Maybe if they put more staff on and didn’t use the same enroute controller from Melbourne to Dubbbo or even further, then they wouldn’t have to tell us to stand by.

But then how would upper management get their bonuses?

The quip used to be "am I up here because you're down there, or are you down there because I'm up here?" Imagine a place like Heathrow or JFK with no ATC, the mind boggles with the thought of sorting yourselves out.

Agree 100%!! You shoulda seen the YMMB circuit traffic this morning on 35R! After the usual peak hour traffic on Alpha and after the 3 balloons landed in turn, with six in the circuit (that's full) plus a couple of choppers crossing to arrive and depart (4 maybe? dunno, I lost count), everyone else wanting to join was sent overhead to 35L and apart from a few misspeaks ("follow the Cessna, sorry Cherokee on base") somehow it all worked out. Our ATC guys and gals are awesome.

There’s a CTAF’s or two near Melbourne where 6 aircraft operate in the circuit simultaneously on a daily basis without ATC… shock horror! Also, I can fly from Melbourne all the way to Queensland or further without engaging with ATC in any way, oh the humanity!

AIP GEN 3.4 has it all!

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....acfaaadb6c.png

What phrase do you use then? Climbing to or something else?
​​​​​​​

Note that the read back of "link words" is not required, nor is the area QNH.

If only that was "it all".

One of the unsolved mysteries of readback requirements is why, on each occasion I am granted an inbound clearance by e.g. YSCB APP, I am given and expected to readback the QNH and am prompted to do so if I don't. Bear in mind that, in order to get the clearance, I had to ask for it and that request always includes "with Golf" - or whatever the ATIS code happens to be current - and, of course, the ATIS includes QNH. And on each occasion that I'm prompted to readback the QNH, the QNH is the same as broadcast by ATIS!

WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements?

cogwheel nailed a substantial part of the problem: inadequate ongoing education. Everyone's just doing their own thing. Don't forget the most important rule here: When in doubt, talk.

The proper use of the word "Roger" is a lost art. When I was taught to fly, the instructor drummed in to me that when ATC/S gives you a bunch of information, only part of which had to be readback, the proper response was the (a) the readback item, (b) the word "Roger" and, (c) callsign. The word "Roger" denotes that the whole of the message has been received. I rarely hear it used any more.

Ground: "ABC, cross runway 35, the aircraft on final for 17 will be holding short 30 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie will be vacating the taxiway at the fire station.

ABC: "Cross runway 35, Roger, Alpha Bravo Charlie.

It seems that the QNH, for maybe local ATC procedural reasons, was directed at you as an aircraft as part of a clearance and therefore according to what I posted earlier a readback is required.

Whereas if CB TWR broadcasted All stations information Golf current, QNH 1015 then you wouldn't read that back.

Maybe the use of roger has changed since you were taught? Seems that it should not be used as part of a readback:

AIP GEN 3.4

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....86863b3fdd.png

I ask again: WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information (e.g.) Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements? Aviation activity in Australia every day demonstrates why counter-intuitive rules cause confusion.

And please read what you've posted about our mate Roger. In the example I gave I was not asked a question. The example I gave was and remains exactly the kind of circumstance in which Roger is the right word to include in the response (rather than readback everything including the aircraft on short final to 17 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie, which is what is now increasingly happening).

I get it that "Roger" is not the correct response to: "Do you have Black Mountain in sight?" or "Confirm you are on assigned heading zero one zero".

On your first point, I concur - what is the point? Maybe a CB ATC can chime in if they're reading.

You're probably right as well about point 2. I was more thinking about circumstances I've heard e.g. Jizzler 700 confirm you have information Golf? in which case it seems Roger would not be the appropriate readback.

It's confusing, and as a weekend warrior I daresay the AIP or VFRG isn't laid out best to help educate pilots on the proper radio phraseology.

It is also a subject matter that is seemingly entirely absent from the PPL/CPL syllabus - at least in the theory exams, not the flight tests.

"Roger" would certainly not be the appropriate response. The word is in the aviation lexicon to enable a person to convey that he or she has received the whole of a transmission rather than reading back the lot. It's there exactly because some ATC/S messages contain a mixture of readback items and other information and it helps ATC/S to know that the whole of the message has been received. Often the other information has been included so as try to avoid having further, unnecessary communications.

Agreed, and I'd hazard a guess that we're not Robinson Crusoe. Most of it's been left to people's own devices and that's why there are so many differing practices.

(I do hope someone 'in the know' at YSCB can explain why I have to readback a QNH that is already contained in ATIS information which I've already reported as having received.)

Re the QNH read back, perhaps have a look at the report on the recent A320 incident at Paris with heading:

Incorrect QNH information, RNP approach with LNAV/VNAV minima conducted below the descent profile, near CFIT, go-around performed at low height before the runway without visual references, second approach performed below descent profile

Link to BEA preliminary report:
https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_uplo...N_finalise.pdf

I'll admit to being quite surprised to find upon commencing my flying training, that a reply of "Roger, wilco" was actually a thing.. I've been waiting for an opportunity to use it in talking with ATC, but no luck thus far!

Errrrrm, I'm not sure that a controller giving a pilot the wrong QNH and expecting a readback of that wrong QNH is a justification for any ATC to give and expect a readback of QNH after the pilot has reported receipt of ATIS that includes the correct QNH.

Conversely, if the QNH in the ATIS broadcast is wrong, one would expect ATC to give and require a readback of the correct QNH.

Am I reading that preliminary report wrongly?

That's the spirit ! Years of CRM have not been lost on you, have they ? :)

Some phrase not being in AIP is of no consequence in Australian aviation RT these days. The pilot of so many ABCs - across the spectrum of operations - tell us that: “Alpha Bravo Charlie turns base”, which is like telling us that the pilot of ABC “likes seafood” and “thinks positively”.

Precision of communication continues to be important. In aviation, it helps others to know what you are doing NOW. When you broadcast: “I’m turnING base”; “I’m joinING downwind”; “I’m scratchING my arse”, others interpret that to mean you’re doing that thing NOW.

That’s why broadcasting: “ABC Joining Downwind” isn’t a good idea unless ABC is actually joining downwind when you tell the world you are, as demonstrated by the circumstances which led to this ATSB investigation and report.

I bang on about this a lot, but any pilots who do not understand the very specific definitions of the words used in ATC; e.g. ' Roger', and what the correct phrases should be; could do a lot worse than get hold of a copy of the UK CAA CAP 413 booklet. (I realise this thread refers to Australia).

Don't go by what they say in the films or on telly :8

PS, I am not upset if ATC double-checks that I have the correct QNH/QFE. A mistake could kill (me), so I certainly don't object to someone checking twice.

I would just be happy if people actually were where they say they are on the radio.

I had to check for myself and you're absolutely right. Here's a couple of examples from AIP GEN 6.16.8 After Take-off:
Example 1: DEPARTED (location) (time in minutes) TRACKING [TO INTERCEPT] (track) CLIMBING TO (intended level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)
Example 2: (location) PASSING (current level) CLIMBING TO (intended level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)

ATC use the instruction "CLIMB TO" a lot... Perhaps "on climb" has come from watching too many Youtube videos??

Only nine posts in and I've learnt something here already! :)