RT standards? Am I paranoid
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown with some pretty experienced pilots (including IR holders) who are terrible on the radio, but who is going to correct them? ATC don't do it (not suggesting they should)
I remember one exchange to this day:
ATC: "G-AB are you ready for take off?"
G-AB: "Roger"
ATC: "G-AB is your 'Roger' an 'Affirmative' ?" (it was while ago)
G-AB: "Errr. Afurmutive"
....So it can be done
SSD
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Up there somewhere
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3G, that is the best way - GABCD request taxy for local/circuits etc.
ATC then come back with GABCD runway xx QNH xxxx cleared taxy etc
Rather than all this radio check muppetry and the requesting taxy. You know if you radio doesn't work if you don't get a reply upon initial call!
ATC then come back with GABCD runway xx QNH xxxx cleared taxy etc
Rather than all this radio check muppetry and the requesting taxy. You know if you radio doesn't work if you don't get a reply upon initial call!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
The problem with this call is it is incorrect use of RT.
I agree that the radio check can be deemed unnecessary, However the use of, "request taxi," with an Air Ground station is wrong.
It's a request with a controlled response which the air ground operator can not give.
Why not use the correct CAP413 RT.
"STATION Radio G-**** taxing for runway **"
Other traffic maintain exactly the same situational awareness without the Air Ground Operator wondering why he/she is being asked for a clearance.
What is the problem with this call?
I agree that the radio check can be deemed unnecessary, However the use of, "request taxi," with an Air Ground station is wrong.
It's a request with a controlled response which the air ground operator can not give.
Why not use the correct CAP413 RT.
"STATION Radio G-**** taxing for runway **"
Other traffic maintain exactly the same situational awareness without the Air Ground Operator wondering why he/she is being asked for a clearance.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware the UK is the only JAA country that requires pilots to hold a separate Radio Licence to use R/T in flight. It seems also to be the only country where a separate course and dedicated practical test must be performed in order to obtain an R/T licence.
In most other European countries we experience better R/T from GA flights despite English not being their first language.
The fact that microlight flying is on the increase in the UK can have no effect in itself on R/T because in order to use the R/T outside the training environment the pilot must hold an R/T licence and the training and standards required to obtain it are the same for a microlight pilot as for any other VFR pilot.
What is interesting however is that the UK gives IFR IMC privileges in controlled airspace to pilots without them having to pass IFR R/T.
Much more interesting is that the CAA will only give the R/T licence for free is the application is made at the same time as a PPL application or the pilot is already the holder of a PPL. This penalises a students who puts the work in and wants to obtain an R/T licence prior to obtaining the PPL.
Prior to JARs, many European countries required all pilots in command of an aircraft to hold R/T privileges i.e. a solo student would need an R/T licence.....perhaps we need to look at that idea.
Finally I bet everyone would be shocked to find out that a large part of the UK GA pilots do not hold any UK R/T licence despite flying G registered aircraft!
Regards,
DFC
PS - The worst R/T in the UK happens at the A/G airfields where pilots request taxi etc and radio operators frequently issue instructions or use the term "at your discretion" which is reserved for FISOs. Pilots operating or training in this environment have little chance!
In most other European countries we experience better R/T from GA flights despite English not being their first language.
The fact that microlight flying is on the increase in the UK can have no effect in itself on R/T because in order to use the R/T outside the training environment the pilot must hold an R/T licence and the training and standards required to obtain it are the same for a microlight pilot as for any other VFR pilot.
What is interesting however is that the UK gives IFR IMC privileges in controlled airspace to pilots without them having to pass IFR R/T.
Much more interesting is that the CAA will only give the R/T licence for free is the application is made at the same time as a PPL application or the pilot is already the holder of a PPL. This penalises a students who puts the work in and wants to obtain an R/T licence prior to obtaining the PPL.
Prior to JARs, many European countries required all pilots in command of an aircraft to hold R/T privileges i.e. a solo student would need an R/T licence.....perhaps we need to look at that idea.
Finally I bet everyone would be shocked to find out that a large part of the UK GA pilots do not hold any UK R/T licence despite flying G registered aircraft!
Regards,
DFC
PS - The worst R/T in the UK happens at the A/G airfields where pilots request taxi etc and radio operators frequently issue instructions or use the term "at your discretion" which is reserved for FISOs. Pilots operating or training in this environment have little chance!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jonathang
Sure it's not CAP413, but "request taxi," implies to me a request for "taxi information" in an A/G environment, "i.e. runway in use 20, right hand circuit, QNH 1013", not for an ATC clearance.
BTW, the words "radar heading" are not in CAP413 either, but are used frequently in ATC environments. Personally, it seems sensible to me, if incorrect in theory.
Sure it's not CAP413, but "request taxi," implies to me a request for "taxi information" in an A/G environment, "i.e. runway in use 20, right hand circuit, QNH 1013", not for an ATC clearance.
BTW, the words "radar heading" are not in CAP413 either, but are used frequently in ATC environments. Personally, it seems sensible to me, if incorrect in theory.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been reading this thread with a little bit of interest.
I have to say that I believe that common sense has to prevail.
If a pilot states 'rardar heading' instead of 'heading' it is doing no harm, the pilot is just informing the new controller that he/she is flying a vector given under a previous controlled service.
In terms of 'airfield information' or 'taxi inofrmation' I believe it is best to go with the latter as joining aircraft can also ask for 'airfield information'. This is why to save any ambiguity on either the part of the pilot or A/G operator it is best to use 'taxi information' and 'joining information' in my opinion. Common sense states that using this terminology maybe useful as the A/G operator maybe able to give a pilot more useful information such as noise abatements when joining or boogy areas when taxiing to a particular grass runway. I know it has certainly helped me in the past, especially when the A/G operators realises the aircraft through its callsign is a visiting A/C.
Also I think what we must realise is the use of INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS is at the heart of this argument - surely all pilots must know the difference. Therefore how you prefix these calls with a little common sense may help your cause and reduce some of the worklaod when arriving at a completly unknown aerodrome.
I know what I am advicating here is ever so sligtly different from what CAP413 states (I stress ever so slightly) and therefore maybe I am also advicating some changes to it. However even airlines and pilots make ever so slight changes to A/C manufacturers operating procedures. Common sense often helps us all.
I have to say I have also found in my expereince it is difficult to be a good pilot without any common sense!!!!! (this I learned a long time ago). I beleive in this case sticking to the rules rigidly can often result in recieveing less information than what could be offered and as long as the difference between INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS is clearly identified ther should be little confusion. I also consider slightly altering a call to add further information without doing no harm e.g 'Radar Heading' is off little concern. A little common sense in your radio calls can go a long way!!!! Just dont deviate to much to avoid annoying the controllers.
I also must add that I agree with DFC that under no circumstances should 'at your discretion' be used at an A/G station. Standard and competent R/T in the UK must always be a priority.
Many a happy landing guys, Regards.
I have to say that I believe that common sense has to prevail.
If a pilot states 'rardar heading' instead of 'heading' it is doing no harm, the pilot is just informing the new controller that he/she is flying a vector given under a previous controlled service.
In terms of 'airfield information' or 'taxi inofrmation' I believe it is best to go with the latter as joining aircraft can also ask for 'airfield information'. This is why to save any ambiguity on either the part of the pilot or A/G operator it is best to use 'taxi information' and 'joining information' in my opinion. Common sense states that using this terminology maybe useful as the A/G operator maybe able to give a pilot more useful information such as noise abatements when joining or boogy areas when taxiing to a particular grass runway. I know it has certainly helped me in the past, especially when the A/G operators realises the aircraft through its callsign is a visiting A/C.
Also I think what we must realise is the use of INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS is at the heart of this argument - surely all pilots must know the difference. Therefore how you prefix these calls with a little common sense may help your cause and reduce some of the worklaod when arriving at a completly unknown aerodrome.
I know what I am advicating here is ever so sligtly different from what CAP413 states (I stress ever so slightly) and therefore maybe I am also advicating some changes to it. However even airlines and pilots make ever so slight changes to A/C manufacturers operating procedures. Common sense often helps us all.
I have to say I have also found in my expereince it is difficult to be a good pilot without any common sense!!!!! (this I learned a long time ago). I beleive in this case sticking to the rules rigidly can often result in recieveing less information than what could be offered and as long as the difference between INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS is clearly identified ther should be little confusion. I also consider slightly altering a call to add further information without doing no harm e.g 'Radar Heading' is off little concern. A little common sense in your radio calls can go a long way!!!! Just dont deviate to much to avoid annoying the controllers.
I also must add that I agree with DFC that under no circumstances should 'at your discretion' be used at an A/G station. Standard and competent R/T in the UK must always be a priority.
Many a happy landing guys, Regards.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MBA
FYI, I was referring to "Radar Heading" when used by ATC, as in "Speedbird XXX, turn right onto radar heading 230." It is not in CAP413, but it seems to do only good to me.
I agree that the use of "information" or "instructions", as you suggest, does add to the clarity, but I wouldn't get very hung up over a pilot at NW missing it out.
On the other hand, some of the other practices on this thread, such as acknowledging a landing clearance with two clicks of the PTT do seem rather worrying.
FYI, I was referring to "Radar Heading" when used by ATC, as in "Speedbird XXX, turn right onto radar heading 230." It is not in CAP413, but it seems to do only good to me.
I agree that the use of "information" or "instructions", as you suggest, does add to the clarity, but I wouldn't get very hung up over a pilot at NW missing it out.
On the other hand, some of the other practices on this thread, such as acknowledging a landing clearance with two clicks of the PTT do seem rather worrying.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally I think RT standards have dropped.
However, I agree with AerBabe- practice and listen!
For students, it's a good idea to look over standard calls or perhaps practice them with another student. Some (most?) flying schools have a "local" radio procedures cheat sheet for students as a supplement to CAP 413 (The R/T bible!). Or if possible visit the tower for an hour or so. Or listen out on a transceiver/receiver.
As for the A/G service...
If the call "request taxi" was made, surely the A/G controller could either give the standard "G-XX, runway 24 etc" or "G-XX, Station Radio, unable to provide taxi clearance, runway 24... etc" "G-XX, taxiing..." I'm sure that was the way I wrote the "local procedures" for a site I used to fly from Although some could still not follow them
I don't think the aircraft can call "G-XX taxiing runway..." without first calling the A/G service.
F3G- Yes "radar heading" is not CAP413 (See thread on ATC forum) and not one I use. Is it not correct in theory, as the aircraft has been issued a heading from a radar controller?
However, I agree with AerBabe- practice and listen!
For students, it's a good idea to look over standard calls or perhaps practice them with another student. Some (most?) flying schools have a "local" radio procedures cheat sheet for students as a supplement to CAP 413 (The R/T bible!). Or if possible visit the tower for an hour or so. Or listen out on a transceiver/receiver.
As for the A/G service...
If the call "request taxi" was made, surely the A/G controller could either give the standard "G-XX, runway 24 etc" or "G-XX, Station Radio, unable to provide taxi clearance, runway 24... etc" "G-XX, taxiing..." I'm sure that was the way I wrote the "local procedures" for a site I used to fly from Although some could still not follow them
I don't think the aircraft can call "G-XX taxiing runway..." without first calling the A/G service.
F3G- Yes "radar heading" is not CAP413 (See thread on ATC forum) and not one I use. Is it not correct in theory, as the aircraft has been issued a heading from a radar controller?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anticlockwise
Depends what underpinning body of knowledge you are referencing as your theory, I suppose and the context.
CAP413 or the a priori experiences of thousands of professional pilots and ATCers.
So I hypothesise that it would be theoretically incorrect to teach it to someone in the narrow context of passing an RT exam, but would be theoretically correct to explain it in the broader context of airways flying.
Ah, the epistomology of designing learning interventions
Depends what underpinning body of knowledge you are referencing as your theory, I suppose and the context.
CAP413 or the a priori experiences of thousands of professional pilots and ATCers.
So I hypothesise that it would be theoretically incorrect to teach it to someone in the narrow context of passing an RT exam, but would be theoretically correct to explain it in the broader context of airways flying.
Ah, the epistomology of designing learning interventions
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBA, Where I do understand your point about common sense and I do agree common sense is important in aviation. The RT Phraseology has been developed from years of experience to prevent misunderstanding and I don’t believe we should deviate from it for no reason.
Your argument to, ”to save any ambiguity,” is contradictory when the developed CAP413 RT is designed for that very purpose. Making up your own RT phraseology undermines that process. We all have to sing from the same hymn sheet for it to work so to speak.
While I agree that it is common sense to most of us that Instructions infers control and information does not. That still does not support deviating from set RT Phraseology designed to prevent any ambiguity.
However even airlines and pilots are regulated by authorities and pilots must conform to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for similar reasons as stated above.
I have attached extracts from CAP413:
ATCO RT Phraseology
1.5 Taxi Instructions
1.5.1 Taxi instructions issued by a controller will always contain a clearance limit, which is the point at which the aircraft must stop, unless further permission to proceed is given. For departing aircraft, the clearance limit will normally be the holding point of the runway in use, but it may be any other position on the aerodrome depending on the prevailing traffic.
1.8 Aerodrome Traffic Circuit
1.8.1 Requests for circuit-joining instructions should be made in sufficient time for a planned entry into the circuit taking other traffic into account. Where ATIS is
established, receipt of the broadcast should be acknowledged in the initial call to an aerodrome. When the traffic circuit is a right-hand pattern it shall be specified. A left hand pattern need not be specified although it is essential to do so when the circuit
direction is variable.
Air/Ground (Radio) Phraseology
Departure
Seaton Radio G-ABCD radio check
123.0 and taxi information
G-ABCD Seaton Radio readability 5
runway 23 left hand circuit QNH
1022
G-ABCD readability 5 also, taxiing for
Runway 23 left hand QNH 1022
Arrival
Seaton Radio G-ABCD 6 miles west
of Seaton request airfield
information
G-CD Seaton runway 23 left hand,
QFE 1021. Traffic is a Cessna 172
reported left base
I have highlighted in bold the relevant differences using proper RT Phraseology between ATC and Air/Ground fields.
MBA: In terms of 'airfield information' or 'taxi information' I believe it is best to go with the latter as joining aircraft can also ask for 'airfield information'. This is why to save any ambiguity on either the part of the pilot or A/G operator it is best to use 'taxi information' and 'joining information' in my opinion.
MBA: Also I think what we must realize is the use of INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS is at the heart of this argument.
MBA: However even airlines and pilots make ever so slight changes to A/C manufacturers operating procedures.
I have attached extracts from CAP413:
ATCO RT Phraseology
1.5 Taxi Instructions
1.5.1 Taxi instructions issued by a controller will always contain a clearance limit, which is the point at which the aircraft must stop, unless further permission to proceed is given. For departing aircraft, the clearance limit will normally be the holding point of the runway in use, but it may be any other position on the aerodrome depending on the prevailing traffic.
Borton Tower G-ABCD T67 by the
south side hangars request taxi for VFR flight to Walden
south side hangars request taxi for VFR flight to Walden
1.8.1 Requests for circuit-joining instructions should be made in sufficient time for a planned entry into the circuit taking other traffic into account. Where ATIS is
established, receipt of the broadcast should be acknowledged in the initial call to an aerodrome. When the traffic circuit is a right-hand pattern it shall be specified. A left hand pattern need not be specified although it is essential to do so when the circuit
direction is variable.
Walden Tower G-ABCD T67 10
miles south altitude 2500 feet
Wessex 1008 request joining
Instructions
miles south altitude 2500 feet
Wessex 1008 request joining
Instructions
Air/Ground (Radio) Phraseology
Departure
Seaton Radio G-ABCD radio check
123.0 and taxi information
G-ABCD Seaton Radio readability 5
runway 23 left hand circuit QNH
1022
G-ABCD readability 5 also, taxiing for
Runway 23 left hand QNH 1022
Arrival
Seaton Radio G-ABCD 6 miles west
of Seaton request airfield
information
G-CD Seaton runway 23 left hand,
QFE 1021. Traffic is a Cessna 172
reported left base
Last edited by jonathang; 15th Jan 2005 at 10:17.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your previous post was my reference
Why is it incorrect in theory?
"radar heading" is not CAP 413, but it is in the Manual of Air Traffic Services- part 1 (CAP 493) "report radar heading to (ATCU C/S) (Freq.)" hence where it comes from.
There is no difference between "heading" and "radar heading".
One of the many quirks of UK phraseology!
Meanwhile, back to the topic, standards are still low, even with or without the use of "radar"!
BTW, the words "radar heading" are not in CAP413 either, but are used frequently in ATC environments. Personally, it seems sensible to me, if incorrect in theory.
"radar heading" is not CAP 413, but it is in the Manual of Air Traffic Services- part 1 (CAP 493) "report radar heading to (ATCU C/S) (Freq.)" hence where it comes from.
There is no difference between "heading" and "radar heading".
One of the many quirks of UK phraseology!
Meanwhile, back to the topic, standards are still low, even with or without the use of "radar"!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no point did the aircraft specifically readback the landing clearance as required, and even when it was acknowledged it lacked the belt-and-braces inclusion of his callsign. Maybe I'm just being picky though...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was precisely one of the reasons for my orginal post. I have just had personal experience of AT requiring a pilot to join at 1,600 feet. The pilot did not correctly acknowledge the instruction, although he did reply, and AT did not persue the incorrect read back. A little latter the same aircraft had slotted himself in number 2 to land, almost on top of another aircraft, and ending with a very late go around.
I appreciate that had the pilot given the correct read back he still might have misunderstood or misinterpreted or just plain forgotten the instruction. However given that he did not correctly read back the instruction I wonder how that leaves the rest of us. AT is clearly at fault because the pilot might well have not heard the full instruction hence his incomplete read back. I am also left wondering whether other pilots should accept the position. I for example clearly heard that he had failed to read back the instruction correctly and it wasnt a total surprise to see him descending on top of another aircraft but I didnt question his earlier incomplete read back. I have also heard on a few occasions incorrect readbacks (not below 1,600 feet becoming not below 1,100 feet) without AT ensuring they had a correct read back. Should we as other pilots point out the error?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no point did the aircraft specifically readback the landing clearance as required, and even when it was acknowledged it lacked the belt-and-braces inclusion of his callsign. Maybe I'm just being picky though...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was precisely one of the reasons for my orginal post. I have just had personal experience of AT requiring a pilot to join at 1,600 feet. The pilot did not correctly acknowledge the instruction, although he did reply, and AT did not persue the incorrect read back. A little latter the same aircraft had slotted himself in number 2 to land, almost on top of another aircraft, and ending with a very late go around.
I appreciate that had the pilot given the correct read back he still might have misunderstood or misinterpreted or just plain forgotten the instruction. However given that he did not correctly read back the instruction I wonder how that leaves the rest of us. AT is clearly at fault because the pilot might well have not heard the full instruction hence his incomplete read back. I am also left wondering whether other pilots should accept the position. I for example clearly heard that he had failed to read back the instruction correctly and it wasnt a total surprise to see him descending on top of another aircraft but I didnt question his earlier incomplete read back. I have also heard on a few occasions incorrect readbacks (not below 1,600 feet becoming not below 1,100 feet) without AT ensuring they had a correct read back. Should we as other pilots point out the error?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G- Roger! No probs!
Fuji-
I'd agree! ATC in this case, is at fault. Guess they were having a bad day?! I know some extremely good ATCOs who WILL get their readback, even if it means spoon feeding the pilot "G-XX YOU NEED TO READBACK THE CLEARANCE... not above, QNH, report etc" or that will correct you: "G-XX NEGATIVE, cleared... etc".
In the interests of flight safety and particularly if the other aircraft is likely to interfere/conflict with you, then yes, you should ask ATC to confirm the clearance.
If this sort of incident is a regular occurence at your club/school/airfield, why not speak to the school CFI or Ops/Training Manager in Air Traffic?
Perhaps an RT refresher evening for club members?
Remember, flight safety is EVERYONES responsibility!
No probs!Fuji-
I'd agree! ATC in this case, is at fault. Guess they were having a bad day?! I know some extremely good ATCOs who WILL get their readback, even if it means spoon feeding the pilot "G-XX YOU NEED TO READBACK THE CLEARANCE... not above, QNH, report etc" or that will correct you: "G-XX NEGATIVE, cleared... etc".
In the interests of flight safety and particularly if the other aircraft is likely to interfere/conflict with you, then yes, you should ask ATC to confirm the clearance.
If this sort of incident is a regular occurence at your club/school/airfield, why not speak to the school CFI or Ops/Training Manager in Air Traffic?
Perhaps an RT refresher evening for club members?
Remember, flight safety is EVERYONES responsibility!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Been following this thread with interest. I'm a lowly A/G operator (as well as a vfr pilot!), and have some comments for discussion.
I do not know the abilities, skills or 413-awareness of the other thread contributors, and so might be digging a hole for myself, but here goes.
In my opinion, however, I think the standard of RT has improved amongst the PPL community.
BUT: the worst offenders in the A/G scenario are professional pilots (Instructors, biz-jet jockeys etc)
"XXXX Radio, G-YYYY request ZZZZ Instructions" Well for crying out loud, what are they asking for? I ALWAYS respond "Negative".
"Err, XXXX Radio, say again"
"G-YYYY, XXXX Radio, negative instructions, we are A/G only"
"Err...have I got clearance then?"
You get the idea.
...
Charley{your post 14th, 17:33}
I seriously doubt whether ATC in the UK would use the "copy" term in that context. Unless the word "clearance" followed "that". The expression "did you copy that" is only used in American cop TV programmes.
Red Four{your post 14th, 18:57}
I would contend, along with Aerbabe;'s comments, that the contrary is truer, in that folk learning at full ATC fields have lesser awareness of A/G or FISO terminology. It's not their fault, it's the fault of the instructors, most of whom themselves are C***field or C**air or Slo**e initiates, and are unfamiliar with A/G or FISO operations.
SSD and Aerbabe: you both sound like experienced A/G operators, if so, you know how easy it is to "advise" inexperienced pilots to do what is necessary. The most important word in the A/G operators vocabulary is "Roger". jonathang you are correct, and in the light of F3G,s comments, the use of "request taxi" is indeed wrong, but can be used as meaning "taxi information". But it is not the fault of the pilot so requesting, but the fault of the instructor who did not teach said pilot of the difference. But your comment "sing from the same hymn sheet" is VERY correct.
MBA wrote: "common sense has to prevail". Hear, Hear. (but "taxi information" is different from "taxi instructions"). But, Anticlockwise, "request taxi" does not infer the request for an instruction, so should elict a "roger" from the A/G operator. And your "I don't think the aircraft can call "G-XX taxiing runway..." without first calling the A/G service." ...well they can, legally. CAP413 refers.
But all must remember that a lot of A/G operators are not as experienced as others . And there are also many A/G operators more conversant with the rules than AFISO's, but that's another story.
I'm done now, pleasant dreams.
As a post script, I might add that the new RT licensing requirements for new PPL's is above and beyond the realms of reason. A PPL Student HAS to do ATPL radio license things, like airways calls etc. How silly is that?
[edited for formatting]
I do not know the abilities, skills or 413-awareness of the other thread contributors, and so might be digging a hole for myself, but here goes.
In my opinion, however, I think the standard of RT has improved amongst the PPL community.
BUT: the worst offenders in the A/G scenario are professional pilots (Instructors, biz-jet jockeys etc)
"XXXX Radio, G-YYYY request ZZZZ Instructions" Well for crying out loud, what are they asking for? I ALWAYS respond "Negative".
"Err, XXXX Radio, say again"
"G-YYYY, XXXX Radio, negative instructions, we are A/G only"
"Err...have I got clearance then?"
You get the idea.
...
Charley{your post 14th, 17:33}
ATC: "G-XX did you copy that?"
Red Four{your post 14th, 18:57}
I would contend, along with Aerbabe;'s comments, that the contrary is truer, in that folk learning at full ATC fields have lesser awareness of A/G or FISO terminology. It's not their fault, it's the fault of the instructors, most of whom themselves are C***field or C**air or Slo**e initiates, and are unfamiliar with A/G or FISO operations.
SSD and Aerbabe: you both sound like experienced A/G operators, if so, you know how easy it is to "advise" inexperienced pilots to do what is necessary. The most important word in the A/G operators vocabulary is "Roger". jonathang you are correct, and in the light of F3G,s comments, the use of "request taxi" is indeed wrong, but can be used as meaning "taxi information". But it is not the fault of the pilot so requesting, but the fault of the instructor who did not teach said pilot of the difference. But your comment "sing from the same hymn sheet" is VERY correct.
MBA wrote: "common sense has to prevail". Hear, Hear. (but "taxi information" is different from "taxi instructions"). But, Anticlockwise, "request taxi" does not infer the request for an instruction, so should elict a "roger" from the A/G operator. And your "I don't think the aircraft can call "G-XX taxiing runway..." without first calling the A/G service." ...well they can, legally. CAP413 refers.
But all must remember that a lot of A/G operators are not as experienced as others . And there are also many A/G operators more conversant with the rules than AFISO's, but that's another story.
I'm done now, pleasant dreams.
As a post script, I might add that the new RT licensing requirements for new PPL's is above and beyond the realms of reason. A PPL Student HAS to do ATPL radio license things, like airways calls etc. How silly is that?
[edited for formatting]
Last edited by DubTrub; 16th Jan 2005 at 00:14.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"XXXX Radio, G-YYYY request ZZZZ Instructions" Well for crying out loud, what are they asking for? I ALWAYS respond "Negative".
What should I say? "Request taxi and parking suggestions"? "Where do you want me to park then?"?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Too Far From Home
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've approached A/G fields and asked for 'information' only to be given precise joining instructions. e.g.
A/C "XXX Radio, G-AB inbound, five miles north, 2000 ft. request airfield information"
A/G "G-AB etc etc etc etc join left base for 27 etc etc
My response is always:
A/C "sorry, is that XXX tower?"
A/G "No, this is XX radio"
A/C "Well, in that case, my intentions are.... etc etc etc"
Naughty, but.................
A/C "XXX Radio, G-AB inbound, five miles north, 2000 ft. request airfield information"
A/G "G-AB etc etc etc etc join left base for 27 etc etc
My response is always:
A/C "sorry, is that XXX tower?"
A/G "No, this is XX radio"
A/C "Well, in that case, my intentions are.... etc etc etc"
Naughty, but.................
Guest
Posts: n/a
GtW Yes, but after the "negative" might be some "information" to assist you with your own decision-making process on where to park. I could of course never offer you
since this would be illegal. You have to bear in mind the limited extent of the legal words an A/G operator can use. The A/G operator must be very careful to ensure that words are not interpreted by pilots of all levels as "instructions".
would be an ideal way to introduce a constructive dialogue, the common solution to which is, of couse, "the space between the Pa 28 and the C172 is available for parking".
In essence, the pilot must not request "instructions" at an A/G field, and the A/G operator must not give them, but there are ways and means for the two to "come to an agreement" without any laws being broken.
BigStu If that is the case, then you are correct to question it. I purposely do the same, if only to raise the question with the Aerodrome Authority. Just be careful to use the "tower" suffix, that is ATC, I am sure you mean "Information" as in the AFIS scenario.
DT.
taxi and parking instructions
"Request taxi and parking suggestions"?
In essence, the pilot must not request "instructions" at an A/G field, and the A/G operator must not give them, but there are ways and means for the two to "come to an agreement" without any laws being broken.
BigStu If that is the case, then you are correct to question it. I purposely do the same, if only to raise the question with the Aerodrome Authority. Just be careful to use the "tower" suffix, that is ATC, I am sure you mean "Information" as in the AFIS scenario.
DT.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DubTrub
Agreed "copy" is not CAP413 nor 493. American cop programmes have a lot to asnwer for! I believe "copy" was used in WWII and for a short time after by radio operators in that they had to physically "copy" i.e. write down, the full message in their radio log. (Of course, it could be correct UK phraseology, contained in an ATC manual somewhere!)
As for the taxi clearance. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, so I'll rephrase. If operating from an aerodrome with an A/G service, I would not push the button and say that I was taxiing, without establishing comms with the A/G station. It's poor airmanship! If I did not get a response after my initial call, then I would call "taxiing for RWY..." As Jonathang has copied an excerpt from the 413, it is clear to me, that the "typical" conversation should start with an "inital" call. Agreed?
As for "negative". Why not help the pilot out, who may not be fully conversant with the procedures, by using "G-XX, Station Radio, Roger, unable to provide (taxi) instructions; runway, left hand, QNH etc". You are still providing a service, albeit A/G. Every little helps!
Sometimes "roger" is the only word in an A/G Operators vocabulary. And yes, I do hold a bit of paper that says I'm an A/G Operator.
Our posts overlapped, me thinks.
Agreed "copy" is not CAP413 nor 493. American cop programmes have a lot to asnwer for! I believe "copy" was used in WWII and for a short time after by radio operators in that they had to physically "copy" i.e. write down, the full message in their radio log. (Of course, it could be correct UK phraseology, contained in an ATC manual somewhere!)
As for the taxi clearance. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, so I'll rephrase. If operating from an aerodrome with an A/G service, I would not push the button and say that I was taxiing, without establishing comms with the A/G station. It's poor airmanship! If I did not get a response after my initial call, then I would call "taxiing for RWY..." As Jonathang has copied an excerpt from the 413, it is clear to me, that the "typical" conversation should start with an "inital" call. Agreed?
As for "negative". Why not help the pilot out, who may not be fully conversant with the procedures, by using "G-XX, Station Radio, Roger, unable to provide (taxi) instructions; runway, left hand, QNH etc". You are still providing a service, albeit A/G. Every little helps!
Sometimes "roger" is the only word in an A/G Operators vocabulary. And yes, I do hold a bit of paper that says I'm an A/G Operator.
Our posts overlapped, me thinks.
Last edited by Anticlockwise; 15th Jan 2005 at 23:45.
Guest
Posts: n/a
AC
Agreed.
Also agreed. But many A/G operators do not have the experience to be able to do this, and we also have a duty to "educate" those unfamiliar (read: the commercial folk) with A/G limits.
I think we are genearally in agreement. Come along sometime and see how we do it here! Probably the same as you!.
without establishing comms with the A/G station
Why not help the pilot out
Every little helps!