IMC Radio Calls
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: london
IMC Radio Calls
Hi All
Des anybody have a lnk or a file whcih they can send me of the correct ATC/Pilot calls for IMC flying. Say SRA, ILS, radio vectored ILS etc.
I apologise if there is already thread on this - had a quick look and could not find it!
Peregrine
Des anybody have a lnk or a file whcih they can send me of the correct ATC/Pilot calls for IMC flying. Say SRA, ILS, radio vectored ILS etc.
I apologise if there is already thread on this - had a quick look and could not find it!
Peregrine
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: london
when you are on the ILS and you (the plane) have just called localiser established G-AB and the ATC goes G-AB descend on the ILS, ANH 1000 millibars
how do you the pilot reply to that instruction?
Thanks
how do you the pilot reply to that instruction?
Thanks
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: Norf West by West
CAP 413 Again
It's all there to be found, have look at the CAP 413 Supplement CAP 413 Radiotelephony Supplement 1: A Quick Reference Guide to UK Radiotelephony Phraseology for Commercial Air Transport Pilots | Publications | About the CAA
on Page 14 you will find your answer.
There have been some recent changes to the phraseology in this area but the above covers it.
The answer to your query is "Descend on the ILS QNH 1000 Hetopascals G-AB
on Page 14 you will find your answer.
There have been some recent changes to the phraseology in this area but the above covers it.
The answer to your query is "Descend on the ILS QNH 1000 Hetopascals G-AB
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: Norf West by West
CAP413 Again!
Dave
That's what the Official 413 says, and is be correct, I thought that if perigrineh looked at the supplement it might help him.
CAP 413 is always the reference for the UK at least!
TTWTDI
That's what the Official 413 says, and is be correct, I thought that if perigrineh looked at the supplement it might help him.
CAP 413 is always the reference for the UK at least!
TTWTDI
Last edited by Thatsthewaytodoit; 8th May 2012 at 13:14. Reason: typos
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
To complicate the picture further, note the following change effective 12 July 2012.
CAP 493 SI 2012/03
CAP 493 SI 2012/03
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: EGCO, UK
Hi Peregrineh when I done my imc I got the oxford IFR, RT cd rom & it was excellent. This really helped me & made it easy learning as it had each section of flight, departure, enroute & each type of approach, SRA, NDB,DME ect with the full RT. Along with cap 413 you can't go wrong.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 5
From: South of England
Peregrineh
With respect, why are you not aware of CAP413 (UK only, I hasten to add)? That and the link supplied by bookworm are the references; I regret that there is much wrong information above.
2 s
With respect, why are you not aware of CAP413 (UK only, I hasten to add)? That and the link supplied by bookworm are the references; I regret that there is much wrong information above.
2 s
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: dorset
Very few pilots have read CAP413. Why? Because there are hundreds of pages of Zzzzzzzzz......
That's why the CAA introduced this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Aviatio...917_LOCKED.pdf
Supplement 3, not the comercial pilot supplement, but the simple to understand PPL/IMC supplement.
That's why the CAA introduced this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Aviatio...917_LOCKED.pdf
Supplement 3, not the comercial pilot supplement, but the simple to understand PPL/IMC supplement.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
Very few pilots have read CAP413. Why? Because there are hundreds of pages of Zzzzzzzzz......
If you try to teach something by example that's fair enough, provided you can pull the real definition off the shelf to resolve any issues, but you can't define a protocol by example.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
And those of us who work with protocol definitions every day can be immensely frustrated that this document seeks to be the definition of a protocol ... but never actually defines it!
If you try to teach something by example that's fair enough, provided you can pull the real definition off the shelf to resolve any issues, but you can't define a protocol by example.
If you try to teach something by example that's fair enough, provided you can pull the real definition off the shelf to resolve any issues, but you can't define a protocol by example.
