RT standards? Am I paranoid
 

I feel particularly in the last year or two the standard of RT has fallen noticeably.

I don’t mean in a stiff up lip sort of way and nor do I mean because the RT doesn’t precisely follow “correct” RT procedures.

I do mean that there appears to be a creeping ignorance of the importance of correct read backs, and even a tendency for AT to “overlook” read backs that are not correct, sometimes after having tried several times to elicit the correct response from the pilot. I find that of significant concern because I think it is vital not only that AT and the pilot having a clear and acknowledged understanding of the clearance given but also because it is a comfort to other pilots that they have also heard and understood the clearance. Often the actions of one aircraft have a bearing on our own decision making process.

I also mean there is an increased tendency for pilots spending a great deal of time on frequency simply because they appear not to have given proper thought to what it is they are trying to say beforehand with the result that over half the transmission ends up being errs and ums and complete silence. I do fully understand that particularly when presented with an unexpected request from AT the ability to deal with our response concisely requires experience. My comment arises not in those circumstances, but with the standard sort of call where the pilot initiates contact with ATC and therefore presumably has had plenty of time beforehand to think of what he wants and needs to say. For example with London info I reckon the majority of calls end with London Info having to ask the pilot at least for their estimate for their next reporting point. Since London have to ask for this information time after time you would have thought pilots would know they are expected to provide this information.

I am not trying to be holier than thou - I can think of numerous occasions my own RT has got pretty flustered. However there are times when frequencies end up being really busy and it becomes a really pain to find one of the main reason IMHO is because of these sort of issues which can be avoided with proper training.

Am I paranoid?

I can't say I have noticed much difference. At one particular A/F, I would say that the RT has vastly improved!

The main problem seems to be, not so much with students (they are learning after all) but with people who have held a PPL for 2 or more years and who very rarely fly!

110% agree scubawasp.

I am not sure that I have seen a noticeable decline in standards, but there certainly is a problem with the competance of many pilots who I can only imagine are infrequent "Weekend Flyers".

Perhaps there is a market for refresher courses - or maybe like standards of driving, the problem is always with "other people".

2D

No to mention students. I am a student PPL and sometimes, I'm afraid, I struggle with the R/T due to lack of experience.

I don't do it deliberately or through any lack of proper preperation, but simply through lack of practice/experience. I'm sure that in time my standard may improve but until then, they only way I can fly safely (i.e. in communication with ATC) is with the occasional 'um' and 'err'.

Fuji,

Would it perhaps be that case that your own rt standard and confidence has improved significantly over the past few years, and that you can now recognise others faults. While previously you might have been concentrating so much on getting your own right, that you didn't notice others faults?

This is not any critisim.

I ask, as my own has improved significantly, over the past 18 months (due to now flying from an ATC field), and after a bit I thought others standards had dropped. However I soon realised that nothing had changed, other than my personal standard of RT.

dp

Perhaps when you have your flight with the instructor, to revalidate, then the standard of RT should be considered.

Obviously they won't be able to stop you revalidating because of bad RT, just picking up on your weak spots (maybe you have not read the latest CAP413, so cetain things may be slightly different).

Or will this be seen as a further headache?

It appears (at aerodromes) that may main problem is that people become familiar with the controllers (and vice versa), and they leap into phone style conversation, just as your trying to get your call in!

I think that the CAA have got the practical test for the RT licence spot on, but like anything, if you don't practice or use it often you loose the edge.

C-bert: the biggest problem for a student , inexperience aside, is your trying to fly and navigate, with perhaps only a few solo hours under your belt and without an instructor to help you out. The biggest problem, is you got sooo much else to do, and a lot of people suffer with a lack of CONFIDENCE on the RT. As long as you fly regulary, your RT will reach a very good standard and then you reach the second problem. Over confidence. You press the PTT and your mind goes blank. Just remember, EVERYONE was a student!

I think gash is the term. Many a time have I (and many others) had to go around because someone was faffing around with a far more enormous RT call that was necessary, meaning i couldn't squeeze my finals call in. These really annoys me because I'm not made of money.
There is far too much chit chat on the radio. Many people i feel would benefit from a refresher course or reading CAP413

I also think that for many undeconfidence or 'being scared' to talk on the radio is a problem - if you know you are going to have to make a call which you aren't happy with, 5 minutes before you get there (or even before you leave the ground!) sort out your RT call, write it down! The ones that get me the most are the En-route or service request calls/pass details. So many I calls I have heard with unnecessary information. I have even heard the controller at Farnborough Radar tell someone to 'remember to breathe' after their mass of speech!

Clogging up of the airwaves is a big bug bear of mine as you can probably tell! (also people who don't readback COMPULSORY info.) Definately standards have dropped.

PS Bomber circuits also annoy me :E

"meaning i couldn't squeeze my finals call in"

Maybe you need to read CAP413, the correct call is 'final'.

Not where I fly, Joe'le'Toff. And we fly v. small circuits indeed.

But then it is an active RAF airfield, and they do things a bit differently...

Tim

Is it really required to call final on the radio before you are permitted to land a plane? A bigger problem with radios is that people rely on them instead of looking out of the window.......

A shame it's a criminal offence to dare to listen to aircraft radio transmissions in some parts of the world, some carefully selected frequencies streamed on the Internet would be a good learning tool. If I'm away from my home airport for some time I always listen to tower/approach frequencies on the Net before I head out to fly. Just gets me back into the swing of things..

slim_slag - yes, if it's controlled and you need a landing clearance.

In America you often get the latter after calling downwind ('Cherokee 441 roger, cleared land, number 4...')

Tim

Longwinded radio calls are annoying but not particularly unsafe.

I get more concerned about calls which, while delivered well, display a lack of understanding of procedures or ATC services.

I fly out of North Weald. The number of times I've heard "G-XXXX at the Squadron, request taxi" or similar is frankly disturbing. It shows the pilot hasn't considered what ATC services are being provided (A/G in this case) and what that means about his/her own responsibilities and I find that worrying.

Aerbabe and her colleagues are masterful in their responses.

Joe'le'toff...how pinickity can you be?

Thank you tmmorris for pointing that out to the Joe the Toff.
In the older CAP413 it did actually show the difference between Civvy Final's and miltary Finals. Final or final's isn't really very pertinent to this topic....it's a difference between 2 types, rather than the falling standards of GA RT.

Flik
(Flies oval circuits, says "finals")

tim

In America you often get the latter after calling downwind ('Cherokee 441 roger, cleared land, number 4...')

It gets better than that. The other day I was cleared to land when I was two miles from the pattern!

PS: as we are being anal about radio calls, if you had said 'roger', why readback the rest? :E :)

dublinpilot "Would it perhaps be that case that your own rt standard and confidence has improved significantly over the past few years, and that you can now recognise others faults. While previously you might have been concentrating so much on getting your own right, that you didn't notice others faults?"

Good point, and I did consider that, however I have been flying for a while so I hope I am not guilty of that trap.

As others have said we have all got to learn. I have absolutley no problem with that.

My concern is that in my experience there seem to be a lot more pilots around who struggle with the standard RT work and I do have real issues with the lack of adherence to reading back any sort of clearance properly. As an example on a recent flight I heard two aircraft being refused a SVFR clearance because they were incapable of a correct readback - I dont recall that in the past.

At the moment the view however seems to be standards are much the same which would be good news.

Seems to me a significant part of the problem for many is how do they know they are doing so badly and need to improve? 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) and you're only required to fly with someone else briefly every couple of years. I suspect very few pilots read online discussion forums or magazines with articles on the subject.

Why thank you, Aim Far. :) (I'd be interested to know how good my colleagues think your RT is ;) )

I must say that, having spent six months doing A/G as part of my job, I've heard some terrible radio calls. It's frightening how many people make the basic mistake of asking for 'instructions' rather than 'information'. It just demonstrates the fact that brains are not entirely engaged. I had one chap who had flown in from Belgium sit at the hold repeatedly saying "Ready for departure", obviously waiting for a clearance. What could I do? After the third time I said "This airfield runs an air/ground service, we cannot give clearances or instructions, only information. There is no known circuit traffic." He got the message. :rolleyes:

Conversely, there are a number of pilots out there with excellent radio skills and it makes the job so much easier. It's refreshing to get a PPL, or occasionally a military pilot, who obviously knows what they're doing. Everything comes together smoothly and it's a pleasure.

Please, practise practise practise, and listen listen listen! :ok:

Charley,

No, you're not being picky, R/T errors have led to fatalities in the past and if one is going to kill oneself one might as well be original rather than repeating mistakes that have already been made.

Whilst the majority of traffic I work is inside CAS, and much of that Class A, if I don't get the readback from an IFR or VFR flight that I'm required to get by law I keep asking until I do.

Whilst ATC's R/T isn't perfect, at least where I work we are randomly sampled a minimum of twice a year to ensure standards are kept to an acceptable level. If, when the samples of R/T are being checked, some dodgy pilot R/T is included we will forward a copy of the tape on to the operator for follow up action and comments, whether it be from a private pilot or from a major airline.

Maybe there is a need for recurrent R/T sampling/training?

WF.

Light aircraft RT has definitely deteriorated, but I would say it has been a gradual decline over a number of years, rather than suddenly, recently.

One of the main reasons, I would contend, is that the majority of PPL training is carried out now at A/G or FISO units. Previously the majority of training was done at ATC fields, where errors would be corrected by ATC and flying clubs, and standards maintained to that required.

Even the QXC flight (which used to be where many students came unstuck by being failed under airmanship if their RT was not up to standard), will be signed off by just A/G (CFI) or FISO units, without any exposure to ATC fields at any stage, or any check of the practical ability of the student in RT at an ATC field.

It is just cringeworthy to hear at some ATC fields. Clearly the need to read back clearances is completely over the head of some pilots. You can often tell where a student has done their training by the basic RT mistakes made.
As an ATCer it can be self-defeating trying to get a sudent to read back clearances, as they can sometimes get more and more nervous and distressed, often not knowing what they are doing wrong, so not in a position to put it right!

And now with the NPPL and rapid increase of microlights flying mainly non-radio just with the occasional foray to an ATC field, I do not forsee any improvement.

The CAA needs to get tough on this, and fast.

There has also (IMHO) been an increase in bad RT habits in commercial pilots, but to a much lesser extent.

Agree with WF's comments also.

What is the problem with this call?

I've heard similar calls to this at A/G, AFIS and ATC fields - essentially the pilot is asking for either information or instructions depending on the service available. Yes, one could argue that the service level was not set by the call, but I've heard calls like this hundreds of times since learning to fly.

The pilot is informing other traffic that "I am here and intending to taxi."

Also, is it really necessary to specifically ask for a radio check, or do we trust A/g, AFISO and ATC to use their initiative and give us some feedback?

At least s/he didn't say "this is THE G-XXXX" :}