Reference for correct radiotelephony
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: up a wadi without a paddle
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference for correct radiotelephony
Anyone know where I can find a ref to correct ICAO RTP. I had a look in the jepps but cant seem to find it there, maybe I'm blind.
Just want to definitively separate what is correct from the "urban legend" crap that is heard daily. I hear some phrases so often that I am starting to wonder if it is a case of regional idiosyncrosis or in fact if its a case of what i've always thought was universally correct is perhaps not.
For example: Radio check - I always thought loud and clear was reported as strength "5". I hardly ever hear that now. Most of the time I hear "5 by 5". Am I out of date?
Another common one - "affirm" as in the affirmative. Commonly hear "charlie charlie" used in its place. Where'd that come from?
I know I know. Minor points. Much has also been documented also about the huge chasm that exists between the US standard (or perhaps lack of - ouch!) and others, but thats not my issue. Just want to make sure that at least what I say is correct.
An ICAO annex maybe??
Anybody? Cheers.
Just want to definitively separate what is correct from the "urban legend" crap that is heard daily. I hear some phrases so often that I am starting to wonder if it is a case of regional idiosyncrosis or in fact if its a case of what i've always thought was universally correct is perhaps not.
For example: Radio check - I always thought loud and clear was reported as strength "5". I hardly ever hear that now. Most of the time I hear "5 by 5". Am I out of date?
Another common one - "affirm" as in the affirmative. Commonly hear "charlie charlie" used in its place. Where'd that come from?
I know I know. Minor points. Much has also been documented also about the huge chasm that exists between the US standard (or perhaps lack of - ouch!) and others, but thats not my issue. Just want to make sure that at least what I say is correct.
An ICAO annex maybe??
Anybody? Cheers.
In the UK we use a document called "CAP 413" which you can download from www.srg.caa.co.uk
Mind you there a few mild inconsistencies in UK RT as well, but I think it's closer to ICAO than the US standards.
G
Mind you there a few mild inconsistencies in UK RT as well, but I think it's closer to ICAO than the US standards.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
ICAO docs are not easily obtainable on-line unless you pay! RTF procedures are split between Annex 10 Vol 2 and PANS-ATM (Doc 4444).
Affirm is an ICAO Standard - it means Yes.
Clarity of transmissions in reported on the Readability Scale
1 Unreadable
2 Readable now and then
3 Readable but with difficulty
4 Readable
5 Perfectly readable
The Readability Scale is a Procedure for Air Navigation described in Annex 10. The introduction text says 'The Procedures far Air Navigation Services (PAVS) contained in Volume II of Annex 10 do not carry the status afforded to Standards adopted by tlie Council as Annexes to the Convention and, therefore. do not come within the obligation imposed by Article 35 of the Convention to notify differences in the event of non-implementation. However, attention of States is drawn to
the provisions of Annex 15 related to the publication in their
Aeronautical Information Pnblications of lists of significant
differences between their proccdures and the related ICA0
Procedures.'
I guess this means if a country uses '5 by 5' it should say this in the AIP.
In the UK we use the term 'Readability 5' in response to a radio check (unless, of course, the radio is garbage).
Affirm is an ICAO Standard - it means Yes.
Clarity of transmissions in reported on the Readability Scale
1 Unreadable
2 Readable now and then
3 Readable but with difficulty
4 Readable
5 Perfectly readable
The Readability Scale is a Procedure for Air Navigation described in Annex 10. The introduction text says 'The Procedures far Air Navigation Services (PAVS) contained in Volume II of Annex 10 do not carry the status afforded to Standards adopted by tlie Council as Annexes to the Convention and, therefore. do not come within the obligation imposed by Article 35 of the Convention to notify differences in the event of non-implementation. However, attention of States is drawn to
the provisions of Annex 15 related to the publication in their
Aeronautical Information Pnblications of lists of significant
differences between their proccdures and the related ICA0
Procedures.'
I guess this means if a country uses '5 by 5' it should say this in the AIP.
In the UK we use the term 'Readability 5' in response to a radio check (unless, of course, the radio is garbage).
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: temporarily unsure :-)
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"charly charly",according to an ATC i know,isnt standard R/T phraseology and is therefore technically incorrect.but its very widely used.Especially,I have found,in Africa.
"Affirm" is standard apparently,but 5/5 is,I would guess,just really another way of expressing the "strength Five" we know as being perfectly readable,which is the standard.
"Affirm" is standard apparently,but 5/5 is,I would guess,just really another way of expressing the "strength Five" we know as being perfectly readable,which is the standard.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: up a wadi without a paddle
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly, there are many phrases widely used and accepted, but many of them are not correct.
Thanks for the links and references guys - quietly reading away.
And no chiglet, "affirm" is not just bone idle.
Thanks for the links and references guys - quietly reading away.
And no chiglet, "affirm" is not just bone idle.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Charlie Charlie" thing has been morphed a bit through the years. When flying out of VHF range and using the HF, your position reports are going to a radio operator, who then forwards your report to the appropriate Air Traffic control center. If you want your position report to go to your ops department, you would say "Copy Company" hence the slang, "Charly Charly"
Well, unfortuneatly, some take it to mean "Roger"
Just a little history.
Well, unfortuneatly, some take it to mean "Roger"
Just a little history.
smiley
