Santa Maria HF c alling for REECH-1005
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
You come from a great nation, but the standard of R/T from REACH callsigns IS appalling.
I think this is due to American (notably different to the Queens' English) being the only language in your airspace. This leads IMHO to lax phraseology, as all can understand most extraneous phrases.
You come from a great nation, but the standard of R/T from REACH callsigns IS appalling.
I think this is due to American (notably different to the Queens' English) being the only language in your airspace. This leads IMHO to lax phraseology, as all can understand most extraneous phrases.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on Huck, Trans Global was just being friendly 
I would imagine an ATCO hearing something like that after a loooong day listening to standard phraseology should relieve some stress, or at least put a smile on the ATCO's face.
Robots are standard, humans not, but things should be measured by the surrounding circumstances.
Best Regards
GD&L
I would imagine an ATCO hearing something like that after a loooong day listening to standard phraseology should relieve some stress, or at least put a smile on the ATCO's face.
Robots are standard, humans not, but things should be measured by the surrounding circumstances.
Best Regards
GD&L
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The origional question appears to have been answered and Reach 1005 hopefully is OK. What does seem to have followed though is a general slagging.
There could have been a number of possible explanations for the missed check out of a frequency. Priorities in the a/c loss of communication due to range, equipment failure, emergency not neccesarily aviation related,and yes poor procedures as well
NSF's defence of the US is a lonely though very valid one, there are many segments of aviation communications nowhere near the US or US crews, worldwide that are not up to a uniformally high standard and it would be nice if they were better, but we use them fly with them and get on with it.
Some densely travelled areas demand a higher standard and the inexperienced do stand out accordingly when they venture there. I can think of a lot of Europen crews who don't normaly venture across the pond who might well be a little lost in the New York, Atlanta, Dallas, LA, areas. Different accents and local practices delivered at high speed can be confusing. Just because one is familiar with London Paris Rome ATC can start to be confusing down near Damascus, Cairo, Jeddah, Karachi, Bombay.
Those who worked for good companies that gave decent Atlantic crossing training were lucky, those who were thrown in at the deep end know how intimidating it could be and would have prefered to have had the opportunity.
The 'Queens English' gamekeeper is spoken by millions who live nowhere near the Sceptered Isle and whose accents differ quite radically, as do in fact millions who actually have that privilige! And I daresay that there may well be the odd professional or two!!! in Reach who might give you a run for your money. IMHO of course.
There could have been a number of possible explanations for the missed check out of a frequency. Priorities in the a/c loss of communication due to range, equipment failure, emergency not neccesarily aviation related,and yes poor procedures as well
NSF's defence of the US is a lonely though very valid one, there are many segments of aviation communications nowhere near the US or US crews, worldwide that are not up to a uniformally high standard and it would be nice if they were better, but we use them fly with them and get on with it.
Some densely travelled areas demand a higher standard and the inexperienced do stand out accordingly when they venture there. I can think of a lot of Europen crews who don't normaly venture across the pond who might well be a little lost in the New York, Atlanta, Dallas, LA, areas. Different accents and local practices delivered at high speed can be confusing. Just because one is familiar with London Paris Rome ATC can start to be confusing down near Damascus, Cairo, Jeddah, Karachi, Bombay.
Those who worked for good companies that gave decent Atlantic crossing training were lucky, those who were thrown in at the deep end know how intimidating it could be and would have prefered to have had the opportunity.
The 'Queens English' gamekeeper is spoken by millions who live nowhere near the Sceptered Isle and whose accents differ quite radically, as do in fact millions who actually have that privilige! And I daresay that there may well be the odd professional or two!!! in Reach who might give you a run for your money. IMHO of course.
The proper measure is not how many pilots are irrated by those damn Yanks and their non standard phraseology. Its how many incidents/accidents ahve occured. The way its played out by the Euros, US planes should be falling out of the sky. Simply not happening. That along with our far inferior pilot training in both the civilian and mil sectors, its amazing little johnny makes it to grandma's house on the airlines.
I always find it amazing to listen to the pompous arses here talk about US RT and then listen to Speedbird crossing the US and hear the same slang we are accused of. I guess the pack comes off when no other nigel can hear them.
I always find it amazing to listen to the pompous arses here talk about US RT and then listen to Speedbird crossing the US and hear the same slang we are accused of. I guess the pack comes off when no other nigel can hear them.
Controversial, moi?
I always find it amazing to listen to the pompous arses here talk about US RT and then listen to Speedbird crossing the US and hear the same slang we are accused of. I guess the pack comes off when no other nigel can hear them.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Area 52
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was fortunate to come up at an outfit which still had their Chief Navigator until 1997. We all learned a lot from him about flying in different parts of the world. He had originally retired as a C-46 Captain and stayed on after 60 as a nav. If a position report or any other R/T wasn’t standard or correct it was noted on our nav line checks. If truth be told I think I learned more by way of tribal knowledge than the FAA, my airline, or the military ever taught me. That’s why the Captain’s are the ultimate teachers. If all else fails watch “The Twilight Zone”, episode 54-“The Odyssey of Flight 33”. Best R/T at 30 west you’ll ever hear!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Long Hauling
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was taught by my airline back in the 70's when I first started with a carrier that "No-one (outside of the cockpit) sees how you operate but a reputation of the carrier is formed by others by the correct use of R/T".
How often is the impression/judgement of an airline made or spoiled by one aircraft using poor R/T?
I insist that my F/O's use correct terminology and write the position report out longhand and read it if he/she is unfamiliar.
Good example of incorrect useage is on 126.9 in the dark regions:
Jepp and Aerad spell out the call as being prefixed by:
"All Stations (Spoken once) this is ........"
How often do we hear "All Stations, All Stations.....", or
"All Stations, Traffic Information....."
My old Captain back in the 70's told me "IT IS EASIER TO GET THE TERMINOLOGY RIGHT THAN TO GET IT WRONG EVERY TIME".
Wise words I thought.
How often is the impression/judgement of an airline made or spoiled by one aircraft using poor R/T?
I insist that my F/O's use correct terminology and write the position report out longhand and read it if he/she is unfamiliar.
Good example of incorrect useage is on 126.9 in the dark regions:
Jepp and Aerad spell out the call as being prefixed by:
"All Stations (Spoken once) this is ........"
How often do we hear "All Stations, All Stations.....", or
"All Stations, Traffic Information....."
My old Captain back in the 70's told me "IT IS EASIER TO GET THE TERMINOLOGY RIGHT THAN TO GET IT WRONG EVERY TIME".
Wise words I thought.
"rarely met a colleague who doesn't stick pretty rigidly to standard phraseology'
To who's phraseology? Talk here of adjusting to host country RT. As an example, rarely if ever do I hear a Speedbird heavy refer to themselves as Heavy despite US procedure to do so. Plenty of with you at 3-7-oh check ons. Plenty of "Roger" when it should require a read back. Plenty of verbose readbacks of simple things such as turn right/left heading xxx. The only reason I notice these things is because of the crap I read here. Otherwise they blend in with everyone else and our lousy RT. Must be some particular point crossing the pond Westbound when the ties loosen up a bit. Not just you, same for Virgin, Air France, etc.
To who's phraseology? Talk here of adjusting to host country RT. As an example, rarely if ever do I hear a Speedbird heavy refer to themselves as Heavy despite US procedure to do so. Plenty of with you at 3-7-oh check ons. Plenty of "Roger" when it should require a read back. Plenty of verbose readbacks of simple things such as turn right/left heading xxx. The only reason I notice these things is because of the crap I read here. Otherwise they blend in with everyone else and our lousy RT. Must be some particular point crossing the pond Westbound when the ties loosen up a bit. Not just you, same for Virgin, Air France, etc.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: KMIA-KJFK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I tend to agree that many ATC procedures and phraseologies in the US are lagging or lacking, I tend to agree with the "Heavy" suffix, as we have many light GA aircraft in the same airspace. With good SA, a light airplane's pilot will hear the "Heavy" suffix and be aware possible wake turbulence. I know it is not necessary outside the US.
I didn't mean to have my post about new commers to the NATS as being incompetent. Everyone did it the first time, and we all STILL make mistakes, on occasion. All I can say, before doing that first position report: preparation, preparation, and preparation.
Why don't these US carriesr (I know Atlas does) have a class on INTL RT and position reporting, to include reciting simulated reports in front of the class? Why don't individual pilots take the time to recite a report in front of the refrigerator, while grabbing for a beer? Laziness on both counts. I did the refrigerator thing because I worked for a non-US carrier and I didn't want to look like a fool on my first day at work, or therafter.
Also, I love the reference someone made to the "Booze news," when to referring to having ATIS information Whiskey. That sounds like a trucker on a CB radio whenever I hear that, and not a professional pilot.
I know, all of my US counterparts are going to flame me as a fuddy duddy, a stick in the mud, or even worse, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
As far as what happened to the Reach flight in question, I'm certain we would have heard by now if anything terrible had happened. I think this thread has merits of its own, without the Reach outcome known. Carry on.
I didn't mean to have my post about new commers to the NATS as being incompetent. Everyone did it the first time, and we all STILL make mistakes, on occasion. All I can say, before doing that first position report: preparation, preparation, and preparation.
Why don't these US carriesr (I know Atlas does) have a class on INTL RT and position reporting, to include reciting simulated reports in front of the class? Why don't individual pilots take the time to recite a report in front of the refrigerator, while grabbing for a beer? Laziness on both counts. I did the refrigerator thing because I worked for a non-US carrier and I didn't want to look like a fool on my first day at work, or therafter.
Also, I love the reference someone made to the "Booze news," when to referring to having ATIS information Whiskey. That sounds like a trucker on a CB radio whenever I hear that, and not a professional pilot.
I know, all of my US counterparts are going to flame me as a fuddy duddy, a stick in the mud, or even worse, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
As far as what happened to the Reach flight in question, I'm certain we would have heard by now if anything terrible had happened. I think this thread has merits of its own, without the Reach outcome known. Carry on.
Short & to the point:
Standard & correct RT phraseology is vital.
If there's space available for banter and a laugh fine but the instruction and response bit must be beyond doubt.
Oh, and for the FO: if you aren't sure of what ATC said, don't ask the captain; request a 'say again'. Ole skip may think he got it first time but you both have to
Standard & correct RT phraseology is vital.
If there's space available for banter and a laugh fine but the instruction and response bit must be beyond doubt.
Oh, and for the FO: if you aren't sure of what ATC said, don't ask the captain; request a 'say again'. Ole skip may think he got it first time but you both have to
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mars
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
american military a/c are hardly going to make it clear where they come from and where they are going too, to civilian controllers, they call as a curtesy to civilian atc units but are in constant contact with their controllers, awacs etc.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just listen to some of you from both sides of the Atlantic. I find it saddening to see some individuals who post on here are unable to turn an intelligent debate into an 'us' and 'them' slagging match that would be laughed at as pathetic by a bunch of kindergarten kids, never mind supposedly fully grown adults who claim to be 'professionals'. 
Having flown on both sides of the Atlantic I can tell that some of the complainers on this thread, whilst criticising the US pilots of bad RT when over on the EU side of the pond have never actually flown on the US side (except maybe when they did their hours building). I am also ashamed to say that I have heard many UK pilots from the EU side communicate with non-English ATC in an appalling manner. Some pilots don't seem to be able to fathom that perhaps a more clear and enunciated method of communication may be better understood, especially when trying to communicate anything that is not part of the 'normal' patter.
The number of times I have cringed when flying with someone who assumes a rapid fire, mumbling into the mike is going to be understood by the controller and ends up just as a time consuming, repeated communication. Non-English speaking controllers can be just as bad when they try to pass heavily accented instructions too fast or with a lot of background noise.
When it comes listening to the standard comms from pilots, there is little or no distinction between US, UK or pilots from anywhere else. When there is a problem it can be from any of those groups and there is no one group who infringe the 'rules' more than any other. Of course, those with a xenophobic tendency will pick on one incident and of course make up some sort of statistic and claim that it happens all the time.
Those of us who have had to cross the Atlantic will remember the first time they had to use the HF to request a clearance or make their first few position reports. I'm sure most of you god-pilots out there did it without any trouble and word perfect the first time. Sadly, us lesser mortals may have had to turn to our colleague and ask "what did he just say?" or asked the controller to "say again" or fumbled the sequence or something terribly dangerous like that!
The same happens one the US side of the Atlantic when many UK and other non-US pilots have to use the RT over there. Most of us manage to adapt to the US way of communicating whilst still keeping as much as possible to our own standards. It is a requirement that we use the rules of the host country and in the US it is standard to append "heavy" if you are not in the cruise and operating that size of equipment. Over here it is not necessary but if a US pilot does use it... so what? Judging by some of the comments on this thread that makes the pilot a lesser human and not worthy of professional consideration. Perhaps those of you who take that attitude should widen your horizons a bit.
As for West Coast getting all upset by this, I have to say that I can't blame him. The number of time that we manage to hear someone 'cocking it up' on the US side is about the same as we hear it over here. Unfortunately it happens to all of us from time to time. Why some of you are getting so upset about it is amusing and sad. You can't change the world overnight but judging by some of the responses to this thread there are a few toys being thrown out of the pram precisely because of that. Hopefully, the silent majority who read threads like this one can learn and appreciate the problems and apply the necessary standards in due course.
So, let's leave out the petty bickering and whingeing from the 'Mr Angry's of Purley' and try and focus more on ways of getting a better standardisation. "Go ahead"
Having flown on both sides of the Atlantic I can tell that some of the complainers on this thread, whilst criticising the US pilots of bad RT when over on the EU side of the pond have never actually flown on the US side (except maybe when they did their hours building). I am also ashamed to say that I have heard many UK pilots from the EU side communicate with non-English ATC in an appalling manner. Some pilots don't seem to be able to fathom that perhaps a more clear and enunciated method of communication may be better understood, especially when trying to communicate anything that is not part of the 'normal' patter.
The number of times I have cringed when flying with someone who assumes a rapid fire, mumbling into the mike is going to be understood by the controller and ends up just as a time consuming, repeated communication. Non-English speaking controllers can be just as bad when they try to pass heavily accented instructions too fast or with a lot of background noise.
When it comes listening to the standard comms from pilots, there is little or no distinction between US, UK or pilots from anywhere else. When there is a problem it can be from any of those groups and there is no one group who infringe the 'rules' more than any other. Of course, those with a xenophobic tendency will pick on one incident and of course make up some sort of statistic and claim that it happens all the time.
Those of us who have had to cross the Atlantic will remember the first time they had to use the HF to request a clearance or make their first few position reports. I'm sure most of you god-pilots out there did it without any trouble and word perfect the first time. Sadly, us lesser mortals may have had to turn to our colleague and ask "what did he just say?" or asked the controller to "say again" or fumbled the sequence or something terribly dangerous like that!
The same happens one the US side of the Atlantic when many UK and other non-US pilots have to use the RT over there. Most of us manage to adapt to the US way of communicating whilst still keeping as much as possible to our own standards. It is a requirement that we use the rules of the host country and in the US it is standard to append "heavy" if you are not in the cruise and operating that size of equipment. Over here it is not necessary but if a US pilot does use it... so what? Judging by some of the comments on this thread that makes the pilot a lesser human and not worthy of professional consideration. Perhaps those of you who take that attitude should widen your horizons a bit.
As for West Coast getting all upset by this, I have to say that I can't blame him. The number of time that we manage to hear someone 'cocking it up' on the US side is about the same as we hear it over here. Unfortunately it happens to all of us from time to time. Why some of you are getting so upset about it is amusing and sad. You can't change the world overnight but judging by some of the responses to this thread there are a few toys being thrown out of the pram precisely because of that. Hopefully, the silent majority who read threads like this one can learn and appreciate the problems and apply the necessary standards in due course.
So, let's leave out the petty bickering and whingeing from the 'Mr Angry's of Purley' and try and focus more on ways of getting a better standardisation. "Go ahead"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I have been out of touch for a year or two, we were required to be trained and re-currently checked on MNPS and RVSM procedures before any transatlantic flying. Non-ICAO differences in altimetry, phraseology, and general procedures were thrown in at the same time.
Is that no longer done?
Is that no longer done?
I'm with WestCoast and Danny here!
I used to teach my newbies "Get it right = Say it once!" as well as "Engage brain before pressing tit". In other words, learn the correct format, then apply it and you probably won't need to repeat yourself. Also "Rhythm, Speed, Volume, Pitch" when using HF; imagine you're talking to a deaf old aunt or a senior army officer, so speak in a way which will modulate the HF properly (particularly the old rubbish we had!) and not too fast either - so that the poor chap at the other end gets the message first time.
Mind you, certain nationalities asking for the rounders scores on 123.45, or endless 'ride reports' is another matter! As also is "Hello, New York, it's the Birdseed *** at 340 right behind the Virgin...." which I once heard
We were military users of a mainly civil RT system. So it was only courtesy to play by their rules!
Oh well, back to "Golf Alfa Good Morning" on VHF LARS which is about my lot these days.
I used to teach my newbies "Get it right = Say it once!" as well as "Engage brain before pressing tit". In other words, learn the correct format, then apply it and you probably won't need to repeat yourself. Also "Rhythm, Speed, Volume, Pitch" when using HF; imagine you're talking to a deaf old aunt or a senior army officer, so speak in a way which will modulate the HF properly (particularly the old rubbish we had!) and not too fast either - so that the poor chap at the other end gets the message first time.
Mind you, certain nationalities asking for the rounders scores on 123.45, or endless 'ride reports' is another matter! As also is "Hello, New York, it's the Birdseed *** at 340 right behind the Virgin...." which I once heard
We were military users of a mainly civil RT system. So it was only courtesy to play by their rules!
Oh well, back to "Golf Alfa Good Morning" on VHF LARS which is about my lot these days.
Everybody makes mistakes, some deliberately practise non-standard RT. Its never a single nationality. I'd much rather hear all the hot air on this thread being used in favour of a much better system than HF, there has to be one!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Controller, I think the majority of RT is poor, especially in high-density airspace. For example, there are a number of items that require a read back the rest could be reduced to 'Wilco' and 'Roger' depending on the message; instead we get the complete readback, which wastes our time trying to talk to the next crew. On other occasions we get just a ‘Roger’, which requires us to challenge the crew to ensure they received and understood the previous message. Further, I would not say that any particular nationality or airline is worse than another, although General Aviation tends to be the most demanding.
Last edited by It won't go up!; 30th Dec 2004 at 07:57.