Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Standard of RT in USA

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Standard of RT in USA

Old 16th Jul 2013, 20:34
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,408
Deefer and DIBO, I agree with you 100%

ATC Guys/Gals in the USA: We don't think you are more clever or more skilled just because you speak fast. Quite the opposite in fact - it makes me think you are nervous and not fully in control of the situation.

I have had to ask for complete repeats; 'slowly' or "words twice" on several occasions at USA airports over the years.

Speaking fast does not impress anyone and simply results in wasted time because you have to repeat everything you just said, and also results in a loss of safety.

I am not being partisan when I say the the UK controllers do it just right - calm, measured and precise.

Slow down ! - Less is more.

Last edited by Uplinker; 16th Jul 2013 at 20:38.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 20:34
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Come on, Deefer Dog, in your original post you more or less invited incoming flac....please don't get all bent out of shape if we take you up on it!
mary meagher is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 20:46
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,578
I have a feeling that I'm banging my head against a brick wall here; whichever way you slice it you know you guys don't comply in the main, and rather than try to defend the indefensible its perhaps easier to look at the post as a "bashing."
Deefer

I don't think you can support that (bolded ) statement, and it is probably the matter of "generalization" that made it look more like a bash than perhaps you intended.

Since I had to teach R/T and standardization, I am as much in your camp as a matter of principle as anyone, but I also learned over the years that some minor variation (though not in the terminal area) is nothing to get all up in arms over.

From where I sit, the terminal area -- departures and arrivals -- are, due to their density of air traffic and comms traffic, the places where the benefits of clear, concise, brief, and standard comms are the greatest.

Getting sloppy in the radio in Class A airspace is, for my money, no way to perform in the air.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 22:06
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,603
I wonder if anyone beyond those in this circular argument really give a F what any of us care? I don't think so. I haven't seen any change to US controllers or pilots in the few days since this thread started.
West Coast is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 22:51
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 65
Posts: 223
of course you don't give a fcuk, that's the the problem isn't it?

"a good tradesman measures twice, and cuts only once." if your ATC slang was eliminated, and you spoke like everyone else does your guys wouldn't need to keep "sayin" it again.

"outta 2 point seven for one nine oh," (what exactly does that mean?) (don't answer, its a rhetorical question)
"direct to the keys" (how the fcuk is a foreign crew supposed to know where they are, or what the ident is?)
"ground point 9" (elimination of the two vital words, namely "frequency" and decimal - used to give crews at least a clue!)
"thirty point one" (is it an altimeter setting or a frequency?) (fcuk it, not important so let's all just guess)
"right two hundred" (is that "okay heading 200 degrees", or "okay descend to FL 200", or maybe 200 knots?)

call me antagonistic if you like, but in this respect you guys are more like john wayne cowboys than safety conscious professionals.

USA: guilty as charged m'lud! your ATC is atrocious, abysmal and amateurish
and you should be ashamed of it. (alliteration)
clivewatson is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 22:56
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,603
I guess I didn't get the memo to keep the hating up. The traffic keeps flowing.
West Coast is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 23:03
  #187 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
USA: guilty as charged m'lud! your ATC is atrocious, abysmal and amateurish
and you should be ashamed of it
Just how many accidents have occurred from your totally erroneous, BS charges.

I can wait.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 23:07
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,631
Clive - many of those things on their own look horrible when taken out of context. But in real life, when R/T has been established, when all parties are well versed and comfortable and familiar, there are shortcuts that not only save time, but are safer. "Fourteen thousand feet" is much, much clearer than "one four thousand" as an example. There is virtually no way of misunderstanding that.

At my home airport the tower controllers know me, my tail number and my plane. In a busy environment they'll often say "turn left at Foxtrot, contact ground". No freq. We don't need it - I know what the freq is, they know that I know what it is, so why waste the student pilot on short finals time who's not got a clearance to land yet? Likewise, in a CTAF/AFIS environment - why the obsession after one has established contact with the tail number? Once that's been presented as you enter area, then just call out type and position. "Aerostar on base for 19L", "Aerostar on final for 19L" etc - who needs the tail number in every call? Waste of time. They're either visual with you or not - it's not like they can read your tail number anyway.

Horses for courses. There's a time for shortcuts and there's a time for doing it by the book.

I do totally agree that US R/T is way too fast, though. It's like a speed race sometimes - whoever says things the fastest, wins. I deliberately try to slow things down, without being verbose. Efficiency is key.

Last edited by AdamFrisch; 16th Jul 2013 at 23:15.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 08:48
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,238
Standard of RT in USA

deefer dog, DIBO & lone wolf.

Congratulations, you've said it all.

Who can question the common sense that you've spoken, & what more needs to be said on this subject ?
kcockayne is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 09:05
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,408
Approved RT terminology may seem tedious and unnecessarily pedantic, but it is like that for a very good reason.

Many incidents and accidents have been caused over the years owing to misunderstandings between ATC and pilots. Use of the standard terms is safer because their meaning is defined and cannot be confused. It must also be borne in mind that transmission and reception is not perfect. Radios can be distorted or suffer interference, and cockpits can be very noisy places. As Basil suggests, the pilots are often very busy doing several things at once.

ATC need to remember that they are a SERVICE and are ASSISTING the aircraft pilots. The aeroplane comes first, not the controller wishing to clear a strip off his tray quickly.

Also we must bear in mind that pilots or ATC may not have English as their first language, which is another good reason not to speak too quickly. We had a discussion with Turkish ATC about something the other night and the person did not understand our conversational English at all, although that same ATC operator could control us in English perfectly well.

Going to Mexico a little while ago, the controller gave us a QNH of "993". We thought that odd as we were expecting inches of mercury and queried it several times. It later transpired that the controller had meant "29.93" but was using his own verbal shortcut by dropping the 2 and the decimal.

In this case the error didn't kill us, but it might easily have done.

Last edited by Uplinker; 17th Jul 2013 at 09:18.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 10:03
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by con-pilot View Post
Just how many accidents have occurred from your totally erroneous, BS charges.

I can wait.
It's interesting to see that you judge the quality of something by the number of accidents it has or hasn't caused!

Furthermore, as a pilot, I have caused no accidents and, therefore, must be the best pilot in the world - using your very own yardstick, of course. I'm sure there will be plenty of opposition to my statement, including me.

Poor defence.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 10:28
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South of the Border
Posts: 46
I wonder if anyone beyond those in this circular argument really give a F what any of us care? I don't think so. I haven't seen any change to US controllers or pilots in the few days since this thread started.
No, you're probably right that few controllers or pilots will change their ways of speaking on the radio based on this thread. And while I know that most of this thread is based on how the US ATC operates, I do think that some of the bashing of American pilots operating internationally is unfair. I hear them using standard ICAO procedures over the skies of Europe everyday. Pretty much every single transmission I hear from them include spelling out individual digits in their call sign and using that godawful word "decimal". What a useless word by the way. Especially combined with all the stupid frequencies that exists in Europe after 8.33 kHz spacing was implemented. Give me "thirty-five point one" over "one three four decimal two eight five" any day of the week.

I also see that some others agree with me regarding the use of "fully ready". Please explain to me once more, preferably one of you pretentious Brits, the difference between being ready for departure and fully ready for departure. Or being ready for start-up and fully ready for start-up? And why are some of you seemingly not able to utilize common sense and abbreviate your verbose exchanges, or speed up a bit, at times when it clearly is necessary? Classic example: late afternoon in a busy TMA with CBs all over. People are stepping on each other in order to get permission to deviate. In comes Mr. UK with a 45-sec monotone transmission that includes not only the who, the where, and the what, but also the information received, the STAR being flown, the squawk code and the a/c type. To include the "-300". KISS FFS.

In conclusion, having flown domestically in the US for several years as a non-native English speaker, and now operating all over Europe, I definitely know which system I prefer. I'll take the land of the free any day, please. And add bacon.

Last edited by Goldenbawls; 17th Jul 2013 at 10:30.
Goldenbawls is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 14:05
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Okay, here comes another anecdote, just to keep the conversation friendly.

As a British Pilot, I took the RT,course, practiced the patter, and made a habit of listening on Channel 9 when flying UA as a pax. Approaching London, was delighted to hear the following exchange.

American pilot politely and properly requested Direct to Bovingdon.

Heathrow Director politely and properly declined.

American pilot asked again a few minutes later, also according to the Queen's English as she is spoken over here.

Heathrow replied "Sorry, sir, cannot approve that routing as it would take you through a danger zone."

Speedbird pilot, unidentified, chipped in: "Go for it!"
mary meagher is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 14:25
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 92
Posts: 300
Not always "Pretenious..."

I had mentioned earlier the possibility for confusion between a "HAMPTON 4 DEPARTURE" and "HAMPTON FOR DEPARTURE".

The read-back by the Anglophone F/O was quickly queried by a busy Idlewild Control. The Scotophone Captain was word perfect at once. Congratulations to both.

Leaving this embarrassed F/O wondering if another number could or should be used. ( It was my first trip !)

Last edited by Linktrained; 17th Jul 2013 at 14:26.
Linktrained is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 14:25
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,603
Basil

Next time might I suggest you simply call the tower after parking if you have a comment. If you're about RT standardization, then surely you can see the folly of making comments on frequency. A reply on frequency can be perceived as simply being a smartass (which given your comments at the next airport, it was) while a call with a well reasoned explanation can go a long way towards a remedy.
US ATC had the JS experience taken from them post Sept 11 up until fairly recently. Even now the program is not user friendly and the few controllers I interact with have pressed their boss'es for the time off to get into the actual JS so they can see things from our perspective. Feedback such as you tried by my estimation is appreciated, but it's about how you do it as much as what your saying.
West Coast is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 17:41
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,603
I understand your point, I disagree with the way went about it.
West Coast is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 18:09
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,666
We used to take baby VC10K pilots to the US to expose them to a number of new situations - high temp / mil ops / busy civil ATC etc.- all achievable within a few days.

I found US RT 'different', but never impossible. Civil Center controllers were mostly fine, as were airport controllers, but many military ATIS readers were an idiotic liability.

Landing at Honolulu the crew was told "Next available, Ground point 9 when off". To me, sitting on the jump seat, that was blindingly obvious; take the next exit, then call Hono' Ground for taxying instructions on the VHF ground frequency which ends in .9. But no, the crew blundered off onto the next exit, then turned straight onto the taxiway without calling Ground, causing a 747 to come to rather a rapid halt, then struck up a conversation with the busy local controller...

Only issue I ever had could be summed up as "Speak fast, speak twice!". Rapid clearance delivered at a tobacco-auctioneer's pace, ending in "Readback" isn't helpful - crews will often ask for a repeat. But they should be ready to note it down, of course.

"xxxAir checking in at 360" I thought was a great idea - it let us know that he wasn't at our level. Equally "xxxAir passing 280 climbing 360". But when I did the same, my training captain said it wasn't necessary "Because ATC already know that!". Well, they might - but other aircraft won't and it all helps to build SA!

But please - no 'rounders' scores on 123.45 on the ocean!
BEagle is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 18:20
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 949
But please - no 'rounders' scores on 123.45 on the ocean!
Same goes for UEFA and the EPL, please. BTW, no one has played rounders in close to a century.

Last edited by J.O.; 17th Jul 2013 at 18:21.
J.O. is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 18:27
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,578
"xxxAir checking in at 360" I thought was a great idea - it let us know that he wasn't at our level. Equally "xxxAir passing 280 climbing 360". But when I did the same, my training captain said it wasn't necessary "Because ATC already know that!". Well, they might - but other aircraft won't and it all helps to build SA!"
The voice report used when switching freqs from one controller to another with altitude included, IIRC originated in the days when not all airspace was radar covered.
Even with radar coverage, if the controller you are checking in with does NOT copy your transponder, for whaterver reason, at his end or yours, alerting him to your altitude is a good thing.

I need to check voice reports again in the AIM to see what has chnaged since I used to teach this stuff. I agree with you on the wisdom of those reports.
However, "checking in at" is probably not the right report. (Again, I need to look this up).

Format from memory: "Houston Center, XXXAir NA556, Flight Level 250 (or one's altitude when FL is not appropriate)" is the standard call. If this has changed, I'd be curious as to why. Short, sweet, and to the point.

EDIT:

Looks like it is mostly the same, and I'd be interested to know if this is not the same in ICAO procedures.
From the 2012 edition of the AIM:
5-3-1.b.2. The following phraseology should be utilized by pilots for establishing contact with the designated facility:
(a) When operating in a radar environment:
On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s assigned altitude preceded by the words “level,” or “climbing to,” or “descending to,” as appropriate; and the aircraft’spresent vacating altitude, if applicable.
EXAMPLE−
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).
NOTE− Exact altitude or flight level means to the nearest 100 foot increment. Exact altitude or flight level reports on initial contact provide ATC with information required prior to using Mode C altitude information for separation purposes.

(b) When operating in a nonradar environment:
(1) On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s present position, altitude and time estimate for the next reporting point.
EXAMPLE−
(Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), (position), (altitude), ESTIMATING (reporting point) AT (time).
(2) After initial contact, when a position report will be made, the pilot should give the controller a complete position report.
EXAMPLE− (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), (position), (time), (altitude), (type of flight plan), (ETA and name of next reporting point), (the name of the next succeedingreporting point), AND (remarks).

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Jul 2013 at 18:42.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 19:28
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,666
Personally I'd bin the 'dangerous dative'! As in 'to or for'. Thus 'Climbing FL280' rather than 'climbing to 280'. Was that 280 or 220? Similarly, was that 'for' or 'four'?

'XXXair passing FL 220 climbing FL 280' or 'XXXair maintaing FL320' or 'XXXair passing FL320 descending FL220, ready for lower when able' seems simple enough.

But we really don't need to get too fussy....
BEagle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.