Standard of RT in USA
I used to wonder why 'ride reports' were so frequent in the US. Then someone advised me that it was all to do with ambulance-chasing legal parasites. If an airliner captain had turned the belts signs off and they encountered a little chop, some greedy unsecured passenger might try to sue the airline....
One excellent 'ride report' I heard came from a plummy-voiced ba 747 captain:
"Speedbird XXX, it's verrrrrrrrrryy smooooooooooooth. As one would quite naturally expect!"
Probably someone trying to show that he'd been flying before 1957? That was the year that 'Coca' changed to 'Charlie', 'Nectar' changed to 'November' and 'Xtra' changed to 'X-ray'.
I understand that 'Whiskey' causes issues in certain parts of the Middle East?
One excellent 'ride report' I heard came from a plummy-voiced ba 747 captain:
"Speedbird XXX, it's verrrrrrrrrryy smooooooooooooth. As one would quite naturally expect!"
.....improper usage of the phonetic alphabet (e.g., “Nectar” instead of “November”)
I understand that 'Whiskey' causes issues in certain parts of the Middle East?
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Jul 2013 at 17:18.
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...
So what might be 'blindingly obvious' to one person might be totally confusing to another, and it is the latter that will cause an incident or an accident one day. That's really the point, I think.
Another point is if controllers are having to resort to their own slang and verbal shortcuts because they are so busy - then they are too busy!. They need to file a report of some kind to get more controllers for that sector or whatever needs to happen. Doing their own thing with their own invented phrases might actually be dangerous, and the one occasion when someone doesn't understand a non-standard phrase and taxis into the aircraft taking off or whatever, simply doesn't bear thinking about.
Last edited by Uplinker; 18th Jul 2013 at 10:45.
Lonewolf_50,
CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO
I'd agree with Beagle. ISTR when I last flew, about seven years ago, we
dropped the 'to' lest it be mistaken for 'two'.
CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO
I'd agree with Beagle. ISTR when I last flew, about seven years ago, we
dropped the 'to' lest it be mistaken for 'two'.
I can see why one would prefer that -- and I prefer brevity -- but is dropping the preposition in accordance with ICAO standards?
With FAA standards?
That seems to be the topic of the thread.
Standardization.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 18th Jul 2013 at 11:42.
but is dropping the preposition in accordance with ICAO standards?
I tried to get a look at ICAO Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony but they want to charge for the privilege. I therefore presume that their ICAOships don't particularly care whether we have access to standard RT or not.
FWIW, the UK CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual gives the following examples:
descending to height 1000 feet
climbing to height 2000 feet
climbing to altitude 2500 feet
climbing FL280
descending FL90
They don't make it easy
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who bemoan the ICAO phraseology probably don't realise how scientifically work out it is.
The US system leaves so much open to being misunderstood, or half heard calls that could be interpreted in different ways. I does need to change.
HOWEVER, when I fly in the USA I do my upmost to use the standard US terminology. However it would seem the US Pilots do not make the effort when outside of the USA.
The US system leaves so much open to being misunderstood, or half heard calls that could be interpreted in different ways. I does need to change.
HOWEVER, when I fly in the USA I do my upmost to use the standard US terminology. However it would seem the US Pilots do not make the effort when outside of the USA.
I tried to get a look at ICAO Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony but they want to charge for the privilege. I therefore presume that their ICAOships don't particularly care whether we have access to standard RT or not.
FWIW:
I am taking a peak at the 2007 version of 9432, and find the who, where what model to be badly missed in the instructions version. ICAO, IMO, collectively have it dead wrong in terms of language logic. The core sequence around which radio comms are built is
who, where, what.
Putting what before who is arse backwards. (I refer to examples 3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.2.)
With that said, I have heard it done that way before, and I understand how it works.
To answer the question: It does not appear that the preposition is all that important in the ICAO example responses from the aircrew.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 18th Jul 2013 at 16:07.
"xxxAir, descend to eight zero".
If you are leaving FL320 in a nation with a 6000ft TA, does that mean descend to FL280 or descend to FL80?
If you are leaving FL320 in a nation with a 6000ft TA, does that mean descend to FL280 or descend to FL80?
Where I work, the procedure when giving a level change is "climb/descend flight level 360, cross waypoint x level" . This has resulted in non english speakers climbing after said waypoint despite giving a good readback of the clearance. I would be much happier if it was "climb now" or "be level before waypoint x" or "be level by time x". Sometimes the standard RT ain't perfect
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it is not
Standardised RT stops crashes.
Saying to, too, two is an accident in waiting.
This is why we NEVER use the words take off, until actually cleared take off.
It may same anal, ask Asiania why standards are required............oops
Standardised RT stops crashes.
Saying to, too, two is an accident in waiting.
This is why we NEVER use the words take off, until actually cleared take off.
It may same anal, ask Asiania why standards are required............oops
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is much to do about nothing
I think it is over stated since no one else has had a problem either.
Surely if numerous fellow professionals say there is a problem (and not just "them pesky foreigners") then maybe there is, in fact, a problem.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been retired awhile I'm not conversant with current procedures. Hiowever, when I was working my Local Competency Examiner would listen to tapes of my R/T and telephone technique at regular intervals and bring to my attention and transgressions. Does this happen in the USA?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Romania
Age: 44
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usually an atc or an atis will provide you with the transition level. Anyway an atc will not clear you for an altitude in feet above the transition altitude. So you should interpret this instruction as to descend to flight level 80
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD wrote:
Don't know about the USA but it happens in Canada, every 6 months.
when I was working my Local Competency Examiner would listen to tapes of my R/T and telephone technique at regular intervals and bring to my attention and transgressions. Does this happen in the USA?
Last edited by cossack; 19th Jul 2013 at 17:55.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descend to FL 80 is the only term I have heard. Descend to 80 has never happened in my 30 year career. Just leave everything as it is because it works just fine. Don't fix a system that isn't broke.
would have known exactly what to do and which frequency to call.
"call ground .X" is listed in the FAA documentation/AIP/AIM as meaning "call ground 121.X", if the ground frequency is not in the 121. range, the full frequency will be given.
There are a number of minor differences with US v. ICAO, all notified to ICAO, but nothing like the number of differences notified by Australia.
"next available" is usually pretty obvious, as to whether it is left or right, in all my years flying in and out of the US, I do not recall any doubts.
As far as I am concerned, European countries that conduct ATC conversation part in English and part in the local language are a far greater threat to safe operations, than the ATC English in the US.
Last edited by LeadSled; 20th Jul 2013 at 06:18.