Standard of RT in USA
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some fun read in this thread. I particularly loved the Heathrow controller saying none of us could manage it. 
In my 23 years working at New York Approach, I've heard just about every accent, or slang there is. The worst ones to communicate with have always been Asian carriers, though some South American carriers have been just as bad. Rarely do I have any issues with European carriers, with probably the Polish, and Russians being the notable exceptions.
In my 23 years working at New York Approach, I've heard just about every accent, or slang there is. The worst ones to communicate with have always been Asian carriers, though some South American carriers have been just as bad. Rarely do I have any issues with European carriers, with probably the Polish, and Russians being the notable exceptions.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Said by a New Yorker. Priceless. Surely the point is that phraseology needs to be standard because of the various accents?
(PS. my SW Irish accent is just perfect!)
Surely the point is that phraseology needs to be standard because of the various accents?(PS. my SW Irish accent is just perfect!)
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 2nd Aug 2013 at 04:35.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard vs Standardisation
Personally I think (understandably) some US guys here are reacting as they feel their STANDARD of R/T and hence Op's is being criticised. Personally, that is not MY point which is just that WORLDWIDE STANDARDISATION should be enforced for all the good reasons. Everyone the same, every call made meeting the receivers expected list of possibles in their circumstances with a solid confirmation of clearances, no room for misinterpretation.
"Bad Standards" is an accusation any professional would get annoyed about.
"Lets STANDARDISE" should be more palatable or even (arguably) an unarguable step to take.
"Bad Standards" is an accusation any professional would get annoyed about.
"Lets STANDARDISE" should be more palatable or even (arguably) an unarguable step to take.
Even the ICAO doesn't aspire to that goal of 100% worldwide compliance. How many variances (the proper term escapes me-kinda ironic) do individual countries enjoy, each of which divurges from the goal.
I recognize that many of the changes are necessary for local needs.
I recognize that many of the changes are necessary for local needs.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rarely have any issues with foreign crews about communication. If anything, my biggest complain with certain foreign airlines is slowing down below 250 knots 40 to 50 miles from the airport without telling me, and also not maintaining assigned airspeeds on final. If you're not able to maintain 170 knots to the final approach fix, then tell me, so that I can plan adequate spacing behind.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the '80s some Flying Tiger aces planted a B747 into a hill at WMSA old Subang Kuala Lumpur international airport because they descended to 400ft instead of the cleared altitude of two thousand four hundred feet. After that ( and a lot of hoo haa, hand wringing and racist protestations ) ICAO recommended against using the phrase " cleared to " as the then KUL ATC had cleared those guys with the instructions" cleared two four zero zero feet " which was two thousand four hunderd feet, but the Flying Tigers crew misinterpreted that as "cleared to four zero zero feet ".
Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214 crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!! Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.
Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214 crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!! Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.
Last edited by grounded27; 3rd Aug 2013 at 04:56. Reason: jandakotcruiser
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't flown with a Yank in over two years. I have been flying with Euro "level 6" guys. Most can hardly order a beer in an english speaking country and basic communications inside and outside the cockpit are strained. The problem is the corrupt EASA system where people can basically buy icao level 6 in SPAIN???? SPAIN!!!! Actually, as far as im concerned, the whole euro aviation system is corrupted. There is no system to develop and weed out lesser candidates. The one who pays the Euro gets the job, not the most suitable candidate. Now, products of this same convoluted, ineffective and over-regulated mess is lashing out at the country that invented flying in a pathetic attempt to mask their own faults and failures. Next time you need American help, make sure you stop all the B-17 crews before their daylight bombing raids and give them some lessons in RT from ur handbook you keep in your flight case. The language is English, not German and you're welcome.
Even the Brits have a hard time with their own accents at smaller northern airports. But hey, Americans invented aviation but the Brits perfected it right?
Even the Brits have a hard time with their own accents at smaller northern airports. But hey, Americans invented aviation but the Brits perfected it right?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In a basement
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is some funny stuff, I just spit my morning coffee on my keyboard!
Last edited by stratofactor; 3rd Aug 2013 at 08:29.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time you need American help, make sure you stop all the B-17 crews before their daylight bombing raids and give them some lessons in RT from ur handbook you keep in your flight case.
Never mind the SAM evasion course, how about a course in standard RT phraseology and a guide book to Eastern Mediterranean accents?? "Aaarrrrr - Reach 3-4, say that again sloowwwly...."
"This is triple nickle, eight ball, five in the slot, boots on and laced, ready to bounce and blow"
Translation: "This is (call sign) 558, five miles out, established ILS, request touch and go"
Translation: "This is (call sign) 558, five miles out, established ILS, request touch and go"
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ceduna
Age: 71
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the '80s some Flying Tiger aces planted a B747 into a hill at WMSA old Subang Kuala Lumpur international airport because they descended to 400ft instead of the cleared altitude of two thousand four hundred feet. After that ( and a lot of hoo haa, hand wringing and racist protestations ) ICAO recommended against using the phrase " cleared to " as the then KUL ATC had cleared those guys with the instructions" cleared two four zero zero feet " which was two thousand four hunderd feet, but the Flying Tigers crew misinterpreted that as "cleared to four zero zero feet ".
Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214
crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!!
Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.
Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214
crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!!
Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.
reasons like chronic fatigue, negligence or other errors? Just asking.....
Last edited by Tipsy Barossa; 3rd Aug 2013 at 19:25.
They set 400 feet on the altitude selector, so no, it was not a red herring. Other factors such as ignoring repeated GPWS pull up warnings didn't help but had they set 2400 ft instead, they'd likely still be alive today.
Not a single occurrence. In 1991 a G2 was given a clearance to 4000 feet on approach to Kota Kinabalu. Unfortunately the local terrain was 4100 feet.
Last edited by pigboat; 3rd Aug 2013 at 22:42.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an American pilot who conducts most of their flights outside the US, I agree, the phraseology standard of most of my colleagues is downright embarrassing. Indeed, it seems that many US pilots go out of their way to be non-standard and I find it absolutely maddening.
They do things like omit their flight number in readbacks, other times say only the flight number and omit the callsign, they add a possesive 's to the end of their callsin, say "checkin' on with ya" on intial callup, say "up to three four oh" when cleared to climb, say "down to two seven oh" when cleared to descend, and otherwise just break into random sentences of non-standard English when doing something as simple as asking for a weather deviation. It is very frustrating to be an unwilling accomplice to this behavior.
Unfortunately there is no way to address this issue without coming off as a complete
. I've found that pilots take these types of criticisms personally, especially if they come from a relatively junior pilot such as myself. I have little choice but to keep my distaste internalized. All I can do is strive to be standard when it is my turn to key the mic.
They do things like omit their flight number in readbacks, other times say only the flight number and omit the callsign, they add a possesive 's to the end of their callsin, say "checkin' on with ya" on intial callup, say "up to three four oh" when cleared to climb, say "down to two seven oh" when cleared to descend, and otherwise just break into random sentences of non-standard English when doing something as simple as asking for a weather deviation. It is very frustrating to be an unwilling accomplice to this behavior.
Unfortunately there is no way to address this issue without coming off as a complete
. I've found that pilots take these types of criticisms personally, especially if they come from a relatively junior pilot such as myself. I have little choice but to keep my distaste internalized. All I can do is strive to be standard when it is my turn to key the mic.