Standard of RT in USA
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, Amerikans having difficulty thinking outside Amerika.............obviously Your RT works well inside your own country, but you do of course fly your aeroplanes outside the great landmass quite often..this is where the problem arises and ATC have to decipher the mess.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 51
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The jargon here in the US is something that sometimes annoys me and lacks discipline, but I do have to say that some of the Americanisms are actually better. One very good example are altitudes above 4 digits: "Thirteen thousand five hundred feet" is much more legible and understandable than "One three thousand five hundred". The human mind doesn't compute additive instructions as well as compound ones.
Very often you hear crews ask for clarification on either new freq or altimeter settings and what alway settles it is when the controller departs ICAO and speaks "plain english". Example:
"Contact SoCal on one two three point seven five".
"What was that frequency again?"
"Twenty three seventy five".
Additive vs compound again. The latter is much clearer to compute in all scenarios. Settles it right away and I've never heard anyone ask for them to repeat such an instruction - ever. If safety and brevity is the objective, then the instruction that is the most understandable is the correct one, ICAO or not.
Very often you hear crews ask for clarification on either new freq or altimeter settings and what alway settles it is when the controller departs ICAO and speaks "plain english". Example:
"Contact SoCal on one two three point seven five".
"What was that frequency again?"
"Twenty three seventy five".
Additive vs compound again. The latter is much clearer to compute in all scenarios. Settles it right away and I've never heard anyone ask for them to repeat such an instruction - ever. If safety and brevity is the objective, then the instruction that is the most understandable is the correct one, ICAO or not.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 12th Jul 2013 at 09:25.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: asia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly internationally and long haul my whole life, no problems understanding american, chinese, japanese atc. However do realized one pattern, native english pilots have some prolems understanding asian atc even after number of years operating in he region.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very often you hear crews ask for clarification on either new freq or altimeter settings and what alway settles it is when the controller departs ICAO and speaks "plain english". Example:
"Contact SoCal on one two three point two seven five".
"What was that frequency again?"
"Twenty three seventy five".
"Contact SoCal on one two three point two seven five".
"What was that frequency again?"
"Twenty three seventy five".
That is a point on which the rest of the world could perhaps learn something from the US. In general the Americans can be relied on to find the easiest ways to do things...
However I still think they could improve their RT training for the pilots even if for the most part the controllers themselves are pretty good.
Last edited by Contacttower; 12th Jul 2013 at 08:40.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conversely Class C and D Control in Australia is very " ICAO" and I/ve never in any single nteraction had any doubt whatsoever what the instruction was. The traffic intensity is is much less of course, and I suspect International flights into the USA just adopt the local lingo with USA destinations - this is easy to do if you're are a native English speaker, but its a definite safety issue for non native english linguists.
Emergency requests are often best best made in plain speech.
Emergency requests are often best best made in plain speech.
Last edited by Mimpe; 12th Jul 2013 at 08:47.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sand pit
Age: 53
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an American I do not feel that the intent of the post was to argue if they are the best or not. I feel it was more constructive criticism and he/she was right. There are many areas we could improve to make it safer and more clear for the many different nationalities who operate into our airspace. I would also recommend various countries to not communicate in their native language at large international airports, as again it takes many people out of the loop.
Ultimately, if we can be more standardized around the world it can only improve safety......but probably won't happen
Ultimately, if we can be more standardized around the world it can only improve safety......but probably won't happen
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in the barrel
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio
AdamFrisch wrote:
"Additive vs compound again. The latter is much clearer to compute in all scenarios. Settles it right away and I've never heard anyone ask for them to repeat such an instruction - ever. If safety is the objective, then the instruction that is the most understandable is the correct one, ICAO or not."
Well, it depends on what you are used to. A frequency given to me as "twentythreeseventyfive" or compounded altimeter settings and transponder codes would make things more cumbersome for me in a high-speed, busy communication environment. I grew up with the European way of radio communication and my brain needs to "translate" the compounded information into the familiar format.
While it's not overly difficult, it adds more load, as small as that load may be.
And more load is never a good thing.
What works best for you doesn't have to cut it for everybody else. Everybody will have to adapt in some way, depending on where you fly. That should be both pilots and ATC.
"Additive vs compound again. The latter is much clearer to compute in all scenarios. Settles it right away and I've never heard anyone ask for them to repeat such an instruction - ever. If safety is the objective, then the instruction that is the most understandable is the correct one, ICAO or not."
Well, it depends on what you are used to. A frequency given to me as "twentythreeseventyfive" or compounded altimeter settings and transponder codes would make things more cumbersome for me in a high-speed, busy communication environment. I grew up with the European way of radio communication and my brain needs to "translate" the compounded information into the familiar format.
While it's not overly difficult, it adds more load, as small as that load may be.
And more load is never a good thing.
What works best for you doesn't have to cut it for everybody else. Everybody will have to adapt in some way, depending on where you fly. That should be both pilots and ATC.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Con-Pilot said 'We are doing more to change than anybody else is'. Errr, no you're not. Those born with their native tongue not English have to adapt far more than any English speaking American.
The machine gun delivery used by some American controllers is counterproductive when employed to direct 'foreign' aircraft. I fly for a British airline and frequently have to ask the US controllers to 'say again, slowly' thus defeating the initial objective of haste. It's a bit like listening to some of the VOLMET reports that are delivered so fast in heavily accented english that you've got to listen right through three times before you can understand it. 'More haste less speed' as my old granny used to say.
The machine gun delivery used by some American controllers is counterproductive when employed to direct 'foreign' aircraft. I fly for a British airline and frequently have to ask the US controllers to 'say again, slowly' thus defeating the initial objective of haste. It's a bit like listening to some of the VOLMET reports that are delivered so fast in heavily accented english that you've got to listen right through three times before you can understand it. 'More haste less speed' as my old granny used to say.
I find ATC in the USA to be very professional, succinct and accurate. I understand them and I am aware of their notified differences from ICAO. I am in awe of their ability to speak an entirely different form of RT phraseology from most (not all) American pilots and not lose their cool. It amazing that two ends of the conversation can be talking different languages and yet understand each other!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yankee Whisky
"Charly Golf Golf Delta Uniform" I only used it in the initial contact with local
ATC and later on this became "Delta Uniform" in further x'missions with the same terminal operator. Professionals in the Air Force, where I spent some time also developed a shorthand "slang" ,which we all understood.
ATC and later on this became "Delta Uniform" in further x'missions with the same terminal operator. Professionals in the Air Force, where I spent some time also developed a shorthand "slang" ,which we all understood.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some slang is especially not good.
The most egregious case of non-standard terms I've heard was a reported call from a United Express flight into an unmanned airfield in inclement weather in Colorado.
While intending to confirm that he was next for arrival with the statement "I'm on deck", this understandably confused the private aircraft waiting to depart, who interpreted it as "I have cleared the active runway".
While intending to confirm that he was next for arrival with the statement "I'm on deck", this understandably confused the private aircraft waiting to depart, who interpreted it as "I have cleared the active runway".
1Charlie:
I too don't like the UK "descend on the glide" however it is a notified difference from ICAO and is there to try and prevent pilots from descending below their cleared altitude before becoming established on the localiser. Apparently this has happened, the aircraft was not in the safe surveyed area.
I know, cleared ILS means establish on the localiser before descending on the glidepath, but not everyone knows that (they should) and even some of those who do know it do not always abide by it. The UK phraseology is just there to try and help flight safety.
I too don't like the UK "descend on the glide" however it is a notified difference from ICAO and is there to try and prevent pilots from descending below their cleared altitude before becoming established on the localiser. Apparently this has happened, the aircraft was not in the safe surveyed area.
I know, cleared ILS means establish on the localiser before descending on the glidepath, but not everyone knows that (they should) and even some of those who do know it do not always abide by it. The UK phraseology is just there to try and help flight safety.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Banbury
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decimal or Point?
Why do the US ATC use the word "point" as opposed to "decimal" when speaking frequencies?
I'm genuinely interested to know.
123.45
One Two Three Point Four Five
One Two Three Decimal Four Five
I'm genuinely interested to know.
123.45
One Two Three Point Four Five
One Two Three Decimal Four Five
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 58
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question about point vs decimal....just it should be the other way round! Point is two syllables shorter....is what is used in normal speech and I can't see it being confused with any numbers....so why Decimal?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah but think how much shorter R/T would be if we all just used Americanisms. Just look at what they did to doughnut; donut! 5 letters saved and 2000 calories added!
My vote is for good R/T but I have no problems with plain English or Umerican, personally my biggest problem is getting my 2s and 3s understood on the sub-continent!
My vote is for good R/T but I have no problems with plain English or Umerican, personally my biggest problem is getting my 2s and 3s understood on the sub-continent!
As long as the USA is part of ICAO, they should ADHERE to the STANDARD ICAO Phraseology or ask for OFFICIAL ICAO published amendments. Don't like it Yanks? Then get the hell out of ICAO.
I find ATC in the USA to be very professional, succinct and accurate. I understand them and I am aware of their notified differences from ICAO. I am in awe of their ability to speak an entirely different form of RT phraseology from most (not all) American pilots and not lose their cool. It amazing that two ends of the conversation can be talking different languages and yet understand each other!
Why?
Well, I wasn't the only plane in the sky, and I know that the folks in ATC are busting their butts to do the best they can in very crowded airspace.
As to "say again:" it's in the phrase book for a reason. I used it when I need it, and I think we all have.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 12th Jul 2013 at 11:56.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While intending to confirm that he was next for arrival with the statement "I'm on deck", this understandably confused the private aircraft waiting to depart, who interpreted it as "I have cleared the active runway".
