Standard of RT in USA
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Here
Age: 54
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA50
I think you've misunderstood this thread somewhat. Nobody sensible is saying (or presumably even thinking) that anyone is "better", however you and a few US based guys have interpreted it that way.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dalaman
Asia based. Before that Moscow and Oxford. Prior to that Europe.
Try reading this thread from a US point of view. It is nothing short of "you scuk" and "we are great".
Try reading this thread from a US point of view. It is nothing short of "you scuk" and "we are great".
Last edited by DA50driver; 25th Aug 2013 at 13:34.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 834
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put your R/T where ICAO meets
Well, now, 466 posts only? I read them all this evening. I didn't say 'read closely.'
I'm going to propose three (3) questions, and then a contention, you know, a proposition for policy or reform or action, based on or derived from the central arguments made here. Rather than add more of my words in an effort (probably doomed to failure) to summarize these central arguments, here are three representative posts (IMO), including one from the OP:
deefer dog (post #14). "The point I am making is simply this. In the US the phraseology is completely non standard to that agreed in the convention and bears no relationship to any differences filed. Whichever way you look at it, and as painful as it may feel, your system of not complying with agreed conventions increases the likelihood of confusion, especially when operators whose native language is not English have to disseminate slang. Confusion in a busy ATC environment is not what any of us want."
West Coast (post # 129). "As worldwide air traffic picks up, there's going to be pressure to place more aircraft into the same airspace and airports that exist. Eventually RT will come into the sights of regulators who are charged with making this happen and change will be upon us."
Ace Rimmer (post #172) (responding to post by yours truly about ICAO processes)
"Willow Run: experience has shown that when ICAO moves at sprint pace (and that doesn't happen that often) it takes about seven (yup SEVEN) years to get something adopted as a standard...and even then longer to for Individual States to implement the changes in their national ANO provided they don't decide to file a difference (or ignore the SARP altogether)...
I submit that the solution to this problem (and if the findings of recent IATA/IFALPA/IFATCA Phaseology survey are believed there IS a significant problem) lies more with national CAA/DGCAs actually implementing (and enforcing) the existing SARPs rather than trying push through new ones (at ICAOs blistering pace!)"
I. There is something just plain unseemly about all the sparring. Would not your energies be better directed at forming a unified coalition or partnership as against those nations, whether signatories of ICAO or not, where the compliance with ICAO R/T standardization is rather of secondary importance compared to the given nation's adherence to basic international norms (aww, dunno, let's, uh, checkin' out possible employment of chemical weapons within say 75 minutes at under Mach 2 from Incirilk)? The point is not "politics" but rather "priorities". So very much here is hangover.
2. What happens if there is another "System Perturbation" such as the US ground stop on 9-11 (phrase from The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett)? - will closer if not complete adherence to ICAO R/T standards get everyone out of the air more expeditiously and/or safely? Or does the status quo already provide optimum assurance?
3. What about in the case of armed conflict occurring? Assume active hot warfighting in, say, Syria? Are you now more concerned, or less (or unchanged) about ICAO R/T standardization compliance if you are PIC within, let's again say, 75 minutes (U.S.), at under Mach 2, of Incirilik?
Proposition: with due respect to Ace R, the ICAO triennial is next month. 466 posts, and mounting some special agenda item for ICAO merits but a shrug? Well, if so, I'm left wondering what all the ground-pounding was about.
Discuss. Or drink. Probably not both (at the same time, is what I meant).
Sent from my iPad
I'm going to propose three (3) questions, and then a contention, you know, a proposition for policy or reform or action, based on or derived from the central arguments made here. Rather than add more of my words in an effort (probably doomed to failure) to summarize these central arguments, here are three representative posts (IMO), including one from the OP:
deefer dog (post #14). "The point I am making is simply this. In the US the phraseology is completely non standard to that agreed in the convention and bears no relationship to any differences filed. Whichever way you look at it, and as painful as it may feel, your system of not complying with agreed conventions increases the likelihood of confusion, especially when operators whose native language is not English have to disseminate slang. Confusion in a busy ATC environment is not what any of us want."
West Coast (post # 129). "As worldwide air traffic picks up, there's going to be pressure to place more aircraft into the same airspace and airports that exist. Eventually RT will come into the sights of regulators who are charged with making this happen and change will be upon us."
Ace Rimmer (post #172) (responding to post by yours truly about ICAO processes)
"Willow Run: experience has shown that when ICAO moves at sprint pace (and that doesn't happen that often) it takes about seven (yup SEVEN) years to get something adopted as a standard...and even then longer to for Individual States to implement the changes in their national ANO provided they don't decide to file a difference (or ignore the SARP altogether)...
I submit that the solution to this problem (and if the findings of recent IATA/IFALPA/IFATCA Phaseology survey are believed there IS a significant problem) lies more with national CAA/DGCAs actually implementing (and enforcing) the existing SARPs rather than trying push through new ones (at ICAOs blistering pace!)"
I. There is something just plain unseemly about all the sparring. Would not your energies be better directed at forming a unified coalition or partnership as against those nations, whether signatories of ICAO or not, where the compliance with ICAO R/T standardization is rather of secondary importance compared to the given nation's adherence to basic international norms (aww, dunno, let's, uh, checkin' out possible employment of chemical weapons within say 75 minutes at under Mach 2 from Incirilk)? The point is not "politics" but rather "priorities". So very much here is hangover.
2. What happens if there is another "System Perturbation" such as the US ground stop on 9-11 (phrase from The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett)? - will closer if not complete adherence to ICAO R/T standards get everyone out of the air more expeditiously and/or safely? Or does the status quo already provide optimum assurance?
3. What about in the case of armed conflict occurring? Assume active hot warfighting in, say, Syria? Are you now more concerned, or less (or unchanged) about ICAO R/T standardization compliance if you are PIC within, let's again say, 75 minutes (U.S.), at under Mach 2, of Incirilik?
Proposition: with due respect to Ace R, the ICAO triennial is next month. 466 posts, and mounting some special agenda item for ICAO merits but a shrug? Well, if so, I'm left wondering what all the ground-pounding was about.
Discuss. Or drink. Probably not both (at the same time, is what I meant).
Sent from my iPad
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 26th Aug 2013 at 03:05. Reason: Darn spot
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WillowRun 6-3,
I assume that you support my contention that the US, and a few others, need to up their game and join the ranks of those who support the theme of standardization as advanced by ICAO.
I use the word assume because you dress up your observations by using prose in a very unusual style. Are you not able to use plain English as a means of communicating?
Unintelligible.
I think you may have had one too many!
What on earth is the message you are trying to get across|? And what are you on?
I assume that you support my contention that the US, and a few others, need to up their game and join the ranks of those who support the theme of standardization as advanced by ICAO.
I use the word assume because you dress up your observations by using prose in a very unusual style. Are you not able to use plain English as a means of communicating?
I read them all this evening. I didn't say 'read closely.'
What happens if there is another "System Perturbation" such as the US ground stop on 9-11 (phrase from The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett)?
What about in the case of armed conflict occurring? Assume active hot warfighting in, say, Syria? Are you now more concerned, or less (or unchanged) about ICAO R/T standardization compliance if you are PIC within, let's again say, 75 minutes (U.S.), at under Mach 2, of Incirilik?
Proposition: with due respect to Ace R, the ICAO triennial is next month. 466 posts, and mounting some special agenda item for ICAO merits but a shrug? Well, if so, I'm left wondering what all the ground-pounding was about.
Discuss. Or drink. Probably not both (at the same time, is what I meant).
What on earth is the message you are trying to get across|? And what are you on?
Last edited by deefer dog; 26th Aug 2013 at 04:22.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Lynden, WA
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean like "Flight Level One Hundred"? How about "Route Direct"?
ICAO Standard?? You must be ex-military. If it ain't in the book I don't understand?????
When one flies overseas one needs to learn to roll with the punches!!
Charlie Charlie?? Roger Roger??
Get a life!!!
ICAO Standard?? You must be ex-military. If it ain't in the book I don't understand?????
When one flies overseas one needs to learn to roll with the punches!!
Charlie Charlie?? Roger Roger??
Get a life!!!
Language moves with the times, and some slang might arguably be better than current ICAO; for example; 'point' instead of 'dey-ci-mal' - the fewer the number of syllables, the better I reckon.
But the thing is; all of the ICAO compliant organisations need to agree such terms so that all pilots and ATC {who speak all sorts of different languages, not necessarily English} only use approved phrases, and all know what is meant by such terms. Slang that is not ambiguous for one person might be incomprehensible to another - resulting in at best extra read-backs, confusion and too much time taken up on busy frequencies, or at worst a flight safety incident.
So get them approved by ICAO and I'm sure we will all be happy to use them (and know what they mean).
Simples
But the thing is; all of the ICAO compliant organisations need to agree such terms so that all pilots and ATC {who speak all sorts of different languages, not necessarily English} only use approved phrases, and all know what is meant by such terms. Slang that is not ambiguous for one person might be incomprehensible to another - resulting in at best extra read-backs, confusion and too much time taken up on busy frequencies, or at worst a flight safety incident.
So get them approved by ICAO and I'm sure we will all be happy to use them (and know what they mean).
Simples
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 834
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deefer dg, I'm glad you asked
This was your thread, deefer dog. So first of all, even if I ultimately fail, even fail miserably, to fulfill my main objective - which is to stimulate more relevant discussion (by posing questions and making some observations) - I really do hope you see that I am trying, in a sense to contribute, to the discourse. Even if you don't see that, for whatever reason, it is nevertheless the truth.
Second let's get something straight here. I "am on" nothing and did not have any too many. In fact the only thing I was on last night was a barstool in a Tilted Kilt and I nursed one brew (a craft, not swill) through most of the last NFL game (49ers v someone, who cares?).
With these preliminaries out of the way, let's get to the two most important points. Start with ICAO.
If your contention is correct, that is, if it is true that (a) U.S. ATC deviates from ICAO standard in non-trivial ways, and (b) this is a bad thing, then why is it so hard for the assemblage on this thread to discuss what to do about it? Your premise in the OP and reiterated by you and others is that (I'm paraphrasing) "HEY U.S., you signed an international convention. One that has its roots in the Chicago Convention of 1944, in fact. Yet you persist, U.S., in deviating from the requirements of the ICAO SARPS and Documents and Annexes where standard R/T is concerned. STRAIGHTEN UP U.S. and stop using anything but approved ICAO R/T." Now, deefer dog, I'm sure, quite sure, you would prefer that all the aviators and ATCOs in the U.S. just got the message like a flash of brilliance and suddenly Standardisation reigned over the skies. But seeing as how that is not likely to happen.....the proposition (the end of my prior post) is this: if you are convinced Standardisation of R/T so as to conform literally or substantially with all ICAO forms and procedures is necessary, well, there's a big ICAO triennial meeting this fall, dd. The agenda and all the working papers and the petty bureaucratic trappings of supposedly doing something all are there for anyone to see. I didn't see anything about R/T Standardisation, though. And Ace Rimmer's post says, in effect, 'forget ICAO processes, they take too long, like seven years.' So, rather than take some initiative to bring this matter to ICAO's triennial meeting, even if only "new business from the floor", you (in the sense of those who advocate for the U.S. being required to comply) are doing what? Or will you be at the Triennial to advocate for action on this matter? Money talks, writing-style criticism walks.
Now, as to the underlying premise - do I agree that R/T standardisation must be enforced in the U.S. and elsewhere? I don't know, deefer dog. Four Hundred and Forty-Six posts in, and there's plenty of chest-thumping, and plenty of "mostly saying hooray for our side" - but nothing I could see as definitive. I read the Tenerife report soon after it became available publicly. But that wasn't a case of just non-standard, that was a case of galactic carelessness combined with stupidity. I posited two scenarios. (The first, another urgent ground stop due to some horrible incident or problem, and the second, an escalation involving armed services of one or more countries in the situation in Syria.). Since the assemblage on this thread cannot seem to develop consensus around whether the lack of standardisation actually is a detriment to safety or efficiency, my intention was to shift the context to a couple of realistic scenarios and see whether the case would apply there. As in, 'oh yes, if ICAO standardisation were in place, and there were another urgent ground stop, for sure, it would go much better.' Or, 'no, if the Syrians fly any MiGs out of their airspace and a commercial flight is anywhere close by, the last thing anyone needs to be concerned about is whether the R/T is read from the ICAO script.' It's a discussion board, correct?
As for matters of style, the role of obfuscation in persuasion, the structure of arguments (legal as well as rhetorical), and assorted other left-overs, well, I'm pretty sure no one cares, or is interested. But I don't mind at all being held accountable - trust me, I'm a lawyer.
Second let's get something straight here. I "am on" nothing and did not have any too many. In fact the only thing I was on last night was a barstool in a Tilted Kilt and I nursed one brew (a craft, not swill) through most of the last NFL game (49ers v someone, who cares?).
With these preliminaries out of the way, let's get to the two most important points. Start with ICAO.
If your contention is correct, that is, if it is true that (a) U.S. ATC deviates from ICAO standard in non-trivial ways, and (b) this is a bad thing, then why is it so hard for the assemblage on this thread to discuss what to do about it? Your premise in the OP and reiterated by you and others is that (I'm paraphrasing) "HEY U.S., you signed an international convention. One that has its roots in the Chicago Convention of 1944, in fact. Yet you persist, U.S., in deviating from the requirements of the ICAO SARPS and Documents and Annexes where standard R/T is concerned. STRAIGHTEN UP U.S. and stop using anything but approved ICAO R/T." Now, deefer dog, I'm sure, quite sure, you would prefer that all the aviators and ATCOs in the U.S. just got the message like a flash of brilliance and suddenly Standardisation reigned over the skies. But seeing as how that is not likely to happen.....the proposition (the end of my prior post) is this: if you are convinced Standardisation of R/T so as to conform literally or substantially with all ICAO forms and procedures is necessary, well, there's a big ICAO triennial meeting this fall, dd. The agenda and all the working papers and the petty bureaucratic trappings of supposedly doing something all are there for anyone to see. I didn't see anything about R/T Standardisation, though. And Ace Rimmer's post says, in effect, 'forget ICAO processes, they take too long, like seven years.' So, rather than take some initiative to bring this matter to ICAO's triennial meeting, even if only "new business from the floor", you (in the sense of those who advocate for the U.S. being required to comply) are doing what? Or will you be at the Triennial to advocate for action on this matter? Money talks, writing-style criticism walks.
Now, as to the underlying premise - do I agree that R/T standardisation must be enforced in the U.S. and elsewhere? I don't know, deefer dog. Four Hundred and Forty-Six posts in, and there's plenty of chest-thumping, and plenty of "mostly saying hooray for our side" - but nothing I could see as definitive. I read the Tenerife report soon after it became available publicly. But that wasn't a case of just non-standard, that was a case of galactic carelessness combined with stupidity. I posited two scenarios. (The first, another urgent ground stop due to some horrible incident or problem, and the second, an escalation involving armed services of one or more countries in the situation in Syria.). Since the assemblage on this thread cannot seem to develop consensus around whether the lack of standardisation actually is a detriment to safety or efficiency, my intention was to shift the context to a couple of realistic scenarios and see whether the case would apply there. As in, 'oh yes, if ICAO standardisation were in place, and there were another urgent ground stop, for sure, it would go much better.' Or, 'no, if the Syrians fly any MiGs out of their airspace and a commercial flight is anywhere close by, the last thing anyone needs to be concerned about is whether the R/T is read from the ICAO script.' It's a discussion board, correct?
As for matters of style, the role of obfuscation in persuasion, the structure of arguments (legal as well as rhetorical), and assorted other left-overs, well, I'm pretty sure no one cares, or is interested. But I don't mind at all being held accountable - trust me, I'm a lawyer.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 26th Aug 2013 at 10:39. Reason: Spell it
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other pronunciations are also for disambiguation: FIFE and NINER separate what can otherwise sound similar (NINER is two syllables but is 'better' than NINE). TREE is because some languages don't have a TH sound so would find it hard to pronounce the word THREE. (For those who don't understand how a sound can be missing from a language, consider the 'CH' sound in Scottish - we english pronounce the name Murdoch as 'murdok' whereas the scots finish it with a long soft sound which we just don't have. The Welsh pronunciation of 'LL' is also absent outside the Land Of My Fathers).
Language and slang evolve with usage, but this isn't a language, it's a communications standard which evolves by discussion and agreement, not by ignoring it.
But the thing is; all of the ICAO compliant organisations need to agree such terms so that all pilots and ATC {who speak all sorts of different languages, not necessarily English} only use approved phrases, and all know what is meant by such terms. Slang that is not ambiguous for one person might be incomprehensible to another - resulting in at best extra read-backs, confusion and too much time taken up on busy frequencies, or at worst a flight safety incident.
Indeed, that's what has already happened, the current set of standards exists, and until it's changed it should be used. Making it up as you go on because you think you know better is just arrogant and dangerous. Speed of delivery isn't the most important factor - accurate, unambiguous communication is.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,802
Received 133 Likes
on
62 Posts
The language of aviation has evolved constantly since I started in ATC in 64. Words and phrases came, and subsequently went again, as "correct phraseology" reacted to incidents where confusion could have existed.
Phonetics were but one element of that evolution: words were deleted from the lexicon in case they could be misinterpreted, or their use was confined to very specific messages. The use [or not] of "to" is, perhaps, the classic example.
Some 50 years later, evolution still hasn't achieved the ideal. And blinkered vision will prevent any progress towards that desirable objective.
Phonetics were but one element of that evolution: words were deleted from the lexicon in case they could be misinterpreted, or their use was confined to very specific messages. The use [or not] of "to" is, perhaps, the classic example.
Some 50 years later, evolution still hasn't achieved the ideal. And blinkered vision will prevent any progress towards that desirable objective.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent example, Basil! Two words that sound alike but have opposite meanings. I wonder if they replaced it with 'Port' because someone was worried about it, or after an actual mishearing incident on a windswept ship's deck caused a turn onto the rocks instead of away from them?
Incidentally, do you know that the meaning of a helm instruction changed direction? On the Titanic the instruction 'Hard a starboard' meant to turn *left* ASAP, because the instruction dated back to the time when tillers were used, and that's the way the tiller would be moved (opposite the direction of turn). The convention continued when wheel steering was used, but has been changed to what we'd consider the obvious way at some time since then. I wonder how that went down with old seamen used to the Old Way? (End of titbit!)
Incidentally, do you know that the meaning of a helm instruction changed direction? On the Titanic the instruction 'Hard a starboard' meant to turn *left* ASAP, because the instruction dated back to the time when tillers were used, and that's the way the tiller would be moved (opposite the direction of turn). The convention continued when wheel steering was used, but has been changed to what we'd consider the obvious way at some time since then. I wonder how that went down with old seamen used to the Old Way? (End of titbit!)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huge thread full of a lot of hot air and little substance. Too much worry about fixing something that is not really broken (USA R/T), instead of focusing on fixing the ones that need fixing (all those other countries where they speak their native language in addition to English).
Incidentally, do you know that the meaning of a helm instruction changed direction? On the Titanic the instruction 'Hard a starboard' meant to turn *left* ASAP
Senior BA trainer & Pruner pointed it out to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(all those other countries where they speak their native language in addition to English
Agree 100%, but unfortunately this is such a contentious issue that ICAO have not been able to negotiate this to cease. (Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's the French who are the most vociferous objectors).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotand
Age: 68
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all those other countries where they speak their native language
You Americans are speaking your native language. The rest of the world is speaking International English.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week.....inUSA, the home off most muppets!
JFK Controller: (to my confirmation by using the ICAO expression "affirm") "xxx was that an affirmative?"
Me: "Affirm"
Controller: "err, So is that a yes or a no?"
Me: "Well actually it's an affirm. But call it a yes if you wish."
Controller: "xxxx, are you not able to speak plain English? Give me a yes or a no, that would help us all out."
Me: "Ok, yes, affirm"
Controller: "Call Boston on xxx.xx"
JFK Controller: (to my confirmation by using the ICAO expression "affirm") "xxx was that an affirmative?"
Me: "Affirm"
Controller: "err, So is that a yes or a no?"
Me: "Well actually it's an affirm. But call it a yes if you wish."
Controller: "xxxx, are you not able to speak plain English? Give me a yes or a no, that would help us all out."
Me: "Ok, yes, affirm"
Controller: "Call Boston on xxx.xx"
