Well, the Brits have a few nonstandard local ATC phrases that are puzzling when you first hear them in a foreign accent like "Continue on the glide..."

For more on contemporary American R/T procedures see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076729/

"Air China 5 - 81, have you been cleared to the ramp?"

I've read many posts in this thread suggesting adherence to ICAO standard radio phraseology was not observed and should have been used. :confused:

What standard phraseology did this controller fail to observe, use, or comply with in asking a simple question of this crew and why did this crew respond, "cleared to the gate", when they were certainly NOT cleared to any gate, let alone ramp.

What am I missing here??? :ugh:

I was a wet-behind-the-ears first officer for a regional airline when we picked up some slots into JFK.

My first trip in there, I called ground control when ready to leave the ramp.

He said (and I swear it's the guy on the Air China clip), "Acey, follow that Springbok."

I thought I hadn't heard right. "Say again please, Acey 555."

"FOLLOW THE SPRINGBOK. MOVE IT NOW."

"Sir, I'm from Alabama, and I don't know what a Springbok is."

"YOU SEE THAT BIG PLANE IN FRONT OF YOU? FOLLOW IT!"

Huck

I hear you. This from US controller in respose to a taxi request.

Stacatto "xxxxxx eight o five delta foxtrot six eighteen seven" that was the entire transmission. Poor guy on my right had absolutely no idea what it was or meant.

With this sort of sh*t and the agressive temprament of some of the "saviours of the world" is it any wonder some of those using English as a supplementary language, have problems?

For those still scratching their heads as to the translation of that transmission.
"xxxxxx eight zero five taxi via delta and foxtrot, abeam gate six call tower one one eight decimal seven"

Maui

If it's a written exam, it'll be a total waste of time. It should be an Oral/Aural since most of the English that directly affects safety will be communicated that way.

Nigel,
Re-direct strumble flight planed route

to Malcolm G O Payne
 

not only new pilots,all pilots

Calling Air China China Airlines should go down well. China Airlines are the national carrier of Taiwan - the enemy!

IMHO, if everyone used standard ICAO Doc 4444 teminology, there would be less problems. The problem is that the world's largest speaking nation doesn't. There has been a thread on this before - something like 'Why don't Chinese piots speak English?' I have to add, why don't the Americans?

Indeed a very rewarding thread.
First time I was in the US (time building on light twins) I was puzzled by the "taxi into position and hold" phrase. Which position?

"The whole point of standard R/T phraseology is just that - to allow pilots with a less than perfect command of the language to cope by knowing and understanding a set of standard phrases."

I consider myself to be fluent in english and I still get confused. Especially when the norwegians call and say "inbound ZOL" for example. Is that direct?
Standard phrases are there to avoid confusion. We don't use the word take-off unless a clearance to take-off has been issued. Up to that point it's departure.

We need pilots in good command of the language and that adhere to standard phrases. Any other combination is a compromise that affects safety.

/LnS

This e-mail been doing the rounds of a cbin crew announcement on China Southern. At least they make the effort in the cabin with the english:

Pre-takeoff announcement on a China Southern Airlines flight


This is said to be a true account of what was heard on a recent flight
from Shenzhen to Qingdao:

" Good afternoon, Ladies and the German. This is your cheap purser Wang
Lui speaking. On behalf of China Sudden Airlines, I would like to
welcome you on board our Bowling 737 from Shenzhen to Qingdao. Members
of my crew speak Chinese and other languages that you do not know. It
is a great pressure serving you to-die. Should you need any resistance
during the fright, peace do pest the call button. I and my gals are
available to make you feel comfortable. Meanwhile, the airkwaft is
going to fry. Peace sit upright and keep you belt tightly fastened
until dinner is served at five dirty p.m. Hope you would enjoy your
fright with us. Funk kill ! "

Chinese Cabin Crew
 

Nice one, Desert Nomad. Your understanding of Chinglish is far better than mine. I've been trundling around China for ten years and I never fully understood the English passenger briefing.

Most of us that have had experience with ICAO and the speed at which they process change believe that the normal time to process a change is around seven (7) years!

About a decade ago, there was an ATC conference in Europe where many of the issues discussed on this thread came up. One rep from Europe asked why the FAA controllers did not use the ICAO standard phrases and what would be required to get them to change...?

The response from the FAA rep said it all.... "it would be easier to change ICAO" !

The custom (for good reason) in many countries is to only use the word "cleared" when you have in fact been cleared to do something, and it is never, never used at any other time, and certainly not in a question that is open to interpretation, expecially if some of it is blocked out! That is only asking for trouble when it is a non standard phrase and you are communicating with pilots that do not have English as a first language.

An established culture is very difficult to change, and processing such change may take many years and much effort. But there has to be a will to do it.

Our American friends have come in for a bashing in this thread (and some of it deserved), but it is no different to any other English speaking country that might use slang from time to time... they just use it a lot and don't seem to think about the recipient.

RT
 

Yeh 34 in the hole. Reminds me of a large US company flying away in Europe the other night.

ATC: AAsomething, Recycle, squawk 7330 and Ident

AAsomething: 7330 with a Flash.

Mike-Alpha
 

Good points on standard R/T phraseology. My experience is, that US controllers are only using standard ICAO as long as everything goes perfect. As soon as something hits the fan though, they will try to "negotiate" it with you. It works if your English is spotless, however maybe, just maybe it should be the other way around.

At the same time, in order to redeem the Chinese pilot everyone seems to forget, that he COMPLETELY screwed up the first two calls. I know aviation is all about expecting certain phases of flight (that's what i teach my students), but ignoring the words Mike-Alpha and substituting it with November... Well... I don't know. Kind of hard to mix up. This could have added to the, already overloaded, controllers frustration. Besides this really was a "No-Danger-But-Oh-So-Annoying" situation. The plane is standing on the ground, blocking everyone's way, and the pilot doesn't understand the question (not so sure, had he been asked to "confirm cleared to the gate" the answer would not have been "logel to tha gate confilm" which makes about as much sense as the whole conversation in the first place).

As i said in the first part, i think US ATC is a nightmare even for born Americans who get in touch with, say SOCAL Approach the first time (although New Yorkers seem less friendly for some reason {SHOCKING!!!}), and rarely use standard phraseology ("Traffic two o'clock, three miles Cessna 172 indicating 6500" "Roger, got'em on the fish-finder").
However things should be improving on both sides. One of the solutions would be to let mainland chinese train in the US. If you can handle this, you can handle anything.

Cheers

Hey Radar:

Quote:
Would be nice if some American pilots flying in Europe spoke English ... or even listened out .... the air defence Jocks are so pissed off with being stood down

No slur on Americans ...
- unquote

No slur on Americans? If not, it's one of the most pathetically xenophobic attempts at humour I've had the pleasure to snicker at here on the Prune. Radar - get a life... Not to mention a slightly wider world perspective. You'd make the BNP proud.:rolleyes:

I don't have to imagine it. English is my fourth language and yet, miraculously, I do fine at JFK. It's a matter of putting in the effort and not thinking that narrow eyes and a name like Ming Chung Hwang entitles you to special treatment.

You should've told him, being from Alabama, you don't even know what Northwest is, much less Sud Afrikaanse Lugdiens.

Look, can we agree on a couple of things?

1) the Chinese guys gotta improve on the level of their english comprehension;

2) the native english speaking ATC can try a lot harder to use standard R/T phraseology??? In this case, "Air China niner-eight-one, CONFIRM you are cleared to the gate?"

<nb, the official definition of CONFIRM: I request verification of: (clearance, instruction, action,information).>

No guarantee that it would have got the guy to understand, but without doubt it would have increased the chances of him understanding the controller more than the babbling that subsequently occured?

"cleared"

You are asking for big trouble if you use this word in other than an instruction or clearance in which you are providing a "clearance" .. ie "clear to land", "clear for take-off", "clear to taxi" etc...

Using it in any other context is just bad practice in that in increases the chance of having it misunderstood or jammed out and the pilot in fact believing he/she was in fact "cleared" when that was not the case or intention.

In this situation, I ask, why was the pilot asked such a question in the first place...? Don't the controllers co-ord their instructions/clearances issued. If there is doubt as to what clearance has been issued, the clearance should have been cancelled and/or re-issued.

In such a situation, then perhaps "confirm your (taxi) clearance" (with no other words) might have been more appropriate.

Keep it simple and don't create confusion by using too many words or words that may have another meaning - ICAO standard phrases is the way to go if in any doubt.

in many US airports, unfortunately Ramp controls the gate movements in/out & Ground is in charge of the rest of the stuff. They don't co-ordinate. JFK is one of these places. LAX/ORD/IAD/DFW are others.

But yes, it would be nice if they talked.

It would be nice if real ATC was in charge of all movements on the airport. RAMP control is just a cheap ass way of doing it.

when a plane crashes due to mis communications...actually again...remember the aero argentine? well, just shake your head boys and girls and be careful for your own flight.

Chinglish?
 

For several months now, the company I work for has been transiting Chinese airspace. ATC's standard of english is outstanding, and they only issue instructions in sets of three (ICAO standard). And, by and large, they speak slowly enough to be understood. The same cannot be said by the controllers at LAX, who often use colloquialisms and speak as if it is their last breath on this earth! I once heard a Southwest skipper remark "I can't hear that fast, can you repeat with a southern drawl?" I nearly pissed my pants.
On the other hand, I have heard other Asian carriers working into my home port repeatedly request clarification of a basic clearance. To the extent that the controller simply aquiesced to their readback because the repeated requests for clarification were jamming the airwaves.
Use of standard phraseology should be mandatory. Unfortunately, the US seems to think it is the regulatory body, when it is not. Just as it is not their job to be the world's policemen.......:ugh::E

It'd be even better if they used datalink for as many controller to aircraft communications as possible.

About the only drawback to it is the lack of situational awareness that results for the pilot (in relation to other traffic around him).

But for airways/departure clearances etc, the adoption of system should be made **** mandatory - in all major airports, as soon as possible.

Silberfuchs:
Just a small correction: Actually there exist several ICAO approved languages of aviation:
English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Mandarin Chinese.
This was the result of the 1944 Chicago Convention.
English just has become the ligua franca of aviation.
While all of the listed languages are legal, I agree that there should be an international standard.
Though not being flight crew (I work on the ground, keeping the planes airworthy), I have been riding jump seat often enough in the past to understand how upsetting it is to know that there is somebody somewhere around, talking to ATC and you can not figure out what he intends to do because you don't understand him.
Rgds,
Jan

First of all, I agree, the NY controllers are not the most "ICAO standard" controllers that there are, but then again, they are a product of the system.

You go to any other overburdened airport arround the world and I can guarantee you that you will see the same. Try going to Mumbay during the late night push and you would be lucky if you get a word in. Just another ATC unit making do with what they got. Understaffing with inappropriate levels of traffic for which the system was not designed. This leads to some cutting corners every now and then. Just because it doesn't happen in X Airport, which is 234th busiest airport in the world does not mean it won't happen in one in the top 50.

Even so, I agree, the NY controllers can be a pain in the ass sometimes. But everyone has had a bad day, and I've heard pilots get pretty ignorant and arrogant as well.

Communication is a complex process. as long as you understand each other, who cares if it is "standard phraseology". We put up with multiple accents on the frequency, which are much harder to understand than coloquilisms. How come all you anal-retentive guys don't push for correct pronunciation too?

You all need to relax and understand that people are gonna have a tough time communicating no matter what language they use.

ICAO Doc 9835, 2.5 LANGUAGE TO BE USED
 

Hello All,
Regarding the new standards, the language of the station on the ground CAN be used but English must be readily available for pilots (at least level 4 proficiency) needing it.
I quote from Doc 9835, 2.5 Language To Be Used
Point 2.4 also explains the requirements of the Use of Plain Language and how it shall be used. If anyone is interested I'll post that subpart as well.
Best to all,
PE