The issue is, in the US, one can get away with our slang, silly check-ins, and the like, overseas it's a problem and many Yanks sound like hicks.

Like I said, at least we actually speak English, which is more than a great many operators can claim. Do I need to post the link to the legendary exchange between JFK Ground and a CAAC 747?

My mis-spent youth [70- 79]was predominantly spent controlling in East Anglia and over/through the London TMA. USAF aircrew were OK - perhaps because I got used to them, maybe because they were taught 'proper' at Base Instrument Schools at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Upper Heyford.

There were variations, of course - 'Diverse Recovery' (wozzat?), the desire to burn fuel in holding patterns instead of getting on with it. But they spoke NATO, and were easy to handle in the vast numbers they had back then.

Perhaps being 'overseas' focussed their minds? Perhaps we (the RAF) taught them proper, so that you said Hazeborough instead of Happisburg? we all melded happily, thanks to ATCRU USAFLOs.

Could that work in the US? "No way, Juan"

Flyboymike

So, your solution is only native English speakers can fly, or at least, use the radios. Even the Brits, who invented English, have trouble with US slang and what passes for Aviation English. Lastly, please review the FAA's AIM and show us where "checkin' at three five oh" or "with you" is found.

I've offered no solutions whatsoever (although it might interest you that I'm NOT a native speaker, in fact, English is my fourth language). I leave that to smart people.

Clearance Readback Correct
 

In the UK etc when a clearance is read back the controller is obliged to listen and report to the pilot that the clearance readback is correct. Is this true in the US? I have not seen anything to say so, and always assumed that reading back the clearance gave the controller the chance to correct errors, but that the controller was not legally obliged to do so. It is unusual for a US controller to tell me that I was "correct".

If the controller does not challenge me, I assume that my readback was correct.

I am particularly interested in clearances received in flight, such as altitude assignments. For example if a pilot mis-hears an assignment to climb to FL 310, reads back FL330, and the controller does not reply. Nor does the controller say "clearance readback correct". The pilot then climbs to 330 and is busted.

Does he have an argument for perhaps reducing the penalty?

Because point can be a noun, verb etc.. Decimal is just decimal! Especially confusing when the controller says, 'go to Point 6' - I never did find it ;)

"Point 6"

It's in the AIM for those who fly in the US.

we can learn from each other.
 

I actually like "point"... one syllable, day-cee-mal...count them...

I also like "point out approved" (ATC stuff) rather than the VERY long winded way of saying it in other parts of the world.

As for the rest of the "standard" r/t...well...:{

The lack of syllables in a word isn't the basis for forming standard phraseology. Indeed multiple syllable words are often easier to decipher through static which is the main reason for using them.

That is not the case in Oz. The controllers do not acknowledge a correct readback.

The controller would be required to challenge the incorrect readback, would he not? If he did not, then the crew can hardly be busted, in fact I'd say "drop on your head, play the tape, I read back FL310 and you should have corrected it". That's what a closed-loop communication procedure is all about.

" In the UK etc when a clearance is read back the controller is obliged to listen and report to the pilot that the clearance readback is correct. Is this true in the US? I have not seen anything to say so, and always assumed that reading back the clearance gave the controller the chance to correct errors, but that the controller was not legally obliged to do so. It is unusual for a US controller to tell me that I was "correct". "

In the U.S., for a ground delivered IFR clearance anyway.....they always say "readback correct", or give corrections if needed.

Boofhead,

If I read your post correctly then I think you are a little confused. UK ATC do not reply with "readback correct" for anything other than giving the initial clearance on the ground, this is the same the world over. If they said it after every in-flight clearance nobody would get a word in on a busy frequency. :ok:

In fact that's not correct and there are many places where a readback of a readback is commonplace. Indians, for example, for some cultural reason fly around needing the readback readback and ending their own readbacks with, "...confirm?"

I wouldn't go using the JFK/China exchange as an example of anything other than disgraceful controlling. So bad the poster has taken it down from youtube I believe. The same New Yorker would be hopelessly lost in Peking, wandering the streets asking for a hot dog and not knowing a single word of the local lingo, unlike the Chinaman he blasted on the radio.

Sadly, the Canucks are indistinguishable from the yanks, I'm afraid. Comes from being on the same airwaves presumably. Bad RT and folksy, yokel terminology spreads on VHF exactly like a virus and you now have Indians "checkin' in, on handover" and pilots from the 'stans with their squawk codes "...comin' down" or in some cases even "... comin' up." Even ATC catch it with middle-east controllers requesting pilots to "...say your altitude" instead of "report." Every second pilot around the world is beginning a readback with, "...Okay understand."

The Brits aren't much better with "fully" this and that which has crept in. You're either ready or not. Established or not.

It's not hard; stop making excuses. There's a book, just read it.

Confirming correct read backs is very distracting I find, (apart from initial clearances).

Going into parts of the Caribbean, the controllers always come back and say "correct" (or sometimes even "callsign correct") about 3 seconds after you have correctly read back!

This is very distracting, because supposing they have just cleared you to 'descend flight level 250'; you read that back, then the pilot flying starts to say in the cockpit; "Mach descent, flight level 250......" as s/he is making the appropriate selections. Then; halfway through, the controller 'interrupts' to say "correct", or "callsign correct". Both pilots then have to stop what they were saying and doing and listen to this 'new clearance'. When this is finished, they then have to go back and make the SOP calls for the descent again to make sure they are doing the right thing. Drives me mad every time!

The reason the phonetic codes were changed and agreed was presumably so that there would be no ambiguity and less confusion between all nationalities and dialects this is also presumably the reason that a standard phraseology was determined by the ICAO.

Romeo Roger?

Apropos of nothing, his comms on that day seemed right on the button based on what I've read. Additionally, check the ATC tape of his last departure from Ft. Lauderdale on his retirement day:


Departure controller is gushing away (as well he may), but Sully himself keeps his transmissions terse and to the point because he's a pro and knows that the frequency needs to be as clear as possible.

What's disgraceful is entrusting half a thousand lives to a guy who can't tell a statement from a question.

Daily D. Dave -

"Firstly I've never heard that in my life and I'm guessing I fly in the UK far more than you do."


That's the first you've heard "Climb Level 400"? Pronounced 'four hundred'. Isn't that the standard call and correct RT? I'm feeling stupid right now because I've heard it numerous times and didn't realize it wasn't 'approved' RT. What is the correct RT?

We had a few years of "Four Hundred" for headings and flight levels but are now back to "Four Zero Zero", I assume because that's because it's the current ICAO way.

Good Lord! By page TREE, I was "with you" enjoying a level FIFE headache!

I will start by saying this: ICAO standard does not help anyone who cannot read, speak and COMPREHEND the English language.

Why is the accident rate so low in the US which, by far, has the highest amount of air traffic? Yes, douchiness abounds on the US airwaves, but no more than some ass hat who refuses to speak English because he is in his home airspace. Like many of you, I've flown all over the world. Experience tells me that, though not perfect, the US is the easiest place to communicate.

I don't believe it is laziness and know for certain that it is not inability with US controllers. I hear controllers constantly shift gears to assist a "LEVEL 5" English speakers in busy Northeastern US/Chicago/Los Angeles/San Francisco airspace. US Air Traffic Controllers are the finest in the world with the UK, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany being excellent as well.

I have NEVER heard Lufthansa, BA, Air France, KLM, Brussels, Alitalia, SAS, Cathay, Singapore, JAL, ANA, Korean, SAA or hell...even Turkish or Iberia...struggle in US airspace. Aeroflot? LOT? Saudi Arabian? Egyptair? Ethiopian? China Southern? China Air Lines? Well...er...again: The issue is not ICAO RT, it is the ability to read, speak and COMPREHEND English.

Some US regional airline pilots are genuine turds in the punchbowl with regard to radio phraseology, but not enough to lower the bar to even a comparable level experienced all throughout Eastern Europe, CIS, 99.99675 percent of Africa, the Middle East (is Insha'Allah ICAO?), India, Indonesia, China, Mexico and nearly all of South America and other noteworthy locales.

It's amazing to me the utter garbage that is spewed on the radios all over the world, yet people like to piss about the US system. It smells of sour grapes.

Oh, and what is wrong with "read back correct" for clearances in the US? In some of the nether regions, reading back clearances and getting "read back correct" only assures that you've regurgitated what some half wit has given you as you back taxi past goats and villagers down the runway of some third world **** show airport. In the US, at least you know the clearance you've been given and read back will keep you alive if adhered to.

Actually, the accident rate in Asia is lower than in USA. (accidents per million departures)

ICAO 2012 Safety Report p11

ICAO 2011 State of Global Aviation Safety p13

mross:

You don't get the full picture without including the number of fatal accidents.

"Flight Level 100 (One Hundred)" "200", "300" is a common radio call. So much so that I'm surprised to read that it's not approved.

Maybe we should start a thread about the standard of UK RT? :)

read CAP
 

It is standard in UK. cap413 Ch2 p7 and, yes, it has been notified to IACO!

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%204...ition%2021.pdf


Ch. 2, page 7.

"Flight Level One Hundred" = FL100. :ok:

US R/T is smooth and efficient and works.

Go fly someplace else!

What exactly was wrong with Sully's R/T?

Thread should have been closed after one page.

If there is a standard and a country is part of that standard, then said countries should adhere fully to said standard.

Deviation can only lead to mistakes - and no doubt has in the past.

reply to Hell Man
 

For Americans in America, yes :rolleyes:. Aviation is international and Americans need to abide by internationally agreed procedures at home and abroad. As do we all.

Hear what you're sayin' guys, just not sure if it'll catch on this side.

We kinda like it how it is! :ok:

Flight level 100, 200 etc is an ICAO variation in the UK. When UK ATC issue a heading not ending in a '5', they will say 'degrees' to avoid confusion with any flight level clearance.

In general, tho' US ATC is 'different' from some in Europe, it is, in general far far better than in some FIR's world wide.

My only real whine is New York approach - I know it's very busy airspace and with EWR, JFK & LGA + Teterboro' things are all a bit adjacent. Sometimes the Tracon guys speak sooo fast, and then.... silence as the freq is not that busy at that time.

Actually, one more comment. 123.45 on the Ocean is intended for messages of "Air Traffic Advisory" between aircraft, not lengthy chats about terms and conditions or for fools with new mobile ring tones. Sorry, thread drift

Hell man

Nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned.

One poster here tried to tie RT to professionalism. Sully's RT before and after the bird strike wasn't in exacting compliance some of the pedants here advocate yet we both know the outcome. My point is trying tie overall professionalism to RT comes up a bit short on accuracy.

He now has a drink named after him. The "sully" two shots of grey goose and a splash of water.

In most of the en route structure of the U.S., the controllers observe ICAO protocol almost to a fault.

Delta 245 is level at Flight Level 260 and anticipating clearance to Flight Level 400.

"Delta two four five, climb and maintain flight level four zero zero."

What could be better than that?

Sadly to say, most U.S. pilots are not nearly as conforming.

Howdie cowboy! Even writing comprehensive English is difficult isn't it? Let alone speak it...

That's the problem; you like to keep things simple for yourself. You forget that that the world is bigger than your own country.

Just returned from a trip to the USA, and what struck me in the light of this thread was the number of incorrect read backs, and misheard frequencies, along with quite literally dozens of: "........I missed it - who was that climbing to '4 oh oh'?" or ".......sorry what heading was the Cactus on?" type of confusions I heard, because just about everyone was using non-standard phrases.

Yes, using ICAO standard phraseology does make us all sound a bit like spanners, and it probably does sound much cooler to say something like "Monck centre cactus three oh four checkin in descending two six oh smooth" and one can just imagine the square jawed, handsome pilot wearing Wayfarers who says it. :D

Particularly intriguing though I would have thought, is the risk of lawsuits in the USA, making me wonder why folk would potentially leave themselves wide open to the lawyers in the event of a mistake caused by use of non-standard RT? Or wouldn't this apply?

not amused and not amazed
 

Rather with growing frustration one sees this thread go through 400+ posts.
Very clearly all that ballyhoo and shoulder clapping about who does it best is good for the birds and should have stopped much earlier.
Just as a reminder:
There is a Convention of Chicago since 1944 - invented and started by the United States of America.
There are Standards and Recommended Practices since then - deviations have to be reported to ICAO.
The relevant Annex 10 is effective since 1. March 1950 - and amended since then regularily.
All that have posted different from these agreed Standards and Recommended Practices should have a close look and study into Chap. 5 of Annex 10.

My experience tells me that any "homemade" clearance or phrase that is not understood and needs to be repeated properly only eats up time, as the least questionable result. Safe, orderly and expeditious is the sequence of action that has to be obeyed. At least that is what once our superiors told us.

Uplinker,

As perhaps the sole Yank arguing for standard aviation English terms, I agree, missed calls, freqs, clearances are common, BUT woe the pilot who tries to use the correct, FAA AIM (ICAO compliant, btw) terms and most pilots will hoot you out of the cockpit as a pedantic know-it-all. The right way isin the books, books too many refuse to comply with.

Until the NTSB puts radio comms into a report the lawyers won't get involved, too technical.

The Lawyer Speaks
 

The legal doctrine of negligence per se applies to (a) negligence claims where (b) the asserted breach of a legal duty is shown to have involved a violation of an applicable governmental regulation or (even more clearly) some regulatory law or standard. One could argue, I guess, deviation from ICAO standard words phrases, syntax, numeric convention ("point dot or decimal??" - the Internet derivative of 'coffee, tea or me?'?) and from other expressions/indications and/or manifestations of Uniformity, the Big Uniformity, constitutes such a violation. I think not. The very fact - glaringly obvious fact - that so many posting members disagree, or even quarrel, over the relevance (.....if any) of adherence to ICAO Straight Talk proves, to a legal certainty (at least to this holder of General Counsel right title and writ) that deviations from ICAO-stuff Are NOT probative, ipso facto, of negligence per se.

Less than 70 words per sentence, I thinka, and Thank You!!-!!-!! to member who earlier urged brev-it-y. WillowRun 6-3, ORD area, With You [six words, or seven?]

Non standard to exactly whom? Non standard perhaps to the residents of Little Britain, but so be it. The world doesn't revolve around your axle. Do please engage your translation circuits ( similar to others do when flying in UK airspace) when exiting the M25 orbital.

I have never experienced ambiguity when operating under US ATC. Conversely, I have never experienced complete certainty as to the meaning of the given clearance when operating in UK airspace. Even "cleared as filed" doesn't mean cleared as filed. We just read it back and do what we think is required. When heading west, there's a sigh of relief when we drop from radar coverage and the mess is behind us.

Shanwick on 123.95 is a good thing.

Best not to mention points further east.

My ultimate responsibility is that of getting the aircraft on the ground before it runs out of fuel, and that's what I do, regardless of the jumbled- up lingo.