Not always "Pretenious..."
 

I had mentioned earlier the possibility for confusion between a "HAMPTON 4 DEPARTURE" and "HAMPTON FOR DEPARTURE".

The read-back by the Anglophone F/O was quickly queried by a busy Idlewild Control. The Scotophone Captain was word perfect at once. Congratulations to both.

Leaving this embarrassed F/O wondering if another number could or should be used. ( It was my first trip !)

Basil

Next time might I suggest you simply call the tower after parking if you have a comment. If you're about RT standardization, then surely you can see the folly of making comments on frequency. A reply on frequency can be perceived as simply being a smartass (which given your comments at the next airport, it was) while a call with a well reasoned explanation can go a long way towards a remedy.
US ATC had the JS experience taken from them post Sept 11 up until fairly recently. Even now the program is not user friendly and the few controllers I interact with have pressed their boss'es for the time off to get into the actual JS so they can see things from our perspective. Feedback such as you tried by my estimation is appreciated, but it's about how you do it as much as what your saying.

You're probably right but, as an ex ATCO, I felt I'd never have started yacking on at an aircraft during the high speed part of the landing roll unless there was imminent danger.

I understand your point, I disagree with the way went about it.

We used to take baby VC10K pilots to the US to expose them to a number of new situations - high temp / mil ops / busy civil ATC etc.- all achievable within a few days.

I found US RT 'different', but never impossible. Civil Center controllers were mostly fine, as were airport controllers, but many military ATIS readers were an idiotic liability.

Landing at Honolulu the crew was told "Next available, Ground point 9 when off". To me, sitting on the jump seat, that was blindingly obvious; take the next exit, then call Hono' Ground for taxying instructions on the VHF ground frequency which ends in .9. But no, the crew blundered off onto the next exit, then turned straight onto the taxiway without calling Ground, causing a 747 to come to rather a rapid halt, then struck up a conversation with the busy local controller...:rolleyes:

Only issue I ever had could be summed up as "Speak fast, speak twice!". Rapid clearance delivered at a tobacco-auctioneer's pace, ending in "Readback" isn't helpful - crews will often ask for a repeat. But they should be ready to note it down, of course.

"xxxAir checking in at 360" I thought was a great idea - it let us know that he wasn't at our level. Equally "xxxAir passing 280 climbing 360". But when I did the same, my training captain said it wasn't necessary "Because ATC already know that!". Well, they might - but other aircraft won't and it all helps to build SA!

But please - no 'rounders' scores on 123.45 on the ocean!

Same goes for UEFA and the EPL, please. BTW, no one has played rounders in close to a century.

The voice report used when switching freqs from one controller to another with altitude included, IIRC originated in the days when not all airspace was radar covered.
Even with radar coverage, if the controller you are checking in with does NOT copy your transponder, for whaterver reason, at his end or yours, alerting him to your altitude is a good thing.

I need to check voice reports again in the AIM to see what has chnaged since I used to teach this stuff. I agree with you on the wisdom of those reports.
However, "checking in at" is probably not the right report. (Again, I need to look this up).

Format from memory: "Houston Center, XXXAir NA556, Flight Level 250 (or one's altitude when FL is not appropriate)" is the standard call. If this has changed, I'd be curious as to why. Short, sweet, and to the point.

EDIT:

Looks like it is mostly the same, and I'd be interested to know if this is not the same in ICAO procedures.
From the 2012 edition of the AIM:

Personally I'd bin the 'dangerous dative'! As in 'to or for'. Thus 'Climbing FL280' rather than 'climbing to 280'. Was that 280 or 220? Similarly, was that 'for' or 'four'?

'XXXair passing FL 220 climbing FL 280' or 'XXXair maintaing FL320' or 'XXXair passing FL320 descending FL220, ready for lower when able' seems simple enough.

But we really don't need to get too fussy....

A comment from a listener
 

As a non pilot but someone who has been listening to HF comms since the late 1950s and VHF since around 1963 in various parts of the world, as well as having spent many hours riding jump seats before 9/11, I've heard many different ways of delivering and reading back clearances and have been able to observe first hand the reaction of crews to non standard terminology. I've also read too many accident reports where non standard phraseology has played a part because of the confusion caused.

I spent a good few years facilitating discussions between various national ATC providers including the North Americans, regarding training and standards and have seen the way certain European providers train their own candidates, as well as those of other nations. Seeing the way training was done in the US, in the 1990s, highlighted a good number of differences in approach which came as an eye opener, even after years of listening to the usual rapid fire delivery of the graduates and watching traffic at various US airports.

From a non professional but well informed observer's point of view, standardisation and clarity should be paramount in an environment which is growing exponentially and where far greater numbers of flights are flying through a wider range of national airspaces with a variety of ATC accents, crewed far more frequently by a two man team, often almost strangers to each other and ever more frequently of differing nationalities.

I've heard some excellent and some appalling RT over the years but the worst still has to be one heard years ago in the southern US, approaching a very busy hub airport.

An airliner based at the hub was instructed to descend to 180, and turn right 20 degrees and report the heading.

If memory serves the read back was "OK, xx xxx down to south and go west.". The controller came back with two clicks of the mike button.

Fortunately such ridiculous shorthand is rare.

Lonewolf_50, I'd agree with Beagle. ISTR when I last flew, about seven years ago, we dropped the 'to' lest it be mistaken for 'two'.

Hopefully the sports score are on the decline with the preponderance of ACARS.

Talk about that!
When I'm on the DC3T some don't even wait to see our tail wheel down & rolling behind before calling (we usually set it around 60/50kts)
I would like to thanks the smarts ones who do though..:ok:
The others just get a "Say again?" when we vacate.

I knew guys who flew pistons DC3s and they all said that ATC in those time would never call, unless any kind of emergency of course, before your tail wheel was down and....More important, things under control! Tower may have been less busy then but it doesn't justify it.


Waiting for a landing to be completed before giving a radio call is a lost practice.

:(

Non-Standard RT is everywhere. It's the slang and/or speed of the RT that confuses pilots who are not familiar with the local accent or local slang.

Inbound for Atlanta, I heard this exchange between Jacksonville Centre and one of the local airlines -

ATC : XXXX435, can you accept FL330?

A/C : Standby

waited a little . . . .

A/C : Uuuhhhhh, yeah Jack Centre, Cap'n says we can do 3 3 oh for ya.

I don't agree that we have to be perfect in our RT at all times but that is the worst RT I've ever heard. Bypassing ICAO RT for expediency is one thing, trashy slang on a quiet frequency is just unprofessional.

A pet peeve of mine is reading back a clearance and ending it with the word "confirm". In the area I fly the worst offenders are pilots from India, Philippines and most of the Arab countries. One of my recent JFK flights a Royal Air Maroc was given a clearance, he read it back correctly but ended with the word "confirm". The New York controller answered him "Ya either got the clearance or ya didn't, got no time to confirm". The answer if you can't cope is to "Say Again".

Really GB? I get that you don't like it and think it's hayseed-speak, but what part of it isn't understood?

Does the old ICAO school of pronouncing every digit on altimetric clearances below ten tousand feet stl prevail..."descend to seven I've zero zero feet" heard that amidst a busy controller in Nairobi

Whats wrong with a friendly soccer update on 123.45.....
C'mon guys chill !!!!

Because we're supposed to be professionals.

Because we are already listening to two other operational frequencies and the last thing we need is the distraction of inane chatter on a third.

Just for the OP..

ICAO Releases Phraseology Study Results | Aviation International News

So not much difference between North America and Europe.

The full ICAO report makes interesting reading. in the summary of the most common conditions reported by Pilots in which they identified confusion, especially when frequencies were busy, had a weak signal or static.

The lack of standardization in communications was the second most frequently mentioned condition and included reference to the use of slang, the use of a local holding area which was not on the airport diagram, improper usage of the phonetic alphabet (e.g., “Nectar” instead of “November”) and the use of call signs where ICAO standard terminology was not used. This condition was most commonly noted in communications within the US.

It's not just me.:mad: