Readback
 

I am only a lowly PPL with 130 hours of experience, but I hope this is a legitimate question: WTF is the proper readback to such a request??

"Line up and wait callsignxx"

Honestly I think the best I would muster, after mental translation, would be "line up immediate callsign", followed by "lined up".

My read back would be along the lines of " Line up and wait on Runway (XX), American XXX, we'll be ready."

Have had several of these types of clearances and honestly, it's no big deal. You guys are making way too much out of this. Can we just accept the fact that the system works fine on both sides of the pond?

Systems work well on both sides of the Pond. It tends to go to rats when people cross Ponds. Which is why things like ICAO were invented.

"Hey, 73, you're good to go after the three in front. Follow the herd."

Understood, wilco,,73

Pretty clear

Same as the difference between cycles per second and Hertz - new name for the old measure, using someone's name. The SI people like to do this.
The UK has notified a difference, and still uses millibars.

Unless the US tower controller rulebook has been changed, he/she must advise if traffic is taking off or landing on an intersecting runway...maybe only a letter of agreement thing at big airports, but always my experience.

As always, ICAO may know better.

So mb to HPa was merely a cosmetic change with no basis in logic. It could have been called a puncheon and would have made as much sense. ;)

Two sides of my Coin
 

Side 1

for the "Readback" question, as it's a Clearance where presumably all the qualifying info is vital - in FULL so:-

"Taxi into position runway 1, keep it moving, be ready to go following the
Learjet crossing right to left - Callsign"

iIf I neglected to add, say, "... follow the Learjet ..." then ATC 'should' (IMO) question me. My reception of that 'Restriction' may have been blocked? ATC should retransmit on the assumption that ai may (reasonably) go before the Learjet. Don't think tyat couldn't happen - absolutely everybody has been blocked or got half a call. Basically, If it's important for the clearance 1) ATC say it, 2) I Read it back 3) ATC correct if required. If it's not important they shouldn't / needn't say it.

Side 2

Best call ever heard, (Civvy) Some guy (sounded Texan to me) held high flowing out East over JFK, finally after a few RQSTs got:-

" Turn *** inbound descend *** immediate, cleared *** approach
no height/speed restriction "

Out came the immortal, succinct and silently applauded by all Readback:-

"...... YeeeHaaah .... "

It"s true, even those of us bitching away about standardisation would really like to be John Wayne.

'The UK has notified a difference, and still uses millibars'


Where do you work/fly? Nats at least uses Hp, been mandated for a few months now

It's a fair cop, I haven't been flying for some time and my information is out of date :rolleyes: - it was correct when HPa was introduced and I hadn't realised it had changed. Sorry!
(Although reading the latest CAP413 I can't find any reference to the change except to that of changing the words in the document itself - no mention of the removal of the difference).

I note that Hectopascals are now only said when the number is less than 1000, presumably because that's when it could be confused with inHg.

Had something like that at LHR after sending Mayday due engine fire.
ISTR I just read it back :hmm:

I've always accepted the non standard R/T and non English R/T in foreign airspace as a challenge, rather than as an annoyance.
We are guests in foreign airspace and cannot expect the locals to refrain from talking to each other in their own language. It doesn't matter what ICAO says, because ICAO cannot impose R/T rules, it can only recommend. So, when you fly between Urumqi and Shanghai, you'll hear lots of Mandarin R/T; and between Buenos Aires and Cochabamba you'll hear lots of Spanish R/T; between Khartoum and Cairo you'll hear lots of Arabic R/T . . . that's just the way the cookie crumbles, and it won't change in our lifetime. :ooh:

You're right that ICAO cannot impose the rules. However, by being a signatory to the Chicago Convention, states are obliged to either comply with ICAO SARPs or file Differences. Either way, states concerned are responsible for ensuring compliance with their own regulations.

A quick gander through the US AIP (GEN 1.7-23) gives an idea of their filed differences. I don't see too much of the verbage previously quoted being a notified difference. :) Perhaps the question should be directed at the FAA as far as standardisation is concerned?

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...bs/AIP/aip.pdf

Having searched that .pdf, I can't find anything that allows a 'difference' in respect of unofficial, casual, informal RT either.

But then I controlled, and spoke, 'by the book' … as I am a boring old sod, not a cabaret act. :cool:

There's a video available on youtube.com of the atc from the 777 crash at Heathrow a few years ago. The whole thing is impressive and professional but there's one bit that stands out that I think kind of illustrates the type of thing we're talking about and that some American pilots might find just a little bit over the top.

You can hear the tower controller go through the procedures in a very well rehearsed flowchart like manner giving the details to emergency crews and at one point he says something along the lines of "type of problem is crash, aircraft has crashed...".....if you listen to it you'll see what I mean.

In the US they might go something like "Boeing 777 crash at the threshold of 27L, immediately dispatch emergency vehicles to the incident"....or something along those lines. They'll have guidelines and procedures but they won't necessarily have a rigid sequence of steps where it's stated that there's an aircraft accident then later on that the accident is a crash.

Again not a criticism it all worked out great but it does illustrate the different ways of thinking and how that tends to translate to RT procedure.

From the FAA...

Clearly the FAA agree with the principal that global standarization is in everyone's interest; unlike the few vociferous posters here who feel that the USA has a right to run the show any way they choose in their home region.

Rhetoric is cheap. I expect little to no change.

Back in the '80s some Flying Tiger aces planted a B747 into a hill at WMSA old Subang Kuala Lumpur international airport because they descended to 400ft instead of the cleared altitude of two thousand four hundred feet. After that ( and a lot of hoo haa, hand wringing and racist protestations ) ICAO recommended against using the phrase " cleared to " as the then KUL ATC had cleared those guys with the instructions" cleared two four zero zero feet " which was two thousand four hunderd feet, but the Flying Tigers crew misinterpreted that as "cleared to four zero zero feet ".

Well it was poor sitiation awareness as the charted initial approach altitude was 2400 feet and the misinterpreted four zero zero feet was too low an altitude to be an initial approach altitude...they were cleared ILS approach, certainly not a GCA approach. They had 3 crew members from the USA and yet the error chain was not broken! And we have numbskulls on the OZ214 crash thread wondering how that tragic accident could have happened!!! Nobody then made the claim that American aviators were piss poor pilots.:ugh: