PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Standard of RT in USA (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518923-standard-rt-usa.html)

MPN11 30th Jul 2013 14:17

I have mixed views on "Boston John", and much of that hinges on the traffic levels at the time. Was this night traffic? Probably best to avoid the habit of non-English messages, though - the 2nd clip sums that up quite neatly.

Although . OK, an affectation, perhaps, but I sort of like his emphasis on words like "crossss RW27". That's not going to lead to a mistake, and obviates the need for further messages and keeps the traffic flow going.

douglasheld 30th Jul 2013 19:53

Readback
 

Taxi into position runway 1, keep it moving, be ready to go following the Learjet crossing right to left.
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??

Lord Spandex Masher 30th Jul 2013 19:55

"Line up and wait callsignxx"

douglasheld 30th Jul 2013 19:57

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

aa73 30th Jul 2013 20:01

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?

MPN11 30th Jul 2013 20:36

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."

West Coast 30th Jul 2013 21:17

Understood, wilco,,73

Pretty clear

HDRW 31st Jul 2013 00:38


Originally Posted by pigboat (Post 7966797)
What's the difference between a hectopascal and a millibar? :confused:

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.

acroguy 31st Jul 2013 01:49


USA:

Quote:
Taxi into position runway 1, traffic landing runway 28, keep it moving -- be ready to go after the Learjet crossing right to left, company on a two mile final for runway 28
ROTW:

Quote:
Line up and wait 01, expedite, be ready immediate
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.

pigboat 31st Jul 2013 02:01

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. ;)

White None 31st Jul 2013 04:54

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.

Fargo Boyle 31st Jul 2013 10:14

'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

HDRW 31st Jul 2013 13:28


Originally Posted by Fargo Boyle (Post 7969205)
'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.

GlueBall 31st Jul 2013 16:06

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:

Cows getting bigger 31st Jul 2013 16:25

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

MPN11 31st Jul 2013 16:58

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:

banjodrone 1st Aug 2013 02:38

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.

deefer dog 1st Aug 2013 15:45

From the FAA...


National regulations and practices concerning
facilitation of international air transport are being
carried out at all international airports as far as
possible in accordance with the provisions set forth in
the Standards and Recommended Practices of
Annex 9 to the Convention on International Civil
Aviation. Differences from certain Annex 9 provisions
exist only in those cases where it has not yet
been possible to amend national legislation accordingly.
Continuous efforts are being made to eliminate
these differences.
(my bold)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:17.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.