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.