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)

misd-agin 11th Aug 2013 03:04

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?

Capn Bloggs 11th Aug 2013 03:42


"Climb Level 400"? Pronounced 'four hundred'. Isn't that the standard call and 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.

riakiraetah 11th Aug 2013 07:33

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 shit 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.

mross 11th Aug 2013 10:40


Why is the accident rate so low in the US which, by far, has the highest amount of air traffic?
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

aterpster 11th Aug 2013 12:47

mross:


Actually, the accident rate in Asia is lower than in USA. (accidents per million departures)
You don't get the full picture without including the number of fatal accidents.

misd-agin 11th Aug 2013 17:17


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.

"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? :)

mross 11th Aug 2013 19:16

read CAP
 

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

misd-agin 11th Aug 2013 20:59

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


Ch. 2, page 7.

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

Hell Man 12th Aug 2013 13:10

US R/T is smooth and efficient and works.

Go fly someplace else!

Hell Man 12th Aug 2013 13:16


Originally Posted by West Coast
I'm sure Sully's RT wasn't the greatest that day..

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

c53204 12th Aug 2013 17:09

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.

mross 12th Aug 2013 19:56

reply to Hell Man
 

US R/T is smooth and efficient and works. Go fly someplace else!
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.

Hell Man 12th Aug 2013 20:41

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

We kinda like it how it is! :ok:

CP32 13th Aug 2013 22:23

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

West Coast 13th Aug 2013 23:13

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.

aterpster 14th Aug 2013 01:03

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.

Pander216 14th Aug 2013 08:23


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

We kinda like it how it is!
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.

Uplinker 16th Aug 2013 13:38

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?

Annex14 16th Aug 2013 15:51

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.

galaxy flyer 16th Aug 2013 19:51

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41.


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