Indeed he is, the clue is the little aircraft (as opposed to the tower) in the box :ok:

I know the incident you are referring to and can state categorically that it did not happen that way. Recordings on the LiveATC site seemed to show that the full call sign wasn't used but that's because LiveATC scans multiple frequencies and often clips a transmission. The ATC recordings were reviewed and showed that the controller used the proper phraseology when issuing the go-around instruction. The crew just flat out missed it.

The various flavours of ATC stateside and in Europe in MHO are perfectly fine. The templates that ATC use on both sides of the pond are pretty much the same and for that, we have to be grateful..for the purists out there..get a life. Who cares if the controller doesn't say.."decimal" or that R/W 07L is just.."seven left"? Human communication is a fallible exercise..sometimes colourful and sometimes pretty droll..let it be..

95% of the users of the American ATC system seem able to live with it. I have an idea. Lets change it to appease the remaining 5% who have difficulty with it because it doesn't meet some mythical international standard. :E

Wasthatit and EGPFflyer. Take a look at message #62. I merely quoted what a previous poster had written. Controllers give callsigns at the beginning of the transmission..

I have operated out of Uk a few years back on heavy jets into and out of all the world hubs. also operated in US and UK military controlled areas of the Middle East .Before that operated in Africa.
Now operating in Australia.
In my opinion UK and US ( military and civil) controllers are top notch.
Best London area after engine fire in flight.
Aussies pedantic but correct.
Africa, South America, Asia ......WTF (Dubai and SA excluded)

Spending most of my life hopping between Europe and the US, including lots of domestic flying in the states, I have to say that I find the standard of US ATC top notch. But I need to elaborate a little.

From the ATC SIDE of things it's fine; succinct, efficient, expedient and most of all, generally makes sense, save for a few odd profile descents every now and then. Yes, sometimes spat at you quicker than a rapper on speed, but you are always welcome to ask for a repeat.

It's the air side of things in the US where the most non standard, bog slang is to be found, as every guy out there is trying to sound cooler or more colloquial than the next. But, once more, that's the way it is, doesn't bother me, I find it a comical aside to my daily job.

Having dealt a lot with US military controllers and drivers during a previous life, I can clearly see where the need on the civilian side for colorful phrases and image were birthed and/or adopted, but the difference being that in the US military, everyone comes from within the same system.

I find UK ATC great too, orderly, clear and generally at a pace that accommodates everyone. I don't always understand why you have to inform each new freq of your clearances, but hey, that's how it is.

I picture the brave and the free trying to out slang each other in their version of the aerial rodeo, while all the queen's men like to see who can inflect the most ennui into their radio calls between sips of tea.

Once more, that's just how it goes, and I find it adds color to the otherwise dreary grind of interactions on the airwaves elsewhere in the world.

Many years of Africa and the Mid East make me most thankful for the great controlling on both sides of the pond.

Great idea 5% of A/C in the skies above you having difficulty, what a novel safety aspect. :ugh:

Standard of RT in USA
 

Communication is both transmitting and receiving (understanding) what is being said. Minimizing syllables and rapid transmissions become pointless when the other end keeps coming back with, "say again".

Name one country's ATC system where 100% of all air traffic has no issue with the R/T of the controllers and the controllers with the pilots?

Just one.

That's what I thought, I'll keep the 95 to 99 percent average here in the US thank you very much. :rolleyes:

Non pilot....I recall a study back in the mid 90s US university who carried out this problem/situation/a2a comms. Long story short, If one spoke in a deep slow baritone voice (actor Roger Moore) comms are more understandable. Just requires a bit of practice to do a Roger Moore voice.

Please do but could you arrange for a NOTAM to be issued whenever you think about flying outside of your microcosm?

Miss the days many years ago of my first job on a DC-3.....20 miles out you just turned off the radio master and enjoyed the flight...No one for miles around no one to listen too....Just enjoy the flight and the scenery.....
No whining and bitching....Just flying!!!! Nice.....

Name one country's ATC system which attempts* to ensure that 100% of all air traffic has no issue with the RT of the controllers and the controllers with the pilots.

Name one that doesn't.

*by using standard phraseology. You know because many different nations come and visit.

Well, that would be the only thing I would have in common with Roger Moore. :p

I have been told that my radio voice is a lot different than my normal conversational voice, my voice on the radio is deeper and slower. So there might be something to that.

What bothered me the most, were the guys (and gals believe or not) that faked the Chuck Yeager yawl, like; 'Ahh, XXX 465 is, ahh, out of, ahh, 31.0 to, ahh, 24.0.'

Drove me crazy.

On HF we used a high pitched shouty voice.
Dunno if it worked :confused:

This sums it up nicely.

Funny. The Chuck Yeager drawl is what I thought of, when you mentioned the study. I think modern equipment brings the most out of a low baritone voice, but in the old days, when they had squeaky equipment, maybe the Chuck Yeager nasal voice came out better? In the early days of the phonograph, a tenor came out better. Even Bing Crosby, a great baritone, had to sing tenor until, they had hi-fi recording and playback equipment after the war. Two way radios were some of the last pieces of equipment, you listen to, that were made to sound better. I guess, they figured, it's often full of static anyway, so what's the use?

There have been times in places I've flown, that I've wondered if anything on HF worked.

Standard comms equipment normally passes 300Hz-3kHz, with increasing attenuation outside that range. So a really deep voice wouldn't work too well, nor would wearing your trousers too tight.

Playing amateur radio, female voices are often easier to understand on a noisy link, although we're not usually using AM so the characteristics will be different to VHF airband.