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)

galaxy flyer 30th Jul 2013 03:05

In that case, why not, "cleared for immediate take-off" and drop "into position"? Standard ICAO aviation English requires no more time, just a ommitment to using it properly.

White None 30th Jul 2013 03:16

@acroguy
 
There is no doubt that the job done by ATC in many places the world round is impressive. Likewise the ability of ORD etc to shift huge total No's if AC from their runways. To them, I doff my hat.

Your assertation that long-winded sentences are necessary to achieve high flow rates is simply WRONG. Purely as an example, London Gatwick achieves the highest flow-rate (by movements per hour) of any commercial airport runway in the world. They have a truly international clientele, and trust me, you Never hear the motivational speaking you have advocated bracketed around the somewhat camouflaged clearance.

I think you are fighting for what you like and prefer, not seeing the big picture. Patriotism, (and I am proud of my country) has no place in Flt Safety.

West Coast 30th Jul 2013 03:35

White none

Can you expand upon your claim? I've heard they are the busiest single runway commercial, but not sure of the point you're making.

White None 30th Jul 2013 04:56

Can I expand - Sure. The fact that the example was Gatwick is irrelevant. The claim I am making is that in order to Push a lot of Tin, it is absolutely NOT necessary to use transmissions like

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"
which was straight from acroguy's post.

You would never hear that at Gatwick, hence I used it as an example, but the same could be said for Hong Kong where I personally am now attuned to the local accents, but for everyone's benefit ATC generally strive to hit the agreed, thought out Standards.

As an aside, I'm Ex-Military where at the right place to the right audience a degree of humour, sarcasm, banter etc was, if not encouraged, allowed and it led to a feeling of teamwork and a good way to start and end missions, yadayada...:zzz: So I truly get the good natured, getting the job done, intentions of transmissions such as the above BUT, anyone who says these would never be spoken (too)quickly hasn't been to a busy US port. acroguy mentioned that there are no " odd nouns or verbs" in there - agreed, but that is not the point. My current home port is HKG, we have crew from worldwide and I regularly fly with people for whom English is a second language who find that they CAN deal with UK ATC but find the US much harder. Put a US pilot's spouse in a cockpit and ask them to understand ALL the R/T, ( it's all important, right?), they wouldn't be able to because they have little preconception of what is about to be said. Expectation is a significant part of the auditory understanding process, and one can only 'expect' standard calls, especially under stress.

If it is not already clear I am not defending any particular nation, just the principles of standardisation, to try to give examples for those who seem to think everyone should fit in with whatever a host nation's practise is, and to try to put all Non English as a first language crews in the same bracket of finding it tricky, not just Asians.

Finally, again, those French Huh!!!! :ok:

RobertS975 30th Jul 2013 05:15

KDCA is pretty busy with what amounts to a single runway... yeah, I know there are two other runways, but 90% of the 290,000 landings and takeoffs occur on 18-36. LGW has approx 50,000 less plane movements although with an average bigger aircraft. The biggest thing that KDCA sees is a B757. Not to demean what LGW manages to accomplish with a single runway....

West Coast 30th Jul 2013 05:18

Whites none

Seemed your post was built around the Gatwick example, but ok.

HundredPercentPlease 30th Jul 2013 05:43

USA:


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:


Line up and wait 01, expedite, be ready immediate

Island-Flyer 30th Jul 2013 06:11

I like being told who I'm waiting for when holding for a runway or taking a position. God help me if they don't tell me and just give me a takeoff clearance when some other flight is still landing on a crossing runway.

Again this is just a personal preference as an airman, but having more information is better than having less.

White None 30th Jul 2013 09:14

West Coast.

It was, Gatwick is a perfect example, which I don't apologise for using. An example is just something which is typical of other similar, Err....., Examples? Inevitably people are a bit hairsprung to assume other people are having a go on the basis of nationality, I'm not.
( Except for the French :uhoh: )

White None 30th Jul 2013 09:59

Ha Haa - Nice "PS". Running out of Cans for all the Worms here. :D

cribble 30th Jul 2013 10:41

Acro
I tried to post similar to the following yesterday, but technical issues prevailed.

Some North Americans seem to have a :mad: about ICAO.
As a gentle reminder:
1.ICAO began at the Chicago Conference in 1944
2. ICAO HQ is in Montreal
3. ICAO is a UN body (for what that is worth!)
4. Countries can file exceptions to ICAO standards if it seems to them that this is a good idea.

JW411 30th Jul 2013 10:49

Hectopascals have been around for some time. I well remember the original NOTAM which stated that the FDR (West Germany), the GDR (East Germany) and Malawi would adopt the hectopascal at midnight and abandon the milibar. It went on to say that the conversion ratio was 1 hectopascal = 1 milibar.

I think the date was 14 September 1984 and I was flying from McGuire to Frankfurt. Sure enough, the Frankfurt ATIS was giving the pressure setting in hectopascals on our arrival.

So, for the last 30 years or so the rest of the world has been missing out on hectopascals!

cactusbusdrvr 30th Jul 2013 11:08

This thread is a joke. The system works very well in the US. The system does not work when foreign carriers employ pilots that: A can't fly visual approaches, and B, can't speak or understand English.

radorabatin 30th Jul 2013 11:29

You have no idea what you're talking about.....especially with americans flying out of north america,for example europe....they have trouble to understand english without "the american" accent, for example british pilots and australians have absolutely no problem to undestand correctly spoken english,but without american accent....so I wouldn't say that there is problem with pilots poor english knowledge.....as an ATC I know what I'm talking about,because from my position,as a one who is instructing pilots it is just simple....because pilot is responding,I'm familiar with my airspace,I know all waypoints and procedures,which is not case for pilot,who flies through my airspace maybe 10x per year,so he cannot remember it,and thus react promptly on my instructions.....and this happens with americans over my airspace also....especially when I use ICAO phraseology,they have problem to understand....just because they are used to slang and "open language" or some kind of freestyle....over US airspace...I just hope it won't result in accident somewhere over congested area in US...

beardy 30th Jul 2013 11:41


The system works very well in the US
I think that you have hit the nail on the head. Belief in something does not necessarily mean that it is true. The 'system' does work, but according to some of us who visit and are used to ICAO standards being implemented in a disciplined environment, not well.

J.O. 30th Jul 2013 11:50


This thread is a joke. The system works very well in the US. The system does not work when foreign carriers employ pilots that: A can't fly visual approaches, and B, can't speak or understand English.
Denial. Nature's alternative to fixing a simple problem. Often used when one's culture is offended.

This is aviation safety and effective communications we're talking about, not performance art. The above posted quotes of non-standard language used by some controllers are examples of performance art, not effective communications that an international audience can understand. If you want to put on a show, go sign up for amateur night at the local comedy club. This stuff has no place in aviation.

Checkerboard 13 30th Jul 2013 12:00


You have no idea what you're talking about.....especially with americans flying out of north america,for example europe....they have trouble to understand english without "the american" accent, for example british pilots and australians have absolutely no problem to undestand correctly spoken english,but without american accent....so I wouldn't say that there is problem with pilots poor english knowledge.....as an ATC I know what I'm talking about,because from my position,as a one who is instructing pilots it is just simple....because pilot is responding,I'm familiar with my airspace,I know all waypoints and procedures,which is not case for pilot,who flies through my airspace maybe 10x per year,so he cannot remember it,and thus react promptly on my instructions.....and this happens with americans over my airspace also....especially when I use ICAO phraseology,they have problem to understand....just because they are used to slang and "open language" or some kind of freestyle....over US airspace...I just hope it won't result in accident somewhere over congested area in US...
Might one hope that ATCO's English is more "correctly spoken" than the above is written? (If not, difficulties in understanding could be entirely understandable.)

It is also worth noting the the British and Aussies (as well as all English speakers) have accents, as well. Is an American's difficulty in understanding a British accent any different than the converse?

And lest anyone try to lay claim to the "pure" version of the language, it should be remembered that all language evolves. Perhaps the purest modern variant of the "King's English" might be that which was left with the colonials across the pond, a couple of centuries ago.

4runner 30th Jul 2013 12:07

American slang is much worse than non-english. I really enjoy lessons in French and Spanish and Arabic you get outside of the US. Excellent for situational awareness. Also, and I've said this before, I have to translate ALL the time for Brits and Aussies flying for a certain ME and Brit carrier in Afrika. So much for your 13 exams and phraseology handbook. I also have said this before on PPRUNE, the airman phraseology handbook is just another nitpicky, whingy, whiny Lymey invention to use to attempt to look down on aviators from elsewhere and assert their position as masters of the aviation world. But seriously, Americans are bad pilots(they must be because they need 1500 hours to fly 121), undisciplined and Vickers and Airbus will soon take over the world. Visual approach and handflying skills bad, airman phraseology and 200 hour FO's who pay to fly good. All you need to be a good pilot is the inability to think outside the box, 100,000 euros for training and your own type rating, excellent airman phraseology, 13 written tests, a MCC course, 200 hours, 50 words per minute typing ability for the fms/fmc, a functional autopilot, an ils, and no x-wind. You will never stall an Airbus, handfly a visual, or have an unskilled controller trying to fly you into a mountain. Enjoy your 200,000 euro a year job!:ugh:

Two_dogs 30th Jul 2013 13:43

Whilst I am all for standardisation and correct phraseology, I found this highly amusing and probably acceptable for domestic ops between 'locals'.

Boston John, a tower controller at Boston, Massachusetts has a bit of a following on youtube. I thought the "Love of my Life " at 3:05 was classic, but at 3:10, all is back to a professional level.

http://

Not everyone likes it though,


It's only Rock and Roll, but I like it.

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 20:27.


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