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 16th Jul 2013 01:07

Why would Spanish possibly been considered? They weren't one of the four powers that won the war, even the Russians only grudgingly participated in the Chicago Convention. Everything ICAO is in the powers' languages.


despegue 16th Jul 2013 01:43

When ICAO decided on the Common Aviation Language, Spanish was indeed set to win. However, the USA bribed Mexico which voted for English:hmm:...
True story.

Nothing to do with any war by the way.

Faire d'income 16th Jul 2013 03:13

Leave off the Yanks, they might be "non-standard" but they're not unsafe.
Watch the whole thing and tell us what you think:
?rel=0" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen>

Hell Man 16th Jul 2013 10:46

Deefer the Dog wrote:
The point I am making is simply this. In the US the phraseology is completely non standard to that agreed in the convention and bears no relationship to any differences filed. Whichever way you look at it, and as painful as it may feel, your system of not complying with agreed conventions increases the likelihood of confusion, especially when operators whose native language is not English have to disseminate slang. Confusion in a busy ATC environment is not what any of us want.

Put simply, if you sign up and agree to a convention, why not honour it?

Deefer, let me ask you a question.

Is your real concern with safety or with the fact that we dare to do things a little differently and fail to "honor" the convention as you put it?

If its because we've got minds of our own and don't fear doing what works for us, I don't have much to say.

If its to do with safety then statistics clearly show that we are safe, real safe in fact.

beardy 16th Jul 2013 11:27

Well Hell Man, I suppose you don't care about being SAFER, you don't care about taking advice from others who think about phraseology and it's impact on safety and mutual understanding and agree to it's use. You don't seem to care much at all, just so long as your free to make it up as you go along regardless of anyone else. So that's OK then.

Hell Man 16th Jul 2013 12:05

Point is beardy, we are safe.

Its our non-conformist approach that seems to rile you limeys!

WillowRun 6-3 16th Jul 2013 12:23

It's all ICAO's fault
But that was just an attention-getting device......
Anybody know if the substantive discourse within this thread also will be the subject of a panel discussion or more formal proceeding at the ICAO conference this fall? I do not mean to suggest that this thread per se would be (or even could be......or could it?) synched to the ICAO conf agenda; it just strikes me as reasonable to expect that such substantive matter or matters as (a) standardisation (with, or without, differences filed under the Convention); (b) determination of most appropriate safety metrics to be employed in assessing efficacy of specific ATC regimes in various nations and/or geographic regions thereof; (c) possibility of moving toward a more flexible concept of standardisation under ICAO so as to account for important differences in language, airports, and other factors; and (d) some means of integrating (i) driver objections to specific habits of ATC, assigned to particular approach airspace, in giving suboptimal (or, evidently, highly suboptimal) approach clearances with (ii) the over-arching question of standardisation of ATC language, all warrant a formal examination and deliberative process. Without delay. I'd be keen on taking that proceeding in, if it is on the slate. Any Delegates here?

beardy 16th Jul 2013 12:57

Well Hell Man,

It's the non-standard I don't like. It adds nothing and since the likes of me have to pause and think "what did he/she really mean" it introduces elements of doubt. I say again, it adds nothing; it is neither more concise nor clearer: this begs the question why do it? Perhaps you have inadvetrantly answered this with the word non-conformist (rebellious, cowboy, unwillingness and inability to act as others do?) or would it possibly be through ignorance of procedures? (Not rhetorical)

If you are content with your safety record then why bother to improve it (rhetorical) why bother to be standard with anything. Just do what you want when you want and the rest of the aviation community will fit in around you. (Ironic)

vrb03kt 16th Jul 2013 13:05

I think the point is being missed entirely here; willy-waving about whose airport is better on which side of the pond is a boring side-track. As is debating regional differences such as "director call sign only". Even in the UK alone there are a myriad of different ways to skin the cat, whether it's Southampton insisting that we read back "next frequency when instructed Solent 120.225" with the clearance every single day (WTF indeed) or East Midlands wanting us to squawk ident on the approach frequency.

The important point is using standard phraseology spoken in a clear and concise way. This applies to all of us. Understanding that not everyone has the same command of the English language that you do, or do not have ears tuned to your accent, would go a long way to making sure all the players involved are aware of what is expected of them. It isn't just beneficial for the controller and immediate recipient, it aids the situational awareness of all other traffic on the frequency. It might just be the last line of defence in preventing someone lining up without clearance with another on a takeoff roll, for example.

Ace Rimmer 16th Jul 2013 13:21

Willow Run: experience has shown that when ICAO moves at sprint pace (and that doesn't happen that often) it takes about seven (yup SEVEN) years to get something adopted as a standard...and even then longer to for Individual States to implement the changes in their national ANO provided they don't decide to file a difference (or ignore the SARP altogether)...

I submit that the solution to this problem (and if the findings of recent IATA/IFALPA/IFATCA Phaseology survey are believed there IS a significant problem) lies more with national CAA/DGCAs actually implementing (and enforcing) the existing SARPs rather than trying push through new ones (at ICAOs blistering pace!)

Hell Man 16th Jul 2013 15:08

Beardy, would you like to provide an example that you have personally experienced on this side where we have made things difficult for you to understand and which, as you say, has caused you to doubt?

Capt Groper 16th Jul 2013 15:09

Correct RT
Whilst there is a need for standardization, some local RT phraseology may be appropriate and could be included in specific Country Rules and Regulations (CRAR).
Some local terminology can reduced length of RT transmissions, include more meaningful replies and be more easily understood by controllers.

For example,
1/ Out of 29.7 for 30.0 as a replacement for Passing Flight Level 297 for Flight Level 300.
2/ Can you slow to 220? Answer is Affirm. Make it so.
3/ Charlie Charlie instead of Affirm.

beardy 16th Jul 2013 15:40

Dear Hell Man,

I am so sorry, I don't keep a record of the times I am confused by non-standard RT, I am normally too busy! Although I do operate to and from your country weekly.

I do find the area air traffic controllers to be, normally, quite good, terminal area radar controllers to be fine, runway controllers to be mostly OK although a little slapdash when overworked.

However, there seems to be a marked reluctance by pilots, at all times, to even read back, verbatim, what they have heard. Never mind phrase requests and reports correctly. There is always that element of non-conformity. The simplest of all is substituting OH for zero. Air traffickers ALWAYS say zero, pilots rarely do, it makes little difference most of the time, but neatly illustrates a certain obstinacy. There is no need for it to be so, after all they hear zero from ATC so ignorance is no excuse, why refuse to use it?

EEngr 16th Jul 2013 15:49

Fact 1: On any given day there is more airliners flying in North America than anywhere else in the world.
But we have more airspace than Europe.

Canada? Calgary to Edmonton would be considered a near miss. ;)

beardy 16th Jul 2013 16:00

I know I am getting old so forgive what may seem an obvious question, but here goes:

When I did my FAA ATPL and airbus type rating in Minneapolis, I don't recall having to sit an RT exam. Does my memory serve me well, one doesn't have to have RT training and an RT licence?

Just found my licence from FCC (not the FAA) but don't recall an exam in aviation terminology.

West Coast 16th Jul 2013 16:20

RT license is required in the US.

beardy 16th Jul 2013 16:24

We can't even agree to spell it the same way. What hope is there?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:58.

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