Confusion on Take Off talk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confusion on Take Off talk
Hi
Just wanted to hear some opinions on this. I am an Aussie pilot and most of my training was done in Oz. The way that i have learnt it, is that ATC or a pilot will only use the words "Take Off" when using the phrase "Clear to Take Off" and pretty much no other time so as not to cause any confusion regarding clearences. I have done some flying in one corner of America (FL) and in my experience the words "Take off" are used in any way seemed fit especially by pilots, usually in taxi calls.
I can only see this ending in confusion and eventually disaster when it is easily avoidable (Tenerife '77 being a perfect example).
Some friends and I are in the process of trying to get this changed within our specific flight school which may change things on our busy airport.
I was hoping to hear feedback from anyone with anything to offer.. opinions, ideas, specific incidences, anything at all
Just wanted to hear some opinions on this. I am an Aussie pilot and most of my training was done in Oz. The way that i have learnt it, is that ATC or a pilot will only use the words "Take Off" when using the phrase "Clear to Take Off" and pretty much no other time so as not to cause any confusion regarding clearences. I have done some flying in one corner of America (FL) and in my experience the words "Take off" are used in any way seemed fit especially by pilots, usually in taxi calls.
I can only see this ending in confusion and eventually disaster when it is easily avoidable (Tenerife '77 being a perfect example).
Some friends and I are in the process of trying to get this changed within our specific flight school which may change things on our busy airport.
I was hoping to hear feedback from anyone with anything to offer.. opinions, ideas, specific incidences, anything at all
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Krautland
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I canīt speak for the US, but over here in Europe (or Germany, to be precise) it is being handled the same way you described. The words "take off" are never being said until you are cleared to do just that. In all other cases it is being referred to as "departure".
Fixed+Rotary (aircraft, not washing lines)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Peak District, Yorkshire, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL in training I've had this drummed into me from my instructor and also have been directed to the various authoritative texts on the subject...
Extracts from the CAA CAP413 Radiotelephony Manual
"An ATC route clearance is NOT an instruction to take-off or enter an active runway. The words 'TAKE-OFF' are used only when an aircraft is cleared for take-off. At all other times the word 'DEPARTURE' is used."
"Meticulous care has been taken to ensure that the phraseology which is to be
employed during the pre-departure manoeuvres cannot be interpreted as a take-off
clearance. This is to avoid any misunderstanding in the granting or acknowledgement
of take-off clearances and the serious consequences that could result."
"A take-off clearance shall be issued separately from any other clearance message."
"TAKE-OFF - these words are only used when an aircraft is cleared for TAKE-OFF."
"TAKE-OFF clearance requires readback."
Extracts from the CAA CAP413 Radiotelephony Manual
"An ATC route clearance is NOT an instruction to take-off or enter an active runway. The words 'TAKE-OFF' are used only when an aircraft is cleared for take-off. At all other times the word 'DEPARTURE' is used."
"Meticulous care has been taken to ensure that the phraseology which is to be
employed during the pre-departure manoeuvres cannot be interpreted as a take-off
clearance. This is to avoid any misunderstanding in the granting or acknowledgement
of take-off clearances and the serious consequences that could result."
"A take-off clearance shall be issued separately from any other clearance message."
"TAKE-OFF - these words are only used when an aircraft is cleared for TAKE-OFF."
"TAKE-OFF clearance requires readback."
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Excellent points.
I include the word 'land' or 'landing' in this, too.
Part of my job is ensuring that all drivers of ground vehicles at LGW comply with Aeronautical Phraseology when on the Manoeuvring Area. We go a little further than the book and ban the use of the words 'clear' or 'cleared' as well.
Following Tenerife, we were given a whole list of revised phraseology and the reasons for the changes. Not all of them are fully dealt with in CAP413 in as comprehensive a way as I would like. However, we strive to set a standard on the airfield that will put us above reproach. I'm not, however, saying we're all perfect, a little coaching is required from time to time!!!
Banned words Replacement
Overshoot Go around
Go ahead Pass your message
Take-off Depart(ure)
Land(ing) Arriv(ing)
Cleared to push Pushback approved
Cleared the runway Vacated the runway
Affirmative Affirm
The above list isn't comprehensive, but you get the picture.
I notice considerable back-sliding amongst pilots some of whom can't possibly have been flying before these changes were made. They seem to like using the 'old' phrases, as if this indicates they've been around a long time.
There's NO point in saying 'Tug xx, you're cleared to cross (runway)xx report vacated'. The whole point of using the words 'vacated' and 'approved' is to avoid the use of the word 'clear'. I think that it should be STRICTLY reserved for ATC giving permission, at a Tower field only, for an aircraft to land or take off.
The problem, I believe, is that this word 'clear', or 'cleared' is such a lovely way of saying 'OK, what you want to do fits in with my plan, so go ahead and do it, but you'd better watch out, too. I'm not accepting full responsibility for what you're doing, because I don't have full control over all the circumstances a kilometer or more from where I'm sitting'. That is a perfectly legitimate position to take, so we say 'approved' as another way of sharing the burden of responsibility. It clearly wouldn't be fair for a controller to have to say 'I ORDER you to push your aircraft NOW'.
The problem I have is that we need a completely unambiguous set of phrases for critical parts of the operation. These must also not be confusable with other words or phrases that are open to mis-interpretation if they are only partly heard. Hence our use of 'affirm' instead of 'affirmative'. I just hear '-ative' many times per day as transmissions are stepped on or people start speaking before keying the mike.
Incidentally, I also think that our controllers at LGW (and our base pilots, too) do an excellent job of following the spirit and letter of the phraseology policy. Sadly the owrst offendors are our visitors from across the Atlantic. This surprises me, because my understanding is that the phraseology revisions originated with them in the first place!
Cheers,
TheOddOne
I include the word 'land' or 'landing' in this, too.
Part of my job is ensuring that all drivers of ground vehicles at LGW comply with Aeronautical Phraseology when on the Manoeuvring Area. We go a little further than the book and ban the use of the words 'clear' or 'cleared' as well.
Following Tenerife, we were given a whole list of revised phraseology and the reasons for the changes. Not all of them are fully dealt with in CAP413 in as comprehensive a way as I would like. However, we strive to set a standard on the airfield that will put us above reproach. I'm not, however, saying we're all perfect, a little coaching is required from time to time!!!
Banned words Replacement
Overshoot Go around
Go ahead Pass your message
Take-off Depart(ure)
Land(ing) Arriv(ing)
Cleared to push Pushback approved
Cleared the runway Vacated the runway
Affirmative Affirm
The above list isn't comprehensive, but you get the picture.
I notice considerable back-sliding amongst pilots some of whom can't possibly have been flying before these changes were made. They seem to like using the 'old' phrases, as if this indicates they've been around a long time.
There's NO point in saying 'Tug xx, you're cleared to cross (runway)xx report vacated'. The whole point of using the words 'vacated' and 'approved' is to avoid the use of the word 'clear'. I think that it should be STRICTLY reserved for ATC giving permission, at a Tower field only, for an aircraft to land or take off.
The problem, I believe, is that this word 'clear', or 'cleared' is such a lovely way of saying 'OK, what you want to do fits in with my plan, so go ahead and do it, but you'd better watch out, too. I'm not accepting full responsibility for what you're doing, because I don't have full control over all the circumstances a kilometer or more from where I'm sitting'. That is a perfectly legitimate position to take, so we say 'approved' as another way of sharing the burden of responsibility. It clearly wouldn't be fair for a controller to have to say 'I ORDER you to push your aircraft NOW'.
The problem I have is that we need a completely unambiguous set of phrases for critical parts of the operation. These must also not be confusable with other words or phrases that are open to mis-interpretation if they are only partly heard. Hence our use of 'affirm' instead of 'affirmative'. I just hear '-ative' many times per day as transmissions are stepped on or people start speaking before keying the mike.
Incidentally, I also think that our controllers at LGW (and our base pilots, too) do an excellent job of following the spirit and letter of the phraseology policy. Sadly the owrst offendors are our visitors from across the Atlantic. This surprises me, because my understanding is that the phraseology revisions originated with them in the first place!
Cheers,
TheOddOne
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oddly enough, my company had an incident only 3 days ago where we were forced to go-around from very low level after another companys' aircraft entered the runway without permission. Upon reading the Air Safety Report it appears that the ATC phraseology was ambiguous which led to the incursion in the first place, which I think demonstrates the point of the post...
(The phraseology used was xxx123, taxy to RWY xx via intersection xx, with no mention made of "hold short")
(The phraseology used was xxx123, taxy to RWY xx via intersection xx, with no mention made of "hold short")
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern-Europe
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would claim that the rule to use the word "take-off" only for take-off clearance is definitely one of the most important rules of radio phraseology. Like already said above, otherwise you should always use word "departure".
This is an excellent example how many rules in aviation are written to the books and manuals by the blood of other fellow pilots and passengers who have lost their lives during the aviation history. Respect those already written rules and you will be sure that they aren't going to use your blood to write new ones.
However, it is weird to notice if take-off word is still misused in some part of the world. Very sad if the lost of 500+ people at Tenerife was not yet enough...
Safe flights for all of you,
Approaching Minimums
This is an excellent example how many rules in aviation are written to the books and manuals by the blood of other fellow pilots and passengers who have lost their lives during the aviation history. Respect those already written rules and you will be sure that they aren't going to use your blood to write new ones.
However, it is weird to notice if take-off word is still misused in some part of the world. Very sad if the lost of 500+ people at Tenerife was not yet enough...
Safe flights for all of you,
Approaching Minimums
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Krautland
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go ahead Pass your message
Oh, and what about the "taxi into position and hold", which is so popular stateside? I like the ICAO phrase "line up and wait" much better, especially since the former can be confused with "taxi to holding position" (or vice versa actually.... accidentally holding short is not gonna harm anyone, but lining up while being instructed to taxi to the holding position most definitely can).
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
fastjet2k
Yes, thanks, all the careful text layout got scrambled when I pressed the submit button!
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Yes, thanks, all the careful text layout got scrambled when I pressed the submit button!
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Super-Friendly Aviator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Reigate, UK
Age: 42
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass your message
My instructor has been hailed on the frequency and responded with something like "xxx Radio, pass your message." ... this is usually followed by a message from the field alng the lines of "Mr. Smith has cancelled his NAVEX today as he's stuck in traffic on the M69, we've put the kettle on."...and the like
V1R
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
phoenix son ...
This taxi instruction is not ambiguous. "Taxi to Rwy..." is never a clearance to ENTER, or CROSS that Rwy, but it is a clearance to ENTER and CROSS all other runways.
(The phraseology used was xxx123, taxy to RWY xx via intersection xx, with no mention made of "hold short")
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, ATC use the phrase "Pass you message" frequently, especially when co-ordinating with other sectors/units. Not uncommon to hear it used to aircraft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
One commonly used ICAO phrase which is ambiguous refers to leaving an altitude. For example ATC might say: XYZ Descend to 5000 ft. The pilot replies XYZ - 5000 - Leaving 9000. Can ATC be quite sure that the pilot has indeed left his current altitude for 5000 - and thus clear another aircraft to the supposed vacated altitude? Often we hear "Leaving" as the automtaic reflex reply to the ATC request when in fact the aircraft has not yet vacated its altitude.
Preference in Australia was to use the term "Left" the altitude as an unequivocal statement - rather than "Leaving" an altitude which leaves a lingering doubt as to exactly when the aircraft will commence descending. Unfortunately pressure to conform with ICAO terminology caused the Australian CAA to delete the term "Left" and substitute "Leaving".
Preference in Australia was to use the term "Left" the altitude as an unequivocal statement - rather than "Leaving" an altitude which leaves a lingering doubt as to exactly when the aircraft will commence descending. Unfortunately pressure to conform with ICAO terminology caused the Australian CAA to delete the term "Left" and substitute "Leaving".
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Krautland
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example ATC might say: XYZ Descend to 5000 ft.
As for "leaving" and "left": First of all, that is what radar is for. Speaking from experience gained by some visits to ATC centers (highly recommended by the way, a real eye-opener), I highly doubt ATC would clear any other aircraft for that level/altitude unless he/she can see on the scope that the first a/c has actually started to leave that level/altitude, readback or not. Besides, ATC expects you to start the descent fairly soon once the instruction has been given. If that were not the case they would add something like "at your discretion" or "when ready" or somesuch.
Second of all, as far as I know it is not mandatory to say "leaving FL320 for FL160", a simple "descending FL160" will suffice. I might be wrong on this one though, so please feel free to correct me. ATC should know what level you are at before you start the descend anyway.
Third of all, "left" should be reserved for lateral instructions ("turn left heading XXX") and not be used for vertical instructions. Helps avoiding misunderstandings.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ugh... I think proper phrasology would be "XYZ, descend altitude 5000ft"...
This is commonly used and makes me nausiate everytime I hear it. When people are changing velocity in the vertical plane, they either Climb TO or descend TO altitudes, and Climb or Descend Flight Levels;
e.g
Climb TO altitude 4000 feet
Descend Flight Level 70.
Another one that I reguarly hear incorrectly abbreviated are
"Clear land" - Absolute rubbish, the correct phraseology is "Cleared to Land" (Runway designator to be specified if the possibility of confusion exists) + Surfice wind checks etc etc
"Clear /cleared to take off" Once again - Wholely incorrect. The Phraseology is " Cleared for Take off" with the relevent gubbins tacked on the end.
I could go on and on but standard phraseology is not always used and I am as guilty as everyone else unfortunately!
The ones I mentioned are ones that really bug me when I hear them!!!
TIO
Edited as clearly my typing is particuarly non-standard also!
