RT a Dying Skill....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT a Dying Skill....
Is it just me or has standard RT getting lower, and lower, and lower....??!!
So sick of trying to get a clearance, etc and hearing absolute tripe coming from pilots either asking for or confirming ATC instructions.
YOU DO NOT blindly read back, verbatim, every word the controller says to you!
I know that flying schools and instructors do not teach these things anymore (as they haven't a clue themselves). So, you can regurgitate your 1:60 rule, blindly state the FCOM page on wet takeoff procedures but clear, precise, standard RT is of no concern? Not being a native English speaker is no excuse. A hurdle perhaps, which I thoroughly respect many professional pilots overcome, but still no excuse. That does not imply I am picking on non English speakers as my rant stems from a flight I've just come home from and it is almost across the board.
I bought out the Jepps to show the FO what I meant by standard RT and what is required, and what is not. He didn't even know that chapter existed.
Just an example:
ATC: BoBus 123, clear to enter runway 21 and hold position. Aircraft landing on cross strip. Wind 190 at 3 kts caution CB's in the area.
Pilot: BoBus 123 is cleared to enter runway 21 and hold position. There is an aircraft landing on cross strip. Wind is 190 at 3 kts. Caution CB's are in the area.
Are you freaking kidding me!? That's not mentioning basic FIR and/or freq transfers, let alone climb or decent clearances..... The standards just keep going downhill faster, and faster and faster.
So sick of trying to get a clearance, etc and hearing absolute tripe coming from pilots either asking for or confirming ATC instructions.
YOU DO NOT blindly read back, verbatim, every word the controller says to you!
I know that flying schools and instructors do not teach these things anymore (as they haven't a clue themselves). So, you can regurgitate your 1:60 rule, blindly state the FCOM page on wet takeoff procedures but clear, precise, standard RT is of no concern? Not being a native English speaker is no excuse. A hurdle perhaps, which I thoroughly respect many professional pilots overcome, but still no excuse. That does not imply I am picking on non English speakers as my rant stems from a flight I've just come home from and it is almost across the board.
I bought out the Jepps to show the FO what I meant by standard RT and what is required, and what is not. He didn't even know that chapter existed.
Just an example:
ATC: BoBus 123, clear to enter runway 21 and hold position. Aircraft landing on cross strip. Wind 190 at 3 kts caution CB's in the area.
Pilot: BoBus 123 is cleared to enter runway 21 and hold position. There is an aircraft landing on cross strip. Wind is 190 at 3 kts. Caution CB's are in the area.
Are you freaking kidding me!? That's not mentioning basic FIR and/or freq transfers, let alone climb or decent clearances..... The standards just keep going downhill faster, and faster and faster.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might like to know that back in the late 60s pilots flying for a small British airline called BOAC used to read back absolutely everything so it's hardly new!!
Sandblasted.... "Wildo" was in use before you were born!!
Sandblasted.... "Wildo" was in use before you were born!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about position reports which go like this. "At this point in time CF XXX is curently over XXX at 5000, any conflicting traffic please advise" Pure bafflegab!Or our local gliding club, flying out of a grass field call "Haw----Y ground" all the time, the logic they tell me is the person they are talking to is on the ground! They then tie up unicom with endless chatter about sink rate and stuff instead of going to the air to air freq, or the pilots who sqawk ident on "the transponder" what the hell else are you going to sqawk on? {most dont even know the history of the term and what a Parrot was}Im actually a radio examiner and just cant figure how these folks get past the most basic test for an RT lic.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timzsta, exactly!
And where the hell did a freq transfer become common place to be [eg] "check'in with ya on twenny one nine..."
ATC: BoBus 123 climb FL360 (eg, from FL340)
Pilot: Cleared to climb 360.
Well you're not going to DESCEND to it are you?
Look up the correct usage of "MAINTAINING" and "TIME" to name but two.
From a previous post when a 175 hr child tried saying that standard RT is not needed when all one really needs to do is just give get the "point" across as that is all that maters :
From ICAO
"Air Traffic Deficiencies in the Asia Pacific Region" (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/..._SG16/wp37.pdf)
"2.2.2 Frequent reports are received from flights operating in Mumbai FIR of exceedingly congested and poor HF communications. This is a busy FIR with heavy traffic volumes. Good regular air-ground communications has to be an absolute requirement for the area, if flight safety is to be maintained."
"2.3 Unintelligible communications due to poor command of English and use of non- standard R/T phraseology.
2.3.1 It is well understood that many ATS units in the region are not manned by native English speakers. Except for a few states there are few if any, native English speakers manning the HF or VHF radios in the ATS service. This does not mean that they cannot or do not speak English. However, we have to accept that there is certainly a strong presence of local accents, both in the ATS and pilot community in this region, which can only make it harder to understand each other. Therefore there is all the more reason for standard RT phraseology to be used at all times. Both ATS and flight crew should be quickly trained and tested to ensure they meet the ICAO level 4 standard.
2.3.2 It is a basic and fundamental requirement that ATS communications are carried out using standard R/T phraseology. This seems to be a simple directive to follow, but this is violated more frequently than we can imagine. The meeting is urged to take particular note of this. We urge ATS Service Providers to carry out unsolicited surveys and checks from time to time to ensure that only standard phraseology is used. With English as a second language, it is all the more imperative that there is strict adherence to standard R/T phraseology, and that communications facilities are of the highest quality."
OK. I really need a beer!!! Let's raise the damn bar and not accept the new lows as a cheap excuse to be lazy.
And where the hell did a freq transfer become common place to be [eg] "check'in with ya on twenny one nine..."
ATC: BoBus 123 climb FL360 (eg, from FL340)
Pilot: Cleared to climb 360.
Well you're not going to DESCEND to it are you?
Look up the correct usage of "MAINTAINING" and "TIME" to name but two.
From a previous post when a 175 hr child tried saying that standard RT is not needed when all one really needs to do is just give get the "point" across as that is all that maters :
From ICAO
"Air Traffic Deficiencies in the Asia Pacific Region" (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/..._SG16/wp37.pdf)
"2.2.2 Frequent reports are received from flights operating in Mumbai FIR of exceedingly congested and poor HF communications. This is a busy FIR with heavy traffic volumes. Good regular air-ground communications has to be an absolute requirement for the area, if flight safety is to be maintained."
"2.3 Unintelligible communications due to poor command of English and use of non- standard R/T phraseology.
2.3.1 It is well understood that many ATS units in the region are not manned by native English speakers. Except for a few states there are few if any, native English speakers manning the HF or VHF radios in the ATS service. This does not mean that they cannot or do not speak English. However, we have to accept that there is certainly a strong presence of local accents, both in the ATS and pilot community in this region, which can only make it harder to understand each other. Therefore there is all the more reason for standard RT phraseology to be used at all times. Both ATS and flight crew should be quickly trained and tested to ensure they meet the ICAO level 4 standard.
2.3.2 It is a basic and fundamental requirement that ATS communications are carried out using standard R/T phraseology. This seems to be a simple directive to follow, but this is violated more frequently than we can imagine. The meeting is urged to take particular note of this. We urge ATS Service Providers to carry out unsolicited surveys and checks from time to time to ensure that only standard phraseology is used. With English as a second language, it is all the more imperative that there is strict adherence to standard R/T phraseology, and that communications facilities are of the highest quality."
OK. I really need a beer!!! Let's raise the damn bar and not accept the new lows as a cheap excuse to be lazy.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best place to learn Standard RT is to fly in Europe, starting by the UK (yes..maybe avoiding Spain and France...their chauvinism prevents them to speak English to their fellow countrymen - although legal, that procedure prevents non native speakers to be aware of "local speaking" traffic) and let me tell you that I find the UK ATC very professional (they even go to the point of speaking slower and clearer (quite contrary to what we see in the US) when they know they are addressing a non-native pilot.
I would say that, generally speaking, most of the European ATC's and airline pilots use standard RT.
I would say that, generally speaking, most of the European ATC's and airline pilots use standard RT.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Back to Level 1
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read this smwhere..took time to find again
This is from an actual FAA transcript of a fighter pilot talking to a local tower, presumed to be from somewhere in the Southern United States.
Pilot: This is chrome-plated stove-pipe triple-nickle eight ball, angels eight, five in the slot, boots on and laced, I wanna bounce and blow.
Tower: Roger, you've got the nod to hit the sod.
The translation goes something like this:
Pilot: This is silver jet, 5558 (callsign), height 8000ft, 5 miles inbound (to the runway), gear down and locked, request permission for a touch and go.
Tower: Roger, cleared for touch and go.
The transcript has appeared in many aviation magazines and probably quite a few websites.
http://everything2.com/title/Pilots%2527+Jargon
Pilot: This is chrome-plated stove-pipe triple-nickle eight ball, angels eight, five in the slot, boots on and laced, I wanna bounce and blow.
Tower: Roger, you've got the nod to hit the sod.
The translation goes something like this:
Pilot: This is silver jet, 5558 (callsign), height 8000ft, 5 miles inbound (to the runway), gear down and locked, request permission for a touch and go.
Tower: Roger, cleared for touch and go.
The transcript has appeared in many aviation magazines and probably quite a few websites.
http://everything2.com/title/Pilots%2527+Jargon
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YOU DO NOT blindly read back, verbatim, every word the controller says to you!
Are you freaking kidding me!? That's not mentioning basic FIR and/or freq transfers, let alone climb or decent clearances..... The standards just keep going downhill faster, and faster and faster.
And in the same part of the world, why is "ready" not good enough, one must be "fully ready"?
Questions...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<is this good RT practice?>>
If it's a training airfield, absolutely 100% yes. Not sure of the significance of the 10kt headwind?? Does that nullify readbacks?
If it's a training airfield, absolutely 100% yes. Not sure of the significance of the 10kt headwind?? Does that nullify readbacks?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my current flying training, I've always been taught to only read back the necessary information, and in a way that reduces ambiguity. This lack of ambiguity is drawn to the point that on downwind, when asked to "report final," we are to respond "Wilco." This is to alleviate the chance of the AFISO confusing "Report final, G-VN" with "Final, G-VN."
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lamb and Flag
Age: 69
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love how non-standard RT from a controller can also completely lose the faith us pilots have in them. 
Flying out of Birmingham the other night and it was rather dark, female controller said "good afternoon" when giving us our clearance.... then stumbled around realising what a silly thing she had said.
Flying out of Birmingham the other night and it was rather dark, female controller said "good afternoon" when giving us our clearance.... then stumbled around realising what a silly thing she had said.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Herbert... It happens all the time with radar controllers. They're either in a dark room and don't know that it's daytime or in a 24hr daylight room and don't know when it's night!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lamb and Flag
Age: 69
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD.. this was a tower controller I forgot to mention! I appreciate the darkness in the radar cab but this lady would have been looking down on an apron of lights and looking up at a star sky (one would hope!!)
SHG
SHG
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be, Sir H. I used to wear sunglasses in the tower just about all the time. One busy afternoon the sun set and I still had them on. When asked why, I gave an appropriate answer but my colleagues thought they'd fix me by turning the lights out over my workng position. No problem - I always carry a torch so there I was working busy departures, wearing sunglasses and using a torch!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have to agree with the OP.
I do mistakes and non-standard RT all the time (I think we all do), but if there's one thing I try to do is to keep it short and without ambiguity, reading back the necessities only.
The other day it was mad busy on the LARS frequencies, and I was appalled at how many pilots goes on for hours after the initial "pass your message". It's inconsiderate - that time could be spent handing out collision avoidances and much needed traffic information instead.
Personally I have a tendency to not use my callsign at the end of direct established communications. I should become better at this, but I don't feel it's a huge safety issue:
Lydd: G-ZZZZ, report passing Tenterden.
Me: Reporting Tenterden.
It's wrong of course, but there's no ambiguity and not much risk for a misunderstanding as he's addressing me specifically.
I do mistakes and non-standard RT all the time (I think we all do), but if there's one thing I try to do is to keep it short and without ambiguity, reading back the necessities only.
The other day it was mad busy on the LARS frequencies, and I was appalled at how many pilots goes on for hours after the initial "pass your message". It's inconsiderate - that time could be spent handing out collision avoidances and much needed traffic information instead.
Personally I have a tendency to not use my callsign at the end of direct established communications. I should become better at this, but I don't feel it's a huge safety issue:
Lydd: G-ZZZZ, report passing Tenterden.
Me: Reporting Tenterden.
It's wrong of course, but there's no ambiguity and not much risk for a misunderstanding as he's addressing me specifically.