Phraseology 1.0
Last year I had 2 aircraft on my freq both requesting the same level, both were 2 of the big US 3, they had the exact same flight number. I advised them both of similar callsign on freq when the second aircraft checked in. The following occured:
"ABC123 request climb FL370"
He was approaching my boundary with the next FIR so I had to tell him to standby while this was coordinated.
A minute or so later:
"XYZ123 request climb FL370"
No traffic or restrictions to effect
Me: "XYZ123 control, climb FL370"
"ABC123 climbing FL370"
Me: "ABC123 negative negative, maintain FL350, previous clearance was for another aircraft"
The only reason I spotted this was because he used his callsign.
Now earlier this year, another of the US big 3:
"ABC456 request climb FL370"
Me:"ABC456 climb FL370
"Here we go"
"ABC123 request climb FL370"
He was approaching my boundary with the next FIR so I had to tell him to standby while this was coordinated.
A minute or so later:
"XYZ123 request climb FL370"
No traffic or restrictions to effect
Me: "XYZ123 control, climb FL370"
"ABC123 climbing FL370"
Me: "ABC123 negative negative, maintain FL350, previous clearance was for another aircraft"
The only reason I spotted this was because he used his callsign.
Now earlier this year, another of the US big 3:
"ABC456 request climb FL370"
Me:"ABC456 climb FL370
"Here we go"
Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 19th Aug 2015 at 01:40.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toowoomba Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sedandun
Gee willickers mate can empathise with Trash n nav reluctance in the old dart after the Tests but do ya best.
But woh really mahhers guv is we bofe geh ih ryhh sa nuffink bad appens...know woh I mean like....
But woh really mahhers guv is we bofe geh ih ryhh sa nuffink bad appens...know woh I mean like....
Last edited by Nicolaus Silver; 18th Aug 2015 at 23:59. Reason: spelling
So if those US airlines exhibit such unprofessional RT why do they have a superior accident record to any European airline ?
Maybe instead of concentrating on mastering radio pedantry and memorizing a mass of aviation trivia that has no practical value to get an ATPL; mainline US operators want their new hires to show up with a lot of time actually flying an airplane ( the average new hire has 3500 + hrs).......
The US has upped the bar with the requirement that EVERY airline crew member has a minimum of 1500 hours. At the same time European airlines are racing to adopt the MPL. Zero to right seat jet airliner with passengers and 60 hours of flight time.
Maybe instead of concentrating on mastering radio pedantry and memorizing a mass of aviation trivia that has no practical value to get an ATPL; mainline US operators want their new hires to show up with a lot of time actually flying an airplane ( the average new hire has 3500 + hrs).......
The US has upped the bar with the requirement that EVERY airline crew member has a minimum of 1500 hours. At the same time European airlines are racing to adopt the MPL. Zero to right seat jet airliner with passengers and 60 hours of flight time.
Wasn't meant as a dig at US airlines per se, but when the accents of the 2 different aircraft are similar, it might make an error harder to spot when you're busy. "That sounds like the guy I cleared".....
Of course you should always double check, but it's one more hole in the cheese so to speak
Of course you should always double check, but it's one more hole in the cheese so to speak
So if those US airlines exhibit such unprofessional RT why do they have a superior accident record to any European airline ?
Long time ago since I did it, but I was told to repeat tower messages in full.
Exnomad,
Did/has it ever occurred to you to look up what you are supposed to read back, and how to read it back, and just do that.
What you have said in your post is wrong, another example of perpetuation of error by ignorance.
There is nothing like the facts to get your facts straight.
At least, in this day and age, all such information is easily accessible, so that is no excuse.
Tootle pip!!
Did/has it ever occurred to you to look up what you are supposed to read back, and how to read it back, and just do that.
What you have said in your post is wrong, another example of perpetuation of error by ignorance.
There is nothing like the facts to get your facts straight.
At least, in this day and age, all such information is easily accessible, so that is no excuse.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good thing about standards is everyone understands it. Must admit I've had some nationalities comming through that honestly didn't understand what I was trying to tell them/ask them about (some nonstandard about openings and so on), but when it came to the normal "taxi, climb, turn...." and so forth, everything went smooth.
So yes, knowing your standard phraseology really helps a lot, and the better we all are at it, the less risk for misunderstandings
And if you really want to go at it, with americans and englishmen alike doesn't need to learn it, cause it's their native tongue, remember how the community is about french, italian, spanish and all the other national languages.... Speaking on the frequency without using the ICAO standard phraseology is comparable to using said languages, some actually doesn't understand you, and it hurts safety
So yes, knowing your standard phraseology really helps a lot, and the better we all are at it, the less risk for misunderstandings
And if you really want to go at it, with americans and englishmen alike doesn't need to learn it, cause it's their native tongue, remember how the community is about french, italian, spanish and all the other national languages.... Speaking on the frequency without using the ICAO standard phraseology is comparable to using said languages, some actually doesn't understand you, and it hurts safety
Gordonmac,
The bain of my existence, over many years, has been the student/candidate whose answer as to why hew/she was way of base was " I was told by" an instructor/Captain/Check and Training/IRE-TRE/ description of choice"
It is a great way to perpetuate errors, some of then very basic.
The idea of actually reading the source material (the AFM, or Annex II, or Annex X, Vol. II say) seem completely foreign to so many pilots, including very experienced pilots. This is NOT limited to communication. Jusr reading the "training notes" is not good enough.
At least, in this part of the world, CPDLC has reduced the occasions of Australian "trained" pilots who cannot even transmit a position report or full AIREP accordance with ICAO SARPs.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Just a couple of non-comms examples from memory, there are many more:
(1) Seriously wrong rotation and initial climb techniques, revealed when the fleet was fitted with quick access flight recorders. Until then, those of us who complained were ignored.
(2) Incorrect use of engine anti-ice, resulting in a history of engine damage, until the penny dropped. Until then -- see (1)
The bain of my existence, over many years, has been the student/candidate whose answer as to why hew/she was way of base was " I was told by" an instructor/Captain/Check and Training/IRE-TRE/ description of choice"
It is a great way to perpetuate errors, some of then very basic.
The idea of actually reading the source material (the AFM, or Annex II, or Annex X, Vol. II say) seem completely foreign to so many pilots, including very experienced pilots. This is NOT limited to communication. Jusr reading the "training notes" is not good enough.
At least, in this part of the world, CPDLC has reduced the occasions of Australian "trained" pilots who cannot even transmit a position report or full AIREP accordance with ICAO SARPs.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Just a couple of non-comms examples from memory, there are many more:
(1) Seriously wrong rotation and initial climb techniques, revealed when the fleet was fitted with quick access flight recorders. Until then, those of us who complained were ignored.
(2) Incorrect use of engine anti-ice, resulting in a history of engine damage, until the penny dropped. Until then -- see (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled,
1. Does anyone report wind & temp with a position report anymore?
2. Is it useful information?
3. Do ATC even write it down and send it to anyone?
4. If they do, do the people they send it to care?
Or... Are most pilots of the opinion that this practice is long antiquated and redundant?
Genuine questions.
Australian "trained" pilots who cannot even transmit a position report or full AIREP accordance with ICAO SARPs
2. Is it useful information?
3. Do ATC even write it down and send it to anyone?
4. If they do, do the people they send it to care?
Or... Are most pilots of the opinion that this practice is long antiquated and redundant?
Genuine questions.
Derfred,
In theory, at least, a full airep should be transmitted if the symbol is on a chart.
As for "writing it down", many moons ago in AU, there was a union directive that, if the pilot did not precede the transmission with "airep" or "airep special", as required by AIP "radio procedures", the ATC person would not write down the wind and temperature and any other remarks.
As to what happened to airep information once transamitted, on the flightdeck, that was always a matter of great speculation, not all of it repeatable in polite company.
What was done with it?? It certainly never seemed to have much influence on forecasts, and I suspect BoM treated it as "unapproved information".
Was it useful, too bleeding right, it was real info., as opposed to a (particularly) wind forecast from BoM computers. Is it still ???
It is true that there has been a huge improvement in almost real time met. in the last 20 years, in the real world I rather think an airep is a historic anachronism, except when you are doing ATP Air Law.
In theory, at least, a full airep should be transmitted if the symbol is on a chart.
As for "writing it down", many moons ago in AU, there was a union directive that, if the pilot did not precede the transmission with "airep" or "airep special", as required by AIP "radio procedures", the ATC person would not write down the wind and temperature and any other remarks.
As to what happened to airep information once transamitted, on the flightdeck, that was always a matter of great speculation, not all of it repeatable in polite company.
What was done with it?? It certainly never seemed to have much influence on forecasts, and I suspect BoM treated it as "unapproved information".
Was it useful, too bleeding right, it was real info., as opposed to a (particularly) wind forecast from BoM computers. Is it still ???
It is true that there has been a huge improvement in almost real time met. in the last 20 years, in the real world I rather think an airep is a historic anachronism, except when you are doing ATP Air Law.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mauritius,soon or latter
Posts: 541
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time ago since I did it, but I was told to repeat tower messages in full.
repeat all numbers
Than I asked : wind also ?
Of course, it is number.
N.B after that I meet some pilots on frequency repeating wind . So it means that some training missing link exists.
The safest, fastest and most effective way is applicable ICAO SARPs.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In theory, at least, a full airep should be transmitted if the symbol is on a chart.
Ledsled ; Of course the technical aspects of your posts are faultless. Just advocating a little balance & colour helps make it enjoyable - eh ? In the happy days of whizzing through New York airspace from Bangor to Orlando, ATC said "We're gettin jammed up down here, need you to give me a 360 left, present position"! Geez, spilled me coke float & did, roughly , what was required. Rolling out on entry heading he said "liked that, give me another one" ! Love it. But, all, technically wrong, wrong, wrong -eh ? Led, you might have been lost for words in anger !
Gordonmac,
In fact I have always found operations in US very effective, and pleasant, because actual "communications" is good, as opposed to the rather anal Australian approach, "radio procedures" (in the AU AIP there is roughly 20 times as many "standard phrases" as ICAO SARPS require) where effective communication, as opposed to "compliance with published procedures" is often inhibited.
In fact I have always found operations in US very effective, and pleasant, because actual "communications" is good, as opposed to the rather anal Australian approach, "radio procedures" (in the AU AIP there is roughly 20 times as many "standard phrases" as ICAO SARPS require) where effective communication, as opposed to "compliance with published procedures" is often inhibited.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My pilot experience was only as a national service entrant in the 1950s. Operating out of small and not busy stations.
So tower messages simple only confirm runway direction QNH and wind strength.
Not difficult to repeat
So tower messages simple only confirm runway direction QNH and wind strength.
Not difficult to repeat
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled:
No! "Over" means "I am expecting a reply", "Out" means "I am not expecting a reply" - so the reason people haven't heard "over and out" on the air, except in badly-researched TV and films, is that it is two conflicting meanings: Wrong!!!
Callsign substituting for "over" works fine.
When I got my PPL the radio course was separate, and ended with an exam to get the radio licence, which consisted of pretending to fly a series of routes while the examiner in the next room acted as ATC. Using the correct procedure (including not reading back items that were not mandatory, except for clarification) was necessary to pass the exam, and I see no reason to depart from what I learned then, any more than I would make up new ways to fly having got the PPL itself.
Remember (see Annex X, Vol. II) in this case the use of the call sign is the accepted substitute for "over" or "over and out", phrases that many current pilots would never have heard used.
Callsign substituting for "over" works fine.
When I got my PPL the radio course was separate, and ended with an exam to get the radio licence, which consisted of pretending to fly a series of routes while the examiner in the next room acted as ATC. Using the correct procedure (including not reading back items that were not mandatory, except for clarification) was necessary to pass the exam, and I see no reason to depart from what I learned then, any more than I would make up new ways to fly having got the PPL itself.
HDRW,
Don't be so quick to air your somewhat limited knowledge.
I haven't got time to give you a precise reference, but if you were to look up ICAO Annex X, Vol.2, you would find that what I said is exactly correct.
You may have given the definitions of the meanings of "over" and "(over and) out", as you understand them, but in the above Vol. 2 you will find the explanation and limitations of the use of the call sign to signify the end of a transmission. In voice working, it is assumed that it will be obvious from the context whether or not it is the end of a transmission with a reply expected, or the termination of the transmission.
As for PPL and a radio license, what you have described sound a bit like the old UK system, the level of knowledge at that level, to get a (usually to start) restricted radio license, restricted to VHF voice, was not great.
PS: I have just been reminded that the one place where "over", "out" and "over and out" is still used, from time to time, and the probably the last time I heard it used, was in US.
Don't be so quick to air your somewhat limited knowledge.
I haven't got time to give you a precise reference, but if you were to look up ICAO Annex X, Vol.2, you would find that what I said is exactly correct.
You may have given the definitions of the meanings of "over" and "(over and) out", as you understand them, but in the above Vol. 2 you will find the explanation and limitations of the use of the call sign to signify the end of a transmission. In voice working, it is assumed that it will be obvious from the context whether or not it is the end of a transmission with a reply expected, or the termination of the transmission.
As for PPL and a radio license, what you have described sound a bit like the old UK system, the level of knowledge at that level, to get a (usually to start) restricted radio license, restricted to VHF voice, was not great.
PS: I have just been reminded that the one place where "over", "out" and "over and out" is still used, from time to time, and the probably the last time I heard it used, was in US.