For BM3RE to EGLL 20 July
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For BM3RE to EGLL 20 July
Hi Guys. I was on 119.72 for your approach this morning and I did not understand your comment about my inclusion of "to" in the descent clearance causing confusion?? Our book "Teach Yourself ATC" says that "to" is the correct word to use when an altitude is involved, e.g. "Descend TO altitude four thousand feet...". When a FL is involved the word is omitted, e.g. "Climb FL 80". There is on-going discussion about phraseology and I think that eventually the use of the word "to" may be discouraged. However, it's perfectly standard at present so expect to hear it more often..
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEATHROW DIRECTOR,
An interesting little leaflet, published by your employer, has just dropped out of my CHIRP envelope. It says, among other things:
'You may have been given a clearance "Climb to FL80, set altimeter 1013"'. Note the word "to" in the context of a Flight Level.
It also says 'Do not use the word "to" when reading back a climb or descent clearance', and yet surely it is normal practice to repeat back what the controller says verbatim.
Confusing, ain't it!
Chalky
By the way, it wasn't me!! (with apologies to whoever uses that as a tag line)
An interesting little leaflet, published by your employer, has just dropped out of my CHIRP envelope. It says, among other things:
'You may have been given a clearance "Climb to FL80, set altimeter 1013"'. Note the word "to" in the context of a Flight Level.
It also says 'Do not use the word "to" when reading back a climb or descent clearance', and yet surely it is normal practice to repeat back what the controller says verbatim.
Confusing, ain't it!
Chalky
By the way, it wasn't me!! (with apologies to whoever uses that as a tag line)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if any aircrew have ever heard a UK civil controller say "Climb to FL** set altimeter 1013". I'm pretty sure that phraseology is not in our Manual... but I'm not an Area controller so can't swear to it!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chalky..
HD is correct. AREA (and sometimes APPROACH / DIR... think CPT deps off easterlies
) would say "Climb FL80" with absolutely no mention of the SPS.
And yes, confusing though it is we are supposed to say, for example, "Descend to altitude 4000ft, QNH 1018, XX miles from touchdown".
Readbacks are indeed supposed to be verbatim but I'm interested in this document that you recived with FEEDBACK. There wasn't anything extra in my copy, so it's difficult to comment, but the phraseology bible remains CAP413 q.v.
Oh one minor point. HD (and I) work for NATS Ltd now, not the dear old CAA (or MCA / DoT)
Rgds BEX
HD is correct. AREA (and sometimes APPROACH / DIR... think CPT deps off easterlies
) would say "Climb FL80" with absolutely no mention of the SPS.And yes, confusing though it is we are supposed to say, for example, "Descend to altitude 4000ft, QNH 1018, XX miles from touchdown".
Readbacks are indeed supposed to be verbatim but I'm interested in this document that you recived with FEEDBACK. There wasn't anything extra in my copy, so it's difficult to comment, but the phraseology bible remains CAP413 q.v.
Oh one minor point. HD (and I) work for NATS Ltd now, not the dear old CAA (or MCA / DoT)
Rgds BEX
Sensible PPRuNer?
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: !
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controllers in the UK are usually excellent.
However ATC in Irish airspace seem often unable to stick to proper phraseology.
Just the other day I was given this clearance:
'climb to (2?) eight zero'
When I asked for clarification I got a snide sounding slow readback (with heavy emphasis on the previously missing phrase 'Flight Level'). The emphasis continued in all level clearances until handover. Childish.
The thing about pilots is that they travel from sector to sector getting variable standards of controlling, and soon recognise what's good and what's gash.
Controllers (esp. in Ireland) just don't get the same kind of exposure on a daily basis, so if standards are allowed to slip they can soon become pretty bad by comparison.
However ATC in Irish airspace seem often unable to stick to proper phraseology.
Just the other day I was given this clearance:
'climb to (2?) eight zero'
When I asked for clarification I got a snide sounding slow readback (with heavy emphasis on the previously missing phrase 'Flight Level'). The emphasis continued in all level clearances until handover. Childish.
The thing about pilots is that they travel from sector to sector getting variable standards of controlling, and soon recognise what's good and what's gash.
Controllers (esp. in Ireland) just don't get the same kind of exposure on a daily basis, so if standards are allowed to slip they can soon become pretty bad by comparison.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEATHROW DIRECTOR & BEXIL160,
The leaflet I quoted from is published by NATS. It has been produced "to give pilots better understanding of our ATCO colleagues' problems and requirements...". It says a similar leaflet has been produced for ATCOs.
It also says "the inclusion of 'set 1013' will hopefully cut down on the 15% of MOR incidents caused by pilots forgetting to set standard settings."
It seems a shame that you weren't given the courtesy of a briefing on the leaflet's contents prior to its publication!
The leaflet I quoted from is published by NATS. It has been produced "to give pilots better understanding of our ATCO colleagues' problems and requirements...". It says a similar leaflet has been produced for ATCOs.
It also says "the inclusion of 'set 1013' will hopefully cut down on the 15% of MOR incidents caused by pilots forgetting to set standard settings."
It seems a shame that you weren't given the courtesy of a briefing on the leaflet's contents prior to its publication!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curiouser and curiouser... We'll just have to wait until our copy turns up.
It does seem a bit odd though, as there is usually lots of paperwork floating around when phraseology changes but just a little bit (I'm thinking of "FL wun hundred" and "Tree hundred, three zero zero" which were very widely publicized).
What you've described seems quite a big change by comparison.
Waiting with interest, BEX
It does seem a bit odd though, as there is usually lots of paperwork floating around when phraseology changes but just a little bit (I'm thinking of "FL wun hundred" and "Tree hundred, three zero zero" which were very widely publicized).
What you've described seems quite a big change by comparison.
Waiting with interest, BEX
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warped.... Presumably it wasn't much of a success then? Not really surprisng, as there are enough numbers in use on the RTF already, without adding more to confuse.
It sounds like an ex- military type phraseology I may have used in a previous existence. "Set QFE1013, desend to height 1500ft" or for THAT (short lived) period when QNH was used by the cra.. sorry, RAF "Set QNH1013, descend to altitude 1900ft". (As I recall the RN stayed on QFE, but that's different discussion)
Anyway, i don't actually see too much wrong with the current phraseology, but as always I'm willing to listen if anybody has a better/different way of doing things that avoids confusion.
Rgds BEX
It sounds like an ex- military type phraseology I may have used in a previous existence. "Set QFE1013, desend to height 1500ft" or for THAT (short lived) period when QNH was used by the cra.. sorry, RAF "Set QNH1013, descend to altitude 1900ft". (As I recall the RN stayed on QFE, but that's different discussion)
Anyway, i don't actually see too much wrong with the current phraseology, but as always I'm willing to listen if anybody has a better/different way of doing things that avoids confusion.
Rgds BEX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but there actually must be plenty of spare R/T time as some genius has come up with the idea of approach controllers specifying the stack in which an a/c is holding when sending instructions, eg "In Biggin, Speedbird 999 descend FL80". It's supposed to prevent near-stack incidents, although how it's supposed to work I don't fully understand. If it works the scheme will probably be adopted nationwide... then expect London Control to say things like "Seventeen and three-quarter miles bearing zero seven seven degrees from Houghton Regis, Speedbird seven seven seven descend FL 110". Seems perfectly OK to me... Only minor problem is that aircraft will have to carry either the AA Book of Air Navigation or the complete series of OS Landranger maps so they can determine if it's them being called by working out their exact location...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RTF phraseology you describe has been in use at Manchester for at least 5 years. Well I say in use, its in the part 2! 
It is slightly different, however, e.g.
"c/s holding DAYNE, descend flight level 90"
As fot the "climb FL... set altimeter 1013" that's just crap! IMHO
There are, I believe, far more important issues that would have a positive and instant benefit to air safety.
It is slightly different, however, e.g.
"c/s holding DAYNE, descend flight level 90"
As fot the "climb FL... set altimeter 1013" that's just crap! IMHO
There are, I believe, far more important issues that would have a positive and instant benefit to air safety.
