Lufthansa pilots way of speaking on the radio
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question Answered..?
Well..The answer is simple and already stated: It s in the Lufthansa Operational Manual :stated Callsign+Message..But also allowed to do it the other way round..;-)
Icao has a recommendation to do it the otherway(exept.on Position reports..so why the difference??)..but..in fact..i never got any complain from a controler..
So..my return question Blabla(nice nick;-) What Irritates you so much to crash your head against the wall?...and..to CirrusF..you re wrong..no idea who told you this..the only 2 languages i know with the verb at the end is japanese and turkish(pls fellow users correct me if i m wrong in this)
Best Regards-) And Merry Xmas
Icao has a recommendation to do it the otherway(exept.on Position reports..so why the difference??)..but..in fact..i never got any complain from a controler..
So..my return question Blabla(nice nick;-) What Irritates you so much to crash your head against the wall?...and..to CirrusF..you re wrong..no idea who told you this..the only 2 languages i know with the verb at the end is japanese and turkish(pls fellow users correct me if i m wrong in this)
Best Regards-) And Merry Xmas
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NL
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to the true fact that we do this because pnf can reply reading back from the MCP, it is also because from a study with controllers it was found that replying with callsign first it was easier for the controller to handle the message to whom it belonges.
For that matter what irritates me on the rtf is that even controllers give instructions like: "climb TO...", "descent TO...".
merry xmas
For that matter what irritates me on the rtf is that even controllers give instructions like: "climb TO...", "descent TO...".
merry xmas
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For that matter what irritates me on the rtf is that even controllers give instructions like: "climb TO...", "descent TO...".
Gargleblaster:
ICAO documents are available online http://dcaa.slv.dk
000/icaodocs/
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: terra
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love Lufty but...
Quite aside from the fact that LH is an excellent company with well-trained crew, in this one case their procedures are not in accordance with ICAO standards...
ICAO Radiotelephony Manual DOC 9432 under section
clearly states
CAP 413, while less specific, still places the aircraft callsign at the end of all clearance readback examples.
Having said that, I find LH (and Germans in general) to have very good RT and pronunciation... also they're really good about giving jumpseats
Happy holidays to all!
ICAO Radiotelephony Manual DOC 9432 under section
2.8.3 Issue of clearance and read-back requirements
2.8.3.7 An aircraft should terminate the read-back by its callsign.
Having said that, I find LH (and Germans in general) to have very good RT and pronunciation... also they're really good about giving jumpseats
Happy holidays to all!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to what navigante wrote ICAO Annex 10 Vol. 2 will tell you this:
5.2.1.9.2.2 PANS.— An aircraft station should
acknowledge receipt of important air traffic control messages
or parts thereof by reading them back and terminating the
readback by its radio call sign.
Note 1.— Air traffic control clearances, instructions and
information requiring readback are specified in PANS-ATM
(Doc 4444).
Note 2.— The following example illustrates the application
of this procedure:
(ATC clearance by network station to an aircraft)
Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID
Aircraft:
MADRID TWA NINE SIX THREE — GO AHEAD
Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID — ATC CLEARS
TWA NINE SIX THREE TO DESCEND TO NINE
THOUSAND FEET
Aircraft (acknowledging):
CLEARED TO DESCEND TO NINE THOUSAND
FEET — TWA NINE SIX THREE
5.2.1.9.2.2 PANS.— An aircraft station should
acknowledge receipt of important air traffic control messages
or parts thereof by reading them back and terminating the
readback by its radio call sign.
Note 1.— Air traffic control clearances, instructions and
information requiring readback are specified in PANS-ATM
(Doc 4444).
Note 2.— The following example illustrates the application
of this procedure:
(ATC clearance by network station to an aircraft)
Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID
Aircraft:
MADRID TWA NINE SIX THREE — GO AHEAD
Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID — ATC CLEARS
TWA NINE SIX THREE TO DESCEND TO NINE
THOUSAND FEET
Aircraft (acknowledging):
CLEARED TO DESCEND TO NINE THOUSAND
FEET — TWA NINE SIX THREE
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really don't understand what your point is guys: Lufthansa crews are amongst the most professional the industry has ever seen and we can hear and see it everyday in every corner of the planet.
To be honest i have never heard a LH crew having problems understanding or being understood by ATC unlike Alitalia,Air France or Iberia just to name a few.
Finally many here quote ICAO documents as if they were word of God, maybe many are not aware that lots of those doc's are pretty much outdated if compared to more modern ones published by several aviation authorities around the globe and based on the latest aviation trends: one that comes to mind is ,for instance, the one many states are adhering to that says FL100 should be pronounced as "one hundred" and not "one zero zero" based on the latest studies on altidude busts.
When did ICAO have their latest study on the subject?
To be honest i have never heard a LH crew having problems understanding or being understood by ATC unlike Alitalia,Air France or Iberia just to name a few.
Finally many here quote ICAO documents as if they were word of God, maybe many are not aware that lots of those doc's are pretty much outdated if compared to more modern ones published by several aviation authorities around the globe and based on the latest aviation trends: one that comes to mind is ,for instance, the one many states are adhering to that says FL100 should be pronounced as "one hundred" and not "one zero zero" based on the latest studies on altidude busts.
When did ICAO have their latest study on the subject?
It might be professional, but it is still irritating!
In busy airspace our brains are very clever in filtering out all the non-essential radio chatter by prioritising. A reply from an aircraft has a low priority, the voice of the controller much higher, and your callsign wakes you up from even the deepest slumber.. This is the only way to keep your sanity in busy airspace.
So pilots are filtered out, controllers are paid more attention to.
One way the brain distinguishes between controller and pilots is the order in which they broadcast the content of their message. Controllers always start their message with a callsign, EZY123 turn left heading 090 degrees. So every time you hear a callsign at the beginning of a transmission your attention is hightend, after all it is the controller speaking and the message might be adressed to you. So each and every time our dear German colleagues start with their callsign and send out a message in the exact order as a controller would do, you kind of jump to attention for a fraction of a second, thinking it is the controller speaking. In busy airspace this can be irritating indeed. In no way am I complaining. It's just human factors!
In busy airspace our brains are very clever in filtering out all the non-essential radio chatter by prioritising. A reply from an aircraft has a low priority, the voice of the controller much higher, and your callsign wakes you up from even the deepest slumber.. This is the only way to keep your sanity in busy airspace.
So pilots are filtered out, controllers are paid more attention to.
One way the brain distinguishes between controller and pilots is the order in which they broadcast the content of their message. Controllers always start their message with a callsign, EZY123 turn left heading 090 degrees. So every time you hear a callsign at the beginning of a transmission your attention is hightend, after all it is the controller speaking and the message might be adressed to you. So each and every time our dear German colleagues start with their callsign and send out a message in the exact order as a controller would do, you kind of jump to attention for a fraction of a second, thinking it is the controller speaking. In busy airspace this can be irritating indeed. In no way am I complaining. It's just human factors!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weird, I have been flying for a couple of decades now in every corner of this planet and never been irritated by LH r/t's; on the other hand i could make a long list of truly irritating things I have heard over the radio but that would be for a new 3D...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybepilot: Dunno if ICAO made a study on it but it sure is in the Annex - although you need to find it in one of the amendments.
According to an amendment to Annex 10 Vol. 2:
Page 16 in the follwing document:
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Ann..._sup_jan04.pdf
On page 51 you'll find the original 5.2.1.4.1.1:
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Ann...0AMDT%2080.pdf
According to an amendment to Annex 10 Vol. 2:
5.2.1.4.1.1 One exception. Flight levels ending in hundreds are transmitted as “HUNDRED” e.g., “FLIGHT LEVEL ONE HUNDRED” in order to differentiate from flight level one one zero.
Remarks. On safety grounds in order to reduce “level busts” where it was found that pilots were confusing one zero zero with one one zero.
Remarks. On safety grounds in order to reduce “level busts” where it was found that pilots were confusing one zero zero with one one zero.
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Ann..._sup_jan04.pdf
On page 51 you'll find the original 5.2.1.4.1.1:
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Ann...0AMDT%2080.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K soze,
one is the original ICAO doc. and the other one is an amendment related to the UK (different practices from ICAO standards) and if you look on page 14 you'll find the same difference valid for Norway.
The country for which the differences apply are noted in the top right corner of the page.
These differences are based on local studies and approved by the local authorities as "standard practeces" in their airspace.
one is the original ICAO doc. and the other one is an amendment related to the UK (different practices from ICAO standards) and if you look on page 14 you'll find the same difference valid for Norway.
The country for which the differences apply are noted in the top right corner of the page.
These differences are based on local studies and approved by the local authorities as "standard practeces" in their airspace.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: terra
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
much ado about nothing
Maybepilot... the latest edition I have of DOC 9432 is 2007, while the last edition I have of CAP 413 (which is where the use of "level one hundred" is mandated instead of the ICAO standard "one zero zero") is from 2006!
Anyway there are several differences between ICAO RT procedures and CAP 413 procedures, this is only one of them. It is quite normal for a UK operator to refer to CAP 413, US operators to FAR-AIM, while most other operators (whose countries have not filed RT differences with ICAO) would refer directly to the umbrella of ICAO DOCs and annexes.
Germany however has not filed a difference with ICAO (as the UK has done for all the differences in CAP 413) for using a callsign at the beginning of a clearance read-back rather than the end, so technically speaking LH pilots should not do so...
HOWEVER as you say quite frankly LH RT is generally very good and their English is sometimes easier to understand than that of the Brits or Yanks!!
Much fuss over nothing... relax everyone and have a good Christmas/new year, whether with the family or in the flight levels!
N
Anyway there are several differences between ICAO RT procedures and CAP 413 procedures, this is only one of them. It is quite normal for a UK operator to refer to CAP 413, US operators to FAR-AIM, while most other operators (whose countries have not filed RT differences with ICAO) would refer directly to the umbrella of ICAO DOCs and annexes.
Germany however has not filed a difference with ICAO (as the UK has done for all the differences in CAP 413) for using a callsign at the beginning of a clearance read-back rather than the end, so technically speaking LH pilots should not do so...
HOWEVER as you say quite frankly LH RT is generally very good and their English is sometimes easier to understand than that of the Brits or Yanks!!
Much fuss over nothing... relax everyone and have a good Christmas/new year, whether with the family or in the flight levels!
N
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
navigante,
the same goes for those UK operators who, while operating in non-UK airspace, use phraseology which is standard in UK airspace only (or Norwegian as previously seen) like "flight level two hundred" or "turn right 270 degrees" etc.
Basically one should use different R/T's as he flies along in different countries...
I think the point here is that LH crews have never had a single R/T problem with their very high standards therefore i don't actually see any point.
On the other hand there are plenty of apparently fully ICAO compliant operators whos pilots couldn't even order a coffee at the bar in decent english....
the same goes for those UK operators who, while operating in non-UK airspace, use phraseology which is standard in UK airspace only (or Norwegian as previously seen) like "flight level two hundred" or "turn right 270 degrees" etc.
Basically one should use different R/T's as he flies along in different countries...
I think the point here is that LH crews have never had a single R/T problem with their very high standards therefore i don't actually see any point.
On the other hand there are plenty of apparently fully ICAO compliant operators whos pilots couldn't even order a coffee at the bar in decent english....
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: terra
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that while it acceptable to use "one hundred" when operating in UK airspace, or eventually for a UK operator abroad, this is because it is a filed UK difference with ICAO standards... there is no such difference filed for using one's callsign at the beginning of a read-back, in Germany or anywhere else I'm aware of.
Like you say though, this exception apart, not very many operators are as consistently clear and professional with their RT as Lufthansa, so this thread is unnecessary... at least LH don't say "XXXX coming down" when reading back a squawk code!
Like you say though, this exception apart, not very many operators are as consistently clear and professional with their RT as Lufthansa, so this thread is unnecessary... at least LH don't say "XXXX coming down" when reading back a squawk code!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so navigante, otherwise US operators flying say into LHR could happily use their standard "cleared into position and hold" without any consequencies because it's an officially accepted non ICAO US practice.
The reason why some countries use "hundred" instead of "one zero zero" has been explained as has the LH callsign issue.
They both make very good sense and are safety based.
The reason why some countries use "hundred" instead of "one zero zero" has been explained as has the LH callsign issue.
They both make very good sense and are safety based.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: terra
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously I haven't managed to explain myself clearly; what I'm trying to say is that unlike all other examples you have been giving (ie "one hundred" etc) which are all very well, putting one's callsign at the beginning of a read-back is NOT accepted practice anywhere, it's neither ICAO nor under any contracting state's filed differences.
However, we are belaboring a rather minor point wouldn't you say?
However, we are belaboring a rather minor point wouldn't you say?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: earth
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i already wrote earlier:
happy holidays and wish everybody to be as professional as LH crews in 2009!!!
On the other hand there are plenty of apparently fully ICAO compliant operators whos pilots couldn't even order a coffee at the bar in decent english....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navigante
Try http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF for a 2008 edition of CAP413.
PP
the latest edition I have of DOC 9432 is 2007, while the last edition I have of CAP 413 (which is where the use of "level one hundred" is mandated instead of the ICAO standard "one zero zero") is from 2006!
PP