Lufthansa pilots way of speaking on the radio
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 48
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boroda
xxxgunnerxxx:
According to russian RTF procedures we have the same order: callsign, phrase. But it is for communicating in russian, in english - reverse order. That is the reason for callsign before and after heard by you ussually.
According to russian RTF procedures we have the same order: callsign, phrase. But it is for communicating in russian, in english - reverse order. That is the reason for callsign before and after heard by you ussually.
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...
The following editorial practice has been followed in the
writing of specifications: for Standards the operative verb
“shall” is used, and for Recommended Practices the operative
verb “should” is used.
In addition to the use of the word "should", the text you and K Soze have quoted is printed in italics, indicating that it is a recommendation, not a standard. States are not required to file differences for recommendations.
...
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
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
Station (denoting accuracy of readback):
MADRID
If ATC is to complain that Lufthansa fails to follow the recommendation, can pilots similarly complain when ATC fails, as it invariably does, to follow that aspect of the same recommendation?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: terra
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah.
Point taken Bookworm. Actually, even if it had said "shall" and had thus been a standard, my understanding is that ICAO has no real regulatory authority per se, it is the individual contracting states' aviation authorities which decide whether to adhere partially or completely to their recommendations and standards... is this correct?
Anyway my point is, it's a rather minor RT faux-pas being discussed here, and generally the quality of LH RT is very good (IMO)... like you say, there is plenty of bad RT to be picking on, even from some ATCOs!
Speaking of which, sorry for the slight thread drift, do you know where the maximum recommended number of instructions per ATC transmission is stated? I seem to remember it's three?
N
Anyway my point is, it's a rather minor RT faux-pas being discussed here, and generally the quality of LH RT is very good (IMO)... like you say, there is plenty of bad RT to be picking on, even from some ATCOs!
Speaking of which, sorry for the slight thread drift, do you know where the maximum recommended number of instructions per ATC transmission is stated? I seem to remember it's three?
N
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
