Squawk [code] "coming down!"
Joined: Nov 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 30
From: Texas
"CLIMB AND MAINTAIN" used to be in the FAA AIM, when it was an AIRMAN's information manual.
MAINTAIN.
a. Concerning altitude/flight level, the term means to remain at the altitude/flight level specified. The phrase “climb and” or “descend and” normally precedes “maintain” and the altitude assignment; e.g., “descend and maintain 5,000.”
Just reinforces that you're not on a "Cruise" clearance.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,960
Likes: 17
From: Australia
Folks,
Markerinbound make a very good point, he has touched on an area where US files a difference with ICAO Annex X, Vol. 2.
This, to an aircraft at FL350, the ATC instruction to " XYZ maintain 5000" is an unrestricted clearance, at pilots discretion as to TOD, to descend to 5000".
There are three phraseology differences, be aware.
Tootle pip!!
Markerinbound make a very good point, he has touched on an area where US files a difference with ICAO Annex X, Vol. 2.
This, to an aircraft at FL350, the ATC instruction to " XYZ maintain 5000" is an unrestricted clearance, at pilots discretion as to TOD, to descend to 5000".
There are three phraseology differences, be aware.
Tootle pip!!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 51
From: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
In the early days of civil secondary-radar, when ATC had requested a flight to "squawk 2345," a common response once it had been selected was "...2345 coming down." The reliability and routine use of transponders later meant that, having acknowledged the new squawk, it was unnecessary for a crew to assure ATC that it was actually selected because they would soon tell you if it wasn't.
Hesitate to intrude into the conversation on R/T protocols because it's a long time since I retired but, in the 1980s and '90s, there were various efforts to try and eliminate the kind of R/T misunderstandings that - particularly when the reception of an ATC instruction was partially interrupted by transmission difficulties or being "stepped-on" - could lead to accidents like the one at Tenerife North in 1977. Thus "...line up and hold after the landing aircraft" was replaced by "...behind the landing Concorde line-up and wait," and the Dutch and Belgians would even add the word "behind" a second time at the end of the sentence.
They also addressed the ambiguity between the spoken words "to" and "two" in English. Thus "descend to seven zero", the sort of phrase commonly used by pilots in acknowledgment, was no longer acceptable, being replaced by "descend flight-level seven zero." For consistency, an instruction to climb or descend to an altitude would be delivered and acknowledged as, for example, "descend altitude five-thousand..."
Of course the U.S., as always, practises variations from ICAO protocols.
Hesitate to intrude into the conversation on R/T protocols because it's a long time since I retired but, in the 1980s and '90s, there were various efforts to try and eliminate the kind of R/T misunderstandings that - particularly when the reception of an ATC instruction was partially interrupted by transmission difficulties or being "stepped-on" - could lead to accidents like the one at Tenerife North in 1977. Thus "...line up and hold after the landing aircraft" was replaced by "...behind the landing Concorde line-up and wait," and the Dutch and Belgians would even add the word "behind" a second time at the end of the sentence.
They also addressed the ambiguity between the spoken words "to" and "two" in English. Thus "descend to seven zero", the sort of phrase commonly used by pilots in acknowledgment, was no longer acceptable, being replaced by "descend flight-level seven zero." For consistency, an instruction to climb or descend to an altitude would be delivered and acknowledged as, for example, "descend altitude five-thousand..."
Of course the U.S., as always, practises variations from ICAO protocols.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 4
From: last time I looked I was still here.
Of course the U.S., as always, practises variations from ICAO protocols.
Solution: move ICAO to USA, but that would bring tears to the Canadians, and they love to stick it in the eye of their neighbours. OTOH the yanks can speak as they want west of 10W, but once they enter our back yard they should obey the 'do as the romans' rule.
Solution: move ICAO to USA, but that would bring tears to the Canadians, and they love to stick it in the eye of their neighbours. OTOH the yanks can speak as they want west of 10W, but once they enter our back yard they should obey the 'do as the romans' rule.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6
Likes: 1
From: Sweden
Oohh gosh - so many disturbing calls.
"Have him on TCAS"
"Fully ready" Often made by those annoying brits..
"Reduce/increase" something without a value - I'm only an humble pilot, can't read your thoughts.
Generally speaking brits on a loco call sign seems to piss me off. They sounds so proud of their immense bank debt.
And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!
Allways smile when I check in and hear "Continue approach" Ohh noo, not the random, unexpected go around that I planned to execute for no apparent reason.
"Have him on TCAS"
"Fully ready" Often made by those annoying brits..
"Reduce/increase" something without a value - I'm only an humble pilot, can't read your thoughts.
Generally speaking brits on a loco call sign seems to piss me off. They sounds so proud of their immense bank debt.
And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!
Allways smile when I check in and hear "Continue approach" Ohh noo, not the random, unexpected go around that I planned to execute for no apparent reason.
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 9,226
Likes: 995
From: Seat 1A
Originally Posted by Le Chev
And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Funny, in the US, eons ago, i was taught to insert the code without reply. ATC can see the code change and, if incorrect, make a radio call. Theres no need to say anything, just put the code on.
I dont think "cruise clearances" are used, or have an equvalent, outside the FAA.
GF
I dont think "cruise clearances" are used, or have an equvalent, outside the FAA.
GF
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 4
From: last time I looked I was still here.
"Reduce/increase" something without a value - I'm only an humble pilot, can't read your thoughts.
Spoken as if a reaction to an ATC msg.
Regarding non-working telepathy; in the sim the common call by a pilot, "we have a problem and need long finals." That begs 2 questions and transfers the decision to a non-qualified ground waller. Agh!.
Spoken as if a reaction to an ATC msg.
Regarding non-working telepathy; in the sim the common call by a pilot, "we have a problem and need long finals." That begs 2 questions and transfers the decision to a non-qualified ground waller. Agh!.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 51
From: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Quote from galaxy flyer:
"Funny, in the US, eons ago, i was taught to insert the code without reply. ATC can see the code change and, if incorrect, make a radio call. Theres no need to say anything, just put the code on."
Sure that will work fine if their screen was reasonably uncluttered, but otherwise they might not notice that the wrong a/c had picked up the call and changed codes. Also - and I'm way out of date on this - if a number of a/c are coming in from oceanic simultaneously and all squawking (say) 2000, the same error is likely to happen sooner or later. Think it's fair to say that ICAO R/T works on the principle that ATC instructions must be acknowledged, and the latter must include the a/c callsign. If everyone is in practice and on the ball the air time taken is minimal.
"Funny, in the US, eons ago, i was taught to insert the code without reply. ATC can see the code change and, if incorrect, make a radio call. Theres no need to say anything, just put the code on."
Sure that will work fine if their screen was reasonably uncluttered, but otherwise they might not notice that the wrong a/c had picked up the call and changed codes. Also - and I'm way out of date on this - if a number of a/c are coming in from oceanic simultaneously and all squawking (say) 2000, the same error is likely to happen sooner or later. Think it's fair to say that ICAO R/T works on the principle that ATC instructions must be acknowledged, and the latter must include the a/c callsign. If everyone is in practice and on the ball the air time taken is minimal.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,115
Likes: 1,091
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
This is becoming a bit like motorway driving. Everyone has found their own interpretation of what the rules are.
If in doubt, read the rule book!
If in doubt, read the rule book!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: 50'11N 004' 16W
BUSTER & FLASH are military brevity codewords.
"Buster 180" would mean fly safety / escape heading 180 at best possible speed.
"Flash Flash Flash" would precede a message indicating that it's a priority message.
Used in the Royal navy / NATO.
"Buster 180" would mean fly safety / escape heading 180 at best possible speed.
"Flash Flash Flash" would precede a message indicating that it's a priority message.
Used in the Royal navy / NATO.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 729
Likes: 1
From: Zulu Time Zone
So what happens if the wrong a/c squawks ident, and the crew of the right a/c nearby has missed the ATC request to do it?
"Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification." FAA AIM.
I was taught - when in the US - to simply go ahead and set the code and ident rather than wasting a call reading back something that ATC are about to verify on their screen anyway. Nonetheless it seems that many - perhaps even most - pilots in the US do readback.
Last edited by oggers; 28th July 2016 at 18:05.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 51
From: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Quote from oggers:
..then ATC will see that the wrong a/c is identing because it will be the wrong code? Whilst it is mandatory in blighty in the US it is not mandatory to read back the code in airborne comms:
"Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification." FAA AIM.
That seems fine if a code has been established earlier. During initial assignment, however, perhaps when coasting in from Oceanic and on the edge of VHF reception (see my previous post), the ATC instruction to squawk a given code could be picked up by the wrong crew. The absence of a callsign in their acknowledgment would hide the error. Unless I'm missing something, squawking ident would not reveal the problem.
..then ATC will see that the wrong a/c is identing because it will be the wrong code? Whilst it is mandatory in blighty in the US it is not mandatory to read back the code in airborne comms:
"Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification." FAA AIM.
That seems fine if a code has been established earlier. During initial assignment, however, perhaps when coasting in from Oceanic and on the edge of VHF reception (see my previous post), the ATC instruction to squawk a given code could be picked up by the wrong crew. The absence of a callsign in their acknowledgment would hide the error. Unless I'm missing something, squawking ident would not reveal the problem.