Correct Phraseology
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Earth
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct Phraseology
Hi
Suppose I have established initial contact with Control/Center enroute using the standard XXX CONTROL, AC CALLSIGN, etc... Is it allowed to skip the callsign of the ground station for further communications? E.g..AC Callsign, request descent etc
I have been asked by a fellow crewmember that you mustn't repeat it, that's gotten me a bit confused.
Also, I was told to report a position at waypoint by just saying 'Position' instead of what I think is more correct, 'Waypoint name, Flight level'
Any sources backing the answers would be appreciated
Thanks
Suppose I have established initial contact with Control/Center enroute using the standard XXX CONTROL, AC CALLSIGN, etc... Is it allowed to skip the callsign of the ground station for further communications? E.g..AC Callsign, request descent etc
I have been asked by a fellow crewmember that you mustn't repeat it, that's gotten me a bit confused.
Also, I was told to report a position at waypoint by just saying 'Position' instead of what I think is more correct, 'Waypoint name, Flight level'
Any sources backing the answers would be appreciated
Thanks
Once you initiate contact you don’t need to use the ground stations name unless there’s a possibility of confusion in the message
As for position reporting, standard ICAO (doc 4444) says you need your callsign, position, time, level or altitiude, next waypoint and expected time and the next waypoint after that. Some places only require the callsign, position and time but that will be detailed in the relevant AIP
As for position reporting, standard ICAO (doc 4444) says you need your callsign, position, time, level or altitiude, next waypoint and expected time and the next waypoint after that. Some places only require the callsign, position and time but that will be detailed in the relevant AIP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do not need to say the ground station name on any other call than the initial contact.
As far as "position" goes, it is normally used in non-radar enroute environment with poor or non-existing ATC-to-ATC communication, where you need to pass a lot of information. It goes something like this:
ABC123: "Control, good morning, ABC123, position"
Control: "ABC123, good morning, go ahead"
ABC123: "ABC123, overhead ABC, FL370, estimating DEF at 1205Z, GHI next, estimating destination ZZZZ at 1310Z, registration G-ABCD, endurance 4 hours"
The amount of information you are required to pass depends on the FIR, the above is just a random example.
As far as "position" goes, it is normally used in non-radar enroute environment with poor or non-existing ATC-to-ATC communication, where you need to pass a lot of information. It goes something like this:
ABC123: "Control, good morning, ABC123, position"
Control: "ABC123, good morning, go ahead"
ABC123: "ABC123, overhead ABC, FL370, estimating DEF at 1205Z, GHI next, estimating destination ZZZZ at 1310Z, registration G-ABCD, endurance 4 hours"
The amount of information you are required to pass depends on the FIR, the above is just a random example.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annex 10 Vol 2 , check 5.2.1.7.1.2 : The unit or service shall be identified in accordance with the table below except that the name of the location or the unit/service may be omitted provided satisfactory communication has been established.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Position", as FlyingStone mentioned, is common if you havn't been in contact with the controlling, or recording, facility.
Eg, in some countries you contact them 5-10 minutes prior to FIR boundary. Is the next FIR radar or non-radar? Both non radar and radar request you to report the entry fix. Radar boundary? "Control, AB 123, MATRX, FL 370." Entering a non radar FIR? "Control, AB 123, position." This gives the controller a heads up to be ready for the full position report.
Overwater on HF? "Control, AB 123 position on 89" (eg HF freq 8925).
Eg, in some countries you contact them 5-10 minutes prior to FIR boundary. Is the next FIR radar or non-radar? Both non radar and radar request you to report the entry fix. Radar boundary? "Control, AB 123, MATRX, FL 370." Entering a non radar FIR? "Control, AB 123, position." This gives the controller a heads up to be ready for the full position report.
Overwater on HF? "Control, AB 123 position on 89" (eg HF freq 8925).
FlyingStone
Very naughty, "good morning" is not standard, in AU if you come across a controller who is a bit SOL, or a member of the Airstapo eavesdropping, that can earn you an incident report. And no, I am not joking!!
The UK Radio Telephony Manual (can't remember the CAP --- 413??) is a very useful publication and much easier to read than Annex X/Vol2 or PANS/RAC 4444.
The most important thing is to do what is most efficient--- given all the circumstances, there is no one and only "right way".
Tootle pip!!
Very naughty, "good morning" is not standard, in AU if you come across a controller who is a bit SOL, or a member of the Airstapo eavesdropping, that can earn you an incident report. And no, I am not joking!!
The UK Radio Telephony Manual (can't remember the CAP --- 413??) is a very useful publication and much easier to read than Annex X/Vol2 or PANS/RAC 4444.
The most important thing is to do what is most efficient--- given all the circumstances, there is no one and only "right way".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingStone
Very naughty, "good morning" is not standard, in AU if you come across a controller who is a bit SOL, or a member of the Airstapo eavesdropping, that can earn you an incident report. And no, I am not joking!!
The UK Radio Telephony Manual (can't remember the CAP --- 413??) is a very useful publication and much easier to read than Annex X/Vol2 or PANS/RAC 4444.
The most important thing is to do what is most efficient--- given all the circumstances, there is no one and only "right way".
Tootle pip!!
Very naughty, "good morning" is not standard, in AU if you come across a controller who is a bit SOL, or a member of the Airstapo eavesdropping, that can earn you an incident report. And no, I am not joking!!
The UK Radio Telephony Manual (can't remember the CAP --- 413??) is a very useful publication and much easier to read than Annex X/Vol2 or PANS/RAC 4444.
The most important thing is to do what is most efficient--- given all the circumstances, there is no one and only "right way".
Tootle pip!!
A criminal record, or even a charge, can be fatal to an aviation career.
This is not theory, a little while back there was attempt by CASA to include the whole of the standard phraseology as a "regulation", a breach (even getting the order of words wrong in a (say) starup clearance call, would be a strict liability (virtually no defence) offence of 50 penalty points, currently about AUD$11,000.00.+.
The stated purpose of the proposed change was to make "enforcement of radio communications procedures easier to prosecute, or issue administrative fines", or words to that effect. It can be done now, the "system" just wanted to make enforcement action more straightforward, as ICAO SARPs are, as you know, "only" recommended.
Those of us on the CASA Standards Consultative Committee at the time were not in the least bit surprised.
The SCC has since been dissolved, the easy way to get rid of voices (large slabs of the industry) that often dissented from CASA proposals.
Tootle pip
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except in Australia, where ultimately it could earn you a criminal record as a strict liability criminal offense.
I agree with you btw that CAA CAP413 is a good publication. Having said that, it doesn't help much in North America.
LeadSled, you do have a tendency to beat things up a bit sometimes, don't you?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that here in the US, our R/T is particularly bad, so I don't have a strong foot on which to stand. That being said, as an instructor, I taught my students to say good morning, and I currently use the greeting when I fly. Moreover, should I teach in the future, I would have the student say good morning.
It's common courtesy. I'd love to see someone try to prosecute me for saying good morning!
It's common courtesy. I'd love to see someone try to prosecute me for saying good morning!
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You’ll find when flying all over Europe and N. Africa that 99% of pilots greet ATC either in the local language or in English and ATC will reciprocate - whilst not in CAP 413 or national equivalent it is common courtesy and has been that way for donkey’s years.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditto on this side of the pond. All our communication is in English, but I try to greet the controller on his or her native tongue. Nothing more than a friendly gesture, and I've never had any negative reactions to doing so.
In short, no, but that doesn't change the situation one bit ----- the idea that "Well, that's the law, but they will never use it" --- is not OK, because it will be used.
I have played a part, so far successfully, in keeping recommended phraseologies from being ad hoc declared "mandatory", which would ease the current path to such enforcement actions. But-- I am very wary of parts of Part 91 and what might be in a final MOS.
Nevertheless, it appalls me to see flying schools requiring students to "read from a script" --- head down in the cockpit ---- just in case they get a sequence out of order ---- these are the same schools who work on the "pingya" system of instruction, whereby a pilot makes ALL the possible calls in the circuit, not just the ones matched to the situation --- so that : "They can't pingya".
I, personally, have received a letter of reprimand, threatening future more punitive action in the event of further "offences". for saying "Good night, thanks" to the tower at the end of a session of circuits at night.
Tootle pip!!
- G'day...
- Good morning...
- Good evening...
- Good night, thanks for staying up...
- Have a good Christmas...
- Have a good evening...
- Thanks for yer help...
- Nice an' quiet for you guys today?
- And a thousand other versions of such "pleasantries" at most of the towered aerodromes and to probably most of the YMMM and YBBB Centre controllers.
Sometimes, it's not appropriate, so I don't initiate or reply to them - on the occasions on which I do:
45% of the time, I get a similar "pleasantry" in return
45% of the time, I'M RESPONDING TO A "PLEASANTRY" FROM ATC!
10% of the time, I get no response - hey, people are sometimes busy.
100% of these "pleasantries" have taken place WITHOUT negative feedback or "letters of reprimand" suggesting I do anything different.
So, I completely agree that "keeping recommended phraseologies from being ad hoc declared "mandatory"" is a good thing, and I both support and applaud your endeavours.
But, show us your letter!!??!!
Last edited by josephfeatherweight; 22nd Feb 2019 at 09:33.
Joseph, you and me both. Except add “Ooroo” to the list.
Then there were the jokes some years back from Tower or Ground about our callsign when we started wandering further afield in Oz from in particular Brisbane and Cairns.
Then there were the jokes some years back from Tower or Ground about our callsign when we started wandering further afield in Oz from in particular Brisbane and Cairns.
As mentioned by others, no one has been fined in Australia for saying courteous greetings to ATC and on many occasions it is the controller who instigates the greeting.
I think that if you investigate LeadSled's history of posts you will see that this is more a rant against the bureaucracy of country's aviation regulator (which is not necessarily unfounded), and not an accurate representation of air traffic controllers of Australia.
I think that if you investigate LeadSled's history of posts you will see that this is more a rant against the bureaucracy of country's aviation regulator (which is not necessarily unfounded), and not an accurate representation of air traffic controllers of Australia.