Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Correct Phraseology

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Correct Phraseology

Old 19th Feb 2019, 13:07
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Earth
Posts: 15
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
CaptainGrizzly is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 13:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,460
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
EGPFlyer is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 14:37
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 821
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.
FlyingStone is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 15:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by CaptainGrizzly View Post
Hi

Any sources backing the answers would be appreciated

Thanks
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.

sonicbum is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 15:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 1,977
"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).
misd-agin is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2019, 10:07
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 52
Posts: 69
Sometimes you may have several ATC units on HF. So it makes sense to designate who are you calling to
Anvaldra is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2019, 13:31
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,836
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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2019, 13:54
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
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!!
Good morning may not be standard, but it's good manners. Anyone who'd seriously take issue with that should learn to relax a bit.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 05:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Check Airman View Post
Good morning may not be standard, but it's good manners. Anyone who'd seriously take issue with that should learn to relax a bit.
Except in Australia, where ultimately it could earn you a criminal record as a strict liability criminal offense.

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
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 08:07
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 627
Except in Australia, where ultimately it could earn you a criminal record as a strict liability criminal offense.
Leadsled, can you cite an instance where anyone in Oz has been convicted for using a pleasantry on any frequency they were allowed to communicate on?

I agree with you btw that CAA CAP413 is a good publication. Having said that, it doesn't help much in North America.
oggers is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 08:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 634
LeadSled, you do have a tendency to beat things up a bit sometimes, don't you?
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 09:01
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Except in Australia, where ultimately it could earn you a criminal record as a strict liability criminal offense.

A criminal record, or even a charge, can be fatal to an aviation career.
The risks of having an aviation career destroyed by the words "control, good morning, ABC123". Good times ahead.
sonicbum is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 13:45
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,349
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!
Check Airman is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 18:39
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by LeadSled
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.+.
Whilst LeadSled may highlight the downside in some Australian proposals, the sad news is that in Europe there is already such a regulation. SERA, the Standardised European Rules of the Air, includes amongst other things procedures for voice communications.Whilst this is almost completely a reproduction of ICAO material from Annex 10 and PANS-ATM, by including it within a European regulation it is binding on all members states, users of European airspace and aircraft registered in a member state wherever they may be. Doing something differently to the manner specified in the regulation must, by definition be a breach of the legislation (and, if i recall correctly, each state must define financial penalties for breaches of these regulations). So, like LeadSled's example, getting the words around the wrong way is a breach of legislation.

Discussing this with someone involved in the consultation on these rules, I was told 'Ah, yes, but no-one is going to enforce the legislation for something minor'.....which, to me anyway, rather confuses the whole business. If breaching the rules on phraseology in a minor way is OK, then, presumably, breaching the five mile separation between aircraft a bit is OK too (it is, after all, part of the same legislation).

Now I'm not averse to having rules....in fact I'm quite a believer in the concept. But having rules applied by suitably competent professionals in a professional environment, and deviated from when there is a justifiable reason (which is then investigated in a proper manner) is a rather different situation than immediately rendering someone a law-breaker, with all the associated potential ramifications, should they deviate from the legislative methods.

You might choose to dismiss my comments as a bit extreme, and I have to admit, it's rare that I find myself supporting LeadSled, but take a moment to think what might happen if, with the best of intentions and objectives a controller or pilot uses non-standard phraseology during an event which ultimately turns out to be catastrophic. One hopes that the accident investigators would recognise that the individuals were acting in a professional manner to handle a non-standard situation. But what about the lawyers who will be sniffing about looking for an opportunity to assign blame or establish negligence with a view to claiming some form of reparation. Being shown to have knowingly and deliberately breached legislation, whether you think it contributed to the final outcome or not, is not a good starting point for arguing that you have no culpability.

PS - If you don't believe me about the European regulations, take a look at regulations 923/2012 and 2016/1185, and for the phraseology stuff specifically, section 14 of the annex.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 19:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,057
Sounds like those instructors who's going on and on about whether you should use Pan-Pan iso. Mayday might have a point going forward
172_driver is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 21:50
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 28
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.
AirUK is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 23:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,349
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.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2019, 02:02
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
Leadsled, can you cite an instance where anyone in Oz has been convicted for using a pleasantry on any frequency they were allowed to communicate on?

I agree with you btw that CAA CAP413 is a good publication. Having said that, it doesn't help much in North America.
oggers,
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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2019, 03:02
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
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!!
I have said:
- 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.
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2019, 09:52
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,507
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.
compressor stall is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.