Flash and snap have military origins.

oicur12.again,
Don't blame the Yanks for this one, it is one piece of nonsense where the original perpetrators are clear --- I know, I was there (flying in UK) at the time --- where an ATC transponder was a newfangled "thingie" for day to day use.
British European Airways -- BEA, see my original post.
Tootle pip!!

Once upon a time, on an airfield where XPDR code is assigned only during taxi, think it was Sheremetyevo: "AFL123, squawk 3425 coming up!" ;) Makes sense, doesn't it?

Wait for it. Wait for it....

"We're FULLY ready!"

;)

I meant to ask about that. What's with the Brits and being "fully ready" or "fully established". You're either ready, or you're not.

Cabin Pressure JNB Episode
 

ARTHUR (into cabin address): Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see, our onboard transit process today has now reached its ultimate termination.
CAROLYN: He means we’ve landed.
ARTHUR: Yes. So, as yourselves prepare for disemboarding, if I could kindly ask you to kindly ensure you retain all your personal items about your person throughout the duration of the disembarkation.
CAROLYN: He means take your stuff with you.
ARTHUR: In concluding, it’s been a privilege for ourselves to conduct yourselves through the in-flight experience today, and I do hope you’ll re-favour ourselves with the esteem of your forth-looking custom going forward.
CAROLYN: … No idea.

Oh! And Australians: QNH. Cue...Enn...Hhhhhaitch!!!!!!

arFolks,
That shows the "benefit" of a Christian Brothers or a Marist Brothers education on the other end of the mic.
Tootle pip!!

I always thought there was something odd about you, Sleed...

ATC: XYZ are you ready for takeoff?
XYZ: We're nearly ready. (are you nearly pregnant?) it's a yes/no situation, duh!

CA: the captain tells me our flight time is approximately 1hr & 39 mins.

That sounds very precise to me: so why not "about 1.40"?

Grr.. Request FLxxx if available. He's not going to give it if it aint.

These are often the ones who get cleared for takeoff and then, having lined up, spend another three minutes blocking the runway while they get fully, fully ready.

Yes ! A real pain. In some parts of the Caribbean, after every ATC instruction: We read it back and then action it and say to each other in the cockpit "Mach descent 310 blue" "check 310 blue" or whatever it is. But as we are saying that; ATC then says something else 'stepping' on us and interrupting what we are doing. "What did she say?" "xxx say again" "xxx I said correct". Oh. Well whoopy do. Right, where were we? , what were we doing?

Mind you, Gibralter do this as well - they don't say 'correct', but they do issue another instruction straight after we have read back the previous one, 'stepping' on us.

(ATC, please give us a moment to do what you previously asked before talking to us again. We don't have an extra radio operator in the cockpit !)

Unfortunately, from bitter experience controllers have found that it is not uncommon for the aircraft to climb to the level that they really wanted rather than the intermediate clearance.
If you request a climb using CPDLC in oceanic, you will normally receive a compound message with:
1. MAINTAIN LEVEL
2. AT [fix or time] CLIMB 310
3. REPORT REACHING 310

The initial MAINTAIN LEVEL is because on numerous occasions the aircraft climbs immediately rather than waiting till the position or time. Controllers are also wary of providing a clearance to climb at a time that is more than 10 minutes away as the aircraft 'forgets' to climb. Nowadays with more aircraft carrying ADS-C the automatic reports at least warn the controllers what is happening.

Must be bloody annoying I grant you.

Trouble is, if ATC keep covering for pilots' mistakes, then eventually the airwaves become saturated.

Not so much of an issue with CPDLC of course, but we already have things like "turn heading xxx to intercept the localiser. When established on the localiser, descend on the glide.", all of which we are expected to read back, instead of simply "intercept the ILS". It is up to pilots to know that they must not descend on the glide before being established on the localiser. "Climb and maintain" is another example.

ATC is all taped is it not, so any transgressence by an airplane could be proven, and a prosecution or wrist slapping issued rather than clogging up the already busy airwaves with arse covering statements?

.

You say that till you have a chat with someone who has had a 'not their fault' accident on their frequency. The controllers in those instances spend a lot of time soul searching that perhaps had they said something differently...... like adding 'and maintain'. The problem with these cautionary words is they can tend to become 'noise words' and not be listened to. Although they act as an CYA phrase when the impounded tapes are transcribed, the controller will still be thinking perhaps if they had said something differently or with more emphasis.

Much of this will disappear in a decade or so, hearing someone talk on the RT may become a relative rarity and only be in an urgent exception. RT could well be going the way of flare pistols and Aldis lamps. No - don't hold your breath - but the changes are already being made in that direction. Data link and graphical displays will be taking over.

"CLIMB AND MAINTAIN" used to be in the FAA AIM, when it was an AIRMAN's information manual.

GF

Bloggs,
Your thoughts on anything I say is hardly a surprise to anybody else on pprune, but my statement as to the mentioned pronunciation is nevertheless correct, and mentioned in more than one academic work on "English as she is spoke" in Australia, and, for one, the humorous recollections of Clive James.
Tootle pip!!

I don't know if this is just an Australian thing, but "Climb and Maintain 7000" means climb to 7000 and expect a delay at that level, whereas "Climb to 7000" means expect no delay for further climb.

Similarly, the difference between "Line up" and "Line up and Wait" - the latter implying a delay in the lined up position prior to takeoff clearance.

The continentals annoy me at times with their "Speedbird 345 maintain FL180 on reaching, traffic 1000 above". If they're suggesting you reduce your rate of climb, which is fair enough and good airmanship nonetheless, then only the "traffic 1000 above your cleared level" is required. We've already confirmed the climb clearance so I'd like to ask the controllers about all these pilots that seem to have worried them by alt busting deliberately.

(Ian W have you tried to use CPDLC recently? There's no way it's replacing Radio Transmissions within the next ten years, twenty would also be a stretch.)

I refuse to use the term "fully" ready. So I'll be "totally ready", "absolutely ready", "completely ready" or any other pointless description. I might even just say I'm "ready". The "fully" prefix is not required to describe a binary status.

PM

Definitely!

It has always seemed to me that you needn't read back the new transponder code at all; ATC will see it in about three seconds...on the other hand, some acknowledgement is useful to pre-empt a second transmission of the same instruction.

I am in complete agreement regarding putting anything "on request"; drives me nuts as well, along with another favorite, "any chance of direct XYZ?"

Most of the wasted transmission time in the States could be eliminated in two ways: first, spend millions to install repeaters on ATC communications systems, so that everyone talking to that controller, regardless of frequency, can hear everyone else. Second, a two-step process for controllers to use with every transmission: first, don't move your lips before you push the button...second, after you push the button, move your lips. (This always gets an understanding chuckle from the controllers I remind personally when they are on my jumpseat.)

And none of you hit on my all-time favorite phrase that must be universally targeted for elimination: the incessant and ridiculous use, in PA announcements in the cabin and especially in the terminal, of the phrase "once again". Count them next time you fly. It seems this phrase must be part of every sentence used on a PA system. Now that drives me absolutely bonkers, particularly when combined with another favorite phrase..."once again, this will be the last and final boarding call"....:ugh:

At start of my PA "Welcome aboard". At end of PA, "Once again, welcome aboard". You mean I have to change my after 30 years? :{

That should not cost millions. All that is needed is for the receive audio from each receiver in a group to be fed to every transmitter in a group, along with a PTT signal derived from the presence of audio from any receiver. We used to rig a similar facility in television outside broadcasting, especially on Golfs, so that everyone listening to the director could also hear everyone else calling in.

Good advice for all of us, and to be fair, I find it is usually us pilots who are much worse than the controllers. An RT set will not transmit instantly; it will take a fraction of a second to check its frequency is correct and stable before transmitting, so if you start to talk at the same instant that you press the PTT, your first word will be clipped, leading to "station calling?" and having to repeat it all again or simply being ignored.



.

My actual statement was:
I would agree that CPDLC will not be taking over totally from voice although FANS 2/B over VHF data link will be in more common use for normal en-route aircraft in Europe and the United States in around 10 years. However not long after that expect to see aircraft systems linking to ground systems and graphical displays rather than CPDLC stylized language displays. The first uses of ADS-C EPP are already being trialed,
If you are interested further see http://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf1...P56.5.2.EN.pdf
As I said don't hold your breath but the way aircraft will be managed is changing and less and less will be done over RT.

I'll add two more thoughts, although they are not relevant to the original question. First, I am amazed at how many pilots I fly with who switch ATC frequencies and immediately transmit. It helps...immensely...to wait a few seconds and see who you may be stepping on. Second, when reading back a frequency, I always insert a brief pause where the decimal is... "128....25" or such. That seems to help catch errors by allowing the guy or gal on the other end to process what I just said.

Uplinker, you are confusing large amounts of money with complicated work. I'm sure it would be pretty simple, but I do contract work for the FAA, and I know that the actual process would require enormous expenditures of manpower because they can't do it any other way...as one friend used to quip during ARAC meetings, working with the FAA is akin to Paul Revere riding through Boston shouting, "a glacier is coming, a glacier is coming"... ;)

PLEASE.
121.5 is "one two one decimal five" not GUARD
When briefing its the FMC not "box"
A go around is in fact a MISSED APPROACH procedure not the "MISSED"
In general, and I understand im a little old school having been an Aviator since 1974, but would many of you younger guys PLEASE use standard R/T, USA or other places ALL THE BLOODY SAME, and its getting worse.Oh and if you fly around Asia please remember IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO REPORT REACHING OR LEAVING A LEVEL unless specifically asked to do so! Pete.

That's a big 10-4 Pete. Now, I've gotten the field in my shield and i'm 'comin on in buddy with the dunlops dangled.

Over and out.

No, I was talking about the actual technicallities of engineering what we used to call "talk through", which is actually fairly simple to achieve and would consist of a box of electronics costing a few hundreds. (I could make one for you if you want). You did not mention the FAA until just now.

I agree with your first point though; about waiting for a few seconds before transmitting on a new frequency. I have watched guys on the other side of the cockpit tread all over other people's transmissions and then get themselves in a right mess of "station calling?" "two stations" "say again" etc., and having to repeat themselves several times because they did not wait just a couple of seconds to check whether anybody was in the middle of a conversation.
.

then get themselves in a right mess of "station calling?" "two stations" "say again" etc.,

and then the realisation of being rude kicks in; followed by the first to the PTT "awfully sorry, after you." "No, that's OK. It was my fault, after you ol'boy." "No no I insist. You were the first. Go again." From a 3rd. "Oh do get on with it." ��

Already been done, but nobody cares to implement it. We had a non-step-on system that would allow only the first received aircraft to continue transmitting the second aircraft would receive the first's transmission and not be able to hear their own. Controller could transmit over any aircraft transmission(s) so even 'stuck transmit' would not prevent controller transmitting to that aircraft. Aircraft could be transferred to the next controller and that would also transfer the aircraft RT with no change of frequency required.
Lots of things are possible with voice over data link, but there is no point implementing as voice comms are going to be considerably reduced in future. In many sectors RT workload is the limiting factor on traffic so expect to see changes in the next decades.

Uplinker, are you sure you wanted to write "transgressence"? 'Trangression' is a real word, that would work well in your sentence, but "transgressence"? ;)

I were wrong all these years saying: "XXXX coming UP !" :ok:

Ahahah! this thread would be to aviation what "grammar-nazis" are to the internet !

Of course we need radiotelephony standards, when busy or when cultural backgrounds (accents/knowledge of english) do not allow else.

But we are as well human-beings, not machines!

If time / workload / frequency occupation allows, going slightly off standards comms may as well improve synergy and implication of the group of human involved in our daily ops. Imo...

"three five OH" gets up my nose every time.

Let’s go back to the beginning as I’ve just found this thread………..I know, late again.

>>>Seriously, what is the origin of the phrase "coming down"? Am I the only one who has never seen a transponder more archaic than this one? <<<

Nope, I’ve used an OLDER one !
As an "old and bold”, I remember when the new fangled TXDR was a mere IFF Mk.1 (Identification Friend or Foe), way before it was released upon an unsuspecting civvy aviation world.
It’s NATO designation code was, in fact, PARROT; hence one ”SQUAWKED” High, Low or Emergency ! What ?? Yep, just three possible modes with this secondary radar could announce to the Controller where and who the hell we were.
Of course,with being so limited in it’s scope, it had to be rapidly updated by a more capable version. This ended up as the IFF Mk10. with (IIRC) 4096 modes, similar to the one we are using now and also showing how the system limitation can still be overloaded. The four digits were at that time used to identify Task Force, Ship, individual aircraft and even pilot ! Cunning gadget…….

Well, of course, the civvy aviation world thought that this was far too good a machine to be left solely with the military ! So, as so many airline crews were becoming unsure of where they were, it was a really good idea to let them play with it to stop them bumping into each other.

That’s when the rot set in and all kinds of silly R/T phrases were conjured up to establish some sort of verbal aerial hierarchy of the “haves” and “have nots” !
Yes, you’re right. Some did start with the military in a vain attempt to keep the R/T to the least/shortest possible transmission. Then, as with everything where there is a degree of apparent competition, somebody always tries to come up with something smarter. Ho hmm. :cool:

"....attempt to keep the R/T to the least/shortest possible transmission"

I once asked a guy he would request "35 oh" instead of "35 zero" and his answer was that its quicker.

But which is quicker:

"reguest 35 zero"

or

"we would like to go on request for 35 oh if available"

I just kept my gob shut.

ready on reaching ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

For Gawwwds sake, are you serious? Or have I missed something?
Such "rebroadcast" is common in Australia, it is a nightmare (like a few other things CNS/ATM in Australia)
Tootle pip!!

Ha ha ! Fair enough, I stand corrected. Put it down to fatigue or stupidity on my part ! :ok:

(but I guess you meant transgression?)

What is wrong with that? Q "Are you ready?" A "ready on reaching" = No not at the moment, but we will be ready by the time we reach the holding point eg, waiting for engine warm-up time to elapse. In other words, I am being honest with you but please don't bounce us down the queue of departures.