Wow some of you guys desperately need a hobby...

It's still there.

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. :cool:

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!!

"XYZ maintain 5000"

far more logical than

"XYZ when ready, descend to 5000".

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.

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.

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.

What should have they said?

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

"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!.

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.

Same goes for "Aircraft XYZ, ident". There's no need to read back, just ident and the ATC will get back to you.

Actually under CAP 413 squawk ident is a mandatory read back.

Okay Togue,

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?

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!

Chesty,
CAP 413 is almost straight Annex X, Vol. 2, the differences UK files with ICAO like the US differences, ( and unlike Australia, with lots) are very limited in number.
Tootle pip!!

Give some examples of Australia's lots of R/T differences, LedSled.

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.

..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 transponder instructions in airborne comms:
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.

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.