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.