Questions about phraseology

[Gaelle]

Hi, I'm a french air traffic controller (still trainee), and I have to write a dissertation on problems on the frequency.
I would like to know how you name the engine failure exercises you have to perform to prepare for the PPL,etc... on the frequency. (engine failure on take off, from downwind, from overhead airfield...) Because in France we use them a lot but we don't have any english translation so we just pronounce the abbreviation in english...

Plus, if you know whether you're controlled by anyone when you fly to France (or another european state), to check you have the level of english required or not, it can help me too.

If you're interested in helping me out, don't hesitate to send a private message

Thank you!

[Dave Gittins]

When you say how do we name them .. I assume you mean what radio calls do we make. I assume a controlled field not an A/G

I must admit to never having checked these in "CAP 413 - Radiotelephony Manual" http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap413.pdf but the phraseology has been standard in the places I've been.

For an engine failure on take off, the call would be "G-AB Request practice fan stop" to which the controller would normally respond "Practise fan stop approved, report climbing away." and when I was safely in a climb would say "G-AB climbing away"

In the case of a practise engine failure from the circuit, I would normally request it with the downwind call and say :

"Right hand downwind for two four and request glide approach" and on the glide approach being approved would add any other information - in plain language not phraseology - such as saying I'd like to do it from downwind abeam the numbers.

Sorry, I don't understand your second paragraph. Feel free to try again or PM me.

Dave

[what next]

Hello!

1. I would like to know how you name the engine failure exercises you have to perform to prepare for the PPL,etc... on the frequency. (engine failure on take off, from downwind, from overhead airfield...) Because in France we use them a lot but we don't have any english translation so we just pronounce the abbreviation in english...

2. Plus, if you know whether you're controlled by anyone when you fly to France (or another european state), to check you have the level of english required or not, it can help me too.

1. Sorry, can't really answer your question because to my knowlegde there is no standard defined in the relevant ICAO docs anyway. Also, there are no standard universal abbreviations defined for these exercises. (For example: I have heard of "EFATO" only through the pages of PPRUNE and I instruct since 19 years!)
Here in Germany these exercises are mostly part of the PPL which is taught (mostly) in german, together with german R/T, so these exercises are usually announced in plain language and unstandardised. The only one that is more or less standardised is the engine failure from overhead which is annonced as a "Ziellandeuebung" (spot landing exercise). But still I would not be too sure that every radio operator on the ground and every aircraft in the circuit knows what is inteded...

2. Yes. Especially SAFA inspectors in France are cheking all your paperwork very srtrictly including everything that's written on the license! Here in Germany as well, but there are far less ramp inspections taking place than in France...

Regards,
max

[what next]

I must admit to never having checked these in "CAP 413 - Radiotelephony Manual" http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap413.pdf but the phreseology has been standard in the places I've been.

How much standard is an unofficial standard? There is no "fan stop" nor a "glide approch" in CAP 413... at least none that can be found through the search function. (I have never heard of them although I did some training in the US and the US!)

[dobbin1]

There is no "fan stop" nor a "glide approch" in CAP 413... at least none that can be found through the search function. (I have never heard of them although I did some training in the US and the US!)

"Fan stop" is there, but it is spelled as one word "FANSTOP"

It is in the lst of standard words and phrases and defined thus:-

FANSTOP

I am initiating a practice engine failure after take off. (Used only by pilots of single engine aircraft.) The response should be,“REPORT CLIMBING AWAY”.

I am surprised that "glide approach" is not there, but I can't find it either. It is very common at airfields with full ATC where you are expected to request permission for a glide approach.

[Genghis the Engineer]

"Fanstop" is a British, originally military term, for a practice EFATO.

Typical terminology would be:

"G-ABCD Fanstop"

"Roger G-ABCD, report climbing away"

(Instructor and student get on with it, then once power is back on ...)

"G-ABCD, climbing away"

"Roger G-ABCD, report downwind"

Or thereabouts.



If suffering a real engine failure, the "usual" term used on RT is "Engine Failure", obvious preceded by Mayday/Pan which gives the context well enough.


CAP 413 (the British RT guidance document) states the following against FANSTOP:

I am initiating a practice engine failure after take off. (Used only
by pilots of single engine aircraft.) The response should be,
“REPORT CLIMBING AWAY”

That's all it says, the expanded version above is mine.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Gaelle

Hi, I'm a french air traffic controller (still trainee), and I have to write a dissertation on problems on the frequency.
I would like to know how you name the engine failure exercises you have to perform to prepare for the PPL,etc... on the frequency. (engine failure on take off,

The RT message, as I've said above, is "FANSTOP", amongst pilots we call it an EFATO.

from downwind,

Glide approach

from overhead airfield...)

High Glide

Because in France we use them a lot but we don't have any english translation so we just pronounce the abbreviation in english...

Plus, if you know whether you're controlled by anyone when you fly to France (or another european state),

Yes. Generally we'd depart British airspace talking to London Information, then go over to whoever they hand us over to. This usually happens well before the FIR boundary, but I'd also normally be expected to predict the time at the FIR boundary.

to check you have the level of english required or not, it can help me too.

UK issued & examined JAR / EASA licence holders should automatically be rated with level 6 English.

G

[Rosanna]

Does anyone use "high key" and "low key" during a simulated forced landing?

Ciao!

Rosanna

[Gaelle]

Thank you very much for these answers, helps a lot!

Indeed my second paragrah wasn't very clear, I wanted to know if when you fly to another country, there is an authority at the boundary checking you have the required skills (language especially).
I understood if you came from England with an UK JAR you're automatically level 6, but for example a french pilot who would fly to Germany, UK, Spain...., would he have to show his license level 4 to anyone?

Do you think an harmonization of the training vocabulary is necessary or is it okay the way it's now?

Thanks again!

[Dave Gittins]

Rosanna - The only time I encountered High Key and Low Key was in Doha and doing some currency flying (allegedly towards issue of a Qatari PPL that never happened) with a military guy who was a part time instructor.

I think I have a sketch someplace but it was based on a circling approach starting at (AFAICR) about 1,800 ft over mid field.

Gaelle - the only people that have ever asked for my documents are the owners of the planes or the instructors.

There is certainly no routine check carried out anywhere in the world that I have been to ...... probably the only time would be by the enforcement branch or the accident investigators

[Gaelle]

Max, you told me about SAFA inspectors, but I read they were checking only third country aircraft, and mostly airlines(EASA - Safety Assessment Of Foreign Aircraft (EC SAFA Programme)).
Do you think they also check for example a german private pilot who would have flown to an airport in south of France?
I think in fact as long as it is just a transit there is no check performed, but perhaps if you land and park your aicraft on a foreign airport, your papers(license...) should be checked, shouldn't they?

[what next]

Do you think an harmonization of the training vocabulary is necessary or is it okay the way it's now?

I think it is okay the way it is. I don't think the rest of the world needs FANSTOP (including the part inhabited by me)

[Whopity]

For an engine failure on take off, the call would be "G-AB Request practice fan stop"

There is no such thing as a Practice FANSTOP! FANSTOP means PRACTICE Engine Failure. Why would you request it, its meant to be a surprise for the student?

Does anyone use "high key" and "low key" during a simulated forced landing?

These are positions to help a pilot attain the Initial Aiming Point, they have no relevance to ATC because the controller will have no idea where they are. Normal circuit positions should be used.

[Big Pistons Forever]

In Canada the universal practice is to ask/tell you are conducting a "PFL" (practice forced landing).

[172_driver]

And in Sweden we used to ask for a "power-off landing" at any convenient point during the circuit and to report "in position for power-off" when abeam the numbers (or slightly before) to either get cleared for it or denied.

In the US the best way to get your message across was to ask for a "short approach" … which I guess just meant that your pattern would be smaller than normal but they didn't really care how you made it smaller (i.e. power-off landing)

For EFATO.. I used to keep it simple "request simulated engine failure after take-off".
I thought the FANSTOP thing was a joke… Should try it next time.

For engine failures overhead I just spoke in plain English what my request was. E.g. "Request to simulate an engine failure from 2000 ft overhead the field to full stop landing"

I don't think their is standard RT for all these events…

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by 172_driver

And in Sweden we used to ask for a "power-off landing" at any convenient point during the circuit and to report "in position for power-off" when abeam the numbers (or slightly before) to either get cleared for it or denied.

In the US the best way to get your message across was to ask for a "short approach" … which I guess just meant that your pattern would be smaller than normal but they didn't really care how you made it smaller (i.e. power-off landing)

For EFATO.. I used to keep it simple "request simulated engine failure after take-off".
I thought the FANSTOP thing was a joke… Should try it next time.

For engine failures overhead I just spoke in plain English what my request was. E.g. "Request to simulate an engine failure from 2000 ft overhead the field to full stop landing"

I don't think their is standard RT for all these events…

Request Fanstop.

Request high glide to land.

G

[what next]

Request Fanstop.

Request high glide to land.

Again: Special UK phraseology only. Rest of the world: English laguage ICAO standards implemented. No phraseology defined for these manoeuvers.

Anyway, in most cases (in this part of the world here at least) such exercises are done at small uncontrolled airfields with just a radio operator on the ground (if at all). No point in requesting anything there since nobody can give or deny any permission. Additionally, in my understanding the EFATO excercise must come more or less as a surprise for the student. If I announce it on the radio, I will never know how he would have reacted to the real emergency.

[172_driver]

Genghis,

No disrespect intended at all, but outside of UK I thing the controller would actually laugh if I requested a FANSTOP.

The high glide to land is not too bad of a try, but I still think that if I wouldn't be more specific in my request me/ATC would not be on the same page. As an example, I failed the engine for a student in the practice area at 5000 ft and we were going to see if we could glide back to the airfield (with any comfort margin). This involved gliding at 65 kts for a considerable distance. Considering we were flying into one of the busiest GA airfields in southern California, it could be good for them to know about our speed for their sequencing of other traffic.

In my second life, post-instructing, I've been flying a lot in southern Europe. My impression here is if ATC does not understand a particular request they choose simply not to answer. Therefore I would be wary of using "standard phrases" which may not be so standard in all parts of the world. Instead if I have a request I try in as simple and plain English as possible get my message across.

Agree that ideally an EFATO should be a surprise… not the first time you practice it but subsequent practice. You had to be a bit smooth about with ATC though, they could get quite pissed if you did one they weren't "expecting". Especially when it was busy with traffic tightly behind you. We didn't really have the benefit of loads of uncontrolled fields in the vicinity either.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is a simple solution of course.

Any sensible instructor should go and talk to the tower and discuss what they're going to do and the phraseing, before flying.

(Ditto my other occupation of test flying).

G

[hvogt]

I did part of my training at a controlled military airfield in Germany. The procedure for simulated engine failures after take-off with single engine aircraft was to reland on the remaining runway. The necessary co-ordination with ATC was done using plain language. For the other engine failure exercises ATC were sometimes informed, sometimes not, and we never used any phraseology, just plain language.

Does anyone use "high key" and "low key" during a simulated forced landing?

We used to in Croatia, where I did my initial training. A typical radio communication would have been something like the following:

ACFT: Call sign, position, request high key runway XX for simulated engine failure.
ATC: Call sign, high key approved, climb 2000 ft, report low key.