R/T phraseology in the USA
Guest
Posts: n/a
R/T phraseology in the USA
I struggled with the decision as to whether to post this on the North America forum - or jet blast (perhaps the moderators will decide for themselves and move it) - but I have to ask if there is some form of fundamental problem with the use of correct, or even acceptable, radio phraseology within the USA.
I genuinely do not want this to turn into the usual International slanging match but, hey - come on.
I work closely with the FAA on their Flight Safety programmes and the two biggest concerns at the moment are Collission Avoidance and Runway Incursions.
During both programmes, the phrase "situational awareness" keeps cropping up - pilots should have a mental picture of what is going on around them. Surely nobody would argue with that.
But doesn't this situational awareness stem from clear and concise radio procedures?
I was at Naples Airport in Florida recently. Immediately behind me was an instructor in a Cessna 172 belonging to the 'Civil Air Patrol'. The Cessna (callsign Capflight 833) was preparing to fly a 'standardisation' sortie in the circuit pattern.
Shortly after my departure I heard, on tower frequency, "Capflight 833 is ready for the active when you're ready for me"
Granted, the guy in the Tower knew what he meant - but what about all the student pilots in the area?
.......................
A week later - overheard on a Miami Centre (Area Radar) frequency "Miami, N*** ready for clearance to ?????" (I missed his callsign and could not decipher the destination).
Miami could not decipher it either and asked for clarification of destination. Back came the reply "Q T S, that's Queen, Tommy, Sam".
The conversation between Miami and the pilot was long and drawn out until the Miami controller eventually twigged that the pilot was using his own phonetic language - for an IFR airways clearance.
......................
Last week, also on Miami, "N***, approaching the glide, and ready to slide" was substituted for "Outer Marker"
........................
About a month ago, I was at another lecture on runway incursions which was being hosted by an Orlando Air Traffic Controller. He was discussing the fact that "when Orlando gets too busy, there is no time to read back every word I say"...he went on..."if I give you a clearance such as 'N***, turn right heading 150 to intercept the localiser one eight right, maintain one thousand five hundred feet, altimeter two nine nine two, until established then call the tower on (whatever), cleared ILS approach' your response should be "Roger!".
Does this mean that when the airspace is busy with IFR traffic you do not need professional communications - but you do when the airspace is quiet(er).
Is there anybody out there with a valid defence for any of this? I'm not even going to start on the fact that you can be cleared to land whilst there is an aircraft still on the runway.
I genuinely do not want this to turn into the usual International slanging match but, hey - come on.
I work closely with the FAA on their Flight Safety programmes and the two biggest concerns at the moment are Collission Avoidance and Runway Incursions.
During both programmes, the phrase "situational awareness" keeps cropping up - pilots should have a mental picture of what is going on around them. Surely nobody would argue with that.
But doesn't this situational awareness stem from clear and concise radio procedures?
I was at Naples Airport in Florida recently. Immediately behind me was an instructor in a Cessna 172 belonging to the 'Civil Air Patrol'. The Cessna (callsign Capflight 833) was preparing to fly a 'standardisation' sortie in the circuit pattern.
Shortly after my departure I heard, on tower frequency, "Capflight 833 is ready for the active when you're ready for me"
Granted, the guy in the Tower knew what he meant - but what about all the student pilots in the area?
.......................
A week later - overheard on a Miami Centre (Area Radar) frequency "Miami, N*** ready for clearance to ?????" (I missed his callsign and could not decipher the destination).
Miami could not decipher it either and asked for clarification of destination. Back came the reply "Q T S, that's Queen, Tommy, Sam".
The conversation between Miami and the pilot was long and drawn out until the Miami controller eventually twigged that the pilot was using his own phonetic language - for an IFR airways clearance.
......................
Last week, also on Miami, "N***, approaching the glide, and ready to slide" was substituted for "Outer Marker"
........................
About a month ago, I was at another lecture on runway incursions which was being hosted by an Orlando Air Traffic Controller. He was discussing the fact that "when Orlando gets too busy, there is no time to read back every word I say"...he went on..."if I give you a clearance such as 'N***, turn right heading 150 to intercept the localiser one eight right, maintain one thousand five hundred feet, altimeter two nine nine two, until established then call the tower on (whatever), cleared ILS approach' your response should be "Roger!".
Does this mean that when the airspace is busy with IFR traffic you do not need professional communications - but you do when the airspace is quiet(er).
Is there anybody out there with a valid defence for any of this? I'm not even going to start on the fact that you can be cleared to land whilst there is an aircraft still on the runway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yip.. Heard some really horrendous crap from pilots both sides of the pond.
You had some really good examples. It´s been a while since I have heard anything really horrible but one comes to my mind
A light twin flying VFR was making her initial contact with Las Vegas approach with the following statement that took me a minute or 2 as well as the controller to figure out. Went something like this:
A/C -Las Vegas, Seneca 146 UUU CEE 5433 over.
APP - Senaca 146 Uniform Charlie, Right heading 220 for traffic, contact APP on 130.65 advice him on heading, Squack 4734.
A/C - Arrr.. Heading 220 contact on 130.65 Seneca 146 UUU CEE with a flash.
Heard some other examples but this was one of the worst.
Probably the most annoying ones are Majors like United asking continously for ride reports whe they check in on a frequency...
Like this.
Oakland center, Northwest 1234 FL330 looking for ride reports.
Not a problem but when everybody does it gets pretty congested quickly. Why not just keep traps shut and instead of asking if there has been turbulence report it when encountered.
Over the Med flying around, I find it interesting when say estimating METRU many of our Arabic colleauges do it this way : Saudia 3344 estimating METRU point Insh Allah at 1250Z .
JJ
You had some really good examples. It´s been a while since I have heard anything really horrible but one comes to my mind
A light twin flying VFR was making her initial contact with Las Vegas approach with the following statement that took me a minute or 2 as well as the controller to figure out. Went something like this:
A/C -Las Vegas, Seneca 146 UUU CEE 5433 over.
APP - Senaca 146 Uniform Charlie, Right heading 220 for traffic, contact APP on 130.65 advice him on heading, Squack 4734.
A/C - Arrr.. Heading 220 contact on 130.65 Seneca 146 UUU CEE with a flash.
Heard some other examples but this was one of the worst.
Probably the most annoying ones are Majors like United asking continously for ride reports whe they check in on a frequency...
Like this.
Oakland center, Northwest 1234 FL330 looking for ride reports.
Not a problem but when everybody does it gets pretty congested quickly. Why not just keep traps shut and instead of asking if there has been turbulence report it when encountered.
Over the Med flying around, I find it interesting when say estimating METRU many of our Arabic colleauges do it this way : Saudia 3344 estimating METRU point Insh Allah at 1250Z .
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
The point of readbacks is only to verify that you got the info correctly. However in the US air traffic control is not responsible if the pilot didn't get all the info. If you need clarification of something then ask. A readback does not constitute clarification because the controller might not even be listening as they're too busy. So leaving out a readback when atc is busy is no problem cause they won't be listening anyway..... see my point.
Just because it's different to what you know doesn't make it wrong. That's what got the germans in trouble.
Just because it's different to what you know doesn't make it wrong. That's what got the germans in trouble.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alot of you chaps from the other side of the pond must leave your correct and proper R/T on your side when you come here. Since joining PPRUNE and hearing all the bashing I now listen closely to BA/Virgin/other Brit carriers. The stuff I hear is no differant/better than what American carriers use. More than once controllers here have had to have them read back altitudes, hold shorts, etc that were answered with "roger"
I guess they loosen the ties and top button over here. Sure, we could do a better job of it here, we recognize that.
I guess they loosen the ties and top button over here. Sure, we could do a better job of it here, we recognize that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Weasil - you are, of course, correct. The onus is on the pilot, not ATC to get it right. I fully agree.
I'm assuming that since joining pprune in 1999 as a student pilot you have now qualified for a licence. Could I ask you - you personally - do you agree with the phraseology of the pilots that I mentioned?
Secondly, could I ask if you read back anything - anything at all - to ATC? If the answer to that is "Yes" would you be prepared to advise us of what IS worth reading back - and what is NOT worth reading back.
As you point out - it's the pilots job and ATC are often not listening anyway...so why bother with any readbacks whatsoever? Just let ATC say it and assume that the pilot will comply with it. Would save a lot of R/T time, wouldn't it?
I'd also be curious for your definition of "busy" - as you suggest that there is little point in reading information back correctly when ATC is busy. This would suggest, by default, that we SHOULD read stuff back when ATC is NOT busy.
I don't quite follow the difference here. Are you saying that when the chances of conflicting with another aircraft are higher you do not need to get it right - but when there is nothing else around you.....?
As for the comment "just because it's different to what you know doesn't make it wrong" - again, I fully agree with you. However, just because it is different to Internationally agreed procedures and conventions might make it wrong.
Whilst I would be the first to admit that I believe the American pilots were in no way to blame for the crash - you must take into account that the main causual factor of the Tenerife disaster - which killed some 600 people...half of which were on a PanAmerican Boeing 747 - appears to have been misunderstood communications. Tell me again that standard phraseology is not important.
Even if you think it isn't - answer my question above...do you think the exchanges that I mentioned in my first message were correct and/or justifiable?
West Coast - whilst I am NOT trying to attend any of the "bashing" seminars, I have to chuckle at the phraseology of your first line..."you chaps from the other side of the pond must leave your correct and proper R/T on your side when you come here"...is that because the USA doesn't want, or doesn't need "correct and proper R/T".
I'm also interested to note that you appear to listen especially to UK carriers in your airspace - rather than all aircraft. (Sorry, that time I was teasing).
But I'm serious when I point out that you say (words to the effect of [not cut and pasted]) "ATC often have to ask for a correct readback".
Are you telling me that there is a standard that must be adopted and maintained for reading back information? Weasil seems not to think so.
All teasing apart - let's get back to the real point of my original question...some pilots (YES, both sides of the water) seem to make a distinct effort to be funny or smart on the R/T - rather than professional. I really do believe that the radio calls I have mentioned in my first message are a disgrace.
Is there anybody out there that wants to say, on this public forum, that either the calls that I highlighted were acceptable phraseology or that R/T procedures need not be professional. Anybody?
I've asked numerous (US) flight crews (who have been standing at the baggage carousels at the end of their trip) what they think of operations in European airspace - and every single one of them has started off with a comment as to how strict the R/T is.
I'm assuming that since joining pprune in 1999 as a student pilot you have now qualified for a licence. Could I ask you - you personally - do you agree with the phraseology of the pilots that I mentioned?
Secondly, could I ask if you read back anything - anything at all - to ATC? If the answer to that is "Yes" would you be prepared to advise us of what IS worth reading back - and what is NOT worth reading back.
As you point out - it's the pilots job and ATC are often not listening anyway...so why bother with any readbacks whatsoever? Just let ATC say it and assume that the pilot will comply with it. Would save a lot of R/T time, wouldn't it?
I'd also be curious for your definition of "busy" - as you suggest that there is little point in reading information back correctly when ATC is busy. This would suggest, by default, that we SHOULD read stuff back when ATC is NOT busy.
I don't quite follow the difference here. Are you saying that when the chances of conflicting with another aircraft are higher you do not need to get it right - but when there is nothing else around you.....?
As for the comment "just because it's different to what you know doesn't make it wrong" - again, I fully agree with you. However, just because it is different to Internationally agreed procedures and conventions might make it wrong.
Whilst I would be the first to admit that I believe the American pilots were in no way to blame for the crash - you must take into account that the main causual factor of the Tenerife disaster - which killed some 600 people...half of which were on a PanAmerican Boeing 747 - appears to have been misunderstood communications. Tell me again that standard phraseology is not important.
Even if you think it isn't - answer my question above...do you think the exchanges that I mentioned in my first message were correct and/or justifiable?
West Coast - whilst I am NOT trying to attend any of the "bashing" seminars, I have to chuckle at the phraseology of your first line..."you chaps from the other side of the pond must leave your correct and proper R/T on your side when you come here"...is that because the USA doesn't want, or doesn't need "correct and proper R/T".
I'm also interested to note that you appear to listen especially to UK carriers in your airspace - rather than all aircraft. (Sorry, that time I was teasing).
But I'm serious when I point out that you say (words to the effect of [not cut and pasted]) "ATC often have to ask for a correct readback".
Are you telling me that there is a standard that must be adopted and maintained for reading back information? Weasil seems not to think so.
All teasing apart - let's get back to the real point of my original question...some pilots (YES, both sides of the water) seem to make a distinct effort to be funny or smart on the R/T - rather than professional. I really do believe that the radio calls I have mentioned in my first message are a disgrace.
Is there anybody out there that wants to say, on this public forum, that either the calls that I highlighted were acceptable phraseology or that R/T procedures need not be professional. Anybody?
I've asked numerous (US) flight crews (who have been standing at the baggage carousels at the end of their trip) what they think of operations in European airspace - and every single one of them has started off with a comment as to how strict the R/T is.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The bashing comes from the Brits mostly, so I moniter their carriers the closest.
I fly out of LAX and SFO, two extremely busy, complicated, communications intense airports on a daily to weekly basis, despite what you consider inferior R/T, we (U.S.carriers) get the job done rather well.
Yes, there is standard over here for radio work, examples and standards are listed in the AIM, if your familier with it
I fly out of LAX and SFO, two extremely busy, complicated, communications intense airports on a daily to weekly basis, despite what you consider inferior R/T, we (U.S.carriers) get the job done rather well.
Yes, there is standard over here for radio work, examples and standards are listed in the AIM, if your familier with it
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to disagree about not reading back to ATC.
If you look at the regulations you will find out there is a requirement to do so. Furthermore it is within your own interest to get your reply on TAPE in case something out of the oridinary happens and you need to prove that you did copy ATC instructions.
Since strating flying professionally, I have never left a instruction repeated, unless I missed the call.
How you do the read back is up to the pilot. as long as it contains all the relevant information.
This comes increasingly important when both the controller and pilot are non native English speakers, or when using HF and when not in radar coverage.
Controller might not be listening but the tapes are.
JJ
Weasil... How ya doing . Lost your Email. How´s CFI life with the Sierra paradise
If you look at the regulations you will find out there is a requirement to do so. Furthermore it is within your own interest to get your reply on TAPE in case something out of the oridinary happens and you need to prove that you did copy ATC instructions.
Since strating flying professionally, I have never left a instruction repeated, unless I missed the call.
How you do the read back is up to the pilot. as long as it contains all the relevant information.
This comes increasingly important when both the controller and pilot are non native English speakers, or when using HF and when not in radar coverage.
Controller might not be listening but the tapes are.
JJ
Weasil... How ya doing . Lost your Email. How´s CFI life with the Sierra paradise
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excellent topic, I too have heard Pilots from many different countries use improper radio phraseology, and can sum it up in one simple statement.... " Some Pilots would rather sound cool than correct " this was told to me by a former boss, and by golly I think he's right. I guess it comes from some peoples desire to strut their stuff, and since you can't see their swagger on the radio they have to do it audibly.
How about me, you may be asking? Well I still try to do it right, maybe some people think I sound silly, but I can't help it, I guess it was a lesson well learned from a person I still look up to, and have a lot of respect for.
How about me, you may be asking? Well I still try to do it right, maybe some people think I sound silly, but I can't help it, I guess it was a lesson well learned from a person I still look up to, and have a lot of respect for.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yessir.
That sounding cool thing. I have heard that on radio ah so many times.Unfortunately my former roomie had the idea that he needed to sound like a B747 pilot and he did ask me if he sounded like one.
It seems that the smaller the plane the bigger you need to sound... hahahahah kind of a ego thing before you realise that it does not matter how you sound as log as there is an understanding or rather a link between you and the controller.
One of the the most important things is that ATC understands your intentions and there is no miscommunication.
This comes with strickt adherance to standard phraseology and using standard terms as far as practicable. Now if a situation is out of ordinary there is nothing wrong in using laymans terms to clarify.
JJ
That sounding cool thing. I have heard that on radio ah so many times.Unfortunately my former roomie had the idea that he needed to sound like a B747 pilot and he did ask me if he sounded like one.
It seems that the smaller the plane the bigger you need to sound... hahahahah kind of a ego thing before you realise that it does not matter how you sound as log as there is an understanding or rather a link between you and the controller.
One of the the most important things is that ATC understands your intentions and there is no miscommunication.
This comes with strickt adherance to standard phraseology and using standard terms as far as practicable. Now if a situation is out of ordinary there is nothing wrong in using laymans terms to clarify.
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
You have a point. The Europeans are very anal about radio comms. The Americans are not. I often hear the world series scores broadcast to the world.
The Point is that they all do (or should) know the proper phraseology and technique. It's just that often they don't need to, so they just don't bother.
I work at the busiest non-radar airport in the world. All calls are very professional except those that come from Euro folks building time on long cross countries. Thats not a dig, just an observation.
Always read back the clearance limit (in English) and we will all live a bit longer.
Living longer would be good.......I think.....
The Point is that they all do (or should) know the proper phraseology and technique. It's just that often they don't need to, so they just don't bother.
I work at the busiest non-radar airport in the world. All calls are very professional except those that come from Euro folks building time on long cross countries. Thats not a dig, just an observation.
Always read back the clearance limit (in English) and we will all live a bit longer.
Living longer would be good.......I think.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Busiest non radar airport ... Wher is that. I know that KGCN ( Grand Canyon National Park ) is allgedly the busiest single runway airport in the world. Would think that Gatwick and Malaga are busier in the sommer months but who knows.
Your observation about time builders is generally correct. Low time new enviroment = studder and all that.
JJ
Your observation about time builders is generally correct. Low time new enviroment = studder and all that.
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am a British FAA/JAA flight instructor in Vero Beach and prior to that I Instructed with Comair Airlines in Orlando. As I have also lived in the mid-west, I can tell you that the problem is mainly experienced when flying VFR in Florida. I have never heard so many blithering idiots in my entire life,but Florida s certainly not representative of the US as a whole.
You have a number of factors conspiring to produce this twaddle, but the main culprits are weekend flyers, non-English speaking student pilots/pilots who have been issued medical certificates contrary to the requirement to read, speak and understand the English language and third rate flying schools.
Once you start flying IFR, you filter out most of the willy wallys and any that make their way through are given the bashing they deserve by ATC. If you've ever flown IFR in the North East, you'll no that there is zero tolerence for the incompetant
As a general rule the higher you go, the less idiots there are!
You have a number of factors conspiring to produce this twaddle, but the main culprits are weekend flyers, non-English speaking student pilots/pilots who have been issued medical certificates contrary to the requirement to read, speak and understand the English language and third rate flying schools.
Once you start flying IFR, you filter out most of the willy wallys and any that make their way through are given the bashing they deserve by ATC. If you've ever flown IFR in the North East, you'll no that there is zero tolerence for the incompetant
As a general rule the higher you go, the less idiots there are!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not just trying to bring this back to the top again - but I attended a flight safety seminar earlier this week which was hosted by an FAA air traffic controller.
The main thrust of the seminar was about communications with ATC.
One of the closing lines in the seminar was that AOPA USA is pushing to have the USA aviation fraternity adopt the "procedures and phraseology used in Europe".
The controller said that he was against this - for no other reason than "there are more flights in the USA than there are in Europe...so why should they change".
There was no comment as to WHY an aviation body with the verbal power and respect (in the USA at least) that AOPA has should recommend such a thing.
Maybe the controller agrees with West Coast that the end justifies the means - and sod the expense.
Scary.
The main thrust of the seminar was about communications with ATC.
One of the closing lines in the seminar was that AOPA USA is pushing to have the USA aviation fraternity adopt the "procedures and phraseology used in Europe".
The controller said that he was against this - for no other reason than "there are more flights in the USA than there are in Europe...so why should they change".
There was no comment as to WHY an aviation body with the verbal power and respect (in the USA at least) that AOPA has should recommend such a thing.
Maybe the controller agrees with West Coast that the end justifies the means - and sod the expense.
Scary.
Guest
Posts: n/a
i fly in Canada and recently did a short ferry trip from one province to another: ontario-québec (the latter a french speaking province). it was interesting to hear about 50% of the calls into centre/appr being made in french and we were none to impressed when we were passed over to twr to hear everyone else on the freq speaking in french including the controller who spoke to us in english. being quasi-fluent in french myself it wasn't too much of a problem to work out where everyone else was but my sympathy is with any non-french speaking pilots flying in vfr.
$0.02
"when in rome..."
[This message has been edited by OnTheStep (edited 14 June 2001).]
$0.02
"when in rome..."
[This message has been edited by OnTheStep (edited 14 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
When foreign pilots or airlines come to the USA, blend in with the American way or go home and do not come back.
You will NOT be missed.
Was behind BA on approach to PHX a few days ago, have to admit his R/T was very precise AND sounded very "American".
[This message has been edited by 411A (edited 15 June 2001).]
You will NOT be missed.
Was behind BA on approach to PHX a few days ago, have to admit his R/T was very precise AND sounded very "American".
[This message has been edited by 411A (edited 15 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"...blend in with the American way or go home and do not come back.
You will NOT be missed."
No that sounds very "professional", 411A.
Wouldn´t have expected such an answer from someone with such extensive worlwide experience.
"...R/T was very precise AND sounded very "American"."
Aha. Whatever that means then.
Can we at least agree on the fact that R/T (or communication in general), should be done in such a way as to avoid "questions", "clarifications", "misunderstandings" AND to keep ALL involved "in the loop" with the least effort necessary for ALL.
Adhering to standard phraseology in the universal language of "English" goes a long way in the effort to achieve this goal.
JMHO
You will NOT be missed."
No that sounds very "professional", 411A.
Wouldn´t have expected such an answer from someone with such extensive worlwide experience.
"...R/T was very precise AND sounded very "American"."
Aha. Whatever that means then.
Can we at least agree on the fact that R/T (or communication in general), should be done in such a way as to avoid "questions", "clarifications", "misunderstandings" AND to keep ALL involved "in the loop" with the least effort necessary for ALL.
Adhering to standard phraseology in the universal language of "English" goes a long way in the effort to achieve this goal.
JMHO
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wonderbusdriver--
Would have to agree, R/T should be clear, concise, etc.
However, in the USA you have a mix of student pilots and aircarriers at many airports, especially in Florida. For airline pilots to expect that student pilots have the same degree of sophistication with R/T as they have is clearly not possible. If, after suitable time however, the student does not at least have the ability to communicate clearly, the INSTRUCTOR needs to be called on the carpet to explain. Suspect that this is not done to any great degree.
Would have to agree, R/T should be clear, concise, etc.
However, in the USA you have a mix of student pilots and aircarriers at many airports, especially in Florida. For airline pilots to expect that student pilots have the same degree of sophistication with R/T as they have is clearly not possible. If, after suitable time however, the student does not at least have the ability to communicate clearly, the INSTRUCTOR needs to be called on the carpet to explain. Suspect that this is not done to any great degree.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My solution is that no more foreign pilots can come to America to learn how to fly.
Then more American pilots can find jobs around the world as the shortage of pilots will increase, and American R/T will be more standardized.
Quit slammin the world's pilot training grounds.
Cheers
Wino
Then more American pilots can find jobs around the world as the shortage of pilots will increase, and American R/T will be more standardized.
Quit slammin the world's pilot training grounds.
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK - so the septics do talk their own way, mostly it is understandable though. Sometimes it goes too far however (queen, tommy, sam etc) and the jokers responsible should examine their professionalism.
I do agree with the person complaining about everyone asking for ride reports. Fair enough if centre's not busy, but otherwise - do what you should do - call flightwatch (122.0 for those who don't know) and make/get a PIREP and/or talk to others on your company freq or 128.95.
I do agree with the person complaining about everyone asking for ride reports. Fair enough if centre's not busy, but otherwise - do what you should do - call flightwatch (122.0 for those who don't know) and make/get a PIREP and/or talk to others on your company freq or 128.95.