Non standard phraseology: Does that bug controllers?

Larry in TN said:
The evidence is implicit in my statement which included, "...in which I've flown." I've flown in five of the seven continents, though not in the UK nor Spain. The context was also radio phraseology which excludes all sorts of other areas of possible noncompliance with ICAO.
Click to expand...

Your statement does not imply evidence. How many differences between national regulations and ICAO were submitted by the nations in which you've flown?
 
Larry in TN said:
Absolutely. Lots of non-standard stuff from my fellow airline pilots. No excuse for it. We should know better. Many GA pilots were never taught correct phraseology, or where to find it in the AIM, by their instructors (who weren't taught it by theirs). Can't blame them until they know the correct phraseology and choose not to use it.

Was flying an oceanic leg with a guy last month and he kept reading the position reports in the wrong order. This was the NY ARINC on HF. The correct order is:
1. Position
2. Time
3. Altitude
4. Next compulsory fix
5. ETA at next compulsory fix
6. Subsequent fix
7. Remarks

It goes something like this: "Airliner 55, position SKPPR, 0-2-0-0, FL350, estimate TASNI 0-2-4-3, DUNIG next, 2-5 decimal 4."

We get this information from the PROGress page on the FMS and record it on the operational flight plan. The PROG page displays the order slightly differently. The first line would have shown "SKPPR FL350 02:00 25.4"

This guy was reading it left to right from the PROG page so it was "...SKPPR, FL350, at 0-2-0-0, fuel 2-5 decimal 4,..."

The ARINC operator is typing this information into a computer and the fields are in the correct order, obviously. When the pilot reads the items in the wrong order he has to jump around between fields and invariably missing one or two of the items and has to ask for them to be repeated.

After he did the same thing on three consecutive position reports, and had to repeat items three consecutive times, I said, 'hey, ya know why they keep asking you to repeat things?" He hadn't flown an oceanic leg in quite some time and had forgotten the order--though I thought he'd have figured it out on his own by the third report...
Click to expand...
Indeed HF communications are to be much more formal. That really has little bearing on day to day VHF communication.
 
dtuuri said:
If you want to comply with the AIM, try not to read back altimeter settings at all (unless you want a hear-back confirmation): AIM 4-4-7...
b. ATC Clearance/Instruction Readback. 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.

dtuuri​
Click to expand...

I disagree with this one, and here's why.
Yes, it's optional, not mandatory, to read back the altimeter setting, but there is a good reason to do it (normally).
You often typically get it when flying from sector to sector, so the exchange would go:
You: "Cleveland Center, Smasher 78C level niner thousand."
ATC: "Smasher 78C roger (or radar contact), altimeter 2-9-9-4".
You (optionally): "Niner-niner-four" (note skipping the leading digit).
The reason why it's a good idea to add that last part is that it immediately confirms to ATC that you've heard him/her. Without it, ATC won't be sure if your receiver or headset is working properly until there are further exchanges.
So it takes an extra second, but completes the two-way circuit to create mutual peace of mind.
 
RotorDude said:
I disagree with this one, and here's why.
Yes, it's optional, not mandatory, to read back the altimeter setting, but there is a good reason to do it (normally).
You often typically get it when flying from sector to sector, so the exchange would go:
You: "Cleveland Center, Smasher 78C level niner thousand."
ATC: "Smasher 78C roger (or radar contact), altimeter 2-9-9-4".
You (optionally): "Niner-niner-four" (note skipping the leading digit).
The reason why it's a good idea to add that last part is that it immediately confirms to ATC that you've heard him/her. Without it, ATC won't be sure if your receiver or headset is working properly until there are further exchanges.
So it takes an extra second, but completes the two-way circuit to create mutual peace of mind.
Click to expand...

That explains the importance of acknowledgment, not why reading back the altimeter setting is a good idea.
 
roncachamp said:
That explains the importance of acknowledgment, not why reading back the altimeter setting is a good idea.
Click to expand...

True, you could just say "roger", or "niner-niner-four", a split second longer, and the chance to catch an erroneous setting. I normally choose the latter.
 
RotorDude said:
I disagree with this one, and here's why.
Yes, it's optional, not mandatory, to read back the altimeter setting, but there is a good reason to do it (normally).
You often typically get it when flying from sector to sector, so the exchange would go:
You: "Cleveland Center, Smasher 78C level niner thousand."
ATC: "Smasher 78C roger (or radar contact), altimeter 2-9-9-4".
You (optionally): "Niner-niner-four" (note skipping the leading digit).
The reason why it's a good idea to add that last part is that it immediately confirms to ATC that you've heard him/her. Without it, ATC won't be sure if your receiver or headset is working properly until there are further exchanges.
So it takes an extra second, but completes the two-way circuit to create mutual peace of mind.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to say anything after the initial report? Cleveland Center is acknowledging you, if you then do Cleveland Center where does this stop? If you're given an instruction, then you acknowledge, but a routine altimeter setting is not an instruction.

dtuuri
 
Boy, something is wrong with the editor. When I tried to copy/paste from the AIM and bold some text, the whole selected area disappeared. Then, reading posts and editing out quotes makes the entire quoted post disappear. :confused:

dtuuri
 
RotorDude said:
You (optionally): "Niner-niner-four" (note skipping the leading digit).
Click to expand...
If I were reading back an altimeter setting, I normally don't, I would not abbreviate it.

My first leg flying a 767 (would have been IOE but was a part 91 ferry flight so it didn't count) was into Bahrain. ATC gave us a QNH of "998". I set 998hPa but the Captain thought it must be 29.98" as he thought 998hPa was too low. We resolved the disagreement by asking for QNH in inches which would have been something along the lines of 29.47".
 
Larry in TN said:
If I were reading back an altimeter setting, I normally don't, I would not abbreviate it.

My first leg flying a 767 (would have been IOE but was a part 91 ferry flight so it didn't count) was into Bahrain. ATC gave us a QNH of "998". I set 998hPa but the Captain thought it must be 29.98" as he thought 998hPa was too low. We resolved the disagreement by asking for QNH in inches which would have been something along the lines of 29.47".
Click to expand...

Sure, I'd agree with you if I were flying to hecto-pascal land. But although I fly a lot of international flights, they are virtually all into Canada, where (thankfully) they still have inches of mercury. If you multiply all the digits I have saved over the years, that would be a nice chunk of bandwidth (I just calculated it to be a total of 8 hours of wasted airtime saved so far -- sounds incredible! :) )
 
dtuuri said:
Why do you feel the need to say anything after the initial report? Cleveland Center is acknowledging you, if you then do Cleveland Center where does this stop? If you're given an instruction, then you acknowledge, but a routine altimeter setting is not an instruction.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

No, it's not an instruction, and I tried to explain it above. Without acknowledging, ATC would have no way of knowing that my receiver and/or headset is working. Read also my reply to Larry.
 
RotorDude said:
into Canada, where (thankfully) they still have inches of mercury.)
Click to expand...

And sometimes those ATIS broadcasts alternating in English and French by a sexy female voice! ;)
At least the eastern part of Canada. :)
 
Last edited:
tuwood said:
I've been listening to quite a bit of LiveATC to get better at communications. I always feel sorry for ATC when the guys/gals come on with extremely heavy foreign accents. I can't understand a word that they're saying, but somehow the ATC folks can discern enough info out of it.
Click to expand...

Listen to Japan. The sing song vowels in English with often perfect phraseology are quite beautiful sounding.

And from a friend today on FB...

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1456951704.667580.jpg
 
After 90 minutes a break, wow. When I did it in the USAF we worked 8 hour shifts, sometimes a 10 shift without no stinkin' break! Yeah! :D
 
mscard88 said:
After 90 minutes a break, wow. When I did it in the USAF we worked 8 hour shifts, sometimes a 10 shift without no stinkin' break! Yeah! :D
Click to expand...

Yeah but you wouldn't let AF801 land according to the song. ;)
 
I have carefully read all three pages of this post and I think that one of the big points of standard phrases has been missed.

I assume for most of you that English is your mother language, or the slaughtered version of American English.

For none English speakers by using standard phraseology they only need to learn less than 100 words. Get a pen and paper and try to write down 100 aviation words.
Start with the alphabet. alfa, bravo charlie etc, then do numbers, and then have fun.

I have a little trouble with American English occasionally, but when I am expecting standard phrases that helps a lot. In the USA we are the worst offenders when it comes to ICAO following.
We could learn a lot by complying like other nations do.

Ken
 
denverpilot said:
They did. :)

And the guy who always said "Good Morning" at the beginning of talking to you and "Good Night" at the end, no matter what time of day it actually was. We always called him "GoodMorningGoodNight" all run together as one word.
Click to expand...
If you want to hear a complete pro using "non-standard" phraseology, check out the YouTube/LiveATC recordings of "Boston" John.
 
Truth is, we all get into the habit of using empty phrases from time to time. In and out of aviation. My worst was during a trial years ago. I had somehow gotten into the habit of introducing a change in topics during a trial with "In any event..."

At one point, I finished a cross-examination topic with a witness and took a breath before moving on. When I looked up, one of the jurors looked at me with a smile and mouthed "In any event..." Finally realized what I had been doing. I smiled back and stopped using the phrase cold turkey.
 
Other non-standard and time-consuming radio calls:
  • Good Day.
  • Thanks for the help.
Doesn't bother me.
 
I'll use all the phrases that bother me in one sentence:

Be advised, the current winds is three four zero at four at this time.

Be advised - you may as well say, "hey, I'm about to tell you something."
In anything other than a forecast or aloft prediction, Are there any "winds" other than current? Is there more than one wind?
At this time - of course its at this time so why bother saying it?


other than that, I like non-standard phraseology, it breaks the monotony ....but, so many times I've heard things out of controller's mouths who are trying to remember standard phraseology but when they keyed the mike their brain took a dump. In fact, we have a whole book dedicated to the stupid and or humorous things people have said while on the radio.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'll use all the phrases that bother me in one sentence:

Be advised, the current winds is three four zero at four at this time.

Be advised - you may as well say, "hey, I'm about to tell you something."
In anything other than a forecast or aloft prediction, Are there any "winds" other than current? Is there more than one wind?
At this time - of course its at this time so why bother saying it?


other than that, I like non-standard phraseology, it breaks the monotony ....but, so many times I've heard things out of controller's mouths who are trying to remember standard phraseology but when they keyed the mike their brain took a dump. In fact, we have a whole book dedicated to the stupid and or humorous things people have said while on the radio.
Click to expand...
Those two set context for the rest, though. Be advised lets you know nothing is expected of you. At this time lets you know that it's fresh.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'll use all the phrases that bother me in one sentence:

Be advised, the current winds is three four zero at four at this time.

Be advised - you may as well say, "hey, I'm about to tell you something."
In anything other than a forecast or aloft prediction, Are there any "winds" other than current? Is there more than one wind?
At this time - of course its at this time so why bother saying it?


other than that, I like non-standard phraseology, it breaks the monotony ....but, so many times I've heard things out of controller's mouths who are trying to remember standard phraseology but when they keyed the mike their brain took a dump. In fact, we have a whole book dedicated to the stupid and or humorous things people have said while on the radio.
Click to expand...

Speaking of brain dump. One time while attempting to type in an aircraft into the FDIO computer, I forgot the term equipment suffix.

"Cessna 345 say your...your ahhh....transponder......thing."

I was a student so my monitor corrected my transmission. Then starts laughing behind me. "Dude, did you just say thingy!"

"No, I said thing. There's a difference.":D
 
I had a trainee watch an A-10 slow down and abort a take off and then say, "Warhog, say reason for abortion."
 
mkosmo said:
Those two set context for the rest, though. Be advised lets you know nothing is expected of you. At this time lets you know that it's fresh.
Click to expand...

I can't think of ONE reason why someone must say "be advised." Not one........ and I never say "un-fresh" things on a radio.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Truth is, we all get into the habit of using empty phrases from time to time. In and out of aviation. My worst was during a trial years ago. I had somehow gotten into the habit of introducing a change in topics during a trial with "In any event..."

At one point, I finished a cross-examination topic with a witness and took a breath before moving on. When I looked up, one of the jurors looked at me with a smile and mouthed "In any event..." Finally realized what I had been doing. I smiled back and stopped using the phrase cold turkey.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think I use more filler words when typing than on the radio, a habit I'm trying to break.

But hearing them used on the radio by other pilots doesn't bother me.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I can't think of ONE reason why someone must say "be advised." Not one........ and I never say "un-fresh" things on a radio.
Click to expand...
You've never gotten weather with the caveat more than one hour old?
 
Everskyward said:
Actually, I think I use more filler words when typing than on the radio
Click to expand...

I definitely do. I use a lot of filler when writing - I try to be concise but fail miserably.
 
If controllers give the altimeter or wind, it should be understood that it is the current altimeter or wind. There is no reason to say "at this time". If not current, they will say something to the fact that the observation is estimated or when the observation was made. The ATIS has a time stamp so pilots will know what the altimeter or wind was at "that" time.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'll use all the phrases that bother me in one sentence:

Be advised, the current winds is three four zero at four at this time.

Be advised - you may as well say, "hey, I'm about to tell you something."
In anything other than a forecast or aloft prediction, Are there any "winds" other than current? Is there more than one wind?
At this time - of course its at this time so why bother saying it?


other than that, I like non-standard phraseology, it breaks the monotony ....but, so many times I've heard things out of controller's mouths who are trying to remember standard for phraseology but when they keyed the mike their brain took a dump. In fact, we have a whole book dedicated to the stupid and or humorous things people have said while on the radio.
Click to expand...

Agghhh!! "Be advised" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
 
Kritchlow said:
Indeed HF communications are to be much more formal. That really has little bearing on day to day VHF communication.
Click to expand...

Minor edit: The AIM is a decent resource for reports and how to say numbers/letters. Far more valuable to the GA pilot is Advisory Circular 90-42F Traffic advisory practices at airports without operating control towers.

Bob Gardner
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'll use all the phrases that bother me in one sentence:

Be advised, the current winds is three four zero at four at this time.

Be advised - you may as well say, "hey, I'm about to tell you something."
Click to expand...

Agreed, both serve to get the attention of those who the message is intended to reach.

In anything other than a forecast or aloft prediction, Are there any "winds" other than current?
Click to expand...

Yes, the wind in an ATIS can be an hour old.
 
Although the wind mentioned in the ATIS can be an hour old, the wind the controller gives you with your landing clearance is current....until he/she un-keys the mike which is now seconds old.

Besides, isn't it a given that ATIS wind isn't current?
 
Timbeck2 said:
Although the wind mentioned in the ATIS can be an hour old, the wind the controller gives you with your landing clearance is current....until he/she un-keys the mike which is now seconds old.

Besides, isn't it a given that ATIS wind isn't current?
Click to expand...

Isn't it a given that the wind in a forecast or prediction isn't current?
 
You want to argue what current means. The phrase that bothered me was "at this time." To elaborate, at this time or even "current" when associated with the wind on a landing or take off clearance is redundant.

That's my point.
 
Well folks, I find aviation colloquialisms on the radio rather endearing, except for "go missed" or "went missed" which makes my skin crawl. Say it anyway you want as long as the message is clear and concise. I think it's mostly the newbies who are the most critical, probably due to fear of making a faux pas. Consequently, they sound stiff and Buck Rogers-like on the radio. I recall stories of an old airline Captain affectionately known as Toot-toot. Every handoff he'd call in, "Toot-toot, Airline flight 2234, with you at 1Xthousand, good morning!" I love it.

dtuuri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top