Non standard phraseology: Does that bug controllers?

It should still be "position and hold". Line up and wait was what we did in Air Force basic training. ;)
 
mkosmo said:
Maybe I'll start saying adios.
Click to expand...

you wouldn't be the first. I've heard it many times. Once a newer controller brought the subject up about is it proper to say things like "good day" etc when giving frequency changes. For the next half hour or so I did it in every language I could think of. Ciao, Sayonarra, Aloha, Arriverdeci. There were more that I can't remember. Once it got started pilots started acknowledging with others. I got one "Vaya Con Dios"
 
Kritchlow said:
I also don't care for mumbling and slurring. I hear a lot of regional guys doing that. Noise is coming out but I swear they are not forming words with their lips.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that to. So far I haven't heard it cause a problem, but I'm not flying daily either. I see the potential for it becoming a problem though. Has anyone heard it cause an unnecessary "say again" or worse, a missed "bad read back"?
 
luvflyin said:
I've noticed that to. So far I haven't heard it cause a problem, but I'm not flying daily either. I see the potential for it becoming a problem though. Has anyone heard it cause an unnecessary "say again" or worse, a missed "bad read back"?
Click to expand...
For the most part ATC understands it. The problem is when you're outside the US and use non standard phraseology it can definitely throw off ATC.
 
Seems like it bugs pilots more than controllers. I guess pilots tend more towards being the "control" freaks who want to dictate how others use the radio.
 
I've really tried. Really I have. But resistance is futile. So here is a story relayed on another forum about a dozen years ago. It's not mine. And yes, I agree the controller was probably a bit out of line by having way too much fun.

I stopped saying "with you" cold turkey (it had slipped into my pilot speak) when I heard Philly Approach talking to a GA pilot late one night.

Cessna 123: "Philly Approach, Cessna 123 with you, two thousand five hundred over Woodstown, Mike".

Philly: "Cessna 123, Uniform is NOT the current information, squawk three zero three one and my name's Mike too how do you do."

(there was a stunned silence as the Cessna tried to figure it all out)

Cessna 123: "Ah Philly, I didn't say Uniform. Um, I have the current information - what was that squawk?"

Philly: "Actually Cessna 123, you did tell me you had Uniform - I have it on tape - the word 'with' precedes the ATIS information code - you want to try again".


(More silence and then maybe a realization)

Cessna 123: "OK Philly, Cessna 123 with...shoot...over Woodstown with information Mike".

Philly: (Emphatic) "Good Evening Cessna 123! I see you over Woodstown, two thousand three hundred and Mike is current, squawk three zero three one and say intentions".​
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've really tried. Really I have. But resistance is futile. So here is a story relayed on another forum about a dozen years ago. It's not mine. And yes, I agree the controller was probably a bit out of line by having way too much fun.

I stopped saying "with you" cold turkey (it had slipped into my pilot speak) when I heard Philly Approach talking to a GA pilot late one night.

Cessna 123: "Philly Approach, Cessna 123 with you, two thousand five hundred over Woodstown, Mike".

Philly: "Cessna 123, Uniform is NOT the current information, squawk three zero three one and my name's Mike too how do you do."

(there was a stunned silence as the Cessna tried to figure it all out)

Cessna 123: "Ah Philly, I didn't say Uniform. Um, I have the current information - what was that squawk?"

Philly: "Actually Cessna 123, you did tell me you had Uniform - I have it on tape - the word 'with' precedes the ATIS information code - you want to try again".


(More silence and then maybe a realization)

Cessna 123: "OK Philly, Cessna 123 with...shoot...over Woodstown with information Mike".

Philly: (Emphatic) "Good Evening Cessna 123! I see you over Woodstown, two thousand three hundred and Mike is current, squawk three zero three one and say intentions".​
Click to expand...
That's awesome.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Philly: (Emphatic) "Good Evening Cessna 123! I see you over Woodstown, two thousand three hundred and Mike is current, squawk three zero three one and say intentions".​
Click to expand...
​
Cessna 123: "Ah Philly, my intentions are to be "with you".

dtuuri
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've really tried. Really I have. But resistance is futile. So here is a story relayed on another forum about a dozen years ago. It's not mine. And yes, I agree the controller was probably a bit out of line by having way too much fun.

I stopped saying "with you" cold turkey (it had slipped into my pilot speak) when I heard Philly Approach talking to a GA pilot late one night.

Cessna 123: "Philly Approach, Cessna 123 with you, two thousand five hundred over Woodstown, Mike".

Philly: "Cessna 123, Uniform is NOT the current information, squawk three zero three one and my name's Mike too how do you do."

(there was a stunned silence as the Cessna tried to figure it all out)

Cessna 123: "Ah Philly, I didn't say Uniform. Um, I have the current information - what was that squawk?"

Philly: "Actually Cessna 123, you did tell me you had Uniform - I have it on tape - the word 'with' precedes the ATIS information code - you want to try again".


(More silence and then maybe a realization)

Cessna 123: "OK Philly, Cessna 123 with...shoot...over Woodstown with information Mike".

Philly: (Emphatic) "Good Evening Cessna 123! I see you over Woodstown, two thousand three hundred and Mike is current, squawk three zero three one and say intentions".​
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear that recording and get the voice inflections and the "mood". Just reading the words I'd say the controller really indicted himself by assuming that "you" meant "U" and then accuses the pilot of saying he had Uniform. I loved the pilots response .....shoot....
 
I was flying down south and a Mooney (from the background noise I was theorizing it was a Mite with the canopy open) and every controller instruction was met with "There ya go" as an acknowledgement. I swear I heard laughter on the controller's side after a while.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not memory. I thought it was so funny at the time I saved it, including the date and source.
Click to expand...
LOL. If you don't want to post the source publicly could you PM me? :p

Now I'm curious...
 
mscard88 said:
Annoyed me when that change came about. But then using it almost everyday it became normal and no big deal.
Click to expand...
Sure, once it's explained and understood there's no problem. When the change was new some obviously took it to mean "hold your position" because that's what they did.
 
denverpilot said:
Does that count for dumb non-standard stuff? Seems quite popular with the jet drivers these days.
Click to expand...
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...
 
rolivi said:
My bad habit is the word "for"

ATC: N123AB Waco altimeter 29.93
Me: two niner niner tree for one two tree alfa bravo

Drives my CFI nuts
Click to expand...

I have that same bad habit. I have been trying to change the "for" to "ta"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roncachamp said:
It should still be "taxi into position and hold".
Click to expand...
The standard throughout the world (ICAO) is "line up and wait". WE were the ones who were non-standard.

We (USA) are still the most ICAO noncompliant country in which I've flown.
 
Actually my other bad habit is saying RV when I'm flying the Cardinal. Tower has had some fun with me about being the only High-wing RV they've seen.

But yes, November instead of "for" would be less confusing since my actual tail number is only three characters.
 
rolivi said:
Actually my other bad habit is saying RV when I'm flying the Cardinal. Tower has had some fun with me about being the only High-wing RV they've seen.
Click to expand...
At a previous job I was flying the 767 so always added "heavy" to my call sign. When I was furloughed from that job I briefly flew the CRJ. On one of my first CRJ flights I ALMOST added "heavy" to the call sign when going into our hub airport. That would have been bad...
 
Larry in TN said:
Try using "RV" or "November" instead of "for". i.e. "2-9-9-3, N23AB"
Click to expand...
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​
 
Last edited:
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.
 
roncachamp said:
Sure, once it's explained and understood there's no problem. When the change was new some obviously took it to mean "hold your position" because that's what they did.
Click to expand...

No we were trained on the change in advance at the airline I flew for, so we
didn't "hold our position" as you state.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
The standard throughout the world (ICAO) is "line up and wait". WE were the ones who were non-standard.
Click to expand...

That's definitely true if you're counting nations. Is it still true when counting pilots?

We (USA) are still the most ICAO noncompliant country in which I've flown.
Click to expand...

What's your evidence for that assertion? In the Twelfth Edition of the ICAO SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 11 AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES, the US submitted just one page of differences between national regulations and ICAO. The UK submitted the most, three pages, but most nations submitted no information at all.

In the Thirteenth Edition Spain submitted the most differences, nine pages of them, no information was received from the US.
 
Larry in TN said:
At a previous job I was flying the 767 so always added "heavy" to my call sign. When I was furloughed from that job I briefly flew the CRJ. On one of my first CRJ flights I ALMOST added "heavy" to the call sign when going into our hub airport. That would have been bad...
Click to expand...
Whenever I worked my former supervisor in his Musketeer I added "heavy" to his call sign.
 
dtuuri said:
If you want to comply with the AIM, try not to read back altimeter settings at all
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree. Just working on one issue at a time. I don't read back an altimeter setting unless I'm unsure that I understood is correctly and, in that case, will ask for it to be confirmed.

roncachamp said:
That's definitely true if you're counting nations.
Click to expand...
I suppose I was counting airspace area but the difference doesn't matter. I'd like to have a single standard and I really don't care what it is. Just pick one and use it worldwide. Flying international (outside the US for us, inside the US for them) is hard enough without haven't to switch dialects at the border.

What's your evidence for that assertion?
Click to expand...
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.

When flying at FL200, FL300, or FL400 I sometimes joke (to the other pilot) that perhaps if I used a British accent I could get away with saying "Flight Level three-hundred" instead of "flight level three zero zero" as that is standard phraseology in the UK.
 
I vote for gettting ride of "uh", "um", "huh", "and uh" and "eh".

"With you" doesnt bother me but it sure seems to bother some aviation writers and posters...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top