So how do you read that back anyway? ("Change to my frequency")

RotorDude said:
I do use the "and..." construct in some cases, and I think it serves a purpose. It tells ATC I am not a newcomer on the frequency with the very first word, and it overcomes the slight mangling that sometimes occurs at beginning of a transmission (otherwise I would just hold the key a smidgen longer before talking). I typically use it as a logical conjunction to a previous point, so it immediately conveys a continuation of some kind.
I would want to hear experienced controllers' opinion on this point.
Click to expand...
Chances are they don't care.

I apologize in advance but that is the second funniest comment I've ever seen about the value of empty filler words (of course "and" is a conjunction and is not a filler when used that way ;)).

You can prove to yourself the lack of a "purpose" for "and,"with you," "uhh," "umm," "you know" and other filler words. Just leave them out (
Umm. If you can!) and see if the controller doesn't understand you. I bet they do!
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
I agree that it's a conversation, and my goal is to reduce the bandwidth and workload on ATC to a bare minimum while getting my point across. Over many years, I think have it optimized, though I am always willing to listen to inputs from others.
As far as the initial clip/mangling, as I mentioned in my post, I can hold the key down a smidgen longer for that, as you suggest (and I most often do), but with "And Boston, ..." I gain some extras, like letting him/her know I am not a newcomer, so they don't need to immediately get the pen and strain to hear a new callsign. They also know that it's something related to a previous issue, so again their mind is prepared for that.
This is why I asked for an opinion from an experience controller, to hear their perspective on it.
Click to expand...
Yep I'm interested from an ATC perspective as well. I'm sure all controllers have slightly different views on this.
 
jordane93 said:
Yep I'm interested from an ATC perspective as well. I'm sure all controllers have slightly different views on this.
Click to expand...

One more point I was thinking about, when I say "And XXX", I will normally shorten the facility name, so if it's Boston Approach, I'll say, "And Approach, 78C would like the GPS Y approach to 19." If it's Boston Center, I might say "And Center, 78C ...". This kind of bandwidth-saving contraction would only make sense after you've started the "conversation" so there is no chance of being on the wrong frequency.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Chances are they don't care.

I apologize in advance but that is the second funniest comment I've ever seen about the value of empty filler words (of course "and" is a conjunction and is not a filler when used that way ;)).

You can prove to yourself the lack of a "purpose" for "and,"with you," "uhh," "umm," "you know" and other filler words. Just leave them out (
Umm. If you can!) and see if the controller doesn't understand you. I bet they do!
Click to expand...

I think it boils down to personal communication skills and psychology. I am sure you can drop half the words in your typical sentence and still be (mostly) understandable. But the point is to try to minimize the comprehension effort on the part of the controller, while minimizing bandwidth use. With the opening "And" also comes the facility contraction which I mentioned above, and it immediately tells ATC that they don't need to strain to catch a new call sign. You might call it "empty filler", but I call it "useful tool". Of course, like any tool, it should not be abused or overused.
 
EdFred said:
When he says "MY frequency" I'm going to be talking to the same controller. Most times I already have it dialed in and reply with "Already there, 7DS" or if I don't, "Now on 123.45, 7DS"
Click to expand...

Most times? I can't think of a single time when a controller asked me to change to their frequency and it was the same one I'm already on. I fly mostly in the southwest though,
 
I always used to switch and then read back but I'm usually slow to do it and a couple of times when I used to do that the controller would repeat the instruction. So now I read back and then change. Then if I then don't hear something for 30 seconds then I'll just say "N123 on 123.4". Usually I don't need to because the controller will talk to someone else and I recognize his/her voice. So I know I'm good. Not standard I know. It makes more sense to switch and then read back but I'm just too slow for some controllers.
 
bobmrg said:
Couldn't you folks come up with an example other than 123.45? That freq is assigned to manufacturers for flight test operations and also some transoceanic sectors.
Click to expand...
It's actually most oceanic airspace.

Flying oceanic from the NYC area to the Caribbean, where we must monitor 121.5 and 123.45, it isn't unusual to have to listen to a couple of GA pilots' running commentary of their flights. They, apparently, have no idea that dozens of airliners are within VHF range in the WATERS airspace who are forced to listen to them.

On the plus side, there's far less "guard police" transmissions while oceanic...
 
jordane93 said:
Yep I'm interested from an ATC perspective as well. I'm sure all controllers have slightly different views on this.
Click to expand...

When I did ATC I didn't care a bit. As an instructor later on in the Army, I suppose I tried to get my students to try and tighten up their phraseology but for some, it's just a transition that they needed. Still didn't stop me from telling them "cut out the 'and' crap!" :D
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
I agree that it's a conversation, and my goal is to reduce the bandwidth and workload on ATC to a bare minimum while getting my point across. Over many years, I think have it optimized, though I am always willing to listen to inputs from others.
As far as the initial clip/mangling, as I mentioned in my post, I can hold the key down a smidgen longer for that, as you suggest (and I most often do), but with "And Boston, ..." I gain some extras, like letting him/her know I am not a newcomer, so they don't need to immediately get the pen and strain to hear a new callsign. They also know that it's something related to a previous issue, so again their mind is prepared for that.
This is why I asked for an opinion from an experience controller, to hear their perspective on it.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to reduce bandwidth, I suggest reading the ATC- what and how to say portion towards the back of "everything explained for the commercial pilot" by Richie Lengel. He explains everything precisely and in a way that my non pilot friends can pick it up and understand.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TheGolfPilot said:
If your goal is to reduce bandwidth, I suggest reading the ATC- what and how to say portion towards the back of "everything explained for the commercial pilot" by Richie Lengel. He explains everything precisely and in a way that my non pilot friends can pick it up and understand.
Click to expand...

My goal is to reduce bandwidth and maximize understanding and reduce ATC workload.
My current phraseology is based on decades of communication with ATC, and listening to what seems to work the best for the pros on the air.
I would like to hear what experienced controllers have to say about these points.
 
RotorDude said:
I think it boils down to personal communication skills and psychology.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that what you do doesn't work but why reinvent the wheel?

The communications chapter of the AIM and P/CG, and the applicable ICAO documents for operations outside the US, has a standard laid out. If everyone complied with that standard it would eliminate most of the miscommunications and "say again"s. What we have demonstrated in this thread, and many others, is a diverse group of pilots each wanting to come up with his own phraseology standards which he thinks are better. Each pilot, and god forbid each controller, coming up with his own phraseology only increases the chaos.

I suggest that you try adhering to the AIM and P/CG standards for a number of flights and see how it works.

I do a lot of international flying between the US and a variety of Middle America countries. That requires me to switch back and forth between the FAA standards and the ICAO standards. I don't try to incorporate the standards from each which I may think are best. I use the standards applicable in the airspace in which I'm currently flying.
 
RotorDude said:
One more point I was thinking about, when I say "And XXX", I will normally shorten the facility name, so if it's Boston Approach, I'll say, "And Approach, 78C would like the GPS Y approach to 19." If it's Boston Center, I might say "And Center, 78C ...". This kind of bandwidth-saving contraction would only make sense after you've started the "conversation" so there is no chance of being on the wrong frequency.
Click to expand...

A way to shorten bandwidth here is to include your request with your approach controller right from the get go. "Approach, skypigeon 1234A at 3000, request GPS Y 19 to full stop have delta." A lot of controllers will pick up on this and will respond with something like "34A Altimeter 3002, expect vectors for GPS"
That maximizes the controllers understanding from the get go. Saves the "And" call ups as well as the "what is your approach request" as well as the "will this be a full stop" questions.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
I'm not saying that what you do doesn't work but why reinvent the wheel?

The communications chapter of the AIM and P/CG, and the applicable ICAO documents for operations outside the US, has a standard laid out. If everyone complied with that standard it would eliminate most of the miscommunications and "say again"s. What we have demonstrated in this thread, and many others, is a diverse group of pilots each wanting to come up with his own phraseology standards which he thinks are better. Each pilot, and god forbid each controller, coming up with his own phraseology only increases the chaos.

I suggest that you try adhering to the AIM and P/CG standards for a number of flights and see how it works.

I do a lot of international flying between the US and a variety of Middle America countries. That requires me to switch back and forth between the FAA standards and the ICAO standards. I don't try to incorporate the standards from each which I may think are best. I use the standards applicable in the airspace in which I'm currently flying.
Click to expand...

I think the vast majority of communication problems I hear have to do either with (apparently) new pilots using improper terminology, or static/poor signals. I have yet to see any problem arising from the occasional use of "And <contracted facility name>", which is the case in point. I fly mostly in the US and Canada, and at least in those airspaces it seems to work well.
 
TheGolfPilot said:
A way to shorten bandwidth here is to include your request with your approach controller. "Approach, skypigeon 1234A at 3000, request GPS Y 19 to full stop have delta." A lot of controllers will pick up on this and will respond with something like "34A Altimeter 3002, expect vectors for GPS"
That maximizes the controllers understanding from the get go. Saves the "And" call ups as well as the "what is your approach request" as well as the "will this be a full stop" questions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with your specific point. I do try to get that request in as soon as possible, without an "and".
 
RotorDude said:
I think the vast majority of communication problems I hear have to do either with (apparently) new pilots using improper terminology, or static/poor signals. I have yet to see any problem arising from the occasional use of "And <contracted facility name>", which is the case in point. I fly mostly in the US and Canada, and at least in those airspaces it seems to work well.
Click to expand...
New pilots pick up on bad radio etiquette from "experienced" pilots. We need to use standard phraseology and go by the book. Otherwise it will be a never ending cycle.
 
jordane93 said:
New pilots pick up on bad radio etiquette from "experienced" pilots. We need to use standard phraseology and go by the book. Otherwise it will be a never ending cycle.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Somebody may correct me here, but I personally have had a lot more luck with ATC actually receiving my flightplan "remarks" since I started using the ICAO format to file. Maybe the reason is localized or maybe its just random.
 
Larry in TN said:
Yes, of course, YOU think it works well. Every pilot who uses non-standard phraseology thinks it works well or he wouldn't be using it.
Click to expand...

Sure, I think it works well (when properly used), not just for me, but for all others who routinely use it. You hear lots of things that don't work well, e.g. take up extra bandwidth or create unneeded stress or confusion, and this isn't one of them. As I noted above, I think the contrary is true.
I should also mention, that from the day I started flying until today, I always listen carefully to all others on the frequency, and try to learn from the more experienced pros and emulate them where applicable. I learn something new almost every day, both good and bad.
 
Ha! We had TVs in the tower / radar. I think they've put a nix on that sort of thing these days.:(
 
They did but they can't get rid of YouTube and Amazon Prime video. Those mid shifts (11pm - 7am) can get boring by yourself. We used to have a Playstation in the PAR.
 
Didn't see this question in the thread: Changing freq to "My frequency xxxx.xx", with or without confirming the instruction, can you check on to the new frequency with abbreviated call sign? Theoretically during the change you are not in two way communication with the ground station who began abbreviating. Shouldn't it be full call sign on call up until acknowledged (abbr) on new freq.

Further (start those flame throwers): Who cares? Confirm the freq changes the same way every time, check on the same way every time.
 
You're going to be talking to the same guy, I treat it as if I haven't switched controllers, because, well, I haven't.
 
rolivi said:
Didn't see this question in the thread: Changing freq to "My frequency xxxx.xx", with or without confirming the instruction, can you check on to the new frequency with abbreviated call sign? Theoretically during the change you are not in two way communication with the ground station who began abbreviating. Shouldn't it be full call sign on call up until acknowledged (abbr) on new freq.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You will even be speaking with the exact same controller who has been using your abbreviated callsign.

I guess I didn't notice EdFred answered it already.
 
Timbeck2 said:
...we don't care how you say it, just don't read us a novel...
Click to expand...

Now THOSE sound like words of wisdom!

I remember one time when I got a little tongue-tied on the SFO Tower frequency. Fortunately for all concerned, I was smart enough to un-key the mike after the first "uuuuhhhh"!
 
This situation happened to me tonight... and I thought of this thread.

Where is the head banging against the wall smilie?
 
bobmrg said:
Couldn't you folks come up with an example other than 123.45? That freq is assigned to manufacturers for flight test operations and also some transoceanic sectors.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

:%s/123.45/121.5/g

Just firing up the regular expression replacement mode in vi to help ya out here, Bob. Can you tell me the INF ticket number you filed this bug under so I can log time on it, move it into the current Infrastructure Sprint, and close it? Thanks. :)
 
Again, if you follow the AIM both paragraphs apply, you don't get to chose one. These things occur at the outer limits of transmitter range. Why not let ATC know you got the message on the current frequency, then make the abbreviated (not the initial protocol) callup because, "If you select the new frequency without an acknowledgement, the controller’s workload is increased because there is no way of knowing whether you received the instruction..."?

AIM 4-3-2. d. Acknowledgement of Frequency Changes.

1. When advised by ATC to change frequencies, acknowledge the instruction. If you select the new frequency without an acknowledgement, the controller’s workload is increased because there is no way of knowing whether you received the instruction or have had radio communications failure. 4/3/14 AIM Radio Communications Phraseology 4−2−3

2. At times, a controller/specialist may be working a sector with multiple frequency assignments. In order to eliminate unnecessary verbiage and to free the controller/specialist for higher priority transmissions, the controller/specialist may request the pilot “(Identification), change to my frequency 123.4.” This phrase should alert the pilot that the controller/specialist is only changing frequencies, not controller/specialist, and that initial callup phraseology may be abbreviated.

EXAMPLE− “United Two Twenty−Two on one two three point four” or “one two three point four, United Two Twenty−Two.”​

EDIT: Btw, I DO NOT like the first method in the example. Stating your call letters after repeating the instruction distinguishes your call format from ATC's, which helps others on frequency avoid stealing your clearance.

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