Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 12:28:30 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  "where in God's name are you going?"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: "where in God's name are you going?"  (Read 10898 times)
StrongDreams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2012, 11:59:40 AM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
I'm not sure I agree.

Now I'm curious because I hear this a lot out of KROC.  The first call to departure after being handed off from tower is usually something like "Citrus 598 climbing two point four for ten thousand."  There are other phrasings too, and I have never counted how many times each is used.  But to my uneducated ears it sounds standard because so many planes use it.
Logged
notaperfectpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 237


Student pilot


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2012, 12:41:10 PM »

yes they use it quite often but technically they should say: "Citrus 598 climbing through two thousand four hundred for one zero thousand." that is the way that they are supposed to say it but most everybody recognizes what they mean by 2.4 for 10 or something like that....
Logged
makonyy15
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2012, 12:42:06 PM »

on initial call up the pilot already started using non standard phraseology.

"3 point 8 for 4 thousand"

3.8? he should be sent back to ground school.

Oh come on...

That has no bearing on this issue.
I'm not sure I agree.

Now I'm curious because I hear this a lot out of KROC.  The first call to departure after being handed off from tower is usually something like "Citrus 598 climbing two point four for ten thousand."  There are other phrasings too, and I have never counted how many times each is used.  But to my uneducated ears it sounds standard because so many planes use it.

I hear the same thing out of Syracuse frequently too... "Syracuse Depature, Eagle Flight 4058 climbing 2.5 for 4, runway heading." As per notaperfectpilot's post, it is incorrect, but frequently done.
Logged
martyj19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2012, 02:34:18 PM »

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard someone use the "2.4" shorthand, mostly heavy iron and not GA, I could pay for a lot of flight time.  I have done it myself.  Unless I am on a flight test or a stage check or something.  You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.

Seriously, I don't see it as the big deal that iskyfly seems to think it is.  Yes it is nonstandard.  And certainly it has nothing whatever to do with the point of the clip, which is that the controller issued and the pilot followed a heading that the controller misspoke.
Logged
keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2012, 02:56:24 PM »

Actually the point of the clip is that the pilot was suspect of the heading, but didn't say anything. That is the learning opportunity here.

If this was just a simple case of the pilot complying with a misspoken heading, it would still be interesting, but not really something anyone could learn from.

The altitude check-in is a complete red herring. Yes, it's slang, but it's not relevant.
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2012, 03:44:53 PM »

Ok, so on the point of relevance, if it makes you feel better, would you like a separate thread instead?
Logged
martyj19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2012, 04:45:20 PM »

Ok, so on the point of relevance, if it makes you feel better, would you like a separate thread instead?

I think it would be fine to agree to disagree.  There is no chance you will affect the behavior of the thousands of people who use the slang.  For further information, see http://xkcd.com/386/
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2012, 06:11:52 PM »

  There is no chance you will affect the behavior of the thousands of people who use the slang. 
That is a defeatist attitude and I disagree with the claim that "there is no chance".
 
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2012, 06:30:26 PM »

yes they use it quite often but technically they should say: "Citrus 598 climbing through two thousand four hundred for one zero thousand."

phrases such as the following should be avoided;
 "for", "out of", "at", "up to", "down to"

AIM 5-3-1

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

EXAMPLE-
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).

"KROC departure, Citrus 598, leaving two thousand four hundred, climbing to one zero thousand."
Logged
klkm
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2012, 09:44:29 PM »

The fact is the AIM is a suggestion, the word "should" shows that it is not mandatory.  On a busy approach control freq the quicker the check in the better.  As a controller I have no problem, with 2.4 for 8, I am verifying the mode C with the 2.4, and verifying assigned altitude with the 8.  I do agree with the original post, if you are flying and I issue you a turn that sounds off, feel free to question it.  Every controller at some point has had the tapes pulled and they could have sworn they said "turn left heading 280" and you listen and it is clear as day "turn left heading 180".  Usually it is altitude that gets most in trouble, turns you can catch before it is too big of a problem, typically. 
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2012, 08:55:20 AM »

Quote
Laziness, complacency = bad habits. I am left to wonder what other non standard practices he performs when PIC.

This is a cheap shot,
Opinion.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2012, 09:26:20 AM »

The fact is the AIM is a suggestion, the word "should" shows that it is not mandatory.

oh I get it... Lets just discard / ignore whatever parts of AIM that doesn't suite us.

Quote
As a controller I have no problem, with 2.4 for 8, 
I'm pretty confident that the FAA and NATCA would not endorse the use of non standard phraseology.

In fact... wait a minute.... From NATCA themselves in regards to ATC / Pilot Communication Issues;
Quote
The conversational communications in some of these events may indicate a possible drift from using standard phraseology. However, it’s important to use prescribed phraseology so that each party’s intentions are clear.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/artcc/chicago/symposium/recap/media/NATCA.pdf
Quote
All pilots will find the Pilot/Controller Glossary very helpful in learning what certain words or phrases mean. Good phraseology enhances safety and is the mark of a professional pilot. Jargon, chatter, and "CB" slang have
no place in ATC communications.
The Pilot/Controller Glossary is the same glossary used in FAA Order JO
7110.65, Air Traffic Control. We recommend that it be studied and reviewed from time to time to sharpen your
communication skills.
Logged
notaperfectpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 237


Student pilot


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2012, 04:59:11 PM »

but is it jargon, slang, or CB chatter? Who says that abbreviating your altitude report to save radio time is not good phraseology? It properly conveys the right information, doesn't it? Also, when a controller tells you to contact ground .9r does that mean that he is lazy or complacent? I think that this is nitpicking here....
Logged
dave
Site Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3657



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2012, 07:35:36 PM »

Wow, this thread is spinning out of control.  Kind of off topic now so I'm locking it.

As to standard phraseology, there is no doubt about what proper phraseology is.  It is well-defined.  But it is also common knowledge that both pilots and controllers use short-cut phraseology, especially in busy airspace.  And most of that slightly non-standard phraseology seldom compromises safety.  This is also well-known, especially in the busy TRACONs.  Still not relevant to this post at all.  Feel free to debate it in another thread.  And as to judging a pilot (or a controller) by the use of such phraseology - well, that one dimension gives a very myopic view.  You need to look at quite a bit more than that to make such a snap judgment about one's competency.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!