Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 27, 2016, 04:31:37 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Aviation
| |-+  Pilot/Controller Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  standard phraseology
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: standard phraseology  (Read 45070 times)
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2012, 01:01:13 PM »



Thank you for not being afraid to posting your real world experiences.  Much easier to have dialogue with a person not afraid to share what they been through and also easier to tailor my responses accordingly.
You made it difficult for yourself.
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 971


« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2012, 02:20:06 PM »

No, its willy wagging.

Call it what you want.
Thanks, but I don't need your permission.

Quote
If you won't share your real world experiences then no point in having any dialogue with you and hopefully the readership will see right through your fluff and follow right along.
Opinion.
Please show me, with credible citations (ie- FAA, FAR, AIM), where the use of non standard phraseology is condoned.

Quote
You lost any credibility with me since you won't answer direct questions with regards to your real world experiences in the ATC system.  I think my credibility with regards of flying in the ATC system stands on it's own.  Don't believe me, search the forums on my posts.
Cya later alligator.

Willy wagging and name calling. Real professional!

Relax and calm down. This is a discussion forum, used for, among other things, to share information. You disagree with me on the topic of non standard phraseology then you disagree with the FAA. Take up your argument with them if you wish to have things changed. That you have used non standard phraseology in the past and may do so frequently, does not make what I have cited wrong.


Please cite where pilots are REQUIRED to use absolute phraseology, like ATC is required to, per the 7110.65. As previously mentioned, the AIM is a guide; a reference for pilots to use, but they are not REQUIRED to use that phraseology each and every time.

ATC is required to use the same phraseology, or as much as they can outside what normally happens around  their airport, per the .65. But pilots are not under such a restriction. Key words in the AIM? 'should', not 'must' or 'shall'. the .65? 'shall' and 'must', not 'should'. Absolutes, not conditionals. There is your disconnect.

You've had a couple of pilots and controllers here correct you, yet you still put up your argument that the pilot is wrong. If you think they are wrong, you could practice what you preach and send in reports of their violations to the FAA to have the pilots scrutinized. If you are right, they will pull the tapes and the CFR and investigate; if you aren't, they will throw your complaint away; I am more inclined to believe the latter will happen, along with about 20 minutes of laughing.

BL.

P.S. The only two things the pilots are required to read back are runway assignments and hold short instructions. And even then, exact phraseology isn't required by the pilot. As long as they read back the hold short instruction or the runway assignment, they are compliant.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2012, 09:25:50 AM »


You've had a couple of pilots and controllers here correct you, yet you still put up your argument that the pilot is wrong.
Well now you are just making things up. I have seen pilots disagree with what I have cited, but again, that doesn't make it wrong. I also have seen a controller agree on the importance of using standard phraseology;
Quote
"but as pilots, we ALL need to understand the importance of good communication, and how it is preferrable to stick to the correct way to say things."
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 971


« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2012, 02:11:32 PM »


You've had a couple of pilots and controllers here correct you, yet you still put up your argument that the pilot is wrong.
Well now you are just making things up. I have seen pilots disagree with what I have cited, but again, that doesn't make it wrong. I also have seen a controller agree on the importance of using standard phraseology;
Quote
"but as pilots, we ALL need to understand the importance of good communication, and how it is preferrable to stick to the correct way to say things."


Preferrable, not required. Big difference. With that, you still have not answered my question.

Please cite where pilots are REQUIRED to use absolute phraseology, like ATC is required to, per the 7110.65. As previously mentioned, the AIM is a guide; a reference for pilots to use, but they are not REQUIRED to use that phraseology each and every time.

ATC is required to use the same phraseology, or as much as they can outside what normally happens around  their airport, per the .65. But pilots are not under such a restriction. Key words in the AIM? 'should', not 'must' or 'shall'. The .65? 'shall' and 'must', not 'should'. Absolutes, not conditionals.

So again, please cite where pilots are REQUIRED to use standard phraseology, like ATC is with the 7110.65.

BL.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2012, 04:33:29 PM »



Preferrable, not required. Big difference. With that, you still have not answered my question.

Please cite where pilots are REQUIRED to use absolute phraseology,
1. You are mistakenly attributing something to me that I haven't said.
   a. Preferable has one r, not two.
2. That is not a question. And if it was, then you are answering my question with a question, which really isn't an answer at all.
 
So I repeat;

Quote
Please show me, with credible citations (ie- FAA, FAR, AIM), where the use of non standard phraseology is condoned.

Until then, lets summarize;

-The use of standard phraseology is a best practice.
-The FAA, (AIM), FlightSafety, AOPA and even NASA state that non standard phraseology should not be used.
-The above references have also documented incidents of where the use of non standard phraseology have caused problems.
-Some of the above references were written by pilots.
-Air traffic controllers themselves have emphasised the importance of using standard phraseology.
-The claim that using non standard phraseology during busy periods saves time is false.
-The excuse that it is frequently used despite the above does not make it right.

Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 971


« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2012, 06:38:55 PM »



Preferrable, not required. Big difference. With that, you still have not answered my question.

Please cite where pilots are REQUIRED to use absolute phraseology,
1. You are mistakenly attributing something to me that I haven't said.
   a. Preferable has one r, not two.
2. That is not a question. And if it was, then you are answering my question with a question, which really isn't an answer at all.
 
So I repeat;

Quote
Please show me, with credible citations (ie- FAA, FAR, AIM), where the use of non standard phraseology is condoned.

Until then, lets summarize;

-The use of standard phraseology is a best practice.
-The FAA, (AIM), FlightSafety, AOPA and even NASA state that non standard phraseology should not be used.
-The above references have also documented incidents of where the use of non standard phraseology have caused problems.
-Some of the above references were written by pilots.
-Air traffic controllers themselves have emphasised the importance of using standard phraseology.
-The claim that using non standard phraseology during busy periods saves time is false.
-The excuse that it is frequently used despite the above does not make it right.

Where does the AIM state that pilots are REQUIRED to use standard phraseology?

Emphasizing does not mean Required.

Please list all documents the FAA has, sections included, where pilots are REQUIRED to use standard phraseology.

We are waiting.

BL.
Logged
dave
Site Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4060



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2012, 07:15:38 PM »

OK, that's enough.  This topic is spinning around and around.

I participate in a lot of FAA (and other) Safety Seminars and a lot of pilot training activities.  I have nearly 700 hours flying in the National Airspace System and countless thousands of hours listening to air traffic communications in every type of airspace there is, with every type of traffic level you can imagine occurs in the real world.  I have spoken to many CFI's, some DPE's, and many air traffic controllers on this subject and many others.

Let's just all agree that the use of standard phraseology is a good idea.  We can't live in the wild west just because someone jumps up and down and says that it is OK to do whatever you want when the right thing to do is not *required*.

Similarly, if a pilot slips every now and then and uses slightly non-standard (by the book) but commonly used (on the air all the time) phraseology that is clearly in the daily vernacular, chances are overwhelmingly high that safety is not being compromised.  But it is also true that excessive use of non-standard phraseology - especially terms that are not in the daily vernacular of pilots and controllers - can lead to reduced or compromised safety.  That is not good, in general.

I don't think this needs further discussion.  So let's cut out all the parochial attitudes and the personal attacks and get on with our lives.


 

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 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!