Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Aviation
| |-+  Pilot/Controller Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  standard phraseology
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: standard phraseology  (Read 15518 times)
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« on: April 04, 2012, 07:41:00 PM »

but is it jargon, slang, or CB chatter?
Quote from: keith
Yes, it's slang,
Quote
Who says that abbreviating your altitude report to save radio time is not good phraseology?
See previous replies. In addition, I don't think the time saved is significant.
Also;

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184499-1.html

Quote
Communicating Clearly
...spoken English is full of ambiguities and homonyms that are easy to misinterpret; for example, "to" and "two" or "for" and "four".

The most important tool we have to ensure that our communications are received correctly is strict adherence to standard FAA radio phraseology as set forth in the Airman's Information Manual. Studies have shown clearly that the use of non-standard and improvised phraseology is a major contributor to miscommunication, particularly the "hearback" problem in which the recipient of a transmission hears what he expects to hear rather than what was actually said.



Altitudes below 18,000' should always be stated in hundreds and thousands of feet: "four thousand" or "seven thousand five hundred" or "one seven thousand two hundred." Higher altitudes should be stated as "flight level one niner zero". It is more and more common to hear other non-standard methods of communicating altitudes. We often hear decimal altitudes ("leaving two point five for eight point five") or implied-thousands ("out of two four oh for one eight oh"). Occasionally, we hear such non-standard phraseology from an airline crew. This doesn't make it right or acceptable. If a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training. Too bad pilots aren't held to a similar standard.


Frequencies should always be stated using decimal notation: "one two six point eight" or "one one niner point zero five". In cases where the integer portion of the frequency is obvious, it may be omitted: "ground point niner".
.
.
.

The beauty of standard phraseology is that you can hear a number out-of-context and immediately know what it is. For example, "three five zero" is clearly a heading, "one three five point five" is obviously a frequency, and "one three thousand five hundred" or "flight level three five zero" are unquestionably altitudes. Once you start using "point" in altitudes and dropping it from frequencies, it becomes easy to get confused. Don't do it.
.
.
.
Handling a Handoff
Perhaps the most frequent radio transmission pilots make is the initial callup following a handoff from one controller to the next. Keep these short, sweet, and minimal. Avoid throw-away phrases like "with you" or "checking in" that convey no information. To many controllers, such phrases sound like fingernails on a blackboard.
Your basic post-handoff transmission should include these four elements:


ATC facility name

aircraft callsign

CLIMBING, DESCENDING, or LEVEL

.
.
.


Quote
It properly conveys the right information, doesn't it?
No.

Quote
Also, when a controller tells you to contact ground .9r does that mean that he is lazy or complacent?
See above.
Also;
http://www.cast-safety.org/pdf/SpecialEditionRW.pdf
and
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/awp/media/education/RS%20A%20Pilots%20Guide%20to%20Safe%20Surface%20Operations.pdf
Quote
Runway Exiting
You are expected to exit the runway at the first available taxiway, or as instructed by ATC. You should remain on tower frequency until advised to contact ground control.
Example:
Controller: Continental Thirty-Two, turn right on
Taxiway Golf Two and contact ground
Point Niner.
Pilot: Continental Thirty-Two, right on Golf
Two, ground Point Niner.
Logged
comperini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2012, 08:25:07 PM »

Just so everyone knows... I believe this thread was created to continue a discussion that started here:

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/'where-in-god's-name-are-you-going'/

ISkyFly...are you the pilot who once told Boston John that "We speak english here"? (from this thread) Wink

Just kidding.. this should be a good thread
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2012, 08:44:48 PM »

Haha. Negative. That comment from the pilot was uncalled for.
Logged
StuSEL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2012, 11:18:05 PM »

I get the whole argument for using standard phraseology, and frankly I use it myself, but to suggest it is confusing for a controller to hear a departure say "Climbing out of 3.8 for 4" is a little much. This is pretty standard by airline crews. Unless the FAA wants to implement a regulation that imposes penalties on pilots for using improper phraseology, controllers should be aware (and are aware, really) of the common phraseological practices of airline crews, correct or not.

The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training. Too bad pilots aren't held to a similar standard." New York Approach uses "Descend to X,000" when things get really busy. Every controller says "nine" instead of "niner" on a rare occasion. "Six from the outer marker" instead of "Six miles from the outer marker." The list goes on and on. If the FAA were to impose mandatory remedial training on controllers for random omissions and speech disfluencies, controllers would be going through a lot of remidial training. They're highly trained humans, not hard coded robots.

On another note, if you fly somewhere that doesn't have any traffic moving about the airspace or airport for extended periods of time, slowing down the initial call up and, in doing so, perhaps adding "with you" or something of the like may give the controller a chance to refocus on the radio frequency and hear your entire transmission without asking you to repeat it. Then again, you could just give a courtesy call with your callsign and wait for a response before you proceed with your request.

This is certainly not a black and white issue.
Logged

CFI ASEL
FAA AT-CTI
Feed maintainer for LAF and FNT
JNanu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2012, 07:11:35 AM »

Let me preface this reply by saying that I'm not a pilot and have very little experience on these matters compared to most people here.

Having said that, I just wanted to summarize what I'm reading.

There are regulations in the AIM that recommend (by the use of the words "should not" rather than "will not" or "must not" a certain phraseology be used. Documents such as the AIM are written very explicitly. They are checked and double checked and triple checked by many people in the industry and are constantly being reviewed and revised. Words don't make it into documents like this unless they were explicitly meant to be there. Making the choice to use "should not" was very intentional and in my mind represents an understanding that there exist scenarios in which the standard phraseology that is recommended is not the safest/most efficient given the circumstances.

Further, I'm reading from a lot of people that this practice is very widespread and has limited if any impact on the safety of the aircraft. The fact that this is a widespread occurrence and continues to be a widespread occurrence indicates to me that no major problems have arisen because of it. I'm confident in the FAA that if safety were severely compromised by something so common that they would take steps to ensure it didn't continue being so common. It seems to me then that those arguing for strict controls and limitations on this "casual slang" phraseology are basing their arguments on the principle that all rules/regulations/recommendations must be followed at all times in the exact same way that they are written. That's a very narrow and at times dangerous way to look at this situation.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2012, 09:28:18 AM »


The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training.
Wrong.
Quote from: martyj19
You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.

Logged
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2012, 09:37:47 AM »

From a "simple minded" single engine instrument pilots point of view and not here to make judgemet on anybody here or even the clips.

I keep my calls professional.  Using decimal points is common and very understandable.  I see no problem with using that but I don't myself.  I myself have used the word "for" but I fully understand why it shouldn't be used as it can be confused with four just as to can be confused with two. 

The problem is that I have to fly a plane.  This is first priority (Aviate)  Second priority is Navigate.  Third priority is Communicate  So you can see, in the chain of importance ATC is least in importance when I sit in the left seat.  So whatever comes out of my lips is what it is, "Memphis center, Cessna 12345, climbing through 4500 for 7000. 

The rules for pilots is three WWW's  Who you are, Where you are and What you want.  The above sample call meets that requirement.  It's that simple and while I am using words "not recommended", I have yet to have a controller not understand my call.  It's easy to nit pick communications but in the real world of flying as demonstrated above, from a pilots point of view, it is the least amount of importance.  I do want to communicate the three WWWS

I have missed calls and even have one where I mistook an instruction as a clearance (link has been posted in these forums).  I got my chops busted on the air and rightfully so.  Was it preventable.  NO.  I am human and humans will be mistake.  Will it happen again.  Possibly as I am human.  ATC same thing.  They can have equal brain mishaps in giving headings.  Is it preventable.  NO.  ATC is just as human as the pilot on the other side of the microphone.

The trick to communications is clear, CONCISE speech.  If you are clear and concise on what you say, miscommunications will be held to a minimum.  Again, flying a plane and talking on the radio seems simple enough but it is not

I have a couple of videos on my Youtube channel where I took a center controller and an approach controller (different flights) up to see the "other side" of the microphone.  These two flights was probably the most informative flights I have had in learning the ATC system as they could explain the "whys" of why I was being handled the way I was that I didn't understand.  They could see why calls were missed because of the multitasking environment a pilot endures.  These flights made the controllers more compassionate to understanding the noisy multitasking evironment the airplane provides.

Bottom line, easy to desktop fly and nitpick using AIM and FARS but when the rubber meets the road in the ATC facility and airplane, all the book knowledge goes out the window and on the ground and it becomes street wise knowledge that gets me through the skies. 

One has to do what they need to do to make a flight safe and it is a team effort between ATC and pilots that makes the system as safe as it is now.
Logged

iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2012, 09:51:52 AM »

here is another one that is a no-no

"any traffic in the area please advise"

 rolleyes
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2012, 10:45:51 AM »

Don Brown, a now retired Atlanta Center controller, wrote an excellent series of articles on Avweb.

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/list.html

He is real big on using standard phraseology.  This particular article discusses the pitfalls of using non-standard phraseology.

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/182636-1.html

w0x0f
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2012, 01:28:57 PM »

Good stuff.

I think the excuse that "i hear non standard phrases being used all the time so it must be alright" is a poor excuse. Bad habits breed bad habits. Since this forum are frequented by student pilots and those who are in their beginning phase in aviation I would think that we would not want to condone bad habits. Whats next- "oh i don't use the before landing checklist because i've done it a thousand times and have it memorized."
Logged
StuSEL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2012, 03:03:23 PM »

The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training.
Wrong.
Quote from: martyj19
You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.
The reference said they get written up. I'm saying they don't get written up. You came back with a random quote from I-don't-know-where saying their performance reviews include scores on use of official phraseology. While true, it is completely irrelevant to anything I just said.

I think the excuse that "i hear non standard phrases being used all the time so it must be alright" is a poor excuse. Bad habits breed bad habits. Since this forum are frequented by student pilots and those who are in their beginning phase in aviation I would think that we would not want to condone bad habits. Whats next- "oh i don't use the before landing checklist because i've done it a thousand times and have it memorized."
That, sir, is a distortion of the whole argument. Nobody in this split thread or the original thread that it was "alright" to use the phraseology. All I and others have said was that it is a standard practice. As to the conclusion of the above quote, that's also completely irrelevant and is a slippery slope fallacy that I will not entertain.
Logged

CFI ASEL
FAA AT-CTI
Feed maintainer for LAF and FNT
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2012, 03:35:48 PM »

The reference material cited here (believe it's "Communicating Clearly") is incorrect when it says "if a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training.
Wrong.
Quote from: martyj19
You would not hear it from controllers because part of their performance ratings is whether or not they use the officially approved phraseology.
The reference said they get written up. I'm saying they don't get written up. You came back with a random quote from I-don't-know-where saying their performance reviews include scores on use of official phraseology. While true, 
Hang on.... you said they dont, several sources say they do and then you say its true. Which is it?

I think the excuse that "i hear non standard phrases being used all the time so it must be alright" is a poor excuse. Bad habits breed bad habits. Since this forum are frequented by student pilots and those who are in their beginning phase in aviation I would think that we would not want to condone bad habits. Whats next- "oh i don't use the before landing checklist because i've done it a thousand times and have it memorized."
Quote
Nobody in this split thread or the original thread that it was "alright" to use the phraseology.
I'm glad!
Logged
StuSEL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2012, 05:50:29 PM »

Hang on.... you said they dont, several sources say they do and then you say its true. Which is it?

It appears you're not reading my reply correctly.

"Performance reviews include scores on use of official phraseology." - YES.
"If a controller used such phraseology, he'd be written up and given remedial training." - Assuming we're not talking about a training scenario, NO.

Sources: Numerous controller friends; experience flying with controllers who make phraseological errors.

Are you a pilot or a controller?
Logged

CFI ASEL
FAA AT-CTI
Feed maintainer for LAF and FNT
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2012, 07:48:56 PM »


Are you a pilot or a controller?
I don't think that makes a difference to the topic at hand. So far all referenced documentation from the FAA, NATCA, AOPA and air traffic controllers that has been supplied in this thread and the previous thread clearly state the phraseology that should and should not be used for numerous reasons including safety. I have yet to see any supporting credible evidence to the contrary.
Logged
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2012, 08:28:22 PM »


I don't think that makes a difference to the topic at hand.

It establishes real world credibility as I wondered the same thing myself...   So yes, if you plan to voice an opinion on ATC or piloting an airplane telling the readership your experiences allows the reader to pay attention to what you say or discard it from no real world experiences.

Read my response on real world experiences....  You keep quoting the PCG and AIM  Guess where my AIM is.  Not in the plane.  So if you think I have time to look up proper phraseology while flying a plane, you are very sadly mistaken.  Even more important is that you are failing to acknowledge the human aspect of flying   We don't have a teleprompter to read from while flying a plane.  I don't know ALL the formal phraseology, and I don't even try to.  My job is the three WWWs and clearly communicate that to the ATC controller.  For the record, I have over 1000 hours PIC time of which probably 3/4 of that I have documented on my You Tube channel.  So StuSEL's question on your real world experiences is a very reasonable question 

Again, AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE.  It's that simple.  With communicate low on the list of safely flying a plane, clear and concise talk is what makes us safe in the skies.  As long as the pilot and controller are reading out of the same playbook, if they spoke pig latin, the skies will be safe.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 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!