Extraneous useless radio phrases

[Hollywood82]

No, the dreaded 300 hr wonder kids have the attitude you exhibit. The attitude that they know it all, and don't need to learn anything knew. They are always right, and the AIM is optional.

Of course it doesnt. Flying is about flying, not talking on the radio. This thread is not about flying, its about talking on the radio. Bringing in another subject is simply dodging the topic at hand. And yes, I do think alot of myself actually. Im pretty much the coolest and best guy out there. I even wear aviators to show how cool I am. And I had a trust fund so I dont have to pay back any loans.
I love admitting that. I love telling people how lucky I am. They are expecting me to talk about how I deserved it and how awesome and smart I am. Instead I tell them I have a very thick skin, I ask them to tell me when I mess up, explain things to me, and don't accept anything substandard from me. Lots of captains won't chastise a new F/O because they don't want to bother with the arguments from some new jackass who thinks he knows everything. I want to learn. I freely admit I dont have all the answers when it comes to flying 121.
However, one thing that DOES have all the answers, is the AIM. You are arguing with the AIM, not me. You are arguing with standard phraseology, something the FAA insists their employees adhere to without question. You are arguing with someone who has much more experience with professional communications than you do (me). Your only argument is "Well everyone else does it! It's obviously OK!".
That doesnt work. Ever. You'd be the worst lawyer in history.
Admit you are wrong and work to fix your mistakes. No one cares when you admit a mistake that you are trying to fix. But when you justify unprofessional actions with grade school arguments like "everyone is doing it!", you lower yourself to the bar of the 300 hour know-it-all pilots.

Great, another lecture from a 300hr wonder, courtesy of kf4amu.

I’m not arguing with the AIM. I know what the AIM says, but there’s a reason this info is found in the AIM and not in the FARs. You keep saying that I’m arguing with the AIM, I’m not. I’m just saying that’s it’s OK to use non standard phraseology on certain occasions.

A professional aviator knows when it’s ok to use non standard phraseology. Over WY on a calm Sunday evening, fine; talking to approach in Las Palmas Gran Canarie or any other non-english-speaking country, you better be as clear as possible (I know this from experience). Talking to ATC when it’s extremely busy, be short and clear (shortening calls to 8.0, 150, N555US). If I say with you, 4.5, etc., it doesn’t make me unprofessional, as long as I do it at the right times. Just because you don’t understand when it’s ok to do this tells everyone here that you have a lot to learn and yes you have the cocky know it all attitude of a 300hr wonder.

According to you, anyone who deviates from the AIM at any time is immediately branded unprofessional, that’s BS and you know it. On your next leg tell one of your CAs that he’s unprofessional because he says “with you” or “4.5”, let me know how that goes.

Look at the people that are more experienced than you. Watch what they do. They’ve been around for a while, and there’s a reason for what they do. I’m not saying that it’s right because everyone does it, I’m just saying there’s a time and place, and under the right circumstances non standard phraseology is OK. If you can’t acknowledge this then you have a problem.

 

[kf4amu]

According to you, anyone who deviates from the AIM at any time is immediately branded unprofessional, that’s BS and you know it. On your next leg tell one of your CAs that he’s unprofessional because he says “with you” or “4.5”, let me know how that goes.

Read my statements, thats not what I said. What IS unprofessional is backing up nonstandard phraseology with weak arguments because you are too proud to say what you did was wrong. Don't worry, everyone is human. When you stop trying to get better, no matter how small the issue, you become unsafe and dangerous. Thats the "holier than thou" attitude you have.

Like I said, I do it on occasion as well, but not on purpose. You think it makes me a hypocrite, but I'm not defending my actions like you are.

Look at the people that are more experienced than you. Watch what they do. They’ve been around for a while, and there’s a reason for what they do. I’m not saying that it’s right because everyone does it, I’m just saying there’s a time and place, and under the right circumstances non standard phraseology is OK. If you can’t acknowledge this then you have a problem.

I definitely acknowledge that the minor things you keep referring do won't hurt anything, but its never "ok".

Just because people have been flying longer than me doesnt make their radio usage "the gold standard". I'd rather look up to people that exhibit known professionalism (hence why I read Don Brown's articles) and the AIM, and discuss with controllers what their pet peeves are that pilots do. I'll let my captain do whatever he wants when hes running the radio, not my place to correct him. I just make sure I listen more closely if he "two four zero"s or "ahhhhhhh theres a small buildup about the ahhhhhhhh 1 to 1:30, was wondering if perhaps we may be able to get higher or aahhhhhhh maybe a little to the left, whatever works for you guys I dunno if theres traffic ahead or above us, so whatever you can give is fine with us"s, so in the resulting chaos they created on the busy frequency we dont miss any calls from a pissed off controller.

Your argument switched from "everyone is doing it so the AIM needs to be changed" to "there is a time and a place and under the right circumstances its ok". I will agree with your modified argument as long as people are aware that minor deviations like that are never OK.

The only thing I know it all about (in relation to you anyway) is professional communication experience, of which you have none other than what you've heard other people do. That experience I've accumulated over the years has very little to do with my flight time. Pilots are users of the system, not controllers. Its a very different perspective.

 

[Hollywood82]

Read my statements, thats not what I said. What IS unprofessional is backing up nonstandard phraseology with weak arguments because you are too proud to say what you did was wrong. Don't worry, everyone is human. When you stop trying to get better, no matter how small the issue, you become unsafe and dangerous. Thats the "holier than thou" attitude you have.

Like I said, I do it on occasion as well, but not on purpose. You think it makes me a hypocrite, but I'm not defending my actions like you are.



I definitely acknowledge that the minor things you keep referring do won't hurt anything, but its never "ok".

Just because people have been flying longer than me doesnt make their radio usage "the gold standard". I'd rather look up to people that exhibit known professionalism (hence why I read Don Brown's articles) and the AIM, and discuss with controllers what their pet peeves are that pilots do. I'll let my captain do whatever he wants when hes running the radio, not my place to correct him. I just make sure I listen more closely if he "two four zero"s or "ahhhhhhh theres a small buildup about the ahhhhhhhh 1 to 1:30, was wondering if perhaps we may be able to get higher or aahhhhhhh maybe a little to the left, whatever works for you guys I dunno if theres traffic ahead or above us, so whatever you can give is fine with us"s, so in the resulting chaos they created on the busy frequency we dont miss any calls from a pissed off controller.

Your argument switched from "everyone is doing it so the AIM needs to be changed" to "there is a time and a place and under the right circumstances its ok". I will agree with your modified argument as long as people are aware that minor deviations like that are never OK.

The only thing I know it all about (in relation to you anyway) is professional communication experience, of which you have none other than what you've heard other people do. That experience I've accumulated over the years has very little to do with my flight time. Pilots are users of the system, not controllers. Its a very different perspective.

Serious?? COME ON! You need to get over yourself. The end goal is being safe, nuff said.

 

[MD11Drvr]

Well when some of you folks start flying outside of North America and no Mexico and the Caribbean do not count. I mean South America and old Eastern Europe with some 3rd world Asia thrown in for practice you will see the merits of ICAO standard. Or maybe not and you will sound like an idiot and embarrass the rest of the Americans on the freq. The controllers in many parts of the world expect to hear a given phrase which is most of the English they speak and when you are something different is causes confusion. I do not buy the argument that you will use correct ICAO when you leave the US as we are all creatures of habit. Just a thought if you ever want to fly for an operator that flies overseas because most stress the importance of ICAO standard. Just my .02 worth..........

 

[highsky]

Great, another lecture from a 300hr wonder, courtesy of kf4amu.

I’m not arguing with the AIM. I know what the AIM says, but there’s a reason this info is found in the AIM and not in the FARs. You keep saying that I’m arguing with the AIM, I’m not. I’m just saying that’s it’s OK to use non standard phraseology on certain occasions.

A professional aviator knows when it’s ok to use non standard phraseology. Over WY on a calm Sunday evening, fine; talking to approach in Las Palmas Gran Canarie or any other non-english-speaking country, you better be as clear as possible (I know this from experience). Talking to ATC when it’s extremely busy, be short and clear (shortening calls to 8.0, 150, N555US). If I say with you, 4.5, etc., it doesn’t make me unprofessional, as long as I do it at the right times. Just because you don’t understand when it’s ok to do this tells everyone here that you have a lot to learn and yes you have the cocky know it all attitude of a 300hr wonder.

According to you, anyone who deviates from the AIM at any time is immediately branded unprofessional, that’s BS and you know it. On your next leg tell one of your CAs that he’s unprofessional because he says “with you” or “4.5”, let me know how that goes.

Look at the people that are more experienced than you. Watch what they do. They’ve been around for a while, and there’s a reason for what they do. I’m not saying that it’s right because everyone does it, I’m just saying there’s a time and place, and under the right circumstances non standard phraseology is OK. If you can’t acknowledge this then you have a problem.

kf4amu, in 250 hours, has developed a far greater understanding of professionalism with communications than you will apparently ever know, 3700 hours, or otherwise. You are so far out in the weeds, it's not even funny. Everything kf4amu said is right on target.

Apparently you want to start comparing logbooks. Fine; I have 22 years professional flying experience and over 3 times the hours as you. I have extensive experience flying both military and commercial heavy jets to every corner of the earth. There is no room for non-standard phraseology any time or anywhere. I don't care how many other pilots like to get clever with their own jargon. That doesn't make it right. Apparently you think you're a wise old pro with 3700 hours. You're just getting started, and sooner or later this is going to bite you in the ass. You're asking for trouble.

Contrary to your foolish belief, ATC does not make a habit with non-standard communication. In fact, I honestly can't think of one time I've ever noticed them deviate, and I've been listening to them for many more years than you. Your arrogance and ignorance is a disgrace, and a danger to yourself, your passengers, and everyone else in the airspace around you.

I fly for the #1 cargo airline in the world. My airline makes a big deal about this subject and takes precise, standard ICAO ATC communications very seriously, both domestic and international. We receive extensive training on this, and it's heavily emphasized on check rides. Would you show up to an airline interview and repeat some of the non-sense you've been advocating in this thread? Would they consider that professional? If so, why don't you PM me your resume, and I'll make sure it gets to the right people in HR.

 

[Hollywood82]

Apparently you want to start comparing logbooks. Fine; I have 22 years professional flying experience and over 3 times the hours as you. I have extensive experience flying both military and commercial heavy jets to every corner of the earth. I fly for the #1 cargo airline in the world.

Yeah, but you're still a giant toolbag! Probably why your wife left you!

So.... where did you get the A$$ MASTER rating? Just curious how a "professional" like you would get one of those.

Contrary to your foolish belief, ATC does not make a habit with non-standard communication. In fact, I honestly can't think of one time I've ever noticed them deviate, and I've been listening to them for many more years than you.

WHAT? Where have you been flying? Did you make up your credentials? Either you have no idea what standard phraseology is, or you really don’t listen to ATC. Good thing you fly freight, you clueless hack!

 

[chignutsak]

Contrary to your foolish belief, ATC does not make a habit with non-standard communication. In fact, I honestly can't think of one time I've ever noticed them deviate, and I've been listening to them for many more years than you.

I agree with the spirit of your post, but what you said about ATC having never deviated from non-standard comms (in your vast, God-like experience) is... frankly, garbage. Spend 5 mins with NY approach. Not unsafe, mind you, just different.

 

[highsky]

Yeah, but you're still a giant toolbag! Probably why your wife left you!

So.... where did you get the A$$ MASTER rating? Just curious how a "professional" like you would get one of those.
[/color]
WHAT? Where have you been flying? Did you make up your credentials? Either you have no idea what standard phraseology is, or you really don’t listen to ATC. Good thing you fly freight, you clueless hack!

I'm done with you. I don't debate fools or tools. You are both, and always will be.

You'd be rejected from any major airline interview were you to reiterate your BS, and you know it. If you don't know that, your a bigger dumbass than I thought...if you do know that, then you're a POS with no integrity--you behave one way in an interview, but completely opposite on the line.

Out.

 

[highsky]

I agree with the spirit of your post, but what you said about ATC having never deviated from non-standard comms (in your vast, God-like experience) is... frankly, garbage. Spend 5 mins with NY approach. Not unsafe, mind you, just different.

I've spent hours, not minutes, with NY Approach. I did not say that ATC has never deviated from standard. What I DID say was that they don't make a habit of it, and I can't recall an instance where I've NOTICED it.

By the way, I think that my years flying or Total Time is irrelevant. The only reason I described my, as you say "vast, God-like experience," is because this Jackass called out the other guy for being a 300 hour wonder, insulting him with a "My shlong is bigger than yours contest" with the logbook.

I have always believed that professionalism doesn't always correlate directly with Total Time. It's all about attitude. Clearly on this thread, the guy with just 250 TT has a much more professional attitude than the d0uch with 3700 TT.

 

[Hollywood82]

I've spent hours, not minutes, with NY Approach. I did not say that ATC has never deviated from standard. What I DID say was that they don't make a habit of it, and I can't recall an instance where I've NOTICED it.

You either have your head up you’re a$$, or you’re a moron. Probably both!

By the way, I think that my years flying or Total Time is irrelevant. The only reason I described my, as you say "vast, God-like experience," is because this Jackass called out the other guy for being a 300 hour wonder, insulting him with a "My shlong is bigger than yours contest" with the logbook.

Two things are important in respect to standard phraseology. Experience, and common sense are required to know when it ok to use non standard phraseology. You obviously have no common sense for a guy with 11K+ hrs, which just makes you more dangerous then the 300hr wonder.

I have always believed that professionalism doesn't always correlate directly with Total Time. It's all about attitude. Clearly on this thread, the guy with just 250 TT has a much more professional attitude than the d0uch with 3700 TT.

For a guy who places no importance on experience you seem to bring up yours a lot. You are only upset that you have no common sense and have to take it out on those that do. You’ll always be the hack that slipped through the cracks.

PS It’s spelled d0uche, and that title belongs to you.

 

[chignutsak]

What I DID say was that they don't make a habit of it, and I can't recall an instance where I've NOTICED it.

You've spent "hours" with NY and you've never noticed it. Okayyyyyyy. I rest my case.

 

[dickburns]

my friend pointed me to this thread and let me use his account to post briefly.

I'm a controller at a center, a busier one, too.

Hollywood82 you're so out to lunch with your thinking. No where do we appreciate you "shortening" stuff with crummy shorthand abbreviations for things. 124 and a quarter means nothing, it's 124.25, just like 8.0, and all the other abbreviations you mentioned.

Too many guys think they're "hot stuff" with their shorthand and you strike me as the type. Ie. you're given a clearance and don't read back your call sign with it, I query you again, still just the clearance, til I have to FINALLY ask for a call sign in the readback?

What about the N123SF guys calling themselves sugar fox? what the hell is SUGAR?

Or N888AB you should check on as eight-eight-eight not "triple 888".

These are all things I hear everyday, and are shorthanded by pilots who think they might know their stuff, but are just sounding foolish and making it harder to communicate.

Hollywood, you're fighting a losing battle, not sure where you get your confidence but no controller is gonna approve of bad phraseology or shorthand.

Also, re: ATC in college? LOL man. Come on, those classes barely teach you what separation minimums are, let alone phraseology!!!

 

[say again]

my friend pointed me to this thread and let me use his account to post briefly.

I'm a controller at a center, a busier one, too.

Hollywood82 you're so out to lunch with your thinking. No where do we appreciate you "shortening" stuff with crummy shorthand abbreviations for things. 124 and a quarter means nothing, it's 124.25, just like 8.0, and all the other abbreviations you mentioned.

Too many guys think they're "hot stuff" with their shorthand and you strike me as the type. Ie. you're given a clearance and don't read back your call sign with it, I query you again, still just the clearance, til I have to FINALLY ask for a call sign in the readback?

What about the N123SF guys calling themselves sugar fox? what the hell is SUGAR?

Or N888AB you should check on as eight-eight-eight not "triple 888".

These are all things I hear everyday, and are shorthanded by pilots who think they might know their stuff, but are just sounding foolish and making it harder to communicate.

Hollywood, you're fighting a losing battle, not sure where you get your confidence but no controller is gonna approve of bad phraseology or shorthand.

Also, re: ATC in college? LOL man. Come on, those classes barely teach you what separation minimums are, let alone phraseology!!!

:bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling:

 

[Hollywood82]

my friend pointed me to this thread and let me use his account to post briefly.

I'm a controller at a center, a busier one, too.

Hollywood82 you're so out to lunch with your thinking. No where do we appreciate you "shortening" stuff with crummy shorthand abbreviations for things. 124 and a quarter means nothing, it's 124.25, just like 8.0, and all the other abbreviations you mentioned.

Too many guys think they're "hot stuff" with their shorthand and you strike me as the type. Ie. you're given a clearance and don't read back your call sign with it, I query you again, still just the clearance, til I have to FINALLY ask for a call sign in the readback?

What about the N123SF guys calling themselves sugar fox? what the hell is SUGAR?

Or N888AB you should check on as eight-eight-eight not "triple 888".

These are all things I hear everyday, and are shorthanded by pilots who think they might know their stuff, but are just sounding foolish and making it harder to communicate.

Hollywood, you're fighting a losing battle, not sure where you get your confidence but no controller is gonna approve of bad phraseology or shorthand.

Also, re: ATC in college? LOL man. Come on, those classes barely teach you what separation minimums are, let alone phraseology!!!

I see alot more than you do from your little space at center, and I can tell you that controllers all over the country use 4.5, 124 and a quarter, etc. I will agree with you on your point of pilots using phrases like fish finder instead of TCAS, or FS = foxy sugar, etc. Those do not belong. The tripple 8 thing I have heard from ATC several times though. Don't point fingers! ATC does it too!

 

[414Flyer]

Sugar was the phonetic used before Sierra, some people just insist on still using Sugar.