Extraneous useless radio phrases

[Piper877]

Im on your side, but to play Devils Advocate, 27,000 is FL 270, not 27,000 feet.

The AIM states "to" should be included in the phraseology when reading back assigned altitudes. The reason is any 2 digit thousand altitude that starts with a 2 is a flight level, not a "thousand".

All these people who think they are being fun and cute and exuding professionalism by modifying phraseology need to read Don Browns columns. And if that doesnt work, go sit in a tower for a few shifts.

Precisely. I used to not give a rip about the morons thinking they're cool by saying "with the flash" and such until I read his articles. It becomes crystal clear why there's standardization put forth in the AIM.
I think what bothers me the most about people doing silly things on the radio is that there should be at least a DESIRE to improve yourself and professionalism. It seems like the vast majority of people are content to make up their own phrases and sound like dummies. I find that sad.

 

[Marko Ramius]

Unless there is a big storm nearby, "wind check" is indeed a waste of time. I think it's just a bad habit some guys have. Drives me crazy when the ATIS is reporting a 6kt wind and some guy wants a "wind check".

Since you know everything, you do know that some airlines want you to put the actual(ie. not ATIS) winds in the writeup for a sat./unsat.CAT II/III check don't you?

 

[cheyflyer]

It may be in the controllers manual but I'm a pilot not a controller, so its not required reading for me.

Maybe it should be.

 

[Mach 80]

>>>>you do know that some airlines want you to put the actual(ie. not ATIS) winds in the writeup for a sat./unsat.CAT II/III check don't you?<<<

I'd say about 15% of requested "wind checks" might be for that purpose.

 

[Hamburger]

"Climb and maintain" removes ambiguity.
Example: without the word maintain, a controller might issue "Climb to 7000"

A pilot might interpret this as "Climb 27 thousand (27,000 ft)"

Many foreign ATC's still use "climb to" and it often causes confusion. I, for one, am glad we in the US include the word maintain in altitude clearances.

Exactly this helped Flying Tigers put one into a hill. Got cleared to descent 2400 and they went to 400.

 

[Hollywood82]

Why would anyone ever say for flight level reporting "...twenty POINT five..." instead of "..two zero five.."??

Or along the same lines -- "...20 and a HALF.."??

Point?? Half?? Where does this crap get dreamed up???

You work for the FCC don't you.

Lighten up man. I hope you were on the radio today, I used "4.6" 133and a quarter" "climbing 41 and a half fer 43" "good morning" "any chance of" "on and hold" "gooday"(with an aussie accent) and "with you" about 50 times, in the hopes you would be listening somewhere. I think when app tells me to follow traffic for the runway tomorrow I'll read back, "lining up for the cattle drive rwy 26" Maybe I'll even throw a 30 second uuuuuuhhhhh uuuuummmm in there for ya.

For the record, when your FOs laugh, they are thinking "I better laugh at this dork or he is gonna make this a long miserable flight".

 

[kf4amu]

Lighten up man. I hope you were on the radio today, I used "4.6" 133and a quarter" "climbing 41 and a half fer 43" "good morning" "any chance of" "on and hold" "gooday"(with an aussie accent) and "with you" about 50 times, in the hopes you would be listening somewhere. I think when app tells me to follow traffic for the runway tomorrow I'll read back, "lining up for the cattle drive rwy 26" Maybe I'll even throw a 30 second uuuuuuhhhhh uuuuummmm in there for ya.

I know of 2 brand new center controllers in Jax that would hate talking to you. It took them about a year to realize how annoying non-standard phraseology is.

But thats ok I guess, as long as you make your FO laugh at your nonprofessionalism.

Seriously, save 10 seconds by using proper phraseology, and if you want to be funny and the controller isnt busy...tell him a joke.

 

[Hollywood82]

I know of 2 brand new center controllers in Jax that would hate talking to you. It took them about a year to realize how annoying non-standard phraseology is.

I've heard plenty of controllers around the country use allot of "nonstandard phraseology" Sorry if 2 "brand new" controllers at Jax get their feelings hurt when someone says "with you" or "4.6". They better get used to it, because over half of pilots use those phrases. I've even heard many controllers around the country use those exact phrases, and I don't think one plane has fallen out of the sky as a result.

But thats ok I guess, as long as you make your FO laugh at your nonprofessionalism.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply here, I think you're confused with the post mach80 made. I never mentioned making my FO laugh. Furthermore, my previous post was mostly joking, If you didn’t pick up on that then you are, as I suspect, not very bright.

The phraseology I use is the same that you would hear from NWA, SWA, UAL etc. and I really don’t think that there is anything unprofessional about it. Besides, since the majority of pilots and controllers use “with you” maybe it should be considered standard phraseology.

Seriously, save 10 seconds by using proper phraseology, and if you want to be funny and the controller isnt busy...tell him a joke.

Which takes longer to say? Four point six, or four thousand six hundred? That’s what I though. You have no argument.

Get some common sense, and find something more important to pick on.

 

[kf4amu]

Four point six, or four thousand six hundred? That’s what I though. You have no argument.

Get some common sense, and find something more important to pick on.

You are the one trying to argue with the AIM. But I guess if all the guys at the majors do it, that makes it professional.

 

[Hollywood82]

You are the one trying to argue with the AIM. But I guess if all the guys at the majors do it, that makes it professional.

The AIM is not regulatory. That's why it's separated from the FARs. Do you understand the difference between the two?

I have heard these phrases from numerous air traffic controllers, flight instructors, freight pilots, 135 pax carrying pilots, 121 pilots, and yes even the feds them selves. The first time I heard altitude reported as 4.6 was from a flight instructor who majored in ATC. He now works Chicago center. AIM or not, it is the norm, so get over yourself!

Just today I decided to count how many times I’ve heard altitude assigned or read back as a decimal (4.6 for 4,600). ATC: Aspen app. and Kansas City app.; There were too many “with yous” to count. And SkyWest, Mesaba, DAL, Net Jets, and Citation Shares all used the either 124 and a quarter for freq., 5.5 and/or 5 and a half for altitude. If this is as dangerous as you say it is we should ground 90% of crews out there and retrain them along with just as many air traffic controllers.

Either over half of aviation professionals are wrong, or the AIM doesn’t reflect what is truly standard phraseology. Maybe we should look at changing the AIM to represent the true standard phraseology.

 

[Marko Ramius]

>>>>you do know that some airlines want you to put the actual(ie. not ATIS) winds in the writeup for a sat./unsat.CAT II/III check don't you?<<<

I'd say about 15% of requested "wind checks" might be for that purpose.

I'd say that no matter the percentage, it's about 100% that you're talking out of a$$ on this one.

 

[kf4amu]

The AIM is not regulatory. That's why it's separated from the FARs. Do you understand the difference between the two?

Of course I do. Continue viewing the AIM as optional and it will eventually bite you in the ass.

The point is not whether these phrases are normal or common, they are. The point is they sound silly and serve no purpose except to either A. Save time or B. sound cute.

I can see why people shorten or substitute phrases to save time. Four point six vs four thousand six hundred is a great example. I do it too from time to time. Thats not the topic of this thread. Thats not an "extraneous" phrase (option B above), and my buddies at ATC facilities probably dont give a ******************** about things like that. It's still not as safe as doing it by the book, but I digress.

I wish phraseology was part of checkrides. Theres countless accidents/incidents were standard phraseology was not used. Why do you think the FAA holds their controllers to such a high standard with regards to phraseology? Sure you may hear controllers substitute phrases and words, but I guarantee they dont do it when they are getting checked out on a new position, or taking a proficiency check.

The point is that all these things are written in the AIM for a reason. Safety. Take shortcuts for speed, or to "sound professional" (even though you sound completely opposite) and there will eventually be a miscommunication. With enough miscommunication you will eventually have an accident.

 

[Hollywood82]

Of course I do. Continue viewing the AIM as optional and it will eventually bite you in the ass.

quote]

Optional and non regulatory are two different things. Don’t put words in my mouth. According to my companies POI, "the AIM is there to provide guidance, it's not law" check with your local FSDO.

So now you admit to deviating from the AIM as well. Apparently you view it as “optional”. So what's all the fuss about? According to the AIM 4.6 is non standard phraseology, yet you admit to using it.

I suppose the only non standard phraseology that's OK is the non standard phraseology that you use. There’s a name for people like you, hypocrite.

 

[kf4amu]

Optional and non regulatory are two different things. Don’t put words in my mouth. According to my companies POI, "the AIM is there to provide guidance, it's not law" check with your local FSDO.

So now you admit to deviating from the AIM as well. Apparently you view it as “optional”. So what's all the fuss about? According to the AIM 4.6 is non standard phraseology, yet you admit to using it.

I suppose the only non standard phraseology that's OK is the non standard phraseology that you use. There’s a name for people like you, hypocrite.

No hypocrites won't admit they are wrong. I admit I'm wrong when I do it. You don't. You still think its ok because its cute and/or saves time, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your sole reason for non admitting you are wrong is the old "everyone else is doing it" argument. I tried that in grade school and learned pretty quickly it doesnt work, least of all in the professional world.

If you are ever in court for an aviation incident, don't ever say the AIM is optional. You might as well just bend over right there.

 

[say again]

No hypocrites won't admit they are wrong. I admit I'm wrong when I do it. You don't. You still think its ok because its cute and/or saves time, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your sole reason for non admitting you are wrong is the old "everyone else is doing it" argument. I tried that in grade school and learned pretty quickly it doesnt work, least of all in the professional world.

If you are ever in court for an aviation incident, don't ever say the AIM is optional. You might as well just bend over right there.

Lighten up tightwad. Say what you wish/how you wish, and I will do the same. You don't like it?? Tough sh!t. I'm not gonna have a heart attack over someone's phraseology. Besides, I really don't pay much attention to others conversations to care or notice. Back to the AIM (need some TP). :beer: