What to say to ATC?

[Astra Guy]

I am with you G200 and Les. The whole reason for the standard terminology is for good communication between us flailing around in the sky and the boys/girls we are talking to.

In the cockpit there are a number of standard calls when in a more than single pilot situation, as well. I can just imagine a PF saying to the PM "You've got it" out of the blue. The PM may wonder what the PF really meant by that statement....bad breath, bo, the clap, the checklist, the coffee, the aircraft controls, etc.?

Nothing worse than a long winded guy coming out of an uncontrolled field trying to pick up an IFR clearance tying up the radio for 45 seconds because he does not know how to communicate.

 

[mar]

ATC is your friend

I have some friends that work Local and Approach Controls. These guys are *super* patient and understanding--but after a couple beers they've confided in me.

"Mar," they say, "why do some pilots have to read back *every single thing I say*?"

"ATC guy," I retort, "Um, I guess it's just to make sure they got it right."

Personally, I only read back the information I can get busted on: Altitudes, routing, runway crossings and of course hold short instructions.

Otherwise I think my call sign is sufficient unless I really feel the need to "speak to the tape." You ATC guys know what I mean.

 

[wingnutt]

adding to the discussion...i know a particular freight pilot who flys out of DAL every night at the same time, goes to the same place, and hence, gets the exact same clearance, but for the code, every night.

its for this reason that you will hear him read back his clearance in this manner...

"Cessna1234 squawking 4256, weve got the rest thank you sir, and we're ready to taxi"

...ive yet to hear any controller require him to read it all back word for word.

i can only imagine how irate this would make some upon hearing this readback, but not knowing the whole story

 

[Detroitpilot]

Standard phraseology does work I agree. I guess my only point in this discussion, is that if someone chooses to shorten readbacks, acknowledgements, etc. for the sake of brevity, that does not make them any less of a pilot, lame or unprofessional. There's a difference between being concise without using every word in the Pilot Controller Glossary, and being cute, the later can be annoying.

 

[Loafman]

I've actually heard the following:

"Yo, Clevey' centa. It's Jetlink XXXX keepin-it-real at two-four-oh"

 

[Detroitpilot]

Did he just use the word post 3 times in the same sentence?

 

[Detroitpilot]

Alright Les, I'm sorry this turned into a pi*&ing contest. Congradulations on having a successful career. I think I still missed your point somehow.

 

[350DRIVER]

Les,

I agree with some of what you have stated however keep in mind that there are other "safe" and "effective" ways to communicate. Just because a pilot would transmit "cleared to go 24" versus "cleared for takeoff rwy 24" that does not compromise the safety of the flight, it is nothing more than one person's view over the other person's. If this was such a safety issue or better yet an issue of doing something "illegal" then someone is surely not doing there job correctly since I have yet to hear of a single pilot ever being violated due to his radio techinque.

3 5 0

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

We could list a million ways to answer the call, but for the love of mankind, please know what your are going to say before keying the mike.

 

[speedbird1974]

In Europe you can't say "clear to go", "ready to go", "ready at the end"... You can only say it "ready for take off" and "clear for take off"...
A captain told me once that if you say "ready to go" ATC could respond "clear to go". They take that stuff pretty serious in many countries.

 

[wingnutt]

ok man, if you want to go down this road, i can play too...

1. You each need to go back to the ORIGINAL post and my reply post on this thread and read each word very slowly and carefully.

...i did, and as a matter of fact, your post had little (if anything) to do with the original question. he was simply asking if replying back with your tail number was appropriate, as hes been hearing that on the local frequencies. you are the one who went off on the tangent about daring to say "cleared to go" instead of "cleared for takeoff", which is the whole reason i responded to you in the first place. but yet you still seem to misunderstand that, so who really is having the comprehension issues here?.

2. Show me and quote me ANYTHING in my original post where I refer to ANYTHING other than "Cleared to go" being lame and unprofessional... which it is.

...again, it is now you that cant seem to read, as that is exactly what i was referring to.

3. Show me and quote me where I said anything other than emphasizing professionalism and standardization. Give me any OTHER example I have made on this thread regarding all these little brevity items (that you both seem to fantasize in your minds), that I "SUPPOSEDLY" object too. Hint... there are NONE..

...who said you did?

4. As further evidence of Detroitpilots inability to communicate effectively, you insinuate that I must not fly into "high density" airports. I have stated my credentials... which you must not understand... so please explain how I am flying a 757/767 for a Major airline into anything but "high density" airports.

...again, not my quote.

Again... both of you two folks (Wingnutt and Detroitpilot) are examples of the reason we can't just say "Cleared to go". Your inability to understand and transmit on this media forum alone, raises questions about you both and your ability to perform on the radio.

...hmmm thats funny because dosent the AIM say something to the effect of "The single most important thought in communications is understanding. It is essential that pilots acknowledge each communication with callsign. Brevity is important...and since concise phraseology may not always be adequate, use whatever words necessary to get your point across.

These are things that will get yourselves or other people hurt.
Hence.... my comments numerous here..

...that or the fact that someone bruised your ego

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

The tower does NOT clear you 'to go', he restates the runway, issues a heading if needed or other instructions, and states 'Cleared for takeoff'. Period. The appropriate and correct response would be acknowledge the takeoff 'clearance' and any departure instructions along with either the tail number or callsign. Short, sweet, CORRECT, and Professional. Anything else can lead to confusion and something unfortunate. (Tenerife) Another one is the runway crossing. The tower does NOT "Clear" you to cross ANY runway, they will NEVER say "XYZ, clear to cross 27R, join Lima, contract gnd .75" NEVER. The only time you hear the word CLEAR is in a landing clearance or takeoff clearance. They issue crossing instructions. "XYZ, cross 27R, join Lima, contract gnd .75" This is because of Tenerife. So the correct, professional response would be along the lines of "Cross 27R join lima gnd .75 and your callsign or tail #. So if you respond with "Ok, XYZ clear to cross 27R" or even just "clear to cross" with no ID, you are increasing greatly the chances of someone thinking they were given a "takeoff" clearance and doing just that. In ATL when they are combined on the single frequency for both runways it is a very real possibility, along with many others that have international flights.