"With you" "With you" "With you"

[FN FAL]

Whoever started this post and agree with it can "Eat Shiiiiiiiite"! Get a Life!

I'm "with you" man, but If I understand your articulation correctly, you started your own "post" on this "thread".

So pony up and start eating and then as you head out the door to get that life, you might want to think about gargling with some Listerine.

 

[minitour]

Here's the deal: It's about how many radio transmissions it takes to take care of your request. Let's say you want direct your destination If you request to transmit a request, which in itself is a request, (are you going to request to transmit your request to transmit your request? where does it stop?) it takes a minimum of 4 transmissions to deal with it, 5 if you acknowlege his response.

Well put for the IFR request. For VFR (FF) I try to get the students to handle it like this. We know it's on a workload permitting basis...so here we go.

You: ABC Approach, Cessna 123 5 from XYZ request flight following.

Them: Cessna 123, (go ahead/call back/unable VFR/stay clear/whatever).

Lets them know I've got a flight following request and where to look on the scope. If they can do it, then they'll ask me for the pertinent info (where to, aircraft type, altitude, etc.)

If I were going to request a practice approach in VFR, I'd change it to be

You: ABC Approach, Cessna 123 5 from XYZ Practice Approach request.

Again...where am I? Can they do a practice approach? If not, they'll tell me. Again, if they can...they'll set me up a squawk with the info they need and go from there.

The thing I hate is:

You: ABC Approach, Cessna 123 Request
Them: Cessna 123, go ahead.
You: Cessna 123 is 5 from XYZ 5,500 VFR to DEF request flight following.
Them: Unable flight following at this time.

Now you've used the 4 transmissions and gotten to where you could be in 2...if they can't do it, IMHO its best to find out quick.

-mini

 

[A Squared]

Well put for the IFR request. For VFR (FF) I try to get the students to handle it like this. We know it's on a workload permitting basis...so here we go.

You: ABC Approach, Cessna 123 5 from XYZ request flight following.

Them: Cessna 123, (go ahead/call back/unable VFR/stay clear/whatever).

Lets them know I've got a flight following request and where to look on the scope. If they can do it, then they'll ask me for the pertinent info (where to, aircraft type, altitude, etc.)

If I were going to request a practice approach in VFR, I'd change it to be

You: ABC Approach, Cessna 123 5 from XYZ Practice Approach request.

Again...where am I? Can they do a practice approach? If not, they'll tell me. Again, if they can...they'll set me up a squawk with the info they need and go from there.

The thing I hate is:

You: ABC Approach, Cessna 123 Request
Them: Cessna 123, go ahead.
You: Cessna 123 is 5 from XYZ 5,500 VFR to DEF request flight following.
Them: Unable flight following at this time.

Now you've used the 4 transmissions and gotten to where you could be in 2...if they can't do it, IMHO its best to find out quick.

-mini

RIght, and to add to that, if in this sitiuation, where the controller has no info on you, if you just say Center, NXXXX with request. The controller will likely think you're one of the 30 airplanes he's already working and will be looking on his data strips to refresh his memory who you are, but it's more wasted time becasue he doesn't have any data on you yet.

Now, if you make an initial call like mini suggests, the controller knows immediately that he hasn't been working you, and doesn't waste time looking for info he doesn't have. He can then go right to the next step which is to approve, or deny your request, or get more info on you.

Requesting to be allowed to request something is nothing but a time waster, it serves no purpose and it desn't even make sense.

 

[minitour]

Requesting to be allowed to request something is nothing but a time waster, it serves no purpose and it desn't even make sense.

...and should only be something done by employees of the Department of Redundancy Department...

-mini

 

[atrdriver]

Only "with you"? That's all that bothers you? How about "wind check", "here we go", "pos and hold", "on the hold", "xxx-decimal-xxx", and missing the radio call altogether. WHO CARES? I have heard as many controllers use non standard phraseology as I have heard pilots, and as long as the instructions get passed correctly that's what matters.

 

[mar]

ATC speaks to the tape and so do I.

...and as long as the instructions get passed correctly that's what matters.

...Until it gets adjudicated...or whatever they call it in an administrative court.

 

[minitour]

Only "with you"? That's all that bothers you? How about "wind check", "here we go", "pos and hold", "on the hold", "xxx-decimal-xxx", and missing the radio call altogether.

Wind check - isn't there an operator out there that requires pilots to ask?

Here we go - yeah....I agree with that...if you say it, you're not as cool as you think.

On the hole - I believe it's "On to hold" and I've only heard that from military guys here...SOP for them?

XXX-decimal-xxx - That's pretty much standard ICAO phraseology, no?

Missing the call - Too much could be happening to get on people for that one. Now, if they have a conversation like this (actually overheard this one)...

CEN: Citation 123, turn right direct XYZ climb and maintain FL320.
*silence*

CEN: Citation 123, ABC Center

123: Approach, 123 go ahead.

CEN: *irritated* Citation 123, turn right direct XYZ climb and maintain FL320.

*silence*

CEN: Citation 123, ABC Center, how do ya hear?

123: Loud and clear.

CEN: This is the third time, I need you direct XYZ and climb and maintain FL320

123: Roger, direct we go and up ta three two oh...sorry, we had the radio down.

....that's a liiiiiiiiiiiiiittle different.

-mini

 

[A Squared]

I have heard as many controllers use non standard phraseology as I have heard pilots.....

I doubt it. Listen to the controllers and listen to the pilots. I have. Sure you occasionally hear controllers use non-standard prhrases, but it not anywhere near as prevelant as it is in pilots.

I'd be willing to bet that you'll *never* hear a tower controller tell a pilot to "assume the position" instead of "taxi into position and hold" or "roll em" instead of cleared for takeoff. on hte other hand, I wouldn't make that bet about pilots. One of the reasons is that controllers are trainied, and evaluated on thier commumications. Periodically they have "Tape Talks" in which they pull tapes of each invdividual controller and review thier communicatins and grade them on it. If they're using a bunch of CB slang, the review is not going to go well for them.

If you work with a particular facility on a daily basis, you can tell when a facility has had "Tape Talks", the controllers suddenlyl are using excruciatingly correct phraseology, and and you hear "tree" and "fife" in an almost exaggereated manner. Over time, it becomes less pronounced, and things get a little more casual ... until the next tape talk. Pilots, on the other hand, generally do not have any sort of official review of thier communications procedures, so the sloppy ones just continue getting sloppier over the years.

Here's a scenario: you're the controller, you're working a plane which is at FL250, on a heading of 230 at 250 knots. There is overtaking traffic converging from the right.

You say delta XXX, descend and maintain FLight Level 240.

He's a "cool guy" so he says "Raaaaaaaaajjj-o two-four-oh, here we go"

SO, first off, you don't know for sure if that's even the correct airplane responding, cause he didn't identify himself. Aside from that, you know what you said, but you have no idea what he heard. SOmone else might have yeyed up and said "Cessna 1234 with a request" so all they heard was "Delta XXX (Loud squeal) two four zero.

So does "Raaaaaaaaajjj-o two-four-oh, here we go" mean that they are descending to Fl240, or they are turning right to heading 240, or they are slowing up to 240 knots?

Note that only one of those will resolve the impending conflict. SO what do you do? Assume he heard correctly, and risk getting a "deal" (you get what? 3 in a career than you're fired??) Or do you ask him to confirm descending to FL240, which wastes time, which you don't have much of because you're busy?

Wouldn't it be better instead, to have some geeky, uncool guy who responded with Roger, Delta xxx leaving fl250, descending fl240. then you'd know without any further thought he'd heard what you said.
Or, if he misheard, "roger, Delta right turn, heading 240" then you'd know immediately tht he *didn't* hear you correctly, and you can correct that before the situation develops further. The purpose of a readback is not to confirm that the pilot heard something, it's to confirm that he heard you correctly, and "Raaaaaaaaajjj-o two-four-oh, here we go" doesn't accomplish that with any level of certianty.

If it means making the controllers job easier (and it does) I'll be that uncool guy who *doesn't* say "Raaaaaaaaajjj-o two-four-oh, here we go"

(insert snide comment from mar about how high a DC-6 flies)

 

[PAPA FOX!]

I doubt it. Listen to the controllers and listen to the pilots. I have. Sure you occasionally hear controllers use non-standard prhrases, but it not anywhere near as prevelant as it is in pilots.

I totally agree "with you" on that. Other phrases that annoy me are:

1) "Checking in"
2) "Got em on the fishfinder"
3) "USAIR 321 2,000 for 4,000"



And the granddaddy of em all is "Good evening Citation 453 Charlie Brown is checking in with you, level at FL 400"

 

[mar]

With or without pressurization...?

(insert snide comment from mar about how high a DC-6 flies)

I'm truly hurt you think there's a snide bone in my body.