UdoR wrote:
Does anybody know if this is allowed on this side of the atlantic (i.e. in Europe)? I’m not sure but I think that it wasn’t allowed to say e.g. “Skylane D-EWTF” or Baron D-GOSH" or similar. Although the phraseology exists in the official EASA documentation. Additionally, I never heard that usage of callsign here. Or is this allowed nowadays?
It has “always” been allowed. I’m using that kind of callsign when I’m flying to fields without ATS other than my home base, but I’m pretty unusual in doing so.
Pilots who respond “standing by” when told to “standby”.
Pilots who say “affirmative” rather than “affirm”. Or “negatory” rather than “negative”. Although I think this is more of a US thing. The way people speak in the US in general, it’s a mess all over the place. But it works for them!
In the UK, there is way too much superfluous/redundant clutter on the radio. This is from a real example when I had called the ATC BEFOREHAND with all my details to practice an ILS approach at East Midlands:
- East Midlands Radar, G-ABCD
- G-ABCD, East Midlands Radar, pass your message
- (sigh), G-ABCD, PA28 from Coventry to Coventry via East Midlands, IFR, on the DTY 355 radial 20 DME routing towards EME, altitude 4000 feet on 1022, information G, request traffic service and practice ILS procedural approach at East Midlands
- G-ABCD, roger, remain outside controlled airspace, squawk 4501, East Midlands QNH 1022
- Remain outside controlled airspace, squawk 4501, QNH 1011, G-ABCD
- G-ABCD, identified, traffic service
- Traffic service, G-ABCD
- G-ABCD, you may continue to route towards the EME but remain outside controlled airspace for now, I will come back with your clearance to enter controlled airspace in about 5 minutes
- Roger, remain outside controlled airspace, G-ABCD
- G-ABCD you are cleared to enter controlled airspace on track to EME, 4000 ft on 1022, traffic service outside controlled airspace
- Cleared to enter controlled airspace on track to EME, 4000 ft on 1022, traffic service outside controlled airspace, G-ABCD
- (when entering the CTR): G-ABCD, radar control service
- Radar control service, G-ABCD
This whole pointless interaction would have been like this in Spain:
- Seville Approach, EC-ABC
- E-BC, Seville Approach, buenos días! You are identified, confirm you want to proceed to the SVL for a procedural ILS approach?
- Affirm E-BC
- E-BC, roger, proceed direct SVL, 4000ft, QNH 1022
- Direct SVL, 4000 ft, QNH 1022
Alpha_Floor wrote:
This whole pointless interaction
I have that much communication on flight from Croatia to Spain 
Unlike relaxed flying over the Med, the UK has a very complex & busy airspace where ATS wants complete pilot & flight details (me being sarcastic using oxymore to describe it ), never understood, why other busy & complex places tend to reduce the chit-chat as things get hectic, nor why places with relax & simple airspace don’t chat that much neither !
Alpha_Floor wrote:
In the UK, there is way too much superfluous/redundant clutter on the radio. This is from a real example when I had called the ATC BEFOREHAND with all my details to practice an ILS approach at East Midlands:
UK ATC has a strong trade union and its personnel are heavily embedded in the system, with a revolving door of employment between the military, NATS, the CAA and other employers. All the rules, requirements and procedures for UK airspace, as well as the phraseology, are written mostly by ATCOs and ex-ATCOs.
They have obvious incentives to create an environment like this which requires as much ATC activity as possible.
I agree with the Spanish version! This is the same when comparing the UK to Canada or the USA. Why such a lenghy exchange for a simple task?
This whole pointless interaction would have been like this in Spain:
- Seville Approach, EC-ABC
- E-BC, Seville Approach, buenos días! You are identified, confirm you want to proceed to the SVL for a procedural ILS approach?
- Affirm E-BC
- E-BC, roger, proceed direct SVL, 4000ft, QNH 1022
- Direct SVL, 4000 ft, QNH 1022
To transit the zone around an airfield near Vancouver (Very busy airspace, equivalent to the UK):
- ‘Airfield’, Cherokee FYPS, 5 miles to the south at 1000 feet. Request northbound transit through your zone.
- YPS, ‘Airfield’, Altimeter Setting xx.xx, transit approved, not below 1000 feet.
- YPS, not below 1000 feet.
In some cases you can add the wake-up call to the airfield, but in the busy areas it is not required.
My 2 cents: The whole controversial discussion about radio chatter only happens in Europe. It seems everybody wants to top everybody of doing it “the correct and right way” – with lots of official publications being cited. NOT A WORD TOO MUCH!! IT’S NOT IN THE RULES!! AND I CAN DO IT SHORTER THAN THAT OTHER IDIOT ON THE RADIO – OH HOW STUPID MUST HE BE AND I AM SUCH A BETTER PILOT.
Contrary to this is the US: Of course they use the official phraseolgy, but there’s a lot more of conversional chatter going on (“Cactus 1342, how’s the ride up there? Well, it’s pretty smooth at the moment, we had some light chop 2 miles ago, but I think for the moment FL310 is fine for us” … “N123AB, good morning to you, we’re now with you in 4000 feet just airborne in Doe Airport – quick question, is it possible to get ILS training approach at BigAirport Intl? Yeah, no problem, stand by, I should have that for you in a minute.”). No “request/pass your message” no nothing.
Interestingly (besides the lower accident rate in the US) it works way smoother. I can always request 8 training approaches at a busy international airport or a crossing right through its Bravo Airspace for sightseeing reasons with my little plane between some Airbus and Boeings and they’re happy to accommodate me anytime on a much more professional level – even when using some baaaad baaaad fill words. Compared to Europe, where everything is always a big problem by definition. You need to call the Wachleiter before!! No more than 2 IFR departures per hour at EDAZ, because otherwise we can’t handle our oh-so-busy Berlin airport. Big difference IMHO, whereever you look. But in Germany/Europe, of course you need an official radio license. For VFR. Another one for two languages. And another one for IFR. To DO IT RIGHT! In the US, they just learn it on the fly. OMG. And it just works.
In my opinion, I think people need to losen up and simply not be afraid of the radio. Of course you keep it super short when you barely find a point to squeeze in to pass your check-in, but when there’s sometimes minutes of radio silence, well… who cares. Just use common sense.
Being German, it always appears to me being a typical German-the-rules-are-there-for-obeyeing-word-by-word-mentality.
BerlinFlyer wrote:
My 2 cents: The whole controversial discussion about radio chatter only happens in Europe. It seems everybody wants to top everybody of doing it “the correct and right way” – with lots of official publications being cited. NOT A WORD TOO MUCH!! IT’S NOT IN THE RULES!! AND I CAN DO IT SHORTER THAN THAT OTHER IDIOT ON THE RADIO – OH HOW STUPID MUST HE BE AND I AM SUCH A BETTER PILOT.Contrary to this is the US: Of course they use the official phraseolgy, but there’s a lot more of conversional chatter going on
It’s much easier when everyone – pilots and ATC – speak their native language. The reason for strict phraseology is that everyone can make themselves understood even if English is not their native language and they speak with an accent.
BerlinFlyer wrote:
Europe, where everything is always a big problem by definition
Absolutely. That’s endemic in Europe.
Canuck wrote:
Why such a lenghy exchange for a simple task?
Because of the reason I wrote. In the UK at least, it is generally in ATC’s professional interest to make it as complex and as intensive as possible. It leads to more jobs for ATCOs, more needing to work at once, more skillsets and ratings, and everything else that collectively improves their negotiating position as employees.
