I think US is special,
- First is regulatory: no need to be “radio proficient” to fly in FAA land, you don’t even need radio licence unless flying elsewhere !
- Second is cultural: informal way of doing things, straight to the point, maybe they never had kings & queens?
US ATC there takes European pilot with big hugs even when you are using crappy non-US phrasology
In other words, no one corrects you on format & lyrics as long as tone & intentions are correct !
I asked for “Flight Information, overhead join & 3 circuits” in KSMO, it went fine with a funny remark (should have asked “Basic Service”, it would have been more funny 
), try asking for “3 patterns & flight following” in EGTK and you will get a day lecture 
Maybe worth asking FAA pilots what they think of UK 400 pages on the topic? and QFE transit clearance of MATZ
I didn’t read the whole thread but it seems to me that phraseology is one of the things that are helped by the fact that US CFIs are required to have an IR before taking the Commercial then the CFI course.
If all European instructors had to get the IR before FI training, many things would be different in European GA (but we would have far less instructors IMO ).
Just my 2 cents.
BerlinFlyer wrote:
In my opinion, I think people need to losen up and simply not be afraid of the radio.
Absolutely – that is key. But there are also some substantial differences between US and (continental) Europe that makes the “why the hell don’t we just do it the US way” not so simple.
First of all there is language! On all frequencies where English is the main language, 90+% of the pilots in Europe do not speak their first language (while in the US it is 90+% who do!). I really do not want to hear a 80 year old “seasoned FI” trying to do “conversational chatter” in English on these frequencies – it’s actually enough “fun” to hear the young microlight Tom Cruises who want to impress their ladies by using broken Esperanto on the German FIS frequencies…
Second there is professionalism (and not in the BS meaning of “I feel great because I believe I do things so much better than others”, but in the true meaning of “I do things for a living”): Due to the completely different nature of licensing for airline flying, the share of professional pilots in the air – esp. in small GA airplanes – is much higher than in Europe. Those people are trained to become an airline pilot but need to spend a couple of hundred hours in small GA airplanes. Plus we have a much higher share of FIs who really do that for a living.
In Europe – in contrast – we still have a larger group of silver back FIs who learned flying themselves in Gliders w/o radio and somewhere along the way made their PPL-A FI ticket when it “was cheap” but never really got used to true cross country flying.
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.
A very good description of the UK system.
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.
That’s also true. It is an issue the US doesn’t have. The issues in Europe are mainly
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.
BerlinFlyer wrote:
Europe, where everything is always a big problem by definition
Absolutely. That’s endemic in Europe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
