Non standard phraseology: Does that bug controllers?

[roncachamp]

You want to argue what current means.

No I don't.

The phrase that bothered me was "at this time." To elaborate, at this time or even "current" when associated with the wind on a landing or take off clearance is redundant.

You asked a question; "In anything other than a forecast or aloft prediction, are there any 'winds' other than current?" I answered your question; the wind in an ATIS is other than current. You correctly point out that it should be understood that the wind in an ATIS is other than current but that's no more true of ATIS than it is of forecasts and predictions.

 

[Palmpilot]

Seems like embedding one's answers in a quote box doesn't work as well as it did under the old software.

[Edit: never mind; the post above has been fixed now.]

 

[denverpilot]

"Toot-toot, Airline flight 2234, with you at 1Xthousand, good morning!"

He was just warning the rest of his crew that he ate only peanuts and drank beer all night, and they'd better grab the quick-don masks.

 

[Everskyward]

Seems like embedding one's answers in a quote box doesn't work as well as it did under the old software.

Not quite sure what you mean, but did you find this method of quoting?

 

[Luvrv8]

Question for the controllers. When I am requesting flight following its usually " Cessna 1234 6 North of Camarillo climbing through 2500 for 8500". What is the correct way to say the altitude without the "for" in between the current altitude and level altitude? It never sound right to me.

 

[mkosmo]

Question for the controllers. When I am requesting flight following its usually " Cessna 1234 6 North of Camarillo climbing through 2500 for 8500". What is the correct way to say the altitude without the "for" in between the current altitude and level altitude? It never sound right to me.

I believe the book would tell you to say "Cessna 1234, 6 North of wherever, two thousand five hundred climbing eight thousand five hundred"

 

[roncachamp]

Seems like embedding one's answers in a quote box doesn't work as well as it did under the old software.

Nor does there seem to be a way to edit. This improvement ain't.

 

[mkosmo]

Nor does there seem to be a way to edit. This improvement ain't.

Edit is just below your signature.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not quite sure what you mean, but did you find this method of quoting?

View attachment 44339

I was referring to the post immediately before mine, in which it took some guesswork to figure out which paragraphs were quote and which ones were reply.

 

[Palmpilot]

I believe the book would tell you to say "Cessna 1234, 6 North of wherever, two thousand five hundred climbing eight thousand five hundred"

According to the example in the AIM, you would say "...climbing to eight thousand five hundred." Some people claim that could cause confusion, but under the AIM-recommended system of terminology, there is no such altitude as "two eight thousand five hundred."

 

[Everskyward]

I was referring to the post immediately before mine, in which it took some guesswork to figure out which paragraphs were quote and which ones were reply.

I think that's because the person who posted it didn't use the "reply" feature but pasted text into into the "quote" bb code. By doing that, the users who were quoted don't show in the post, making it confusing

 

[mkosmo]

According to the example in the AIM, you would say "...climbing to eight thousand five hundred." Some people claim that could cause confusion, but under the AIM-recommended system of terminology, there is no such altitude as "two eight thousand five hundred."

I can imagine some low level ambiguity... Climbing to five hundred sounds awful like climbing two thousand five hundred.

 

[Palmpilot]

I can imagine some low level ambiguity... Climbing to five hundred sounds awful like climbing two thousand five hundred.

I'm having difficulty imagining a circumstance in which you would tell ATC that you were climbing to an altitude less than a thousand feet. I've also never heard anyone refer to 2,500 as "two five hundred." It's certainly not part of the AIM system of nomenclature.

The book method of stating altitudes and flight levels has no ambiguity that I can see. It stands to reason that deviating from it could cause misunderstanding.

 

[mkosmo]

I'm having difficulty imagining a circumstance in which you would tell ATC that you were climbing to an altitude less than a thousand feet. I've also never heard anyone refer to 2,500 as "two five hundred." It's certainly not part of the AIM system of nomenclature.

The book method of stating altitudes and flight levels has no ambiguity that I can see. It stands to reason that deviating from it could cause misunderstanding.

Most calls you hear are entirely non standard. Two point five, etc., being common yet entirely non standard. And I've talked to ATC around here we'll below a thousand more than once. People say all kinds of stuff on the radio.

 

[denverpilot]

The book method of stating altitudes and flight levels has no ambiguity that I can see. It stands to reason that deviating from it could cause misunderstanding.

Technically it doesn't but there was a study of a common error the human brain seems to make repeatedly about the two phrases "One Zero Thousand" and "One One Thousand" and hearing the one it wanted to hear, back in the 90s.

For a long time, but less so today, you'd hear folks saying, "one zero - ten - thousand" and "one one - eleven - thousand" as a weird way to try to alleviate it.

The downside of that is. Cut off the beginning of each with a blocking transmission and you're back to the same problem...

"...en thousand"
"...en thousand"

Last night listening to various stuff around the planet, I heard airliners using this one, more than one...

"ShinyJet 123 is through Niner-thousand for Flight Level 220 ... As a final".

Have heard that one more than once also, and multiple times last night bopping around LiveATC.

Some of this was listening to Japan Tokyo Control, so the controller sounded like, "Fly-ba-ta Le-bel Ah-two Ah-two Ah-serrro."

There's one guy there with a deep baritone who rolls everything like that and sing-songs the vowels. Almost difficult to copy at first but then you catch on and hear it all.

 

[Ghery]

Some of this was listening to Japan Tokyo Control, so the controller sounded like, "Fly-ba-ta Le-bel Ah-two Ah-two Ah-serrro."

There's one guy there with a deep baritone who rolls everything like that and sing-songs the vowels. Almost difficult to copy at first but then you catch on and hear it all.

Having gone through NRT more than once to other places in eastern Asia listening to ATC on ch 9 on UA (when the pilot turns it on) the Japanese controllers are the hardest to understand. At least, to me they are the hardest.

 

[Kritchlow]

W

I can imagine some low level ambiguity... Climbing to five hundred sounds awful like climbing two thousand five hundred.

There is a pretty famous accident where that very thing happened. It was in a foreign country I believe.

 

[Kritchlow]

I honestly believe many of these are too nit picky. Really, it's a waste of energy for me to worry about it.

 

[mkosmo]

I honestly believe many of these are too nit picky. Really, it's a waste of energy for me to worry about it.

From my arm chair, I'm perfect ;-)

 

[Palmpilot]

Most calls you hear are entirely non standard. Two point five, etc., being common yet entirely non standard.

"To five hundred" doesn't sound anything like "two point five."

And I've talked to ATC around here we'll below a thousand more than once. People say all kinds of stuff on the radio.

I have yet to hear anyone say "two five hundred." I've probably heard "twenty-five hundred," but that doesn't sound anything like "to five hundred."

Perhaps some of our controller friends could tell us whether they would think a pilot was saying "climbing two five hundred" when he said "climbing to five hundred."

I'm not trying to make a crusade out of this. If people don't like saying "to" for whatever reason, it's fine with me. It sounds odd to me, but I can live with it. Let's just not pretend that it's "the book way" though, because it's not.

AIM 5-3-1b2(a):

When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s assigned altitude preceded by the words “level,” or “climbing to,” or “descending to,” as appropriate; and the aircraft’s present vacating altitude, if applicable.​

 

[Palmpilot]

Technically it doesn't but there was a study of a common error the human brain seems to make repeatedly about the two phrases "One Zero Thousand" and "One One Thousand" and hearing the one it wanted to hear, back in the 90s.

For a long time, but less so today, you'd hear folks saying, "one zero - ten - thousand" and "one one - eleven - thousand" as a weird way to try to alleviate it.

The downside of that is. Cut off the beginning of each with a blocking transmission and you're back to the same problem...

"...en thousand"
"...en thousand"

I recall that being an official recommendation. I don't see it in the AIM, but here's a NASA article about it:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl2_10k.htm

 

[midlifeflyer]

I definitely do. I use a lot of filler when writing - I try to be concise but fail miserably.

Lawyers are known for being too wordy. This has led many courts to limit the length of briefs. It's amazing how much filler you find and toss when you have to shorten by an extra page or two.

 

[Kritchlow]

You know.... Often it's not about the exact verbiage being used, but more the inflection and professionalism of which is being sent.

Don't get hung up on the silly small "for, or other silly complaints"

There are many super experienced airline guys that may screw up every gripe you have here.... Yet it comes out perfect.

Lighten up. This is truly a sign of pilot wannabes trying to be "right on".

 

[roncachamp]

Edit is just below your signature.

Thanks, don't know how I missed it.

 

[roncachamp]

Question for the controllers. When I am requesting flight following its usually " Cessna 1234 6 North of Camarillo climbing through 2500 for 8500". What is the correct way to say the altitude without the "for" in between the current altitude and level altitude? It never sound right to me.

I believe the AIM recommendation is "...leaving two thousand five hundred climbing to eight thousand five hundred." I recommend just dropping the "to", make it ..."leaving two thousand five hundred climbing eight thousand five hundred."

 

[Larry in TN]

climbing through 2500 for 8500"

"two-thousand five-hundred climbing to eight-thousand five-hundred" is the AIM phraseology.

Climbing to five hundred sounds awful like climbing two thousand five hundred.

Not sure how "2,500 climbing 500" makes any sense. Also, if you were climbing to 500' then what altitude would you be climbing through? Might as well wait five seconds and say "level 500".

you'd hear folks saying, "one zero - ten - thousand" and "one one - eleven - thousand" as a weird way to try to alleviate it.

That is approved, optional phraseology for 10,000 and 11,000 except it should be "one-zero thousand, ten-thousand" or "one-one thousand, eleven thousand".

"ShinyJet 123 is through Niner-thousand for Flight Level 220 ... As a final".

They are changing their requested altitude from what was listed on their flight plan. Of course, "final" doesn't really mean "final". It just means "until we ask for higher later on".

Normally you'd say, "...leaving 12,000' climbing to FL230, request FL 280" but if you are already cleared to the altitude that you want to keep the request wouldn't be clear with that phraseology. I'm not aware of any standard phraseology that would work better than "...as a final". Perhaps someone else will?

Some of this was listening to Japan Tokyo Control, so the controller sounded like, "Fly-ba-ta Le-bel Ah-two Ah-two Ah-serrro."

I really liked working with Tokyo Control. The accent is significant but they do an exceptional job of talking slowly, clearly, and in near-perfect ICAO phraseology. One thing that made it a lot easier for me was when I realized that any word which ended in a hard consonant sound would have an "oh" added to the end because their language does not have words that end in a hard consonant. i.e. "direct-oh", "eight-oh", etc.

 

[Tflhndn]

"To five hundred" doesn't sound anything like "two point five."



I have yet to hear anyone say "two five hundred." I've probably heard "twenty-five hundred," but that doesn't sound anything like "to five hundred."

Perhaps some of our controller friends could tell us whether they would think a pilot was saying "climbing two five hundred" when he said "climbing to five hundred."

I'm not trying to make a crusade out of this. If people don't like saying "to" for whatever reason, it's fine with me. It sounds odd to me, but I can live with it. Let's just not pretend that it's "the book way" though, because it's not.

AIM 5-3-1b2(a):

When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s assigned altitude preceded by the words “level,” or “climbing to,” or “descending to,” as appropriate; and the aircraft’s present vacating altitude, if applicable.​

But there was an accident in Asia, where non-standard terminology like this caused a fatal airliner crash

Controller and flight crew were not using x thousand, y hundred but simply reading back xy hundred.

Approach Controller instructed them to "descend two four hundred"

Flight crew read back "descend to four hundred"

Crashed into terrain at 430'

 

[Palmpilot]

This is truly a sign of pilot wannabes trying to be "right on".

That's a pretty sweeping assumption. Almost everyone here is already a pilot.

I think it's a sign that a) many pilots tend to be detail-oriented, and b) people like to argue, especially when they're on line.

 

[Palmpilot]

But there was an accident in Asia, where non-standard terminology like this caused a fatal airliner crash

Controller and flight crew were not using x thousand, y hundred but simply reading back xy hundred.

Approach Controller instructed them to "descend two four hundred"

Flight crew read back "descend to four hundred"

Crashed into terrain at 430'

Wow!

I don't know what U.S., Asian, or ICAO controllers' manuals say, but I've noticed that controllers here consistently say "climb and maintain" or "descend and maintain" rather than "climb to" or "descend to."

 

[bflynn]

So here is a story relayed on another forum about a dozen years ago. It's not mine. And yes, I agree the controller was probably a bit out of line by having way too much fun.

Yup. Because it's usually a good idea to ignite a helmet fire on someone who is coming into really busy airspace but obviously isn't entirely used to it. Props to ATC on that one.

 

[Tflhndn]

Wow!

I don't know what U.S., Asian, or ICAO controllers' manuals say, but I've noticed that controllers here consistently say "climb and maintain" or "descend and maintain" rather than "climb to" or "descend to."

Sorry, exact quote is descend 2-4-0-0

Flying Tiger line flight 66...

Very illuminating how a long string of non-standard terminology can lead to a deadly misunderstanding.

 

[Kritchlow]

That's a pretty sweeping assumption. Almost everyone here is already a pilot.

I think it's a sign that a) many pilots tend to be detail-oriented, and b) people like to argue, especially when they're on line.

Yeah, that one didn't come out quite as intended. By wannabes I meant want to be perfectionists, when that's not reality.

 

[Kritchlow]

But there was an accident in Asia, where non-standard terminology like this caused a fatal airliner crash

Controller and flight crew were not using x thousand, y hundred but simply reading back xy hundred.

Approach Controller instructed them to "descend two four hundred"

Flight crew read back "descend to four hundred"

Crashed into terrain at 430'

Yes... This is the one I was referencing in my earlier post. I've heard the tape numerous times. It's one of the CFIT training tapes they play in recurrent training.

 

[Everskyward]

Yes... This is the one I was referencing in my earlier post. I've heard the rape numerous times. It's one of the CFIT training tapes they play in recurrent training.

Spellchecker error!

I have also heard that tape before. It wasn't only the controller's nonstandard phraseology that got them, though. I seem to remember that they were expecting the ILS approach but unexpectedly got the NDB approach, and it went downhill from there. It didn't occur to them that they were descending to an implausible altitude.

 

[Larry in TN]

Sorry, exact quote is descend 2-4-0-0
Flying Tiger line flight 66...

Very illuminating how a long string of non-standard terminology can lead to a deadly misunderstanding.

Yes, it is. That is why I don't like the idea of everybody making up their own "best" phraseology.

The Flying Tiger accident also had fatigue as a big contributing factor. Another reason why standard phraseology is so important.

Yeah, that one didn't come out quite as intended. By wannabes I meant want to be perfectionists, when that's not reality.

Nobody expects perfection. I sure don't as I've yet to achieve it myself. What I'd like is for pilots to strive for perfection even though they know it is not attainable. What I have a problem with is those who know the standard but choose to ignore it.

 

[Kritchlow]

Spellchecker error!

I have also heard that tape before. It wasn't only the controller's nonstandard phraseology that got them, though. I seem to remember that they were expecting the ILS approach but unexpectedly got the NDB approach, and it went downhill from there. It didn't occur to them that they were descending to an implausible altitude.

Oh my Lord....!!

 

[ATC_av8er]

As long as there is a mutual understand of what I am asking of you, non-standard phraseology doesn't bother me too much. When I was a trainee, it drove my trainer crazy that I said "Traffic AT YOUR…." If either one of us has any confusion, we just ask each other. We work together as pilots and controllers to get you down safely and efficiently. there are more important things to worry about than slightly non-standard phraseology.

 

[ATC_av8er]

Runway crossings and intersections and what-not are mandatory replies these days, of course. Been that way for quite a while.

So the controller is going to have to repeat the instruction and get a read-back. I've heard that one go around and around...

"Cessna 345, Taxi to Runway 8 via Alpha, Cross runway 17."
"Roger"
"Cessna 345, I need you to read back with your tail number. Taxi to Runway 8 via Alpha, Cross runway 17."
"Taxi to Runway 8 via Alpha, Cessna 345."
"No, Cessna 345, I need you to read-back all of it, with runway crossings. Cessna 345, Taxi to Runway via Alpha, Cross runway 17."
"Taxi to Runway 8, uhhhh... via Alpha... uhhhhh... cleared to cross Runway 17 on the way there, Cessna 345. Oh, and can we get an intersection departure?"
"Cessna 345, [sigh]... Which intersection would you like to depart from?"

... Etc ...

While we all beat our heads on our glareshields waiting...

I did get a minor kick out of those who "protested" the "Line Up and Wait" change by responding with "Position and Hold, Cessna 345." Stupid, but the controllers just ignored them and it stopped happening.

Just to clarify, hold Short instructions are a MANDATORY read back. Runway crossing instructions are NOT. You, as pilot are NOT required to read back a runway CROSSING instruction.

 

[mscard88]

You, as pilot are NOT required to read back a runway CROSSING instruction.

You better read back a runway crossing clearance at Atlanta Hartsfield ATL! The controller will make you read it back. It's on the ATIS also. Point being, while it may not be required, at some airports it is.

 

[Velocity173]

Just to clarify, hold Short instructions are a MANDATORY read back. Runway crossing instructions are NOT. You, as pilot are NOT required to read back a runway CROSSING instruction.

What's funny is, the one thing controllers are required to get a readbacks on, many pilots don't do it. Don't know how many times I've heard tower say "I need you to read back the hold short instructions."

They'll read back a bunch of other extraneous stuff though.