Radio Check...

G

Greg H

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 10, 2019
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Hi,

In US airspace, when asked by an Approach Controller for a “Radio Check” what an appropriate response?

The response I heard was “... Loud and Clear”.

In Australia where I am that would not be correct. We use a 1 to 5 scale so the correct response would be, “... reading you 5”.

Is there an official document that would describe this?

Thanks,

Greg
 
Any of the above.

I’ve heard folks say:

‘Loud and Clear!’

‘Lima Charlie’

‘5/5’

Whichever you prefer.
 
Thanks for your reply.

Is there an official policy as to what is correct? Does the FAA publish appropriate phrases to cover this situation?

I get that the point can be made by many different responses, but for my purposes here I need an actual definitive answer.

I have searched hundreds of pages of AIP docs and I have found nothing to cover this situation.

Thanks.
 
Greg H said:
I get that the point can be made by many different responses, but for my purposes here I need an actual definitive answer.

I have searched hundreds of pages of AIP docs and I have found nothing to cover this situation.
Click to expand...
Why so adamant? In most cases, you’ll only be giving a radio check to another pilot over CTAF (ATC would take care of it at a towered field) so it’s not that big of a deal. It’s not like you’re required to speak robotically over the radio at all times. Take it easy and do what feels natural.

When it comes to using proper verbiage, this is probably one of the least important times to do so.
 
I understand you but in this instance it is a line check of an airline crew and I am trying to be totally specific.
 
No one right answer. You probably want to scour the AIM to confirm. Or pick the answer you like or want (that’s how policy is made).

Just went through this with my first post avionics install flight. Controller told me 5/5. Prior to the install when I wanted to check one of the radios before removal, controller said “loud & clear”. Same airport, same ground frequency, different controller, different day,
 
Loud on a scale of 1 to 5.
Clear on a scale of 1 to 5.

5 by 5 is loud and clear.
3 by 4 would be not very loud but pretty clear.
 
In the pipe, 5 by 5.
 
Greg H said:
Hi,

In US airspace, when asked by an Approach Controller for a “Radio Check” what an appropriate response?

The response I heard was “... Loud and Clear”.

In Australia where I am that would not be correct. We use a 1 to 5 scale so the correct response would be, “... reading you 5”.

Is there an official document that would describe this?

Thanks,

Greg
Click to expand...
There is no official document that says how radio checks must be conducted in US airspace. A large number of pilots received their communication training in the military. According to Allied Communication Procedures (ACP 125 chapter 6) prowords are used to describe the radio strength and readability:

633. The prowords listed below are for use when initiating and answering queries concerning signal strength and readability:
a. General:
i. RADIO CHECK. What is my signal strength and readability; how do you hear me?

ii. ROGER. I have received your last transmission satisfactorily. The omission of comment on signal strength and readability is understood to mean that reception is loud and clear. If reception is other than loud and clear, it must be described with the prowords for (2) and (3) below.

iii. NOTHING HEARD. To be used when no reply is received from a called station.

b. Report
i. LOUD. Your signal is very strong.

ii. GOOD. Your signal strength is good.

iii. WEAK. Your signal strength is weak.

iv. VERY WEAK. Your signal strength is very weak.

v. FADING. At times your signal strength fades to such an extent that continuous reception cannot be relied upon.

c. Report of Readability:
i. CLEAR. The quality of your transmission is excellent.

ii. READABLE. The quality of your transmission is satisfactory.

iii. UNREADABLE. The quality of your transmission is so bad that I cannot read you.

iv. DISTORTED. Having trouble reading you due to signal distortion.

v. WITH INTERFERENCE. Having trouble reading you due to interference.

vi. INTERMITTENT. Having trouble reading you because your signal is intermittent.
 
Let me help translate


a. General:
i. RADIO CHECK. What is my signal strength and readability; how do you hear me?

I’m a student pilot and want to heard by the big iron guys

ii. ROGER. I have received your last transmission satisfactorily. The omission of comment on signal strength and readability is understood to mean that reception is loud and clear. If reception is other than loud and clear, it must be described with the prowords for (2) and (3) below.

The controller thinks you are Kareem Abdul Jabar

iii. NOTHING HEARD. To be used when no reply is received from a called station.

You are on the wrong frequency


b. Report
i. LOUD. Your signal is very strong.

Quit yelling in the mile A hole

ii. GOOD. Your signal strength is good.

You are a Bonanza pilot and know it

iii. WEAK. Your signal strength is weak.

You forgot to push in the mike plug all the way dummy

iv. VERY WEAK. Your signal strength is very weak.

Talk like a man, OK?


v. FADING. At times your signal strength fades to such an extent that continuous reception cannot be relied upon.

You failed to consider IMSAFE after last nights festivities

c. Report of Readability:
i. CLEAR. The quality of your transmission is excellent.

Your results came back from the free clinic.

ii. READABLE. The quality of your transmission is satisfactory.

Your English teacher approved

iii. UNREADABLE. The quality of your transmission is so bad that I cannot read you.

You skipped English and went to the beach most of the time in high school

iv. DISTORTED. Having trouble reading you due to signal distortion.

You hung out with the Starwars groups at Lunch I see!


v. WITH INTERFERENCE. Having trouble reading you due to interference.

Is that your wife or dog in the background?

vi. INTERMITTENT. Having trouble reading you because your signal is intermittent.

Pretty obvious you are scud running. Prepare to copy a number slick.
 
Greg H said:
Thanks for your reply.

Is there an official policy as to what is correct? Does the FAA publish appropriate phrases to cover this situation?

I get that the point can be made by many different responses, but for my purposes here I need an actual definitive answer.

I have searched hundreds of pages of AIP docs and I have found nothing to cover this situation.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

There are no regulations regarding phraseology in the US. There is "commonly accepted" phraseology, which is what instructors want to hear, but no regulatory phraseology. Our Aeronautical Informaton Manual says "Since concise phraseology may not always be adequate, use whatever words are necessary to get your message across."

Bob Gardner
 
Last edited:
ATC: Bugsmasher 123 - Radio Check
BS123: The following is a short count test of the 1MC from the bridge "1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1... test out" ... how me?
ATC: Go home, sailor. You're drunk.
 
Doug Reid said:
Loud an clear is good. Most folks don’t understand what 5 by 5 means unless they are military or ham radio ops.

73’s de WD4LNW/Aeronautical mobile.
Click to expand...
Lately I’ve been hearing pilots use 5/5 more than loud and clear.
 
Doug Reid said:
Loud an clear is good. Most folks don’t understand what 5 by 5 means unless they are military or ham radio ops.

73’s de WD4LNW/Aeronautical mobile.
Click to expand...

Well ATC around here almost always says 5/5 or 3/5 depending on where I am calling them from
 
WannFly said:
Well ATC around here almost always says 5/5 or 3/5 depending on where I am calling them from
Click to expand...

Its so subjective that unless its full quieting, nothing else really means much to me. 3/5... WTF does that mean to me? Nothing.,
 
Someone told me I was garbled as I taxied out the other day. But it was just my cold, I sound garbled in person, too, right now . . .
 
"Yep, it's still here"

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Doug Reid said:
Loud an clear is good. Most folks don’t understand what 5 by 5 means unless they are military or ham radio ops.

73’s de WD4LNW/Aeronautical mobile.
Click to expand...

If someone gave me a 55 I wouldn't even log it :rolleyes:.

True dialog (20M SSB QSO):

other station: your callsign agn?
me: kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india, kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india, QSL?
other station: K9-golf-delta-india?
me: negative, kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india, kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india.
other station: (more mistakes)
(... after 8-9 repeats of the dialog above )
other station: ok I think I got it! KC9GLI, you are 59 in ...
me: uh huh!

73!
 
Doug Reid said:
Loud an clear is good. Most folks don’t understand what 5 by 5 means unless they are military or ham radio ops.

73’s de WD4LNW/Aeronautical mobile.
Click to expand...

And I don't hear it on the ham bands.

73

N6TPT

GreatLakesFlying said:
If someone gave me a 55 I wouldn't even log it :rolleyes:.

True dialog (20M SSB QSO):

other station: your callsign agn?
me: kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india, kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india, QSL?
other station: K9-golf-delta-india?
me: negative, kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india, kilo-charlie-niner-golf-lima-india.
other station: (more mistakes)
(... after 8-9 repeats of the dialog above )
other station: ok I think I got it! KC9GLI, you are 59 in ...
me: uh huh!

73!
Click to expand...

Sounds like a typical contest exchange to me. :p
 
I was taught 5by5 ,many ,many years ago. Now I use loud and clear.
 
frfly172 said:
I was taught 5by5 ,many ,many years ago. Now I use loud and clear.
Click to expand...

And if it is not "loud and clear"...?

I asked Ground at our airport for a check on my #2 radio earlier this week. They came back with "5 by 5", which is how I was taught too.
 
if not clear .reply with explanation of quality,such as loud with static.
 
Nitpicking here, but readability comes first and strength comes second. Technically, it should be "clear and loud" rather than "loud and clear."

Five by Five

US Army Radio Operator Manual FM 24-6 1945 version said:
Report | Readability | Signal Strength

1 | Unreadable | Scarcely perceptible.
2 | Readable now and then | Weak.
3 | Readable but with difficulty | Fairly good.
4 | Readable | Good.
5 | Perfectly readable | Very good
Click to expand...
 
Greg H said:
The response I heard was “... Loud and Clear”.

In Australia where I am that would not be correct. We use a 1 to 5 scale so the correct response would be, “... reading you 5”.

Is there an official document that would describe this?
Click to expand...
As you can see, official documents are all over the map. So just use "Loud and clear" as the format and give either "5 by 5" (loud and clear) or "1 by 5" (weak, but clear), etc. Don't give "2 by 4", that's for carpenters.
 
Greg H said:
Thanks for your reply.

Is there an official policy as to what is correct? Does the FAA publish appropriate phrases to cover this situation?

I get that the point can be made by many different responses, but for my purposes here I need an actual definitive answer.

I have searched hundreds of pages of AIP docs and I have found nothing to cover this situation.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I am curious, why do you need such a definate answer. "loud and clear" is gonna be your most common phrase in US general aviation.
 
Greg H said:
I understand you but in this instance it is a line check of an airline crew and I am trying to be totally specific.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, no need to try to hard. You will find they speak the same language as the rest of us. After all we learn what to say over the radio by using it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top