Saying 2.5 instead of 2500, etc?
- Thread starter CC268
- Start date
SbestCFII
Line Up and Wait
I just say what is consistent and well-understood. 6462C two-thousand, five hundred climbing for five thousand. I don't see why people have the desire to diverge for basic phaseology that everyone should already know. Because you think it sound's "cool?" You're pilots...grow up.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hmm really now. That's a bit uncalled for I think. I say it and have said it. How long you been around?
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
If you can speak English and have a IQ above that of a household pet, 2500, 2.5, whatever, all the same and all understood just fine.
Gotta learn what really is important and what's just static
Since that was in response to what I wrote (I don't use it; I wonder where it came from), I guess you do get overexcited about it. OK.
Better not watch the video in the Flying the St Louis Arch Tour thread. You'd probably go nuts hearing an Air Traffic Controller use "with you" while flying
OMG! I just watched the video again! When initially switched to Departure at 5:16, she says "...climbing out of one thousand eight hundred for three thousand...!!!!" An air traffic controller! I'm absolutely horrified at the lack of propriety!Since that was in response to what I wrote (I don't use it; I wonder where it came from), I guess you do get overexcited about it. OK.
Better not watch the video in the Flying the St Louis Arch Tour thread. You'd probably go nuts hearing an Air Traffic Controller use "with you" while flying
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
As I've said before...controllers...especially those that work at busier facilities just don't care. It's usually pilots that debate what they think controllers or each other like/sounds professional/etc.
Larry in TN
En-Route
We don't use standard phraseology to keep controller's happy, we use standard phraseology to prevent communication errors.
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
I’m not sure if “we” is professional pilots or pilots in general. All I can say is that I work at a busy TRACON (in addition to flying regularly) and talk to both many hours a week and very few use “standard phraseology” 100% of the time. Of course I guess standard phraseology would need to be defined. I’m not trying to split hairs or get into a match here but...
5 for 8.
3.5 climbing 5.
4 till established.
Center Twenty Thirty Five
No joy
Cleared for the approach
Slowing to one seventy
Right two seventy
Etc, etc.
All happen on a regular basis and don’t seem to cause communication issues. I’m not suggesting that pilots should go out of their way to sound like a trucker on a CB radio or anything. All I’m suggesting is that aviation lingo on the frequency has evolved into some short hand that, in my opinion, doesn’t jeopardize safety/reduce efficiency or cause miscommunication.
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,692
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
They don’t teach phraseology, there is no test for it, so it cannot be that important. As long as it’s brief and clear, who cares. I think standard “two thousand five hundred” is a bit cumbersome, compared to two-point-five or “twenty five hundred”
I did get yelled at by a ground controller at Orlando exec once for saying “clear to cross runway...” just after I got my PPL. He went on and on, wanted the name of my instructor, after 30 seconds of ranting another pilot interrupted him and yelled back at him. The tower controller was apologetic. But that’s how I was taught, my instructor said nothing wrong with that after I talked to him about it.
I did get yelled at by a ground controller at Orlando exec once for saying “clear to cross runway...” just after I got my PPL. He went on and on, wanted the name of my instructor, after 30 seconds of ranting another pilot interrupted him and yelled back at him. The tower controller was apologetic. But that’s how I was taught, my instructor said nothing wrong with that after I talked to him about it.
They do teach phraseology. It's part of learning the lingo of radio communications and understanding what ATC is telling you. "Downwind" rather than, "parallel west of the runway" is "standard phraseology." When you first started flying, didn't the facts that, for example, ATIS broadcasts always give their information in the same order, and you actually can use a mnemonic like CRAFT for the same reason help? There's even a whole Pilot/Controller Glossary and numerous examples in the AIM and Controller Handbook.
Not everything important in life is on a formal event called a "test." Often life is the test and I have heard pilots denied service, particularly in busy areas at busy times, based on their ability to communicate succinctly, clearly, and understandably. Understanding and using standard phraseology is important. It makes it easier to understand and removes doubt as to meaning. Plus English is not everyone's native language. That works the other way as well when we fly into non-English-speaking countries.
The problem is, though, some people get all bent out of shape giving it a "policy of zero tolerance" level of importance waaaaaaay out of proportion with reality.
I prefer to use standard phraseology myself and I admit that I still wince when I hear "with you," but I've long since stopped viewing aviation slang and empty phrases as the end of civilized society.
Last edited:
Poor form. Do it if you want to sound like a clown. If you want to sound like an actual pilot, follow the glossary.
Are you kidding? The PROPER way to phrase that is, "don't have him on the fish finder"! Don't embarrass yourself, son!
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
That controller had his head up his arse. Controllers cannot use 'cleared' except for takeoff and landing clearances. IOW he can't say Cessna 12345 cleared across runway 24, he has to say taxi across runway 24. Doesn't mean you should say it yourself, repeating what the controller says 'taxi across runway' is better than saying 'cleared to cross runway 24'.
As far as teaching phraseology, yes it is taught. It's irresponsible of a CFI not to properly teach a student pilot, or any level of pilot. IMO.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
Hmmm... how about "tally" and "no joy"?
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hmmm... how about "tally" and "no joy"?
Those two have been around a long time! Tally ho!
denverpilot
Tied Down
Only use Tally Ho when the traffic called out to you was a Navajo.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Only use Tally Ho when the traffic called out to you was a Navajo.
And "f'er in sight" when you see the Fokker.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
That.
Poor form?
What is this, tennis?
The phraseology nazis are most often private/hobby pilots, so if you want to sound like... a hobby pilot, be a stickler for AIM/standard only phraseology lol
denverpilot
Tied Down
Or the “professionals” are just sloppy and complacent.
Arguing about it on the Internet is useless, but have seen pro communicators in more than just Aviation and also in Aviation and have seen sloppy ones.
Pro and non-pro in Aviation and non also.
The sloppy ones are easily spotted and always sloppy. The actual pro ones do their thing quietly and accurately and don’t really care if they have a job doing it or not.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
True, the back and forth doesn't change much.
I wouldn't call all of the short hand slop though, think some of it evolved from trying to get a word in around places like NYC, BOS, LAX etc
denverpilot
Tied Down
That’s just called “FAA understaffing” mixed with “airlines trying to cram aircraft in like sardines at hubs”.
Well, and TEB, the hub for the 1%. Haha.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Well, this thread is certainly doing a good job of proving my point!
denverpilot
Tied Down
I will say, I don’t disagree with @James331 much about the sloppy radio work not being most pilot’s biggest threat to their own lives.
Earning the CFI focuses you in on a whole bunch of other things most pilots need to work on besides their radio phraseology.
We do them a disservice not demanding they do radio stuff correctly, but I’d much rather they can handle...
“Engine out, land right THERE in that field or we both die today...”
Than get their radio work perfect.
Internet debates about phraseology notwithstanding... I know there’s some tasks I’d rather see pilots capable of nailing on a flight review.
But shhh. That’s a little instructor secret. We’re going to try to get everyone to do all the things correctly even if we know there’s some more important than others.
Earning the CFI focuses you in on a whole bunch of other things most pilots need to work on besides their radio phraseology.
We do them a disservice not demanding they do radio stuff correctly, but I’d much rather they can handle...
“Engine out, land right THERE in that field or we both die today...”
Than get their radio work perfect.
Internet debates about phraseology notwithstanding... I know there’s some tasks I’d rather see pilots capable of nailing on a flight review.
But shhh. That’s a little instructor secret. We’re going to try to get everyone to do all the things correctly even if we know there’s some more important than others.
Yes, poor form. And it's the other way around. Oftentimes if you want to learn Howe not to talk on the radio, listen to the pros. If you want to sound like an actual pilot, follow he standard phraseology. There's a reason it exists. If you want to sound like a clown, be my guest.
I don't think anyone is saying you have to sound like Marlon Brando every time you key the mic, but I find some of things that people use as an excuse for poor radio work pretty hilarious. I've said "x thousand five hundred" more than once or twice and I've never found it to be such a challenge to my intellect that I need to find an easier way to do it.I will say, I don’t disagree with @James331 much about the sloppy radio work not being most pilot’s biggest threat to their own lives.
Earning the CFI focuses you in on a whole bunch of other things most pilots need to work on besides their radio phraseology.
We do them a disservice not demanding they do radio stuff correctly, but I’d much rather they can handle...
“Engine out, land right THERE in that field or we both die today...”
Than get their radio work perfect.
Internet debates about phraseology notwithstanding... I know there’s some tasks I’d rather see pilots capable of nailing on a flight review.
But shhh. That’s a little instructor secret. We’re going to try to get everyone to do all the things correctly even if we know there’s some more important than others.
We're not reciting Shakespeare, it's just standard radio phraseology. And how about the times it does cost lives? How many people would be alive today if they had simply said, "unable", to an ATC instruction? I can think of two instances right off the top of my head: the "cut it in tight" Cirrus down in Florida and the Cirrus at Houston last year. And go listen to the ATC tapes of the TBM pilot that smeared his family all over 287 in Jersey a few years ago. If he had spent half as much time flying his airplane instead of grabbing about how "going right through there won't be a problem for us", he might have noticed his plane was full of ice and about to stall a bit sooner than he did.
Knowing how to effectively communicate with ATC absolutely can be a safety issue. Doing it properly and doing it well is part of being a competent pilot.
Really? The Cirrus pilots would still be dead if they said a non-standard "no, we can't do that"? Only the standard "unable" would have saved them? If the TBM pilot used standard phraseology to say he was continuing on, it would have been a better decision?
Wow! I probably know the power of words better than the average guy, but this carries it heights I never dreamed of!
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
I guess my goal when learning any new skill is to have perfection as a goal.
An unattainable goal, to be sure, but once one knows the correct or recommended way to do or say something, it ain't that hard to just do it that way until it becomes a habit. One would hope good instructors would emphasize standard phraseology, but sometimes that clearly doesn't "stick".
An unattainable goal, to be sure, but once one knows the correct or recommended way to do or say something, it ain't that hard to just do it that way until it becomes a habit. One would hope good instructors would emphasize standard phraseology, but sometimes that clearly doesn't "stick".
Point is, they didn't use either. Knowing phraseology is also knowing what you can and can't do, how to respond to certain situations, what your options are, what is expected of you and what you can expect of ATC, etc. There is a power to words, without question. Communication absolutely played a role in those accidents.
Communication absolutely played a role. But I can't agree using, or even "knowing" (the probably all "knew" the word "unable") standard phraseology makes the difference between good and bad pilot decisions.
“Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”
― Miles Kington
BTW, before this gets quoted out of the context on all other posts, my only point is that, while using standard phraseology is a good thing, zero tolerance attitudes toward reasonable deviations is a little silly.
Last edited:
I disagree, moreso with the two Cirrus accidents. It's not just a matter of words, but a matter of knowing the relationship between you and ATC. People treat this as such a blasé issue, I mean who cares about radio communications, right? Well how many certificated pilots are scared of ATC? A lot. And why is that (aside from instructors abdicating their responsibility)? Because they're unfamiliar with it. And these are not pilots that are going to tell a controller "unable" in a Bravo. They're going to try and do what the controller says regardless of whether it's safe or not.
Communication is vital. Feel free to disagree, but I absolutely believe that. There's a reason standard phraseology exists: so everyone knows exactly what's going on.
midlifeflyer said:
We absolutely agree communication is vital (even when reading posts
). But I guess you are going to repeatedly insist that anyone who doesn't buy into your absolutist view that rote standard phraseology rather than understanding the concepts is the most important thing, cannot possibly think communication is important. So be it.BTW, here's your opposite example.
I was doing a C172 checkout for a pilot. It was a towered airport with three runways. Two parallel N-S runways and an E-W runway. The winds were about 300 at 15G20. We were cleared to land to the north. The pilot said to me, "You may have to help me on this one. It's been a while." Seeing a good communications teaching moment, instead of doing the crosswind landing with him, I replies, "Or, you can ask for Runway 28." He looked at me like I had two heads. "I never even thought of doing that!" Followed by, "Tower, we'd like 28." Despite the lack of an "unable" or some standard phraseology, we were cleared to land on 28.
You'd argue that it was the pilot's lack of understanding of standard communications phraseology which necessitated my prompting. If he only knew the word "unable," he wold have thought of it himself. I'd argue not knowing standard phraseology was not an issue for this 20,000+ hour retired airline pilot.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
I stressed to my students that if they were not sure of the right way to say something, to go ahead and use plain English. That the controllers exist to help us in our missions, not the other way around.
And I think it’s good advice to all pilots. But the better a pilot internalizes the correct phraseologies, the less often he or she will have to resort to “plain English”.
And the environment matters. When you’re in busy airspace and can’t get a word in edgewise, precise and concise communication matters. On the other hand, I’ve had extended chats with controllers about how I like my plane, their relatives near my home base, that sort of thing.
And this has been on my mind: Daniel Bernath’s communication on the day of his last flight. You do NOT want to be that guy.
And I think it’s good advice to all pilots. But the better a pilot internalizes the correct phraseologies, the less often he or she will have to resort to “plain English”.
And the environment matters. When you’re in busy airspace and can’t get a word in edgewise, precise and concise communication matters. On the other hand, I’ve had extended chats with controllers about how I like my plane, their relatives near my home base, that sort of thing.
And this has been on my mind: Daniel Bernath’s communication on the day of his last flight. You do NOT want to be that guy.
Larry in TN
En-Route
Here's an accident, with 73 fatalities, where poor communication was mentioned int he NTSB probable cause statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52
Here's an accident involving a 747 freighter, which killed all four on board, due to ATC's use of non-standard phraseology for an altitude assignment and the Captain's use of non-standard phraseology in his response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tiger_Line_Flight_66
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52
Here's an accident involving a 747 freighter, which killed all four on board, due to ATC's use of non-standard phraseology for an altitude assignment and the Captain's use of non-standard phraseology in his response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tiger_Line_Flight_66
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Thanks. Nice reminder.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Great example. For those to lazy to click...
“ATC radioed to the flight, "Tiger 66, descend two four zero zero [2,400 ft]. Cleared for NDB approach runway three three." The captain of Tiger 66, who heard "descend to four zero zero" replied with, "Okay, four zero zero" (meaning 400 ft above sea level, which was 2,000 ft too low). The proper radio call from ATC, instead of "descend two four zero zero", should have been "descend and maintain two thousand four hundred feet". The captain read back "okay, four zero zero" where the proper read back should have been "Roger, descend and maintain four-hundred feet". The Cockpit voice recorder also revealed several communication errors made by the flight crew prior to this miscommunication and a general casual nature of the Captain, who was the pilot-not-flying on this particular leg of the trip.”
Last edited: