Upon inital contact to ATC, say "request" or just blurt it all out?

[midlifeflyer]

If it's quiet and you think you have the controller's attention and it's a simple request, go ahead and spit it all out at once. Otherwise, get the controller's attention first so you don't have to do it all again.

Pretty much what I've been doing for 25 years.

 

[denverpilot]

So analyzing just from a "systems" perception:

You call with a brief but full request. Controller not ready. Controller asks for a repeat. Same request. Done.

But... there's usually a better than 50/50 chance they handle it on the first call. Also done.

You call with a "request". There's zero chance they handle it on the first call.

The request method only serves to guarantee multiple transmissions of you really think about it.

I'm not condoning a ten minute droning crappy soliloquy with zero thought about what exactly should be said before the mic is ever keyed.

But there's an inescapable reality that we simply can't guess if the controller is too busy unless they're working everyone on the same frequency.

Just pointing it out. Both work. One guarantees inefficiency.

 

[Palmpilot]

So analyzing just from a "systems" perception:

You call with a brief but full request. Controller not ready. Controller asks for a repeat. Same request. Done.

But... there's usually a better than 50/50 chance they handle it on the first call. Also done.

You call with a "request". There's zero chance they handle it on the first call.

The request method only serves to guarantee multiple transmissions of you really think about it.

I'm not condoning a ten minute droning crappy soliloquy with zero thought about what exactly should be said before the mic is ever keyed.

But there's an inescapable reality that we simply can't guess if the controller is too busy unless they're working everyone on the same frequency.

Just pointing it out. Both work. One guarantees inefficiency.

While saving frequency time can be an issue on busy sectors, my understanding is that it's more important to allow the controller to determine what gets handled first.

 

[denverpilot]

While saving frequency time can be an issue on busy sectors, my understanding is that it's more important to allow the controller to determine what gets handled first.

Nothing stops them from doing that in either method.

 

[Palmpilot]

Nothing stops them from doing that in either method.

ATC can't give instructions while an aircraft is transmitting.

 

[denverpilot]

ATC can't give instructions while an aircraft is transmitting.

Actually in multiple radio setups, they can. Just not on that frequency.

Their management of the frequency is not the guy flying an airplane's problem. The technology to patch the frequencies TOGETHER including the transmissions from other aircraft on the OTHER frequencies has been commonplace in public safety radio engineering since the 70s.

The concept of running multiple radio inputs to their ears and not passing those along out the other transmitters, is busted communications engineering design. Nothing the controller can do about it. But then again, neither can the pilot.

Inter phone lines, those you don't want to retransmit, but the "30 frequency" guy who posted showed that the current methodology of routing the receivers only to the controller's ears is really stupid.

 

[MarkZ]

Nothing stops them from doing that in either method.

ATC can't give instructions while an aircraft is transmitting.

Precisely correct Palmpilot. In the terminal ATC environment, seconds matter. I may have multiple frequencies, and the one you pick may not sound busy. There is no way for a pilot to tell for sure. Doing a short check on may sound inefficient from he pilot side. From my side it allows me to keep moving traffic and get back to whoever needs services when I can.

 

[Palmpilot]

Actually in multiple radio setups, they can. Just not on that frequency.

That's no help if the aircraft that needs instructions RIGHT NOW happens to be on the frequency I'm tying up.

Their management of the frequency is not the guy flying an airplane's problem.

I would prefer not to cause a potentially fatal problem that could result from my delaying priority communications.

 

[denverpilot]

That's no help if the aircraft that needs instructions RIGHT NOW happens to be on the frequency I'm tying up.







I would prefer not to cause a potentially fatal problem that could result from my delaying priority communications.

There's a reason their transmitter power level and their antenna gain is an order of magnitude higher than yours.

See there once were these people called engineers who built whole systems with things like that in mind...

 

[Palmpilot]

There's a reason their transmitter power level and their antenna gain is an order of magnitude higher than yours.

See there once were these people called engineers who built whole systems with things like that in mind...

I think that plan is defeated by the inverse square law on a regular basis. It's not unusual to hear ATC and an aircraft transmitting at the same time, and the ATC transmission is usually not readable unless I happen to be close to the ATC transmitter, such as in the pattern or on the ground at a towered airport.

 

[denverpilot]

I think that plan is defeated by the inverse square law on a regular basis. It's not unusual to hear ATC and an aircraft transmitting at the same time, and the ATC transmission is usually not readable unless I happen to be close to the ATC transmitter, such as in the pattern or on the ground at a towered airport.

Where do you suppose those supposedly frequent and necessary emergency transmissions are going to be the most needed?

Are you picking up FF in the pattern much these days?

Keep thinking. You'll get there.

 

[MarkZ]

If an aircraft calls up 20 miles west of my transmitter at 2,500 looking for flight following, and does so at the moment I'm about to turn a bus (A320) base on a 20 mile final for 9L, I guarantee the next transmission I will hear will be "blocked." That time wasted equates to a normal 4 mile in trail final to a 5-6 mile in trail final. At busier facilities, it causes a ripple effect.

Transmitter power and size are moot points if the two aircraft are closer to each other. Since there is no way a VFR pilot can know exactly what the traffic situation looks like, keeping an initial call up as short as possible becomes the safest play.

 

[Palmpilot]

Where do you suppose those supposedly frequent and necessary emergency transmissions are going to be the most needed?

In a busy terminal area, with lots of airliners, which, because of their speed and the number of lives at stake, may need attention sooner than I do.

Are you picking up FF in the pattern much these days?

No, which is why the higher power of an ATC transmitter does not solve the problem when a pilot ties up the frequency for too long on the initial call up.

Keep thinking. You'll get there.

Keep thinking. You'll get there.

 

[denverpilot]

If an aircraft calls up 20 miles west of my transmitter at 2,500 looking for flight following, and does so at the moment I'm about to turn a bus (A320) base on a 20 mile final for 9L, I guarantee the next transmission I will hear will be "blocked." That time wasted equates to a normal 4 mile in trail final to a 5-6 mile in trail final. At busier facilities, it causes a ripple effect.

Transmitter power and size are moot points if the two aircraft are closer to each other. Since there is no way a VFR pilot can know exactly what the traffic situation looks like, keeping an initial call up as short as possible becomes the safest play.

Sounds like someone at your "company" should modify the AIM then. Or someone should stick some special procedures on the ATIS semi-permanently at your particular facility until it gets their attention.

It's all fixable if someone in the bureaucracy actually listened to you guys in the real world......

No point at all in even having threads like this one if the instructions are clear.......

That's basically the back story of the special procedures at APA for taxi... The tower chief actually did something proactive instead of play along as incursions climbed. The inspectors didn't like the solution so they had him modify them further and worked with the airport authority to build run up areas to match the changes they required in the phraseology of the clearances (built and painted actual run-up areas) ... And voila. Done.

Transients are still a bit confused if they don't listen to and actually comprehend the instructions on the ATIS but the rest of us with more than two brain cells to run together see the safety value and happily do the "non-standard" stuff.

I'm sure he annoyed the crap out of the "just do it like everyone else" crowd in the bureaucracy. He also dropped his runway incursions to almost nothing. I'll take annoying and effective over badly defined and poorly worded, any day of the week.

If the facility is busy enough that no one should give a full call-up VFR, just stick it on the ATIS forever. Done.

 

[Everskyward]

Transient is probably not going to be listening to big airport ATIS. Not to mention the fact that most ATISs are long enough already. If you don't want to follow the advice of the controllers here then don't.

 

[Palmpilot]

Sounds like someone at your "company" should modify the AIM then.

Sounds like a good idea.

If the facility is busy enough that no one should give a full call-up VFR, just stick it on the ATIS forever. Done.

That could work if the pilots knew they were supposed to listen to the ATIS, knew which ATIS to listen to, and were within range of the ATIS transmitter when they called for flight following. (Since you're in Colorado, I'm sure you're aware that terrain blocks ATIS transmissions in many locations.)

 

[denverpilot]

Transient is probably not going to be listening to big airport ATIS. Not to mention the fact that most ATISs are long enough already. If you don't want to follow the advice of the controllers here then don't.

The idea that an anonymous post on the Internet is better than the written rulebook shows how broken it is.

There's an interesting side question. How many people flying out of a satellite actually tune and copy the ATIS of the Bravo airport they want to fly through. You're supposed to...

I'll admit to not having done it. But I threw it out there as a fix because if the special procedures are published, word gets around, one way or another.

PoA isn't the appropriate place to notify pilots of a desired change in procedure.

 

[Everskyward]

I think the controllers here were only stating a preference in response to a simple question. You respond with changing the AIM and putting more things on ATIS?

 

[Palmpilot]

The idea that an anonymous post on the Internet is better than the written rulebook shows how broken it is.

We live in an imperfect world!

There's an interesting side question. How many people flying out of a satellite actually tune and copy the ATIS of the Bravo airport they want to fly through. You're supposed to...

I'll admit to not having done it. But I threw it out there as a fix because if the special procedures are published, word gets around, one way or another.

I know about the requirement to have an altimeter setting from within 100 miles of your position, but where is the requirement to copy a particular ATIS?

PoA isn't the appropriate place to notify pilots of a desired change in procedure.

The OP asked fellow pilots for opinions on how to do his initial call up. People have been giving him opinions on that subject. Do you see anything inappropriate about either of those activities?

 

[denverpilot]

I think the controllers here were only stating a preference in response to a simple question. You respond with changing the AIM and putting more things on ATIS?

One controller at one facility. I've spoken with controllers off of PoA who prefer the opposite.

Try not to believe the real world always revolves around PoA. LOL !

I mean, we all know all the greats are here... Every pilot we've ever seen that we wanted their autographs...

It's a hotbed of the best of the best. Ha.

Well. Maybe not.

Mari being an exception. We all want her autograph.

 

[denverpilot]

The OP asked fellow pilots for opinions on how to do his initial call up. People have been giving him opinions on that subject. Do you see anything inappropriate about either of those activities?

The context of the post wasn't in reply to the OP. It was in response to a specific post and question in the thread about how published procedure (written and screwed up by committee) isn't what one real-world controller (who probably has actual safety at heart) wants... And how he can communicate it in a way that trumps the broken rulebook.

Keep up.

 

[Palmpilot]

One controller at one facility...

I count two current controllers and one former controller. (See posts 18, 23, and 26.)

 

[Everskyward]

One controller at one facility. I've spoken with controllers off of PoA who prefer the opposite.

Try not to believe the real world always revolves around PoA. LOL !

I mean, we all know all the greats are here... Every pilot we've ever seen that we wanted their autographs...

It's a hotbed of the best of the best. Ha.

Well. Maybe not.

Mari being an exception. We all want her autograph.

What are you talking about? You're the one who proposed all these changes based on what someone posted here. I'm the one who said people were giving answers to a simple question before it got blown out of proportion.

 

[Everskyward]

The idea that an anonymous post on the Internet is better than the written rulebook shows how broken it is.

Why should this issue be micromanaged and put in a rulebook? Don't you want some latitude to do one or the other?

 

[denverpilot]

What are you talking about? You're the one who proposed all these changes based on what someone posted here. I'm the one who said people were giving answers to a simple question before it got blown out of proportion.

"Propose" is a bit much. Proposals in my world are a formal affair.

"Mention" to the existing controller that if they want something they have a means of getting it, is as far as I go on the Interwebz.

You recommended I change my procedure when flying for the anonymous post of one person on the Interwebz. I have a simple answer for that idea: no.

(That said, there are some people here that I've met and know their bonafides who I'd think about it seriously if they had said it.)

Which is also why I'm always amazed folk ask this stuff on the Internet anyway. There's a damn rule book and I'm sure their local facility has a phone number. Only the local facility knows if they're regularly having a controller listen to 30 frequencies. (Which is, generally retarded and not safe.)

To be honest I gave the 30 frequency thing a pass but I never saw a patch board capable of that many audio channels when I worked an FAA contract. But it was 15 years ago. I'd like to see a photo of that new patch board set to handle 30 and a UTC clock in the photo showing it's not 3 AM local time at a Center.

I'm a tech buff. I'd like to see that patch interface.

And like I said... in Public Safety radio systems, the problem of stepping on others during a patch was solved over two decades ago. If FAA upgraded the patch gear I saw 15 years ago and didn't figure out to patch the transmitters in, they're still two decades behind. Which honestly, from what I saw 15 years ago, wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

If you recall from other posts, the special version of the land line conferencing gear we sold only to FAA and the Pacific Naval Command was nicknamed the "Fisher Price" software version inside our company.

I was the lead Product Support engineer (technically the only one) on the non-Federal version that did all the nifty stuff, but got sucked into the "modernization" project that upgraded the FAA systems to software that was only ten years old at the time because I could "speak aviation". It was fun but nothing I saw indicated there was any great push for "high tech" in that project.

We called it the Fisher-Price version because it had a colorized touch screen that made operating it about as hard as playing with those colorful kid's toys.

The one that went to the Navy was awesome. But you really never wanted anyone to push the red button on the screen, even by accident, unless you wanted to explain to an Admiral or his staff why you were calling. And why they were just dropped directly into a conference call with all of their subordinate commands.

Fun stuff. Not very high tech though.

 

[Everskyward]

You recommended I change my procedure when flying for the anonymous post of one person on the Interwebz. I have a simple answer for that idea: no.

If you look back at my post I most certainly didn't say that. In fact I said the opposite.

 

[denverpilot]

If you look back at my post I most certainly didn't say that. In fact I said the opposite.

Sorry. I'm so used to the sarcasm here I forgot you're also a straight shooter. You actually meant it when you said not to do it if one doesn't wish to.

 

[Everskyward]

Sorry. I'm so used to the sarcasm here I forgot you're also a straight shooter. You actually meant it when you said not to do it if one doesn't wish to.

LOL, yep.

So much here (not just here but in aviation discussions in general) have to do with technique. There are many ways to do a certain thing and I am not one to try to force my way on others. If someone asks my opinion I will usually give it but that doesn't mean I think others need to bend to my will. Not that they would anyway!

 

[sferguson524]

I was taught to throw another wrench in the mix. When calling with a VFR request to say so. That just saying request had connotations you were an IFR aircraft. Whether or not that was true here, it works.

 

[denverpilot]

I was taught to throw another wrench in the mix. When calling with a VFR request to say so. That just saying request had connotations you were an IFR aircraft. Whether or not that was true here, it works.

That supposedly helps so they don't have to hunt through upcoming flights to see if you're IFR.

Here's one I bet a lot of controllers will agree with...

Professional and reasonably quick but not too fast with correct info in the right order works better than someone going "uhhhhh... Denver.... Uhhhh.... Approach..... Uhhhhhh.... Skylane ..... Uhhhh...."

Who you're calling, who you are, where you are, and what you want. And don't figure those out AFTER you key the mic, figure them out BEFORE you do.

Really never had much trouble with any of the methods mentioned, if you just keep it that simple.

I just cringe when I swear I can hear the guy or gal calling who doesn't know any of that stuff before they key up, leaning forward to squint at the GPS for their location, etc. I also laugh out loud when I hear folks giving tenths of a mile (again GPS) on the initial call up. Ha. "We're ... uhhhh [as you hear the seat creak and they lean forward to the GPS] Twelve POINT THREE miles.... On a heading of 127 from the South Podunk VOR..." and it goes on for two minutes....

"Twelve southeast of South Podunk". Done. Get it DONE! LOL!

I swear one guy described not only all of that detail but that he was going to Kansas to see Aunt Millie and have some of her Apple pie and play horseshoes... Or it seemed like it anyway. Ha.

Of course anyone reading this who's still mic shy or uncomfortable... Just add "student pilot" somewhere near the beginning.

 

[Everskyward]

I was taught to throw another wrench in the mix. When calling with a VFR request to say so. That just saying request had connotations you were an IFR aircraft. Whether or not that was true here, it works.

Speaking of IFR, I think there is reason ATC usually says, "We have an amendment to your clearance" first, before giving it to you. This would seem to be their version of "request". It warns the other party that something different is coming.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Crisis in the cockpit, they are CHANGING our flight plan!

 

[denverpilot]

Speaking of IFR, I think there is reason ATC usually says, "We have an amendment to your clearance" first, before giving it to you. This would seem to be their version of "request". It warns the other party that something different is coming.

Do you know if they have any rules about it in the 7110? I don't.

 

[sferguson524]

Speaking of IFR, I think there is reason ATC usually says, "We have an amendment to your clearance" first, before giving it to you. This would seem to be their version of "request". It warns the other party that something different is coming.

GAH, i hate that.. Was flying IFR to Oakland, and just south of LA, got the dreaded "we have an amendment to your clearance, advise when ready to copy", they re routed us ALL THE WAY around LAX, adding close to 20 min to our trip.. got the same thing on the way back.. I spent 15 min negotiating with the controller to get a more favorable routing...

 

[midlifeflyer]

That supposedly helps so they don't have to hunt through upcoming flights to see if you're IFR.

Here's one I bet a lot of controllers will agree with...

Professional and reasonably quick but not too fast with correct info in the right order works better than someone going "uhhhhh... Denver.... Uhhhh.... Approach..... Uhhhhhh.... Skylane ..... Uhhhh...."

Who you're calling, who you are, where you are, and what you want. And don't figure those out AFTER you key the mic, figure them out BEFORE you do.

Really never had much trouble with any of the methods mentioned, if you just keep it that simple.

I just cringe when I swear I can hear the guy or gal calling who doesn't know any of that stuff before they key up, leaning forward to squint at the GPS for their location, etc. I also laugh out loud when I hear folks giving tenths of a mile (again GPS) on the initial call up. Ha. "We're ... uhhhh [as you hear the seat creak and they lean forward to the GPS] Twelve POINT THREE miles.... On a heading of 127 from the South Podunk VOR..." and it goes on for two minutes....

You'll appreciate this: One busy Saturday returning to Centennial, I could barely find a break to get a get a word in edgewise. A number of aircraft called in (transient no doubt ) for landings, sounding exactly as you describe, and receiving "Aircraft calling Centennial Tower. Remain clear of the Class Delta and try us in 20 minutes."

I finally heard a pause. "Tower. Skyhawk 1235X. 8 Southeast. Landing. Hotel." "Make right base runway 35R. Report KOA" was the response.

 

[davidm767]

A lot of good posts here. Flying in mostly congested airspace for a good chunk of my flying career has led me to keep it simple (KISS). "Miami departure, NXXXX, VFR Request". After the "Go-Ahead NXXXX I'll calmly, clearly, and just slow enough to understand "Miami departure, NXXXX, VFR, AA-5, 2,500, Naples ... Alpha-Papa-Foxtrot".

Most of this can be cleared up right away if departing into busy airspace by asking for flight following right from Tower, which they coordinate for you (if departing a towered airport of course).

However, a few times with a very busy SoCal I've been told straight up...NXXXX, SoCal approach, unable, remain VFR" although at those times I just used the "VFR request" verbiage.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Speaking of IFR, I think there is reason ATC usually says, "We have an amendment to your clearance" first, before giving it to you. This would seem to be their version of "request". It warns the other party that something different is coming.

The times I hear it it's typically accompanied by "Advise when ready to copy." I think the intent is the same without those words.

 

[Everskyward]

Do you know if they have any rules about it in the 7110? I don't.

I don't know that there are any rules. It may be just a technique, or not. Maybe one of the controllers can answer this too.

I'll say this, though, if ATC gives someone a reroute out of the blue the pilot will most likely get it wrong on the readback the first time.

 

[FastEddieB]

I was already a pilot when I trained to be a police officer.

It always surpised me that our dispatchers gave no head's up when dispatching calls.

You'd be driving along in traffic, and suddenly hear:

"2334, 34. 3434 NW 35th St. Complainant is a neighbor who does not wish to be contacted. Case number 123456J."

It was downright dangerous to try to write that down while driving.

I wrote a memo to communications recommending an initial call with "Advise when ready to copy", but it was not implemented in my time on the force.

Probably all computerized now, anyway.

 

[Everskyward]

The times I hear it it's typically accompanied by "Advise when ready to copy." I think the intent is the same without those words.

It seems like I also hear "advise when ready to copy" about half the time, or some of the time anyway. But they unkey the mike after "We have an amendment to your routing," waiting for your reply.