Radio Technique

Van_Hoolio

Van_Hoolio

Well-Known Member
I flew with a student last night who insists that he's correct in reading back all clearances and ATC instructions by saying his tail number first, and then reading back the insructions. It bugs the absolute piss out of me, but I looked in Chapter 4 Section 2 of the AIM and couldn't find anything that states a preference either way. My preference is to state the tail number at the very end of an acknowledgement.

Mike
 
I've been through the same exercise.


I seem to recall an Air Force directive that specified the Callsign be read back first, and then the remainder of the clearance in the order it was received. I've never found that directive... so it may just be a figment of my imagination.

However, in my quest to find a directive concerning the matter, I found none. In fact, I think there are examples of both ways, callsign first, and callsign last.



You hit the nail on the head - - preference.



:)




.
 
I think it's more than preference. From experience, it's the de facto standard. My preference is to have my students sound like the professional airline and corporate pilots we share the airport and airspace with.

Mike
 
A good instructor knows how to distinguish between procedure and technique.



Unless you have a reference, you'll have a hard time convincing me it's procedure. :)






.
 
4-2-3. Contact Procedures

a. Initial Contact.

1. The terms initial contact or initial callup means the first radio call you make to a given facility or the first call to a different controller or FSS specialist within a facility. Use the following format:

(a) Name of the facility being called;

(b) Your full aircraft identification as filed in the flight plan or as discussed in paragraph 4-2-4, Aircraft Call Signs;

(c) When operating on an airport surface, state your position.

(d) The type of message to follow or your request if it is short; and

(e) The word "Over" if required.


4-2-3 c. Subsequent Contacts and Responses to Callup from a Ground Facility.

Use the same format as used for the initial contact except you should state your message or request with the callup in one transmission.



Van Hoolio,

Your student is correct. I used to work for a Part 135 outfit and the D.O. would go insane if he heard his pilots stating the call sign at the end of the transmission. He would literally berate them in the ops hallway. (What a job that was.)

The rationale is that if you use the call sign at the end of the transmission and the frequency gets busy...it's difficult for the controller to establish who the call is from. If the call sign is established first...it's easier for the controller to determine who the call is from...then the controller can pay attention to the content of the message.

Most pilots are lazy though...and since memory is last in/first out....the readback gets spit out first...then the call sign last.

The same section of the AIM does state, however, that the call sign can be at the beginning or at the end of a time critical acknowledgment that requires one of the words, "Wilco, Roger, Affirmative or Negative."
 
On the other hand...


4−4−6. Pilot Responsibility upon Clearance
Issuance​



a. Record ATC clearance.
.. omitted for brevity ...


b. ATC Clearance/Instruction Readback.
Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back
those parts of ATC clearances and instructions​


containing altitude assignments or vectors as a means
of mutual verification. The readback of the
“numbers” serves as a double check between pilots
and controllers and reduces the kinds of
communications errors that occur when a number is​
either “misheard” or is incorrect.

1. Include the aircraft identification in all
readbacks and acknowledgments. This aids controllers
in determining that the correct aircraft received
the clearance or instruction. The requirement to
include aircraft identification in all readbacks and
acknowledgements becomes more important as
frequency congestion increases and when aircraft
with similar call signs are on the same frequency.​


EXAMPLE−
“Climbing to Flight Level three three zero, United Twelve”
or “November Five Charlie Tango, roger, cleared to land.”​


​
2. Read back altitudes, altitude restrictions, and
vectors in the same sequence as they are given in the​
clearance or instruction.

3. Altitudes contained in charted procedures,
such as DPs, instrument approaches, etc., should not
be read back unless they are specifically stated by the​
controller.

c. It is the responsibility of the pilot to accept or
refuse the clearance issued.​


​
Click to expand...


Notice the examples in 4-4-6.b.1. - - one uses the callsign first, and the other uses the callsign last. Both convey the same information, and both are obviously acceptable.​


Notice that the "same sequence as given" requirement in 4-4-6.b.2. only applies to altitudes, altitude restrictions, and vectors.​





There are various other examples of radio transmissions that contain the callsign last, but this one is the most obvious, and certainly suffices as an exception to "the rule".​


.​

​
 
I've noted those examples previously and think that they are inaccurate. Has this been posed to the ATC guys here?
 
For those who can't access the link...I'll post an excerpt. The author is an ATC guy.



"Cessna One Two Three Four Five, fly heading one five zero, leaving six thousand, descending to five thousand."

There are a couple of things I'd like to point out while we're here. First, notice that the pilot didn't respond with the controller's callsign -- Atlanta Center. In this case, it isn't necessary because the controller initiated the exchange. Secondly, notice that the pilot uses the callsign at the beginning of the transmission.

Believe it or not, this little tidbit of phraseology has been debated for years. Do you put the callsign at the beginning of the transmission or at the end? For my money, there is no contest. Put it at the beginning.

In case you're interested, the logic of those that suggest putting it at the end of the transmission goes like this: If a controller hears the callsign first, he knows the right aircraft got the clearance and he stops listening. In order to prevent that, they'll read back the clearance and make the controller wait until the end to hear the callsign. Supposedly, this will force the controller to pay attention to the readback -- to ensure it's correct. I'll assume they didn't pull this theory out of thin air and it has some validity to it. OK, so what do you start the readback transmission with?


"Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five, climb and maintain seven thousand."

If (and it's a real big if) you use standard phraseology, it will come out fine.


"Leaving six thousand, climbing to seven thousand, Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five."

However, what you start a readback with changes with every clearance.


"Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five, fly heading one five zero."


"Fly heading one five zero, Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five."

It also reverses the order of an initial check in. After all, this wouldn't make much sense would it?


"Atlanta Center, level flight level three one zero, Air Force One."

My main argument for using your callsign first is because people tend to get sloppy. Familiarity breeds contempt. And lets face it: Phraseology just isn't a sexy subject. It's mundane. It's Boring! After you've been flying for 20 years and have made a million transmissions, it's really, really hard to get excited about it all.

Controllers have the same problem. If I had a nickel for every time I've issued this transmission, I would be a wealthy man indeed:
 
That's what AirNet does. At first it erked the heck out of me. Our instructors said that it sounds more professional. I think it makes me sound like a noob, but the policy was call-sign first, so that's what we did. After I got used to it, no big deal.

I always thought it was easier to tell the difference between ATC and A/C by where the callsign was, like when you first check on and an aircraft is answering. If you check on and you hear call-sign first then you wait longer for "the answer" and delay your check-in. I know I'm being petty. My thing is, what exactly makes it better than the more common method? Either way, ATC still has to wait until the pilot is done talking, whether it's the correct pilot reading back or not. I'm all for the memory enhancing technique. Besides it sounds cooler to me :cool:
 
Here's the opinion of one controller:

"Believe it or not, this little tidbit of phraseology has been debated for years. Do you put the callsign at the beginning of the transmission or at the end? For my money, there is no contest. Put it at the beginning."
Don Brown ZTL excerpt from Say Again? #66 Avweb.com

oops I see I'm not quick enough
 
Van_Hoolio said:
bugs the absolute piss out of me, but I looked in Chapter 4 Section 2 of the AIM and couldn't find anything that states a preference either way. My preference is to state the tail number at the very end of an acknowledgement.
Click to expand...

The AIM says either beginning or end. (4-2-3(c)).

I think it's easier at the end on most transmissions, particularly if my instructions include lots of numbers. Rattling off my call sign at the beginning purges my short-term memory of things like headings and altitudes. ;-)
 
tgrayson said:
The AIM says either beginning or end. (4-2-3(c)).

I think it's easier at the end on most transmissions, particularly if my instructions include lots of numbers. Rattling off my call sign at the beginning purges my short-term memory of things like headings and altitudes. ;-)
Click to expand...

I believe this is only if ATC needs an immediate, short response to some situation...and doesn't want to wait for the call sign to hear the response. All other normal communications should be phrased as call sign first.
 
B767Driver said:
I believe this is only if ATC needs an immediate, short response to some situation...and doesn't want to wait for the call sign to hear the response. All other normal communications should be phrased as call sign first.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The previous sentences address that issue:

There are some occasions when controllers must issue time-critical instructions to other aircraft, and they may be in a position to observe your response, either visually or on radar. If the situation demands your response, take appropriate action or immediately advise the facility of any problem.

For those immediate needs, take action now, talk later. The remaining sentences appear unconnected to that. For instance, the last sentence is

If you have been receiving services; e.g., VFR traffic advisories and you are leaving the area or changing frequencies, advise the ATC facility and terminate contact.

That's obviously not related to short-term needs. I think they've just strung together a number of recommendations about subsequent contacts in one paragraph, the pieces of which aren't necessarily connected to each other.
 
I would say holding the microphone close to your mouth is a "good technique". The order of contact procedures and responses is a generally accepted procedure.

What if we said on initial contact to a center controller, "FL330, Fedex 100, Memphis Ctr." (Meaning we're at FL330 for Fedex 100 to Memphis.) It would make no sense...which is why it must be proper radio procedure and spelled out as such.

I understand your point. And with the laxity of examples throughout the AIM, the document does not do a good job enforcing...what I think is the proper procedure it attempts to spell out.

And I can definitely see how this would lead one to believe including the call sign at the beginning or the end...is a matter of technique.
 
tgrayson said:
For those immediate needs, take action now, talk later. The remaining sentences appear unconnected to that. For instance, the last sentence is

.
Click to expand...

I see. I interpret the remaining sentence as connected to the "immediate needs" in question.

Additionally, the first sentence in 4-2-3(c) states to use the same format as that used on initial contact.
 
B767Driver said:
What if we said on initial contact to a center controller, "FL330, Fedex 100, Memphis Ctr." (Meaning we're at FL330 for Fedex 100 to Memphis.) It would make no sense...which is why it must be proper radio procedure and spelled out as such.
Click to expand...


First, recall that the question in the first post in this thread was about reading back clearances.


The Paragraph you cited concerns Initial Contact, and it prescribes a very particular order of the information to be included. The example quoted above is not bad technique, it's improper procedure, because it fails to conform to the very specific instructions in 4-2-3.a. We agree that it is not the correct way to perform an "Initial Contact" on the radio.


Where we seem to disagree is on the reading back of clearances. Should we read them back? Does the order of readback matter? Do we have to include our callsign at all, or should we rely on the controller's recognition of our voice to verify the correct aircraft accepted the clearance? Where do we go to answer these questions? 4-4-6. Pilot Responsibility Upon Clearance Issuance.


Here we read what must be read back, and how, and a hint or two about why. We must read back the aricraft identification. We are told why, and we are given two examples. One example has the aircraft identification before the readback, and one after. Either order, apparently, is acceptable. Both methods fulfill the stated purpose of reading back the aircraft identification -- it aids controllers in determining that the correct aircraft received the clearance or instruction.


Now, if the example was the only example of Callsign last, and it appeared some 5 or 6 or 30 pages away from this paragraph, I'd be suspicious of a typo, or editorial oversight. But this example is one of many, and it is planted firmly in the middle of the discussion about the very issue of reading back clearances. I doubt it's a mistake. Both methods are legal.





In case I haven't said it before, I believe it is best to say the callsign first. I agree with Don Brown. Nevertheless, I cannot impose my preference as procedure.




.
 
Tony,

Check out AIM 4-2-3 (c). Subsequent Contacts and Responses to Callup from a Ground Facility.

Specifically the first couple of sentences. Let me know what you make of that section. That's really where I am making the determination from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top