Radio Technique

[tgrayson]

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.

I do see your point. Upon further examination, I believe there are three issues in this paragraph:

1) Subsequent callups
2) Immediate Needs
3) Responses to Callup from a Ground Facility

On subsequent callups, you should use the initial callup format, which I tend to do. "Memphis Center, Skyhawk 1234X requests..."

When an immediate need arises, do it now. "Skyhawk 1234X, turn right immediately to 180".

When you give a response to a callup, "Skyhawk 1234X, report airport in sight", then you can say "Wilco, Skyhawk 1234X" or "Skyhawk 1234X, wilco".

 

[B767Driver]

1) Subsequent callups
2) Immediate Needs
3) Responses to Callup from a Ground Facility

I hope everyone realizes this is somewhat of a "frivolous academic exercise"....but to continue:

How did you establish a different response from 1) and 3) above. To me they look one and the same, with only a differentiation concerning #2.

 

[TonyC]

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.

I know where you're getting it from, and I feel your pain.


Read down one more paragraph, 4-2-3 d.2. :

2.

At times, a controller/specialist may be​

working a sector with multiple frequency assign-

ments. In order to eliminate unnecessary verbiage

and to free the controller/specialist for higher priority
transmissions, the controller/specialist may request
the pilot “(Identification), change to my frequency
123.4.” This phrase should alert the pilot that the
controller/specialist is only changing frequencies, not
controller/specialist, and that initial callup phraseology
may be abbreviated.​

EXAMPLE−​

“United Two Twenty−Two on one two three point four” or
“one two three point four, United Two Twenty−Two.”​

​

See the examples of "initial callup phraseology"?​

​

 

[tgrayson]

I hope everyone realizes this is somewhat of a "frivolous academic exercise"....but to continue:

How did you establish a different response from 1) and 3) above. To me they look one and the same, with only a differentiation concerning #2.

I'm not sure I understand that question, but I'll take a stab:

The title suggests that callups and responses merit different behaviors, because the title is "Subsequent Contacts and Responses to Callup from a Ground Facility".

The first part of the paragraph clearly has the pilot initiating the conversation. The last part of the paragraph has the ground station initiating the conversation.

The significance is that when a pilot calls up a ground station, until the caller says the call sign, they don't have any idea who it is, so putting it first seems useful.

However, when ATC calls the pilot, they know whom they're calling and the next voice is reasonably the aircraft they called. Even if it's not, the likely response is short, so it's not a big deal when the call sign comes.

 

[B767Driver]

I know where you're getting it from, and I feel your pain.


Read down one more paragraph, 4-2-3 d.2. :

See the examples of "initial callup phraseology"?​

​

Tony,

That's only referencing frequency changes.

 

[B767Driver]

The title suggests that callups and responses merit different behaviors,


The first part of the paragraph clearly has the pilot initiating the conversation. The last part of the paragraph has the ground station initiating the conversation.

.

I would disagree. I interpret the section as applicable to both callups and responses. The second sentence towards its end even talks about an "obvious reply".

 

[tgrayson]

I would disagree. I interpret the section as applicable to both callups and responses. The second sentence towards its end even talks about an "obvious reply".

Sure, when you call them up: "Skyhawk 1234X, say current altimeter setting." I omitted the ground station name and the word "over".

You gotta look at the whole picture. The only time it explicity says anywhere to use the call sign first is in callups and it makes sense. In the section I cited, it clearly offers the choice to the pilot. It doesn't make any sense at all for this to be true only in situation where an immediate reponse is called for. And numerous examples show the call sign being given last. To view those as errors is to give them a subordinate position to the text; that isn't typcially true in ATC publications. Much of the guidance given to aircraft controllers in the 7110.65 is given via example dialog.

 

[TonyC]

Tony,

That's only referencing frequency changes.

It's part of the larger paragraph, 4-2-3 Contact Procedures, and the examples given refer back to the format specified in subparagraph (a) Initial Contact. These examples are "abbreviated" from the "initial callup phraseology," the format specified in (a). The examples are identical, except for the order of the callsign.


Callsign last has to be acceptable, or it wouldn't be used so many times in so many examples.




.

 

[B767Driver]

2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure acknowledgment by the pilot.

NOTE-
Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Contact Procedures, Para 4-2-3.

b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as appropriate.



The above is the only reference I can find from 7110.65. And the sample dialogue in that Order contains very few aircraft readback examples. I wouldn't say that there's a lot to go by. Actually, I couldn't find any. (The only sample aircraft communications that I could find were TCAS maneuvers in response to an RA. They included the aircraft call sign first. All other examples are from ATC.)


I still think the intent of the format is for all communications to be at the front of the call sign. Although there are inconsistencies in a couple of examples, it just makes sense and eliminates much confusion in transmissions.

When you are having a dialoque with ATC...even after numerous transmissions...they always use your call sign first.

For instance:

N12345: "Center, N12345, is FL350 a good ride?"
CTR: "N12345, Center, standby."
CTR: "American 52 Heavy, Center, how is your ride at FL350?"
CTR: "N12345, Center, FL350 is light chop."
N12345: N12345, we'll stay at FL330."

Less desirable on the last transmission:

N12345: "We'll stay at FL330, N12345.


It adds a burden to the controller to have to figure out who is making the transmission.

 

[mikecweb]

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

Coming back to one of the original comments....Just see from what these guys have been discussing that it can be used either way for arguements sake and its definetly not wrong to use the callsign first. You'll hear it out there.

 

[Van_Hoolio]

After reading all of these responses, it's pretty obvious that it isn't pretty obvious :insane:. I'd still say about 90% of what I hear on the radio is in the "call sign last" format. I breath class bravo when I'm at work.

 

[tgrayson]

The above is the only reference I can find from 7110.65. And the sample dialogue in that Order contains very few aircraft readback examples. I wouldn't say that there's a lot to go by.

I wasn't using that reference as a source for appropriate pilot readbacks. What I meant was that the examples are used to demonstrate appropriate phraseology for controllers. The examples are fully equal to the other text in the document. In fact, you might argue they have a higher priority. The examples demonstrate what the authors consider to be proper technique. The paragraph texts attempts to generalize from the specifics.

<<it just makes sense and eliminates much confusion in transmissions.>>

In the end, that's a matter of judgement. The AIM authors apparently didn't have a strong preference, other than callups.

<<When you are having a dialoque with ATC...even after numerous transmissions...they always use your call sign first.>>

Of course. They're calling you!

<<It adds a burden to the controller to have to figure out who is making the transmission.>>

Sometimes, but in that dialog, each person was waiting for the other to respond, so there was no confusion.

I hear conversations between ATC and aircraft where the call sign is left out of all subsequent calls and there is no confusion.

Had the position of the call sign been very important, the AIM authors would have stated so explicitly. The only time they do is on callups, where the identify of the caller isn't obvious. When a controller initiates a conversation with an aircraft, the identity of the other party is pretty clear and the call sign at the end merely confirms it.

You call the examples inconsistent, but they are consistent with the above interpretation. My theory explains the data, yours does not. When theory does not match the data, do you change the theory or get rid of the data?

 

[B767Driver]

TG, I don't understand why you are hung up on "callups"?

4-2-3 (a) explains the format to be used during "initial callup" or "initial contact". Then 4-2-3 (c) explains the format to be used during all other contact with ATC...be they calling you or you calling them. It is titled " Subsequent Contacts and Responses to Callup from a Ground Facility. This is the format that should be used for all communications except for the intial one. (However, there are some exceptions for abbreviated formats discussed for frequency changes and immediate time-critical instructions.)

To me, this indicates that if ATC "subsequently contacts" you...or you them...at any time after the initial contact...then you as the pilot respond to them "in the same format as used for initial contact" with certain omissions permitted. This means that the call sign is on the front end of the transmission.

That is simply how the paragraph reads. 1) Initial Contact. 2) All other contacts. They both use the same format.


Now, for the time-critical response...it makes sense to me that the paragraph allows for the call sign at the end of the terse response...so the controller can know ASAP...in a split second...how the pilot accepts whatever communication was sent...without having to hear the call sign first.

 

[B767Driver]

After reading all of these responses, it's pretty obvious that it isn't pretty obvious :insane:. I'd still say about 90% of what I hear on the radio is in the "call sign last" format. I breath class bravo when I'm at work.

When I'm at work and I hear the call sign first...I mentally note that pilot uses proper phraseology. Because you are correct...it is not used often. It goes back to the last in/first out...way our brains work.

 

[B767Driver]

Had the position of the call sign been very important, the AIM authors would have stated so explicitly.

TG,

I still believe they have positioned it explicitly. I know you disagree.

 

[tgrayson]

TG, I don't understand why you are hung up on "callups"?

Uhm, maybe it's the word "callup" in the sentence that says use the same format?

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

 

[B767Driver]

Well, you're a pretty sharp guy...but I'm definitely not seeing the logic in your point. I assume you understand my position...and disagree.

For the sake of safety for all those involved...let's ensure the the callsigns and readbacks do happen...regardless of the sequence...accurately.

I would encourage students out there to discuss this with experienced pilots and instructors...and get their view on where the call sign should be placed.

 

[aviatorrbt]

:yeahthat:

 

[surreal1221]

Wow. . . a bunch of pilots talking about phraseology. . . the world is going to end tomorrow!!

If any of you have an Avweb account, log in, read all of Don Brown's columns concerning phraseology. Enjoy.

 

[Flysher]

Ive talked to a controller who said he appreciates the callsign first, because then they know the correct aircraft received the instruction. Like Falconvalley said, I had trouble adjusting to it at first but now I dont feel right doing it the other way :insane: