Phraseology rant

[jrh]

Today I rode along in the back seat of a 172 while an instrument student and instructor did a flight in actual. Everything went well, except I was surprised at the instructor's *terrible* phaseology. He seemed like a really good, competent, professional instructor, but good grief, his phraseology drove me up a wall.

An example, from our clearance from ATC:

Cessna 123AB, cleared to the Reading airport via radar vectors direct HUMML, maintain 3000, departure frequency 125.15, squawk 2424.

The instructor's readback:

Cleared to Reading via HUMML, three thousand twenty-five fifteen twenty-four twenty-four one two three alpha bravo.

The rest of the flight was the same way, with nonstop slang and shortcuts. "We're at twenty-five hundred climbing three"..."turn left one eighty, three thousand and cleared for the approach"..."contact Tower nineteen nine"...

Maybe I'm too anal about this stuff, but it drove me nuts. It seemed so unclear and imprecise, especially coming from an otherwise very high quality instrument instructor.

I believe in:

Always reading full frequencies, including the "point."--"Contact Tower, one one niner point niner."

Always reading headings by individual digits, prefaced by the word "heading."--"Turn left heading one eight zero."

Always reading altitudes by thousands and hundreds--"passing two thousand five hundred climbing three thousand."

Always breaking a transmission with the word "Cessna" in the callsign for clarity...for instance, "heading one eight zero, Cessna three alpha bravo" because without the "Cessna" it sounds like "heading 1803AB" to the controller.

Never using "to" or "for" unless referring to numbers. "Climbing to four thousand"...oh, you're climbing FL240 in that little Cessna, eh?

And many other phraseology points...

I know in ATC school they're hard on the up and coming controllers about phraseology, and I wish there would be a somewhat-sort-of-remotely-close-similar standard for pilots. Somebody might argue all this slang saves time on congested frequencies, but I don't believe it. A quick, clear, sharply spit readback doesn't take any longer than all these "shortcuts," and it makes things so much more clear for everybody on frequency. It's all a matter of better radio training early on for pilots.

Am I the only one who notices this stuff? It's ok if I am. Thanks for reading my rant.

 

[casey]

Cessna 123AB, cleared to the Reading airport via radar vectors direct HUMML, maintain 3000, departure frequency 125.15, squawk 2424.

The instructor's readback:

Cleared to Reading via HUMML, three thousand twenty-five fifteen twenty-four twenty-four one two three alpha bravo.

The rest of the flight was the same way, with nonstop slang and shortcuts. "We're at twenty-five hundred climbing three"..."turn left one eighty, three thousand and cleared for the approach"..."contact Tower nineteen nine"...

honestly, if i have to call for a clearance i read it back the same way. some guys just read back a squawk and nothing else, i at least read everything back.

approach clearances are similar, but i do say the heading as one eight oh, ie "one eight zero, three thousand, cleared two two left".

reading back frequences i almost always omit the "1" and the usually "point". i find that easier to remember the freq for readback and tuning. I always use my callsign in transmissions (ie, always "airliner 2121" and never just "2121").

 

[frog_flyer]

Adding the one and the point (or decimal) just makes it complicated. A couple of times I've been handed off with "contact approach thirty-fife ninety seven"

As long as people know what you're saying and don't have to waste time trying to decipher it (like the first call you mentioned) I have no problem with saving a few seconds fo breath by taking a short cut. I'd rather say twenty five hundred climbing three thousand or 2.5 climbing 3 (picked that one up from the SWA dudes outta kdal.. but it's for 5) than two thousand fife undred climbing three thousand..... Save your breath! They're smart guys/gals, they'll understand.


What ticks me off is when jackasses say "and" to begin every call and can't figure out what to say.

"and uhhh Skyhawk uhh 355Charlie uhh whiskey is uhh ready to taxi to uhhh the active with the uhhh weather. uhhh 5 charlie whiskey"

Step One: Remove finger from key-mic button.
Step Two: Figure out what you're gonna say.
Step Three: Replace finger on key-mic button and depress it.
Step Four: Say what you're gonna say quickly, clearly, and don't start it with "and"!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Flysher]

I agree partially, but alot of the shortening is almost required in some airspaces. Go into TEB during busy hours and your lucky to get half a transmission back before they are telling the next guy what to do. To oppose what you said, I find it annoying when someone reads back a clearance word for word on a busy ATC frequency and everyone else has to stand by waiting.

 

[surreal1221]

I agree partially, but alot of the shortening is almost required in some airspaces. Go into TEB during busy hours and your lucky to get half a transmission back before they are telling the next guy what to do.

:yeahthat:

Don't be too anal about it, it may bite you in the rear.

Say the important information, but don't sacrifice your callsign.

From a previous ATC student. I just want(ed) to hear the important details read back, and your callsign. I'll give you the full CRAFT, or PTAC . . . you read back the details.

 

[casey]

At GKY they say "contact ground point eight seven"

that is actually approved and correct phraseology. Anytime the ground/tower freq starts as 121.xx, they can hand you off as "point xx".

 

[typhoonpilot]

Can I join in?

The last three students I've had couldn't talk on the radio to save their life. One was a Varig MD-11 Captain, another was a Pinnacle CRJ Captain, and one a very senior Ryanair 737-800 Captain.

Get it right in the beginning or sound like a fool for your entire career !!!


Typhoonpilot

 

[CaptChris]

Yea I am not a big fan of the slang either, especially in GA. Unfortunately there are enough students out there who look to their dillhole instructor that is talking like that over the radio and they pick it up. I was amazed when I was an active CFI how I'd be sitting there like "Oh my Lord, where did this guy get this 'uhhh" at the beginning of every transmission." Then I realized he picked it up from me.

That is whats kind of cool about being a CFI---you see some things and wonder where a student picked that habit up, and then realize its you! I fixed a lot of bad habits that way.

 

[mikecweb]

Its very tempting to take shortcuts when you're a CFI. You talk so much during a lesson and usually you have to interupt what your saying to talk to ATC. Sometimes you wanna get ATC what they need and get back to teaching. Its all well and good until you have a student trying to take shortcuts and then doesn't know the proper way. Some examiners might have issues with you reading back slang on a clearence. Stick to the proper phraseology but don't clog the frequencies and fly safe.

 

[moxiepilot]

:yeahthat:

Don't be too anal about it, it may bite you in the rear.

Sorry I have to go with jrh on this. As an instructor it is your JOB to teach correctly and that includes correct phraseology as per the AIM, PCG. I will have a student identify numbers by single digit; there is no runway thirtyone, it is runway three-one.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Sorry I have to go with jrh on this. As an instructor it is your JOB to teach correctly and that includes correct phraseology as per the AIM, PCG. I will have a student identify numbers by single digit; there is no runway thirtyone, it is runway three-one.

I'll go with you guys on this also.

A bit of informality, some slang, those useless phrases like "with you" - there's nothing =really= terrible about them. But since we are all likely to pick up informality, slang, and useless phrases all by ourselves, the CFI's responsibility is to teach AIM-standard.

 

[jrh]

As long as people know what you're saying and don't have to waste time trying to decipher it (like the first call you mentioned) I have no problem with saving a few seconds fo breath by taking a short cut. I'd rather say twenty five hundred climbing three thousand or 2.5 climbing 3 (picked that one up from the SWA dudes outta kdal.. but it's for 5) than two thousand fife undred climbing three thousand..... Save your breath!

"Two thousand five hundred climbing three thousand."
"Two point five climbing three."

Read those two phrases into a tape recorder and time how long it takes you to say either of them. I highly doubt you're saving more than half a second by shortening it, while you might be confusing the controller or another pilot.

I agree partially, but alot of the shortening is almost required in some airspaces. Go into TEB during busy hours and your lucky to get half a transmission back before they are telling the next guy what to do.

True, I know what you're saying. And I might make an occasional exception to my analness for such dense airspace. But that should be the exception, not the norm. There is no way slang and abbreviations are needed under most conditions--especially the quiet Class D airport I was riding along out of.

To oppose what you said, I find it annoying when someone reads back a clearance word for word on a busy ATC frequency and everyone else has to stand by waiting.

Is that because they're not doing it fast enough, or including pointless information? I've heard pilots (general aviation) read back cautions for wake turbulence "...cleared to land and we'll use caution for the wake turbulence..." and yes, that annoys me too. If a pilot is fast and concise, proper phraseology is no big deal.

From a previous ATC student. I just want(ed) to hear the important details read back, and your callsign. I'll give you the full CRAFT, or PTAC . . . you read back the details.

From Don Brown, former safety manager at Atlanta Center: Always use proper phraseology. It matters.

In fact, reading Don Brown's columns on Avweb early in my training is probably a good part of why I'm so anal about it today.

----------------------------------------------

Another couple points I'd like to reiterate...

ATC is held to a high standard, and pilots should be the same. How would you like it if ATC started using all this cutesie slang in your clearances?

The AIM is very clear on what proper phraseology is. I think it's ironic how there are pilots who wouldn't think of doing a nonstandard traffic pattern entry to an uncontrolled field, because they follow the AIM, but for some reason they ignore the numerous pages on radio communications.

 

[mikecweb]

How would you like it if ATC started using all this cutesie slang in your clearances?

The AIM is very clear on what proper phraseology is. I think it's ironic how there are pilots who wouldn't think of doing a nonstandard traffic pattern entry to an uncontrolled field, because they follow the AIM, but for some reason they ignore the numerous pages on radio communications.

Hate to tell you but Air Traffic Controllers aren't by the book 100% of the time. Grant it they are alot better then pilots but they slang it up sometime too.

I think it's even more ironic when a pilot is thinking he's a "better pilot" because he is using perfect phraseology such as "fife" and "tree" and then goes doesn't follow the aim or regs for that matter.

Honestly I'm not taking jabs at you and I know when you hear someone say "2.5 climbing 6 thousand" tomorrow its going to irk you. But concentrate more on your flying. If you observe a lesson critique their flying techniques rather then their slang. A good pilot should walk the walk too.

 

[Ian_J]

I always think it's interesting when the frequency is pretty dead and the controllers are bored.

Last week doing instrument training with a student we filed to Oswego for some instrument approaches. Upon contacting departure and getting through the whole radar contact, resume own nav, stuff, the controller asks:

ATC: "Is there a pancake breakfast in Oswego this morning?
Student: (Confused and gives me the "you answer him look.")
Me: "Um, I don't know... just going there for some practice approaches, then on to Watertown."
ATC: Okay, just wondering - lotta planes heading there this morning.
Me: Roger.

Then we got handed off to a new controller. After initial contact...

ATC: You guys headin' to the fly-in breakfast?
Me: Negative... would just like vectors for the ILS then direct Watertown.
ATC: Lots of planes goin to Oswego today. Must be some good pancakes.
Me: Uh, yeah... how about those vectors...

 

[derg]

Get it right in the beginning or sound like a fool for your entire career !!!

True that.

Usually when pilots can't talk on the radio to save their lives, it creates a big communications bottleneck.

Ramp, ground, tower, departure, enroute, approach, etc. There's always some guy wasting bandwidth trying to sound cool, ("pimping two five oh") or screwing up readbacks which drives the controller to have the pilot verify if he understood the command.

 

[JimmyDean]

I always think it's interesting when the frequency is pretty dead and the controllers are bored.

About a month ago I was headed to KPIT and got stuck fighting a 60 kt direct headwind. 145 kTAS in a C182... 85 kts GS all the way from Boston. It took almost 5 hours.

Anyways, I finally get on with Cleveland Center, and here's the exchange:

ME: Cleveland Center, Skylane 12345, level, 6,000.
HIM: Skylane 12345, Cleveland Center, roger.

*PAUSE*

HIM: Skylane 345, say airspeed.
ME: Skylane 345, almost 150 knots true.
HIM: Skylane 345, roger.

*ANOTHER PAUSE*

HIM: Skylane 345, it looks like you're going to be with me a while, so do you mind if I do some transmitter checks with you?
ME: Skylane 345, uh, I guess not.
HIM: Good. Here's transmitter one, now change to frequency 134.75....

Good thing there were only 24 combinations!

But back on topic, I agree with jrh. Proper phraseology goes a long way in getting what you want from ATC. Plus, as CFIs we're obligated to make an effort to do it the right way, especially when a student might be listening.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

You start picking up 6-8 clearances in a day, on busy frequencies, when you have to wait 5 or 8 minutes just to squeeze in, and you'll start shortening up those readbacks as well!

 

[Ian_J]

You start picking up 6-8 clearances in a day, on busy frequencies, when you have to wait 5 or 8 minutes just to squeeze in, and you'll start shortening up those readbacks as well!

Just checked out your website... it's awesome!

 

[jrh]

I think it's even more ironic when a pilot is thinking he's a "better pilot" because he is using perfect phraseology such as "fife" and "tree" and then goes doesn't follow the aim or regs for that matter.

I totally agree with you on that, but that's not really the stuff I was referring to in my original post.

Honestly I'm not taking jabs at you and I know when you hear someone say "2.5 climbing 6 thousand" tomorrow its going to irk you. But concentrate more on your flying. If you observe a lesson critique their flying techniques rather then their slang. A good pilot should walk the walk too.

So true, flying is a package deal. And I do my best.

For the record, I thought the instructor yesterday was a great guy. Very knowledgeable, patient, professional, etc. I was impressed by him 95% of the time, except for when he keyed the mic.

 

[JDE]

Good points have been brought up on both sides. However, I don't fully disagree with the improper use of standard phraseology. I think there are certain things which need to be said a certain way and other things which aren't as critical. I remember a ZNY controller called us "nine jay dub" instead of "niner juliett whiskey". We knew who he was talking to and it was pretty quiet at the moment. Busy airports, busy airspace, and being busy in the cockpit makes it difficult sometimes to be proper all the time.

Another thing to think about is flying in foreign countries. I haven't done it much, but the Canadians don't speak the same way we do, nor do any countries south of us. The accent sometimes is bad enough, but when they don't use "standard phraseology", it can get confusing because we're expecting one thing and get another.