Just a reminder about numbers and letters

Using 'to' and 'for' instead of 'climbing' or 'descending' gets me too. *(as in drives me crazy when people use them)
 
bLizZuE said:
Using 'to' and 'for' instead of 'climbing' or 'descending' gets me too. *(as in drives me crazy when people use them)
Click to expand...

"Airliner 123 with you, onboard at two three OH climbin' to three two OH" drive you nuts? :)

I followed a dork like that for two hours a few weeks ago.

"with you, onboard"? Whutt?
 
I know that this thread is about phraseology, not pronunciation. But, does anybody consistently use the ICAO pronunciations. I hear "niner" for "nine" and occasionally "kay-beck" for Quebec, but I almost never hear "tree", "fower" or "fife", even from the controllers.
 
How about this. One captain I flew with a while back had an anniying habit. Every time we got a freq change, he would just switch the radio after answering with our flight number. Never once read back the new freq.
 
Old Pete said:
I know that this thread is about phraseology, not pronunciation. But, does anybody consistently use the ICAO pronunciations. I hear "niner" for "nine" and occasionally "kay-beck" for Quebec, but I almost never hear "tree", "fower" or "fife", even from the controllers.
Click to expand...

Oh shoot, I can't speak "Joizey"!
 
Cptnchia said:
How about this. One captain I flew with a while back had an anniying habit. Every time we got a freq change, he would just switch the radio after answering with our flight number. Never once read back the new freq.
Click to expand...

Wait until you fly with the New York captain that insists, even though he's not working the radio, in telling you what to respond to ATC with:

"Southernjets 106, contact Moncton on 132.725"

"!!!!!!! Moncton on 123.425 !!!!!!"

(throw off a little) "132.725, Southernjets 106"

Hey man, it was 123.425!

Nah, it was 132.725, here, if there's no answer, we'll try your freq.
 
calcapt said:
Hey guys, just as a reminder:

When you are reporting altitudes to ATC, please use the proper phraseology with respect to the number zero.

FL280 is 28 Zero NOT 28 Oh (as in the letter O)

I just finished a 4 day trip and heard far too many pilots make this mistake.

Becoming a professional pilot is accomplished one step at a time - this is simply one of those steps.
Click to expand...

You know me man, and I like to argue, so I'm gonna argue against this :)

Or to put it a little better, I'm going to say it doesn't matter. I'd check in "at three seven oh," with "Cleveland, Jetlink 2940 three seven oh smooth."

Now, there are a few things wrong about that if you want to get down to it:

-It should "Cleveland Center", not just "Cleveland."

-It should be, "we are level at flight level tree seven zero," not "three seven oh."

-Should I put smooth on there at the end if it is in fact smooth? I dunno, I usually did if the frequency wasn't busy. I figure I'm gonna get asked for a ride report at some point, so I'd almost always check in with our ride conditions. It keeps the controller in the loop and while it isn't required, it's going to cut down on further radio transmissions. So instead of keeping it standard and doing the required radio phraseology exactly as I'm supposed to, maybe I've cut out another 4 radio calls for him saying...

"Jetlink 2940, this is Cleveland center,"

"Cleveland center, Jetlink 2940, go ahead,

"Jetlink 2940, Cleveland center, can I get a ride report?"

"Cleveland center, Jetlink 2940, smooth ride."

Was it really necessary? Not if I tell the guy what's happening 37,000' above him at the time real quickly with one word. Now he'll just say, "Cactus 2309, Jetlink just checked in 40 miles ahead of you with a smooth ride at 370, would you like the climb?"

As far as the rest of it goes, I'd say that the "oh" instead of "zero" is hurting nothing. "With you" takes up time on the radio and as people have pointed out, is redundant.

Do things get communicated properly? Yup. Does it fall within a few inches of standard and probably hold to the spirit of the rules? Yup, or at least I'd say so. Is it unprofessional? I don't think so at all, nor would I chastise somebody over it. We're not talking about an unstabalized approach that results in your last notch of flaps coming in at 150', we're talking about an "oh" vs. a "zero."

But that's just my take, and you certinaly have yours :)
 
I agree with JTrain... How much does it really matter? Has 'zero' vs 'oh' ever caused an incident?
 
pullup said:
Eh, I think it adds a gentle human touch to the radio call.
Click to expand...
Eh, I think it makes the communicator sound like an idiot. That and "kwee-beck".

ctab5060X said:
If you want to add a gentle human touch, just say good morning/afternoon/evening on the initial call.
Click to expand...
While it's not standard phraseology, for the adding a "gentle human touch" aspect, I don't mind. Also, it gives them a second or two to find you on the scope so they can verify your mode c with the readout rather than just spouting everything off...then getting "okay who was that?".

Old Pete said:
I know that this thread is about phraseology, not pronunciation. But, does anybody consistently use the ICAO pronunciations. I hear "niner" for "nine" and occasionally "kay-beck" for Quebec, but I almost never hear "tree", "fower" or "fife", even from the controllers.
Click to expand...
I do. I've gotten in the habit since we had a dispatcher that used to hate it when we'd say "tree" or "fife".

"Atlanta center, good afternoon! N12345 Flight Level Tree Seven Two climbing Flight Level Fower One Zero."

"Cleveland center, good morning! N12345 Flight Level Fower Fife Zero"

"SOCAL Approach, good evening! N12345 Level Niner Thousand with Kay-Beck"

See folks, it's not difficult.

-mini
 
I agree with calcapt 100%.

However, after yelling into the HF "Mumbai!!!! Mumbai!!! Polar NINER SIX EIGHT POSITION!!!" about sixty times and hearing the carriers of the subcontinent check in without even listening, and being NORDO for most of the time over there.

And using impeccible radio technique flying all over the globe, I admit, I do get sloppy when people actually understand what I'm saying on the radio.

I really shouldn't get complacent...and I don't miss flying on the eastern seaboard either. :D
 
I dont have a problem with "oh" and do not think it is unprofessional. There are MANY things that are unprofessional but I dont feel that qualifies. Also, where do you draw the line? Who here says one nine zero but does not say niner or fife?

For brevity I will often say "Cleveland center Colgan XXXX passing one nine oh for two one oh."

Does the world no longer continue to turn because I did not say flight level one niner zero? Do people here that and go "what the heck did he just say, I have no idea where he is or what he is doing?" Center usually shows me whos boss by replying with "roger."

I think where being unprofessional comes in is the guy that says "Center ninety five sugar pop coming at you nineteen and a quarter for two one oh."
 
I think the whole idea that CALcapt was trying to get across is not whether the world will end or if instant death will result it's more towards steps to be more professional. Something no one can argue is a bad thing.
 
When people say "This is Nxxxx." I know I'm guilty of getting a little too wordy sometimes but I can't stand when people give entirely too much useless information in every transmission. That and when people say "November blah blah blah" without even saying their aircraft type.
 
USMC-SSGT said:
Does the world no longer continue to turn because I did not say flight level one niner zero? Do people here that and go "what the heck did he just say, I have no idea where he is or what he is doing?" Center usually shows me whos boss by replying with "roger."

I think where being unprofessional comes in is the guy that says "Center ninety five sugar pop coming at you nineteen and a quarter for two one oh."
Click to expand...

With a few extra turns of the cog wheels, could you not figure out what he was saying, where he is, or what he's doing?
 
Does the fact that the pilot you're flying with is using "non-standard radio calls" completely qualify him or her to being unprofessional?

Given the situation, I'd rather have a Capt or FO that I'm flying look professional (no unpressed shirts/pants, sloppy looking, etc...) and someone that will fly what is the standard for the airplane/company. I could really care less what the guy is saying on the radio as long as the controller is not complaining about it and we're not in any danger with loosing our situational awareness.
 
SurferLucas said:
Does the fact that the pilot you're flying with is using "non-standard radio calls" completely qualify him or her to being unprofessional?

Given the situation, I'd rather have a Capt or FO that I'm flying look professional (no unpressed shirts/pants, sloppy looking, etc...) and someone that will fly what is the standard for the airplane/company. I could really care less what the guy is saying on the radio as long as the controller is not complaining about it and we're not in any danger with loosing our situational awareness.
Click to expand...

Is it that hard to do all of that?
but
Really pressed pants over proper phraseology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top