Cleared for takeoff phraseology

[Morgan Davies]

Just coming back as a controller here on VATSIM .

 

In the past, I have used the following phrase to clear an aircraft for take off when there are no other aircraft on the active departure runway(s):

 

Aircraft123 runway one five left cleared for takeoff without delay.

 

Doing my research, I have found out the proper phraseology is the following:

Aircraft 123 runway one five left cleared for immediate takeoff

 

In the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter which phrase I use?

[Rick Rump]

For #FAAland:

7110.65 3-9-10 is your friend here for the proper phraseology.

(Aircraft) Runway (number), cleared for takeoff.

 

When discussing the surface wind, it should go between the runway number and the clearance.

"American One, Runway tree one right, wind two eight zero at eight, cleared for takeoff".

 

Appending "immediate" is governed by 2-1-5a (Though immediate is moreso an ICAO approved language not specific in the .65):

"a. Use the word 'immediate[ly]' only when expeditious compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation."

 

Usage of "without delay" should be limited to taxi.

[Morgan Davies]

For #FAAland:

7110.65 3-9-10 is your friend here for the proper phraseology.

(Aircraft) Runway (number), cleared for takeoff.

 

When discussing the surface wind, it should go between the runway number and the clearance.

"American One, Runway tree one right, wind two eight zero at eight, cleared for takeoff".

 

Appending "immediate" is governed by 2-1-5a (Though immediate is moreso an ICAO approved language not specific in the .65):

"a. Use the word 'immediate[ly]' only when expeditious compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation."

 

Usage of "without delay" should be limited to taxi.

 

 

Thanks for the reply. Going to take some getting used to doing it the runway number then wind, but I will get there

[Brad Littlejohn]

For #FAAland:

7110.65 3-9-10 is your friend here for the proper phraseology.

(Aircraft) Runway (number), cleared for takeoff.

 

When discussing the surface wind, it should go between the runway number and the clearance.

"American One, Runway tree one right, wind two eight zero at eight, cleared for takeoff".

 

Appending "immediate" is governed by 2-1-5a (Though immediate is moreso an ICAO approved language not specific in the .65):

"a. Use the word 'immediate[ly]' only when expeditious compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation."

 

Usage of "without delay" should be limited to taxi.

 

 

Thanks for the reply. Going to take some getting used to doing it the runway number then wind, but I will get there

 

The wind doesn't have to be after issuing the runway number. Specifically, and this is a strict interpretation of Specifically, 3-9-10.i and 3-10-5.d apply only to USA/USN/USAF (read: military). Outside of that, it comes down to basically personal preference as to if you want to include the wind, let alone where to include the wind.

 

BL.

[Andreas Fuchs]

....the main point is that the vital part of the message ("cleared for takeoff"/"cleared to land") are at the end of the instruction.

[Tobias Dammers]

In the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter which phrase I use?

 

As a pilot: yes, it does matter a little. "Cleared for immediate takeoff" is unambiguously defined - if I'm at the holding point, it means that I have to initiate a rolling takeoff without any delay, and if I cannot comply (because I need a standing takeoff, or because cockpit checks haven't been completed yet), I have to decline the clearance. And if I'm already lined up, I have to initiate the takeoff immediately, and if unable, advise so (because most likely, tower will have to instruct traffic on final to go around). "Without delay" is nonstandard in this situation, and while I will probably guess correctly that you meant the same thing, it can still lead to a bit of confusion - did you just mean "line up, then take off without delay", or do you expect me to perform a rolling takeoff? And even if I guess correctly, it still causes a tiny little bit of completely unnecessary confusion that adds to my workload.

[Morgan Davies]

As a pilot: yes, it does matter a little. "Cleared for immediate takeoff" is unambiguously defined - if I'm at the holding point, it means that I have to initiate a rolling takeoff without any delay, and if I cannot comply (because I need a standing takeoff, or because cockpit checks haven't been completed yet), I have to decline the clearance. And if I'm already lined up, I have to initiate the takeoff immediately, and if unable, advise so (because most likely, tower will have to instruct traffic on final to go around). "Without delay" is nonstandard in this situation, and while I will probably guess correctly that you meant the same thing, it can still lead to a bit of confusion - did you just mean "line up, then take off without delay", or do you expect me to perform a rolling takeoff? And even if I guess correctly, it still causes a tiny little bit of completely unnecessary confusion that adds to my workload.

That puts it into perspective for me from a pilot's point of view. Never thought something like the above would lead to unforseen complications for the pilot.

 

Learned something new and now I know I have to phrase certain clearances very carefully so as to not cause further confusion for pilots.

[Travis Chan]

On 3/11/2020 at 7:23 AM, Andreas Fuchs said:

..the main point is that the vital part of the message ("cleared for takeoff"/"cleared to land") are at the end of the instruction.

Not always, it actually depends on where you are controlling. In Canada, cleared for takeoff/cleared to land comes before the runway number.

 

Here's an example from Nav Canada on page 8 of the document: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/media/publications/vfr phraseology.pdf

Quote

ATC: FEDEX three seven two heavy, wind zero seven zero at fifteen, cleared to land runway zero five

 

Edited April 13, 2020 at 10:28 PM by Travis Chan

[Andreas Fuchs]

So Canada is using the outdated version of phraseology against ICAO-recommendations. Every country can have its national rules, there are some notorious places that insist that they have invented aviation and need to do it their own way. The UK comes to my mind.

[Ismail El Moussati]

According to ICAO DOC PAS ATM 4444 12.3.4.11 .
a) RUNWAY (number) CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF [REPORT AIRBORNE];
But yeah any deviation from ICAO should be published in AIP.