Jump to content

ATC: how to approach beginners on the network


Recommended Posts

On 1/12/2021 at 4:18 PM, Andreas Fuchs said:

Actually, if you did not understand an instruction, because it was too fast, you say say again slower.

I was just quoting CAP413, 1.6 Table 7 regarding standard words and phrases. Maybe ICAO doesn't have that, and probably FAA doesn't. I was also quoting that document re. the 100 WPM rate of speech. Ditto ICAO, ditto FAA.

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you wrote what the book says, I had an example from the job. But hey, both ways will get the results.

PS: ICAO Doc 4444 (I got the 16th edition here) indeed does NOT state anything about "SAY AGAIN" in this context. It uses "SAY AGAIN" for ATC to emphasize an instruction: HOLD POSITION, CANCEL TAKE-OFF I SAY AGAIN CANCEL TAKE-OFF (reasons) and for conditional clearances: [THAT IS] CORRECT (or NEGATIVE) [I SAY AGAIN] ... (as appropriate)

Our German ATC provider DFS has its own set of phraseology and it contains some of the things that were mentioned on this and on the other thread:

  • SAY AGAIN: „Repeat all, or the following part, of your last transmission“
  • SPEAK SLOWER: „Reduce your rate of speech“

Therefore the combination would be "SAY AGAIN SLOWER", because "SAY AGAIN SPEAK SLOWER" does not sound right 😛

Edited by Andreas Fuchs
further information
Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

29 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

ICAO Doc 4444 (I got the 16th edition here) indeed does NOT state anything about "SAY AGAIN" in this context.

... is because this:

29 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:
  • SAY AGAIN: „Repeat all, or the following part, of your last transmission“
  • SPEAK SLOWER: „Reduce your rate of speech“

... is phraseology described in Annex 10.

Martin Loxbo

Director Sweden FIR

VATSIM Scandinavia

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I never checked Annex 10, thanks for filling my knowledge gap! Luckily, in the real world, we always find a way to get to some decent results, as long as both sides kind of speak the same language.

Edited by Andreas Fuchs
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Luckily, in the real world, we always find a way to get to some decent results, as long as both sides kind of speak the same language.

That way is surely based on correct terminology. As a RW commercial pilot and flying instructor, I would have jumped down the throat of any of my students who decided to re-write the book.

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alistair Thomson said:

As a RW commercial pilot and flying instructor, I would have jumped down the throat of any of my students who decided to re-write the book.

As a RW ATP rated captain I would not have accepted this 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alistair Thomson said:

That way is surely based on correct terminology. As a RW commercial pilot and flying instructor, I would have jumped down the throat of any of my students who decided to re-write the book.

Certainly it's hard to disagree with your sentiment in general, but wherever humans communicate with one another, a degree of flexibility is needed in my opinion. Phraseology is absolutely a good thing, but if for whatever reason it cannot get a message across when deviating from it can, the better outcome must surely be the one where the message is recieved and understood rather than the one where the book was applied with utmost precision. Again, granted, that's not what you'd teach. But I'd argue it's a degree of flexibility you should be ready to show if the need arises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonas Helkey said:

I'd argue it's a degree of flexibility you should be ready to show if the need arises.

And I see where you are coming from too, but the point is, who decides what to say? Andreas has said that "you should say X" and someone else could say, "you should say Y" but the only folks who are actually entitled to tell you what to say are those guys who write the docs.

And I don't know how it could be easier to understand colloquialisms or personal preferences than the phraseology taught in flying training. It's precisely the fact that "yup" and "OK" and ten-four" and "gotcha" and a dozen other ways of confirming, or affirming, or agreeing can be taken to mean different things, that standard phraseology has been created. Particularly in a multi-language setting where the language of ATC may not be the native language of the pilot.

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...