Jump to content

Phraseology question


Recommended Posts

I just posted this at LiveATC, but wanted your opinions here as well.

 

I'll try to keep it short and sweet. And this is geared towards those who are real world local controllers as I'd like to know if the phraseology is legal.

 

First, Airport diagram of KLAS

 

I was listening to the KLAS LiveATC feed on Sunday. For reasons known to the real world KLAS Tower and L30 TRACON, runways 19L/R and 7L/R were in use (Landing runways 19L/R and 7R, departing runways 19L/R and 7L at A8 ).

 

For a couple of departures who had crossed the 19s from Signature and one SWA jet, Tower had explicitly given the call

 

"N12345, Las Vegas Tower, access the runway at Delta, runway 7L at Alpha 8, position and hold."

 

What this did was told the departure to taxi onto 7L at Delta, then taxi down 7L to A8, and hold there for their takeoff clearance.

 

What I am wondering is, is that ("access the runway at Delta") proper phraseology? I know in particular he had the SWA jet (who was taxiing westbound just past A7 on Bravo) to report the preceding jet in its takeoff roll in sight (a B757), so it could be part of creating the separation for wake turbulence, but still, there's no mention of that phrasing in the .65.

 

You'll hear it in the 0000z - 0130z archives at LiveATC.

 

BL.

Edited by Guest

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll let the local guys answer this one definitively, but IMO, if it's not in the .65, it doesn't exist. Anything other than the prescribed phraseology just leads to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

 

It happens on real world, sometimes they say phrases you are not used to hear or just let you get into an airspace without using the correct phaseology.

 

Is what I told to few guys on another thread, they insiste that it's impossible...

 

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=24312&start=30&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

I never said it is correct, I said it happens!

 

[ My opinions on this thread are not necessarily Vatusa Staff opinions - I speak on my behalf ]

Edited by Guest

Ariel Maisonet, C3

Vatsim Member since Satco days

RW PPL Instruments & Multiengines

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is what I told to few guys on another thread, they insiste that it's impossible...

 

Ariel, if someone volunteered the work, we could come up with millions of violations to the 7110.65 everyday, at least in real life.

 

In many situations, working with the FAA I have experienced that things that happen everyday are considered "impossible" because they have no mention in the books. It's not supposed to be - so it can not be. Unless it happens, with a big bang, then it quickly gets regulated.

 

More general:

 

Last time I checked the FAR's where enforceable law. In a country that bases much of it's freedom on the individuals right to sue and destroy merely for interpreting such laws differently (ergo lawyers have a golden time) people get lost. And Youtube would not be full of sound bites of how sideways radio communication can go, just like forum communications.

 

People are quick to expose someones ratings and qualifications, to shine in a better light and profile themselves as superior. It took me 16 years of flying to be accused of not understanding how radio phraseology works, yet, I still fly. Why?

Because in real life people are sometimes still people, controllers do not widely spread their opinions on sheep's (pilots) and what happens to them if they don't bow. If I call my FSDO, I still talk to a human that likes to barbecue and be a fee person, just like me. I call my FSDO a lot. And I work with lawyers a lot.

 

Asking on a forum full of different people , which part of communication is proper phraseology can quickly go from organized discussion to havoc. The 7110.65 and the FAR's are merely unenforceable law in here, as we still have people who fly jets across large bodies of water, never having heard of AOA, fuel management, ETOPS or anything else for that matter. Also we have pilots opening communication with a simple "Hello, anybody there?"

 

I'll say it again, some controllers say things that get the message across, whatever makes the other person aware of possible risk, danger or potential wrongdoing. In real life CTR's do not always grill pilots on phrases, and Pilots do not grill CTR's for the same. Looking at the question from OP, if I was N12345, the message would have been clear and easy to understand.

If not I would have asked for clarification. I see little risk for picking up wrong phraseology on VATSIM for real world pilots or want to be pilots. The system reflects a good copy of what goes on in real world for the most part.

 

So to answer OP's post - it's probably not proper phraseology according to some book but in my personal opinion, it is still a clear instruction, easy to follow.

They say I have ADD. But, they dont understand... Ohh, look!!! A chicken!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ariel, no it's definitely not impossible, and happens real world all the time, I know, but it's just plain bad, and shouldn't happen. Like I said, it does nothing more than lead to confusion. Why not just use normal phraseology and be ensured that everybody understands? If I were flying and was told "access the runway..." I would ask ATC to clarify that, because I have NO CLUE what that means.

 

Another real world example from a few days ago:

 

LA Center: AAL1062, c/m FL310

AAL1062: FL310 and we'd like to put FL370 on request for our final today

LA Center: FL370 is approved

 

 

Well what the heck does that mean? Did he approve FL370 for the final altitude? Did he approve the pilot to climb to FL370 now? It's just entirely confusing. That's why phraseology in the .65 exists in the first place, to limit confusion.

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another real world example from a few days ago:

 

LA Center: AAL1062, c/m FL310

AAL1062: FL310 and we'd like to put FL370 on request for our final today

LA Center: FL370 is approved

 

 

 

If i was the pilot, i would interpret that as c/m FL310 but expect instructions up to FL370. There was no specific instruction to c/m FL370 hence this reeasoning. Although, I would think this, I can also see the other inpretation which is to c/mFL370 if FL310 was their original cruis altitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is what I told to few guys on another thread, they insiste that it's impossible...

 

Ariel, if someone volunteered the work, we could come up with millions of violations to the 7110.65 everyday, at least in real life.

 

In many situations, working with the FAA I have experienced that things that happen everyday are considered "impossible" because they have no mention in the books. It's not supposed to be - so it can not be. Unless it happens, with a big bang, then it quickly gets regulated.

 

More general:

 

Last time I checked the FAR's where enforceable law. In a country that bases much of it's freedom on the individuals right to sue and destroy merely for interpreting such laws differently (ergo lawyers have a golden time) people get lost. And Youtube would not be full of sound bites of how sideways radio communication can go, just like forum communications.

 

People are quick to expose someones ratings and qualifications, to shine in a better light and profile themselves as superior. It took me 16 years of flying to be accused of not understanding how radio phraseology works, yet, I still fly. Why?

Because in real life people are sometimes still people, controllers do not widely spread their opinions on sheep's (pilots) and what happens to them if they don't bow. If I call my FSDO, I still talk to a human that likes to barbecue and be a fee person, just like me. I call my FSDO a lot. And I work with lawyers a lot.

 

Asking on a forum full of different people , which part of communication is proper phraseology can quickly go from organized discussion to havoc. The 7110.65 and the FAR's are merely unenforceable law in here, as we still have people who fly jets across large bodies of water, never having heard of AOA, fuel management, ETOPS or anything else for that matter. Also we have pilots opening communication with a simple "Hello, anybody there?"

 

I'll say it again, some controllers say things that get the message across, whatever makes the other person aware of possible risk, danger or potential wrongdoing. In real life CTR's do not always grill pilots on phrases, and Pilots do not grill CTR's for the same. Looking at the question from OP, if I was N12345, the message would have been clear and easy to understand.

If not I would have asked for clarification. I see little risk for picking up wrong phraseology on VATSIM for real world pilots or want to be pilots. The system reflects a good copy of what goes on in real world for the most part.

 

So to answer OP's post - it's probably not proper phraseology according to some book but in my personal opinion, it is still a clear instruction, easy to follow.

 

Jason, I do appreciate your referencing my sheep comment, and I'm sure every other air traffic control specialist appreciates it as well.

 

If you would like an example of a much more well known controller widely spreading his opinion to sheep's (sic), I encourage you to go read Don Brown's articles at AvWeb.com. I'll save you the search ( http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/ ).

 

Believe it or not, I am human too. I enjoy being with my wife, and indian food, and Good Eats, and magazines, and cats, among other things. I also believe in this network being an excellent source to teach the next generation of (potential) air traffic controllers and pilots a little something about how things work in real life, preferably the proper way.

 

ATC does not grill a pilot for bad phraseology because pilots do not have phraseology requirements. ATC does. We'll get on your case if you don't at least acknowledge something we say, since both the pilot and ATC butts are on the line (arguably the pilot even more... but controllers would like to keep their jobs too, IWRs not withstanding). On the network, of course, the worst is maybe a blown sequence or a virtual runway incursion, and then the pilot gets to see the paintwork of that 737 next to you in a little more detail. That doesn't mean it isn't frustrating for a controller trying to learn, however.

 

ATC, both virtual and real, is about communication. Aviation communication is to be a clear, concise, and immediately understood exchange of information between the pilot and controller alike, a two way street. The phraseology in the .65 is written in blood in most cases, and while wrung through the filters of lawyers and FAA management, it remains the gold standard to which ATC instructions shall be issued. It is ready reference, and is the easiest to teach from rather than ad-hoc, plain english phraseology that, while permissible after a properly issued instruction, can cause confusion issues.

 

[Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming the current version of the LAS airport diagram is correct, and for the specific example given at the top of this thread, it is my opinion (as an en-route, not terminal trained controller) that the proper phraseology would be:

 

"Taxi via Delta, Alpha, Runway 7R at Alpha 8, position and hold."

 

A minor change to the phraseology, but, indeed, "access" is not a word that appears in any official .65 phraseology. If that controller was being observed by a supervisor at the time, he would certainly have gotten dinged for poor phraseology.

 

Basically, if it's taught right the first time, then bad habits don't develop as easily, and the standard is better preserved.

 

~Nate

Nate Johns

 

"All things are difficult before they are easy."

- Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Taxi via Delta, Alpha, Runway 7R at Alpha 8, position and hold."

 

A minor change to the phraseology, but, indeed, "access" is not a word that appears in any official .65 phraseology. If that controller was being observed by a supervisor at the time, he would certainly have gotten dinged for poor phraseology.

 

Basically, if it's taught right the first time, then bad habits don't develop as easily, and the standard is better preserved.

 

~Nate

 

That's what I was thinking, Nate, and to be honest, it wasn't the first time this situation or his use of 'access' came up. A few minutes later in the archive, the same controller used "Use Delta, runway 7L at Alpha 8, position and hold".

 

I guess my big thing is that even with intersection departures, I have never seen a case where Tower wanted the pilot to use one intersection to enter the runway, then taxi down to another intersection, and hold there for takeoff clearance.

 

BL.

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was conducting flight training at APA in Denver a long time ago, they used to line up 2 or 3 cessnas for takeoff on their main runway when there weren't any landers. One full length, one P&H one intersection up, and possible another ahead of him. Front guy goes, a couple thousand feet of rolling later, the next goes, and the same with the last. Still... a rarity only when there was a rush, and typically they wouldn't have someone go ALL the way up to the next intersection, just far enough to provide room for the guy behind.

 

P&H rules have changed fairly significantly with the latest revision of the 7110.65 released recently... I haven't read up on them, but, as long as ground and tower coordinate appropriately, the whole intersection thing shouldn't be a big deal. Don't quote me though... again, I'm just a mushroom doing the real ATC work

 

The other thing that puzzles me about this whole thing too, if the taxi diagram is accurate, it appears that A8 is the full length of the runway. Would you need to specify the intersection then? Or even use that "Runway 7R, full length, position and hold" variation?

 

I love debating ATC phraseology.

 

~Nate

Nate Johns

 

"All things are difficult before they are easy."

- Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ariel, no it's definitely not impossible, and happens real world all the time, I know, but it's just plain bad, and shouldn't happen. Like I said, it does nothing more than lead to confusion. Why not just use normal phraseology and be ensured that everybody understands? If I were flying and was told "access the runway..." I would ask ATC to clarify that, because I have NO CLUE what that means.

 

Another real world example from a few days ago:

 

LA Center: AAL1062, c/m FL310

AAL1062: FL310 and we'd like to put FL370 on request for our final today

LA Center: FL370 is approved

 

 

Well what the heck does that mean? Did he approve FL370 for the final altitude? Did he approve the pilot to climb to FL370 now? It's just entirely confusing. That's why phraseology in the .65 exists in the first place, to limit confusion.

 

Not to argue honest, but who was confused? I didn't see on the original thread that the pilot asked for a clarification... so I imagine he complies with was the controller said. I don’t see a confusion there… however I don’t encourage to use (non-.65) phrases, just insisting once again “IT HAPPENSâ€

Ariel Maisonet, C3

Vatsim Member since Satco days

RW PPL Instruments & Multiengines

Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Center: AAL1062, c/m FL310

AAL1062: FL310 and we'd like to put FL370 on request for our final today

LA Center: FL370 is approved

 

Well what the heck does that mean? Did he approve FL370 for the final altitude? Did he approve the pilot to climb to FL370 now? It's just entirely confusing. That's why phraseology in the .65 exists in the first place, to limit confusion.

 

Any pilot that took that as a clearance to climb to FL370 should go back to primary flight training. I do agree that that phrase is not clear enough though. I would use something like "Flight plan amended, expect FL370 as final cruise altitude." I imagine you real worlders can come up with something better though.

 

however I don’t encourage to use (non-.65) phrases, just insisting once again “IT HAPPENSâ€

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, if it's taught right the first time, then bad habits don't develop as easily, and the standard is better preserved.

 

I have to admit, to many of the pilots I know, ATC has been taught the way I tried to portray it above. Heard = makes sense = understood = readback or clarify = execute. It was not my goal to discredit the .65, but it's following to the word is of no educational character to pilots, nor is it what my own ears relay to me on any day of flying.

No arguments break out between pilots and CTR's if the wrong word (non existent) has been used. I failed to realize Nates essential point, that his income and career depends on doing this right. I will bring this up at my next Safety Meeting and collect some other opinions as it is important to me to see how others "misunderstand" clear and simple communication and how it affects them.

 

Being deeply interested in learning to control here on VATSIM, I believe this thread has changed my mind, to big the gap between nailing ATC phrases down to a science (ignoring common sense & logic just like the FAA does) measured up against guys who say "Hi, I'm here" when they push the button.

They say I have ADD. But, they dont understand... Ohh, look!!! A chicken!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I must say, I do apologize if somehow I dissuaded you from learning ATC, but the dichotomy between ATC precision and the oft lax world of pilot communications has existed for a long, long time.

 

I also must reiterate that the network is inherently more lax than the real world. And yet, we still try and make a push toward being accurate. Just because you hear a real controller stating XYZ on LiveATC.net doesn't automatically make it right. As already stated, if the phraseology isn't great here on the network, really, no harm no foul, except maybe an instructor talking to his/her student about it. The consequences are more dire in reality, a point that I believe has been beaten to death.

 

To that end, if I'm controlling on VATSIM and you the pilot call up saying "Hi, I'm here" prior to engaging in meaningful ATC communication, I'm not going to have a cow, nor refuse ATC service. There's nothing wrong with being polite (reference every "g'day" "g'night" "merry christmas" or whatever). However, I would hope that someone controlling on the network chooses to TRY and learn phraseology, even if imperfect, appropriate to the position being staffed... otherwise, this whole thing is for not, and we may as well just be on the Zone together.

 

Based on your response, I'm afraid I've failed to convey my point properly. The upshot of all this wasn't that real controllers' careers and incomes were on the line, far from it. Rather, the emulation of proper ATC procedures and phraseology with the pilots of this network better serves the concept that VATSIM is what the name says, a simulation.

 

~Nate

Nate Johns

 

"All things are difficult before they are easy."

- Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Center: AAL1062, c/m FL310

AAL1062: FL310 and we'd like to put FL370 on request for our final today

LA Center: FL370 is approved

 

Well what the heck does that mean? Did he approve FL370 for the final altitude? Did he approve the pilot to climb to FL370 now? It's just entirely confusing. That's why phraseology in the .65 exists in the first place, to limit confusion.

 

Any pilot that took that as a clearance to climb to FL370 should go back to primary flight training. I do agree that that phrase is not clear enough though. I would use something like "Flight plan amended, expect FL370 as final cruise altitude." I imagine you real worlders can come up with something better though.

 

however I don’t encourage to use (non-.65) phrases, just insisting once again “IT HAPPENSâ€

Ariel Maisonet, C3

Vatsim Member since Satco days

RW PPL Instruments & Multiengines

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The other thing that puzzles me about this whole thing too, if the taxi diagram is accurate, it appears that A8 is the full length of the runway. Would you need to specify the intersection then? Or even use that "Runway 7R, full length, position and hold" variation?

 

I love debating ATC phraseology.

 

~Nate

 

Yep, the diagram is accurate. In fact, here's the latest AF/D:

 

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0711/00662AD.PDF

 

there is no difference between the two.

 

When 7L is used for departures, they will 1L/R for arrivals (winds depending) and 1L at W for VFR departures. 7L at A8 is the normal setup for that, but can use D or full length by request. Full Length would require a window in the arrival stream, so coordination with that would be needed. Most of the time this is for heavy jets (B747, A340, B777, or heavier). Everything else takes A8 or D. The problem is (it isn't visible on the AF/D, but is listed as an additional remark at AirNav) is that 1L and 7L full length use the same hold bars, and there is no room to hold between the runways. So they would have to say both 7L at A8 or 7L at D, and 7L full length. I have seen times there where they will have a B737 in position at A8, and have a big enough window to where they can put the heavy jet in position full length, and get them both off.

 

BL.

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to argue honest, but who was confused? I didn't see on the original thread that the pilot asked for a clarification... so I imagine he complies with was the controller said. I don’t see a confusion there… however I don’t encourage to use (non-.65) phrases, just insisting once again “IT HAPPENSâ€

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to post
Share on other sites
LA Center: AAL1062, c/m FL310

AAL1062: FL310 and we'd like to put FL370 on request for our final today

LA Center: FL370 is approved

 

To me this is C/M FL310, and further an excellent example of unclear communication.

I would have expected LA_CTR: AAL1062 C/M FL310 expect FL370 in X minutes or X miles.

 

The pilot could have responded: "LA_CTR please confirm we are cleared up to FL370 for AAL1062?" if in doubt.

They say I have ADD. But, they dont understand... Ohh, look!!! A chicken!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best response to "We'd like FL370" in that situation would be "On request" or "I have your request" if you can't give it to them right then.

 

If you state "expect FL370 in X (time or miles)" and that aircraft goes or thinks he's gone NORDO, he could end up climbing to that requested altitude at a VERY bad time. An "expect" clearance can be problematic, and we at the center level try to avoid them as much as practicable.

 

~Nate

Nate Johns

 

"All things are difficult before they are easy."

- Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to argue honest, but who was confused? I didn't see on the original thread that the pilot asked for a clarification... so I imagine he complies with was the controller said. I don’t see a confusion there… however I don’t encourage to use (non-.65) phrases, just insisting once again “IT HAPPENSâ€

Ariel Maisonet, C3

Vatsim Member since Satco days

RW PPL Instruments & Multiengines

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...