Speaking on the radio

[Yenn]

3rd person broadcasting is spreading like a virus around here, even by instructors. I've just had to suck it up and accept that as the new normal for some people. Still bugs me though

It looks to me that a major problem is wether to put "traffic Wherever" or "wherever traffic"

My personal preference is for the incorrect "wherever traffic" It gives the recipient warning that somewhere is going to be mentioned.

 

Putting it the correct way, the location is easily missed and the "traffic" really means very little. Then yhe broadcaster omits the location at the end and you have no idea where he is.

 

What I would like to know is hat is the correct format to use at airstrips which are not on the charts. The broadcast has to be on the area frequency, which is used by airliners going into Brisbane in the case of my home field. I tend to not broadcast if I cannot see any signs of activity and often when there is activity it is broadcasting on 126.7 instead of the area frequency. It is really a pigs breakfast due to so many experts all using their own superior expertise.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yes it's a pity it wasn't simple but I guess there are a lot of variables at different locations.

 

IMO it would be better if all unmarked strips and all traffic under say 5000ft out of CTA used 126.7 and leave area free of insignificant farmer bobs strip calls (which I strongly believe is already happening contrary to what is 'required').

 

Of course some will argue that this will choke up 126.7 but I guarantee there are an awful lot of farmer bob strips going unannounced or announced on 126.7 due to pilots unwillingness to transmit to area or due to habit or knowing other locals will be listening on 126.7 rather than area.

 

It really is a dogs breakfast.

 

 

[ian00798]

It's been an interesting discussion about the use of standard phraseology but I think some people are a little too anal about it.

That's because some of us have seen people nearly die from communications mix ups that would not have happened if people used standard phraseologies.

 

 

[rgmwa]

It looks to me that a major problem is wether to put "traffic Wherever" or "wherever traffic"My personal preference is for the incorrect "wherever traffic" It gives the recipient warning that somewhere is going to be mentioned.

According to CAAP 166-1(3), the standard broadcast format for low and medium performance aircraft is "wherever traffic", not "traffic wherever". The final phrase of the broadcast is just "wherever".

rgmwa

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

That's because some of us have seen people nearly die from communications mix ups that would not have happened if people used standard phraseologies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people shouldn't try and use the recommended standard phraseology, what I'm saying is that some people are far too anal about the instances where it isn't 'perfect'. Let's just keep in mind that it's also recommended that where a pilot finds difficulty describing a situation they should use whatever phrases allow him/her to get the message across.

 

As far as your comment above is concerned, well I'm sure that if we really try we can all think up instances where people "nearly died" from one thing or another. Did you mean that they were severely injured and on the brink of death? If so which tragedy was this? Or did you mean that something happened which increased risk a little? And if that's the case, of course we want to keep risk minimised but we also need to keep in mind that 'clearance is clearance' and there are many examples of near misses in life.

 

Frankly, assuming your 'nearly killed' story is one of a near miss(es), if they were a result of something as basic and minor as someone transposing just two words in a broadcast and those unfortunates thereby couldn't follow the conversation, well, I'd say they're a statistic waiting to happen and probably best off taking up knitting.

 

BTW, I'm not just a rec pilot, I've nearly 30yrs of commercial ops under my belt too, so I've seen a fair variety of radio oddities and few of them, apart from timid talkers and poor radio transmissions, have caused an issue. People need to keep in mind that if you don't comprehend the broadcast you need to ask for it to be repeated or ask for clarification of specific items where necessary. I don't think we further the cause if we expect everyone to be word perfect, instead we should be encouraging those who find radio work a little difficult - as we all did when we first started.

 

On Sunday I had a couple of typical weekender radio moments. I was inbound and a new pilot was doing circuits. He was a bit stressed and he suggested he just 'go away and come back after I'd landed'. Instead I encouraged him to work through the radio chatter with me and by the time I'd joined circuit he was far more able to make his intentions understood, and was sounding quite confident. We need to not lose sight of the fact that encouragement beats the hell out of criticism.

 

I flew a few hours in several flights and a bit later another flyer, a well seasoned one this time, was also inbound and neglected to provide any meaningful information about his position, alt and circuit time. I politely asked him to 'say again' those items and he then provided them perfectly. In the clubroom he thanked me for not embarrasing him and later we were both airborne again and his broadcasts were very precise - a win-win all round.

 

Incidentally - to the OP, take heart, nearly everyone finds learning the radio work the hardest part of obtaining a licence, but the relaxed patter just comes along bit by bit and before long it falls into place. Just keep listening in on busy frequencies, and practicing, you'll get there.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people shouldn't try and use the recommended standard phraseology

I think you summed it up in your first sentence HIC, I don't think anyone has a problem with someone making a slip or learning (we are all guilty of that from time to time). The deliberate changing of calls because one does not agree is an entirely different matter - strive for a professional approach and it will happen. A professional approach to flying does not relate to your licence or certificate.

 

If you feel strongly enough, try to get the recommended standard changed - good luck with that.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I think you summed it up in your first sentence HIC, I don't think anyone has a problem with someone making a slip or learning (we are all guilty of that from time to time). The deliberate changing of calls because one does not agree is an entirely different matter - strive for a professional approach and it will happen. A professional approach to flying does not relate to your licence or certificate.If you feel strongly enough, try to get the recommended standard changed - good luck with that.

Fair comment Frank, but I for one, wouldn't castigate someone for changing Location Traffic to Traffic Location if they feel so strongly about it and also provide good reason for doing so. Certainly they're wrong, and so am I because I've done it that way for the last 20yrs and will probably continue to do so. Not for belligerence but because I'm an older dog these days, and long ago in my formative years it was that way around and still makes more sense to me, and others, for reasons I described before.

 

During a BFR/heli type-endorse a CFI mentioned it but nothing further than that. When common sense prevails there are far more important issues to take into account - the main issue would be whether my broadcasts are competent. Despite occasional relapses to older procedures my radio work is usually commented upon favourably, people understand what I'm saying and doing, and surely that is the target.

 

Locally we have a few schools teaching overseas students who are absolutely phrase perfect but for the life of many of us we can't understand a single word they say. That provides a magnificent opportunity for practicing the 'see and avoid' aspects of flight but as far as radio work is concerned I'd rather have a fellow flyer telling me clearly what they're up to in the wrong order, than one that's totally impossible to understand - even when you ask them to repeat it. It tends to be a little like the old joke about winking at a girl in the dark - you might know what you're doing but no-one else does ...

 

 

[DWF]

The item in these radio calls that cause me the most problems is the name of the location.

 

When you are at/near your local airfield it is generally reasonably easy to understand but when you are in unfamiliar territory the name of the location can be difficult to decipher, especially when it is mumbled, slurred or rushed.

 

I have recently spent over 40 hours flying through relatively unfamiliar country and on a number of occasions had some difficulty working out the name of the location (and then at times finding it on the chart).

 

Without wishing to add to the controversy, I think the "Traffic Location" format provides a better opportunity to hear and understand the location name.

 

I would ask all pilots to clearly enunciate the location name - and don't forget to repeat it at the end of the transmission.

 

2 other pet hates:

 

Reporting a height AGL rather than an altitude (AMSL); and

 

Reporting an incorrect or misleading position. e.g. 10 miles East when actually 10 miles West.

 

If you make this mistake (and recognise it) please correct it (using the phrase "Correction ....") asap.

 

 

[rmorton]

Just got back from another brilliant flight under instruction. We did a navigation to a near by airfield where there was lots of local traffic including a glider tow, helicopter and various light aircraft. I couldn't make head nor tail of much of the radio chatter as we had some reception problems and of course the local language is French. The instructor could hardly understand some of the calls either but he did give some sage advice to listen out for the number of either of the runways so at least you know that particular aircraft is on one of the circuits.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Reporting a height AGL rather than an altitude (AMSL);

Yep, that one bugs me too.

 

 

[Soleair]

I work as a volunteer radio operator for our local Rural Fire Service. Since all of the fireys who attend a callout are also volunteers, who may not attend more than one incident in a year, their radio procedures vary. A very common fault is (almost) simultaneous keying of the PTT button & saying the message. Inevitably this leads to a clipped message, with the first second or so missing. Although the operators are reminded of the correct procedure, it is understandable that with adrenalin running high on the way to, or during, a bushfire, details can easily slip the mind.

 

So it particularly pisses me off that the NSW Standard Operating Procedures for RFS radio phraseology mandate the use of the word 'affirmative' in place of the aviation practice of using 'afirm'. (And of course, correctly, 'negative'.) Because naturally when the first part of the message is lost, often all I hear is '******ative'. And when I request a repeat, exactly the same occurs.

 

Because of this, I have tried to get 'affirmative' changed to 'afirm'. But my elders & betters will not take up this issue, as the SOP's are seen as cast in stone. It can only be a matter of time before this leads to tears: it cannot be sensible to have two words of diametrically opposed meaning being so easily confused. Far better to just use 'yes' and 'no'. At least they sound completely different.

 

So I shall continue to use 'afirm', in violation of the sacred SOP. And, for good measure, 'Traffic location' - for exactly the same reason. As well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

 

Bruce

 

 

[facthunter]

The "ative" doesn't add much to the clarity. "A"FIRMative and NEGative. (Keep the emphasis where it needs to be) and press the PTT, wait, and then talk. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

The "ative" doesn't add much to the clarity. "A"FIRMative and NEGative. (Keep the emphasis where it needs to be) and press the PTT, wait, and then talk. Nev

I agree; some people have almost accepted that incorrect radio use is OK.

 

 

[ian00798]

So I shall continue to use 'afirm', in violation of the sacred SOP. And, for good measure, 'Traffic location' - for exactly the same reason. As well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

And I think the whole not been able to go below 500ft is pesky and I know better, so I won't follow that, remaining out of cloud is for rookies, and really, the entire CASR and AIP is really boring and I don't want to read it, let alone follow it. Where does the rule bending/breaking stop? How do you decide which rules and procedures you follow? Just flip a coin? I can not, and will not, accept a normalization of deviance as acceptable, and as pilots we need to hold our self to a high standard. There is a process to change the AIP, if you want to use a different phraseology then go and get it changed in the regulations first. Otherwise follow the same rules that every other pilot in the skies has to follow.

 

 

[M61A1]

And I think the whole not been able to go below 500ft is pesky and I know better, so I won't follow that, remaining out of cloud is for rookies, and really, the entire CASR and AIP is really boring and I don't want to read it, let alone follow it. Where does the rule bending/breaking stop? How do you decide which rules and procedures you follow? Just flip a coin? I can not, and will not, accept a normalization of deviance as acceptable, and as pilots we need to hold our self to a high standard. There is a process to change the AIP, if you want to use a different phraseology then go and get it changed in the regulations first. Otherwise follow the same rules that every other pilot in the skies has to follow.

CARs clearly give you what the content of your broadcast must contain and then direct you to a recommended format. It's not "breaking rules" however upsetting you find it.

 

I can understand that when dealing with ATC and clearances and such, there are certain standard phrases that must be used to prevent any confusion.

 

This discussion is clearly not in the same league.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

 

Harry Day

 

 

[ian00798]

Then there are a lot of wise men dying when they choose not to follow the rules designed for fools.

 

I would be the first to agree that there are occasions where bending the rules is appropriate. The virgin 737 landing below minima at Mildura being one of the more obvious recent ones. What isn't correct is choosing not to follow the rules that work fine for everyone else because you think you know better. So what do we teach students? Follow the rules if they suit you and you agree with them? When do you know enough that you can start just ignoring them? 50 hours? 500? 5000?

 

 

[M61A1]

And this has what exactly to do with transposing Location Traffic Traffic with Traffic Location?.....

 

In regards to your blind rule following, I can recall a couple of instances where blindly following procedure has resulted in the deaths of all on board, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

 

[ian00798]

Because transposing the radio call is poor radio technique. There is a format written in AIP, stop arguing to validate your poor below standard radio procedure and just follow the rule like most of the pilots in the sky. I can not think of one single accident that has been caused by correct procedure following. I could probably list 30 or more where poor radio technique, non standard phraseology and poor general communication has lead to an accident that would have been avoided is the correct procedure was followed.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I could probably list 30 or more where poor radio technique, non standard phraseology and poor general communication has lead to an accident that would have been avoided is the correct procedure was followed.

Please do...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Please do...

No need to make the situation even more appallingly bad than it is.

If you're genuinely interested get on the ATSB and NTSB sites.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

No need to make the situation even more appallingly bad than it is.If you're genuinely interested get on the ATSB and NTSB sites.

I'm sure Ian will produce a list of the incidents he claims to be aware of, that will save me the headache of trying to get the ATSB search function to find them.

 

 

[M61A1]

Because transposing the radio call is poor radio technique. There is a format written in AIP, stop arguing to validate your poor below standard radio procedure and just follow the rule like most of the pilots in the sky. I can not think of one single accident that has been caused by correct procedure following. I could probably list 30 or more where poor radio technique, non standard phraseology and poor general communication has lead to an accident that would have been avoided is the correct procedure was followed.

I refer you again to post #40 and remind you that I have previously stated which format I use (the recommended).

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Yes, come on Ian put your actions where your mouth is please ... you're very quick to cite near deaths and 30 odd examples which to me appear a little ad nausea - name just 10 of them to give you some credibility perhaps?

 

 

[ian00798]

I will produce the list, it's going to be a long post and will take a while