Speaking on the radio

[Soleair]

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

Yes, Nev, I know how one should use the radio. The point is, not everyone does. And because of this, the 'ative' detracts a great deal from the clarity of the message, if it is used after both the 'afirm' and the 'neg'. If it were only used after the 'neg' one would understand the message despite the clipped first half.

 

Where does the rule bending/breaking stop?

Which rule am I breaking? Recommendations are not rules.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, Nev, I know how one should use the radio. The point is, not everyone does. And because of this, the 'ative' detracts a great deal from the clarity of the message, if it is used after both the 'afirm' and the 'neg'. If it were only used after the 'neg' one would understand the message despite the clipped first half.Which rule am I breaking? Recommendations are not rules.

It only kicks in when there has been an accident and someone is suing you for negligence; when they say "did you comply with the recommended clause 16.2 etc", and you say "No", and there's a body lying there, it's going to be very hard for you to defend against negligence.

 

 

[dutchroll]

You ignore recommended procedures at your own risk, and it's very frowned upon. In the pro aviation world if you do it repeatedly, you'll be invited for "tea and bikkies" with the Chief Pilot in no time - and by all accounts that's an awful lot less pleasant than it sounds.

 

A colleague of mine went for tea and bikkies with the Chief Pilot once for an unrelated indiscretion (failing to show up for his flight due to a huge timing screwup - they had to get a replacement pilot). I saw him go in looking a bit nervous. He came out pale as a ghost and profusely sweating.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It only kicks in when there has been an accident and someone is suing you for negligence; when they say "did you comply with the recommended clause 16.2 etc", and you say "No", and there's a body lying there, it's going to be very hard for you to defend against negligence.

Just as a follow on from this, I did some searching (this is by no means all the material you need to comply with)

 

CAAP 166-1 (3)

 

7.2.1 “Effective radio communication requires the pilot to use standard aviation phraseology as detailed in the Flight Radiotelephone Operator Licence Syllabus of Training.”

 

Governments have been offloading public liability for some time, and you'll notice, while this doesn't say you must do it (in which case the government would be responsible for its direction), it does say that effective radio communication requires the pilot to use standard aviation phraseology which comes from the training syllabus (i.e. not from your version)

 

So if there's a collision, and the other pilot says he didn't understand your version of the transmission, and you didn't use the wording and phraseology from the training syllabus, then, your communication was not effective, and you could be up the creek. So there is an imperative, but only if you crash which is why so many people don't understand that it matters.

 

Link to Flight Radiotelephone Operator Licence Syllabus of Training

 

Google

 

The Syllabus calls up this book:

 

Flight Radio For Pilots - VFR Operations

 

There is some information on standard words, pronunciation, and phrases here:

 

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/aip/general.pdf

 

I would suggest that if you don't have a Flight Radiotelephone Operator Licence, that you do the syllabus and sit for the Licence, which has an 80% pass requirement.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

You ignore recommended procedures at your own risk, and it's very frowned upon. In the pro aviation world if you do it repeatedly, you'll be invited for "tea and bikkies" with the Chief Pilot in no time - and by all accounts that's an awful lot less pleasant than it sounds.A colleague of mine went for tea and bikkies with the Chief Pilot once for an unrelated indiscretion (failing to show up for his flight due to a huge timing screwup - they had to get a replacement pilot). I saw him go in looking a bit nervous. He came out pale as a ghost and profusely sweating.

Sounds serious, must've threatened to cancel said pilot's limo service and force them drive to drive to/from work!

 

 

[dutchroll]

Sounds serious, must've threatened to cancel said pilot's limo service and force them drive to drive to/from work!

Limo service? Geez haven't kept up to date with the airline industry for a while have you?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Limo service? Geez haven't kept up to date with the airline industry for a while have you?

Sorry, premium Cabs have replaced limo's!

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

You ignore recommended procedures at your own risk, and it's very frowned upon. In the pro aviation world if you do it repeatedly, you'll be invited for "tea and bikkies" with the Chief Pilot in no time - and by all accounts that's an awful lot less pleasant than it sounds.A colleague of mine went for tea and bikkies with the Chief Pilot once for an unrelated indiscretion (failing to show up for his flight due to a huge timing screwup - they had to get a replacement pilot). I saw him go in looking a bit nervous. He came out pale as a ghost and profusely sweating.

You're quite right. And I wasn't advocating that people should deliberately ignore or change the recommended procedures. What I said originally was that two transposed words in a broadcast wouldn't, in my mind, sufficiently change the meaning to cause a lack of understanding on the part of the listener. More particularly, the transposition of the first two words would, I would think, be more likely to improve understanding for some people, than not.

 

Nonetheless, it having been brought to my attention I'll certainly try and re-train myself and get it the right way around in future - hoping, of course, that it's not due for another reform in the next little while. Saying the location twice first might help some people I guess, it's worth a thought.

 

As for tea and bikkies, I was CP for eleven years and gladly all my lads and girls were word perfect all the time so we managed to avoid that particular unpleasantness. What used to make them go pale more often than not was when I turned up unexpectedly for base inspections, two things they obviously hated and would get slack on unless the whip was wielded - paperwork and cleaning the undersides of the aircraft.

 

 

[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

There's no "affirmative" any more FH, they took it away from us and gave us "affirm"

 

 

[dutchroll]

The reason being that for those who clip their transmissions (an R/T habit I find quite annoying), both words have the same ending but opposite meanings.

 

So it's "affirm", or "negative". No confusion. No two syllables are the same.

 

 

[facthunter]

All it requires is a discipline. "Normal" people listening to airways R/T can hardly make anything of it. Standard phraseology is required to avoid confusion or at least reduce the chance of it. Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

All great advice.

 

After 25 years of flying, I still have "foot in mouth" moments.

 

In my experience, what counts is that communication is established and message indented, is received. Of course, best if professionally delivered, in recognised format (still striving for consistency on this) but in most cases other pilots & ATC very understanding of amateurs.

 

Never hesitate to ask "say again" or correct your earlier miss speak - failure to do so may lead to an incident that could have been avoided by better understanding.

 

 

[planedriver]

If you practice listening to those annoying party-political broadcasts that keep popping up on the radio, written and spoken byxjsdcsdf,dfsgkv fk from the asrffdrerff vmf Party. Once you understand what they are saying, you'll have no problems at all.