Speaking on the radio

[Roundsounds]

Yes that makes sense, but the format taught now is "Bullamakanka Traffic" with "Bullamankanka" the last word at the end of the message, just in case, as you said, you miss the first part.... That is how I was taught throughout my entire flight training and supported by all the study material, which was within the last year and a half ....I hear the traffic first format a lot. I don't think it matters much, as long as the message is out there and being understood by everyone.

Totally agree, that's how I teach it. The "traffic" bit is like saying hey listen here. The various CASA publications have you state "traffic" after the location name though. CASA would likely argue that's why you repeat the location name at the end of the transmission, but as someone else mentioned earlier you can tune out if it's a CTAF many miles away.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes that makes sense, but the format taught now is "Bullamakanka Traffic" with "Bullamankanka" the last word at the end of the message, just in case, as you said, you miss the first part.... That is how I was taught throughout my entire flight training and supported by all the study material, which was within the last year and a half ....I hear the traffic first format a lot. I don't think it matters much, as long as the message is out there and being understood by everyone.

It matters, and in some cases it may be critical. Your radio may not be transmitting at optimum level, or someone else's radio maybe off. If the phrases are being used at the correct location and in the correct phrase order, and only syllable noise is coming through you can still identify where someone is in the circuit.

There aren't that many to learn to be professional.

 

 

[Nightmare]

I manage to get it right usually but still once in a blue moon the brain and mouth disconnect. Part of being human unfortunately.Called joining for the wrong runway in the CTAF a few months back and my "downwind" was actually an "upwind" for the other runway. I knew where I was going geographically, ie, I wasn't actually joining for the wrong runway as far as wind etc goes, but the brain completely mistranslated it resulting in a hasty correction a few seconds later. Fortunately no-one was in the circuit, so only myself and the 300 odd people at last count from around Australia viewing this thread will ever know.

 

(Pro-tip: if you stuff it up, get over it, re-gather your thoughts, and correct it).

I found myself overhead an unfamiliar airfield once, circling around, for what seemed like an eternity, feeling like a brain dead goose, whilst orientating myself to the situation, determining wind, runway number, and finally the correct radio calls. I certainly didn't rush it, I stayed in a safe place, overhead the circuit, until I sort it out and get it done properly. It was a good example of not being ahead of the plane..... I tend to have this mostly worked out now well before I even get into the plane, with a nice visual sketch of the runway on a piece of paper that I draw before the flight from ERSA to get into my head around what I need to know about the layout of the field.

[Keith Page]

I still seem to get tongue/brain-tied a bit on the radio. There seems to be this odd side-effect of depressing the transmit button that significantly decreases your nervous system's ability to function.I'm OK with Class D procedures, but I guess being based at YBAF, it's not overly surprising. It's some CTAF calls in which the thinking occurs, but the speaking doesn't. Calls like inbound with intentions and departing/joining the circuit. Position reports in the circuit I find OK.

 

So I've started just blurting out CTAF calls whilst I'm driving the car (which has made for some odd stares when my wife is with me). I find that I really do have to speak and not just think about it, in order to make it effective.

 

So I'm up to about 50-60 hours total experience, but ~10 hours solo. So I'd still be classed as being rather "low time".

 

How long was it for others before the words started to flow naturally after pressing the button?

Just relax and do not get embarrassed with a pause while you think. The other "Do not rattle things off like a machine gun" most people find that hard to understand. Just consider what the others want to know from you and some - their hearing is on the wain. Think and slow will be absolutely excellent, those who think you are a bit slow they can bite their ask at least you are being clear......... AND....... Practice as you drive is an excellent practicing technique.

All the best,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Some people have too much flow when they press the button! But that is a whole nuther argument.I only have around 300 hours and I still find myself saying things wrong. I find the best thing to do is to say aloud the call to yourself before transmitting it, I find that way I often pick up on missing things or incorrect terms but it does have to be out loud. Obviously wasting time on urgent replies is not advisable but for your standard inbound/departure calls it is well worth the extra ten seconds to get it right.

 

The main thing to remember is you are only talking to other pilots, you are not doing a public speech so don't wind yourself up too much about it. At the end of the day all you are doing is letting likeminded people know where you are and where you are heading.

Do not feel guilty about saying things wrong, I fly in and out of regional airport there is not a day passes that a Qantas pilot does not make a stuff up yep Qantas. Virgin are a little less frequent however they are on the list for stuff ups as well. DO NOT FEAL GUILTY.

KP

 

 

[nathan_c]

People are going to disagree with me here, but my pet peeve is pilots modifying the way transmissions are made because they think they have a better reason and way to do things. This is why we end up with inconsistent phraseology and bad radio calls. In this case it's the order of saying things, but this isn't the only slack part of radio transmissions I hear day in and day out from recreational and ga pilots alike.

 

CASA says it's "location traffic, xxxx, location", so that's what should be taught and followed in my opinion. Its ultimately a minor thing in the grand scheme of things I admit, but minor things are often the stepping stones to normalisation of deviance (which funnily enough is a topic in the booklet I received from RA Aus the other day).

 

I'd also like to say this is in no way a slight on people making errors in radio calls (we all started at the same point, and even as an ATC I still make errors), it's about the people that intentionally go outside the norm.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I mean no disrespect to CASA or any of the very experienced pilots here, but I was taught to start with the word "traffic" for a logical reason. It improves safety (how often do we miss the first word of a transmission?).

 

Standardisation is a good idea, but mindless orthodoxy means progress stops.

 

 

[Guernsey]

The first word or part of it can be lost if you have a voice activated mike rather than push button.

 

Alan.

 

 

[ian00798]

I mean no disrespect to CASA or any of the very experienced pilots here, but I was taught to start with the word "traffic" for a logical reason. It improves safety (how often do we miss the first word of a transmission?).Standardisation is a good idea, but mindless orthodoxy means progress stops.

That's why we say the location name again at the end of the transmission, in case the first one was missed. AIP gives the correct format for a CTAF call, and that is what should be adhered to, that's what everyone else will be expecting. Modifying phrases because you think it might be better isn't the best idea, and where does it end?

 

My biggest issue with using traffic at the start is that is the format ATC will use to tell you your about to hit someone, which is a pretty crucial transmission. If people get used to hearing traffic then it will desensitize them and they might not hear the call that is meant to save their life. We can't just go changing the rules because we slightly disagree with them, after all most of them have been written a certain way because somebody died, or nearly died.

 

 

[Keith Page]

As yet no one has said here, If you are stuck for words, just speak simple English. (That was in a safety brief I saw some where).

 

KP.

 

 

[ian00798]

Yeah, I have to agree there, and there isn't standard phraseology for every eventuality, even controllers have to improvise at times. When there is standard phraseology available though it very much helps to use it.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

That's why we say the location name again at the end of the transmission, in case the first one was missed....

True, Ian, but not every transmission is as clear as a bell. You might have to concentrate on a lot of faint, garbled noise trying to work out if it apples to you.

 

Modifying phrases because you think it might be better isn't the best idea, and where does it end?...

That's exactly the mindset that had Greek Orthodox clergy fighting to the death and enduring untold tortures over the interpretation of tiny variations in ancient scriptures. Surely we're smarter than that.

 

The objective of a radio call is to be heard clearly and understood.

 

 

[ian00798]

I think your missing my entire point at the moment. Absolutely been heard and understood is the point of radio communications. And a critical part of achieving that is using standard phraseology. That is how everyone from the savannah bashing around the training area to Air France inbound to Sydney from Paris is able to safely communicate. Every other pilot is expecting information to flow in a particular format, and the way chunking works in our brains it helps to get the same information the same way each time. I agree that what you suggest is well intentioned and I can understand your point even if I don't actually agree with it, however it's not really our choice to ignore the regulations and standards laid out in AIP.

 

If something goes wrong one day and the ATSB lists non standard phraseology as a contributing factor how do you think your going to explain your choice to 12 of your peers in a court of law? That is the reality of what could possibly happen.

 

 

[dutchroll]

The ultimate aim of standard R/T phraseology is much the same as standard operating procedures. It's so you can know or predict to a reasonable precision what the other guy is saying or doing. Everyone stays on the same wavelength. This makes for a safer flying environment which wouldn't exist if you always had to second-guess everything.

 

Of course, there are exceptions where you might need to modify it - for example it might not work in an emergency situation and you may just have to revert to plain language to convey the information.

 

But by and large it's so we don't need to waste valuable brainspace trying to figure out "what the hell was he actually trying to say?"

 

 

[ian00798]

Exactly right, perfectly said in every way!

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I will continue to say "traffic" as my first word and I would be amazed if a court of law found it to be a safety hazard.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I will continue to say "traffic" as my first word and I would be amazed if a court of law found it to be a safety hazard.

What's interesting is that you have it backwards. The reason you are not hearing the first word at times is because the other person was not trained properly not to speak until the button is fully depressed. If you have been properly trained, everyone else will be hearing your first word and you will just be confusing them.

 

 

[ian00798]

That's the exact reference from AIP. It says exactly what format to use, and why to use it. Nowhere does it recommend varying the format of you know better etc. There are standard phraseologies I wish I could vary as well, for example instead of saying climb to flight level xxx I would prefer saying climb flight level xxx, as I believe to sounds way too much like two, however the phraseology is prescribed and I follow it. As I have already said, traffic xxxxxx is far to close to an emergency phraseology and doing it that way is totally inappropriate.

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

What's interesting is that you have it backwards. The reason you are not hearing the first word at times is because the other person was not trained properly not to speak until the button is fully depressed...

That's only part of the issue, Turbs. Inattention, static, voice-activated mikes... There are more reasons people tend to miss the first word.

 

...If you have been properly trained, everyone else will be hearing your first word and you will just be confusing them...

How would reversing the order of these two words cause confusion?

Over the years there has been lots of discussion about really poor radio technique- I am amazed at the resistance to swapping these two words, for what I believe to be good safety reasons.

 

If it was found that the standard radio calls were causing confusion, by what mechanism would an improvement be accepted, approved and implemented? Sounds a bit like the enormous efforts required to certify an aero engine- once it's approved its near impossible to get any improvements approved.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Why not just comply like most people?

 

There are some people who want to fly RA on CTA; you're one of the ambassadors for the "no" vote.

 

 

[ian00798]

Over the years there has been lots of discussion about really poor radio technique- I am amazed at the resistance to swapping these two words, for what I believe to be good safety reasons.

First up I think some of my previous posts have been harshly worded, I don't believe you are incompetent, stupid, reckless or anything like that and I would much rather someone voice their opinion if they feel there is a potential safety hazard, and what you are saying does absolutely have merit to it. The thing I'm not as comfortable with is your decision to unilaterally change an accepted procedure.

 

There is a method to raise this and have changing it investigated. My question to you is if, hypothetically, you succeeded getting it changed and AIP updated, would you expect other pilots to comply with the new procedure? I would comply if it was written in AIP even though I disagree with you on this occasion. It's asking a lot to expect other pilots to respect the rules that you are knowingly ignoring on this occasion, even if it is well intentioned.

 

If you feel as strongly as I believe you do about this, then I recommend going through the correct channels and having the procedure changed, until then please respect your fellow pilots, and the professional image of the entire organisation, and comply with the rules.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

As long as you DON"T use CB radio wanker words. I have heard a few 'ten-fours' and 'come-back' used by newbies in the past.

 

 

[ian00798]

Yeah that should be instant revocation of your radio endorsement.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

So does using standard RT/phraseology extend to limiting calls to those in CAAP 166, unless a collision risk is imminent?

 

I'm hearing inbound 15 miles, 10 miles, overhead, joining crosswind, turning downwind, turning base, turning final, clear of runway on a regular basis, most of these are not calls per CAAP166!

 

 

[dutchroll]

"How" to do it is a somewhat different problem compared to "when" to do it.

 

Using standard phraseology is pretty straightforward and fairly important for mutual understanding between pilots, and pilots and ATC.

 

As far as when to do it, the CAAP specifically states that pilots can use discretion in the number of broadcasts they make. That makes it pretty subjective! I see a tendency to make too many, including some relatively pointless ones, but there's also the opposite problem - none at all.

 

I've never called "clear of the runway". The only person it's relevant to is the one immediately behind me in the circuit, and they should be specifically looking for me in front, as well as checking the runway is clear. If they really want to know, ask. If they're not sure, go around. Even in places like the USA where you can be cleared to land at a controlled airport with the runway still occupied by a preceding aircraft, it's entirely the landing pilots responsibility that it is clear before he touches down. I'm not particularly keen to regularly assume that responsibility on behalf of anyone behind me.