Yeah it's a small issue, but standard is standard. Saying something that sounds strange and isn't part of the FAR/AIM book is more likely to come from a military pilot. No flame intended, it's just the truth.

 

How about "XXX with Whiskey instruments to Phoenix ready to copy". That work for ya?

 

No need to say "ready to copy"... by calling them up, it's assumed that you are ready.

Here's what I say: "Roanoke Clearance, N1234, clearance (or IFR) to Peoria with Yankee".

 

You folks must be either really anal or have nothing better to do. While I agree doing things in a standardized fashion enables us to adhere to safety and eliminates confusion in ATC communications, I don't believe this requires a debate.

Besides, I think that if you fly long enough within our Air Traffic Control System, you will find that not only pilots use non-standard communication (I'd call it short hand communications more often than not) but ATC will use the same. This is true especially in your more congested facilities such as ORD, ATL, CLT (way back when), etc.... My guess why this is done is to shorten communications down to something that might not be standard, but still gets the point across while cutting down on frequency congestion.

Just my thoughts.

 

Its not being anal or bored. For me its a matter of first impressions and professionalism. It says a lot about the person flying (to ATC, other pilots, etc...) when they use proper phraseology, procedures, etc...

Oh well, guess I'm anal...Anyway - my old man always said to do things right and if you can't find out the right way and change...

-LA

 

So what do you think of the ATC folks that speak in shorthand (nonstandard comm)? Are they unprofessional or are you only qualified to judge a PILOT based on what comes over his mic and not how he or she conducts himself or herself on the flight deck and in the terminal?

My only real point was that I don't think it requires a debate unless you are a teacher at some Av college or something. However, you can keep on judging pilots (and I guess controllers) if it makes you feel better.

 

Thanks.......

 

Once in a while I hear F/Os say "clearance on request" rather than "request clearance to...", but while I cringe inwardly, I have yet to bring up such a minor point. It does seem to be more prevalent among ex-military guys, but bear in mind that we went through flight training without ever looking at the AIM.

I don't consider correct phraseology to be the mark of a good airman; I look for good flying skills and procedural knowledge.

 

I would say yes and no. Things such as "...clearance on request..." are not going to cause problems. Other phraseology errors can and have been links in an accident sequence. I've had FO's get irritated with me when I remind them that "On the hold" is not an approved phrase any where in the civilian world that I am aware of- it sounds nit picky. But this incorrect phrase has caused confusion in the past and at least one near miss that I am aware of.

 

You may realize at some point in your career, Mr. Seinfeld, that the instructors you had in SUPT were not perfect. As I'm sure you know, even military pilots are expected to comply with domestic rules of aviation, for the most part, they just don't read the Code of Federal Regulations to determine what those rules are. When I was learning, I looked to AFR 60-16 and AFM 51-37 rather than a FAR/AIM, but I was ostensibly learning the same stuff. (I know it's not AFRs and AFMS now, something like AFIs (Instructions?), but the concept is the same.) I also was taught to say something to the effect of, "Columbus Clearance, Mustang 51, IFR to Fort Campbell, Clearance on Request." It was never questioned; it always worked. It was technically wrong.


I don't know if you're still in the military or flying civilian now, but if it's the latter, I strongly recommend you become familiar with the AIM. If it's the former, I strongly recommend you become familiar with the AIM. It was my desire as a military aviator to be the best I could, and that included learning from all the resources available. The SAC Instrument Course of that day has evolved into what I believe today is the Air Force Advanced Instrument Course - - an outstanding opportunity to learn about the career that I believe you have chosen. Do you need to know what the AIM says or how TERPS plays into the design of an Instrument Approach in order to safely and correctly fly one? No, but doing so gives one a much greater appreciation of the "Big Picture."

I don't know why some guys choose to begin threads on a topic like this, and I don't know why some people argue the contrary, and I don't know why I'm posting here either, except maybe to help each other do a better job. I know the day I stop learning will be the day I stop breathing. I don't recall the particular moment in my life when the light of truth was shined on my misunderstanding of "Clearance on Request," but I think my response must have been something to the effect of, "Hmmm, I didn't know that. I'll try to do it correctly from now on."


So, while you correctly observe that many of us do it that way because we were taught that in the military, you should acknowledge the error of our ways, and strive to correct it in the future. Providing the rationale to "those guys" helps them understand why we screwed it up, and them providing the correct procedure helps us fix it. It's a win-win, if we can see it that way.



Happy flying.



- The truth only hurts if it should -