Callsign first of last when replying?

[CpnCrunch]

Say you've been given a landing clearance, do you reply "XYZ cleared to land" or "cleared to land XYZ"? I was taught the second way, and that appears to be the correct ICAO phraseology as far as I can tell. However the "VFR radio procedures" book gives the first way. Which is correct?

[Class 1 Instructor]

This is an example where the "official publications" have not kept up with what for lack of a better description would be, industry standard.

Pretty much every 703/704/705 put the call sign first when calling ATC and the call sign last when replying. Since the first part of the transmission is the most likely to be cut off/garbled/missed it makes sense to put the call sign last when replying to ATC.

For example if you follow the book you would reply to an ATC instruction by saying "ABC turn left heading 270" ....But if the transmission is truncated you get "garble garble turn left heading 270". Now everyone is wondering if that was ATC calling them.

Much better if you hear "garble garble left heading 270 ABC". Now everyone knows someone else is replying to ATC and you can ignore the call.

[BTyyj]

My understanding is that the former of the two is ATC phraseology, whereby the pilots replies with the latter.

Also, wouldn't a VFR response be to just respond with the callsign only?

[FlyGy]

Be on the safe side, and put it at the beginning and the end. Oh, and don't forget "Conflicting traffic please advise" in there somewhere.

[Class 1 Instructor]

Be on the safe side, and put it at the beginning and the end. Oh, and don't forget "Conflicting traffic please advise" in there somewhere.

Providing a useful and cogent reply to a reasonable question is not that hard. Posting a smart ass and utterly useless reply I guess is pretty easy, but says a lot more about you than the original poster......

[photofly]

I thought it was quite funny.





Bad me.

[Cat Driver]

Actually I found his comment to be very useful because it points out how "NoT " to speak on the radio.

[Colonel Sanders]

An example of how NOT to do something is often very educational.

For example, recently I was doing some instructor training. I asked
the prospective instructor to watch this video with me:



Then I asked him to pretend he was a TC Inspector evaluating
it using the PGI assessment criteria from TP5537E:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... y-4282.htm

Assessment will be based on the candidate's ability to apply the instructional techniques and learning factors set out in the Flight Instructor Guide, including the ability to:

1.prepare the teaching area for effective student learning (readiness);
2.prepare/check training aids;
3.determine that the student is ready for learning;
4.explain where the lesson fits into the overall picture (relationship, readiness);
5.identify the main teaching points (readiness);
6.relate the lesson to past and/or future experiences of the student (relationship);
7.start presentation of new material at the student’s level of understanding (readiness, relationship, effect);
8.proceed at the rate of student comprehension (relationship, exercise, primacy, effect);
9.use developmental teaching (exercise, effect, relationship);
10.introduce each stage of the lesson and provide a link between stages (relationship);
11.obtain student feedback throughout the lesson (exercise, effect);
12.respond to student feedback (effect);
13.identify and emphasize major points for the student (exercise, effect);
14.give clear explanations (primacy, effect, relationship);
15.use visual aids effectively (effect, intensity);
16.use voice effectively by varying rate, volume and pitch (intensity);
17.appear enthusiastic about the subject being taught (intensity);
18.use eye contact effectively (intensity);
19.involve the student effectively;
20.confirm student learning at the end of each stage.

[FlyGy]

Be on the safe side, and put it at the beginning and the end. Oh, and don't forget "Conflicting traffic please advise" in there somewhere.

Providing a useful and cogent reply to a reasonable question is not that hard. Posting a smart ass and utterly useless reply I guess is pretty easy, but says a lot more about you than the original poster......

Awww, I Sawwy I huwt you wittoe feewings. I just figured your answer was such a good one that there was nothing else that could be added. So I decided to have some fun instead.

Get over it.

[CpnCrunch]

Be on the safe side, and put it at the beginning and the end. Oh, and don't forget "Conflicting traffic please advise" in there somewhere.

Providing a useful and cogent reply to a reasonable question is not that hard. Posting a smart ass and utterly useless reply I guess is pretty easy, but says a lot more about you than the original poster......

Don't worry - you get used to this on avcanada. Thanks for the reply, and please don't be put off avcanada...the more actual flight instructors we have posting here the better.

[dr.aero]

I don't really agree with Class 1 - unless you're blabbing on the radio, all parts of your transmission are important and need to be heard from beginning to end. The 'standard' is to start with your callsign first when reply. The reason myself and most other commercial pilots say the callsign at the end (especially if it's a clearance or long transmission) is so that you don't forget the details. You'll find if you start with your callsign it's harder to accurately read back your clearance.

As for the "conflicting traffic please advise" - it was funny but should be noted as how not to use the radio. If someone is conflicting with your flight path and they have half a brain, they will start communicating with you.

[CpnCrunch]

dr.aero: the ICAO standard is to always give the callsign last when replying to ATC. This was changed in 1977 I believe, after the Tenerife accident. I was just wondering if Canada was ignoring this recommendation or if the book was just wrong, but it sounds like the book is just wrong.

[FlyGy]

As for the "conflicting traffic please advise" - it was funny but should be noted as how not to use the radio. If someone is conflicting with your flight path and they have half a brain, they will start communicating with you.

I'm glad that some of you could take the humour of the comment as it was intended, I guess those that didn't get have damaged 51% of their brain....in which case, it might be wise to include it in your communication, just in case they're up there with you.

[dr.aero]

CpnCrunch...

Do you have an ICAO reference for that? I'd like to look into that more.

[ahramin]

I'd start by getting a copy of DOC 9432 so that you aren't shooting from the hip like everyone else around here. Standard phraseology is not a matter of making it up or doing whatever you hear on the radio.

The ICAO standard for radio calls is the station being addressed, the station calling, and the message. The notable exception here is for ATC readbacks, which are always the readback followed by the callsign. Simple.

Always include your full callsign in every radio call.

[photofly]

ICAO Radio Telephony Manual Doc 9432, 2.8.3.7:

An aircraft should terminate the read-back by its callsign.

given example:

(atc)G-ABCD CROSS A1 AT WICKEN FL 70...
(aircraft)CROSS A1 AT WICKEN FL 70 G-ABCD

As regards abbreviation of callsigns, same document, 2.7.2.2:

After satisfactory communication has been established, and provided that no confusion is likely to occur, aircraft call signs specified in 2.7.2.1 may be abbreviated as follows:

a) the first and at least the last two characters of the aircraft registration;
<snip>

2.7.2.2.1 An aircraft shall use its abbreviated call sign only after it has been addressed in this manner by the aeronautical station.

You're not required to use the full callsign under those circumstances, then.

[ahramin]

Good catch photofly, I meant callsigns not registrations. Airline callsigns using the flight number should never be abbreviated.

In Canada you never need the C- and ATC can abbreviate by skipping the leading G or F, after which you can do the same.

[photofly]

Yes, the bit I snipped says that if using "the telephony designator of the aircraft operating agency followed by the flight identification" (eg "FASTAIR 345") as an Aircraft call sign, then there is no abbreviated form.

It's all in there.

[photofly]

Here's a question: if ATC asks you standby, do you acknowledge?

[FlyGy]

Yes, I tell them there is no room to stand, but I can "Fly by" if they wish.

[Beefitarian]

Here's a question: if ATC asks you standby, do you acknowledge?

Bravo two echo fox, standing by.

[photofly]

And would you do that, if you knew ATC wanted you to standby because they urgently want the frequency clear to talk to someone else?

[Class 1 Instructor]

Yes, I tell them there is no room to stand, but I can "Fly by" if they wish.

I sure hope you fly better then you tell "jokes".......

[Lurch]

And would you do that, if you knew ATC wanted you to standby because they urgently want the frequency clear to talk to someone else?

Wow sarcasm much?

Lurch

[FlyGy]

Yes, I tell them there is no room to stand, but I can "Fly by" if they wish.

I sure hope you fly better then you tell "jokes".......

Who's joking?