From the Flight Deck - Phraseology

[@saratogawinner934]

THIS is the stuff the FAA should focus more on. Back to the ROOTS! Simple, to the point, helpful stuff for aviators. Awesome real-world footage and great example audios, this is brilliantly put together. Do MORE LIKE THIS!

[@cyberfiche]

Yes, I agree!

[@righthandgo]

Agreed! Been really enjoying all the from the flight deck videos. Keep it up

[@rundlet172]

This should be shown to every student private pilot. Great job.

[@Pilot_engineer_19]

This is one of the best and most important videos you have ever produced! When properly used it can avoid errors or worse. Thanks.

[@joshmc]

Clear, concise, and immediately useful. Very well intended and executed. Thank you for making content that will help us be safer without getting bogged down in legalese.

[@alechendryx7023]

Thanks folks for creating this. Good refreshers without getting yelled at by an instructor or a tower person. Do one for proper request for VFR flight following. I’ve had some issues where I called and no one answered and also when I’m ready to land, do u cancel flight following or just do nothing?

[@giantpickle]

Yes, and also the best order to give the information in.

[@mcgillagorilla196]

Always cancel flight following in the air once you have the field in sight. That way you don't just disappear from their scope with no communication.

[@alechendryx7023]

@@mcgillagorilla196 problem was I called 3 times to cancel and no answer. I was high at 6500 ft so I know they heard me. Then what? I felt like they were ignoring me and I was ready to land.

[@mep_pilot]

This video is fantastic! I am currently working on my flight instructor ratings and will definitely tell my future students to watch this video before their first flights.

[@N82SV]

Great video. I rarely frequent towered airports. This will be really good refresher to bookmark.

[@ValerieLynn]

Thank you for this practical aviation video. I think you've covered some of the most common words and phrases we're likely to hear and say and cleared up any misunderstandings.

[@coreyjordan2745]

This is awesome! I love this. In pursuit of obtaining a private pilot license.

[@fzakrzewski]

Today I learned! I've never heard "continue" before 🤔

[@AmeerSixtySeven]

Great video. Should come in handy for student pilots.

[@diegodimarco7423]

thank you very much we need more videos like these

[@anthonyb4913]

Keep them coming! Great informative video.

[@dermick]

This is great - more like this please!

[@skycop3855]

Outstanding presentation, thank you all!

[@PA28-181]

Excellent video !

[@jogoIELTS]

Awesome content… basic, important and clear!

[@martin_ish3re]

Roger 0:35 ATC Standby 1:04 Go Ahead 1:29 Hold Short 1:45

[@peterchin8385]

Too many pilots make up their own phraseology to sound cool and “professional”. One major threat is not reading back your own callsign after a read back This trend has caused and will cause more accidents!

[@zooidorganelle7697]

Preach!

[@mastrkents]

it still blows my mind that retired pilots aren't used to supplement ATC personnel

[@hewhohasnoidentity4377]

Unions

[@danlittleford4639]

Pilots age to retire is older than controllers, how would that work?

[@mastrkents]

@@danlittleford4639 not all pilot retire at 65. I'm just thinking it would be a smart career transition for say... an Army or Air Force pilot that doesn't want to go Commercial, or a former Commercial pilot that lost medical, or left for some other reason.

[@danlittleford4639]

@mastrkents Age for controllers to retire is 56, and maximum age to become a controller is 31.

[@mastrkents]

@@danlittleford4639 I am aware. Is there a meaningful reason for the age restrictions for air traffic controllers?

[@Ched747]

What’s the Vector, Victor?

[@SGTSnakeUSMC]

Awaiting clearance, Clarence.

[@brianchristopher4493]

Roger. Huh? What’s your vector Vicktor. Roger Huh?

[@FromSagansStardust]

I've been retired for awhile now, when did "line up and wait" replace "taxi into position and hold"? (Line up and wait sounds to me like recess is over on the school playground!)

[@TroyHill442]

Few years ago. I agree, haha

[@SGTSnakeUSMC]

It changed a few years back. Sounds like what we used to do at the base chow hall, but it is clear and concise.

[@ValerieLynn]

That is funny; I can't say I disagree! I lived through that phraseology change. Thankfully I was familiar with it having flown internationally where "line up and wait" was standard fare.

[@KentonKoran]

Around 2010

[@johnstreet7656]

Would like to have seen a mention of "immediately", such as "November 4 -1 romeo, turn left IMMEDIATELY".

[@ibrahimzimit6241]

Great

[@ryandavis191]

My favorite is when ATC says "N12345 standy." And then you hear "N12345 standing by."

[@zooidorganelle7697]

My favorite is when a pilot initiates contact with ATC with an unbroken 10-second, too rapidly spoken spiel: "XYZ Ground, good morning, this is (unreadable/improperly formatted callsign), at (parking area) with (ATIS code), looking for flight following to ZYX airport, ready to taxi to the active... (long pause, still keyed)." Me: "Last calling XYZ Ground, unanswered, say again everything after 'good morning'." Kinda like, "False start, everybody but the center," of NFL fame... which basically means everybody *but* the center knew the snap count, LOL. How about just, " *XYZ Ground, Bonanza Wun-Too-Tree- Fower X-Ray* ", and *unkey* . It's called an attention-getting step, folks. (NB: Yes, there's a correct pronunciation for each alphanumeric for an actual reason: clarity over a voice quality-limited radio transmission.) I mean, I get it: you know who you are and what you wanna do... But I ain't *that* psychic. And sometimes I have to pick up a pen, y'know?

[@8literbeater]

@@zooidorganelle7697 You're complaining about pilots using the recommended procedure. AIM 4-2-3 says that the initial callup should include the following: Name of the facility being called; Your full aircraft identification as filed in the flight plan or as discussed in paragraph 4-2-4, Aircraft Call Signs; When operating on an airport surface, state your position. The type of message to follow or your request if it is short

[@zooidorganelle7697]

@@8literbeater Imagine, if you will, calling a customer service rep and proceeding to give the rep an unbroken monologue of your name, phone number, address and the complete nature of your issue... What's wrong with a simple, 'Hello, my name's Joe'? In communication methodology, it's called an attention-getting step.

[@8literbeater]

@@zooidorganelle7697 aviation communication is not a chit chat. Read the Aeronautical Information Manual. Get outside your precious little bubble and see that approach controllers will reprimand pilots if they do not make their complete request with all information on the initial call. Get with the program or get off the air.

[@sloopee263]

Now if only the U.S. really had such radio discipline...

[@clodoaldodonato3029]

Obrigado.!

[@zooidorganelle7697]

"Go Ahead 1:29"": The controller who instructed an aircraft holding at the hold line for a runway to "GO AHEAD" should be drawn and quartered. It's begging for a runway incursion and borderline entrapment for any pilot. The best, most effective phraseology for actual communication of intent would be: "(ACID), say your message, hold short of RWY #." (or other previously issued hold point) I even searched the FAAO 7110.65 PDF for y'all -- there were only 2 hits for "go ahead" -- and the closest thing I could find was a Phraseology entry, thus: "Proceed with your message. Not to be used for any other purpose." So, I'm not saying it should never be used -- for example, an airborne aircraft wants to pass a PIREP or a heartfelt message to their next of kin, etc. Rather, I'm unequivocally stating that it should never be used with an aircraft holding short as seen in the video, without restating Hold Short instructions in the same message... As is required IAW FAAO 7110.65 in paragraphs: 3−9−3. DEPARTURE CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS, k.: "When a local controller delivers or amends an ATC clearance (i.e., 'message of any kind') to an aircraft awaiting departure and that aircraft is holding short of a runway or is holding in position on a runway, an additional clearance must be issued to prevent the possibility of the aircraft inadvertently taxiing onto the runway and/or beginning takeoff roll. In such cases, append one of the following ATC instructions as appropriate: "1. HOLD SHORT OF RUNWAY, or "2. HOLD IN POSITION." (NB: even "GO AHEAD, HOLD SHORT OF RWY #" is antithetical in the given situation... and it just sounds ridiculous and confusing, to boot) -- and -- 2−4−3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK: (ALL) Thus: A pilot's/vehicle operator's/pedestrian's complete understanding of the ambiguous "GO AHEAD" should never be presumed by the ATCS, when a simple addition of "HOLD SHORT" (and "READBACK..." when necessary) eliminates any doubt of Runway and Pilot Safety. QED. Optimally, "GO AHEAD" for message relays should never be used when communicating with any aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian once it has entered the movement area. I don't even like the inferred keyword "PROCEED" anywhere in the message. And should any of you run across one of these lazy, situationally unconscious ATCSs, just remember that when they tell you to "GO AHEAD" they don't mean for you to 'go ahead'... Best of luck with that, to all concerned. (NB: Parentheticals mine.) DX, ATCS, 1986-Present, USAF and Civilian P.S. I often whimsically refer to ATC as a high-stakes game of 'Mother May I', which should give you some idea of exactly how ancient I am. ; ) Losers get deceased and/or sent to prison, depending on which chair they're in...

[@malgormley]

I haven't flown in years. This video's good stuff, but "Line up & wait" ??? Why not "taxi into position & hold"?? Doesn't seem ambiguous.

[@zooidorganelle7697]

Because the FAA changed it to "Line up and wait" at least 10 years ago in order to align with ICAO phraseology and eliminate foreign pilot confusion with the unfamiliar U.S.-only variant. The phraseology change may be more confusing for American aviators; but, it is completely familiar to non-English 1st language speaking pilots. They've got enough on their hands speaking/understanding jargon-laced English (to an effective extent) already. Play nice and let them be completely comfortable, at the expense of your own comfort. I mean, is "line up and wait" -- spoken in English -- that confusing to an American pilot?

[@joeellis5766]

I'm a low time private pilot, and line up and wait has been the only thing I've known. It's meaning is very clear and specific in the context of the situation. Additionally, it's shorter. I think it's preferable all around.

[@craig1231]

One problem I have always had with American phraseology is omission of "continue approach". As described in ICAO Doc 9432 Section 4.6.4, controllers should say "continue approach" if the runway ahead is being used for preceding aircraft. I continually hear controllers say "number 3 in trail, cleared to land", and this can be very dangerous considering the situation can change very quickly. I think "continue approach" needs to be emphasised before a similar accident to USAir Flight 1493 happens again.

[@hewhohasnoidentity4377]

You are screaming into a void. Nobody can hear calls for adopting the international standard because that would be admitting our way is the wrong way. Sadly it will take a couple more disasters before Congress will make the FAA change.

[@dom3325]

That’s because you’re reading an ICAO doc vs. the JO 7110.65 which has governance of FAA procedures. If you read the .65 you would know that “continue” is a phraseology laid out for that same situation you’re describing when an aircraft is LUAW on a runway at facilities without a safety logic system in place.

[@TheAirplaneDriver]

I don't have an issue with the call you cited. It just happened to me yesterday landing at a Class D airport where tower cleared me to land (number 3) with two airplanes ahead of me plus another one taking off. I confirmed I had traffic and the onus was then on me to maintain safe separation as I proceeded to land. This type of situation (multiple aircraft in the pattern) is standard fare at non-towered airports without the benefit of having any ATC coordination. Pilots are - in essence - always "cleared to land" at non-towered airports and they are solely responsible for separation in the process. I understand that things need to be "tighter" at Class B airports than some grass strip out in the middle of farm country, but there have been tens of millions of air carrier landing operations since the tragedy of 1493 over 30 years ago. I personally don't see how the US has some chronic hole in phraseology that is causing airplanes to land on top of each other.

[@craig1231]

@@TheAirplaneDriver I agree in un-controlled airspace, pilots are solely responsible for the separation of other aircraft. However, my concern is that in controlled airspace, the controllers are responsible for the separation of aircraft. Specifically in Class D, IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights, in Class B, all flights must be separated. There was a situation very recently, whereby a controller gave an aircraft clearance to land, with 2 departures ahead, in low visibility. One of the departures rejected their take-off, and the controller attempted to instruct the landing traffic to "go-around", however another pilot (possibly the aircraft that did the RTO) transmitted at the same time, therefore the "go-around" instruction was not heard by the landing traffic. TCAS is also inhibited below 100ft AGL. So there was a situation whereby the landing traffic was not visual with the departing traffic, and the go-around instruction was not heard. Take London Heathrow for example, the second busiest European airport, an aircraft will only be given a landing clearance if the runway is clear, no preceding traffic, regardless of visual conditions (but a small caveat below). Given the scenario above, the landing traffic would be given "continue approach". If landing clearance is not obtained at DH (decision height), the pilots must initiate a go-around, so this is mitigation if the controllers instruction is not heard on the radio. But if the controllers last instruction was "cleared to land", there is no mitigation if a go-around instruction is not heard for whatever reason. There is a small caveat in UK ATC that, in daylight hours, on a dry runway, where braking action is not adversely affected, in good visibility, and if the landing traffic is not heavier than the proceeding traffic, the landing traffic may be given a "land-after" clearance providing the landing traffic is visual with the traffic on the runway and confirmation of visibility has been obtained. It's very rare to use this "land-after" clearance because there are a lot of conditions that need to be satisfied. What mitigations are there if landing traffic is given a landing clearance, and then a subsequent instruction to go-around is not heard on the radio?

[@wilfredorivero754]

Jacob

[@omergiply3314]

Hi

[@timmullican8484]

Although this video may have been intended for pilots, it is being shown to controllers. After a 30-year career as an air traffic controller this is a poor example of the phraseology that controllers should be using. Before all the flaming begins, I am not saying my phraseology was perfect, I am just saying the FAA harps on using correct, standard phraseology. In my job now as a contract ATC training instructor, I try to teach just that. During this video, at 1:41, 2:10, 2:39, 3:12, and 6:42 times, the "N" was dropped therefore violating the 7110.65AA para 2-4-20.

[@ValerieLynn]

Perhaps they will update the audio. Although not perfect, the presentation moves each of us, in our own way, a wee bit closer toward professionalism.Moving the needle even a wee bit is better than no movement at all.

[@zooidorganelle7697]

...Aircraft type may be substituted for "N", if known. Also, regardless how silly it may sound, whatever the pilot calls her/himself on initial contact, that should be how the controller initially responds (if only I had a dollar for every "Fox Pop" I've had to initially repeat). After the initial contact, however the controller should use the *actual* callsign, either N-registry or Manufacturer/Model name and tail number for GA aircraft operators. ...*then* we can abbreviate the callsign to N/Make/Model and the last 3 alphanumerics... *unless* you've got similar sounding callsigns. Don't get me started.

[@timmullican8484]

I am well aware of when the “N” can be substituted for type/make/model. My point was at the times I mentioned in my post, is “one four Romeo” is never correct phraseology. I don’t care if that is what the pilot calls himself, after the initial call, a controller must use the correct phraseology. It is not my opinion that it’s always done that way. I never did it 100% of the time and have paperwork to prove it.

[@FAAnews]

Thanks for your comment. We have updated the audio to address this concern. -FAA Social Media Team

[@flightforensics4523]

LOL! Seriously?!? " Hold short line?" MEGA FAIL! 😠 😡

[@thomasabramson100]

FYI usually ATC will say N#@# bravo alpha wind 030 at6 or whatever it is cleared for takeoff "they give you the wind direction and speed"

[@zooidorganelle7697]

I virtually always give the wind, primarily because I work at a windy, directionally inconstant airport. When I issue taxi instructions to RY 17, the wind may be 17010G16KT. By the time the pilot calls ready at RY 17, the winds may favor a different runway altogether, e.g., 22012G27KT; I believe a 50-degree quartering wind is meaningful to a CAT 1 or II aircraft operator, given those velocities. Although there is *no requirement* to issue wind with a takeoff clearance, increasing pilot awareness and safety of flight is Job 1 for me. So, I almost always *unnecessarily* issue wind for any runway operation, and the Devil take the hindmost...

[@zooidorganelle7697]

My oft-repeated motto: 'At the end of the day, everybody gets to go home, kiss the wife and kick the dog... or vice versa.'