Callsign first of last when replying?

[Cat Driver]

BTW don't bother replying as I have placed "Ahramin" on my ignore list, just like the other well known jerks on avcanada.

Ahramin flys heavy jets and has probably forgot more than you know, we are close friends and you are a disgrace to aviation......

Quite frankly people like you are going to completely ruin what used to be a good aviation forum.

[CpnCrunch]

Don't be too hasty, class 1 - I think both you and Ahramin are correct.

Your example "Pilot: FOXTROT VICTOR LIMA CHARLIE, AFFIRMATIVE." explains it all...this example from the AIM is actually incorrect ICAO phraseology. The correct ICAO readback is, of course, "Pilot: affirm, FOXTROT VICTOR LIMA CHARLIE".

So, I think the answer to my own question is that the AIM differs from ICAO. Presumably both are acceptable at Canadian airports, and international pilots will follow the ICAO phraseology. I guess Air Canada, Westjet, etc. tend to follow the ICAO phraseology rather than the AIM in order to be consistent (both when they are flying overseas, and also to be consistent with international traffic at Canadian airports).

I think it's probably acceptable to use either one at towered Canadian airports, although I'd prefer the ICAO myself.

[HHI]

Yes.

From para 5.9 of the COM section of the AIM.

Tower: FOXTROT VICTOR LIMA CHARLIE, CONFIRM YOU ARE AT FIVE THOUSAND.

Pilot: FOXTROT VICTOR LIMA CHARLIE, AFFIRMATIVE.

Here is a perfect example of what not to do. Standard phraseology is standard phraseology and it is what all pilots should be using. Standard phraseology does NOT mean disregard standard phraseology and instead invent your own phraseology. Making up your own personal way of speaking on the radio doesn't prevent accidents: it CAUSES them.

You had the opportunity to make the entirely appropriate point that thought should be put into what you say and on the radio and understanding what the regulations say and what is common practice is importance. Deviation from those should be done carefully and with a clear understanding of the potential confusion it could occur.

Instead of a constructive and measured comment you flamed me. What a great way to encourage civilized discourse on Avcanada. Well done Mr Moderator.

BTW don't bother replying as I have placed "Ahramin" on my ignore list, just like the other well known jerks on avcanada

SOP's are used as guidance by superior pilots and adhered to blindly by fools. Sort of applies here to minor variations of radio transmissions.

Call sign before or call sign after can be useful in many instances but in some instances one of them gets better results.

An iFR example: My F/O tried several times to "quickly" get a request for our IFR clearance in on clearance delivery frequency and was "stepped on" each time and not replied to. I suggested a slightly longer transmission and ending slowly with our (airline) call sign. He was the last one still talking and was the one the controller answered.

Operating overseas in a non-English-first-language environment, "PVG Center, CX888, request" is a great way to commence a radio exchange if a route or altitude change is desired.

I read far more than I post and know next to nothing about the personalities or background of either "Class I Instructor" or "ahramin" but suspect I would find working in the same crew easier for me with "ahramin".

HHI

[Class 1 Instructor]

BTW don't bother replying as I have placed "Ahramin" on my ignore list, just like the other well known jerks on avcanada.

Ahramin flys heavy jets and has probably forgot more than you know, we are close friends and you are a disgrace to aviation......

Quite frankly people like you are going to completely ruin what used to be a good aviation forum.

You don't know anything about me. I fly a heavy T prop on my day job and have significant flying experience outside of instruction. However I still enjoy teaching part time and think it is important for experienced pilots to pass on their knowledge.

I know a lot of young instructors read this forum and are hungry for practical useful information that gives them ideas and guidance. In aviation there is almost always more than one "right" answer to any question. A healthy debate that is done with posts that present a range of opinions in a non inflammatory way and more importantly explains the reason why a position is being advocated is what they want. Ahramin as a moderator should be setting an example......he did not and when I called him on it he obfuscated with an irrelevant aside.

So far in a few dozen posts I have posted more actual thoughts, ideas, and information than you have in your last 1000. You have a ton of experience and knowledge so instead of continually reminding us of what you have done and how much you charge why won't you pass on anything that generally falls in the category of " Do this and you will be a better instructor" ?

[photofly]

Don't be too hasty, class 1 - I think both you and Ahramin are correct.

Your example "Pilot: FOXTROT VICTOR LIMA CHARLIE, AFFIRMATIVE." explains it all...this example from the AIM is actually incorrect ICAO phraseology. The correct ICAO readback is, of course, "Pilot: affirm, FOXTROT VICTOR LIMA CHARLIE".

Um, no, I don't think so.

ICAO is for read backs only to be ended with the call sign, as per 2.8.3.7.

the example wasn't a read back, so AIM is correct in that respect. There are plenty of examples of responses (other than read backs) in Doc.9432 that begin with the aircraft call sign.

Here's one: (4.5.5)
G-CD Are you ready for immediate departure
G-CD Affirm

However AFFIRMATIVE is not ICAO phraseology, it should just be AFFIRM. So in that sense, AIM doesn't match ICAO. For what it's worth.

[Cat Driver]

BTW don't bother replying as I have placed "Ahramin" on my ignore list, just like the other well known jerks on avcanada

You come on Avcanada and have the audacity to call long time members jerks.

That tells us a whole lot about you.

We have run into your type quite often in the airline cockpit and those unfortunate enough to have to be in the same airplane as you can soon deflate your know it all attitude.

Class 1 huh?

[Beefitarian]

I'm trying to figure out how he read your post cat.

[photofly]

I'm actually trying to figure out why he read your post, Cat.

[Class 1 Instructor]

BTW don't bother replying as I have placed "Ahramin" on my ignore list, just like the other well known jerks on avcanada

You come on Avcanada and have the audacity to call long time members jerks.

That tells us a whole lot about you.

We have run into your type quite often in the airline cockpit and those unfortunate enough to have to be in the same airplane as you can soon deflate your know it all attitude.

Class 1 huh?

You are right I should have not called him a jerk. By doing so I did the same thing I complained about, that is failed to keep a polite and civilized dialog going where actual facts and information is exchanged, not juvenile insults.

The purpose of this forum as stated by the forum header is

"This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs".

I think there is plenty of room for improvement in Canadian flight instruction and avcanada which is widely read by the folks out there doing the job everyday is uniquely positioned to influence the practice of flight instruction. But to do that the "what" and the "how" of what constitutes good instruction has to be clearly laid out when you post an opinion.

Saying flight instruction is bad and today's instructors are incompetent without saying specifying exactly what they should be doing to make it better is IMO a copout.

You don't like what I post.... I say great. Explain why I am wrong and everybody gets to see a range of viewpoints and take away a bunch of things to think about.

[Cat Driver]

Hows it hangin beef?

Some of us have been using Avcanada as a part time communication, keep in touch with other aviators vehicle for a very long time and have seen a lot of posters like Class 1 come and go.

In the everyday world of flying he would be nothing more than a slight irritation that is quite easy to scratch.

Most of them like to get the chance to fly the airplane and I always let them fly all the straight and level hours.....

The really good ones got to do all the take offs and landings because I am long past wanting to do them.

[Beefitarian]

Too much snow not enough flying here.

[Cat Driver]

We have had quite a warm winter here on the island....

.....i may actually get the Cub finished this year, I have finally got back the desire to work on it.

.......will be heading back to Hemet California in a couple of weeks to break up the winter months.....

.......am going to get an automatic dish for my motorhome and set it up with an inverter so we can watch TV when we are not in RV parks.

Retirement is great, my only regret is I did not retire sooner.

[ahramin]

Lets just calm down here people. No need to jump up and down yelling "He said a bad word", I can handle being called a jerk.

It isn't pleasant being made an example of, especially when your heart it in the right place. The fact is that when it comes to radio work, listening to what others say and trying your best simply isn't good enough. The only solution is education and as our example has shown, even diligent class 1 instructors who have every intention of teaching proper radio work fail to do so because that education is not happening. Has anyone here ever been given a copy of Doc 9432 and All Clear from either a flight school or an operator?

My own airline harps on standard calls and phraseology at several places in the SOP, but you won't a single pilot there who follows the standard calls to the letter (including the guy who wrote them), and you won't find a single document on standard phraseology anywhere in our library. The Canadian Forces aren't covering this stuff in training, as a recent article in Flight Comment attested to. Transport Canada certainly doesn't care. Look at how pathetic the radio procedures section of the AIM is. As has been pointed out, there isn't a single example of how to readback a clearance, which would be why this has turned into a two page discussion. TC certainly isn't about to require operators or instructor candidates to start taking it seriously. The education simply isn't there.

So right now the only option for pilots whose sense of professionalism requires them to speak properly on the radio, is to search out this stuff for themselves, question everything they find on the internet (is it current? does it apply here?), and question everything they have been taught about radio work since day one.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think this is definitely the most serious problem
facing aviation in Canada right now.

The government should do something about this.

Perhaps a royal inquiry? I might suggest that all the
pilots involved in this discussion demand a meeting with
Stephen Harper and the Governor-General.

[trey kule]

OK, as we are discussing different viewpoints,,,I am an old deaf fart so cockpit phraseology goes like this...

ATC...garble garble whisper whisper..
Me...What did they say?
FO..Cleared for the approach altimeter 1023...and it is time you retired.
Me.. Whats wrong with our tires? Do we have a gear problem?....now where are those damn gear lights again..!!!!

folks ,I think what happens is we all get used to our own pharesology...Some companies have SOPs and they should be followed unless they conflict for some reason or another with the regulations or safety, and then they should be modified.
common sense tells us that communication is important so the odd little boo boo, if it does not affect the message is not the end of the world.
I alway say holding short runway..xxx for departure... Probably not necessary but I like to think it is a very clear message.

Stand by one is, or was an military phrse..You do not reply to it, at least in the military. But I have never heard that phrase from a civilian ATC type.

If there is one thing I find terribly annoying is the little game of lightning read backs.. Is there some standard out there that states you have to do a readback in no more than 2 seconds? It is all about communication......over...

BTW CS. it is not the pilots here that are the problem..It is those darn temporary foreign pilots coming over here to take our jobs and confuse us with IKO phraseology....You think they would just stick to selling furniture.

[CpnCrunch]

Um, no, I don't think so.

ICAO is for read backs only to be ended with the call sign, as per 2.8.3.7.

the example wasn't a read back, so AIM is correct in that respect. There are plenty of examples of responses (other than read backs) in Doc.9432 that begin with the aircraft call sign.

You could be right. I learned to fly in the UK, and there all responses to ATC are ended with the callsign, not just readbacks. I just checked my RT book and it confirms this. Normally the UK follows ICAO pretty closely, but perhaps they don't on this occasion.

[photofly]

Normally the UK follows ICAO pretty closely, but perhaps they don't on this occasion.

Strange, isn't it?

eg: CAP 413 Chapter 6 1.17.7.3
"G-CD, for co-ordination can you accept flight at altitude 1500 feet"
"Affirm, G-CD"

ICAO Doc.9432 (4.5.5)
"G-CD Are you ready for immediate departure"
"G-CD Affirm"

That G-CD chap is quite versatile!

[CpnCrunch]

Ok, so both Canada and UK are wrong.

[Class 1 Instructor]

There appears to be hardly any actual flight instructors who post on the "Flight Training" forum, I wonder why

[FlyGy]

Derrr? Maybe because flight training also includes students? Maybe because current pilots want to be aware and involved in what is happening in current training processes because these students will one day be their F/Os?

Ahhh, why do I bother responding, he has me ignored anyways.

[Cat Driver]

There appears to be hardly any actual flight instructors who post on the "Flight Training" forum, I wonder why

Maybe it is because regardless of what we post there will always be someone who knows better but they are not secure enough to come out from behind the security of anonymity?

[Class 1 Instructor]

There appears to be hardly any actual flight instructors who post on the "Flight Training" forum, I wonder why

Maybe it is because regardless of what we post there will always be someone who knows better but they are not secure enough to come out from behind the security of anonymity?

You were the guy who outed Big Pistons Forever just so you could "win" some trivial argument......and you wonder why nobody on this forum uses their real names.

[Cat Driver]

You are really reaching now, and quite frankly I am not going to be accused of outing anyone.

So either retract that accusation or show proof I outed Big Pistons on Avcanada.

You link proof or retract that accusation.

If you are going to play the game this way you have to back up something that serious.

I am waiting for proof of what you have posted.


By the way I use my real name because I have the self worth to be me and accept what ever people may think of what I post.

. ..

[Class 1 Instructor]

Well Big Pistons Forever seemed to think you outed him based on the post (which I think was removed) he made just before he checked out of Avcanada. In that post he said you used a real name. Is that not a true statement ?

[Cat Driver]

Listen Class 1' you have made a statement accusing me of outing someone here on a world wide read aviation forum.

It is up to you to back up such an accusation for the simple reason I do care about my own personal reputation in aviation because I worked a life time to build it.

I am waiting for you to show proof of what you alledge.

Or retract it because you don't really know what you are saying.