Departure contact phraseology: AIM vs. airline pilot

[Matt777]

This is the perfect forum to get an answer to this question.
For the initial call-up to departure I use (and teach my students to use) the correct phraseology from the AIM, like, " Seattle Departure, Diamond 123DC leaving one thousand one hundred, climbing to four thousand", but I know that airline pilots say, " Seattle Departure, Alaska 326 one point six for nine".

I will never use the word "for" since it could be confused with the number 4, but I would like to know how controllers feel about this phraseology.

Based on the AIM giving the standard it seems like a question with a simple black and white answer, but perhaps in high traffic environments the shorter, "one point six" instead of the AIM's "one thousand six hundred" is better for keeping the frequency uncongested.

Is there any need to say " leaving" since it is a given that upon intial call-up we are leaving that altitude that we announce at the begining- and it is followed immediately by " climbing to four thousand", making it even more obvious that the first altitude was the altitude leaving.

What do you guys think?
Should that AIM phraseology undergo a slight revision for our modern-day frequency congestion or is it exactly what you want us to say?

thanks!

[Dugie8]

Short and simple answer, no, use standard phraseology. Now the AIM does allow for brevity in cases of high raio traffic as long as the message is received and understood on both sides (Pilot and ATC). That being said, standard phrases get the point(s) across clear and with no question of the intent. Slang, while some if not a lot of it, has caught on, ie 1.6 = one thousand six hundred, it doesn't make it right, cool, or the hip thing to do, and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound like a seasoned aviator.

[EDUC8-or]

Originally Posted by Matt777

This is the perfect forum to get an answer to this question.
For the initial call-up to departure I use (and teach my students to use) the correct phraseology from the AIM, like, " Seattle Departure, Diamond 123DC leaving one thousand one hundred, climbing to four thousand", but I know that airline pilots say, " Seattle Departure, Alaska 326 one point six for nine".

I will never use the word "for" since it could be confused with the number 4, but I would like to know how controllers feel about this phraseology.

Based on the AIM giving the standard it seems like a question with a simple black and white answer, but perhaps in high traffic environments the shorter, "one point six" instead of the AIM's "one thousand six hundred" is better for keeping the frequency uncongested.

Is there any need to say " leaving" since it is a given that upon intial call-up we are leaving that altitude that we announce at the begining- and it is followed immediately by " climbing to four thousand", making it even more obvious that the first altitude was the altitude leaving.

What do you guys think?
Should that AIM phraseology undergo a slight revision for our modern-day frequency congestion or is it exactly what you want us to say?

thanks!

Just as for can get confused with four, to can be confused with two. I think the proper way would be "Diamond 123 one thousand two hundred, climbing four thousand."

[mnixon]

"Hey Jerky, we're here and we're still going up!" That's proper phraseology

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by mnixon

"Hey Jerky, we're here and we're still going up!" That's proper phraseology

I hear thats in the 2008 AIM....

But to answer, use the proper phraseology and nobody gets hurt

[Jason]

I'm not as 'standard' as I could be I guess but it goes both ways - I often hear things from ATC that aren't verbatim out of the AIM.

Jason

[seagull]

Originally Posted by Jason

I'm not as 'standard' as I could be I guess but it goes both ways - I often hear things from ATC that aren't verbatim out of the AIM.

Jason

I use the AIM technique, although I also always omit the words "to" and "for" for the reasons stated above. Just because ATC doesn't always do it right is not an excuse for you not to.

Of course, I'm a relatively inexperienced pilot....

[qflyer]

Originally Posted by seagull

I use the AIM technique, although I also always omit the words "to" and "for" for the reasons stated above. Just because ATC doesn't always do it right is not an excuse for you not to.

Straight out of the AIM:

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

EXAMPLE-
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).

There's no need to drop the "to" because it can't be confused for an altitude. Saying "climbing to five thousand" won't be confused for "two five thousand" because two five thousand doesn't exist - it's FL250. So, if you're dropping the "to," you're not exactly using the AIM technique

[Fox Xray]

For me I'm listening for two things... what altitude the A/C is leaving (my mode C verification) and what your assigned (climbing to) altitude is. I have heard some dumb things but 99% of what is said is fine.

You are definitely teaching good technique... to be honest I'm not 100% sure of what the "book" way is.

[PilotChip]

Keep in mind, even if everything's going smoothly and your aircraft is flying a perfect course, if something happens and incorrect phraseology was used, don't be surprised if the legal outcome is not fully in your favor...same thing goes for atc...

[EDUC8-or]

Originally Posted by qflyer

Straight out of the AIM:

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

EXAMPLE-
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).

There's no need to drop the "to" because it can't be confused for an altitude. Saying "climbing to five thousand" won't be confused for "two five thousand" because two five thousand doesn't exist - it's FL250. So, if you're dropping the "to," you're not exactly using the AIM technique

Unfortunately lots of guys up in the flight levels are the people guilty of using all that slang. If you drop "Flight Level" you could have something like "Shiny Jet 1234 one eight oh to two three oh." Now let's talk about out there in ICAO land where some people are speaking in broken English and you have some major corn-fusion.

[LarryinTN]

Why is this so difficult? Follow the AIM recomondation.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by qflyer

Straight out of the AIM:

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

EXAMPLE-
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).

There's no need to drop the "to" because it can't be confused for an altitude. Saying "climbing to five thousand" won't be confused for "two five thousand" because two five thousand doesn't exist - it's FL250. So, if you're dropping the "to," you're not exactly using the AIM technique

Well, you think that because your experience is based entirely on flying within the U.S. Some of us have spent a lot of our time flying outside the U.S., and teaching other pilots how to operate in a Worldwide environment. Using the "global" technique will not get you in trouble in the U.S., but using a "U.S." technique can VERY easily get you in trouble if you fly outside the U.S.

In other parts of the world, altitudes below transition (which can be as low as 3000') are often stated as each individual number, so 2700 would be "two seven zero zero". You may see how the words "for" and "to" could cause problems there!

Also, in the rest of the World, the word "level" is a short form of the word "FLIGHT level", so does NOT mean you're MAINTAINING an altitude. I have often heard U.S. pilots make idiots of themselves overseas.

I never use the word "level" to mean "maintaining", or "at" for that reason. U.S. controllers are not confused by my slightly altered technique (in fact, I doubt most even notice), but those habits can literally save your life outside the U.S.

On the topic, you also hear pilots saying something like "FL twenty four point seven" when passing through an altitude. Not sure where that comes from, as the word "point" should just be dropped, as it's totally incorrect anyway.

[qflyer]

Originally Posted by seagull

Well, you think that because your experience is based entirely on flying within the U.S. Some of us have spent a lot of our time flying outside the U.S., and teaching other pilots how to operate in a Worldwide environment. Using the "global" technique will not get you in trouble in the U.S., but using a "U.S." technique can VERY easily get you in trouble if you fly outside the U.S.

In other parts of the world, altitudes below transition (which can be as low as 3000') are often stated as each individual number, so 2700 would be "two seven zero zero". You may see how the words "for" and "to" could cause problems there!

Also, in the rest of the World, the word "level" is a short form of the word "FLIGHT level", so does NOT mean you're MAINTAINING an altitude. I have often heard U.S. pilots make idiots of themselves overseas.

I never use the word "level" to mean "maintaining", or "at" for that reason. U.S. controllers are not confused by my slightly altered technique (in fact, I doubt most even notice), but those habits can literally save your life outside the U.S.

On the topic, you also hear pilots saying something like "FL twenty four point seven" when passing through an altitude. Not sure where that comes from, as the word "point" should just be dropped, as it's totally incorrect anyway.

So, when you're flying in the US do you read altitudes as "two seven zero zero?" Do you reply to "position and hold" as "line up and wait" simply because that's how you do it in other countries? Hopefully you don't. So how do you justify using some "global technique" like omiting "to" and "level" but you don't use other "global" phraseology like "line up and wait."

Point is, the AIM is pretty precise on how we're supposed to say things. We all know there's a lot of slang in aviation and we've all used it at some point, but that doesn't mean I'm going to teach my students the non-standard phraseology so they can sound like the airline pilot who just called up with "ahh, delta 123 outta 1.7 up to 12."

[Matt777]

Originally Posted by LarryinTN

Why is this so difficult? Follow the AIM recomondation.

It isn't difficult, but since it takes longer to say,
" Seattle Departure, Diamond 123DC leaving one-thousand one hundred climbing to four thousand"
than it takes to say,
" Seattle Departure, Alaska 123 1 point 6 for nine"...

I was asking if controllers are really annoyed by the later version (like I am because of the word "for")... and what they think of a SLIGHTLY truncated version of the AIM recommendation .

I'm going to drop the word " leaving", resulting in,
" Seattle Departure, Diamond 123DC, one-thousand one hundred climbing to four thousand".


You will never hear me or my students use the words, " for ", "outta", "point", "with you" or "aaaahhhhhh".


So, it's not difficult. I was curious about the controller's thoughts on the subject... and found out.

And also started a big mess of a thread!


This is cool (and totally off topic) if you like cockpit footage of 747s landing at St. Maarten http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksmDuXO_k6E

[Rocketman99]

Originally Posted by qflyer

So, when you're flying in the US do you read altitudes as "two seven zero zero?" Do you reply to "position and hold" as "line up and wait" simply because that's how you do it in other countries? Hopefully you don't. So how do you justify using some "global technique" like omiting "to" and "level" but you don't use other "global" phraseology like "line up and wait."

Point is, the AIM is pretty precise on how we're supposed to say things. We all know there's a lot of slang in aviation and we've all used it at some point, but that doesn't mean I'm going to teach my students the non-standard phraseology so they can sound like the airline pilot who just called up with "ahh, delta 123 outta 1.7 up to 12."

Not quite the same thing. Using something that would be considered international phraseology is fine whereas using some random slang is not. The US participates in ICAO. The US does not participate in making things up in slang, well officially anyway.

One other thing, while the AIM may be "pretty precise" in many things, it is also not regulatory...

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

Not quite the same thing. Using something that would be considered international phraseology is fine whereas using some random slang is not. The US participates in ICAO. The US does not participate in making things up in slang, well officially anyway.

One other thing, while the AIM may be "pretty precise" in many things, it is also not regulatory...

Meh, grrrrr. The AIM itself may not be regulatory but the publications and such that the AIM is derived from are.

[Rocketman99]

True dat.

[Nick]

Instead of saying "for" and then the altitude I say "fer."

There's no way a controller could hear me say one thousand three hundred fer four thousand and think I'm saying anything but the word "for" but pronouncing it to rhyme with "fer."

[mikecweb]

Whatever you do just please for the love of god don't say "XXX Checkin in on board with ya at....."

Bad things if you do....

Very bad things.

[moxiepilot]

Originally Posted by EDUC8-or

I think the proper way would be "Diamond 123 one thousand two hundred, climbing four thousand."

that is what I teach.

i also hear the bigger tin use "one point five for six" I use it as an example to students as to what they hear on the radio but should not emulate

[atcsleepy]

Found this in AIM 5-3-1

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

EXAMPLE-
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).

NOTE-
Exact altitude or flight level means to the nearest 100 foot increment. Exact altitude or flight level reports on initial contact provide ATC with information required prior to using Mode C altitude information for separation purposes.

In the terminal environment (contacting departure) using this phraseology would work.

Departure, Cesna 123, leaving one thousand eight hundred, climbing to five thousand five hundred.
Departure, Southwest 123, leaving two thousand two hundred, climbing to flight level one eight zero.
Departure, United 123, leaving five thousand, climbing to one zero thousand.

With the correct phraseology, it makes you sound confident, professional, concise and removes all ambiguity.

[canadian_atc]

You will never have a controller get mad for you using correct phraseology

In fact I really appreciate it.

The "Big Tin" guys who slang around a lot are usually the medium guys I find... RJ's and 737's.

I work in airspace that handles both those guys, and that North Atlantic pilots, whom are considered to be the most professional in the world.

I don't like to paint with a broad brush and there are always exceptions but
Listen to a British Airways 747 pilot sometime, always excellent radio comms, polite and to the point.

The American airlines are just as good for the most part, but you won't often here a Brit pilot responding to a ride request with : "Smooth as a mashed potatah' sandwich"