ATC phraseology

[Hardy Heinlin]

PS: very often the controllers give instruction for climb or descent rates.
eg: climb level 170 with 1500 or more until out of 120

would be nice for PSX  :mrgreen:

Vertical speeds are not in the voice library, but in the CPDLC model.

("with 1500" sounds like a german translation?)


Thanks!

|-|ardy


Should the omission of the decimal also be random controlled? World-wide?

[Avi]

Should the omission of the decimal also be random controlled? World-wide?

The question is what do you want to simulate: the (ATC) User Manual or the (Human) real behavior?

The fact that an ATC guy says what he says and how he says it doesn't mean it does it as he should be.

Cheers,

[Hardy Heinlin]

I want to simulate the correct standards.

Is the omission of the decimal correct or wrong?


Cheers,

|-|ardy


I'm currently running a test with random omissions. I must say it sounds unnatural when the same ATC person speaks the decimal now and omits it in the next instruction, and then again normal, then the omission ... Sounds like an error in the model rather than human behaviour. I could link the random with a specific minute or hour :-) But this is all nonsense. I think I'll remove the random omission.

[Avi]

Maybe it should be random by ATC person.

[John Golin]

One ATC would, I expect, pretty much always do it the same way when talking about a specific change - e.g.

- "Contact tower 12035"

I've also heard pretty much every variation possible listening to live ATC streams:

- "Contact tower 2035" (or "contact tower twenty thirty five")
- "Contact tower 120 point 35"
- "Contact tower 120 decimal 35"
- "Contact tower point 35" (where the frequency they are changing from is already 120.x)

AFAIK, the full frequency and decimal should always be spoken.  But it isn't.

ICAO quick guide is http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/115.pdf

Not sure where the US one is - noone seems to pay much attention to it anyway, see the thread in Rumours & News on PPRuNe

[John Golin]

..and ICAO's recent phrasology study...

which contains another variant:

"USA: total lack of standardisation, eg "change one twenty five five":
is that 120.55 or 125.5"

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1746.pdf

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I think about the only way to implement per-human variability (including the "goodbye" phrase which is almost a signature) is to throw a dice at first controller contact. During the whole controller session, i.e., until the next frequency change, the model stays constant.


Hoppie

[Hardy Heinlin]

Nah, I keep that decimal/point. PSX should refer to standards unless a malfunction occurs. ATC speech malfunctions are not modelled :-)

It would be too confusing for students.


|-|

[Mandjare]

Yes, I agree with you Hardy...thats a good point of view.

André

[Peter Lang]

...
Is the omission of the decimal correct or wrong?

...

I'm currently running a test with random omissions. I must say it sounds unnatural when the same ATC person speaks the decimal now and omits it in the next instruction, and then again normal, then the omission ... Sounds like an error in the model rather than human behaviour. I could link the random with a specific minute or hour :-) But this is all nonsense. I think I'll remove the random omission.

Hi Hardy,

I cannot say if it is 100% correct acc. to the standards. I only can say what I heard:

A random omission of decimal is used in real life and it is also used by the same controller. This probably depends on the airline and / or the articulation of the crew and on the workload of the controller.

("with 1500" sounds like a german translation?)

Uuhhh...

the correct way would be: [callsign] cleared / climb flight level xxx, climb rate xxxx feet per minute or more until passing flight level xxx

although this variant is very rare to be heard. But I will check the next time. Perhaps the "with" is also omitted :-)

Peter

[Hardy Heinlin]

Hi all,

another question: Speedbird 737, Springbok 747 ... are such call sign idents (737, 747) allowed?

380, 340 or 1011 are probably not as ear-catching as 7...7 numbers. But if those are allowed, the 7...7 numbers are certainly allowed as well.

In the USA I once had a "N" call sign with a 172 ident number. Coincidentally, the aircraft was a C172 :-) The initial call always sounded a bit confusing, like an inadvertent misspelling, i.e. like an inadvertent repetition of "172". ***

I'm asking because my Voice-ATC random generator sometimes spits out a 7...7 call sign ident.

On the ground there may occur an instruction like "Follow taxiway A behind Qantas 747". In that case, the 747 is the aircraft type, not the call sign ident.


Cheers,

|-|ardy


*** Another nice problem (happened to myself): "Tower, we fly in formation with N789F" ... "Information what?" ... "In formation" ... "Information?" ... "We are two aircraft, formation-flying" ...

[DavidP]

If it's any help I do know that Qantas offer a YMML - YPPH flight with call sign "Qantas 777":

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA777

Rgds
David

[Hardy Heinlin]

Thank you, that answers the question.


Regards,

|-|ardy