How to say goodbye to ATC
Michael Brown
good response to ATC saying:
"cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
I usually fumble around, and say one of the following:
"85a, good day" (Does ATC know that I know to switch the xpndr&radio?)
"switching, good day" (ditto. What am I switching?)
"85a" (yeah, I'll do what you said)
"ok bye" (ok, I don't really use this)
"squawking vfr, 85a good day" (Is this a waste of radio air time to let
everyone know that I'm squawking vfr?)
So what do you all use? I suppose it doesn't matter if you are IFR or
VFR, how do YOU say goodbye to ATC? In the whole realm of things, this
isn't a big concern. I'm just curious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Brown mbr...@lilly.com
Eli Lilly & Company Indianapolis, IN
PP-ASEL-I - based at HFY, Greenwood, IN Ham - KG9DW
Tom Jackson
> I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
> good response to ATC saying:
>
> "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
>
> I usually fumble around, and say one of the following:
Down here in the South, I usually say:
"Aztec 8SB, Thanks for your help, have a good evening!" (substitute
appropriate time of day)
Of course the ATC guys in Augusta are some of the friendliest, most
helpful, and courteous in the country, so I want to say nice things. In
addition, we are not a terribly busy airspace, so we have time for a
little courtesy.
I usually say "132.95, Thank you, Aztec 8SB." for frequency changes when
IFR, unless the frequency is extremely congested.
I find a lot of grumpy controllers in Indiana airspace. I don't think it
is because they are that busy. NY is much busier, and they don't act as
grumpy. Neighboring Chicago Center is frequently populated by bears
(football wannabes? :-)) that are even grumpier. Is it something about
the Midwest that causes this? Winter?
Maybe more expressions of courtesy from pilots in your part of the country
would cheer up ATC and diminish the level of grumpiness?
--
Tom Jackson Medical College of Georgia
Aztec N888SB Geriatric Service
DNL Augusta, GA 30912
Sanford J. Asman
>
> I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
> good response to ATC saying:
>
> "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
>
> I usually fumble around, and say one of the following:
>
> "switching, good day" (ditto. What am I switching?)
> "85a" (yeah, I'll do what you said)
> "ok bye" (ok, I don't really use this)
> "squawking vfr, 85a good day" (Is this a waste of radio air time to let
> everyone know that I'm squawking vfr?)
>
> So what do you all use? I suppose it doesn't matter if you are IFR or
> VFR, how do YOU say goodbye to ATC? In the whole realm of things, this
> isn't a big concern. I'm just curious.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Michael Brown mbr...@lilly.com
> Eli Lilly & Company Indianapolis, IN
When ATC tells you "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved", they
are (typiclly) responding to an IFR flight in which the pilot has just transmitted a
request to cancel IFR. As the flight then becomes one under visual flight rules, ATC is
advising you that you should switch from your assigned XPDR squawk to 1200 (VFR squawk).
Also, as a VFR flight you are no longer obligated (out of specifically controlled
airspace) to maintain contact with ATC, and ATC is no longer obligated to provide
traffic avoidance information to you, so they are approving a (communications) frequency
change. The typical scenario for the specific ATC communication which you received, is
a flight conducted under IFR to an uncontrolled field which is in VFR conditions. ATC
is (1) acknowledging your IFR cancellation; (2) instructing you to switch XPDR codes;
and (3) permitting you to change frequencies -- generally to the local Unicom frequency.
The appropriate response to ATC is, "Wilco, 9SA". This tells ATC that you will comply
with the XPDR change, which was the only instruction which they gave you. My typical
response requests additional flight following. Accordingly, I typically respond,
"Wilco, 9SA. I am going over to Unicom, but I will continue to monitor your frequency
for additional traffic information." The switch to 1200 will be observed by ATC on
their scopes, and I believe that they will continue to show your tail number on the
scope, even after the change. Usually, when you cancel IFR, you will receive, as part
of the final transmission from ATC, a report of any traffic in your area.
Sandy
Rod Galloway
> I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
> good response to ATC saying:
>
> "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
>
I would suggest roger, wilco, out.
--
Rod Galloway
ca...@freenet.carleton.ca
Steve Brecher
> I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
> good response to ATC saying:
>
> "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
>
> I usually fumble around, and say one of the following:
>
> "85a, good day" (Does ATC know that I know to switch the xpndr&radio?)
> "switching, good day" (ditto. What am I switching?)
> "85a" (yeah, I'll do what you said)
> "ok bye" (ok, I don't really use this)
> "squawking vfr, 85a good day" (Is this a waste of radio air time to let
> everyone know that I'm squawking vfr?)
>
> So what do you all use? I suppose it doesn't matter if you are IFR or
> VFR, how do YOU say goodbye to ATC? In the whole realm of things, this
> isn't a big concern. I'm just curious.
This happens to be an aspect of aviation in which I have special
expertise. I am one of the few pilots west of the Rockies to have earned
the coveted "ATC termination airplane" rating on my certificate.
I say, "So long one two mike." If I've received any particularly helpful
or unusual service I say "So long thanks for the help one two mike."
If my home-base departure control is the facility -- in which case the
"cancellation received" would be replaced by "radar service terminated" --
and I'm returning within a few hours, I might say "see ya later one two
mike." If the TRACON controller ends his transmission with "Have a good
flight, Steve!" (which happens occasionally -- Reno is not Los Angeles nor
New York), I will prepend "Thanks!" to my reply.
Note: it is extremely impolite to say what I do if your tail number
doesn't end in "12M."
--
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
William and Gina Sherrard
>
>Of course the ATC guys in Augusta are some of the friendliest, most
>helpful, and courteous in the country, so I want to say nice things. In
>addition, we are not a terribly busy airspace, so we have time for a
>little courtesy.
>I find a lot of grumpy controllers in Indiana airspace. I don't think it
>is because they are that busy. NY is much busier, and they don't act as
>grumpy. Neighboring Chicago Center is frequently populated by bears
>(football wannabes? :-)) that are even grumpier. Is it something about
>the Midwest that causes this? Winter?
>
>Maybe more expressions of courtesy from pilots in your part of the country
>would cheer up ATC and diminish the level of grumpiness?
Ya'll come on down here to Texas and we'll treat you right at Ft.Worth
Center.
Howard G. Page
> I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
> good response to ATC saying:
>
> "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
>
How 'bout:
"50D, sqawking a dozen, see ya'"
Howard G. Page hp...@netcom.com 415-548-1902
---->> http://madaket.netwizards.net/vtail/ <<-----
"Now I've been to one world fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that's the
stupidest thing I've heard come over a set of earphones."
-- Major T.J. "King" Kong
--
Howard G. Page hp...@netcom.com 415-548-1902
---->> http://madaket.netwizards.net/vtail/ <<-----
"Now I've been to one world fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that's the
stupidest thing I've heard come over a set of earphones."
-- Major T.J. "King" Kong
John M. Price
>I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
>good response to ATC saying:
>
>"cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
>
[snip]
I usually use a variation of this approach:
>"squawking vfr, 85a good day" (Is this a waste of radio air time to let
>everyone know that I'm squawking vfr?)
>
Lets the ATC know I've received the instruction and am complying. My
instructor taught me to always give ATC back enough to let them know
I understood the message.
John
J.Kushner
> Accordingly, I typically respond, "Wilco, 9SA. I am going over to
> Unicom, but I will continue to monitor your frequency for additional
> traffic information." The switch to 1200 will be observed by ATC on
> their scopes, and I believe that they will continue to show your tail
> number on the scope, even after the change. Usually, when you cancel
> IFR, you will receive, as part of the final transmission from ATC, a
> report of any traffic in your area.
>
> Sandy
The way our scopes (and most other facility's) are set up, when/if you
squawk 1200 you are simply one of many VFRs, and the computer tag that
was assigned to you jumps from one aircraft to another, since the
computer doesn't know any longer which 1200 you are. When I receive an
airborne IFR cancellation (the very best kind!), I specifically suggest:
"frequency change to advisory approved". If the a/c wishes to remain
with me for traffic (and I have no problem with this), then I leave
him/her on the IFR code, or give them a local VFR code, so that the
computer will continue to track the aircraft. Of course, I do expect the
pilot to tell me when he is leaving my frequency for advisory frequency
-- little is more frustrating, especially when busy, than calling and
calling an a/c who is no longer there!
Janice
Klaus P Kraemer
<san...@atl.mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
>The appropriate response to ATC is, "Wilco, 9SA". This tells ATC that
you will comply
>with the XPDR change, which was the only instruction which they gave
you. My typical
typically respond,
>"Wilco, 9SA. I am going over to Unicom, but I will continue to
monitor your frequency
>for additional traffic information." The switch to 1200 will be
observed by ATC on
>their scopes, and I believe that they will continue to show your tail
number on the
>scope, even after the change. Usually, when you cancel IFR, you will
receive, as part
>of the final transmission from ATC, a report of any traffic in your
area.
>
>Sandy
call sign is included. So why not use your call sign alone, and that's
it?
What "additional flight following do you expect after ATC's Good Bye?
Plus, if you DO follow the instruction to squawk 1200, there is no way
for ATC to identify you (as in being a specific, individual aircraft).
You're not suggesting NOT to follow the instruction to squawk VFR, are
you?
Karl A. Usher
> their scopes, and I believe that they will continue to show your tail number on the
> scope, even after the change.
No it won't. Once you switch to 1200, ATC's radar (secondary) cannot tell the difference between
you sqawking 1200 or any other airplane on 1200.
--
Karl A. Usher
mailto:kau...@together.net
----------------------------------->>>> Never Look Away!
http://users.aol.com/kausher
------------------------------>>>> Come take a look!!!!
DRol...@connect.com
>
> Michael Brown wrote:
> >
> > I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
> > good response to ATC saying:
> >
> > "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
> >
> When ATC tells you "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved", they
> are (typiclly) responding to an IFR flight in which the pilot has just transmitted a
> request to cancel IFR. As the flight then becomes one under visual flight rules, ATC is
> advising you that you should switch from your assigned XPDR squawk to 1200 (VFR squawk).
> Also, as a VFR flight you are no longer obligated (out of specifically controlled
> airspace) to maintain contact with ATC, and ATC is no longer obligated to provide
> traffic avoidance information to you, so they are approving a (communications) frequency
> change. The typical scenario for the specific ATC communication which you received, is
> a flight conducted under IFR to an uncontrolled field which is in VFR conditions. ATC
> is (1) acknowledging your IFR cancellation; (2) instructing you to switch XPDR codes;
> and (3) permitting you to change frequencies -- generally to the local Unicom frequency.
>
> The appropriate response to ATC is, "Wilco, 9SA". This tells ATC that you will comply
> with the XPDR change, which was the only instruction which they gave you. My typical
> response requests additional flight following. Accordingly, I typically respond,
> "Wilco, 9SA. I am going over to Unicom, but I will continue to monitor your frequency
> for additional traffic information." The switch to 1200 will be observed by ATC on
> their scopes, and I believe that they will continue to show your tail number on the
> scope, even after the change. Usually, when you cancel IFR, you will receive, as part
> of the final transmission from ATC, a report of any traffic in your area.
>
> Sandy
If I tell someone to squawk 1200 after they cancel IFR, it is because I can
no longer provide flight following, due to radar coverage or some such thing.
Personally, if a flight cancels, I offer flight following before I give the
1200 code. The data block will only remain on the scope if the controller
does not cancel it. However, they likely WILL cancel it because a) without
the assigned code, it will not track the 1200 code and go into coast track
and b) if they assign 1200, they are no longer takeing any responsibility for
the flight and the data block just "clutters" the scope.
If you are not near your destination when you cancel IFR, just request
VFR flight following in the same transmission as the cancellation. If we
can't due to radar or radio coverage, we'll let ya know!!
As to the original query, I like the "Wilco" response since it conveys the
understanding of the transmission and that you will do it. Unless the
controller is up to their "neck" in alligators, a pleasant "Good Evening!" is
more than welcome, too!!
Pleasant Flights!!
Dan Rollins Seattle ARTCC Traffic Management Unit
Daniel_Roll...@admin.tc.faa.gov
Standard Disclaimer...Personal views - maybe the FAAs and maybe not!!
Dan Auslander
>I've been flying for a little over a year and I have not yet found a
>good response to ATC saying:
>"cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
I usually use "1200 and (appropriate freq. here), (short N number)
ex:
"1200 and 122.7, 58B"
or, if the freq isn't too busy, I'll add in a "thanks for your help" or
similar before the callsign. It's quick, polite, and lets them know that you
got the entire message.
Dan Auslander
Private Pilot, ASEL-IA
Email: dau...@bgnet.bgsu.edu
WWW: http://pizza.bgsu.edu/~dauslan/main.htm
Ade Barkah
: As to the original query, I like the "Wilco" response since it
: conveys the understanding of the transmission and that you will
: do it. ...
What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
AIM glossary.
Thanks,
-Ade
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Inet: mba...@hemi.com - HEMISPHERE ONLINE - www: <http://hemi.com/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Brodsky
"Will Comply"
Jake Brodsky <fru...@erols.com> Cardinal N30946
"Beware of the massive impossible!"
ArcherGuy
>
> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
> AIM glossary.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ade
My guess - and this is only a guess - possibly 'Will Comply'?
Frank
William Joseph Levenson
>
> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
> AIM glossary.
WILL COMPLY
--- --
RICHARD CARMICHAEL
-> good response to ATC saying:
->
-> "cancellation received, squawk 1200, frequency change approved."
How about "85 Alpha, 1200, thanks, good day"
Short, sweet, and acknowledges transponder squawk change.
If ATC isn't too busy I usually tell 'em "thanks for your
assistance"...never hurts to be nice to ATC. You may need them to be
nice to you someday.
---
This message originated from: ---------- Selective Source BBS
------- Virginia Beach, Virginia
----- (804) 471 6776
Wwplummer
fmil...@swarthmore.edu (ArcherGuy) writes:
>> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
>> AIM glossary
Yes it is. In the Pilot/Controller Glossary. --Bill
_________________________________________________________________________
Wm W. Plummer, 7 Country Club D., Chelmsford MA 01824 508-256-9570
PP-ASEL,G
Hank Eilts
(Regarding Air Traffic Control grumpiness)
>Ya'll come on down here to Texas and we'll treat you right at Ft.Worth
>Center.
He is correct. Same goes for the Dallas Tracon.
I've never been treated poorly by these folks.
Hank eilts
ei...@ti.com
Dallas, TX
Roland Douglas King
UK CAP413 publication. Don't know about the US though.
Roland
Ade Barkah (mba...@hemi.com) wrote:
: DRol...@connect.com wrote:
:
: : As to the original query, I like the "Wilco" response since it
: : conveys the understanding of the transmission and that you will
: : do it. ...
:
: What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
: AIM glossary.
kelly_mcmullen
>Yes it is. In the Pilot/Controller Glossary. --Bill
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Wm W. Plummer, 7 Country Club D., Chelmsford MA 01824 508-256-9570
>PP-ASEL,G
For those who are too lazy to look it up, the essence is that you received
and *understood* the transmission, and will comply with it.
For most busy frequencies radio air time is the one commodity ATC can't buy
enough of, so short sweet responses are the best. Personally, I like 12Z Wilco, Adios.
If is is slow and the controller has been helpful or done something extra,
a thanks is always welcome. Just keep in mind you have to judge how busy
the controller is from tone of voice and other factors besides the traffic
on your frequencies, since sectors are frequently combined and military
are on UHF. If they want you to know they are busy they will select all
their freqencies simultaneously and you will hear ATC's side of all transmissions.
Chris and Judy Matras
backwards to help. It is not uncommon to hear, "Yall come back anytime", or "Got time
for a question? (About Aircraft, destination, etc). It is also very comforting to hear
a familiar voice when you are shooting a approach to mins, knowing the type of service
you will get.
Petri T Suominen
Michael Brown wrote:
>
> So what do you all use? I suppose it doesn't matter if you are IFR or
> VFR, how do YOU say goodbye to ATC? In the whole realm of things, this
> isn't a big concern. I'm just curious.
Here in Europe we have a habit of saying goodbye in the native
language of the controller. So for a Swede I'd say <readback> Adjo,
for a German <readback> Auf Wiedersehen and for
EFES ACC <readback> Son moro (as they are located in Tampere ;-) )
Readback would of course take place in English.
Also when we contact a new controller, we start in the
native language of the controllor like "Berlin Control,
Guten Tag <your reg here>" to which he would reply
"Guten Tag <again your reg here> radar contact"
I don't know why there is a habit like this, but
most pilots from ATPs to PPs do it like this.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri Suominen Helsinki Finland R178 10.9 NM HEL VOR
<petri.s...@jackpot.clinet.fi> / Home
<SUOMINEN_PETRI/CAS...@delta.hq.ray.fi> check out http://www.casino.ray.fi
* jackpot.clinet.fi is powered by Linux, the choice of a GNU generation *
Gary Dixon
In article <4liak3$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, wwpl...@aol.com says...
>
>In article <fmilews1-220...@archer.swarthmore.edu>,
>fmil...@swarthmore.edu (ArcherGuy) writes:
>
>>> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
>>> AIM glossary
>Yes it is. In the Pilot/Controller Glossary. --Bill
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Wm W. Plummer, 7 Country Club D., Chelmsford MA 01824 508-256-9570
>PP-ASEL,G
It means "will comply" as opposed to Roger which means "I understand" but does
not necessarily mean that you will comply.
Gary
Mark Foster
Thanks to the Eugene Oregon (Cascade) Tracon for the consistant good
service in a training area.
Eduardo A. Ezberger
Ade Barkah wrote:
>
> DRol...@connect.com wrote:
>
> : As to the original query, I like the "Wilco" response since it
> : conveys the understanding of the transmission and that you will
> : do it. ...
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ade
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Inet: mba...@hemi.com - HEMISPHERE ONLINE - www: <http://hemi.com/>
WILCO = Means for sure - WILL COMPLY .
See You! From Brazil - Rio
1
Sledge Hammer!
>>>> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
>>Yes it is. In the Pilot/Controller Glossary. --Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>It means "will comply" as opposed to Roger which means "I understand" but
does
>not necessarily mean that you will comply.
>
>Gary
>
According to the Pilot/Controller glossary, WILCO means "I have received your
message, understand it, and will comply with it."
Now my question: How bout "Tallyho" ?? Is that just a British version of
"Roger" or "Wilco"??
-Hank
Andy Silverman
> Now my question: How bout "Tallyho" ?? Is that just a British version
of
> "Roger" or "Wilco"??
Tally-ho is an accepted way of informing the controller that you have
visual contact with traffic previously called out by the controller.
Gregory R. TRAVIS
"Tally-ho" is a good way to piss off a couple of controllers I know.
"Traffic in sight" is the accepted and AIM-certified phrase.
greg
Bill Caefer
In article <4nc0bo$160...@news.hooked.net>,
rene...@hooked.net (Sledge Hammer!) wrote:
>>>>> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
>>>>> AIM glossary
>>>Yes it is. In the Pilot/Controller Glossary. --Bill
>>
>>
>>It means "will comply" as opposed to Roger which means "I understand" but
>>does not necessarily mean that you will comply.
>>
>>Gary
>>
>According to the Pilot/Controller glossary, WILCO means "I have received your
>message, understand it, and will comply with it."
>
>"Roger" or "Wilco"??
>
It is neither of these... it means you have your traffic in sight.
Larry Doering
In article <4nd4nt$n...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Bill Caefer <bca...@primenet.com> wrote:
>In article <4nc0bo$160...@news.hooked.net>,
> rene...@hooked.net (Sledge Hammer!) wrote:
>>>>>> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
>>>>>> AIM glossary
>>>>Yes it is. In the Pilot/Controller Glossary. --Bill
>>>It means "will comply" as opposed to Roger which means "I understand" but
>>>does not necessarily mean that you will comply.
>>>
>>According to the Pilot/Controller glossary, WILCO means "I have received your
>>message, understand it, and will comply with it."
>>
>>Now my question: How bout "Tallyho" ?? Is that just a British version of
>>"Roger" or "Wilco"??
>>
>>-Hank
>
>It is neither of these... it means you have your traffic in sight.
'Tallyho' is a British fox-hunting expression - it means you have
the fox in sight, and (presumably) are closing in for the kill.
As an aviation term, it dates back at least to the Battle of
Britain, when RAF pilots used it as a radio call to indicate
they had spotted enemy aircraft and were attacking.
As such, I can understand why controllers might prefer 'Traffic
in sight' to 'Tallyho'. Of course, if you were planning to
attack the Cessna turning final you're number 2 behind, 'Tallyho'
would be appropriate.
ljd
Glenn Hamilton
gr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) wrote:
>"Tally-ho" is a good way to piss off a couple of controllers I know.
>"Traffic in sight" is the accepted and AIM-certified phrase.
>
>greg
>
>
I know very few controllers that are so ANAL as to get "pissed-off" by
the use of a single, non-standard, commonly used phrase. Where do
these uptight individuals work?
Just curious,
Glenn Hamilton
ZAB ARTCC
CPR
On Wed, 15 May 96 07:16:08 GMT, rene...@hooked.net (Sledge Hammer!) wrote
in rec.aviation.ifr:
> According to the Pilot/Controller glossary, WILCO means "I have received your
> message, understand it, and will comply with it."
>
> Now my question: How bout "Tallyho" ?? Is that just a British version of
> "Roger" or "Wilco"??
Neither. It means "I have the aircraft in sight." The military over here
uses "contact" with the same meaning.
---
Chris Rasley <http://www.mi.net/dialin/cpr> Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
High-Enroute ATC (CZQM), PP-ASEL
Cliff Peschansky
Sledge Hammer! (rene...@hooked.net) wrote:
: Now my question: How bout "Tallyho" ?? Is that just a British version of
: "Roger" or "Wilco"??
Tallyho is used to report traffic in sight.
Example:
ATC: "Traffic one o'clock, three miles, opposite direction, 3000 feet."
Pilot: "Tallyho."
Or, if the traffic is not in sight, "No joy."
Neither of these is standard phraseology, but they are both heard often.
I don't know where they started, though. I believe they come from the
military.
Cliff
ATCS@ISP
Wwplummer
In article <4nfetc$2...@linet06.li.net>, cli...@newshost.li.net (Cliff
Peschansky) writes:
>Or, if the traffic is not in sight, "No joy."
Military pilots use this in reference to opposing forces. It is in
appropriate for civilian aviation and is not part of the Pilot/Controller
glossary. --Bill
brian whatcott
In article <greg.832181024@silver>, gr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu says...
>
///
>
>"Tally-ho" is a good way to piss off a couple of controllers I know.
>"Traffic in sight" is the accepted and AIM-certified phrase.
>
>greg
>
>
Tally-ho is a fox-hunting term for fox in sight.
An acceptable affectation among a precious few, long ago.
Not now.
Brian
Wwplummer
In article <319b4bf3....@news.nmia.com>, gee...@nmia.com (Glenn
Hamilton) writes:
>I know very few controllers that are so ANAL as to get "pissed-off" by
>the use of a single, non-standard, commonly used phrase.
Name calling does not add credibility to your view, it only makes you look
bad.
Adopting a standard vocabularity has an advantage in high noise situations
and on congested channels -- it increases intelligibilty since listeners
know what words to expect. There is a sort of "rap" that goes on that you
don't have to consciously listen to every word of, but when something of
concern comes up, you instictively pay attention. If pilots were just
using casual jargon, you would have to listen much more carefully and it
would detract from other activities. --Bill
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>In article <319b4bf3....@news.nmia.com>, gee...@nmia.com (Glenn
>Hamilton) writes:
>>I know very few controllers that are so ANAL as to get "pissed-off" by
>>the use of a single, non-standard, commonly used phrase.
>Name calling does not add credibility to your view, it only makes you look
>bad.
>Adopting a standard vocabularity has an advantage in high noise situations
>and on congested channels -- it increases intelligibilty since listeners
>know what words to expect. There is a sort of "rap" that goes on that you
>don't have to consciously listen to every word of, but when something of
>concern comes up, you instictively pay attention. If pilots were just
>using casual jargon, you would have to listen much more carefully and it
>would detract from other activities. --Bill
And "Tally Ho," aside from being terribly precious, can sound a whole lot
like "I don't know" on a noisy radio.
greg in "Now if we can just get rid of 'with you'" mode...
Max
On 17 May 1996 01:15:22 -0400, wwpl...@aol.com (Wwplummer) wrote:
>>I know very few controllers that are so ANAL as to get "pissed-off" by
>>the use of a single, non-standard, commonly used phrase.
>
>Name calling does not add credibility to your view, it only makes you look
>bad.
Uhhh, who was he calling names? Jeez, lighten up. He's right. At the
facility where I work (Grand Forks Approach, ND) I've never heard ANYONE who was
miffed in the slightest by pilot use of either "tallyho" or "no joy." We know
what they mean, the pilot knows what it means, and in a real busy period, I'd
rather get "1ND, Tallyho," than "Roger, Approach, N131ND has the traffic in
sight at our 1 o'clock." So it's not in the glossary. There's lots of things
in everyday use that aren't in the glossary as well.
A call of "Tallyho" certainly may elicit a few snickers in the IFR room,
but nobody's going to call anyone onto the carpet about it.
Digger (digr) <4th Fighter Group>
Squadron Homepage at http://www.cris.com/~no6/4thFG.htm
Everything in excess! Moderation is for monks. -- RAH
pr...@tasco-waterworks.com
In Article<4nc0bo$160...@news.hooked.net>, <rene...@hooked.net> write:
> Path: news.smart.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!news.hooked.net!renegade
> From: rene...@hooked.net (Sledge Hammer!)
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
> Subject: Re: How to say goodbye to ATC
> Date: Wed, 15 May 96 07:16:08 GMT
> Organization: Sailor Moon Awareness Network
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID: <4nc0bo$160...@news.hooked.net>
> References: <fmilews1-220...@archer.swarthmore.edu> <4liak3$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4ltc8e$e...@ralph.vnet.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: chum-26.ppp.hooked.net
> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
>
> >>>> What exactly does "Wilco" mean, anyway ? I don't think it's in the
> >>>> AIM glossary
> >>Yes it is. In the Pilot/Controller Glossary. --Bill
> >>
> >>
>
> >
> >
> >It means "will comply" as opposed to Roger which means "I understand" but
> does
> >not necessarily mean that you will comply.
> >
> >Gary
> >
> According to the Pilot/Controller glossary, WILCO means "I have received
your
> message, understand it, and will comply with it."
>
> Now my question: How bout "Tallyho" ?? Is that just a British version of
> "Roger" or "Wilco"??
>
> -Hank
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++
hey you all,
does it really matter what is said as long as the controller gets the jest of
your transmission?
Let's face it, we are all closet fighter pilots and if "non AIM" jargon will
help us live our dreams so be it.
Tom S
Bob Moore
pr...@tasco-waterworks.com wrote:
>
> hey you all,
> does it really matter what is said as long as the controller gets the jest of
> your transmission?
YES IT MATTERS !!! AND A LOT
Bob Moore
ATP B-707/B-727
CFIA CFII
USN/PAA (RET)
Max
On Sat, 18 May 1996 10:07:15 -0400, Bob Moore <bobm...@wwd.net> wrote:
>pr...@tasco-waterworks.com wrote:
>>
>> hey you all,
>> does it really matter what is said as long as the controller gets the jest of
>> your transmission?
>
>YES IT MATTERS !!! AND A LOT
I assumed that this relatively innocent question would merit this type of
response. In most cases, I'd agree with you as to the relative merits of
standard VS. non-standard phraseology. However, in the case of "tallyho" and
"no joy," which will only be used by a pilot and mean very specific things, any
rated controller knows exactly what they mean. I have no problem at all with
pilots using these two terms myself, though they generally generate chuckles in
the RAPCON when used by a low-hour student pilot... :)
To answer the original question, yes, it does matter. Standardized phraseology
is developed, published, and used by all involved because it limits the chances
that misunderstandings, scratchy communications, technical failures, and etc.,
will result in an airplane ending up occupying the same airspace as some other
form of matter such as a mountain or a 747.
Steve Watt -- KD6GGD
In article <319e8709...@news.nodak.edu>
ri...@blizzard.gaffaneys.com (Max) writes:
[ many leadins deleted ]
>To answer the original question, yes, it does matter. Standardized phraseology
>is developed, published, and used by all involved because it limits the chances
>that misunderstandings, scratchy communications, technical failures, and etc.,
>will result in an airplane ending up occupying the same airspace as some other
>form of matter such as a mountain or a 747.
Apologies for the divergent thread, but I found this one too good to let
go. <HUFFY>Do you mean to imply that a 747 is not an airplane?</HUFFY>
I mean, you did say that it's some other form of matter than an airplane,
right?
:)
Back to the thread -- I'm a relatively low time pilot (250hrs, still feels
like less) and whenever I've caught myself (or my instructor) using non-
standard phraseology over the radio, I've felt embarassed; it makes us
flibs look even less professional.
On the other hand, I *have* heard professional flight crews use "with you",
and I know that drives some of the Bay TRACON folks nuts.
--
Steve Watt KD6GGD PP-ASEL Packet: KD6GGD @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
ICBM: 121W 56' 53.1" / 37N 20' 16.7" Internet: Home: {root,steve}@Watt.COM
Free time? There's no such thing. It just comes in varying prices...
walk...@ppp58.pensacola.com
> >>Now my question: How bout "Tallyho" ?? Is that just a British version of
> >>"Roger" or "Wilco"??
> >>
> >>-Hank
> >
> >It is neither of these... it means you have your traffic in sight.
>
> 'Tallyho' is a British fox-hunting expression - it means you have
> the fox in sight, and (presumably) are closing in for the kill.
> As an aviation term, it dates back at least to the Battle of
> Britain, when RAF pilots used it as a radio call to indicate
> they had spotted enemy aircraft and were attacking.
>
> As such, I can understand why controllers might prefer 'Traffic
> in sight' to 'Tallyho'. Of course, if you were planning to
> attack the Cessna turning final you're number 2 behind, 'Tallyho'
> would be appropriate.
>
> ljd
I'm currently in navigator training for the USAF (hanging out at
NAS Pensacola because the Navy now does basic navigator training),
and accoring to my, "Student Guide to Voice Communications," the
terminology we are to use for "I have vidual contact with other
traffic" is Tally. Under "No joy" they have listed "Unable to
contact ATC on a particular frequency" as in "DEPARTURE, TURBO 32,
no joy on 327.0."
Before anyone gets on my case about the tactical meanings of Tally
and No Joy, I know what the tactical sense means. This is, however,
straight from the official Navy pub for student Naval aviators.
Just my two cents on the topic.
S.D. Gahring
Peter Cassidy
Gregory R. TRAVIS wrote:
> greg in "Now if we can just get rid of 'with you'" mode...
OK, what's the problem with 'with you'? I fly around the vicinity
of Vancouver BC and everybody is 'with' everything: 'with the traffic',
'with the information', 'with you on freq <foo>'.
Peter
Bob Moore
> >> hey you all,
> >> does it really matter what is said as long as the controller gets the jest of
> >> your transmission?
> >
> >YES IT MATTERS !!! AND A LOT
> To answer the original question, yes, it does matter. Standardized phraseology
> is developed, published, and used by all involved because it limits the chances
> that misunderstandings, scratchy communications, technical failures, and etc.,
> will result in an airplane ending up occupying the same airspace as some other
> form of matter such as a mountain or a 747.
Thanks Max--
Non-standard and misunderstood ATC communications resulted in commercial
aviation's greatest disaster. Tenerif--between KLM and PAA.
Max
On Sun, 19 May 96 04:27:35 GMT, st...@Watt.COM (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD) wrote:
>Apologies for the divergent thread, but I found this one too good to let
>go. <HUFFY>Do you mean to imply that a 747 is not an airplane?</HUFFY>
>I mean, you did say that it's some other form of matter than an airplane,
>right?
Ummmm, not my intention to slander any 747 pilots with the "other form of
matter" tag... <G> Actually, that was my intention. So there.
>On the other hand, I *have* heard professional flight crews use "with you",
>and I know that drives some of the Bay TRACON folks nuts.
This one is common enough in our airspace that no one even notices it
anymore. We're listening for three things in an initial callup: callsign,
altitude, and ATIS code. The rest of the filler just blows by me without even
registering... That is, unless it contains a request or something. But "Good
Evening, Grand Forks Approach, NWA836 is with you descending through 14 thousand
for 11 thousand with information Alpha" comes through to me exactly the same as
"Grand Forks Approach, NWA836, 11 thousand, Alpha." The rest is just filler...
:)
Max
On Sun, 19 May 96 15:15:05 PDT, walk...@ppp58.pensacola.com wrote:
>I'm currently in navigator training for the USAF (hanging out at
>NAS Pensacola because the Navy now does basic navigator training),
>and accoring to my, "Student Guide to Voice Communications," the
>terminology we are to use for "I have vidual contact with other
>traffic" is Tally. Under "No joy" they have listed "Unable to
>contact ATC on a particular frequency" as in "DEPARTURE, TURBO 32,
>no joy on 327.0."
Huh. Well, I guess there's no accounting for the Navy...
<GD&R>
John Glowacki
ri...@blizzard.gaffaneys.com (Max) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 May 96 04:27:35 GMT, st...@Watt.COM (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD) wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, I *have* heard professional flight crews use "with you",
>>and I know that drives some of the Bay TRACON folks nuts.
>
>
I vividly remember my CFI introducing the "with you" termonology during
my privite piolt training. This was used while making the initial
contact with FSS when the transmit frequency was different than the
receive frequency. It was to let FSS know which frequency I was
listening on.
I hope I'm not missing the point?
KELLY A. MCMULLEN
gr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) wrote:
>"Tally-ho" is a good way to piss off a couple of controllers I know.
>"Traffic in sight" is the accepted and AIM-certified phrase.
>
>greg
>
>
I know very few controllers that are so ANAL as to get "pissed-off" by
the use of a single, non-standard, commonly used phrase. Where do
these uptight individuals work?
Just curious,
Glenn Hamilton
ZAB ARTCC
Glenn--I have to agree with you. As I stated in another post, when I
worked in ATC I found the approved AIM phraseology anal at best since
one pop of static could change the meaning of the transmission 100%.
I always viewed pilots that used Tallyho and NoJoy as professionals
and I still use that terminology in my flying.
--
Kelly A. McMullen Phoenix, AZ mcmu...@aztec.asu.edu
David Doggart
ri...@blizzard.gaffaneys.com (Max) wrote:
>"Good Evening, Grand Forks Approach, NWA836 is with you descending through 14 thousand
>for 11 thousand with information Alpha" comes through to me exactly the same as
>"Grand Forks Approach, NWA836, 11 thousand, Alpha." The rest is just filler...
I read the first call to say that the Aircraft is presently at 14,000
feet, currently in descent to 11,000. To me the second version implies
that the aircraft is holding steady at 11,000 feet - Isn't there a
3000 foot hole that you haven't accounted for...
Cheers,
Dave.
KELLY A. MCMULLEN
Tallyho is in no way a British version of roger or wilco. It means
I see the traffic you pointed out, and is much less likely to be
misunderstood that the official"Traffic in sight" or "Traffic not
in sight"(what if the "not" gets stepped on?) The antonym of
Tallyho is "No Joy". I beleive the military still actively uses
these terms, and any experienced ATC type understands them.
AliceGj
>Tallyho is in no way a British version of roger or wilco. It means
>I see the traffic you pointed out, and is much less likely to be
>misunderstood that the official"Traffic in sight" or "Traffic not
>in sight"(what if the "not" gets stepped on?) The antonym of
>Tallyho is "No Joy". I beleive the military still actively uses
>these terms, and any experienced ATC type understands them.
The accepted phrase for telling a controller that you do not see the
reported traffic is "Negative contact" and NOT "Traffic not in sight".
I feel that "tallyho" and "no joy" are cutesey jargon and really shouldn't
be used. Aviation communication has done pretty well in maintaining
standard phraseology and avoiding the chaos of citizen's band radio
communication. I hope it stays that way.
Alice
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>Tallyho is in no way a British version of roger or wilco. It means
>I see the traffic you pointed out, and is much less likely to be
>misunderstood that the official"Traffic in sight" or "Traffic not
>in sight"(what if the "not" gets stepped on?) The antonym of
>Tallyho is "No Joy". I beleive the military still actively uses
>these terms, and any experienced ATC type understands them.
The offical terms are "Traffic in sight" and "Negative Contact." Not
"Traffic not in sight."
greg
srec...@execpc.com
st...@Watt.COM (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD) wrote:
>On the other hand, I *have* heard professional flight crews use "with you",
>and I know that drives some of the Bay TRACON folks nuts.
I, too, have heard that "with you" is an irritant to some folks. But,
when given a frequency change, what is the proper, or, at least,
acceptable, way to let ATC know you're there?
Steve Reckner
KELLY A. MCMULLEN
I'm all for the use of standard phraseology. However, there are
a few "approved" phrases that are just plain dangerous. The pair
of "traffic in sight" and "traffic not in sight" is one of the
worst examples. One pop of static or one stepped on transmission
changes the meaning of the phrases 180 degrees--there should be
two totally different phrases to express this information. In
23 years of flying and 5 years as an approach controller, I have
never heard anything more clear than tallyho and no joy. They
are brief, to the point, and can never be misunderstood for one
another. Same reason I don't like the military contact and no
contact. Professionals find ways to express the information
in less time with less ambiguity and most controllers I know
appreciate it, since radio time is perhaps their most precious
commodity.
Ron Natalie
KELLY A. MCMULLEN wrote:
>
> I'm all for the use of standard phraseology. However, there are
> a few "approved" phrases that are just plain dangerous. The pair
> of "traffic in sight" and "traffic not in sight" is one of the
> worst examples.
It's not an example at all. The words are "Traffic in sight" and
"Negative Contact"
-Ron
John Stephens
A simple "mytype-12345, level 7000" or equivalent is sufficient. It is
also permissable to add "checking in" after the call sign to emphasize
that this is an initial callup after a handoff, and no more is intended.
"With You" seems to generate hot debate, but I have never heard a
controller object to it, or be confused by it.
My practice is to use: "skyhawk-12345, checking in, level 6000", or
whatever altitude. If climbing/descending, than present altitude,
vertical direction, and destination altitude are expected.
-John-
Roy Smith
> I, too, have heard that "with you" is an irritant to some folks. But,
> when given a frequency change, what is the proper, or, at least,
> acceptable, way to let ATC know you're there?
"New York Approach, Arrow 3875T, level 5000"
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Ron Natalie
What makes "checking in" any different than "with you"
Except in the case of screw-ups (happens occasionally) the controller
*KNOWS* you've been handed off. He's had to already have acknowledged
that with the previous controller.
-Ron
KELLY A. MCMULLEN
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
>-Ron
Which is just as bad. You will agree that the antonym of each phrase is
commonly used, approved or not, and therefore the controller can receive
a partial transmission that means the opposite of what was intended.
The meaning of Tallyho and Nojoy is never ambiguous, because no one
uses an opposite to them. Both are briefer and more explicit, and
therefore better than the "approved" phraseology. Sorry, just a pet
peeve from my days on the other side of the radio as a radar controller.
KELLY A. MCMULLEN
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
-Ron
Not necessarily true. Handoffs are frequently handled by either the
coordinator or data man if the radar man is busy, and you likely will
call before the target is pointed out. On the other hand, it never
made any difference to me whether the pilot said "checking in" or
"with you" it implied that you were already in the system, and not a
pop-up. Facilities that handle few pop-ups may be annoyed by the
extra air time, but for those that have lots of pop-ups, it is a quick
signal to the controller that if he doesn't know who you are, that he
should and will look to his assistant to see if there is a new handoff.
Listen to center and busy approach facilities, and I believe you will
hear both phrases with equal frequency by all levels of pilots.
Steve Brecher
In <1996May19.0...@Watt.COM>, st...@Watt.COM (Steve Watt --
KD6GGD) wrote:
> On the other hand, I *have* heard professional flight crews use "with you",
> and I know that drives some of the Bay TRACON folks nuts.
There's nothing wrong with "with you" when it is intended to mean "I have
transferred to your frequency as instructed by another controller who is
using the same radar as you are; my transponder output has previously been
verified at your facility; I assume you have accepted the hand-off; I have
no other useful information to convey."
If you are conveying any other information, then "with you" is superfluous
and a waste of radio time, albeit a minor one.
On an *initial* contact with a facility "with you" is at best misleading
and I guess such usage is what irritates the Bay folk. "Bay Approach,
Cessna 12345 is with you two miles northwest of South County" as initial
information would certainly be an irritation. In addition to the
incorrect "with you" -- if "with you" is unexpected news to the
controller, it's incorrect -- the call omits altitude and intentions.
--
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Steve Brecher
mcmu...@aztec.asu.edu (KELLY A. MCMULLEN) wrote:
> I'm all for the use of standard phraseology. However, there are
> a few "approved" phrases that are just plain dangerous. The pair
> of "traffic in sight" and "traffic not in sight" is one of the
> worst examples.
I don't find "traffic not in sight" in the AIM. "Traffic in sight" and
"negative contact" are in the Pilot-Controller Glossary.
If I have spotted the traffic and this is my first response to the traffic
advisory I say "in sight"; if it is a subsequent call I say "traffic in
sight." Otherwise I say "looking" -- which is also not in the AIM.
--
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
brian whatcott
In article <NEWTNews.83254448...@ppp58.pensacola.com>,
walk...@ppp58.pensacola.com says...
>///
>I'm currently in navigator training for the USAF (hanging out at
>NAS Pensacola because the Navy now does basic navigator training),
>and accoring to my, "Student Guide to Voice Communications," the
>terminology we are to use for "I have vidual contact with other
>traffic" is Tally. Under "No joy" they have listed "Unable to
>contact ATC on a particular frequency" as in "DEPARTURE, TURBO 32,
>no joy on 327.0."
>
Is there no limit to the gags the Navy pulls on unsuspecting USAF crews? :)
Brian
John M. Godwin
In <steve-21059...@brecher.reno.nv.us>, st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher) writes:
[snipped for brevity]
>On an *initial* contact with a facility "with you" is at best misleading
>and I guess such usage is what irritates the Bay folk. "Bay Approach,
>Cessna 12345 is with you two miles northwest of South County" as initial
>information would certainly be an irritation. In addition to the
>incorrect "with you" -- if "with you" is unexpected news to the
>controller, it's incorrect -- the call omits altitude and intentions.
Another one that I don't quite understand is "inbound for landing". I
guess more misuse of IFR talk.
John Godwin
John M. Godwin
In <4nsoad$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ali...@aol.com (AliceGj) writes:
[snipped for brevity]
>The accepted phrase for telling a controller that you do not see the
>reported traffic is "Negative contact" and NOT "Traffic not in sight".
>
>I feel that "tallyho" and "no joy" are cutesey jargon and really shouldn't
>be used. Aviation communication has done pretty well in maintaining
>standard phraseology and avoiding the chaos of citizen's band radio
>communication. I hope it stays that way.
Me too! I usually add "please keep me advised" if the controller is not
providing separation services.
John Godwin
Max
Jeez, picky picky picky. OK, change the second example above to "Grand
Forks Approach, NWA836, 14 thousand for 11 thousand, Alpha."
Happy? :)
J.Masino/T.Larson
Steve Brecher (st...@brecher.reno.nv.us) wrote:
: There's nothing wrong with "with you" when it is intended to mean "I have
: transferred to your frequency as instructed by another controller who is
: using the same radar as you are; my transponder output has previously been
: verified at your facility; I assume you have accepted the hand-off; I have
: no other useful information to convey."
There's nothing wrong with it except that the FAA now "prefers" that you omit
it in just the case you describe.
-- Jay
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Jay Masino and Teresa Larson `67 Piper Cherokee _/
_/ digital H/W design Database Design N4269J _/
_/ systems engineering Sybase and Oracle RDBMS __!__ _/
_/ UNIX and network admin UNIX and VAX _____(_)_____ _/
_/ C programming C programming ! ! ! _/
_/ Visit our homepage... http://www2.ari.net:80/home3/jmasino/ _/
_/ jma...@ari.net tla...@ari.net jay-n-...@ari.net _/
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Wwplummer
In article <31A20B...@sensor.com>, Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
writes:
>It's not an example at all. The words are "Traffic in sight" and
>"Negative Contact"
According to the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary, "Negative Contact" means
either that you are not talking to the other plane or that you are not
touching that plane.
Let's try "traffic in sight" and "looking for traffic". --Bill
_________________________________________________________________________
Wm W. Plummer, 7 Country Club D., Chelmsford MA 01824 508-256-9570
PP-ASEL,G
Wwplummer
>It's not an example at all. The words are "Traffic in sight" and
>"Negative Contact"
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Wwplummer
In article <greg.832695003@silver>, gr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory
R. TRAVIS) writes:
>In <4nsk5b$6...@news.asu.edu> mcmu...@aztec.asu.edu (KELLY A. MCMULLEN)
>writes:
> The antonym of
>>Tallyho is "No Joy". I beleive the military still actively uses
>>these terms, and any experienced ATC type understands them.
"Tally [ho]" and "No Joy" are indeed listed in MCH 11-A/OA-10 attachment 2
and in MCM 3-1 vol I, attachment 1. The former roughly how to fly A-10
("warthog") missions.
Except for the attachment, the latter is classified and I have never seen
it. The attachments are "brevity terms" that may be used by military
pilots.
Civilian flying is different. There is a different set of terms to use
and these are in the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary. Also, I doubt that
any of your planes have that fine GAU-8 cannon that fires 65 30mm rounds a
second! --Bill
Steve Watt -- KD6GGD
In article <4nsqjg$g...@daily-planet.execpc.com> srec...@execpc.com writes:
>st...@Watt.COM (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD) wrote:
>>On the other hand, I *have* heard professional flight crews use "with you",
>>and I know that drives some of the Bay TRACON folks nuts.
>
>when given a frequency change, what is the proper, or, at least,
>acceptable, way to let ATC know you're there?
What I use (and they prefer) is "Cessna 5336D, Level 5000" (or if on radar
vectors through the handoff "Cessna 5336D, level 5000, 060").
It gives a nice verification of mode C output to the next controller, too.
--
Steve Watt KD6GGD PP-ASEL Packet: KD6GGD @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
ICBM: 121W 56' 53.1" / 37N 20' 16.7" Internet: Home: {root,steve}@Watt.COM
Free time? There's no such thing. It just comes in varying prices...
Richard R Uren~a
My news server seems to have lost half of this
thread, so my apologies if this has been brought up
before:
The only time I use "with you", is when I'm told
"N12345, switch to MY FREQUENCY, 125.9" (emphasis added).
In other words, I will be talking to the same controller
on a different frequency. He/she already has me in
radar and has verified my mode C, etc. so all I need
to do is let him know I'm on the new frequency:
"Boston Center, N12345 with you on 125.9".
On the other hand if I'm being handed off by a different
controller, I'll say "Boston Center, N12345 level at 6000".
Roy Smith
god...@netgate.net (John Godwin) wrote:
> Another one that I don't quite understand is "inbound for landing".
Makes sense to me. It means you're intending to land, as opposed to just
transitioning their airspace, or even on some sort of training mission,
where you'll be doing a low approach and going missed, touch and go, etc.
John Prickett
In article <4nsk5b$6...@news.asu.edu>,
KELLY A. MCMULLEN <mcmu...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>
>Tallyho is in no way a British version of roger or wilco. It means
>I see the traffic you pointed out, and is much less likely to be
^^^^^^^^^^^
>in sight"(what if the "not" gets stepped on?) The antonym of
>Tallyho is "No Joy". I beleive the military still actively uses
>these terms, and any experienced ATC type understands them.
actually, this isn't a problem, because the correct phraseology
is "negative contact" instead of "traffic not in sight". these
phrases are different enough ("traffic in sight" and "negative
contact") to preclude problems by partial transmission blocking,
and was done presumably by design just to avoid this problem.
john
--
'this place is full of yahoos' -- jonathon swift
john.p...@amd.com
Andrew Boyd
Max <ri...@blizzard.gaffaneys.com> wrote:
>
> Jeez, picky picky picky.
welcome to the 'net, home of pedants everywhere :>
>change the second example above to "Grand Forks Approach, NWA836,
>14 thousand for 11 thousand, Alpha."
>
> Happy? :)
actually, no. I don't like the use of "for" or "to" in my radio
calls. A better call might be:
Grand Forks Approach, NWA836, one four thousand
descending one one thousand
note the use of "one four" instead of "fourteen" and "one one"
instead of "eleven".
we all know about the 10K vs 11K "human factors" problem.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
Andrew Boyd
Richard R Uren~a <ur...@asimov.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
> let him know I'm on [his] new frequency:
>"Boston Center, N12345 with you on 125.9".
I never say "checking in" or "with you". In
this case, I would say:
Boston Center, N12345, 25.9
conserves bandwidth. In the case of a handoff to
a different controller, I would simply say:
Boston Center, N12345, 6000
since radar and mode C is the norm, announcing your
altitude is as good as saying "with you", "checking
in", or "your wife was great in bed last night" :>
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
Peter Luthaus
John M. Godwin (god...@netgate.net) wrote:
:
: Another one that I don't quite understand is "inbound for landing". I
: guess more misuse of IFR talk.
Maybe not misuse of IFR talk but different procedures in different
countries.
E.g. in Australia one reports 'inbound' when arriving VFR at a
destination with CTR and in Germany one says 'for landing'.
So 'inbound for landing' is just a combination of the two.
Ron Natalie
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> god...@netgate.net (John Godwin) wrote:
> > Another one that I don't quite understand is "inbound for landing".
>
> transitioning their airspace, or even on some sort of training mission,
> where you'll be doing a low approach and going missed, touch and go, etc.
I think he was talking about the "inbound" being redundant with
"landing."
Actually, when calling approach for VFR entry into the Class B, I use
the
phrase "Landing Dulles" (no "inbound for") as it clarifies which of the
five airports inside (and a dozen or so underlying) the Class B.
Michael L. Murphy
In article <4nulvq$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> wwpl...@aol.com (Wwplummer) writes:
>In article <31A20B...@sensor.com>, Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
>writes:
>
>>It's not an example at all. The words are "Traffic in sight" and
>>"Negative Contact"
>
>either that you are not talking to the other plane or that you are not
>touching that plane.
Huh? Not touching that plane? What Pilot/Controller Glossary are
you reading from? If you had read the Pilot/Controller Glossary
that everyone else is using, you would see this:
----------
NEGATIVE CONTACT
Used by pilots to inform ATC that:
1. Previously issued traffic is not in sight. It may be followed
by the pilot's request for the controller to provide assistance
in avoiding the traffic.
2. They were unable to contact ATC on a particular frequency.
----------
TRAFFIC IN SIGHT
Used by pilots to inform a controller that previously issued traffic
is in sight.
(See NEGATIVE CONTACT).
(See TRAFFIC ADVISORIES).
----------
>Let's try "traffic in sight" and "looking for traffic". --Bill
No, if you want to be correct, let's try approved phraseology.
"Looking for traffic" is not is the Pilot/Controller Glossary.
If you want to be incorrect, use anything you damn well please, "no
joy" or "looking" or "sorry, I don't see the other plane". But expect
confusion when the controller and other pilots misunderstand, or can't
understand, what you are saying.
I admit that there are some times when plain English must be used
instead of the limited standard phraseology. But when a controller
needs to know if you have the traffic in sight that he issued, this is
*not* one of those times. There are only two possible answers and
the correct phraseology for both is clearly spelled out in the AIM
and the Glossary. Why are we even continuing to argue about this?
This issue is answered in black and white.
--
+=And=the=Master=said=unto=the=silence,="In=the=path=of=our=happiness=shall=+
\ we find the learning for which we have chosen this lifetime." - R. Bach /
+=send=e-mail=to=<mur...@math.uiuc.edu>=====================================+
Ron Natalie
Boston Center, N12345, 6000
since radar and mode C is the norm, announcing your
altitude is as good as saying "with you", "checking
in", or "your wife was great in bed last night" :>
I was told that the new facility must confirm the pilots
actual altitude with the Mode C readout.
-Ron
KELLY A. MCMULLEN
Ok, so we now all agree as to what the AIM says is the standard
phraseology. However, pilots being what they are, many frequently
use phrases such as "traffic not in sight" "contact" and "Please
keep me advised of the traffic". How can we get the standard
phaseology changed to something that doesn't conflict with the
above "non-standard" phrases, to increase positive communication
with less words. Some obviously feel that TallyHo and NoJoy are
cutesy, but I have not heard any suggestions of something better
that conveys the entire message in less words. Remember that
radio air time is overly congested already. Asking a controller
to keep you advised is like asking him/her if they will do their
job. NoJoy or the proper negative contact says the samething.
Remember that there are also similar phrases that in this day
and age of impolite and inexperienced pilots stepping all over
others can cause confusion. Such as an IFR pilot reports
the airport in sight for a visual approach, just after traffic
has been pointed out to someone else. Controller hears "
squeeel ...in sight" What information has been transmitted??
All I'm trying to say is there are items in the standard phrases
that can and should improved.
Peter Duniho
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
>
>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> god...@netgate.net (John Godwin) wrote:
>> > Another one that I don't quite understand is "inbound for landing".
>>
>> Makes sense to me. It means you're intending to land, as opposed to just
>> transitioning their airspace, or even on some sort of training mission,
>> where you'll be doing a low approach and going missed, touch and go, etc.
>
>I think he was talking about the "inbound" being redundant with
>"landing."
The point still stands, however. Lots of practice instrument
approaches end with a missed approach, and not a landing. Likewise,
if I'm inbound for "touch & goes" I say so. Yes, that implies a
landing, but "landing" by itself generally implies a full-stop.
So, "inbound for landing" is a perfectly good phrase to use on initial
callup.
-------------------
Peter Duniho N1404Y, Lake Renegade
pe...@microsoft.com "Blessed are the cracked, PP-ASEL&S-IR
Redmond, WA for they shall let in the light." -- J.C.
AliceGj
>I, too, have heard that "with you" is an irritant to some folks. But,
>when given a frequency change, what is the proper, or, at least,
>acceptable, way to let ATC know you're there?
On a frequency change, say: <facility name>, <aircraft ID> <altitude>, eg:
Oakland Center, Centurion 4565W at flight level 210. It's all the
information
they need and no more.
Alice
Larry Stone
In article <roy-220596...@mchip8.med.nyu.edu>,
r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote:
>god...@netgate.net (John Godwin) wrote:
>> Another one that I don't quite understand is "inbound for landing".
>
>Makes sense to me. It means you're intending to land, as opposed to just
>transitioning their airspace, or even on some sort of training mission,
>where you'll be doing a low approach and going missed, touch and go, etc.
In the old days (pre-alphabet airspace), the regs for operation in an
airport traffic area said something like "unless otherwise authorized by
ATC, no person shall operate an aircraft in an airport traffic area except
for the purpose of arriving at or departing from that airport". So given
that, if you called ATC to enter the ATA, you'd better be "inbound for
landing" unless you requested otherwise.
Even today though, "inbound" should be suficient to tell ATC what you're
doing. Given a busy frequency, I cut out out all the filler words and give
a brisk "San Carlos, Cherokee 8166B, Crystal Springs, Inbound, India".
Since it's in the standard order (who I'm calling, who I am, where I am,
what I want, and the ATIS), there's no need for the filler words and I can
cut my transmission time in half.
--
-- Larry Stone --- lst...@interserve.com
Belmont, CA, USA
My opinions, not United's.
Max
On Wed, 22 May 96 13:15:19 GMT, ab...@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) wrote:
>> Jeez, picky picky picky.
>
>welcome to the 'net, home of pedants everywhere :>
Hooo, boy, and you're one to talk, aren't ya? See below.
>actually, no. I don't like the use of "for" or "to" in my radio
>calls. A better call might be:
>
> Grand Forks Approach, NWA836, one four thousand
> descending one one thousand
>
>note the use of "one four" instead of "fourteen" and "one one"
>instead of "eleven".
Now this is really getting dorky. Do I not sound like I know what I'm
doing? Just wondering, because I just assumed that anyone in this group would
understand that 14 thousand "reads" as "ONE FOUR THOUSAND." If I were a
complete tyro, I could understand your concern over my shorthand, but JEEZ.
Give it a rest.
<AG>
Digger (digr) <4th Fighter Group>
Squadron page at http://www.cris.com/~no6/4thFG.htm
TANSTAAFL! -- RAH
Stan March
ab...@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) wrote:
>
>Richard R Uren~a <ur...@asimov.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>
>> let him know I'm on [his] new frequency:
>>"Boston Center, N12345 with you on 125.9".
>
>I never say "checking in" or "with you". In
>this case, I would say:
>
> Boston Center, N12345, 25.9
>
>conserves bandwidth. In the case of a handoff to
>a different controller, I would simply say:
>
>
>since radar and mode C is the norm, announcing your
>altitude is as good as saying "with you", "checking
>in", or "your wife was great in bed last night" :>
So what would you say to a lady controller? <G>
>
>--
>#include <std.disclaimer>
Ron Natalie
Actually, they've done a study on the confusion on altitudes as
1-1-thousand.
You'll find that the recommendcation is to use both the "spelled" out
(one-one)
and the teen numbers (eleven).
-Ron
KELLY A. MCMULLEN
Peter Duniho wrote
<snip>
>I think he was talking about the "inbound" being redundant with
>"landing."
:approaches end with a missed approach, and not a landing. Likewise,
:if I'm inbound for "touch & goes" I say so. Yes, that implies a
:landing, but "landing" by itself generally implies a full-stop.
:So, "inbound for landing" is a perfectly good phrase to use on initial
:callup.
"inbound for" adds nothing, unless perhaps you are procedure turn or holding t
pattern turn inbound on approach. The word "landing" says it all for
the controller. Lets shed the excess verbage.
Edward Zager
In article <319c54ae...@news.nodak.edu>, ri...@blizzard.gaffaneys.com (Max) writes:
|> On 17 May 1996 01:15:22 -0400, wwpl...@aol.com (Wwplummer) wrote:
|>
|> >>I know very few controllers that are so ANAL as to get "pissed-off" by
|> >>the use of a single, non-standard, commonly used phrase.
|> >
|> >Name calling does not add credibility to your view, it only makes you look
|> >bad.
|>
|> Uhhh, who was he calling names? Jeez, lighten up. He's right. At the
|> facility where I work (Grand Forks Approach, ND) I've never heard ANYONE who was
|> miffed in the slightest by pilot use of either "tallyho" or "no joy." We know
|> what they mean, the pilot knows what it means, and in a real busy period, I'd
|> rather get "1ND, Tallyho," than "Roger, Approach, N131ND has the traffic in
|> sight at our 1 o'clock." So it's not in the glossary. There's lots of things
|> in everyday use that aren't in the glossary as well.
|> A call of "Tallyho" certainly may elicit a few snickers in the IFR room,
|> but nobody's going to call anyone onto the carpet about it.
|>
|> Digger (digr) <4th Fighter Group>
|> Everything in excess! Moderation is for monks. -- RAH
But wouldn't you like to just get a "1ND, Contact" or "1ND, Traffic in sight"
Edward Zager
RICHARD CARMICHAEL
-> > of "traffic in sight" and "traffic not in sight" is one of the >
-> worst examples.
How about "Aztec 7PA...looking" or "...has traffic"
Short, sweet and says it all.
---
This message originated from: ---------- Selective Source BBS
------- Virginia Beach, Virginia
----- (804) 471 6776
Roy Smith
st...@Watt.COM (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD) wrote:
> What I use (and they prefer) is "Cessna 5336D, Level 5000" (or if on radar
> vectors through the handoff "Cessna 5336D, level 5000, 060").
I was taught that when you're handed off while on a vector, or some other
temporary restriction, to say something like this:
New York approach, Cessna 64088, 5000, assigned heading 060. That makes
it clear that there's some restriction the previous controller gave you,
as opposed to some heading you just happen to be on because it's where you
want to be going.
Ron Natalie
In the old days (pre-alphabet airspace), the regs for operation in an
airport traffic area said something like "unless otherwise authorized
by
ATC, no person shall operate an aircraft in an airport traffic area
except
for the purpose of arriving at or departing from that airport".
Nope, it never said that. It required communications to operate to or
from the primary airport or to transit the airspace. Note that if you
landed at a non-towered field inside the ATA you didn't have to talk
to them.
-Ron
John M. Godwin
In <lstone-2205...@port19.apapaa.interserve.com>, lst...@interserve.com (Larry Stone) writes:
[snipped for brevity]
>In the old days (pre-alphabet airspace), the regs for operation in an
>airport traffic area said something like "unless otherwise authorized by
>ATC, no person shall operate an aircraft in an airport traffic area except
>that, if you called ATC to enter the ATA, you'd better be "inbound for
>landing" unless you requested otherwise.
Not true. Maybe was said in an NPRM but not a reg.
>Even today though, "inbound" should be suficient to tell ATC what you're
>doing. Given a busy frequency, I cut out out all the filler words and give
>a brisk "San Carlos, Cherokee 8166B, Crystal Springs, Inbound, India".
>Since it's in the standard order (who I'm calling, who I am, where I am,
>what I want, and the ATIS), there's no need for the filler words and I can
>cut my transmission time in half.
The basic transmission contains (1)Facility Name, (2)your aircraft number,
(3)your position, (4)your intentions, (5)other pertinent information.
"inbound" ain't an intention nor position; in your case, replace "inbound"
with "landing". If you don't say "inbound for landing" may the controller
assume you're OUTBOUND for landing? :-) ... "inbound" is superfluous.
Actually, correct usage is when you're describing your flight path with
respect to a fix (normally FAF) ... "outbound" to procedure turn/maneuver
or "inbound" for approach.
John Godwin
Wwplummer
In article <4nvhlq$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mur...@nihal.math.uiuc.edu
(Michael L. Murphy) writes:
>>According to the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary, "Negative Contact" means
>>either that you are not talking to the other plane or that you are not
>>touching that plane.
Mea Culpa! The AIM prior to 1995 did not list "Negative Contact", only
"Negative" and "Contact" with the later referring to physical contact or
communications contact. The 1995 edition changed! "Negative Contact" is
listed and "Contact" means either Comm contact or "2. a flight condition
wherein the pilot ascertains the attitude of his aircraft and navigates by
visual reference TO THE SURFACE" !!
So we have the curious situation where you can't get the meaning of a
phrase by looking up the two words that make it up! But, TRAFFIC IN
SIGHT references NEGATIVE CONTACT!
But what is really embarrassing is that my favorite LOOKING FOR TRAFFIC is
not listed!
I am afraid to go out to my car to look at the 1996 AIM! --Bill
David Doggart
ali...@aol.com (AliceGj) wrote:
>The accepted phrase for telling a controller that you do not see the
>reported traffic is "Negative contact" and NOT "Traffic not in sight".
In New Zealand here when instructed to look and report traffic, a
standard reponse would either be "Traffic in Sight" or "Roger, Looking
for Traffic"
Cheers,
Dave.
Ron Natalie
Wwplummer wrote:
> Mea Culpa! The AIM prior to 1995 did not list "Negative Contact", only
> "Negative" and "Contact" with the later referring to physical contact or
> communications contact. The 1995 edition changed!
I hate to belabor the point, but this was in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary
since 1993.
Max
On 23 May 1996 18:37:41 GMT, eza...@ctdws59.sc.intel.com (Edward Zager) wrote:
>|> A call of "Tallyho" certainly may elicit a few snickers in the IFR room,
>|> but nobody's going to call anyone onto the carpet about it.
>
>But wouldn't you like to just get a "1ND, Contact" or "1ND, Traffic in sight"
All three are short, so I could care less which one is used. "Contact" is
one I almost never hear, but we all know what it means.
IMNSHO, we're wasting a whole lot of bandwidth arguing over this one.
Regardless of what's in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, people are going to use
nonstandard stuff like "Tallyho." As I've said, which exact form of "Traffic in
sight" or "Negative contact" is used doesn't really matter to me, and I suspect
that it doesn't matter to most other controllers either.
The argument that staticy comms may make "traffic not in sight" sound equal
to "traffic in sight" bull. If static or another pilot interrupts someone's
transmission, I'm certainly not going to just take a guess as to what the
pilot's transmission actually was. I'm going to clarify it, every single time.
In this business, you don't assume anything.
Digger (digr) <4th Fighter Group>