Ask The Pilot

[markis10]

Ok to keep on topic.
Jb, Whenever i've heard conversations between ATC and pilots, I find it dammned hard to understand whats being said, its almost like another language altogether, not just the words, abbreviations etc, but also just the manner of speech, short sharp and loaded with specific terminologies and meanings..so in light of that:

1) Are the "conversations" between ATC and pilots pretty standard and consistent around the world?
2) Are you quite used to it and so it seems quite normal to you now?
3) I know English is the official interntional language for ATC, but do you ever hear anything else being spoken?
4) Do you get to know particular ATC operators, like how say I get to know the drivers of the buses I frequently catch?

Its when the pilot responds in non standard phrases that an ATC worries. ATC has very specific language for a reason with key words, like clear, hold, requirement, maintain, etc so there is no ambiguity, and often there will be references to measurement or navigation that is not something used in the non aviation world, so to a lay person that may be hard to follow, for instance altitude is often referred to a flight level such as 310 which is 31 thousand feet, saying 310 is quicker and clearer.

 

[jukebox333]

*snip*
ATC has very specific language for a reason with key words, like clear, hold, requirement, maintain, etc so there is no ambiguity, and often there will be references to measurement or navigation that is not something used in the non aviation world, so to a lay person that may be hard to follow, for instance altitude is often referred to a flight level such as 310 which is 31 thousand feet, saying 310 is quicker and clearer.

Funny this topic has come up; on QF78 Monday night, SIN-PER, the pilot referred to "extinguishing" the fasten seat belt sign. 10-year old Master Jukebox Jnr who was sat next to me, asked why he used that word... which I couldn't explain, as he didn't say he had "ignited" it to begin with. Most of the time I recall it as "switched on" and "switched/turned off".

 

[Skyring]

Ok to keep on topic.
Jb, Whenever i've heard conversations between ATC and pilots, I find it dammned hard to understand whats being said, its almost like another language altogether, not just the words, abbreviations etc, but also just the manner of speech, short sharp and loaded with specific terminologies and meanings...

Taking it a little bit off topic. I used to listen to the traffic on cab radios when I was a passenger and it was always gibberish with only the occasional word or phrase comprehensible.

However, when I became a cabbie myself, I found that I could understand the jargon, and many of the same factors mentioned by jb747 came into play. Many users whose first language was not English. Need to keep transmissions short to carry the volume of traffic. Many similar transmissions, leading to abbreviations or acronyms to save time. After a while, i found I could tune most of it out, but when something that might be interesting came up, or there was an emergency (all too common in the cab industry) I would be aware instantly and have access to a few seconds worth of previous traffic to put whatever I'd heard into context.

The brain can do amazing things when devoted to some particular task. Blind people can learn Braille and German children can easily comprehend the bewilderment of gender, case and tense that confounds me. It goes beyond merely understanding the system, it's a matter of doing the same stuff time and again until the brain stops working at it and does it automatically.

The ATC radio traffic isn't actually the thing I admire most about the people flying these huge aircraft. It's being able to sit in the coughpit and feel at home amongst all the screens and buttons, and not just the visible stuff, but the software behind the systems and being able to find the rarely-used features in an emergency when things stop working and there's no time to read the manual.

And somehow, despite all that being crammed in, jb747 still has a little bit of room to be a normal human being, patiently answering questions, putting up videos, and cheerfully enlightening the rest of us as to what goes on behind the coughpit door.

I might give most threads a miss, but I always read every post in this one. Thanks, jb!

 

[anat0l]

Its when the pilot responds in non standard phrases that an ATC worries. ATC has very specific language for a reason with key words, like clear, hold, requirement, maintain, etc so there is no ambiguity, and often there will be references to measurement or navigation that is not something used in the non aviation world, so to a lay person that may be hard to follow, for instance altitude is often referred to a flight level such as 310 which is 31 thousand feet, saying 310 is quicker and clearer.

Clarification, if a bit trivial:

When pronouncing out numbers, does it have to be digit by digit or whatever works?

For example, RUNWAY 16, FL 310, BA 15, QF 29, QF 528, QF 1012... the 'common' pronunciation of these would be 'sixteen', 'three ten', 'fifteen', 'twenty nine', 'five two eight' and 'ten twelve'. Not sure if this is the same in radio comms.

My first thoughts is it doesn't matter, but to avoid confusion in case of accents getting in the way.

 

[jb747]

Funny this topic has come up; on QF78 Monday night, SIN-PER, the pilot referred to "extinguishing" the fasten seat belt sign. 10-year old Master Jukebox Jnr who was sat next to me, asked why he used that word... which I couldn't explain, as he didn't say he had "ignited" it to begin with. Most of the time I recall it as "switched on" and "switched/turned off".

With a few exceptions (emergency PAs) the pilots don't have standard phrases to use when speaking to the cabin. Repetition tends to give them some of course.

Perhaps your pilot was very old and recalled using gas lanterns.....

 

[jukebox333]

*snip*.

Perhaps your pilot was very old and recalled using gas lanterns.....

Which reminded me of another comment M.J.J made as we pushed back from the gate at Changi: "chocks away!" I looked over at him an thought "WTF????? Where did you ever hear that in 2012..." Needless to say, flying with him as my companion always tends to be an interesting experience because of his rather unique child's perspective on the world...

 

[jb747]

Clarification, if a bit trivial:

When pronouncing out numbers, does it have to be digit by digit or whatever works?

For example, RUNWAY 16, FL 310, BA 15, QF 29, QF 528, QF 1012... the 'common' pronunciation of these would be 'sixteen', 'three ten', 'fifteen', 'twenty nine', 'five two eight' and 'ten twelve'. Not sure if this is the same in radio comms.

My first thoughts is it doesn't matter, but to avoid confusion in case of accents getting in the way.

This one is a little flexible. We flew QF 10 the other day, and our callsign, as used by the controllers, varied between ten and one zero. Whatever form they used, I replied with. It's supposed to be the individual digits (as it always is for headings, heights, etc).

 

[markis10]

Which reminded me of another comment M.J.J made as we pushed back from the gate at Changi: "chocks away!" I looked over at him an thought "WTF????? Where did you ever hear that in 2012..." Needless to say, flying with him as my companion always tends to be an interesting experience because of his rather unique child's perspective on the world...

Why would that be odd in 2012, aircraft are still parked with chocks applied? Now if he tried to open the window and yell "clear prop".....

 

[jb747]

Which reminded me of another comment M.J.J made as we pushed back from the gate at Changi: "chocks away!" I looked over at him an thought "WTF????? Where did you ever hear that in 2012..." Needless to say, flying with him as my companion always tends to be an interesting experience because of his rather unique child's perspective on the world...

There are still chocks...You've probably noticed an aircraft is often pulled very slightly forward before the push starts. That's to get the weight of the rear chocks so that they can be removed.

 

[jb747]

Why would that be odd in 2012, aircraft are still parked with chocks applied? Now if he tried to open the window and yell "clear prop".....

The windows open....(not on the 747, but it has a hatch in the roof).

 

[Skyring]

There are still chocks...You've probably noticed an aircraft is often pulled very slightly forward before the push starts. That's to get the weight of the rear chocks so that they can be removed.

Well, thanks! That solves the mystery for me. I've often noticed a slight jolt just before pushback and wondered if the tug had hit the front gear a bit too hard. It didn't seem likely that so many airports would employ so many drunks, but that was the only explanation I could come up with.

 

[jukebox333]

Why would that be odd in 2012, aircraft are still parked with chocks applied? Now if he tried to open the window and yell "clear prop".....

This little tyke is barely tall enough to see the wing out the window, let alone look down and be aware of wheel chocks! Trust me, it was said in a very deadpan Biggles-esque turn of phrase. All he needed was a "Tally Ho, Chaps!" as we rotated, and I think I would have totally lost it.

(and for all you child-fearing AFFers out there, according to the F/A, we had no less than 30 (!) kids on our flight home - and apparently only 6 kids packs on board - so everyone missed out. But the 19:30 departure equated to most of them being sound asleep straight after the meal service. Or maybe we were just lucky!)

 

[mjt57]

JB,

Let's hark back to your Navy days for a second. I'm reading a book titled 'To be a US Air Force Pilot' by Harry Holden. It's more of a coffee table book given its format, but I managed to squeeze it onto my iPad3.

Anyway, it goes into detail about how new recruits start off as cadets and the intensive training they get, stuff that sounds an awful lot like hazing to me.

When you joined up, how rigorous was the training and what was the washout rate? In this book, it's fairly hard/high according to the author. I wonder if the RAAF and other defence arms have similar regimen in place for their pilots.

Interestingly enough, as cadets they get their PPLs, but then when they go into the Airforce proper (as 2nd lieutenants) they have to start from scratch, pretty much.

 

[jb747]

Anyway, it goes into detail about how new recruits start off as cadets and the intensive training they get, stuff that sounds an awful lot like hazing to me.

There was very little b/s. I suspect most of the opportunities for the hazing rubbish don't really exist when you have fairly small courses, that only have limited overlap. There was certainly no room for it on either the Pilots' or Navigator/Observer/AEOs' courses, nor do I think that the staff would have accepted it...to my mind it simply shows the unsuitability of the 'hazer'.

When you joined up, how rigorous was the training and what was the washout rate? In this book, it's fairly hard/high according to the author. I wonder if the RAAF and other defence arms have similar regimen in place for their pilots.

We lost a number of people in the first six months, prior to the aviation courses even starting. Some people don't like/aren't suited for the military, though if I recall correctly, pretty well all of those made up their own mind to leave.

The courses proper have very high failure rates. Pilots' course lost around 50% of all starters. The other courses lost less, but would still be around 25%. They are extremely hard, with very limited time to learn. In many cases, people who failed went on to have excellent flying careers outside of the military. That limited time, and reaching the standard quickly, is very much part of the requirements. There is very little let up during the courses (and the ones that follow, as the pilot/nav courses are only the start)...once you get past one hurdle, the next one appears.

Interestingly enough, as cadets they get their PPLs, but then when they go into the Airforce proper (as 2nd lieutenants) they have to start from scratch, pretty much.

The difference between a student who could already fly, and one who couldn't, was that the bloke who didn't know how also didn't have any bad habits. Beyond that, the pass rates were similar.

 

[medhead]

Question for the helicopter pilots. How many of you read Chicken Hawk before become a pilot? Did it influence your decision?

JB,

Let's hark back to your Navy days for a second. I'm reading a book titled 'To be a US Air Force Pilot' by Harry Holden. It's more of a coffee table book given its format, but I managed to squeeze it onto my iPad3.

Anyway, it goes into detail about how new recruits start off as cadets and the intensive training they get, stuff that sounds an awful lot like hazing to me.

When you joined up, how rigorous was the training and what was the washout rate? In this book, it's fairly hard/high according to the author. I wonder if the RAAF and other defence arms have similar regimen in place for their pilots.

Interestingly enough, as cadets they get their PPLs, but then when they go into the Airforce proper (as 2nd lieutenants) they have to start from scratch, pretty much.

I think in Australia we call it coughisation. Based on the description of a friend who ended up having a successful airforce career as a pilot, intense "recruit" training was taking place for pilot in the RAAF in the early 1990s.

(Last I heard from my friend, I was supposed to visit him at Pearce when he was doing his Macchi course. Stupidly I never did, but have since found a brief mention of him on google with some high rank.)


Sent from the Throne

 

[AVC]

Perhaps your pilot was very old and recalled using gas lanterns.....

When I worked in Collarenebri, if an Air Amb came in at night, we used to have to go out and light the runways lamps. Yes, with a flame. Then drive up and down the dirt strip to clear the roos.

Now they have them new-fangled 'lectric lights! Activated remotely by the pilot too, no less.

 

[anat0l]

Taking some inspiration from another thread on this forum (the one asking whether anyone here could fly an aircraft in an emergency), when considering the multitude of controls in the coughpit (dials, meters, buttons, switches, lights etc.), what are you general impressions about how these controls have been laid out and designed?

Do you think the layout is fairly logical and easy to work around, or is it the other case, or is it more, "shut up and get used to it, that's just the way it is and it won't change"?

(I suppose it looks complex enough for us so we have no hope of flying an aircraft!)


Also, I don't know if it's a movie thing or not, but sometimes I've seen that pilots work through procedures by following a manual (printed, perhaps now electronic). I'm not sure whether this is something similar to a space mission flight plan (flight manual?). Am I referring to something real here or is it fiction? If it is real, then is it standard procedure to refer to the manual all the time or is it there only for specific purposes?

 

[jb747]

Taking some inspiration from another thread on this forum (the one asking whether anyone here could fly an aircraft in an emergency), when considering the multitude of controls in the coughpit (dials, meters, buttons, switches, lights etc.), what are you general impressions about how these controls have been laid out and designed?

Do you think the layout is fairly logical and easy to work around, or is it the other case, or is it more, "shut up and get used to it, that's just the way it is and it won't change"?

(I suppose it looks complex enough for us so we have no hope of flying an aircraft!)

coughpit ergonomics are an incredibly important facet of aircraft design. Sadly, there is a part of the industry that makes tidy coughpits..which whilst they may look nice can be very confusing to use. The use of switches of differing shapes and actions makes it much more difficult to use the wrong one by accident. Placing identical switches, with very different effects, near each other is a recipe for error. Basically Boeing does a great job of this. If I were a teacher, the other maker would get a 'fail'.

Also, I don't know if it's a movie thing or not, but sometimes I've seen that pilots work through procedures by following a manual (printed, perhaps now electronic). I'm not sure whether this is something similar to a space mission flight plan (flight manual?). Am I referring to something real here or is it fiction? If it is real, then is it standard procedure to refer to the manual all the time or is it there only for specific purposes?

A bit of both. Some emergency actions are carried out from memory (they're time critical), but the vast majority can be done in slower time following a paper or electronic checklist.

The vast majority of normal procedures are done from memory, it's only the unusual that you do by reference.

 

[sutho58]

JB,,, just to get an idea of something that is being discussed in another thread... how much fuel does an A380 use on the mel-lax leg and does it differ on the lax-mel leg??

 

[jb747]

JB,,, just to get an idea of something that is being discussed in another thread... how much fuel does an A380 use on the mel-lax leg and does it differ on the lax-mel leg??

Off the top of my head, about 175 tonnes fuel order, and use about 160. Return journey about 15 tonnes more. I don't do that sector very often, so it's not a number that falls off my tongue.

What's the other thread?