Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839748
Occasionally I deliberately use QSY even in Canada and the US... if we ever lose our sense of humour we are truly lost.

The best air traffic control is the informal kind as it relaxes everyone, lowers the stress level, and improves efficiency and collaboration.

ATC is very different here to what it was thirty years ago, and in my opinion this is not a good thing.
Perhaps this formality is a factor in pilots being unwilling to call controllers when they are close to controlled airspace, and so it could be a factor in airspace infringements.

Being used to the less formal use of the radio in Canada, the US, and Thailand it has been a concern.
Redhill is much more formal than I am used to and something left out will solicit a remark from the tower. This is unhelpful.

I have made calls to ATC Supervisors in Canada when I have witnessed formal controllers raising the stress temperature over the air. They sit in their comfortable chairs while not knowing what may require a pilot’s better attention.

I have witnessed less formal, easy interchanges without so much formality, that have kept a comfortable efficient flow of traffic.

As for squawk codes. The listening squawk is a very good idea, especially if ATC is willing to help a potentially errant pilot from making a sinful airspace infringement.

In the Vancouver area aeroplanes are issued with individual squawk codes and you do not change these unless you are on the ground, say at Chilliwack, for more than a couple of hours.
But, when I am talking to Terminal, or Centre, I do announce to them, “...Golf India Papa Uniform squawking **** “ on initial contact.

Most often “...ident...” is requested when the pilot has made an obvious error in their position.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839749
Hyêres ATC in the South of France used to be called “Fanny Approach”.

Very much in mind when I call Regina on my travels in Canada... Easy to pronounce that a little incorrectly.
User avatar
By flyingearly
#1839915
townleyc wrote:I don't understand the problem - it is not that difficult to say...

KE


I've rehearsed it enough to know it all goes wrong if I put the stress on the wrong syllable:

con-spi CUI ty works fine
con SPI cui ty always goes wrong
T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1839928
MichaelP wrote:Occasionally I deliberately use QSY even in Canada and the US... ...


QSY (and QNH, QFE, QDM, QGH, even QTC) were, ISTR, no problem at a civilian FC at a RCAF base in Canada in the '60s. Most of the FIs were former or current RCAF, and IIRC ATCOs there were still military. However, I had to explain QNH, QSY and even the concept of QFE to young FIs in US and Canada in the '80s ; I didn't try QTC or QDM :)

[a young US FI, once he'd grasped the conept of QFE, thought it was a great idea for aircraft 'staying in the pattern']
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840138
MichaelP wrote:ATC is very different here to what it was thirty years ago, and in my opinion this is not a good thing.
Perhaps this formality is a factor in pilots being unwilling to call controllers when they are close to controlled airspace, and so it could be a factor in airspace infringements.


The UK problem today is that the ATC units controlling the airspace are all different private companies so are only interested in providing a service to their own inbound traffic and dont want you to call them if you are flying closeby... I think Ive said this before, but when I learned to fly the opposite was the case.

Regards, SD..
MichaelP, T67M liked this
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840148
The basic CAP413 calls to ATC haven’t changed in the 26 years that I’ve been flying in the UK, hence pilots should be no more intimidated by calling ATC now as back then. If a pilot is incapable of calling an ATC unit for a service then perhaps he should consider a degree of retraining.

Iceman 8)
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840154
Perhaps this formality is a factor


I wondered why we were so much more formal about this for a while. Then it occurred to me that we are surrounded by many countries that do not speak English as a first language, and many pilots only use it as a working/operational language. And this is why I think such clarity is needed to prevent incidents.

"Conspicuity" on the other hand is a mouthful 5 syllable word - and I wonder how many have stumbled pronouncing it.
T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840157
all different private companies so are only interested in providing a service to their own inbound traffic and dont want you to call them if you are flying closeby


But it's sort of the case even at the busiest of public airports in the USA (see KORD)? That said we all know that the patchwork of approach units, LARS and London-FIS needs better organisation. Regulation can define what private companies can and cannot do . And all this should come from the CAA with a framework set by the DfT.

As I understand, the CAA now or will soon have a separate working programme to enable them to initiate airspace changes for better joined up thinking.
User avatar
By xtophe
#1840160
James Chan wrote:As I understand, the CAA now or will soon have a separate working programme to enable them to initiate airspace changes for better joined up thinking.

They started. They did a survey 15 month ago, then spent 9 month devising and consulting on a process. Since last November they are supposed to be looking at it for real. The 2 updates they published read: "It's hard and it's going to take us lots of time."
User avatar
By Rob P
#1840167
That length of process would be acceptable if any of us had confidence they would arrive at a sensible conclusion.

I don't have that confidence I'm afraid

Rob P