[Andrew Sinclair]

@gaznav @PaulSS

Gentlemen please, this is a simple thread about the origin of the non-standard use of speechless code in GA flying.

Could I respectfully suggest that your debate may best be concluded away from the public glare by DM.

[gaznav]

@Andrew Sinclair - my apologies, Sir

[riverrock]

Continuing the drift, as Prestwick still offers SRAs, they can do it no compass, no gyro, so some local instructors get students to go through a no compass, no gyro SRA during PPL instrument appreciation. It reduces a non-instrument rated pilot's workload - as they are going to be overloaded in an emergency already.

ATC are also up for various other training if asked nicely, including speechless and use of lanterns.

No idea when the two click acknowledgment / "thanks" started, but I know plenty of pilots who do it, and it's clear from context what it means.

[PaulSS]

So barrelling into it with no RT.......

There's simply no need for drama, nor 'barrelling in'. It's a simple case of squawking 7600, proceeding to the IAP and carrying out a TACAN to ILS/TACAN approach. ATC see the squawk and clear others out of the way. Histrionics regarding busy instrument patterns etc not required.

These are the procedures used by 'us'.

[gaznav]

Slight snag with that plan Paul - only ILS on one runway at Valley (13 if I recall correctly) which wasn’t into wind and cloud base was low, with minimal chance to CIRC after. The PAR was at least 200ft lower in DH than a pure TAC approach so likely to be more successful. Anyway, we can all have ‘harry-hindsight’ in the debrief, but we elected as a crew at the time to carry out the NORDO procedures between us and the Air Trafficker did a fine job getting us in safely. I did the NORDO button presses in response to ATC whilst ‘Biggles’ flew the PAR - a bit of CRM that worked well. I was a stude at the time getting some swept-wing FJ experience before starting the F3 OCU. Further, this was back in 1992, so I can’t remember all of the exact circumstances apart from buying the controller a drink in Happy Hour that week. I also don’t remember the pair of us being carpeted by the Boss for taking a lousy decision between us - so it must have been sound!

[Flyin'Dutch']

Fishhead Airways

Now, now, that is not the way to address the seaman service, is it?

[Lockhaven]

When delivering my FRTOL courses I have a slide which discusses the speechless procedure (CAP413 Chapter 10.13 refers)

For those who are not aware this is a military procedure used in the event of being unable to transmit speech. CAP 413 also refers to the speechless code in the context of Distress and Urgency Communication Procedures (CAP413 chapter 8.18 refers)

This procedure is reproduced in part below:

I also frequently hear and sometimes see students and pilots clicking the PTT button twice in certain circumstances, I assume, to indicate either ‘affirm’ or ‘roger’ (meaning ‘yes’ and ‘I have received all your last transmission’ respectively).

This latter use of this PTT double-click seems to be at odds with the intended use under CAP413 Chapter 10.

Would someone enlighten me as to where the PTT double-click to mean ‘Affirm’ or ‘Roger’ originates?

Thank you

@Andrew Sinclair

The double click probably stems from the use of spoken words "Charlie" "Charlie" used in RTF procedures when reception or transmission is weak but the message is received and understood.

However a double click is mostly just laziness from modern users of RTF to indicate they have heard something rather than any speechless transmission method which of course they are actually saying "No" with a double click

This transmission of words Charlie Charlie is still used in RTF today in many countries when using VHF at the edge of its range in remote areas, or HF comms when transmissions and reception are poor but the message was received and understood, in fact I used it myself just the other day when on the edge of VHF coverage to acknowledge receipt of a clearance.



P.S. and before anybody suggests, the beep at the end of each transmission during the NASA space programme transmissions doesn't mean "Yes"

[Andrew Sinclair]

Thanks @Lockhaven I hadn’t made the connection between the ICS ‘Correct’ flag and possible evolution to ‘click’, ‘click’, that would seem very likely.

As you say though this evolution possibly leads to the direct opposite meaning being received from that which the transmitter intended; more so in the context of VHF communications. Actually, I don’t teach it in HF comms courses.

Thanks, I’ll use that explanation for my FRTOL students and continue with ‘avoid using’ unless you can be absolutely sure of the context and intended meaning is clear to both parties.

[Lockhaven]

Thanks @Lockhaven I hadn’t made the connection between the ICS ‘Correct’ flag and possible evolution to ‘click’, ‘click’, that would seem very likely.

As you say though this evolution possibly leads to the direct opposite meaning being received from that which the transmitter intended; more so in the context of VHF communications. Actually, I don’t teach it in HF comms courses.

Thanks, I’ll use that explanation for my FRTOL students and continue with ‘avoid using’ unless you can be sure of the context and intended meaning is clear to both parties.

@Andrew Sinclair

FAB - no don't use this either but in actual fact although from a cartoon series it does have a relevant meaning.

I have received and understood your transmission, FAB "fully authenticated broadcast"

[Full Metal Jackass]

In Germany it's quite common for a pilot, upon announcing his turn to final and receiving from the controller the wind direction and velocity, to double click the PTT button to confirm that he'd understood. Noting the above, I was surprised to see a double click meant no hence I just asked my old instructor about this as he was the one who told me that when you're given the wind,just double click the PTT button. I never questioned him about it, just did what he said.

He said it's because there's no requirement to read back the wind information, so it's common courtesy to click the PTT switch as a sort of "thank you"; his thoughts were that saying

"G-ABCD Thank you"

would be considered bad RT hence two clicks were recognising the important job the Flugleiter does..... although I'm not sure whether he was being sarcastic on that last point......

[MichaelP]

I suppose double clicking is more distinct than a single click that might be missed.
As an acknowledgement it’s unlikely to be confused with no, it’s a whole different context.
Used to be in the double click habit, but I haven’t done it for many years now.

It is important to understand local culture however.
On the road where many of us become monsters behind the wheel, someone waiting for a gap in traffic might be flashed by an approaching vehicle, ‘go ahead’, but on a motorway this might mean ‘get out of my way!’
In Asia beware, flashing headlights always mean ‘stay out of my way’, so don’t pull out in front of traffic.

With regard to the argument on here, tolerance is very important when we’re flying aircraft.
If you are offended by someone double clicking the mike, leave the argument until you’re on the ground.
And don’t fret over it in the air, rather put it aside until you have finished the enjoyable concentration on the flying you are conducting.
We don’t need to become monsters behind the flying controls.

[Rjk983]

I’ve never done the rapid double click acknowledgement thing, I don’t recall ever hearing it either. But I imagine you are describing a pair of rapid short clicks, which probably last for less than a second in total?

This differs from the speechless procedure where the clicks are short or long relative to each other. But the short single click is a deliberate press of the transmit button for about a second, the double click is about a second on, second off, second on. The long click would last at least 2 seconds to distinguish itself from the short click.

Even then, the one time I had to use it in anger at Manston I transmitted the four dots, got identified as speechless, the first question “is this for practice?” two clicks, controller:”I confirm this is for practice adopt call sign speechless one” I was then flummoxed, how do I tell him it is real? I tried two clicks, he started running through the list of further emergencies (very different from the dot dash dash dot that should have triggered this), I said no to each in turn, he kept going. I decided to give up and roll with it, said yes when he got to alternator failure which stopped him running down the list and let us get on with the recovery. I also had set 7600 but they just thought I was being very thorough with the practice...

The moral I took from this was that it is great for getting attention but sometimes the person at the other end may not actually listen to the responses, and may just run through the procedure as it usually goes in a practice. Especially as we were there on our summer camp and the tower was being bombarded by about twenty studes all at roughly the same stage in training...

[Andrew Sinclair]

..would be considered bad RT...

With my purest instructor/RTF examiner head on and if we define poor RTF as that which is non-standard and/or could be misconstrued, then my answer is "Yes, I would consider it poor RTF" but being a pragmatist it would simply be a debriefing point at the end of an RTF practical test, to raise the applicant's awareness. That is simply because the mission is to assess what is strictly speaking, correct and in the correct context.

Is it a big deal, well no it is not, Aviate - Navigate - Communicate and enjoy! As with all things aviation, it is however useful to know the origin and make a judgment.

I had an instrument student a while back who used it a lot, and I suspected it was rather in an 'I am too cool for skool' sense, so I asked her what it meant to her and she didn't know other than she wanted to get the radio "stuff" done so she could concentrate on flying.

My response to that was that if the aircraft were expeditiously and correctly trimmed e.g. at the correct rate of descent flying the bugged heading that maintained the required track then she would have the capacity to respond with "G-ABCD Roger" if appropriate.

Minor in the grand scheme of things, thanks all for the responses they have helped.

[Dominie]

<snip> I was then flummoxed/snip>

Or even speechless!

[Cub]

My response to that was that if the aircraft were expeditiously and correctly trimmed e.g. at the correct rate of descent flying the bugged heading that maintained the required track then she would have the capacity to respond with "G-ABCD Roger" if appropriate.

“Roger, G-ABCD” Shirley