Differences in aviation culture around Europe

lionel wrote:

I was taught to expect “Pass your message” in Luxembourg, and our controllers use it.

French ATC use it too. When I passed the FCL.055 exam at Athis-Mons, I spoke to the examiners (they were controllers) and got the impression that they had been trained in the UK.

I did not find “Go ahead” in the CAA Radiotelephony Manual – at least not by using the PDF search function.

The ICAO phrase ‘Go Ahead’ has the meaning ‘Pass Your Message’. ‘Go Ahead’ shall never be used where there is a risk that it can be misinterpreted as an instruction to proceed. Pilots and controllers shall emphasise this fact when communicating.

In the rest of the world it is “Go ahead”

French ATC use it too [ pass your message ]

??

Anyway, is this really a significant thing? There are much bigger matters in flying GA around Europe. And that’s without getting into present-day Greece which has a whole other set of things to deal with.

Peter wrote:

Anyway, is this really a significant thing?

Probably not, but “Pass your message”. It sounds like it’s coming directly from Monty Python (to me anyway). Seriously, for a non-native English speaker, there is no chance in hell he would be able to decipher the meaning of it. And when it’s only used in England, well…

Isn’t it a thing at Heathrow as well where the clearance reads something like this in the UK:
“Cleared for the ILS RWY 27, intercept the localizer and follow the glideslope down….”

Whereas in the US it would be:

“Cleared for the approach”.

It’s just onerously wordy and over the top, like in “pass your message”. It’s redundant. Let’s see:

“Farnborough radar, G-BIWJ?”
“Yes, G-BIWJ?
And then you’d launch into your spiel. Why do you need to hear ‘pass your message?’. What else exactly where you going to ask them when you called them up out of the blue? Most likely to “’pass a message”, in so many word. Or did you call them up simply to kill them with radio silence after the initial contact?

Firstly I very much doubt you will get the “PYM” from Heathrow.

Secondly it is true that the UK, and some other places IME, like to vector you to the LOC and then you report LOC established and then you get cleared to descend with the GS etc, whereas the more general one is “cleared for the ILS” which you also get in the UK otherwise you cannot intercept the LOC when being vectored. This is a wider debate, not UK specific, and some previous threads are here and here. The issue is centred on the phrase “cleared for the ILS” authorising you to descend to the ILS platform on your own initiative, and not everybody (in ATC) likes to do that. I’ve had really ambiguous instructions in various countries… like “report when ready for the approach” – ??

The phrase I have seen around Europe (incl the UK) is “cleared for the [approach]” e.g. “ILS”.

You have to get this even when vectored otherwise you cannot intercept the LOC.

The type of approach would be negotiated beforehand, so it is clear if you are vectored or flying the full procedure commencing at some IAF.

I have seen many ambiguities around Europe and don’t see any country-specific consistency other than the UK practice of asking to report LOC established, but that also has been changing over the years.

In terms of “culture” what might be interesting to hear more substantial stuff than ATC terminology – e.g. which country is most likely to bust you for doing something wrong? I just came across this funny old thread

Aviathor wrote:

The ICAO phrase ‘Go Ahead’ has the meaning ‘Pass Your Message’. ‘Go Ahead’ shall never be used where there is a risk that it can be misinterpreted as an instruction to proceed. Pilots and controllers shall emphasise this fact when communicating.

And that is why “Pass your message” has become more popular in recent years. Swiss FIS uses it too. I never saw a problem with it, as it is very clear what is meant. You call up and they tell you that they are ready to listen to what you have to say. Really basic English I should think.

It amazes me how simple English phrases can trigger such discussions. Shows that LP4 might not have been such a bad idea after all if there are people flying around who can not even understand something as simple as that. Also shows that learning RT alone without actually knowing the language in which it’s spoken is a dangerous thing…

I wonder how such folks order a coffee at Starbucks or even a happy meal….

Just revisiting this thread as I mull over some very poor RT heard (on YouTube!) recently.

I wonder if ‘pass your message’ has a usefulness in respect of the way RT is taught in the UK?

When I was taught (2011), the emphasis was on a pre-prepared standard spiel that one trotted out upon hearing the trigger words ‘pass your message’. Those words are followed by a long, slow and boring recital of a route and much irrelevant information followed by a request for a basic service, and it is clear that the person doing the RT is not really capable of doing anything other than this pre-prepared call. It went as far as people having crib sheets for the message on their kneeboard or even the panel!

Once I realised what was going on (say, while on the nav stage of the PPL) I ditched all this and adopted the position where I just call them up, give them the info they need and ask for whatever I want. There is no standard call or anything like that. Much easier, much less time on the radio, everyone is happy. But to do this one needs an understanding of how the ATC system works and what the bloke at the other end of the radio needs/wants from you.

It is very clear (from YouTube and what I hear on the airwaves) that many PPLs flying today in the UK never made this transition and cannot really do RT beyond a few standardised interactions.

I postulate that the distinctive words ‘pass your message’ function as a trigger for the ramble to begin.