@ Petakas, bitchin’ means it’s good, but bitching would be bad… US phraseology is very complex 
ORD ATC will doubtless post on EuroGA next time they need sage advice on how to better manage international air traffic
Silvaire wrote:
ORD ATC will doubtless post on EuroGA next time they need sage advice on how to better manage international air traffic
Amen to that!
Couple of points:
Ever listened to the App controller at LHR in the morning rush hour? Go fly in United and tune the IFE to channel 8 or 9 – then you get ATC. Guess what – listening watch only, no readback, and that’s in the air. Scaaaary!
Seriously – what ‘standard phraseology’ are you missing? To me these instructions are totally clear. As for the speed. Well, come fly in the SoCal airspace and you’ll get similar (plus about 10 frequency changes in 5 minutes) in the air as well. Just a matter of getting used to it and if you operate into ORD, ATL, LAX, JFK etc on a daily basis as these crews do, than even less of an issue.
We have worldwide standards for ATC phraseology and there is no need for anybody to come up with their own way of doing things.
RT in the US very non standard and that is not something to be proud of.
RT in the US very non standard and that is not something to be proud of.
Much less dangerous than widespread European practice of speaking in local languages to local pilots, even when it is a clearance whose knowledge would be damn useful to others listening.
I have had two cases of being cleared right base at Le Touquet at the same time as a French pilot got cleared (in French) for left base. In one case we had a narrow miss (c. 50m) and in the other, more recent, I had him on TCAS and climbed, did an orbit, and came back. In the first case I had a French speaking FI with me (a guy from Shoreham). In the second case I obviously don’t know for sure he was cleared (I can’t speak a word of French) but assume he was, it being a Class D airport.
What I think makes that US video look extra bad is the “American English” which is very hard for many Europeans to understand. I find the English spoken by ATC in Germany, former Yugoslavia, Albania, Macedonia and Greece, to be legible, while English spoken in Spain and Italy less so, and English spoken in France to be least legible and with their ATIS often mostly illegible.
You start to sound like the pope :-)
(But not the current one)
Peter wrote:
I have had two cases of being cleared right base at Le Touquet at the same time as a French pilot got cleared (in French) for left base.
French is an ICAO language so it is perfectly OK to issue clearances in French. However, it is not permissible to issue clearances in German because that is not an ICAO language. A French IFR rated pilot does not have to understand a single word of English and you do not have to understand a single word of French.
That’s all according to the principles of ICAO. Being able to overhear transmissions for other stations is nice and helpful but the ICAO system does not make an assumption that it’s always possible.
Listening in on United as 172driver suggests as a useful education activity (and I agree), I’ve been interested to hear Air Canada flights speaking French with some controllers and English with others. Otherwise, I think best ATC practice is determined by what has been shown to work, and what continues to work and evolve usefully outside of ICAO debating society nonsense.
I presume the UN are also debating society nonsense? In general, why cooperate multilaterally when one country can rule the whole planet and just do as it pleases?
This procedure is only a slight local variation of the ICAO rules, and I think it is acceptable if the world’s largest airport (by number of takeoffs and landings) refines some details to make its operation more efficient.
It’s really new to me that you’re so into bureaucratic principles. Isn’t it more important that it (obviously) works and that it’s ok for the pilots?
I’m with achima.
These rules are in place (and have been mutually agreed) to prevent accidents (remember canary islands ?)
If somebody thinks they are outdated with regard to technology improvements, then they should have them revised and mutually agreed again.
