When is just clicking PTT an acknowledgement?

[Ben Jackson]

Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
but since then I think I've heard it happen.

Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
know how to interpret it?

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[John T]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:KBvDb.553661$HS4.4223865@attbi_s01
>
> Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
> pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done
> it, but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>
> Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
> know how to interpret it?

You're right, you shouldn't do it. However, it's not very uncommon to hear
both pilots and ATC use this technique. Typically it's two clicks on the
mic to acknowledge the previous transmission (just like saying "copy" or
"roger").

But you shouldn't do it because it's ambiguous in meaning and sender.
Anybody could have clicked the mic - intentionally or accidentally.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
____________________

[Thomas Borchert]

Ben,

> When is just clicking PTT an acknowledgement?
>

Never, ever. Period.

There's a lot of supposedly cool stuff being said and done on the radio
which in the end is just hogwash. This is one example. Others are "with
you", "tally-ho", "no joy" or the ample use of "Roger" where "Wilco"
would be appropriate. If it's not in the AIM or the PC/G, don't use it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:39:01 GMT, "John T" > wrote:

>But you shouldn't do it because it's ambiguous in meaning and sender.
>Anybody could have clicked the mic - intentionally or accidentally.

I did it today, to ack ATC's "Cessna 342 Roger". I didn't even think
about it, just hit the xmit button quickly.

I had trouble hearing ATC today anyway. They were quiet, so I had to
listen very carefully! Didn't even occur to me to turn up the volume
until I had landed safely.

Stay ahead of the airplane everyone! Merry 100th-year-of-flying! *MY*
FBO is offering 50% off airplane rental from the 17th through the
20th. Too bad the weather seems destined to be hard IFR for the rest
of the week!

Rob

[Dave S]

The only time I've seen that it is "appropriate" is when the response is
more courtesy, and NOT a matter of operational safety... of course, by
taking that tack... any communication that is appropriate to acknowledge
with just 2 taps of the mike is probaby not "appropriate" in its own right.

Just my 2 cents..
Dave

Ben Jackson wrote:

> Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
> pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
> but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>
> Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
> know how to interpret it?
>

[Nathan Young]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<KBvDb.553661$HS4.4223865@attbi_s01>...
> Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
> pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
> but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>
> Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
> know how to interpret it?

A lot of pilots use the double-click of the PTT as an acknowledgement
to a transmission that didn't need to be acknowledged. It is
primarily used as a courtesy to the controller to let them know that
you heard their last transmission - even if a reply wasn't required.

An example: Leaving Class D airspace.
Cherokee 62R: Tower, Cherokee 62R is clear to the North, have a good
afternoon.
Tower: 62R, freq change approved, have a good afternoon too.
Cherokee 62R: key the mike twice.

The key is (pun intended) - there are not many situations where the
double-click is acceptable. Unfortunately, many pilots key the mike
(or use Roger/Wilco), when a proper reply was required. Ie taxi
instructions, hold-short, etc.

-Nathan

[Brien K. Meehan]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<KBvDb.553661$HS4.4223865@attbi_s01>...
> Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
> pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
> but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>
> Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
> know how to interpret it?

The easiest thing to do is take the high road and scoff at this
foolish and dangerous custom. It doesn't really unclutter the
airwaves much.

But, if you insist, do it this way. A click does NOT count as a
required acknowledgement of anything, so ...

ONLY use the "click" to acknowledge transmissions THAT REQUIRE NO
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

The best example would be an unsolicited wind check on final.

Tower: "Wind 260 at 14"
You: "<click>"

A more subtle example is to acknowledge information that's not a
directive.

Approach: "Skyhawk 8SA, climb and maintain 3000."
8SA: "Climbing 3000, 8SA".
Approach: "8SA, I'm working on getting you higher."
8SA "<click>"

Contrast this with:

Approach: "Skyhawk 8SA, climb and maintain 3000, expect higher in 10
minutes."
8SA "Climbing 3000, expecting higher in 10, 8SA"

[Peter R.]

Nathan Young ) wrote:

> A lot of pilots use the double-click of the PTT as an acknowledgement
> to a transmission that didn't need to be acknowledged. It is
> primarily used as a courtesy to the controller to let them know that
> you heard their last transmission - even if a reply wasn't required.

I was taught this, too. Two clicks in response to a transmission not
requiring a reply, such as "Have a good flight" offered by Clearance
Delivery after reading back a clearance, or "Winds 250, 25 gusting to 38"
volunteered by tower (without being asked) when on final.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Yeppers on this one!!! Me too....

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Peter R.]

Nathan Young ) wrote:

> Ie taxi instructions, hold-short, etc.

Really? Every towered airport (mostly in the Northeast US) in which I have
flown states in the ATIS "readback of all hold-short instructions
required." Additionally, I often hear the ground controller repeating a
hold short instruction and requiring the readback be verbatim.

I cannot imagine a ground controller allowing someone to double-click a
response to a hold short instruction.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Blanche]

Unfortunately when there are numerous aircraft in the vicinity, how is
the controller going to know which aircraft double-clicked and which
clicked by accident?

[Michael 182]

It really doesn't matter. The response was a courtesy, not operational. I
use it occasionally for things like a radio check at an uncontrolled field
or in response to conversations with controllers that are not associated
with flight.


"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately when there are numerous aircraft in the vicinity, how is
> the controller going to know which aircraft double-clicked and which
> clicked by accident?
>

[Peter R.]

Blanche ) wrote:

> Unfortunately when there are numerous aircraft in the vicinity, how is
> the controller going to know which aircraft double-clicked and which
> clicked by accident?

Since the controller is not expecting a reply, an accidental double-click
by another aircraft will do nothing other than make the controller think
his last transmission was acknowledged by the original aircraft.

A mistaken acknowledgement of "Have a good flight" or "here are the current
winds" is harmless.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Bill Denton]

And, if you are in a crowded area, your "double-click" would probably "step
on" someone else's communication. If an acknowledgement is not required, it
would seem the best practice would be not to acknowledge, especially in
congested airspace...

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately when there are numerous aircraft in the vicinity, how is
> the controller going to know which aircraft double-clicked and which
> clicked by accident?
>

[Peter R.]

Bill Denton ) wrote:

> And, if you are in a crowded area, your "double-click" would probably "step
> on" someone else's communication. If an acknowledgement is not required, it
> would seem the best practice would be not to acknowledge, especially in
> congested airspace...

And once again we see that one procedure does not fit all situations. :)

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Bob Gardner]

Never. There is no way for ATC to know who clicked the mike...maybe the
pilot he was talking to, maybe someone else.

Bob Gardner

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:KBvDb.553661$HS4.4223865@attbi_s01...
> Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
> pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
> but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>
> Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
> know how to interpret it?
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Bill Denton]

You noted: "And once again we see that one procedure does not fit all
situations."

Please allow me to respectfully disagree with your sentiments. A few weeks
ago their was a thread regarding the on-runway collision a few years ago in
the Canary Islands (?). One of the major causes of that collision was the
lack of a standard communications protocol.

Whether one protocol is superior to another for a given situation is totally
irrelevant. The important thing is to have a consistent protocol. A pilot
who normally flies in and out of Podunk Airport and is used to
"double-clicking" would be in bad shape when he headed toward O'Hare. The
"double-click" might be fine at Podunk, but would be totally unacceptable at
O'Hare. The protocol should be designed for O'Hare and other major airports,
then adopted at all other airports.

After all, the double-click that is fine at Podunk would be foreign to a
pilot whose base is O'Hare. And one of the beauties of our system is that on
a given day, most airports will see the majority of their operations
involving aircraft that are not based there. Are they going to know about
the "double-click"?



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Bill Denton ) wrote:
>
> > And, if you are in a crowded area, your "double-click" would probably
"step
> > on" someone else's communication. If an acknowledgement is not required,
it
> > would seem the best practice would be not to acknowledge, especially in
> > congested airspace...
>
> And once again we see that one procedure does not fit all situations. :)
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Peter R.]

Bill Denton ) wrote:

> Please allow me to respectfully disagree with your sentiments. A few weeks
> ago their was a thread regarding the on-runway collision a few years ago in
> the Canary Islands (?). One of the major causes of that collision was the
> lack of a standard communications protocol.
<snip>

Bill, returning due respect, IMO this is apples and oranges. As an avid
reader of Don Brown's monthly ATC column on AVWeb, I strive to be a "by the
book" communicator for all required transmissions. Recalling a few fatal
accident reports where poor communication of required transmissions was a
factor in the crash, I am in full agreement with you that standard, brief,
accurate responses for required transmissions is the *only* way to go. It
appears to me that you are misinterpreting my previous posts.

Most likely, you are a more experienced pilot than I, so you know there are
times when ATC will add non-standard phraseology, such as "Have a great
day/flight/Christmas, etc." Instead of clogging the frequency with "And
you have a nice day/Christmas/weekend, too" response, I simply double-
click, which takes all of less than a second of radio time, yet implies
"Thanks/You, too/Etc." This and the wind example are the *only* examples
of when I believe it acceptable to use the double-click response method.

If another pilot happens to start a transmission during the double-click, I
would wager that ATC will not miss a single word of that pilot's
transmission. And, it goes without saying to me that the level of
frequency activity determines if even a response to the "Have a nice day"
is warranted.

If everything were 100% standard, you would not hear ATC use non-standard
communications at all. However, routinely flying into Boston's Logan,
Teterboro, and Baltimore Washington over the last year, I can attest to the
fact that even these busy controllers will sometimes add non-standard, non-
required phrases. Occasionally responding to these *non-standard* (thanks,
have a nice day, have a great flight) phrases with a double-click is, IMO,
an effective communication shortcut. And up until this thread, I thought
it was quite trivial.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[KG]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<KBvDb.553661$HS4.4223865@attbi_s01>...
> Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
> pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
> but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>
> Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
> know how to interpret it?


I am a student pilot and don't have a lot of experience, but while
completeing my 3 required full stop landings at a towered airport I
flew to Fort Worth Alliance airport. The tower used the double-click
routinely to confirm my readbacks of his instructions. This let me
know that I had read back correctly and I assume that he would have
repeated his instructions had I read back something incorrectly.

Kenny G.

[Nathan Young]

Peter R. > wrote in message >...
> Nathan Young ) wrote:
>
> > Ie taxi instructions, hold-short, etc.
>
> Really? Every towered airport (mostly in the Northeast US) in which I have
> flown states in the ATIS "readback of all hold-short instructions
> required." Additionally, I often hear the ground controller repeating a
> hold short instruction and requiring the readback be verbatim.
>
> I cannot imagine a ground controller allowing someone to double-click a
> response to a hold short instruction.

Well, you cut the Roger/Wilco part of my post out in the response, so
it is a bit out of context. Most controllers aren't going to let a
double-click stand as a readback, but Roger/Wilcos are common.
However poor the practice - it happens regularly, particularly on
ground frequencies at Class D or Cs when they are not busy.

It also happens a lot by IFR pilots who do not seem to be on top of
their game -last weekend I heard a Mooney pilot who was just picking
up an IFR to get into Palwaukee. During the 15 minutes I was on his
frequencies, I heard him misread a clearance twice (leaving out final
destination). It was not caught/corrected by either controller, and
caused some minor headaches for the next controller in line.

-Nathan

[alexy]

xyzzy > wrote:

>Nathan Young wrote:
>
>> (Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<KBvDb.553661$HS4.4223865@attbi_s01>...
>>
>>>Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
>>>pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
>>>but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>>>
>>>Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
>>>know how to interpret it?
>>
>>
>> A lot of pilots use the double-click of the PTT as an acknowledgement
>> to a transmission that didn't need to be acknowledged. It is
>> primarily used as a courtesy to the controller to let them know that
>> you heard their last transmission - even if a reply wasn't required.
>>
>> An example: Leaving Class D airspace.
>> Cherokee 62R: Tower, Cherokee 62R is clear to the North, have a good
>> afternoon.
>> Tower: 62R, freq change approved, have a good afternoon too.
>> Cherokee 62R: key the mike twice.
>>
>> The key is (pun intended) - there are not many situations where the
>> double-click is acceptable. Unfortunately, many pilots key the mike
>> (or use Roger/Wilco), when a proper reply was required. Ie taxi
>> instructions, hold-short, etc.
>
>Also, at uncontrolled airports to acknowledge friendly chit-chat on the
>frequency. I know, it's not supposed to happen but it does
>
>pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
>pilot 2: Joe is that you?
>pilot 1: yeah it is, hey jeff
>pilot 2: great day to fly, huh?
>pilot 1: double click
>
>It's a good way to end those conversations with reasonable brevity and
>politeness

Better:
pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
pilot 2: Joe is that you?
pilot 1: double click
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Hankal]

>Better:
>pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
>pilot 2: Joe is that you?
>pilot 1: double click

Best use 122.75
this is the designated frequency for pilot to pilot.
Hank

[Peter Duniho]

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> Better:
> pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
> pilot 2: Joe is that you?
> pilot 1: double click

Or even better:

pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
pilot 2: <transmits no social chit-chat on a traffic frequency>

(Ignoring of course that even the transmission from "pilot 1" leaves a lot
to be desired)

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Xyzzy,

> It's a good way to end those conversations with reasonable brevity and
> politeness
>

Jeeze, don't you see how this is the ultimate irony? You waste precious
time on the frequency with that kind of senseless blathering, and then
care about ending it with brevity? <shaking head in bewilderment>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[xyzzy]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "alexy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Better:
>>pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
>>pilot 2: Joe is that you?
>>pilot 1: double click
>
>
> Or even better:
>
> pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
> pilot 2: <transmits no social chit-chat on a traffic frequency>
>
> (Ignoring of course that even the transmission from "pilot 1" leaves a lot
> to be desired)
>


True, but in the real world where I fly this kind of stuff is always
going on on the frequencies. So the double click is a polite way to
end it quickly.

[xyzzy]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Xyzzy,
>
>
>>It's a good way to end those conversations with reasonable brevity and
>>politeness
>>
>
>
> Jeeze, don't you see how this is the ultimate irony? You waste precious
> time on the frequency with that kind of senseless blathering, and then
> care about ending it with brevity? <shaking head in bewilderment>
>

sorry, missed your ideal of perfection. Like it or not, listen to the
CTAFs on pretty weekend flying days and this goes on all the time. You
can get into a lather over the fact that it's happening, or use the
useful device of the double-click to end conversations you get drawn
into without being rude to the person who started it.

I guess instead of double-clicking to end the conversation I could give
the friendly, garrolous pilot a stern lecture on proper use of the CTAF,
taking up even more time on the frequency. That's probably what you
would do, huh?

[xyzzy]

Nathan Young wrote:

> (Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<KBvDb.553661$HS4.4223865@attbi_s01>...
>
>>Somewhere I read that you should NOT acknowledge transmissions by just
>>pressing PTT briefly. Now, I had never heard that before, nor done it,
>>but since then I think I've heard it happen.
>>
>>Can someone who is familiar with this explain the PTT-ack customs so I
>>know how to interpret it?
>
>
> A lot of pilots use the double-click of the PTT as an acknowledgement
> to a transmission that didn't need to be acknowledged. It is
> primarily used as a courtesy to the controller to let them know that
> you heard their last transmission - even if a reply wasn't required.
>
> An example: Leaving Class D airspace.
> Cherokee 62R: Tower, Cherokee 62R is clear to the North, have a good
> afternoon.
> Tower: 62R, freq change approved, have a good afternoon too.
> Cherokee 62R: key the mike twice.
>
> The key is (pun intended) - there are not many situations where the
> double-click is acceptable. Unfortunately, many pilots key the mike
> (or use Roger/Wilco), when a proper reply was required. Ie taxi
> instructions, hold-short, etc.

Also, at uncontrolled airports to acknowledge friendly chit-chat on the
frequency. I know, it's not supposed to happen but it does

pilot 1: cessna xyz leaving 5 miles out
pilot 2: Joe is that you?
pilot 1: yeah it is, hey jeff
pilot 2: great day to fly, huh?
pilot 1: double click

It's a good way to end those conversations with reasonable brevity and
politeness

[Peter Duniho]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> I guess instead of double-clicking to end the conversation I could give
> the friendly, garrolous pilot a stern lecture on proper use of the CTAF,
> taking up even more time on the frequency. That's probably what you
> would do, huh?

You could just ignore the "friendly, garrolous pilot" altogether. Why make
a bad situation worse?

I was departing a local uncontrolled airport today and heard a couple of
Cessnas talking to each other while sitting at the run-up area. They wasted
more than a minute of radio time chatting about how they'd switch over to
122.75 after takeoff.

I couldn't understand why they weren't already on 122.75 if they wanted to
sit there and chat.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Xyzzy,

> or use the
> useful device of the double-click to end conversations you get drawn
> into without being rude to the person who started it.

I prefer to be rude to that one person instead of being rude to all those
others that try to get a useful word in on the CTAF. Not answering is the
solution.

>
> I guess instead of double-clicking to end the conversation I could give
> the friendly, garrolous pilot a stern lecture on proper use of the CTAF,
> taking up even more time on the frequency. That's probably what you
> would do, huh?
>

See above as to what I would do. Silence is golden.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Captain Wubba]

No offense, but I have no beef with this if, like almost anything else
in flying, it is done with common sense. I think most pilots have
enough of this (increasingly rare) commodity to know that they
probably shouldn't do this on the approach frequency into DFW, but on
123.00 at some rarely-used airport where there is no frequencey
congestion, it really isn't a problem.

I fail to see how 'Hey Joe, have a good day' is any more wasted
'bandwidth' or 'time' than the center controller telling me to have a
good day when he switches me over to approach. It's no biggie, and
certainly nothing to get one's panties all in a bunch over. Same with
the use of 'non-standard' replies like 'no joy'. The point of all
communication is to *communicate*. If you understand what I meant by
my specific communication, then it was successful. Every
pilot/controller understands what 'no joy' means. I won't teach it to
my students, but they will eventually pick it up, if they fly
enough...most pilots I know do eventually.

Either way, it's certainly not worth worrying about.

Cheers,

Cap


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Xyzzy,
>
> > It's a good way to end those conversations with reasonable brevity and
> > politeness
> >
>
> Jeeze, don't you see how this is the ultimate irony? You waste precious
> time on the frequency with that kind of senseless blathering, and then
> care about ending it with brevity? <shaking head in bewilderment>

[Thomas Borchert]

Captain,

> Every
> pilot/controller understands what 'no joy' means.
>

Uh, not, not at all. Look at my sig: I am from Germany, yet I hold a US
pilot certificate. Do you really think every foreigner would understand
that phrase? Dream on! OTOH, the correct phrase is in the book - I had
to learn it. And I did. Foreign pilots using US airspace is one reason
for standard phraseology - and a good one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Captain Wubba]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Captain,
>
> > Every
> > pilot/controller understands what 'no joy' means.
> >
>
> Uh, not, not at all. Look at my sig: I am from Germany, yet I hold a US
> pilot certificate. Do you really think every foreigner would understand
> that phrase? Dream on! OTOH, the correct phrase is in the book - I had
> to learn it. And I did. Foreign pilots using US airspace is one reason
> for standard phraseology - and a good one.

No offense, but if you heard a pilot telling a controller, after being
advised that he had King Air traffic 5 miles, 3 O'Clock "Skyhawk 24A,
no joy on the King Air, looking" that you wouldn't be able to figure
it out? I fly in a very heavy useage Class B airspace, with lots of
international traffic...I have heard Air France pilots (with
pronounced French accents) use that phrase before. To be honest, I'd
much prefer my student to be looking for the traffic, flying the plane
and saying 'No joy on the traffic' (if that is what he knows and has
used many times before) than to be trying to think about whether
'Negative contact', 'No contact', 'Traffic not in sight', or 'looking
for traffic' is the 'appropriate' response mandated by the AIM.
Communication is about the conveyence of ideas and information. And,
in standard flying in America, anyway, 'No Joy' is every bit as common
as what the AIM says is correct. Used it a bunch, flown with other
pilots who have used it a bunch, and never had any problem with
somebody understanding the meaning of my phrase. It conveys the
intended meaning.

I do take your point, but certain words and phrases *do* become de
facto 'standard' via their use. Go to any airport with heavy training
activity, and you will hear pilots, when queried about what approach
they would like to do next say they'd like to 'Shoot the VOR 18', or
'Shoot the ILS to the published missed'. The word 'shoot' is nowhere
to be found in the FAA pilot/controller glossary. Would you understand
the meaning? I've heard plenty if airline pilot say things like 'We'll
take the visual for 18L, please'. That's probably 'nonstandard'. I'm
not sure...can't find the 'standard' call in the glossary or the AIM.
But I doubt any controller would misunderstand that statement, just as
I doubt any controller would not understand 'No joy on the King Air'.

It's about common sense. There are issues that affect safety, and
there are issues that tend to be nothing more than about being
'right'. On the internet, far more debates seem to be about the latter
than about the former. In terms of radio communications, I don't think
'non-standard' communications like 'no joy', 'shoot the approach' or
having an approach controller tell the sector about the score of a big
game (clearly not in the book, but has happened more than once to me)
has anything to do with safety. There are much bigger issues to worry
about than whether I should say 'Roger, right turn 220 to join' or
'Affirmative, right turn 220 to intercept the localizer' or 'Right
turn 220 degrees to the localizer' is 'technically' the right phrase.
If it communicates the meaning, then it has done its job. We can't
memorize every 'correct' phrase for every single situation. Common
sense will be required. And if applied, I don't think this is any kind
of real problem.

Cheers,

Cap

[Nathan Young]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...

> Uh, not, not at all. Look at my sig: I am from Germany, yet I hold a US
> pilot certificate.

Interesting - I am curious why? Costs? Living in the US? Originally from US?

-Nathan

[Morgans]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
om...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Uh, not, not at all. Look at my sig: I am from Germany, yet I hold a US
> > pilot certificate.
>
> Interesting - I am curious why? Costs? Living in the US? Originally
from US?
>
> -Nathan

Could it be that it is about three times as much to get a German ticket?

Same with ground (driver's) tickets. We had a German exchange student that
was not allowed to drive while here, but a couple weeks before he was to go
back, we taught him to drive, and got his license. Almost free. Cost of a
couple K, over there.
--
Jim in NC

[Darrell]

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
>...
> > Captain,
> >
> > > Every
> > > pilot/controller understands what 'no joy' means.
> > >
> >
> > Uh, not, not at all. Look at my sig: I am from Germany, yet I hold a US
> > pilot certificate. Do you really think every foreigner would understand
> > that phrase? Dream on! OTOH, the correct phrase is in the book - I had
> > to learn it. And I did. Foreign pilots using US airspace is one reason
> > for standard phraseology - and a good one.
>
> No offense, but if you heard a pilot telling a controller, after being
> advised that he had King Air traffic 5 miles, 3 O'Clock "Skyhawk 24A,
> no joy on the King Air, looking" that you wouldn't be able to figure
> it out? I fly in a very heavy useage Class B airspace, with lots of
> international traffic...I have heard Air France pilots (with
> pronounced French accents) use that phrase before. To be honest, I'd
> much prefer my student to be looking for the traffic, flying the plane
> and saying 'No joy on the traffic' (if that is what he knows and has
> used many times before) than to be trying to think about whether
> 'Negative contact', 'No contact', 'Traffic not in sight', or 'looking
> for traffic' is the 'appropriate' response mandated by the AIM.
> Communication is about the conveyence of ideas and information. And,
> in standard flying in America, anyway, 'No Joy' is every bit as common
> as what the AIM says is correct. Used it a bunch, flown with other
> pilots who have used it a bunch, and never had any problem with
> somebody understanding the meaning of my phrase. It conveys the
> intended meaning.

What you say is absolutely true. Until a near mid-air causes your recorded
conversation to become an item of interest at your hearing.
Then you would have been better off if you had used standard terminology so
the ATC toad can't put the blame on you for any misunderstanding that caused
a problem

I have a good friend who used to use phrases like "Barker 69 coming at you
at 350" when contacting a new center and establishing contact
at FL 350. He used many other non-standard phrases he thought were cute.
He failed to make a descent crossing with a near mid-air and at his hearing
they played the tapes of all his conversations with center. He admitted
later that, even to himself, his terminology sounded flippant and presented
a picture of a "playboy" flying airplanes. He ended up with 2 weeks "on the
beach" without pay.

>
> I do take your point, but certain words and phrases *do* become de
> facto 'standard' via their use. Go to any airport with heavy training
> activity, and you will hear pilots, when queried about what approach
> they would like to do next say they'd like to 'Shoot the VOR 18', or
> 'Shoot the ILS to the published missed'. The word 'shoot' is nowhere
> to be found in the FAA pilot/controller glossary. Would you understand
> the meaning? I've heard plenty if airline pilot say things like 'We'll
> take the visual for 18L, please'. That's probably 'nonstandard'. I'm
> not sure...can't find the 'standard' call in the glossary or the AIM.
> But I doubt any controller would misunderstand that statement, just as
> I doubt any controller would not understand 'No joy on the King Air'.
>
> It's about common sense. There are issues that affect safety, and
> there are issues that tend to be nothing more than about being
> 'right'. On the internet, far more debates seem to be about the latter
> than about the former. In terms of radio communications, I don't think
> 'non-standard' communications like 'no joy', 'shoot the approach' or
> having an approach controller tell the sector about the score of a big
> game (clearly not in the book, but has happened more than once to me)
> has anything to do with safety. There are much bigger issues to worry
> about than whether I should say 'Roger, right turn 220 to join' or
> 'Affirmative, right turn 220 to intercept the localizer' or 'Right
> turn 220 degrees to the localizer' is 'technically' the right phrase.
> If it communicates the meaning, then it has done its job. We can't
> memorize every 'correct' phrase for every single situation. Common
> sense will be required. And if applied, I don't think this is any kind
> of real problem.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cap

[Thomas Borchert]

Nathan,

> why? Costs? Living in the US? Originally from US?
>

I got my glider and powered glider certificate here (separate here),
then started to travel to the US a lot on business and pleasure.
Managed to squeeze in the training for the ASEL certificate, got it and
converted it to a German ASEL license. This was more cost effective,
too. I still fly in both countries - in the US whenever I get a chance.
It's just so much cheaper, and the scenery in most places I need to
travel to is hard to match. Next is Scottsdale, AZ, in February.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)