Don’t use slang (Please 🙏)
Jargon in aviation operations is mostly harmless in less busy airspace (children at play). But when it carries over into busy airspace it creates serious problems for safety. The mystery is what motivates these mistakes. Pilots used to work hard to sound professional (not stupid) and the human urge to be “creative” may be part of it. Some of these misused terms are obviously intentional with pilots trying to sound more experienced or professional – with the opposite effect – tally-ho? But 
there seems to be an increasing usage that just comes from simple bad training and ignorance. Our goal should be precision and brevity and eliminating dangerous ambiguity. I have often been delayed while a – frustrated – controller lectured a pilot on the need to read back the runway they were holding short of or landing on (required).
Traffic calls (“report traffic in sight”) from an ATC facility answered ambiguously “I got him” etc, use up precious airtime while separation may also be compromised. Only two replies are valid “traffic in sight” and “negative contact” according to the AIM. Another basic flaw, often demonstrated even by CFIs is using “to” and “for” which are easily confused with “two” and “four.” “Roger” only means “I have received your transmission” (not “yes”). And please save “copy that” for truckers. These are common problems every pilot should work to correct to be a true professional.
Precision RNAV Approaches: 300 HAT Gone!
The FAA has finally redefined precision approaches for both training and testing. All the FAA guidance (handbooks, ACs, etc) are being corrected to the new standard. The 300 HAT restriction to define a precision RNAV is now gone. ” A precision approach is a
standard instrument approach procedure to a published decision altitude using provided approved vertical guidance.” The 300 HAT restriction is “intentionally absent” in the newest testing standards and a further clarification was released in a YouTube from the FAA for DPEs. More official guidance is on the way.
Additionally, Appendix 3 of the new Instrument ACS contains this guidance: “The applicant may use a suitable RNAV system on conventional procedures and routes as described in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) to accomplish ACS tasks on conventional approach procedures, as appropriate.” To me, this seems to eliminate the requirement for a VOR approach in a WAAS RNAV-equipped airplane.
That change is certainly going to ruffle some feathers. What happens when the GPS constellation takes a dump and we revert to Minimum Operational Network? Here again, the superior (added value) training from a superior CFI would include these (non-tested) contingencies (like MCA in private training). Just because it is not tested does not mean it should not be taught!
Exact Name Match for FAA Evaluations
This has become an increasing problem on test day. The FAA wants an exact name match on your supplied government ID and your FAA (usually student) pilot certificate. Often the student certificate was created by a CFI and might not exactly match the government doc. This needs to be rectified *before* the flight evaluation. Usually, a driver’s license is the easiest fix at the local DMV. But “no match” on test day means “no test” (unqualified) according to the most recent FAA guidance. Fortunately, addresses can be verified with additional documents (should be residential) and only need to meet the notification requirements of the FAA under CFR 63.21 (30 days)
Airventure (OSH)24 has been added to our “SAFE Toolkit” App (free download). This App has directions to all our events and provides push notifications of all SAFE events at the show -“allow notifications!” Additionally, the toolkit is chock full of CFI resources and helpful hints for applicants in the “Checkride-Ready™” tab (DPE best advice for success).
Register and attend our June 23rd Webinar on “Savvy CFI Tools.” The focus will be on common problems often seen during checkrides (by DPEs) and missed in training by many newer CFIs. See “Fly Not Drive,” “Landing Magic,” and “Teaching Rudder.”
Yes David, God (and CFIs) save us from “Cute and Cool”. The problem is that, it appears that the CFIs are part of the problem. I am tired of such common transmissions as:
“Got ‘im on the fish-finder,” or similar things that somehow replace, “Traffic in sight,” but don’t. Hello! Your transmission helps no one and occupies time that could be used for useful transmissions.
“With you,” to which I want to key the mike and yell, “No, you are not with her! You are in an airplane in the air and she is at a scope on the ground!” Ok, this is sort of innocuous but still …
And then there are the cute transmissions at non-tower airports:
“Any traffic in the area please advise,” which normally just incurs an eye-roll but serious tempts me to key the mike and say, “No, I won’t!” Whether or not you transmit this others are still going to make position reports … or not (sadly to say on the latter). Your invitation is not going to change the behavior of others. Are you so important that they have to make a transmission just for you? Really?
“Last call,” which again tempts me to tailgate the transmission with, “… for alcohol.” Seriously people, this is truly a throw-away transmission as it conveys no useful information. If I need to call you (I don’t) and you don’t answer, I know you are no longer on the frequency. You don’t need to tell me.
And then there is the almost useful and almost correct, but not really, transmission. “Bogon traffic, Cessna 1234 xray, ten miles out for landing one two, full stop, Bogon traffic.” Ok, I now know you are somewhere on a the surface of a sphere, radius 10 miles, from the center of the airport. Not real helpful. Hmm, maybe he is directly over the airport at 52,800 feet! Yeah, that’s it. Planning a power out landing because I sincerely doubt his engine is still running. Perhaps the reason for the poor transmission is hypoxia.
ATC English is pretty compact. As I recall, there are only about 100 English words that make up ATC English. You only need to know and use those 100 words to be clear and concise. I cannot imagine that the average pilot cannot memorize 100 words in a couple of days.
And that brings me to the speed of speech. We all know that as you become familiar with a task you can speed it up. It appears to me that another goal of looking cool is to speak at about 1000 words-per-minute. Perhaps they are practicing for a side job as an auctioneer! However, the reality is that the ICAO recommends a speech rate of about 100 words-per-minute. That is only 3 words every 2 seconds or so. It … is … very … slow … and … deliberate. However, if you use only the 100 ATC words, you can usually reply slowly and clearly, and still have a transmission that is as short or shorter than mister-machine-gun-mouth. “Slow is smooth and smooth is fast,” very definitely applies here. “Left one two zero, climb four-thousand, direct foxtrot uniform bravo when receiving, cessna one two three four xray,” beats the snot out of, “Cessna three four xray, turn left to one twenty then up to four point oh, then direct to Fubar VOR, that’s fox uniform bravo, when we finally hear it, cessna three four xray.”
And this does not just apply to pilots. I hear this from new controllers as well. We have a training tower near us and sometimes those controllers get up near 1000WPM too. Of course my student looks at me with horror in her eyes when she first hears this. I smile and say very calmly, “Don’t worry, if you didn’t understand it and get it all, just ask the controller to ‘say again’.” After about the third “say again,” the controller usually gets the message, slows down, and completes an actual transmission of information. How much easier would it have been if they had just done that in the first place.
OK, rant mode off. Have a great weekend David!
When I moved to New England in ’85, I flew with a number of pilots who would use the old military terms ‘no joy’ and ‘tally ho’. Apparently there were also a number of ex-military controllers in those days – I never heard even one complaint. I always found those terms amusing but never used them and haven’t heard them now in a long time. Certainly now a generation or two later, it would cause a lot of uncertainty.
Most of that banter is “cute and cool” (as Brian says) and often is no harm in sleepy ATC. Pilots need to know enough to adapt correctly to a busy environment though. Quite honestly, the “chapter and verse” in the pilot/controller glossary” has to go out the window in the really busy airspace. NYC is like listening to an auctioneer…just wait for them to call your number and sequence and reply accurately and rapidly.