Pilots reveal their level of experience and discipline most clearly to the world with their radio phraseology. We have all heard a new learner on frequency struggling through their first attempts with the radio. Hopefully, we all commiserate with this “word salad;” we all were there once. For CFIs in the group, I highly recommend a printed script to ease these first attempts. Too many CFIs take over the radio for beginners (avoid the cringe) and the newbie consequently learns nothing. New pilots need the practice; ATC phraseology is initially a foreign language. When an experienced pilot is babbling non-approved phraseology, it is unforgivable and dangerous. Specific phraseology is essential to avoid ambiguity and dangerous deviations from directions. The “point six five” will reveal how specific and precise controllers speak (usually). This is a discipline pilots should model.
The most irritating violation of standards usually comes when a pilot wants to use the runway for takeoff in a controlled airspace. “Ready to go” is common – and usually forgiven outside of busy airspace. The more intense the traffic situation, the more precise and precise your phraseology must be.
“Request Takeoff”
What is the actual *correct* way to get a clearance for take-off? (Please spare me the comments on this one) The correct phraseology is remarkably simple: “Holding short RXX, Request takeoff.” If something other than runway heading is desired, simply add your desired departure to the request: “and right turn to the west.” That second part of this request is the “departure clearance.” Pursuant to that, a pilot should never “request departure” at the runway holding line or say “ready for departure.” Have you ever heard a controller say “clear for departure” as a takeoff clearance? They are approving a specific pilot action; and that is the takeoff. “Request takeoff” please: clear and succinct. I will be the first to admit that almost anything a pilot utters holding short at “Cornhusker Muni” will be followed by “cleared for takeoff.” Most rural level one VFR towers are used to complete chaos at the hold short line. Whatever you say, they roll their eyes and clear you for T/O. But if you want to be a professional, use the phraseology that will work at Laguardia or Teterboro.
“Request” is a magic word when you need something from ATC. That followed by the action you are seeking, “request on course,” immediately cues the controller they are speaking to a pro. If it is an initial contact, begin with location and your flight status. “12 miles north, VFR Request.” Many Level One VFR towers have no radar and only know where you are by what you say (no radar here – accuracy is critical). If you are already in contact (or on a discrete code with a facility) you can eliminate the location if it is busy.
If you are flying in a dense traffic situation (radio is buzzing), “eliminating the obvious” is essential (but not actually approved by the “point six five” or the FAR/AIM glossary) In busy airspace the rule is “essential to efficient” communication. At 17:00 in the NYC airspace, on the handoff, it is often too busy to even check-on with the new frequency (at 119.2 headed south into KCDW, KTEB). The radio here resembles an auctioneer just reading call signs and directions non-stop. Just listen for your call sign, readback accurately and comply. If you miss a call twice you will be vectored to outer darkness.
“Unable”
I fly with lots of newer pilots who are not yet comfortable with “command authority;” CFR 91.3. This is especially true with ew CFIs having only 10 hours of solo! It is critical to safety that every pilot know their capability and limits; both aircraft and pilot. If ATC requests something that is not possible or safe, it is essential to state this clarity: “unable!” In these cases also add what *might* work or is desirable to the situation so the controller knows your issues. In cases like this, if a pilot accepts a clearance and cannot accomplish the action, this creates an even worse situation. Saying “unable” or “student pilot” will cue them in if you are still learning and the requested action is beyond your capability. In most cases, I do not recommend starting every transmission with “student pilot.” If a pilot is this weak, they probably should not be soloing in that particular airspace. IF a situation arises beyond your control, play that card. If all else fails, resort to “plain English” and resolve the situation. (“say again” is valuable, but does not help if you don’t know what the original instruction means
The meek shall inherit the earth but they will not make very good IFR pilots!”
IFR Operations
A good percentage of failures on FAA Instrument Evaluations are the result of applicants “allowing the controller to fly their aircraft.” They accept vectors and approach clearance when they are not fully set up and briefed. This usually ends up in chaos with the applicant way behind on the procedure all the way down final. This is (again) an abrogation of PIC authority. A simple “request”for vectors or delay is essential to safety (and success on every IFR flight). A controller assumes a certain standard level of proficiency and cannot know your workload (or fatigue). Share your needs with a “request” and there will be less chaos and danger.
Mouse on Frequency
Another problem that follows from the lack of command authority is a lack of confident vocalization on the radio (mouse voice). Not only is this hard to hear on frequency, but the weak and timid voice will often lead to “kid glove” handling. Any sensible controller will naturally treat your operation more carefully, despite your proficiency. If you sound weak and lack confidence, you will be vectored wide, held further from any potential interaction with traffic, and basically get handled like a new learner. If this is appropriate, no problem. But unfortunately, many pilots never learn to speak up and advocate for what they want/need (confidence).
Confidence is not an exclusive trait, but a skill accessible to all, and with the right tools, you can harness it when it truly matters.
Be polite, but be “in command.” Listen on live ATC more and you will hear the effective/efficient pro pilots and also the church mice over their heads. Then decide who you would rather be and work on your radio skills. Fly safely our there (and often)!
Join us on October 19th, at 8pm for a FREE SAFE Webinar on Commercial Pilot Professionalism. With the disappearance of retractable training/testing and also “real solo,“ Commercial is rapidly becoming “Private Pilot 2.0” even testing in the same basic trainers. What can be added to define professionalism at the commercial level? Enter your ideas on this Google Form, and sign up to attend HERE. 
ATC should never be able to ‘take over’ on a check ride.
I noticed a several issues with IFR check rides.
1. During a check ride the applicant is supposed to be PIC, however, they cannot file an IFR flight plan as PIC, because they are not yet rated as an instrument pilot. The applicant is still an IFR student pilot.
2. A pilot should never fly on instrument approaches if they are not rated as an instrument pilot, and on an instrument flight plan talking to ATC.
During instruction this would be the instructor filing and the student following along.The student can make the ATC clearance calls, etc… with the instructor as PIC.
Leading to a log book issue… should an instrument student log PIC time while on an instrument flight plan if they are not yet rated. I have seen people log the training as PIC, I believe, I did it many years (decades) ago.
The “who files, and PIC filing IFR” are always the most confusing issue in training. Remarkably, the FAA allows “VFR only” planes and helicopters to file and fly in the IFR system (just stay out of the clouds: CFR 61.3[e]). The DA-20 is a notable example. In the FAA online guidance for the DCA ADIZ instructs every entering or departing *VFR* pilot to file an IFR flight plan (even not rated!) entering “VFR” in comments to generate flight following for DCA transition!
On flight tests, 61.47 says DPE is not PIC…the applicant is PIC by default (unless DPE agrees to accept PIC authority). As soon as the 8710-1 is accepted by the DPE and successfully submitted the qualified applicant, serves (and logs) the flight as PIC (Murphy (2009): “an unrated pilot is qualified to act as PIC during a practical test because that pilot possesses the appropriate experience prior to the practical test for the particular certificate or rating.” Essentially every applicant begins the flight test with 100% – already what they applied to be on the 8710-1 (until proved otherwise)! With that said, very recent FAA guidance discourages DPEs from having applicants file IFR on flight tests.
On flight tests, Murphy 2009 also applies but the ruling reg is CFR 61.51.(e)(B) clearly stating a pilot receiving instruction can log PIC if rated in the plane. (“Rated” means pilot cert, not instrument rating)
LaGuardia will introduce another aspect about radio procedures. There are so many departures, the radio procedures are carefully controlled. At the appropriate time in the line, ground tells you what your departure number is, and says ‘monitor’ tower. The pilot then just waits for the tower to call.
On your written phraseology document, the third item under Request Take-Off is a transmission to report clear of Delta. The AIM actually discourages this call, unless instructed to do so of course. However, it still pays to monitor for at least a few more miles. One time departing Hartford-Brainard at night to the southwest, we cleared Delta and continued the departure as usual with no further radio contact. After a minute or so, the tower asked if we were still on frequency. Confirming we were, he said that light at your twelve o’clock is a Boeing 727 on final to runway 4 at Pratt and Whitney (which used to be on the other side of the river from Brainard with their own tower – now closed). So we easily deviated to our right and a short time later watched the 727 zoom by on our left. I sweat a few bullets later thinking about what could have happened had we not continued to monitor the tower freq.
AIM 4-3-2. “In the interest of reducing tower frequency congestion, pilots are reminded that it is not necessary to request permission to leave the tower frequency once outside of Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas.”
That suggested script was developed for East Hill Flying at the Ithaca Airport, and the control tower asks for every pilot to “report clear of Delta.” We added that report on the script due to their request. The general procedure is to continue to monitor the tower frequency (along with local radar) for situational awareness. ADS-B has been a great help for traffic awareness for all pilots.
Makes perfect sense. I mentioned it as a number of times, I’ve run into pilots who have been taught to always make that call when not requested by ATC. Apparently this was happening excessively at Bridgeport CT, and at one safety meeting, the tower manager was making a presentation and obviously irritated about it, mentioned it wasn’t necessary. He actually wasn’t familiar with that sentence in the AIM.
While I agree with most of what you wrote about ATC communications, I would disagree about “holding short of runway XX, requesting takeoff”. As a former terminal radar and tower controller with the FAA, one of the first things I was taught was to only use the words “takeoff” when I was actually clearing an aircraft for takeoff. This was to eliminate confusion of the wrong airplane thinking they were cleared for takeoff. I think the following examples would support this. When listening to the ATIS it tells you that they are departing runway XX and landing runway XX. Also, if you are given a clearance to taxi into position and hold runway XX you may be told that traffic is departing a crossing runway (not taking off on a crossing runway) or you may be told to expect an immediate departure (not to expect an immediate takeoff).
The rest of your article was very good. Sounding professional and in command is very important.
You story illustrates another common problem. The ATC people refer to their 7110.65 manual and pilots refer to their FAR/AIM guidance; each group is unaware and ignorant of the other group’s guidance. The words I mentioned are crossover, universal terms (and I can think of about 20 more to include – later!)
The one request that has saved me hours of vectoring and course reversals is “request own navigation to…” Plus it is a great way to show pilots how to work the ATC system and get what you need.