Page 42 - Volume 20 No. 6

Communicating Clearly
Despite the looming advances in datalink communication, much of our interaction with the air traffic control system, as well as other pilots, remains very firmly anchored with verbal instructions and acknowledgement. All of us, I rather imagine, have had hair-whitening experiences with miscommunication during our career. Aviation is critically dependant on knowing what we, and the other aircraft, are supposed to be doing. To achieve this, we have to communicate clearly.
You have not communicated if you’re not understood. And misunderstanding of ATC instructions is often founded on expecting to hear an anticipated response. If what is heard is not the same as what was meant, and we act upon this false premise, the system breaks down. The problem is compounded, of course, when cultural and language factors add inflection to the words.
Pilots are diverse lot; while controllers are mostly trained to a uniform standard and must adhere to procedures governing their every action, pilots may present themselves as a stumbling student, freshly-minted private pilot, blossoming commercial or ace-of- the-base ATP. Expectations to the contrary, these pilots, with their widely-varying capabilities, don’t
40 • TWIN & TURBINE
by LeRoy Cook
always hold to specific phraseology,
often leaving the controller to sort it all out. Not surprisingly, controllers get taken in once in a while, trusting what they’ve heard until it’s proven otherwise.
The desire to communicate clearly should be taken seriously by all of us, because so much depends on being understood. Training and procedural manuals spell out specific methods of requesting and acknowledging instructions, and even how to speak ICAO numbers and letters. Common usage tends to shortcut proper phraseology, which can be dangerous. My own weakness is not saying enough, in the interest of saving precious airtime. I tend to choose my radio words carefully, and perhaps a bit too parsimoniously, because I frequently get asked to repeat or “say intentions”, after I thought I had already said it all. The minimalist approach may save some airtime up front, but it loses the advantage when a second set of transmissions has to be made.
Another frequently-occurring roadblock to clear communication is not understanding what the other party needs from you. ATC needs to know three vital things; WHO you are, WHERE you are and WHAT it is you want to do. Placing these items in order on the initial call-up gets the preliminaries out of the way, opening the door to further
communication. Save the details for later; embellishments such as a lengthy description of aircraft type, runway desired and transponder code being squawked don’t belong in the initial call. Adding the ATIS password is expected, of course. However, I’ve found that “with Romeo” doesn’t have nearly the clarity of “we have Romeo.”
Where Is He?
A common place for a mid-air collision threat to manifest itself is during the handoff between controllers in congested airspace (and radio time) near the airport. Recently, we were inbound on a visual arrival, flying an extended left base leg to Runway Two, about to make a requested report to Tower, when a Beech King Air zipped across our bow from right to left. “Must be on the ILS,” I said to my copilot, “although he was pretty close to us.” However, the King Air leveled off and continued past the airport boundary, and the pilot was heard to report “Downwind for Two-Zero.” The tower controller was busy handling three of us already; he thought the pilot meant “Downwind for Zero- Two”, an incorrect but common appellation for Runway Two.
So, here we were, on base, in queue to receive a cleared-to- land, but with a rogue airplane flying a downwind to an opposing landing, still not visually acquired
JUNE 2016