What would you change about phraseology?

Rosstafari Daaaang. /X

I was playing around with a program that's meant to help student pilots out with their phraseology last night, and I got to thinking how modernizing it could go down. Personally, I didn't have a very hard time picking it up when I was going through flight school, but I'm a native English speaker, I had listened to LiveATC on and off, and I've got a knack for linguistics. I know that some people have a much harder time with it.

So, I'm posing the question to one of the two groups that use it most -- controllers. What, if anything, would you change about phraseology? Anything to make it more efficient? Something that may help non-native English speakers? Leave it as it is but implement mandatory training to help with standardization?

Aaaaand... discuss.

Rosstafari Daaaang. /X

Someone linked to this blog post in another forum... here's one idea that's interesting but seems more practical on a facility-by-facility basis:

One pilot said maybe ATC should reserve/assign a particular code or range of transponder codes to student pilots so controllers could be cued visually on their scopes that the aircraft is a student so they might speak more slowly when handling radio calls to those aircraft. Now that's an idea that might have legs.

duranme Trusted Contributor San Diego (SCT)

Since facilities are going stripless nowadays I highly doubt that controllers will take the time to click and look at the beacon code. It would be funny as he'll to be working and then out of nowhere "OK skyhawk12345, turn left until you heading 270 or towards the sunset, then make your plane get closer to the ground but stop at 2000 ft"

and it comes to foreigners, the pulp fiction approach works well:
"English motherf*cker! Do you speak it!?"

and working LAX equals accents from places you've never even thought about

meatasaurusx Trusted Member Chi-town

One thing ive learned with foreigners is never make a turn and frequency change at the same time. oh boy is that asking for trouble.

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

Not that I think it's perfect, but the way things are done are sufficient.

I think having to say "cancel landing clearance" after an aircraft advises you he's going around is stupid.

I think "give way" should be added to phraseology.

I think having to issue the whole taxi route is excessive and/or should be clarified. For example, if twy A leads to the approach end of a runway (say 36R) and there is absolutely no other way to get there, is it a requirement to say "taxi to runway 36R via A, A1," or would it be sufficient to say "taxi to runway 36R via A". I know the common sense answer, but I'm talking about clarification because some people have a different interpretation than "common sense."

There's a bunch of stuff that's crap in my opinion, these are just a couple.

GLF5 Senior Member

Is this from a recent briefing? We got some memo about a deal like this. The aircraft said they were going around and since the guy/gal didn't say "cancel landing clearance" (is that even in the .65?) or say "go around"...it was a deal. What a crock. So because they didn't say magic words, these aircraft were too close. If they said those words, the aircraft would be the same distance. Sometimes I hate this stuff.

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

right now, it may just apply to the Western Region.... lots of people up in arms over this one, especially when you read the definition of "go around" haha

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

i would change the approach clearance phraseology to:

7 outside, 280 guide, 6000 till the glide, enjoy the ride, tower 19.9 inside.

boondr PHD without a degree North of the Equator

The position report portion needs to go, what purpose does it serve?

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

in the world of rnav/gps it seems pointless, even for an ILS. there's some though that probably need it...ie. regional box haulers