Altimeter Question

WingFlaps schrieb:

Fair enough. It's what happens when desk jockies take over running the
world. God forbid they should bother to check what is known/
established. That way they get to keep their jobs endlessly revising
poor practice.

The worst practice is not to adhere to the communication standards.

WingFlaps,

That way they get to keep their jobs endlessly revising
poor practice.


It's worse when everybody and their brothers come up with their own
personal idea of what is good practice in radio communcations.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2008-04-21, Kai Rode wrote:
In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA, being
sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There are
no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.
So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.

If you don't know, use plain English. If I were talking to a VHF/DF-equipped
flight service station, and needed a DF bearing, that's exactly what I would
ask for.

OTOH, I can't recall that I've ever made such a request. How often is QDM
actually used in Europe? How is it measured by the recipient of the request?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Kai Rode wrote:
In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA, being
sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There are
no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.

So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.




"Whereever radio, Request DF steer."

"Kai Rode" wrote in message
...
In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA,
being
sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There
are
no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.

So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.

The most important Q-codes still in use here in Germany are probably QNH,
QFE, QDM, QDR.

Request vector to ???????????

On 21 Apr, 15:06, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Kai Rode" wrote in message

...

In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA,
being
sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There
are
no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.

So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.

The most important Q-codes still in use here in Germany are probably QNH,
QFE, QDM, QDR.

Request vector to ???????????

Awww, feeling lost?

Bertie

In rec.aviation.student Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

Fair enough. It's what happens when desk jockies take over running the
world. God forbid they should bother to check what is known/
established. That way they get to keep their jobs endlessly revising
poor practice.

The worst practice is not to adhere to the communication standards.

Seems to me the worst practice is to fail to communicate clearly when it's
possible to do so.

This can be because you're using nonstandard phrasing (done this) or
because you insist on using standard phrasing when it's not working (never
done this, I think). Ultimately the goal is to communicate, and the
standards are just a means to that end; if they're giving you trouble, say
whanever you need to say however you need to say it to get the point
across.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash schrieb:

Seems to me the worst practice is to fail to communicate clearly when it's
possible to do so.

This can be because you're using nonstandard phrasing (done this) or
because you insist on using standard phrasing when it's not working (never

As a pilot, I would expect the pros at ATC to understand standard
phraseology. And as a non native English speaker, I would expect the
pros at ATC to speak to me in standard phraseology.

Ultimately the goal is to communicate, and the
standards are just a means to that end; if they're giving you trouble, say
whanever you need to say however you need to say it to get the point

Many pilots use this argument as an excuse while they are just too lazy
to learn the proper phraseology. Never forget that those standards have
been set for a reason and many of them have been written with blood.

In rec.aviation.student Stefan wrote:
Michael Ash schrieb:

Seems to me the worst practice is to fail to communicate clearly when it's
possible to do so.

This can be because you're using nonstandard phrasing (done this) or
because you insist on using standard phrasing when it's not working (never

As a pilot, I would expect the pros at ATC to understand standard
phraseology. And as a non native English speaker, I would expect the
pros at ATC to speak to me in standard phraseology.

Ultimately the goal is to communicate, and the
standards are just a means to that end; if they're giving you trouble, say
whanever you need to say however you need to say it to get the point

Many pilots use this argument as an excuse while they are just too lazy
to learn the proper phraseology. Never forget that those standards have
been set for a reason and many of them have been written with blood.

And likewise the opposite argument is used as an excuse for failing to
adapt when standard phrasing fails. Like the "pan pan" idiot whos antics
started this thread.

Personally I never fly anywhere where radio communication is required in
the first place, and there's a ton of nonstandard phrasing floating around
by the people who are using their radios. The standards are useful but
only as far as they actually work, and when they stop working you ought to
be prepared to do what it takes to get what you need.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Apr 21, 11:25*pm, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
WingFlaps,

Well it's completely redundent, a waste of time and could be confused
with "say again". All you need to do is just repeat the message!

Your opinion is all fine and well. However, the gold standard on this is ICAO. As
Andy says, "I say again" is ICAO standard phraseology per Annex 10 Volume II
(http://www.caa.govt.nz/ICAO/Annex_10..._Cmp_Stmt.pdf).

For the US, check the Pilot Controller Glossary as the definitive and official
source for phraseology. Under "I", you'll find:

I SAY AGAIN- The message will be repeated.

This is how it should be:

Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay, (station 3x), Received
mayday (distress station) (distress message reproduced), mayday

And the source for that is?


International maritime radio license procedures...

Cheers