Malaysia 777 Missing

[vanishing point]

Wouldn't agree it was either. If this was a familiar route to the crew and they knew that was the next frequency, it's not uncommon to omit the frequency.

I will agree its not the finest R/T procedure but it does happen.

[thor]

I doesn't matter whether or not you repeat the FQ, it's the call sign that's imperative.

[Moon The Loon]

Like I said, "maybe" a minor omission but still an omission. Not something I would have done. No matter how familiar.

[boestar]

I would be good to hear either old transcripts of previous flights by the same crew members or a cross section of that same flight to see what the "Standard" is normally. Without a baseline for reference you cannot determine if it is abnormal or not.

[vanishing point]

The "standard" is for the crew to read-back the freq with their call-sign. For the most part, this is how it happens.

Sometimes, we get a bit lazy and leave out the freq. I've never had the next controller tell us to call the previous controller back so he/she can correct our R/T procedure.

The fact that we check in on the new freq means we got the correct freq. Doesn't justify being lazy....just saying it's not likely an issue with MH370.

[Say Again, Over!]

A casual "Roger, night" is common around here. I don't believe frequencies have to be read back. Just acknowledged. I might be wrong though but I'm too pooped to look it up. :-)

[Kip Powick]

It's been my experience that if you are flying in areas of little traffic, at low traffic hours, the controller and the pilot recognize each others voice quite easily and all TX are shortened.

Naturally in high density areas, that doesn't work and we all go back to repeating almost every word back to ATC to ensure the directions went to the proper aircraft.

I don't believe the last transmission made by this aircraft is nothing but "normal ops" and those that see deception, or whatever, are speculating because there isn't much else to go on.

[mo32a]

^Exactly.

[Kip Powick]

To a point, I agree, however if there is doubt about a TX to or from an aircraft either source has the option of requesting clarification. If, however, if both parties are well versed in the English language there is no need to elongate standard transmissions in areas or low traffic during "quiet" hours.

I had the privilege of doing three "around the world" missions in the Service and only when I could not understand the ATC's 'English' did I ensure I was explicit, (by the book), in my transmissions. In my time, the only time we ever carried an interpreter was in and out of Russia (70s-80s).

If in doubt about any transmissions, all parties have the duty and responsibility to ask for clarification. There was absolutely nothing wrong with MH370s last transmission...I would have probably made a very similar transmission...it was "O-dark-thirty" with light traffic and based on the transcripts there was no misunderstandings between ATC and the missing aircraft at any time.

If you want to straighten out RT procedures, even in Canada, perhaps a memo should go out to a few of the Air Canada pilots who insist on using........for example ..."Air Canada's 462, Flight Level 370 "

[blues deville]

. If you don't believe me, you should listen to what happens when the Anchorage controllers use non-standard phraseology to a Korean aircraft.

I would imagine its the same as when a Chinese crew gets a non-standard phrase. It really annoys US controllers when they're busy (LAX, JFK)

[blues deville]

If you want to straighten out RT procedures, even in Canada, perhaps a memo should go out to a few of the Air Canada pilots who insist on using........for example ..."Air Canada's 462, Flight Level 370 "

Seems to be a long time habit by our friends at AC. Not sure why.

[Don Hudson]

Re, "Seems to be a long time habit by our friends at AC. Not sure why."

blues, must be recent as I've never heard it.

[deicer]

Signal picked up, unconfirmed.....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26902127

[deicer]

Cnn also reporting signal found...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/05/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[J.O.]

Don, for what it's worth I've heard it sporadically for years. No big deal IMHO.

[Kip Powick]

Just one more...... TX/RX

Early in my DND Career I flew the occasional "black air", (dead of night), mission up past Churchill and back and was designated as a "target', (pretending to be Russian aircraft),for the USAF by coming down from the north.

The USAF scrambled 102's and 106's to intercept us. Both the "target", (us), and the interceptor would be on the same frequency during the run from the north to the south. After the "intercept" it was not unusual for the USAF pilot to come on our wing, salute us, and peel away for his home base.

July 09, 1965.........Young, green and excited, after all I was strapped in a single engine jet doing my part to protect the Fee World.. ...I Thought this TX was so cool and amazing, I wrote it down (taken from my log book # 1)

"Umpire this is Terry six seven - Triple Nickel Eight Ball, Angels Thirty Five, Bingo One, Calling Pigeons To Home Plate ...over"

The Controller's call sign was Umpire, the aircraft's call sign was Terry 67, the airframe number was 5558, he was at FL350, he had one fuel tank at low fuel and he wanted a vector to his base of departure.

[Kip Powick]

Rich

No need to apologize and your com skills are great !!!

My point is that I would be lying if I stated that I never got lazy making PXs with the same controller, especially up North and the runs we did from MEX, (leaving at midnight) back to YYZ.

If there is no confusion between the two talking sources I would say it is not ABSOLUTELY necessary to be by the book ALL the time. You may feel differently but seeing I'm not in the game anymore, I'm sure no one cares what I did . .

[Guest]

Third, there are OTHER aircraft on the frequency whose crew can generate an air picture based on other aircraft's RT. Much more difficult to do when RT is lazy, especially if the other aircraft have non-native English speaking crew.

A bit off topic, but sounds like the argument made about French/English mix being used on the YUL ACC frequencies.

I'm one of those who like to keep a good air picture based on what I hear, but in YUL airspace it's standard ops for me to have less SA than I prefer, unless I try hard to use my limited French to piece together what I think I'm hearing (and often from MY OWN company flights...)

But I digress. Back to MH370...

[blues deville]

Re, "Seems to be a long time habit by our friends at AC. Not sure why."

blues, must be recent as I've never heard it.

Doesn't bother me either but it's something I've heard occasionally for many years. Kip's posting was not the first time it's been mentioned here. Certainly not a big problem and nothing like some US pilot's RT work!

[inchman]

Just adding to thread drift while we wait for more info...

Nobody can throw stones about RT, IMO.

I, of course, don't notice my own mistakes, but one thing that I'm really sticky about is when ATC gives us a clearance like "Maintain Speed 280" and the F/O reads back "280, [airline] 123". I always look over and say, did he say "FL 280, Speed 280, or heading 280 and how does he know you got his clearance correctly?". I don't care what it is, but one of the words "Climb, Descend, Flight Level, Right, Left, Degrees, Speed, Knots" needs to be in every readback for a clearance of speed, altitude or direction and "inches, millibars, or hectopascals" has to be in every altimeter readback.

When I point it out the omission to them, it's amazing how many F/O's say "I did include it" (when they definitely didn't) or "Oh, I always include it, but I must have forgotten that time", then I point out to them a few more times in the flight when they don't.

The Air Canada'S thing is weird. I used to say it for a while after I became an FO. Recently, I had a short talk with an ATC from LHR who was on my flight and he asked why some of our pilots say it. Even though I had done it at one time, I couldn't give him an answer. It must bug them, too, for him to bring that one thing up in a short conversation.

[Seeker]

The Air Canada'S thing is weird. I used to say it for a while after I became an FO. Recently, I had a short talk with an ATC from LHR who was on my flight and he asked why some of our pilots say it. Even though I had done it at one time, I couldn't give him an answer. It must bug them, too, for him to bring that one thing up in a short conversation.

I think it's just because it's slightly more difficult to say Air Canada_ 301 than it is to say Air Canada's 301. The first way requires you to complete the "a" sound which actually stops the airflow and then restart it to enunciate the number while the second just flows right out - try it. It's either that or some guys forget the flight number mid transmission and need to look down at the FMS or a note - the "s" is filler while they look.

[Johnny]

Old guys unite, I'm a stickler for proper RT, the plural AC call sign drives me nuts. Flew with a guy who on the handoff said, "cheers" (that's it) changed freq.

A brief chat ensued, went something like; "we're not Tweeting here."

[Kip Powick]

I think it's just because it's slightly more difficult to say Air Canada_ 301 than it is to say Air Canada's 301. The first way requires you to complete the "a" sound which actually stops the airflow and then restart it to enunciate the number while the second just flows right out - try it. It's either that or some guys forget the flight number mid transmission and need to look down at the FMS or a note - the "s" is filler while they look.

Wow !!! just MO but I think you are grasping at straws......."stops the air flow" ...c'mon now........where are the emoticons !!!!!!

Geeze I can say Air Canada 301 in one breath...and I'm really old !!!! you be very funny :Grin-Nod:

[blues deville]

Old guys unite, I'm a stickler for proper RT, the plural AC call sign drives me nuts. Flew with a guy who on the handoff said, "cheers" (that's it) changed freq.

A brief chat ensued, went something like; "we're not Tweeting here."

LOL. Oops....I mean that's hilarious!

[blues deville]

Yesterday after departing YYZ on a polar route heading north over YSB, someone decided to broadcast the theme from Star Trek on 121.5. Not once but at least three times. When an adult in the area made a comment about it, there was a flurry of exchanges regarding the unauthorized use of this frequency. One of the voices was of course from the source of the music.

I used to enjoy hearing the harmonica player over the North Atlantic (he took requests) but he did it on the air to air freq. It was better than hearing the BA guys complaining about American pilots looking for "ride" reports. And there was the occasional train whistle too. As a model train guy it used to get a laugh out of me.

However, I think playing music on 121.5 is something else. Unless you're sitting in the woods beside your downed airplane hallucinating and singing on the radio for help, probably not a good idea to be on this frequency.

Here's hoping for a "ping" from shallow water.