HF OPS for ATC types

[Guest Sanders]

Hi all,

Just wondering what ATC is expecting to hear as far as position reports on HF routes. It was inconsistent yesterday with all operators. When crossing over a designated reporting waypoint, you must say the next waypoint along track ETA and then the waypoint name following that one.....correct? Or does ATC expect A/C to say next mandatory reporting waypoint ETA, and the name of the next Mandatory point?

Just wondering as I heard both on an HF route from the Caribbean yesterday!!

Hope this makes sense...Happy Thanksgiving!

Sanders

[ModerateChop]

In my experience New York ARINC only want mention of "compulsory" waypoints when giving position reports. However I know what you mean, I've heard them accept different variations, some reports using non compulsory waypoints and some even skipping compulsory waypoints, on the same route. Sometimes I wonder if some of the compulsory waypoints are being depicted differently on some airlines own charts in that area ?

The only reference I can find in the regs is mention of "next reporting point" and "succeeding reporting point", were I would interpret "reporting point" to mean the same thing as "compulsory waypoint", but then I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway it would be interesting to hear from a New York Oceanic controller working that area as there does seem to be very little consistency.

MC

[Guest Sanders]

Thanks MC!!

That's exactly where we heard all the variations on the route. It was dealing with New York, so I will try it the other way on Sat and see what happens!! They can always SELCAL you if they're affraid!!!

Good Turkey

S

[Moon The Loon]

Hiya Sanders: If you can lay your hands on a Jepp ATL1 Hi Chart, the format is spelled out very clearly. The format is straightforward and applicable worldwide. When reporting the "next" waypoint, if it is non-compulsory, ATC will advise you to call the next compulsory one. Some apparent compulsory waypoints at airway intersections only apply to one of the airways and not the other.

On the Atlantic, the format is strictly adhered to by most except the novice as HF time is hard to get. Many operators have ACARS and can report that way. But with limited time on the HF and trying to get a word in edgewise and leave time for the next guy, the delivery of the PX should be exactly as depicted on the chart referred to above. The words "position", "estimating", "requesting" are three of the most important to not screw up! Sample:

"Gander Radio, Elite one two three; POSITION four five North five zero West two three five five; Flight Level three five zero; ESTIMATING four six North four zero West zero zero four four; Next four seven North three zero West; temperature minus five three, wind zero two zero diagonal six five; REQUESTING Flight Level three seven zero. Over."

The Met Report part is optional unless specifically asked to pass it along. Many operators also tag on: "Fuel Remaining one four three zero zero" for their operations departments.

The format is the same all over the world. Some areas are more lax than others. Some carriers are more precise than others!

Hope that helps...

[IFG]

Hi, Moon' - Just to clarify and satisfy my own curiosity (been quite a while since I've made any position reports at all...) - The "manditory"s and "next"s and "compulsory"s in this thread have me scratching my own noodle a bit, not that that's hard to do.

My assumption was always that we dealt with the compulsory points only unless requested otherwise. I think your answer confirms that, which would mean that the answer to Sanders' question would be yes, "ATC expect A/C to say next [compulsory] reporting waypoint ETA, and the name of the next [compulsory] point", as opposed to referencing charted "on-request" reporting points, unless otherwise directed.

On the common sense level, if I have it straight, you're dealing only in the points over which one actually expects to be making further reports.

Cheers, IFG

[IFG]

Hi, Moon' - Just to clarify and satisfy my own curiosity (been quite a while since I've made any position reports at all...) - The "manditory"s and "next"s and "compulsory"s in this thread have me scratching my own noodle a bit, not that that's hard to do.

My assumption was always that we only dealt with the compulsory points unless requested otherwise. I think your response confirms that, which would mean that the answer to Sanders' question would be yes, "ATC expect A/C to say next [compulsory] reporting waypoint ETA, and the name of the next [compulsory] point", unless otherwise directed, as opposed to referencing charted "on-request" reporting points.

On the common sense level, if I have it straight, you're dealing only in the points over which one actually expects to be making further reports.

Cheers, IFG

[Guest qb]

It is only the compulsory waypoints that ATC is concerned with. Moon the loon is right, the format is right on the Jepp chart and the details are also in the MNPS manual (not sure which version is current these days) if you can lay your hands on that. If a particular country has different requirements (like IFBP in Africa) these would be in their state AIP and the easiest reference for that would be the J-AIDS on board your airplane or, again, the chart.

qb

[Guest SARP]

Call me paranoid but should we be discussing communication procedures in a public forum?

[Moon The Loon]

Hey SARP: This stuff is not secret, confidential nor difficult to get hold of. I understand where you're coming from though. I just don't consider it privileged info. Maybe your concern is legit - I can't say. I just don't think so.

Anyway, back to the topic of MNPS and NAT procedures, here's a link to get all you need to fly the NAT with ease!

[BoomerPete]

OK .... you're paranoid.

The inflight meals pose a greater threat than this thread does.

Pete

[Guest neo]

If I understand the original query, it was about HF position reports on airways, as opposed to the North Atlantic where on a fixed or random track every reporting point is a compulsory reporting point.

Many remote routes (including oceanic ones) are on fixed airways with both mandatory and non-mandatory reporting points. On routes such as those, I've always understood that a PX was: position, time, altitude, subsequent MANDATORY point, eta, next reporting point (mandatory or not), [fuel, met, etc]. Please advise if I'm in error.

There are refinements. If the "next" reporting point is an FIR boundary, you might as well give the ETA for that as well, because even though the PX doesn't require it, you'll be asked for it.

RE: met reports on the north Atlantic, the requirement used to be that on a fixed track met reports were not required with your PX, but when on a random track they were. Has that been changed? (I hope!)

Best,

neo

[Moon The Loon]

Hi there RR: Met reports can be asked for on the NAT. If not asked for, no report is necessary. If one is random tracking though, not only are they required but mid-point reports are required as well.

Back to the original Q, the way I was taught and the way I learned to understand the reporting criteria is that if the "Next" WPT is NC, it is stated in the report. But at the subsequent WPT, an estimate is given only for the succeeding compulsory point. If then required to be reported, ATC or ARINC will pass along the instruction to "Report XXX".

I think the most important thing wherever one is, is to stick to the format. If there's one thing that is extremely clear hear in Europe is that RT is so very easily misunderstood because of poor phraseology, accents, chatter, congestion and any number of other nuisances. The KISS principle works. But it takes discipline to put it into effect!

And then there's the British way, of course... :|

[Guest neo]

Hi Moon,

We're on the same page, for sure.

Now for the Brits. In all matters of procedure, whether it be to line up at the bank or fly a plane, there's the way everyone else does it, and then there's the best way: the British method. (Just kidding, of course.)

Is there something about British R/T that prompts your remark? (In general, I usually find it pretty professional when I'm in that neck of the woods.)

Best,

neo

[IFG]

Moon' - and it seemed like there'd be a simple answer for a simple enough question .

Again, here's my own take. I haven't flown the NAT, have done the Caribbean and around Europe. On the few times I've actually had to do so, I only ever used compulsory reporting points within the format of position reports, referring both to "ETA" & "next". In fact, I believe the terminology for charted reporting points refers to "compulsory" and "on request". Barring an ATC request, there doesn't seem to me to be any reason to clutter up the airwaves talking about points on a map that nobody will be interested in at any time. BTW I read thru' your link on the NAT; very interesting but I didn't find or missed any guidance on the actual format of position reports. When I've had to give them I just used the one on the back of the CFS. Seemed to work OK, hope I wasn't screwing anything up

Neo has got me curious now about the FIR boundry thing. I wonder why those points wouldn't automatically be compulsory? I haven't got any of the old charts I used to use, but FWIW the airway reporting points at the FIR boundries on the Canadian LO10 North Atlantic Chart are all compulsory.

Regards, IFG

[IFG]

G'day, Moon' - and it seemed like there'd be a simple answer for a simple enough question . If I'm reading you right, you're saying that you give ETA to the next compulsory point, but give the immediately following waypoint "next", regardless whether it's compulsory?

I haven't flown the NAT, have done the Caribbean and around Europe. On the few times I've actually had to do so, I only ever used compulsory reporting points within the format of position reports, referring both to "ETA" and "next". In fact, I believe the terminology for charted reporting points refers to "compulsory" and "on request". Barring an ATC request, there doesn't seem to me to be any reason to clutter up the airwaves talking about points on a map that nobody will be interested in at any time. BTW I read thru' your link on the NAT; very interesting but I didn't find or missed any guidance on the actual format of position reports. When I've had to give them I just used the one on the back of the CFS. Seemed to work OK, hope I wasn't screwing anything up

Neo has got me curious now about the FIR boundry thing. I wonder why those points wouldn't automatically be compulsory? I haven't got any of the old charts I used to use, but FWIW the airway reporting points at the FIR boundries on the Canadian LO10 North Atlantic Chart are all compulsory.

Regards, IFG

[Guest neo]

Hi IFG,

I haven't checked them all (), but one would expect a reporting point at an FIR boundary to be compulsory. But if a point like that is the "next" point in your PX, you don't give the ETA for it. But you might as well give the ETA for that point too, because you're going to be asked for it even though normal procedure doesn't require you to say it in your PX.

Best,

neo

[IFG]

Got it on the FIR boundary thing. I guess I'd jumbled together the two elements of your post (:$). To clear up the last detail: assuming no instruction from ATC, if the next airway waypoint after that which you've ETA'd is of the "on request" variety, do you still reference that as following "next" in your PX ("manditory or not" in your previous post), or would it be the that following point at which you'd actually anticipate making a subsequent PX downline (i.e. the subsequent compulsory point)?

Cheers, IFG

[Guest neo]

I'm not surprised you jumbled it up, because I've never seen such a simple thing be so hard to write about clearly!

Furthermore, imagine MY embarassment to discover that I've been doing it incorrectly and that the only "next" point you refer to is one at which you would subsequently expect to give a position report. :$

Many thanks for sticking with it, IFG, and clearing up my misconception.

Best,

neo

[Moon The Loon]

Sorry for the delay. I had to work today. Bummer, man...

FIR's usually have some kind of WPT identifier. I'm talking about FIR's demarking German from Swiss; Fiji from New Zealand (Auckland); and other international boundaries. We're kinda spoiled in Canada because the integration of Canada/US ATC is quite established and stable (compared to other parts of the world!)

What I tried to say is, yes it's difficult finding information on the subject as the trans-boundary rules are vague in most parts of the world. The NAT is a special case and quite well established. There are very few NCRP's on the NAT's if any, by definition. Given the difficulty, it has been my experience, especially when transiting a boundary where a NCRP is somewhere in the next two crossing points, to include the point in the report and be told by ATC, or the radio agency relaying information to/from ATC to subsequently tell me not to report the point. This becomes really important when transiting boundaries of countries that have poor inter-communication (Greece/Turkey). Bottom line, if in doubt, include it in the "Next". If no further instruction is received, when it becomes the next point, ignore it. Generally speaking, when ATC either directly or through their comm agency (Gander Radio, Shanwick Radio, San Francisco ARINC, ...) want a PX at a NCRP, they will initiate the request. Then all you (we!) have to do is comply.

I don't know if that makes it any more clear, but it's a pretty big and far ranging question, making for a very interesting thread! (y)

[IFG]

... I thought I was one of the humble inquisitors here, I can't clear up anything on this one! That the "next" waypoint ought to be the subsequent compulsory point had been my own supposition, about which I sought clarification from you long-time long-haul jockeys. It's what's made sense to me, but that's no guarantee of conformity with the letter of the rules.

And you're right about the pitfalls, tripping over these and non-those. I do think it's easier if one uses the waypoint terminology of compulsory vs. on-request, tho'. That's what they are called in the Canadian Pub'ns, altho' I see on an old NOAA chart I've got kicking around here that the US uses the more confusing compulsory/non-compulsory.

Cheers, IFG

[IFG]

Clear as mud, Moon'. For poor inter-country communication, your Greece/Turkey allusion takes me back; I take it their ATC's are still unaware that they called a truce a few decades ago ... but then again the same stuff used to blithely occur between islands in the Caribbean too ....

Cheers, IFG

[Moon The Loon]

From time to time, things are okay. But on occasion, if one forgets to give the 10 minute call, the arrival sector can and will turn the aircraft around. Not insignificant and admittedly an extremely rare occurrence.

I think one of the keys of this entire thread is to communicate effectively with whatever ground based agency one is dealing with, bearing in mind the cultural and linquistic differences which may try to get in the way. Such was my reference to the Brit way of talking on the RT. I've yet to reply to that question. On my way to another part of this thread!!...

[Moon The Loon]

Hey RR: Sorry for the delay. I've been looking for the link to the approved CAA (British, you know) site that has their official approved RT manual. When I find it (again), I will post it for everyone. Suffice it to say the Canadian RT book is about 16 pages long; the Brit manual is a tome. Sample comparison:

Canadian exchange -

ATC - ABC123, turn right to 350, climb to 370, maintain Mach point eight when level"

ABC123 - ABC123 in the turn to 350, climbing to 370, Mach decimal 8.

UK exchange -

ATC - ABC123, London Control, turn right radar heading three-five-zero degrees, climb and maintain flight level three-five-zero. Maintain Mach decimal eight zero when reaching.

ABC123 - [verbatim readback]

The manual to which I refer discusses many nuances of RT which we North Americans take for granted. For instance, the word "to" is avoided. "Climb to four thousand feet" becomes "Climb and maintain altitude four thousand feet, QNH 1024 millibars". Reason? The first exchange "Climb to four thousand" can be and has been mistaken to be "Climb Two Four Thousand..."

Simple but clear example of linguistic difficulties.

Another thing they do here is to differentiate for effect headings and altitudes cleared to. Flight levels 100, 200, 300 and 400 (500 & 600 for Concorde) are referred to as "Flight Level One Hundred, Two Hundred" etc.

The list goes on. What we take for granted with knowing verbal shorthand is neither dispensed with the understanding that it will be understood nor listened to without hearing improper readbacks.

All very well and good when dealing with Brit ATC. Then you get into the continent and all the rules change again as that "British discipline" still hasn't sunk into the continental way of thinking.

Pity.

[Guest neo]

Hi again IFG,

One of the benefits of trying to answer even a simple question in this field is that it forces you to re-examine your own assumptions, (possibly out-of-date) knowledge, etc. So, back to the question which I recap here for my own clarity.

Scenario One: If you're on a random or fixed _track_ in the North Atlantic or North Pacific, all waypoints on your flightplan are compulsory RP's, so the situation in question couldn't arise until you were approaching domestic airspace. However, once you were within a waypoint or two of domestic, it could. For instance, you're inbound to the westcoast of Canada from the North Pacific track system and making your report at N50W140. Your next waypoint is ORNAI, a compulsory waypoint, but the following waypoint is SIMLU which is on-request. Do you report SIMLU as your "next" point, or TOFINO or PORT HARDY?

Scenario Two: Some oceanic areas, for instance the North and South Pacific, have fixed _airways_ with named waypoints which are routinely used for oceanic crossings. R220 between North America and Asia, or B474 between Hawaii and Australia are examples. And while most waypoints on these routes are compulsory RP's, some are not. So would you or would you not include one of these on-request waypoints if it were the "next" point in your PX. For example, if you were R591 from NRT to YVR and reporting at waypoint ADNIP, you do give an estimate for ADGOR. Do you then state AGEDI(on-request waypoint) as the "next" in your PX, or AKISU(compulsory)?

So there's the question as clearly (yeah, right!) as I can state it, and apart from the probably valid point that it isn't going to make any practical difference, here's the fullest answer I can give:

Give your PX according to the prescribed procedure of the FIR in which you are presently flying.

You would not give an on-request waypoint as your "next" waypoint if you were making your PX in a Canadian FIR. Canadian rules are that only those waypoints which are designated compulsory are included in a PX.

For all other country's FIR's, the answer is that I don't know! Presumably it would depend on their own reporting rules, and I don't know if those are consistent across all boundaries.

And of course, there's the rules and then there's what everyone does. For instance, in Scenario One above, I typically hear pilots report the on-request waypoint as their "next" position.

What a humbling experience trying to get this straight, both procedurally and in explanation! And I'm no long-time longhauler, either. I've only been doing it for a few years now, so I hope others will chip in with their own understanding or corrections as necessary.

Best wishes,

neo

[Idle Thrust]

Hi RR - good contributions here.

This item has been pretty well flogged to death and I think that, yes, the letter of the law virtually everywhere, is that your "NEXT" WP (after the one you are estimating), should be the next compulsory.

However, there are cases where you can go from A to B via either C or D, which are non-compulsory, both routings involve a shallow dogleg, producing almost the same distance run between A & B. If memory serves, these occur a few times in NY oceanic airspace, hence the request for which is your "next" - Oceanic want to confirm which route you will take to get to B. The radio operator knows that Oceanic will come back with a request for this info if it is not included in the PX so if not given, ARINC will request it.

The answer is, if you are familiar with the route and/or can see this coming, include the non-compulsory "next" WP, thus saving an extra HF exchange. NY is not unique in this regard, but I cannot pin-point any other regions where it occurs (memory is the second thing to go?).

Best regards neo, enjoy the winter in the valley.

IT.