HF OPS for ATC types

[Guest neo]

Hi I/T,

Thanks for both your contribution and your winter 'well-wishes'.

You did a better job of illustrating what I was trying to point out earlier: that there are times when the normal PX procedure will not provide all the information ATC wants, so why not include it if you know what's needed?

Best wishes,

neo

[ModerateChop]

Quoted directly off a Jeppesen Pacific Ocean High Altitude Enroute Chart:

"Oceanic Position Reporting Procedures

B. Position Report Contents:

3. Ensuing Fix

a) Name only the next succeeding fix whether it is compulsory or not."

I've observed on NOPAC ATS tracks that it is standard practice to include the non-compulsory waypoint as the "next" waypoint.

Using your example the position report would be sent to Tokyo Radio over ADNIP with an eta for ADGOR with AGEDI as the "next" waypoint. Then with the position report overhead ADGOR an eta would be sent for AKISU with AAMYY (non-compulsory) as the next waypoint. At which point (over ADGOR) Tokyo would instruct the flight to contact Anchorage over AKISU.

This IS how it is done on the NOPAC ATS Tracks, but it is certainly not being done this way by the majority of pilots flying through New York ARINC's airspace to/from the Caribbean.

MC

[Guest neo]

Agreed.

The heading and altitude ambiguities you highlighted have been a concern for me for some time. To mitigate that, regardless of how the controller phrased it I read back "..._heading_ 240, ..._flight level_ (or _maintain_) 220...".

I realize it seems nit-picky to some, but precise R/T when clearances are involved seems important to me and you provided good illustrations of why that is. Hats off to the Brits for their clarity in that area. BTW, for me good R/T doesn't mean you can't take the time to be polite, friendly, or even share a little humor under some circumstances. But clearance R/T should leave nothing to be desired in the clarity department.

Perhaps our common use of English throughout North America has made us a little complacent about our R/T; whereas in England a constant influx of non-native English speaking pilots requires them to be more vigilant?

Does anyone know why controllers, British or otherwise, state, "_Climb and_ maintain..." or "_Descend and_ maintain..." It seems like the "climb" and "descend" parts are unnecessary. I know if I have to climb or descend to the altitude I'm being cleared to. Just give me the number, please, and then there is no risk of a "to" being mistaken for a "two" as in the example you gave.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest neo]

Well, how 'bout that! Yet another mandated procedure for a PX!

I must admit, as I fly the North Pacific more than anywhere else, what you've described (and referenced) is what I hear and have been doing.

Is it the same everywhere else? I still don't know the answer to that question.

Comments pertaining to other regions and any authorizing references would be appreciated.

Thanks for your comments M/C,

neo

[Idle Thrust]

Right on MC - I knew there were some instances in the Pacific but could not be specific (memory gone again). Point well taken.

IT.

[Moon The Loon]

Perhaps our common use of English throughout North America has made us a little complacent about our R/T; whereas in England a constant influx of non-native English speaking pilots requires them to be more vigilant?

I believe that is it exactly. Hence the nit-pickery. It does get frustrating sometimes crossing FIR's and hearing differenct disciplines in use. Hence the "back to basics" of the Brit terminology. Nobody misunderstands it. The reference I thought was a CAA pub is in fact a JAR-OPS pub. Still looking for it and will post the link once found!