I've heard a number of times on LiveATC pilots saying their call sign (i.e. Cactus 52) instead of Roger, when Roger seems to be what they mean. Is there any difference in meaning between saying either Roger and your call sign / flight number?

While “roger” means “I have received your transmission”; just stating your call sign has, in the US, the same thing.

GF

And it’s a finally confirmation to the controller the correct flight has received the info/clearance.

You can say “Roger” but ATC wants to know who said “Roger” so then you would also have to say your call sign. Why do both?

In my limited experience, "Roger" isn't used a lot unless you're making conversation. In most cases where you need to say that you've actually understood an instruction, e.g. an altitude, you'll have to repeat said instruction anyway.

Keeping it short and clear on busy frequencies helps everyone out.

Related notes on keeping frequencies free of clutter:
- Don't respond "standing by" when asked to "stand by". That's just eye-rollingly annoying. No response, or at most your callsign, will do.
- Do not ever say "with you" or "fully ready".
- Don't say "flight 456 heavy" when you're enroute, especially in a country which doesn't even use "heavy".

#petpeeves...

Starlionblue wrote:

- Do not ever say "with you"

I am curious to know why, since I hear that phrase often listening to LiveATC. For example, listening to Boston center, traffic departing NY airports entering ZBW airspace seemingly always use this phraseology:

"Boston center, XYZ123 with you, climbing 11000 for 14000."

Is that what you meant?

I think the point Starlion is making is: what is the point of saying "with you" when you've just said the name of the station you are calling at the start of the message... you've already said you're with them by stating the station callsign.

Roger is used a lot in GA particularly at uncontrolled fields: you receive a message, you tell the other station you've heard it all. Likely they cannot give you instruction but can pass useful information.

I say Roger when an incoming aircraft passes their details for aerodrome information. It tells them I've heard their whole message. And then pass runway/circuit direction and QFE.

"Boston Centre(er), XUZ123 is 11000 climbing 14000" gives exactly the same info but is shorter and more clear.

And "for" and "to" aren't necessary easier: "climbing 14000" cannot be confused with anything so "for" or (worse) "to" is redundant.

"Climbing to 3000" if said on the radio actually means "climbing 23000". Obviously almost everyone knows that isn't the case but it's still not technically correct to use "to" and "for".
One of our para drop shop pilots always says "left base to 6". Can be confusing to the students; should just be "left base 06" or "left base runway 06"

As chimborazo says, "with you" is redundant. Not that it matters much in reality but it is a phraseology style thing that seems to bug a lot of pilots. Since almost every instructor I've had hates "with you" the feeling has passed on to me.

"To" in altitudes and headings can indeed be confusing. "Left turn to one zero degrees". Does it mean turn left heading 10 degrees or 210 degrees?

I knew an examiner who would get on the radio to correct pilots at uncontrolled fields who said they were "departing runway one-two, upwind leg". Technically at least in the US, when you depart you are on the "departure leg".

"With you" IMHO isn't redundant because it makes it clear to the controller that the broadcaster has recently switched frequency.

Virtual737 wrote:

"With you" IMHO isn't redundant because it makes it clear to the controller that the broadcaster has recently switched frequency.

I disagree. There's no need for it and it is non-standard.

1. On initial contact, after switching frequency, you state your altitude or flight level. When you cross an FIR boundary you also state your squawk. This is a clear indication that it is initial contact.
2. The controller knows this is initial contact since he hasn't heard from you before. Controllers must be aware of aircraft under their control.

"With you" isn't standard phraseology, and isn't found in either of the following manuals, one from Eurocontrol and one from the UK CAA.
https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/249.pdf
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/115.pdf


Worth noting in context is that North American ATC is seen as wildly non-standard by the rest of the world. Not saying there are no communications standards. They're just bent to the breaking point. If you tried typical "loose" US phraseology in a place like Australia the controller would keep making you rephrase until you said it as per standard. I've heard this happen on several occasions.

It can make life rather difficult for foreign carriers operating there.

Virtual737 wrote:

"With you" IMHO isn't redundant because it makes it clear to the controller that the broadcaster has recently switched frequency.

It *is* redundant. I know exactly who I have on my frequency, and who I am expecting. Of course you are "with me" - you are on my frequency.

If you do need a reminder who is new on freq, perhaps better situational awareness is needed?

Starlionblue wrote:

2. The controller knows this is initial contact since he hasn't heard from you before. Controllers must be aware of aircraft under their control.

I would be amazed if every controller handling 20+ concurrent flights could instantly recall every flight number under there control at all times.

KingOrGod wrote:

If you do need a reminder who is new on freq, perhaps better situational awareness is needed?

How do they know who is new on the frequency until after the first transmission?

My comment was directed at the benefit of something other than just the call sign being included in the initial transmission. Quite happy to be corrected on what that something should be.

Virtual737 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

2. The controller knows this is initial contact since he hasn't heard from you before. Controllers must be aware of aircraft under their control.

I would be amazed if every controller handling 20+ concurrent flights could instantly recall every flight number under there control at all times.

KingOrGod wrote:

If you do need a reminder who is new on freq, perhaps better situational awareness is needed?

How do they know who is new on the frequency until after the first transmission?

My comment was directed at the benefit of something other than just the call sign being included in the initial transmission. Quite happy to be corrected on what that something should be.

I am not sure what you are asking here or want to know. There is simply no benefit. I (and any situationally aware ATC) know(s) he/she is new on frequency because that callsign has not spoken to me yet, and yes I know who on my screen is who I am talking to, and yes, all 20+ of them - it's my job. Usually a speed, level passing, assigned climb/descent rate or compulsory waypoint being overflown is included, I therefore know who is calling me for the first time, and I know who I send away to the next sector when I am finished with them. I would guess you would be amazed then how we ATC's function.

Sometimes my airspace is only 4000' deep and climbing or descending at 4kfpm means they transition real quick. Therefore I appreciate concise transmissions without unnecessary additives.

"with you" just eats up my valuable radio time and when it's pretty busy I personally could do without this. Same as the "what's my traffic" questions.

“With you”, “checking in” is all non standard, not desired, and redundant.
It’s not in the FAA pilot controller glossary either.

An initial call would be obvious to the controller without a “with you” as a conscious action to accept the handoff is done behind the scenes between controllers before a frequency change is issued to the aircraft.

chimborazo wrote:

And "for" and "to" aren't necessary easier: "climbing 14000" cannot be confused with anything so "for" or (worse) "to" is redundant.

"Climbing to 3000" if said on the radio actually means "climbing 23000". Obviously almost everyone knows that isn't the case but it's still not technically correct to use "to" and "for".
One of our para drop shop pilots always says "left base to 6". Can be confusing to the students; should just be "left base 06" or "left base runway 06"

There was a CFIT accident that was attributed to the use of the word “two” / “to”
A 747 was descending for an approach and was cleared, “Descend two four hundred” the controller cleared the aircraft to descend to 2,400 feet.
The crew read back “descend two four hundred” and set 400 in the altitude selector, descended the aircraft to 400ft and subsequently collided with terrain, destroying the aircraft.

Another "quirk" I noticed in the US is pilots almost never read back the altimeter unless they are asking the controller to repeat, while in Europe every QNH transmission is repeated. For example in the US, something like this seems to be commonplace:

"Memphis Center, Commander 123AB, 12,000"
"November 123AB, Memphis altimeter 29.72"
"123AB"

I feel as if this sort of transmission would be unacceptable in Europe and the controller would request you repeat the QNH.

BalkanBoy wrote:

Another "quirk" I noticed in the US is pilots almost never read back the altimeter unless they are asking the controller to repeat, while in Europe every QNH transmission is repeated. For example in the US, something like this seems to be commonplace:

"Memphis Center, Commander 123AB, 12,000"
"November 123AB, Memphis altimeter 29.72"
"123AB"

I feel as if this sort of transmission would be unacceptable in Europe and the controller would request you repeat the QNH.

I feel the same way. Altimeter setting/QNH is one of the most important things transmitted.

Few things will get you into trouble faster than setting an incorrect QNH. I had this demonstrated graphically in a sim where we had set the correct QNH but a sim malfunction made the (barometric) altimeters still use standard. Going down the ILS in IMC, we very belatedly twigged to the massive difference between the (correct) radio altimeter readout and the barometric altimeters. Go around! We came within 20 feet of slamming very hard into the virtual runway.

Starlionblue wrote:

I knew an examiner who would get on the radio to correct pilots at uncontrolled fields who said they were "departing runway one-two, upwind leg". Technically at least in the US, when you depart you are on the "departure leg".

I've been flying in the US for a bit, and never heard "departure leg," it's always "upwind." IIRC I even wrote that out during my PPL checkride and the DPE made no comment about it.

BalkanBoy wrote:

Another "quirk" I noticed in the US is pilots almost never read back the altimeter unless they are asking the controller to repeat, while in Europe every QNH transmission is repeated. For example in the US, something like this seems to be commonplace:

"Memphis Center, Commander 123AB, 12,000"
"November 123AB, Memphis altimeter 29.72"
"123AB"

I feel as if this sort of transmission would be unacceptable in Europe and the controller would request you repeat the QNH.

I always read back the altimeter setting, important to get that one right.

There does seem to be some non-standard terminology in use in the US, I've picked some of it up as I've learned and listened in on other chatter.

"With you" is pretty common, my CFII told me just to say "X123 800 climbing 4,000"
I hear a lot of "Seattle departure, XYZ123 one-point four climbing fourteen"
"Cessna 123 ident" followed by "Here's the flash, Cessna 123"
Then there's "fish finder," (ADS-B squawk box) for some reason I doubt that is an ICAO official term

LH707330 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

I knew an examiner who would get on the radio to correct pilots at uncontrolled fields who said they were "departing runway one-two, upwind leg". Technically at least in the US, when you depart you are on the "departure leg".

I've been flying in the US for a bit, and never heard "departure leg," it's always "upwind." IIRC I even wrote that out during my PPL checkride and the DPE made no comment about it.

BalkanBoy wrote:

Another "quirk" I noticed in the US is pilots almost never read back the altimeter unless they are asking the controller to repeat, while in Europe every QNH transmission is repeated. For example in the US, something like this seems to be commonplace:

"Memphis Center, Commander 123AB, 12,000"
"November 123AB, Memphis altimeter 29.72"
"123AB"

I feel as if this sort of transmission would be unacceptable in Europe and the controller would request you repeat the QNH.

I always read back the altimeter setting, important to get that one right.

There does seem to be some non-standard terminology in use in the US, I've picked some of it up as I've learned and listened in on other chatter.

"With you" is pretty common, my CFII told me just to say "X123 800 climbing 4,000"
I hear a lot of "Seattle departure, XYZ123 one-point four climbing fourteen"
"Cessna 123 ident" followed by "Here's the flash, Cessna 123"
Then there's "fish finder," (ADS-B squawk box) for some reason I doubt that is an ICAO official term

The "fish finder" is TCAS. Indeed non-standard.

On approach to a west coast port, we were told approach couldn't take us for a few more minutes, but we couldn't slow down enough to satisfy the time constraint. We offered to do an orbit. Radar came back with "Ok, Flight 123, that would work. Standby." and a couple of minutes later with "and-ummmm... Flight 123, please do an, ummmm, spin to the right, headings your discretion, to be back at point VECTR at time two-three". The captain told the FO, who was flying at the time, "please don't do a spin..."

I've never heard anyone else use "Departure Leg" either...

In the US this non-standard stuff (mostly) works because almost all those involved are native English speakers. In the rest of the world, the typical situation is that neither pilot nor controller is a native English speaker, so keeping it standard is the only way to ensure comprehension.

BalkanBoy wrote:

Another "quirk" I noticed in the US is pilots almost never read back the altimeter unless they are asking the controller to repeat, while in Europe every QNH transmission is repeated. For example in the US, something like this seems to be commonplace:

"Memphis Center, Commander 123AB, 12,000"
"November 123AB, Memphis altimeter 29.72"
"123AB"

I feel as if this sort of transmission would be unacceptable in Europe and the controller would request you repeat the QNH.

In the US, pilots are only required to read back a clearance, and the QNH is not considered a clearance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JustAnFO wrote:

BalkanBoy wrote:

Another "quirk" I noticed in the US is pilots almost never read back the altimeter unless they are asking the controller to repeat, while in Europe every QNH transmission is repeated. For example in the US, something like this seems to be commonplace:

"Memphis Center, Commander 123AB, 12,000"
"November 123AB, Memphis altimeter 29.72"
"123AB"

I feel as if this sort of transmission would be unacceptable in Europe and the controller would request you repeat the QNH.

In the US, pilots are only required to read back a clearance, and the QNH is not considered a clearance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair dinkum.

Starlionblue wrote:

"please don't do a spin..."

....
so keeping it standard is the only way to ensure comprehension.

Internally we sometimes talk to each with non-RT english depending on unit and language, In one unit I worked at it was regular to use spin him, which is equivalent to an orbit or hold, bend him which is a vector heading, or pork him which is climb him. We all knew what it was and it worked

Standard is fantastic habit to minimise confusion and save you time. Saves having to repeat yourself when its busy.

It's like the sarcasm one US facility use with foreign airlines, and have to repeat themselves 3 times. I shake my head and think to myself WTF????

Well put.

I heard a foreign pilot inadvertently asks for QNH instead of altimeter at a US airport (habits from every other port die hard), to which the controller went "say again" in a rather aggressive tone three times until the foreign pilot finally realised his mistake. The less passive aggressive and frequency-occupying solution would be to answer, "it's altimeter over here, sir, and the current altimeter is 29.94."

Keeping radio transmissions standard is especially important in the international arena. We were always told that depending on what country you're flying in the controller may only know a small amount of English and expects the pilot to reply using correct phraseology. slang and shortcuts can get you in trouble. I had a couple of moments when a quick reply missed an important piece of info and could have been trouble had it not been caught.

Heck, I’m an American and have be caught using “QNH” after flying lots of international.

GF

Whoo, talking about pet peeves: A lot of pilots in my country has picked up the habit to call a station 'Tower, xxx on 118.35'.

Yes, tower is the name of the station, and if you weren't on the right frequency, you wouldn't be able to talk to him. No need to say the frequency.

SAAFNAV wrote:

Whoo, talking about pet peeves: A lot of pilots in my country has picked up the habit to call a station 'Tower, xxx on 118.35'.

A tower can have more than one frequency.
Also, controllers maybe working more than one frequency (esp true if a military airfield VHF/UHF) so it's handy to know which the station is calling on.
There are scenarios when you'll 'hand-off' to yourself. Pilot repeating the frequency after switching helps confirm it's been correctly done.


The American controller in the previous QNH nonsense was just being a grade A arse. Just give him the setting, he's asked using international standard phraseology, you know what he means, he knows what he means, everyone knows what he means.

The 'Altimeter' is an instrument not a setting. Altimeter settings come in different flavours (QNH,QFE,FL), by asking for QNH it should ensure he gets the setting and it's meaning. This is further backed up with the use of standard phraseology eg. "Altitude", "Height", "Level". The number on it's own is about as useless as the runway behind you or the fuel left on the ground.

ChrisKen wrote:

SAAFNAV wrote:

Whoo, talking about pet peeves: A lot of pilots in my country has picked up the habit to call a station 'Tower, xxx on 118.35'.

A tower can have more than one frequency.
Also, controllers maybe working more than one frequency (esp true if a military airfield VHF/UHF) so it's handy to know which the station is calling on.
There are scenarios when you'll 'hand-off' to yourself. Pilot repeating the frequency after switching helps confirm it's been correctly done.


The American controller in the previous QNH nonsense was just being a grade A arse. Just give him the setting, he's asked using international standard phraseology, you know what he means, he knows what he means, everyone knows what he means.

The 'Altimeter' is an instrument not a setting. Altimeter settings come in different flavours (QNH,QFE,FL), by asking for QNH it should ensure he gets the setting and it's meaning. This is further backed up with the use of standard phraseology eg. "Altitude", "Height", "Level". The number on it's own is about as useless as the runway behind you or the fuel left on the ground.

Alright, I see your meaning, but then the tower will also have different sectors like West or East.

Maybe my example wasn't too great, but people also say that on unmanned frequencies as well. Listing the specific area (only one freq) AND the frequency being called on.

I agree totally with the rest.

SAAFNAV wrote:

Alright, I see your meaning, but then the tower will also have different sectors like West or East.

Maybe my example wasn't too great, but people also say that on unmanned frequencies as well. Listing the specific area (only one freq) AND the frequency being called on.

I agree totally with the rest.

At a commercial airport nearby, there is one frequency for the commercial traffic and another one for GA, but the same controller and all. It's ok to call the GA frequency in the local language (since not all GA pilots know english) but not the other one. That said, people don't specify which frequency they are on anyway ...

Virtual737 wrote:

"With you" IMHO isn't redundant because it makes it clear to the controller that the broadcaster has recently switched frequency.

The controller just took the handoff on the airplane, he or she KNOWS you’re new, trust me. People who say “with you,” while it is pretty common, sound a little unprofessional to me. GA guys do it a lot.

Virtual737 wrote:

"With you" IMHO isn't redundant because it makes it clear to the controller that the broadcaster has recently switched frequency.

The controller just took the handoff on the airplane, he or she KNOWS you’re new, trust me. People who say “with you,” while it is pretty common, sound a little unprofessional to me. GA guys do it a lot.

Per the original questions, stating your callsign has the same effective meaning as “roger.” There’s essentially no difference.

ChrisKen,

I can almost guarantee you US controllers and US domestic pilots haven’t an idea what “QNH” means. It just isn’t used or taught.

GF

Between the Navy (NHZ), federal contract towers (ASH, HYA) and FAA (ZDC, ALB, ORD, ICT, C90) I have been controlling for 27 years. I guarantee well less than 20% of US controllers would immediately recall what QNH means. Only reason I know of it is being on airliners.net for years. If I am up to my eyeballs in airplanes and Speedbird asks for the QNH instead of the altimeter, I would probably say “Say again?”

In reference to “Roger” or the callsign, as long as it’s not a read back of a control instruction, I don’t really care.

P3Orion wrote:

Between the Navy (NHZ), federal contract towers (ASH, HYA) and FAA (ZDC, ALB, ORD, ICT, C90) I have been controlling for 27 years. I guarantee well less than 20% of US controllers would immediately recall what QNH means. Only reason I know of it is being on airliners.net for years. If I am up to my eyeballs in airplanes and Speedbird asks for the QNH instead of the altimeter, I would probably say “Say again?”
.

Funny! I still remember a gouge I read back in the 70s on how to remember the alt. settings. Most here may know it but I'll post it
Q oceaN Height QNH
Q Feet (above) Earth QFE
Q staNdard prEssure QNE

Never used or taught in the US.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Never used or taught in the US.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I can almost guarantee you US controllers and US domestic pilots haven’t an idea what “QNH” means. It just isn’t used or taught.

QNH is used every single day in the US.
QFE is also used. (Albeit more rarely)

Shockingly appalling if it's not taught, as claimed, as it's a flight/controlling basic.

gee, I was taught it. Granted I was told what QFE was but never saw a reason to use it. Learned later that some airlines used it on app. on the f/os alt as well as aerobatic pilots. Knew but never had a reason to use QNE until I started flying jets. As for learning about QNH, I remember going to the FSS and the weather guy showed me how they use the baro pressure and field elevation.
In my airline career I flew to one destination that gave QFE only. We flew QFE a few times and later the co. gave us a correction table to convert to QNH.
to say never used nor taught is incorrect.

ChrisKen wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Never used or taught in the US.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I can almost guarantee you US controllers and US domestic pilots haven’t an idea what “QNH” means. It just isn’t used or taught.

QNH is used every single day in the US.
QFE is also used. (Albeit more rarely)

Shockingly appalling if it's not taught, as claimed, as it's a flight/controlling basic.

I'm sure he meant the terms "QNH, QFE" aren't taught or used in the US, which they aren't.

ChrisKen,

45 years of flying, civil and military, in the US, I never heard QNH used until I went overseas. Before extensive civil international flying, even in the USAF, i rarely heard the term used as we operated mostly out of USAF bases. If you fly in the US, ask domestic pilots and try using it with ATC, please.

In the US Aeronautical Information Manual, FAA’s Doc 8168, there’s no reference to QNH, btw. All references are to “altimeter settings”.

GF

This is the guidance the FAA gives its controllers.

2−7−2. ALTIMETER SETTING ISSUANCE BELOW LOWEST USABLE FL
a. TERMINAL. Identify the source of an altimeter setting when issued for a location other than the aircraft’s departure or destination airport.
b. EN ROUTE. Identify the source of all altimeter settings when issued.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(If the altimeter is one hour old or less), THE (facility name) ALTIMETER (setting).
or
(If the altimeter is more than one hour old),
THE (facility name) ALTIMETER (setting) MORE THAN ONE HOUR OLD.
c. Issue the altimeter setting:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Never used or taught in the US.

GF

How can QNH not be taught in the US considering that most Boeing airplane models have selections in the FMC TAKEOFF and APPROACH pages to toggle between QNH and QFE? Every time you do your FMC pre-flight, or select your approach speed on a Boeing airplane, you see the "QNH" selection on the MCDU page.

“QNH” is also shown multiple places in the Boeing Flight Crew Operations Manual.

Just sayin’ it’s not used in radio transmissions and I’d bet a lot US pilots rarely use it—it’s not in the AIM, P/CG or FAAO 7110.65.

GF

BoeingGuy wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Never used or taught in the US.

GF

How can QNH not be taught in the US considering that most Boeing airplane models have selections in the FMC TAKEOFF and APPROACH pages to toggle between QNH and QFE? Every time you do your FMC pre-flight, or select your approach speed on a Boeing airplane, you see the "QNH" selection on the MCDU page.

“QNH” is also shown multiple places in the Boeing Flight Crew Operations Manual.

There’s a lot that US airlines don’t teach about the FMC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BoeingGuy wrote:

JustAnFO wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

How can QNH not be taught in the US considering that most Boeing airplane models have selections in the FMC TAKEOFF and APPROACH pages to toggle between QNH and QFE? Every time you do your FMC pre-flight, or select your approach speed on a Boeing airplane, you see the "QNH" selection on the MCDU page.

“QNH” is also shown multiple places in the Boeing Flight Crew Operations Manual.

There’s a lot that US airlines don’t teach about the FMC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? You mean some US airlines don’t teach their crews how to use the Flight Managent System of the airplanes they fly? The crews just wing it?

No, that’s not quite what I said.
The airlines I’ve flown for teach enough to use the FMC safely, but not every last detail and feature is germane to the daily operations. So the training department chooses to not waste time teaching the bits that aren’t used in regular line operations, or don’t have a material effect on the output of the box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having worked in both air traffic and as a pilot in part 135 and 121 operations, I was never taught QNH. Nobody in the United States uses QNH.

That said, of course you’re exposed to it, so we know it exists, but it’s not a standard and zero emphasis is put on it.

JustAnFO wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

JustAnFO wrote:

There’s a lot that US airlines don’t teach about the FMC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? You mean some US airlines don’t teach their crews how to use the Flight Managent System of the airplanes they fly? The crews just wing it?

No, that’s not quite what I said.
The airlines I’ve flown for teach enough to use the FMC safely, but not every last detail and feature is germane to the daily operations. So the training department chooses to not waste time teaching the bits that aren’t used in regular line operations, or don’t have a material effect on the output of the box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know it’s not what you said. . I realized I’d misread your reply so I deleted my comment. You must have quoted it before that. I’m just saying that QRH physically shows up in two key pages that pilots use every day.

BoeingGuy wrote:

JustAnFO wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Really? You mean some US airlines don’t teach their crews how to use the Flight Managent System of the airplanes they fly? The crews just wing it?

No, that’s not quite what I said.
The airlines I’ve flown for teach enough to use the FMC safely, but not every last detail and feature is germane to the daily operations. So the training department chooses to not waste time teaching the bits that aren’t used in regular line operations, or don’t have a material effect on the output of the box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know it’s not what you said. . I realized I’d misread your reply so I deleted my comment. You must have quoted it before that. I’m just saying that QRH physically shows up in two key pages that pilots use every day.

Fair enough... QNH/QFE does not appear on the TAKEOFF or APPROACH pages on the FMC I use. It might be a customer-selectable option.

JustAnFO wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

JustAnFO wrote:

No, that’s not quite what I said.
The airlines I’ve flown for teach enough to use the FMC safely, but not every last detail and feature is germane to the daily operations. So the training department chooses to not waste time teaching the bits that aren’t used in regular line operations, or don’t have a material effect on the output of the box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know it’s not what you said. . I realized I’d misread your reply so I deleted my comment. You must have quoted it before that. I’m just saying that QRH physically shows up in two key pages that pilots use every day.

Fair enough... QNH/QFE does not appear on the TAKEOFF or APPROACH pages on the FMC I use. It might be a customer-selectable option.

It’s not optional. It’s baseline on all the newer models. QFE was a customer selected option on the older 757 and 767s because you needed a mechanical instrument to do it.

AA used to do some weird form of QFE but I don’t recall exactly what they did. Something like having one altimeter set to QFE but not all of them.

AA and EA used QFE, not a weird form of it, though. The company provided the QFE setting, the main altimeters were set for the approach using QFE. The third altimeter was set to QNH for reference to assigned altitudes. That’s EA procedure, I doubt AA varied much. I was drilled into to the point whenever I used QFE in the RF, I set the QFE in the main altimeters and either asked for a QNH or calculated the ONH off the Jepp chart conversion (QFE altitude, I think it’s marked at the top of the chart) and checked the difference was field or threshold elevation.

Why is the QFE option baseline when only Russia presently uses it?

GF

Add 'at this time' to the list of redundant phrases.

"GOLF CHARLIE LIMA state your current position"
"GOLF CHARLIE LIMA, passing north of Swindon at this time"

Of course you're doing it at this time. ATC didn't ask where you'll be in five minutes or where you were an hour ago.

Re: 'with you'

KingOrGod wrote:

It *is* redundant. I know exactly who I have on my frequency, and who I am expecting. Of course you are "with me" - you are on my frequency.

You won't always know who to expect when dealing with lots of VFR GA traffic. In that case I can understand their pilots using 'with you' as an indicator that they're entering your airspace.