FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Ask a real life Air Traffic Controller

Moderator: ATCBob

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4251
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby 3WE » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:56 pm

In another post Giles bolded the words with you when I was writing a joke frequency check in.

So, has that become "naughty" phraseology and is frowned upon.

The whole ATC phraseology buisiness is interesting....Certainly there's needs for some words to be strict and sacred.

Then again, why is "plain English" verboten.

Ground Cessna 5071h with oscar taxi takeoff. Ok fine, it's not much of a complete sentence, but when you do check in on the freq what else can you say. Maybe it's "Center" aeroflot 999, FL340....but why in the heck do you say flight level.....that takes up just as much precious air time as a "plain English" "with you", and the controller already knows the altitude, I'd assume from a handoff AND the encoding transponser!

Any comments for our moderator, or other forumites on this. Cessna 3423X, is with you, 9000....sounds good to me?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby VectorForFood » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:53 pm

Specifically you must say flight level, one of the big reasons is what happens in the following situation:

Air Canada 123 is handed off at 34,000 assigned a heading of 330?


"Air Canada 123, with you 340 heading 330"

Get my point? ;)

Regarding "With you" It's not proper phraseology, but good luck getting pilots specifically American/Canadian pilots to stop saying it. I'd say at least 80% would check in with it, I personally don't have a problem with it, not that I could do anything about it if I did!

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4251
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby 3WE » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:56 am

Thank you for your reply. Apologies as I am going to ask/reask some questions.
Specifically you must say flight level, one of the big reasons is what happens in the following situation:

Air Canada 123 is handed off at 34,000 assigned a heading of 330?


"Air Canada 123, with you 340 heading 330"

Get my point? ;)
No I don't.

I do understand that that is a standard check in and do understand that the controller needs to know altitude and heading.

What I do not understand is that with computer data-blocks and encoding altimiters, etc. is the verbal repeating of altitude/heading is truly of value, and if you truly pay much attention to it, or (please be honest) does it go in one ear and out the other since you do (normally) have the data block.

In other words, I guess I'm asking why, and saying "because it's an FAR" is not good enough as an answer.
Regarding "With you" It's not proper phraseology, but good luck getting pilots specifically American/Canadian pilots to stop saying it. I'd say at least 80% would check in with it, I personally don't have a problem with it, not that I could do anything about it if I did!
It's been a week or two, but Giles seemed "very down" on pilots saying "with you". And again- maybe it's not standard phraseology and maybe it doesn't mean a whole lot, but it does reflect what is happening. So, while you don't have any problem with it, is it discoraged somewhere- a manual, a memo, other controllers discouraging it?

I'm not sure that I see what's wrong with "with you". (And I'm not 100% sure if there is anything wrong with "with you", other than Giles doesn't like it. ;-) )

Again, thanks.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby VectorForFood » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:55 am


No I don't.

I do understand that that is a standard check in and do understand that the controller needs to know altitude and heading.

What I do not understand is that with computer data-blocks and encoding altimiters, etc. is the verbal repeating of altitude/heading is truly of value, and if you truly pay much attention to it, or (please be honest) does it go in one ear and out the other since you do (normally) have the data block.
Yes we have the data block, but we have a legal requirement to verify the aircrafts altitude upon Check-in here in Canada.

My point was, if an airplane checks in with the phrase:

"Air Canada 123 with you 340 heading 330"

Does he mean he's Flight level 340 and flying heading 330? Yes when taken the time to look at the statement it would appear that makes logical sense

However when another hotline is going off in your ear, someone is beside you talking in your other ear, there is a very good chance that it could be misconstrued to mean the airplane is descending to FL330.

The Mode C output on the datablock means nothing to me if the altitude is not verified, I can't count how many times aircraft have checked in on departure and they've been 600-1000 feet off in their reported altitude from their mode C readout because of an improperly set altimeter.

The statement of "Flight Level" is to be honest quite often dropped, and we are reminded constantly to ensure it's use, for one I make every attempt not to shortcut on phraseology although I will honestly admit it does happen, the same as every controller.

As far as us clamping down on pilots phraseology, unless it's safety related, I'm not going to bring it up, I have more important things to do than rat on pilots. If I understand it, and there's no chance of safety being affected chances are no controller will mention it, of course it depends on the severity of the infraction, for the things we're talking about I can't imagine meeting a controller who would think twice about it.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4251
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby 3WE » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:42 pm

Ok Multiman, thanks for everything except the original question.

I respect that you have common sense. BUT Is "With you":

A. Something you are not supposed to say (i.e. officially discouraged?
B. Not in the official phraseology book (but there's nothing officially wrong with it.)?

Thanks & Glad to have you back.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby VectorForFood » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:13 pm

With you as far as I have ever read is not offical phraseology.

It wouldn't be in my "books" since we have the ATC side of things, but as a pilot myself I'm pretty sure I say it quite often.

It's not officially discouraged to us, since we do not say it, and it's not our job to be slapping pilots wrists on phraseology items.

In fact for the most part the only pilots who explicitly do not say it would be the non primary english speaking pilots, IE AZA, RZO etc.

The proper way would be:

"Alitalia tree tree fower flight level tree fower zeeero"

I can tell you that nobody sticks to phraseology that tightly.

User avatar
Giles
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby Giles » Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:55 pm

It's been a week or two, but Giles seemed "very down" on pilots saying "with you". .
I made one comment about it 3WE. Relax.
"With you" is a pet peeve of mine. Are you sitting next to the controller? No.

Same with;
-"this is"
-"looking"
-"any traffic in the area please advise",

and reporting altitude as "3 point 5".

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4251
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby 3WE » Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:10 am

It's been a week or two, but Giles seemed "very down" on pilots saying "with you". .
I made one comment about it 3WE. Relax.
"With you" is a pet peeve of mine. Are you sitting next to the controller? No.

Same with;
-"this is"
-"looking"
-"any traffic in the area please advise",

and reporting altitude as "3 point 5".
Giles: :D :D :D :D

Hey, things are 200% cool, BUT No man, I can't relax, I was genuinely curious if the rules had changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

I get off on learning!....you didn't burn me and tick me off, you put a BURNING QUESTION in my mind!

Not sure I agree with you on "looking" and "with you"....seems like they're clear, descriptive, concise, brief, accurate and not prone to confusion.

BUT YEAH, "ANY TRAFFIC PLEASE ADVISE" is a big pet peeve of mine too!

What I am wondering is where that came from???, Because it shure as heck is a very common radio call! Is some flight school teacing that? Is it in a book somewhere?

On the subject of CTAF/Unicom, I sometimes wonder about saying the airport twice- thinking that's overkill. Sweet Monkey River Traffic, Stearman 4837 bravo, midfield downwind for runway 22, Sweet Monkey River.

But I guess you can argue that CTAF is a bit more "wild" than when you have genuine ATC and is a reasonable thing in case you get stepped on, you talk before you key the mic, or someone forgets the airport while you are saying your position.

Peace, love, hangar-talk.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Giles
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby Giles » Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:22 am


Hey, things are 200% cool, BUT No man, I can't relax, I was genuinely curious if the rules had changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
All cool then :D

Not sure I agree with you on "looking" and "with you"....seems like they're clear, descriptive, concise, brief, accurate and not prone to confusion.
It doesnt have anything to do with confusion, rather its about proper radio phraseology and being clear and concise without being redundant and therefore not tying up the freq.
If ATC points out traffic, its obvious that you are going to be looking for it unless you are IMC. So the proper response is traffic in sight or traffic not in sight.

BUT YEAH, "ANY TRAFFIC PLEASE ADVISE" is a big pet peeve of mine too!

What I am wondering is where that came from???, Because it shure as heck is a very common radio call! Is some flight school teacing that? Is it in a book somewhere?
Even my instructor did that. I didnt have the guts to point out to her that the AIM says not to use that phrase.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby VectorForFood » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:34 am

It doesnt have anything to do with confusion, rather its about proper radio phraseology and being clear and concise without being redundant and therefore not tying up the freq.
If ATC points out traffic, its obvious that you are going to be looking for it unless you are IMC. So the proper response is traffic in sight or traffic not in sight.
Saying the words "With you" doesn't really tie up the frequency for all of the tenth of a second it takes most pilots to say it, however you are correct is not accepted phraseology. If controllers and pilots always stuck 100% to phraseology by the book, I would be inclined to say in some situations it would be less efficent rather than more.

Regarding your comment on traffic spotting, in the IFR heavy metal world, nothing is more irritating than when a pilot says "Yea we got him on the box/TCAS"

That's nice, but I am legally required to pass traffic when radar targets will meet at the minimum required separation, IE Westbound at FL340, eastbound at FL350 on reciprocal tracks, I don't personally care if a pilot "Has him on the box" I know you have TCAS, all I really want to hear is "Roger" I also don't particularily care if a pilot tells me "Traffic in sight" for IFR-IFR. The reason we do it is in case something happens the pilots at least are watching that airplane, a simple traffic report would have greatly increased the Gol flights survival chances. Sorry, got off topic there, but gives a chance to vent :)

User avatar
Giles
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby Giles » Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:04 pm

Saying the words "With you" doesn't really tie up the frequency for all of the tenth of a second it takes most pilots to say it, however you are correct is not accepted phraseology. If controllers and pilots always stuck 100% to phraseology by the book, I would be inclined to say in some situations it would be less efficent rather than more.
Flying within the ADIZ where ALL VFR aircraft must obtain a squawk and be in communication with ATC who are also handling the everyday IFR traffic, those tenths of a second add up.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Giles: 3WE is with you...or not?

Postby VectorForFood » Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:46 pm

Saying the words "With you" doesn't really tie up the frequency for all of the tenth of a second it takes most pilots to say it, however you are correct is not accepted phraseology. If controllers and pilots always stuck 100% to phraseology by the book, I would be inclined to say in some situations it would be less efficent rather than more.
Flying within the ADIZ where ALL VFR aircraft must obtain a squawk and be in communication with ATC who are also handling the everyday IFR traffic, those tenths of a second add up.
I suppose, but I very much doubt many ATC really notice and or care about it, what we do care about is pilots who take long pauses in remember their idents, levels etc...


Return to “Air Traffic Control Q&A”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest