Avoid the use of Slang
by Captain Shem Malmquist
Pilots should “avoid the use of slang” in international communications. For those pilots that will fly some international trips during their career, it is worthwhile to explore what that statement really means. The challenges of international flying include more complicated IFR procedures, country differences, lack of radar coverage, and generally less ATC “support” than domestic pilots are used to. All of these issues are often complicated by the limited English abilities of controllers (and pilots) who are from countries where English is not the native tongue. Even in those countries where English is spoken, their version of English is often dramatically different than what Americans are used to.
In all countries, Air Traffic Control English is a language unto itself, where precise meanings of words are defined within the ATC framework to avoid ambiguity and general miscommunication. Therefore, safety dictates that pilots stick to correct phraseology only, without adding extraneous verbiage. Additionally, using non-ICAO standard phraseology in the international arena does little for our professional image.
Pilots and controllers who speak only limited English are often only familiar with the English words as defined in PANS-OPS. As they are limited to these words and meanings, it is very easy for us to confuse them by using other words that are not defined, or using terms they are familiar with in a different context. An example from the world of computers are the words “bug” and “virus”. All computer people know the definition of these words as they pertain to computers, but most non-English speakers have no idea that there are other definitions of these words.
The phraseology used by U.S. ATC is unique to the U.S. The rest of the world is actually more or less standardized to the ICAO meanings and phrases. For example, such terms as “level”, which is taken to mean the same as “maintaining an altitude” in the U.S., is, instead, used as a shortened version of Flight Level in most of the world outside the U.S. A Chinese controller will likely only understand the word “level” in the context of “flight level”, and have no concept that the word also means that you are flying at a constant altitude. A clear example of miscommunication was heard in an ATC response to a pilot saying “level 4000”. The controller replied “roger, QNH 1010, transition level FL90”. The controller assumed that the crew had not switched over to the local altimeter setting, so was actually reporting “maintaining flight level 40”, an incorrect altitude reference when below the transition level.
In another example, Air Traffic Controllers will know what the symbol “O” is, and that the phonetic of that symbol is “Oscar”, yet they may not have any idea what you mean if you say “Oh” when you mean to say “Zero”. Similarly, they are not taught what “fifty-one” means, but they will certainly understand “five-one”. The digits zero through nine are in the PANS-OPS – higher numbers are not. Although some foreign controllers do know more than this basic English, using terms other than these is just inviting confusion.
Here are a few more examples:
“Point”. The word is simply not defined in PANS-OPS. Along with this, “two four point seven” is not a flight level or altitude. There is a flight level “two four seven”. The use of the word “point” has no place in international communication.
“Looking for lower”. Should net an interesting response in some of the back-water places we fly to. Correct term is “Request descent”.
“With you”. This phrase has no place in international or domestic operations, as many controllers will tell you.
“Level”. As discussed above this is a standard shortened version of the term “flight level”. If you want to tell them you are at an altitude, use the word “maintaining”, or just omit it altogether.
Attempt to avoid extra verbiage in general. It may be nice to say “good morning” or “any chance of” and the like, but in using those terms you are assuming that the controller (or ground maintenance on the headphones) understands more than basic ICAO English. Be careful with the terms “to” and “for” in the context of altitudes. While these terms are defined in the PANS-OPS, they contain obvious ambiguity. Omitting them might be worthwhile if there is any doubt, i.e. “4000 climbing 5000” or “FL145 descending FL80”.
While it would be nice if all non-U.S. controllers were truly fluent in English, the fact is that most are not. It is not unreasonable for them to expect us to stick to the narrow scope of English that is in the official publications. Instead of being frustrated that most of the world’s controllers do not really know English, just be thankful that the French did not get their way on the choice of languages for aviation!
Those pilots who fly international should read and be familiar with the ATC phraseology section of the PANS-OPS, which is contained in our route manuals. Those new to international can also learn by listening to the radio techniques of more experienced pilots, whether they be from our own company or airlines such as Cathay Pacific or British Air. If you have trouble reverting from ICAO to domestic phraseology, keep in mind that a U.S. controller will always understand what you mean when you use an ICAO term, such as “decimal”, but the converse is not true.
Radio technique may seem a small thing, but experienced pilots use correct radio technique because it increases the safety of the operation as well as preventing a great deal of unnecessary frustration.