Assumed knowledge.

[AlphaOneSix]

In the U.S. and among U.S. forces, "affirm" and "affirmative" are happily used interchangeably. Whether or not one is banned or the other is preferred, I don't know. The reality is that most U.S. forces still use "affirmative" most of the time. The FAA still says to use "affirmative" for better or for worse.

[Nealius]

I found on some other forums that 'affirmative' is, at the least, frowned upon by ICAO because of the possibility of confusing 'affirmative' for 'negative.'

 

I can only imagine that happening if the transmission was somehow garbled, in which situation it would be better to request confirmation rather than being an idiot and assuming they said 'negative.'

[Cookie]

I found on some other forums that 'affirmative' is, at the least, frowned upon by ICAO because of the possibility of confusing 'affirmative' for 'negative.'

Bingo. Which is also the reason for "three" to be pronounced as "tree" (almost everyone outside the native english speaking world has major troubles pronouncing the "th" without breaking their tongues), "five" as "fiver" and "nine" as "niner" (to prevent confusion with the german word "nein", which is pronounced just like "nine").

 

I have a whole lot of friends in ATC and aviation in general, and they all say that by far the worst offender when it comes to abusing standard phraseology is the US. Even large airports like JFK in NY are famous (or rather infamous) for not using proper ICAO phraseology, creating a lot of confusion among foreign pilots.

A good friend of mine is a long haul pilot on the A340 for Swiss Airlines, another one flies the MD-11 for Lufthansa Cargo, and yet another one is a pilot on the A330 for Air Berlin. They all three speak impeccable english and have no trouble at all understanding controllers in Russia or China. They all dread flying to the US though, because they have such a hard time keeping up their SA when in their airspace. Sometimes they have to downright guess what the controller meant, and since that is not acceptable of course it leads to constant "say agains" on the radio, and certain controllers of certain airports even don´t hesitate to display an attitude over the radio which doesn´t help at all.

 

Why that is, I don´t know. It can´t have anything to do with being native english speakers, because ATC in the UK is known for strictly sticking to the ICAO phraseology.

[AlphaOneSix]

"five" as "fiver"

 

Which country/organization says "fiver" exactly?

[IdleBoards]

LOL..."Fiver".

[Nealius]

I think the ICAO standard for five is "fife."

 

I have a whole lot of friends in ATC and aviation in general, and they all say that by far the worst offender when it comes to abusing standard phraseology is the US.

 

I kinda figured we were, but I also find it interesting considering that at least the Jeppessen Private Pilot Manual teaches ICAO phraseology, from what I can tell. I would be surprised if other flight manuals didn't teach ICAO standards.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Nealius

[Cookie]

Yup, "fife", sorry. Had a brain fart there (it´s 5am over here, or "zero fife hundred", if you wish :D).

 

@Nealius

 

I don´t think it has anything to do with not learning the phraseology, I am sure every controller and pilot in the US learned it at some point during their training. Maybe it´s just that it doesn´t sound as cool as slang, dunno...

 

Found a nice article about it here: http://shemmalmquist.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/phraseology-in-international-air-transport-operations/

Edited June 1, 2013 by Cookie

[Robert1983NL]

AFFIRMATIVE is the correct phraseology in the US, and in the US armed forces.

 

Also, AFFIRM means AFFIRMATIVE, so... no ambiguity there.

 

The tactics used by the Air Force rely in the abilty to send and receive vast amounts of infirmation in a dense - possibly jammed/degraded - comm environment. Brevity is the vehicle used ti accomplish that task.

 

The US Air Force (and the other forces too, I'm sure) spends an exorbitant amount of time learning, teaching, practicing, and perfecting the use of brevity in a training environment, so that it comes naturally during combat.

 

For some reason Robert laughs off the importance of brevity, and suggests that its okay to use brevity terms in nonstandard ways. Clearly, that's not compatible with the stated purpose of brevity.

 

I dont know how else to say it.

 

Yeah... The US aren't really known to uphold a high standard most of the time.... Anyway, I kind of thought you had something to do with/in aviation irl, but that's obviously not true.

 

Every self respecting pilot should know, or should at least be able to reason why affirmative is a very bad call. I can't remember which accident it was exactly, but I do know that since that huge accident, affirmative is banned from being used in aviation.

 

Reason: It can easily be confused with negative. Not only in cases where the transmission is garbled, but also in cases where the first part of the word in the transmission is stepped on for instance, or affirmative/negative can very well often be the first word in a transmission: It could be that a pilot speaks too quickly before the microphone is open so that the first part is missed. Confusing affirmative with negative can obviously have huge consequences. That's why pilots use affirm ("A-firm").

 

I'm not laughing off the importance of brevity, I'm laughing at you overreacting at it and you talking about affirmative. Units fly together with their own 'compatible' units 99,9% of the time. And yes, it DOES happen that certain units from different countries have small differences in brevity words for all kinds of reasons. Just like you think it's okay to use affirmative...

The reason I said you're overreacting that people will die when incorrect brevity is used is first of all because it IS totally overreactive, and second of all brevity words aren't the holy saint, third of all: Most of the time units fly with their own units or if they're not, they would brief minor differences in SOP's/calls beforehand: problem solved. No one will die, don't worry.

[Snoopy]

Yeah... The US aren't really known to uphold a high standard most of the time....

 

Wow...you're posts continue to amaze me. :doh:

 

I honestly can't believe you're not banned yet between this and the crew chief training thread.

[IdleBoards]

words.

 

I use AFFIRMATIVE because that is the approved and expected phraseology in the US. You don't seem to understand that.

 

The US has, by far, the the most air traffic movements in the world, and we have an unmatched safety record. So I'm not sure where you're going with this idea that we have poor standards. We kinda set the bar.

 

As for the rest of it... ugh.

 

Edit to add: The really bad accident you keep referring to is probably Tenerife. You know, the one where the KLM 747 decided to takeoff without clearance and hit a Pan Am 747 on the runway. So much for ICAO and the Netherlands maintaining such "high standards". If only that Dutch pilot spoke better English...

Edited June 1, 2013 by Idle/Boards

[Nealius]

Wow...you're posts continue to amaze me. :doh:

 

I honestly can't believe you're not banned yet between this and the crew chief training thread.

 

After seeing an antisemitic post in another section of these forums I'm wondering what exactly it takes to be banned here.......

[Robert1983NL]

Wow...you're posts continue to amaze me. :doh:

 

I honestly can't believe you're not banned yet between this and the crew chief training thread.

Why? Because it's forbidden to have an opinion? I can't say something is bad? It's not allowed to be critical? What kind of community would this be if criticism and own opinions aren't allowed? A North Korean one?

[Robert1983NL]

I use AFFIRMATIVE because that is the approved and expected phraseology in the US. You don't seem to understand that.

 

The US has, by far, the the most air traffic movements in the world, and we have an unmatched safety record. So I'm not sure where you're going with this idea that we have poor standards. We kinda set the bar.

Set the bar, LMAO. Well, you're American for sure. Doesn't matter, I LOVE the country and I go there every year, but believe me, there's a world OUTSIDE of the USA, and I know for a fact that the bar in the Netherlands for instance is a WHOLE LOT HIGHER. Not trying to take the piss out on anyone, just my opinion based on my experience. Ask any Northern European aviator, and you'll get the exact same answer.

As for the rest of it... ugh.

 

Edit to add: The really bad accident you keep referring to is probably Tenerife. You know, the one where the KLM 747 decided to takeoff without clearance and hit a Pan Am 747 on the runway. So much for ICAO and the Netherlands maintaining such "high standards". If only that Dutch pilot spoke better English...

He was probably proficient at speaking and understanding English, it was the mixup between affirmative and negative (which could also easily happen to native English speakers), which you still use, which is against ICAO rules. You sir, are dangerous.

 

By the way... unmatched safety record... Did you know that in Afghanistan about all US helicopters have a minimum flying altitude of around (I think it was) 500'? Because the US Army was losing more helicopters due to CFIT than actual enemy fire. Seriously, that's just awful.

[Cookie]

Ugh.. can we please not let this go down into a "my country is better than yours" pissing contest?

[IdleBoards]

So when I say that using nonstandard brevity in combat is dangerous, you tell me that I'm overreacting and "don't worry" because "99.9% of the time its no big deal".

 

Then, when I say that I use the expected FAA-approved regulatory phrase "affirmative", you tell me that I'm "dangeous".

 

Do I have that right? You don't see anything contradictory there?

 

This is an excercise in futility...

 

Maybe you should take your own advice and stop sharing your "knowledge" with us mere mortals.

[Nu-NRG]

:joystick::pain:

 

This already went south ... Only a matter of time till it gets locked down.

[Robert1983NL]

It's absolutely not a pissing contest, just sharing my opinion on the US's standards. Obviously some people live in huge bubbles which deserve to be busted. Like Paulrkii's, who calls for my banning and gives me a downrep just because I said something a little bit negative about his country. That's a big shame, but oh well.

And then there's this guy who thinks 'affirmative' is an okay call. It's not. ICAO prescribes affirm. That's not even an opinion, it's a fact. Other people have said it too, in this thread, but they get no reaction. Only I get cramped reactions by some people, who'd like to see me banned for it. These people seriously need to take a look in the mirror and be able to cope with some criticism.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Robert1983NL

[Robert1983NL]

So when I say that using nonstandard brevity in combat is dangerous, you tell me that I'm overreacting and "don't worry" because "99.9% of the time its no big deal".

 

Then, when I say that I use the expected FAA-approved regulatory phrase "affirmative", you tell me that I'm "dangeous".

 

Do I have that right? You don't see anything contradictory there?

 

This is an excercise in futility...

 

Maybe you should take your own advice and stop sharing your "knowledge" with us mere mortals.

 

This answer is SO simple, I don't even understand why I should explain it to you, but here it is: Affirmative and negative are TWO OPPOSITES. Confusing those could potentially lead to dangerous situations.

 

And you're the one speaking English as your native language? I never said it's not a big deal 99,9% of the time... I said units fly with other 'compatible' units 99,9% of the time, and if they don't, they compare and brief eachother's SOP's.

 

And if the biggest accident in aviation history is caused by the word affirmative, and just about the whole world doesn't use affirmative anymore, and you still stubbornly DO: YES, I can say you're dangerous and have, well, let's say (not to have people calling for me to be banned again), 'different' standards.

[IdleBoards]

This answer is SO simple, I don't even understand why I should explain it to you, but here it is: Affirmative and negative are TWO OPPOSITES. Confusing those could potentially lead to dangerous situations.

 

And you're the one speaking English as your native language? I never said it's not a big deal 99,9% of the time... I said units fly with other 'compatible' units 99,9% of the time, and if they don't, they compare and brief eachother's SOP's.

 

And if the biggest accident in aviation history is caused by the word affirmative, and just about the whole world doesn't use affirmative anymore, and you still stubbornly DO: YES, I can say you're dangerous and have, well, let's say (not to have people calling for me to be banned again), 'different' standards.

 

One more time:

 

The proper, approved, legal, expected, appropriate, regulatory term in the US is AFFIRMATIVE.

 

Read that sentence again.

 

ICAO is not the governing body in the US, so you're wrong.

 

I guess 99.9% is good enough in your line of work. I wonder how you would sit down and pre-brief SOP when you're in the CAS stack and the JTAC expects you to know what you're doing?

 

If you'd use the brevity as designed, you wouldn't require any briefing. Which, for the tenth time, is the entire point of brevity.

[IdleBoards]

Obviously some people live in huge bubbles which deserve to be busted.

 

These people seriously need to take a look in the mirror and be able to cope with some criticism.

 

You're awfully righteous.

 

I think you should take your own advice.

[Cookie]

I hate to make it look as if I were on the side of that Robert dude, but there are some things said by others that are wrong as well:

 

The US has, by far, the the most air traffic movements in the world, and we have an unmatched safety record.

Actually, no. The safest country on earth when it comes to aviation is Australia (measured in number of people transported vs number of people killed), the US is not even in the top 5. That is not to say the US is a dangerous place to fly, quite the contrary. It is very safe. However, some places are even safer.

 

So I'm not sure where you're going with this idea that we have poor standards. We kinda set the bar.

Well, compared to the rest of the world, you guys do use poor standards in many of the things you do. I understand you are ruled by the FAA, not ICAO. However, the rest of the world lives by ICAO standards and considers them vastly superior to FAA standards (just go over to pprune.org and read the various stories yourself). In a globalized industry like aviation is it not advisable to have two different sets of standards.

 

It´s just like still sticking to miles/pounds/cups/whateverweirdmeasurement and confusing everyone else on the planet including your very own NASA engineers. :D

 

Don´t read this as US-bashing, I´d be the last person on earth to do that. I love you guys like you probably wouldn´t believe and spend most of my vacations over there, but the one thing you (you in the plural form, not you personally) regularly ignore is that there is a HUGE world outside of your country which does many things better than you do. That´s just natural and doesn´t put down your country at all.

[IdleBoards]

There are plenty of things we can do better over here; I'm not blinded by pride. By the same token, ICAO/JAA isn't perfect either.

 

My point about setting the bar, is that we fill the skies with 30,000 flights totaling 1.5 million flight hours every day - far more than anyone else. Yet, despite our allegedly "poor" standards, we have an impeccable safety record. I can't recite accident rates per 100,000 flight hours, but I think we're doing well above average. When another individual country can put 30,000 flights in the air everyday for decades and keep a comparable accident rate, I will be suitably impressed.

 

I love Europe, and I enjoyed a lovely vacation there, but why do you Euro guys always feel compelled to try and point out our flaws? We're perfectly aware that there's a world outside the US; we're not neanderthals.

 

It just so happens that I instruct airline pilots who are governed by JAA and CAA rules, thus I have to comply with all of the JAA/CAA training requirements and criteria. I have some perspective on this.

[Robert1983NL]

One more time:

 

The proper, approved, legal, expected, appropriate, regulatory term in the US is AFFIRMATIVE.

And that's the 'different' (read: lower) standard I mentioned earlier.

[Robert1983NL]

I love Europe, and I enjoyed a lovely vacation there, but why do you Euro guys always feel compelled to try and point out our flaws?

Because there are SO many very obvious ones.

[TimeKilla]

Brits like roger never heard anyone use AFFIRMATIVE on ex. :music_whistling:

 

Its just to arnold schwarzenegger. :thumbup: