1. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
2. Don't use two words where one one will do. Say the fewest words that completely communicate your thoughts and ideas.
3. Information not acknowledged is information not received.
   
4. ATC: If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to listen for the response. *Especially* if it's a readback of a clearance.
5. Pilots: If ATC says it, make sure a full readback is made, verbatim, if required.

The first one seems easy but so many people, myself included, say things from time to time that aren't exactly what they mean. For example, if you're asking a question, you're probably doing it to find something out. All too often we ask questions that don't give us the answer we're looking for, and then we're often left annoyed, disappointed, or at the very least, left with another question to ask. For example, "Could you take the garbage out?" is not the question to ask. You are probably quite capable of figuring out that I can, but you want to know if I will. This obviously doesn't apply to ATC, but the idea is the same. ATC, pilots, and even ground equipment operators must ask questions to get the desired responses.

For rule 4, understand that verbatim means "word for word, as spoken to you". This includes words or phrases, and in the same order. ATC has rules that are hit or miss in our online world as far as the order of items in an ATC clearance. They are placed in that order, and ATC is supposed to keep them in that order, to help pilots with understanding and getting all items in a clearance. There are many, many small items that vary in different regions. For example, I believe most pilots on VatSim have adopted phrases from US books, since that's likely what's most available online. One example is the term "as filed". In Canada, we use the term, "flight plan route" instead. Big deal? Not really, as long as everyone understands what's meant. But it is just one small example of things that are said differently.

Conservation of Air Time

This is an issue that raises its head every now and then when a wordy pilot or ATC is online. Frequent transmissions are a part of a GCA/PAR approach where the controller must provide guidance to a pilot using voice communications. In fact, it's a must that the controller speak frequently, since the reduced obstacle clearance while on approach could contribute to a disaster if a pilot were to lose communication. The frequent transmissions from ATC, even without responses from the pilots while on final, means that the pilot has a good chance of detecting a comm failure before it causes too much grief.

Anywhere else in ATC, too many transmissions tie up valuable air time. The only people who end up with a realization of how important this really is are ATC when he's about to issue a vector to final and someone calls up and tells his entire life's story, blocking the frequency so that ATC can't issue the turn. Oh, yeah, the pilot of the aircraft on the vector will appreciate this, too, as he gets vectored inadvertently through the localizer and has to get turned back.

The real issue, though, extends beyond efficiency. What if you're in a plane and suddenly you experience a catastrophic failure? You may not have much time to make a radio call to let someone know you're in trouble. How would you feel if some pilot or ATC were on the radio talking about a sporting event, or a vacation while you go down in flames? Both sides of the radio are equally guilty of superfluous transmissions. Professionally, we all should be working to be more concise and accurate in the transmissions we make.

Phrases to Avoid

Certain phrases should be avoided, especially in certain situations. The term "go ahead" is a famous one. One reader wrote me, when suggesting this topic be addressed, and gave me some examples which included this one. A contractor hired to restore a taxiway was using explosives and was required to call the tower for approval before detonation. The ground controller was a little busy when they called in on the frequency. The exchange probably went something like this:

"Ground, Truck 24, request permission to detonate."
"Truck 24, ground, standby..." Meaning, "I'll get right back to you."
Some time passes and ground, who missed the request, is now ready to find out what he wants.
"Truck 24, go ahead." Meaning, "Go ahead and tell me your message."
*KABOOM!*

The term "go ahead" can be mistaken in so many situations. In fact, it's like the word, "Got." I'll bet you can't think of a single example of a sentence with the word "Got" in it that can't be said with another word (which sounds better) and still means the same thing. In a similar light, ATC and pilots would be far better off doing away with the phrase, "Go ahead," altogether. In the above exchange, the ground controller, for example, could have said simply, "Truck 24, ground?" The operator would very likely have simply repeated his request at that point, instead of detonating the explosive. Or a vehicle waiting to cross a runway would have simply restated his request, instead of thinking, "go ahead," was permission to cross.

Something very similar to the following radio exchange actually occurred, although names have been changed to protect the guilty. A situation much like this was also submitted by the same reader who gave me the first example. The field foreman at an airport in eastern Canada long ago once asked, "Ground, Staff 29, request permission to cross runway 25." ATC responded with, "Staff 29, negative, aircraft on final." You can probably see where this is going. The vehicle operator misinterpreted the radio transmission to read, "Staff 29, negative aircraft on final," and thought, "hey, if nobody is on final, he must mean it's OK for me to cross," and out he went while an aircraft was on final. A better response would have been, "Staff 29, negative. Hold short. Aircraft on final."

Similarly, ground and tower controllers sitting side by side in the tower cab routinely coordinate use of runways by ground vehicles. On (at least) one occasion, the ground controller asked if anyone was using runway 06. The air controller said, "no," and the ground controller sent a vehicle across the runway -- only to cause a runway incursion since an aircraft was landing on 24. Same piece of pavement, different name. Very vague on the intent of the question. The real question should have been something like, "Can I cross 06 with a truck?" Sometimes we have to break the "short transmission" rule mentioned above. Sometimes regulations interfere (the "Negative, hold short, aircraft on final" example is a perfect case, since rules have resulted in which the word "negative" is now required when refusing the request of a ground vehicle, the reason must be given as well, and the phrase hold short is put in there to ensure compliance), and sometimes it's just the fact that plain and concise English is the best way to get the point across. The word "negative" is valuable, too. Another runway incursion resulted when a vehicle requested permission to enter one runway and cross the intersection. The controller responded simply with, "Proceed on 06, hold short of runway 33", which the vehicle operator interpretted as, "enter the first runway, cross the other runway, and then stay clear of the other runway once you're across." The word negative might have clued the vehicle driver in to the fact that he wasn't getting permission to do what he had asked for.

Another word that is overused is, "Roger." While it is a good word, with plenty of meaning and opportunities for its use abound, it is used too often in air to ground communications. Many pilots, real world, too, will put a "roger" in every acknowledgement. Quite often, ATC will provide information to a pilot and the roger isn't really necessary, since acknowledgement can often come in the form of the pilot simply saying the aircraft's callsign. ATC says, "Alpha Romeo Tango, winds 240@10, altimeter 3009, number one runway 24," and the pilot can simply say, "Alpha Romeo Tango." Leaving the "roger" out of the acknowledgement doesn't change the meaning. How about one from an ATC standpoint? When an aircraft makes a runway request when commencing descent, ATC can simply say, "ACA123, roger," versus, "ACA123 check requesting runway 06," if the acknowledgement transmission comes right after the transmission where the request was made.

Remember, Communication is a two-way street. The very definition of Communication means it involves at least two parties: one to transmit and one to receive. If the words used don't mean what the speaker hears, the first step to communicating is already lost. The second step, understanding, hasn't even taken place and the message is gone. If the message sent was not acknowledged, there is a good possibility that it wasn't heard. This is why ATC doesn't like to issue a frequency change and get nothing back from a pilot. Just changing the frequency and checking in with the new unit isn't good enough. How does the previous controller know you heard him if you don't tell him? Nothing wordy, just the aircraft's callsign is all that's necessary. Read on for more.

Communication Example	Critique	Better Phraseology
"Moncton Center, Foxtrot Alpha Romeo Tango with you at one six thousand."	"With you"? Of course. If the pilot wasn't "with" Moncton, he wouldn't be talking to Moncton right now would he? Sound nitpicky? It is, but it would save two syllables which could be important if the pilot or ATC were very busy on the radio.	Drop the "with you" and the meaning of the call remains the same and still sounds reasonable.
"... cleared to the Halifax airport via Victor three one nine ... depart runway zero nine ..."	Repeated use of the word "nine" when communicating the number 9. Proper aeronautical communications describe the use of "niner" when speaking this numeral.	If there is a chance of misunderstanding, by all means use "niner". My rule when teaching trainees is that "niner" shall be used when speaking altimeter settings and altitudes/flight levels. If communications with an aircraft are clear, I'm not so sticky on use of "niner" in other areas, but proper R/T uses "niner" instead.
"Lima Oscar Bravo, negative. We're not quite ready. You might as well continue and we'll wait for you."	This was made to another aircraft in the circuit, prior to departure. Kind of wordy, don't you think? Extra words weigh down both speaker and listener, and tie up frequencies unnecessarily.	"Lima Oscar Bravo, negative. Continue.We'll wait."
"Gander Center, Alpha Romeo Tango back with you out of four thousand three hundred for eight thousand, heading two six zero. We were airborne at one six one zero."	Again, "Back with you" is superfluous. "Out of four thousand ..." is not really proper R/T. Phraseology outlined in examples in the AIP include use of the term, "leaving". Same number of syllables, though, and not unclear.	Drop the "with you" stuff, again, and the "we were" can be left out of the last sentence without changing the meaning.
"... and we're picking up the airway now."	Simple trimming with standard phraseology can be done here. Again, the meaning is not unclear, but we can "professionalize" it a little.	"... intercepting the airway."
"Alpha Romeo Tango out of one four thousand for one six thousand, thank you."	The "thank you" at the end of the transmission isn't really required. There have been many debates about the "need" for statements like, "thanks," and, "see ya." Their values are recognized personally, of course, but technically unnecessary in radio communications.	Drop the unnecessary words, especially in heavy radio traffic.
"The winds are much stronger up here, we'd like to return to one four thousand."	Very wordy. The reasons for saying all of this are simply related to interpersonal contact. You want to defend your requests for a bunch of altitude changes to keep from looking like a pest.	A simple request to return to 14,000 would suffice. "Center, Alpha Romeo Tango request one four thousand."
"Two niner five four. Alpha Romeo Tango."	This was a readback of an altimeter setting. Most pilots read back altimeter settings issued to them. I haven't found a section in the book that says altimeter settings should or should not be read back to ATC, but I have caught many erroneous readbacks. I certainly won't complain about them.	Personally, I think this is a good idea to continue. Whatever you decide as a pilot, make sure you at least acknowledge the transmission by stating the aircraft's callsign. If you read it back, you need not mention the station name, just the numbers followed by your callsign.
"Over to one nineteen two. So long."	This was a readback of a frequency change. Technically, it is not necessary to read back the frequency. It's a real pet peeve of mine when pilots don't acknowledge a frequency change. A simple acknowledgment is all that's needed.	Saying the aircraft's callsign will suffice.
"Cleared to land runway two four, Alpha Romeo Tango."	The AIP demonstrates only the need to acknowledge a landing or take-off clearance, not a requirement to read it back. A "hold short" instruction when Simultaneous Intersecting Runway Operations (SIROs) are in effect requires a readback, as does any hold short instruction.	Saying the aircraft's callsign will suffice.