Reasonable radio communication and ATC light signal questions don't surprise prepared applicants. The PTS refers learners to Advisory Circular 61-21, now called FAA-H-8083-3, the Airplane Flying Handbook, and AC 61-23, the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Their radio procedures discussions are short, directing pilots' attention to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) for extensive knowledge of procedures and phraseology. The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, on pages 6-10 through 6-11, discusses lost communications procedures and includes the light gun signal chart from the AIM.
Do you get the impression that understanding light gun signals is important? Pilot examiners agree that it is. Light gun signals and radio communications mesh; and examiners grasp opportunities to strengthen this in applicants' minds whenever possible. Early this year, on the run-up area beside us, a lightplane pilot whose radio communications had been marginal ceased hearing ground control altogether. Just beginning his own pretakeoff check, my applicant seemed surprised when the tower initiated light-gun use by showing a flashing white light to our radio-deaf neighbor. This was a good opportunity to discover my applicant's awareness that a flashing white light means "return to the starting point." Incidentally, volume knobs turned down cause an embarrassingly high percentage of "radio failures."
Some examiners merely observe applicants' radio technique, while others ask questions as well. As ATC frequency congestion builds nationwide, fewer FAA inspectors (and thus pilot examiners) accept the old rule of "just read back everything ATC says." The AIM admonishes airborne pilots to read back headings and altitudes as verification, but it does not endorse full duplication of all transmissions. Chapter 4, Section 2 tells pilots to use "...one of the words 'Wilco,' 'Roger,' 'Affirmative,' 'Negative,' or other appropriate remarks." A growing file of Aviation Safety Reporting System forms as well as reviews of National Transportation Safety Board reports show the need for concise, standardized communications, just as the PTS has asked for so long.
Meeting the PTS communications requirements seems simple. Item 2 bids you to select appropriate frequencies during flight. Although this approaches second nature by checkride time, troubles occasionally arise. A common error is transposing numbers, such as entering 123.0 instead of frequency 120.3. If you do this, simply recognize and correct it. Sometimes an applicant is so nervous he gets a "brain cramp" and can hardly remember his own name. Reviewing the frequencies on your navigation log or even looking at the sectional chart are wise ways to recall a forgotten frequency. But do so in a timely manner, without interrupting the system's flow. Examiners should fail those who can't operate selector panels and radio systems with reasonable efficiency. Having selected frequencies properly, applicants should use them to meld into the air safely and efficiently.
Element 3 bids applicants to use recommended phraseology. (The creaking sound you just heard was the raising lid of Pandora's box.) Recommended means by the FAA through the AIM. Examiners and inspectors with whom I compare notes tend to agree that radio communications are problematic. But problematic does not mean impossible. Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs) expect oral questions to continue after a flight, and examiners can clarify an applicant's radio communications procedures then. Rarely have applicants been disapproved on this task alone, but this subject is drawing more official attention. Ever more students come from the non-English-speaking world. Universal carelessness in radio use has caused hazards previously ignored in the shadow of more prominent issues to grow more visible. Changes in the AIM reflect aviation's slow turn of attention to this subject.
For example, AIM 4-3-14 recently added a note to encourage pilots to monitor local tower frequencies in certain situations. Regarding clearances, 4-4-9 has expanded its explanation of "expedite" when used with climb or descent clearances. Certain procedures and other crucial information appear only in the AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary. No pilot examiner wants to hear an applicant say, "What's a Pilot/Controller Glossary?" (I have.) Although some examiners hail from those halcyon days of Piper Cubs wafting through uncontrolled airspace, we all recognize that few pilots will ever know that environment. Today's pilot certificate lets you into a hectic system, and for that expanding system we must test.
Air traffic controllers and FSDO personnel from several regions tell of common problems relating to this task, and they involve recommended phraseology per element 3, and pilots acknowledging radio com- munications and complying with instructions, as outlined in element 4. A systemwide challenge involves misuse of established words or phrases. Most glaring is the use of the word "Roger" to answer a question that would be best answered by "Affirmative." To the FAA, phraseology is almost changeless, which is the prominent characteristic of standardization. Radio fashions change through the decades; pilots use AIM phraseology almost as intended, like prying a lid with a screwdriver. Screwdrivers open lids, but lid openers work better. One current fashion is the television-driven verbal near-miss of "Roger that," found nowhere in the AIM and thus meaningless. (Question this? See the Pilot/Controller Glossary!)
Misspeaking numbers through improper or non-AIM pronunciation is another frequent offense. A recent applicant pronounced the number "zero" in his call sign as "oh." With each response, the ground controller emphasized the proper "zero" until the handoff to tower sounded like "blah, blah, blah - zeero, blah, contact tower." All his subsequent calls used the proper style.
Pity the poor examiner who hears an applicant report altitudes as "three point five" or uses other nonstandard phraseology throughout the test. The AIM discusses the use of numbers in far greater detail than most ground classes or commercially produced study books do. Pilots and instructors alike truly want to fly efficiently and safely. My decades in aviation have convinced me of this truth - they want to do right. You do, and your instructor does. Doing right demands thoroughness wedded to consistency. In my second decade of examining, I now recognize areas wherein some well-intended "rules of thumb" that I perpetuated did my students more harm than good. If this is true with me, then how many other examiners feel similar demons nipping at their heels? The best thing we all can do is to follow the PTS requirement by ensuring that the industry knows what constitutes AIM phraseology, and to consistently use it as best as we can.
If this all sounds picayune or pedantic, consider your teeth. Designed for specific functions, they fit and work together in a compact, orderly symbiosis. But what if one ignores disfavored teeth to use only preferred teeth forever? Incisors might be great, but incisors shred food; they can't crush it. Similarly, the AIM has words, phrases, and procedures that, toothlike, fit in specific tasks, working efficiently toward the safe transfer of aeronautical commerce.
A final aspect of this task's relationship to others is flight discipline. Pilots who discipline themselves to the details of their aircraft are safer than those who do not know the aircraft manual. These pilots handle mechanical emergencies more thoroughly and safely. However, some systems-oriented pilots do not expand their discipline to study weather, or the national airspace system, or human factors. The point is, as we discipline ourselves to do the small things, the better we operate overall. Because the PTS directs examiners to test all pertinent subjects, the aviation system becomes safer in each detail, but only to the degree that pilots prepare for them.
Dave Wilkerson is a designated pilot examiner, writer/photographer, and historian. A commercial pilot, he has been a CFI for 22 years and has given about 2,000 hours of dual instruction.
Related Articles
