From my perspective, oatmeal raisin cookies are the best cookies ever whipped up. Soft, warm, chewy, maybe with a little hint of vanilla. Mmmmm, that’s a nice snack. Tasty. Good. Totally satisfying.
That’s just my opinion, of course. My wife disagrees. She’s a chocolate chip girl. Her acceptance of oatmeal raisin cookies extends only far enough for her to allow me to keep a container of them on the kitchen counter. She’s not going to waste her time or her tastebuds forcing one down, however. The chocolaty goodness of the delectable sugary sweetness of the chocolate chip cookie does it for her.
This battle will wage for the rest of our lives. Neither one of us will give an inch. She gets to enjoy her favorite taste treat without having any impact at all on my ability to enjoy mine. It’s just a difference of opinion. A topic we have differing perspectives on — entirely subjective as they are.
Having an opinion can be of great value. It’s what keeps me from accidentally ordering liver and onions for dinner when out at a restaurant. I hate liver and onions. I know that. I hated it when I was a kid. I hate it now. I’ll hate it later. Yet, my friend Joel loves liver and onions. He’s got strong opinions on how it should be cooked and served, while I think it should be taken directly to the dumpster out back and disposed of as quickly as possible.
This is the same subjective character issue that keeps plenty of Tom Petty, The Beatles, and Tom Waits on my playlist, while Barry Manilow and Lady Gaga don’t make the cut at all. You may feel differently, of course. And that’s fine.
Opinions are unique, totally dependent on the perspective of the individual, and of limited value to the millions of other people wandering around in your corner of the world. Your opinion and your personal tastes are of no real consequence to them. Yet, an opinion, improperly put into action, could present a risk to the safety and welfare of others.
Wait a minute! How could my opinion cause harm to you, or vice versa?
I’ll reference a previously published post called The Dos and Don’ts of Talking on the Radio. That column, which does nothing more than share best practices for using the radio in a general aviation environment, has garnered 40 comments within a matter of days. Forty! That’s a lot of back and forth on a topic that should be fairly cut and dried.
Many of the comments are supportive of the idea of following the rules, doing what is expected of us when we’re acting as PIC. A perspective illustrated beautifully by M. Forbes, who wrote, “I do try to follow the rules for this wonderful privilege to fly that we all share.”
To try is all we can really do. We will all stumble at times. We will err. Occasionally we will even suffer from ignorance, which may cause us to experience embarrassment from time to time. But if we were to all take a page from the book of Pilot Forbes, we would all be better off.
Try.
Darrell Hay also weighed in with a useful clarification that was brief, to the point, and exactly correct.
“’With you’ is superfluous,” says Darrell. He’s right, too. Saying, “With you” to a controller who expected you to be handed off to them is somewhat like calling your best friend and opening the conversation by saying, “Hi, I’m calling you on the phone.”
They knew you were on the phone because they can hear your voice coming out of the device — much like the controller knows the pilot is with them because they can hear their voice coming over the radio.
Superfluous content is not included in the best practices for radio communications.
The FAA way is not an assault on us or our beliefs. It is a guide. One we would do well to follow for the health and welfare of all.
Amending our behavior, changing our method of doing things, isn’t all that hard. The beauty of it is we don’t have to depend on our opinion of how things should be done, we can simply look up the recommended procedures in FAA documentation that is widely and freely available to any of us.
The alternative, of course, is to argue that our personal opinion, which conflicts with FAA documentation, is the correct way to conduct ourselves on the ground and in the air. A position that raises hubris to a level I shudder to consider.
We are all wrong from time to time. There is no harm in admitting our errors.
Heck, I was wrong in the above referenced article when I suggested that “Roger” was an out-of-date term in the general aviation lexicon. Fortunately, a reader named Roland corrected me, pointing out that “Roger” is still included in the Pilot/Controller Glossary and is very much in active use. He’s right, too. I know he’s right (and I was wrong) because I looked it up. “Roger” appears on page PCG R-6 of the Pilot/Controller Glossary.
Thank you, Roland.
I’d also like to extend a big thanks to so many readers who commented with their support for pilots learning to do things the right way and following through to make that method their standard practice.
I’m even pleased to have seen comments from those who insisted on going their own way, using their own terminology and methodology when sitting in the pilot’s seat.
Hopefully, this discussion will continue far and wide, with emphasis being on the lessening of pilots relying on their own opinion as a guide and more encouragement for all of us to reference the appropriate FAA documentation when we’re challenged or question our own practices.
A better, safer way is out there waiting for us all. Let’s get together and work with one well-documented system rather than 600,000 similar but slightly different methods for getting the job done.
These are probably the same professionals who say “any traffic in the area please advise”. You want to talk about superfluous.. and useless.
Actionable Communications sit at the pinnacle of all these discussions. I’m a fan of giving NEWS YOU CAN USE to other pilots and controllers: what they need, at the time they need it.
Cessna N1234DG, 8,500. Is all the controller needs when you are handed off.
However, that’s not much ACTIONABLE information on CTAF at an uncontrolled airport.
Deland,
—white & black [distinct from the white & red Cessna and the black & yellow Bushcat, also in the pattern],
—Cessna 150 [size and speed to expect, you surmise: probably a student]
—left Downwind [where to look, estimated speed, altitude, and time to final]
—for runway 5
Deland.
I hope many pilots reading the article feel good having read a confirmation of the fact that the phraseology they have been using is the that which is desired by ATC . I do like to add a good morning if not busy , at times some frequency’s are so busy you would do good to get a call in at all , then keep it to the minimum definitely no “with you “
Huge fan of this newsletter and your publication. This, however, is a silly conversation. To ‘with you’ or not to ‘with you’. That is the question. It’s not in the FAAs manual of radio phraseology. Neither did I see where the manual prohibits it.
Let’s not make a big deal out of small one, we can save our disagreements for other more important discussions…like whether a high wing is better than a low wing or vice versa. 🙂
Totally agree! When I switch over to a new controller, I just put my life in his hands and therefore establish a somewhat personal relationship with them. Adding two words – “with you” – does that for me. Let’s spend time on more important things in General Aviation like what’s going to kill us…
Thanks!
Gordon W. Lester
Corpus Christi, TX
Jamie – With you all the way on this one! Keep the opinions and the oatmeal raisin cookies coming.
Tim
I have not heard anyone mention a common phrase I heard many years-ago,
When a pilot would change a frequency or depart controlled airspace [and usually a specific tower or controller], they [pilot and/or controller] would politely say ‘good day!’ [one or both] and that was the [typical] conclusion of conversation.
Today’s crowded/hectic comm probably does not warrant such politeness.
So right You’re, Mr EK Taylor.
“With you” is totally superfluous. What does it add? If Denver Departure hands me off to Denver Center, all the Center controller needs to hear from me is “Center, Skyhawk xxxx, 10,000.”
On the other hand, when the frequency isn’t busy, a few superfluous niceties go a long way toward keeping things civil and polite. So when Denver Departure hands me off to Denver Center, I’m likely to say as I confirm the frequency, “Skyhawk xxxx, 133.0, good day sir”, and when I contact Center, I’m likely to say, “Good morning Center, Skyhawk xxxx, 10,000.”
One of the things I’ve enjoyed about aviation over nearly half a century of flying has been the general politeness over the radio. Granted that there are exceptions (and YouTube is full of examples), but for the most part, the interchanges between pilots and controllers and pilots and other pilots at all levels is pretty civil. Let’s keep it that way—there’s enough angst in this world today. IMHO, there’s never a reason for nastiness on the radio.
We do it the FAA way because the FAA absolutely owns the air from .000001mm AGL all the way out to outer space. It is their playground and if we want to go play on it, we do it by their rules.
That said, Dear Bride, who has been a lawyer for over 30 years, always says “State the obvious!” because that (usually) prevents misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions.
So – Plan A – retire to a safe distance and let the FAA and the lawyers fight it out. Plan B – maybe we should ask ATC if the phrase “With you” is useful to them, redundant, or a waste of time, and then we act accordingly.
“With you” simply is affirming the frequency change was successful between two people who currently may or may not have nothing to say to each other.
Better to silently wait for instructions while monitoring the wrong frequency and ATC assuming you’re there when they give you a critical instruction?
Scott, when handed off to New York Center, one can flip to the frequency, wait for an opening, then call, “New York Center, Cessna Cardinal 12345, 5,000 feet.” The words “with you,” while brief, add nothing of value. The controller knows you’re on frequency and has verified your altitude. All done. “With you,” is not necessary, no matter how any of us might feel personally about the importance of those words.
You always have to check in with every frequency change. Do so by stating your full call sign and altitude, “Chicago Center N12345, six thousand”; N12345 Chicago Center roger”. This establishes and verifies radio contact and verifies that the altitude the controller sees on the radar screen is the same as what is actually being flown. No “with you” needed at all.
When calling a tower state your position and the ATIS.”XYZ Tower N12345, one zero west with Foxtrot”
If you want something special add the word request. The controller will get back to your request when there is time.
Wow, after 55 years of flying, and having been TAUGHT that phrase, and after HEARING that phrase my whole flying life, I guess I will attempt to erase “with you” from my flying vocabulary.
Now….if we could just quit the usage of KNOTS as a measurement of distance.