23 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

rhotic

What word is that supposed to be...?

24 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

What word is that supposed to be...?

Rhotic accents are those in which every R is pronounced, like eg in most American accents, while in non-rhotic accents the Rs are only pronounced when followed by a vowel sound, eg RP or „BBC English“

Edited May 26, 20242 yr by Shack95

13 hours ago, Shack95 said:

Same here. I seems to struggle with 9 and 4 in particular. I‘ve noticed that when I pronounce them more American (i.e. rhotic) it understands me much better. 

Yes! I realised this last night. It really struggles to understand my English, "nine-uh".

I notice that ATC also gets really angry with me for failing to read back the QNH value. I've seen on YT videos in the US, at least, that pilots don't always read back the altimeter reading. Is it realistic in European airspace that you get chastised for not reading it back?

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by Redge

9 minutes ago, Redge said:

I notice that ATC also gets really angry with me for failing to read back the QNH value. I've seen on YT videos in the US, at least, that pilots don't always read back the altimeter reading. Is it realistic in European airspace that you get chastised for not reading it back?

Yes, it's a required part of the readback. Makes sense, given that getting the QNH wrong could result in a loss of separation or, worse, a collision or CFIT. 

8 minutes ago, Redge said:

Is it realistic in European airspace that you get chastised for not reading it back?

Yes..mandatory read back in EASA.

In fact where I fly IRL, if QNH is changed, the controller will call each individual aircraft and await read back. Can get little amusing at times...

 

I find that QNH readback completely unnecessary. That's why you confirm that you have listened to ATIS with the letter. The QNH is right in there and it is highly unlikely that it will have changed so significantly since the last ATIS update that it poses a threat if it is currently outdated and you set it to the one in the ATIS:

11 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I find that QNH readback completely unnecessary. That's why you confirm that you have listened to ATIS with the letter. The QNH is right in there and it is highly unlikely that it will have changed so significantly since the last ATIS update that it poses a threat if it is currently outdated and you set it to the one in the ATIS:

The problem with this is that the crew might have misheard the QNH on the ATIS. Confirming the ATIS letter doesn't confirm that they have the right QNH set.

4 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

The problem with this is that the crew might have misheard the QNH on the ATIS. Confirming the ATIS letter doesn't confirm that they have the right QNH set.

Unlikely. The ATIS runs in a loop you can listen to it as long as you understood it. Or you use D-ATIS and have it as text. Little room for misunderstandings.

33 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Unlikely.

Unlikely but with potentially serious consequences (like so many things in aviation).

34 minutes ago, Farlis said:

The ATIS runs in a loop you can listen to it as long as you understood it.

The problem is that when people mishear something, they often aren't aware that they misheard.

If you could rely on people knowing when they mishear something, there wouldn't be any need for readbacks at all. Pilots would just ask the controller to "say again" if necessary. What could go wrong? 😉

38 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Or you use D-ATIS and have it as text.

Not all aircraft support D-ATIS.

Beyond all this, there's another consideration: When the crew check the ATIS, typically early in the descent, it's likely the altimeters will still be set to QNE (standard). The controller who issues the first descent clearance to an altitude will give the QNH as part of the clearance, and the crew will then use the QNH that they just heard from the controller, not the one they copied as part of their ATIS.

2 hours ago, Farlis said:

Unlikely. The ATIS runs in a loop you can listen to it as long as you understood it. Or you use D-ATIS and have it as text. Little room for misunderstandings.

Perhaps. But these things happens.

You don't think there are airports out there which lacks both ATIS and D-ATIS, and instead you are given QNH by approach controller.
Like any information passed, there is a chance of misunderstanding.
1001hPA can easily become 1010hPa when you are close to spatial overload in single pilot operations.

Heck, many pilots have trouble setting the correct squawk sometimes (never happened to me ofc 🤡)

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by SAS443

3 hours ago, martinboehme said:

Yes, it's a required part of the readback. Makes sense, given that getting the QNH wrong could result in a loss of separation or, worse, a collision or CFIT. 

 

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Yes..mandatory read back in EASA.

In fact where I fly IRL, if QNH is changed, the controller will call each individual aircraft and await read back. Can get little amusing at times...

 

Thanks guys! Makes sense to me. Better safe than sorry — especially with 200 people in the back... My problem is that my memory can only hold so many items for read back, that I invariably forget at least one of them. It'll get better with practice though, I guess.

5 hours ago, SAS443 said:

You don't think there are airports out there which lacks both ATIS and D-ATIS, and instead you are given QNH by approach controller.

Well in that case readback is logical. But as long as ATIS is available it is not.

5 hours ago, SAS443 said:

and instead you are given QNH by approach controller.

I thought we were talking about take-off and not landing.

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by Farlis

7 hours ago, Farlis said:

I find that QNH readback completely unnecessary. That's why you confirm that you have listened to ATIS with the letter. The QNH is right in there and it is highly unlikely that it will have changed so significantly since the last ATIS update that it poses a threat if it is currently outdated and you set it to the one in the ATIS:

Wrong QNH setting/readback was a contributing factor of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Air_Flight_1851

 

Edit: the error was not on the readback, it was actually the controller fault when reporting the QNH to the crew:

"At 13:56:47, when flight 1851 was performing a descent to the airfield and passing 6,705 meters (21,998 ft), the controller dispatched: "Independent Air one eight five one roger you're cleared to three thousand feet on QNH one zero two seven and ah runway will be one niner." The controller made a major error during this transmission. He had reported to the crew the pressure of 1027 hPa, when it was actually 1018.7, (rounded 1018), which is 9 hPa lower. The instructor noticed this and wanted to transmit the correct information to the crew, but he was distracted by a phone call. Also, the crew members themselves failed to notice the transfer of high pressure, which 12 minutes earlier was much lower."

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by fgiraudo

Also on this one during approach at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle LFPG in 2022

They were really near to crash, a few meters above ground at go-around time.

 

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by roland_lfor