Air traffic controllers have stressful jobs, and a vast majority of them go above and beyond to be professional. But then you have this one dude at JFK, who just can’t help himself. JFK is notorious for having air traffic controllers with a bit of an attitude, but this guy somehow always manages to steal…
Continue reading: Stubborn JFK ATC Argues With All Nippon Airways Pilot
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
I can't even imagine how this guy on his free time treats service industry employees, who don't speak English as a first language. He probably takes the yell louder until they understand approach.
This has been happening for years right? I've seen so many clips with this guy. Wonder if he'll be cut anytime soon with the massive layoffs happening.
Just FYI, as far as I know, US ATC does not conform to ICAO terminology (and is not required to). Classic example is use of "declaring an emergency" rather than "mayday" in the US, which is acceptable (and to many pilots, there is a distinction between the two), and effective absence of "pan-pan" in the US.
In the northeast US, this attitude is how a large number of people communicate. The communicator has no animus. The communicator may be unaware or unable to control the perception of their style.
This is why when people say northeasterners are rude, northeasterners throw up their hands. Northeasterners don’t perceive this as rude among themselves.
Northeasterners who recognize that their style is unpalatable to the rest of the world, and make adjustments to their communication (and in the way they educate their kids on the same), go far in life, such as making equity partner at $6MM++ PPEP law firms.
Why do you always refer them as “All Nippon Airways”? Their English brand name is ANA, and even in Japanese most people call them by their katakana name「エーエヌエー」, which literally just means ANA,
I'm a native English speaker and have spent a lot of time in and around NYC. I have never, even once, heard the phrase "You're on request," and I would have been just as flummoxed as the poor ANA pilot.
After a pilot makes a request, there are several very standard responses to indicate the controller has received it. One of them is simply "Acknowledged." So in this case the appropriate response to the pilot would have been just "Acknowledged, continue to hold."
No idea why an ATC needs to make things more difficult than they already are.
The controller while not the most pleasant sounding person specified exactly what he means. In order to be a pilot for International flights you are expected to have a conversation level control of the English language. It's a job requirement. To the point when a controller says wait and I will let you know you as a pilot know to wait until the controller gives additional instructions.
I guess some of the commentors here expected the controller to get out google translation.
"The air traffic controller isn’t an idiot".
I'd be less polite. This person is not only arrogant, but also an idiot. Unfortunately, there're way too many idiots these days.
I'm pretty good at translating stupidese, and even I struggled with what the heck "You're on request" is supposed to mean. Could not imagine being the ANA pilot trying to decipher that with a potential language, audio, and situational issues preventing full comprehension.
Why do we ever hear recordings of angry atc employees anywhere apart from the USA ?
Because that’s officially their full name. All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.
Zen Nippon Kuyu Kabushiki Gaisha.
Native New Yorker and pilot here. That level of rudeness is not called for. The Japanese are so polite and respectful. I’ve been to Japan and attempted to ask a Tokyo transit worker directions in broken Japanese. He responded in perfect English. Was very impressed and said arigato. He spoke better English than many NYC transit workers. That said, a more proper response would be “hold position” or “standby”.
What also doesn’t help this situation is the FAA being understaffed. Wonder what the JFK tower actual staffing is versus plan but when you’re short staffing it really hurts on management of employees, but in this case if it’s repeated issues of non standard terminology management should be acting.
If you tell someone foreign something 2 times and they don’t understand, you change your phraseology to help them. If you don’t, you’re a toolbag.
Typical arrogant American who believes everyone should understand. He could have apologised and explained a different way. Repeating “ on request” was unhelpful when the meaning isn’t the same everywhere.
It’s like saying wait in the sidewalk. I said wait on the sidewalk. Sorry, I don’t understand sidewalk. JUST WAIT ON THE S I D E W A L K … pavement. Rather than saying I’m sorry, I would like you to wait on the pavement.
George, this situation can't reasonably be attributed the Japanese pilot's English language proficiency. Standard terminology is essential to efficient comms in the air traffic control space (doubly so at busy international airports).
Some random ATC creating his own personal lexicon and then being rude when others don't automatically understand it is uncalled for.
Jake, how can you insult the real “Dicks” of this world by accusing Arps of being one too?
Sadly this narcissist lives in his own little world and travels in coach pretending that it’s F.
That's right - the native speaker should have the skills to recognise when their audience is struggling with comprehension and use plain terms. 777 pilots are not morons, and there's no excuse for being a douche to them.
He should have been managed-out years ago by the sound of it, but all too often people like this have gutless managers who are either scared of them or scared of the union, so nothing is done.
American English, either written or spoken, is often less understood around the world than the written or spoken English of Foreign nationals.
Can't speak for New Yorkers. But I grew up in New England. Yes, sometimes we're just being direct.
Having said that, many people I grew up with hid behind "we're not rude, we're just direct" when they genuinely wanted to be rude.
Knowing both things, I'm going to make a ruling here. This guy was having a bad day and decided to take it out on someone he perceived lacked the power to retaliate.
I was on 3 separate ANA flights last week. Each captain spoke perfect English. Not saying this is definitive but it's for me a recent indicator.
Lived in Japan for almost a decade and everybody I met called them 全日空 not エーエヌエー.
Anecdotal, but most English as a second language persons I've interacted with from a work context (largely India, France and Italy) or just visited with tend to use British English as a default.
That's not scientific, just personal experience.
This controller is doing his job perfectly. I see no 'attitude' in his wording. As a pilot, I would expect a take-down-this-number-and-call-the-tower response from the controller half way through this conversation.
Pilot here. "On request" is a pretty standard phase in US ATC, but if it's not in the ICAO book, I wouldn't expect a foreign pilot to know it, cause it is a weird phrase unless you know. Seems like a case of controller arrogance here.
I am a native English speaker and I would not have understood what that controller was saying. Why does he have to be such a jerk? Can someone give HIM a number to call?
I am not a pilot but native English speaker. If someone says "you're on request" when I request something, I might get puzzled too. Especially on a noisy radio. Why can't he say 'Acknowledged, I will tell you when it is OK' or something like that?
When an employee acts rudely/stupidly/dangerously in their course of work, that is on them.
When their manager is made aware of the behavior and does not address it with the employee, that is on the manager.
Allowing and employee, in such a safety critical job, to make up lingo that even us native (American) English speakers don’t understand, is, at best, irresponsible.
Fire them both.
Watson, doubt all you wish old bean, however, if one cares to compare Oxford English to Webster’s, you might become enlightened. As for the spoken word, anyone who has spent time in both countries should not have to request the “Source”.
Cobblers!!
Aero berk will give you sausage & mash and rubber duck his skin & blister for ya.
Enough porkies. That oily rag thinks American English is less understood.
Full of pony and trap.
The pilot should have just repeated - “request taxi” every time the controller said “you are on request”
Not proper use at all.
I fly my own aircraft and normally if I'm looking to Taxi and the situation doesn't allow, the controller will give something way better than that. If they are stretched and need to get back to me normally I get a "(My calls sign) Stand by, I'll call you back". NOT "ON REQUEST"
On the rare time I've waited 3+ min or so and heard nothing and the channel is quiet I will politely ping "(My Callsign) at (location), ready to Taxi when you're good" - never had a controller get upset at that.
This guy is just a jerk - he should know better working on airport with lots of crew that have English as a second or third language
That’s true, but why doesn’t Ben refer to “Delta Air Lines” or “United Airlines.” Doesn’t make sense, stylistically, to say “Delta” or “United,” but not ANA.
Very seldom have I experienced a testy controller; however, they can have bad days also.
Just go with the flow and you will get your clearance without the hassle.
全日空 is still an abbreviation of the full name, which as someone else pointed out is 全日本空輸(株式会社).
Well I've been an Air Traffic Controller for almost 30 years in 2 different Continents and I have absolutely no idea what "You're on request" is meant to mean.
It's not standard phraseology anywhere and is a completely meaningless phrase. No wonder the poor ANA crew was completely baffled.
One of the keys to being a controller is being able to work in a team. In fact its one of the most essential skills. That team includes pilots. I always make a point to thank a pilot when they request clarification of something they are unsure about, because I'd rather them do that than just assume something and do something I am totally not expecting. The system can only be safe when we are all on the same page.
You also need to have just a touch of awareness of what you are dealing with. A Japanese crew at the end of a 14 hour flight are not going to be at their peak performance so dropping casual conversational English into an instruction is only going to end badly. Too often controllers who work the same airspace day in day out forget that non-based crews might only visit said airspace once or twice a year. You can't expect them to know every nuance and detail of the operation in your area. This is one of the reasons standard phraseology was invented.
Also some controllers seem to forget that we provide a service. these aircraft are our customers. That will from time to time mean dealing with pilots with varying ranges of English ability - and indeed piloting competence - and while yes we all get frustrated sometimes, that can't ever come out. You have to be calm, clear and professional one hundred percent of the time.
Air Traffic Control often follows a narrow line between being highly confident and borderline arrogant. We've all had moments in our career we would like to have back but honestly stuff like this is just hard for me to listen to.
If someone doesn't understand you, you get paid the big bucks to deliver the message in such a way that they do. In this case a simple "Hold position, I will call you" would have ended this situation after 20 seconds, not continuing to repeat non-standard phraseology which was utterly nonsensical and confusing.
Stuff like this really pisses me off because it reflects badly on us as a profession - one that is currently very much under the microscope, which is not where we like to be.
Wow- just wow! You’re faulting the overworked, underpaid air traffic controller that keeps us all safe for Al Nippon not understanding standard instructions? Sorry OMAAT, you overreached with this one. Shame on you for blaming the controller.
Sorry, that's just not correct. ICAO minimum standard of English proficiency is Level 4 (Source: ICAO Operational Level (Level 4) of the ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale - available online)
"Comprehension is mostly accurate on common, concrete, and work- related topics when the accent or variety used is sufficiently intelligible for an international community of users. When the speaker is confronted with a linguistic or situational complication or an unexpected turn of events, comprehension may be slower or require clarification strategies."
Note comprehension may be slower or require clarification strategies. The crew clearly did not understand and were correctly seeking to clarify what this totally non-standard instruction was meant to mean. They did exactly the right thing. It is 100% on the controller to deliver the instruction in a way that is clearly understood.
There is absolutely no requirement, nor would it be close to possible to achieve understanding in conversational English for every pilot or controller around the Globe. In fact my manual where I work expressly advises against using conversational English unless absolutely necessary and there is no standard phraseology that can be used.
In this case the controller wanted the aircraft to wait where it was and he would call them back, and as I posted above . A very simple, "Hold Position. I will call you" would have had the desired result without any drama.
Ben’s quote: Like, “you’re on request” isn’t a standard term to tell pilots to stand by for their taxi clearance. Never mind that the grammar of that phrase doesn’t make much sense. How about something like “I have your request, standby.
Oh my gosh. I was just thinking that when I first read ‘you’re on request’ earlier in the post. It reminds me of how my friends from other countries would tell me how Americans suck at grammar, haha. I would tell them ‘Come on, now. Not all Americans are bad at grammar and there are also people from other native English speaking countries who are terrible at grammar as well.
It's the controller's fault that the controller is making up his own terms and jargon and then condescending to those who are understandably miffed that he's inventing new phrases. The controller has control over the controller.
Feel free to boycott OMAAT.
"US ATC does not conform to ICAO terminology"
Well there's another reason why accidents are more likely in US airspace.
How about using some international standards?
Working part of the time in the US, I am finding the lack of the 24 hour clock the most common annoyance.
"on request" is a phrase I hear on nearly every IFR flight I make. It doesn't matter if English isn't his first language. English is the international language designated for ATC communications. The controller does not have time to teach them to communicate in English. They're lucky he corrected their incompetence or someone could have been hurt. Runway incursions are a huge problem.
The controller is not using made up terms. How is that the ANA pilots fault? They should fire you too if you can’t comprehend.
Comments on the air china video always piss me off as someone with surface level knowledge about FAA phraseology vs the rest of the world. “What taxiway do you want to enter the ramp” is a statement that makes no sense to any pilot who has not flown in the U.S, and even within the U.S. is very strange phrasing. Instead of arguing or raising his voice, as soon as it was clear the pilot was confused by the question there’s a hundred better and more standard phrases he could have used.
I continue to be both amused and frustrated by public commentary and the fact that Ben and others spend far more time critiquing inconsequential minutia like this rather than advocating for improvements in conditions for controllers.
You all have me on the floor talking about layoffs and DOGE and firing this controller and 'why doesn't management get involved'. Lol, please... We are grossly understaffed... most of us work 6 days a week up to 10 hours a day, and have been for years. Pay is moving at a snail's pace while Ben posts practically weekly about pilot and FA 25-35% raises across almost the entire board (here in the states). Hell even the guy that HAD NOTHING TO LOSE and was allegedly pro-labor only gave us 2%. Pay, I might add, is one reason why we are having a staffing problem. New hires are realizing that in spite of the higher-than-median pay, it is no longer so much better that it's worth 6 day workweeks, a grueling rotating schedule that has been scientifically shown to shorten our lives, and in many cases the sacrifice of living where you don't want to live (since you don't get to pick exactly where you want to go, and our staffing problem means you can't easily transfer to where you do want to go once you finish training). All on top of--you know--the STRESS OF THE JOB.
But let me get this straight--- some of you want the department of government efficiency to fire this controller in the middle of our staffing crisis--- a controller that cost taxpayers 100s of thousands to train and certify, I might add---- all for WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AS being rude? Oh how EFFICIENT!!!
If you want better controllers, spend more time fighting for us than against us. Hell, you might as well get on board with Trump's wild plan to hire MIT grads--- a plan that would at least require doubling or tripling our pay to attract those types of people. When we're staffed well and paid appropriately, then you the public have both the grounds to demand and leverage to follow through with removing controllers that you don't like.
Personally, I've used "on request"--- maybe not quite in that context, but close enough. If the pilot didn't understand, my second transmission after the pilot didn't understand would be "standby" or "hold position", but again--trivial, and the flying public is really in no position to be critiquing trivial crap like this when they never stand up for us on far less trivial matters--- like our quality of life.
Sheesh!
End Rant.
You may be confused about Ben’s motivations. They are:
Get traffic/ engagement to the site (posts like this, and his reviews).
Get those people to click on credit card referral posts and apply (money to him).
Lol Captain Crankypants. I'll critique whatever I like and laugh while you tell me that I'm in "no position" to do so.
What a stupid article
The pilots obviously did not understand so getting an explanation is just fine
I'm also advocating for improvements in conditions for controllers.
They're all obsolete and should be replaced by computers immediately.
Walmart and McDonalds are also understaffed and a person like you would fit in just fine. A definite improvement to your life.
This way no one will blame you for 'inconsequential minutia like this' anymore.
Joe clean up on aisle 5.
No stress on the job anymore for you.
We all want better controllers, and they're currently available, most humans just lack the visionary to implement them.
The only sheesh is your kind is living on 60 year old technology borrow time and not realizing it yet.
"On request" seems to be of a piece with dozens of other needlessly ugly, peculiarly American phrases.
"off of", "wait on line", "come with", "bleed out", "head up", "change up" come to mind. I'm sure there are dozens more, all "replacing" perfectly serviceable, often shorter, counterparts that the rest of the world uses.
Earlier today under a different post, a commenter stated about Eskimo: "He wants to appear clever at others' expense."
This is obviously an accurate assessment.
@Never: I'd like to give him more credit than that. He does at least occasionally offer praise and acknowledge some of the tough conditions we face--- unfortunately that is all mostly as an aside to a critique about one of us. But it's probably true that actually doing good on the matter and posting articles advocating for us would not be beneficial to his business.
I'm a native english speaker, I've visited my cousins in NYC a number of times, and I've never heard the phrase "you’re on request"
And if you type "you’re on request" into google, the only results are from this story.
Frankly, if google hasn't heard of it, then it isn't a thing. This ATC needs to learn to speak english properly instead of making things up.
Appear clever is a good start.
At least you realize you have a completely different level of understanding.
Can't blame you for that.
Just because you lack the ability to understand something doesn't mean you're correct to understand it differently.
Explaining physics to a cockroach is futile.
And I'm trying to be polite here.
But you are obsolete. You're still here because dinosaurs don't realize you're obsolete.
Watson, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your accusations.
Please be advised that I have made nothing up, worldly travellers are only too aware of this fact.
Furthermore, you have presented the readership with a graphic example of the poor use of written American English, “Got it”.
What are the procedures for dealing with an errant ATC like this fool?
If there's an occupation where words really matter (the difference potentially between life and death!), it is this. This fool had no business straying from well-established protocol.
This has a simple solution: TRUMP ! hallo Elon... goodbye traffic controller...
“ "on request" is a phrase I hear on nearly every IFR flight I make.”
100% bullshit.
I don´t think the controller was rude. What I really think is that the english level of certain crew members are below average.
@JR not a stupid article.
1. The ATC in this situation does not know proper English so even native English speakers may be confused at first.
2. The pilot understood it as he needs to make a request which he did. Also, the pilot was being professional and maintained a calm composure when being talked to in such a rude way.
3. This ATC was just an all around nasty person who needs to go back to school because he must’ve failed English.
@BW it seems like it may be used for U.S. ATC but not standard for ICAO. For international flights especially with a foreign carrier he should have followed standard ICAO especially to avoid any confusion.
@Otávio Say what!!!! The ATC guy was totally rude and he was not using proper English. Also, he was not using standard ICAO term. To avoid any confusion use ICAO standard especially with a foreign carrier. Go learn this pilot’s native language and tell us how easy you think it is. It is not easy to learn any languages.
As an American and a pilot who has lived and flown overseas, I'm embarrased.
A little empathy on the part of the controller would go a long way to reduce unnecessary radio exchanges and diffuse the situation.
Your insights on the field are about as valid as your take on what it means to be obsolete, Mr. Clever.
The career will be obsolete when there is a system in place to replace it. That there is the potential for a system to replace it really means diddly.
Let's go back for just a moment. Your original assertion was:
"They're all obsolete and should be replaced by computers immediately."
This isn't a refined take. Anyone could come into the room and make the suggestion. But then you want to equate it to "explaining physics to a cockroach"? Holy cow do you think highly of yourself!
You sound like someone who washed from the academy and has a chip on their shoulder about it.
Best of luck to you in other career fields. I'll still be in mine until I retire.
If that's how you feel you must proceed, just remember that you won't be laughing when your continued lack of support and constant bashing of us leads the career further downhill or off a cliff, and you or someone you care about is impacted negatively in their travels as a result.
The public has not banded together to demand adequate staffing for air traffic control. So the procedure is pretty much to let it go, because otherwise his coworkers will have to pick up the slack, and they are already likely working 10 hour days 6 days a week. Choose between combining more positions and introducing more risk into the system and burning other controllers out by continually increasing their workload... or let it go.
Or, go out and demand better staffing, and then you'll have the privilege of insisting something be done about someone like this.
Just to be clear Stanley, a native speaking airline pilot would've understood. It may not make sense to the native speaking public, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense in the ATC world.
"On request" is pretty standard for ATC to acknowledge they have the pilot's request, but it is not yet approved.
A tower might be waiting for a release of an aircaft from their overlaying facility, and it's not unusual to tell the pilot "you're on request with (XYZ facility)".
The phrase is ATC lingo, not New York lingo. So I wouldn't expect your New York based cousins to have said/heard of it.
Sorry Travelin, but it's definitely common. I've used it, and so have my colleagues.
Possibly a simple "Standby" would have helped. Sometimes Standard phraseology is really simple
Hey Joe - you're not in the position to dictate the circumstances under which anyone else insists on professional conduct and accountability from our public officials and officers.
Incorrect. You may speak from personal experience, but from the perspective of an FAA Airman Cert holder, this is non-standard language and any expectation that a native-speaking pilot would understand it is unreasonable.
Joe wins this thread! Love the rant, love the snark, love the outfit, love EVERYTHING!
A large amount of the flying public thinks that controllers wave sticks around for a living. Another portion of them think we all work at airports/in the towers. It seems none of you have even the basic understanding that we are critically short staffed. So with that level of knowledge about the career, you'll be hoisted by your own petard in demanding controllers be fired over trivial matters like this. The public will get what it deserves (and I'm hoping the worst of it will be a significant slowdown of the system) if it keeps on that course.
You're off, "you're off". I've made it pretty clear why I am in that position when it comes to ATC.
Unless you want to make things worse for aviation.
A dozen people here calling for this guy to be fired and not even considering it'll take 3-4 years to replace him. Hell, if he's eligible for retirement than maybe the public will complain, he'll get a letter from his supervisor (this is not a fireable matter), and then he'll simply say F it and retire and leave JFK even more short staffed (I'm assuming they are short staffed like most places).
Enjoy your hour+ delays over a blunt explanation of "on request".
Sheesh again.
I've already listed a couple excuses for unprofessional conduct... namely that it's trivial in the quest for safe orderly and expeditious movement of planes and that so long as the controller is fulfilling those other duties, we really can't afford to lose him.
Not to mention that introducing public takes of what "professionalism" is will complicate the job further... and if we're dealing with those takes, effieciency is likely to be compromised.
You claimed that non-native English speakers are more easily understood than American English speakers, which is obviously bullshit. I graciously gave you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to back it up or walk it back, which you declined.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - a smart Brit
No need to be arrogant! The Nippon pilot was professional with ATC. Does the JFK guy have a problem? As a native NYer, yeah, we get a bad rap when it comes to sometimes speaking our mind bluntly ...... I've been guilty of it myself, but no need for rudeness with the pilot.
Hi Joe,
I'm neither a pilot or air traffic controller.
But I find it odd that I can't find "you're on request" at all with google (aside from this story). Google finds & indexes all sorts of information online, including FAA, NTSB and lots of other documents, blogs, social media, etc.
So I'm more inclined to believe that "you're on request" is not a phrase used by ATC or anyone else.
Typical of US ATC, law enforcement, immigration etc. - anyone in a uniform or authority thinks that repeating the same phrase, louder each time would get the message across. Quite the contrary, they are escalating the situation. I understand that communications between pilots and ATCs require standard phrasing, but it does not take much to explain and clarify rather than repeating the same phrase and try to beat it into the heads of those who have difficulty understanding.
BTW, is this the same ATC who was excessively rude to the female Air France pilot?
This is a very NY nativist way of speaking and thinking. And I say this as one.
"You're on request" is a ridiculous phrase to expect the NH pilot to understand fully. I get it's been used before with ATC. But it's vernacular specific to a controller experience, if anything. I'm guessing it has to do with the display queue the ATC is looking at.
We do this all the time in NY. It's standing "on line" vs. "in line". We correct needlessly. We raise our voices when asked to repeat something, as if that will help. Even if you don't raise your voice, you take on a very p e d a n t i c way of speaking so you ensure you're understood. It wasn't until I lived and worked outside of NYC that I was told how off-putting this sounded.
But "You're on request" is not a standard idiom in American English, much less in ICAO air traffic control terminology.
If I was in an American restaurant and said to the waiter, "Can I get a Diet Coke, please?", and the waiter answered, "You're on request," I would probably be puzzled, since that's not a phrase most people use.
If the ATC isn't using standard phraseology, wouldn't that chance of misinterpretation put the aircraft, and surrounding aircrafts, at risk? This guy needs a refresher course.
I'm surprised they aren't given a talk to. Not necessarily about the rudeness (if they are rude, but otherwise do an excellent job... well, OK I guess). But I would think, especially in a heavily international airport like JFK, that not using standard ICAO terminology would be a real safety issue. (Especially when it's not some odd "corner case", but something as common as letting someone know their request has been heard and you'll get back to them momentarily.)
@Incorrect: to be clear, I didn't mean "standard" as in "standard phraseology", I meant it as in "commonly used".
I'm noting that it is used on both sides of the country, so it is fairly common.
Sounds like the controller explained to the pilot what it meant so the next time they heard it, they would understand.
.... and are you actually trying to use "Airman Cert" as some kind of call to authority against my experience as an ATCS, or was that just meant to clarify that you're at least in the biz?
Hi Jason.
“You’re on request” is a variation of “clearance on request”--- also something that is not standard phraseology but is used commonly in ATC (and you will find search results on that).
It all effectively means the same thing: “standby”, and in general a native speaker (within the pilot/ATC world) would be able to extrapolate that.
While I’m not going to try to defend the grammar, and while I certainly would never fault the ANA pilot for not knowing non-standard verbiage, explaining what it means to the pilot so they know what it means when they hear it again is hardly rude- as many others here have asserted. As to whether his tone/verbiage in explaining it was rude, that’s a matter of subjective opinion, and when it comes to public opinion of ATC matters, a good portion of the time I just have to laugh (it can be hard even for other controllers to adequately judge ATC matters when it’s not about their own facility/they don’t know who is involved).
Outside of safety related issues, the public should generally refrain from inserting themselves into our jobs, because they are going to do more harm than good. I’ll repeat my other comments noting that we are critically understaffed, and commenters in this thread calling for this guy to be fired over such a trite matter are not considering the implications and consequences.
I've been a pilot for 49 years and "you're on request" and "on request" or something similar is used all over the USA. Words and phrases are being added and deleted from ICAO and the US Pilot/ Controller Glossary all the time. Many phrases used decades ago , such as "Have numbers" to report that you have the current automated terminal information, "No joy" and "tally ho" to report traffic not in sight (or in sight) are still in use. It's impossible to expect pilots and controllers to ONLY use standard phrases and words.
It would be more precise to say "I have your request" and I do hear that sometimes.
Point is , it's common enough the guy should have understood it and I don't think the controller was aggressive .
I'm going to guess you don't fly IFR in busy Socal airspace, file a flight plan, receive and read back a clearance then receive permission to taxi to the runway where you are told to "hold awaiting IFR release." After that, a second call from your aircraft will typically generate a response of." "XXXXX you're on request.." I've been hearing this for 48 years.
The whole post is a nothingburger
"you're on request" and "on request" or something similar is used all over the USA"
this is ANA so this is not a domestic pilot who fly all over the USA. sure that was a common phrase, but what about using a different term when the pilot have no idea wtf you are talking about? Clearly it is not common enough that this pilot does not know what "on request" even refer to.
Yeah, pointlessly rude. Non-standard phrasing is bad enough, but the attitude when ATC is barely speaking English is not called for.
Your example phrases are all good examples of why this stuff has now been standardized from the weird rural Anglo-centric phrasing of 50 years ago.
I have regularly flown internationally from JFK as a passenger. This NY's ATC is putting hundreds if not potentially thousands of lives at risk with his idiotic and uncall for attitude. He should be investigated and monitored, fired if necessary! This is serious, considering the daily traffic volume at JFK. Disastrous trouble just waiting to occur! FAA and JFK's authority should take this incident seriously!
oh now I get it. So let's break it down
1) "On request" is used by American ATC. So I can accept it as an American jargon
2) "on request" isn't ICAO English
3) "on request" isn't standard English l either. or grammatically correct. I don't agree it has a standing meaning to laymen.
4) So this is an ANA flight, at JFK, as international as you can get in the US. Pilots here are expected to speak in fluent ICAO phrasing but nothing more. And general English proficiency wouldn't help to understand this weird phrase either.
"Certain crew members". What about this member? this particular one? was he below average too? And you think an average non-pilot native English speaker would understand what "on request" entail in this context? I know "Non-gluten pasta available ON REQUESTS", "extra ketchup ON REQUEST", but not "you are on request"
It may be an American ATC idiom, but it's not ICAO English nor standard English.
Fine, if it is so common, then include it in future ICAO standard! it's not natural English (try telling you friend they are is "on request" when you ask them to "wait"), nor standard international jargon.
The attitude is in the tone, not the wording. If you only read the transcript and didn't listen to the recording, you won't get the controller's rudeness.