Hi,
Are we talking FAA or ICAO? FAA deviates significantly from standard ICAO phraseology and is one of the only countries in the world to do so unfortunately.
En-route clearance request
The initial call to ATC is harder to remember compared to the readback I would say. According ICAO phraseology the en-route clearance request should include the following:
- Callsign
- Aircraft type
- Position
- ATIS & QNH
- Flight rules & destination
- “Request en-route clearance”
Example:
“… delivery, Bigjet 123, Boeing 737, stand …, Information A, QNH 1020, IFR Schiphol, request en-route clearance”.
Readback
The readback would be relatively simple and short and normally consists off:
- Clearance limit (usually destination)
- Departure runway
- Departure procedure (usually SID)
- Initial altitude (if different from SID)
- Squawk code.
Example:
“Bigjet 123, cleared destination Schiphol, runway 08, ORTAX 1A departure, climb flight level 90, squawk 1234”
This is the most comprehensive version, normally runway and initial altitude / flight level can be omitted if standard.
Procedure
In commercial aviation, both pilots needs to be on the flight deck wearing headsets to prevent miscommunications due to background noise, ALWAYS write down and confirm the en-route clearance.
MSFS En-route Clearance
The MSFS ATC is not very realistic in that regard, it doesn’t give SIDs, departure frequency is part of the departure procedure so normally not mentioned in the en-route clearance, in case communications deviate from the departure procedure you will likely hear this from tower, e.g. “remain on frequency” or “passing altitude 1500 ft contact Helsinki radar, 119.100”.
